A belated Happy New Year to all of you who drop in here from time to time. I apologize for not keeping this blog active as i did...i've been busy with the transition to wedding photography, and designing some awesome Lightroom presets which will be released soon. I'm going to kick off this years post by revisiting hot topics like Canon vs. Nikon, Mac vs. PC, DSLR vs Medium Format, Raw vs. Jpeg, Film vs. Digital etc. and how the arguments hold up in 2012.
Mac vs PC
Until recently I've been a PC user for one main reason ie. power at affordable price. I've learnt on a Mac and worked on it from time to time in different studios but never owned one. I have admired all the simple minimalistic design features in the Apple hardware and software since the early 2000. But often they put the absolute powerful RAM and processor in unaffordable range. And frankly, I prefer speed while editing heavy files rather than a slick designed computer with basic computing power. Also, one thing i liked about the PC was to upgrade stuff in it, be it the processor, graphic card, memory or monitor etc. With a MAC, you had to replace the whole computer to upgrade. While this holds true even today, there is a very good balance between speed and design on both MAC and PC. Mac still wins on the design element, and PC still wins on the power department.
The latest imac with 21.5 and 27 inch screens when upgraded to 8 or 16 GB RAM is a dream machine. And 2011 made it possible with an affordable price tag. Things are gonna upgrade every year and while the PCs are already incorporating 8GB as standard RAM and 1TB hard drives with blue ray and touch screens, Macs are still on DVDs, 4GB RAM and 500GB hard drive at about the same price point. As photographers who work on multiple hi res files, these computers are close to the holy grail in technology. For me personally, this time around MAC wins hands down as it finally gives a better package of price, design and performance. I love both platforms, and the ability to run Win7 on my super fast and slickly designed iMac is a dream come true. Also, i blame it on the love for iPhone that kind of converted me and i'm sure many others into Mac users.
Canon vs. Nikon
While computers have struck a nice balance, DSLR's have still to come at their own. It seems that this year 'High ISO' is the new 'Megapixel' race. The current 22/24 megapixel pro bodies are quite good for advertising and editorial shooters but they can easily gobble up the rumored 36 megapixels cameras in their workflow for more enlargement and cropping freedom and get one more step closer to Medium Format Digital. Advertising and Landscape Photographers usually don't shoot above ISO 400 to maintain the maximum dynamic range and color gradation even if their cameras go upto really good ISO1600. For Pro studio photographers, Canon 1DS3 and Nikon D3x can handle most of their printing needs. Will they benefit from more megapixels? Absolutely. 36-40 megapixels in a DSLR is where the megapixel race will stop for the sensible advertising/editorial photographers. Anything more than that is an overkill. 40 megapixels prints really sharp posters from Medium Format cameras already. For such photographers, the decision is between MF digital and DSLR rather than Canon vs. Nikon.
Photojournalists/Sports and Wedding photographers are very happy with the 16-22 megapixel landmark for all their web and printing needs. One area where they are still want their camera to improve is high ISO and focussing capabilities. While Canon came very close with 5D mark2 to strike a balance with high resolution and high ISO, it lacked heavily in the autofocus capability especially in all focus points besides the center one. For those who shoot in low light to get the authentic ambience, they normally are already on an at least f2.8 aperture if not 1.2 or 1.4 and focus and recomposing with this wafer thin depth of field will only guarantee focus shifts. You really have to rely on all the outer focus points to get the subject sharp in any corner of your frame. Canon lost big time in this department and many 5D2 users especially wedding photographers are trading their 5d2's for a lower 12megapixel Nikon D700 or D3s. Nikon is a clear winner in this department with its reliable autofocus system. There is a rumored D800 on the horizon with 36 megapixels and supposedly good high ISO capabilities. There is still no clear winner in this department. The newly announced full frame and high speed 18 megapixel Canon 1Dx and the 16 megapixel Nikon D4 promise a balance between speed, resolution and high ISO and better autofocus but still only at a higher end price. Only time will tell which company lives up to their advertising. My bet is on Nikon as Canon has lost major trust over focussing issue from many wedding/sports photographers.
