Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2008
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:16:54 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote:

> Just an observation, but why would anyone buy a 5D II over a D700? The only
> reason I can see is the Canon lens choice. If Canon didn't have monopoly
> over lens choice, they would be really screwed at the moment.


This is mitigated by the fact that an advantage of the 5D II's
higher resolution is more often needed for landscapes, and Canon's
"lens monopoly" advantage doesn't extend down to the 14-24mm Nikkor.
But some in the Canon clan are probably buying the 14-24mm Nikkor so
that it can be used on the 5D II with a lens adapter, despite the
clumsiness that would result from this combination, which might
eventually lead some to upgrade the 5D II when a D700x is released.

For sports and wildlife photography, Canon's lens monopoly is
primarily with some of its long lenses, and for this type of
shooting Canon has more suitable DSLRs than either of the 5Ds,
including DX and FX bodies, which strengthens your point.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2008
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:02:47 -0600, CatchUp wrote:

>> For sports and wildlife photography, Canon's lens monopoly is
>> primarily with some of its long lenses, and for this type of
>> shooting Canon has more suitable DSLRs than either of the 5Ds,
>> including DX and FX bodies, which strengthens your point.

> . . .
>
> This lame DSLR-mantra nonsense from resident-trolls is getting old.


Excellent! Your nice holiday gift is much appreciated.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ransley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2008
On Dec 23, 11:02*am, CatchUp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:40:52 -0500, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:16:54 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote:

>
> >> Just an observation, but why would anyone buy a 5D II over a D700? *The only
> >> reason I can see is the Canon lens choice. *If Canon didn't have monopoly
> >> over lens choice, they would be really screwed at the moment.

>
> > *This is mitigated by the fact that an advantage of the 5D II's
> >higher resolution is more often needed for landscapes, and Canon's
> >"lens monopoly" advantage doesn't extend down to the 14-24mm Nikkor.
> >But some in the Canon clan are probably buying the 14-24mm Nikkor so
> >that it can be used on the 5D II with a lens adapter, despite the
> >clumsiness that would result from this combination, which might
> >eventually lead some to upgrade the 5D II when a D700x is released.

>
> > *For sports and wildlife photography, Canon's lens monopoly is
> >primarily with some of its long lenses, and for this type of
> >shooting Canon has more suitable DSLRs than either of the 5Ds,
> >including DX and FX bodies, which strengthens your point.

>
> Long zoom P&S cameras which have larger aperture at the longer focal-lengths
> than any DSLR glass in existence will always be the better choice for wildlife
> photography. You don't need high ISO's with the apertures that are available for
> long focal-lengths on P&S cameras.
>
> This lame DSLR-mantra nonsense from resident-trolls is getting old.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Ive got P&S sony H7 with tele extender, The only wildlife I get a good
photo of is whats asleep its so slow, slow in lens, iso and response.
You really need to get out and use them instead of making things up to
please yourself.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2008


>
>>> Long zoom P&S cameras which have larger aperture at the longer
>>> focal-lengths
>>> than any DSLR glass in existence will always be the better choice for
>>> wildlife
>>> photography. You don't need high ISO's with the apertures that are
>>> available for
>>> long focal-lengths on P&S cameras.

>
>>Ive got P&S sony H7 with tele extender, The only wildlife I get a good
>>photo of is whats asleep its so slow, slow in lens, iso and response.

>
>>You really need to get out and use them instead of making things up to
>>please yourself.

>
> You really need to broaden your experienced instead of trying to apply
> it to all other people and cameras. My Panasonic FZ20 and FZ8 both take
> excellent wildlife photos, even without the Tele Converter. Examples:
> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
> * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>
> Not even a telephoto lens:
> * <http://i40.tinypic.com/2h84ltj.jpg>
>


John,

Your continued total satisfaction with mediocrity astounds me as does your
continued showing of less than average work at small sizes to back up your
point of view.

I can understand the P&S troll, he does what he does simply to troll and
have a good time, you on the other hand I thought were a fairly intelligence
being, I see that is not the case and I was wrong as it is obvious you
really don't have a clue at all.

Merry Christmas.

