Pro cameras are the d2x and the 1ds Mark II. these are "pro" cameras. If you pay for the roof over your head with your camera (which is what "pro" means) then you best have one of these. Or the H2. Or a Fuji gx680 and your own lab.
Nice rant. But look at photographers over time. Great images come from many
different cameras. From pinhole to view and everything in between. It's not
the camera but the operator and his or her knowledge of the tool that make
great images.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Nice rant. But look at photographers over time. Great images come from many
different cameras. From pinhole to view and everything in between. It's not
the camera but the operator and his or her knowledge of the tool that make
great images.
That's as may be, but I don't know anybody who works for SI and goes to the superbowl sporting a pinhole camera.
Great doctors of the past used different tools according to the technology available. I doubt that a modern "professional" doctor is going to attempt to cure my bursitis with leaches, however.
That's as may be, but I don't know anybody who works for SI and goes to the superbowl sporting a pinhole camera.
Great doctors of the past used different tools according to the technology available. I doubt that a modern "professional" doctor is going to attempt to cure my bursitis with leaches, however.
Here. I'll put it more succinctly. What matters most is the camera operator.
If no SI shooter goes to the superbowl with a pinhole, I'm sure they go with
Rebel's and D50's. Gasp, I bet some even take rangefinders too. And I'll bet
the editors don't measurebate over what camera was used to choose the
cover shot either.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Here. I'll put it more succinctly. What matters most is the camera operator.
If no SI shooter goes to the superbowl with a pinhole, I'm sure they go with
Rebel's and D50's. Gasp, I bet some even take rangefinders too. And I'll bet
the editors don't measurebate over what camera was used to choose the
cover shot either.
Since I haven't started throwing the relative weight in grams of each body (of which I'm not aware) or other "numbers" about, I hardly think you can accuse me of "measurebating." One must measure in order to bate, no?
Of course the photographer matters. That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand about the relative toughness of the 20d vs. the d70. Nevertheless, the photographer, good or bad as she is, must have a tool. And that tool must function. And the housing around the tool (the essence of the tool being the light sensitive square or rectangle, be it electronic or chemical) helps to influence under what conditions the light sensitive square may, or may not function.
Some folks have made the claim that the d70 is built, in terms of physical toughness, to standards that exceed the 20d. This is simply false. It is made out of plastic, and not high impact plastic at that. If you are snugged down in the stands at a superbowl game, then its unlikely that you are going to need any more protection for your light sensitive square than the d50 or d70 provides.
Strange though, that very few of the folks who shoot that sort of stuff use that sort of camera. Nor do they use the 20d. I think they tend to use the higher end cameras principally because of frame rates. I can't imagine going to a Jets game with a Leica. Then again, I can't imagine going to a street market with a Mark II and a 400mm lens. So, if your point is that every camera has its appropriate function, then fine. But that's not the point under discussion.
If your assignment is to travel 1500km, by plane, by train, by pickup truck over unpaved mountain roads, and then by mule, and then succesfully take a picture of a temple standing on a sheer cliff face in the jungle, would you rather take a light sensitive square to do this that is encased in a) polycarbonate, or b)magnesium alloy? It's a long trip back to get a spare body if its cracked when you pull it out of your bag.
That's why I spent the extra cash on a 20d, rather than the 350. I tend to be hard on my cameras. It's also why I chose the 20d over the d70. I'm sure Harryb could blow my ass out of the water with bird shots If I was shooting a digital hassy and he was shooting a fuji s5000. The MP difference doesn't matter that much.
But I know for sure that if my camera is broken, then I can be the best photog in the world and I won't get the shot. So lets not pretend that gear doesn't matter at all, because it does.
Sometimes the tone of this thread begins to resemble the "film vs. digital" debate on photo.net (which is one of the many reasons why I left that site.) So I officially announce my defection from the Canon vs. Nikon debate. You are all losers!
With your dinky plastic and Fagnesium alloy cameras. The only true photographers use machines built of sweet sweet Dresden Steel.
That's right! My new photographing Technique is unstoppable!
Look at the resolution, look at the creamy creamy bokeh! Ignore the frame spacing issues, that is simply capitalist runing dog lies.
And that's just a scan! And a terrible crop as well. Yet still you are overawed! Where is your Nikon now! Where is your Canon when I lay my wrath upon thee!
why do you resist. Why? It will only make the taste of victory sweeter in my mouth as I unwield my 6x6cm sword of resolution, +3 vs. undead, +5 vs. Nikon.
