1Ds Mark II ease of use fore first time buyer?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike, Jan 30, 2004.

  1. It's worse than that. If you can't get good pictures out of a cheap camera,
    you won't be able to get good pictures out of an expensive camera.

    Cameras are like violins. Give a bad player a Strad, and he'll sound worse;
    the bad notes will be louder and more obnoxious. Give a bad photographer a
    good camera, and he'll find more mistakes to make.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 31, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike

    MikeWhy Guest

    's'alright, David. It needs to be pointed out, but I doubt anyone pays much
    attention to that kind of advice. I know I don't, so I don't try to give it.
    Besides, starting without the "helper" modes might actually force him to
    learn a thing or two he might not otherwise have. That's a good thing.
    MikeWhy, Jan 31, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike

    Hugo Drax Guest

    hehe there is no green box mode on the Mk II or any of the pro bodies.
    Hugo Drax, Jan 31, 2004
  4. Mike

    Lionel Guest

    I wish Canon hadn't wasted potentially useful mode positions on *seven*
    goddamn dummy modes for the 10D. It would be incredibly useful to have
    seven custom configs that I could select with the mode dial.
    Lionel, Jan 31, 2004
  5. Well now, I would rather hit "File>Print" than do mass printing in a
    darkroom any day. Used to do that for 8+ hours a day, yuck. 5x7's
    aren't real prints anyway ;-)

    Now 11x14 or larger... a print you really care about... I would rather
    spend hours in a darkroom crafting a great print by hand than doing it
    on the computer any day. If I won the lottery tomorrow I would set up
    a full darkroom ASAP. There might only be one or two prints a month I
    would care enough about to print the old-fashioned way, but I find it
    much more enjoyable.

    Back to the college comment someone made, I also think that the
    trial-and-error process of darkroom printing, with the extra time and
    effort needed to assess every print, does a much better job of
    teaching people to see colour, density, and contrast. You don't see
    people running a dozen prints off the ink-jet/dye-sub and taking the
    time to evaluate each, see the changes, and decide which is best.
    Over one term you could see photography students develop a better
    ability to judge prints, and go back over previous work and say, "I
    printed that shit?!"
    The Black Sheep, Jan 31, 2004
  6. Mike

    Bob Hickey Guest

    For that kind of money you could get a Hassy, a Metz 60, and a much thinner
    manual. By the time the kid graduates, the Hassy will be broken in and
    you'll need batteries for the Metz. Also a case of NPS and a fridge to keep
    them in. And a Domke. And some filters. And a case of Pampers. And a huge
    tip for the driver on the way home. Bob Hickey
    Bob Hickey, Jan 31, 2004
  7. For US5,000, you can get a used Hassy kit (under $2000) and a Nikon 9000
    (under $2000) and get 77MP of scanned film quality images (which, IMHO, is
    worth about 27MP of digital quality images). And still have US$1,000 to
    spend on Velvia 100F.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 31, 2004
  8. Mike

    Nick Zentena Guest

    For the $2000 you're spending on the Nikon scanner you could get a high
    quality used colour enlarger, print processor and analyzer. With $1000 left
    over for paper and chemicals. At I guess 50 cents per 8x10 [paper and
    chemicals] that's a lot of prints.

    Nick Zentena, Jan 31, 2004
  9. Mike

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    It would be nice to have a flash fill mode that was aperture priority,
    but had a limit on shutter time so that if the light is too low, it will
    be mostly flash, and the ambient exposure drops as necessary. I lose a
    lot of good pictures at dusk, in that time "in-between" the time I use
    Av with flash fill, and full manual mode. Not much good to have a
    1/20000s flash stopping motion when the ambient exposure decides on
    keeping the shutter open for 1/4s.
    JPS, Jan 31, 2004
  10. A lady told me that I took really nice pictures and that I must have a
    really good camera. I told her that the cake she made tastes really good
    and that she must have a real good oven.
    David Griffin, Jan 31, 2004
  11. Mike

    Lionel Guest

    Good answer. ;)
    Lionel, Feb 1, 2004
  12. Mike

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that stated that:
    Oh boy, I'd kill for a feature like that. I'd also like a mode that
    allows you to set limits on shutter & aperture, that sets ISO
    automatically - preferably with 1/3rd stop resolution.
    <nods> Any way you tackle that sort of situation is going to be a
    kludge. I generally do it in Tv mode, with FEC set to the darkest value
    that'll give me a reasonable exposure. This is where digital review can
    be a real life saver.
    Lionel, Feb 1, 2004
  13. It's called manual mode...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 1, 2004
  14. If I'm understanding you correctly, my ancient T90 and TL300 flash will
    do just that. As I recall, it goes like this: Put the camera in
    aperture priority, take a pre-flash reading of the foreground subject.
    The camera meters the foreground with the spot meter and background with
    wide-field meter. You then independently adjust fore and background
    exposure; dial the aperture to adjust the foreground, and tune the
    background with shutter speed (using H/S buttons.) As you are doing all
    this, the camera shows where the subects will fall on the exposure
    scale. This does take several seconds of manual input to setup. Were
    you thinking of a preset auto mode that does this? It should be a cinch
    for any of the modern matrix-metering monsters. I'd think that most mid
    and high end cameras would have something like it. No??

