Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on October 10, 2016, 01:59:15 pm
-
Hi,
I am no fan or potential buyer of either the X1D or the GFX. That said I find these two systems very interesting for a few reasons:
- They are sort of affordable. I always felt that it may be feasible to pay 10k$/10k€ for entry in a high level imaging system. This is what I paid to enter my Hasselblad/P45 system and also the price of entry to the Alpha 7rII system that replaced it.
- 44x33 mm system were sort of younger brother versions of the full frame 645 systems. Both cameras and lenses were designed for the larger format. The smaller format has a 1.3X crop, thus needing ultra wide designs for wide angles. But lens development was focused on larger formats, making ultra wides unnecessarily large and expensive
- With the X1D and the GFX we now have reasonably priced MFD with a set of lenses optimised for that format.
- This is sort of similar to smaller formats. Nikon, Canon and to some extent Sony are full format players. All they great lenses are optimised for full frame 24x36. Meanwhile, Fuji has a lens program optimised for APS-C while Panasonic and Olympus focus their efforts on the micro 4/3 format.
So, now we have two vendors focusing on the "small MFD format", building systems optimised for that format.
These systems use modern, Sony based technology. So they will always have the 1.6 times the area advantage over the 24x36 mm Sony based competition.
High end MFD obviously will always have an advantage, but 44x33 mm MFD may possibly be a sweet spot, where MFD is still affordable enough that customers will buy while offering advantages that may motivate the hight costs.
So I find these both system very interesting. Not a potential buyer, right now, but a very interested bystander.
Best regards
Erik
-
I find both systems interesting too, in particular the Fuji. Aside from video applications I prefer using a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor since in most cases it best suits the way I see. I also plan to sit on the sidelines for awhile, though, taking note of how well received these systems are and how they develop.
-Dave-
-
No sidelines for me. I have had my X1D on order for months, so hopefully soon. WHen the GFX comes out, gets vetted, with adapters for Nikon F-mount, then I will consider selling the X1D system and getting that one. Meanwhile, I am aging and need to do what I need to do with photography sooner than later. I very much believe that MF is finally going to go down in price and become part of many photographer's equipment. And it will be fun, as well. Unless they find a way to increase the flexibility of the FF sensor (dramatically), the MF sensor is here to stay.
-
Hi,
I am no fan or potential buyer of either the X1D or the GFX. That said I find these two systems very interesting for a few reasons:
Eric, I find your post well reasoned and I essentially agree with your assertions. However, I have a couple of comments to make.
These systems use modern, Sony based technology. So they will always have the 1.6 times the area advantage over the 24x36 mm Sony based competition.
Other factors remaining constant, the number of photons captured is proportional to the sensor area. Since the SNR is proportional to the square root of captured photo-electrons, the factor of 1.6x improves the SNR by only a factor of 1.26. This factor of 1.6 is considerably less than the difference between full frame 135 (24 x 36 mm) and APS (15.7 * 23.5 mm), where the factor is 2.34, resulting in a SNR factor of 1.53.
High end MFD obviously will always have an advantage, but 44x33 mm MFD may possibly be a sweet spot, where MFD is still affordable enough that customers will buy while offering advantages that may motivate the hight costs.
Sweet spot is rather subjective, and depends on ones needs and preferences. No less an authority of Ctein (http://https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/conversation-ctein/) stated in an interview with Michael that he considered MTF (micro four thirds) to be a sweet spot, meeting his image quality needs for prints up to A2. As the technology of sensors (film and digital) has advanced, the trend has been to move to smaller sensors for portability and convenience.
So I find these both system very interesting. Not a potential buyer, right now, but a very interested bystander.
Same for me. I don't currently print beyond A2 and my Nikon D800e meets my needs, but I might upgrade to the D820 or whatever the D800e successor will be called in order to get electronic first shutter and other improvements.
Regards,
Bill
-
....I don't currently print beyond A2 and my Nikon D800e meets my needs, but I might upgrade to the D820 or whatever the D800e successor will be called in order to get electronic first shutter and other improvements....
Regards,
Bill
Bill,
The successor of the d800E is called D810
It has a first curtain but you have to press the trigger twice and in between you lost sight.
I the EFC very useful, but only in certain circumstances:
1 with a telelens: the mirror+ shutter vibrates too much
2 with VR- it seems the shutter mirror slab is in conflict with the VR making it less useful. ( Nikon F2.8 70-200 VRII and Nikkor F4 300PF VR - Tamron 1.8 85mm Vr)
so yes, it could be improved- it is not very handy to see nothing in a lot of circumstances)
I can do about 1/40s 66% and 1/80s 100% sharp images with the 300PF lens with EFC on + VR - without EFC i have to use 1/320-1/640 to be sure.
What i like about the d810 in relation to the d800e..
far less shutternoise
a more refined image ( iso 64) - better color- slight ly more dynamic range.
split live view; so you can actually see the depth of field/ field curvature
better video ( perfect 1080 in my opinion)
the high iso quality is about the same
Back to the subject:
The Fuji seems a very interesting camera. That said, i think 24x36mm 36MP is enough for me at the moment.
I can tell about any story with that quality.
If i really need more i stitch. it is an improvement of more than a factor 1.26 and i do not need to buy anything.
Also i can get a quality beyond theoretical single lens limits.
and then:
I found out with my J5 that almost all my lenses can do about 100MP in the central area. Some even 135MP.
I am personally more interested in special lenses- like the nikon 105mm f1.4G .
Pieter Kers
-
Hi Bill,
Good comments make for a good discussion, always appreciated.
I am aware of the suggestion by Ctein that 4/3 is good enough for A2-size prints. I never had 4/3, but for a long time I was using APS-C. Many of my best images were shot on 12 MP APS-C and those images make for beautiful A2-size prints.
