Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: EinstStein on January 06, 2013, 01:20:39 am

Title: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: EinstStein on January 06, 2013, 01:20:39 am
I' not sure Fujifilm X-series range finder system has better IQ than Canon T4i & APS-C series, but the price is surely much more expensive.
Is there any engineering reason that a range finder has potentially better than IQ than a DSLR, given the same sensor size?
Yes, the RF flange distance is shorter than a DSLR, the mirror vibration is eliminated, but does this give any potential benefit in IQ?
In fact, a RF normally is expected to have smaller lens, but that actually is a challenge instead. For the same target IQ, a larger lens is easier to make than a smaller lens.

Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 06, 2013, 02:21:00 am
Hi,

I essentially agree with your suggestions. There are two ways Fujifilm can improve on Canon, one is better lenses. This is mainly a cost issue, Fujifilm has a few high quality primes designed for the X series. Canon has few high quality designs for APS-C and the lenses are mostly zooms.

There is always some imprecision in AF and a well working AF system needs sensor, mirror, secondary mirror and AF-sensor to be perfectly aligned for correct AF. I guess that Fujifilm uses contrast detection, a technique that is more exact albeit slower.

The Fujifilm cameras probably use more metal parts and the camera is intended to feel like a piece of good craftsmanship. This also helps price.

Best regards
Erik


I' not sure Fujifilm X-series range finder system has better IQ than Canon T4i & APS-C series, but the price is surely much more expensive.
Is there any engineering reason that a range finder has potentially better than IQ than a DSLR, given the same sensor size?
Yes, the RF flange distance is shorter than a DSLR, the mirror vibration is eliminated, but does this give any potential benefit in IQ?
In fact, a RF normally is expected to have smaller lens, but that actually is a challenge instead. For the same target IQ, a larger lens is easier to make than a smaller lens.


Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Petrus on January 06, 2013, 03:37:33 am
Top of the range models X-Pro1 and X-E1 also use X-Trans sensor which does not need an antialiasing filter like "normal" sensors do. This makes them somewhat sharper than the pixel count would suggest, competing in the same class with 22-24 Mpix cameras. Low light sensitivity is also among the best there are. The downside is the complicated math needed to construct the picture, sometimes causing a so called "watercolor" effect specially in foliage.

Mirror less design gives more freedom to lens designers, but unfortunately digital sensors have to be designed/optimized for certain ray angles in the corners unlike film. This has been shown with the two Fujis mentioned above, with which old excellent RF lens designs do not work well, as the lens comes too close to the sensor.
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Marco Pampaloni on January 06, 2013, 05:25:15 am
Anyway Fuji X cameras are NOT rangefinder cameras...
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 06, 2013, 06:13:36 am
I' not sure Fujifilm X-series range finder system has better IQ than Canon T4i & APS-C series, but the price is surely much more expensive.

What makes you think that the price of an item has to be related to its actual level of performance?

The right pricing is nothing but the amount of money the buyer is willing to pay.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 06, 2013, 08:58:15 am
+1  ;-)

Erik

What makes you think that the price of an item has to be related to its actual level of performance?

The right pricing is nothing but the amount of money the buyer is willing to pay.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: EinstStein on January 06, 2013, 01:49:39 pm
>> Mirror less design gives more freedom to lens designers,...

Why? I don't think this is true. A shorter flange distance may enhance the light intensity, but it also hurts the evenness across the frame. Tilted micro lens does not solve the problem it only avoid to get it worse.
Contax SLR vs. Contax G, for example, the SLR lens usually performs better than the G version. G version is much smaller, which is G's strength in portability but also the weakness in achieving the better performance.

Here I'm not counting on the mirror vibration and shutter latency. Which indeed favors the mirror-less system.

I tend to believe that the SLR system has the advantage, in theory,  in the AF and the uniformity across the frame while RF has advantage, also in theory, in the vibration reduction and shutter lag.

