peripatetic
Well-known
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
At the technical level even consumer level DSLR's have reached now, I'm not sure it matters anymore. Either camera more than meets the needs of 99.9 percent of us.
gavinlg
Veteran
Sounds good - certainly good enough for a walk-around like so many of use want it for...
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'm waiting for the review that will let us know whether the X100 is lighter and smaller than the Canon 5D and the Nikon D700.
peripatetic
Well-known
sper
Well-known
I have a 5D2 and I find it to be a terrible low light shooter. I have no idea anymore why I ever traded my Nikon D700. Noise from Canon cameras is just nasty. Like I find ISO 3200 on the 5D2 barely usable...all the X100 samples look much better.
I don't know why people say the 5D2 is good in low light, it's not. That camera has no latitude and the blacks are full of noise.
I don't know why people say the 5D2 is good in low light, it's not. That camera has no latitude and the blacks are full of noise.
peripatetic
Well-known
Well, it's good in comparison to the Canon XXD APS-C cameras. I'm quite happy to accept your word that it's not in the same league as the Nikon equivalents.
I don't find the 5D2 that bad myself, are you also using ACR? I think it may depend somewhat on the RAW converter one uses. But it might just be that as I've never used a Nikon DSLR that ignorance is bliss.
emraphoto
Veteran
And I am still pleased with the high iso out of my 1d MKIIN... I need to get up to speed with all this iso 6400 and up business.
Luna
Well-known
The 5D2 is good in low light.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
We are spoilt for ISO these days methinks ... pretty soon if a camera doesn't perform adequately at 6400 ISO it will be run down by cameras that do! 
ray*j*gun
Veteran
These were taken with a Nikon D90 with no PP work.
We are spoilt for ISO these days methinks ... pretty soon if a camera doesn't perform adequately at 6400 ISO it will be run down by cameras that do!
Quite ridiculous really. What kills me more is that most people seem to complain about features they will only use for 1% of their photos.
gavinlg
Veteran
I completely disagree - my 5d is very useable at iso 3200, and that's not as good as the 5d2. They also hold heaps of highlight room at high ISOs - one of the best things about the camera IMO.
What are you using to process your photos?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I'm glad modern cameras are so good at high ISO's. But, really, most of us "old folks" got along fine with Tri-X for decades.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Agree fully.
I just don't get the obsession with "clean" high iso, only to run the photos through photoshop to make it look like film.
Pixel-peeping is worse than gear-ism in my mind. I'd rather end up with plenty of cool gears than boring, super-clean, high-iso images just for the sake of being able to say clean high-iso.
pachuco
El ****
I think the 5DmkII is amazing in low light. I saw some X100 photos from a wedding on another thread here and the high ISO shots did not look so great to me.
Guaranteed
Well-known
We are spoilt for ISO these days methinks ... pretty soon if a camera doesn't perform adequately at 6400 ISO it will be run down by cameras that do!
Heck, I would have loved a clean 3200 for a project I did just to get a faster shutter speed that I could have used.
TimothyHughes
Member
Gerd Ludwig from National Geographic disagrees.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/moscow-night/ludwig-photography
andrew00
Established
The thing is the X100 and other non-dslr/compact-ish cameras aren't very threatening to the subject, they're not imposing, which I like.
My 5dmk2 is a great camera, maybe not perfect in low light but it does fine and when they release the 5dmk3 I'd imagine I'll def get it, esp as I do lots of video work, however it's far from a camera that puts people at ease.
The X100 on the other hand is small, quirky looking, quiet and has a really small imprint - it doesn't cover your face for example. For me this is important as it always keeps the subject-photographer relationship pretty intact.
Now I say this having not done a pro shoot with it yet, merely taking it to SXSW for some snaps and in between shots etc, so there is the caveat there heh.
However, in the pics I did take, not once did anyone deny my a shot or moan when I wanted to take it or feel obliged etc - the dynamic was very comfortable. In the past when I whip out my 5dmk2 w/my 50 1.2 on the end the reaction is very different - like I'm bringing out a beast and people can close up or just refuse to have their picture taken.