But more is always better, isn't it? Getting myself a full frame camera at 24 MP resulted in a few experiments comparing A2-size prints from 12 MP APS-C and 24 MP full frame. Mostly the 24 MP full frame had a visible but not very obvious advantage but in one case I could not tell those A2-prints apart, regardless viewing distance.
Getting onto 39 MP MFD and comparing with 24 MP full frame the MFD system had a clear resolution advantage when pixel peeping on screen, using due scaling, but A2 prints were very close. With my vision, a loupe was needed to tell them apart. The differences were readily visible with the loupe, so detail was correctly transferred to print.
Printing at A1 the MFD has shown advantage.
With the A7rII I have now, the 42 MP A7rII is a good match for the 39 MP MFD. It is actually more up to the lenses. In the short end the three Zeiss Distagons I have owned would be no match for the excellent Canon 16-35/4L but the Sonnars would outperform all my long zooms, except the old 80-200/2.8 G APO.
But again, I made a crop representing A0 comparing the Canon 16-35/4L at 24 mm with the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE, the print was as merciless showing the weakness of the Distagon as pixel peeping on screen. That is the print was merciless when viewed close, say at 50 cm or. Moving back to say 100 cm the MFD image was a bit better. At 50 cm viewing distance it was not really acceptable in the area that was weak. I guess the MFD image delivered a bit higher MTF at low frequencies but lacked high frequency detail.
My take is that present 24x36 mm goes a long way regarding image quality when paired with very good or excellent lenses.
Personally, I prefer zooms, so I am not really into high quality single focals. Lenses like the Otuses would stretch 24x36 mm even a bit farther.
So, my take is that 24x36 is certainly good for a good bit beyond A2-size and probably be able to deliver good quality on A0.
But, a well designed MFD system in proper hands would outperform a 24x36 mm system. No doubt about that. The new 'G-format' systems use Sony sensors and I would guess that those sensors will be replaced by newer versions keeping up with Sony's smaller sensor designs.
One thing to keep in mind is that the X1D and GFX are priced just a bit higher than some high end 24x36 system, like Nikon D5, Canon 1DXII and foremost red dotted cameras and all the most expensive 24x36 mm systems have relatively low pixel counts. The 'pro' Canons and Nikons are built for speed. Regarding Leica, ask the red dot forums…
My impression is that the X1D lenses are priced a bit below Otus pricing. They obviously don't have f/1.4 or even f/2 apertures and they may or may not have fully corrected axial chroma…
Anyway, I think that you can get a lot of excellent image quality from those systems at prices you could very well spend on 24x36 mm, too. Especially the red dotted ones. If that image quality is needed or not is a different question but it is a worthwhile question.
Best regards
Erik
As a side note, I have a lot of red dots on my Sony A7rII, I bought a bunch of them from Avery for around 2$. On the A7II I have green dots. Just to be able to tell them apart.
Eric, I find your post well reasoned and I essentially agree with your assertions. However, I have a couple of comments to make.
Other factors remaining constant, the number of photons captured is proportional to the sensor area. Since the SNR is proportional to the square root of captured photo-electrons, the factor of 1.6x improves the SNR by only a factor of 1.26. This factor of 1.6 is considerably less than the difference between full frame 135 (24 x 36 mm) and APS (15.7 * 23.5 mm), where the factor is 2.34, resulting in a SNR factor of 1.53.
Sweet spot is rather subjective, and depends on ones needs and preferences. No less an authority of Ctein (http://https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/conversation-ctein/) stated in an interview with Michael that he considered MTF (micro four thirds) to be a sweet spot, meeting his image quality needs for prints up to A2. As the technology of sensors (film and digital) has advanced, the trend has been to move to smaller sensors for portability and convenience.
Same for me. I don't currently print beyond A2 and my Nikon D800e meets my needs, but I might upgrade to the D820 or whatever the D800e successor will be called in order to get electronic first shutter and other improvements.
Regards,
Bill
-
What I really hope these new camera systems do is blur the lines between medium format and other formats. It is a concept from a bygone era when we had three options: big sheet film 4x5 or larger, 135 or "medium format".
Look at the available options today: m4/3, APS-C, 135, 45x30, 44x33, 54x40. Each larger format, roughly speaking, picks up on the short side at the smaller format's long side. There is no cliff, wall or other dramatic change when going to "medium format", i.e. 135 to 45x30 or 44x33. Likewise there is no dramatic quality or other difference. The decision between 135 vs 44x33 involves exactly the same benefit-disadvantage analysis as APS-C vs 135.
The only dramatic difference has been cost, and the truth is Pentax blurred that several years ago. We are the ones who haven't caught up with the facts and continue to make out of date comparisons of "medium format vs xxx".
My hope is this marks the beginning of the end to the antiquated segregation we have in our heads of "medium format" and all the associated arguments around, "Is medium format worth it?" "Is there a compelling reason to use medium format?" "Can you see any difference in a print?" Etc, etc...
Dave
-
No less an authority of Ctein (http://https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/conversation-ctein/) stated in an interview with Michael that he considered MTF (micro four thirds) to be a sweet spot, meeting his image quality needs for prints up to A2.
and what is the sweet spot for people who don't print at all ;)
-
and what is the sweet spot for people who don't print at all ;)
That's a very good point, not a silly question. It's just another 'hangover' from the film days, when pretty much everything had to be turned into print, one way or the other; it was usually the final format for the images being made, as in commercial work.
For amateur prints, that's an entirely different kettle of fish often involving non-photographic priorities such as, for example, showing off bank balance etc. etc. and in that way providing a faux photo market for the jewellery purveyors. That some of that jewellery also performs damned well is not in question, but when it comes to telling the time, my Rolex and a Timex or Casio perform exactly the same job, the cheapies often better.
You pays your money according to your moods, possibilities and priorities... let's hope the choices remain viable.
Rob
-
I was surprised at how many photographers could not see the value of MF, unless you printed images. As someone who does not print images, but who also values the larger sensor MF format, I look forward to the X1D, the three announced lenses, and using it on a tripod. I will still use my Nikon D810 for other work.
