Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on July 14, 2010, 03:32:31 pm
-
Hi,
Lloyd Chambers tests the Leica S2.
http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaS2/index.html (http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaS2/index.html)
This is a pay site, but I think it's worth each penny although I don't use the things that Lloyd writes about. Right now he is reviewing the Leica S2, which he compares to the Nikon D3X.
My understanding is that he found the Leica to have very high potential, optically. Unfortunately he finds that critical focus is hard to achieve. AF is decent but not selective enough to lock on the right point.
Very good review, but less positive than Mark Dubovoy's. I guess that Lloyd and mark have somewhat different focus.
If you are interested in achieving the maximum with Nikon D3X, Canon 5DII, Leica M9 or Leica S2 I would suggest that Lloyd's two websites are worth the investment:
http://www.diglloyd.com/dap/index.html (http://www.diglloyd.com/dap/index.html)
http://www.diglloyd.com/zf/index.html (http://www.diglloyd.com/zf/index.html) (Zeiss lenses for Canon and Nikon)
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Lloyd Chambers tests the Leica S2.
http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaS2/index.html (http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaS2/index.html)
This is a pay site, but I think it's worth each penny although I don't use the things that Lloyd writes about. Right now he is reviewing the Leica S2, which he compares to the Nikon D3X.
My understanding is that he found the Leica to have very high potential, optically. Unfortunately he finds that critical focus is hard to achieve. AF is decent but not selective enough to lock on the right point.
Very good review, but less positive than Mark Dubovoy's. I guess that Lloyd and mark have somewhat different focus.
Excellent review indeed.
His comment on DR are interesting also.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
I'm not a DR freak just because I started a thread trying to discuss DR related to Mark Dubovoy's statements. That thread had a good discussion, I think.
Lloyd made two DNGs downloadable, under quite restrictive terms. I started comparing them. It's not easy to compare two images making both justice. The S2 image has a lot of issues with moiré and aliasing.
The way I compare is that
Capture sharpen in LR 3
Open in Photoshop CS5
Match colors
I upscale both images to 50x75 cm at 360 PPI
Compare at actual pixels
Preliminary findings:
Surprisingly small differences
Leica little bit more detail contrast but lot's of artifacts
Leica has significantly more details
Smooth surfaces cleaner in the S2 image (due to intensive sharpening on D3X)
Did not print any image yet, I don't expect to see any difference in A2 size prints except possibly moiré. Capture sharpening is crucial and highly subjective.
Best regards
Erik
Excellent review indeed.
His comment on DR are interesting also.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I must say his latest update comparison with the mosaic manually focused really shows off the Leica 70mm. Im really impressed! This glass is brilliant.
I just wish that Canon and Nikon can come out wit a 30mp system without an AA filter.
-
On earth today, there are some gear that you can't go wrong with.
The D3x is one, the S2 is also on the list.
All will be a question of handling, style, economy and needs.
At this level, what matters is what do you want to acheive and how.
To me, the Leica is in a very hard position between a D3x and the best MFs,
without being as good as any of those in their strengh.
Can't really figure for who is this S2.
Leica might knows.
Also, I find a little bit (diplomatically speaking) "ridiculous" comparing the S2 to the D3x, and sorry but this S2 should be compared to the same priced equipement from Phase and Hasselblad.
That is a good think indeed that Lu-La and the GetDPI did understand that from the very beginning.
See that Guy's pic I found on google? those are cameras in the same league-price-target. Not the D3x, despite being a top camera.
[attachment=23177:s2_getdp...merastud.jpg]
If I was a potential Leica buyer, I would not be interested at all to see how it compares to the Nikon or any 35mm. IMO, Lloyd missed the shot on that. (Lloyd is highly recommended anyway).
Take the Lu-La S2 testing, mixed with the GetDPI review, shake the all (in Bond's style) and you got a pretty extented and trustable information.
Conclusion (personal), why paying when you have good infos for free?
-
I'm not a DR freak just because I started a thread trying to discuss DR related to Mark Dubovoy's statements. That thread had a good discussion, I think.
Erik,
Never thought you were, but his findings are worth adding to the DR X files, aren't they?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
On earth today, there are some gear that you can't go wrong with.
The D3x is one, the S2 is also on the list.
All will be a question of handling, style, economy and needs.
At this level, what matters is what do you want to acheive and how.
To me, the Leica is in a very hard position between a D3x and the best MFs,
without being as good as any of those in their strengh.
Can't really figure for who is this S2.
Leica might knows.
Also, I find a little bit (diplomatically speaking) "ridiculous" comparing the S2 to the D3x, and sorry but this S2 should be compared to the same priced equipement from Phase and Hasselblad.
That is a good think indeed that Lu-La and the GetDPI did understand that from the very beginning.
See that Guy's pic I found on google? those are cameras in the same league-price-target. Not the D3x, despite being a top camera.
[attachment=23177:s2_getdp...merastud.jpg]
If I was a potential Leica buyer, I would not be interested at all to see how it compares to the Nikon or any 35mm. IMO, Lloyd missed the shot on that. (Lloyd is highly recommended anyway).
Take the Lu-La S2 testing, mixed with the GetDPI review, shake the all (in Bond's style) and you got a pretty extented and trustable information.
Conclusion (personal), why paying when you have good infos for free?
Man looking pretty ragged there but that is also the curse of the P65+ in all it's detail. LOL
Thanks for the compliment Fred and I agree these things need to be compared to comparable gear and reason why the P40+ was used. Bottom line end of the day no IQ difference and actually given C1 and dedicated software a major plus for the Phase, I was not impressed by the s2 70mm lens the 180mm though I was. It's the ergo's and features that really are the difference. Just a FYI i bought that P40+ back right in the middle of the review. Not sure what that says but the value for me was the Phase. I know this is a back that does not get a lot of play on the forums as the P65+ does but please take my word on this back it is everything you pretty much need and expect. I am getting awesome images from it and it is fast and reliable. My only bitch is I wish the DF there was a setting to magnify the viewfinder to the P40 Crop as Full frame inside the finder. Maybe better said a switch for each back's different crop factors to bring it to almost or full frame viewing. When one of the OEM's comes up with that it will make no difference about crop factor backs.
-
Hi,
I'm not really sure about that. Lloyd made "raws" available for download on very restrictive term (Mosaic f/5.6 images). I did some preliminary comparisons, upscaled for 50x75 cm at 360 PPI for both with in my view optimal sharpening. In this case the S2 has more detail but aliasing artifacts all over the place. Nikon is as sharp but much smoother. The results depend highly on sharpening for sure. The glass on Leica is definitively brilliant.
Best regards
Erik
I must say his latest update comparison with the mosaic manually focused really shows off the Leica 70mm. Im really impressed! This glass is brilliant.
I just wish that Canon and Nikon can come out wit a 30mp system without an AA filter.
-
Bernard,
Yes I might say so. On the other hand it is very little info on DR and I have some problems with Diglloyd being a pay site. In my view his writing is worth every penny, but I don't want to link to article that costs 20 box to read.
By the way, sometimes I thought you were a D3X freak, but the work I have done recently on DR and also the stuff at "diglloyd" made me realize that the D3X is not just best of breed but leads with a considerable margin.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Never thought you were, but his findings are worth adding to the DR X files, aren't they?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I'm not really sure about that. Lloyd made "raws" available for download on very restrictive term (Mosaic f/5.6 images). I did some preliminary comparisons, upscaled for 50x75 cm at 360 PPI for both with in my view optimal sharpening. In this case the S2 has more detail but aliasing artifacts all over the place. Nikon is as sharp but much smoother. The results depend highly on sharpening for sure. The glass on Leica is definitively brilliant.
Ironically the sharper the lens the more aliasing artifacts you're going to see, so with MF it can be a case of too much of a good thing when it comes to glass, for those who are sensitive to such artifacts (some people apparently either don't mind them or don't see them).
-
By the way, sometimes I thought you were a D3X freak, but the work I have done recently on DR and also the stuff at "diglloyd" made me realize that the D3X is not just best of breed but leads with a considerable margin.
Erik,
It is fascinating to see how little reward Nikon got for their amazing work on DR. The last time we had a similar breakthrough was probably with the Canon 1Ds, yet Nikon probably got at most 10 times less praises.
This lack of reward is the thing that makes me say we are collectively showing our camera manufacturers that DR - although we keep saying it is the most important metric of our camera - does in fact not really matter because nobody is able to measure DR. The only possible result is that camera manufacturers will focus less on DR after the D3x. Why should they spend big money on costly fundamental sensor research to improve DR? Nobody seems to notice to acknowledge their effort and those who do end up being considered as brand fan boys...
Nikon developed the D3x for digital photography pros supposed to understand ETTR, those same guys who were supposed to be able to expose slide films correctly. The D3x is not a forgiving camera in that it doesn't hide anything up its sleeves as far as highlight information goes. It the histogram in camera clips, you get clipped files.
Now, the irony of all this is that most photographers actually never liked the way slides worked. We liked the results, but didn't like the exposure risk.
What Nikon should have done was to make use of the great DR of the D3x to tweak the camera for systematic under-exposure. Make sure that to dial in a -1 stop under exposure, in other words artificially increase the ISO value. Now they couldn't do that as a major player, people would have jumped at them right away had they artificially over-sold the ISO values of their cameras.
Why do you think Phaseone decided to show ISO 45 as being ISO 100 on the P65+? Yet, I have not read a single report focusing on this characteristic of backs.
http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sen...se-One/P65-Plus (http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Phase-One/P65-Plus)
Look no futher, 99% of the impression about the DR superiority of the backs come from this artificial under-exposure aimed at given the impression of highlight recovery.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ironically the sharper the lens the more aliasing artifacts you're going to see, so with MF it can be a case of too much of a good thing when it comes to glass, for those who are sensitive to such artifacts (some people apparently either don't mind them or don't see them).
Here is where you need to be really careful the S2 in both C1 and LR the sharpness levels are very high and need to brought down to a more neutral level. Yes the lens is sharp and that is not the issue it really is the issue in the raw programs on how they are seeing these files. Lots of artifacts , moire and more and C1 does not see the S2 very good at all since it is a generic DNG files so it is not sure what to do with it. So some real skill is needed in working with the S2 files or the look will be to digital( halo's , clumpy and such). Neither program is dead awesome with the s2 so it will take some work to get some type of neutral look from it or maybe better said to look more like Hassy and Phase files with dedicated software and good sharpness algorithms at default. I still believe the best option for the S2 is dedicated software and not going to get into all that whole ordeal. But the bottom line is one needs to careful on the processing or you can take a nice file and go straight over the top with it. Obviously some personal taste involved here but that was our conclusion.
