certainly no one would use a RED as a replacement for a stills camera, right now - the ridiculous amount of weight alone, by comparison, is off-putting. But it will certainly do in a pinch - there are many opportunities that are lost for stills acquisition, because you have to make a choice between stills and videos -- especially when you are dealing with the "weight carried" versus "distance traveled" conundrum of outdoors shooting. And RED ONE currently does nothing to mitigate this issue, as Lauri's sled illustrates...

..so instead of pulling two heavy loads of gear, you get to pull one really weighty load of gear! not a big enhancement. yet.

but a 6K SCARLET, due for release in the fall, definitely will close that gap dramatically -- hence my six months comment -- and if RED comes through with their intent to make an easily interchangeable lens mount that will allow me to use my Canon lenses, without third-party intervention, and swap those out with PL lenses on a full frame 6K SCARLET, it will be game over.

These are "ifs," granted, but I think the company has delivered enough on their intentions, to date, to be trusted that, if they say they can, they will.

You still currently can pull far better stills from a RED than pretty much any other video (not still) camera - if you're talking about just stills, the EX-3 and the H1, at 1080 are no match for a 4K RED. The video footage from an EX3 can be matched pretty closely at 1080p (I've done it...H1 can't match it unless it is tethered, although the KiPro may have already changed that...), but if you're talking about generating TIFFs from video cameras, it is already no contest.

Yes, Meryem, I'd agree with most of the things you say in your last post. Probably the biggest advantage of all in pulling a single high resolution image from a long section of video footage, is when it captures a subject or action that is unique or unrepeatable. And in wildlife or rarely seen subjects this often is the case.

Ofer, Tony, Meryem, Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and for the compliments.

Let me put it this way --and I think Meryem will agree with me-- the frame grabs from Red One are simply amazing. Often as good as those from Canon or Nikon DSLRs, and thanks to the dynamics of the camera sometimes they are even better. But, also, in some cases not as good as Tony suggests.

The case when the stills from Red One do not meet the quality of Canon or Nikon DSLRs are when there are a lot of details in the image. Such as shots taken with wide angle lenses. And in my understanding the reason for this is very simple; The Red One images are compressed. If I remember right the ratio is 1:5.

But, if the background of the image is out of focus, then the compression is not visible and the Red One stills are in my view just excellent. In fact, it took me some time to realize how good the Red One stills really are. It was beyond my imagination that they could compete qualitywise in any situation with Canon/Nikon DSLRs.

In practice, the only limitation is that I shoot most of the time 25fps and 1/50s. This particular shutter speed is not that exciting for stills and consequently single frames of moving objects typically do not appear as interesting still images. Of course, if I really wanted stills, I could set some other shutter speed.

Epic-X and Scarlet will be rather interesting because they will have ALSO the still image mode. This means, I think, the still images will not be compressed. Furthermore, we also know the new Mysterium-X sensor will have more dynamics (1 to 1,5 stops) than the Red One Mysterium sensor. At that point, which is targeted to this fall, or should I say before that point, I'm going to sell away the DSLR I have. I'm afraid it will become useless. And, I'm not surprised if Meryem feels the same way.

I sort of started writing this exact thing in one of my posts but figured the explanation was lengthier than I wanted to go into...but pretty much, I agree, RED can't compete with still cams at producing landscape or wide angle views - but closer up, with shallow DOF and a nice bokeh, the difference is much less apparent.

The one thing that will cause me to sell off my still camera bodies will be if RED can design an easily interchangeable lens mount, that will allow me to toggle back and forth between shooting styles. As it stands right now, I cancelled my third-party Canon mount -- switching mounts, while it can be accomplished in about half an hour or so, still seems like too much hassle, and definitely not something to do in the field -- studio only.

What exactly is a RED camera???

Caleb, see RED

Meryem, yes indeed feel the same way. In principle changing the current mounts sounds easy, but there are all sorts of pitfalls before getting everything to work properly. Mine works now fine without problems but it has taken an effort to get there.

Once have time, I'll try to make a comparison of wildlife still images taken with Red One and Canon DSLRs. Need first to work out how to fix the lens to the tripod and thereafter change the camera body without moving the lens to get exactly the same images. Once have the images it's no longer about words and opinions but instead everybody becomes able to make their own conclusions.

Hi Lauri,

You don't really have to get wildlife shots in order to make the comparison. It will be easier to do a test with easier subjects which will show the same thing.
Regards,
Ofer

Where would the fun be in that?