-
Hi,
On one of my vacations I shot with a fisheye focused at 15 cm which happened to be a decent hyperfocal setting at f/16.
But, I was shooting at f/8, so everything was out of focus. But I never noticed on screen until I zoomed in. Even smart phone cameras are overqualified for small web size images...
Once we have large size 8K screens the situation will be different.
Best regards
Erik
That's a very good point, not a silly question. It's just another 'hangover' from the film days, when pretty much everything had to be turned into print, one way or the other; it was usually the final format for the images being made, as in commercial work.
For amateur prints, that's an entirely different kettle of fish often involving non-photographic priorities such as, for example, showing off bank balance etc. etc. and in that way providing a faux photo market for the jewellery purveyors. That some of that jewellery also performs damned well is not in question, but when it comes to telling the time, my Rolex and a Timex or Casio perform exactly the same job, the cheapies often better.
You pays your money according to your moods, possibilities and priorities... let's hope the choices remain viable.
Rob
-
One that doesn't print, is by definition not doing or anything related to PHOTO-GRAPHY.... A photo-graph, can by definition only be the printed thing.
Using a camera, one doesn't mean that he is doing photo-graphy.... OTOH, photo-graphy (the printed thing) isn't related with anything that is printed coming out of a camera... but the print has to be the product out of a certain visualization process which includes directing and capturing as well as processing in order to achieve the result... (the photo-graph).
-
One that doesn't print, is by definition not doing or anything related to PHOTO-GRAPHY.... A photo-graph, can by definition only be the printed thing.
Using a camera, one doesn't mean that he is doing photo-graphy.... OTOH, photo-graphy (the printed thing) isn't related with anything that is printed coming out of a camera... but the print has to be the product out of a certain visualization process which includes directing and capturing as well as processing in order to achieve the result... (the photo-graph).
One prints to the screen, of course.
-
One prints to the screen, of course.
Opinions....
-
Opinions....
And perfectly valid, too. But semantics are little to do with photography at the best of times. Photography's about pictures, wherever you decide put 'em once you've made 'em. Photography is making images with cameras; it's also about creating them from several different images; it's almost anything you want it to be except painting, because filters to ape paint are just deceptions. And photographs meant to ape paintings are generally not that successful either - they'd be better just made as paintings- if you can paint.
IMO
Rob
-
Opinions....
Opinions? A good example why I don't spend much time on this forum. For the same money, we could actually be nice and discuss things. What's the problem?
-
IMO, one has to decide if his screen is his enlarger projection in a digital darkroom as to provide a media to judge the final look of the photo-graph or not... Although different opinions are respected, I'll prefer to stick with A.Adams opinion/lesson as described in his very first chapter in his very first book, where the process of visualization is described as the fundamental behind photo-graphy and then to the FACT that no two screens will show the same out of a file.... Other than that, I don't remember A.Gursky or Gudelka or Bresson, or R. Kappa ever making an exhibition a screen (although I've seen some newcomers trying -unsuccessfully for their possible carrier- to do so), or will ever take web images seriously... Especially as the "product" can't be exhibited to its full detail (or it will be stolen) and its only visible to one (its creator) as a part of (before) the printing process.... As I said before, "opinions...." ...they are good for discussions, but then I hear clown-politicians having one and sadly people voting for them....
-
IMO, one has to decide if his screen is his enlarger projection in a digital darkroom as to provide a media to judge the final look of the photo-graph or not... Although different opinions are respected, I'll prefer to stick with A.Adams opinion/lesson as described in his very first chapter in his very first book, where the process of visualization is described as the fundamental behind photo-graphy and then to the FACT that no two screens will show the same out of a file.... Other than that, I don't remember A.Gursky or Gudelka or Bresson, or R. Kappa ever making an exhibition a screen (although I've seen some newcomers trying -unsuccessfully for their possible carrier- to do so), or will ever take web images seriously... Especially as the "product" can't be exhibited to its full detail (or it will be stolen) and its only visible to one (its creator) as a part of (before) the printing process.... As I said before, "opinions...." ...they are good for discussions, but then I hear clown-politicians having one and sadly people voting for them....
I am sorry, but this is your opinion, not a fact (except perhaps historically, which is not NOW), and not worth the screen it is printed on.
-
I am sorry, but this is your opinion, not a fact (except perhaps historically, which is not NOW), and not worth the screen it is printed on.
My opinion doesn't worth the ...screen it is printed on? ....Yes, I agree with your "opinion"... you should change your screen! ;D Some logic... some logic...
-
I have been around here now and then, so I have seen your comments before. Some of what you right is useful, but as often as not, IMO, you amount to being a bully. You could do better than this with your knowledge.
-
I have been around here now and then, so I have seen your comments before. Some of what you right is useful, but as often as not, IMO, you amount to being a bully. You could do better than this with your knowledge.
"IMO, one has to decide if his screen is his enlarger projection in a digital darkroom as to provide a media to judge the final look of the photo-graph or not... Although different opinions are respected, I'll prefer to stick with A.Adams opinion/lesson as described in his very first chapter in his very first book, where the process of visualization is described as the fundamental behind photo-graphy and then to the FACT that no two screens will show the same out of a file....
Other than that, I don't remember A.Gursky or Gudelka or Bresson, or R. Kappa ever making an exhibition on a screen (although I've seen some newcomers trying -unsuccessfully for their possible carrier- to do so), or will ever take web images seriously... Especially as the "product" can't be exhibited to its full detail (or it will be stolen) and its only visible to one (its creator) as a part of (before) the printing process.... As I said before, "opinions...." ...they are good for discussions, but then I hear clown-politicians having one and sadly people voting for them...."
Other than the above, if you have a different "opinion", comment and reply on the facts presented... anything else is (by definition) bulling (from your side)... ;) ...obviously!
