D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Sa raison :
I'm really trying to answer is this question: Will the camera work well
enough as a complement to my "real" pro-body (currently a D3s) to
justify owning and using it?
usage :
I'm a dedicated RAW shooter of STILL images - everything that follows is
based on use while shooting 14-bit RAW images. So don't expect comments
about the quality of the in-camera JPEGs
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/D7000_firstimpression.html
Cette action est irreversible, confirmez la suppression du commentaire ?
Signaler le commentaire
Veuillez sélectionner un problème
Nudité
Violence
Harcèlement
Fraude
Vente illégale
Discours haineux
Terrorisme
Autre
jfc
Le 09/04/2011 19:34, jfc a écrit :
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Dans un article plus récent sur le matos qu'il utilise, il précise utiliser deux boitiers, un FX, un DX, et surtout il nous dit pourquoi. http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html I'm currently shooting with the fully professional full-frame (FX) D3s and an "enthusiast's" DX camera - the D7000. I like the options presented by having both an FX and a DX camera with me in the field and at the time of writing this, the D7000 presents (in my opinion) the best DX option from Nikon. Whether or not it will remain in my "arsenal" will depend on what else Nikon introduces in the DX format in 2011.
Nikon D7000. Because I do a lot of shooting under very challenging field conditions (rain, snow, mud, etc.) I normally use only professional camera bodies. But, because of a stong desire to have a DX body and its reasonable price, I felt it would do no harm to purchase and use a D7000 for at least a short period of time. My thoughts on the camera? It's a a relatively low-priced DSLR with 50% gain in effective magnifcation (DX crop factor) that can produce reasonably high resolution images at even quite high ISO's (with noise reduction). The camera's controls and operations, including autofocus seem to work very well in the field. My own list of likes is longer than my list of dislikes (and which are, admittedly, quite nit-picky). Will I be still be shooting with it summer of 2011? I think so - but a few key questions remain in my mind about the D7000: Will it hold up under sustained field use? Is a more fully professional replacement for the D300s (the rumored D400) in the works and, if so, what will it offer that the D7000 doesn't? Stay tuned!
Le 09/04/2011 19:34, jfc a écrit :
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Dans un article plus récent sur le matos qu'il utilise, il précise
utiliser deux boitiers, un FX, un DX, et surtout il nous dit pourquoi.
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html
I'm currently shooting with the fully professional full-frame (FX) D3s
and an "enthusiast's" DX camera - the D7000. I like the options
presented by having both an FX and a DX camera with me in the field and
at the time of writing this, the D7000 presents (in my opinion) the best
DX option from Nikon. Whether or not it will remain in my "arsenal" will
depend on what else Nikon introduces in the DX format in 2011.
Nikon D7000. Because I do a lot of shooting under very challenging field
conditions (rain, snow, mud, etc.) I normally use only professional
camera bodies. But, because of a stong desire to have a DX body and its
reasonable price, I felt it would do no harm to purchase and use a D7000
for at least a short period of time. My thoughts on the camera? It's a a
relatively low-priced DSLR with 50% gain in effective magnifcation (DX
crop factor) that can produce reasonably high resolution images at even
quite high ISO's (with noise reduction). The camera's controls and
operations, including autofocus seem to work very well in the field. My
own list of likes is longer than my list of dislikes (and which are,
admittedly, quite nit-picky). Will I be still be shooting with it summer
of 2011? I think so - but a few key questions remain in my mind about
the D7000: Will it hold up under sustained field use? Is a more fully
professional replacement for the D300s (the rumored D400) in the works
and, if so, what will it offer that the D7000 doesn't? Stay tuned!
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Dans un article plus récent sur le matos qu'il utilise, il précise utiliser deux boitiers, un FX, un DX, et surtout il nous dit pourquoi. http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html I'm currently shooting with the fully professional full-frame (FX) D3s and an "enthusiast's" DX camera - the D7000. I like the options presented by having both an FX and a DX camera with me in the field and at the time of writing this, the D7000 presents (in my opinion) the best DX option from Nikon. Whether or not it will remain in my "arsenal" will depend on what else Nikon introduces in the DX format in 2011.
