Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Anders_HK on January 24, 2013, 10:57:03 am
-
flickriver.com is really good for typing in lens and camera combinations and viewing tons of images to get an idea of the rendering they bring. Nope, am not speaking of pixel peeping, instead of looking at the rendering of pictures made using lenses and sensors -- at not 100%.
Arguably the simplest lens focal to make a high quality design of is a standard lens. Typing in medium format combinations my eye tells me following order looking at current offerings, and at primarily wide open for what appear sharp and with beautiful bokeh:
1) Schneider Xenotar 80mm on Hy6 or 6008 (real Schneider fully made in Germany)
2) Hasselblad 80mm HC
3) Phase One 80mm LS (made in Germany Schneider glass, assembled into Mamiya lens in Japan)
Woops, I left out the Hasselblad 80mm CFi which I would per a quick view of images place just below the 80MM HC, and similarly the Leica S 70mm around 2).
If I look at the smaller format (FF35mm sensors and smaller) it gets interesting...
Typing in X-Pro1 and 35mm 1.4 I have looked at tons of images, I mean tons. In this case I agree with what KR writes of these, respectively:
Fuji has made cameras for Hasselblad, and sold under the Hasselblad name, like the X-Pan. Neither Nikon nor Canon has ever been good enough.
The Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4 ASPH is an extraordinary lens.
Heck, my eyes would even put the XF 35mm slight above 2) in the above for its lovely bokeh and apparent sharpness wide open. Perhaps no surprise since both are made by Fuji? Though the Xenotar still remains the king :). After all it is a current Rolleiflex, all of which appear to have beautiful renderings and characters, and most very sharp also wide open. The rendering from the X-Pro1 appear far more pleasing to my eye than images from Nikon D800E and Canon 5DII/III, for which all standard lenses appear to have a disturbing bokeh to my eyes. And no, I do not find the Zeiss lenses for the 35mm sensors format suffice better when viewing flickriver.com. Not only that I believe a big chunk of the pictures from the X-Pro1 - if not even major - on flicker are simply JPGs straight out of the camera!!!!!! Surprising to my eye, the Fuji XF 35 also appear to have a more pleasing smoothness of bokeh than any of the Leica M 50mm lenses, including the Noctilux!!!
Up to your eyes. We may like different, which is respected. This is also why some of us choose MFDB. The X-Pro1 is obvious not medium format and neither is a DSLR. Different tools and looks somehow. Yet the X-Pro1 is not much crop out of a FF35, yet seems a more interesting performing character from the sensor. That is similar to what MFDB sensors are versus FF35mm sensors, yet not only more interesting characters at low ISO, but also larger sensors.
Weight wize... the X-Pro1 likewise kills a DSLR system. Sure, DSLR might be a good tool: e.g. for wildlife and for sports. Yet... there are those who have shot that with medium format, and I am sure some with X-Pro1. Why? Different character image? Different choice of tool. Personal choice. Yet, do not mere look up in size of sensor, look down: X-Pro1 ?
I am out of here.
Cheers,
Anders
---
Rolleiflex Hy6, Xenotar 80/2.8 PQS AFD, Distagon 50/4 FLE
-
Fred don’t take the bait its a trap!
-
Deleted, going to stop navel gazing and shoot some tests
-
The tittle should read troll killer
-
I can't get used to the handling of the XPro. As much as I like the size and RF. even though I loath Leica and think they are over priced, I can make it do what I want.
-
I can't get used to the handling of the XPro. As much as I like the size and RF. even though I loath Leica and think they are over priced, I can make it do what I want.
I completely agree with the sentiment in that in my limited times playing with the Fuji Xpro-1 I have found it very difficult and confusing to use, especially coming from 3 Leica M's your expecting a rangefinder patch and you essentially have no clue where the AF point is when using the optical / hybrid viewfinder (please someone correct me if I am wrong, but I have not noticed anything in my tests) and this is very jarring to me. I do not question it may have some serious image making quality in certain hands but it is certainly not for me. I have yet to come to terms with these crop-sensor cameras although it is mostly because they don't have mirror boxes something which seems to be rapidly disappearing from compact systems. Of course range-finders are not mirror boxes, however a true optical rangefinder is far better to me then any fuji-hybrid, however admirable it may be as an attempt to engage people more in their photography it is lacking any engagement for me, as someone who has used the true gear that hails from.
thats my two cents
-
I agree. I had an X100. I loved it. IQ is on par with the M8, even when shot at ISO 2500. You are absolutely correct that the limitation in the optical RF is that you have no idea where it is really focusing, and the manual focus was pathetic. I couldn't get past that. My problem with LEICA is that the M8 was essentially a beta with major bugs. I used it professionaly a bunch, and frankly the sensor and PCB boards had odd issues. Leica refused to recognize the problems. By the time they told me my M8's issues were normal I had an M9, which was perfect, but I was done with them as far as a professional camera supplier. I sold the M8 and M9, the M8 for nothing because I disclosed the issues, but kept my fav. lenses. Oh well, another failed romance.