In addition, conversations can only develop with examples/reference presented... I haven't understand yet what is your reference against the FUNDAMENTAL meaning of the word "photo-graph"? ...is there any? (...other than your bulling attempt of course ... ;))
-
Other than the above, if you have a different "opinion", comment and reply on the facts presented... anything else is (by definition) bulling (from your side)... ;) ...obviously!
In addition, conversations can only develop with examples/reference presented... I haven't understand yet what is your reference against the FUNDAMENTAL meaning of the word "photo-graph"? ...is there any? (...other than your bulling attempt of course ... ;))
Unfortunately, this is not my first rodeo as per your comments. No offence, but many amount to bullying. A. Adams had no modern digital experience. Millions of us print to screen, look, examine, and share photos, etc. You know this. I am not going to bother with you any further. It is too bad because I agree with you about entrance pupils, etc., but that respect does not extend to just anything you want to say. Sorry.
-
Unfortunately, this is not my first rodeo as per your comments. No offence, but many amount to bullying. A. Adams had no modern digital experience. Millions of us print to screen, look, examine, and share photos, etc. You know this. I am not going to bother with you any further. It is too bad because I agree with you about entrance pupils, etc., but that respect does not extend to just anything you want say. Sorry.
I would please insist for you to answer what you are asked... as I (always) do... :)
"In addition, conversations can only develop with examples/reference presented... I haven't understand yet what is your reference against the FUNDAMENTAL meaning of the word "photo-graph"? ...is there any?"
...do you have a reference saying that a photo-graph is what is shown on your screen? Do you argue that a "photo-graph" is only the printed thing on paper and that this is the defintion of it in every language on earth? I really don't see what you are trying to argue for...
-
Once we have large size 8K screens the situation will be different.
well, I, for example, always like to zoom images @ 100% to enjoy not only the whole picture but the selected parts of it @ 1:1.... and I do not really need 8K monitor for that (not even 4K) !
-
One that doesn't print, is by definition not doing or anything related to PHOTO-GRAPHY.... A photo-graph, can by definition only be the printed thing.
I see - so those who did slides were not photographers either, ok.
-
Opinions....
yours is that only genuine reflective media matters - anything remotely emissive / transmissive does not count ;)
-
Funny discussion, as always, off-topic ...
I wonder how does cinemato-graphy work. I assume this must be a sequence of prints, the movie visitor can view running around. LoL
-
I see - so those who did slides were not photographers either, ok.
I'm afraid friend, your logic in translating senses is too low... Anything can be a projection before it becomes a photo-graph... a negative, a raw image on a screen, a slide, a tiff image... whatever! Still, a photo-graph will exist only if you print it... If you don't, there won't be any photo-graph as to ever prove its existence as a photo-graph....
PS: And please stop putting nonsense of your mind creation as being other people saying...
-
Chill, folks.
The real value of a format, and the camera to support that format, only becomes known after using the camera for a while. So Michael, I will be very interested in hearing about the Hassy once you have had a chance to work with it.
I am happy with my 20 MP old-tech Canon 6D FF SLR - it is "good enough" for my current uses, the practical downside being low weather resistance. I don't have any place to hang a really large print. Working with 50 MP files on the current computer would be ...s....l...o....w.
-
Hi,
I do that, too. I also do slide shows with zoom effects and I do also print. Mostly A2, but sometimes larger.
But, once you publish for the web the images are usually small. Full screen is often around 2-3 MP and how many images are published full screen?
Best regards
Erik
well, I, for example, always like to zoom images @ 100% to enjoy not only the whole picture but the selected parts of it @ 1:1.... and I do not really need 8K monitor for that (not even 4K) !
-
I have been around here now and then, so I have seen your comments before. Some of what you right is useful, but as often as not, IMO, you amount to being a bully. You could do better than this with your knowledge.
Easy on, to be a bully requires a willing victim.
Rob
-
Theo, why do you always have to quarrel, loosen up man!
You completely de-railed a promising and interesting thread that Erik started.
-
This info from Zacuto may have a story to tell:
https://youtu.be/SJTrXONeEZk?list=PLC420A73089B58727
Best regards
Erik
Funny discussion, as always, of-topic ...
I wonder how does cinemato-graphy work. I assume this must be a sequence of prints, the movie visitor can view running around. LoL
-
This is not the first time I have experienced this, which is why it is not worth coming to LULA very often. However, Eric posted a thread that I am interested in, as I am looking at both the X1D and the Fuji MF mirrorless cameras.
Then in the middle of this, Theodorus hijacks the thread and so on. This has happened before, same problem.
I just want to be able to come here, have a discussion, and leave it at that.
I don't need to be lectured, bullied, and have the topic changed, please.
Talking with other experienced photographers, same story, which is why some really good ones don't even bother to show up. How about we get a chance to have a thread and stay on it?
-
Funny discussion, as always, of-topic ...
I wonder how does cinemato-graphy work. I assume this must be a sequence of prints, the movie visitor can view running around. LoL
good catch, but I am afraid that our son of Hellas will unleash himself on you next ;D ...
-
But, once you publish for the web the images are usually small.
why ? I am the target audience of my own photos ;) - I is my hobby, I enjoy it myself and when I want somebody else /friends or relatives/ share the joy then I post full size and never (C) or watermarked, as for the others - I am not going to see their prints in any case and if they post crippled images then I simply move on - why shall I waste my time looking on intentionally overdownsized images, unless the image was posted, for example, to illustrate some technical point in the topic ?
-
Hi,
I generally try to post full size, but very few utilities really support full size images. I have my images mostly on SmugMug, mostly at full size, and on my own website, the later one often also having raws.
But, how often do you think folks are downloading an original size image? Very seldom I would believe.
I may add that I am not sure that an actual pixel view is he best way to visualise the grandeur of an image. In slide shows I sometime use liberal amounts of pan and zoom to focus different parts of an image, but I don't see that happening on static web pages.