Yes, you are so right!! I actually can never test anything any other way but doing it in the wild....
Please ignore my silly comment.....(-:

Red One compared to XL H1
 

While making a search on my old footages discovered that I have taken shots with Red One and XL H1 from the same place. Although the Red One shot is taken in June 2008 on a cloudy and gray day with one of the early camera builds (likely build 15) and the XL H1 shot is taken under bright skies in September 2006, I thought you may also be interesting in a comparison of the two shots.

If I took now a shot from the same place --which I may well do in couple weeks once the indian summer starts-- the Red One image would be (even) better. For, the latest build 20 and the Birger mount allowing me to use Canon lenses produce sharper images than what I was able to take with some second hand Nikon lenses I used in early summer 2008.

The Red One frame was shot on 4K 2:1 mode and I downrez and cropped it to 1920 x 1080.
The XL H1 frame was converted to a Cineform file and then exported to Photoshop with After Effects. The 1920x1080 tif-files can be downloaded from

www.luontovideo.net/Kuusamo-RedOne.tif
and
www.luontovideo.net/Kuusamo-XLH1.tif

Below are also 960x540 jps files. If you give comments, it will be interesting to hear what you say.

More on Red One and DSLR still images later on.

I do like these sort of comparisons, thanks Lauri!
To me there is more detail and sharpness in the XL-H1 image. I must say I'm not that surprised, even though you'd probably expect the RED to blow it away. I think a lot of the difference in these type of comparisons will come down to detail settings in the camera, giving much more apparent sharpness. The sunny day will definitely help though as well, as it'll boost contrast which aid apparent sharpness too. I assume the RED shot has not been manipulated? If so then a bit of post-processing could well bring up sharpness, colour and contrast. It's also donw-rezzed (as it would be for HDTV) so maybe it'd have an advantage on the big screen when left in 4k, but not so for broadcast.
Interesting.
Steve

Well, in fact, I'm trying to figure out whether I could use some of my old stock material in a document shot with Red One.

About the images, take the tif-files and look closely at the trees on the top of the mountain. That reveals quite a lot of sharpness.

Below is a better sample of the sharpness and dynamics of Red One. I would consider the conditions very difficult. Notice how bright the greens are in the front altough light comes towards the lens. The zoom-in is a 1-to-1 crop of the full 4K image showing the true resolution of the camera. This was shot with Canon EF 24-70mm/f2.8 lens.

It's that really gentle, peotic look to the images again! Have you seen Kennan Ward's Alaska film? It's just amazing, right up your street I'd think!
Steve

Steve, thank you for your kind words. Yes, fully agree, Kennan has shot first class wildlife material with Red One.

Hi Lauri

Properly amazing for sharpness and dynamics. The only problem with the RED is the price.



Gilles

It's an insanely-cheap camera for what it is though.
Steve

That's great to see the comparison....thanks
And RED is definitely a great buy...

Also I forgot to post ages ago some screen shots from RED when shooting Australian Sea lions...

Here you go:

I like the idea of shooting 2K for 1080P. The shot can be used as, it can be reframed, Shake can be used to smooth out a pan and not loose pixels.
Considering the difficulty of getting great, unique wildlife shots, being able to fix a shot without reducing quality is valuable.
The feature list of XDCAMs are much longer, but most attributes aren't particularly usefu for wildlife. The power needs of the current red is high, but that's likely to improve with the next versions.

Also the new versions will boot up at some sort of reasonable pace. Especially for wildlife I have missed shots due to the 1.5 hr wait... sorry 1.5 minute wait for the thing to fire up.

Love the camera though and you put up with the bad for the good.

I gather that there are some issues with 2k, seem to remember it was excessive noise, and that the sweet spot was 3k. Also at 2k, after debayering you're goong to be well below 1080HD. But then again so's the Varicam I suppose and that does OK.
Steve

Well, not sure there's an issue, but as a rule of thumb, the "true" resolution of the 2K debayer image is 80% of 2K and in this sense the resolution is bit lower than 1080p. However, if one takes any HD camera the resolution is not "full" 1080p because every camera must have an optical low pass filter. For instance, the resolution of XL-H1 is somewhere in 850 lines. So, taking this into account, the 2K image is just fine for full HD 1080p. This applies both to SI and RED cameras.

I wasn't so much thinking about current Red , but rather that for difficult subjects I would like to have extra resolution and extra image size.

