Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Stefan.Steib on July 19, 2013, 10:57:44 am
-
http://techyworld.in/100-megapixel-camera-by-chinese-institute-ioe3-kanban/
http://www.techgig.com/tech-news/editors-pick/Chinese-institute-develops-100MP-camera-IOE3-Kanban-18837
UPS..... ?
Anyone knows more ?
Scratching my Head
Stefan
-
According to that article, they were already here 8 years ago with an 81MP camera.
"The institute also developed an 81-megapixel camera during the 10th Five Year Plan period (2001-2005), and the latest achievement took the researchers two years to develop"
I wonder what came of that?
http://techyworld.in/100-megapixel-camera-by-chinese-institute-ioe3-kanban/
http://www.techgig.com/tech-news/editors-pick/Chinese-institute-develops-100MP-camera-IOE3-Kanban-18837
UPS..... ?
Anyone knows more ?
Scratching my Head
Stefan
-
Another black box and who cares how many mpx till you see results and product ready for release...
-
We've been told it is impossible to produce cutting edge medium format cameras for less than 30,000 US$, right?
What is there to fear?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We've been told it is impossible to produce cutting edge medium format cameras for less than 30,000 US$, right?
What is there to fear?
Cheers,
Bernard
There is a horrible danger that large camera sensors might get commoditized, and shock horror some unacceptably cheap back might revive our old Hassleblads and turn them into Frankenblads. Or, worse, someone might make a pop-in efilm cartridge for old 35mm cameras!
Edmund
-
There is a horrible danger that large camera sensors might get commoditized, and shock horror some unacceptably cheap back might revive our old Hassleblads and turn them into Frankenblads. Or, worse, someone might make a pop-in efilm cartridge for old 35mm cameras!
Edmund
You know what? I suspect that that may actually happen.
Leica R cameras accepted a digital back which, according to those who have one, is pretty damned good...
Rob C
-
There is a horrible danger that large camera sensors might get commoditized, and shock horror some unacceptably cheap back might revive our old Hassleblads and turn them into Frankenblads.
Scary thought!
Or, worse, someone might make a pop-in efilm cartridge for old 35mm cameras!
That's why I have kept my F3 and F6! ;)
Although I am toying with the idea of buying a few rolls of film. I could do a film only August photography festival... or something approaching. At least that would protect those images from NSA scrutinity (just mentioning this since Rob is in the thread!).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Scary thought!
That's why I have kept my F3 and F6! ;)
Although I am toying with the idea of buying a few rolls of film. I could do a film only August photography festival... or something approaching. At least that would protect those images from NSA scrutinity (just mentioning this since Rob is in the thread!).
Cheers,
Bernard
I guess the NSA has set up a forwarding node inside every Fuji Frontier color enlarger as they are digital, and anyone who does black and white manually is now a suspect of both child pornography and international terrorism. Beware, you have no rights and we are watching you. I listened to the congress judiciary subcommittee witnesses as they rehashed the arguments that they can record the communications of hundreds of millions of people in Europe and use the the information any way the wish because foreigners are not entitled to any constitutional protection. Somehow it reminded me of the arguments in Spain in colonial times, about killing mexicans being allowed because they have no soul as they are not catholic. But there was an interesting moment where one homeland security guy started desperately pleading that the Europeans had decided to make the companies involved pay a price for this invasion of privacy, and that it was essential that congress place itself between the europeans and the firms which helped the NSA. Now that was funny - I really wonder how congress will be able to force european corporations to put their industrial data on US servers when they know it will be hoovered up and fed to their competitors - did the Catholic Kings also pass a law forbidding mexican indians from running away?
Paranoia aside, it is now a matter of record that the scale of the surveillance of our everyday activities by electronic means to which we are now subject in Europe is now greater than that exerted in Soviet Russia, which used to be held up as a poster child for totalitarian government.
There is also an interesting subsidiary question, raised by all of this, which is why we should bother to have discussions in Europe about democratic process and courts and rights, if just about anyone in the US is allowed to shortcircuit all of our law enforcement procedures inside our countries? Maybe we should just apply to become US states, which would at least supply us with courts that actually have jurisdiction over this sort of stuff, and a voice in the debate on which idiotic country (can you find Irak or Afghanistan on the map?) our soldiers should now be sent to die in, as allies to the US.
Edmund
-
I really wonder how congress will be able to force european corporations to put their industrial data on US servers when they know it will be hoovered up and fed to their competitors - did the Catholic Kings also pass a law forbidding mexican indians from running away?
Edmund
1. They already have the data. The outrage in European governmental circles over the NSA "revelations" is a bit laughable. (I'm not saying it isn't offensive, it is). The EU leaders fake some outrage, and the issue will disapear. The European inteligence services request information from the NSA about their nationals that they are not supposed to watch, and vice versa. This isn't new. I first read about this information sharing in the '90's.
2. They converted the Indians to THE CHURCH. Once converted, they were free to go, but there was nothing to go back to. Nice trick.
-
I guess they didn't pass that law but they invented a Virgin to amalgamate all natives.
Eduardo
I guess the NSA has set up a forwarding node inside every Fuji Frontier color enlarger as they are digital, and anyone who does black and white manually is now a suspect of both child pornography and international terrorism. Beware, you have no rights and we are watching you. I listened to the congress judiciary subcommittee witnesses as they rehashed the arguments that they can record the communications of hundreds of millions of people in Europe and use the the information any way the wish because foreigners are not entitled to any constitutional protection. Somehow it reminded me of the arguments in Spain in colonial times, about killing mexicans being allowed because they have no soul as they are not catholic. But there was an interesting moment where one homeland security guy started desperately pleading that the Europeans had decided to make the companies involved pay a price for this invasion of privacy, and that it was essential that congress place itself between the europeans and the firms which helped the NSA. Now that was funny - I really wonder how congress will be able to force european corporations to put their industrial data on US servers when they know it will be hoovered up and fed to their competitors - did the Catholic Kings also pass a law forbidding mexican indians from running away?
There is also an interesting subsidiary question, raised by all of this, which is why we should bother to have discussions in Europe about democratic process and courts and rights, if the just about anyone in the US is allowed to shortcircuit all of our law enforcement procedures inside our countries? Maybe we should just apply to become US states, which would at least supply us with courts that actually have jurisdiction over this sort of stuff, and a voice in the debate on which idiotic country (can you find Irak or Afghanistan on the map?) our soldiers should now be sent to die in, as allies to the US.
Edmund
Edmund
-
1. They already have the data. The outrage in European governmental circles over the NSA "revelations" is a bit laughable. (I'm not saying it isn't offensive, it is). The EU leaders fake some outrage, and the issue will disapear. The European inteligence services request information from the NSA about their nationals that they are not supposed to watch, and vice versa. This isn't new. I first read about this information sharing in the '90's.
2. They converted the Indians to THE CHURCH. Once converted, they were free to go, but there was nothing to go back to. Nice trick.
TMARK,
It used to be they got only what they were looking for, in dribbles. Now it seems that the US has created a market for wholesale information, retroactively searched, which is a very different thing.
Also, the outrage seems to be the citizens, not the governments. We thought we had democratic institutions etc, now we realize that after 9/11 all that was taken away - well if Bin Laden was able to dismantle the freedom of private expression inside all of Europe (how can you write or say something in private if one day after a change of regime it will come back to you?) then he has definitely had the last laugh -
Edmund
-
Scary thought!
That's why I have kept my F3 and F6! ;)
Although I am toying with the idea of buying a few rolls of film. I could do a film only August photography festival... or something approaching. At least that would protect those images from NSA scrutinity (just mentioning this since Rob is in the thread!).Cheers,
Bernard
If my being here helps you get back to film - then my time ain't been wasted!
For myself, I think I've had it with flm. Kodachrome's gone, so what would I gain? I think that digital has simply become too much the norm for me now, and there's no going back. But a huge, affordable (read cheap!) sensor for the F3 would be nice - if I can still get a diopter to suit my new eyes!
Rob C
-
If my being here helps you get back to film - then my time ain't been wasted!
For myself, I think I've had it with flm. Kodachrome's gone, so what would I gain? I think that digital has simply become too much the norm for me now, and there's no going back. But a huge, affordable (read cheap!) sensor for the F3 would be nice - if I can still get a diopter to suit my new eyes!
Rob C
There was a company making a drop in 35mm sensor, efilm I think, it folded, and people thought it was a scam.
But it wasn't a scam, an engineer said they had working protos.
So some smart kid could surely make the same in a garage these days.
Maybe a chinese kid will.
Edmund
-
There was a company making a drop in 35mm sensor, efilm I think, it folded, and people thought it was a scam.
But it wasn't a scam, an engineer said they had working protos.
So some smart kid could surely make the same in a garage these days.
Maybe a chinese kid will.
Edmund
Yes, I remember that from the pages of the BJP!
Rob C
-
There was a company making a drop in 35mm sensor, efilm I think, it folded, and people thought it was a scam.
But it wasn't a scam, an engineer said they had working protos.
So some smart kid could surely make the same in a garage these days.
Maybe a chinese kid will.
Edmund
Edmund,
these guys?
http://re35.net/
-Dan
-
Edmund,
these guys?
http://re35.net/
-Dan
Neat. They should go to kickstarter with that web site.
I don't think it's that hard to do, in fact if we at LL wanted to do I'm sure we have enough engineering ability collectively to do it.
Edmund
-
If my being here helps you get back to film - then my time ain't been wasted!
For myself, I think I've had it with flm. Kodachrome's gone, so what would I gain? I think that digital has simply become too much the norm for me now, and there's no going back. But a huge, affordable (read cheap!) sensor for the F3 would be nice - if I can still get a diopter to suit my new eyes!
Rob C
If you really want a film like digital camera and long for your F3, drop 500 bucks and find a clean used dcs 760.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index6.htm
Sure, it's just 6mpx, but processes well in ACR, it's ccd so is film like, doesn't like to go over 200 iso very easy, and weighs a lot, but is based on the F5 and a better camera than the F3, way, way better.
It's ancient in electronic terms, but focuses dead on, removable finder and lenses for this range are cheap.
It's not overly smooth like modern dslrs and digital files, sharp as a tack and a deep rich file.
Honestly everybody will diss it, but try it and I think you'll be surprised.
Can it do Kodachrome. Sure, but doing Kodachrome is easy. Crush the blacks, bump the sat, smooth the midtones, sharpen the shadows and you've got kodachrome.
It's also got a lot more lattitude than Kodachrome.