Nikon D7000. Because I do a lot of shooting under very challenging field conditions (rain, snow, mud, etc.) I normally use only professional camera bodies. But, because of a stong desire to have a DX body and its reasonable price, I felt it would do no harm to purchase and use a D7000 for at least a short period of time. My thoughts on the camera? It's a a relatively low-priced DSLR with 50% gain in effective magnifcation (DX crop factor) that can produce reasonably high resolution images at even quite high ISO's (with noise reduction). The camera's controls and operations, including autofocus seem to work very well in the field. My own list of likes is longer than my list of dislikes (and which are, admittedly, quite nit-picky). Will I be still be shooting with it summer of 2011? I think so - but a few key questions remain in my mind about the D7000: Will it hold up under sustained field use? Is a more fully professional replacement for the D300s (the rumored D400) in the works and, if so, what will it offer that the D7000 doesn't? Stay tuned!
efji
On 04/09/2011 07:53 PM, jfc wrote:
Le 09/04/2011 19:34, jfc a écrit :
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Dans un article plus récent sur le matos qu'il utilise, il précise utiliser deux boitiers, un FX, un DX, et surtout il nous dit pourquoi. http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html I'm currently shooting with the fully professional full-frame (FX) D3s and an "enthusiast's" DX camera - the D7000. I like the options presented by having both an FX and a DX camera with me in the field and at the time of writing this, the D7000 presents (in my opinion) the best DX option from Nikon. Whether or not it will remain in my "arsenal" will depend on what else Nikon introduces in the DX format in 2011.
Nikon D7000. Because I do a lot of shooting under very challenging field conditions (rain, snow, mud, etc.) I normally use only professional camera bodies. But, because of a stong desire to have a DX body and its reasonable price, I felt it would do no harm to purchase and use a D7000 for at least a short period of time. My thoughts on the camera? It's a a relatively low-priced DSLR with 50% gain in effective magnifcation (DX crop factor) that can produce reasonably high resolution images at even quite high ISO's (with noise reduction). The camera's controls and operations, including autofocus seem to work very well in the field. My own list of likes is longer than my list of dislikes (and which are, admittedly, quite nit-picky). Will I be still be shooting with it summer of 2011? I think so - but a few key questions remain in my mind about the D7000: Will it hold up under sustained field use? Is a more fully professional replacement for the D300s (the rumored D400) in the works and, if so, what will it offer that the D7000 doesn't? Stay tuned!
Ouais. Et quand on va voir ses galeries on se dit "que de matos et de blabla" pour quelques bestioles". Le prototype de ce que je déteste. Super technique, super léché, aucune inspiration. Je préfère largement YAB. C'est dire...
-- F.J.
On 04/09/2011 07:53 PM, jfc wrote:
Le 09/04/2011 19:34, jfc a écrit :
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Dans un article plus récent sur le matos qu'il utilise, il précise
utiliser deux boitiers, un FX, un DX, et surtout il nous dit pourquoi.
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html
I'm currently shooting with the fully professional full-frame (FX) D3s
and an "enthusiast's" DX camera - the D7000. I like the options
presented by having both an FX and a DX camera with me in the field and
at the time of writing this, the D7000 presents (in my opinion) the best
DX option from Nikon. Whether or not it will remain in my "arsenal" will
depend on what else Nikon introduces in the DX format in 2011.
Nikon D7000. Because I do a lot of shooting under very challenging field
conditions (rain, snow, mud, etc.) I normally use only professional
camera bodies. But, because of a stong desire to have a DX body and its
reasonable price, I felt it would do no harm to purchase and use a D7000
for at least a short period of time. My thoughts on the camera? It's a a
relatively low-priced DSLR with 50% gain in effective magnifcation (DX
crop factor) that can produce reasonably high resolution images at even
quite high ISO's (with noise reduction). The camera's controls and
operations, including autofocus seem to work very well in the field. My
own list of likes is longer than my list of dislikes (and which are,
admittedly, quite nit-picky). Will I be still be shooting with it summer
of 2011? I think so - but a few key questions remain in my mind about
the D7000: Will it hold up under sustained field use? Is a more fully
professional replacement for the D300s (the rumored D400) in the works
and, if so, what will it offer that the D7000 doesn't? Stay tuned!
