[WMBP]

I found that if you can't achieve clean ISO3200(no compromise) prints with your camera, then your most likely not going to be very satisfied. Though ideally, a working range between ISO200 to 4000 was what worked best for me.

Wow, ISO 3200 and NO COMPROMISE? Really? What camera did you get? If there are no compromises at ISO 3200, do they even bother to include the other, apparently unnecessary ISO options, like 1600, 800, 100? I wish they would get rid of those lower sensitivities, cut the cost of these cameras by a couple of thousand dollars, and let us buy ND filters instead. :-)

Look, I'm happy that you could afford a full-frame camera and happy that (apparently) you like it. I've said it repeatedly: If I had money to burn, I'd order a couple full-frame cameras today. I'd probably even use 'em to shoot my next wedding. If I win the lottery, I'll probably buy a couple digital medium-format cameras, too.

But anytime somebody uses the words "no compromise" in a discussion like this, I know there's some special pleading going on, and often, they're trying to justify an expensive decision they've made. That's cool. I do the same thing. I mean, I justify my expensive decisions. But what I don't do (or try not to do) is pretend there are no compromises.

There's simply no such thing as "no compromise" anywhere in Cameraland. Cost and size are major compromises.

A 36x24 camera may produce significantly less noisy photos at, oh, ISO 3600 and above than an APS-sensor camera. But it does not produce "clean" images. I don't speak from personal experience, as I don't own a 36x24 camera.* But take a look at the examples shown in every 36x24 camera review at dpreview.com. ISO 3200 is noisy. ISO 1600 is noisy. They may be usable, but they're hardly "clean." They're simply "clean enough." But that's the $64,000 question: what's "clean enough," given what your clients expect, what you can afford, what's technically possible? I've made very nice prints from photos taken with a K20D at ISO 2000.

The compromise is, you get better performance at ISO 3200 (say) but the 36x24 camera costs four times as much and is much bigger and heavier.

Moreover, it does NOT produce images that are significantly better at ordinary ISO levels, such as one can use when shooting in good light, or with well-governed flash. My little Panasonic LX3 is very noisy at ISO 800; but at ISO 100 or ISO 80, in good light, it produces images that rival those I can take with my K20D. And the LX3 cost me less than $400 and fits in my pocket. I wish I were a millionaire, not just so I could buy all these expensive, beautiful cameras, but also so I could post a reward: $50K to the person who can tell me, in a small book that I would publish, of a dozen photos taken at ISO 100 by good photographers, which were taken with 36x24 cameras and which with APS-sensor cameras.

So every choice involves a compromise. That's why it's so extremely important to understand the concepts of (a) what's just barely good enough, at the low end, and (b) what's better than I need or can afford at the high end?

Will


*NOTE re "I don't own a 36x24 camera". Well, I guess I do: My Nikon 35mm film camera (N65). Nice camera. But shooting ISO 1600 with Ilford film, it's not nearly as nice as my K20D.

[JohnBee]

Wow, ISO 3200 and NO COMPROMISE? Really? What camera did you get? If there are no compromises at ISO 3200, do they even bother to include the other, apparently unnecessary ISO options, like 1600, 800, 100? I wish they would get rid of those lower sensitivities, cut the cost of these cameras by a couple of thousand dollars, and let us buy ND filters instead. :-)

I'm not sure I understand your question regarding what camera(model?). But typically, under the Pentax label I shoot a K20D and my wife caries a Kx in her purse.
Other than that, we have had the pleasure of owning and shooting with: K100S, K200 and K-7(short lived).

The term "No Compromise", is something I like to use with reference to the topic of high ISO, where output is not compromised(ie. BW conversions, reduced size, detail loss etc etc).

But to be fair(and I think you were saying), the moment we shift out of nominal spec. compromises are made. However... that's not to say that we cannot manage these compromises either.
For what it's worth, I find good shooting coupled with good PP to be a very worthy exchange for full size prints ISO3200 that would look every bit as good as ISO400 ones(for example).

