Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
Headphoneus Supremus: Videographus Supremus: Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Originally Posted by Hayduke
I started using it a few weeks ago when I was borrowing a Rebel XT. It seemed to slow down a bit with the RAW files, but now that I have my Nikon, it seems much much slower working with NEF files.
That's what more megapixels does. Takes up more space and takes longer time to process.
__________________
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2008 "CanJam" High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi Meet 2007.Nov.10 High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2006 High Definition Videos! are here
My advice to you:
- Use your own ears as everybody's hearing and preferences are different.
- Try to audition as much equipment as possible to find your sound.
- Buy used to save money.
Thanks. The reason I ask is that on another forum, I was contemplating getting an RZ67, until someone said that by looking at my work, he didn't see where MF would net me any improvement over 35mm, by looking at my work. And I had to agree. Why did I want a MF camera? Why would it help me?
I still want an RZ67. It just looks and feels so amazing. But, I don't need it. Maybe I should just get a 17-35mm instead.
Thanks. The reason I ask is that on another forum, I was contemplating getting an RZ67, until someone said that by looking at my work, he didn't see where MF would net me any improvement over 35mm, by looking at my work. And I had to agree. Why did I want a MF camera? Why would it help me?
I still want an RZ67. It just looks and feels so amazing. But, I don't need it. Maybe I should just get a 17-35mm instead.
Did you read Ken Rockwell's thoughts about medium format or something? He seems to think that you can't get good landscape photography with a DSLR (based on current tech). His argument was based on large print quality. I thought a 10MP could print up to 24x30 and still look good. In his example, he amount of zoom he used was the equivalent of a much much larger image. Basically, now big do you print? If you want to print something large enough for your wall, then you might consider a MF camera. Of course he neglects to discuss digitally stitching several digital images together. He keep saying how you can use a MF camera and a scanner to get the 100MP image. My response is, how about a 1GP image? That's already being done with digital cameras. I have several panoramas that are about 30MP images taken with a 5MP camera. I've found myself often dreaming of a medium or large format camera, but then I remind myself that I don't care to work with film and the thoughts quickly go away.
If you haven't tried it for your landscape photos, try stitching some together. It's a lot of fun for me. In fact, I think I have one of the files here at work. I'll go post it on the photo thread (a scaled down verison obviously).
__________________
PC(FLACs and Foobar2k) --> Sennheiser HD-580
MiniMod or 30GB Video --> FreqShow
I've found myself often dreaming of a medium or large format camera, but then I remind myself that I don't care to work with film and the thoughts quickly go away.
Medium format is not specific to film.
You can put a digital back on many medium format cameras. Pricey though.
Looks like an RZ67 with digital back will run about 11k.
The simple fact is, you KNOW if you need medium format or larger. If you don't know if you need it, then you don't.
Medium format is not specific to film.
You can put a digital back on many medium format cameras. Pricey though.
Looks like an RZ67 with digital back will run about 11k.
The simple fact is, you KNOW if you need medium format or larger. If you don't know if you need it, then you don't.
True there are digital backs. My comments were mostly in response to Ken Rockwell's argument that medium format is needed for high quality landscape photos. His points are all very valid. He just conveniently failed to mention stitching images together. It is definitely more work that way, but I can achieve results that are just as good (or better) for far less money.
I'm heading into the Grand Canyon on Thursday with my new D80
We're going to be inside for 5 nights, so I'll bring back some examples of 100MP images to demonstrate my argument
Maybe I should go pick up a couple more memory cards :P
__________________
PC(FLACs and Foobar2k) --> Sennheiser HD-580
MiniMod or 30GB Video --> FreqShow
Headphoneus Supremus: Videographus Supremus: Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Went to J&R to mess with the D90. I have nothing much to report. I still prefer the size, feel and controls of the D300. As a matter of fact the controls on the upper right I feel are strange. I didn't bring a memory card to test the video mode. Last time I brought the card to test D700, I discovered after that Photoshop couldn't open the RAW images anyhow. Didn't want to bother this time
__________________
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2008 "CanJam" High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi Meet 2007.Nov.10 High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2006 High Definition Videos! are here
My advice to you:
- Use your own ears as everybody's hearing and preferences are different.
- Try to audition as much equipment as possible to find your sound.
- Buy used to save money.
Went to J&R to mess with the D90. I have nothing much to report. I still prefer the size, feel and controls of the D300. As a matter of fact the controls on the upper right I feel are strange. I didn't bring a memory card to test the video mode. Last time I brought the card to test D700, I discovered after that Photoshop couldn't open the RAW images anyhow. Didn't want to bother this time
yes as much as i like the price on the D90 and the reports of better high ISO quality - i still need a weather sealed camera so im deciding on the D300 and the D200.
either D300 body or D200 + 1 lens
__________________ MY FEEDBACK
NAIM CD 3.5+FLATCAP PS --> MPX3 --> ZU CABLE -->SENN HD 650
Did you read Ken Rockwell's thoughts about medium format or something? He seems to think that you can't get good landscape photography with a DSLR (based on current tech). His argument was based on large print quality. I thought a 10MP could print up to 24x30 and still look good. In his example, he amount of zoom he used was the equivalent of a much much larger image. Basically, now big do you print? If you want to print something large enough for your wall, then you might consider a MF camera. Of course he neglects to discuss digitally stitching several digital images together. He keep saying how you can use a MF camera and a scanner to get the 100MP image. My response is, how about a 1GP image? That's already being done with digital cameras. I have several panoramas that are about 30MP images taken with a 5MP camera. I've found myself often dreaming of a medium or large format camera, but then I remind myself that I don't care to work with film and the thoughts quickly go away.
If you haven't tried it for your landscape photos, try stitching some together. It's a lot of fun for me. In fact, I think I have one of the files here at work. I'll go post it on the photo thread (a scaled down verison obviously).
KR is the king of contradictions. One of his favorite landscape photogs uses a 5D.
Last time I brought the card to test D700, I discovered after that Photoshop couldn't open the RAW images anyhow. Didn't want to bother this time 
Linear Mode