Ouais. Et quand on va voir ses galeries on se dit "que de matos et
de blabla" pour quelques bestioles".
Le prototype de ce que je déteste. Super technique, super léché,
aucune inspiration.
Je préfère largement YAB. C'est dire...
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Dans un article plus récent sur le matos qu'il utilise, il précise utiliser deux boitiers, un FX, un DX, et surtout il nous dit pourquoi. http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html I'm currently shooting with the fully professional full-frame (FX) D3s and an "enthusiast's" DX camera - the D7000. I like the options presented by having both an FX and a DX camera with me in the field and at the time of writing this, the D7000 presents (in my opinion) the best DX option from Nikon. Whether or not it will remain in my "arsenal" will depend on what else Nikon introduces in the DX format in 2011.
Nikon D7000. Because I do a lot of shooting under very challenging field conditions (rain, snow, mud, etc.) I normally use only professional camera bodies. But, because of a stong desire to have a DX body and its reasonable price, I felt it would do no harm to purchase and use a D7000 for at least a short period of time. My thoughts on the camera? It's a a relatively low-priced DSLR with 50% gain in effective magnifcation (DX crop factor) that can produce reasonably high resolution images at even quite high ISO's (with noise reduction). The camera's controls and operations, including autofocus seem to work very well in the field. My own list of likes is longer than my list of dislikes (and which are, admittedly, quite nit-picky). Will I be still be shooting with it summer of 2011? I think so - but a few key questions remain in my mind about the D7000: Will it hold up under sustained field use? Is a more fully professional replacement for the D300s (the rumored D400) in the works and, if so, what will it offer that the D7000 doesn't? Stay tuned!
Ouais. Et quand on va voir ses galeries on se dit "que de matos et de blabla" pour quelques bestioles". Le prototype de ce que je déteste. Super technique, super léché, aucune inspiration. Je préfère largement YAB. C'est dire...
-- F.J.
markorki
efji a écrit :
Ouais. Et quand on va voir ses galeries on se dit "que de matos et de blabla" pour quelques bestioles". Le prototype de ce que je déteste. Super technique, super léché, aucune inspiration. Je préfère largement YAB. C'est dire...
+1 et super prétentieux... mébon, c'est un pro, qui vend des tirages limités.
Perso je ne me vois pas *payer* une photo d'un gus pareil, déjà que les miennes, je ne les imprime quasiment jamis, juste un fond d'écarn de temps en temps.
Mais c'est vrai qu'on est des ratés jalaoux, niark, niark.
Je n'aime les artistes que morts ou pauvres, le "marché de l'art" me fait gerber ;-)
efji a écrit :
Ouais. Et quand on va voir ses galeries on se dit "que de matos et
de blabla" pour quelques bestioles".
Le prototype de ce que je déteste. Super technique, super léché,
aucune inspiration.
Je préfère largement YAB. C'est dire...
+1 et super prétentieux...
mébon, c'est un pro, qui vend des tirages limités.
Perso je ne me vois pas *payer* une photo d'un gus pareil, déjà que les
miennes, je ne les imprime quasiment jamis, juste un fond d'écarn de
temps en temps.
Mais c'est vrai qu'on est des ratés jalaoux, niark, niark.
Je n'aime les artistes que morts ou pauvres, le "marché de l'art" me
fait gerber ;-)
Ouais. Et quand on va voir ses galeries on se dit "que de matos et de blabla" pour quelques bestioles". Le prototype de ce que je déteste. Super technique, super léché, aucune inspiration. Je préfère largement YAB. C'est dire...