    Greg Campbell, Feb 1, 2004
  15. Mike

    MikeWhy Guest

    Soft-proofing is one of the major benefits of digital printing. The cycle
    time is faster, and far less costly. Come to think of it, every minor levels
    adjustment, color tweak, cropping change, amounts to precisely a "test
    print". There's little like seeing it actually on the paper, but the whole
    goal of profiling and color management is to eliminate the surprises.
    WYSIWYG is very much a reality these days.
    MikeWhy, Feb 1, 2004
  16. I'm not debating that, what I am saying is that a person may not learn
    to *see* small changes in colour and density the same way without the
    old darkroom process. In the same way that a singer or musician's ear
    improves with time, so does a photographer or technician's eye. Over
    weeks and months a person becomes able to judge small changes AND
    better able to decide which one is "better".

    I remember in college making a print, and then setting it aside. Over
    the next few days I would look at it, evaluate contrast and density,
    ask others, etc. This was part of my learning path to appreciation of
    contrast, density, and colour. The amount of work required in a
    darkroom, the time, and the need to evaluate each end product forced a
    slow consideration of the results.

    I have never taught a group of "newbies" post-processing and printing
    exclusively form the digital side, when I taught classes it was always
    to people from a film background. My instinct tells me the darkroom
    process would be better at teaching and developing a person's ability
    to assess prints.
    The Black Sheep, Feb 1, 2004
  17. Mike

    JPS Guest

    In message <bvi082$ul6$>,
    No, manual mode is manual. We're talking about automation.

    I will use manual mode when the sun is completely gone, and
    action-stopping or hand-held pictures are not possible without flash.
    It is much preferable in many situations, though, to have as much
    natural light as possible, without a long exposure. That's where the
    automation fits in.
    JPS, Feb 1, 2004
  18. Mike

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    I have no problems in any light deciding on exposure of a static
    subject. I am talking about dusk/dawn action photography, and trying to
    have a target of 50% (for example) of the exposure coming from the
    ambient light if possible, but only if it does not result in an exposure
    longer than a user-selectable length. The whole idea is to use the
    ambient light to best advantage whenever possible, but under-expose it
    as necessary to obey a hard limit on the maximum shutter time. I'm not
    aware of a feature like this on any camera; but I haven't used very many
    JPS, Feb 1, 2004
  19. Mike

    MikeWhy Guest

    We're in full agreement that conscious attention to subtle differences makes
    one better able to discern and judge the differences and, ultimately, the
    quality of work. The only question seems to be whether judging it on screen
    is any less valid than judging the printed image. I conclude that they are
    the same. The medium is different, but the qualitative assessments are

    Where they differ is in cycle time. For digital, corrections are applied
    instantly, iteratively and experimentally. With a wet print, the adjustments
    take longer. I wouldn't call it leisurely; corrections have to be more
    certain. So, yes, I can see how long experience will develop skills not
    needed for digital. The difference might be between knocking in a putt from
    30 yards, compared to dribbling it in with a series of taps, perhaps
    circuitously. However, there is no penalty associated with skating it in, as
    it were. (The only problem is we're not shooting for the real cup; just a
    virtual imagined one, which might or might not line up with the real cup. I
    guess that's a different skill. Do you recalibrate the equpment? or do you
    tap again, each time allowing for the the now known error?)
    Having it printed definitely makes it easier to casually discuss with
    others. For me, the print is the final product. In a sense, it's too late
    for discussion.
    Sure. Even if softproofs were perfect, the screen is fundamentally different
    from paper. The paper imposes its texture, and the screen is emissive rather
    than reflective. In other words, the softproof cannot be perfect. The eye
    habits are likely different also. I keep wishing paper prints have zoom
    buttons so I can check the grain without putting my nose on it.
    MikeWhy, Feb 1, 2004
  20. Mike

    Alan Browne Guest

    ....standard retort ... a bit old...
    Alan Browne, Feb 1, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.