I bang my shoe on the table and pronounce that we will bury you.
Resistance is futile.
What better to photograph people with, than the People's Camera!
But I know for sure that if my camera is broken, then I can be the best photog in the world and I won't get the shot. So lets not pretend that gear doesn't matter at all, because it does.
I will agree with this one hundred percent.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
20D build vs. D70 build.
Plain and simple is how I'll state this. Neither are at spectacularly high level as it pertains to build quality. Anyone that believes this has never handled a high end camera.
As far as the "plastic" on the outside of the D70 being of a lesser standard than the "plastic" on the outside of the 20D then I'd offer this (with some confidence as it's becoming increasing clear that I'm one of the few in this thread that's handled both)...
1. Let's torture test them. I offer up my D70 to a honest third party for said test. Even though Andy is a Canon shooter I do trust him and feel he would be honest in this.
2. Said test would consist of hitting my D70 with a hammer, throwing it on the concrete, and possibly some other abuse that seems reasonable by Andy. I trust him to abuse it with equal force as the 20D that is donated for testing by whatever Canon user is so confident in their "superior" build.
3. I will pay shipping costs both ways.
4. I will not hold Andy responsible for any damages up to and including running over my D70 with a car, as long as he ships the pieces back (my cost of course.)
It's that simple. Lets just see how poor the "plastic" on my D70 is. Keep in mind that I've already abused my D70 quite a bit including using it as a "mount vise" for some lens projects I've done. Even so I'd put it up against a new 20D. So let's see who's looking to have some fun with this.:D
I'll offer UMass as a neutral test area. I will have the 100,000 frame/second video CCD camera ready to record the mayhem. Mythbusters, eat your hearts out.
Plain and simple is how I'll state this. Neither are at spectacularly high level as it pertains to build quality. Anyone that believes this has never handled a high end camera.
As far as the "plastic" on the outside of the D70 being of a lesser standard than the "plastic" on the outside of the 20D then I'd offer this (with some confidence as it's becoming increasing clear that I'm one of the few in this thread that's handled both)...
1. Let's torture test them. I offer up my D70 to a honest third party for said test. Even though Andy is a Canon shooter I do trust him and feel he would be honest in this.
2. Said test would consist of hitting my D70 with a hammer, throwing it on the concrete, and possibly some other abuse that seems reasonable by Andy. I trust him to abuse it with equal force as the 20D that is donated for testing by whatever Canon user is so confident in their "superior" build.
3. I will pay shipping costs both ways.
4. I will not hold Andy responsible for any damages up to and including running over my D70 with a car, as long as he ships the pieces back (my cost of course.)
It's that simple. Lets just see how poor the "plastic" on my D70 is. Keep in mind that I've already abused my D70 quite a bit including using it as a "mount vise" for some lens projects I've done. Even so I'd put it up against a new 20D. So let's see who's looking to have some fun with this.:D
Did I mention I have a sweet impact tester and fully instrumented stretching apparatus that can top 1 m/s??? This could be real, real good footage.
Andy and DoctorIt have volunteered to do testing. Either would be fine with me. If no one volunteers I may ship one to DoctorIt since he can instrument test just for the fun of it.
Andy and DoctorIt have volunteered to do testing. Either would be fine with me. If no one volunteers I may ship one to DoctorIt since he can instrument test just for the fun of it.
I will gladly submit my pentacon to a physical test such as the one you described.
In fact, I believe you must be familiar with VEB Pentacon, because the test you describe was basically standard Zeiss Jena quality control testing from 1956-1989.
Not only does my machine take pictures, it also functions as a combination doorstop, anti-tank obstacle, and (in a jam, with a sturdy cord) secondary anchor for light marine use.
I would prefer an FF sensor for the same reason that, If I were Bill Gates, I wouldn't event think about Canon or Nikon, I'd go straight up for a Hassy with a digital back. I want to be able to get as wide as possible.
Nope. I only shoot Nikon.
0
John MuellerRegistered UsersPosts: 2,555Major grins
Hogwash. I totally disagree with you on this, Ginger. Heck...I know a guy that shoots birds with a Canon with a 200mm lens. If you believe this....I've got a bridge for sale. I'll let you have it real cheap.
Silly, I shoot birds with an old FD 135 mm f/2.5, of course with the 20ds 1.6x crop, but hey it works well enough until I work up some cash for 300mm and up...