 
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: madmanchan on January 06, 2013, 01:58:06 pm
It comes down to what aspect of lens and sensor performance you care more about.  There are many such aspects: lens resolution, shading, and various types of aberrations. 
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Petrus on January 06, 2013, 02:37:11 pm
>> Mirror less design gives more freedom to lens designers,...

Why? I don't think this is true. A shorter flange distance may enhance the light intensity, but it also hurts the evenness across the frame. Tilted micro lens does not solve the problem it only avoid to get it worse.

????

Designing a lens for reflex camera has one restriction: mirror box dimension = minimum distance from the sensor/film plane. Mirrorless camera does NOT have this restriction. Thus there is more freedom for the lens designer. For example it is much easier to design a good wide angle which needs not be a reversed telephoto. This is just from the lens designer's angle, and was 100% true with film.

Like I said things are different with digital sensors, where the ray angle actually means more than just vignetting in the corners. So having a mirror less digitla camera (like Fuji X-Pro1 & X-E1) does not mean that old RF lenses actually work well with them. Lenses for those cameras have to designed like they were meant for DLSRs.

What mirrorless cameras giveth to the lens designers, digital sensors taketh away...
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: EinstStein on January 06, 2013, 06:08:09 pm
>> What mirrorless cameras giveth to the lens designers, digital sensors taketh away...

It sounds right. Comparing Contax SLR vs. Contax G, Fujifilm Xpro-1 system vs. Canon T4i/5D system, with the limited lenses I tried (Contax : 28,45,90,35-70 zoom; Canon/Fuji: 28f1.8,50f1.4,85f1.8 vs. 18f2,35f1.4,60f2.4) the SLR look better in IQ, and the price is clearly on the SLR side. For about $3200, I have the choice of  Fuji Xpro1 + 35.1.4 + 18/2.0 + 60/2.4  or  Canon 6D + 50/1.4 + 28/1,8 + 85/1.8. But  Fuji-X is APS-C while Canon is full frame. Canon has a lot of room ready to expand but Fuji-X is still hard to say.

But in the long run, potentially, will Fuji-X eventually offer  a better IQ system? 

Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Petrus on January 07, 2013, 12:03:33 am
>> What mirrorless cameras giveth to the lens designers, digital sensors taketh away...

It sounds right. Comparing Contax SLR vs. Contax G, Fujifilm Xpro-1 system vs. Canon T4i/5D system, with the limited lenses I tried (Contax : 28,45,90,35-70 zoom; Canon/Fuji: 28f1.8,50f1.4,85f1.8 vs. 18f2,35f1.4,60f2.4) the SLR look better in IQ, and the price is clearly on the SLR side. For about $3200, I have the choice of  Fuji Xpro1 + 35.1.4 + 18/2.0 + 60/2.4  or  Canon 6D + 50/1.4 + 28/1,8 + 85/1.8. But  Fuji-X is APS-C while Canon is full frame. Canon has a lot of room ready to expand but Fuji-X is still hard to say.

But in the long run, potentially, will Fuji-X eventually offer  a better IQ system? 

The basic mistake here is to compare those cameras in the first place. They are not really competitors, they all can be used to take photographs, but DSLRs are the best allround tools with greatest selection of lenses, while our Fujis are more about feel and shooting style for certain shooting situations and styles than allround greatness. With great IQ, by the way, even if "only" APS-C sensor. This is my firm view, influenced by the fact that I have both a full DSLR kit and Fuji XF kit in my possession and I need not think about which is "better". Heavy DSLR is "better" 80% of the time.

In the long run ALL camera companies offer better IQ systems... Or at least the same, cheaper.
Title: Mirrorless ddigital has more les design optms
Post by: BJL on January 07, 2013, 12:18:43 am
A mirrorless camera can also use lens designs with rear elements very close to the sensor but far from symmetric, and with very high exit pupil, and so with angle of imcidence of light on the sensor very close to perpendicular even towards the corners, and so with low vignetting problems. Some fixed lens digital cameras use such designs.