Therefore I'd say the X100 is a great compliment to the 5dmk2 - whereas the 5dmk2 is a great piece of technology and will get you the technically better images, the X100 will be for those situations where the relationship with the subject is key - when you need them to relax more than you need the 100% finest image quality.
For example, image the classic series's of photos David Bailey took of Jean Shrimpton in NYC. That kind of shooting begs for an X100, where the dynamic is more about the energy and fun of the shoot. But take the same photographer into his studio to do a professional studio portrait and he'd use his Rollei or whatever.
Likewise consider some of the excellent shootings of people like Juergen Teller, Terry Richardson, Araki etc - guys who use small cameras in an anti-perfection-pro-energy-and-emotion world.
Both cameras have great uses in the right situation.
That being said, I do feel we're close to the watershed point with APS-C technology where it all hits the 'minimum' level of IQ and it's now about things like ISO or video modes or smaller cameras or hybrid vf's etc.
That's why the X100 can take images you could use for 99% of circumstances. It doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job but it's a tool that can be used for most!
Edit - Oh and as a further point - whereas last year at SXSW everyone was using video cameras, not everyone was using a DSLR and everyone was taking video. But I bet 95% of the videos/photos being taken were sub-par. The technology is within our grasp but it doesn't mean you're going to get a great image.
That, I guess, is what's cool - the technology is no longer a limiting factor - it's now about your individual talents, which is pretty neat!
My 5dmk2 is a great camera, maybe not perfect in low light but it does fine and when they release the 5dmk3 I'd imagine I'll def get it, esp as I do lots of video work, however it's far from a camera that puts people at ease.
The X100 on the other hand is small, quirky looking, quiet and has a really small imprint - it doesn't cover your face for example. For me this is important as it always keeps the subject-photographer relationship pretty intact.
Now I say this having not done a pro shoot with it yet, merely taking it to SXSW for some snaps and in between shots etc, so there is the caveat there heh.
However, in the pics I did take, not once did anyone deny my a shot or moan when I wanted to take it or feel obliged etc - the dynamic was very comfortable. In the past when I whip out my 5dmk2 w/my 50 1.2 on the end the reaction is very different - like I'm bringing out a beast and people can close up or just refuse to have their picture taken.
Therefore I'd say the X100 is a great compliment to the 5dmk2 - whereas the 5dmk2 is a great piece of technology and will get you the technically better images, the X100 will be for those situations where the relationship with the subject is key - when you need them to relax more than you need the 100% finest image quality.
For example, image the classic series's of photos David Bailey took of Jean Shrimpton in NYC. That kind of shooting begs for an X100, where the dynamic is more about the energy and fun of the shoot. But take the same photographer into his studio to do a professional studio portrait and he'd use his Rollei or whatever.
Likewise consider some of the excellent shootings of people like Juergen Teller, Terry Richardson, Araki etc - guys who use small cameras in an anti-perfection-pro-energy-and-emotion world.
Both cameras have great uses in the right situation.
That being said, I do feel we're close to the watershed point with APS-C technology where it all hits the 'minimum' level of IQ and it's now about things like ISO or video modes or smaller cameras or hybrid vf's etc.
That's why the X100 can take images you could use for 99% of circumstances. It doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job but it's a tool that can be used for most!
Edit - Oh and as a further point - whereas last year at SXSW everyone was using video cameras, not everyone was using a DSLR and everyone was taking video. But I bet 95% of the videos/photos being taken were sub-par. The technology is within our grasp but it doesn't mean you're going to get a great image.
That, I guess, is what's cool - the technology is no longer a limiting factor - it's now about your individual talents, which is pretty neat!
Last edited:
TimothyHughes
Member
I would just add that that percentage is limited to shots where a 35mm prime is the optimal focal length for the shot. I won't be using an X100 for headshots, catalog photos, interiors, etc.