9 ms·

These are incredible pictures. What kind of camera did you use to click these?

coldtea 10y ago
>What kind of camera did you use to click these? This is an incredible comment. What keyboard did you use to write it? (Camera choice doesn't matter beyond certain ergonomics and certain capabilities (low noise, more room for cropping, shallow DOF, etc, a lot of which depend on the lens as well). Any $300+ DSLR can give you the exact same results, as can a lot of mirrorless with a speedy lens. And for most of the pictures shown, any modern compact or even smartphone will do just as well).
- Tepix 10y ago
  The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using: * very low noise * very shallow DOF * long bursts of rapid images * weather proofing (including cold) * improved dynamic range * high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality) There are also other improvements such as better autofocus. Which means, no a $300 camera will not be good enough for some of these shots. PS: I use a MFT camera myself and it's good enough for my needs.
  - neom 10y ago
    As someone who went to college for digital imaging technology I would say that's not strictly true, crop on a sensor actually has some advantages, for example if you have a 50 1.2 and you can't afford the 85 1.2 you can put the 50 on an APS-C, and in many instances that is cheaper than the second lens, none of the other points you made apply specifically to full frame cameras either. These are all shot on a MkII but they could just a well have been shot on a 300D: https://500px.com/john https://500px.com/john
    - sjwright 10y ago
      A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.
      - neom 10y ago
        Go put a 50 1.2 L on a 300D and tell me it looks like the 85 1.4 on a 5D. In fact, I'm so confident you're incorrect I'd happily drive up to B&H and snap some raws to prove it.
        PuffinBlue 10y ago
        It seems you're mixing your arguments. From your education you are aware that the 'equivalence' between APS-C and full-frame extends beyond focal length and into aperture and ISO performance I presume? That's the point the parent you're replying to is making. It is physically impossible to achieve the kind of equivalence you mentioned in your first post because the 'crop factor' is also applied to aperture and the crop-factor squared is applied to the ISO. That's a point that's not well known and often dismissed, so I'll repeat it: The crop factor is applied to aperture and the square of the crop factor is applied to the ISO. If you are not aware of this/don't believe it, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA Manufacturers like to gloss over that and constantly talk about 'equivalent' focal length whilst skirting the other equivalents, because they would clearly show the physical (as in physics) limitations of the smaller sensor. It may well be that a 50mm f1.2 on a 300D would look 'nicer' than a cheaper 85mm f1.4, but that could be due to lens construction/coatings etc and it literally cannot be due to achieving the same focal length/aperture/ISO performance. You cannot physically achieve the same depth of field (let alone focal length) for instance with a 50mm f1.2 on APS-C as an 85mm f1.4 lens on a full frame. That's the technicality you are being picked up on (albeit in a slightly imprecise manner), so save that trip to B&H because it'll be impossible to achieve what you are saying. Source: Former pro photographer (and less important but I've used the lenses you mention).
  - ivanhoe 10y ago
    True, although the quality lenses are even more important investment (and way more expensive)
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using The "shallow DOF" can be achieved with a longer lens on a crop-factor camera. And most landscape pictures (such as those) use the hyperfocal distance anyway. A "expensive full frame" camera will have better "low noise" but marginally so compared to a APS C or even 4/3rds camera with the latest (4-5 years) generation of sensors. We're simply above the point of having new cameras really give anything beyond marginal returns in ISO utility (not because they don't get better ISO, but because so much sensitivity is useless for most kinds of photography, including most of landscape work (plus, it affects color rendition). In any case, in all the history of film photography, all known celebrated photographs seldom straiyed outside something like 800-1600 ISO. Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking). Now, while most of the points are real, they are all marginal returns, and depend so much upon the conditions at the shoot and the skill of the photographer that they might as well not matter at all. I'd go as far as to say that a $300 APS-C used well will be able to take just as good photos as any $5K full frame (yeah, it might lose a couple of stops of DOF, just use a faster lens on it), and even an expensive lens on the latter wont make that much of a different at any normal print size (at least up to A3).