IMO
BC
-
What the Chinese can do in terms of cheap medium format backs is mildly interesting. CMOS-based technology, I guess? I doubt they'd be working on CCDs, if they're working from scratch rather than building up from a previous model.
What will be *really* interesting is what they can do in terms of even larger sensors and more 'niche' models (e.g. panoramic) - 4x5, 8x10, 612 and 617 formats, at MF prices. Phase One mightn't be able to sell too may 617-format backs (even scaled down versions, like 24x72mm) at their prices, but if Chinese sensors could bring it down to some sort of reasonable price (e.g. full-frame 617 for the same price as a current IQ-type back, or a 24x72 sensor for the same price as a current full-frame DSLR sensor), there could be more of a market for it.
-
In Fine Arts, we had the F3, wonderfull,
Then they bought the F4. I hated it.
It weighted like bodybuilder gear, and
Couldn't hang it properly.
At that time we were shooting a lot at
Nite following the river Seine during hours,
With the F4s it was a complete nightmare,
Back and shoulder pains, almost impossible
To steady.
-
In Fine Arts, we had the F3, wonderfull,
Then they bought the F4. I hated it.
It weighted like bodybuilder gear, and
Couldn't hang it properly.
At that time we were shooting a lot at
Nite following the river Seine during hours,
With the F4s it was a complete nightmare,
Back and shoulder pains, almost impossible
To steady.
F4 had two grips available. The smaller battery grip makes the F4 about the size of an F3. The vertical grip of the F4s was heavy. Steel and lots of batteries. The F4 with the small grip is one of my favorite cameras ever made. Not too heavy. I still have the one I bought in 1990 or so when I went to work for UPI. Its been in the shop twice in all those years. It has the same prism as the F3HP. I liked the F5 better but for the weight and size. The AF on the F5 is the best AF system I've used, but it is a brick of a camera.
-
F4 had two grips available. The smaller battery grip makes the F4 about the size of an F3. The vertical grip of the F4s was heavy. Steel and lots of batteries. The F4 with the small grip is one of my favorite cameras ever made. Not too heavy. I still have the one I bought in 1990 or so when I went to work for UPI. Its been in the shop twice in all those years. It has the same prism as the F3HP. I liked the F5 better but for the weight and size. The AF on the F5 is the best AF system I've used, but it is a brick of a camera.
You might be one of those giant north american guys, with big hands and large shoulders, like the Hockey players. I'm about as tall (taller in fact) as Prince and the F4 felt completly unbalanced in my hands. Something I didn't feel with the digital MK1. I guess it has to do with ergonomics to each one body. Yes, there were the ones with the biggest grip. A nightmare. Also I remember that the metal pulished slided.
-
I am not sure what this has to do with medium format cameras and backs. It sounds like yet another very large, very expensive custom sensor for aerial and satellite photography, like ones that companies like Fairchild and Teledyne-Dalsa make. Do we know anything about the size of the sensor or its photosites?
Actually, scratch "expensive": so far it is just an attention-getting university press office blurb about a research prototype, so price is meaningless. Like the recent university PR puff piece suggesting that a new graphene sensor is 1000 times more sensitive than existing CMOS sensors, when in fact it is less sensitive.
P. S. Some 100MP+ Dalsa sensors actually available in products; up to 250MP:
http://www.aerial-survey-base.com/blog/zi-imaging-releases-digital-camera-system-dmc-ii-250/
http://www.intergraph.com/assets/pdf/coverage/GeoInformatics-5-2010-DMCII-page8-11.pdf
http://www.dcviews.com/press/dalsa-140.htm
-
F4 had two grips available. The smaller battery grip makes the F4 about the size of an F3. The vertical grip of the F4s was heavy. Steel and lots of batteries. The F4 with the small grip is one of my favorite cameras ever made. Not too heavy. I still have the one I bought in 1990 or so when I went to work for UPI. Its been in the shop twice in all those years. It has the same prism as the F3HP. I liked the F5 better but for the weight and size.
I've been toying with the idea of getting an F4/F4s sometime. I was just a kid when it came out, but I saw it in the photo magazines and thought it was the most gorgeous, capable and unaffordable camera I'd ever seen. Still do (gorgeous and capable, but no longer unaffordable). I am especially attracted by the controls - a dedicated dial or lever for everything - and the interchangeable viewfinders. It's not like I see myself shooting much 35mm film again...it would be more a camera to fondle and play with!
The AF on the F5 is the best AF system I've used, but it is a brick of a camera.
It's about 30% more brick-ish in its Kodak guises...like the DCS720x, and the DCS760 that bcooter was advocating. I have a DCS720x, the high-ISO, high-framerate "digital sports" version of the F5 with the unusual CMY Bayer array. I picked it up mainly for astrophotography where its sensitivity shone and the interchangeable viewfinder was great, but it disappointed me with a terrible degree of long exposure dark noise, so that was that. It's currently sitting in the "will get around to selling it sometime" cupboard! I also used it for some sports and indoor low-light events and found the AF impressive, but was not hugely keen on the electronic controls interface, which is why for film I'm more interested in the F4 than the F5.
As for the DCS760, BC makes it sound very appealing. I imagine that its images are quite like a 6MP crop of the 16.7MP DCS645M on my Mamiya, since both have 9 micron pixels (KAF-6302CE & KAF-16802CE CCDs respectively), 12 stops of DR and 12 bits of A/D, and the user interface and firmware are almost identical. The spectral response curves are somewhat different however.
Ray
-
Try this experience:
Get a F4 and work a week with it
Then get a FM2, and work another
Week with it.
Then
Review your shoulders
Review the slides from each, the volume
Of pics taken, and the quality of
Those.
Report your findings.
-
I worked extensively, over a lot of years with F, F2 Photomic, F4s and later an F3 when I'd concluded that the F4s was one mother of an embarrassement.
It was cursed with step-too-far self-loading (ironic joke) of film, which meant that I had to try to reload at least two or three times for each film. Imagine, in front of a model...
I only bought it because I thought that the F3 had been discontinued because of the lack of advertising - there seemed no logic to running the F3 and F4 versions together, so I guessed only the F4 was current at the time, but I was mistaken. It was the shortest Nikon relationship I ever had. I absolutely hated its weight and computer ethic.
That's a reason I'd have liked to have seen a straight, digi back for the F3: common-sense controls for focus, aperture and shutter speeds; manual and instinctive.
Rob C
-
Try this experience:
Get a F4 and work a week with it
Then get a FM2, and work another
Week with it.
Then
Review your shoulders
Review the slides from each, the volume
Of pics taken, and the quality of
Those.
Report your findings.
Fred: my most used walkabout setup is a Mamiya 645AFD, Kodak DCS645M digital back, and 55-110mm AF zoom lens.
So I seriously doubt that I'd find the F4 a strain on the shoulders ;D
Ray
-
I just wish they gave me a camera designed by the guy who invented the Minox. Now that was one of the most elegant designs ever -
Edmund
Hi,
the F3 is a wonderful/beautiful camera. Giorgio Giugiaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgetto_Giugiaro) designed it and I was a fan of his work. He also did the F4, F5, F6, ...
BTW, he also designed the DeLorean DMC-12 and many other wonderful cars for Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Maserati, BMW, ...
Best,
Johannes
-
They are developing an aerial camera and these have been there at high MP for quite some time. As mentioned Dalsa has 250MP chips in production.
I do not think that MFDB using these sensors will come soon as these cost around a million dollars each, well may be a Middle East Sheik will commission one.
-
Knowing the chinees track record making wonderfull things into shit, i am extreamly optimist about this, ahum,...
Please to Tzee Germans and Swiss, make it again but then the then with the well known cultural style of perfection..
@ Stefan, lets hope the NSA picks this up abd takes action :p
-
I worked extensively, over a lot of years with F, F2 Photomic, F4s and later an F3 when I'd concluded that the F4s was one mother of an embarrassement.
It was cursed with step-too-far self-loading (ironic joke) of film, which meant that I had to try to reload at least two or three times for each film. Imagine, in front of a model...
I only bought it because I thought that the F3 had been discontinued because of the lack of advertising - there seemed no logic to running the F3 and F4 versions together, so I guessed only the F4 was current at the time, but I was mistaken. It was the shortest Nikon relationship I ever had. I absolutely hated its weight and computer ethic.
That's a reason I'd have liked to have seen a straight, digi back for the F3: common-sense controls for focus, aperture and shutter speeds; manual and instinctive.
Rob C
My F4 had the bad loading issue. They sent me a new one that was fixed. Its been perfect since 1990.
-
I carried an FM2 as backup in my PJ days. I carried two F4s (one with the vertical grip, one without), the FM2, and an M6. later I replaced an F4 with an F5. And yes, I have back problems. I kept weight down by not carrying too many lenses: 28AI-s, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 20-35 zoom, 28-70 zoom, and 35 summicron. Oh yeah, a Vivitar flash (later an SB28), 60 rolls of film, a Gossen meter.
In any case, the FM2 is awesome. Bullet proof. The finder is dim but acurate. Light, unobtrusive. I wish they had a digital version, it could replace a Leica for discrete.
Try this experience:
Get a F4 and work a week with it
Then get a FM2, and work another
Week with it.
Then
Review your shoulders
Review the slides from each, the volume
Of pics taken, and the quality of
Those.
Report your findings.
-
True T,
The fm2 finder was dim, i remember that.
I think Nikon produced a version (was it the
Fe2 ?) Until very recently.
I guess because they had a high demand
From customers.
It tells a lot, a vintage camera that has been
Able to survive well entered the digital age.
Quite amazing.
The M is great but focussing is not easy. The
Other day a friend of mine adapted an olympus
Evf on it, horrible, unworkable in most cases.
Gadget like.
But files are gorgeous.
I think that the closest to the fm2 in digital
Could well be this Olympus om digital.
I think Coot has one in his arsenal.
-
Stopping through... didn't see where the thread changed from new Chinese products to old Nikon film cameras, BUT ... I really like my F4 and 105 f/1.8 - the big finder makes the weight seem worth carrying.
-
The FE2 had "A" priority which was great. I had one that my mother destroyed by dropping into a toilet in Malta.
Nikon made an Fm3a up until recently. Faster max shutter speed, better meter.
The finder was dim but very accurate. While modern DSLR screens are brighter, most have less magnification and make it almost impossible to see what is actually in focus with fast lenses.
Which brings me to my main, recurring rant: why do Canon and Nikon make such bad finders in their whiz/bang digitals? The ds3, d3x and 1dx have OK finders, but those cameras HUGE and expensive. Canon should make a 5dIV with a big finder, with .78 or more magnification. Nikon should make a D800 with a big finder. Rant over.