Shooting 3K on the 2/3" scarlet seems about ideal.

Yes, 3K is indeed better. The reason why Epic-X will be a 5K camera is that then the true resolution will be 4K (80% x 5K = 4K). Graeme Nattress has explained this somewhere in RedUserNet. Quick and hasty calculation yields 80% x 2K = 1.6K which corresponds 1686 x 948 resolution, i.e., about 950 lines.

Still images from Red One
 

Here are two shots of a difficult situation the other taken with Canon D50 and the other with Red One using the same lens and as much same settings as possible. The images are as much as I was able to do without any kind of postprocessing. I simply opened the files with neutral settings and exported the files as is.

The last image is taken with Red One in 3K mode and it's going to a document I'm working with. It's also beauty of the Finnish nature in October.

Image #3 is a wonderful example of contrast, Lauri. Super editing of one background for another, perhaps?

In fact, there are no tricks whtasoever behind #3. Instead, it's all about natural light. The sun was directly in front of me and the canyon in shadow reflects the sky blue. The pine tree is lit by the light reflecting from the snow as if there was a mirrow in front of me and there's direct sun light through the Siberian jay's wings.

That pine tree at that time on that date given the same sunlight would be a seasonal treasure in my world. What an achievement to have captured that moment with a Siberian Jay taking a bow! I must open my eyes and get off my butt for similar possibilities in Ireland.

The beauty of arctic light
 

Couple panaroma made from Red One footages. Shot couple days ago near the official home region of Santa close to the arctic circle.

Best wishes for Xmas/Happy holidays for everybody!

After reading the whole thread....
 

Lauri,

I've read this thread with real interest, as a passionate amateur who carries far too much gear, both stills and video, I can't help but think my Noblex 150E2 surpasses all in the capture of detail, one thing people tend to forget these days is, even though one may own a 10 / 12 MP camera, as I myself do, (x2 actually) there is often not that amount of information captured with an electronic camera, let alone the RED, where as with the old film cameras, if the files are digitised, they can easily exceed 80 / 100MP. I am, in no way, trying to detract nor demean your efforts at all, I believe, lugging all the associated gear for the RED, requires an incredible effort and your subsequent product is excellent.

One has to remember, video has the huge advantage of not lingering long enough on most scenes for the human brain to capture all the detail. The human eye naturally gravitates toward movement thus passing over the rest of the scene and this tends to make the technical arguments irrelevant, to a degree. When one places a stills scene in front of a person that person has no predisposition to follow any movement and will therefore focus, critically, on detail. It is for this reason sharpness, use of light and composition are absolutely critical in stills. This is not to say the same doesn't apply to video, it's just that it's not as critical as often that sort of criticism will only be raised by ones peers and contemporaries. This thread is a prime example!

You have, without a doubt, the huge advantage of capturing a defining moment with far greater ease than the likes of me. However, when I capture a defining moment, be it with wildlife or scenery, I get tremendous satisfaction because I have to anticipate to a far greater degree than yourself. My one bonus is, from the clanky old Noblex, I can produce an image up to 3M long by 1.5M high and one can count the veins on a leaf or the hair on an animals back! This form of media, was pronounced dead 10 years ago but it's still here!

Don't get me wrong, digital media is making inroads through the likes of Hasselblad's H4D60, or a Seitz 6x17 Digital, but at an anticipated price of 29000 Euro and $36000US respectively, they're a little out of reach for even a passionate amateur as myself. People have mentioned in this thread that stills and video will likely reach a point of convergence in the near future, to be honest in my opinion, what's happening is professionals, who are always under the hammer to "produce" in today's "want it now" society, are allowing their standards to drop to meet the needs of the the market. In this way, technology will meet expectations simply because one is moving forward whilst the other is moving backwards. I honestly believe, there will not be, in the foreseeable future, a hybrid system that is both affordable and has the quality of either a standalone stills or video unit.

I want to make it clear however, that I for one, would be happy to eat humble pie should a hybrid system be developed that resounds the quality of stills and video. It'd make my logistical challenges one hell of a lot easier.....

In wrapping up, you quite obviously love and enjoy using the RED and good luck to you for it. It takes people such as yourself to move technology forward.

I'd like to complement you on your use & understanding of light, I strongly suspect you could get outstanding results from a Box Brownie or and old VHS unit.

If you see someone struggling with far too much crap and and juggling a Noblex, stop and say hello!!!!