    - CWuestefeld 10y ago
      Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking). I agree with your overall point - and I've pretty much abandoned my APS-C camera, using my M43 camera almost exclusively. However, there is a good reason for better high-ISO performance. It allows for tradeoffs in other areas. It means we can hand-hold in darker lighting or at higher focal lengths or smaller lighting than anyone could before. The ability to take a sharp photo while out on a hike when I didn't want to lug a tripod is valuable.
- benibela 10y ago
  I do not know about that comment, but this comment is being written with a Coolermaster mechanical keyboard with true Cherry MX brown switches. Each key has its own spring, and multicolored LED backlight that is individually programmable to show/blink in any lighting pattern. It has its own ARM processor and you can play Snake on the keyboard itself without any additional computer using the backlight LEDs as display.
- mwfunk 10y ago
  Just because someone asked what camera was used doesn't mean that person is implying that the photographer isn't talented. Maybe the poster is a kid who doesn't know much (or anything) about photography and wants to learn about these things; who knows. No need to be rude by assuming the worst about them.
hunta2097 10y ago
Want to know how to piss off a photographer? "These are great pictures, you must have a great camera!" Caveat: You can take great pictures with a camera-phone but you can't take every type of shot. I think any DSLR with a good choice of glass (lenses) would be able to reproduce most of these shots. More expensive camera bodies are only slightly better in the optical sense but are MUCH better constructed. Framing, aperture selection and patience plays a bigger part. Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures, expect to only keep about 1-10% of the shots you take.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures Digital cameras are a wonderful thing! A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. 1 - I didn't check the EXIF data, but assume he was using at least 200mm, probably longer, for those shots.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    The biggest question to my mind, when it comes to camera shootouts, is how close could you get to this kind of quality with a superzoom? Take a Canon SX60, having a lens that's 21-1365mm (sic) 35 mm equivalent. Admittedly the sensor is much worse, etc., but this covers most of that 6 lens range (apart from wide apertures at high tele).
    - chris_overseas 10y ago
      Somewhat anecdotal evidence, but I was on safari with a guy who had a superzoom camera (can't remember which sorry but it went to 1200mm or so). He was mocking the size of my full frame DSLR + 800mm Canon prime, saying he had far more reach with his almost pocketable camera - which was of course true. I was curious to see what the difference was in practice so we both took photos of a waterbuck in the distance (him at both 800mm and 1200mm). Comparing them later on a laptop PC the difference was truly night and day, MUCH more significant than I was expecting. Every single hair was razor sharp in my photo while his just showed a mottled "mush" with very little detail at all due to poor optical resolution combined with overly strong noise reduction (the latter of which could at least be partly addressed by shooting RAW).
chris_overseas 10y ago
Thank you. For this trip I was using a Canon 5D Mark III as my main camera, some were probably taken with my backup at the time (a Canon 40D). I had about 6 lens ranging from ultra wide angle to long telephotos. The photos should all have EXIF data intact if you want to see more details on a particular shot. [edit]: while I generally agree with the sibling posts that it's not always the camera that matters, having a high end DSLR makes all the difference in the world for certain types of shots and situations. Others have pointed out many of the benefits but one of the biggest for me is the handling. Having dedicated (and programmable) buttons and viewfinder displays for all the key features mean that it's extremely quick to change camera settings (ISO/aperture/focal points/exposure compensation etc) to suit the moment, without having to hunt through menus or look at the screen. It takes a lot of practice before this becomes second nature though. I've seen a lot of people buy a high end camera thinking it will magically produce better results than a point and shoot. These people often end up disappointed because their results actually end up far worse because they haven't taken the time to learn how to use their equipment properly.

