Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: favalim on November 15, 2013, 08:24:00 am
-
I know this is a MF forum but this camera is in the MF field from this test; I'll buy one soon as support to my Sinar 75LV!!
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/6
-
I know this is a MF forum but this camera is in the MF field from this test; I'll buy one soon as support to my Sinar 75LV!!
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/6
I think the 60 and 80mp backs are safe, for now ;D
The A7R is a great little camera and unlike the D800E it accepts a lot of lenses and has a great EFV and Rear LCD and an awesome live view. Like the D800E it seems a bit picky on lens choice to get the best out of it. I saw a few very large prints in NY made from A7R files and they looked great but still have a somewhat "digital" look. Similar to what you get with the D800E. Both definitely come very close to what you get with the 30-40mp backs (with average lenses) when you use the best lenses available from Nikon and Zeiss. (On one of the photos I saw printed they used the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 lens, w/ adapter, on the A7R) The A7R is tiny compared to all DSLRs so it packs quite a punch in a very small and light package. Yes, it has some limitations but at the price it is a great tool to have for landscape, architecture and macro / studio. For people I still prefer an optical viewfinder but the EVF on the Sony is quite good.
-
It's just so painful to see the IQ180 JPG which was clearly processed in Adobe Camera Raw or Capture One v6.
Once you get used to Capture One v7 quality it's really hard to see something previous.
-
This idea of comparing jpgs in this way is nothing but useless..
Do people buy this??
-
This idea of comparing jpgs in this way is nothing but useless..
Do people buy this??
They do not have to... one can switch to RAW comparison with a single mouse-click.
-
Th DPReview Studio comparison tool gives a general idea of the resolution and color performance of the particular camera/lens (and software processing) combination they test. They should specify the lens they are using, aperture/exposure settings, focal distance and light temperature and EV levels and of course processing software and settings.
-
You can select RAW from the options. Jpeg is just the default
-
I agree Ken, Although the RAW data is available, with meta I think (I haven't downloaded it). Still light temp etc, would be more open and productive.
-
I agree Ken, Although the RAW data is available, with meta I think (I haven't downloaded it). Still light temp etc, would be more open and productive.
If you click on the "i" you can read all the data you need: lens, aperturte, ISO, etc.
-
I think the 60 and 80mp backs are safe, for now ;D
But what about the 40-50's? I'm having a rethink on spending £10-15k on a phamiyablad as a sony/metabones and my existing 24tse/90tse plus a 50mm (poss Zeiss) will actually be a more versatile tool for the kind of work I do. My clients don't require more than a 100mb tiff and usable movements are important to me without going to the expense and lack of portability of a tech cam or the HTS and it's limitations.
-
But what about the 40-50's? I'm having a rethink on spending £10-15k on a phamiyablad as a sony/metabones and my existing 24tse/90tse plus a 50mm (poss Zeiss) will actually be a more versatile tool for the kind of work I do. My clients don't require more than a 100mb tiff and usable movements are important to me without going to the expense and lack of portability of a tech cam or the HTS and it's limitations.
It depends. But in pure image quality terms, at optimum settings, conditions and technique, the 40-50mp backs are still better im sure. Specially with tech cameras and lenses. I have yet to use an SLR lens that is as good edge to edge as the Rodenstock HR lenses I have. Straight on, with the IQ160 back 60mp files I have a really hard time distinguishing from center of image to corner in regards to image quality. It is that good.
-
Hi Doug,
I hope that the images below relieves your pain a bit. Left C1 right LR5 both from the IQ180 image.
Best regards
Erik
It's just so painful to see the IQ180 JPG which was clearly processed in Adobe Camera Raw or Capture One v6.
Once you get used to Capture One v7 quality it's really hard to see something previous.
-
Hi,
Comparing JPEGs at 1:1 is a pretty accurate representation of what you would see in Photoshop at actual pixels and far more demanding than print. So I actually don't see your point. A JPEG with decent level of compression is not distinguishable from a TIFF, if they are in the same colour space.
Comparing images at 1:1 is not very meaningful if the number of megapixels is different. The IQ 180 has far more pixels.
Best regards
Erik
This idea of comparing jpgs in this way is nothing but useless..
Do people buy this??
-
Hi Ken,
Probably so. If you put a very good lens on a high resolution back with larger sensor size it will always be "better" than a smaller sensor with an equally good lens. So if you shoot flat targets, like a distant landscape, the larger format having more pixels will always win.
The question is more like:
- Can you actually see the difference in print?
- Can you compensate for the difference in resolution by better sharpening?
- What is your definition of good enough?
It takes a lot of engineering effort to compensate for 2-3 times the image area, and MFD makers are good on both sensors and lenses.
Best regards
Erik
I think the 60 and 80mp backs are safe, for now ;D
The A7R is a great little camera and unlike the D800E it accepts a lot of lenses and has a great EFV and Rear LCD and an awesome live view. Like the D800E it seems a bit picky on lens choice to get the best out of it. I saw a few very large prints in NY made from A7R files and they looked great but still have a somewhat "digital" look. Similar to what you get with the D800E. Both definitely come very close to what you get with the 30-40mp backs (with average lenses) when you use the best lenses available from Nikon and Zeiss. (On one of the photos I saw printed they used the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 lens, w/ adapter, on the A7R) The A7R is tiny compared to all DSLRs so it packs quite a punch in a very small and light package. Yes, it has some limitations but at the price it is a great tool to have for landscape, architecture and macro / studio. For people I still prefer an optical viewfinder but the EVF on the Sony is quite good.
-
Hi,
Link below shows actual pixels view of the 7R image uprezzed to IQ180 resolution. I guess the resolution advantage of the IQ180 is obvious. There may be other aspects.
Is the difference worth 20 times the price? It is really up to buyer to decide.
Personally, I have no answer. I own neither camera and I will also not buy any of those. The IQ180 I simply cannot afford, the Alpha 7r seems to be a nice camera, but I am not so enthusiastic for non OLP-filtered cameras, and it does not really fit into my system and needs. I like the resolution, but I suspect the P45+ I have would still offer better resolution/acutance than the 7r. The area where I guess the 7r wins over my P45+ is shadow detail, and of course usability.
Best regards
Erik
-
I think Its also the crop factor these lenses are for true 4x5 size at the least. So your mainly using the sweet spot.
-
Hi,
No, Rodenstock HR and similar lenses are strictly medium format, most of them have a 70 mm image circle. These are all new designs, very well corrected for digital sensors.
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Digital_Lenses_3-26__8236.pdf
Best regards
Erik
I think Its also the crop factor these lenses are for true 4x5 size at the least. So your mainly using the sweet spot.
-
Here're more comparisons.
Yak! Even worst than Fujifilm X.
//
The links below are from flickr courtesy of user ZhanQL
A7r
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637668801615/
A7
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637688730425/
//
-
Hi,
Don't see your point.
1) Fujifilm X is APS-C and it crops the images by 33.3% so the corners would not be visible on the Fujifilm X
2) If the A7 had a long flange distance you couldn't use Leica M mount lenses on it anyway.
So what do you want? A camera with long flange distance that is compatible with most SLR lenses? Try Canon EOS!
Or do you want a full format camera that takes Leica M mount lenses? Choices are M9, ME, M(240), A7 and A7r.
Best regards
Erik
Here're more comparisons.
Yak! Even worst than Fujifilm X.
//
The links below are from flickr courtesy of user ZhanQL
A7r
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637668801615/
A7
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637688730425/
//
-
Here're more comparisons.
Yak! Even worst than Fujifilm X.
//
The links below are from flickr courtesy of user ZhanQL
A7r
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637668801615/
A7
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikon/sets/72157637688730425/
//
Hi,
That's what you get when using lenses specifically designed for film on any digital sensor, Sony sensors are not different than other sensors in that regard (as explained here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83681.msg680604#msg680604)). The results on e.g. a Leica M9 are equally horrific, and pose the same post-processing challenge.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Erik,
If you put a very good lens on a high resolution back with larger sensor size it will always be "better" than a smaller sensor with an equally good lens. So if you shoot flat targets, like a distant landscape, the larger format having more pixels will always win.
Not sure I understand your meaning. Is the larger sensor "better" only because it contains a greater number of pixels, or for some other reason?
Bart,
That's what you get when using lenses specifically designed for film on any digital sensor...
I am aware that lenses designed to be placed in front of film can be (always are?) problematic when placed in front of a digital sensor, but what about the reverse? Can lenses designed to be placed in front of a digital sensor be placed in front of film with impunity?
-
I am aware that lenses designed to be placed in front of film can be (always are?) problematic when placed in front of a digital sensor, but what about the reverse? Can lenses designed to be placed in front of a digital sensor be placed in front of film with impunity?
Most digital-designed lenses have too small an image circle to cover 4x5 film.
Smaller format film (e.g. 6x9 or 645) with a digital-designed lens with sufficient image circle will be fine.
List of image circles for digital-designed lenses (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-overview).
-
Thank you Doug.
-
Schneider has HR lenes as well. Are these "equal" to Rod HR?
Is Schneider HR for Digital or is this a mainly a film lens?
I also remember the NEWER sesores with smaller photons to benifit more from digital lenes.
Older sesonrs with 9 or larger microns are not going to gain from the Digital lenses. Correct or adjust me if I'm off a bit.
-
I am aware that lenses designed to be placed in front of film can be (always are?) problematic when placed in front of a digital sensor, but what about the reverse? Can lenses designed to be placed in front of a digital sensor be placed in front of film with impunity?
Hi Rob,
Depends on the design. A lens designed for film only has to project the image on a flat plane (assuming flat film, some (pano) film used a cylindrical exposure area).
With a digital sensor, the image forming rays are preferably designed to strike the sensor array as perpendicular as possible. With a digital sensor, there are also several plan-parallel semi-transparent layers in the optical path, such as an IR-filter, perhaps a stack of Optical Low-Pass filters, and a sensor coverglass. When a ray of light hits these layers at an angle, there will be some refraction that will result in a small amount of shift (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html#c3) (depends on refractive index of the material, modified by coating layers).
If a lens is specifically designed for the presence of those layers in the optical path, then that may lead to slightly different optical design for an optimal performance. If that were to be done to the extreme, then that lens would be better corrected for a digital sensor than for film. However, since there can be some variation in those layers from camera to camera, I think most current designs are optimized mostly with a larger exit pupil distance than they would have been when designed for film. If that is the only change, then that lens would be equally well suited for film.