True T,
The fm2 finder was dim, i remember that.
I think Nikon produced a version (was it the
Fe2 ?) Until very recently.
I guess because they had a high demand
From customers.
It tells a lot, a vintage camera that has been
Able to survive well entered the digital age.
Quite amazing.
The M is great but focussing is not easy. The
Other day a friend of mine adapted an olympus
Evf on it, horrible, unworkable in most cases.
Gadget like.
But files are gorgeous.
I think that the closest to the fm2 in digital
Could well be this Olympus om digital.
I think Coot has one in his arsenal.
-
I think that the closest to the fm2 in digital
Could well be this Olympus om digital.
I bought three 4/3's. The OMD and gh3's for video.
The Gh3 are great, amazing at both motion and stills.
The OMD I love, it's like a film camera to me in the fact it's not too big, actually could be 1/8th larger to be perfect.
The files are great, kind of neg film like, really beautiful and pastel if you like, though don't really go above 1000, actually 800 is as high as they should go without issue.
The files aren't medium format detailed, or cmos dslr smooth, I think they're just pretty and have gotten use to the evf, actually like it.
With film I had omd2's, then Nikon's FM2's (great cameras - lasted forever) and f3, loved it . . . sort of, a N-90 great camera, an F5 amazing camera, an f4 I didn't like and dumped it in a few weeks.
I really hope olympus makes one more upscale version of the omd, rumor has they will, or they won't, but I love shooting with it, love the 4/3 crop and the olympus lenses are freaky good.
All they need to do is make their next version work well with their legacy 4:3 lenses like the 150 f2.
This is mine with a panasonic Leica 25mm.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/omd.JPG)
IMO
BC
-
Since we are veering from Chinese sensors for aerial photography (not MF) cameras to old MF Nikons to MFT:
The OMD I love, it's like a film camera to me in the fact it's not too big, actually could be 1/8th larger to be perfect.
Agreed: it would be perfect for me for the next body in the OMD line (and many mirrorless bodies) to be a bit bigger, for easier operation --- so long as they keep most of the lenses small. Basically, the opposite of the Sony NEX approach.
-
The FE2 had "A" priority which was great. I had one that my mother destroyed by dropping into a toilet in Malta.
That sounds like a story worth telling over a beer!
BTW you didn't say whether she did it on purpose? ;D
Ray
-
I had an FM and then replaced it with an FM2 later - both only for the higher synch. speeds they allowed than did the F or F2.
I disliked both cameras, thinking then far lower quality than the F and F2 and yes, they were lighter, but tinny with it. The shutters sounded very second-class and I always felt that both cheap bodies produced less sharp images. I don't think the backs held the film as flat. As bad, the later version disallowed the use of all of my non-AI'd Nikkors, reducing the useability of my armoury to just a couple of lenses.
Had they not had that synch. advantage I wouldn't have dreamed of buying them, and that trick about lens compatability wasn't known until the purchase had been made and I'd returned to Spain, by which time it would have meant another trip to the UK just to dump the devil.
Shows you how snappers' ideas and shared experiences differ!
Rob C
-
Very true Rob,
The shutter sounded very second-class,
I remember that it shocked me each time.
I hated the shutter sound of this camera.
-
I bought three 4/3's. The OMD and gh3's for video.
The Gh3 are great, amazing at both motion and stills.
The OMD I love, it's like a film camera to me in the fact it's not too big, actually could be 1/8th larger to be perfect.
The files are great, kind of neg film like, really beautiful and pastel if you like, though don't really go above 1000, actually 800 is as high as they should go without issue.
The files aren't medium format detailed, or cmos dslr smooth, I think they're just pretty and have gotten use to the evf, actually like it.
With film I had omd2's, then Nikon's FM2's (great cameras - lasted forever) and f3, loved it . . . sort of, a N-90 great camera, an F5 amazing camera, an f4 I didn't like and dumped it in a few weeks.
I really hope olympus makes one more upscale version of the omd, rumor has they will, or they won't, but I love shooting with it, love the 4/3 crop and the olympus lenses are freaky good.
All they need to do is make their next version work well with their legacy 4:3 lenses like the 150 f2.
This is mine with a panasonic Leica 25mm.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/omd.JPG)
IMO
BC
But when you talk about prety skintones,
Is it relatively right-out-the-box, or is it
That you had to dig into crazy settings
And run weeks of testings to
Finaly obtain the skintones ? (thinking for
Ex of the sony and magentas that is a
Pain in the ass to get it right)
It's intrresting to know your findings
With the Oly.
-
That sounds like a story worth telling over a beer!
BTW you didn't say whether she did it on purpose? ;D
Ray
I thought only "her" mother did such things :)
Edmund
-
But when you talk about prety skintones,
Is it relatively right-out-the-box, or is it
That you had to dig into crazy settings
And run weeks of testings to
Finaly obtain the skintones ?
I find all digital to be scene dependent when it comes to skintones.
The most detailed my phase backs, the most global (and it a way harder to work my canon 1dx).
The Oly OMD, I find to be neg like, somewhat pastel and muted (but I have it set on standard. )
No I didn't dig through a lot of menus to hit colour but with both the pana and oly 4:3 I learned them both at once so it was a little confusing and they both have deep menus with the Pana being about twice as deep as the oly/.
But bottom line is I think if you took the oly set it at standard, shot you'd like it, but to each his own.
Understand, I didn't buy these little cameras to replace a RED or a 1dx, just like I didn't buy the 1dx to replace my phase and contax. They all have there place.
But in regards to skintones, the only constant I ever see that is beautiful is that weird little leica M-8 with profoto strobes. All skin tones with that combination look amazing (which is not what the camera was meant for).
Go figure.
I think colour is all very personal.
The original Canon 1ds I thought was pretty, after that they seemed to be less pretty, more orange. All Nikon skintones give me fits to be point I haven't tried the d800 (guess I should but . . .).
My phase contax orignally had awful skintones, but c-1 improved and now they're pretty and I still think ccd's offer a deeper richer look. (once again this is personal).
I do know that I went by a Leica store in London last week and the owner said he can't keep M9's in stock . . . period. He bought a dozen when the 240 was announced and sold them in a day.
He said it was people wanted the full frame ccd so maybe some others feel the same.
The little 4:3 cameras shoot a good file and when I say film like I mean it's about the same detail and look of 35mm film. Not over crazy detailed, just pretty . . . but that's my opinion.
IMO
BC
-
That sounds like a story worth telling over a beer!
BTW you didn't say whether she did it on purpose? ;D
Ray
My mother had and still has a tendency to break cameras. She was a PJ, shot for the Bay Guardian, LA Times, NY Times, UPI, AP, covered Watergate, Nixon's resignation, the Shah when he was in the US, long form documentary projects on mental health facilities in California etc. She had Nikon F's, but destroyed them one way or another. She ended up using Nikkormats and FM's because they were cheaper to replace.
In Malta she was shooting a summer fireworks festival and the reaction of Libyan refugees. I lent her my FE2 for shooting at night, so she could set a 50mm at f2 and fire away. After shooting, she sets camera on toilet. Flushes toilet. Camera slides into bowel. She drys it out and gives it back to me when she gets back, only admitting to the foul after Nippon in NYC tore it apart and found the water damage.
-
The FM2 shutter is bullit proof. It is loud and harsh, but to me its feels solid, like a tractor. Not nice, but solid. I always found the FM2 to be sharp as sharp can be.
I had an FM and then replaced it with an FM2 later - both only for the higher synch. speeds they allowed than did the F or F2.
I disliked both cameras, thinking then far lower quality than the F and F2 and yes, they were lighter, but tinny with it. The shutters sounded very second-class and I always felt that both cheap bodies produced less sharp images. I don't think the backs held the film as flat. As bad, the later version disallowed the use of all of my non-AI'd Nikkors, reducing the useability of my armoury to just a couple of lenses.
Had they not had that synch. advantage I wouldn't have dreamed of buying them, and that trick about lens compatability wasn't known until the purchase had been made and I'd returned to Spain, by which time it would have meant another trip to the UK just to dump the devil.
Shows you how snappers' ideas and shared experiences differ!
Rob C
-
The FM2 shutter is bullit proof. It is loud and harsh, but to me its feels solid, like a tractor. Not nice, but solid. I always found the FM2 to be sharp as sharp can be.
When I started I shot industrial, annual reports, etc. Would crawl up oil rigs on the Texas Mexico border, go into steal mills in Mexico, shot on a movie for 4 months with rain towers.
I tried olympus om1s and 2s loved them but wore them out. I had some used F2's didn't like them, they rattled all the time and went to fm's. My FM's looked like they were dragged behind a car but always worked.
In water, in heat, covered in oil goo, they just worked and the shutters never blew out. I had three and they were so bulletproof I only really had three so I could carry extra lenses.
Maybe the OMD reminds me of a small 35mm camera and that's probably why I like it.
New digital dslrs look goofy to me, kind of like a cd player boom box that's meant to look like a future phone or something that I don't really get.
IMO
BC
-
I am not sure what this has to do with medium format cameras and backs. It sounds like yet another very large, very expensive custom sensor for aerial and satellite photography, like ones that companies like Fairchild and Teledyne-Dalsa make. Do we know anything about the size of the sensor or its photosites?
Actually, scratch "expensive": so far it is just an attention-getting university press office blurb about a research prototype, so price is meaningless. Like the recent university PR puff piece suggesting that a new graphene sensor is 1000 times more sensitive than existing CMOS sensors, when in fact it is less sensitive.
P. S. Some 100MP+ Dalsa sensors actually available in products; up to 250MP:
http://www.aerial-survey-base.com/blog/zi-imaging-releases-digital-camera-system-dmc-ii-250/
http://www.intergraph.com/assets/pdf/coverage/GeoInformatics-5-2010-DMCII-page8-11.pdf
http://www.dcviews.com/press/dalsa-140.htm
BJL is that Intergraph the same one which did the workstations (long ago) ?
Looks like they are into Geosystems now. I can remember when we bought our first workstation from them, that was really cool at the time using dual pentium pros (V1).
Don´t ask about the price, I have decided to forget about how much we have sunk into this........... :o
-
Maybe the Chinese will give us retro, or how about a twin lens digital camera or a rangefinder 645?
Is it just me, or does it bother anyone else that our "professional" cameras look like the same black plastic hunks I see hanging around every tourists neck?
I honestly can't tell what camera any of the people I see walking down sunset, broadway, through Knightsbridge have. a 5d looks like a 6d, 60 d 70 d (is there a 70 d?) and the same with Nikons until they get tiny, tiny or huge huge.