>What kind of camera did you use to click these? This is an incredible comment. What keyboard did you use to write it? (Camera choice doesn't matter beyond certain ergonomics and certain capabilities (low noise, more room for cropping, shallow DOF, etc, a lot of which depend on the lens as well). Any $300+ DSLR can give you the exact same results, as can a lot of mirrorless with a speedy lens. And for most of the pictures shown, any modern compact or even smartphone will do just as well).

Tepix 10y ago
The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using: * very low noise * very shallow DOF * long bursts of rapid images * weather proofing (including cold) * improved dynamic range * high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality) There are also other improvements such as better autofocus. Which means, no a $300 camera will not be good enough for some of these shots. PS: I use a MFT camera myself and it's good enough for my needs.
- neom 10y ago
  As someone who went to college for digital imaging technology I would say that's not strictly true, crop on a sensor actually has some advantages, for example if you have a 50 1.2 and you can't afford the 85 1.2 you can put the 50 on an APS-C, and in many instances that is cheaper than the second lens, none of the other points you made apply specifically to full frame cameras either. These are all shot on a MkII but they could just a well have been shot on a 300D: https://500px.com/john https://500px.com/john
  - sjwright 10y ago
    A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.
    - neom 10y ago
      Go put a 50 1.2 L on a 300D and tell me it looks like the 85 1.4 on a 5D. In fact, I'm so confident you're incorrect I'd happily drive up to B&H and snap some raws to prove it.
      - PuffinBlue 10y ago
        It seems you're mixing your arguments. From your education you are aware that the 'equivalence' between APS-C and full-frame extends beyond focal length and into aperture and ISO performance I presume? That's the point the parent you're replying to is making. It is physically impossible to achieve the kind of equivalence you mentioned in your first post because the 'crop factor' is also applied to aperture and the crop-factor squared is applied to the ISO. That's a point that's not well known and often dismissed, so I'll repeat it: The crop factor is applied to aperture and the square of the crop factor is applied to the ISO. If you are not aware of this/don't believe it, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA Manufacturers like to gloss over that and constantly talk about 'equivalent' focal length whilst skirting the other equivalents, because they would clearly show the physical (as in physics) limitations of the smaller sensor. It may well be that a 50mm f1.2 on a 300D would look 'nicer' than a cheaper 85mm f1.4, but that could be due to lens construction/coatings etc and it literally cannot be due to achieving the same focal length/aperture/ISO performance. You cannot physically achieve the same depth of field (let alone focal length) for instance with a 50mm f1.2 on APS-C as an 85mm f1.4 lens on a full frame. That's the technicality you are being picked up on (albeit in a slightly imprecise manner), so save that trip to B&H because it'll be impossible to achieve what you are saying. Source: Former pro photographer (and less important but I've used the lenses you mention).
- ivanhoe 10y ago
  True, although the quality lenses are even more important investment (and way more expensive)
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using The "shallow DOF" can be achieved with a longer lens on a crop-factor camera. And most landscape pictures (such as those) use the hyperfocal distance anyway. A "expensive full frame" camera will have better "low noise" but marginally so compared to a APS C or even 4/3rds camera with the latest (4-5 years) generation of sensors. We're simply above the point of having new cameras really give anything beyond marginal returns in ISO utility (not because they don't get better ISO, but because so much sensitivity is useless for most kinds of photography, including most of landscape work (plus, it affects color rendition). In any case, in all the history of film photography, all known celebrated photographs seldom straiyed outside something like 800-1600 ISO. Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking). Now, while most of the points are real, they are all marginal returns, and depend so much upon the conditions at the shoot and the skill of the photographer that they might as well not matter at all. I'd go as far as to say that a $300 APS-C used well will be able to take just as good photos as any $5K full frame (yeah, it might lose a couple of stops of DOF, just use a faster lens on it), and even an expensive lens on the latter wont make that much of a different at any normal print size (at least up to A3).
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking). I agree with your overall point - and I've pretty much abandoned my APS-C camera, using my M43 camera almost exclusively. However, there is a good reason for better high-ISO performance. It allows for tradeoffs in other areas. It means we can hand-hold in darker lighting or at higher focal lengths or smaller lighting than anyone could before. The ability to take a sharp photo while out on a hike when I didn't want to lug a tripod is valuable.
benibela 10y ago
I do not know about that comment, but this comment is being written with a Coolermaster mechanical keyboard with true Cherry MX brown switches. Each key has its own spring, and multicolored LED backlight that is individually programmable to show/blink in any lighting pattern. It has its own ARM processor and you can play Snake on the keyboard itself without any additional computer using the backlight LEDs as display.
mwfunk 10y ago
Just because someone asked what camera was used doesn't mean that person is implying that the photographer isn't talented. Maybe the poster is a kid who doesn't know much (or anything) about photography and wants to learn about these things; who knows. No need to be rude by assuming the worst about them.

hunta2097 10y ago

Want to know how to piss off a photographer? "These are great pictures, you must have a great camera!" Caveat: You can take great pictures with a camera-phone but you can't take every type of shot. I think any DSLR with a good choice of glass (lenses) would be able to reproduce most of these shots. More expensive camera bodies are only slightly better in the optical sense but are MUCH better constructed. Framing, aperture selection and patience plays a bigger part. Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures, expect to only keep about 1-10% of the shots you take.

alistairSH 10y ago
Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures Digital cameras are a wonderful thing! A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. 1 - I didn't check the EXIF data, but assume he was using at least 200mm, probably longer, for those shots.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  The biggest question to my mind, when it comes to camera shootouts, is how close could you get to this kind of quality with a superzoom? Take a Canon SX60, having a lens that's 21-1365mm (sic) 35 mm equivalent. Admittedly the sensor is much worse, etc., but this covers most of that 6 lens range (apart from wide apertures at high tele).
  - chris_overseas 10y ago
    Somewhat anecdotal evidence, but I was on safari with a guy who had a superzoom camera (can't remember which sorry but it went to 1200mm or so). He was mocking the size of my full frame DSLR + 800mm Canon prime, saying he had far more reach with his almost pocketable camera - which was of course true. I was curious to see what the difference was in practice so we both took photos of a waterbuck in the distance (him at both 800mm and 1200mm). Comparing them later on a laptop PC the difference was truly night and day, MUCH more significant than I was expecting. Every single hair was razor sharp in my photo while his just showed a mottled "mush" with very little detail at all due to poor optical resolution combined with overly strong noise reduction (the latter of which could at least be partly addressed by shooting RAW).

chris_overseas 10y ago

Thank you. For this trip I was using a Canon 5D Mark III as my main camera, some were probably taken with my backup at the time (a Canon 40D). I had about 6 lens ranging from ultra wide angle to long telephotos. The photos should all have EXIF data intact if you want to see more details on a particular shot. [edit]: while I generally agree with the sibling posts that it's not always the camera that matters, having a high end DSLR makes all the difference in the world for certain types of shots and situations. Others have pointed out many of the benefits but one of the biggest for me is the handling. Having dedicated (and programmable) buttons and viewfinder displays for all the key features mean that it's extremely quick to change camera settings (ISO/aperture/focal points/exposure compensation etc) to suit the moment, without having to hunt through menus or look at the screen. It takes a lot of practice before this becomes second nature though. I've seen a lot of people buy a high end camera thinking it will magically produce better results than a point and shoot. These people often end up disappointed because their results actually end up far worse because they haven't taken the time to learn how to use their equipment properly.