Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?  (Read 5103 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dannyboy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« on: August 28, 2004, 10:15:26 AM »
check out some of these pics.  pretty cool to see where all those photos are coming from.

http://www.pbase.com/vthian/athens_olympics_2004&page=all

bill :)

Offline Just Taper Mark from NC

  • when the bass kicks..all I need is a mic and a stage and mix.
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7078
  • Gender: Male
  • Dodgertown 90090
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2004, 12:27:03 PM »
reminds me of a couple of ts's i've been in,100 decks and 3-4 guys
running it all :P

looks like fun!
Positive vibration man.That's what makes it work.That's reggae music.You can't look away because it is real.You listen to what I sing because I mean what I sing,there's no secret,no big deal.,Just honesty,that's all."-Hon. Robert Nesta Marley 1977

jpschust

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2004, 05:44:56 PM »
very common.  also the reason that it looks like a canon convention is because all the good long range glass is canon.

dannyboy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2004, 11:38:18 PM »
very common.  also the reason that it looks like a canon convention is because all the good long range glass is canon.

so long range glass is canon's domain?

to be honest, i never gave canon much thought until recently.  always assumed nikon was where it's at ( except when that dude in my 9th grade french class showed slides of his vacation in france--shot with a hasselblad ).

i've seen some great digital pics with a canon rebel ( 6.1 mp? ).  i'm more intrigued with canon and what todays digital cams can do. 

 

Offline BCostigan

  • I can resist everything except temptation
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • Gender: Male
  • Loose Lucy is my delight
    • GranitePhotography
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2004, 08:54:45 AM »
 :o

Damn......that's nuts.

I like my Nikon D70.....though it does seem like tons of people use canon DSLRs.
"A Hippie is someone who walks like Tarzan, looks like Jane, and smells like Cheetah."  ~Ronald Reagan

Offline dmonterisi

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 11963
  • Gender: Male
  • Stomach Full of Regret
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2004, 11:43:44 AM »
yeah, i think the really long stuff is typically canon.  canon's IS system on some higher end telephoto and zoom's is outrageously effective.  slickrick shoots those shots with the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.  the image stabilizer gives you up to 3 full stops of correction.  that's incredible!  i've heard of people shooting down to 1/15 with that lens and getting sharp results.  of course you pay for it, that lens alone is about $1800.  however, i believe nikon's telephoto and medium zooms are very good lenses as well.  i think it's the longer stuff where canon excels (300mm and up). 

bill, if you are serious about jumping to a DSLR, I strongly encourage it.  jonny is a big digital anti.  don't let him discourage you.  6 megapixel cameras will enable you to shoot 8x10 and larger without a noticable loss of quality and some cropping room.  you can go bigger than that as well, but i haven't printed anything larger than 8x10 yet.  the nikon d70 has an improved feature set over the digirebel.  check out the reviews at dpreview.com.  the detail they get into can be mindnumbing, but it is comprehensive.

dannyboy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2004, 03:06:14 PM »
damon,
thanx for the dpreview.com reminder--i knew of that site but couldn't remember the url.  i read the whole d70 review.  interesting how the d70 is a bit better than the d100 in some ways.  very exciting potential. 

bill

jpschust

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2004, 04:01:59 PM »
hey i havent made one anti digi comment in a while :-)  but damon's right about me.

i found a new reason why as well.  basically the higher end canon digital stuff is considered light years beyond the nikon stuff.  never realized that since i don't do much digital

Offline dmonterisi

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 11963
  • Gender: Male
  • Stomach Full of Regret
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2004, 04:20:50 PM »
hey i havent made one anti digi comment in a while :-)  but damon's right about me.

i found a new reason why as well.  basically the higher end canon digital stuff is considered light years beyond the nikon stuff.  never realized that since i don't do much digital

why is this a reason for being anti-digital in general?  maybe i'm misreading your post.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2004, 04:23:01 PM by dmonterisi »

jpschust

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2004, 10:42:10 PM »
i have a number of reasons.  i still dont believe digital is all the way there for publishing.  now i know that people point to SI and say, well they are almost all digital, but look at the quality of what they print.  you still see a tremendous amount of pixilation on their doubletrucks (two page photos).  i know there is some data to say that digital is already there, but i can certainly see a difference when you blow up to 11x17/

also, i don't like the way that digital screws with the color- there is this over warming effect (best way i can describe it) that comes with the canon's that i really dislike.