Whatever the case, the term "no compromise(s)" in my initial post, was in reference to output that did not look compromised(more or less).
Hope this helps clear things up

PS. to help keep things clear, I added a definition to the terms(uncompromised) as applied in my original comment

[WMBP]

John,

Please forgive me for my sarcastic response. I put a smiley there to show I was trying to be gentle, but I don't usually indulge in sarcasm at all as it so often leads to misunderstanding.

To recap: You said you'd purchased a full-frame camera, did you not? You went on to say that you thought that it was necessary to be able to get clean (no compromise) image quality at ISO 3200 in order to be happy. When I asked, "What camera did you get?" I was asking, what full-frame camera did you buy?

As for my objection to the words "no compromise," I will stand by that. It sounds as if you are using "no compromise" in the same way that I use "good enough." But I prefer my terms, as I think they are clearer (and, um, less compromising). I gave a link to dpreview's page discussing noise in the Canon 1D MkIV, where it's quite clear that there's very visible noise at ISO 3200. That's true of all the 36x24 cameras. They aren't noiseless. No digital camera is noiseless, at any ISO. The full-frame cameras simply make it possible to get "good enough" with a stop or two less light than you can get from a K20D or K-x or whatever.

It's interesting, by the way, to read the conclusion to that 1D MkIV review. It begins by noting that the 1D MkIV seems determined to be as close to perfect as possible. But it ends by noting what I can only call a compromise. It's NOT AS GOOD AS THE NIKON D3S AT VERY HIGH ISOs.

Its talents (i.e. the 1D's) are slightly different to those of D3S but its strengths will be a great asset to many people - the smaller sensor that prevents it competing at the very highest ISOs delivers the kind of extra reach that many touchline shooters will appreciate. Frankly there's more to both cameras than just their high ISO performance and, while the Mark IV isn't the best high ISO camera on the market, it's still an exceptionally good one.

In short, $5000 will buy you, well, not the BEST high ISO camera on the market, but an exceptionally good one. I bet B&H, if you buy in person, will throw in a cup of coffee, no extra charge. :-)

And if you really are the sort who wants THE BEST without any compromise whatsoever, well, that'll run you more like $6500 (price today for D3s on Amazon).

Ah, but of course that's not really THE BEST, either. Because if you REALLY REALLY want THE VERY BEST, then you buy medium-format, oh, say, a Hasselblad H3D-39II. $22,000 new—although for a mere $21,000 you can get a refurbished one. Unfortunately I can't even afford to subscribe to the magazines where this camera might get reviewed, but this "review" at Amazon tickled my fancy:

I purchased this camera in lieu of paying rent on my apartment for 4 years, and believe me when I say it was worth it. I used the box that it came in as a hat and some other boxes for a home. It's uncomfortable but the pictures I've taken of my new home are so sharp that you can see the fleas on the brick I use for a pillow. I can also take high detail pictures of my children (who I am no longer able to see due to court order resulting from gross negligence) from an acceptable distance. Highly recommended!

---------------


Years ago, I read a wonderful, wonderful interview with Andy Hertzfeld, one of the legendary Apple programmers of the early days, and one of the big contributors to the original Macintosh. Hertzfeld was asked to describe his ideal or dream computer. I was stunned by his response at the time and have never forgotten it. The thing he said, immediately, in response to the question, was, "What's it going to sell for?"

Will

[Wheatfield]

I haven't followed this thread, and I certainly haven't read every post, but I have shot many, many weddings over the past 35 or so years.

One thing I've noticed is that while peoples expectations have changed over the past 3 decades, the weddings themselves haven't changed all that much (with the exception of the addition of sand ceremonies, box ceremonies and the like).
Perhaps this is because I started out shooting reportage style weddings before the style had been tagged with a handle.
I try to hold the camera straight though.

Anyway, Pentax AF is a little slow, but mostly is workable. One needs to know when to turn it off.
The exposure accuracy of the K7 is very good, though I can't comment on their TTL flash control as I don't use a TTL flash.
I shoot with prime lenses, which gives me some advantages over the zoom users, in that I generally have 1-3 stops faster lenses for the camera (and my eyes) to work with.
The trade off is that I have to know my job, perhaps a little better than the zoom user, since I need to be in the right place at the right time with the right lens.
This is something I have no problems with, and I prefer the images I get with lenses like the 31Ltd a lot more than what I see from zoom lenses.
So yes, the K7 is certainly usable as a wedding camera, and with the release of Lightroom 3 and it's much improved noise reduction, there is even more goodness with using Pentax as a wedding camera.

