I'm not sure that I would draw that same conclusion about pixel peeping and KR.
The last couple weeks I have been retouching images from recent shoots at 300%, most of it related to complexion problems. It's hard not to be conscious about the pixels at that scale.
I do hope to get a Canon 5D MKII in the not too distant future, and I probably will do some "peeping" comparisons with my own equipment and when fine tuning lenses.
I do not mean offense or anything. But I figure that too many people get flustered when it comes to terms of which camera is better and eventually KR gets thrown into the mix. At least I thought it was humorous.
Not apples to apples and he clearly misstated the wind thing as it's clear from those images that the wind was moving branches.
Regardless. 2.5 x cost of 5D should get you something.
Hehe, looks like a slightly different position of the tripod, imo , either that, or the earth must have been moving below him, beyond the most literal sense.
And to Kdogs's observation about shooting in raw, if you finish the whole article, Ken Rockwell says: [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"If you want to twiddle with raw software, you'll undoubtedly get different results. The Nikon looks great shot as JPG. The Canon looks crappy and might benefit greatly if you have nothing else better to do than screw in front of a computer just to get the images you need." just something to think about :P.
[/FONT]
And for everyone who doesnt like Ken Rockwell, its just an opinion, disliking it doesnt make you a better or worse photographer, but as he says;
"This site is purely my personal speech and opinion... This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself. I've never promoted this site. If you're reading this, you got here on your own." I couldnt agree more.
Hehe, looks like a slightly different position of the tripod, imo , either that, or the earth must have been moving below him, beyond the most literal sense.
There was a small earthquake in SoCal last night... I'm just sayin'
Sure it drives people to his site, and the forums help out everyday.
If you read enough on his site, you will find quite a few cameras that were once the greatest only to be subpar upon the next models release.
If you also notice he is big on recommending cheap cameras for the average user over the big boys. He caters to those who want to know the details and how one camera compares to another. Then he recommends stick with what you have and get better lenses. In the digital world, cameras do become dated quickly compared to the newer models. The terms obsolete and usable are not the same.
I ignore some of his advice and some of it is useful like any advice you can get elsewhere. No sense in getting the undies in a wad.
Quote from Ken's article, "There was no wind and no heat shimmer." You believe him, don't you?
Obviously, something moved between the 2 images. Ken says it was not wind so, by process of elimination, it must have been the earth.
No, I'm not serious about this discrepancy and I would hope you are not as well.
There's something the AF mechinisims don't take into account.... Cannon's AI focus mode OBVIOUSLY is broken when it comes to continental drift. Why just last week I took a 35 Billion year long exposure and it came out all blury! This needs to be fixed ASAP!
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Finally, Davev admits that shooting jpegs makes him irrelevant. Glad that is settled.
Did you get home in time for the UPS driver yesterday Dave? Hope so. Might even need a new signature.
The test obviously has issues. But I sure would like a camera to plug the 14-24 and 200/400 into, and the Nikon does seem to be better at that.
Steve, I've known that I've been irrelevant for a long, long time.:D
UPS fooled me and got here a day early, and after work, so it worked out very well for me.
KR has a very polarizing style to his writing. Take what you want from it, and leave the rest.
That's how he writes, that's how he should be read.
Personally, for $8000, I hope the Nikon beats the Canon in every way. I'm still happy that I got the MKII.
In another 6 months to a year, a new camera will come out that's new and improved, and make us
think that what we're using is old and crummy.
Every test that comes down the pipe can be ripped apart for something. Choice of lenses, choice of
software, amount of megapixels, JPG/RAW, did you upsize or downsize. Geeeeez.
You want fairer tests, buy Sigma or Tamron lenses that fit Sony, Canon, Nikon, whatever else.
But even if this was done, there would be people saying the (brand name here)'s was a bad copy of that lens.
The only test that matters, is if you like what your camera can do for you. Right now, I'm very happy.
Comments
I do not mean offense or anything. But I figure that too many people get flustered when it comes to terms of which camera is better and eventually KR gets thrown into the mix. At least I thought it was humorous.
I have read his writings and enjoyed reading.
www.tednghiem.com
Hehe, looks like a slightly different position of the tripod, imo
And to Kdogs's observation about shooting in raw, if you finish the whole article, Ken Rockwell says: [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"If you want to twiddle with raw software, you'll undoubtedly get different results. The Nikon looks great shot as JPG. The Canon looks crappy and might benefit greatly if you have nothing else better to do than screw in front of a computer just to get the images you need." just something to think about :P.
[/FONT]
And for everyone who doesnt like Ken Rockwell, its just an opinion, disliking it doesnt make you a better or worse photographer, but as he says;
"This site is purely my personal speech and opinion... This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself. I've never promoted this site. If you're reading this, you got here on your own." I couldnt agree more.
There was a small earthquake in SoCal last night... I'm just sayin'
If you also notice he is big on recommending cheap cameras for the average user over the big boys. He caters to those who want to know the details and how one camera compares to another. Then he recommends stick with what you have and get better lenses. In the digital world, cameras do become dated quickly compared to the newer models. The terms obsolete and usable are not the same.
I ignore some of his advice and some of it is useful like any advice you can get elsewhere. No sense in getting the undies in a wad.
There's something the AF mechinisims don't take into account.... Cannon's AI focus mode OBVIOUSLY is broken when it comes to continental drift. Why just last week I took a 35 Billion year long exposure and it came out all blury! This needs to be fixed ASAP!
― Edward Weston
Steve, I've known that I've been irrelevant for a long, long time.:D
UPS fooled me and got here a day early, and after work, so it worked out very well for me.
KR has a very polarizing style to his writing. Take what you want from it, and leave the rest.
That's how he writes, that's how he should be read.
Personally, for $8000, I hope the Nikon beats the Canon in every way. I'm still happy that I got the MKII.
In another 6 months to a year, a new camera will come out that's new and improved, and make us
think that what we're using is old and crummy.
Every test that comes down the pipe can be ripped apart for something. Choice of lenses, choice of
software, amount of megapixels, JPG/RAW, did you upsize or downsize. Geeeeez.
You want fairer tests, buy Sigma or Tamron lenses that fit Sony, Canon, Nikon, whatever else.
But even if this was done, there would be people saying the (brand name here)'s was a bad copy of that lens.
The only test that matters, is if you like what your camera can do for you. Right now, I'm very happy.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.