As far as DR in the field the S2 clipped both highlights and shadows more than the P40+ by at least 1/2 of a stop or more. Take that for what it is worth but the Dalsa sensors at least these new ones are better than our older Kodak P45+, P30+ backs. The S2 is of the Kodak brand but a newer sensor. The Hassy 50 would be a better comparison to the S2 in DR since they share basically the same sensor. I have not tested that though
-
Erik,
It is fascinating to see how little reward Nikon got for their amazing work on DR. The last time we had a similar breakthrough was probably with the Canon 1Ds, yet Nikon probably got at most 10 times less praises.
This lack of reward is the thing that makes me say we are collectively showing our camera manufacturers that DR - although we keep saying it is the most important metric of our camera - does in fact not really matter because nobody is able to measure DR. The only possible result is that camera manufacturers will focus less on DR after the D3x. Why should they spend big money on costly fundamental sensor research to improve DR? Nobody seems to notice to acknowledge their effort and those who do end up being considered as brand fan boys...
Nikon developed the D3x for digital photography pros supposed to understand ETTR, those same guys who were supposed to be able to expose slide films correctly. The D3x is not a forgiving camera in that it doesn't hide anything up its sleeves as far as highlight information goes. It the histogram in camera clips, you get clipped files.
Now, the irony of all this is that most photographers actually never liked the way slides worked. We liked the results, but didn't like the exposure risk.
What Nikon should have done was to make use of the great DR of the D3x to tweak the camera for systematic under-exposure. Make sure that to dial in a -1 stop under exposure, in other words artificially increase the ISO value. Now they couldn't do that as a major player, people would have jumped at them right away had they artificially over-sold the ISO values of their cameras.
Why do you think Phaseone decided to show ISO 45 as being ISO 100 on the P65+? Yet, I have not read a single report focusing on this characteristic of backs.
http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sen...se-One/P65-Plus (http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Phase-One/P65-Plus)
Look no futher, 99% of the impression about the DR superiority of the backs come from this artificial under-exposure aimed at given the impression of highlight recovery.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard we have been going round and round on DXO but the bottom line on it it simply does not account for raw processing software dedicated to the backs in question. No question C1 does a lot of stuff to the Phase files as soon as you bring them in. So how can we effectively understand the DXO marks when this is done in the raw converters and bottom line we use the raw converters to process so you can't ignore it as the working tool and end of day that is really what counts is what is going on with the output from the raw converter, I could careless what happens before it is brought in and that is there measurement. No matter how we slice the cheese that is the file going to print, to client or to press. I'm not here to argue DXO frankly I could care less about it and need to get back to Hospice with my mother in law but I think DXO is good and a nice measurement but I also believe whole heartedly people are forgetting the power of dedicated back to it's dedicated software which no question about it Phase and Hassy, Sinar and Leaf that is the life bread of there backs is the software. There is a lot of baseline tweaking going on at the sensor level with these backs. Anyway gotta run and obviously that was OT concerning the S2. I just don't put as much faith in those numbers, I look at it as a guide some think it is the bible. Whatever makes one happy
-
Bernard,
Yes I might say so. On the other hand it is very little info on DR and I have some problems with Diglloyd being a pay site. In my view his writing is worth every penny, but I don't want to link to article that costs 20 box to read.
By the way, sometimes I thought you were a D3X freak, but the work I have done recently on DR and also the stuff at "diglloyd" made me realize that the D3X is not just best of breed but leads with a considerable margin.
Best regards
Erik
This is something that I think most of us did not realize about the D3x until we got one. Early on, I distrusted Nikon's marketing material, which ultimately turned out to be honest. There is a clearly some kind of unique technological achievement in this camera that brings the noise floor down to bedrock, and I'd like to know what it is.
The reason why I think most people have a predisposition to the camera is because it looks at first like a simple sensor changeout in a body known to go for under $5000 in original form. So people tend to think, "no better than D3, just more pixels and no high ISO, but a lot more expensive". But really, while it wears D3 stripes, it is a completely different animal. It's an awesome, use-anywhere, studio camera that produces the deepest blacks I've ever seen and competes favorably with medium format offerings. The noiseless shadows make your images look like someone applied 5 coats of wax and buffed to a deep gloss.
-
Interesting, I'll have to cough up for the DigiLoyd site. I am doing the same comparison next week, a D3X arrived yesterday and I have been shooting with the S2 for a short while now.
I think the D3X / S2 comparisor is valid because folks are interested to know what they get for the extra dough. Here the D3X is about $11K whilst the S2 is $28K so more than double the price. if I was wondering whether to up the ante I'd be interested to know what I got for the extra $17K and whether the sacrifices were worth it.
BTW, the D3X arrived with the latest 24-70 zoom. I know it's a good lens but is it going to be good enough to show up the sensor vs the S2/35/70mm lenses. it's a new lens for me, not used it before but I hear good things about it.
-
BTW, the D3X arrived with the latest 24-70 zoom. I know it's a good lens but is it going to be good enough to show up the sensor vs the S2/35/70mm lenses. it's a new lens for me, not used it before but I hear good things about it.
In the 30-60mm range the 24-70 is truly excellent, rivaling primes from Zeiss. That's not to say it's bad outside that range, just not quite as stellar. The 24-28mm range is problematic due to field curvature, depending on what you're shooting.
-
Interesting, I'll have to cough up for the DigiLoyd site. I am doing the same comparison next week, a D3X arrived yesterday and I have been shooting with the S2 for a short while now.
I think the D3X / S2 comparisor is valid because folks are interested to know what they get for the extra dough. Here the D3X is about $11K whilst the S2 is $28K so more than double the price. if I was wondering whether to up the ante I'd be interested to know what I got for the extra $17K and whether the sacrifices were worth it.
BTW, the D3X arrived with the latest 24-70 zoom. I know it's a good lens but is it going to be good enough to show up the sensor vs the S2/35/70mm lenses. it's a new lens for me, not used it before but I hear good things about it.
No one here took Bernard and me seriously when we said the D3x was pretty good, even compared to a Phase back. Now it's almost obseolere, but it's still pretty good compared to a Leica
Edmund
-
Hi Guy,
We had a lengthy discussion on the forum on both DR and it's interpretation with quite a few members chiming in who had impressive knowledge in image processing and all essentially say that the DxO figures are correct. Lloyd Chambers also found that DxO numbers are correct. There were some theories trying to explain why experienced photographers see a DR advantage.
Please remember that DxO-mark is about raw data that has not been processed. It's data prior to conversion.
Best regards
Erik
Bernard we have been going round and round on DXO but the bottom line on it it simply does not account for raw processing software dedicated to the backs in question. No question C1 does a lot of stuff to the Phase files as soon as you bring them in. So how can we effectively understand the DXO marks when this is done in the raw converters and bottom line we use the raw converters to process so you can't ignore it as the working tool and end of day that is really what counts is what is going on with the output from the raw converter, I could careless what happens before it is brought in and that is there measurement. No matter how we slice the cheese that is the file going to print, to client or to press. I'm not here to argue DXO frankly I could care less about it and need to get back to Hospice with my mother in law but I think DXO is good and a nice measurement but I also believe whole heartedly people are forgetting the power of dedicated back to it's dedicated software which no question about it Phase and Hassy, Sinar and Leaf that is the life bread of there backs is the software. There is a lot of baseline tweaking going on at the sensor level with these backs. Anyway gotta run and obviously that was OT concerning the S2. I just don't put as much faith in those numbers, I look at it as a guide some think it is the bible. Whatever makes one happy
-
Hi Guy,
I downloaded the DNG:s from Lloyd Chambers site and did a quite quick comparison with my "standard method".
- Capture sharpen optimally (this is crucial and I did not spent enough effort)
- Blow up to 75x50 at 360 PPI
- Compare at actual pixels
What I saw was that the Leica image had clearly better resolution bit also aliasing all over the place. Sharpness was about the same. I guess that Lloyd's favorite test target happens to cause a lot of aliasing artifacts.
I'm going to repeat with less sharpening.
I don't think that I could make any difference between the two in an A2 print.
Best regards
Erik
Here is where you need to be really careful the S2 in both C1 and LR the sharpness levels are very high and need to brought down to a more neutral level. Yes the lens is sharp and that is not the issue it really is the issue in the raw programs on how they are seeing these files. Lots of artifacts , moire and more and C1 does not see the S2 very good at all since it is a generic DNG files so it is not sure what to do with it. So some real skill is needed in working with the S2 files or the look will be to digital( halo's , clumpy and such). Neither program is dead awesome with the s2 so it will take some work to get some type of neutral look from it or maybe better said to look more like Hassy and Phase files with dedicated software and good sharpness algorithms at default. I still believe the best option for the S2 is dedicated software and not going to get into all that whole ordeal. But the bottom line is one needs to careful on the processing or you can take a nice file and go straight over the top with it. Obviously some personal taste involved here but that was our conclusion.
As far as DR in the field the S2 clipped both highlights and shadows more than the P40+ by at least 1/2 of a stop or more. Take that for what it is worth but the Dalsa sensors at least these new ones are better than our older Kodak P45+, P30+ backs. The S2 is of the Kodak brand but a newer sensor. The Hassy 50 would be a better comparison to the S2 in DR since they share basically the same sensor. I have not tested that though
-
Hi,
Lloyd used the Nikon 60 macro for comparison. I presume that stacking Leica primes against Nikon zoom glass is perhaps not an even ground for comparison. On the other hand, I'd expect the Nikon glass be very good at the center stopped down.
Lloyd is quite extreme, he tests all his lenses and find faults with about two out of three. He also mount Leica lenses on Nikons, uses Zeiss primes and hast also some very high class lenses from Coastal Optics.
Best regards
Erik
Interesting, I'll have to cough up for the DigiLoyd site. I am doing the same comparison next week, a D3X arrived yesterday and I have been shooting with the S2 for a short while now.
I think the D3X / S2 comparisor is valid because folks are interested to know what they get for the extra dough. Here the D3X is about $11K whilst the S2 is $28K so more than double the price. if I was wondering whether to up the ante I'd be interested to know what I got for the extra $17K and whether the sacrifices were worth it.
BTW, the D3X arrived with the latest 24-70 zoom. I know it's a good lens but is it going to be good enough to show up the sensor vs the S2/35/70mm lenses. it's a new lens for me, not used it before but I hear good things about it.
-
There is a clearly some kind of unique technological achievement in this camera that brings the noise floor down to bedrock, and I'd like to know what it is.
Odds are it's the column parallel readout of the Sony Exmor sensor, which changes the readout rate from MHz to KHz. The ~1000x slower readout allows lower read noise levels and thus cleaner shadows. What puzzles me is how much more Nikon was able to achieve with this sensor than Sony themselves.
-
Hi,
I got the impression that the Sony ADC:s are only 12 bit but the Nikon has obviously 14 bits. Nikon has either 12 bit readouts which is fast or 14 bit that is quite slow, as far as I understand. Has someone compared the methods?