So modern mirrorless digital camera lens designs can be very far from old rangefinder film camera lens designs, to allow for the different behavior of electronic sensors compared to film.

And of course they are also free to use any lens design that works with an SLR! So the mirrorless approach does not "taketh away" anything from lens designers — it only adds more choices.
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 07, 2013, 12:35:42 am
Hi,

It really depends on what you put in the term IQ.

It seems that Fuji has an odd placement of RGB filters which many raw converters may have problems with. Fuji wants to eliminate need of OLP filtering by having a different RGB pattern leading to less Moiré. They can probably improve on that.

Regarding noise and ISO don't expect to much. The sensor collects photons and they are quite good at that. Sensor designers can reduce readout noise but that doesn't help against laws of nature (random distribution of light). I'm pretty sure sensors are close to optimum.

Best regards
Erik


But in the long run, potentially, will Fuji-X eventually offer  a better IQ system? 


Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: DaveL on January 08, 2013, 09:40:56 am
What makes you think that the price of an item has to be related to its actual level of performance?

The right pricing is nothing but the amount of money the buyer is willing to pay.

Cheers,
Bernard


Thanks Bernard! You're right.

Meantime, I had hoped to find the answer to my question. "Which small camera is the holy grail? Of course, it must be affordable.

(I read through these posts as I am contemplating yet another camera purchase. I have used a little Pany camera for about a year, to journal for work, and capture the odd image.  It has worked well for work issues, but not so well for other uses. Pany ZS20.)
Short list is a G15, or the Fuji rangefinder-like camera with wide to moderate zoom lens. This was offered to me yesterday as a store's suggestion.
Just personal use, no thought of service or sales.

The little voice on my shoulder doesn't help. It says "snatch a Nikon 1 V1, they are such a bargain now!"



Currently using an OM D, and a basic Nikon d300s system. And a Pany Zs20...
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: EinstStein on January 09, 2013, 09:41:03 pm
What makes you think that the price of an item has to be related to its actual level of performance?

Is this a joke?
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Petrus on January 09, 2013, 11:54:55 pm
Is this a joke?

No. For example there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ. People are paying 10X more just for the brand and the legend and the feeling it provides to the photographer. So the cost consists of real practical value and a bunch of imaginary qualities, for which people are sometimes willing to pay more than the basic "tool" worth. Basic marketing economics. And in the end the value really is whatever a buyer is willing to pay, no more, no less.
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Paul Sumi on January 10, 2013, 12:41:34 am
The basic mistake here is to compare those cameras in the first place. They are not really competitors, they all can be used to take photographs, but DSLRs are the best allround tools with greatest selection of lenses, while our Fujis are more about feel and shooting style for certain shooting situations and styles than allround greatness.

As a recent X-Pro 1 buyer and long-time SLR/DSLR user, I wholeheartedly agree with Petrus' comment.  It's the difference between a small, open sports car and a SUV. The former is more fun to drive, but the latter is more versatile.

Depending on what you photograph, both can have a place in your photography toolkit.  But I never thought that the Fuji camera could replace my DSLR system.

Paul
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 10, 2013, 01:22:42 am
No,

Do you think a Hasselblad Lunar at 5000$ has better image quality than a NEX-7 at perhaps 800$? The Lunar is a NEX-7 with an "exclusive" exterior. Same electronics, sensors and lenses.

Best regards
Erik

Is this a joke?
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: EinstStein on January 10, 2013, 02:18:26 am
>> For example there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ.

Don't know what you are talking about. Do you? You've done the first hand and real comparison, haven't you? 
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: EinstStein on January 10, 2013, 02:34:52 am
No,

Do you think a Hasselblad Lunar at 5000$ has better image quality than a NEX-7 at perhaps 800$? The Lunar is a NEX-7 with an "exclusive" exterior. Same electronics, sensors and lenses.