+1 et super prétentieux... mébon, c'est un pro, qui vend des tirages limités.
Perso je ne me vois pas *payer* une photo d'un gus pareil, déjà que les miennes, je ne les imprime quasiment jamis, juste un fond d'écarn de temps en temps.
Mais c'est vrai qu'on est des ratés jalaoux, niark, niark.
Je n'aime les artistes que morts ou pauvres, le "marché de l'art" me fait gerber ;-)
efji
On 04/09/2011 10:10 PM, markorki wrote:
Je n'aime les artistes que morts ou pauvres, le "marché de l'art" me fait gerber ;-)
Sauf que là c'est tout saut de l'art. De la déco tout au plus.
-- F.J.
On 04/09/2011 10:10 PM, markorki wrote:
Je n'aime les artistes que morts ou pauvres, le "marché de l'art" me
fait gerber ;-)
Sauf que là c'est tout saut de l'art. De la déco tout au plus.
Je n'aime les artistes que morts ou pauvres, le "marché de l'art" me fait gerber ;-)
Sauf que là c'est tout saut de l'art. De la déco tout au plus.
-- F.J.
Jean-Pierre Roche
Le 09/04/2011 19:34, jfc a écrit :
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill. Sa raison : I'm really trying to answer is this question: Will the camera work well enough as a complement to my "real" pro-body (currently a D3s) to justify owning and using it? usage : I'm a dedicated RAW shooter of STILL images - everything that follows is based on use while shooting 14-bit RAW images. So don't expect comments about the quality of the in-camera JPEGs http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/D7000_firstimpression.html
Connaissez vous d'autres avis de pros ?
Quel est le problème ? Dans 99 % des cas la limite d'un tel appareil se trouve chez celui qui le tient. Pas dans l'appareil lui-même... Sans même parler de la gamme d'optiques qui devrait l'accompagner.
-- Jean-Pierre Roche
enlever sanspub pour m'écrire...
Le 09/04/2011 19:34, jfc a écrit :
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Sa raison :
I'm really trying to answer is this question: Will the
camera work well enough as a complement to my "real"
pro-body (currently a D3s) to justify owning and using it?
usage :
I'm a dedicated RAW shooter of STILL images - everything
that follows is based on use while shooting 14-bit RAW
images. So don't expect comments about the quality of the
in-camera JPEGs
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/D7000_firstimpression.html
Connaissez vous d'autres avis de pros ?
Quel est le problème ? Dans 99 % des cas la limite d'un tel
appareil se trouve chez celui qui le tient. Pas dans
l'appareil lui-même...
Sans même parler de la gamme d'optiques qui devrait
l'accompagner.
--
Jean-Pierre Roche
jproche@sanspubnumericable.com
enlever sanspub pour m'écrire...
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill. Sa raison : I'm really trying to answer is this question: Will the camera work well enough as a complement to my "real" pro-body (currently a D3s) to justify owning and using it? usage : I'm a dedicated RAW shooter of STILL images - everything that follows is based on use while shooting 14-bit RAW images. So don't expect comments about the quality of the in-camera JPEGs http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/D7000_firstimpression.html
Connaissez vous d'autres avis de pros ?
Quel est le problème ? Dans 99 % des cas la limite d'un tel appareil se trouve chez celui qui le tient. Pas dans l'appareil lui-même... Sans même parler de la gamme d'optiques qui devrait l'accompagner.
-- Jean-Pierre Roche
enlever sanspub pour m'écrire...
delestaque
"efji" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : inqdgm$nut$
On 04/09/2011 07:53 PM, jfc wrote:
Le 09/04/2011 19:34, jfc a écrit :
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Dans un article plus récent sur le matos qu'il utilise, il précise utiliser deux boitiers, un FX, un DX, et surtout il nous dit pourquoi. http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html I'm currently shooting with the fully professional full-frame (FX) D3s and an "enthusiast's" DX camera - the D7000. I like the options presented by having both an FX and a DX camera with me in the field and at the time of writing this, the D7000 presents (in my opinion) the best DX option from Nikon. Whether or not it will remain in my "arsenal" will depend on what else Nikon introduces in the DX format in 2011.