Best regards
Erik
why ? I am the target audience of my own photos ;) - I is my hobby, I enjoy it myself and when I want somebody else /friends or relatives/ share the joy then I post full size and never (C) or watermarked, as for the others - I am not going to see their prints in any case and if they post crippled images then I simply move on - why shall I waste my time looking on intentionally overdownsized images, unless the image was posted, for example, to illustrate some technical point in the topic ?
-
I think it's a mistake to post too large because the instant temptation is to move to the next image. There are few experiences online more annoying than having to scroll an image up/down or left/right. I almost always refuse to do it. Why? Because a big image doesn't make a mediocre image any the better, and quite often a smaller image hides our feet of clay quite well, and it's not until a year later when we blush in silence at some of the stuff we've paraded with such pride, that we realise the clay might even be melting.
Look, whenever I put up a fresh image in PS I reduce the size to about postcard. Then, I can get the overall sense of what I have or have not managed to catch. In fact, I edit at about the same image size I post here and on my website: image 600 - 650 pìxels wide, and overall, including my standard frame, 810 pìxels wide. That is handled by LuLa perfectly because it falls within its system limit which I think is 1000 pixels largest dimension. (Of course, the files I'm working in are not reduced, only the percentage viewed onscreen is down to postcard, and when I have to work close up I go to whatever size is comfortable for that operation.) Having to scan a too large image with the eye defeats it: you need to be able to get the thing at a glance.
Perhaps I'm mistakenly applying censure, but it strikes me folks who post too big for my monitor are just expanding their ego. Period. My monitor is a LaCie 319, and that's plenty big enough at reading distance.
-
I think it's a mistake to post too large because the instant temptation is to move to the next image. There are few experiences online more annoying than having to scroll an image up/down or left/right. I almost always refuse to do it. Why? Because a big image doesn't make a mediocre image any the better, and quite often a smaller image hides our feet of clay quite well, and it's not until a year later when we blush in silence at some of the stuff we've paraded with such pride, that we realise the clay might even be melting.
Look, whenever I put up a fresh image in PS I reduce the size to about postcard. Then, I can get the overall sense of what I have or have not managed to catch. In fact, I edit at about the same image size I post here and on my website: image 600 - 650 pìxels wide, and overall, including my standard frame, 810 pìxels wide. That is handled by LuLa perfectly because it falls within its system limit which I think is 1000 pixels largest dimension. (Of course, the files I'm working in are not reduced, only the percentage viewed onscreen is down to postcard, and when I have to work close up I go to whatever size is comfortable for that operation.) Having to scan a too large image with the eye defeats it: you need to be able to get the thing at a glance.
Perhaps I'm mistakenly applying censure, but it strikes me folks who post too big for my monitor are just expanding their ego. Period. My monitor is a LaCie 319, and that's plenty big enough at reading distance.
-
This is not the first time I have experienced this, which is why it is not worth coming to LULA very often. However, Eric posted a thread that I am interested in, as I am looking at both the X1D and the Fuji MF mirrorless cameras.
Then in the middle of this, Theodorus hijacks the thread and so on. This has happened before, same problem.
I just want to be able to come here, have a discussion, and leave it at that.
I don't need to be lectured, bullied, and have the topic changed, please.
Talking with other experienced photographers, same story, which is why some really good ones don't even bother to show up. How about we get a chance to have a thread and stay on it?
Hello Michael,
i can understand what you say, but this post, like mine now, is also of-topic.
The best thing to do is to ignore it and stay on topic.
The moderator will have to take care of the problem...
This will be my last post that will be of-topic.
cheers PK
-
Hello Michael,
i can understand what you say, but this post, like mine now, is also of-topic.
The best thing to do is to ignore it and stay on topic.
The moderator will have to take care of the problem...
This will be my last post that will be of-topic.
cheers PK
I understand, but this is not just a one-off example, but a serial thing. I can (and will) go elsewhere for my technical discussions, but I feel this kind of thing (and the cronyism that allows it to persist) cheapens what IMO is a very good photography site. This has happened before and folks here have privately messaged me that this character does this all the time. I will restrict my participation here to posting photos and not attempt to have actual discussions. There are very few good forums left IMO.
-
It's a sad day when LuLa loses yet another contributor for the bloody-minded foolishness of a few to whom being obnoxious is tantamount to an art form and getting banned akin to a medal of honour.. You had the misfortune to engage with another one in some of the earlier Nikon threads.
I've appreciated your postings and hope that you'll 'not go' but rather use the 'ignore button' (either metaphorically or literally) more frequently. These are early days for this class of camera, and I for one, welcome the direct, hands-on feedback, and field-reports that some users can and do contribute.
Hopefully the admin will redirect the Internet Industry Pundits & Philosophers to an appropriate corner of LuLa.
(IIPP does that qualify as a new abbreviation ?)
I understand, but this is not just a one-off example, but a serial thing. I can (and will) go elsewhere for my technical discussions, but I feel this kind of thing (and the cronyism that allows it to persist) cheapens what IMO is a very good photography site. This has happened before and folks here have privately messaged me that this character does this all the time. I will restrict my participation here to posting photos and not attempt to have actual discussions. There are very few good forums left IMO.
-
I understand, but this is not just a one-off example, but a serial thing. I can (and will) go elsewhere for my technical discussions, but I feel this kind of thing (and the cronyism that allows it to persist) cheapens what IMO is a very good photography site. This has happened before and folks here have privately messaged me that this character does this all the time. I will restrict my participation here to posting photos and not attempt to have actual discussions. There are very few good forums left IMO.
Michael, the problem isn't particular people you don't like, the problem is life: real, spoken conversation never moves in a straight line - surely you've noticed that? If it did, folks would die of boredom or grow stiffly into whatever space they fitted.
Relax, go with the flow. If anyone is really interested in whichever point, they will always naturally return to it. If not, it didn't really matter that much to them anyway.