[JohnBee]

To recap: You said you'd purchased a full-frame camera, did you not? You went on to say that you thought that it was necessary to be able to get clean (no compromise) image quality at ISO 3200 in order to be happy. When I asked, "What camera did you get?" I was asking, what full-frame camera did you buy?

I understand... I was just waking-up myself(thoughts_2_keyboard=very poor) and so my initial post was somewhat confusing.
Not to mention that I often take for granted that people would just know what I'm talking about.

Having said that, the ISO3200 sweet spot was with reference to my own Pentax experience(K20's specifically). The D700 was a recent addition(which I can't afford) and so I figured I'd throw up some numbers with regards to ISO performances for the sake of perspective. tbh. The Kx can be persuaded into D700 territory at 6400, but with regard to AF, it simply can't live-up to its potential in that sense(low light shooting) And... as the laws would have it, so then can the D700 be persuaded to higher IQ also(irony at its finest). Which is what motivated me to comment on the D700's maximum ISO performance(sinful at best).

No digital camera is noiseless, at any ISO. The full-frame cameras simply make it possible to get "good enough" with a stop or two less light than you can get from a K20D or K-x or whatever.

I fully agree with much of this statement. Though if there was anything I'd add to this, it would be the following mini-story...

Several years ago I had the privilege sitting in with a sensor development group. There was a new sensor being developed and sample data was being published to help demonstrate progress. Now, being a noob, what I saw warranted the following statement. "Wow... those are terrible!" At which point many people reminded me that sensor data prior to processing was riddled with noise, patterns and numerous other unsightly artifacts. And I guess that it was from that day on, that I began to think of sensor noise differently.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I am no longer convinced that sensor noise is something that appears from certain conditions. As opposed to it's always present, but manageable(or good enough as you put it). Which I find very interesting with regards to our perception of noise in digital images and more importantly... the expectations we have with regards to high noise in images.

Taking for example Adobe's latest demosaic engine. Which serves as a wonderful example of the impact noise filtering and processing has with regards to sensor output.


PS. I'm not trying to educated anyone with this, but I thought the experience would make an interesting addition to the topic.

On the topic of "The Best", I personally find the term so pervasive that it might just be impossible to ever ground between individuals.
I mean... right off the cuff, considering the Hass... sort of makes me feel as though it's a compromise. (a bit of humor ).

[alohadave]

I understand... I was just waking-up myself(thoughts_2_keyboard=very poor) and so my initial post was somewhat confusing.
Not to mention that I often take for granted that people would just know what I'm talking about.

Having said that, the ISO3200 sweet spot was with reference to my own Pentax experience(K20's specifically). The D700 was a recent addition(which I can't afford) and so I figured I'd throw up some numbers with regards to ISO performances for the sake of perspective. tbh. The Kx can be persuaded into D700 territory at 6400, but with regard to AF, it simply can't live-up to its potential in that sense(low light shooting) And... as the laws would have it, so then can the D700 be persuaded to higher IQ also(irony at its finest). Which is what motivated me to comment on the D700's maximum ISO performance(sinful at best).

I fully agree with much of this statement. Though if there was anything I'd add to this, it would be the following mini-story...

Several years ago I had the privilege sitting in with a sensor development group. There was a new sensor being developed and sample data was being published to help demonstrate progress. Now, being a noob, what I saw warranted the following statement. "Wow... those are terrible!" At which point many people reminded me that sensor data prior to processing was riddled with noise, patterns and numerous other unsightly artifacts. And I guess that it was from that day on, that I began to think of sensor noise differently.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I am no longer convinced that sensor noise is something that appears from certain conditions. As opposed to it's always present, but manageable(or good enough as you put it). Which I find very interesting with regards to our perception of noise in digital images and more importantly... the expectations we have with regards to high noise in images.

Taking for example Adobe's latest demosaic engine. Which serves as a wonderful example of the impact noise filtering and processing has with regards to sensor output.