If there is one thing that is crazy awful about digital is the commonality of the cameras.
If I was Phase One, I'd be building Mamiya rangefinders and twinslens like there was no tomorrow?
Then again, I'm not Phase One.
IMO
BC
-
The FM2 I still have went to subsaharan Africa, Eastern Europe, through Mojave, DC crack houses. I had it CLA'd once, when the string that advances the aperture broke and the light seals were just too fargone. I could still shoot it by stopping down to meter and shoot, and, in front of the Ku'Dam, outside, on the street, I took the mount apart and tied the string back together which sort of worked for a month or so. Just bullet proof, simple, repairable. I would not try this with a D800, or any digital for that matter. Maybe the Leica M, maybe not.
Speaking of Leica, I might start a blog called "Strange Shit My Digital Leicas Do" detailing the odd, odd "quirks" of the M8 and M9.
When I started I shot industrial, annual reports, etc. Would crawl up oil rigs on the Texas Mexico border, go into steal mills in Mexico, shot on a movie for 4 months with rain towers.
I tried olympus om1s and 2s loved them but wore them out. I had some used F2's didn't like them, they rattled all the time and went to fm's. My FM's looked like they were dragged behind a car but always worked.
In water, in heat, covered in oil goo, they just worked and the shutters never blew out. I had three and they were so bulletproof I only really had three so I could carry extra lenses.
Maybe the OMD reminds me of a small 35mm camera and that's probably why I like it.
New digital dslrs look goofy to me, kind of like a cd player boom box that's meant to look like a future phone or something that I don't really get.
IMO
BC
-
Speaking of Leica, I might start a blog called "Strange Shit My Digital Leicas Do" detailing the odd, odd "quirks" of the M8 and M9.
I can add at least 20 things, thank god because at least they look and work like a camera not a iPhone,pod,pad.
-
Hi,
Most things are made in China anyway. First we had made in Germany, later made in Japan and now made in China. I guess this is evolution.
Regarding cameras and stuff, I don't care where they are made, I don't care about the name, but I care a lot if they do what they are supposed to do.
Best regards
Erik
Maybe the Chinese will give us retro, or how about a twin lens digital camera or a rangefinder 645?
Is it just me, or does it bother anyone else that our "professional" cameras look like the same black plastic hunks I see hanging around every tourists neck?
I honestly can't tell what camera any of the people I see walking down sunset, broadway, through Knightsbridge have. a 5d looks like a 6d, 60 d 70 d (is there a 70 d?) and the same with Nikons until they get tiny, tiny or huge huge.
If there is one thing that is crazy awful about digital is the commonality of the cameras.
If I was Phase One, I'd be building Mamiya rangefinders and twinslens like there was no tomorrow?
Then again, I'm not Phase One.
IMO
BC
-
Hi, I don't care where they are made, I don't care about the name, but I care a lot if they do what they are supposed to do.
Best regards
Erik
But don't you like stuff that's different?
When Terry Richardson shot that little toy Yashica it was different for the genre and caused a stir. I liked that.
Now that he uses all kind of digitals, it looks . . . .I dunno, too normal. http://hvc3.tumblr.com/post/365815707/terry-richardson-and-his-digital-cameras
Normal isn't that good.
IMO
BC
P.S. Normal and TR really don't go together in the same sentence.
-
Hi,
To be more precise, right now I am playing with a Hasselblad 555 ELD and a P45+ which I like a lot. But, could I make he same pictures with a Holga digital, I may have gone with the Holga digital. Why I choose the Hasselblad 555ELD instead of a PhaseOne or a Hasselblad H-series? Because the lenses are dirt cheap! I bought a few lenses and found them good, but wanted to have a sensor making them justice.
I could have a Leica with a single lens for the same price, makes little sense to me. On the other hand I could also bought a Nikon D800E and a few Zeiss lenses for the same price. Now, I wanted to find out about MFD. I actually like MFD! Was it a sane decision to go Hasselblad V-series? Maybe or may be not! I don't actually know.
In essence, I think photography is about results. On the other hand, there is also joy. It's nice to work with good stuff.
An interesting question. In four weeks I will go to a place in the Dolomites I love, Drei Zinnen. Will I carry my Hasselblad 555 ELD with my P45+ or my Sony Alpha 99 with two lenses? I don't know! What I do know is that my RRS tripod and Arca Swiss D4 head will go with me. That is really right stuff! Ten years ago I made two visits, one with my Penatx 67 and one with my 135 equipment.
The shot I made with the Pentax 67 at that time happens to be my most popular image: (http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Sextener-Dolomiten/i-XbwTpPm/0/X2/20021228-DreiZinnen_2002_a19-X2.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
But don't you like stuff that's different?
When Terry Richardson shot that little toy Yashica it was different for the genre and caused a stir. I liked that.
Now that he uses all kind of digitals, it looks . . . .I dunno, too normal. http://hvc3.tumblr.com/post/365815707/terry-richardson-and-his-digital-cameras
Normal isn't that good.
IMO
BC
P.S. Normal and TR really don't go together in the same sentence.
-
Does falling in love count?
That's the problem. If a Canon or Nikon exhibited 25% of the oddities of an M8/M9 they would all be in the trash. But not the Leica.
-
Its a bitch but worth it, as long as you have a backup.
I can add at least 20 things, thank god because at least they look and work like a camera not a iPhone,pod,pad.
-
Maybe the Chinese will give us retro, or how about a twin lens digital camera or a rangefinder 645?
Is it just me, or does it bother anyone else that our "professional" cameras look like the same black plastic hunks I see hanging around every tourists neck?I honestly can't tell what camera any of the people I see walking down sunset, broadway, through Knightsbridge have. a 5d looks like a 6d, 60 d 70 d (is there a 70 d?) and the same with Nikons until they get tiny, tiny or huge huge.
If there is one thing that is crazy awful about digital is the commonality of the cameras.
If I was Phase One, I'd be building Mamiya rangefinders and twinslens like there was no tomorrow?
Then again, I'm not Phase One.
IMO
BC
Cooter,
Yes, I do regret the lack of professional look or image that contemporary camera stuff displays. I definitely did enjoy being at work with the pair of 500 series cameras as well as with the F and F2 Photomic. It was a type of branding, I suppose, like driving your own Aston Martin instead of a Jaguar. Made you feel that you’d arrived, and what’s wrong with that when it took so many years of hard to buy into that stuff?
I didn’t buy an M Leica because I grew up with WYSIWYG and rangefinders were not that. The same fault kept me from the Mamiya 67 RF which seems to have had the best glass around. Okay, I write fault, but I understand that for others that’s an asset.
However, age comes into the equation too. Where carrying film ‘blads then wasn’t that bad, after a few years it would have become too much for me; I dislike carrying even the D700 around unless there’s a set reason for the effort. I’m also starting to believe that it isn’t only the years, but heat (climate) that makes it unpleasant carrying such stuff. In truth, I think heavy cameras are great, as long as you can drive to the location and will be using a tripod anyway…
M9 cameras in stock in London. If I were about to make another poor joke, I’d write that the reason is that dentists there make a helluva lot of moolah. So much, that it is a British thing nowadays that finding a dentist who’ll take you onto his books is pretty damned difficult! But could I have enjoyed a lifetime of other people’s bad breath? Is a Leica worth that?
;-)
Rob C
-
James, thanks to share your experience
On the OM digital.
Highly apreciated.
TMark (gosh, i can't help to think
Of Mark Tucker with this pseudo)
The Fm2 shutter is bullet proof
But frankly very harsh and i'm with
Rob on that, it sounds cheap (but
Isn't). A part from that, i loved the fm2.
Everybody talks about the M, but I'm
Very surprised to hear very little regrets
On the R.
The digital back of the R delivered
Incredible imagery, that could still smoke
A lot of today's new equipment.
I would have loved Leica doing a real R digital
Instead of this S that looks like a dead-end road.
-
After shooting, she sets camera on toilet. Flushes toilet. Camera slides into bowel. She drys it out and gives it back to me when she gets back, only admitting to the foul after Nippon in NYC tore it apart and found the water damage.
Sounds absolutely excruciating! :o
[Some typos are just amazingly apposite to the text they occur in!]
Ray :D
-
The R was never big over here, nor was the Rollei 6008. Both excellent systems.
James, thanks to share your experience
On the OM digital.
Highly apreciated.
TMark (gosh, i can't help to think
Of Mark Tucker with this pseudo)
The Fm2 shutter is bullet proof
But frankly very harsh and i'm with
Rob on that, it sounds cheap (but
Isn't). A part from that, i loved the fm2.
Everybody talks about the M, but I'm
Very surprised to hear very little regrets
On the R.
The digital back of the R delivered
Incredible imagery, that could still smoke
A lot of today's new equipment.
I would have loved Leica doing a real R digital
Instead of this S that looks like a dead-end road.
-
Freudian dyslexic slip!
Sounds absolutely excruciating! :o
[Some typos are just amazingly apposite to the text they occur in!]
Ray :D
-
Rob, don't knock the dentists, doctors and lawyers... Bless 'em, they keep the likes of Leica, Hasselblad, Leaf/Phase and Alpa in business. Without their support we'd all be stuck with the plastic fantastic.
Knock them Keith? I positvely envy them their fiscal muscle!
I'm delighted to score soon-to-be-doc and lawyer as granddaughters!
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob, play your cards right and they might club together to buy their grandfather a little something!
It's a risky waiting game: by the time they get proper, paying jobs I might be in Heaven. Better hope my wife has managd to discover something nice for me for when I turn up to say Hi, it's me!
;-)
Rob C
P.S. I better change that to "Hi, it is I!" She'd never forgive me for screwing up at that basic level.
-
Hi,
My guess is that:
1) The R series did not generate enough income to support development and manufacture
2) Leica didn't want to go into autofocus and they felt that AF was needed to keep R-series viable
The Leica M is somewhat of a legend and it is selling a lot on the basis of being a legend. Selling SLRs may be a different business.
Best regards
Erik
James, thanks to share your experience
On the OM digital.
Highly apreciated.
TMark (gosh, i can't help to think
Of Mark Tucker with this pseudo)
The Fm2 shutter is bullet proof
But frankly very harsh and i'm with
Rob on that, it sounds cheap (but
Isn't). A part from that, i loved the fm2.
Everybody talks about the M, but I'm
Very surprised to hear very little regrets
On the R.
The digital back of the R delivered
Incredible imagery, that could still smoke
A lot of today's new equipment.
I would have loved Leica doing a real R digital
Instead of this S that looks like a dead-end road.
