The 5D2 has strong pattern noise at ISO 100

cdifoto wrote in post #8632451
Or...or...or...how about this? Now, I'm just spitballing but maybe, just MAYBE...

Professionals who are happy with their kit know wtf they're doing!

I'm sorry. I don't know. It was off the top of my head.

Being happy with what you have is one thing.

Examining the boundaries of the equipment or keeping an eye out for even better equipment is something else.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

cdifoto wrote in post #8632451
Or...or...or...how about this? Now, I'm just spitballing but maybe, just MAYBE...

Professionals who are happy with their kit know wtf they're doing!

I'm sorry. I don't know. It was off the top of my head.

Are you trolling or am I just missing the depth in your comments? Hobbyists are hobbyists, pros are pros...different strokes, different priorities.

I don't know why anybody takes cdifoto seriously. He's obviously just saying s*** to push people's buttons.

This thread is in serious need of a MASSIVE cleanup. In fact, I would suggest that Daniel's post be the only thing remaining and the thread locked for further discussion, given how little additional analysis has actually been performed in this thread in the legitimate interest of investigating this phenomenon or comparing it to other cameras.

bacchanal wrote in post #8632519
Are you trolling or am I just missing the depth in your comments? Hobbyists are hobbyists, pros are pros...different strokes, different priorities.

More like responding to XterraJohn's assertion that professionals don't give a damn about their work whereas amateurs take greater care with each and every photo.

cdifoto wrote in post #8632532
More like responding to XterraJohn's assertion that professionals don't give a damn about their work whereas amateurs take greater care with each and every photo.

He did not assert that, you inferred it because you like to put words in other people's mouths.

wickerprints wrote in post #8632545
He did not assert that

Sure he did.

Wow this thread has not just circled the drain, it went straight down it.

Seriously. It's time for this BS to end.

wickerprints wrote in post #8632525
This thread is in serious need of a MASSIVE cleanup. In fact, I would suggest that Daniel's post be the only thing remaining and the thread locked for further discussion, given how little additional analysis has actually been performed in this thread in the legitimate interest of investigating this phenomenon or comparing it to other cameras.

Are you kidding? This thread is absurd from the get-go!

I'm curious what the result would be if the OP used ISO 160 instead of 100:

http://www.flickr.com …4/sets/72157617​903991680/

Now I understand why wars are fought. People get in arguments about something as objective as a camera problem, let alone religion, politics, and possessions.

cdifoto wrote in post #8632547
Sure he did.

If a customer buys a Volvo, the professional car manufacturer can take a very professional interest in building and delivering a Volvo. Being professional, he isn't expected to build a Ferrari.

When someone builds a car in their garage, they may spend 20 years on the project, since money and time isn't an issue. There is not anyone who have made a purchase with a specific expectation.

Making "the" photo for yourself, you may go out two-three times a week for months in a row to try to capture that special thing. Few photographers gets payed to repeat their shot of a duck again and again and again and again. Their customer only pays for a one-day shoot, so the professional has to pick out the best pictures from that days work.

cdifoto wrote in post #8632337
I see you have a website kind of advertising yourself as a photographer. If you have clients, make sure you fully disclose that you'll be half-assing their shots.

Look at my website again and tell me where I am AT ALL advertising photography services.

Regardless, your comment is simply silly based on what I posted. When working for yourself, there is the potential to not have as many compromises that need to be made, versus working for a profit. You can set your own time constraints, and you can not worry about needing to turn a profit. Do you really argue that quality should be the absolute highest possible, with no regard whatsoever for practicality, time-constraint, or cost? If that's the case, then I suppose that every professional photographer should be using something much better than anything in the EOS line.

XterraJohn wrote in post #8632606
Look at my website again and tell me where I am AT ALL advertising photography services.

Regardless, your comment is simply silly based on what I posted. When working for yourself, there is the potential to not have as many compromises that need to be made, versus working for a profit. You can set your own time constraints, and you can not worry about needing to turn a profit. Do you really argue that quality should be the absolute highest possible, with no regard whatsoever for practicality, time-constraint, or cost? If that's the case, then I suppose that every professional photographer should be using something much better than anything in the EOS line.

Actually, no. I argue that a photographer should know what the heck he or she is doing. And that usually means NOT cooking a pitch black file 2+ stops up due to laziness.

Yes, it is indeed possible to produce AMAZING work on a schedule. Doing it fast doesn't mean less care was put into it. It's routine for a skilled professional. It's not routine for an amateur/hobbyist. That's why it appears that the hobbyist is putting more care into his or her work. The reality is that the professional makes it look easy because he or she is damned good at it.

cdifoto wrote in post #8632626
Actually, no. I argue that a photographer should know what the heck he or she is doing. And that usually means NOT cooking a pitch black file 2+ stops up due to laziness.

Yes, it is indeed possible to produce AMAZING work on a schedule. Doing it fast doesn't mean less care was put into it. It's routine for a skilled professional. It's not routine for an amateur/hobbyist. That's why it appears that the hobbyist is putting more care into his or her work. The reality is that the professional makes it look easy because he or she is damned good at it.

I actually agree with most of what you said, but I stand by my point that that same photographer could probably produce a better picture with unlimited time and no regard for turning a profit. That doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his professional work, it simply means that he has fewer compromises to make.

XterraJohn wrote in post #8632656
I actually agree with most of what you said, but I stand by my point that that same photographer could probably produce a better picture with unlimited time and no regard for turning a profit. That doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his professional work, it simply means that he has fewer compromises to make.

But the hobbyist could spend his entire life setting up a shot and still flub it.

The argument about effort, time, and care is moot.