PS. I'm not trying to educated anyone with this, but I thought the experience would make an interesting addition to the topic.

On the topic of "The Best", I personally find the term so pervasive that it might just be impossible to ever ground between individuals.
I mean... right off the cuff, considering the Hass... sort of makes me feel as though it's a compromise. (a bit of humor ).

You might be interested in this:

Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs -- page 3

[WMBP]

You might be interested in this:

Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs -- page 3

Dave,

I've thrown myself at that article more than once before. I'm not a technophobe, but that article—which I would really like to understand—really seems to awaken the sleeping English major in me, and that English major wakes up with a hangover.

Is there a summary of that info somewhere? You know, just the practical recommendations without the graphs and formulas?

Will

[JohnBee]

Is there a summary of that info somewhere? You know, just the practical recommendations without the graphs and formulas?

If I had to quess, I'd say that the article explains that IQ is determined mainly from signal processing and resolution. Noise performance(on the other hand) is most affected by sensor size.
ie. a larger sensor = lower noise due to its higher capacity to collect light(photons; receptors or diodes of sorts).

But... As seen with the Kx, it's not all black and white either. I think the advancements of signal processing will most likely trump sensor size as manufacturers seek to lower development costs as consumer demands continue move forward.

Which is partly why I beleive that the future holds obsolescence for a great deal of what's around us today. Mounts that will accommodate any lens, limitations such as sensitivity will become a thing of the past. Options such as: wide, telephoto and macro will depend on optical resolutions rather than sensor power.

Its almost hard to beleive that some of the best DSLR's on the market today will become relics of the past in the not so distant future. :/

[WMBP]

If I had to quess, I'd say that the article explains that IQ is determined mainly from signal processing and resolution. Noise performance(on the other hand) is most affected by sensor size.
ie. a larger sensor = lower noise due to its higher capacity to collect light(photons; receptors or diodes of sorts).

Sorry, you lost me at "IQ". :-)

Its almost hard to beleive that some of the best DSLR's on the market today will become relics of the past in the not so distant future. :/

Actually, I don't find that hard to believe AT ALL. It's one of the reasons I don't feel like spending $$$ on a full-frame camera. ;-)

Will

[JohnBee]

Sorry, you lost me at "IQ". :-)

IQ: Image Quality

[WMBP]

IQ: Image Quality

Woops. Once again, my attempts at humor lead to misunderstanding. I wish to assure my many fans and admirers that I know what "IQ" stands for in this context. I was simply saying that, as soon as somebody starts talking about ratios and photons and such, my head starts to hurt. My comment (you lost me at IQ) was meant to be (a) a very subtle allusion to the line in Jerry McGuire ("you had me at hello") and (b) a bit of self-deprecating humor where I punned on IQ as image quality and IQ as intelligence quotient and suggested that I'm not smart enough to follow this stuff.

I really have to try harder to eliminate any traces of personality from my messages. Sorry.

Will

[JohnBee]

Woops. Once again, my attempts at humor lead to misunderstanding....

HAHA! No problem...
It actually swung both ways...
I wasn't sure if you were joking and so I didn't want to insult you by assuming you were(in case you weren't)

I also think you share a common gene with most people with regards to the technobable...
Sony(if memory serves me right) once had an product knowledge video(most likely for their employees) that covered much of what was written in this article. But... in was actually in plain English(as you put it) and was entirely visual(animations and illustrations etc). Which I thought was an excellent video and quite possibly the best I had ever seen with reference to that.

I don't know if it's copyrighted or not... but I'll have a look around to see if I can't track it down. Might be better than the likes of these types of articles.

[audiobomber]

My absolute minimum shopping list for somebody who's thinking of shooting a wedding would be:

1. TWO bodies
2. LENSES
3. TWO good flash units
4. Tripod
5. Plenty of battieries, storage cards, etc.

Is the second flash strictly for backup, or do you use two flashes to shoot a wedding? I'm just an amateur generalist, but I've been wondering about adding a second flash lately and whether it should also be fully featured.

I don't see an umbrella and stand. Would that be the next step beyond absolute minimum?