-
Hi,
My guess is that:
1) The R series did not generate enough income to support development and manufacture
2) Leica didn't want to go into autofocus and they felt that AF was needed to keep R-series viable
The Leica M is somewhat of a legend and it is selling a lot on the basis of being a legend. Selling SLRs may be a different business.
Best regards
Erik
When I started my biz, my first few years were in Dallas,.
A famous fashion, beauty and celeb photographer from NY, (names held back to protect the innocent) rented our studio to shoot some celebs.
I was very young, and impressionable, never seen a photographer of this caliber work.
His assistants flew in ahead of him and pre lit the set.
There was this black Halliburton case that was always next to them, almost like it was being guarded.
The photographer came in the day of the shoot in a limo. That was back before the days that everyone took a limo.
He walked in, Dolly Parton was the subject, he quickly introduced himself and his assistants opened that black case which was full of Leica Rs. I don't know which ones, but it looked like that case in Pulp Fiction, when they opened it up it seemed to glow.
When they shot the first roll, the shutter button popped out. His assistants put another body on the tripod and it went down also.
The photographer look a little panicked and asked if he could borrow a camera. I brought over "my" beat up Halliburton, opened it up(it didn't glow). which was full of beat up Nikon FM's and Nikor lenses with the black wearing off. It looked nothing like his beautiful case and I'll admit I was a little embarrassed.
It was like pulling up to the valet at the Mondrian in a worn out Kia with a missing front fender.
Anyway, he used my FM's, got the shot and left 15 minutes later. (back in the days where one shot a day was considered normal).
After that I lusted for Leica R's and when I finally could afford them I'd go to buy and add up the cost of cameras and lenses, call rental houses in every market I worked and of course few if anyone rented them (outside of NY).
Then I just dropped the thought.
When leica came out with their digital module back, I was ready.
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111026142041/camerapedia/images/0/04/Leicadmodulea.jpg)
(http://terrysham.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dmr5b55d.jpg)
I ran over to Eli Kurland to see one, shot a few frames and realized with the crop, the fact it used old Imacon software it just wasn't that usable for me.
The files were beautiful and like most ccd's really were deep, but the crop factor in that somewhat small viewfinder just unraveled the deal.
Flash forward to today.
The S-2 is nice but nothing like the Rs. Why Leica didn't go to autofocus on the R's is beyond me, but I can understand why they didn't go the 35mm route for their dslr.
After all people's brains are caught up in buying megapixels, pros and amateurs. And cost is also a factor. The professional still camera of choice today seems to be a D800 or a 5d3.
I think those camera both work well, but look average, nothing special, surely not the pulp fiction glow, but that's the way it is today.
The S2 I would love to own one, but for real work, It's kind of old think, doesn't have it's own dedicated tethering suite, doesn't shoot any form of video, the lenses are really expensive. Beautiful single purpose camera.
I think now Leica lives off it's name and has that old world craftsman view of if we build something beautiful enough people will come, which I guess works, but most makers of anything first study a market and then build what the market wants or will at least will buy now.
I like the old think way, but need the new think way.
Imagine if Leica built the S2 that had all the functionality of the Panasonic GH3, great video, wi-fi tethering to ipads, internal i.s., different aspect ratios. Then I could justify it.
Actually funny thing is R lenses (not bodies) have dropped in price but are somewhat in demand for digital video cameras. Some people change mounts to PL or Nikon and they work well. They're not crunchy sharp but have beautiful fall off.
The only issue with R lenses is they are not the fastest, 2.8 usually the max and in the film world 1.2, 1.4 is fast 2.0 is kind of slow.
Still I would love a digital R, the prices are good now, the lenses semi cheap and I think you can buy the digital modules for 2 grand, but why?
Maybe for that pul[p fiction glow.
-
Cooter, when I see an R8 or R9 I get all gooey. I think hey are the most beautiful cameras ever built. I am constantly about to buy one from KEH. A guy I know uses an R8 for editorial alongside a Hasselblad V. They feel nice too. What holds me back, and held me back from buying back then, was the fact that an F5 or F4 or F3 were better cameras in almost every way, and besides, I was shooting everything on 645 and larger film. If I bought one to use with film it would be a curiosity. The DMR doesn't do it for me like an M9, although what I've seen is better than an M8, which means pretty nice. You are right about h viewfinder as well, not up to its Pro Nikon and Canon contemporaries.
And the S. Well, my issue is price for a single purpose camera. In many ways it is the best camera made, besides the Hy6/AFI. If an S and three lenses were only twice as much as a D800/5d3/1dx with 3 top lenses, I'd bite. But an S and three lenses (wide, normal and short telephoto) is what, $40k? That is a bit high for my Scottish lineage to accept.
-
TMARK,
That's funny you write about the same two cameras ... R+DMR and Rollei 6008... I had the DMR and really loved it for its simplicity and nice files (with daylight or strobes), but had a moment of weakness when it was off in service and picked up a used 6008AF and a P20 back and pretty much never looked back. Now you could say I drank the Rollei cool-aid so I'm totally biased ;) ... but as much as I loved the Leica R8 and the lenses, the Schneider glass for the Rollei seemed even better. Everything on the Rollei seemed better, viewfinder, ergonomics, flash sync, leaf shutters, etc. That said, I still keep a few R lenses in my closet hoping they would come out with a good successor.
-
That said, I still keep a few R lenses in my closet hoping they would come out with a good successor.
Eric,
I assume that you know about these guys? http://leitax.com/leica-lens-for-nikon-cameras.html
I am using their mount replacements on Leica R 180mm f2.8 and 280mm f4 with my D800, they work well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You guys are nostalgic for the old look, and you may be saying something valuable. The current crop of cameras have been pushed too far, they are overbred. The high ISO and big pixel count have in some way been bought at the expense of looking a bit soft and creating files that "break", while quite a few of the oldies made files that had teeth and glowed. I think in animal husbandry this effect is called overbreeding.
The other day some old cooter here was saying he might have just stayed with his old 1Ds; well I wonder whether nowadays he might not just get some random camera eg. 6D and get it and stay with it - my reasoning is that in still photography, if the cameras haven't got better over 10 years, they won't really get better quickly enough to matter . In video of course we're at the beginning of a new age, and things are changing by the day.
Edmund
-
You guys are nostalgic for the old look, and you may be saying something valuable. The current crop of cameras have been pushed too far, they are overbred. The high ISO and big pixel count have in some way been bought at the expense of looking a bit soft and creating files that "break", while quite a few of the oldies made files that had teeth and glowed. I think in animal husbandry this effect is called overbreeding.
Edmund
The D800 has an amazing file that out weighs the fact that it has all the allure and romance of the Hitachi drill I bought over the weekend. I would have no problem with the D800 as an appliance if it had a big finder. But it doesn't.
-
The D800 has an amazing file that out weighs the fact that it has all the allure and romance of the Hitachi drill I bought over the weekend. I would have no problem with the D800 as an appliance if it had a big finder. But it doesn't.
I don't know about the D800, but I'll believe you. I have a D4 and it does all those wonderful pro camera things and follows and focuses on my 2 year old all around the house in available light- strange how only pro cameras can do the things which every amateur needs most - but the images look *weird* with his mom's face turning magenta when it's right next to the kid's face in the picture*. The High ISO has been bought at the price of some color fidelity. Overbreeding.
Edmund
*yes, I do know about camera profiling.
-
TMARK,
That's funny you write about the same two cameras ... R+DMR and Rollei 6008... I had the DMR and really loved it for its simplicity and nice files (with daylight or strobes), but had a moment of weakness when it was off in service and picked up a used 6008AF and a P20 back and pretty much never looked back. Now you could say I drank the Rollei cool-aid so I'm totally biased ;) ... but as much as I loved the Leica R8 and the lenses, the Schneider glass for the Rollei seemed even better. Everything on the Rollei seemed better, viewfinder, ergonomics, flash sync, leaf shutters, etc. That said, I still keep a few R lenses in my closet hoping they would come out with a good successor.
I STILL havn't bought a 6008/AFI. I'm sticking with the D800e and RZ/film for studio and portraits and the Leica M and Hasselblad V for editorial. I'm doing little photo work these days, and when I do its for love not money, which means I can't justify a large outlay when I'm fine with what I have.
-
Eric,
I assume that you know about these guys? http://leitax.com/leica-lens-for-nikon-cameras.html
I am using their mount replacements on Leica R 180mm f2.8 and 280mm f4 with my D800, they work well.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, you are correct, and if you look his website, the pictures of the adapter fitment for the fabled f/2.8 35-70mm elmarit are mine. Now that was a R lens!
I do use my R lenses on my DSLR once in a while, the 80/1.4 summilux mostly, but I just as often use the olympus OM 55/1.2. But in all honestly, I loan out my DSLR to friends more than I use it.
-
I don't know about the D800, but I'll believe you. I have a D4 and it does all those wonderful pro camera things and follows and focuses on my 2 year old all around the house in available light- strange how only pro cameras can do the things which every amateur needs most - but the images look *weird* with his mom's face turning magenta when it's right next to the kid's face in the picture*. The High ISO has been bought at the price of some color fidelity. Overbreeding.
Edmund
*yes, I do know about camera profiling.
I don't like looking at images at 100% on the computer. I don't view that way on the finished image on the web, or in print, so being able to see micro, micro, micro detail from two blocks away doesn't really move me. (I know for many it does).
I just look at the overall image and in commerce can I shoot it profitably and meet the creative brief. Personal/editorial and commercial work are way different animals, (they shouldn't be but they are) and since th economic downturn, we produce three times the imagery for each shoot day than we did before.
Now I'm not nostalgic. I have the cameras, computers, lack of sleep to prove it. I just don't like anything that's not pretty, in what the cameras look like and what they can produce.
I loved the use of the Nikon D3, D4 D700, but had a lot of issues with the colour. I see some of the same with the Canon 1dx and 5d3, which are my least favorite Canons made.
They just seem way too ambient color receptive (if that is a term) and sometimes too global in colour. I've mentioned this before but I have one image we shot of four different ethinic women on a beach in soft light and you can put a dropper on the skin tones and they all look within 10% of the same.
Direct light seems to cure some of cmos digital's ills, but it takes a lot of light crafting to do this and unfortunately in today's time frame on set, you just don't have the time it takes to craft one image every 4 hours.
I don't know where places like DXO get there numbers, but there is no place on their charts for pretty and of course what looks good or doesn't is very user specific.
I also don't hold out any hopes for a modern R-9, (I would bet that Leica assumes the S series is the modern R-9) and if I only shot stills, at a slower pace I'd give the S a serious look.