Best regards
Erik


I can't judge that yet, I haven't seen any Lunar sample. Have you? 
I've heard Lunar and Nex has the same sensor size, I won't doubt given the more advanced and sophisticated electronics and better lens, there could be big difference. I'm sure because I've seen big IQ differences between some old P&S and the new P&S, that have the same vendor and same sensor size. 
But I am willing to bet the Lunar's IQ won't be as good as 6D, no, not even close. I've compared the APS-C DSLR and the FF DSLR. Given the right lenses, and stays in the still photography, even the old Kodak DCS SLR/C puts the new T4i in the dust.

But I start to understand what the joke means. Yes, you can find inferior equipment that costs a lot more. The Fuji-X is exactly one of the example, and the Lunar may well be another one, (yet to see).
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Petrus on January 10, 2013, 03:57:43 am
>> For example there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ.

Don't know what you are talking about. Do you? You've done the first hand and real comparison, haven't you? 

There is no need to personally test everything to have an informed opinion.
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 10, 2013, 06:03:39 am
Hi,

If you check out the info here on luminous landscape the Lunar is a Sony NEX 7 with an outer shell and the lenses are the same lenses Sony has.

With sensor, electronics and lens being exactly the same I don't think that there will be any difference in image quality. That is the exact reason I mentioned the Lunar as an example.

Best regards
Erik


I can't judge that yet, I haven't seen any Lunar sample. Have you? 
I've heard Lunar and Nex has the same sensor size, I won't doubt given the more advanced and sophisticated electronics and better lens, there could be big difference. I'm sure because I've seen big IQ differences between some old P&S and the new P&S, that have the same vendor and same sensor size. 
But I am willing to bet the Lunar's IQ won't be as good as 6D, no, not even close. I've compared the APS-C DSLR and the FF DSLR. Given the right lenses, and stays in the still photography, even the old Kodak DCS SLR/C puts the new T4i in the dust.

But I start to understand what the joke means. Yes, you can find inferior equipment that costs a lot more. The Fuji-X is exactly one of the example, and the Lunar may well be another one, (yet to see).

Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: AlfSollund on January 10, 2013, 08:22:04 am
No. For example there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ. People are paying 10X more just for the brand and the legend and the feeling it provides to the photographer. So the cost consists of real practical value and a bunch of imaginary qualities, for which people are sometimes willing to pay more than the basic "tool" worth. Basic marketing economics. And in the end the value really is whatever a buyer is willing to pay, no more, no less.

Overall I totally agree om your conclusion "the value really is whatever a buyer is willing to pay, no more, no less".

But to "there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ" I think you are setting your $1000 way to low. The IQ can be a combination of lens, sensor parameters (such as measured by DXOmark) and the resolution. You seems to be aiming at Leica M9. This has a resolution comparable to aprox 24Mp, the best optics (objectively) in nearly all focal ranges, but a sensor that can be bested by a few $1000 camera's on objective measurments.

So what $1000 camera should be purchase that best a M9 on IQ  ;)?
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Petrus on January 10, 2013, 08:57:51 am

So what $1000 camera should be purchase that best a M9 on IQ  ;)?

I think you got my point, even if I was trolling a bit...

While there is some sort of statistical connection between the price and quality (there are many different qualities, by the way), we all (should) know they are not connected by a strict formula, and that there are cheap* cameras which produce terrific results, while it is possible to spend ten times more and not get the same IQ, but maybe something else like possible/imagined status or pride of ownership or better handling or whatever.

In photography and video it is fortunately fairly easy to compare picture quality between two cameras, so we do not have the same situation as in audio/hi-fi, where people are willing to pay idiotic amounts of money for tweaks which do not and can not work. It is not possible to make a straight comparison between two sounds, so people might pay thousands for a data cable. I have never seen anybody to claim that DR and color depth improve by using a $1000 special photo-USB cable for PC-Camera connection, which is not uncommon on the audio side.