Speaking of DSLR killer, the Sigma Merrils are incredible. Get all three for wide, normal and mild tele for around $3k total!
I completely agree with the sentiment in that in my limited times playing with the Fuji Xpro-1 I have found it very difficult and confusing to use, especially coming from 3 Leica M's your expecting a rangefinder patch and you essentially have no clue where the AF point is when using the optical / hybrid viewfinder (please someone correct me if I am wrong, but I have not noticed anything in my tests) and this is very jarring to me. I do not question it may have some serious image making quality in certain hands but it is certainly not for me. I have yet to come to terms with these crop-sensor cameras although it is mostly because they don't have mirror boxes something which seems to be rapidly disappearing from compact systems. Of course range-finders are not mirror boxes, however a true optical rangefinder is far better to me then any fuji-hybrid, however admirable it may be as an attempt to engage people more in their photography it is lacking any engagement for me, as someone who has used the true gear that hails from.
thats my two cents
-
I agree. I had an X100. I loved it. IQ is on par with the M8, even when shot at ISO 2500. You are absolutely correct that the limitation in the optical RF is that you have no idea where it is really focusing, and the manual focus was pathetic. I couldn't get past that.
Hopefully the X100S is an improvement: Improved manual focus system (more responsive focus ring, focus peaking and split-image displays)
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5195&news=fuji+X100S+X20+CES+2013
-
.....snip....My problem with LEICA is that the M8 was essentially a beta with major bugs. I used it professionaly a bunch, and frankly the sensor and PCB boards had odd issues. Leica refused to recognize the problems. By the time they told me my M8's issues were normal I had an M9, which was perfect . . . snip
Speaking of DSLR killer, the Sigma Merrils are incredible. Get all three for wide, normal and mild tele for around $3k total!
I'm with you T.
My m8 has some glitches, like freezes with one of the 6 batteries I own. Why this one battery I don't know.
Service blows. My 90 went in for months with back focus, not fixed, back in again, finally fixed.
Though trying to use a 90 on the Leica has a view size of about 6pt helvetica compressed.
Also sometimes the M8 just acts funny, like the menu will come up or not, but I'm use to it and can fix it in seconds.
The only thing I wish is that it would tether, because I love the file with profoto flash and with it had 3 point autofocus to track with a subject.
Regardless it has amazing skin tones.
(http://spotsinthebox.com/leicastudio4_sm_web.jpg)
And the 24mm has a great look for portrait and editorial.
(http://spotsinthebox.com/leica_hair.jpg)
(http://spotsinthebox.com/SM_zuma_beach_leica_.jpg)
Regardless of iso, I like ccd cameras better than cmos and have decided to buy an M9 a dozen times in the last few months, but want to see what the cmos M file looks like.
If it looks kind of generic like other cmos files I'll buy an M9.
What I would love to see in this order.
The Contax G2 with a little better autofocus, maybe 3 points and a 16 to 18 mp digital sensor
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2101/2501985974_bd51211826.jpg)
A mamiya 7 with autofocus in a digital format, maybe 645 of slightly smaller
(http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images345x345/357366.jpg)
And for Epson to update the RD1x with a full frame 35mm sensor, around 16 mp, autofocus once again three points
I think Epson out leicaed leica in the look of this beautiful camera.
(http://leicarumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/epson1_01lr-d1xg.jpg)
Though I know they are traditionally walk about cameras, I need them to tether, because if they did I would get rid of all my 35mm cameras except the 1dx which I use as much for cut frame video as actual stills.
I know there are a million opinions, but i think there is something kind of special with a rangefinder and I can't explain why but it feels like I'm working something that's natural and I'm making the decisions with.
As good as the new dslrs are they just leave me cold. I can't put my finger on it, but even when I pick them up, they kind of feel like my Iphone, or one of those plastic espresso machines. They work amazingly well, but there just not special and I know that covers a lot of territory.
IMO
BC
P.S. How do you like the Merrills? Can you batch process them and do they tether, do they go to at least 800 to 1000 iso?
-
You could do worse than take a leaf out of Jeanloup Sieff's 60s book: a 21mm on an M4... quite stunning, especially on herringbone-patterned coats!
http://www.jeanloupsieff.com
I never dared go wider than 35mm (FF) on people after I did attempt it once with 24mm. Unlike your shot, I tried to fill the frame. Not a good idea in my case.
Rob C
-
Hopefully the X100S is an improvement: Improved manual focus system (more responsive focus ring, focus peaking and split-image displays)
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5195&news=fuji+X100S+X20+CES+2013
This did look interesting. It might solve some of the problems I had with teh handling, and teh extra res would be nice. Frankly I'm leanng towards a few Sigma DPm's at the moment.
-
BC,
I don't have the Merrills. Yet. I need to handle one for a while first. The files have a nice look to them, which keeps me coming back to it. I need to just get one of them and try it out. If its not suitable I can flip it for a small loss.
I'm glad I sold my M9 when I did, because it was before the M-E/M announcement. I keep thinking I want another M9, M-E or the M, but the memory of dealing with Leica is still a bit RAW. These are cameras that you keep a long time but the fact is when tehy are out of warranty Leica has crap service. they have crap service when you within the warranty, so mayb it doesn't make a difference.