(Actually not true. If I could shoot at a slower pace, I just use my p21+ and the contax. To me that is the perfect camera and digital for stills and tethers like a rock.
I know I'll get blowback from this statement but I don't think any camera really goes to 800 asa (iso) without something suffering. Whether it becomes more global in colour or loses sharpness to kill noise, there is something going on behind the curtain that changes things.
When I bought my p30+ and p21+ they wouldn't cleanly go beyond 400 and it was noticeable even at a distance. Now they go one stop better due to c-1's processing. (once again behind the curtain).
Maybe the reason I like the 4:3 cameras, gh3 and OMD. The files are small, and kind of look like film did which means I think they don't see everything and like film is kind of stupid. I know that to me I shoot them more like film, watching the highlights, crafting a little more fill and they don't look as flat and need so much post work to get them to where I want.
But it's not that I like the 4:3 cameras that much, the gh3 is like a small nikon or canon in that it's kind of ugly and does a lot of electronic stuff, (though shoots damn pretty in motion and stills).
The gh3 does something with continuous lighting that is insane. What you see in the viewfinder is virtually identical to what you'll see on the screen as in manual mode the evf reflects the exposure and tone of the final image. That is way good.
The OMD works differently in that the viewfinder thinks it's optical and no matter what you change, the viewfinder stays the same. It is just a pretty camera and we use it for some motion work if the subject is moving and we need to track with them like a stedicam, because the image stabliziton is crazy good, but it doesn't work as well as the gh3's.
My Leica M8 I use and use. It's not that I'm in love with rangefinders, (I'm not), or the feel of the leica (well sort of), but I love the look of the file. It makes no sense how well that camera works with profoto strobe and it also makes no sense that leica never thought about how to tether it.
Anyway .....................
In a way, none of this matters if you have time to really do a lot of post production on an image. If you have the budget and time post production will fix almost any ills if the subject/photo is compelling.
That really shouldn't be the plan, but it is.
It's funny, the once cmos camera that I think produces beautiful color is the Red Ones. They look like my ccd based cameras, but you have to set them up close to final to get that look.
I guess we should always do that.
IMO
BC
-
Yes, you are correct, and if you look his website, the pictures of the adapter fitment for the fabled f/2.8 35-70mm elmarit are mine. Now that was a R lens!
I do use my R lenses on my DSLR once in a while, the 80/1.4 summilux mostly, but I just as often use the olympus OM 55/1.2. But in all honestly, I loan out my DSLR to friends more than I use it.
When I bought the 4:3 cameras I couldn't wait t use my leica lenses. For one they look way cool on a gh3, or OMD and when you manually focus the lenses they electronically zoom in so for once I could use the leica 90 and focus it.
I was surprised that the leicas had ca, blue fringing, and not that sharp in comparison to the olympus lenses and the smoothness of the pana lenses.
Still I use them for kicks, they look way good on that plastic gh3, and have great colour.
Fringing is easy to take out.
IMO
BC
-
When I bought the 4:3 cameras I couldn't wait t use my leica lenses. For one they look way cool on a gh3, or OMD and when you manually focus the lenses they electronically zoom in so for once I could use the leica 90 and focus it.
I was surprised that the leicas had ...
Absolutly. That is something that has been noticed over and over again on the m4/3. M lenses aren't stellar at all on those cameras. I ignore the reason why but it's a prooven fact.
-
Hi,
Half the sensor size...
A smaller sensor allows for better correction of the lens and makes higher demands on the optical designs. Olympus and Panasonic design lenses with less aberrations and higher MTF.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Pana and Oly lenses will measure better, which will give better image may depend on what you are looking for.
Best regards
Erik
Absolutly. That is something that has been noticed over and over again on the m4/3. M lenses aren't stellar at all on those cameras. I ignore the reason why but it's a prooven fact.
-
A lot of the older lenses designed for film will get the blue/green fringing since the color emulsions had different depths but digital sensors are flat. I find that I often spot the blue/purple but rarely see the green but its there. This is called Axial chromatic aberration and is harder to take out of an image than lateral CA (magenta/green) but remove purple fringing seems to do it in C1 okay.
-
I don't know where places like DXO get there numbers, but there is no place on their charts for pretty and of course what looks good or doesn't is very user specific.
BC
The camera phones are now driving the industry technology and also to some extent the measurements have to make the new products look good, which means the tests are tweaked to give better numbers for big MP small sensors. Numbers are like cameras: They do show what's there, except they are setup to show what you want them to show. As the famous russian photographer Mevedev put it - there are lies, damn lies and camera tests :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
Half the sensor size...
A smaller sensor allows for better correction of the lens and makes higher demands on the optical designs. Olympus and Panasonic design lenses with less aberrations and higher MTF.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Pana and Oly lenses will measure better, which will give better image may depend on what you are looking for.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for this precision Erik. It makes sense.
Cheers.
-
Hi,
Almost all large aperture lenses have significant axial chromatic aberration. I only know of a single lens that is free from it, and that would be the Voigtländer Apo Lanthar (120 mm?). There may be other lenses that are free from axial chromatic aberration.
Diglloyd found some axial chroma on the Leica S2 lenses he tested, that was showing up as purple fringing. The reason he was sure that it was axial chroma and not a sensor issue was that he could eliminate it using IR and UV cut of filters.
To my surprise, my otherwise excellent Sonnar 150/4 also has axial chroma, see below for a sample at f/5.6. It usually goes away after stopping down a few stops. An identical shot with my Sony 70-400/4.-5.6 at f/8 does not show the color fringing.
The new Zeiss 55/1.4 Apo Distagon is said to have virtually zero axial chroma at full aperture.
Best regards
Erik
A lot of the older lenses designed for film will get the blue/green fringing since the color emulsions had different depths but digital sensors are flat. I find that I often spot the blue/purple but rarely see the green but its there. This is called Axial chromatic aberration and is harder to take out of an image than lateral CA (magenta/green) but remove purple fringing seems to do it in C1 okay.
-
Bcooter,
The WISIWIG EVF is available on the OMD. But they screwed it up. It does not work if you use the small focus rectangle and in some other modes. But when it does work, it is great. They have one feature that I'd like to see on my GH3: the highlights blink white if overexposed and the shadow turn blue if underexposed in WISIWIG mode.
You probably have been using the camera in one of the modes that the feature is unavailable. I point you in the right direction but the OMD menu makes my head hurt and I can never remember what to set. As a safety, after I set it up the way I wanted, I committed those settings to Myset 1. Check you manual or peruse the web for more info.
Larry
-
Bcooter,
The WISIWIG EVF is available on the OMD. But they screwed it up. It does not work if you use the small focus rectangle and in some other modes. But when it does work, it is great. They have one feature that I'd like to see on my GH3: the highlights blink white if overexposed and the shadow turn blue if underexposed in WISIWIG mode.
You probably have been using the camera in one of the modes that the feature is unavailable. I point you in the right direction but the OMD menu makes my head hurt and I can never remember what to set. As a safety, after I set it up the way I wanted, I committed those settings to Myset 1. Check you manual or peruse the web for more info.
Larry
Thanks. I got in late last night and looked around the web, too much information that doesn't apply. I'll find the wysiwyg omd thing tomorrow when I have a slight few hours break.
Not to go off topic, but who the hell thought nondescript dials, buried menus an quick keys were the answer for a shutter speed dial and f stop on the lens. Fuji has it almost right, Leica the same, but all could pick up an old Nikon or Contax and get the idea pretty quickly.
BTW: Fuji, Leica, Olympus and even Canon should look at the usability of a gh3. That is the closest to a one camera does all machine made. Ugly but good.
Anyway,
Between the 1dx, gh3 and omd, it takes a total of 2 days to basically learn the menu, another week for it to become close to intuitive.
Something has gotten lost from electronics and analog when it comes to intuitiveness.
IMo
BC
-
BTW: Fuji, Leica, Olympus and even Canon should look at the usability of a gh3. That is the closest to a one camera does all machine made. Ugly but good.
Don't call my baby Ugly! :D
Beauty follows function.
Larry
-
when I'm fine with what I have.
Sounds like it - 4 cameras and no slouches either!
Its interesting to me how long some of these cameras last like the RZ or the V or 6008 or even TLR. My TLR is probably 50 yrs old but wow, what a great picture it makes, and it still works like new even the meter. But can't even remember my first canon digitals which are long gone now already, and who would even want them. Surely the fates of the new cameras discussed in this thread like the OM-D and D800E will be similar? Can't imagine someone using them for the length of their career like the RZ or V or TLR or R-8 or M. So why is that? What's changed? Not the prices.
I look at the D800E and wonder (as great as the sensor is) why they couldn't have made it even the quality of viewfinder of their older film cameras, or give a fast sync speed, or make a camera that isn't as affected by shutter vibration.
-
I also have a Tech IV and a Sinar P. The Tech IV is from 1953. I rarely shoot LF film but when I do, I grab the IV. It's light. The rangefinder works. Enough movement for a 90mm lens, although rise is limited by the bellows hitting the body, but Linhof figured as much so they have a tripod mound on the top of the camera for mounting it upside down. More ridged than any other 4x5 I've used or even heard about.
The TLRs are really nice. Love'em.
In any case, with digital the limiting factor is the sensor. If you could swap sensors you could keep say a 1ds forever. I still shoot with the FM2 now and again and you know in IQ terms it fairs well against other Nikon film cameras of more recent vintage that cost way more because the film is the same as shot in an FM2 or an F5.
If the M8 didn't have so many issues I'd still be shooting one. Scratch that, if Leica NJ service weren't so smug and unhelpful I'd still be shooting my M8. They are much, much better now. Much better, and fast.
The only thing I dislike about the D800 is the finder and the tricky color. My copy has no excessive shutter slap. Handholds well at 1/20th. I get moire handholding at 1/30.
Sounds like it - 4 cameras and no slouches either!
Its interesting to me how long some of these cameras last like the RZ or the V or 6008 or even TLR. My TLR is probably 50 yrs old but wow, what a great picture it makes, and it still works like new even the meter. But can't even remember my first canon digitals which are long gone now already, and who would even want them. Surely the fates of the new cameras discussed in this thread like the OM-D and D800E will be similar? Can't imagine someone using them for the length of their career like the RZ or V or TLR or R-8 or M. So why is that? What's changed? Not the prices.
I look at the D800E and wonder (as great as the sensor is) why they couldn't have made it even the quality of viewfinder of their older film cameras, or give a fast sync speed, or make a camera that isn't as affected by shutter vibration.