*) cheap = around $1000 or so. Like Sigma Merrills...
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: EinstStein on January 10, 2013, 12:10:27 pm
of course I knew you didn't have any direct experience on what you said.
But be careful, false witness is a sin. There is no point to spread an unconfirmed harmful rumor.
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: EinstStein on January 10, 2013, 12:25:01 pm
The point you agreed and the mysterious $1000 magic system are not from the same poster. It's interesting to observe that how the Internet can flood with so much wisdom and irresponsible nonsense, side by side.

I think my question and the market driven pricing comment shares the same view. The facts of the pricing is so realistic and rediculous at the same time. Each buyer has to determine whether its reasonable or rediculous according to his own need, if  he can collect adequate truth and facts.

One post said my question is not a valid question. Well, there is only invalid answer, there is no such thing as invalid question.





Overall I totally agree om your conclusion "the value really is whatever a buyer is willing to pay, no more, no less".

But to "there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ" I think you are setting your $1000 way to low. The IQ can be a combination of lens, sensor parameters (such as measured by DXOmark) and the resolution. You seems to be aiming at Leica M9. This has a resolution comparable to aprox 24Mp, the best optics (objectively) in nearly all focal ranges, but a sensor that can be bested by a few $1000 camera's on objective measurments.

So what $1000 camera should be purchase that best a M9 on IQ  ;)?
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: TMARK on January 10, 2013, 02:19:17 pm
The thing about the Leica M digitals is that they DO enable me to get shots I couldn't really get with a dslr.  Its the handling and speed of manual focus, the lenses, as well as the rangefinder.  In terms of IQ, the Fuji X100 in most situations beats the M8, in fact it puts the M8 to shame, except in a very narrow range of circumstances (base ISO fast shutter stopped down).  The M9 is a different story.  I think the IQ is fantastic within its comfort zone.  What makes it better, than say a D800e?  Just that it is smaller and (for me) faster.  What makes it better than a DP2m?  Speed and the rangefinder.

That being said, the M9 and a good lens is not worth $7500, to me.  I don't care if they are assembled by Walkyrie and made from Wotan's own sword steel, the red dot in and of itself isn't valuable to me.

I sold my M8 and M9. I found that the X100 was equal in terms of IQ (edged out by the M9 but not by much).  I sold the X100 because of certain handling problems, mainly selection of the AF point and the pathetic manual focus function.  I might try the Sigmas, but they look to have the same issues with regard to AF selection and of course there is no RF coupled optical VF.  The search continues.
I think you got my point, even if I was trolling a bit...

While there is some sort of statistical connection between the price and quality (there are many different qualities, by the way), we all (should) know they are not connected by a strict formula, and that there are cheap* cameras which produce terrific results, while it is possible to spend ten times more and not get the same IQ, but maybe something else like possible/imagined status or pride of ownership or better handling or whatever.

In photography and video it is fortunately fairly easy to compare picture quality between two cameras, so we do not have the same situation as in audio/hi-fi, where people are willing to pay idiotic amounts of money for tweaks which do not and can not work. It is not possible to make a straight comparison between two sounds, so people might pay thousands for a data cable. I have never seen anybody to claim that DR and color depth improve by using a $1000 special photo-USB cable for PC-Camera connection, which is not uncommon on the audio side.

*) cheap = around $1000 or so. Like Sigma Merrills...
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: FredBGG on January 11, 2013, 06:38:34 pm
I can't judge that yet, I haven't seen any Lunar sample. Have you? 
I've heard Lunar and Nex has the same sensor size, I won't doubt given the more advanced and sophisticated electronics and better lens, there could be big difference. I'm sure because

The Hasselblad Lunar is a Sony Nex that Hasselblad put their logo on and pimped up the body by covering it
with vulgar wood, snakes skin and other crap. Made Hasselblad the laughing stock of Photokina.
While Hasselblad and their owner venture Capital company Ventiz hoped that the Lunar would be an easy
cash cow it turned out to be a disaster.

