Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Leica vs. Sony RX1  (Read 28066 times)

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2013, 04:29:15 PM »

If you can read spanish, they did a Fuji vs Sony comparative in this website and they were absolutly surprised by the Fuji.

http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x100s-analisis-muestras-comparativa-sony-rx1,1_9607

There are samples face-to-face at the very bottom of the article. You can download the Raws. The Fuji stands very well.

Thanks Fred! 
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1308
  • guest
    • working
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2013, 04:36:30 PM »

You are not: you're an image Maker.


Fred's 100% right.  In commerce, our job description has changed.

Anyway,

Until the gh3, I've never used an evf except on the RED's and video cameras.

Never really like them, though find looking at a viewfinder more natural than a screen, unless your shooting motion and moving, then a way to get the lens off the face is usually smoother.

The gh3, I love the viewfinder, same with the Olympus.   In fact most of the time I never think about it being electronic, unless the white balance is way off, or the scene is very, very dark, then it's noticeable, but usable.

I've compared a lot of cameras recently, as our production model has changed.  We have to shoot motion, stills, of the same session, the best way to approach what we do is to think of it more as multimedia rather than just a still or cinema shoot.

To do this takes time and a different mindset of working.   Early on when everyone started to do video with their still sessions, everyone said you can't do both, but now, whether you like to or not , you must do both, (and do it pretty damn well) or at least with my clients and it's not uncommon to add still photography to a motion piece.

We just finished a 3 minute video that has over 106 separate pieces of media so on the average the scene changes about every 1.5 seconds, so still or digital it's all quick.

Personally, though I favor still imagery as that is my training, I'm agnostic whether it's still or motion, both have their place.

The only issue with motion is the post work monster as doing 10 elaborate still images in post can be done in a few days, doing 10 setups of motion imagery in post for a unique look can take many weeks.  

There just really isn't an easy way to effect motion imagery, but with these smaller cameras getting better and better, there is an efficient way to shoot it.

I personally like evfs to some extend, but whether I like them or not, I know they are what all cameras will be.  Mirrorless is here and effective.

Not to go off track, but I've tested aps-c cameras, 4/3's, full frame and honestly once you get below 20 mpx, they all are about the same in final output.  

Each scene per camera can produce a different look, but each camera, has different processing, lenses, etc. but pretty much put them all dead even, under 20 mpx.

What I love about the 4/3's system is I've virtually begged for a camera that would shoot a 4:3 crop native, 2:3 and 16x9 without lines but just black around the finder, so what I see is what I get.

The 4:3's cameras shoot more than acceptable video, with stabilization, more than acceptable stills.

They look small compared to modern dslrs, but modern dslrs have grown way big compared to what used to be film cameras, so I don't find the size that big of a deal.

I really wanted a camera like the Epic or Scarlet to shoot autofocus video, tight stills all from one system and the scarlet/epics are good, but really are motion picture style cameras, not run and gun video, not really tight stills.

Or a medium format style camera that would shoot exceptional video, but until you go to the gh3, nothing is close.

The GH3 does that well and for the purists that think you can't creatively autofocus a motion image they need to try the GH3 because overall it's as or more reliable than a manual focus puller, which is pretty amazing for a $1,200 camera.

Anyway, EVF's are with us and I like them or at least learn to work with and around them, the same way we did with optical finders.

This isn't a commercial for panasonic, but I honestly find the gh3 to be what modern cameras really can be.   Stabilized, electronically useful and productive as well as cost effective.

I own three RED's, two digital backed cameras,  4- 35mm ff dslrs and I can take a 4:3 gh3 and go do virtually the same work with one system that weighs 15 lbs, I've done with multiple cameras that total out hundreds of lbs.

In costs, one GH3 system with 4 lenses is about $6,000 or so, one Olympus system with 4 primes about $5,300.  That's less than a set of PL lenses.

Now I'm sorry this response is so long, but we have to realize it's a different world.  