Now the skin from the M8, either under lights or bright difused daylight is, in my opinion, one of the best out there. Really only rivaled by the Aptus 22/75, film, and, yes, the Fuji X100.
The Fuji has the best JPEGs I've ever seen. I used the JPEGS as refence when developing Raw files. I also used the JPEGS for editorials, just about straight from the camera.
I would buy a Digital Mamiya 7. I still consider it the best camera ever made.
As to the DSLRs feeling like iPhones, I sort of agree with you. The 5D and 5D2 certainly felt like toys in many ways, especially after handling an RZ or a 1ds. But the big Nikon and Canons feel real. The D800 feels solid. No complaints, and its light etc. It remind sme of the F100 but with a lower end camera's VF. It doesn't have the soul of a Leica or Rollei 35, or even a Contax T2, but I like the files. They are CMOS like, but can look very CCD when stopped down with the right lenses, like the Zeiss 35F2 and lots of light. And they stretch like an MFDB file.
Enough rambling, time for the snow.
T
-
Hi,
Just an observation, Fujifilm is a film maker. Leica M8/M9 were using a Kodak sensor and older MFDBs also used mostly Kodak sensors. So one thing those cameras have in common that there is significant experience coming from the film side. My guess may be that the background in film may affect CGA (Color Grid Array) design. The rest of the chip is essentially a linear monochrome device, so it will affect color rendition and tonality very little.
One thing to keep in mind regarding color that normally pleasant color is sought, not correct color. The main reason for this may be that our screens and prints are not able of faithful reproduction of real life color ranges. Very well possible Fujifilm is making best use of color, specially with JPEG. They put a lot of development in Provia and Velvia. Raw processing is a different can of worms.
Fujifilm is also making very good lenses. In general I don't think lenses matter that much, once they are good enough. I shot a couple of comparisons recently with Zeiss labeled lenses from Sony and also an old Hasselblad Sonnar 150/4 lens on Sony. I could not see a lot of difference, except a flare issue on the Sonnar.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/72-zeissness?showall=1
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/73-sonnar-150-cb-on-dslr-using-arax-tilt-adapter?showall=1
Getting back to Flickriver, I flipped trough a few dozen images on the front pages. All images I liked were shot with DSLRs, mostly Canons and Nikons. Only non DSLR was shot with a Panasonic superzoom.
Now, I'm a DSLR shooter. I like images that are properly processed with both a broad tonal range and a certain amount of snap. Although using Velvia for may years I'm not really in favor of Velvia colors and contrast. I have been there, done that and I am done with it. I also like wildlife, scenics, telephoto and macro work.
I was spending a week in Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks in september. During that week I have seen more 500/4 lenses than ever. I cannot really recall seeing great many 4/3, E-mount or Fuji-X mount cameras, and not a single MF camera. The only MF camera I have seen in Grand Teton/Yellowstone ever was a Noblex panorama camera and my own Pentax 67, both quite a few years ago.
Best regards
Erik
BC,
I don't have the Merrills. Yet. I need to handle one for a while first. The files have a nice look to them, which keeps me coming back to it. I need to just get one of them and try it out. If its not suitable I can flip it for a small loss.
I'm glad I sold my M9 when I did, because it was before the M-E/M announcement. I keep thinking I want another M9, M-E or the M, but the memory of dealing with Leica is still a bit RAW. These are cameras that you keep a long time but the fact is when tehy are out of warranty Leica has crap service. they have crap service when you within the warranty, so mayb it doesn't make a difference.
Now the skin from the M8, either under lights or bright difused daylight is, in my opinion, one of the best out there. Really only rivaled by the Aptus 22/75, film, and, yes, the Fuji X100.
The Fuji has the best JPEGs I've ever seen. I used the JPEGS as refence when developing Raw files. I also used the JPEGS for editorials, just about straight from the camera.
I would buy a Digital Mamiya 7. I still consider it the best camera ever made.
As to the DSLRs feeling like iPhones, I sort of agree with you. The 5D and 5D2 certainly felt like toys in many ways, especially after handling an RZ or a 1ds. But the big Nikon and Canons feel real. The D800 feels solid. No complaints, and its light etc. It remind sme of the F100 but with a lower end camera's VF. It doesn't have the soul of a Leica or Rollei 35, or even a Contax T2, but I like the files. They are CMOS like, but can look very CCD when stopped down with the right lenses, like the Zeiss 35F2 and lots of light. And they stretch like an MFDB file.
Enough rambling, time for the snow.
T
-
I wish Fuji would make a pro digital in the form like an X-Pan II. That was the last film camera I ever got the jones for. Feels like an instrument. I agree with BC that recent DSLRs feel like appliances.
I'd like to see the prospects for OVF cameras to be updated while retaining their character as fine instruments. Maybe there is a promise in hybrid finder technology, but it hasn't happened yet.
I do not like the feel of the D800 really. I have large hands and I have to crook my shutter finger to be able to reach the AF ON-OFF button with my right thumb at the same time. I feel like someone gave up on it before the job was finished. The viewfinder should be bigger and with a higher eyepoint. But it's a great camera.