It has been suggested that the Sony and Nikon sensors are similar but that the Nikon sensor may have design changes.
Best regards
Erik
Odds are it's the column parallel readout of the Sony Exmor sensor, which changes the readout rate from MHz to KHz. The ~1000x slower readout allows lower read noise levels and thus cleaner shadows. What puzzles me is how much more Nikon was able to achieve with this sensor than Sony themselves.
-
Hi Guy,
I much appreciate the stuff you and Jack are doing at GetDPI.
Regarding Lloyds comparing the Leica S2 to Nikon it is quite valid, in my view. The interesting factor is what can be achieved not the price of the tools. Price tags don't make pictures, cameras do.
Lloyd's experience is with DSLRs, Canon and Nikon, mostly. Lloyd did test MF digital now and than, however.
Obviously, what you are shooting matters a lot. It seems that Lloyd has problems focusing the Leica S2 and also the Leica M9. He did communicate with Erwin Puts, a known Leica tester and it seems that focus bracketing is the only way of achieving optimal focus. Lloyd and many others see Live View as the ultimate solution. Live view also eliminates half the alignment problem as the actual sensor signal is used for focusing. The optical axis of the lens still needs be perpendicular to the sensor but longitudinal errors don't matter with Live View. Manual focus is also depending on alignment of sensor, mirror and viewing screen.
Your point on the market position of Leica S2 is dead on in my view.
Best regards
Erik
On earth today, there are some gear that you can't go wrong with.
The D3x is one, the S2 is also on the list.
All will be a question of handling, style, economy and needs.
At this level, what matters is what do you want to acheive and how.
To me, the Leica is in a very hard position between a D3x and the best MFs,
without being as good as any of those in their strengh.
Can't really figure for who is this S2.
Leica might knows.
Also, I find a little bit (diplomatically speaking) "ridiculous" comparing the S2 to the D3x, and sorry but this S2 should be compared to the same priced equipement from Phase and Hasselblad.
That is a good think indeed that Lu-La and the GetDPI did understand that from the very beginning.
See that Guy's pic I found on google? those are cameras in the same league-price-target. Not the D3x, despite being a top camera.
[attachment=23177:s2_getdp...merastud.jpg]
If I was a potential Leica buyer, I would not be interested at all to see how it compares to the Nikon or any 35mm. IMO, Lloyd missed the shot on that. (Lloyd is highly recommended anyway).
Take the Lu-La S2 testing, mixed with the GetDPI review, shake the all (in Bond's style) and you got a pretty extented and trustable information.
Conclusion (personal), why paying when you have good infos for free?
-
BTW, the D3X arrived with the latest 24-70 zoom. I know it's a good lens but is it going to be good enough to show up the sensor vs the S2/35/70mm lenses. it's a new lens for me, not used it before but I hear good things about it.
The 24-70 is an extremely sharp lens, but it has the bokeh of a zoom lens.
One intuition says that if the Leica gets a $5k lens, so does the Nikon. I'd nominate the Coastal Optics 60mm Apochromat. On the other hand, another intuition says that if the Nikon is half the price, the lens should be $2500. Um, then again, yet another intuition says that you should use the best lenses Nikon has available -- at an eighth to one quarter of the price. The Nikon 60mm AF-s Micro comes to mind for that, a favorite of some D3x fashion shooters.
-
What puzzles me is how much more Nikon was able to achieve with this sensor than Sony themselves.
That's just the question I was hoping you had the answer to. For a minute, I thought someone had taken you up on your dual-processed active read-noise optimization strategy. But you seemed to suggest somewhere earlier that the observed numbers from the camera did not show the telltale signs of this.
-
The 24-70 is an extremely sharp lens, but it has the bokeh of a zoom lens.
One intuition says that if the Leica gets a $5k lens, so does the Nikon. I'd nominate the Coastal Optics 60mm Apochromat. On the other hand, another intuition says that if the Nikon is half the price, the lens should be $2500. Um, then again, yet another intuition says that you should use the best lenses Nikon has available -- at an eighth to one quarter of the price. The Nikon 60mm AF-s Micro comes to mind for that, a favorite of some D3x fashion shooters.
Yes, agreed but I'll go with the best 'all Nikon' solution. The 24-70 at f5.6 is quite amazingly sharp, both to my eye and in the Photozone tests where it is as good at f5.6 as almost any other lens in the Nikon arsenal. I'd like to try the 60mm macro but it's not going to happen.
Today I shot this Nikon 24-70 lens @ 70mm against the Leica 75mm to get a sense of how the sensors resolve the same details. Details in both images appear much the same size at 100%, as you'd expect, but the Leica gives a better result - quite clearly. (This is from both ACR and C1 for both cameras.) This method eliminates the sensor size difference, so obviously matching the field of view of both cameras by using a 50mm lens on the Nikon would end up favouring the Leica even more as it's bringing 37.5MP vs 25MP to bear on the same field size.
It's impressive just now good the Nikon is though, brilliant metering accuracy and zero noise. The Leica is just better, but you have to pay a lot more (2-3 times)to get that step up in IQ. This is pretty much what I expected but it's certainly interesting to have arguably (or not!) the best 35mm DSLR currently available to compare to. I was hoping to have a Hassy or Phase to look at too but these have not been forthcoming from the distributors.
-
Hi,
Someone, perhaps me, suggested that two readings could be made with different pre-amp setings like 100 ISO and 400 ISO and the readings could be marged. CMOS sensors can be read nondestructively so this may be possible. Emil wrote that such mainipulation would have a very obvious signature in the file and that signature isn't there.
Best regards
Erik
That's just the question I was hoping you had the answer to. For a minute, I thought someone had taken you up on your dual-processed active read-noise optimization strategy. But you seemed to suggest somewhere earlier that the observed numbers from the camera did not show the telltale signs of this.
-
Hi Guy,
We had a lengthy discussion on the forum on both DR and it's interpretation with quite a few members chiming in who had impressive knowledge in image processing and all essentially say that the DxO figures are correct. Lloyd Chambers also found that DxO numbers are correct. There were some theories trying to explain why experienced photographers see a DR advantage.
Please remember that DxO-mark is about raw data that has not been processed. It's data prior to conversion.
Best regards
Erik
Not sure you read me right but yes that is what I am saying not that the numbers are wrong but it is before raw conversion and as a shooter they really mean nothing at all because everything we do is after the raw conversion. On a scientific level sure DXO numbers and testing are okay but we deal with life after the pure raw data so in effect it is kind of meaningless. To me it is what C1 does to my Phase files as they are brought in what counts. And those files do change a lot when brought into there dedicated software
Not that we need to get into a whole discussion here but Phase , Hassy, Leaf and Sinar files are all tuned to there converters and when brought in those big changes happen. Nikon, Canon and all of those that produce in camera jpegs I believe have some type of raw conversion going (or algorithms built into the file) in camera on the raws before they are considered raw data. I believe the reason why is the jpegs in camera are obviously being processed as well and the raws follow along to a certain level. Something maybe a new thread to explore for sure. The MF only put out raw files so they have no need for any algorithms built into the file in the back so that data is very linear and the software adds those algorithms . My guess and it is a guess is these backs do absolutely nothing at the shooting stage with regards to the raw but the Nikons and in camera jpegs actually do something to the raws even before they are considered raw data. Maybe something worth discussing in a thread. Obviously this is the science part behind what is going on that we really never hear about. Hope that made sense very early in the morning and on first espresso. LOL
-
Hi Guy,
I much appreciate the stuff you and Jack are doing at GetDPI.
Regarding Lloyds comparing the Leica S2 to Nikon it is quite valid, in my view. The interesting factor is what can be achieved not the price of the tools. Price tags don't make pictures, cameras do.
Lloyd's experience is with DSLRs, Canon and Nikon, mostly. Lloyd did test MF digital now and than, however.
Obviously, what you are shooting matters a lot. It seems that Lloyd has problems focusing the Leica S2 and also the Leica M9. He did communicate with Erwin Puts, a known Leica tester and it seems that focus bracketing is the only way of achieving optimal focus. Lloyd and many others see Live View as the ultimate solution. Live view also eliminates half the alignment problem as the actual sensor signal is used for focusing. The optical axis of the lens still needs be perpendicular to the sensor but longitudinal errors don't matter with Live View. Manual focus is also depending on alignment of sensor, mirror and viewing screen.
Your point on the market position of Leica S2 is dead on in my view.
Best regards
Erik
Agree the issue is the S2 is a tweener neither 35 nor MF. Kind of a two part cam as far as comparing. The ergos and features against the 35mm and image quailty against the MF . It does not win in either court but combined it is very good but as a tweener. Obviously it is a strange duck because it does not fit either but compares against both. On one hand certainly not two times better over the D3x but the price is and no better than the Hasy , Phase 40mpx offerings but more expensive. When buying it throws a big curve ball into the decision process because of it's mix.
-
Agree the issue is the S2 is a tweener neither 35 nor MF. Kind of a two part cam as far as comparing. The ergos and features against the 35mm and image quailty against the MF . It does not win in either court but combined it is very good but as a tweener. Obviously it is a strange duck because it does not fit either but compares against both. On one hand certainly not two times better over the D3x but the price is and no better than the Hasy , Phase 40mpx offerings but more expensive. When buying it throws a big curve ball into the decision process because of it's mix.
For me the S2 fixes problems I have with both small-format cameras and medium-format cameras: it has a bigger sensor than the 35mm-based DSLRs and better handling than the typical medium-format camera. Except for the price and the lack of long lenses it hits a bullseye for me.
-
Guy,
My post was also early morning after first espresso...
Best regards
Erik
Not sure you read me right but yes that is what I am saying not that the numbers are wrong but it is before raw conversion and as a shooter they really mean nothing at all because everything we do is after the raw conversion. On a scientific level sure DXO numbers and testing are okay but we deal with life after the pure raw data so in effect it is kind of meaningless. To me it is what C1 does to my Phase files as they are brought in what counts. And those files do change a lot when brought into there dedicated software
Not that we need to get into a whole discussion here but Phase , Hassy, Leaf and Sinar files are all tuned to there converters and when brought in those big changes happen. Nikon, Canon and all of those that produce in camera jpegs I believe have some type of raw conversion going (or algorithms built into the file) in camera on the raws before they are considered raw data. I believe the reason why is the jpegs in camera are obviously being processed as well and the raws follow along to a certain level. Something maybe a new thread to explore for sure. The MF only put out raw files so they have no need for any algorithms built into the file in the back so that data is very linear and the software adds those algorithms . My guess and it is a guess is these backs do absolutely nothing at the shooting stage with regards to the raw but the Nikons and in camera jpegs actually do something to the raws even before they are considered raw data. Maybe something worth discussing in a thread. Obviously this is the science part behind what is going on that we really never hear about. Hope that made sense very early in the morning and on first espresso. LOL
-
Guy,
My post was also early morning after first espresso...