I had some very glamourous seagull models, they changed poses slightly with each click of the shutter :giggle , of course, i developed a wonderful relationship with them. I was out fishing, and each time a crab nibbled at my bait, I threw it to them. Ah, yes, they were very full afterwards, that's why all the gulls are so darn fat .
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited April 22, 2006
I guess this shot can be taken two ways:
One- look at how resiliant the 20D's body actually is, even with a battery grip!
Or two- If you shoot with Canon, all sorts of horrible things will happen to you!
For the record, his 20D survived no problem. His 17-35 f/2.8 L also survived, of course. I've always been one to rag on how stingy Canon has been with not putting "pro features" (weather sealing etc.) in smaller bodies like the 20D and 5D, but this event definitely opened my eyes to how tough the normal, un-sealed cameras can be, too.
But that still doesn't make the 20D better than the D200 for me and my shooting!
All I have to do is wait for a D200s to be released with no banding and better high ISO... :-D
...the d200 is not a pro camera. It is a good camera, but not a pro camera.
Pro cameras are the d2x and the 1ds Mark II. these are "pro" cameras. If you pay for the roof over your head with your camera (which is what "pro" means) then you best have one of these. Or the H2. Or a Fuji gx680 and your own lab.
Often people fail to respond to assertions that "the d200 is a pro camera" because arguing with someone who says that is like arguing with someone who believes that the earth is flat. It is impossible to change the finest minds of the 14th century...
If you prefer, I'll get back to you when I "pay for the roof over my head" with a D200 and a couple D70's or D50's as backup. Nikon does indeed go on record saying the D200 is a "prosumer" camera, and I guess I can agree on this since it doesn't have a round eyepiece or an eyepiece shutter, but other than that I can't think of much that should separate it from the D2X's professionalism. It's just a smaller camera. Galen Rowell would shoot with it, you can bet on that...
I agree with what you said, but I just wanted to joke around with you by implying that theoretically, one can make almost any camera "pay for the roof over one's head". That doesn't necessarily make the particular camera a pro camera, it just makes the photographer a pro photographer.
And I aspire to be a professional photographer, but have no plans to own a D2X nor any other full-bodied camera. I could get a 5D for weddings, or a D200 for nature, but no D2X or 1DsmkII... Those cameras are just too far beyond my personal sweet-spot of price VS features.
...Galen Rowell would shoot with it, you can bet on that...
I think he would have been one to find a balance between features and
portability. You're right though, he may well have shot with one and I
would have loved to hear is thoughts at this stage in the digital game.
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
if it weren't for the d200 noisy sensor i would have gone nikon for my first dslr. plus i cant stand sony, and they use a sony ccd - which is obviously frickin noisy. i also did not like that to change certain common settings on the d200 you had to have one button depressed and then switch something else. but otherwise the d200 is more full featured for the money than the 30d. canon is definitely milking its products for the price, they could give more for less and still make a killing.
D200, iso1600, 50 1.4 lens. The D200 has a couple of advantages in low-light photography, a spot meter on the focus point and auto-iso. You get perfect metering (with good technique) and auto-iso means it only goes as low as it needs to to get the shutter speed.
D200, iso1600, 50 1.4 lens. The D200 has a couple of advantages in low-light photography, a spot meter on the focus point and auto-iso. You get perfect metering (with good technique) and auto-iso means it only goes as low as it needs to to get the shutter speed.
wow that's really nice, Steve. That D200 at 1600 is pretty darn good and it looks fine at the small size (gorgeous photo). But I wonder what it looks like at 100% crop, say, on her skin, from her right cheek?
if it weren't for the d200 noisy sensor i would have gone nikon for my first dslr. plus i cant stand sony, and they use a sony ccd - which is obviously frickin noisy. i also did not like that to change certain common settings on the d200 you had to have one button depressed and then switch something else. but otherwise the d200 is more full featured for the money than the 30d. canon is definitely milking its products for the price, they could give more for less and still make a killing.
that nikon noise though, no good.
1. Have you actually tried one? The noise is a non-issue for me. What are you using as a basis of comparison? FWIW I just finished processing some Kodak Max 800ISO film I ran thru my F100 this weekend for fun. More noise than my D200 even with it at 1600ISO.
2. The next time you try a D200, change custom setting F6 from "Default" to "Hold". Voila! No more having to hold buttons while rotating dials.
3. Having actually tryed out Canon and Nikon products I can tell you the difference is much less than folks would have you believe and in some cases actually favors Nikon.