Some traditional designs happened to already have large exit pupil distances, so they happen to also work quite well on digital sensors, but lenses specifically designed for digital sensors could possibly outperform them a bit.
There is one other specific design feature that 'digital' designs need to pay attention to, and that is the potential reflection from the sensor (potentially more reflective than film) back to the rear lens element. Therefore rear element shape and coating may get a bit more attention in a 'digital' design. Obviously, IR filter and sensor cover-glass AR-coatings also help to reduce the amount of relection. Some lenses used for IR-photography exhibit a central hotspot in the image, while others don't. That may be related to the shape and coating of that rear lens element.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Rodenstock and Schneider are different designs.
The Rodenstock HR lenses are very high resolution designs that cover MFD sensor format, smallish image circle extreme performance. The Rodenstock wide angles are also telecentric and have therefore less issues with color cast and vignetting.
Best regards
Erik
Schneider has HR lenes as well. Are these "equal" to Rod HR?
Is Schneider HR for Digital or is this a mainly a film lens?
I also remember the NEWER sesores with smaller photons to benifit more from digital lenes.
Older sesonrs with 9 or larger microns are not going to gain from the Digital lenses. Correct or adjust me if I'm off a bit.
-
Bart,
Great explanation! Thanks!
Can this be summarized as follows?
Smaller image circle = less incident angle going out to edge = good
Larger sensor to exit pupil = less incident angle = good
Less incident angle means more problems with reflection off sensor, requiring more attention to lens shape and coatings?
I had thought that another issue with analog lenses on digital was that the color chemistry in film was at different depths, whereas they are the same depth on a sensor causing really well corrected lenses for analog to be off, resulting in axial chromatic aberrations with digital capture.
-
Hi,
I don't think I would agree.
Image circle is not part of the equation. You can put a Hasselblad lens on a Sony sensor and it works just fine. What may matter is baffling. Some adapters like the Mirex T/S have internal buffling that reduces the risk of internal reflections in mount and adapter internals. This can be a big problem with badly designed adapters!
The size of the pupil, I don't think it matters, it is the distance between sensor and the pupil that matters most. A larger pupil is worse than a small pupil, you want the rays coming from lens to sensor as perpendicular to sensor as possible.
The reflections from the sensor may matter. Lenses for digital have better coating on element pointing to the sensor.
The major problem with film was curvature but also the stochastic nature of silver-halogenid capture. It takes many grains to describe a density, while one pixel does it. Film also has a problem with curvature. The sensors are flat.
Best regards
Erik
Bart,
Great explanation! Thanks!
Can this be summarized as follows?
Smaller image circle = less incident angle going out to edge = good
Larger sensor to exit pupil = less incident angle = good
Less incident angle means more problems with reflection off sensor, requiring more attention to lens shape and coatings?
I had thought that another issue with analog lenses on digital was that the color chemistry in film was at different depths, whereas they are the same depth on a sensor causing really well corrected lenses for analog to be off, resulting in axial chromatic aberrations with digital capture.
-
Actually the modern digital lenses from both Schneider and Rodenstock tend to have pretty large image circles.
The Rodenstock HR (now called S) lenses which are the 23, 28, both have smallish 70mm image circles and thus are very limited to shifting.
The Rodenstock HR-W lenses, 32mm, 40mm, 70mm (their newest besides the HR-SW 90mm) have 90mm image circles which allow for a greater amount of shifting. up to 18mm on the 40mm on a 60mp back. The 70mm has a 100mm IC, and the 90mm in the HR-W (no longer made) has a 125mm image circle
The Schneiders, in the APO Digitar series, 28mm, 35mm, both have a 90mm image circle however due lens design, you will not be able to shift the 35mm much past 8mm on a 60mp back as much past that you get too much magenta shift and detail smearing. The Schneider 43mm has a IC of 110mm and can shift to around 12mm without any loss of detail or saturation and can be pushed to 16mm depending on the subject on a 60mp back.
The Schneider Digitar 60mm has a 125mm image circle and is an amazing lens, which will allow shift of up to 25mm before you start to see any loss of detail or harsh magenta problems.
You can read on the Rodenstock's here: which is the link to their latest lens brochure. http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/Objektive_digitale_Fotografie_e_10468.pdf (http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/Objektive_digitale_Fotografie_e_10468.pdf)
Schneider's website is very limited to lens info, but if you go to the main Cambo website, http://www.cambo.com (http://www.cambo.com) you can read all about the Schneiders and Rodenstocks. Cambo's site is wealth of knowledge on lenses.
The Rodenstock's are all retrofocus designs, thus tend to be heavier and larger than the Schneiders. The Schneider wides up to the 43mm all have issues on the 80MP backs when shifted (harsh magenta color shifts, possible center folding issues that won't resolve with LCC, and detail smearing) The Rodenstocks will shift very well on both the 60MP and 80MP backs, however Rodenstock by design places a disc inside the lens (apparently to let the user know where the limit of the image circle is) and this creates a hard vignette that ruins the corners. Nothing can fix this. It's a tragedy to me since I know that the 28mm would easily shift to 10mm maybe 12mm without any magenta shifting or detail smearing, but the disc shows up at around anything past 7mm of horizontal shift. You can get a bit more rise. You will see much less magenta color shifting with the Rodenstocks than the Schneiders. This is very easy to see in the LCC, both lenses will show considerable light fall off, but the LCC will fix this to an amazing degree. The magenta shift is not as easy to fix.
Paul Caldwell
-
Thanks for good info!
Erik
Actually the modern digital lenses from both Schneider and Rodenstock tend to have pretty large image circles.
The Rodenstock HR (now called S) lenses which are the 23, 28, both have smallish 70mm image circles and thus are very limited to shifting.
The Rodenstock HR-W lenses, 32mm, 40mm, 70mm (their newest besides the HR-SW 90mm) have 90mm image circles which allow for a greater amount of shifting. up to 18mm on the 40mm on a 60mp back. The 70mm has a 100mm IC, and the 90mm in the HR-W (no longer made) has a 125mm image circle
The Schneiders, in the APO Digitar series, 28mm, 35mm, both have a 90mm image circle however due lens design, you will not be able to shift the 35mm much past 8mm on a 60mp back as much past that you get too much magenta shift and detail smearing. The Schneider 43mm has a IC of 110mm and can shift to around 12mm without any loss of detail or saturation and can be pushed to 16mm depending on the subject on a 60mp back.
The Schneider Digitar 60mm has a 125mm image circle and is an amazing lens, which will allow shift of up to 25mm before you start to see any loss of detail or harsh magenta problems.
You can read on the Rodenstock's here: which is the link to their latest lens brochure. http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/Objektive_digitale_Fotografie_e_10468.pdf (http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/Objektive_digitale_Fotografie_e_10468.pdf)
Schneider's website is very limited to lens info, but if you go to the main Cambo website, http://www.cambo.com (http://www.cambo.com) you can read all about the Schneiders and Rodenstocks. Cambo's site is wealth of knowledge on lenses.
The Rodenstock's are all retrofocus designs, thus tend to be heavier and larger than the Schneiders. The Schneider wides up to the 43mm all have issues on the 80MP backs when shifted (harsh magenta color shifts, possible center folding issues that won't resolve with LCC, and detail smearing) The Rodenstocks will shift very well on both the 60MP and 80MP backs, however Rodenstock by design places a disc inside the lens (apparently to let the user know where the limit of the image circle is) and this creates a hard vignette that ruins the corners. Nothing can fix this. It's a tragedy to me since I know that the 28mm would easily shift to 10mm maybe 12mm without any magenta shifting or detail smearing, but the disc shows up at around anything past 7mm of horizontal shift. You can get a bit more rise. You will see much less magenta color shifting with the Rodenstocks than the Schneiders. This is very easy to see in the LCC, both lenses will show considerable light fall off, but the LCC will fix this to an amazing degree. The magenta shift is not as easy to fix.
Paul Caldwell
-
Bart,
Great explanation! Thanks!
+1
Thank you Bart.
-
Everytime a new high megapixel camera comes out we always compare it to a medium format back, which is a good yardstick.
What we don't get to see is how we work in the real world, which means nothing, or can mean everything.
If we're shooting with strobe and a lot of light medium format just shines. Continuous light, if there is enough volume it's great, but at a certain point the smaller cameras catch up.
I'm very curious about the A7R though I've told myself I'd never go Sony again, but it does look interesting and I guess the only way to really know is to shoot it in the conditions I work.
I do think the the camera and lens makers play too strong to the pixel examiners on the web, with reports of ca or slight softness coming out like it's the end of the world, though some of the prettiest lenses I use aren't that sharp and always need some post work to correct some CA, but I shoot people so usually pure pixel sharpness isn't my only goal.
IMO
BC
-
I do think the the camera and lens makers play too strong to the pixel examiners on the web, with reports of ca or slight softness coming out like it's the end of the world, though some of the prettiest lenses I use aren't that sharp and always need some post work to correct some CA, but I shoot people so usually pure pixel sharpness isn't my only goal.
At least Nikon cannot be accused of that.
I attended a Nikon Df/58mm f1.4 AF-S event on Saturday in Tokyo, and 98% of the marketing message around the 58mm f1.4 is about the look of the bokeh and its behavior as a function of the distance behind the plane of sharpness. The remaining 2% were about sharpness, but only as a contrasting aspect to bokeh.
I have to admit that the samples were extremely nice and supportive of the message.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Yes, I think so. Good enough is good enough. I have upgraded time to time and now I have quite a few cameras from Hasselblad V/P45+ to Sony RX-100. The best pictures I have taken were probably with a Sony Alpha APS-C at 12 MP that is now inherited by my parents. I sort of feel that those 12 MP were good enough.
On the other hand, I really enjoy all my present cameras.
Best regards
Erik
Everytime a new high megapixel camera comes out we always compare it to a medium format back, which is a good yardstick.
What we don't get to see is how we work in the real world, which means nothing, or can mean everything.
If we're shooting with strobe and a lot of light medium format just shines. Continuous light, if there is enough volume it's great, but at a certain point the smaller cameras catch up.
I'm very curious about the A7R though I've told myself I'd never go Sony again, but it does look interesting and I guess the only way to really know is to shoot it in the conditions I work.
I do think the the camera and lens makers play too strong to the pixel examiners on the web, with reports of ca or slight softness coming out like it's the end of the world, though some of the prettiest lenses I use aren't that sharp and always need some post work to correct some CA, but I shoot people so usually pure pixel sharpness isn't my only goal.