Bottom line IHO, carry both a good stills AND video unit

Good luck with your project.

Al

I agree with you, Alan. At least at certain levels and for many reasons.

I have held on to my professional film cameras all through the growing digital years, and have had no problems at all using them for the bulk of all my worldwide photo sales and illustrations for magazines, books and calendars etc, even up to the present day.
I can produce fabulous digital 200MB Tiff files from 35mm Velvia. And the same film in a larger format such as a Pentax 645n or 67 produces even better and bigger files with huge amounts of detail. With the help of Photoshop, even the hidden shadow detail lost in scans of yesteryear can now be brought back to life with ease.

There has always been a difference to my eye, between the very best digital file produced by a DSLR and the very best digital file originating from colour transparency film. Even though both in terms of quality and pixel count are equal (and sometimes surpassed by the DSLR) there has always been an immediate preference for the photographs originating from film. I think it is a certain depth of detail and colour range, plus, and probably far more importantly, is the way the eye views a scene...it is an emotional aspect I think that is difficult to describe but natural to feel when you view the images on screen or on a light table. I think it is a similar impact that reaches an emotional level when we view a movie originating from 35mm film compared to a modern HD video camera.

However, there are so many advantages to modern digital cameras (both stills & video) that I have finally succumbed this Christmas and sold my main Nikon F5 SLR system and will replace it soon with a complete DSLR system. I will still hold on to my Nikonos RS AF underwater SLR film system for a while longer though, because nothing as yet compares to it.

The huge advantage of using cameras like the RED, as already noted, is that a fleeting moment – such as the Jay flying into the gorgeous tones of a sunlit tree – can be captured in both video & stills – so that the moving flight and calls can be viewed and heard, together with a beautiful single image that displays a moment in time. This would be almost impossible to do with two separate cameras (video & stills) without the huge risk of losing the magic moment of perfect light.

The latest hybrid cameras such as the Nikon D3s and EOS1D mk IV are now bridging that gap between both...allowing the photographer to capture both stills & video in amazing detail in all light (even extreme low light) conditions using a single device.

"The latest hybrid cameras such as the Nikon D3s and EOS1D mk IV are now bridging that gap between both"
But people are beginning to realise that they are not quite as good as they first thought. And the D3s for instance AFAIK only shoots 24P - what use is that except for cinema? No good for wildlife or documentary stuff. Then take CMOS skew, massive aliasing and awful codec compression and it starts to fall apart a bit. Still amazing cameras though considering that they are not dedicated video cameras, come in tiny packages and are ludicrously cheap compared to the video equivalents, but still not something that would stop one from buying a Varicam or F900 for instance if you had the funds.
Steve

The trouble I have with the claimed superiority of film is this:
In still photography, the typical professional quality nature shot is considerably better now than ten years ago. What has changed is the technology.
The same thing will now happen with video. You can pick apart details like skew, but the images from Red and to some extent Canon are gorgeous and give control and capability exceeding anything but past high-end production. Most good nature shots are made by "being there". Being able to carry the equipment and being able to afford the equipment is a big part of being there.
In stills I can still shoot up to 5x7 and 6x17. But in situations where those formats are possible I can also stitch 5DII frames to whatever resolution I want. There are always specific situations where film makes a better image, but "cherry picking" shots is not a good way to evaluate technologies.
We're at the beginning of a technological sea change in videography because the best of the single cmos cameras are affordable and make beautiful images. Nature videography is going to follow the same path as nature photography. And it's not going to be for just fleeting images.

I agree with you in terms of stills. For certain with nature photography there is just no contest any more, the advantages of digital cameras massively outweigh those of film - for instance the Nikon D3 can shoot at ISO3200 with virtually no noise allowing fast shutter speed to freeze action. Of course autofocus lenses and advanced metering are also a massive reason why today's shots are superior (on the whole), though these things can be seen and used in film cameras too (ie a Nikon F6 with a 600mm f4 AFS VR lens will have the same AF and meter capabilities as the DSLRs).
For video though, it's not just about picking "apart details like skew", this is a big issue for anything moving, as is aliasing and other problems. I agree that they'll probably get there eventually, but as always there is never a free lunch, and those people who were so excited because they thought instead of spending £40k on a pro-level video camera they could get something as good or better for £2.5k have had to become a bit more realistic.
Steve

Al, Tony, Steve, Don,

Wov, thank you very much for posting your sincere views. Al, I find it rather surprising that you took all the trouble to read the whole thread.

