Wayne Harridge wrote:
>
> Yeah, if he really wanted to do a reasonable comparison he could have used
> the same Nikkor on the 5D (with an adapter).
>
He did. <http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/vs-5d-180mm.htm>
Closer up, indoor subject. Although the difference may be less, the
direction is the same. The 5D reveals more, clearer detail at lower
ISOs, with the balance shifting towards the D3 as the ISO goes really high.
Nobody has noted it here yet, but the dpreview D3 tests appeared
yesterday and guess what? They show pretty much the same thing. Will
anybody really see a difference in even large prints? Maybe, in really
big ones. But I thought it was refreshing that he prefaced it all with a
disclaimer that all the nits about to be picked make little or no
difference in practical use.
In that way, I relate to him. In spite of myself, I'm interested in the
minutia of the technical side of photography. I often know that it
doesn't make a practical difference in the photos, but that's not the
only thing interesting to me. I often find the techie stuff interesting
in and of itself. And then - I bought a 5D several months before he did,
for much the same reason. And I knew with the first few images out of it
that big really was better.
While the page that started this thread is shows more difference, it's
also with different subjects, most of the comparisons are of larger vs.
smaller sensors and the overall point is different. Focusing on one
comparison pair out of many seems unfair to me. His overall point was
about ways in which he finds larger film formats and larger digital
sensors to have IQ advantages over smaller ones - and why he thinks it
is so. I thought his examples and analysis were interesting and informative.
I appreciated the link. I haven't been over in his site for a while,
mostly as it was rather Nikon centric last time I looked. Do I agree
with everything he says? Nah. But I find his enthusiasm for the image
refreshing and his opinions, even when I disagree with them, thought
provoking.
It's interesting to me that so many of the most interesting people
writing on the web about photography are people with agendas, blind
spots, strong opinions and a real interest in simple, practical tests,
flawed as they always are. Two who are serious, volume oriented pros
stand up for getting a camera and settings that will deliver the goods
they sell using a streamlined, JPEG based, minimal time and cost work flow.
I'm not particularly interested in that, as I have no clients or
deadlines and find that RAW gives me more flexibility. But if I were in
the volume business like KR or Will Shorter, I'd be learning everything
I could from them about efficiency in workflow.
Michael Reichmann is another opinionated guy who writes based on his own
experience without regard for what others may think. Sometimes I agree
with him, sometimes I don't. But I'm seldom bored and I often know more
after reading him than before.
Mike Johnston? I have no idea what he sees in much of the photography he
likes. A fair amount of it looks like crap I'd dump if it were mine. But
there are obviously others who see that something I don't, and not just
his readers, but print and book buyers. So I read his blog, figuring one
day I may 'get' it - or not.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|