What is really funny is that they took one of the main winning features of the Nex... it's compact and efficient size and
made it a bloated ugly, clunky mess. It's also so bloody obvious that it's cobbled together...

(http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_news/hassleblad_lunar_preview_27.jpg)

more images here:

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/hasselblad_lunar_hands-on_photos/ (http://www.photographyblog.com/news/hasselblad_lunar_hands-on_photos/)

The video from Hasselblad is a joke...

http://youtu.be/OUteaK0Ckjw (http://youtu.be/OUteaK0Ckjw)
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Petrus on January 12, 2013, 01:31:37 am
This Lunar reminds me of some Hi-Fi players (a certain laserdisc long ago, more recently several CD/SACD/BluRay players) where a company making upper segment gear simply took an off-the-shelf unit and repacked it inside a bigger, heavier box and sold them at 5 to 10 times the price. So now we have the same with cameras. If you do not want a lowly Oppo player, get a Lexicon wrapper for it at 5 times the price, if Sony is too middle class, get a Hasselblad Lunar at 5 times the price...
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: LKaven on January 13, 2013, 06:28:38 am
To me Hasselblad squandered their credibility entirely on the Lunar gambit.  The sickening promotional video is packed with lies and half-truths, and smells of desperation.  The product shows creative fatigue.  I'm not looking /them/ up for big ticket purchases.  Jeez, even the Saabaru (Saab 9-2x) didn't really cost any more than a Subaru, and looked just a bit better to boot.
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Hulyss on January 13, 2013, 07:32:21 am
To me Hasselblad squandered their credibility entirely on the Lunar gambit.  The sickening promotional video is packed with lies and half-truths, and smells of desperation.  The product shows creative fatigue.  I'm not looking /them/ up for big ticket purchases.  Jeez, even the Saabaru (Saab 9-2x) didn't really cost any more than a Subaru, and looked just a bit better to boot.

Ho yeah. This just incredible what Hasselblad did, even with the sales politics...

In my country (France), I just can't believe what happened two weeks ago, in my little corner of this country. I know the official seller of Hasselblad system in this part of France, who is very serious, do have the different body's and back, know the system and the services around this system, is a true official leica store to and got my S2 from him but, in my town, (poor sad town) there is some photo shops who never ever touched at any MFDB or modern MF system. Well, late December, a guy I know got some money and decided to buy "the marvellous H4D31 + 110 f2.2" because he seen on the net "wonderfull photos out of it". The guy is not what I call a great photographer, he didn't even known how to old his Dslrs (wrong eye in the VF...), he never ever had or tested a 24x36 camera, just got Pentax APS-C and his most advanced photographs are barbie dolls in the kitchen or wastes on a table or people from his windows. Well... the little shop in my town convinced him it was a very good choice, this is a true MF, 24x36 is just shitty, no need to try, go on !! (evenb though it is a great client of this little shop, since years !).

So he putted a check of 14.000 + Euros and got his almost obsolete and not so friendly H4D31. They didn't even knew how to plug the handle. I seen his first photo on flickr done with this material and was like ... WTF !! What the hell did he bought ?? He landed at home and I explained him why H4D31 is not really the better choice actually (the lens is stellar but the body and the back ... lol), I asked him why on hearth he did bought that without trying, without knowing, without having a real computer for the files (3 years old samsung laptop) without having any kind of adapted tripod and any clue about MF systems ... It was surreal and I can't believe how silly is this situation.

I ended with the official Hasselblad dealer at phone who was annihilated, prostrate by this new and investigated that even little clueless shops can buy directly this kind of material via some behind market and this is just a shame.