Rob
-
Well, I am not new to forums. I ran forums under contract for both CompuServe (music and film) and Microsoft (over 100 on MSN) for years, and understand only too well how individuals arise who have time on their hands and succeed at obstructing, diverting, and hijacking threads, not because they have a point (or much of one), but because they can and have become skilled at doing so. The result is exchanges like this one we are having here, which also are sidebars. I considered making a home and spending more time here more than once, only to be reminded why I don’t. You suggest that I ignore them. Well, OK, but having done so, I find that these obstructers just continue to demand attention and use up all the oxygen. This is nothing new. These types love to lecture to me, but I don’t see them being told to tone down by moderators, etc., which is just, as I pointed out, an example of cronyism at its worst. It is sad that I am privately messaged that these characters are NOT what the forum is about, etc., but no one asks them to back off a bit.
-
These types love to lecture to me, but I don’t see them being told to tone down by moderators, etc., which is just, as I pointed out, an example of cronyism at its worst. It is sad that I am privately messaged that these characters are NOT what the forum is about, etc., but no one asks them to back off a bit.
Michael,
I'm not sure 'cronyism' is the right word here, perhaps 'indulged' ? The previous abrasive Nikon poster, I believe was banned, and not too soon. Some of us do tell them to 'back off' but in the final analysis being selective and the 'ignore' button are better for your blood pressure.
-
Michael,
I'm not sure 'cronyism' is the right word here, perhaps 'indulged' ? The previous abrasive Nikon poster, I believe was banned, and not too soon. Some of us do tell them to 'back off' but in the final analysis being selective and the 'ignore' button are better for your blood pressure.
Ok, I hear you And I realize by complaining as I am I use up whatever goodwill cache I might have. I just want to make sure folks are aware of this kind of situation, and that a response like mine is happening. I don't know these characters well enough to feel indulgent to them. I will perhaps try again. Is there an actual "ignore" button, and if so, where? Enough said.
-
Is there an actual "ignore" button, and if so, where? Enough said.
Under your profile page:
Luminous Landscape Forum > Profile of x > Summary , there is an 'Buddies/Ignore List' section
And I realize by complaining as I am I use up whatever goodwill cache I might have.
Nope, you're not - anything but.
-
Well, I am not new to forums. I ran forums under contract for both CompuServe (music and film)…
Aha! When I first read a post of yours here I knew I'd run across your online self before. Just couldn't remember where. I was a long-time CS user, going back to the early '80s. :)
-Dave-
-
Aha! When I first read a post of yours here I knew I'd run across your online self before. Just couldn't remember where. I was a long-time CS user, going back to the early '80s. :)
-Dave-
Long time ago, some before the World-Wide-Web existed. Yes, I ran the Music and Movie/Film forums for CompuServe for quite some time, two of their most popular features.
-
The Hasselblad X1D manual (English) is available and very worthwhile browsing. It makes me more interested than ever and impatient.
http://static.hasselblad.com/2016/06/X1D_USER-GUIDE-Book_161003.pdf
-
Michael,
I'm not sure 'cronyism' is the right word here, perhaps 'indulged' ? The previous abrasive Nikon poster, I believe was banned, and not too soon. Some of us do tell them to 'back off' but in the final analysis being selective and the 'ignore' button are better for your blood pressure.
You're right: I don't read everything, obviously enough, but what I find is that people discover natural affinities and respond to posts that interest them and mostly not to others.
On top of that, you must factor in the fact that some people enjoy writing, whereas for others it's the equivalent of drawing teeth. That can result in the same people replying to one another quite frequently which could give the impression of an inner club, but only because of the paucity of fellow scribes. Most writers would, I'm sure, welcome wider responses to their efforts to keep things alive and not withering on the vine.
Rob
-
Here are a couple of YouTube videos by Ming Thein on the X1D, including one on the user interface of the X1D. It helps to give a better idea of how this camera works operationally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQO3hVku9vU
Here is the first video by Thein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEp9X9hRprk
-
... and for those interested, wi-fi tethering with the X1D:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JXC79GpMmg
-
Hey Michael, don't ditch us! Most of us can discipline our fingers enough to not get obnoxious (no guarantees about "boring" though - one person's boring is another person's interesting post).
-
Hey Michael, don't ditch us! Most of us can discipline our fingers enough to not get obnoxious (no guarantees about "boring" though - one person's boring is another person's interesting post).
Not trying to ditch anyone. The problems here are pretty much endemic to all gear forums I know. We have to keep the forums we care about clean. It can be done politely, with respect, but it has to be done not just by moderators, but most of all by members. We need forums such as this one because so much is happening in the field of photography just now. In the area of MF, I am not an expert, but a willing learner. I represent what I believe is the tip of the iceberg of DSLR users who finally are ready to add MF to their gear. I know DSLRs, but my only experience with MF is the Mamiya RZ67 and a digital back some years ago. The interface on the RX67 was too primitive, but what is happening with the X1D and Fugi MF mirrorless is just right on time. Canon and Nikon have missed a beat, at least for me and IMO. I have a great many Nikon lenses and some of the more exotic and commercial lenses are as good as they get, but many (to most) of the lenses they have been producing in the last 15 or so years are not as good as they could offer. Witness the new Nikikor 105mm f/1.4, which demonstrates that they finally have the right idea, again, IMO... for my use.
GetDPi.com is an example of a site that is more aware, as I see it. Why not make LULA all that it can be and all that it has been in past. Again, that is just my opinion.
-
Well, I'm no gearhead, but I can't say I find too many people here who are not!
In my view, it takes all sorts, and the 'heads keep the companies going - more or less, though perhaps even they tire of spending fortunes to discover, in sober moments, that nothing suddenly got much better in their photographs.