Best regards
Erik
Any company which expects its clients to use LR should do the processing onboard. Adobe can not be expected to spend a lot of time fine tuning their algorithms or profiles for a particular camera. Assuming they knew how to, which given the quality of their results ... I find the quality of the D3x Jpegs good enough for almost every use now -
Edmund
-
if there comes our just one file for each image there is done processing on board of the camera.
-
Guy,
My post was also early morning after first espresso...
Best regards
Erik
Let's move on to number two. LOL
Have a great morning
-
Any company which expects its clients to use LR should do the processing onboard. Adobe can not be expected to spend a lot of time fine tuning their algorithms or profiles for a particular camera. Assuming they knew how to, which given the quality of their results ... I find the quality of the D3x Jpegs good enough for almost every use now -
Edmund
I think this is worth exploring at some point in a thread. OEM's like Nikon, Canon, Leica and some others do not have sophisticated raw converters( yes some do). That ONLY shoot raw like the MF back and these companies put everything in the software(algorithms). But companies that use jpeg in the camera the question is are they doing some onboard raw processing(or algorithms) because they did not design there software(Nikon and Canon) like that or rely on third party so they have to put some in to get it correctly in different programs . We all know Hassy, Phase , Sinar and Leaf design there software specifically for there backs and my bet put those algorithms in the software not the files themselves and why we see there raws as being pretty poorly looking or linear without there own software package. I know Phase files do not look good in ACR or LR for instance and need work. This alone makes me believe this theory. Sorry I know we are OT but it is a interesting thought because it never comes up in conversations at the root level. Sorry for rambling here.
-
Yes, agreed but I'll go with the best 'all Nikon' solution. The 24-70 at f5.6 is quite amazingly sharp, both to my eye and in the Photozone tests where it is as good at f5.6 as almost any other lens in the Nikon arsenal. I'd like to try the 60mm macro but it's not going to happen.
Today I shot this Nikon 24-70 lens @ 70mm against the Leica 75mm to get a sense of how the sensors resolve the same details. Details in both images appear much the same size at 100%, as you'd expect, but the Leica gives a better result - quite clearly. (This is from both ACR and C1 for both cameras.) This method eliminates the sensor size difference, so obviously matching the field of view of both cameras by using a 50mm lens on the Nikon would end up favouring the Leica even more as it's bringing 37.5MP vs 25MP to bear on the same field size.
It's impressive just now good the Nikon is though, brilliant metering accuracy and zero noise. The Leica is just better, but you have to pay a lot more (2-3 times)to get that step up in IQ. This is pretty much what I expected but it's certainly interesting to have arguably (or not!) the best 35mm DSLR currently available to compare to. I was hoping to have a Hassy or Phase to look at too but these have not been forthcoming from the distributors.
In what aspects is the Leica result better? Not being argumentative, just curious. Can one put the difference down to the AA filter? That will certainly rob the Nikon of a bit of MTF near Nyquist, while cutting down on aliasing artifacts.
-
Hi,
Lloyd made some raws available for download. It's his mosaic target which contains lot of fine detail close to Nyquist (I think). I made a quick comparison with strong capture sharpening on Nikon and little on the Leica. No doubt Leica resolves better, but the Leica had a lot of artifacts. I could not see a significant difference in sharpness, Nikon was cleaner and Leica did resolve detail the Nikon did not resolve.
Best regards
Erik
In what aspects is the Leica result better? Not being argumentative, just curious. Can one put the difference down to the AA filter? That will certainly rob the Nikon of a bit of MTF near Nyquist, while cutting down on aliasing artifacts.
-
Bernard we have been going round and round on DXO but the bottom line on it it simply does not account for raw processing software dedicated to the backs in question. No question C1 does a lot of stuff to the Phase files as soon as you bring them in. So how can we effectively understand the DXO marks when this is done in the raw converters and bottom line we use the raw converters to process so you can't ignore it as the working tool and end of day that is really what counts is what is going on with the output from the raw converter, I could careless what happens before it is brought in and that is there measurement. No matter how we slice the cheese that is the file going to print, to client or to press. I'm not here to argue DXO frankly I could care less about it and need to get back to Hospice with my mother in law but I think DXO is good and a nice measurement but I also believe whole heartedly people are forgetting the power of dedicated back to it's dedicated software which no question about it Phase and Hassy, Sinar and Leaf that is the life bread of there backs is the software. There is a lot of baseline tweaking going on at the sensor level with these backs. Anyway gotta run and obviously that was OT concerning the S2. I just don't put as much faith in those numbers, I look at it as a guide some think it is the bible. Whatever makes one happy
Guy,
I am a long term C1 user and use it excusively for my D3x files... because I get even cleaner shadows than with other RAW converters.
The magic appliced by the software is real, but does not only apply to Phase backs files.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Guy,
I am a long term C1 user and use it excusively for my D3x files... because I get even cleaner shadows than with other RAW converters.
The magic appliced by the software is real, but does not only apply to Phase backs files.
Cheers,
Bernard
When it comes to converters, it's a rather subjective thing. I used to like the detail and default colors from C1, as well as the good shadows, but after using it for a while I became disenchanted with some of the demosaic artifacts, and the fact that much of the shadow noise performance comes from strongly desaturating them. I never had the pro version, just the low end software up through 4.8, so I don't know if there are extras in the high end version that would change that conclusion.
Each converter has its plusses and minuses, and I agree that the software from the camera manufacturer may be tuned a bit better to the camera, especially when it comes to color profiling, they know very well the spectral properties of their color filters and could and should spend more effort adjusting the profile. Other than that, noise characteristics differ from camera to camera, so default NR from the converter can be tuned to suppress any idiosyncrasies from the camera, and again one would expect the hardware manufacturer to spend a bit more effort with that adjustment. Perhaps the MFDB manufacturers treat moire with more attention (I know C1 has a moire suppression tool; I don't know if it is enabled by default). OTOH, demosaic algorithms play a big part in output quality, and that is independent of what camera is being used so long as its a standard Bayer array.
-
I think this is worth exploring at some point in a thread. OEM's like Nikon, Canon, Leica and some others do not have sophisticated raw converters( yes some do). That ONLY shoot raw like the MF back and these companies put everything in the software(algorithms). But companies that use jpeg in the camera the question is are they doing some onboard raw processing(or algorithms) because they did not design there software(Nikon and Canon) like that or rely on third party so they have to put some in to get it correctly in different programs . We all know Hassy, Phase , Sinar and Leaf design there software specifically for there backs and my bet put those algorithms in the software not the files themselves and why we see there raws as being pretty poorly looking or linear without there own software package. I know Phase files do not look good in ACR or LR for instance and need work. This alone makes me believe this theory. Sorry I know we are OT but it is a interesting thought because it never comes up in conversations at the root level. Sorry for rambling here.
Just because DSLR's have internal JPEG engine doesn't mean that the raw files are any less raw than from MFDB. I know of no evidence at all to suggest there is any processing happening on the RAW files for Nikon DSLR's. In fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Nikon's CaptureNX RAW converter has things like dynamic lighting and automatic lens correction (for CA, vignetting, etc), and you don't get that functionality unless you use their converter. It's not baked into the RAW.
-
Just because DSLR's have internal JPEG engine doesn't mean that the raw files are any less raw than from MFDB. I know of no evidence at all to suggest there is any processing happening on the RAW files for Nikon DSLR's. In fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Nikon's CaptureNX RAW converter has things like dynamic lighting and automatic lens correction (for CA, vignetting, etc), and you don't get that functionality unless you use their converter. It's not baked into the RAW.
The only thing I'm aware of on Nikon is the use of NR on long exposures (greater than 1/4 sec on the D3x I believe), and if one uses dark frame subtraction that will of course be performed before the raw file is written. Other than that, Nikon DSLR raw files are quite linear, and show no obvious signs of noise processing on shorter exposures. The JPEG engine is used to generate thumbnails, and a full size jpeg is embedded in the raw for the purpose of in-camera review, etc.
-
Hi,
I spent some more time looking at the images I downloaded from the "Diglloyd" site. My initial peek was this morning after just having my first espresso. Initially I was doing some quite heavy sharpening on the Nikon images and very little on the Leica S2. This way I had similar edge sharpness but the Leica was resolving significantly more detail but also had a lot of false detail. The extensive sharpening induced a lot of noise in the Nikon image.
This evening, after having some more espresso, I looked at both images again. This time I sharpened the Nikon image less and applied noise reduction while the Leica image got more sharpening. On the second try the Leica image was much sharper. There is a lot of aliasing artifacts in the S2 image.
So what did I find?
1) Leica definitively resolves much higher (well, it has more pixels, so it should
2) Leica has lots of aliasing artifacts, very much visible on this subject
3) Nikon takes more sharpening and that sharpening may enhance noise
4) Smooth surfaces stay very smooth in the S2 image, on Nikon it takes some more work
Best regards
Erik
In what aspects is the Leica result better? Not being argumentative, just curious. Can one put the difference down to the AA filter? That will certainly rob the Nikon of a bit of MTF near Nyquist, while cutting down on aliasing artifacts.
-
The only thing I'm aware of on Nikon is the use of NR on long exposures (greater than 1/4 sec on the D3x I believe), and if one uses dark frame subtraction that will of course be performed before the raw file is written.
I'm only aware of one type of long-exposure NR, the one that uses dark frames and is selectable in custom settings. On the D3x it kicks in at 8 seconds. What other NR are you referring to?
-
I'm only aware of one type of long-exposure NR, the one that uses dark frames and is selectable in custom settings. On the D3x it kicks in at 8 seconds. What other NR are you referring to?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=34309201 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34309201)
and some history:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=34318456 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34318456)
and AFAIK it cannot be turned off.
-
I'm only aware of one type of long-exposure NR, the one that uses dark frames and is selectable in custom settings. On the D3x it kicks in at 8 seconds. What other NR are you referring to?
There is said to be an additional hot-pixel suppression algorithm as a part of LENR, and its effects were examined by Marianne Oelund and described here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=34309201 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34309201)
-
Ha, while I was looking up the link, Emil posted it, which I didn't see...sorry.
-
Just because DSLR's have internal JPEG engine doesn't mean that the raw files are any less raw than from MFDB. I know of no evidence at all to suggest there is any processing happening on the RAW files for Nikon DSLR's. In fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Nikon's CaptureNX RAW converter has things like dynamic lighting and automatic lens correction (for CA, vignetting, etc), and you don't get that functionality unless you use their converter. It's not baked into the RAW.
Jeff maybe my bad choice of words saying processing. More like applying there algorithms at the camera/shooting level whereas the MF backs are doing it outside the cam but in the software.