The D3/D4 bodies feel very good if I don't mind the weight. The hand placement is perfect for my hands. And the viewfinder is big enough. But I don't think I really liked a Nikon body since the F/F2.
In general, I don't like the Batman/F117 styled bodies that Nikon and Canon make. What a silly design trope. I'm not sure Giugiaro ever really nailed it as a camera designer.
-
Hi Luke,
Your problem with the Nikon D800 is solved with the attachment of the Nikon MB-D12 Multi Power Battery Pack which I have do with my Nikon D800 and D800E.
Cheers
Simon
-
Simon,
Do you see a difference between the regular and E version of the Nikon?
How are skin tones and what do you initially process in? I know with my Nikon files they are much better in NIK than Lightroom or Photoshop.
_________________
The best Nikon I ever used was the F5. Had a dcs 760 Kodak from a Nikon F5. Huge viewfinder (huge camera with the digital part on the bottom), really nice files with a lot of headroom and lattitude.
If only they were 11 mpx instead of 6 I'd still be using it. The finder removed, it was all metal, the trackpad was magic in moving focus. Great camera.
Why the F5 disappeared once digital and we got those small finders I'll never know.
IMO
BC
-
You problem with the Nikon D800 is solved with the attachment of the Nikon MB-D12 Multi Power Battery Pack which I have do with my Nikon D800 and D800E.
With a recommendation from you, it now sounds worth trying.
-
Do you see a difference between the regular and E version of the Nikon?
How are skin tones and what do you initially process in? I know with my Nikon files they are much better in NIK than Lightroom or Photoshop.
I'll give you a second data point. Of course Simon is the real pro. My favorite skin tones were on the D3x, D800 is second. The best profile was the C1 "linear" profile, the cleanest numbers off the sensor. You could also use the Nikon NX(2) "neutral" profile. [I believe Nik developed this software for Nikon, so they ought to know the Nikon files.] Then roll your own.
In a pinch, the "portrait" profile in C1 is better for portraits than the "standard" profile. The standard profile bunches up skin tone transitions. The portrait profile opens them up a bit, and avoids problems with oversaturation /for the most part/.
I find that one /absolutely must/ be aware of thermal noise on the Exmor cameras, especially the D800. At ISO6400 and 1/80th (or equiv), noise in the form of a bluish-magenta cast with some local hots spots at the bottom of the frame, is rather noticeable. Live view exacerbates this significantly. With black-frame subtraction, you can get wonderful results out the ISO25k, but I wouldn't want to do it much. This camera needs LENR as a full-time option.
-
Hi James,
I got the D800 after I did a comparison test with my now sold Nikon D3x and my then new D800E and the increase in dynamic range was so vast the D3x instantly become redundant so it was sold on EBay. The files from the D800E are nice and fat like I was getting with my now obsolete Leaf Aptus 75.
So as I still needed a camera with an AA filter I got the D800.
If you do a side by side comparison there is a minimal difference if you pixel peep which I’m sure your not that type of guy.
I did a shoot last Wednesday photographing our much loved All Black rugby players for a soft drink company who’s head office is in Atlanta.
As the ruby players where wearing lycra tops so I knew that I had to use the D800 as the D800E would have caused colour moiré.
I shot over a 1000 images in the 4 hours I was aloud with the players using conventional flash and then moving to my nikon/pocket wizard flash system for the high speed action shots.
It all worked a charm except for the Phase One 7.2 soft wear which keep crashing. So it was back to using the Nikon camera control.
Concerning skin tones I am very happy with the result I get for ACR.
This Tuesday I am shooting a fashion shoot in my studio with the D800 and I am more than happy to You Send It some raw files with a XMP attached.
Ciao
Simon
-
Hi Luke,
How much of the color is in the sensor, and how much in the profiles, raw processing engine and they eyes of the beholder? Interested in your take on this.
I think, Eric Chan (lead developer of raw processing in ACR and LR) mentioned that he measures sensor response with a monochromator, so Adobe probably constructs their own profiles from spectral data, but I guess that both companies and persons may have differing preferences for tonal reproduction.
Best regards
Erik
I'll give you a second data point. Of course Simon is the real pro. My favorite skin tones were on the D3x, D800 is second. The best profile was the C1 "linear" profile, the cleanest numbers off the sensor. You could also use the Nikon NX(2) "neutral" profile. [I believe Nik developed this software for Nikon, so they ought to know the Nikon files.] Then roll your own.
In a pinch, the "portrait" profile in C1 is better for portraits than the "standard" profile. The standard profile bunches up skin tone transitions. The portrait profile opens them up a bit, and avoids problems with oversaturation /for the most part/.
I find that one /absolutely must/ be aware of thermal noise on the Exmor cameras, especially the D800. At ISO6400 and 1/80th (or equiv), noise in the form of a bluish-magenta cast with some local hots spots at the bottom of the frame, is rather noticeable. Live view exacerbates this significantly. With black-frame subtraction, you can get wonderful results out the ISO25k, but I wouldn't want to do it much. This camera needs LENR as a full-time option.