I watched the Ming video and laughed out loud when he made the statement about the 500 Series being light! Bet he hadn't ever had to carry a C and a C/M and lenses over his shoulder and tramp across beaches the while! And, of course, hump a tripod along just because those cameras were angels on three legs, but pigs hand-held. But, the video was sweet and the photographs very pretty, too. There was a brief moment when the frame was just ripples of colour on water, just like in Jazz on a Summer's Day, the Bert Stern movie of the Newport Jazz festival of 50-something. As I say, nothing gets that much better, if even as good as what's already been possible for many years. It's the people have the magic.
Rob
-
One that doesn't print, is by definition not doing or anything related to PHOTO-GRAPHY.... A photo-graph, can by definition only be the printed thing.
...
The greek roots of:
"photo" = light
"graph" = write
I don't see how this "by definition" means a printed thing.
-
The greek roots of:
"photo" = light
"graph" = write
I don't see how this "by definition" means a printed thing.
Personal interpretation. The curse of the legality realm.
Rob
-
The greek roots of:
"photo" = light
"graph" = write
I don't see how this "by definition" means a printed thing.
Correct. The word "photography" is a combination of the Greek root words "photo-," meaning "light," and "-graphia," meaning "writing," or "drawing." Thus, "photography" literally means "writing or drawing with light" of as I like to say "Painting with light."
Those of us who choose not to print our photos very much still enjoy large sensors, at least I do. It was like when someone told me that because I was not a professional photographer, I should not be commenting. Well, I chose not to be a professional photographer because I have a family and those photographers I know have trouble making money, so I made it elsewhere.
As for filling walls with my own printed work, I don't do that either. I have many hundreds of thousands of photos and my family.... maybe... want to see nine or ten of them before they start to roll their eyes. I post a few photos on forums like these, and I do a blog on Facebook each day for some 5000 "friends," and try to post a photo there.
So, I do photography for the sheer process and love of it and I look at the results on a large corrected monitor in Photoshop or Lightroom.
As for these new mirrorless MF cameras like the Fuju and the X1D, almost no one I know has one yet. Ming Thein has published (to my knowledge) more on the X1D than anyone else, and having followed his work for quite some time, I trust his evaluation completely at this point. Having been in lock-step with Thein through the Nikon D810 (and many lenses), I find him very careful and thorough in his comments. Therefore I trust his evaluation of the X1D, but I certainly wait for other reviews and the general vetting of this new mirrorless MF camera.
-
Looking at features other than sensors, these new 44x33mm format EVF cameras are competing with 36x24mm cameras costing around $3000, not the more expensive high frame rate, extremely rugged "PJ" models. So there is quite a price gap for the image size increase of 38% on the short edge (most relevant to portraits and such) and 22% on the long edge (relevant to wider "landscape" shapes).
My gut feeling is that in the long run, larger formats will have to justify themselves largely by the optical advantages of their lenses, as sensor progress pushes beyond the limits of what most lenses are capable of delivering. Pixel count differences alone will not be enough even for most users of high-level gear, and new technology will probably get more and more DR out of ever smaller pixels.
-
Hi,
It is right that competition is against high res 24x36. But most high res is coming from Sony, except the Canon 5DS, and I would expect that Sony will release new higher resolution sensors in 44x33 mm using pixels similar to their 24x36 offerings.
Fuji has indicated that the lenses are calculated for 100 MP.
Best regards
Erik
Looking at features other than sensors, these new 44x33mm format EVF cameras are competing with 36x24mm cameras costing around $3000, not the more expensive high frame rate, extremely rugged "PJ" models. So there is quite a price gap for the image size increase of 38% on the short edge (most relevant to portraits and such) and 22% on the long edge (relevant to wider "landscape" shapes).
My gut feeling is that in the long run, larger formats will have to justify themselves largely by the optical advantages of their lenses, as sensor progress pushes beyond the limits of what most lenses are capable of delivering. Pixel count differences alone will not be enough even for most users of high-level gear, and new technology will probably get more and more DR out of ever smaller pixels.
-
One that doesn't print, is by definition not doing or anything related to PHOTO-GRAPHY.... A photo-graph, can by definition only be the printed thing.
Using a camera, one doesn't mean that he is doing photo-graphy.... OTOH, photo-graphy (the printed thing) isn't related with anything that is printed coming out of a camera... but the print has to be the product out of a certain visualization process which includes directing and capturing as well as processing in order to achieve the result... (the photo-graph).
Theo's literal interpretation of the word photography ignores the fact that the meaning of a word is determined by usage rather than by a strict literal interpretation as explained here (http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/How-Word-Meanings-Change.htm). The meaning of write has also changed. For example, we say that the camera writes the raw data to he memory card. Literally speaking, the verb record would be more appropriate than write. Does a phonograph write sound? As explained in the link, the meaning of literal has also changed.
If in general usage, Michael's work is regarded as photography, then he is photographer.
Comments?
Cheers,
Bill
-
Theo's literal interpretation of the word photography ignores the fact that the meaning of a word is determined by usage rather than by a strict literal interpretation as explained here (http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/How-Word-Meanings-Change.htm). The meaning of write has also changed. For example, we say that the camera writes the raw data to he memory card. Literally speaking, the verb record would be more appropriate than write. Does a phonograph write sound? As explained in the link, the meaning of literal has also changed.
If in general usage, Michael's work is regarded as photography, then he is photographer.
Comments?
Cheers,
Bill
What I find difficult to grasp is why, when we have an actual topic that is, well, topical and fresh, would anyone want to hijack it to count how many angels can fit on the end of a pin? To me, this is disrespectful to the original poster and to the topic itself. What is the point of such a diversion in this particular thread? I grant that this comment is also a sidebar, posted in hopes that we can reform what is considered acceptable. Sorry, but the thread seems to have gone silent anyway.
-
I was at the NYC Foto Works last week and Hassy was a sponsor. The Hassy mirrorless camera was there to test out and I was less then impressed.