Comments
Nice rant. But look at photographers over time. Great images come from many
different cameras. From pinhole to view and everything in between. It's not
the camera but the operator and his or her knowledge of the tool that make
great images.
That's as may be, but I don't know anybody who works for SI and goes to the superbowl sporting a pinhole camera.
Great doctors of the past used different tools according to the technology available. I doubt that a modern "professional" doctor is going to attempt to cure my bursitis with leaches, however.
Here. I'll put it more succinctly. What matters most is the camera operator.
If no SI shooter goes to the superbowl with a pinhole, I'm sure they go with
Rebel's and D50's. Gasp, I bet some even take rangefinders too. And I'll bet
the editors don't measurebate over what camera was used to choose the
cover shot either.
I have been trying to stay out of this, but I must say that the above statement made me laugh quiet a bit...
Lee
Of course the photographer matters. That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand about the relative toughness of the 20d vs. the d70. Nevertheless, the photographer, good or bad as she is, must have a tool. And that tool must function. And the housing around the tool (the essence of the tool being the light sensitive square or rectangle, be it electronic or chemical) helps to influence under what conditions the light sensitive square may, or may not function.
Some folks have made the claim that the d70 is built, in terms of physical toughness, to standards that exceed the 20d. This is simply false. It is made out of plastic, and not high impact plastic at that. If you are snugged down in the stands at a superbowl game, then its unlikely that you are going to need any more protection for your light sensitive square than the d50 or d70 provides.
Strange though, that very few of the folks who shoot that sort of stuff use that sort of camera. Nor do they use the 20d. I think they tend to use the higher end cameras principally because of frame rates. I can't imagine going to a Jets game with a Leica. Then again, I can't imagine going to a street market with a Mark II and a 400mm lens. So, if your point is that every camera has its appropriate function, then fine. But that's not the point under discussion.
If your assignment is to travel 1500km, by plane, by train, by pickup truck over unpaved mountain roads, and then by mule, and then succesfully take a picture of a temple standing on a sheer cliff face in the jungle, would you rather take a light sensitive square to do this that is encased in a) polycarbonate, or b)magnesium alloy? It's a long trip back to get a spare body if its cracked when you pull it out of your bag.
That's why I spent the extra cash on a 20d, rather than the 350. I tend to be hard on my cameras. It's also why I chose the 20d over the d70. I'm sure Harryb could blow my ass out of the water with bird shots If I was shooting a digital hassy and he was shooting a fuji s5000. The MP difference doesn't matter that much.
But I know for sure that if my camera is broken, then I can be the best photog in the world and I won't get the shot. So lets not pretend that gear doesn't matter at all, because it does.
Sometimes the tone of this thread begins to resemble the "film vs. digital" debate on photo.net (which is one of the many reasons why I left that site.) So I officially announce my defection from the Canon vs. Nikon debate. You are all losers!
With your dinky plastic and Fagnesium alloy cameras. The only true photographers use machines built of sweet sweet Dresden Steel.
That's right! My new photographing Technique is unstoppable!
Look at the resolution, look at the creamy creamy bokeh! Ignore the frame spacing issues, that is simply capitalist runing dog lies.
And that's just a scan! And a terrible crop as well. Yet still you are overawed! Where is your Nikon now! Where is your Canon when I lay my wrath upon thee!
why do you resist. Why? It will only make the taste of victory sweeter in my mouth as I unwield my 6x6cm sword of resolution, +3 vs. undead, +5 vs. Nikon.
I bang my shoe on the table and pronounce that we will bury you.
Resistance is futile.
What better to photograph people with, than the People's Camera!
I will agree with this one hundred percent.
Plain and simple is how I'll state this. Neither are at spectacularly high level as it pertains to build quality. Anyone that believes this has never handled a high end camera.
As far as the "plastic" on the outside of the D70 being of a lesser standard than the "plastic" on the outside of the 20D then I'd offer this (with some confidence as it's becoming increasing clear that I'm one of the few in this thread that's handled both)...
1. Let's torture test them. I offer up my D70 to a honest third party for said test. Even though Andy is a Canon shooter I do trust him and feel he would be honest in this.
2. Said test would consist of hitting my D70 with a hammer, throwing it on the concrete, and possibly some other abuse that seems reasonable by Andy. I trust him to abuse it with equal force as the 20D that is donated for testing by whatever Canon user is so confident in their "superior" build.
