The news of the long-awaited high-rez Nikon D3x is here, a couple of days before Nikons big announcement on Monday. (I wonder if somebody will get fired for mailing the Nikon mag too soon?) Basically, no surprises, it's a D3, only at 24MP.
Like one may expect, the higher resolution also means it does not have the D3's amazing low-light capabilities, sadly. It only goes to 1600 ISO compared to the D3's 6400 ISO.
5 comments:
This camera's low light capability isn't sad when compared to how things USED to be done to capture a low light image. We used to have to select the film to be used, calculate the detail we wanted via testing (well in advance) and then underexpose the film, and over-develop to compensate. In B&W, I shot Ilford 400 film or Kodak Tri-X and used one ounce of HC110 developer to make 16 ounces of (one shot) working solution. 68 degrees F, constant agitation for 5 minutes, then stop bath, and fixer. Wash for 10 minutes and dry. Unless it was news material, where the film was fixed for 2 minutes, washed for 2 minutes, and printed wet. Yielded great but grainy images, but back then, it was pure photography. Not worrying about if the rain was going to ruin my measly digital camera, and whether there was still coffee in the pot...
----------------
People these days lost that concept. They worry about batteries, and their fingernails. Achieving images at ISO 6400 digitally doesn't matter if the image doesn't matter visually. Just as in everything, photography is going in the direction of entropy.
I beg to differ. Why should one's enjoyment of the craft depend on unnecessary technical barriers?
Sure, things like all the messy parts in a darkroom can be fun, but they have nothing to do with the pictures.
Just look at the quality of so-called pictures these days. The collapsed tripod look (images cocked 45 degrees to one side) seems to be popular. Bad composition and useless lighting are other examples. The craft is going the way of the Titanic. Making cameras sensitive to 6400 ISO/ASA and displaying a grid on the LCD might be a great help for the photographer.
----
All of these - and many others WILL NOT replace visual talent. A real photographer, when shooting an image, whether it's via a digital camera, a 35mm SLR, or a large format view camera is already formulating how the image will be processed and treated to make the photographer's vision come true to reality or to the specific assignment.
----
Digital camera button pushers don't know that part of the process - and never will.
---
Talent is going away. Entropy!
I'm pro-entropy I guess. Millions more people get a simpler DIY image-making education. So 99% of images aren't useful or interesting to anyone but the imagemaker. So what? Why should our image consumption be filtered by a skilled elite rather than cheaply home-made?
We heard the same complaints when the desktop publishing revolution was happening. But talent will always float to the top.
Post a Comment