-
How much of the color is in the sensor, and how much in the profiles, raw processing engine and they eyes of the beholder? Interested in your take on this.
What I was thinking at the moment was mainly of the effect of implicit tone curves on the tonal integrity of the image. The various breeds (NX, C1, LR) of "standard" profile all imply a kind of sigmoid tone curve. This invariably causes tones to bunch up and for saturation to be uneven across the image. Most of the standard curves I've used do bad things to skin tone transitions. The various breeds of "portrait" profile seem to mitigate this to an extent. In one important sense, it's only the "linear" profile that gives me the cleanest colors to start with, with the understanding that I have to roll my own when it comes to local/global contrast adjustment.
Aside from that, I've no scientific basis to compare CFA response and processing across sensors and raw converters. I have felt that the D3x looked great in any process, and always seemed to have a certain beauty when it came to the colors, similar to the A900.
-
Thanks!
Erik
What I was thinking at the moment was mainly of the effect of implicit tone curves on the tonal integrity of the image. The various breeds (NX, C1, LR) of "standard" profile all imply a kind of sigmoid tone curve. This invariably causes tones to bunch up and for saturation to be uneven across the image. Most of the standard curves I've used do bad things to skin tone transitions. The various breeds of "portrait" profile seem to mitigate this to an extent. In one important sense, it's only the "linear" profile that gives me the cleanest colors to start with, with the understanding that I have to roll my own when it comes to local/global contrast adjustment.
Aside from that, I've no scientific basis to compare CFA response and processing across sensors and raw converters. I have felt that the D3x looked great in any process, and always seemed to have a certain beauty when it came to the colors, similar to the A900.
-
I think there already is the perfect DSLR "killer" - you can already buy it -it´s name is Sony RX-1
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1/9
just try a comparison between RX1-LeicaM9-FujiX100 and Fuji XPro1
I think that says about anything.
Probably only competition a new M Leica with higher res. But this is significantly more expensive.
Regards
Stefan
-
Hi,
Well, Tim Ashley wrote a lot about RX-1 and felt it gives a fair fight to his ex. IQ180 and his D800E.
But as soon as one needs another lens the RX-1 is pretty much out. Also I think the EVF should be built in.
Best regards
Erik
I think there already is the perfect DSLR "killer" - you can already buy it -it´s name is Sony RX-1
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1/9
just try a comparison between RX1-LeicaM9-FujiX100 and Fuji XPro1
I think that says about anything.
Probably only competition a new M Leica with higher res. But this is significantly more expensive.
Regards
Stefan
-
What I was thinking at the moment was mainly of the effect of implicit tone curves on the tonal integrity of the image. The various breeds (NX, C1, LR) of "standard" profile all imply a kind of sigmoid tone curve. This invariably causes tones to bunch up and for saturation to be uneven across the image. Most of the standard curves I've used do bad things to skin tone transitions. The various breeds of "portrait" profile seem to mitigate this to an extent. In one important sense, it's only the "linear" profile that gives me the cleanest colors to start with, with the understanding that I have to roll my own when it comes to local/global contrast adjustment.
Aside from that, I've no scientific basis to compare CFA response and processing across sensors and raw converters. I have felt that the D3x looked great in any process, and always seemed to have a certain beauty when it came to the colors, similar to the A900.
I agree, a lot of the problems I had with bunched up highlights simply disappeared when I started using a program that provides straight linear conversion. At first it was very difficult to find a curve that made any realistic adjustment from linear.
There are so many options. With some practice you find you can get detail popping like you never could with several regular RAW converters. Suddenly whites are a vast region of tones. You can compress or leave them as you desire. The logic of the default gamma curve is not bad. I can understand that most of the time it gives you a normal looking image. Sometimes though, all the detail you want is in a small range.
-
BC, TMARK,
There is this strange Mamiya modded for digital which keeps cropping up on eBay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Modified-Mamiya-6-camera-for-Hasselblad-V-mount-digital-back-with-75mm-Lens-/261096296055?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item3cca8d4e77
Edmund
-
I think there already is the perfect DSLR "killer" - you can already buy it -it´s name is Sony RX-1
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1/9
just try a comparison between RX1-LeicaM9-FujiX100 and Fuji XPro1
I think that says about anything.
Oh dear, I hope you not mere compare those crops for resolution and pixels??? Something very key in my OP was about the lenses and how they make the image look photographically, not at all pixel peeping. My example was to look at standard ~50mm equivalent lenses, that are relatively simple to design. All of us have of course different preferences, but the RX1 35mm lens does not seem to have very smooth bokeh and of course is a wide lens. It is also a fixed lens... something I would assume a DSLR killer would not have...
Having taken a live look at some cameras I noted following;
Sony RX1 --- Looks cute, but feels in hands like a lower priced point and shoot camera. Not at all feeling of a real camera in hands. There is no knob for setting shutter like on a Leica or X-Pro1. There is no viewfinder and an external one can be used, but it all adds to make tad difficult to determine where is focus on.