IMO
BC
-
The best pictures I have taken were probably with a Sony Alpha APS-C at 12 MP that is now inherited by my parents. I sort of feel that those 12 MP were good enough.
Erik,
I couldn't resist myself and am going to tease you a little bit so don't take this too seriously….. But maybe the reason why you took the best pictures with your 12mp camera was because you were interested in picture taking then and not spending your free time making lots of comparisons? In other words, can you analyze image quality and make good/interesting images at the same time?
-
Hi Eric,
Yes I think so. I have been always interested in optics and science. One of the main reasons I made a lot of good images with the 12 MP 700 that I was visiting new places, like Yellowstone and Grand Teton. I went back to those places last year but I had some bad luck with smog because of wildfires. Still I got some new images.
The point may be that the Alpha 700 was good enough. The cameras I had before it were perhaps less than good enough.
I do testing, because I am interested in both photography and the theory behind. I take pictures because it gives me peace of mind. But, I consider myself to be an engineer, not an artist.
Some of my work is here: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Teasing is OK! And I enjoy your postings, just so you know!
Erik,
I couldn't resist myself and am going to tease you a little bit so don't take this too seriously….. But maybe the reason why you took the best pictures with your 12mp camera was because you were interested in picture taking then and not spending your free time making lots of comparisons? In other words, can you analyze image quality and make good/interesting images at the same time?
-
At least Nikon cannot be accused of that.
I attended a Nikon Df/58mm f1.4 AF-S event on Saturday in Tokyo, and 98% of the marketing message around the 58mm f1.4 is about the look of the bokeh and its behavior as a function of the distance behind the plane of sharpness. The remaining 2% were about sharpness, but only as a contrasting aspect to bokeh.
Always glad to hear.
Though the messaging at that one event is likely to have been catered to the audience they expected at that event. Nikon (like nearly every camera company I can think of) puts resolution high on it's marketing checklist.
When we host an event for fine art photographers our messaging is not the same as when we host an event for studio still life photographers even though the equipment is the same and both messages are honest.
-
Hi,
Let me put this way, resolution is a good thing unless it affects noise and DR. Reducing pixel size affects DR but not really noise.
Smaller pixels have advantages, less aliasing, sharpen better. The only real disadvantage is processing time and in case of MFD high price.
Production cost is almost independent of pixel size, but MFD vendors charge a much higher price on 80 MP than say 60 MP, so it is probably very good business.
Best regards
Erik
Always glad to hear.
Though the messaging at that one event is likely to have been catered to the audience they expected at that event. Nikon (like nearly every camera company I can think of) puts resolution high on it's marketing checklist.
When we host an event for fine art photographers our messaging is not the same as when we host an event for studio still life photographers even though the equipment is the same and both messages are honest.
-
Always glad to hear.
Though the messaging at that one event is likely to have been catered to the audience they expected at that event. Nikon (like nearly every camera company I can think of) puts resolution high on it's marketing checklist.
When we host an event for fine art photographers our messaging is not the same as when we host an event for studio still life photographers even though the equipment is the same and both messages are honest.
In the advertising world (whatever that is today) for life, illustrative and fashion photography, detail is a given. No client really knows or cares is we use 18 or 31 mpx and a lot of our work goes to large in-store format.
What they do care about is the "look" and imagery that covers a lot of territory.
What I care about is the look, the onset workflow and post workflow. Today everything has to be faster and as unique as possible and faster doesn't mean less quality.
In other words whatever is shot on stills my clients want in motion imagery and whatever is shot in either medium, they want shot well so time is at a high premium.
Then once you have it they want a unique look.
It's nice Nikon is talking about the look of a lens rather than the graphs and charts, more makers should look at this.
I'm currently buying some duclos converted m43 f. 095 lenses. They're not the sharpest lenses in the world but for motion imagery and some stills they do have a unique look, they glow in highlights and the flare like we expect film to flare when tracking across the scene into the sun.
Consequently for stills that oversharp, layered look is distinctive and is much easier to produce with a medium format camera than a dslr.
IMO
BC
-
Is the larger sensor "better" only because it contains a greater number of pixels, or for some other reason?
It's not the greater number of pixels per se - it's the greater quantity of information. You can subdivide a fixed sensor size into more and more, smaller and smaller pixels, but at some point when the image is oversampled, there is no further gain in information. Maintaining the pixel size and lens performance while increasing the sensor area is still the best route to increased information (detail).
Ray
-
I'm currently buying some duclos converted m43 f. 095 lenses. They're not the sharpest lenses in the world but for motion imagery and some stills they do have a unique look, they glow in highlights and the flare like we expect film to flare when tracking across the scene into the sun.
Those are modded Voigtländers, yes? I have the three-lens (unmodded) set...very nice indeed for a film-like look. They remind me of Pentax Super-Taks but with greater clarity. You'll find 'em to be quite sharp when stopped down past f/2.8 too, assuming you actually plan on stopping down at all.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
Although I agree with Ray mostly I feel that there is an advantage of small pixels. Quite true that we get diminishing returns, but large pixels also produce artifacts. Look at the feather images below. They were shot from a fixed distance with 150 mm lens on a: P45+ (39MP MF), a Sony Alpha 99 SLT (24 MP FF) and a Sony Alpha 77 SLT (24 MP APS-C).
The pixel sizes are 6.9, 6, 3.9 microns. If you look carefully you see that the P45+ image on the left has a lot of fake detail while the Sony Alpha 77 on the right has most detail. This doesn't mean that the Alpha 77 outperforms the other two, but it produces less artifacts.
The other images show crops from comparably scaled images from the same cameras, and here it is obvious that the Alpha 77 SLT is lagging the other two significantly. I was not really expecting such a difference so I did reshoot it, with very similar results.
My point is really: The best solution is a large sensor with reasonable small pixels.
Best regards
Erik
It's not the greater number of pixels per se - it's the greater quantity of information. You can subdivide a fixed sensor size into more and more, smaller and smaller pixels, but at some point when the image is oversampled, there is no further gain in information. Maintaining the pixel size and lens performance while increasing the sensor area is still the best route to increased information (detail).
Ray
-
It's not the greater number of pixels per se - it's the greater quantity of information. You can subdivide a fixed sensor size into more and more, smaller and smaller pixels, but at some point when the image is oversampled, there is no further gain in information. Maintaining the pixel size and lens performance while increasing the sensor area is still the best route to increased information (detail).y
Downsizing of pixels and upsizing of sensors have something in common: if done right, each can produce measurable improvements in image quality, but taken too far, each hits the law of dimishing returns, and only spec. fetishists really benefit from going further.
With pixel downsizing, one limit is the increase in read noise from having more smaller pixels on the same-sized sensor; another is lens resolution. Note however that some photographers will have reason to push sensors to the resolution limits at center of field of the best lenses at their optimal apertures, and we are not there yet.
With sensor upsizing, one limit is the ever smaller increments in IQ versus ever larger increments in size, weight, cost, and the effort and technique needed to realize those IQ gains. Another is the issue of shutter speed, as soon as adequate DOF is an issue. Because once the larger format and so longer lens needs equal DOF, the aperture ratio must go up, and to gather more "information" as Ray puts it, meaning gathering more light means that ISO speed cannot be pushed up enough to keep the shutter speed equal: the aperture is admitting photons at the same rate, so to feed the larger sensor with more photons needs longer exposures. So once high resolution needs imagery impose tight limits on both motion blur and out of focus blur, there is a hard limit on how much light ("information") the sensor can gather, no matter how large the sensor.
As a rough guideline: in situations where DOF and lighting constraints force the use of a higher than base-ISO senstivity in a particular format, a larger format won't help much.
-
Increasing the pixel density can increase the same!ing rate and reducing the aliasing error, but it also tends to reduce the dynamic range and hence increasing the quantization error. Both have diminishing return either when hitting the lens resolution or hitting the contrast.
Theoretically, we can increase the dynamic range while reduce the pixel density. The oppoortunity is in the vertical dimensions. For example, by building taller vertical transisters (Finn gate) or trench capacitors. Not sure where is the current technology. Back exposure is another trick, this will increase the transparency for a photo to hit the sensor.
I have compared next 6 and 7, every sales at the camera store convinced me that nex 6 performs better than nex 7, and the clue is in the pixel size. This conclusion I is much easier to achieve since they are the same brand, same camera family.
I also did similar comparison between 5Diii and D800, again,it is mainly about the pixel count and the pixel density. Ignoring the other factors just focus on the quantization error (color fidelity and micro contrast) and the aliasing error (spatial frequency response), I don't see either one offer any compelling benefits.
Theoretical, yes increzng pixel density still has room to gain the benefit, if it can keep everything else equal.
ButI don't think it is possible to keep everything else equal. The choice left is to find the different compromise.
-
Those are modded Voigtländers, yes? I have the three-lens (unmodded) set...very nice indeed for a film-like look. They remind me of Pentax Super-Taks but with greater clarity. You'll find 'em to be quite sharp when stopped down past f/2.8 too, assuming you actually plan on stopping down at all.
-Dave-
I just ordered the 17 for my BMPCC. I wish they made a 12, that would be a solid set. Can't decide if I'm gonna get them all.
-
Those are modded Voigtländers, yes? I have the three-lens (unmodded) set...very nice indeed for a film-like look. They remind me of Pentax Super-Taks but with greater clarity. You'll find 'em to be quite sharp when stopped down past f/2.8 too, assuming you actually plan on stopping down at all.
-Dave-
Yea Dave, just can't decide if I'm doing the Cine conversion or leave them as standard still lenses, because they are destined for the gh3s mostly for video and I'll probably be pulling focus myself.
I noticed you mentioned you had Voigtländers and your advice is normally solid and and agenda free.
I have two Voigtlanders I bought for my Leica a long time ago, a 35mm and a 50 something. I never used them for stills, they never looked really sharp until they were stopped down, but they had a look about them and I know this sounds kind of silly but whatever you shot, if the scene was period neutral the image would look . . . historic. That's hard to explain but we've all seen the look.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the .95 for a lot of motion imagery and they'll probably make some nice images on the olympus also.
The real upside of the 43 system is the lens base and size. The downside is the lenses are only good for this format from two makers, but then again Canons really only work on Canons, etc. etc., so I guess that's not a big deal.
Thx for the info earlier.
BC
-
The message from that comparison is, A7R works much worst than A7, it's simply terrible.