All clients care about image quality, regardless of what anyone says, but more than the image quality, they care about telling the story and if anything has changed in the last few years it's  all imagery, still and motion must tell some kind of story.

I think the days of single purpose cameras will be with us for a long time, but I also think our roles have change from dp, director, camera operator, photographer to a mix mash of image maker.

I would love to turn back the clock 10 years and be "just" a photographer, that shoots stills as I love the still image, but I also like working.

The one thing missing in the chain, of motion/stills is a way to quickly get the same exact high end look from the still and motion frame.  

I am at a loss as to why lightroom is so different than speedgrade, photoshop's interface 180 from After Effects, DiVinci, Baselight so different than anything.

If I was Phase One, I'd beg and borrow 200 clips from all cameras and work day and night to make one suite that did the same look for stills and motion imagery.  I'd look for a hardware solution  like Matrox that sped up the process and I'd bundle my Phase One cameras with a panasonic gh3.

If I was a camera maker, I'd tear a gh3 apart, find out exactly what it's missing (pro rezz 4:4:4: in 12 to 14 bit, and dual channel xlr inputs), and I'd set up training and sell the hell out of them.

Bottom line is the GH3 and some of the Sony's prove what a camera could be . . . but aren't.  

This is an electronics game of upgrade every 18 months to get another 20% of what we need.

Search around for cameras.  You either get great dedicated still cameras that require a lot of light and shoot crappy video, great motion picture cameras that require dedicated focus pullers, way expensive lenses and tons of wattage and shoot great digital video and usually not a lot in between.

That little GH3 proves what can be done, and better yet what really could be done.  It still takes creativity, certain amount of crew, dedicated light, a good story, etc. etc., but cameras shouldn't hold us back, waiting for the next 18 month upgrade.

Once again, sorry for the rambling response.



IMO

BC



fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
    • on YouTube
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2013, 06:50:53 PM »

...and that, my friend, is either a wonderful error in translation or a fortunate typo, or perhaps the wittiest line I've seen here in a long time ;-)

Oh deer! Another big english and basic mistake...in the very line of Robin Wood
As my zen teacher says: don't trust the mind.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 07:24:21 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
    • on YouTube
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2013, 07:13:25 PM »

Fred's 100% right.  In commerce, our job description has changed.

I think that the boundaries have been razed like the Berlin's wall. Today's kids have grown-up with both lenguage naturaly. We still think dual because we belong to a time when a photographer was
well...a photographer, and a cineast a cineast. But this is already a dead reality. The pro world, as it demands a certain standart of quality, still is logicaly for specialists and specialities but this is changing really fast
and there will be soon no possibility for a photographer not doing videos. Even the major broadcast are changing their mentalities. People are going to have to be multitask.

The only issue with motion is the post work monster as doing 10 elaborate still images in post can be done in a few days, doing 10 setups of motion imagery in post for a unique look can take many weeks.  

It's evolving, slowly but still a much bigger time, money and tech blackhole. I guess in a few years we will be able to do what costs us a week in 1/2 of the time and much easier and with 1/2 people on set.

Not to go off track, but I've tested aps-c cameras, 4/3's, full frame and honestly once you get below 20 mpx, they all are about the same in final output.  

Absolutly. In fact when I first had this GH2 some years ago, it delivers a similar output than what was the not so antique 17MP Canon 1D used and abused in lots of editorials and
fashion works. Even better in low-light. And on a blind test, under 20ish MP, I doubt somebody would be able to discover any of the current cameras, FF or not.


The GH3 does that well and for the purists that think you can't creatively autofocus a motion image they need to try the GH3 because overall it's as or more reliable than a manual focus puller, which is pretty amazing for a $1,200 camera.

Yes, it's pretty amazing indeed.


I would love to turn back the clock 10 years and be "just" a photographer, that shoots stills as I love the still image, but I also like working.

Naaa...you'd miss motion. It's too fun. You'd be back to still-only and you'd be bored like hell.


If I was a camera maker, I'd tear a gh3 apart, find out exactly what it's missing (pro rezz 4:4:4: in 12 to 14 bit, and dual channel xlr inputs), and I'd set up training and sell the hell out of them.

Bottom line is the GH3 and some of the Sony's prove what a camera could be . . . but aren't.

That's the big frustration. And it's not a tech problem, wich makes it even more irritating.   

This is an electronics game of upgrade every 18 months to get another 20% of what we need.

And that's why it happens (that they never finish to put all the features we want-need).
And same on softwares. I was looking at the latest Avid upgrade and frankly, not to jump on the ceiling.
Instead of that, they had better re-new DS that would have been the truth all-in-one we all want
to avoid roundtrippings, but...
The prob is that people that take decisions aren't the ones that use their products. It became a profitable business only
and a consumism to the absurd. People buy just to buy. They just buy a new gear, a new software and it's already obsolete.
And look at the forums, at each upgrade, it's the new messiah and the promise land that of course never comes, because
just a few months later, a new promised land is anounced. Now they even put products in the market that aren't fully ready...

JJ was not kidding when he said: the ones who sell their R1 will regret it. Because the R1 was made to last, like the Alexa.


« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 07:49:26 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14658
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #44 on: June 04, 2013, 09:38:19 AM »

Shot and processed to Born In The USA.

Three facts came out to greet me:

1.  I was stunned at how much bigger the apparent viewfinder of the olde worlde cameras compared with the D700;

2.  my eyes are truly shot: I'd need about two or three diopters more than the camera has...

3.  the split wedge screen is fantastic, poor eyes or not.

Progress? Yes, with digital I could shoot the shot in three or four minutes and process in a few more.

Happy? What do you think?

Rob C

P.S. The strap has been on every camera in the evolution, up to and including the F4s, since the original F.  
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 12:13:21 PM by Rob C »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1308
  • guest
    • working
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2013, 01:41:30 PM »


Happy? What do you think?

Rob C

P.S. The strap has been on every camera in the evolution, up to and including the F4s, since the original F.  

The New Deal.



I'm serious.  A laptop, a $49 wifi card, $19.00 software called little snitch and you wifi to the laptop where you can process, or to an ipad where the clients can see every image without 250 lbs of computers, screens, battery backups and 3200 iso.

The lenses are fast, small, lightweight, cheap and deadly sharp.   A few moves of the menu and you can make kodachrome, epr, your own film and effects with a jpeg to show and a raw to go back to if you need changes. 

The panasonic has a setting called toy camera that's bloody beautiful, or high def which is stunning.

You can roughly calibrate the camera screens where they match your computer, what you see in the viewfinder is the look you going to see on the back end, if you want to manual focus tight, turn the focus ring and it zooms it at a billion percent then snaps back to full frame, then shoot.

The camera, lens prices are back to film days camera lens prices, including inflation.  $900 for a body, $200 for a motor winder, $499 to $699 for a lens.

Buy three carry them on your shoulder and they weight less than an F5 with a motor.

In about 2 hours you totally forget what the real format is, all you see is the look, the image, the crop, the photo.

Yes a 25mm is a 50, a 75 a 150, a 12 a 24, but that doesn't matter as long as the image is good and all the lenses are fast 1.4 to 1.8.

With settings that take a while to learn, once you've got it down your essentially setting your look in camera and the jpegs can go straight to web galleries you can upload on the fly.

These cameras IMO are the first time digital has shown promise to be what it can be.  Rather than becoming more bulky and time consuming,  it's less and it's not a democratic change in photography because you learn your settings the way you learned a film stock, you shoot to your vision and don't spend a lot of time saying, "don't worry, it will look different in post".

I have three bodies, 6 lenses, an ipad,  in one messenger bag, that goes on my shoulder, easily goes on a plane.

IMO

BC







TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2013, 03:38:03 PM »

The New Deal.



I'm serious.  A laptop, a $49 wifi card, $19.00 software called little snitch and you wifi to the laptop where you can process, or to an ipad where the clients can see every image without 250 lbs of computers, screens, battery backups and 3200 iso.

The lenses are fast, small, lightweight, cheap and deadly sharp.   A few moves of the menu and you can make kodachrome, epr, your own film and effects with a jpeg to show and a raw to go back to if you need changes. 

The panasonic has a setting called toy camera that's bloody beautiful, or high def which is stunning.

You can roughly calibrate the camera screens where they match your computer, what you see in the viewfinder is the look you going to see on the back end, if you want to manual focus tight, turn the focus ring and it zooms it at a billion percent then snaps back to full frame, then shoot.

The camera, lens prices are back to film days camera lens prices, including inflation.  $900 for a body, $200 for a motor winder, $499 to $699 for a lens.

Buy three carry them on your shoulder and they weight less than an F5 with a motor.

In about 2 hours you totally forget what the real format is, all you see is the look, the image, the crop, the photo.

Yes a 25mm is a 50, a 75 a 150, a 12 a 24, but that doesn't matter as long as the image is good and all the lenses are fast 1.4 to 1.8.

With settings that take a while to learn, once you've got it down your essentially setting your look in camera and the jpegs can go straight to web galleries you can upload on the fly.

These cameras IMO are the first time digital has shown promise to be what it can be.  Rather than becoming more bulky and time consuming,  it's less and it's not a democratic change in photography because you learn your settings the way you learned a film stock, you shoot to your vision and don't spend a lot of time saying, "don't worry, it will look different in post".

I have three bodies, 6 lenses, an ipad,  in one messenger bag, that goes on my shoulder, easily goes on a plane.

IMO

BC









Fine looking camera.  I never really considered the 4/3 cams.  Time to take a look.
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
    • on YouTube
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2013, 04:14:45 PM »

Fine looking camera.  I never really considered the 4/3 cams.  Time to take a look.
Indeed to be considered. M4/3 has evolved and they are doing really fine advanced cameras like the elegant Olympus Coot posted (like the look of the image posted by the way),
or the more motion orientated GH3.
 

« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 04:16:48 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14658
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2013, 05:21:27 PM »

Yep, I guess the world is full of alternatives.

However, I am comfortable(ish) with what I have, and curiosity for the new isn't high on my agenda, I'm afraid. (Agenda: well, whatever passes for one.) I hanker more for some old favourites.

Motion ability in a camera means nothing for me - I love films but have no intentions of getting into that world: far too late and utterly pointless in my case. Were I in my twenties, it could have been the way to fly, but I'm not, and so neither is motion. I have never even used my cellphone in movie-mode.

Perhaps the real photographic miracle will be a cellphone one that offers RAW. Maybe they already do... things move so quickly these day.

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 05:29:22 PM by Rob C »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1308
  • guest
    • working
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2013, 06:55:03 PM »

Fine looking camera.  I never really considered the 4/3 cams.  Time to take a look.

T.


If you do, give yourself the time to really use it.  Borrow lens has them for rent.

The panasonic, though less sexy and better at video is a better camera than the olympus, the olympus shoots a fractionally better still, but the olympus really is just a still camera, cause video is 17mbs, which is a shame because the in body stabilzation is like steadicam smooth,

Anyway, the both look a little funky out of the can but if you tune them in camera, you can get almost any look you want.

ThelPanasonic has a smoother wrap in transitions, the Olympus comes out of the box with more of a crushed black look, though both can be made to look anyway you want.

The Upside of the Olympus is the primes though they have no stabilization because the body does it, the upside of the pana is the two constant 2.8 zooms.

I don't know where these systems will go, but hopefully Olympus and panasonic will continue.  

Olympus hinted at a pro 4/3 whatever that means, panasonic seems happy owning the video market.

I can tell you that the Panasonic compared to our Sony fs100 shoots twice the video file and better autofocus, easier setup, but only has one sound input.

IMO

BC

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1308
  • guest
    • working
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2013, 03:09:23 PM »

Things I really love about our Micro 4/3.

The screen. Love the articulation, I wish my Hasselblad had one.
The touch screen. So clever, love how I can focus by touch.
The EVF. Love how it lets me see into pitch black ruins before I get the real camera out.
The price.
The format.

Things I really hate.

The screen. Hopeless in Mediterranean light, but there again so is any screen.
The touch screen. See above.
The EVF. Needs a few years.

Things I'm indifferent about.

The sensor, particularly the size. Nothing to get excited about.
 


I think we are less forgiving in the digital world than we were with analog.

In analog, film cameras, were film cameras.  If we looked at epr and it was grainy, despite it's asa of 64 we accepted it, used the film for the look and moved on.

If we wanted tighter imagery, we could move to provia, or before that Kodachrome, or larger formats, but even then if an image had grain, a certain lack of detail or only offered 8 or 10 stops of latitude, we worked around it, learned how to make the most of it, actually learned how to make the limitations work for us and produce something unique.

I firmly believe low key, crushed shadow film photography was a result of transparency films lack of latitude, which to me was fine.

Today, we look at a computer and compare grain, sharpness, detail until our eyes bleed. 

Maybe it's the genres I work in, but I personally don't care about seeing perfect, pin sharp detail from the front of the lens to the horizon line of the planet.  It means nothing to me.

In fact the some styles of photography that bore me shitless are over produced imagery.  Cosmetics, cars some product photography falls into this.

To me they all look the same, over retouched, over sharp, over detailed, with zero amount of humanity left in the image.

I assume the people that shoot this dream of 2 billion megapixels and 20 stops of dr and if these segments move to complete cg I don't think any consumer would know the difference.

BTW:  I'm not dissing anyone's work, because I've shot a warehouse full of over retouched imagery that may be the standard, may have pleased the client, but is as believable as a lobbyist for the NRA.

Anyway, I went off topic.

These little 4/3's cameras amaze me.    The evf takes some getting use to and may be a work in progress, but compared to most modern dslrs with there tiny little viewfinders and over bright ground plastic are a huge liability.

Actually I would rather use these evfs than the current crop of dslr optical viewfinders.

The only digital camera I've owned with a good optical finder was the kodak dcs 760 based on an F5 Nikon.

After that they all got small and goofy.

With 4/3's manual focus is pin sharp and though at first it throws you to turn a ring and see a full length person zoomed in at eyeball detail, you can manually focus them, even without the zoom function.

The autofocus points are anywhere on the frame.  Anywhere . . . and that I love.  I

They'll shoot 25 still frames at 5 to 9 fps, switch immediately to video, or not and if someone doesn't like the video function, they don't have to hit the button, though if you work in art or commerce, the ability to have one multimedia camera in a small package is something that all camera makers should address.

The GH3 is virtually not hobbled.   It's not a medium format back (good), it's not a RED Epic (even better), because both of those systems are single purpose items that require a lot of light, a lot of support and a lot of post time.

Your not bogged down in $10,000 fluid heads, or a dit station that must be hooked to you every time you shoot.

In regards to the sensor I can make it work.   It's not a ccd, but it's not a generic cmos look either.  It does take some thought in post processing because of noise and it's size, but I've got the gh3 to the point I can make 4 very pretty films, that the client can see directly to an ipad when I shoot.

The OMD I'll know a lot more about when it comes in Friday.

I don't think anyone should underestimate the wireless functions to an ipad and the in camera settings these cameras allow. 

You can get so close to the final look of the image in the jpeg that's send to a tablet, while having the flexibility of a raw file that can be altered anyway you wish.

Now, these cameras are not perfect and are not made for the nose on the screen crowd, but then again, I don't think anyone should view a photograph were their nose on it, though if your adept at post processing,
sharpening layers with different channels I can get a very close resemblance to a non AA ccd camera.

Now back to the original topic, the Sony and the Leica.  The Sony shoots a little better still file, but leaves me cold, the Leica warms my heart, but it is a very limited single purpose camera.

I would buy both for different reasons, but they would get 1/10th of the use of my new 4/3's cameras.   Of that I'm sure.

Things I would like from 4/3's.  More primes that are longer and fast, like the Olympus original 4/3 150 F2.

Also more robust wireless.  The eyefy card is more stable than the in camera wi-fi, but a little slower.

I'd also like the OMD to be 20% physically larger.  It's not too small but almost too small.  The size of the original olympus om series was perfect.

The new Olympus range finder style camera is amazing and actually offers more than the omd.  The only problem with it is it's tiny, tiny.  I like smaller cameras, but not that  fit in the palm of the hand.

One thing to note.  Today in commerce getting work is not hard, turning a profit is.  Numbers are slashed and every creative brief almost doubles in scope from estimate to delivery and clients are adamant in holding you to the original estimate.

Smaller cameras cost less, use less power, cost less to ship, support, replace. 

I hate to sacrifice quality for money, but when you get to a 5% difference to less than full frame 35mm, 15% difference from most FF dslrs, it adds up.

What you can shoot with still and video on these cameras is bloody amazing.

This month we are shooting in 5 U.S. cities, next month, 3 european.  then later Asia.  Carrying 3,000 lbs of equipment is a money suck.

With 4/3's I can shoot the project with one camera bag, one case of constant leds, one grip case with some air stands and supports and rent on the road the few things like Kinos or HMI;'s if they are really needed.

Actually we've added L plates to all these cameras, converted our video friction/hydraulic heads to work as still and motion supports.

The best thing is after shooting commerce in Paris and London, I can take this small kit, line up some editorial or personal work and not break the bank shooting it.

All I can say is if you approach these 4/3's cameras as serious equipment and not a b camera or afterthought I think most people will be amazed the freedom they offer.

Sorry if this sounds like a commercial, because that's not my plan.

IMO

BC

P.S.   since I've rambled on so long I might as well add this.

These cameras won't replace my RED's or medium format, even some of the larger dslrs for everything.  I'm not that stuck with any system, but they will do a lot more than most people think, at least in the genre's I work.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14658
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2013, 04:02:26 PM »

Very interesting post, JR, but what happens if ff CaNiks develop the same abilities as the 4/3 cameras?

That might well, for pros, kill off both of the other sides of the format slot: medium as well as the smaller.

Talk about rationalization of hardware if that happens!

Rob C

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5677
_Adding_ 35mm format mirror-less systems to our choices
« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2013, 06:38:32 PM »

Rob C and KLaban,
    I agree that there is something of a trend for new ideas to be tried in smaller, higher sales volume formats first, with the successful experiments then working up to higher end products -- and "mirror-free" digital system cameras are a good candidate for super-sizing. In fact it is looking likely that Sony will try this soon.

But to Rob C: larger format mirrorless systems would _add_ to the options, not cause the disappearance of the smaller formats, which will
(a) continue to meet and exceed the performance needs of a great many photographic enthusiasts and some professional work
(b) maintain a natural advantage in _camera_ size, due to lens size, particularly for people who want significant telephoto reach
(c) maintain a natural and substantial advantage in cost: despite perpetual predictions of 35mm format digital reaching mainstream pricing, the cheapest 35mm DSLR bodies still cost four times as much as entry level DLSRs, and as much as the most expensive Canon and Nikon film SLRs, despite being far lower spec. on the non-digtial side than an F6 or EOS-1V.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 06:40:30 PM by BJL »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1308
  • guest
    • working
Re: _Adding_ 35mm format mirror-less systems to our choices
« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2013, 06:36:20 AM »

And who better than Sony to try.

Exciting times.




I don't think anybody doubts for a moment Sony doesn't have the ability in electronics to make anything they want, when they want to.

The problem is Sony is the king of hobbling cameras to protect or move people up to higher markets.

The fs100 could be a 10 bit 422 camera easily.  The format is big enough to hold the processors of the F the sensor is the same size.  The FS700 could go beyond that, but they don't.

The A99 could easily be a 20 mpx something still camera with live view, 4k filmic video, touch screen autofocus, variable format crops, everything the gh3 and the Olympus omd have and more, but they don't. In fact they offer less than most of the competition, which is strange because they've tried for years to get a strong foothold in the professional world.

Their Zeiss lenses are excellent, the build quality of the A99 is on of the best ever made, but you know that whatever you buy today will be changed in a year and a half.

Sure all camera makers do that today, but changing a $1,200 camera every 2 years is a lot less painful than $7,000 a body.

I don't know if the smaller cameras will drive the larger ones and if they do, it should work the opposite way.    A lexus will do more than a Toyota and a few years later the toyota will get some lexus features.

The camera world works in the opposite way.

Now, I'd love to see a $7,000 camera do more than a $1,200 camera, but today except for megapixels, that just isn't the case and I don't see it changing soon, unless the larger cameras market share drops drastically.

I'm not knocking Sony, because much of what they do mirrors canon and nikon.

I just think these overly large dslrs (and btw they are big.  My 1dx weighs as much as my contax and medium format backs), are more endangered than most of us suspect.

On location, large dslrs are a little more useful and efficient than medium format, less costly and produce an excellent file, but they are at the heart still cameras with limited use.

Sure they serve a purpose, so does medium format, but they have limitations.

It's interesting that today, the web portal that I find inspiring is tumbler.  What amateurs and professionals are producing with small cameras is real, gritty, believable and sometimes very creative.

The cameras these people use just don't get in the way of anything and open up a lot of possibilities.

I just received a style board from an ad agency on an upcoming project that was 90% base on tumbler/blog style imagery.  Not that we'll exactly produce anything that was shown, but the result is they want that real look, just more professional and creative.  

At no point did anyone talk about megapixels, or eyelash detail.

I think 4/3's is on to something, maybe they're a fraction small, a fraction less detailed than newer high mpx cameras, but I believe if there were more than two makers producing this format, Sony being one, I think this format would take off like crazy, for pro and amateur alike.

One thing I'm amazed that no camera format has what 4/3's has is an adjustable format.  I can set one camera for horizontals at 2:3 and only see a 2:3 frame with no red lines, no half toned crop marks.  Do the same for 4:3's vertical.

Since we shoot both still and motion and a lot of stills go into video, the gh3 has a function that allows you to see a 16x9 video crop for stills, but when you shoot stills the full 4:3 format records the scene, but your mind is wrapped around 16x9 which makes an easy fit for insertion into video, but allows you more area to crop and move if you so desire.

No camera I know of the in the larger formats allow that.

Now knowing all of this, if Sony made a x1 with interchangeable lenses, multiple crops, larger lens line, 72mbs video, that had sound sampling, sound input, an evf and  . . . well everything the gh3 had, I'd seriously think about going that direction.

I don't see that happening.  

Now if Leica did the above, I'd be over the moon, but Leica seems quite content in selling exclusivity and bling.  

If we're going to have to have large cameras for professional work, I don't expect all of these features, I demand them, in fact when it comes to equipment, I view it the way our client's view professional production.

In my Santa Monica Neighborhood, I live next to 4 people in our industry.  One person in effects production, one a wardrobe designer for movies, another a commercial production producer and us.

We talk about once a week and all have the same exact story.  Today, we produce 3 times the content, for around 1/2 the price of 2007 and clients expect more quality, more return.  Period.