Nikon D800 --- Damn, you gotta be kidding me! What are people raving about??? I grew serious into photography with a Nikon F100 and expected the D800 to fall as well in my hands. What a disappointment. It feels awful in my hands, very poor ergonomics, tad like it has been put together very cheap and cheap materials compared to F100 was. Zillion of focus points in a very dim viewfinder, not at all for my preference for viewing when shooting an image. Yuck, and people argue this should rival medium format. Ha! I did not find Mamiya 645 AFD or AFDIII ergonomic, but they far beat the D800 to me. ;D
Leica X2 --- Having had Leica M8 before and keenly looked at the X1 the other year, I had my hopes up :). I like the simplicity of a Leica and the menus are really great. Again, same as the Sony an external viewfinder, and the Leica optical clip on did not impress me; too small to view through. They had me look through the Leica EVF. My impression of it was: garbage, such lag and keeping me from seeing the scene optically infront of me.
X-Pro1 --- It is made of metal alright, but... very thin such... not what I had expected. However, I was blown away by the optical viewfinder, significant larger and brighter than I had expected, and the frame lines and other information looked very significant better than I have prior seen on photos; in fact it looked really great to view through it! When pressing the shutter, the EVF came in and displayed the image. I cannot say I like EVF (I do not... but...), but it worked seemless and very well to show the DOF used. The X-Pro1 feels very light... perhaps too light. But... the lasting impression is the optical finder, along with what is known to be a very exceptional 35mm standard lens with a very very smooth bokeh. And very high image quality indeed, straight from the JPGs. See my OP above.
I am not shopping, mere made what I felt was an interesting compare. If we consider that sensors will grow in MP, the Fuji do make alot of sense. A DSLR does not in my view. There we go... a DSLR killer... ;D
Just my 2c ;)
Anders
-
Hi,
Stefan didn't mention the D800, did he?
In case you missed, Stefan Steib is Mr. Hartblei DE. The guy who builds the Hartblei HCam and Zeiss by Hartblei lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Oh dear, I hope you not mere compare those crops for resolution and pixels??? Something very key in my OP was about the lenses and how they make the image look photographically, not at all pixel peeping. My example was to look at standard ~50mm equivalent lenses, that are relatively simple to design. All of us have of course different preferences, but the RX1 35mm lens does not seem to have very smooth bokeh and of course is a wide lens. It is also a fixed lens... something I would assume a DSLR killer would not have...
Having taken a live look at some cameras I noted following;
Sony RX1 --- Looks cute, but feels in hands like a lower priced point and shoot camera. Not at all feeling of a real camera in hands. There is no knob for setting shutter like on a Leica or X-Pro1. There is no viewfinder and an external one can be used, but it all adds to make tad difficult to determine where is focus on.
Nikon D800 --- Damn, you gotta be kidding me! What are people raving about??? I grew serious into photography with a Nikon F100 and expected the D800 to fall as well in my hands. What a disappointment. It feels awful in my hands, very poor ergonomics, tad like it has been put together very cheap and cheap materials compared to F100 was. Zillion of focus points in a very dim viewfinder, not at all for my preference for viewing when shooting an image. Yuck, and people argue this should rival medium format. Ha! I did not find Mamiya 645 AFD or AFDIII ergonomic, but they far beat the D800 to me. ;D
Leica X2 --- Having had Leica M8 before and keenly looked at the X1 the other year, I had my hopes up :). I like the simplicity of a Leica and the menus are really great. Again, same as the Sony an external viewfinder, and the Leica optical clip on did not impress me; too small to view through. They had me look through the Leica EVF. My impression of it was: garbage, such lag and keeping me from seeing the scene optically infront of me.
X-Pro1 --- It is made of metal alright, but... very thin such... not what I had expected. However, I was blown away by the optical viewfinder, significant larger and brighter than I had expected, and the frame lines and other information looked very significant better than I have prior seen on photos; in fact it looked really great to view through it! When pressing the shutter, the EVF came in and displayed the image. I cannot say I like EVF (I do not... but...), but it worked seemless and very well to show the DOF used. The X-Pro1 feels very light... perhaps too light. But... the lasting impression is the optical finder, along with what is known to be a very exceptional 35mm standard lens with a very very smooth bokeh. See my OP above.
I am not shopping, mere made what I felt was an interesting compare. If we consider that sensors will grow in MP, the Fuji do make alot of sense. A DSLR does not in my view.
Just my 2c ;)
Anders
-
Sony RX1 --- Looks cute, but feels in hands like a lower priced point and shoot camera. Not at all feeling of a real camera in hands. There is no knob for setting shutter like on a Leica or X-Pro1. There is no viewfinder and an external one can be used, but it all adds to make tad difficult to determine where is focus on.
Nikon D800 --- Damn, you gotta be kidding me! What are people raving about??? I grew serious into photography with a Nikon F100 and expected the D800 to fall as well in my hands. What a disappointment. It feels awful in my hands, very poor ergonomics, tad like it has been put together very cheap and cheap materials compared to F100 was. Zillion of focus points in a very dim viewfinder, not at all for my preference for viewing when shooting an image. Yuck, and people argue this should rival medium format. Ha! I did not find Mamiya 645 AFD or AFDIII ergonomic, but they far beat the D800 to me. ;D
Do you react the same way about other brands of vacuum cleaners?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Anders HK has a good point about the RX-1 beeing out of the competition because the lens is not interchangeable.