Pete


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008

"Davon H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:11:22 -0800 (PST), ransley <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 23, 11:02 am, CatchUp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:40:52 -0500, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:16:54 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Just an observation, but why would anyone buy a 5D II over a D700?
>>> >> The only
>>> >> reason I can see is the Canon lens choice. If Canon didn't have
>>> >> monopoly
>>> >> over lens choice, they would be really screwed at the moment.
>>>
>>> > This is mitigated by the fact that an advantage of the 5D II's
>>> >higher resolution is more often needed for landscapes, and Canon's
>>> >"lens monopoly" advantage doesn't extend down to the 14-24mm Nikkor.
>>> >But some in the Canon clan are probably buying the 14-24mm Nikkor so
>>> >that it can be used on the 5D II with a lens adapter, despite the
>>> >clumsiness that would result from this combination, which might
>>> >eventually lead some to upgrade the 5D II when a D700x is released.
>>>
>>> > For sports and wildlife photography, Canon's lens monopoly is
>>> >primarily with some of its long lenses, and for this type of
>>> >shooting Canon has more suitable DSLRs than either of the 5Ds,
>>> >including DX and FX bodies, which strengthens your point.
>>>
>>> Long zoom P&S cameras which have larger aperture at the longer
>>> focal-lengths
>>> than any DSLR glass in existence will always be the better choice for
>>> wildlife
>>> photography. You don't need high ISO's with the apertures that are
>>> available for
>>> long focal-lengths on P&S cameras.
>>>
>>> This lame DSLR-mantra nonsense from resident-trolls is getting old.-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -

>>
>>Ive got P&S sony H7 with tele extender, The only wildlife I get a good
>>photo of is whats asleep its so slow, slow in lens, iso and response.
>>You really need to get out and use them instead of making things up to
>>please yourself.

>
> I've been using P&S cameras for professional wildlife photography for the
> last
> 6.5 years. If you can't capture fast moving subjects with them then that
> speaks
> tomes about your total lack of talent, and says absolutely nothing about
> P&S
> cameras.
>
> You need to get out more and learn how to use a camera instead of missing
> all
> those easy to get shots.
>


Sounds awesome, how about some links to all these images? We would love to
see them especially from a pro such as yourself.

Thanks

Pete


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008

"Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:49514cfe$0$15720$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>>
>>>> Long zoom P&S cameras which have larger aperture at the longer
>>>> focal-lengths
>>>> than any DSLR glass in existence will always be the better choice for
>>>> wildlife
>>>> photography. You don't need high ISO's with the apertures that are
>>>> available for
>>>> long focal-lengths on P&S cameras.

>>
>>>Ive got P&S sony H7 with tele extender, The only wildlife I get a good
>>>photo of is whats asleep its so slow, slow in lens, iso and response.

>>
>>>You really need to get out and use them instead of making things up to
>>>please yourself.

>>
>> You really need to broaden your experienced instead of trying to apply
>> it to all other people and cameras. My Panasonic FZ20 and FZ8 both take
>> excellent wildlife photos, even without the Tele Converter. Examples:
>> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
>> * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>
>> Not even a telephoto lens:
>> * <http://i40.tinypic.com/2h84ltj.jpg>
>>

>
> John,
>
> Your continued total satisfaction with mediocrity astounds me as does your
> continued showing of less than average work at small sizes to back up your
> point of view.
>
> I can understand the P&S troll, he does what he does simply to troll and
> have a good time, you on the other hand I thought were a fairly
> intelligence being, I see that is not the case and I was wrong as it is
> obvious you really don't have a clue at all.
>
> Merry Christmas.
>
> Pete


Sorry about that, I have now deleted him and so will never respond to his
silly posts again.

Cheers.

Pete


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
Pete D wrote:
> "Davon H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> I've been using P&S cameras for professional wildlife photography for the
>> last 6.5 years. If you can't capture fast moving subjects with them then that
>> speaks tomes about your total lack of talent, and says absolutely nothing about
>> P&S cameras.
>>
>> You need to get out more and learn how to use a camera instead of missing
>> all those easy to get shots.
>>

>
> Sounds awesome, how about some links to all these images? We would love to
> see them especially from a pro such as yourself.
>
> Thanks
>
> Pete


But Pete, 'Davon H' is of course 'Keoeeit'. He's already posted his
work at Steve's:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96685
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96597
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo....php?id=100233


Why, I'd almost keep that last one...