Someone mentioned C1 is good for other cams besides there own backs and I 100 percent agree. C1 is one of the few that work hard on building profiles for other cams in there software. It is not just a I can see you type deal. They actually build profiles for each cam they support. I use C1 for every cam I have owned but with there own backs it seems they apply there secret sauce algorithms at the software level not in camera. Maybe that was better said. Sorry been a rough past couple days with family members here .
. Okay back to the s2
-
dead pixel and dead lines removement is done i the back via back specific individual reference files, blackframe subtraction removes hot pixels. tgis is either done from time to time for short exposures but for every frame above a certain exposure length. this processings are independent of the conversion software. so the raw files which come out of the backs have applied these two fundamental processes, independent if 35mm of mf.
sometimes the softwares have some " hidden " functions, means even if you set sharpening at 0 it still may sharpen or even if you set noise reduction at 0 it still may apply some nr.
the files already come out ofvthe back with a maximum of cleanness and also with removed dead or hot pixels and dead lines,- which nearly all sensors have. if this would not be done in the back directly you would see these
in all other converters and no manufactor wants that the e.g. user sees dead lines. it does not affect the image quality, but everybody would cry to get a "clean" back.
DR can and should be measured from the raw file directly, the software can smoothen the shadows to look better, but it cant increase the DR compared withbthe DR from the rwa directly. although it can make the DR significantly worse, if programmed bad, but thats another story. DXO is doing right to measure the DR right from the raws.
-
DXO is doing right to measure the DR right from the raws.
I don't hang raw files on the wall.
-
I don't hang raw files on the wall.
Why not? I imagine it might have a certain postmodern cachet...
-
I don't hang raw files on the wall.
Yes, you do, if you hang prints of images originating from a digital camera. All prints of digital images are processed RAW files. All digital cameras capture the image initially in some kind of RAW format. From there on, it's all processing of one kind or another and to one degree or another, whether the processing is done inside the camera or outside the camera, whether you are viewing a jpeg or tiff on your monitor, or a print on the wall. Untill the RAW file is processed, you can't even see the image. It's just a pile of numbers.
The bottom line here is, if the image information exists in the RAW file, it can be processed so that you will eventually see it on your wall. If it doesn't exist in the first instance, because of the limitations of the sensor design and capturing processes, then such information cannot be processed and you will not see it on your wall.
-
In what aspects is the Leica result better? Not being argumentative, just curious. Can one put the difference down to the AA filter? That will certainly rob the Nikon of a bit of MTF near Nyquist, while cutting down on aliasing artifacts.
By using the same focal lengths I was expecting to see very little difference between the images as each camera was applying a similar number of pixels to the same field of view ( the pixel pitch is comparable between the two, 5.94 - 6) It appeared to me that the S2 resolved better detail as well as a subtlety of tone that was lacking from the Nikon. The D3X looked slightly plastic whilst the S2 looked slightly filmic if that makes sense.
[attachment=23187:NIRA0010_2.jpg]
[attachment=23188:_DSC0015.jpg]
I'm a bit reluctant to post 100% crops for all the usual reasons but anyway...shot in a church in Brisbane yesterday. Nikon 24-70 @ 70mm / Leica 70mm. Both at f5.6, MU, tripod etc. Processed in ACR but the relative differences are there in C1 too.
Obviously the S2 will resolve more details if I matched the fields of view, but this is a comparison of the same sensor areas.
I prefer to judge from prints, which I will do in a couple of weeks when I get a 7900. I plan to do some 20x30s and see how the two cameras stack up. I know the S2 will be 'better', no doubt in my mind, it's just a question of how much better.
What's exciting is just how amazingly good both these cameras are!
ps the top image is from the Leica. Check out the wooden leaf designs at the ends of Christ's arms. To me the Nikon has some jaggies in the curves and the S2 none.
-
Check out the wooden leaf designs at the ends of Christ's arms. To me the Nikon has some jaggies in the curves and the S2 none.
The jaggies are demosaic errors. Any chance I could play with the files? PM me if interested.
-
Hi,
Some cameras do some manipulation on RAW. The Sonya Alpha 900 and the Leica M9 does it for sure. This can be seen by doing autocorrelation on the raw images. DxO does that and have clearly pointed out this on both the Leica M9 and the Sony Alpha 900.
It's quite possible that C1 is better in phase with Phase One backs than others.
Best regards
Erik
Jeff maybe my bad choice of words saying processing. More like applying there algorithms at the camera/shooting level whereas the MF backs are doing it outside the cam but in the software.
Someone mentioned C1 is good for other cams besides there own backs and I 100 percent agree. C1 is one of the few that work hard on building profiles for other cams in there software. It is not just a I can see you type deal. They actually build profiles for each cam they support. I use C1 for every cam I have owned but with there own backs it seems they apply there secret sauce algorithms at the software level not in camera. Maybe that was better said. Sorry been a rough past couple days with family members here .
. Okay back to the s2
-
Yes, you do, if you hang prints of images originating from a digital camera.
No I don't. They're processed, not straight from the camera.
-
There is the data, and then there are the algorithms used to process that data. To the extent that developers measure, characterize, and establish default processing values (i.e., baseline values) for a given sensor, I contend that the end results can be excellent regardless of who makes the raw conversion software. I will frankly admit that for the Phase backs (and in general the medium format backs), Adobe has not historically done all the appropriate steps to get the most out of the files, but we are aiming to change that. So I understand where Guy is coming from with regards to tuned software from the camera maker, but I don't believe this automatically means that results from third-party software necessarily have to be inferior.
On a related topic: Cameras will do varying degrees of processing on the data before writing out the raw file to the card. In practice there is no such thing as an "unprocessed" raw file; some raw files undergo fairly little internal processing by the camera prior to being written out, whereas others undergo quite a bit more. Most cameras for example will at least do in-camera black subtraction and some flat field calibration (e.g., for the two green pixel types). Some cameras will even apply optical configuration-specific processing to the image data before writing out the raw.
-
No I don't. They're processed, not straight from the camera.
Of course they're processed. What isn't? You can't even see a RAW file until it's processed, whether it comes straight from the camera or not. Nor can you see a TIFF or JPEG until the information contained in such file formats has been processed in such a way that a group of phosphorescent dots on your monitor gives the impression of a picture.
By putting that information in the TIFF file through further processing, the luminescent dots on your monitor can be transformed into fine dots of ink on paper.
There's also a type of processing that takes place prior to the RAW image being written to the camera's memory card. It's the quality of the results from that processing, which is largely due to a camera's design and sophistication of componentry, that DXO are testing.
It's standard scientific procedure when testing for a specific quality to exclude all variables that may affect the accuracy of the results, if possible, or at least keep such variables constant.
The amount of processing that takes place between the stage when a RAW file is written to memory, and the stage when such information contained within that RAW file is transformed into dots of ink on paper, is huge and varied. It involves not only the sophistication of RAW converters, interpolation and sharpening algorithms, noise reduction software, monitors and calibration devices, editing programs such as photoshop, but also another major piece of hardware called a printer, with its additional variables of ink, paper and profile qualities.
Add to that the even more variable factors, such as human skill and subjective taste which can also be involved at each stage of such processing to some degree, then it makes complete sense for DXOmark to directly test the quality of the RAW file. With such results in hand, one is then in a better position to compare other factors in the post-RAW processing chain, such as RAW converters, for example.
-
Of course they're processed. What isn't? You can't even see a RAW file until it's processed, whether it comes straight from the camera or not. Nor can you see a TIFF or JPEG until the information contained in such file formats has been processed in such a way that a group of phosphorescent dots on your monitor gives the impression of a picture.
By putting that information in the TIFF file through further processing, the luminescent dots on your monitor can be transformed into fine dots of ink on paper.
There's also a type of processing that takes place prior to the RAW image being written to the camera's memory card. It's the quality of the results from that processing, which is largely due to a camera's design and sophistication of componentry, that DXO are testing.
It's standard scientific procedure when testing for a specific quality to exclude all variables that may affect the accuracy of the results, if possible, or at least keep such variables constant.
The amount of processing that takes place between the stage when a RAW file is written to memory, and the stage when such information contained within that RAW file is transformed into dots of ink on paper, is huge and varied. It involves not only the sophistication of RAW converters, interpolation and sharpening algorithms, noise reduction software, monitors and calibration devices, editing programs such as photoshop, but also another major piece of hardware called a printer, with its additional variables of ink, paper and profile qualities.
Add to that the even more variable factors, such as human skill and subjective taste which can also be involved at each stage of such processing to some degree, then it makes complete sense for DXOmark to directly test the quality of the RAW file. With such results in hand, one is then in a better position to compare other factors in the post-RAW processing chain, such as RAW converters, for example.
You're preaching to the choir. I write engineering software for a living. However, when I want to see what camera will produce the best prints I look at prints, not raw files. Raw files are only an intermediate step.
-
You're preaching to the choir.
And that's the danger with these sorts of topics: only the committed have the energy to stick around for long, and I doubt that includes many people who actually go out on a regular basis and make photographs happen, though I accept that there will be exceptions.
So why am I still here? Hope beats long in the human breast, even as the waves close over one's head. Not, of course, that anyone having just drowned has come back momentarily (in my admittedly limited experience) to prove this belief. But on balance, it's an idea that seems to live happily enough with what might be the reality. Much as with the multifarious, disparate photographic beliefs, you might say; a broad church indeed.
Rob C
-
(...) but I don't believe this automatically means that results from third-party software necessarily have to be inferior.
true. For instance RAW Developer basically does a nice job even with Phase One files. And also with S2 files.
And vice versa Capture One does a nice job with files from DSLRs ...
-
You're preaching to the choir. I write engineering software for a living. However, when I want to see what camera will produce the best prints I look at prints, not raw files. Raw files are only an intermediate step.
I certainly don't get the impression I'm preaching to the choir. As far as I know, the only cameras that produce prints are those that have a Direct Print command. You just plug them into a printer and the printer produces a print from the in-camera-processed jpeg.
Are those the sorts of prints you are comparing?
Cameras produce RAW files and processed jpegs. Between the pressing of the shutter, and the camera's electronics automatically writing a RAW file to the memory card, you have absolutely no control over the processes and the outcome. The (technical) quality of the result is totally dependent on the design and sophistication of the camera.
However, when anyone starts off with a RAW file in order to make a print, the final outcome, the print on your wall, is subject to a thousand variables involving the editing skill of the photographer, the skill of the printing operator, the quality of the printing equipment, the calibration of the monitor etc etc.
The quality of the print certainly may reflect in part the quality of the camera, as distinguishable from the quality of another camera, but not necessarily. An obvious example that springs to mind is Michael's comparison of identical scenes shot with the G10 and P45+, printed at A3+ size.
-
And that's the danger with these sorts of topics: only the committed have the energy to stick around for long, and I doubt that includes many people who actually go out on a regular basis and make photographs happen, though I accept that there will be exceptions.