Not only that, it's worst than FUji-X (APS-C).
-
Hi,
Fuji-X just has a central crop, no corners. The Leica M8, M9, ME and M (240) are you best option for M-mount lenses. The M (240) even sports a sensor developed for Leica.
Lower resolution helps a bit both vignetting and color cast.
I would not buy an A7 or A7r for M-mount wideangles, it is well know it doesn't work well. It is equally well known that it work well with anything else.
Best regards
Erik
The message from that comparison is, A7R works much worst than A7, it's simply terrible.
Not only that, it's worst than FUji-X (APS-C).
-
Yea Dave, just can't decide if I'm doing the Cine conversion or leave them as standard still lenses, because they are destined for the gh3s mostly for video and I'll probably be pulling focus myself.
I had a look at the Duclos site...seems to me the conversion is worthwhile if you can comfortably swing it $$ wise. The lenses are normally about $1k each, so add another $900 or so for the conversion. Standardized filter threads, follow-focus gearing should you ever need it and stepless aperture control with the 25mm (the other two have this as an option out-of-box).
I have two Voigtlanders I bought for my Leica a long time ago, a 35mm and a 50 something. I never used them for stills, they never looked really sharp until they were stopped down, but they had a look about them and I know this sounds kind of silly but whatever you shot, if the scene was period neutral the image would look . . . historic. That's hard to explain but we've all seen the look.
The early Voigts in particular were explicit homages to classic 1950s/60s designs, so there ya go. That look. My SLR 58/1.4 is even branded Tokyo Kogaku (Topcon) rather than Voigtländer to make the inspiration clearer...at least to folks who know from Topcon. ;) (Really good lens too, still available under the Voigtländer brand in F mount.)
Thx for the info earlier.
My pleasure.
(As for M lenses on non-M cameras...I enjoy using some of them on my X-E1 and old Epson R-D1. But I know I wouldn't use them enough to justify the cost of an A7r even if the Sony's sensor got along well with them. I would be attracted to the Sony by a better fleshed-out native lens lineup. We shall see...)
-Dave-
-
Hi,
It is well known that the A7/A7r don't play well with most M-mount wide angles because those lenses have large "chief ray angles", which I belive is the correct technical term.
Leica has done a lot to reduce those problems on the M-series. Thin IR filter, no OLP filtering, offset microlenses, specially designed sensor for the M(240) bar coding lenses so camera can make correction for vignetting and lens cast in firmware or pass on to raw converter. Aperture is estimated by camera body, so EXIF has aperture information.
The optical package in fron of the sensor causes astigmatism on "Biogon" type of lenses. The optical package can be taken into account on modern lenses designs.
Best regards
Erik
(As for M lenses on non-M cameras...I enjoy using some of them on my X-E1 and old Epson R-D1. But I know I wouldn't use them enough to justify the cost of an A7r even if the Sony's sensor got along well with them. I would be attracted to the Sony by a better fleshed-out native lens lineup. We shall see...)
-Dave-
-
Ray,
It's not the greater number of pixels per se - it's the greater quantity of information. You can subdivide a fixed sensor size into more and more, smaller and smaller pixels, but at some point when the image is oversampled, there is no further gain in information. Maintaining the pixel size and lens performance while increasing the sensor area is still the best route to increased information (detail).
Thank you. I think I understand the point you make but would appreciate if you will confirm:
For a given sensor area, an increase in the number of pixels increases the level of detail previously captured by the field of view, up until the point of oversampling, whereas increasing the size of a sensor will, all else being equal, change the field of view because the sensor will crop a larger area from the lens image circle.
Is this what you meant, or have I completely misunderstood?
-
The pixel sizes are 6.9, 6, 3.9 microns. If you look carefully you see that the P45+ image on the left has a lot of fake detail while the Sony Alpha 77 on the right has most detail. This doesn't mean that the Alpha 77 outperforms the other two, but it produces less artifacts.
You didn't mention aperture used, or i didn't see it, but I've noticed in my own testing, it matters a lot more for smaller pixels as does critical focusing, quality of glass, and post processing algorithms. I never would have expected this but it seems to me the actual apex of focus is much more pronounced with smaller pixels. On a test like yours with the feather, very tiny focus adjustments can change your apparent results in less obvious ways as too small an aperture. And the tiny details - some RAW software just does better at pulling them out.
-
Hi,
Aperture was f/8.
But you may have misinterpreted the posting. The interesting part is that you have severe aliasing on the P45+ image resulting in cross hatch pattern on the feather, the Alpha 99 image also shows a lot of aliasing so OLP filtering does not really help. The Sony Alpha 77 with it's smaller pixels + OLP filter doesn't show a lot of alising. These images were taken at fixed distance and at 150mm. So the image grows size is larger with decreasing pixel size. The Sony images were thus downscaled using Lanzos (which causes very little aliasing on it's own) to match the P45+ image. The attached crops below are from P45+ and SLT 77 (6.9 my and 3.9 my).
Stopping down would reduce aliasing, due to diffraction, but another P45+ shot at f/16 still had a lot. Anything that reduces contrast reduces aliasing, and the sharper the system is the more aliasing you get.
I made an exposure with a Planar 80/2.8 (at f/8) from the same position and that image also had a lot of aliasing. So it seems you always get it.
This is nothing unexpected, just a demonstration of applied sampling theory. If the lens transfers significant MTF at pixel pitch you will get aliasing. A document from Schneider I have read said that MTF should be below 10% at Nyquist.
The P45+ has Nyquist limit at 72 LP/mm. if you check the MTF curves below the Sonnar has about 30% MTF at 72 lp/mm. The Sony Alpha 77 has Nyquist limit at 128 lp/mm. My MTF graphs don't go that long, but at 120 lp/mm none of the lenses reach more than 5% MTF, so aliasing does not arise.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Zeissness_3/F8/Imatest_small.png)
Best regards
Erik
You didn't mention aperture used, or i didn't see it, but I've noticed in my own testing, it matters a lot more for smaller pixels as does critical focusing, quality of glass, and post processing algorithms. I never would have expected this but it seems to me the actual apex of focus is much more pronounced with smaller pixels. On a test like yours with the feather, very tiny focus adjustments can change your apparent results in less obvious ways as too small an aperture. And the tiny details - some RAW software just does better at pulling them out.
-
A lot of my Rollei Schneider lenses are testing in at .49 cycles per pixel @ f/5.6 for MTF 30 (or was it MTF 50? rats have to check this) in the center of the image with the AFi-ii 12 back. I had to print a 8 foot test chart to make the tests accurate. This back has 5.2 um pixel pitch.
I'm wondering if you had better glass for your tests what you'd see. I also wonder if you shot at a wider aperture properly focused what you'd see. Lastly, I wonder what role if any fill factor on the sensor would play with all this.
-
Hi Eric,
Best lens I have. Focusing is as good I can optically, next step is focusing bracket. Something to consider is also sharpening, I measure MTF with no sharpening (in this case).
0.49 cycles/pixels at MTF 50 is a lot.
I plotted LWPH for the Sonnar on the MP45+ at different apertures it peaks at f/5.6. It depends on accuracy of focus naturally:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Diffraction/MTF_of_aperture.png)
Best regards
Erik
A lot of my Rollei Schneider lenses are testing in at .49 cycles per pixel @ f/5.6 for MTF 30 (or was it MTF 50? rats have to check this) in the center of the image with the AFi-ii 12 back. I had to print a 8 foot test chart to make the tests accurate. This back has 5.2 um pixel pitch.
I'm wondering if you had better glass for your tests what you'd see. I also wonder if you shot at a wider aperture properly focused what you'd see. Lastly, I wonder what role if any fill factor on the sensor would play with all this.
-
It is isn't it?
I noticed your test charts showed under sharpening of about 25%. I add a tiny amount of capture level sharpening in C1 at a small radius and on my tests Imatest reports about 10% under sharpened. Default sharpening in C1 is too much according to Imatest and with it, I'll get over .5 cy/px on the charts -which isn't possible and only an artifact of the extra sharpening.
Try something with your P45 feather images - process out with C1 v7 as a .tiff with no noise reduction and 150 sharpening at r 0.7 and T 0, then import into LR and use more sharpening at r1.1 with detail to 100 and threshold at 15 or 20. This two step approach always seems to work well for me to get the most real detail with my 80mp back. I might not always use those exact values, but approximately. Depends on aperture, subject etc.
btw I'm not doing that 2 step with my lens tests, just on my art prints and art reproduction work.
-
Hi Eric,
I will try your recepies but not on these pictures. This is just a aliasing study.
Regarding MTF I sometimes measure it without any sharpening. The MTF curves in this case were all measured on an OLP filtered 3.9 micron sensor.
By the way, Imatest always judges sharpening on medium radius and halos. You can sharpen almost any amount on small pixel radii and it will still report undersharpening. Normal sharpening is based on what would be considered normal sharpening for in camera JPEGs.
Best regards
Erik
It is isn't it?
I noticed your test charts showed under sharpening of about 25%. I add a tiny amount of capture level sharpening in C1 at a small radius and on my tests Imatest reports about 10% under sharpened. Default sharpening in C1 is too much according to Imatest and with it, I'll get over .5 cy/px on the charts -which isn't possible and only an artifact of the extra sharpening.
Try something with your P45 feather images - process out with C1 v7 as a .tiff with no noise reduction and 150 sharpening at r 0.7 and T 0, then import into LR and use more sharpening at r1.1 with detail to 100 and threshold at 15 or 20. This two step approach always seems to work well for me to get the most real detail with my 80mp back. I might not always use those exact values, but approximately. Depends on aperture, subject etc.
btw I'm not doing that 2 step with my lens tests, just on my art prints and art reproduction work.
-
I remember asking Norman about the sharpening, but will ask again. You can quite clearly see the effects of just changing sharpening values in C1 on the output so I do know that it is sensitive to both radius and also amounts. You can test this yourself. Takes just a few minutes.
To me, its not all that important what parameters I am using for sharpening - just as long as I use the same method for all of the things I want to compare. My comparisons were mostly made to see the difference between the Zeiss and Schneider offerings of the Rollei MF lenses, plus some comparisons to the the LF lenses.
-
Hi,
What I do is sharpening in LR at radius depending on diffraction. I found that 0.7 works well for both P45+ and the Sonys when shot at medium apertures. For small apertures I go up to perhaps 1.3. Setting detail slider to 100% gives deconvolution, good for microdetail but gives often some outline. The amount I use 45. Don't want to sharpen more.