-
If the M8 didn't have so many issues I'd still be shooting one. Scratch that, if Leica NJ service weren't so smug and unhelpful I'd still be shooting my M8. They are much, much better now. Much better, and fast.
Two nights ago I was packing to go on a location scout and to shoot the subject interview to build the creative brief. I took 1 gh3, the omd, a shoulder bag of lenses.
Sitting on my desk full charged with new batteries, was my M8. I fired a shot into the studio with mixed light and it looked so pretty, I thought why not . . . and threw it in the bag also.
Today Set up the gh3 on a tripod, dropped a mike out of frame, ran the gh3 and picked up the M-8, turned it on, red light stays lit, dead. Switched batteries . . . (new battery) . . . dead, switch cards (recently formatted . . . dead.
Thought screw it, picked up the OMD and completed the scout and interview.
Tonight, was taking stuff out of the bag and there was the m-8. Turned it on and bam . . . works fine.]
So T.
What was that web blog you were going to start?
IMO
BC
-
;D ;D ;D
World is small...
Guess what? The exact same
Issue happened to me a week
Ago with a M.
We were doing a personal
Shooting at a friend's place and
Pufffff...out of order just like that,
Then when we didn't need it
Anymore...back to life...by itself.
-
Perhaps she had a headache?
Or maybe she saw my Gainsbourg face
On her sensor and refused to work any longuer...
-
Its just batty. The straw that broke the camel's back was a horrific blooming that manifested as jagged edges poking out of blown highlights, like when shooting a high key backlit portrait where you blow a white background with strobes. These jagged edges would intrude into the subject, and this isn't pixel peeping, this is at 25% and in a letter sized print. The M8 did this with window light too, this wasn't an extreme, non-approved use of a digital camera. Leica NJ told me it wasn't a problem after looking at the raws. I kept sending them. They kept deneying there was any issue. It was like a Rumsfeld press conference, a complete denial of reality. I later found that the PCB board was bad. I sold it, after disclosing the issue, for $800. I wanted to rid myself of the camera and Leica. I tghen sold my M9 and my Zeiss ZM lenses. But I missed the M9. So bought another one and its relatively well behaved, just so long as I don't review images when its writing to the card. Or use it with less than 50% charge, which is down from 70% after some experimentation with shutter modes, card writing, iso's etc. And when I sent my M9 to have the RF adjusted, they turned it around in 2 days and wer every nice about everything.
It is love with the M.
Two nights ago I was packing to go on a location scout and to shoot the subject interview to build the creative brief. I took 1 gh3, the omd, a shoulder bag of lenses.
Sitting on my desk full charged with new batteries, was my M8. I fired a shot into the studio with mixed light and it looked so pretty, I thought why not . . . and threw it in the bag also.
Today Set up the gh3 on a tripod, dropped a mike out of frame, ran the gh3 and picked up the M-8, turned it on, red light stays lit, dead. Switched batteries . . . (new battery) . . . dead, switch cards (recently formatted . . . dead.
Thought screw it, picked up the OMD and completed the scout and interview.
Tonight, was taking stuff out of the bag and there was the m-8. Turned it on and bam . . . works fine.]
So T.
What was that web blog you were going to start?
IMO
BC
-
The other day someone asked me how I was getting on with the Leica to which I replied it's a joy.
Can't remember the last time I said that about a camera.
For myself, I think I remember the last time was when saying similar about the Pentax 67 11; it wasn't a long-lived emotion. Which is a pity. We divorced quite quickly. I hate alimony as a concept.
Rob C
-
The other day someone asked me how I was getting on with the Leica to which I replied it's a joy.
Can't remember the last time I said that about a camera.
Keith,
If my memory serves me, after many years of Hasselblad use it has taken you some time and patience to switch to Leica.
May I ask which Leica and lenses you find useful for the abandoned buildings type of work that you do?
Thank you.
Richard
-
The other day someone asked me how I was getting on with the Leica to which I replied it's a joy.
Can't remember the last time I said that about a camera.
Included the viewfinder...a joy?
What about focussing accuracy ?
I point that because if I'm not Cooter as a creative
Photographer, my only strengh with a camera is that
I'm normaly very good at manual focussing...except...
With the M. 40% of my shots are not spot-on with this
Camera. It's a huge %...
It's a sliding brick.
Can't decide if it's too big or too small,
Electronic reliability is...german built?
(maybe an heritage of DDR)
Now...files are stunning. No question on that.
-
Thanks, Rob, we can always rely on your optimistic attitude and positive vibes!
Hey, a least one of my relationships lasted for life! Okay, not a camera one, because they were sabotaged by the industry, but a relationship nonetheless. Optimism is my middle name - or it will be once the lottery turns my way. I think I've even decided that yes, I would probaby buy a Sunseeker after all, even if just for the bragging rights. You see how photography has affected me?
;-)
Rob C
-
Included the viewfinder...a joy?
What about focussing accuracy ?
I point that because if I'm not Cooter as a creative
Photographer, my only strengh with a camera is that
I'm normaly very good at manual focussing...except...
With the M. 40% of my shots are not spot-on with this
Camera. It's a huge %...
It's a sliding brick. Can't decide if it's too big or too small,
Electronic reliability is...german built?
(maybe an heritage of DDR)
Now...files are stunning. No question on that.
Hi Fred, I remember you telling me that once when I was tempted - ever so slightly...
I believe the heat wave is going to stretch from the Canaries right through the peninsula and across to the Baleares: we shall have a week between 43 and 45 degrees C.
Let's all go out making pictures in the sunshine!
I washed the car today, and since the slot behind the hood (where the wipers nestle) is impossible to clean by hand, I had to open the hood to clear it (the slot) of dead leaves and flowers from the trees where I park when I go to eat.
Inside the engine compartment I found cooked snails. Poor buggers; I'm sure they must have been as surprised as I was.
When I lifted the wipers off the screen, they left strips of rubber behind. That has never happened to me before in 32 years of living in Spain. Global warming, of course, is a myth.
;-)
Rob C
-
Richard, I haven't actually switched to Leica, for the moment I've just added an M9 as a walk-around camera. I've an M240 on order and the hope is that with the addition of an EVF and liveview I'll have a system that will allow me to do much that I currently do with the H but at a third of the weight and size. I aim to use either the 21mm Super Elmar-M f3.4 ASPH or possibly the 18mm Super Elmar-M f3.8 ASP. I’ve also experimented using the M9 on a tripod replicating this kind of work of work, the files are excellent but critical framing and composition will be easier with the 240.
In the meantime I'm having great fun with the M9 and a 35mm Summilux f1.4 ASPH. The camera feels analogue in its simplicity and the files have a quality that are similar in feel to the Hasselblad. Perhaps it’s the CCD sensor or lack of AA filter, whatever, I’m enjoying the ride.
Thank you Keith. I appreciate your reply and comments.
While not giving up photography, I am returning to my first love - painting. A Leica and a couple of lenses would be easier to manage in the field (in addition to shlepping around plein air easel, palette, paints, etc.) than my current Nikon outfit.
-
Hi Fred, I remember you telling me that once when I was tempted - ever so slightly...
I believe the heat wave is going to stretch from the Canaries right through the peninsula and acrossy to the Baleares: we shall have a week between 43 and 45 degrees C.
Let's all go out making pictures in the sunshine!
I washed the car today, and since the slot behind the hood (where the wipers nestle) is impossible to clean by hand, I had to open the hood to clear it (the slot) of dead leaves and flowers from the trees where I park when I go to eat.
Inside the engine compartment I found cooked snails. Poor buggers; I'm sure they must have been as surprised as I was.
When I lifted the wipers off the screen, they left strips of rubber behind. That has never happened to me before in 32 years of living in Spain. Global warming, of course, is a myth.
;-)
Rob C
Hi Rob
How are you? I see in car mechanics.
Yeah
This eat wave is killing me. It's like workin in slow motion.
At least on the island you got the beaches.
But in Madrid's desert...well at least the air is dry.
Same story every year: i forget to store the batteries
In a proper place and they die because of the intense
Heat.
Frankly I don't know if we are into a global warming
Or another cold age. We are now dying of heat when a couple
Of weeks ago we were freezing our bones in the
Coldest spring ever registered here.
Oh well.
-
We've been told it is impossible to produce cutting edge medium format cameras for less than 30,000 US$, right?
I don't believe production cost dictate sales price at all..at least for many companies that have an embedded user base that is constant.
In my experience of products I have dealt with, cost of production has never been a limiting factor to pricing a product. There is a market that is willing to pay X amount, and companies will create all types of needs to convince that market the cost of doing business is X, so therefore much pay it. That is surely not for all. But take a look at Sigma and the $6500 SD1. That is one example, now sold for about $2k. But you don't need a book to extrapolate how that might apply elsewhere. Take a refrigerator for example. The average higher end models for a standard standup model ranges in $2000-3000 +/-. It is mostly a icebox made of insulation foam injected into CnC machined tin, metals. then you have the finishing in SSteel with other options such as water dispenser, ice maker, and other internal features for convenience...all plastic injected from many inter fitting molds. These are made by huge companies like GE and Samsung, LG, etc. You usually get a 1 year warranty on everything , while some offer a 5 or 7, or 10 on the "Seal components", this only means the compressor, the evap and some regulator. The cost of these parts are 5% of the selling unit. Add a modified main board, so sensors relays and some wiring, you have a $3000 icebox. This same unit could sell with a great profit at $1500. but water dispenser, ssteal finish, and LED lighting can ask for the cost to what the demand is. Wow, how did I get into appliances?! :-) Anyway, there was a time where at least these items would last you 10 or more years. Now they are 4 or a few years if you luck out.
The sad part is the imports are doing it, the domestic are not doing much better.
-
These things are of course comparative.
Try using a Hasselblad H series at well over 2000 grams and then switching to the Leica at 589 grams. Even Rob's D700 is getting on for twice the weight of the Leica.Add a Thumbs Up http://www.matchtechnical.com/Pages/ThumbsUpEP1.aspx (http://www.matchtechnical.com/Pages/ThumbsUpEP1.aspx) and the handling is a joy.
That I did not know.
Unfortunately, it isn't also half the price of a D700! Little details like that matter...
By the way, it later occurred to me that my recent post about love affairs with cameras could have been taken as bite at yours; that was not my intention - I have already long wished you the very best with it, and am aware you are hardly an impulse buyer.