The files are very nice, and the ergonomics and how the camera feels in your hand is wonderful. However, the operation of the camera is not so great.
Overall, I dont understand the desire for EVFs, and find them deficient on every camera I tested. There is a delay that will really effect you ability to capture the moment. If you are a hobbyist or always shoot from a tripod, sure, it is not too bad. But if you shoot handheld, and especially if your livelihood depends on getting the "shot," EVF just don't cut it. This is especially the case when you are moving fast and changing your composition on the fly.
On top of that, the autofocus missed about half the time. Sure, it was close, and may not matter to a hobbyist since it was so close, but when you need the focus on her eyes and instead it appears on her nose, that's a problem, especially when the project is going to print.
On top of that, the manual focus is kind of weird. As soon as you adjust the focus manually, the EVF zooms to 100% at the center of frame. This does help ensure you nail focus, but then you loose your frame, and there is a delay on the EVF going back to full frame after you finish focusing. In that short amount of time, you will probably loose focus due to you or your subject moving anyway.
Everyone else there had the same feelings, especially those that shoot people, regardless of genre. (NYC Foto Works is a pay for play portfolio review for professionals only, and they vet everyones portfolio before allowing them to participate, so the opinions of those who attend are pretty reflective of the higher end professional market.)
With this being said, they also had the H system to test out. That camera is very nice and works flawlessly, especially when using TrueFocus.
-
Thanks for the feedback, Joe.
Why did I think that TrueFocus was coming to the X1D too ? Is that now definitively excluded ?
-
Threads go silent for a variety of reasons, not least the one about relativity to the readers.
There are those who are able to buy without inflicting self-harm, those who could never buy, and those who, as in my situation, could buy but don't do so for a whole host of reasons quite apart from the photographic technology ones.
People shouldn't read too much into the death of a sequence of posts; it isn't always down to fights, but very often (IMO) because the interest level of many readers has been exhausted, after which there's nothing they want to, or can add.
I've just watched the Hasselblad video on the new camera, and yes, it is a very nice machine, but the question I have to ask myself is this: owning it, or anything other that what I already do own, would I have new outlets for my photography? The answer is in the negative. And that, I think, is the same thing that is currently bothering the entire camera industry: for anyone other than a specialized pro, we have reached and passed the borders of necessity; we can already do anthing we have the mind to do: anything that we can't do is a reflection of our own inabilities, not of the cameras.
Where these new expensive cameras have a future, I think, is for people just about to buy their first serious bit of kit. Or, alternatively, for those photographers who already know themselves and their interests very well, have been around long enough to have acquired too much gear, and reach the point where they say enough! let's get rid of most of this stuff and go for something very good and very simple, that does all that I'm really interested in doing.
I really hope that Hassy finds lots of people willing to buy. If I were still working, I'd own their products again.
Rob
-
I was at the NYC Foto Works last week and Hassy was a sponsor. The Hassy mirrorless camera was there to test out and I was less then impressed ...
I can understand those impressions, but as a still-life and landscape photographer, the X1D has many useful features. I will not try to respond to all the comments, like the lack of focus points, for example. I understand that the final version (or soon after) will have something like 63 focus points. It might be helpful to watch this LULA video about how the X1D functions. I learned a lot from it.
https://luminous-landscape.com/hasselblad-x1d-hands-tour/
-
Thanks for the feedback, Joe.
Why did I think that TrueFocus was coming to the X1D too ? Is that now definitively excluded ?
I would not count on it; they did not make any mention true focus was coming.
And the 63 autofocus points is something else I don't understand. With that many focus points, how are we to control which focus point is used, ensuring correct focus for the image?
In my example above, if I need the eyes in focus, how can I ensure that the focus points over the eyes are utilized instead of say the one over the nose, especially when my compositions are fluid and changing?
On top of that, the focus is on sensor and uses contrast detection to focus. This does not always work. Several times the focus mask in C1 has told me a high contrasty area is in focus when it is not. This works off of the same principle.
However, after some thought, just now in the shower, if Hassy designed the EVF to zoom into 100% in say the middle third or half only and left the outer frame of the viewfinder at full composition, manual focus would be pretty nice.
PS. I will admit for the still life and landscape shooters, its a decent system, if you don't need in camera movements and tilt/swing.
-
And the 63 autofocus points is something else I don't understand. With that many focus points, how are we to control which focus point is used, ensuring correct focus for the image?
In my example above, if I need the eyes in focus, how can I ensure that the focus points over the eyes are utilized instead of say the one over the nose, especially when my compositions are fluid and changing?
From memory, in the X1D video just posted on LuLa, the 'H-man' (sorry couldn't catch his name) indicated that the rear screen is touch focus. So, theoretically, a quick prod in the eyeball, and the cam should focus on that!
From what you report it still sounds that Hassy needs to work on he AF and firmware. Guess we won't know for sure until the finished product ships.
-
Apparently the focus point can also be moved by using the front and rear control dials; one is for up and the other for down. I tend not to photograph things that move, so I am not sure how easy it will be to move the focus point with either alternative if you want to keep your eye in the viewfinder.
-
Hi,
The way I shoot I normally decide on the focus point beforehand. That assumes that I have some ideas about composition and things.
Focus & recompose is supposed to introduce a focusing error, I am not sure that I ever have observed that. But, shooting at close distances the focal plane of the camera will be moved when the head is rotated. Doesn't matter a lot at 3 meters but quite a lot at 0.5 m.
When shooting macro outdoors on the ground an articulated display combined with movable focus point is a god-bless, as you can see the viewfinder without lying flat on ground, and pointing AF where you want focus usually does the job.
Features like that may be essential or not depending on what we do. For me, both are pretty high on my priority list.
Best regards
Erik
Apparently the focus point can also be moved by using the front and rear control dials; one is for up and the other for down. I tend not to photograph things that move, so I am not sure how easy it will be to move the focus point with either alternative if you want to keep your eye in the viewfinder.