finally, it is kind of a snobby artist thing- i think there is so much more to shooting film than digital- it forces more thinking and evaluation during shooting whereas digital allows for flying through and not thinking as much. 

this all being said, within the next 2-3 years i'm going to go digital, but i need the technology to progress further.  additionally, for the hobbyist, which i am obviously moving towards, digital is currently the best of options unless you have your own darkroom and can process your own film. 

this obviously doesn't take into account the time factor- newspapers shoot at a much lower resolution than magazine (which i prefer) and are on a much stricter time schedule than magazines. 

Offline BCostigan

  • I can resist everything except temptation
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • Gender: Male
  • Loose Lucy is my delight
    • GranitePhotography
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2004, 07:35:02 AM »
Of course the biggest posative for digital is...no film to process.  I haven't had my new camera a week yet and have taken almost 300 shots.  Taking that many shots will help me improve and there is no way I would take that many if I were using film.

I DO agree with Jonny a bit on film vs digital.  There is something to be said for the ACTUAL image being captured on film.
"A Hippie is someone who walks like Tarzan, looks like Jane, and smells like Cheetah."  ~Ronald Reagan

Offline dmonterisi

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 11963
  • Gender: Male
  • Stomach Full of Regret
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2004, 09:09:44 AM »
jonny, i don't see the extensive pixellation that you see in the SI prints.  as far as canon's warming over colors, I haven't noticed this or heard this before.  Canon, Nikon and the others that make digicameras all use the same colorspaces (whch are user selectable).  when the software is configured right, there should not be any consistent warming over done by canon's.  additionally, any such color cast is easily correctable through any number of methods, including white balance and color cast corrections during RAW conversions and color balance adjustments in photoshop.  certainly any photo processing mechanism will have its own sort of bias, but if you are working with a calibrated montor in a defined colorspace (sRGB or adobe RGB), then these issues should not present any serious detriment to an advanced hobbyist of professional who is post-processing their images.  While i can concede your point that with digital there isn't the same concern about perfectly composing or exposing every shot, this doesn't create a flaw that cuts against digital in my eyes, it just depends on the type of shooter.  if you want an outstanding shot, you still have to compose it the same way you do film, move around just as much to find the right angle or light and you cannot simply rely on cropping if you want the perfect image because you want as much data as possible within your desired FOV.

and the incentive to go out and shoot and the direct and immediate feedback given are invaluable as a learning exercise.  My digirebel was my first SLR of any kind and being able to look at photos immediately and examine the histogram to check exposure has been invaluable in helping me to learn about light and properly exposing shots.  there is no way that i could've learned as much as i did in 8 months with the digirebel with a film SLR because i would've had to wait for prints.  when you receive the prints, the lighting conditions of a particular shot will not be fresh in your mind to compare your print with.  being able to see the exposure information immediately after a shot and reshoot with different settings has enabled me to progress much faster than if i was shooting film. 

imho, of course.

Offline MattD

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4641
  • Gender: Male
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2004, 11:30:31 AM »
Agreed on 6.3 MP 8x10 prints being sharp. I had one done at the MotoPhoto in Vienna (they have a pretty decent digital setup at that one) and to me it looks similar to what I expect from a print via negative. Eventually the bodies will step up to more MP than we know what to do with, which will help retain a large image size even after cropping. Kodak has both a Nikon and Canon compatible body that shoots full-frame at 14 MP, if I recall.

Damon, what resolution are you saving at when you have 8x10s made? The guy at my local place said 300 dpi was ideal, 200 passable. I've been RAW converting at 300. I think the 6.3 MP would limit to ~180 dpi on a 12x18 - I'll have to try that and see how good/bad it is.

Jonny, I'm moved in :)  I gotta find a place that can do prints from digital near us.
Out of the game … for now?