So I blamed the guy (the one who bought the camera), explained him why it is not a real clever choice actually to invest 14000 € in a H4D system (even more the 31 MP back), explained him that for less money he can have fare more better rendering in MF world (645DF + Leaf Aptus-II 5 touch screen !!!! and bigger sensor !!!! 25 ISO !!! + SEKOR AF 110MM F2.8 LS D leaf shutter !!! + Gitzo tripod ...) or in 24x36 world (D800 and all the best zeiss or Nikkor glass, even the D4) ...

The guy ended up very destabilized and I ended up very very angry that a firm like Hasselblad can permit this kind of error because this is an error and do not bring good notoriety to this brand, at the end.

Just lame.
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 13, 2013, 08:32:07 am
Hi,

You don't get it. Built with the finest snake oil...

Best regards
Erik



The Hasselblad Lunar is a Sony Nex that Hasselblad put their logo on and pimped up the body by covering it
with vulgar wood, snakes skin and other crap. Made Hasselblad the laughing stock of Photokina.
While Hasselblad and their owner venture Capital company Ventiz hoped that the Lunar would be an easy
cash cow it turned out to be a disaster.

What is really funny is that they took one of the main winning features of the Nex... it's compact and efficient size and
made it a bloated ugly, clunky mess. It's also so bloody obvious that it's cobbled together...

(http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_news/hassleblad_lunar_preview_27.jpg)

more images here:

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/hasselblad_lunar_hands-on_photos/ (http://www.photographyblog.com/news/hasselblad_lunar_hands-on_photos/)

The video from Hasselblad is a joke...

http://youtu.be/OUteaK0Ckjw (http://youtu.be/OUteaK0Ckjw)
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Ed B on January 13, 2013, 03:08:47 pm
The guy is not what I call a great photographer, he didn't even known how to old his Dslrs (wrong eye in the VF...)

There's a wrong eye?
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Hulyss on January 13, 2013, 03:55:22 pm
If you do not have any ocular problems DSLR are made to use your RIGHT eye and hold with the right hand. Otherwise you will have hard time using your thumb on your pad and you will have your nose spreading sebum on your screen.

Yes, there is a wrong eye :) But if ppl want to use the other eye, its up to them (unless they have an ocular problem at the right eye).

There is also some rules to hold a DSLR but that is an another thread.
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Petrus on January 13, 2013, 04:57:40 pm
I have a highly regarded colleague who is left eyed and shoots his DSLR with left eye. Looks a bit funny, but that is the fault of the camera design made for the majority, not his. He has been able to shoot professionally for 30 years, even as the pool shooter for the Olympics. Using the "wrong" eye is not nearly as bad a crime as holding the lens the wrong way, with palm down...
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Ed B on January 13, 2013, 06:09:39 pm
I've always used my left eye and have never had a problem. I tried using my right eye a few times but I could never get it to the center of the VF quickly, it always ended up off center a bit and I struggled some. I'm not sure why I use my left eye as I am right handed but it just feels natural to me.
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: LKaven on January 13, 2013, 07:14:37 pm
I'm right-handed, and have been using my left eye on the viewfinder for 40 years.  It uses my right brain more, and there is a noticeable difference in what I perceive with it as compared to the other eye.

As far as the camera goes, there's always something in the way, no matter which eye. 
Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: Hulyss on January 13, 2013, 07:54:23 pm
I perfectly understand what you are saying. The situation I explain is just about ergonomic. The guy was trying one of my Nikon bodys and said "I can't use the pad correctly, the camera is definitively not for me". I said it was strange because the pad is right under the thumb... then I saw his nose on the pad ;D

I often too, use my left eye but only when I use the body in portrait mode (it is maybe why I use more my body's in portrait mode than landscape mode).

Title: Re: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive
Post by: EinstStein on January 13, 2013, 08:49:19 pm
Hasselblad V system is an amazing system, but since Hasselblad turned into Fujiblad, I haven't found anything impressive until now,... the Lunar.
It is really impressive, in the opposite way, although I try to hold my judge until the real Lunar shows up.