Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: Today at 07:13:52 AM 
Started by tom b - Last post by john beardsworth
Which is exactly the same thing, and it's not just the knowledge of history that counts, but also its interpretation and relevance to modern events.

When the OP's knowledge is so half-baked, interpretation or comparison with recent events is worthless and in that case pretty sick. 

 on: Today at 07:11:19 AM 
Started by amolitor - Last post by Stefan12345
you totally miss the point that with ISO variant camera I already have better readout noise @ ISO400 than you with ISO invariant camera by definition (of variantness) so if I need to push by a stop in raw converter I am in a better situation than you ;D... you start with the worse readout noise, I start with better - we both push by a stop... and if I am paranoid about blowing something then I can just start @ base ISO where we by definition have the same situation... so I have a choice - you don't
I stand corrected. I did not know that an ISO variant camera by definition has the same readout noise at base ISO as an ISO invariant camera.
I thought ISO invariance just meant that shooting at increased ISO delivers the same results as shooting at base ISO and then pushing the image an equivalent number of stops. (using the same exposure settings ofcourse)

 on: Today at 07:09:35 AM 
Started by lotusEsp - Last post by torger
With the budget at hand we're looking at an old Hassy or an old DF+. I'd choose the earlier for sure but it depends on what deals you can get. Here in Sweden you can get quite attractive deals on second hand Hassy gear, less often so with Phase One gear.

If you're only in it for the image quality the risk of disappointment is fairly large as you won't get the latest and greatest, and the latest and greatest 135 has come quite far. MFD lenses are excellent of course. I'm personally not fond of the non-round out of focus bokeh highlights of stopped down apertures though, but that's about the only thing that's not top notch. What can be disappointing is sensor performance, resolution, noise, ISO performance. Always make sure to use native software Phocus for Hassy and Capture One for Phase One, that can make a pretty large difference, mostly thanks to finely tuned noise reduction and good color profiles. I'm not that fond of Phase One colors, I think Hassy is better but that's a matter of taste. I make my own profiles regardless (using DCamProf) so that does not really matter, but that's me.

To be happy you should be into the handling and format as well I think. I like the ergonomics of the Hassy, nice large viewfinder. If you can make creative use of the fast leaf shutters that is a huge plus as that's a unique feature of these systems.

The reason I am myself using MF is only partly image quality, the major reason is the tech camera (a Linhof Techno) which gives me a "large format" workflow for creating images with lens movements. I have a H4D-50, but I have only occasionally used the body as for all hand-held "serious" work my Canon suits better. Instead I use the back on my tech cam. Had I been interested in flash photography I'm sure I would have played around with the possibilities the leaf shutter gives me though, so it's very personal.

 on: Today at 06:55:00 AM 
Started by takefive - Last post by torger
It's not the P45+, but the older P45 right? The P45+ is valued quite much more due to it's long exposure.

I don't think there are any such third party service centers (I've never heard about anything like that), but maybe some "generic" electronic repair firm could take a look and see if it's something that's easy to repair with standard components. It could be worthwhile to at least ask Phase One what the cost would be, but yes I see it as likely but not certain that it will exceed 3-4000USD. I made a complete E-box replacement (all internal electronics, but not the sensor) for my Leaf Aptus a couple years ago it was 2200 or so, I don't remember exactly, if the price is similar for your repair it could still be worth it.

Otherwise I'd ditch the back and buy a another one in the second hand market. Even if you sometimes takes a big hit, like this, over a longer term you save money when dealing second hand stuff as the new gear is so incredibly expensive. If you get something new really expensive I'd suggest to get an insurance that cover most things.

I think selling as faulty is a bad idea and a big risk of making the buyer disappointed just causing trouble, and you will get so little money for it that it's hardly worth it.

 on: Today at 06:54:56 AM 
Started by BobDavid - Last post by FranciscoDisilvestro

 on: Today at 06:39:53 AM 
Started by BartvanderWolf - Last post by BernardLanguillier
They work in exactly the same way - just that the SLR has more of everything, so it can work faster.

And everything may include better lens AF technology and, your guess is as good as mine, engineers with more experience serving the most demanding action shooters?


 on: Today at 06:38:04 AM 
Started by David Anderson - Last post by JaapD
Please be aware that with a Mirrorless camera you can still have a de-focussed image. You may have heard of spherical aberrations where the focus point shifts as a function of the lens aperture. Just like an SLR a Mirrorless camera focusses at its widest aperture, then closes the aperture for taking the actual image.

 on: Today at 06:37:07 AM 
Started by HumptyDumpty - Last post by Stefan Ohlsson

So I started looking at ImagePrint. Pros are:

1. For 17" printer (what I have) it's cheaper than i1Pro

2. I don't have to build profiles nor worry about cost of new profiles

3. Allegedly it results in best print quality one can get

Cons are:

1. It supports only Epsons. I don't see myself printing wider than what 3880 can in the near future but if I was to go wider, or if my 3880 died, my next printer would be most likely Canon and at that point in time my investment in ImagePrinmt would be lost and I would be back at square one.

So what are your thoughts / what you would do / recommend?

I do my own profiles and I use ImagePrint. The profiles that I create is for my proofing RIP, not for ImagePrint. I also do profiles for some of my clients. They make smaller prints, using the Epson driver. Then they come to me and we do the large format prints with ImagePrint. When I use the x900 printers I can see a small but significant difference between the prints. It seems like that the Epson profiles don't use that much of the orange and green inks that the Imageprint profiles do. You can see an improvement in some portraits and landscape images. This will also give the prints better light fastness, as those inks don't fade as fast as the yellow ink does.
For B&W there is a bigger difference. For me, one of the big advantages of ImagePrint is the result that I get when I use the narrow gamut tint picker. I can adjust the tint of the image, so I can emulate the effects that I got in the darkroom by choosing different papers, developers and toners. I've tried several other methods for printing B&W images, but I haven't seen anything better.

 on: Today at 06:35:48 AM 
Started by jeff_singer - Last post by BernardLanguillier
...I thought of adding a Leica S-007 (so that I can have high Iso too as I need that some times...), but although this is not an idea that has left my mind, I thought it's best for the moment to add a P-65+ back on the Contax...

You cannot possibly be serious... you have been selling us the unique values and transcendant superiority of the double O seven for months... and you won't even buy one??? ;)


 on: Today at 06:33:18 AM 
Started by BartvanderWolf - Last post by shadowblade
It is probably possible to make a better EVF and better AF if you can increase body size by 2x (and/or increase battery size accordingly). That is not to say that mirrorless would be strictly better than SLR in every concievable way had their body been larger.The PDAF of a Sony A7rII does not work in exactly the same way as the PDAF of a Nikon D810, nor does its actual performance match it as far as I know.

Then tell me exactly how they differ. Both rely on information collected from a sensor - in the case of the SLR, a separate sensor using light reflected from the mirror, and, in the case of the mirrorless body, the actual imaging sensor. Both use two lines of pixels pointed at opposite sides of the lens to detemine whether the target is in focus. In both cases, it's determined by a processor, which then sends a signal to the lens telling it to move in one direction or the other, as well as how far. The only differences are the location of the sensor (on the imaging sensor vs a separate AF array), the processor (multifunction or dedicated AF processor) and the power delivered to the lens to make it move - all of which are quantitative differences, not qualitative onesm. They work in exactly the same way - just that the SLR has more of everything, so it can work faster.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10