(On second thoughts, nah, and I would learn about sharpening before
embarrassing myself again.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008

"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:gis0pl$lia$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Pete D wrote:
>> "Davon H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> I've been using P&S cameras for professional wildlife photography for
>>> the last 6.5 years. If you can't capture fast moving subjects with them
>>> then that speaks tomes about your total lack of talent, and says
>>> absolutely nothing about P&S cameras.
>>>
>>> You need to get out more and learn how to use a camera instead of
>>> missing all those easy to get shots.
>>>

>>
>> Sounds awesome, how about some links to all these images? We would love
>> to see them especially from a pro such as yourself.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Pete

>
> But Pete, 'Davon H' is of course 'Keoeeit'. He's already posted his work
> at Steve's:
>
> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96685
> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96597
> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo....php?id=100233
>
>
> Why, I'd almost keep that last one...
>
> (On second thoughts, nah, and I would learn about sharpening before
> embarrassing myself again.)


This is 6.5 years of shooting with P&S's "professionally"? No wonder his
lifes work is now to try and justify all those wasted years if that is all
he can show for all his "enormous" expertise.

How extrordinarily small he must feel.

Merry Christmas.

Pete


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Sheehy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2008
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> You really need to broaden your experienced instead of trying to apply
> it to all other people and cameras. My Panasonic FZ20 and FZ8 both take
> excellent wildlife photos, even without the Tele Converter. Examples:


Hovering Gulls and perched herons are not exactly descriptive of the full
range of wildlife photography. Try following a busy kinglet or warbler
with your FZ50.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2008
Firstly, if TrevorR/Keoeeit didn't have to go to all that effort of
changing his name every few minutes, maybe he would spot the posts that
are pointed directly at his complete incompetence *earlier*. Do try to
keep up, Keoeeit. This was dealt with some time ago.

But just for him, some sharpening lessons appear below.

TrevorR (aka Keoeeit/anti-dslr-troll) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:46:51 +1000, Mark Thomas
>> But Pete, 'Davon H' is of course 'Keoeeit'. He's already posted his
>> work at Steve's:
>>
>> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96685
>> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...t.php?id=96597
>> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo....php?id=100233
>>

>
> It is interesting that you try to find photos from threads where camera and
> photography prowess are not being discussed.

I know Keoeeit believes every thought he has is instantly correct and
the absolute pinnacle of perfect inference, but...
It took barely 20 seconds to identify him as Dave
Ingols/Keoeeit/X-Man/Baumabier/Casiobear, and his posting history and
psychological issues are now well known. As he constantly tells us he
is a professional in high demand (the ROFL is implicit - as soon as
someone pompously assures you of their 'professionalism', you know what
a pretentious dickhead they are). But inexplicably there is no evidence
of any such 'professionalism', nor talent. His efforts to hide/withdraw
his work, as he knows it exposes him for what he is, have not been
entirely successful. Those images, which he has admitted are his are
now his legacy. That well-deserved reputation and legacy is an archived
history of awful images accompanied by uneducated, inexperienced,
repeated drivel.

Keoeeit barely elicits a reply from anything he posts now, he is
*instantly* recognised everywhere, and about the only useful things he
has achieved are:
- discussions about how to killfile those who behave similarly
- much more publicity about the reasons why small-sensor cameras are not
the best choice where image quality is the prime concern.

> Nor are any claims ever made that
> those should be considered as decent photography.

I don't claim any of mine are 'special' either, and yet when my faults
are pointed out I will happily try to reshoot or improve. I love
learning! When *any* of my work is reposted or referred to, I'm happy
to engage in discussion and to post full-resolution images for
comparison. And if the image is bad, or poorly processed, I might post
it to ask for tips or hints, or even to have a good laugh. But if it
was as bad as those above, I simply wouldn't post it. There's a delete
function on the camera, as well as the PC - does Keoeeit know that?

Unlike him, I want my images to survive the journey to a large print.
Unlike him, I believe image quality is usually more important than
portability.
Unlike him, I recognise when one camera is useful and why larger formats
exist.

The mark of the Keoeeit's of our planet is that they believe their work
is perfect and beyond criticis, and when the inevitable criticism comes,
of images like those above, they can't take it and explode into a rage.
That's why people like him are *not* successful professionals, and why
they rarely have the guts to post their work. Photographers with talent
do not have that problem.

> Quick snapshots posted "for
> the hell of it" in discussions about animals and animal behavior, to ask a
> question about the animal in them, not posted to show off any photography skill
> whatsoever.

If there was ever any doubt that these were his images, it no longer
remains. And if there are better ones, why would he not post them?

Oh yes, we aren't worthy, and everyone must be denied the evidence of
your talent... because we annoy him.
Yes. Sure. That's why.
Keoeeit, do you seriously not realise how lame and obvious that is? Did
you not notice that even when you tried that crap on as a kid, the other
kids immediately spotted you for a pretender? Ever wonder why you live
alone now?