Thanks to Al I just realized something that I've never thought explicitly; I never had a chance to shoot with film cameras except SLRs so don't have experience of them. Not that I would not have liked to, but shooting wildlife with film cameras never made economically any sense in this part of world. I started with Sony Betacams and then happily moved to Canon XL1, then to XL2 and finaly to XLH1. Especially, I still remember well, Canon XL1 implied the weight of all equipment was suddenly less than 1/2 of that of the betacam and still had a much larger set of lenses available. Indeed, before getting Red One I was quite puzzled how I will manage with the much heavier camera set, but have not thought about it for the joy of image quality compensates for all the excessive troubles.

For me the point is, the camera equipment should not cost or weight like mad. That would not make economically any sense. Most of the time I carry everything myself or I have somebody assisting me. Second, I just want to document the best moments of the wilderness I know rather well since my early childhood. At this point Red One is equipmentwise the best match between these two points. I've tried to write on this forum how things have gone with the camera. When I started I did not know which way this thread will evolve, but guess I thought whatever is the case that other people like you will be interested in such findings. For somebody else the best compromise is likely some other equipment.

What comes to the nature here, it takes a considerable effort to get good images. One needs to know when one can anticipate certain images to be taken, then prepare everything, wait for the right wheather, and finally have good luck as well. And yes, it all takes a lot of traveling to the right places. As one friend of mine, a still photographer says, 90% of the work is about preparing everything and knowing what one is going to shoot.

Valid points
 

Steve, Don,

I feel you both make some very valid points, I too, to quote part of a sentence from Don; "feel we're at the beginning of a technological sea change in videography" unquote, I do believe one day we'll see a digi video unit that will leave us in awe of it, however it won't be tomorrow. I'm tipping, one day, we'll be able to shoot with a 2000mm lens at F22 at dusk, hand held, using exceedingly high speed frame rates and laser guided movement sensors to follow diving Falcons, eliminating all wing flutter whilst keeping the subject perfectly centred and exposed whilst it moves from a clear sky to low grass background...... (this is tongue in cheek you realise :) ) and any Joe average will be able to do it !!!! BUT will it be as satisfying or as much fun. I have a friend who is an international pilot, he said to me the other day,
" You know Al, all I am now is a Systems Manager" He starts a new job in 2011 with a small domestic airline so he can "fly" again, it's something to bear in mind.

Steve this is very true, quote; "I agree that they'll probably get there eventually, but as always there is never a free lunch, and those people who were so excited because they thought instead of spending £40k on a pro-level video camera they could get something as good or better for £2.5k have had to become a bit more realistic." unquote. Very true!

The Red may well be on the way but it may also lose the race, look at Foveon versus CCD they both got blown out of the water by CMOS, which incidentally, actually can't produce as high a quality image as the CCD...BUT...it comes in a much smaller package WITH far more "on chip" capabilities...and small wins!!!

But the most important thing amongst it all is...."being there" as Don said and that's what makes this whole thing tick.....Lauri is doing that with his project and ultimately this thread is an insight to his findings / queries / frustrations ( although in the case of frustration, he seems to have a noticeable lack thereof!!) based on what he's using for the project, agreed?

We use what we can 'till "they" develop what we need, so we live in hope and die in despair...LOL

It's been stimulating reading.

Al

Al,

Your post makes an interesting reading! I also believe there is still a lot of space for technical improvements so we have not yet seen everything. Saying this I still feel what we have now leaves us already in awe.

In the 90's when HD was only a dream of the future always felt bit sad that I was not able to create any prints from my footages nearly as impressive what my friends and colleagues did with their SLRs. Moreover at that time a cinema camera sounded like a dream never come true in wildlife shooting. Then HD came but was almost immediately bypassed by the SI-2K and Red One cameras. Nowadays when I color grade my footages, some of them shot 125fps, or make A3+ printouts of some frames, it's still hard to believe all this is practice now. And the next wave of Red Epic and Scarlet will be a step forward, and we are not far from that.

What comes to frustation, indeed, I haven't been frustrated with Red One. There has been a struggle between Birger (the manufacturer of the EF mount) and Red and this has caused some trouble for the EF mount users, but once got the Birger mount running have been very pleased with the system. The weight of the equipment is bit a problem, but not a major issue. Perhaps the experiuence with Canon acmeras affect my emotions; I always liked the Canon XL1 and XL2 cameras but was bit frustrated with the XLH1. For, the image was tinted to magenta and one had to be careful with color abberration. Getting the right tones was always somewhat an issue.