You could check out SQF in Imatest, it is the integral of MTF(f) weighted by contrast sensivity of the eye. It is mostly affected by large radii. I tried my sharpening and adding sharpening with radius 3 and amount 15 in PS. That removes undersharpening and adds a lot of pop.
Finally, I have tested my sharpening on a slightly soft P45+ image, and combined with Focus Magic. Incredible result!
Best regards
Erik
It is isn't it?
I noticed your test charts showed under sharpening of about 25%. I add a tiny amount of capture level sharpening in C1 at a small radius and on my tests Imatest reports about 10% under sharpened. Default sharpening in C1 is too much according to Imatest and with it, I'll get over .5 cy/px on the charts -which isn't possible and only an artifact of the extra sharpening.
Try something with your P45 feather images - process out with C1 v7 as a .tiff with no noise reduction and 150 sharpening at r 0.7 and T 0, then import into LR and use more sharpening at r1.1 with detail to 100 and threshold at 15 or 20. This two step approach always seems to work well for me to get the most real detail with my 80mp back. I might not always use those exact values, but approximately. Depends on aperture, subject etc.
btw I'm not doing that 2 step with my lens tests, just on my art prints and art reproduction work.
-
Finally, I have tested my sharpening on a slightly soft P45+ image, and combined with Focus Magic. Incredible result!
Hi Erik,
I agree, FocusMagic rocks!
It can also be used with other applications that accept Photoshop Plugins, e.g. Photoline or IrfanView, so no fear for being locked out when switching applications.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Lets touch were hurts...The DMF industry have to wake up...and bring the lower MP backs of 40MP to the 5000€ price range.
I love to compose in the viewfinder of the MF cameras, but please what sony accomplish with this exmor 36mp sensor in the 2000$ price range its a revolution, its a game changer.
He still have a Phase and Hassy with a 15years old base body tecnology... ( mamiya 645 and the Fuji AF645) and asking 15.000$ for a entry level model...
The DMF industry have to follow the trends of technology, push the prices down and bring new technology in new models. Just like the 35mm did, the smartphones, the computer industries.
If this not happen, the DMF in the future its just a tool for the rich to show off for the clients.
Its sad, very sad, i love MF but they just stopped in time.
-
Lets touch were hurts...The DMF industry have to wake up...and bring the lower MP backs of 40MP to the 5000€ price range.
I love to compose in the viewfinder of the MF cameras, but please what sony accomplish with this exmor 36mp sensor in the 2000$ price range its a revolution, its a game changer.
He still have a Phase and Hassy with a 15years old base body tecnology... ( mamiya 645 and the Fuji AF645) and asking 15.000$ for a entry level model...
The DMF industry have to follow the trends of technology, push the prices down and bring new technology in new models. Just like the 35mm did, the smartphones, the computer industries.
If this not happen, the DMF in the future its just a tool for the rich to show off for the clients.
Its sad, very sad, i love MF but they just stopped in time.
Art buyers could use the same argument for photographers' prices. "Look at all of the newer guys in the market, what they can do, and how little they charge."
-
Joe i as not talking about talent...i was talking about technology tools....
The jump in photo quality of smartphones killed the pocket cameras segment...
The DMF backs Killed the LF and MF film
And if DMF don´t change the 35mm future 45MP or 50MP sensors will kill the DMF.
I love MF, but i never never could understand why i have to pay a 300$ for a simple Li-on battery, with no CPU or advance memory registry like the news battery from canon or nikon.
Or a 6.000$ phase DF camera with AA batery...
The biggest advantage of MF since de film days was always the quality of the files VS the 35mm...and now we have reach a point we see very small diferences
The biggest differences are the price. 50.000$ Vs 5.000$ and that plus "0" in the professional photo market makes a huge difference.
Thats its just my personal opinion...and sorry my bad English
Pedro
-
Art buyers could use the same argument for photographers' prices. "Look at all of the newer guys in the market, what they can do, and how little they charge."
Actually it would seem exactly that has happened.
The top guys are getting paid well for big international campaigns, and the rest are getting by very badly, much worse now than in the days before the Internet, when competition for the medium jobs was more local.
Edmund
-
Actually it would seem exactly that has happened.
The top guys are getting paid well for big international campaigns, and the rest are getting by very badly, much worse now than in the days before the Internet, when competition for the medium jobs was more local.
Edmund
I can see the pain here, although I am too young to really know it. But I feel that this pain could be all just be a matter of business planning and how you view the market. As a young photographer, I make do pretty well right now and I am not cheap. (A few years ago, not really, but the recession and all put a damper on things.) Same thing with my fiancee, who shoots food. A little less than three years in and she is getting 5 figure food shoots. Maybe fashion is different; it seems everyone wants to do fashion but ... a small percentage, so it must be harder. And if you want to be a med end guy with a small local clientele, maybe this has gotten harder.
But anyway, all I am saying is that we complain about budgets going down hill, but at the same time make villains of Phase and Hassy and etc. for being too expensive and not getting with the times. Well maybe their business plan is different than how we/you think it is. Maybe it is well planned and well executed. Maybe we can learn or should learn from them on how they do it and apply it to our plan.
Anyway, if we want to look at it from a pure economic standpoint, the 40 mpx sensors have been phased out, so supply is not increasing at all. But, as it turns out, demand maybe increasing for them. So why the high price? Because that is what the market says they can be sold for now.
-
Please can anyone explain me if one the biggest advantage of the DMF its the big format + big viewfinder ... why in the hell the Phase and the Hassy don´t make a 5.000$ or 7.000$ full frame 28 - 33MP entry level system !!!! to compete with the 35mm systems !!!
Or the high price tag of the DMF its just now a marketing ticket to show to the clients? "i can´t ask for 3.000$ food shoot and make it a d800e"...???
-
I will most probably get an A7R next year. But for it to be my MAIN camera?
At 1/160s sync speed, no thanks.
-
I have said this before...
I was very intrigued with Sony cameras and the idea of having Zeiss glass.
At one of the larger photo industry shows I was checking out the huge Sony display and asked the rep what they had for professional services similar to "Canon Professional Services" or "Nikon Professional Services". I was give a quizzical stare and the rep had a few moments of awkward silence. He then said "let me check". Returning with a more experienced rep, we had a moments pleasantry and then I repeated my inquiry. I was told, to paraphrase... "we do not consider these professional cameras but more for advanced amateurs, so we don't have service like that".
I have to tell you that with that lack of support for me as a working photographer, no matter what the price consideration or megapixels or feature set, I am not interested. And I must say that since that time, I know professionals who are "sponsored" by Sony have endured extended periods of time for service, on the order of 6 weeks. CPS, NPS, Phase One, Leaf, Hasselblad all have special programs for professional photographers who depend on their gear.
-
... Please can anyone explain me if one the biggest advantage of the DMF its the big format + big viewfinder ... why in the hell the Phase and the Hassy don´t make a 5.000$ or 7.000$ full frame 28 - 33MP entry level system !!!! to compete with the 35mm systems !!!
Lens systems are a major barrier to moving into a new format where competitors are already well established; both the need to design an extensive new array of lenses, and the fact that many people already own lenses for another system in that format. This works the other way too, and is one reason why I think there is very little chance of Canon or Nikon launching a system in a format larger than 36x24mm, or of Pentax or Olympus returning to 36x24mm format now that they have few or no up-to-date lens designs for that format.
-
I have said this before...
I was very intrigued with Sony cameras and the idea of having Zeiss glass.
At one of the larger photo industry shows I was checking out the huge Sony display and asked the rep what they had for professional services similar to "Canon Professional Services" or "Nikon Professional Services". I was give a quizzical stare and the rep had a few moments of awkward silence. He then said "let me check". Returning with amore experienced rep, we had a moments pleasantry and then I repeated my inquiry. I was told, to paraphrase... "we do not consider these professional cameras but more for advanced amateurs, so we don't have service like that".
I have to tell you that with that lack of support for me as a working photographer, no matter what the price consideration or megapixels or feature set, I am not interested. And I must say that since that time, I know professionals who are "sponsored" by Sony have endured extended periods of time for service, on the order of 6 weeks. CPS, NPS, Phase One, Leaf, Hasselblad all have special programs for professional photographers who depend on their gear.
I have heard from more than one person that Sony is planning a comprehensive pro service next year, but I don't think it will cover E mount cameras, only A mount. Time will tell.
Sony Style here already has a decent rental program for the Zeiss lenses at rental rates far lower than that of normal rental houses. Neither Canon or Nikon does the same here, to my knowledge.
-
Lens systems are a major barrier to moving into a new format where competitors are already well established; both the need to design an extensive new array of lenses, and the fact that many people already own lenses for another system in that format. This works the other way too, and is one reason why I think there is very little chance of Canon or Nikon launching a system in a format larger than 36x24mm, or of Pentax or Olympus returning to 36x24mm format now that they have few or no up-to-date lens designs for that format.
The Mamiya DM22 kit is already 10K and during discounts has gone down to below 8K a few times.
Both Steve and Doug can put together something decent at around 7K too, from what I understand.
Of course, older Hassys can be had for 5-6K if you look around. Just don't go down that road with frequent upgrades in mind.
The entry ticket to MFD is not as expensive as most people think; provided one knows about and can live with the limitations of the tech in these older cameras and backs.
-
I have heard from more than one person that Sony is planning a comprehensive pro service next year, but I don't think it will cover E mount cameras, only A mount. Time will tell.
Sony Style here already has a decent rental program for the Zeiss lenses at rental rates far lower than that of normal rental houses. Neither Canon or Nikon does the same here, to my knowledge.
Canon Professional Services has lenses and bodies available at no cost. I understand Nikon has the same.
-
Canon Professional Services has lenses and bodies available at no cost. I understand Nikon has the same.
To registered professionals, yes. The Sony service I was talking about is open to all Sony camera owners. Not just the ones registered as pros.
-
To registered professionals, yes. The Sony service I was talking about is open to all Sony camera owners. Not just the ones registered as pros.
"To registered professionals, yes." - Correct... I have been using their services for years.
-
Lens systems are a major barrier to moving into a new format where competitors are already well established; both the need to design an extensive new array of lenses, and the fact that many people already own lenses for another system in that format. This works the other way too, and is one reason why I think there is very little chance of Canon or Nikon launching a system in a format larger than 36x24mm, or of Pentax or Olympus returning to 36x24mm format now that they have few or no up-to-date lens designs for that format.