So why am I still here? Hope beats long in the human breast, even as the waves close over one's head. Not, of course, that anyone having just drowned has come back momentarily (in my admittedly limited experience) to prove this belief. But on balance, it's an idea that seems to live happily enough with what might be the reality. Much as with the multifarious, disparate photographic beliefs, you might say; a broad church indeed.
Rob C
Actually, I think a number of the engineers who design the pro cameras probably lurk here.
Edmund
-
Actually, I think a number of the engineers who design the pro cameras probably lurk here.
Edmund
But, does lurking include heavy snapping? There's a crucial difference between being a happy shooter and one who lives by the damn machines, as you well know. So an engineer just reading a lot of photographic forum posts isn't getting any basis for real understanding of feel or sense of function.
Rob C
-
I certainly don't get the impression I'm preaching to the choir.
I can't help you there
Many of the posts in this thread (and others) leave the impression that the raw file is everything. As you mentioned, there are many other factors and decisions involved in translating the raw file to a print, as well as the subjective personal factors that make one camera more usable for a particular purpose than another. The latter are often overlooked or dismissed but I find that they are at least as important if not more so to the outcome hung on the wall compared with the anal pixel-peeping in this forum.
-
I can't help you there
Many of the posts in this thread (and others) leave the impression that the raw file is everything. As you mentioned, there are many other factors and decisions involved in translating the raw file to a print, as well as the subjective personal factors that make one camera more usable for a particular purpose than another. The latter are often overlooked or dismissed but I find that they are at least as important if not more so to the outcome hung on the wall compared with the anal pixel-peeping in this forum.
No, not everything. It's just the starting point when making a print from a digital image. I consider a RAW file to be like a film negative, but even more amazing. A film can be developed only once. But a RAW file can be developed again and again in so many different ways.
As technology and software progresses, one may get better results years later.
There's no doubt that certain cameras are more usable for certain purposes. There are always trade-offs affecting our decisions to buy one camera in preference to another. Sometimes it may be pure economics, and sometimes it may be flexibility and weight. When money is no object and the maximum image quality is sought, irrespective of convenience of use and flexibility, then an MFDB is probably the way to go.
But I wonder if you could tell the difference between a huge panorama print made from a single P65+ shot, and the same scene from 2 or 3 stitched D3X shots.
-
When money is no object and the maximum image quality is sought, irrespective of convenience of use and flexibility, then an MFDB is probably the way to go.
Why is it always a inconvenience , flexibility and money no object description tagged to MF. Frankly that is all a bunch of bullshit by non owners not wanting to get in the game. Please speak for yourself and not us working Pro's and others that actually find these comments nonsense. I do not find my MF gear a inconvenience at all because I throughly enjoy shooting it in every situation I put it in. It's also not the most expensive , I had more money in a Leica M system and DMR system on there own. Flexibility is usually associated with experience. The more experience you have it does not matter what you put in our face we will make it work no question about it regardless of any physical limitations we will find a way around it. They may mean these things to you since you have less experience and are not a working pro battling the band everyday but lets starting putting For my taste in front of these comments. PLEASE
-
When money is no object and the maximum image quality is sought, irrespective of convenience of use and flexibility, then an MFDB is probably the way to go.
I believe that most reasonable forum members would agree with that observation. However, the hyperbole of some MFDB users is disconcerting. There is no way that the best MFDBs could have a 6 stop DR advantage over the best dSLRs. The assertion by some that the S2 (actually a "tweener") completely blows away the best Nikons and Canons is exaggerated as shown by tests conducted by Digilloyd and Erwin Puts. It's time to get back to reality.
-
Did I even mention DR ( BTW I would never say 6 stops EVER and I have never commented on DR and that comparison between 35 and MF anywhere on the internet ) or it is blowing a D3X out of the water, too the contrary the DR on the S2 is less than the Phase P40+ by almost 3/4 of a stop or more, real world with testing. Not me and that is Rays quote not mine.
As far as the D3x I have no idea and never mentioned a word about it since I have never tested it. I honestly don't care about a D3x and what it can do or not. It's not MF and that is what I shoot. Let's be careful who you are addressing your slams too.
But the flexibility and inconvenience of MF is a misleading comment on Rays part. Lets break it down if you want. Let's take a P40+ back for example . I currently have 4 Mamiya bodies dating back to at least 1990 or longer that I can put it on and I have anything that Phase develops this year , next year or maybe even 5 years from now to put on a body without switching a mount. Number two I can switch to a Contax mount, okay that is a dead system but I can. Hassy H1 and H2 I can switch the back mount too. On too lenses depending on system I have everything Mamiya has ever made and what Phase labels today, I also have all Contax Zeiss lenses, than all Hassy H lenses and if I want I can bolt on any V Hassy lens.
Next I have ANY tech camera I want to bolt onto. Alpa , Arca, Horseman, Cambo, Silvestri and also almost any view camera style cam i can bolt that back too plus let's not forget all the glass from Rodenstock and Schnieder.
That is a ton of flexibility and also I can retain my back for a lot of years and use on any of these combinations plus any future cam that comes along. You can't say that with a Canon 5dII, sure you can bolt some lenses on it outside Canon and has some other capabilities but a MF can do a lot more moving around. Not to say it won't cost you money but look at all that glass I can play with and all the bodies I can bolt this darn thing too. There is a lot of power in this that get's left behind in almost every conversation.
Now lets bring this back to the S2 it is even less flexible than a Canon or Nikon. It ONLY takes 3 lenses to date and you can't move the body around. Not a Pro in there right mind would even consider this for there only ONE system. Any Phase and Hassy shooter has a far better chance to call there system the only one they have because they have backup bodies they can use and a entire system like written above to work with. 35mm you have to buy another cam for backup which fortunately does not cost the price of a S2 and is far more affordable to do. But almost any 35mm cam today is considered disposable as not very many folks will even have the same body after 3 years. Now that is reality
-
I believe that most reasonable forum members would agree with that observation. However, the hyperbole of some MFDB users is disconcerting. There is no way that the best MFDBs could have a 6 stop DR advantage over the best dSLRs. The assertion by some that the S2 (actually a "tweener") completely blows away the best Nikons and Canons is exaggerated as shown by tests conducted by Digilloyd and Erwin Puts. It's time to get back to reality.
Why I use my Phase system for EVERYTHING you use your 35mm system for and than a lot more. That is my reality, so where is the hyperbole in that. You want me show you . It's real simple I have not had a 35mm system for over 2 years ( only MF) until last week and that is a cheap Canon for a job that I don't want to risk my Phase system on. Not for any tech or flexibility part but yes a connivence for me as this one job makes keeping my Phase system home safe from theft, water , sand and most likely damage and if anything happens I won't care. Disposable
And BTW let me go full circle and excuse myself from the rest of this . I actually think the D3x is a really good cam and came real close to buying one when it came out. I have seen a lot of files from it with workshop folks and think it is maybe one of the best in 35mm. I like the M9 too and did a full review on it. But that is another thread between these two. LOL
-
Hi,
Very clearly all those are serious advantages with MFDB, the S2 is an MF DSLR. With an MFDB you can switch bodies and you can even use film as backup. Of course, if you only carry a single zoom lens to Namiba and the front lens falls out, nothing of that will help ;-(
It is very clear that a lot of flexibility is gained with MF Digital Backs. One real advantage with MF is resolution/sharpness. If an MF back has a small pitch it will have many pixels, has it large pitch it will stress the lens less. Potentially a larger sensor would also collect more photons and therefore have less noise. So MFDBs have a real advantage in image quality.
With the Leica S2 much of the flexibility is given up, opting for a smaller and possibly more efficient package. There is no reason at all an MFDB owner would switch to a DSLR if the advantages of that system don't fit his/hers needs. That said it may be a bad advise to suggest that MFDBs are needed for professional work. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses.
There are many issues with the Leica S2, to begin with it is very expensive, even if it is competitive with some MFDBs. But, those MFDBs don't exist in vacuum. Phase and probably have decent upgrade policies, Leica can have that to, but before offering upgrades they need to survive (no small matter in this times).
In my view the Leica S2 is probably very competitive regarding optics, perhaps less so on sensors. Phase and Hassy have long experience with digital backs and had all opportunities to make all the mistakes it takes to gain knowledge, Leica is a beginner in this area.
Finally I'm not sure that MFDBs are the real competitors to the Leica S2, but both the Nikon D3X (and it's lesser colleagues) and the new Pentax 645D may be.
Best regards
Erik
Did I even mention DR ( BTW I would never say 6 stops EVER and I have never commented on DR and that comparison between 35 and MF anywhere on the internet ) or it is blowing a D3X out of the water, too the contrary the DR on the S2 is less than the Phase P40+ by almost 3/4 of a stop or more, real world with testing. Not me and that is Rays quote not mine.
As far as the D3x I have no idea and never mentioned a word about it since I have never tested it. I honestly don't care about a D3x and what it can do or not. It's not MF and that is what I shoot. Let's be careful who you are addressing your slams too.
But the flexibility and inconvenience of MF is a misleading comment on Rays part. Lets break it down if you want. Let's take a P40+ back for example . I currently have 4 Mamiya bodies dating back to at least 1990 or longer that I can put it on and I have anything that Phase develops this year , next year or maybe even 5 years from now to put on a body without switching a mount. Number two I can switch to a Contax mount, okay that is a dead system but I can. Hassy H1 and H2 I can switch the back mount too. On too lenses depending on system I have everything Mamiya has ever made and what Phase labels today, I also have all Contax Zeiss lenses, than all Hassy H lenses and if I want I can bolt on any V Hassy lens.
Next I have ANY tech camera I want to bolt onto. Alpa , Arca, Horseman, Cambo, Silvestri and also almost any view camera style cam i can bolt that back too plus let's not forget all the glass from Rodenstock and Schnieder.
That is a ton of flexibility and also I can retain my back for a lot of years and use on any of these combinations plus any future cam that comes along. You can't say that with a Canon 5dII, sure you can bolt some lenses on it outside Canon and has some other capabilities but a MF can do a lot more moving around. Not to say it won't cost you money but look at all that glass I can play with and all the bodies I can bolt this darn thing too. There is a lot of power in this that get's left behind in almost every conversation.
Now lets bring this back to the S2 it is even less flexible than a Canon or Nikon. It ONLY takes 3 lenses to date and you can't move the body around. Not a Pro in there right mind would even consider this for there only ONE system. Any Phase and Hassy shooter has a far better chance to call there system the only one they have because they have backup bodies they can use and a entire system like written above to work with. 35mm you have to buy another cam for backup which fortunately does not cost the price of a S2 and is far more affordable to do. But almost any 35mm cam today is considered disposable as not very many folks will even have the same body after 3 years. Now that is reality
-
LOL I know a lot of give and take here for sure Erik and obviously 35mm is a really good setup and don't want to take away from how good they have become. But people get very narrow minded about MF and that should not be the case. It has it's place and it is damn good. When you have one and use it for awhile and see the images spitting off these things you really do scratch your head and say what have I been missing all these years with 35mm. Most folks really don't know until they own one and start getting down to working these files. Trust me this relates to my earlier thinking as well until I got one. LOL
Honestly 35mm shooters what is the one constant thing that pops up in the back of your head. Be honest with yourself. I can get by with 35mm.