My grief with the big Pentax was vibration of both mirror and, worse and unavoidable, shutter. Had it had the 500 Series lens system format, it would have been pretty damned faultless other than the tightness of the loading/unloading clips that scared me every time I wanted to remove a film. It was beautifully made - a work of engineering art. And I found the metered version of the prism finder perfect. Having shutters just on two lenses, neither being ones I'd bought, wasn't much use to me. Woeful flash synch. was a direct result of large focal plane shutter systems. I'd hoped to be able to circumvent the disadvantage, but it didn't work. The weight didn't bother me - it was bought, basically, as a tripod camera, another fruitless move to get larger trannies for stock. Just before digital swept it all aside.
;-)
Rob C
-
bcooter,
if you like the M8 files, you should really take a serious look at the Leica S. Maybe not in just any Leica store, but ask Leica USA for a demo and play with the system for a few days. I've had the M8 and now the S2 and the files have the same look/quality, just bigger.
-
bcooter,
if you like the M8 files, you should really take a serious look at the Leica S. Maybe not in just any Leica store, but ask Leica USA for a demo and play with the system for a few days. I've had the M8 and now the S2 and the files have the same look/quality, just bigger.
If a single purpose camera would work for me I'd go that way. If the S had a real oem dedicated tethering suite as robust as C-1 I'd also give it more thought, but my world has changed.
Yes I like the ccd m8 files, probably would like the m9 files (obviously some people do because those cameras are sold out everywhere), and I'm sure I'd love an S series.
The thing is we shoot so differently today. I'd love the time to set strobes for 2 hours, shoot 1 frame every few seconds (at most) and never here the word video, motion, A roll, B roll, C roll, a cam, b cam, c cam again, but honestly my world isn't like that anymore.
Even for a "dedicated" still shoot that requires "some" video, we'll spend a week on still post production, a month on motion and everybody forgets about the stills, and asks about the video.
I got out of a creative meeting yesterday in NY and the gig was a "still" shoot and was told video wasn't that important. By the end of the meeting we talked about the video for 1 hour, 20 minutes about the stills because everything shot will go on into in store lcds and on large time square panels and well, lcds move.
To me 7 years ago I'd jump at an S2 or S. Those were the days where I was a still photographer, not a content provider, but times have changed, client briefs are different and money has to be allocated towards what is expected.
$40,000 for a still camera only is a big outlay, considering the camera is beautiful.
____________________________
Rob,
If you hand held the 6x7 Pentax you did it wrong. Everybody I've known that used them (some still do) either used strobe with very little ambient light, or shot with 2.5 k hmi's and a full lighting crew and nearly everyone had them on a tripod.
They were great for that, but low light, anything close to 125th of a second produced mirror slap and with long lenses, even higher shutter speed.
With Polaroid you needed a second body, if you shot fast you needed 4 bodies because loading them took the dexterity of a brain surgeon and considering film cameras (not digital) they weren't cheap and Pentax also had a bad habit of saturating the market with product then disappearing for two years.
I bought one body two lenses once and sold it, because it just was too much work and for 6x7 the real winner was the Mamiya RZ. That was a huge camera, but for heavy Ad work, (back in the days when a few setups a day were fine), was the camera of choice.
In fact if someone made a new autofocus RZ that fit a cost effective digital back, had a rotating back that registered in the viewfinder, had faster lenses and didn't cost more than an S class Merc, they'd probably sell them like crazy.
Maybe not, because for the Milly generation the pro camera of choice is a 5d3 or a d800. That group is positive they're in pro territory because it's bigger than their other camera of choice, an I phone.
IMO
BC
-
The M is like a woman - perfect for 5 minutes a month, and unpredictable the rest of the time. We love them for those five minutes, and the rest of the time we leave them at home :)
Edmund
Its just batty. The straw that broke the camel's back was a horrific blooming that manifested as jagged edges poking out of blown highlights, like when shooting a high key backlit portrait where you blow a white background with strobes. These jagged edges would intrude into the subject, and this isn't pixel peeping, this is at 25% and in a letter sized print. The M8 did this with window light too, this wasn't an extreme, non-approved use of a digital camera. Leica NJ told me it wasn't a problem after looking at the raws. I kept sending them. They kept deneying there was any issue. It was like a Rumsfeld press conference, a complete denial of reality. I later found that the PCB board was bad. I sold it, after disclosing the issue, for $800. I wanted to rid myself of the camera and Leica. I tghen sold my M9 and my Zeiss ZM lenses. But I missed the M9. So bought another one and its relatively well behaved, just so long as I don't review images when its writing to the card. Or use it with less than 50% charge, which is down from 70% after some experimentation with shutter modes, card writing, iso's etc. And when I sent my M9 to have the RF adjusted, they turned it around in 2 days and wer every nice about everything.
It is love with the M.
-
The M is like a woman - perfect for 5 minutes a month, and unpredictable the rest of the time. We love them for those five minutes, and the rest of the time we leave them at home :)
Edmund
Tut, tut Edmund - what a sexist remark. I suggest you remove it before Germaine Greer reads it; she'll have your b**s for garters
[smiley]
-
Sounds like Swiss Toni.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBw-aEixWuo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBw-aEixWuo)
Amazing! Must buy some Belgian chocs.
;-)
Rob C
-
If a single purpose camera would work for me I'd go that way. If the S had a real oem dedicated tethering suite as robust as C-1 I'd also give it more thought, but my world has changed.
Yes I like the ccd m8 files, probably would like the m9 files (obviously some people do because those cameras are sold out everywhere), and I'm sure I'd love an S series.
The thing is we shoot so differently today. I'd love the time to set strobes for 2 hours, shoot 1 frame every few seconds (at most) and never here the word video, motion, A roll, B roll, C roll, a cam, b cam, c cam again, but honestly my world isn't like that anymore.
Even for a "dedicated" still shoot that requires "some" video, we'll spend a week on still post production, a month on motion and everybody forgets about the stills, and asks about the video.
I got out of a creative meeting yesterday in NY and the gig was a "still" shoot and was told video wasn't that important. By the end of the meeting we talked about the video for 1 hour, 20 minutes about the stills because everything shot will go on into in store lcds and on large time square panels and well, lcds move.
To me 7 years ago I'd jump at an S2 or S. Those were the days where I was a still photographer, not a content provider, but times have changed, client briefs are different and money has to be allocated towards what is expected.
$40,000 for a still camera only is a big outlay, considering the camera is beautiful.
IMO
BC
I understand what you're saying. Times have changed very fast these past few years, budgets are tight and video has become so important. BTW, there now is a Contax to Leica S adapter. You'd still be able to use your beloved lenses. Maybe in a year or two when the S might go CMOS, there'll be a video option, though probably with focus difficulties, having such a large sensor. But by then the system might loose the CCD- look ...
All the best,
Peter
-
Hi,
Just a small reflection...
The Leica M8 and the M9 use essentially the same sensor design. There are several aspects, the sensor on it's own is a monochrome device. Color is provided by the CGA (Color Grid Array) in front of it and some math describing the CGA. Implementation of IR-cut filter and UV-filter may also matter.
Some of the differences depend on the filter implementation, and this may relate to the vendor of the sensor and their preferences. I guess that Kodak sensors may be a bit different from Dalsa sensors in their CGA design.
One thing that CCD vs. CMOS can affect is that CMOS can have some noise reduction that CCD cannot have. All CMOS sensors, AFIK, have correlated double sampling. That is, they compare sensor voltages before and after exposure, eliminating some of the noise. Many CMOS sensors of modern design have massively parallel on chip converters, that is a technique that may reduce noise.
My point is that CCD vs. CMOS does not affect color rendition, but there may be a difference between vendors. Leica DMR, M8, M9, Hasselblad backs, Pentax 645D and older Phase One all use Kodak sensors, and some of the advantages perceived with those backs may come from Kodak's CGA design. Later Phase One sensors use Dalsa designs and they may offer different color rendition. That difference is not due to CCD/CMOS but to different CGA designs.
Best regards
Erik
I understand what you're saying. Times have changed very fast these past few years, budgets are tight and video has become so important. BTW, there now is a Contax to Leica S adapter. You'd still be able to use your beloved lenses. Maybe in a year or two when the S might go CMOS, there'll be a video option, though probably with focus difficulties, having such a large sensor. But by then the system might loose the CCD- look ...
All the best,
Peter
-
Erik,
One difference between M8 and M9 seems to be a hugely IR absorbing cover glass stuck over the sensor. As such has a progressive cut off, the color rendering ...
As for CCD vs CMOS, I think CMOS are engineered with a shoulder these days thanks to the antiblooming circuitry, which might account for the difference in looks - the shoulder needs tuning.
Edmund
Hi,
Just a small reflection...
The Leica M8 and the M9 use essentially the same sensor design. There are several aspects, the sensor on it's own is a monochrome device. Color is provided by the CGA (Color Grid Array) in front of it and some math describing the CGA. Implementation of IR-cut filter and UV-filter may also matter.
Some of the differences depend on the filter implementation, and this may relate to the vendor of the sensor and their preferences. I guess that Kodak sensors may be a bit different from Dalsa sensors in their CGA design.
One thing that CCD vs. CMOS can affect is that CMOS can have some noise reduction that CCD cannot have. All CMOS sensors, AFIK, have correlated double sampling. That is, they compare sensor voltages before and after exposure, eliminating some of the noise. Many CMOS sensors of modern design have massively parallel on chip converters, that is a technique that may reduce noise.
My point is that CCD vs. CMOS does not affect color rendition, but there may be a difference between vendors. Leica DMR, M8, M9, Hasselblad backs, Pentax 645D and older Phase One all use Kodak sensors, and some of the advantages perceived with those backs may come from Kodak's CGA design. Later Phase One sensors use Dalsa designs and they may offer different color rendition. That difference is not due to CCD/CMOS but to different CGA designs.
Best regards
Erik
-
While you don't need IR block filters you can still get the IR problem with the M9, so I don't think the M9's IR filter is "hugely IR absorbing". I like the M9 colors very much, but C1v6's profile was not great. LR was much better. C17 is pretty good.
Erik,
One difference between M8 and M9 seems to be a hugely IR absorbing cover glass stuck over the sensor. As such has a progressive cut off, the color rendering ...
As for CCD vs CMOS, I think CMOS are engineered with a shoulder these days thanks to the antiblooming circuitry, which might account for the difference in looks - the shoulder needs tuning.
Edmund
-
While you don't need IR block filters you can still get the IR problem with the M9, so I don't think the M9's IR filter is "hugely IR absorbing". I like the M9 colors very much, but C1v6's profile was not great. LR was much better. C17 is pretty good.
If you want to spend the time, I can profile your camera, but you will need to make and send me a very specific test shot.
Edmund