Nikon D7000. Because I do a lot of shooting under very challenging field conditions (rain, snow, mud, etc.) I normally use only professional camera bodies. But, because of a stong desire to have a DX body and its reasonable price, I felt it would do no harm to purchase and use a D7000 for at least a short period of time. My thoughts on the camera? It's a a relatively low-priced DSLR with 50% gain in effective magnifcation (DX crop factor) that can produce reasonably high resolution images at even quite high ISO's (with noise reduction). The camera's controls and operations, including autofocus seem to work very well in the field. My own list of likes is longer than my list of dislikes (and which are, admittedly, quite nit-picky). Will I be still be shooting with it summer of 2011? I think so - but a few key questions remain in my mind about the D7000: Will it hold up under sustained field use? Is a more fully professional replacement for the D300s (the rumored D400) in the works and, if so, what will it offer that the D7000 doesn't? Stay tuned!
Ouais. Et quand on va voir ses galeries on se dit "que de matos et de blabla" pour quelques bestioles". Le prototype de ce que je déteste. Super technique, super léché, aucune inspiration.
Je préfère largement YAB. C'est dire...
-- F.J.
C'est tout dire... je souscris, quant à l'avis de ce pro, ça me fait trop rire, pipeau, et on s'en fout en réalité.
-- Ricco
"efji" <efji@efji.efji> a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
inqdgm$nut$1@speranza.aioe.org...
On 04/09/2011 07:53 PM, jfc wrote:
Le 09/04/2011 19:34, jfc a écrit :
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Dans un article plus récent sur le matos qu'il utilise, il précise
utiliser deux boitiers, un FX, un DX, et surtout il nous dit pourquoi.
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html
I'm currently shooting with the fully professional full-frame (FX) D3s
and an "enthusiast's" DX camera - the D7000. I like the options
presented by having both an FX and a DX camera with me in the field and
at the time of writing this, the D7000 presents (in my opinion) the best
DX option from Nikon. Whether or not it will remain in my "arsenal" will
depend on what else Nikon introduces in the DX format in 2011.
Nikon D7000. Because I do a lot of shooting under very challenging field
conditions (rain, snow, mud, etc.) I normally use only professional
camera bodies. But, because of a stong desire to have a DX body and its
reasonable price, I felt it would do no harm to purchase and use a D7000
for at least a short period of time. My thoughts on the camera? It's a a
relatively low-priced DSLR with 50% gain in effective magnifcation (DX
crop factor) that can produce reasonably high resolution images at even
quite high ISO's (with noise reduction). The camera's controls and
operations, including autofocus seem to work very well in the field. My
own list of likes is longer than my list of dislikes (and which are,
admittedly, quite nit-picky). Will I be still be shooting with it summer
of 2011? I think so - but a few key questions remain in my mind about
the D7000: Will it hold up under sustained field use? Is a more fully
professional replacement for the D300s (the rumored D400) in the works
and, if so, what will it offer that the D7000 doesn't? Stay tuned!
Ouais. Et quand on va voir ses galeries on se dit "que de matos et
de blabla" pour quelques bestioles".
Le prototype de ce que je déteste. Super technique, super léché,
aucune inspiration.
Je préfère largement YAB. C'est dire...
--
F.J.
C'est tout dire...
je souscris, quant à l'avis de ce pro, ça me fait trop rire, pipeau, et on s'en
fout en réalité.
"efji" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : inqdgm$nut$
On 04/09/2011 07:53 PM, jfc wrote:
Le 09/04/2011 19:34, jfc a écrit :
D7000 testé par le photographe canadien Brad Hill.