Personally, I would say that any camera doing a better service than a DSLR could be a DSLR killer. It depends much on capabilities and needs. I am under the impression that mirrorless cameras are making serious inroads into DSLR territory. This applies Fujinon-X, 4/3 (Panasonic and Oly) but also NEX. The "speed booster" designad by Brian Caldwell may help mirrorless to even more popularity, as it makes all old lenses useful by removing the crop and keeping the image quality.
For my part I'm not very sentimental about cameras. They are tools for making images. Preferably good tools.
Personally, I feel that live view and articulated screens are important features. Live view makes for accurate manual focus and an articulated screen is helpful in getting close to the ground.
Anders HK has also a good point on lenses. Out of focus imaging is as important as absolute sharpness.
In short, a DSLR killer is a camera that gives you the image quality you need, the lenses you need and works well enough to replace a DSLR.
Best regards
Erik
Do you react the same way about other brands of vacuum cleaners?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do you react the same way about other brands of vacuum cleaners?
Cheers,
Bernard
Exactly ... they are all just cameras ...
-
Do you react the same way about other brands of vacuum cleaners?
Bernard, I obvious do not react about the brands, but about the products --- such as in TOOLS. Actually, you may well find the X-Pro1 interesting for the panorama function it feature. That means you could give up your D800 and panoramic gear and carry far less in your bag, and at same time deposit $$ into the bank. ;)
----
The X-Pro1 is interesting for the reasons I have mentioned in posts above. Smaller format DSLRs - in my opinion - are overgrown to point of madness (zillions of buttons, zillion of auto features, too heavy lenses, double duty as video cams). Each new model offer incremental additions to make people upgrade and upgrade again and again. All while the gigantic marketing machinery from Nikon, Canon and Sony convince people to spend more $$$ on a new offering that will make them take even better pictures, and now even marketed with the lie that they are to levels of medium format cameras. Truth is that medium format significant exceed smaller formats in image quality where it matters; at low ISO. Heck, compared to DSLRs medium format is not really heavier, my Hy6 with two lenses weigh less than most Nikon, Canon and Sony shooters carry in bags. The X-Pro1 notably obvious weight even less.
It is interesting to note that (number of pixels aside), the X-Pro1 raelly seem to have a better image quality and image rendering than top of line DSLRs from Nikon, Canon and Sony, and it deliver it in JPGs straight from the camera! How? The specifics of the sensor, internal RAW engine and top notch lens. That to me that is a DSLR killer, and would make a nice addition to carry along larger formats.
-
Hi Anders,
I guess that DSLRs are not intended for you. You are entitled to your opinion, but so are the 7 billion other people the planet entitled to theirs. Most of them care more about food tomorrow, basic medicine and basic rights than image quality.
I guess that camera manufacturers sell the stuff customers are willing to buy.
Folks have different ambitions and different needs, perceived or real. The present state of the industry is there is stuff for all. MFDBs, DSLRs, EVIL, 4/3 P&S, Bridge. People have choice and that is called market economy. I actually don't think customers are stupid, they can choose what is appropriate for their needs, rather than mine or yours.
Smaller format DSLRs - in my opinion - are overgrown to point of madness (zillions of buttons, zillion of auto features, too heavy lenses, double duty as video cams). Each new model offer incremental additions to make people upgrade and upgrade again and again. All while the gigantic marketing machinery from Nikon, Canon and Sony convince people to spend more $$$ on a new offering that will make them take even better pictures, and now even marketed with the lie that they are to levels of medium format cameras.
The pixel aside is not so easy to ignore. The reason that camera JPEGs come out better than RAW is in part because most raw processors have problems with Fujifilm's non bayer RGB arrangement. Another factor may be that Fujifilm used to be a film maker and knows a lot about pleasantness of color. Still, what is thrown out in JPEG conversion, and that is about 99.999% of the information cannot be recovered, nor can sharpening artifacts. How good the JPEG is there is still reason for raw.
Just to explain, JPEG is 8 bit and I assume the X-Pro1 is 12 bit. If it is 14 bit doesn't really matter. So if you go from 12 bits to 8 bits you throw away you keep 1/16 of the data for each channel. So you throw away 4096 times more data than you keep. Now the 8 bits you keep are well chosen in a gamma coded space, and that helps a lot but much of the information is lost once you go to JPEG.
It is interesting to note that (number of pixels aside), the X-Pro1 raelly seem to have a better image quality and image rendering than top of line DSLRs from Nikon, Canon and Sony, and it deliver it in JPGs straight from the camera! How? The specifics of the sensor, internal RAW engine and top notch lens. That to me that is a DSLR killer, and would make a nice addition to carry along larger formats.