3. I will pay shipping costs both ways.
4. I will not hold Andy responsible for any damages up to and including running over my D70 with a car, as long as he ships the pieces back (my cost of course.)
It's that simple. Lets just see how poor the "plastic" on my D70 is. Keep in mind that I've already abused my D70 quite a bit including using it as a "mount vise" for some lens projects I've done. Even so I'd put it up against a new 20D. So let's see who's looking to have some fun with this.:D
I'll offer UMass as a neutral test area. I will have the 100,000 frame/second video CCD camera ready to record the mayhem. Mythbusters, eat your hearts out.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
i wouldn't be able to bear watching that...:uhoh
smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com
Did I mention I have a sweet impact tester and fully instrumented stretching apparatus that can top 1 m/s??? This could be real, real good footage.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Scratch that. It looks pretty silly right now.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
God forbid anyone shoot with obsolete technology!
I will gladly submit my pentacon to a physical test such as the one you described.
In fact, I believe you must be familiar with VEB Pentacon, because the test you describe was basically standard Zeiss Jena quality control testing from 1956-1989.
Not only does my machine take pictures, it also functions as a combination doorstop, anti-tank obstacle, and (in a jam, with a sturdy cord) secondary anchor for light marine use.
It worked great...and I thought it was a living room decoration
Nope. I only shoot Nikon.
and PP on a Mac I bet
Cincinnati Smug Leader
Silly, I shoot birds with an old FD 135 mm f/2.5, of course with the 20ds 1.6x crop, but hey it works well enough until I work up some cash for 300mm and up...
I had some very glamourous seagull models, they changed poses slightly with each click of the shutter :giggle , of course, i developed a wonderful relationship with them. I was out fishing, and each time a crab nibbled at my bait, I threw it to them. Ah, yes, they were very full afterwards, that's why all the gulls are so darn fat
I guess this shot can be taken two ways:
One- look at how resiliant the 20D's body actually is, even with a battery grip!
Or two- If you shoot with Canon, all sorts of horrible things will happen to you!
For the record, his 20D survived no problem. His 17-35 f/2.8 L also survived, of course. I've always been one to rag on how stingy Canon has been with not putting "pro features" (weather sealing etc.) in smaller bodies like the 20D and 5D, but this event definitely opened my eyes to how tough the normal, un-sealed cameras can be, too.
But that still doesn't make the 20D better than the D200 for me and my shooting!
All I have to do is wait for a D200s to be released with no banding and better high ISO... :-D
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
If you prefer, I'll get back to you when I "pay for the roof over my head" with a D200 and a couple D70's or D50's as backup. Nikon does indeed go on record saying the D200 is a "prosumer" camera, and I guess I can agree on this since it doesn't have a round eyepiece or an eyepiece shutter, but other than that I can't think of much that should separate it from the D2X's professionalism. It's just a smaller camera. Galen Rowell would shoot with it, you can bet on that...
I agree with what you said, but I just wanted to joke around with you by implying that theoretically, one can make almost any camera "pay for the roof over one's head". That doesn't necessarily make the particular camera a pro camera, it just makes the photographer a pro photographer.
And I aspire to be a professional photographer, but have no plans to own a D2X nor any other full-bodied camera. I could get a 5D for weddings, or a D200 for nature, but no D2X or 1DsmkII... Those cameras are just too far beyond my personal sweet-spot of price VS features.
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I think he would have been one to find a balance between features and
portability. You're right though, he may well have shot with one and I
would have loved to hear is thoughts at this stage in the digital game.
Ian
What a cool pic!!!
In five years, the thread might read "The Great Nikon vs. Canon vs. Sony Debate":smooch
Also, the term "SLR" may very well be left to camera history classes...
that nikon noise though, no good.
Gear
*Canon 40D: 17-55IS - 70-300IS - 100mm Macro - Sigma 10-20EX
*Imagination
D200, iso1600, 50 1.4 lens. The D200 has a couple of advantages in low-light photography, a spot meter on the focus point and auto-iso. You get perfect metering (with good technique) and auto-iso means it only goes as low as it needs to to get the shutter speed.
Here's Canon, at ISO 3200, also very low light.
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large and if you follow the caption, you'll be led to a couple 100% crops.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
2. The next time you try a D200, change custom setting F6 from "Default" to "Hold". Voila! No more having to hold buttons while rotating dials.
3. Having actually tryed out Canon and Nikon products I can tell you the difference is much less than folks would have you believe and in some cases actually favors Nikon.