Is anybody, particularly D810 and 14-24 shooters, interested in the Canon 5DSR and 11-24?

manhattanboy

@Pitchblack thanks for a new word for me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)

Of course, after reading that, this entire forum may be a figment of my imagination as I am unsure if any of you really exist

WestEndFoto

If IQ is not subjective. Why do so many people say you don't need FX or 36mp ?
what was this thred about ????

I think that in many cases, or even most, the benefit people will receive from FX does not exceed the cost. If you have control of the light and are not concerned about a narrow depth of field, then the benefit is limited. Other people may not be motivated by quality enough pay for FX, even if they appreciate it. They simply want something better than a cell phone. Others may want something really small and buy a D3xxx or D5xxx.

People making that recommendation may evaluate the needs of the person that they are advising and dispense that advice. I do it all the time, most of the time in fact.

Then there are people that just assume that the person they are advising will not appreciate FX or is not good enough. I think that is bad advice.

And then there are people that think FX is expensive and anything expensive is a waste of money.

And some other people think FX is expensive, covet FX, but are dishonest to people about FX because they don’t want somebody else to have something better than them (Envy).

There are a variety of factors and reasons at play.

Msmoto

I am going to demonstrate what I think PitchBlack is talking about in cropping ability:



And here is the same original but cropped, which shows exactly what can be done with the huge amount of latitude in cropping:



Note, this is not razor sharp, but when one considers how drastically this has been cropped it supports the idea of having a full frame to work with in being able to manipulate the image via cropping.

Pixel peepers:https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16657142755/sizes/o/

sevencrossing

If you have control of the light

That is a heck of a big IF
My control of the big yellow thing, that might, or might not be, shinning is definitely limited

Symphotic

If you need to get to 11 mm, you'll need the Canon, but I don't know if I'd spring for a 5DSR as well. I looked at it, of course, but I'm not sure if I'd ever use this lens/body combination if I had it. (I do not represent most photographers.) I'd rather be trying the 5DSR with a true high resolution prime.

I'd want the 11-24 with a lower pixel count imager that has the greatest possible dynamic range: I can imagine the possibility of getting huge spatial and intensity dimension using such a lens out of doors with an imager with deep dynamic range.

My personal experience is that high megapixel count is most useful for only a few lenses, mostly in the middle of the focal length ranges. Also, I get most of my mileage out of the D800 and D810 megapixel count when I need to crop, and I can't conceive of a case where I would want to crop a ultrawide shot very much-when I do it is usually just to make a square. I only ever aggressively crop photos taken with a normal lens of at widest a 35 mm lens of very high quality. This is especially true when I need to crop out something from the edge of the photo, which happens quite often in industrial work.

Msmoto's excellent example was taken with a 135 mm lens. Although cropping from a 11 mm ultra-wide image would have novelty value, I am not convinced there would be an economic value to it.

WestEndFoto

If you have control of the light

That is a heck of a big IF
My control of the big yellow thing, that might, or might not be, shinning is definitely limited

Yup!!!!!

Rx4Photo

If I'm not mistaken, and if I remember the interview correctly, Kelby's switch to Canon didn't have much to do with IQ but more with the wheel on the back of the camera. It made scrolling through his photos much faster. I'd buy a Corvette knowing it would get me to work a lot faster ... but then I'd be pulled over every morning.

That said, David Hobby is on the Fuji Micro 4/3's train due to skin tone rendering. So go figure.

heartyfisher

I thought Kelby was sponsored by canon.. and I think the Fujis are Dx not 4/3.

Rx4Photo

You're right @heartyfisher about the Fuji. I got twisted up in the game. As for Kelby, that particular interview as to when he decided on Canon I believe was posted on the Kelby 1 (Kelby Training) blog. I think I recall him saying they sent him the camera to try. Otherwise he wouldn't have naturally acquired one.

kyoshinikon

I may not have the D810 but I certainly considered getting a used 52mk2 just so I can have the 11-24mm. I am really hoping that this move by canon will push nikon to release the 10mm f/4 aspherical they patented a few years ago. My 14-24mm still is my prime shooter.

Msmoto you took the ideal subject tho, a bird. Bird shooters clamour for good cropping just because of the complexity of the subject.

heartyfisher

You're right @heartyfisher about the Fuji. I got twisted up in the game. As for Kelby, that particular interview as to when he decided on Canon I believe was posted on the Kelby 1 (Kelby Training) blog. I think I recall him saying they sent him the camera to try. Otherwise he wouldn't have naturally acquired one.

I saw it when he switched .. I think I am not the only one who heard it differently from what he said ... ;-)

Golf007sd

Boy, oh, boy, did we ever jump around on many topics....which is all good and healthy.

1) As to the OP's, question: IMHO no owner of a D800/800e/810 /w a 14-24 2.8 will benefit with such a move. I'm happy for Cannon shooters, but the move or the added body and lens cost is not warranted.

2) MP and cropping... big +1 on PitchBlacks comments. All I have to say to those that do intend to crop: Make sure you get a nice clean tack sharp image of the area you intend to crop in post. Know your DOF in relation to your plane of focus, so that you will use the proper F-stop.

3) If you have a Huge amount of capital, sure a MF body is your ticket. BUT, if you do, I never ever want to hear you complain about the cost of a any Nikon gear. I looking forward to seeing, at mini what $48,000 can produce. Hence, this body.

funtagraph

It's not a huge amount of capital - if one has the customers in need for highres single shots, which is action, sports, fashion, you can ask different prices and the costs of a MF camera with lenses comes down to a tiny post in your annual bill for studio, light equipment, postproduction hard- and software and of course, man power as well. Also, Hasselblad would be the last product I consider for going MF.

As for cropping: Msmotos bird picture was excellent. And she didn't find it tack sharp due to the massive crop. A bit of that is the knowledge about "how would the shot look like without cropping so much?" The magnification of a crop does't exclude a bigger proportion of not so good technique, little bit weaker lens, more vibration (shooting a 50 mm at 1/1000 because you know you want to crop a 500 mm lens area out of it) and when I have to consider all these "zero tolerance for mistakes" already a t the moment of shooting, a lot of fun gets lost. I'm a happy cropper and for sure appreciate the reasons and possibilities of cropping. But the bigger sensor alone does not do the trick. Everything else has to be perfect.

danhowl

To the OP, absolutely doesn't even register on my radar. I have not been in a situation in my professional shooting where that lens would have been the one I reach for. I am much more of a short to mid- telephoto shooter (85-105). I rarely get wider than 28. I use my 17-35 very carefully as I am shooting people almost all of the time. I can't imagine switching out my whole system to benefit from just a single lens.

proudgeek

My girlfriend and I have this thing we say... "good enough for Facebook." It means the 36mp file isn't perfect, but uncropped and scaled down, it looks fine.

As someone who follows Lupe on Facebook, "good enough for Facebook" is pretty damn good.