It depends on what you shoot. I seem to get the feeling that a lot of A7r buyers are buying adapters for their Canon lenses just to get 35 mpx.
For someone like me who uses and needs fast autofocus I'd probably go the A7 which means A mount lenses, to cover the range I have with Canon and if I compare Sony lens prices to my Canon lenses, I'm at around $9,000. If you go that far into a system you need two bodies, two adapters, two right angle grips so to make a change from Canon to Sony is $14,000.
Digital film gets expensive.
There are a few things I'm missing on this system. Why does the 7r sync at 25oth, the 7 at 160th and why not the same focus sensors on both AND why can't they cover 80% of the frame like the olympus em-1?
I think it's a nice camera, but it really seems rushed. For most I don't think it will stop the sales one bit as they'll either use their own canon lenses and adapters, or buy a couple of the slower e-mount lenses, but if you work professionally, the numbers change drastically.
As mentioned Sony needs a CPS type of service if they're really going to make a dent in Canon and Nikon. I can send my Canon in for a shutter on Monday, get it back on Thursday at the latest for a low price.
Use to I'd say they need to increase their rental presence, but give that lensrentalsdotcom and borrowlensdotcom exist, the usually cover most formats and brands, so at least their is that option for the one time in two years you need a 400mm lens.
-
It depends on what you shoot. I seem to get the feeling that a lot of A7r buyers are buying adapters for their Canon lenses just to get 35 mpx.
For someone like me who uses and needs fast autofocus I'd probably go the A7 which means A mount lenses, to cover the range I have with Canon and if I compare Sony lens prices to my Canon lenses, I'm at around $9,000. If you go that far into a system you need two bodies, two adapters, two right angle grips so to make a change from Canon to Sony is $14,000.
Digital film gets expensive.
There are a few things I'm missing on this system. Why does the 7r sync at 25oth, the 7 at 160th and why not the same focus sensors on both AND why can't they cover 80% of the frame like the olympus em-1?
I think it's a nice camera, but it really seems rushed. For most I don't think it will stop the sales one bit as they'll either use their own canon lenses and adapters, or buy a couple of the slower e-mount lenses, but if you work professionally, the numbers change drastically.
As mentioned Sony needs a CPS type of service if they're really going to make a dent in Canon and Nikon. I can send my Canon in for a shutter on Monday, get it back on Thursday at the latest for a low price.
Use to I'd say they need to increase their rental presence, but give that lensrentalsdotcom and borrowlensdotcom exist, the usually cover most formats and brands, so at least their is that option for the one time in two years you need a 400mm lens.
The price of the Sony compared to a 1D X means you could have plenty of bodies as backup. If you bought the 1DX it will not be because you wanted pixels though, I can see me adding a Sony body or two for when I want pixels, plus an adapter for my lenses.
If I was a Nikon shooter I would be wondering about Nikons core technology being in the hands of an aggressive competitor. Nikons last attempt at sensor design quietly fizzled away didn't it or is the D4 homemade Nikon?
If Sony ever consider themselves as a pro camera maker I can not see them giving first pick to Nikon for Sony future ground breaking tech.
long term Sony probably viewed the tie up with Nikon as a quick means to get a slice of Canon market, if these sensors were only in Sony cameras would we be talking about them as much? Nikon is proving a good springboard for Sony, I wonder how long they need Nikon for?
-
It depends on what you shoot. I seem to get the feeling that a lot of A7r buyers are buying adapters for their Canon lenses just to get 35 mpx.
Let me clarify: I was talking about the economic barrier that a camera maker faces if it want to create a successful high quality system in a new format for which it does not yet have lenses (or has only a small selection, as with Pentax's current lenses for 36x24mm format) while competitors in that new format already have well-established lens systems.
Some customers might need only a few lenses, and some might accept using adaptor-mounted lenses from other makers, but for the new system to be commercially viable, it needs (a) to appeal to a sufficient number of high end users, by offering a sufficient variety of lenses, and (b) to generate profits on lens sales, which is not helped by generating profits for competitors through sales of their lenses to be used with adaptors.
36x24mm is not a new format size for Sony, and it already has plenty of its own A-mount lenses suitable for use with the A7R and A7, so I am sure it plans on selling a good number of Sony and Zeiss/Sony lenses for use on this new line of cameras, not just selling adaptors for using Canon and Nikon lenses.
-
Nikon is proving a good springboard for Sony, I wonder how long they need Nikon for?
People have been saying things like this since the Nikon D100, speculating that Sony might someday cut off its supplies of sensors to Nikon. There has been no hint of a move in that direction, or even of Sony cutting of the far smaller Pentax, and indeed Sony has recently expanded to also to making sensors in 4/3" format for Olympus (and maybe for Panasonic) even though Sony has no use in own products for those 4/3" sensors.
It seems clear that Sony's sensor division is happy for the profits and economies of scale it gets from selling sensors to any camera maker that wants them, especially in the case of Nikon, which is a far larger market for "SLR-sized" sensors than Sony's own camera division.
With Nikon having several other sensor making partners (Toshiba for some SLR's, Aptina for Nikon One), the risks might even be in the other direction: that Nikon would rather shift its sensor sources to companies that are not competing against its cameras.
-
if these sensors were only in Sony cameras would we be talking about them as much? Nikon is proving a good springboard for Sony, I wonder how long they need Nikon for?
Not any longer - the D800 has set the scene. ;D
Edmund
-
If Sony ever consider themselves as a pro camera maker I can not see them giving first pick to Nikon for Sony future ground breaking tech.
l
if you talk to anyone who sells cameras, the pro still camera market is not high on their list, at least not the most important.
The makers feature professionals to get people to "think" every pro uses one, but that's not their intended market.
Pros come in all shapes and forms, some never owning anything, the new breed of Millenials thinking a 5d2 is their big camera, do others that own 200 lenses.
My point Sony just wants to sell cameras and not one to one customer but a few cameras to a bunch of customers.
What they did with the A7 is really not groundbreaking, it's just ground breaking in regards to price. 22 mpx in a new camera for half the price of a 5d2 is what is ground breaking, same with the a7r vs. the d800.
IMO
BC
-
What they did with the A7 is really not groundbreaking, it's just ground breaking in regards to price. 22 mpx in a new camera for half the price of a 5d2 is what is ground breaking, same with the a7r vs. the d800.
IMO
BC
J,
Nah,you're so close to the action you're missing it. It's a one-two technology-marketing punch: The release via Nikon of a high-rez (Sony) sensor with major architectural novelties; then the release of a "real" camera that is just a box with a lens and shutter is a marketing sucker punch, a violation of the Omerta, a public refutation of the complex mechanisms which Nikon and Canon kept selling.
The D800 sensor with many pixels and huge DR has knocked everyone including Canon for a loop. And now with the A7R we have moved a major step forwards to the Red-like camera with no moving parts.
It looks like fast-return mirrorboxes, pentaprisms, AF-sensors, metering sensors, and possibly even shutters are finally going to go out of fashion - a lot of roadkill among the little manufacturing folk out there; and a world were cameras are just a sensor in a box, with a display on top, cheaper to make, no precision moving parts, and with a lot less justification for custom mounts. Think Red.
Sony may have "allowed" Nikon to use their revolutionary new sensor, but then in the closeness of their rapprochement they shoved a poison dagger into the heart of Nikon's technological manufacturing base - most of the specialized mechanical assemblies which for 40 years were the core of the SLR are now finally *seen* as obsolete, with the A7R clearly shown to be a relative and peer of the D800. Welcome to the brave new world of Mirrorless.
And by the way, change is not necessarily a bad thing. Cameras without moving parts are cameras any computer geek can design and tune - we may suddenly see a wind of change and novelty sweep in. Quite possibly european and even US manufacturers with optics experience may stage a comeback.
Edmund
-
The Phase CEO in his interview with Michael Reichmann casually mentioned that the IXR is a glimpse at what the future Phase camera will be like. So I'm thinking the future of medium format is mirrorless too.
Of course, with Mirrorless and EVF comes CMOS, which I am not yet sure I am happy about. Like BC demonstrated many times with his images, I have found that CCD images have a certain quality about them; whatever scientific mumbo jumbo be the reason behind it.
-
With mirrorless comes good focus via EVF, and suddenly you can sell more, but it becomes much harder to sell complete camera systems to studio photographers. And then a year later you discover that the competition can make a business case too that they can sell backs, with on-site user alignment and calibration, so you have a *lot* of mom and pop competition.
Edmund
The Phase CEO in his interview with Michael Reichmann casually mentioned that the IXR is a glimpse at what the future Phase camera will be like. So I'm thinking the future of medium format is mirrorless too.
Of course, with Mirrorless and EVF comes CMOS, which I am not yet sure I am happy about. Like BC demonstrated many times with his images, I have found that CCD images have a certain quality about them; whatever scientific mumbo jumbo be the reason behind it.
-
Hi
I guess it is called CGA (Color Grid Array). No mumbo jumbo, just a set of tiny filters defining colour. Older Phase backs, Leica M9, Hasselblad use Kodak/TrueSense sensors and they have Kodak CGAs. Later generation Phase One and most Leaf MFDs use DALSA CCDs with DALSA CGAs. Leica M has a sensor developed by CMOSIS for Leica that has a different CGA.
Sony sensors have Sony CGAs and Canon sensors have Canon CGAs.
The sensors are monochrome, except Foveon, and all colour is coming from the CGAs.
There are differences in spectral sensivity between devices that may matter, but when the cameras discussed have CGAs coming from the same vendor it is probable the CGA affect colour far more than CCD or CMOS.
If Phase One would use a CMOS sensor from DALSA it would have DALSA colours. Would Hasselblad use a CMOS sensor from Sony it would probably have Sony colours. I guess that it would possible for a sensor vendor to make different CGAs for different customers, of course.
Best regards
Erik
Of course, with Mirrorless and EVF comes CMOS, which I am not yet sure I am happy about. Like BC demonstrated many times with his images, I have found that CCD images have a certain quality about them; whatever scientific mumbo jumbo be the reason behind it.
-
Hi Erik,
I think some of the subtlety was lost in translation. I do know the basic technology behind a bayer patter sensor. The point is, as an artist, I don't really care much for the subtle technology differences or photons and all that, but a CCD sensor delivers a much more pleasing image to me when it comes to portraiture. Again, as an artist, that's all I need to know.