Also there is this whole 'Video' revolution going on which I'm not a part of yet, but i keep tab on the progress of technology and how it is affecting the photographers. But by no means i'm going to let this be a deciding factor for my next DSLR.
DSLR vs. Medium Format
Over the years, Medium Format digital has made big leaps alongside DSLRs. The ISOs are much better, display screens are higher resolution and touch screen, and megapixel jump is up to a whopping 80megapixels. The sensor size is still the 645 format so far. Besides the megapixels and large and sharp sensor, all the improvements like ISO and mobility it offers is what was already there in DSLRs for the past 6 years. Only one thing drives a photographer to Medium format...hunger for the absolute detail in imagery. This breed of photographers can turn night into day with their production resources and multiple battery packs. They never crossed ISO 100 for all these years and are just barely setting foot into ISO 400 or 800. For such photographers, it was difficult to choose between DSLR and MF and almost all MF user shoots with a PRO DSLR for mobility. They all have one, Canon or Nikon or both. The Strobist guy has made a recent jump to medium format recently. Read his views here.
PhaseOne has taken over the industry and owns its competitors like Leaf and Mamiya. They are one big family fighting against Hasselblad. The Hasselblad H-series was a clear camera body choice for the top pros coupled with a PhaseOne digital back. The rental houses and almost all pros in NYC and Paris and other capitals use this system. PhaseOne is trying hard to sell their all in one solution that is their Mamiya designed camera rebranded as PhaseOne coupled with PhaseOne or Leaf backs. Hasselblad which had stopped making open platform cameras tried to sell only their H series with their own digital backs, recently started to make an H4 open platform camera, to be sold only to those who want to upgrade their older H1 or H2....which is literally the entire PRO photography industry. There is still no real comparison when it comes to DSLR and Medium format. The 5 inch gap between the two format still remains for the last 5 years as both progress parallel to each other.
Raw vs. Jpeg
I don't know many Pro photographers who still use only Jpeg. But I know many hobbyists that use RAW format for their general vacation shots. This gives a winning hand to RAW. RAW promises more manipulation power than JPEG only IF the shot is under or over exposed. Jpeg has become very good over the years and with dynamic lighting options in DSLRs, you can get very good results right out of the camera. For studio photographers running after every bit of detail they can juice out of their camera, will shoot RAW even though all the lighting and exposure is already fine tuned. Its in their blood. Wedding photographers before chose Jpeg over Raw just because of limited space and extra editing time to convert the RAW images. Today, 8-32GB cards, faster computers and softwares like Lightroom, Aperture and Capture One make it a breeze to edit multiple files very smoothly that does 90% of the editing we used to do in Photoshop, one by one. Again this makes RAW a much better option today as technology has overcome disk space and speed limits.
I know it can be daunting to learn RAW....but do yourself the favor and learn it. It makes life so much easier in the end especially if you are being paid for your photography. You owe it to your client to be able to create the best work possible. Even with the latest cameras and ideal conditions and experience, there’s been many a picture that would have been lost to my own personal standard that I show to my clients if it weren’t for raw.
Film vs. Digital
Okay, this last segment is mainly related to wedding photographers. In search of finding their own style, many wedding Pros are shooting Medium Format film just to try to be different and sell their work as fine art. Surprisingly medium format films are still available but for a slightly higher premium than it was 5 years back when 80% of photographers had gone digital. Yes medium format film has lovely grain, resolution, depth of field, dynamic range and colors...but when compared to its actual competitor, MF Digital, it's not better but just different. I love film as much as i love digital. For hardcore work, Digital has taken over....but its a nice option to still be able to shoot medium format film for select portrait sessions.
So there you have it....my view over the world of photography in 2012. I'm sure most of you will agree...but if not...feel free to comment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment