IQ

[Hackman]

Hi All

I often read that these days it really doesnt make a lot of difference which camera you have anymore as the differnces in IQ are negligable ( leaving aside large format cameras I suppose)

Also, I read that you shouldnt judge IQ based on an online photo.
Now, this may be true, but I often feel when i see photo's online, that I dó see differences in quality that seems to be more than PP.  It is hard to say exactly what it is but I feel it has mostly to do with DR.

Can someone say something about this? Do you agree with me? And if so, is this a difference in the iq that originates from the camera, the sensor basically, or are there too many factors involved? Like lens quality.

I have the omd em1, voigtlander 17.5mm and the zuiko 12-40mm. Quality lenses.
And yet when i see for example a leica photo, there is that something, I think its DR, that makes it special.  

Thanks for your thoughts on this
Mark

[scooby70]

I've seen lots of nice Leica photos and I've also seen a lot with boring subjects, poor composition and large areas of highlights blown to high heaven. Such is life. What does annoy me is when I see wonderful pictures taken with the gear I own as they make me feel I must do better.

Other than that I'm not swayed much by pictures on line and when reading reviews although the specifications are important I also like to read the opinion of the reviewer and that can be a problem these days as so many people seem afraid to state an opinion.

[deejjjaaaa]

I think its DR

only CMOS based Leicas  manage to barely edge your small sensor in DR...  you might be talking about S/N above deep shadows where the bigger sensor certainly has an edge because it is bigger... or, for example, DOF ... or different CFA + camera profiles (raw converter) + photographer's skill...

[Jim Kasson]

Also, I read that you shouldnt judge IQ based on an online photo.
Now, this may be true, but I often feel when i see photo's online, that I dó see differences in quality that seems to be more than PP.  It is hard to say exactly what it is but I feel it has mostly to do with DR.

Can someone say something about this? Do you agree with me? And if so, is this a difference in the iq that originates from the camera, the sensor basically, or are there too many factors involved? Like lens quality.

I don't think it's DR. When you correctly res a 16 MP image down to 250,000 pixels, you improve the DR by sqrt(16,000,000/250,000) = 8 = 3 stops.

I think it's more likely the way the lens "draws". I remember a photographer commenting on how good some images that I'd posted on the web looked. They were straight event reportage, so it wasn't the way they were processed. I had recently purchased the Leica 24mm f/3.4 Elmar ASPH. That may have been it.

The way a lens draws is a combination of contrast vs spatial frequency, field flatness or lack of it, aberrations, internal baffling, interaction with the sensor stack, distortion, bokeh, etc.

Two very good lenses can have quite different looks. Consider the Sigma ART 50mm f/1.4 and the Nikon 58mm f/1.4 for example.

Jim

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... when i see for example a leica photo, there is that something... that makes it special...

There is... it is known as a placebo affect. That is, because you saw a "Leica" photo... had you seen a photo, without knowing which camera/lens took it, especially mixed with photos of the identical subject done with other cameras/lenses, you probably wouldn't be able to distinguish it as Leica. This site did the famous experiment a couple of years ago in which they asked several experienced photographers to distinguish prints made by a Canon G10 point & shoot and a medium format Hasselblad digital back. They couldn't.

[uaiomex]

While this is entirely true (with some reserves), I rather choose a bottle of well known good red even if I can't usually tell them apart. I guess my sense of taste is kind of primitive. 

There is... it is known as a placebo affect. That is, because you saw a "Leica" photo... had you seen a photo, without knowing which camera/lens took it, especially mixed with photos of the identical subject done with other cameras/lenses, you probably wouldn't be able to distinguish it as Leica. This site did the famous experiment a couple of years ago in which they asked several experienced photographers to distinguish prints made by a Canon G10 point & shoot and a medium format Hasselblad digital back. They couldn't.

[deejjjaaaa]

at this moment it is a time to ask OP for a sample to illustrate what he means.

[Hackman]

Ok, so these images illustrate what I mean. There is a certain "thin-ness" to it, a delicacy, that seem to stand out for me. it is sharp , but not in a 'industrial way' and fresh.
Ok maybe I am going overboard here, but I hope it illustrates what i mean.
Now  I am not trying to prove that this is only possible for a leica, and Slobodan might be right in what he says.  I am just wondering what it is that attracts me to this kind of images.

[Herbc]

I dare to say that both shots are the result of  lighting and exposure, which do not have much if anything to do with what camera was involved. IMHO.

[spidermike]

I dare to say that both shots are the result of  lighting and exposure, which do not have much if anything to do with what camera was involved. IMHO.

I would disagree - in the days of film there were plenty of discussion about the 'Leica' look and how it compared to other premium lens designs (which I think is what Jim Kassons was getting at). So in those days you would choose the camera body for the lens and then add whatever recording material (the film) as a separate decisionn and mix and match them to suit what you wanted to achieve.
Nowadays the lens and the recording material (the sensor) to a large extent come as 'a package' and you build a system with them side by side. You can, of course, buy an adaptor and mix and match some lenses with some bodies/sensors but it is not always possible and you nearly always lose AF/metering functionality which limits this as an option.

[Alan Klein]

Your examples compare a BW with a color, a choice difficult to compare.  You should also make then the same size. 

[Hackman]

They are not to compare, but both examples of images that I like , and taken with a leica.

[NancyP]

Actually, I like to see great pictures taken with the same gear I use - it reminds me that the most important gear is the operating system between my ears.

[barryfitzgerald]

I think the OP's comments about DR are correct this has improved significantly over time and high ISO is up to a level where most will be happy (even sub FF users)
DR was one of my biggest gripes with digital it was quite poor in the early days now it's really very good

Saying all that I still got some good shots with my older gear and I have my 6mp CCD DSLR's that still work which I take for a spin now and then despite less DR they are still tools that take photos and I particularly like the colour rendition of the Konica Minolta's I have. Fast forward to the present I now have a decent premium compact (with excellent DR) a Fuji CSC, and much more up to date SLR type cameras really I have 95% of what I would want bar a couple of lenses I've come a long way

But we must never take for granted what counts most that's the images you capture 50 years from now nobody will care what lens or camera took that great photo only that the photo is great. So I don't dispute that IQ really isn't a factor and the differences are not huge. But personal taste does apply Fuji and Oly have their "look" that some folks like a lot

[allegretto]

over the past few years have taken thousands of shots with D4, 6D, Sony A7s, A7R, a6000, S2, M9, M8, M240 and Leica "T"

There is most certainly a Leica "drawing" across the M's and T. The S2 is in another World from all these cameras.

If you should me fairly clean, unsoiled RAWs (ummm DNG's) from these cameras, not some 4M downsample, I can tell you pretty well which is Leica and what is not. S2 images will blow you away. You'll say, "...what camera is that...?"

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say that there are small differences between camera. One such area rendition of out of focus areas. Some lenses have double contours in the defocuses parts of an image. Lens flare can reduce perceived contrast. Other than that I would say it's more about photographers and subjects than cameras and lenses.

Making an image small can mask many problems, what is wrong with the image below?


Well, the problem is it is absolutely defocused. I was shooting some flowers with a fisheye lens, and had manual focus set at 15 cm at f/16. Shooting other stuff I forgot about the manual focus. Klicking on the image shows an enlarged version.