Welcome to Motorhomefacts, we are a thriving motorhome community (Largest in Europe). Why Not JOIN NOW and get instant access to more of the website. It costs nothing to join and only takes a few minutes. We have 200,000 different people visiting our site monthly and this amount of motorhomers in one place guarantees a fast response to any questions you may have. We also have unique facilities not found elsewhere such as our Online Logbook, stopover tracker, Motorhome directory with Ebay type feedback and the largest repository of motorhome campsites reviews found anywhere
Would you as a pro do a definitive test of camera performance hand held
I would if it was in a studio with powerful flash. Its very hard to get camera shake unless you have equally powerful room lights
Over the years I have changed career a number of times within the photographic industry.
Press photography - 35mm
Commercial photography - 35mm, hasselblad elm medium format, Sinar P2 5x4
Wedding Photography - Bronica SQM, then Hasselblad ELM, then Nikon F4
Equestrian Photography - Canon Eos5 (still film)
Portraits - Canon Eos5 (film), then Fuji S1, then Nikon D1x, then Canon Eos 5d
I went digital because labs were always messing our orders up and it took ages to print colour in our lab we had. To set up a mini lab at that time you were looking at £150k whereas the first Fuji S1, Epson 7500 24inch printer, Rip program and PC only cost £20k
From day one every customer had a 20"x16" enlargement and not one customer at any time has ever complained about quality.
Of course I could see the difference between the old medium format and 5"x4" shots.
Then a friend of mine bought a 17m pixel Canon eos 1dmk11 and took some shots in The Docklands. Using specialist printer software that ensures you print at the highest quality and on the Epson 7600 which we were by then using the quality of the image was astounding and equally as good as anything that could be produced on 5"x4"
I agree that the test on the TV was glamourised for TV and not really totally scientific but I do not disagree with the results.
As for the film having been scanned there should not be any real loss of quality due to the scanner if they used the right scanner but then again they did not really cover this part so we will not know.
What I do know is that it would have taken one pretty big enlarger to have produced that size print.
and they tend to forget the piece of glass in front has an important part to play.
Colin
And you *must* consider the whole *system*. There are so many new ways of getting the viewing side wrong now. Not the least, fifty foot high plastic printed with a paintball machine.
I'll bet we've never been more critical. In t' olde days, an 8x10 colour cost a fortune so not many shots made it there. Now, on screen, every "print" is seen bigger than 8x10 and don't they look *good*.
I agree that the test on the TV was glamourised for TV and not really totally scientific but I do not disagree with the results.
Don't take it personally when I call *them* morons. No reflection on your posting of the link, but over the years that program has really got up my nose. It's stupidity even excels Top Gear.
When they test a mobile phone by shooting it with a shotgun it just shows how very desperate they are.
I love gadgets, so testing a phone by shooting it or setting fire to a laptop instead of giving me something to slaver over really offends.
But talking of slavering, I might go and review Suzi in her leathers again.
Never have I seen so much effort and I presume cost go into a test which has absolutely no relevence to the presumed purpose of the project.
I don't know which is better and from the big test I still am non the wiser although I do feel wiser than those on the gadget show whom in my view have trashed the programs credibility in one hit.
I don't know which is better and from the big test I still am non the wiser although I do feel wiser than those on the gadget show whom in my view have trashed the programs credibility in one hit.
I still have transparencies from my Mamiya 7 and another Fuji 6x7, which when I use my loupe to view closely, are just so damn good. I don't recall people driving past posters from years gone by and commenting on a colour cast and loads of grain.
I stand by the big lump of glass in front of the boxy thing. That's what has always cost the money and digital isn't going to change that. I recently bought a Nikon D90 and have immediately compared it to the medium format I'm still using. It's apples and oranges; I don't believe they're directly comparable. It's the same with analogue and digital sound. I record the former with a huge reel-to-reel and the latter with a weeny thing for making digital sound files. I try not to decide which is better and just accept they're different.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 2 of 2Goto page Previous1, 2
UK