That's what I expect from equipment makers, 3 times the value, 1/2 the price.

I know that's a lot to ask for but that is the reality of commerce today.


IMO

BC
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 06:40:08 AM by bcooter »
Logged

theguywitha645d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2013, 11:37:35 AM »

Funny, I thought the photographer was responsible for the image. I guess it is the camera. That should reenforce all I need to be a photographer is a DSLR.

And product announcements are not upgrade requirements. I never bought a camera just because it was a new release. No new release is going to make your work better.

Now, I know it is fashionable to bash the manufacturers, but I think photographers are going to have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their work and not just sit around for the tech folks to solver their problems for them.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #55 on: June 08, 2013, 11:53:55 AM »

Funny, I thought the photographer was responsible for the image. I guess it is the camera. That should reenforce all I need to be a photographer is a DSLR.

And product announcements are not upgrade requirements. I never bought a camera just because it was a new release. No new release is going to make your work better.

Now, I know it is fashionable to bash the manufacturers, but I think photographers are going to have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their work and not just sit around for the tech folks to solver their problems for them.

I think you can make great photos with whatever you have and STLL bitch about features.  The two activities aren't mutually exclusive. 
Logged

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #56 on: June 08, 2013, 01:30:55 PM »

I love Micro 4/3 cameras and have two small ones and am waiting for Olympus to update the OMD - but - there are two issues that prevent me from using them in place of my full size cameras when I travel. Noisy sensors and the lack of fast high quality lenses. They are great in many ways - but just to the point yet where I can leave my others at home.
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1308
  • guest
    • working
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #57 on: June 08, 2013, 04:30:33 PM »

Most times when someone says what they like or dislike about a camera we get a response of it's not the camera it's the photographer.

That's true, in fact that's kind of silly that it has to be brought up.   

The point I was making is I never considered smaller formats, always felt larger was better and to a great deal of extent they are, or were when the commercial world allowed more time, required less forms of content.

The point I was making is a 4, 5, 6, or 7 grand camera should be offering what these little thousand dollar cameras offer.

Nikon I find the strangest when it comes to motion and still cameras, because they have no market to protect.  They don't have a super 35mm digital film camera, or engs. I would think they could have produced a virtual do anything camera.

Does't matter, I have a lot of stuff, will continue to use it, but I was just trying to illustrate that there is a lot of goodness in these small cameras.

IMO

BC

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #58 on: June 10, 2013, 09:00:40 AM »

As a fashion and portrait photographer who shot exclusively on M9's, I bought a Hasselblad H3D 2 39Mpx and it's good. More resolution than the Leica of course and GREAT color and skin tones (for me) but not a big difference at all. Just from a resolution standpoint it's not a big enough deal to make up for the weight of the H3D but when you add in the color improvement of the H3D and it's viewfinder then it gives the H3D a place in my camera bag. Last weekend I shot some on my new RX100 (not RX1) and printed some images at 11*14 and put them next to the Leica prints and I was shocked at how close they were. Really close and sometimes I prefer the color rendition of the Sony. Makes me think very hard about getting an RX1.. 
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14658
Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1
« Reply #59 on: June 10, 2013, 10:54:30 AM »

As a fashion and portrait photographer who shot exclusively on M9's, I bought a Hasselblad H3D 2 39Mpx and it's good. More resolution than the Leica of course and GREAT color and skin tones (for me) but not a big difference at all. Just from a resolution standpoint it's not a big enough deal to make up for the weight of the H3D but when you add in the color improvement of the H3D and it's viewfinder then it gives the H3D a place in my camera bag. Last weekend I shot some on my new RX100 (not RX1) and printed some images at 11*14 and put them next to the Leica prints and I was shocked at how close they were. Really close and sometimes I prefer the color rendition of the Sony. Makes me think very hard about getting an RX1.. 


Care to direct us to your website, please?

Rob C
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up