It would be interesting to hear what Meryem thinks. She has also a Red One and likely she is able to complement my findings.

lauri,

I really appreciate this thread. I have followed it all along. In the 60's I shot film in a bolex h16 (I believe that is ahat it was) . Bottom line was I could not really afford to shoot and edit the film and then have a master made, I was pretty young. when I got out of the military in 69 I still could not afford the game.
the digital revolution has been great for everyone, and it is still in its infancy in my book. I looked hard at the red one, and it is an amazing camera, but sense I am not really going to make a full time living with it the price was just a little beyond my point of diminishing returns.


Now with the red scarlet on its way, if it ever will happen, I am alrready tossing that around for my next camera.

A few years back I was talking about the xl2 and Meryem said something to the effect, in a year or so we will likly be talking about something totally different!! did she ever call that.

The probelm is when to jump in for me!! A scarlet with ability to attach ef lenses would be fantastic. If I win the loto/ max this week, a red one would have to do, eh?

I agree the red one is not that expensive for what you get. Seemed to me when I priced the whole kit out I would spend around 29 grand. I had it at the time but I bought an xlh1 and a sail boat instead.

I generally find myself agreeing with most of your findings, Lauri, which is why I have not chimed in too much on your thread. The sound of me sitting back and nodding and enjoying the stills that you're posting is not very loud.

I moved to the RED ONE because I was tired of the trickleware business model, as much as any other reason. And never felt perfectly happy with the other options.

I, too, moved to RED ONE based on frustration with other available digital cameras - same issues, CA with expensive lenses on an XL2, not enough resolution to shoot beautiful mist as cleanly as I would like.

I think the improvements that we will see in the next generation will be even more impressive.

There are drawbacks to the RED ONE. I still struggle with the weight on days when I'm not feeling energetic - have to work up a head of steam on those days - and while the camera was relatively inexpensive, the add-ons are not.

But when you see how far and how fast the development has happened, you can't help but be in awe, as Lauri says - every time I turn around, it seems that I am getting a new camera via firmware upgrades...most recently, 4.5K shooting with an 11mm lens with their new color science is extremely fun for landscapes.

They are still enabling features and adding surprises. And adding improvements in the post-processing. It's still fun to me, to post-process my RAW images with such an extraordinary degree of elasticity, adding looks and messing around. I don't tire of it.

But I think everybody should shoot with whatever camera makes them happy. We live in such an age of abundance of great cameras to the point that I have lost interest in comparing this choice or that one.

One advantage to RED ONE - the knowledge set that I have gained from shooting and post-processing RED ONE footage has made me a better user of all cameras, generally. It is simple to use, difficult to master.

Or, to put it another way, learning to pull focus on randomly moving objects (wildlife, kayakers) at T1.3 in S35 in 4K on a 5.6'' screen has made me a better operator of my Canon HV10...

And as a sidenot to Steve, by the way, there's nothing "wrong" or troubling about images that result from shooting in 2K - you will get sharper, cleaner results by shooting the exact same image, the same way in 4K and downsampling. Downsampling always enhances quality, so you'll always get the best results from starting with the maximum resolution. I can get great images in 2K - for archiving purposes -- future-proofing, which is one of RED's advantages -- it just isn't always the best choice. For some of the over-cranking functionality, it is sometimes the only choice.

Meryem, I find this a rather interesting comment. You put in words something that I had also subconciously also discovered. The full manual control to the camera without any sort of hidden automatic settings together with the same in post have been helpful in learning to get the most out of cameras. As you say, it takes and has taken an effort an effort to learn to master modern equipment.

Thinking the other way around, I feel nowadays bit lost with my DSLRs as they can't be tweaked to show what is really going on on the sensor. Instead the ISO setting adjusts the preamplifier before the AD conversion and also the ISO setting affects in-camera noise reduction. Have to confess I'm not a fan of systems that are meant to make things easy and simultaneously block full manual settings. For, the very best results are typically obtained when the user has a chance to control what ever he or she finds important. So, in my view, too often the other side of the coin that is meant to help the user to make better images implies one has no real chance to learn what is really going on inside the camera and to make the best possible images. Forced in-camera settings easily imply there is less space for adjustments in post, and as a wildlife shooter feel that often one needs all the adjustment space available to reproduce what the eye has seen.