-
Bernard, I obvious do not react about the brands, but about the products --- such as in TOOLS. Actually, you may well find the X-Pro1 interesting for the panorama function it feature. That means you could give up your D800 and panoramic gear and carry far less in your bag, and at same time deposit $$ into the bank. ;)
Right, your repeated posts don't convey any hint of irrational brand hatred...
Now, the Fuji is an interesting option, mostly for the lenses. I'll look at it seriously when Fujifilm will have fixed the color smearing issue observed by Lloyd Chambers and a few other objective testers. I do not feel like going back to my Kodak SLRn days, I have wasted enough money on innovative half cooked experiments.
For now my DP2m does a great job at replacing the D800 when I need to travel lighter. It's image quality is clearly superior to that of the Fuji at base ISO, even if it remains behind the D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sony RX1 --- Looks cute, but feels in hands like a lower priced point and shoot camera. Not at all feeling of a real camera in hands. There is no knob for setting shutter like on a Leica or X-Pro1. There is no viewfinder and an external one can be used, but it all adds to make tad difficult to determine where is focus on.
LOL. You should actually see one in person.
-
What I find amusing is all the "DSLR Killers" are DSLRs. The Hy6, Hasselblad H, Phase Mamiya cameras are all DSLRs.
-
Actually, you may well find the X-Pro1 interesting for the panorama function it feature. That means you could give up your D800 and panoramic gear and carry far less in your bag, and at same time deposit $$ into the bank.
Except a sweep pan can only do single row or column pans, not 2D tiled matrix stitching. And has limited resolution. And can't loiter on individual tiles in order to either bracket for exposure or sample local periodic motion at multiple positions in order to optimize cross-boundary stitching. And has crappier/non-existent feature detection/masking capabilities than most stitching software running on PCs.
It's kind of weird that people like to post stuff about things that they have no working knowledge of. Oh wait, it's the internet; nevermind.
-
Hi,
Not really. I agree that Hy6, Hasselblad H and Phase Mamiya are DSLRs, unless you use them with a film back, in which case they are SLRs. Alpas, Arcas, Arctechs and Cambos are not SLRs, no mirror, you know. And they may be DSLR killers, depending on the task at hand.
What kills what depends on context. Photo reporters seldom use Alpa's, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
What I find amusing is all the "DSLR Killers" are DSLRs. The Hy6, Hasselblad H, Phase Mamiya cameras are all DSLRs.
-
Hi,
Not really. I agree that Hy6, Hasselblad H and Phase Mamiya are DSLRs, unless you use them with a film back, in which case they are SLRs. Alpas, Arcas, Arctechs and Cambos are not SLRs, no mirror, you know. And they may be DSLR killers, depending on the task at hand.
What kills what depends on context. Photo reporters seldom use Alpa's, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
I am not sure why the lenses the OP listed as the killers would be mounted to a tech camera. Not even sure if you have aperture control on a tech camera with those optics.
Naturally, it is rather difficult to take any thread proclaiming the death of any camera type seriously.
The real problem comes from the fact that the world's greatest camera manufacturers are all Japanese anyway. They are really the innovators. Sure, Leica and Hasselblad came up with one good idea long ago. When they needed to have another idea, they asked the folks from Minolta, Fuji, and Panasonic to come up with it for them. And they really need to listen to the Japanese because the Lunar is a disaster--it might be a Nex 7, but no Japanese manufacturer would dress it up that way, at least not sober.
-
Right, your repeated posts don't convey any hint of irrational brand hatred...
Now, the Fuji is an interesting option, mostly for the lenses. I'll look at it seriously when Fujifilm will have fixed the color smearing issue observed by Lloyd Chambers and a few other objective testers. I do not feel like going back to my Kodak SLRn days, I have wasted enough money on innovative half cooked experiments.
For now my DP2m does a great job at replacing the D800 when I need to travel lighter. It's image quality is clearly superior to that of the Fuji at base ISO, even if it remains behind the D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
Al dente is delicious! ;)
-
Now, the Fuji is an interesting option, mostly for the lenses. I'll look at it seriously when Fujifilm will have fixed the color smearing issue observed by Lloyd Chambers and a few other objective testers. I do not feel like going back to my Kodak SLRn days, I have wasted enough money on innovative half cooked experiments.
Al dente is delicious! ;)
The color smearing is the Fuji equivalent of Moiré, it is a corollary of the sampling theorem, and it won't go away until they put an AA filter on the camera, or use lenses which are unsharp.
Edmund
-
Al dente is delicious! ;)
Hmmmm.... it usually gave me indigestion. I don't get indigestion anymore (from pasta, at least) because I always boil it furiously for seventeen minutes. Not a minute more, not a minute less. It just slips down the throat. Splendid.
Rob C
-
Hmmmm.... it usually gave me indigestion. I don't get indigestion anymore (from pasta, at least) because I always boil it furiously for seventeen minutes. Not a minute more, not a minute less. It just slips down the throat. Splendid.
Rob C
You must be at least some part Irish!
Peter
-
Al dente is delicious! ;)
Exactly, al dente is a conscious decision while half cooked is an oversight... :-)
Cheers,
Bernard