Don't worry I said it for years too and you can but that question still comes up, is it good enough. It is but I like overkill. LOL
-
By using the same focal lengths I was expecting to see very little difference between the images as each camera was applying a similar number of pixels to the same field of view ( the pixel pitch is comparable between the two, 5.94 - 6) It appeared to me that the S2 resolved better detail as well as a subtlety of tone that was lacking from the Nikon. The D3X looked slightly plastic whilst the S2 looked slightly filmic if that makes sense.
[attachment=23187:NIRA0010_2.jpg]
[attachment=23188:_DSC0015.jpg]
ps the top image is from the Leica. Check out the wooden leaf designs at the ends of Christ's arms. To me the Nikon has some jaggies in the curves and the S2 none.
After a bit of effort with sharpening (wow you use a lot!) I got the following from my demosaic algo and the D3x image; note that the jaggies are absent in the location you mentioned; there is a bit less noise too, though in some places the "noise" of demosaic error gives an impression of richer texture which some might like:
(http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/ojo/nickrains_nosharpalt_RL.jpg)
Edit: PS -- I am impressed with your comparison image from the S2; it does seem to put out more detail. I wonder how much of that is down to the lack of an AA filter.
-
No, Guy, what goes through the head of the 35mm shooter that I am is "if I drop the D3x under my vest, and stick a lens in my pocket, I'll get past the door without attracting attention, and however sh*tty cheap their lighting guys are I'll come out with 100 shots". That's what goes through the head of the 35mm shooter - the fact that his equipment can travel, will travel, and nails every shot. Each time I got out the Mamiya it was "please God, let it focus today".
Edmund
LOL I know a lot of give and take here for sure Erik and obviously 35mm is a really good setup and don't want to take away from how good they have become. But people get very narrow minded about MF and that should not be the case. It has it's place and it is damn good. When you have one and use it for awhile and see the images spitting off these things you really do scratch your head and say what have I been missing all these years with 35mm. Most folks really don't know until they own one and start getting down to working these files. Trust me this relates to my earlier thinking as well until I got one. LOL
Honestly 35mm shooters what is the one constant thing that pops up in the back of your head. Be honest with yourself. I can get by with 35mm.
Don't worry I said it for years too and you can but that question still comes up, is it good enough. It is but I like overkill. LOL
-
I focus just fine. Getting you new glasses. LOL
I know I know. LOL
-
Bill,
I agree with you on the DR issue. Regarding the Leica S2 blowing away the DSLR competition I'd say that it has significantly higher resolution than any full frame DSLR or the Leica M9. I'm familiar with the with the tests that Erwin and Lloyd Chambers published. I spent a couple of hours looking at Lloyds DNGs from the S2 and the D3X. From what I have seen I can say pretty sure that there is a significant resolution advantage to the S2 in absolute terms. If DR has anything to do with shadow detail I cannot see a DR advantage in Lloyd's pictures, in my view it may be quite a bit worse on the S2 than on D3X.
Essentially, the images Lloyd made shows exactly what we would expect, better resolution, lot of aliasing.
Hopefully I can publish my findings in a couple of days.
I also hope to get raws from Nick Rains (Already got the D3X file, thanks a lot!).
Best regards
Erik
I believe that most reasonable forum members would agree with that observation. However, the hyperbole of some MFDB users is disconcerting. There is no way that the best MFDBs could have a 6 stop DR advantage over the best dSLRs. The assertion by some that the S2 (actually a "tweener") completely blows away the best Nikons and Canons is exaggerated as shown by tests conducted by Digilloyd and Erwin Puts. It's time to get back to reality.
-
It's time to get back to reality.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...57614936120567/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/)
-
Hi,
I have seen that test, even downloaded an image from the Hasselblad HD50 and the Nikon 3DX and printed in A2 and had some friends (seasoned imaging professionals) have a look. Both preferred the Nikon image, although one found the Hassy image be sharper. DOF is very short on those images and that can cheat the eye. Also, tonality matters a lot. It's a bit hard to do this comparison with live models as the pictures will not be identical.
Finding out the relative merits of systems takes a lot more than a single picture. I'd say that well designed tests say more than a single portrait shot.
Best regards
Erik
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...57614936120567/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/)
-
Hi,
How do you take pictures with the lens in your pocket? Also, I need big pockets for my 24-70/2.8 lens.
Best regards
Erik
No, Guy, what goes through the head of the 35mm shooter that I am is "if I drop the D3x under my vest, and stick a lens in my pocket, I'll get past the door without attracting attention, and however sh*tty cheap their lighting guys are I'll come out with 100 shots". That's what goes through the head of the 35mm shooter - the fact that his equipment can travel, will travel, and nails every shot. Each time I got out the Mamiya it was "please God, let it focus today".
Edmund
-
Did I even mention DR ( BTW I would never say 6 stops EVER and I have never commented on DR and that comparison between 35 and MF anywhere on the internet ) or it is blowing a D3X out of the water, too the contrary the DR on the S2 is less than the Phase P40+ by almost 3/4 of a stop or more, real world with testing. Not me and that is Rays quote not mine.
As far as the D3x I have no idea and never mentioned a word about it since I have never tested it. I honestly don't care about a D3x and what it can do or not. It's not MF and that is what I shoot. Let's be careful who you are addressing your slams too.
Guy,
Calm down! I was not attributing those statements to you, but was only agreeing with the main premise of your post. My other comments were in response to statements by others on this thread.
But almost any 35mm cam today is considered disposable as not very many folks will even have the same body after 3 years. Now that is reality
Perhaps in your circles. But have you ever looked at the equipment used by photojournalists working for bankrupt newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune? These papers are not upgrading equipment that is suitable for the relatively modest demands of newsprint.
-
Why I use my Phase system for EVERYTHING you use your 35mm system for and than a lot more. That is my reality, so where is the hyperbole in that. You want me show you . It's real simple I have not had a 35mm system for over 2 years ( only MF) until last week and that is a cheap Canon for a job that I don't want to risk my Phase system on.
That statement is demonstrably false. Your Phase system is not good for rapid action sports photography or photojournalism in rapidly evolving low light situations. It's frame rate is two slow and the auto focus system not up to the task. The D3s would be better for these situations.
-
Deleted, sorry!
That statement is demonstrably false. Your Phase system is not good for rapid action sports photography or photojournalism in rapidly evolving low light situations. It's frame rate is two slow and the auto focus system not up to the task. The D3s would be better for these situations.
-
I have seen that test, even downloaded an image from the Hasselblad HD50 and the Nikon 3DX and printed in A2 and had some friends (seasoned imaging professionals) have a look. Both preferred the Nikon image, although one found the Hassy image be sharper. DOF is very short on those images and that can cheat the eye. Also, tonality matters a lot. It's a bit hard to do this comparison with live models as the pictures will not be identical.
Finding out the relative merits of systems takes a lot more than a single picture. I'd say that well designed tests say more than a single portrait shot.
I agree. Just thought to post something "real".
However the "reality" shown there (which I find to be somewhat authentic all in all) is that the D3x doesn't match the Hassy CF22 in terms of details/microcontrast or however you may call it. Let alone the higher res backs.
If those advantages do not translate into prints than that's a different issue (sharpening technique or whatever...).
-
Each time I got out the Mamiya it was "please God, let it focus today".
Edmund
LOL. Thanks, Edmund, I needed a good laugh today. Because I've had the exact same problem and know from whence you come.
-
I like Guy - he's positive, I'm negative, he makes a living with esoterical tech objects, I shoot the standard cameras for fun
The strange thing about MF is that the backs are really good and robust and the files can take everything inlcuding dramatic underexposure. But the cameras are slow rattling behemoths which make one long for a Super Ikonta or Rolleiflex.
Edmund
-
Guy,
Calm down! I was not attributing those statements to you, but was only agreeing with the main premise of your post. My other comments were in response to statements by others on this thread.
Perhaps in your circles. But have you ever looked at the equipment used by photojournalists working for bankrupt newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune? These papers are not upgrading equipment that is suitable for the relatively modest demands of newsprint.
I am calm really I am . LOL
Your correct though obviously MF is not for some things for sure, which I don't shoot. Actually the AF is pretty quick as I do use it for runway and PR work. Frame rate will get you though if nothing else does.
-
I like Guy - he's positive, I'm negative, he makes a living with esoterical tech objects, I shoot the standard cameras for fun
The strange thing about MF is that the backs are really good and robust and the files can take everything inlcuding dramatic underexposure. But the cameras are slow rattling behemoths which make one long for a Super Ikonta or Rolleiflex.
Edmund
Edmund are you using a DF or something older. The DF does focus pretty quick and is a better cam overall. I can see your comments on anything earlier though. Hated the AFDII and the III was just marginally better. I think we need to remember almost any 35mm can smoke a MF for focusing though and frame rate for sure but I do find the DF very accurate. I have a little Canon T2I and for 900 bucks is pretty darn quick
-
I like Guy - he's positive, I'm negative, he makes a living with esoterical tech objects, I shoot the standard cameras for fun
The strange thing about MF is that the backs are really good and robust and the files can take everything inlcuding dramatic underexposure. But the cameras are slow rattling behemoths which make one long for a Super Ikonta or Rolleiflex.
Edmund
That's a big part of my attraction to the S2. I have shot with the Hassys and the Phases and I (personally) don't especially enjoy the experience. I rate their IQ very highly, but the camera bodies are 'less than stellar' shall we say. I actively enjoy working with the S2, I was out this evening in light rain by a coastal billabong and I really enjoyed the way the MLU is so smooth and the shutter release is just so discrete.
I find that if I enjoy the shooting experience I get better images. Go figure...
-
That's a big part of my attraction to the S2. I have shot with the Hassys and the Phases and I (personally) don't especially enjoy the experience. I rate their IQ very highly, but the camera bodies are 'less than stellar' shall we say. I actively enjoy working with the S2, I was out this evening in light rain by a coastal billabong and I really enjoyed the way the MLU is so smooth and the shutter release is just so discrete.
I find that if I enjoy the shooting experience I get better images. Go figure...
i agree totally. the S shooting experience is very nice. i just wish the postprocessing experience of S files was half as nice.
peter
-
Here we are again! in the middle of the Pearl Harbour saga.
Nothing has changed since the last war.
Basically, the dslr squadron, commanded by the D3x papies are bombing again the MFD fleet.