> You're nothing but an ignorant and blatantly obvious troll.

And yet, I keep the same single identity, am brave enough to post my
work and discuss my failings and successes, don't have to resort to
childish attempts to *pretend* I have many 'friends' to support me, and
don't repost the same drivel over and over. The results do seem to be
in, on who is the troll - and I'll accept the majority verdict.

>> Swine only get the swill from the recycle bin. Gorge yourself heartily for the
>> sacrifice.

Here's my repeat:
Oh yes, we aren't worthy, and everyone must be denied the evidence of
your talent... because we annoy you.
Yes. Sure. That's why.
Do you have any concept of how lame and obvious that is? Did you not
notice that even when you tried that crap on as a kid, the other kids
immediately spotted you for a pretender? Ever wonder why you live alone
now?

The funny thing is, you state those images were just 'swill', and then
immediately start defending one of them...

> I see no sharpening
> artifacts in that last photo. Any light and dark edges that you see defined by
> single-pixels are due to the angle of the light and the light-sources on the
> textures and surfaces themselves. Optics/sensor pairing so sharp that all
> details are resolved right down to one-pixel level

What utter tripe, and what a damning exposure of your quality standards.
OK, here's the image again:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo....php?id=100233
The sharpening technique (and to a lesser extent, the jpeg compression
level) is very clearly inappropriate and amateurish. Here is a zoomed
up version, to show clearly the issues and to educate the uninformed:
http://geocities.com/chrlzs/sharpening_lesson.jpg
Firstly, the sharpening haloes and excessive ringing are *blatantly*
obvious. You can see the halo extending over not even two pixels, but 3
or 4. 'One pixel level'? 'Angle of light'? Moronic protestations.

At the areas marked A, note two things - the sharpening has only
happened at relatively high-contrast edges, leaving some areas as mush,
when clearly there should be detail. This is a common problem with
small sensors, esp. from Panasonic - the NR often squashes fine
low-contrast foliage detail as it believes it is noise. Those areas
that did get the sharpening are overdone (ringing, dark and light
haloes), and the radius of sharpening is excessive, so the effect
extends too far.

At B, note the specular highlights have been made into little donuts and
odd squares, again, a trademark sign of oversharpening and too wide a
radius.

Finally at C, note the hilarious square-edged-half-a-duck... (O: Yes,
Keoeeit, that shows the accuracy of your camera's rendition, with
'details resolved right down to one-pixel level'.. Of course this is
simply a jpeg artefact, from poor compression level choice..

Why not just save all that effort, and yell "I don't know what I am
doing!!"? Keoeeit, now's your chance to prove you are a man. Post a
larger version of that image without sharpening, and I will show you
exactly how it could be done properly. Feel free to cover it with
copyright messages.

While we wait (O:, here's an example of a much larger stitched image
*taken on a p&s*, that simply shows what good sharpening should look
like (1.4Mb):
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg
(This site will not be up for long as I'm about to re-organise, but I
will repost it if asked)
Note - *true* 'one-pixel' detail (like Keoeeit's, it is a reduced image
- you do not get one-pixel accuracy from full-res, esp on a p&s). No
mushed foliage. Sharp, yet no harsh haloes. No jpeg artefacts or
'half-ducks'. (Also note that because it is not a dslr image, there is
a fair bit of noise present..)

> ..precision that you will never obtain in any dSLR optics
> and cameras.

Thank your chosen deity *that* Keoeeit's sort of precision is not
achieved by *any* dslr. (A good p&s wouldn't be that awful, either, in
the hands of someone competent).

> Keep trying to fool yourself and others into thinking that you know what you are
> talking about. Your continual displays of ignorance and lack of observational
> skills are all quite amusing, highly transparent, explicitly revealing your one
> and only career as a basement-living troll.

So *do* address those issues above, Mr Magoo...

> The ignorant and blind leading the ignorant and blind.

Half right.

> You've managed to not only embarrass yourself, again, but also all those that
> replied to you in agreement.

Alone *again*, Keoeeit? I'm sorry that having no supporters angers you
so - but the reasons are outlined above.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G Theo Markettos UK VOIP 2 02-14-2008 03:27 PM
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Re: The reason for me why the D60 is the best buy over the Drebel. Skip M Digital Photography 4 04-02-2004 03:12 PM



Advertisments