Tue 01-Jan-13 08:32 AM | edited Tue 01-Jan-13 08:37 AM by PerroneFord
>But - It just didnt get it done. I mean - 18MP.. wow.. But >man the files are HUGE!
All a matter of perspective. Try shooting medium format and get back to me.
>So - long story short - and to the point of my post here... I >just picked up my D2x. Its awesome. I'm in love again.
>But - why, I mean really - WHY move up to a D3 or D4 with >those huge sensors and massive file sizes unless you have a >very specific reason?
You had a specific reason to move to the D2x, the Sony, the F4, etc. And just as you had those reasons, others have their reasons for the cameras they choose.
>Have we lost our sensibility of composition and basic >photography?
>I hear so many people talking about these huge >sensors and the ability to crop to get the important bits. >Whatever happend to thinking about composing your image before >you start shooting?
Well, that depends very much on the target. Shooting stationary objects 10ft away is quite alot different than shooting birds in flight at 75 yards, or a racing car at 200mph, or a gymnast in a dark arena. Each of these places heavy demands on camera systems that cannot be solved by "thinking about composition".
>I was just talking about this with my wife - has the >convenience of digital made us lazy photographers?
Probably in some cases. I know for me, it's made me far more bold and willing to try things I wouldn't have with film. The ability to get instant feedback has flattened the learning curve by orders of magnitude.
>I have >over 12K photos on my backup drives - I mean *seriously*... >who in the heck needs 12K photos...
I do 12k a month, and I grossly undershoot some of my subjects. Volleyball is a common subject for me. Assuming I shoot in single frame mode with no motor drive, the math looks like this:
3 touches per possession * 5 possessions per point average = 15 frames per point
~40 points per set for two fairly evenly matched teams * 15 = 600 frames per set.
~4 sets per match for two even teams * 600 frames per set = 2400 frames per match.
Shoot two matches per week for a month = 19,200 frames.
Again this is shooting with *NO* motor drive, a single press of the shutter per touch, and for only a single assigned team. I shoot 6 sports in the fall, and 5 in the spring, plus my portrait work, fashion work, etc. And occasionally, I DO use the motor drive.
>Along that same line - why does an amateur need anything more >than a D2h?
How many reasons do you want? Better color, better skin rendition, better RAW engine, better compression, better ISO performance, better focusing, video capability, voice memo, live view, effective quiet modes, etc.
>I have never printed anything bigger than a >20" print... and then only a couple of times.
Some print this every week. In fact 16x20 is my most popular print size.
>Is it >simply a matter of "gotta have the newest and >best"?
Some people just want better images. Some shoot in marginal conditions. Why did you jump to Canon? Because it was "better" for astrophotography? I've done constellation, planetary, and lunar imaging just fine on my Nikons. But you, like others, made a choice to get something "better", yet are critical of others who have acted as you did...
>I'm not being critical
Of course you are. And that's ok.
>Has the photographic community become >overy elitist by assuming that just because there are multiple >thousand dollar cameras with amazing high ISO performance >everyone must have low noise or they aren't "pro" >enough?
Well, I don't know about the photo community, but I know my clients are certainly more demanding.
>Anyone else just >shocked at the prices we pay to "keep up" with tech, >both financially and philosophically?
Not at all. Five years ago, the capability in the D3s was $5500. That same image quality is available today in the $1999 D600. In fact, the D600 is superior in nearly every measure of image quality. Seems like we are getting more for less to me.