Captain Bernard, great Commander of the D3x, y and z is pointing the superiority of the japanese AA filtered gears to keep the troup moral high enough,
while Guy is suddenly receiving all the bombs. The other MFD players have left Guy battled alone because they are playing golf somewhere on the harbour.
As Commander Guy has a thick skin, he handles pretty well the DxO rockets so far.
Ray, Commander of the special task, in charge of infiltrating the enemy lines by night and strike with a 50 lines post, his waiting the right moment to enter into action
while Erik, Commander of the scientific section is making calculations to compare the real forces involved.
Soon, Fred, the Robin wood of the lost causes, will arrive with an anti-DxO gaz weapon to help Commander Guy while General Michael is watching the war while packing with
a finger on the closed-thread button.
Commander Rob, from the reserve task force, is asking to be informed about the use of kodachrome weapon to strike any digital device. He will soon be helped by
the LF users when they will have finished their golf course and social cuban cigars.
By the time, Commander Mancuso is starting to be injured by some live-view and frames-per-second weapons and will have to left the battle field soon while the
Bargainers are comming with their Sony 900-850 and 5DMK2 artillery to strike-back the D3x superiority.
Commander Languiller is going to launch another Nikon DR missiles in order to shut-down the bargainers attack.
Captain Chris is broadcasting the battle from his yatch anchoered a little further in the harbour while the rescue nurses commanded by Tokengirl are sending drawings
on the battle-field to try to stop the bombing with zero effect.
Mark's legion is still receiving from time to time isolated sarcastics icons from the last war.
Suddenly, Michael is pressing the red button. Topic closed before a clear winner had emerged. Shhhhht!! What are we going to do now?
Just, start another one in 3 weeks!
But sure this time Commander Mancuso will be on the golf course with the others, cool and relaxed while he will hear the sound of the dslr AA filtered bombings on the very far west.
And we ask ourselves why man has never learned from history and we still have wars?
-
Damn Fred I just spit my espresso all over my NEC. Have to reload. LOL
-
Fred
You may not be far wrong about the Kodachrome Weapons.
This little French trip I'm thinking about - I was wondering if I should use it as an opportunity for finishing off most of the film that I still have in the freezer. After all, the Nikon F is almost a virgin - a semi-virgin would be close (a fine definition is available from Paula Prentiss in What's New Pussycat) - and I certainly wouldn't have to hide in a toilet to change lenses. I'd even get to play with the Minolta Flash Meter again and when I got rid of that horrid 2.8/24-70 Gzoomer I was back with Nikkor lenses that fit all great Nikons.
Of course, there's no hope for the actual Kodachrome in the ice anymore, but I do have lots of Ektachrome 100 still sitting there, even some 50 ASA (!) Velvia in 120 but I have no 120 camera now, and buying another Hasselblad at this stage would bring in the horror of a 120 scanner... no, forget that! It might cost a bit to process - probably stop off in Barcelona for that, and instead of looking for a hotel for the night I could just go riding around and around and around near the ferry just like Chuck Berry...
We shall see. The family is coming to visit at the end of the week - I may be too pooped to pop after that.
Rob C
-
Hi!
I see your point, it's well taken and great fun.
Best regards
Erik
Here we are again! in the middle of the Pearl Harbour saga.
Nothing has changed since the last war.
Basically, the dslr squadron, commanded by the D3x papies are bombing again the MFD fleet.
Captain Bernard, great Commander of the D3x, y and z is pointing the superiority of the japanese AA filtered gears to keep the troup moral high enough,
while Guy is suddenly receiving all the bombs. The other MFD players have left Guy battled alone because they are playing golf somewhere on the harbour.
As Commander Guy has a thick skin, he handles pretty well the DxO rockets so far.
Ray, Commander of the special task, in charge of infiltrating the enemy lines by night and strike with a 50 lines post, his waiting the right moment to enter into action
while Erik, Commander of the scientific section is making calculations to compare the real forces involved.
Soon, Fred, the Robin wood of the lost causes, will arrive with an anti-DxO gaz weapon to help Commander Guy while General Michael is watching the war while packing with
a finger on the closed-thread button.
Commander Rob, from the reserve task force, is asking to be informed about the use of kodachrome weapon to strike any digital device. He will soon be helped by
the LF users when they will have finished their golf course and social cuban cigars.
By the time, Commander Mancuso is starting to be injured by some live-view and frames-per-second weapons and will have to left the battle field soon while the
Bargainers are comming with their Sony 900-850 and 5DMK2 artillery to strike-back the D3x superiority.
Commander Languiller is going to launch another Nikon DR missiles in order to shut-down the bargainers attack.
Captain Chris is broadcasting the battle from his yatch anchoered a little further in the harbour while the rescue nurses commanded by Tokengirl are sending drawings
on the battle-field to try to stop the bombing with zero effect.
Mark's legion is still receiving from time to time isolated sarcastics icons from the last war.
Suddenly, Michael is pressing the red button. Topic closed before a clear winner had emerged. Shhhhht!! What are we going to do now?
Just, start another one in 3 weeks!
But sure this time Commander Mancuso will be on the golf course with the others, cool and relaxed while he will hear the sound of the dslr AA filtered bombings on the very far west.
And we ask ourselves why man has never learned from history and we still have wars?
-
Fred
You may not be far wrong about the Kodachrome Weapons.
This little French trip I'm thinking about - I was wondering if I should use it as an opportunity for finishing off most of the film that I still have in the freezer. After all, the Nikon F is almost a virgin - a semi-virgin would be close (a fine definition is available from Paula Prentiss in What's New Pussycat) - and I certainly wouldn't have to hide in a toilet to change lenses. I'd even get to play with the Minolta Flash Meter again and when I got rid of that horrid 2.8/24-70 Gzoomer I was back with Nikkor lenses that fit all great Nikons.
Of course, there's no hope for the actual Kodachrome in the ice anymore, but I do have lots of Ektachrome 100 still sitting there, even some 50 ASA (!) Velvia in 120 but I have no 120 camera now, and buying another Hasselblad at this stage would bring in the horror of a 120 scanner... no, forget that! It might cost a bit to process - probably stop off in Barcelona for that, and instead of looking for a hotel for the night I could just go riding around and around and around near the ferry just like Chuck Berry...
We shall see. The family is coming to visit at the end of the week - I may be too pooped to pop after that.
Rob C
Rob,
I think it would be too bad to loose all these films that are waiting in the fridge.
I do not know in the Island, but the prices in Madrid are affordable.
Pro digitalization start from 4 euros to 16 euros for the best scans (one frame), files of 62mb in 35mm, wich you would only do on the very best you'd like to print but you can also have a normal scan of the all 36 frames for 12euros.
1 slides roll developped E-6 36 frames costs about 12-10 euros.
I spend more than that in bloody tobacco! That makes me think I should quit smoking and shoot back film.
-
Rob,
I think it would be too bad to loose all these films that are waiting in the fridge.
I do not know in the Island, but the prices in Madrid are affordable.
Pro digitalization start from 4 euros to 16 euros for the best scans (one frame), files of 62mb in 35mm, wich you would only do on the very best you'd like to print but you can also have a normal scan of the all 36 frames for 12euros.
1 slides roll developped E-6 36 frames costs about 12-10 euros.
I spend more than that in bloody tobacco! That makes me think I should quit smoking and shoot back film.
Hi Fred
The last I heard, the island labs have stopped doing E6. There is still EGM (?) in Barcelona and I think they charge €8 a pop for 35mm films, but it's been a while since I checked them out. But I'm sure Barcelona won't hang around growing dust on prices!
I do my own scanning with a CanoScan FS4000US and am perfectly pleased with the results - the great thing is the lightbox! So easy and quick, and making comparisons between slides in any way you like is also a joy; I really feel a mixture of emotions for those lost arts: a sense of sorrow and of anger, too, that it's gone with the friggin' wind.
And yet, how do you lose the feeling that perhaps it's just good money after bad? As there ain't no client, why spend money - there is nothing wrong with the digitals I have. Why do I get my head into these things? Cut your losses comes to mind as being an applicable phrase!
Rob C
-
Here we are again! in the middle of the Pearl Harbour saga.
You've got a great sense of humour, Fred, and not too short on the imagination. Keep it up! .
-
The D3x truly is a special camera - I just put another 4,000 frames on mine (approaching 30,000 images in a year and a half - mostly landscapes and macros) on a two-week shoot in a couple of National Parks in western North America. Nikon doesn't get nearly enough praise for just HOW good it really is (and note that Canon's response has been to sit there with their jaws dropping open - I suspect there may have been a 1Ds mk IV prototype that was never released because it didn't beat the D3x - they are probably finishing up a new version now, accounting for the long delay). Sadly, the D3x may forever remain a unique camera in Nikon's lineup, and may even be discontinued without replacement, because it uses a modified version of a Sony sensor that may be pulled off the market, as mentioned by Thom Hogan. Sony is apparently not having much luck with the Alpha 850 and 900, and it may not be worth making the sensor just for the limited-production D3x (Nikon sells all they can make, but production is kept quite low). Nobody seems to know what Nikon does to the Sony sensor (or some other component), but whatever it is, it works - a D3x is not just an Alpha in a fancy body - it really DOES have significantly better image quality, especially in terms of low-ISO dynamic range. The low-pass filter also seems to be unique, and there has been some speculation that it is very expensive and partially responsible for the cost of the camera.
-
I think Nikon is perfectly capable of making a a D4 next year which will be about 18MP and HI ISO, HI frame rate and good HI-ISO movie mode. There is no necessity yet for a D3x successor, until Canon has had a chance to alienate its users again with soft images and bad AF.
Edmund
The D3x truly is a special camera - I just put another 4,000 frames on mine (approaching 30,000 images in a year and a half - mostly landscapes and macros) on a two-week shoot in a couple of National Parks in western North America. Nikon doesn't get nearly enough praise for just HOW good it really is (and note that Canon's response has been to sit there with their jaws dropping open - I suspect there may have been a 1Ds mk IV prototype that was never released because it didn't beat the D3x - they are probably finishing up a new version now, accounting for the long delay). Sadly, the D3x may forever remain a unique camera in Nikon's lineup, and may even be discontinued without replacement, because it uses a modified version of a Sony sensor that may be pulled off the market, as mentioned by Thom Hogan. Sony is apparently not having much luck with the Alpha 850 and 900, and it may not be worth making the sensor just for the limited-production D3x (Nikon sells all they can make, but production is kept quite low). Nobody seems to know what Nikon does to the Sony sensor (or some other component), but whatever it is, it works - a D3x is not just an Alpha in a fancy body - it really DOES have significantly better image quality, especially in terms of low-ISO dynamic range. The low-pass filter also seems to be unique, and there has been some speculation that it is very expensive and partially responsible for the cost of the camera.