Dans un article plus récent sur le matos qu'il utilise, il précise utiliser deux boitiers, un FX, un DX, et surtout il nous dit pourquoi. http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html I'm currently shooting with the fully professional full-frame (FX) D3s and an "enthusiast's" DX camera - the D7000. I like the options presented by having both an FX and a DX camera with me in the field and at the time of writing this, the D7000 presents (in my opinion) the best DX option from Nikon. Whether or not it will remain in my "arsenal" will depend on what else Nikon introduces in the DX format in 2011.
Nikon D7000. Because I do a lot of shooting under very challenging field conditions (rain, snow, mud, etc.) I normally use only professional camera bodies. But, because of a stong desire to have a DX body and its reasonable price, I felt it would do no harm to purchase and use a D7000 for at least a short period of time. My thoughts on the camera? It's a a relatively low-priced DSLR with 50% gain in effective magnifcation (DX crop factor) that can produce reasonably high resolution images at even quite high ISO's (with noise reduction). The camera's controls and operations, including autofocus seem to work very well in the field. My own list of likes is longer than my list of dislikes (and which are, admittedly, quite nit-picky). Will I be still be shooting with it summer of 2011? I think so - but a few key questions remain in my mind about the D7000: Will it hold up under sustained field use? Is a more fully professional replacement for the D300s (the rumored D400) in the works and, if so, what will it offer that the D7000 doesn't? Stay tuned!
Ouais. Et quand on va voir ses galeries on se dit "que de matos et de blabla" pour quelques bestioles". Le prototype de ce que je déteste. Super technique, super léché, aucune inspiration.
Je préfère largement YAB. C'est dire...
-- F.J.
C'est tout dire... je souscris, quant à l'avis de ce pro, ça me fait trop rire, pipeau, et on s'en fout en réalité.
-- Ricco
Claudio Bonavolta
On 9 avr, 22:10, markorki <moicestmarkorkichezorangefr> wrote:
Je n'aime les artistes que morts ou pauvres, le "march de l'art" me fait gerber ;-)
Rien de nouveau, bon nombre de peintres qui marchaient de leur vivant ont été oubliés par l'Histoire. Ceci dit, ils ont au moins bouffé à leur faim, eux ...
Et puis, je connais pire comme job alimentaire: passer son temps à photographier des bestioles ça vaut bien rester enfermé dans un bureau toute la journée voir servir dans un McDo ... :-)
Claudio Bonavolta www.bonavolta.ch
On 9 avr, 22:10, markorki <moicestmarkorkichezorangefr> wrote:
Je n'aime les artistes que morts ou pauvres, le "march de l'art" me
fait gerber ;-)
Rien de nouveau, bon nombre de peintres qui marchaient de leur vivant
ont été oubliés par l'Histoire.
Ceci dit, ils ont au moins bouffé à leur faim, eux ...
Et puis, je connais pire comme job alimentaire: passer son temps à
photographier des bestioles ça vaut bien rester enfermé dans un bureau
toute la journée voir servir dans un McDo ... :-)
On 9 avr, 22:10, markorki <moicestmarkorkichezorangefr> wrote:
Je n'aime les artistes que morts ou pauvres, le "march de l'art" me fait gerber ;-)
Rien de nouveau, bon nombre de peintres qui marchaient de leur vivant ont été oubliés par l'Histoire. Ceci dit, ils ont au moins bouffé à leur faim, eux ...
Et puis, je connais pire comme job alimentaire: passer son temps à photographier des bestioles ça vaut bien rester enfermé dans un bureau toute la journée voir servir dans un McDo ... :-)
Claudio Bonavolta www.bonavolta.ch
GG
Bonjour,
Dans 99 % des cas la limite d'un tel appareil se trouve chez celui qui le tient. Pas dans l'appareil lui-même...
Je suis d'accord, c'est comme en informatique, le bug est toujours entre le clavier et le fauteuil. :) -- Cordialement. GG.
Bonjour,
Dans 99 % des cas la limite d'un tel
appareil se trouve chez celui qui le tient. Pas dans
l'appareil lui-même...
Je suis d'accord, c'est comme en informatique, le bug est
toujours entre le clavier et le fauteuil. :)
--
Cordialement.
GG.