-
Hi,
My point is that if MF moves to CMOS the color rendition will not be affected as long as the same or similar CGAs are used. So TrueSense will probably keep the Kodak look and DALSA will probably keep the DALSA look.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
I think some of the subtlety was lost in translation. I do know the basic technology behind a bayer patter sensor. The point is, as an artist, I don't really care much for the subtle technology differences or photons and all that, but a CCD sensor delivers a much more pleasing image to me when it comes to portraiture. Again, as an artist, that's all I need to know.
-
The Phase CEO in his interview with Michael Reichmann casually mentioned that the IXR is a glimpse at what the future Phase camera will be like. So I'm thinking the future of medium format is mirrorless too.
Of course, with Mirrorless and EVF comes CMOS, which I am not yet sure I am happy about. Like BC demonstrated many times with his images, I have found that CCD images have a certain quality about them; whatever scientific mumbo jumbo be the reason behind it.
You might be right, because if CCD was the only direction medium format was going, you'd probably see the dealers and reps all over the difference in look. Instead their somewhat quiet about it.
Maybe they just don't want to get involved and don't know where things are going, but from the Phase CEO's comments I think we all have a good idea that cmos is coming, even to larger formats.
Good thing is if everyone buys into the cmos look, maybe those ccd backs will come down in price.
IMO
BC
BTW: just one more ccd file from my original digital camera a 6mpx dcs 760
Obviously post processing for effect and NOT to hold highlights or detail, but just for look.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/dcs760.jpg)
-
Sony sensors have Sony CGAs
that is if you assume that Sony Semiconductor applies the same CFA regardless - if CFA is applied by them then they probably apply the according to spec from the buyer (Sony Imaging, Pentax/Ricoh, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic /in GH3/etc)... so even if CFA is applied by Sony Semiconductor it is not all the same.
-
Like BC demonstrated many times with his images
which are so heavily postprocessed though, are they not ::)...
-
which are so heavily postprocessed though, are they not ::)...
I have several portraits from my own CCD Nikons and CMOS Nikons and I see the difference SOOC.
-
I have several portraits from my own CCD Nikons and CMOS Nikons and I see the difference SOOC.
A couple stops underexposure will do wonders for most modern CMOS cameras.
Edmund
-
A couple stops underexposure will do wonders for most modern CMOS cameras.
Edmund
As we discussed before, it is not feasible in a high pressure, strobe lit shooting environment where you're working with ratios and lightmeters.
-
As we discussed before, it is not feasible in a high pressure, strobe lit shooting environment where you're working with ratios and lightmeters.
As we discussed before, YOU do not have the wish to do it, but quite a few other users of this forum can.
As we discussed, gelling the lights or using a filter to balance the channels gets you the headroom and solves the problem. A lot of people here can adopt that solution, and then magically the blue channel will clear up, and the images will "pop".
Edmund
-
As we discussed before, YOU do not have the wish to do it, but quite a few other users of this forum can.
As we discussed, gelling the lights or using a filter to balance the channels gets you the headroom and solves the problem. If you prefer to pay $20K rather than do either of these, that's your privilege; cinema crews routinely work with gelled lights.
Edmund
You can drop the condescending tone. You were replying to my post (Which you quoted), so it is perfectly valid for me to let you know of my perspective.
Cinema crews work with continuous lights. It's not remotely as easy to gel a strobe that's firing through a double diffused octa. And that's just one strobe. And what exactly would that achieve? Yes, I have suddenly halved the power of the strobe. Now it reads one stop lesser on my meter. So what?
Can you gel the sun too? Oh wait, let's double the shutter speed to cut the ambient. Dang, the D800 tops out at 1/320s and I am already there. Ok, let's put an ND filter on the lens. Now an already dim viewfinder is even dimmer! With worse AF!
At this point, I am pretty clear you've never actually done any real on-location strobe lit portraiture work.
That was for one strobe. I am working with multiple strobes. More time spent doing unnecessary workarounds = less time spent shooting. Not to my best interests.
I prefer to pay whatever to buy the best tool suited for my needs. The D800 isn't it and skin tonality but one reason. I don't have to justify all of them to you unless you're keen on footing the bill.
Or, if you think you can do a better job than me doing what I do with the tools I am currently working with, please show images and not bars and graphs.
-
I have several portraits from my own CCD Nikons and CMOS Nikons and I see the difference SOOC.
Hi,
As has been explained several times, silicon based sensor arrays are monochrome, and have a roughly panchromatic spectral sensitivity. They are also relatively sensitive to Near Infra-Red light, but that's filtered out.
The color response of silicon based sensor arrays, regardless whether built as CCD or as CMOS device, is determined by the Bayer CFA filter characteristics. Some manufacturers choose to have clearly separated color channels with little overlap, others sacrifice color separation to gain a little sensitivity with les dense and more overlapping color channels.
Then comes the profiling. Now all bets are off in how colors will be rendered, even SOOC. Same file, different Raw converters, different colors. That's not because the sensor suddenly switched form CCD to CMOS, that's ludicrous. Color is created as it is demosaiced and profile converted.
What many do not seem to grasp is that the CCD versus CMOS technologies have other differences that explain why they are predominantly used in certain devices. Traditional CMOS technology is e.g. less suited for large surface sensor arrays where the angle of incident light can vary a lot, e.g. due to Tilt/Shift movements, or traditional lens designs where the exit pupil is relatively close to the sensor array.
That also explains why AA-filters and micro-lenses are rarely used in such camera backs, not because CCD does not need it, they both do, but it may cause other bigger issues than they solve for a particular use. Of course, technology has not stood still, and we'll see new improved designs as time goes by, but the color rendering it has virtually nothing to do with silicon sensor fabrication technology.
Calling the very technology that allows to make technically better images mumbo jumbo is silly, to say the least.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The color response of silicon based sensor arrays, regardless whether built as CCD or as CMOS device, is determined by the Bayer CFA filter characteristics.
and to some extent by IR/UV cut filter in part of spectrum that are close to what (and how they cut)... then AA filter - is it totally colorless ? for example Ricoh/Pentax considered to use different color profiles in DNG files for K5II and K5IIs (w/o AA filter)...
-
I have several portraits from my own CCD Nikons and CMOS Nikons and I see the difference SOOC.
in addition to what was replied before... on top of what affects the color above the chip surface you have camera profiles in your raw converter (be it OEM or from a 3rd party) that will bring additional difference... unless you create your own profiles completely from scratch yourself then you are probably using some OEM profiles created like 5-10 years ago for old "CCD" cameras and probably more recent profiles for recent "CMOS" cameras... and I bet they were not created using identical tools/approaches.
-
Color is created as it is demosaiced and profile converted.
typically demosaick is the same, camera color profile is different... developers probably (I allege) rarely revisit the color profiles created long time ago for old cameras to update them for probably better approaches that they might be using for new cameras, more so that that might not be willing to redo old profiles to preserve some compatibility and it rarely makes any sense for them to add new profiles for cameras released 5-10-15+ yearas ago
-
and to some extent by IR/UV cut filter in part of spectrum that are close to what (and how they cut)...
Yes (especially important for skin color), but the lens also has it's influence. I do not consider those optical modifiers a part of the sensor design (CCD or CMOS) itself.
then AA filter - is it totally colorless ? for example Ricoh/Pentax considered to use different color profiles in DNG files for K5II and K5IIs (w/o AA filter)...
AFAIK, one of the more frequently used materials is Lithium-Niobate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_niobate), and it is considered to be colorless. It could of course be produced with a certain doping and there is also a quarter-wave plate between 2 crossed layers involved, and AR coating may be applied to reduce internal reflection and improve transparency.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A classic case of techies and creatives talking past each other.
Is it beneficial for photographers to care about the nitty-gritty, at least to some degree? Sure. Is it necessary? Nope.
-Dave-
-
Cmon Dave, your taking all the fun out of lithium.
BC
-
Lithium-Niobate, man. Get it right or risk the Wrath.
Personally I recommend tequila therapy. Works for Carrie Mathison (Homeland)!
-Dave-
-
I for one, am glad I didn't pick up horse racing as a career.
Studying the genetic structure of a horse wouldá made my head explode.
-
Cmon Dave, your taking all the fun out of lithium.
BC
As Ulam and Teller demonstrated graphically,lithium quite substantially adds to the fun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Teller–Ulam_design) ;)
The link points to some test shots of one of the uses of Lithium. I am sure that if you read the article carefully you can make up your own jokes about filters being used to create this effect.
Incredible what you can find on Wikipedia.
I had quite a lot of Rum tonight. Nice Rum, fights my bad cold :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
As has been explained several times, silicon based sensor arrays are monochrome, and have a roughly panchromatic spectral sensitivity. They are also relatively sensitive to Near Infra-Red light, but that's filtered out.
The color response of silicon based sensor arrays, regardless whether built as CCD or as CMOS device, is determined by the Bayer CFA filter characteristics. Some manufacturers choose to have clearly separated color channels with little overlap, others sacrifice color separation to gain a little sensitivity with les dense and more overlapping color channels.
Then comes the profiling. Now all bets are off in how colors will be rendered, even SOOC. Same file, different Raw converters, different colors. That's not because the sensor suddenly switched form CCD to CMOS, that's ludicrous. Color is created as it is demosaiced and profile converted.
What many do not seem to grasp is that the CCD versus CMOS technologies have other differences that explain why they are predominantly used in certain devices. Traditional CMOS technology is e.g. less suited for large surface sensor arrays where the angle of incident light can vary a lot, e.g. due to Tilt/Shift movements, or traditional lens designs where the exit pupil is relatively close to the sensor array.
That also explains why AA-filters and micro-lenses are rarely used in such camera backs, not because CCD does not need it, they both do, but it may cause other bigger issues than they solve for a particular use. Of course, technology has not stood still, and we'll see new improved designs as time goes by, but the color rendering it has virtually nothing to do with silicon sensor fabrication technology.
Calling the very technology that allows to make technically better images mumbo jumbo is silly, to say the least.
Cheers,
Bart
At least in the Sony architecture there was another difference between CCD and CMOS. Their CCD used to use column D/A conversion. Their CMOS did at the pixel D/A conversion. My opinion used to be that the level of precision in calibrating the output from a known red, blue, green in the factory would be much higher with an entire column of data vs 1 pixel. In the last few generations of CMOS the QC is high enough that any such advantage is gone.