Offline dmonterisi

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 11963
  • Gender: Male
  • Stomach Full of Regret
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2004, 11:46:59 AM »
yeah, i've been using 300 dpi for everything except web-posting (which i use 120).  that 14mp kodak sounds great in theory, but actually has some serious quality issues.  the 11 MP Canon 1ds and 8.2 MP 1dMKII and 20d are definite improvements.  also, as interpolation algorithms improve the effective use of megapixels is less important.  Hell, there are plenty of pros still shooting with 4MP Canon 1dmkI's and their pictures look great. 

i've just started using whcc.com for digital prints.  the test prints I got were pretty good, but revealed some contrast issues with my monitor which i've had resolved.  I like their method because they do absolutely no processing.  they require your images to be in the sRGB colorspace and presume your monitor is calibrated properly.  you send them 5 8x10's and they send you those for free as test prints.  then you ftp to them the fully processed images in exactly the format you want.  they go right from your monitor to their printer and UPS back.  nice system and good prices.

jpschust

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2004, 10:27:35 AM »
just a quick note, i am reading your guys stuff, however i am reading it from nyc.  i want to respond, but in order to write out a well thought out response i need to be on my own machine.  i should be able to respond saturday or sunday when i am back.  provided when i pick lizz up from jail i dont end up there myself.

Offline phanophish

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2130
  • Gender: Male
    • ImageLume Photography
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2004, 01:46:50 PM »
I picked up a Canon Digital Rebel and love it.  I get to do real SLR photography and never have to mess with film or processing.  I have a 20 x 30 enlargement sitting framed on the wall & I'll put it up against anything you can get from a 35mm camera.  It looks great.  Some of the photos on my web site are shot with the new camera. Have a look. http://www.liverecording.org/ Now if I could just afford one of those nice pieces of IS Canon glass.  My Sigma 200/2.8 was not cutting it handheld in low light. Too many expensive hobbies.
______________________________________________
Audio: MBHO 603/KA200N or AKG C2000B>Edirol R44
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/phanophish

Photo:  Nikon D300, D200, 35mm f/1.8,  50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro, 18-70 f/4.5-5.6, 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 VR, Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, Nikon 70-200 f/2.8VR, SB-800

Jake: What's this?
Elwood: What?
Jake: This car. This stupid car. Where's the Cadillac? The Caddy? Where's the Caddy?
Elwood: The what?
Jake: The Cadillac we used to have. The Blues Mobile!
Elwood: I traded it.
Jake: You traded the Blues Mobile for this?
Elwood: No. For a microphone.
Jake: A microphone? Okay I can see that.

Offline MattD

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4641
  • Gender: Male
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2004, 02:22:07 PM »
Where'd you have the 20x30 done? What was your final file format and resolution when you sent that out? I haven't ventured to > 8x10 from digital yet. My largest wall photo is a 12x18 from 35mm film right now.
Out of the game … for now?

Offline phanophish

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2130
  • Gender: Male
    • ImageLume Photography
Re: Olympic Photographers--Canon Convention?
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2004, 05:48:44 PM »
I had it printed online at ofoto. It cost me about $35 or so as I remember.  I did it as much as a test as anything and was really pleased with the results.  I shoot most of my stuff at the highest JPEG resolution which yeilds about a 4 meg Jpeg with 3072x2048 image size. 
______________________________________________
Audio: MBHO 603/KA200N or AKG C2000B>Edirol R44
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/phanophish

Photo:  Nikon D300, D200, 35mm f/1.8,  50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro, 18-70 f/4.5-5.6, 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 VR, Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, Nikon 70-200 f/2.8VR, SB-800

Jake: What's this?
Elwood: What?
Jake: This car. This stupid car. Where's the Cadillac? The Caddy? Where's the Caddy?
Elwood: The what?
Jake: The Cadillac we used to have. The Blues Mobile!
Elwood: I traded it.
Jake: You traded the Blues Mobile for this?
Elwood: No. For a microphone.
Jake: A microphone? Okay I can see that.

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.25 seconds with 45 queries.
© 2002-2018 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF