hankg Posted March 31, 2007 Share #41 Posted March 31, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) If it were a 39 meg sensor it wouldn't be a match for MF digital that exists right now, let alone the next generation MF digital ... unless Canon comes out with a MF camera with a bigger film gate : -) It's the sensor size, not just the meg count. While that is all true most of files produced by pros are destined for CMYK print reproduction. Whether it's a 200 line screen annual report on coated stock or a magazine ad run 133 line screen on a web, your image file is going to get crushed to fit the stunted color space that CMYK offset can reproduce (about 2,600 to 1,600 colors depending on press type and stock). So while the differences might be obvious at 1:1 on screen or in a 20x30 ink jet print, in publication -even for a 2 page spread- a properly prepared 135 DSLR file will hold its own for most applications. I would not hesitate providing a client a full page ad from the little 10MP M8 chip for most subjects and I would not feel at a competitive disadvantage to a photograher with a Canon 1DsMKII or Phase One P30 despite those systems superior resolving power. There are exceptions -like if I was shooting an ad for a textile mill that produced fine herringbone fabrics. That would be a potential problem . Then of course there are agencies and clients that will accept files from only certain platforms. That doesn't mean they could pick out the images from the 'inferior' systems in a line of prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Hi hankg, Take a look here Final gear decision on the M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
DaveEP Posted March 31, 2007 Share #42 Posted March 31, 2007 Best of luck Guy, though I am sure it won't be too long (18 months?) before we see you thinking about another adventure in to buying and selling gear I used my 1Ds2 today for the first time in a few weeks. OMG, that thing is big and heavy after using the M8 for a while. I have only really kept it around for critical (hi-res) studio work and the 70-200 f2.8L IS. If/when I figure out I really don't need 200mm, I guess the lot will go. I am going to make an effort to use the M8 in an up coming studio shoot either along side or instead of the 1Ds2. If that proves succesful, I may need to think seriously about whether I need to keep any Canon gear at all. How easy/hard is the macro stuff on M8? I don't do 'that' much, but when I nead it, I need it. How about jewelry stuff? Again, it's not that often, but one guy keeps coming back every few months for some more doing, and I have not really played with M8 in close focusing.... How about that T&S stuff? How are you do that if you can't see through the lens? Sorry for my ignorance on this one..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted March 31, 2007 Share #43 Posted March 31, 2007 Prediction....Guy will have a Hasslebald to go along with his M8 s by August! Guy if you need the business case send me a message ..LOL Roger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbegibson Posted April 1, 2007 Share #44 Posted April 1, 2007 [quote name=....snip I used my 1Ds2 today for the first time in a few weeks. OMG' date=' that thing is big and heavy after using the M8 for a while. I have only really kept it around for critical (hi-res) studio work and the 70-200 f2.8L IS. If/when I figure out I really don't need 200mm, I guess the lot will go. I am going to make an effort to use the M8 in an up coming studio shoot either along side or instead of the 1Ds2. If that proves succesful, I may need to think seriously about whether I need to keep any Canon gear at all. How easy/hard is the macro stuff on M8? I don't do 'that' much, but when I nead it, I need it. How about jewelry stuff? Again, it's not that often, but one guy keeps coming back every few months for some more doing, and I have not really played with M8 in close focusing.... How about that T&S stuff? How are you do that if you can't see through the lens? Sorry for my ignorance on this one..... [/quote] Interesting comments... I've been wrestling with the parallel situation with the D2x -the 70-200 is the one thing I still use a lot, so I bought a 135mm 2.8 w/goggles to see if it can be a substitute. The jury is still out on that one. The macro stuff still is a concern. I'd like to try a 90 macro w/attachments to see how usable it really is. I'm ok with the T/S issues except I'd miss the Lensbabies. They need to come up with one with a built-in shutter that would work with the H's. Oh, my other thought was that maybe the Digilux 3 could take up some of the D2x functions. The Olympus 50-200 is very good as is the Oly 50mm f2.0 macro. And, the new R lens adapter would allow the use of Lensbabies! Take care, Robbe Gibson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted April 1, 2007 Share #45 Posted April 1, 2007 While that is all true most of files produced by pros are destined for CMYK print reproduction. Whether it's a 200 line screen annual report on coated stock or a magazine ad run 133 line screen on a web, your image file is going to get crushed to fit the stunted color space that CMYK offset can reproduce (about 2,600 to 1,600 colors depending on press type and stock). So while the differences might be obvious at 1:1 on screen or in a 20x30 ink jet print, in publication -even for a 2 page spread- a properly prepared 135 DSLR file will hold its own for most applications. I would not hesitate providing a client a full page ad from the little 10MP M8 chip for most subjects and I would not feel at a competitive disadvantage to a photograher with a Canon 1DsMKII or Phase One P30 despite those systems superior resolving power. There are exceptions -like if I was shooting an ad for a textile mill that produced fine herringbone fabrics. That would be a potential problem . Then of course there are agencies and clients that will accept files from only certain platforms. That doesn't mean they could pick out the images from the 'inferior' systems in a line of prints. I've tried to make this point about twenty different times in gear arguments -- at some point, "good enough" is good enough. If you can produce a Vanity Fair double-truck insert in which you can't tell DSLR from Hassy, then you're good. There *are* fine art and over-sized print applications for MF, but I doubt that many could see a difference between a 1DsII and MF shot after it was printed in a magazine. And you have to remember that most MF is shot in studios, and if you use a high-res DSLR you get the same studio benefits: you can tune the lights to get the very best performance from the DSLR; it's not like you're shooting a Hassy at ISO100 and the Canon at 800. But the same thing is true in DSLR vs. DSLR. What will be the visible difference in a ~22mp FF Canon and the current 16mp? More pixels but worse exposure latitude? I don't think anybody would leap on that. So my expectation is that Canon is going to produce something fairly interesting: much more DR, more pixels WITH BETTER high-ISO response, better color, etc. If all they produce is a camera that does more computer processing that you could otherwise do in stand-alone software, or two more fps, then I think the new camera will flop. My expectations for the new Canon (and the new Nikon) are really fairly high, which is one reason that if I were shooting professionally, I'd hold off on large gear purchases until I found out what's going to happen. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigrmurray Posted April 1, 2007 Share #46 Posted April 1, 2007 My expectations for the new Canon (and the new Nikon) are really fairly high, which is one reason that if I were shooting professionally, I'd hold off on large gear purchases until I found out what's going to happen. Well said, John. I certainly agree with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill vann Posted April 2, 2007 Share #47 Posted April 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) did my first "job" requiring lighting and realized no pc connector and i have no shoemout flashes, scrambled for a hotshoe-pc combo but as a full time this is quite a kludge. bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted April 2, 2007 Share #48 Posted April 2, 2007 ............I would not hesitate providing a client a full page ad from the little 10MP M8 chip for most subjects and I would not feel at a competitive disadvantage to a photographer with a Canon 1DsMKII or Phase One P30......... Hank - I agree with your perspective, but arguing from a position of experience and knowledge can put one at a disadvantage in a dumbed down marketplace. Ten years ago the client base respected photographer's choices between 35 mm, rollfilm, or 5x4 shooting depended on the nature of the job. Now, everyone is a photographer, and if the client believes you must have a certain mega-pixel output, or a specific make of camera to be a proper photographer; reasoning otherwise with them can be energy wasted. Clients who view files at 100% and believe that is what they will get in their crushed CMYK A5 print on low quality paper, can unnecessarily drive photographer expenditure. Six Mp is more than enough for many commercial uses, but only if the client doesn't know otherwise. I know one very busy photographer who will often show clients his tethered MF set-up, and shoot the studio job on a Nikon D2x when the client leaves him to get on with it. Can the difference between MF and D2x be seen on screen? Absolutely. The more important question is whether or not differences can be seen in print after the file has been hammered by local printers. ........................Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 2, 2007 Share #49 Posted April 2, 2007 Well I have been delivering 10 mpx files for the last 2 years without any major issues. I look at it as the quality of those 10 mpx more than the number of them and that is what i tell my clients. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted April 2, 2007 Share #50 Posted April 2, 2007 I know one very busy photographer who will often show clients his tethered MF set-up, and shoot the studio job on a Nikon D2x when the client leaves him to get on with it. Can the difference between MF and D2x be seen on screen? Absolutely. The more important question is whether or not differences can be seen in print after the file has been hammered by local printers. ........................Chris Well it's a fact of life. You have to give the client what they want if you want the work. From the client's side they need simple yardsticks to measure a vendor's capabilities. So if vendor A is using a $10,000 system and vendor B has a $40,000. system why not use the guy with the 'better' system. Of course, if you are fortunate enough to be one of a select few photographers, your reputation will allow you to use whatever you want. In that case the client is only interested in the photograhers vision not his equipement. But average working stiffs don't get that kind of respect and trust. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macusque Posted April 2, 2007 Share #51 Posted April 2, 2007 I sort of agree with Guy's decision. I'm not widening my M8 kit (15 CV, 28/2, 50 asph and 90 Apo are doing fine for now), but I'm in the verge of selling my DMR plus some great R-lenses (19/2.8, 28/2.8 PC, 35-70/4, 100/2.8 Apo-Macro, 180/2 Apo-Summicron and 280/4 Apo-Telyt, plus 1.4x Apo and 2x Apo). I just bought a Nikon D200, plus 17-35 AFS, 55 Micro (both used) and 70-200/2.8 AFS VR (waiting for the 1.7x extender). No, they are not up to the M8 or DMR with respective Leitz glass, but they are quite amazing nonetheless, especially if you shoot Raw, convert with C1 and apply some wise postprocessing in Photoshop (mainly local contrast enhancement). Indeed I prefer this Nikon output to my previous Canon DSLRs. The combination is much lighter than DMR + R-glass, it has AF and VR when you need 'em and MF is not that bad with AF-S lenses (smoother and "tighter" ring than Canon USM IMO). If I want small, light and unobtrusive setup with fast lenses, outstanding quality and great bokeh at short-medium focal lenghts (the most difficult to get), nothing beats the M8. For anything else like macro, sport, nature, where long lenses and AF/VR are much useful, I guess I'll be quite happy with this Nikon setup (I will probably add the 85 PC-Micro and a longer lens like a 300/2.8 AFS VR even if I'd prefer they design a 400/5.6 AFS VR). Anyone want to buy a pristine DMR ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_green Posted April 2, 2007 Share #52 Posted April 2, 2007 Interesting post Guy, I'm about to do the same. Right now, light weight is the top of the priority list. I will probably pick up a Canon or Nikon with a 180 and 300 for telephoto work, but for the moment, size matters beyond all else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 2, 2007 Share #53 Posted April 2, 2007 Just got back from shooting all day with the WATE mostly and geez i have to say i just love this damn setup. Interesting enough I shot last week for the same client and asked how he liked the images and he said " i was playing with those files at 100 percent and was amazed at the detail from that damn leica your shooting" case closed. Yea there are some limits but from 12-135 i know what i want to use. Now there is a little secret here guys and girls i would no have decided this if i did not see what i see already going on, if your catching my in between the lines on what's next. It works:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.