The CCD Sony A350 had color tonality superior to their CMOC cameras of the same generation. It was obvious looking at the files. Mind you this was only at ISO100. At 200 it became a level playing field. Above that the A350 started to suck very quickly. Even looking at shots side by side with my later generation A55v, at the pixel level, the A350 shots are superior in color. There is a delicate precision in the color that looks just right. The A55 is far superior as an action/ wildlife camera. However, when you did get the shot with the A350 I would say the color is as good as the D600. Of course it is just an ISO100 14MP camera so it is very limited.
-
At least in the Sony architecture there was another difference between CCD and CMOS. Their CCD used to use column D/A conversion. Their CMOS did at the pixel D/A conversion.
Actually, all CCD use off-board ADC's, just a few of them handling all photo-sites, whereas Sony's EXMOR active pixel CMOS sensors have an ADC at the bottom of each column. But I see you point that there is more room for non-uniformity in the column-parallel ADC approach. Active pixel CMOS sensors also amplify the signal from each photo-site in its transfer down the column, another potential source of non-uniformity. I recall that there used to be signs of non-uniformity in the output of earlier CMOS sensors, but AFAIK this problem has been solved in the best recent sensors.
On the other hand, Canon still uses off-chip ADCs with its CMOS sensors, and Panasonic has used both approaches in different active pixel CMOS sensors, so this is not a systematic "CCD vs active pixel CMOS sensor" sensor thing.
-
Vladimirovich,
typically demosaick is the same, camera color profile is different... developers probably (I allege) rarely revisit the color profiles created long time ago for old cameras to update them for probably better approaches that they might be using for new cameras, more so that that might not be willing to redo old profiles to preserve some compatibility and it rarely makes any sense for them to add new profiles for cameras released 5-10-15+ yearas ago
This is something I have wondered about previously, because if camera manufacturers do update profiles for their software then our library of photos is evolving without our knowledge!
Can anyone confirm if Vladimirovich's assumption above is correct: that the colour profile for a given camera is not revised in time by the manufacturer when the photographer occasionally updates their camera software?
-
My god!
What is happening guys ??
This thread could have easily being the pretext of another war versuses like in the good old days with its cortege of insults, acusations,
semantic interpretations, bombings, blind criticism and harsh lenguaje...
but no...all quiet and politicaly correct.
Weired, very weired...is it Christmas depre?
Or the New-age good vibes love chains?
-
My god!
What is happening guys ??
This thread could have easily being the pretext of another war versuses like in the good old days with its cortege of insults, acusations,
semantic interpretations, bombings, blind criticism and harsh lenguaje...
but no...all quiet and politicaly correct.
Weired, very weired...is it Christmas depre?
Or the New-age good vibes love chains?
Mother's little helpers. Almost everybody's on them now. The medical profession has been ordered to hand them out to all and sundry in order to keep the civilians at peace until the banks have stolen all of the money and the directors have flown to their new life on the Moon.
Why else do you think the Chinese are plotting to go there too?
Inside Job, I repeat my suggestion of before: watch it if you can - it's on DVD.
Rob C
-
The right hemisphere of my brain is aching, maybe I need some of that lithium.
Either that or need to photograph a brick wall or something. ;)
-
A conflict between scientists and artist?
Erik
My god!
What is happening guys ??
This thread could have easily being the pretext of another war versuses like in the good old days with its cortege of insults, acusations,
semantic interpretations, bombings, blind criticism and harsh lenguaje...
but no...all quiet and politicaly correct.
Weired, very weired...is it Christmas depre?
Or the New-age good vibes love chains?
-
A conflict between scientists and artist?
Erik
Scientists and artists
Expensive and cheap
Big format and small format
Amateurs and profesionals
Passion and reason
unibrand and Brand-agnostism
and many more potential wars I guess I forgot.
-
Hi,
I see your point.
Personally, I am a bit like Mr. Spock. If it is not logical it makes no sense to me. If I am given an explanation, I may feel it is worth discussing if it holds. If it does, just fine, if it does not, there is disagreement. No reason not to be polite.
Best regards
Erik
Scientists and artists
Expensive and cheap
Big format and small format
Amateurs and profesionals
Passion and reason
unibrand and Brand-agnostism
and many more potential wars I guess I forgot.
-
Hi,
I see your point.
Personally, I am a bit like Mr. Spock. If it is not logical it makes no sense to me. If I am given an explanation, I may feel it is worth discussing if it holds. If it does, just fine, if it does not, there is disagreement. No reason not to be polite.
Best regards
Erik
You know Erik, I think one of the biggest mistake of human history has been to completly separate science from art. It was absolutly necessary at one point because science needed to free itself from superstition. But during a short period of time, both disciplines were combined in such a balanced way that it produced people like Leonardo D.V. His genius resided IMO in the fact that in him, both disciplines were mastered and source of inspiration.
I am in favor of mergin.
-
This is racist and homophobic! :D
My god!
What is happening guys ??
This thread could have easily being the pretext of another war versuses like in the good old days with its cortege of insults, acusations,
semantic interpretations, bombings, blind criticism and harsh lenguaje...
but no...all quiet and politicaly correct.
Weired, very weired...is it Christmas depre?
Or the New-age good vibes love chains?
-
This is racist and homophobic! :D
Hahaha...that's a good one!
Hey, nice to see you again.
-
As Ulam and Teller demonstrated graphically, lithium quite substantially adds to the fun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Teller–Ulam_design) ;)
Great link, thanks for that! Romeo "shrimp" device indeed...
-Dave-
-
You know Erik, I think one of the biggest mistake of human history has been to completly separate science from art. It was absolutly necessary at one point because science needed to free itself from superstition. But during a short period of time, both disciplines were combined in such a balanced way that it produced people like Leonardo D.V. His genius resided IMO in the fact that in him, both disciplines were mastered and source of inspiration.
I am in favor of mergin.
IMO this hasn't been a deliberate separation, nor is it a thoroughly complete one, but is rather a consequence of our vastly increased body of knowledge & understanding...and thus a need to specialize. A modern-day Leonardo would be compelled to focus on one of his many talents in order to master it. At the expense of the others, yes, but also likely to the benefit of the one. But I do sympathize with the desire—need even—for a simultaneous tiny detail perception and Big Picture perspective.
-Dave-
-
IMO this hasn't been a deliberate separation, nor is it a thoroughly complete one, but is rather a consequence of our vastly increased body of knowledge & understanding...and thus a need to specialize. A modern-day Leonardo would be compelled to focus on one of his many talents in order to master it. At the expense of the others, yes, but also likely to the benefit of the one. But I do sympathize with the desire—need even—for a simultaneous tiny detail perception and Big Picture perspective.
-Dave-
i'm caught between buying an A7 and or A7r and and A moiunt lens set vs a Leica S2. (I know different animals all together), except the Sony I'd use for stills not video and the Leica I'd use for stills since it doesn't shoot video.
The science tells me that the Sony is superior, the real world samples, build quality, tactile feel tells me to buy the Leica and most samples I've seen from the Leica are pretty, the Sony not so.
End of the day, they both costs me the same, because with the Sony I'm into a new lens set and their Zeiss A mounts aren't cheap. With the Leica they take my contax lens set and actually focus faster than on a contax.
Does it matter? yea to me. Now the real important question is does anybody have a chart they'd like to share. No photos please, I'm into charts now and of course lithium.
IMO
BC
-
No photos please, I'm into charts now and of course lithium.
Haha...but charts by Cooter will be sexy charts.
PS: talking about lithium, I hope nobody wears one of those horror lithium oversized mens watch they
produce now. Be cool and elegant, gift yourself a mechanical watch.
-
(http://www.orocobre.com.au/Assets/Lithium_Graph_1a.gif)
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/08/rsz-lithium-chart-537x391.jpg)
-
Be cool and elegant, gift yourself a mechanical watch.
Yes, one of those nice 300M depth rated models with the lithium release valve.
-
Great link, thanks for that! Romeo "shrimp" device indeed...
-Dave-
It would appear this is very similar to covering a photo flash with a styrofoam cup :)
When you look at the article the technical solution looks really neat, but I still think bigger is not better. Still it does put a whole new meaning on "test shots".
Edmund
-
Yes, one of those nice 300M depth rated models with the lithium release valve.
;D for goodness sakes, nooo
Get a bloody Vostok Amphibian for ex, if you want to go deep without lithium.
-
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIQ4tkfysn8)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIQ4tkfysn8
Love it! Haven't seen that performance in many years. Funny watching Kurt playing a clean white Strat too.
-Dave-
-
Love it! Haven't seen that performance in many years. Funny watching Kurt playing a clean white Strat too.
-Dave-
A flawlessly performed stage exit ;)
Edmund
-
You know Erik, I think one of the biggest mistake of human history has been to completly separate science from art. It was absolutly necessary at one point because science needed to free itself from superstition. But during a short period of time, both disciplines were combined in such a balanced way that it produced people like Leonardo D.V. His genius resided IMO in the fact that in him, both disciplines were mastered and source of inspiration.
I am in favor of mergin.
I agree. The sculptor Michelangelo designed, what to this day remain, some of the most inspiring buildings in the world. The Greek Parthenon was also built with an artist in charge of the techies. It is so easy for the techies to get lost trying to see how far their rabbit hole goes.
-
Well,
Thank to the techies you don't need to carve in stone…
Best regards
Erik
I agree. The sculptor Michelangelo designed, what to this day remain, some of the most inspiring buildings in the world. The Greek Parthenon was also built with an artist in charge of the techies. It is so easy for the techies to get lost trying to see how far their rabbit hole goes.
-
Well,
Thank to the techies you don't need to carve in stone…
Best regards
Erik
As long as the artists design what the engineers then build all skills are used fully.
-
As long as the artists design what the engineers then build all skills are used fully.
Yes but the accountant gets the final word, that's why we end up with overpriced junk with a large side order of bullshit to go with it.
-
Any artist who has designed a digital sensor?
Best regards
Erik
As long as the artists design what the engineers then build all skills are used fully.
-
Any artist who has designed a digital sensor?
Best regards
Erik
Any sensor designer who has won a world press award for best photo?
-
Haaa...it starts to smell like in the good old days,
Blood, guts and rock & roll...hehehe
Well, to be fair with Erik, arrogance is not just
An attribute of the scientists.
What about the petulant and snobery bs in the
Art sphere?
I rather have a drink with an engineer
Than with many dudes I met into the
So called artistic elite.
-
As long as the artists design what the engineers then build all skills are used fully.
It tends to take imagination and vision to do great engineering.
It tends to take technique and understanding to do great art.
What you are really getting at is (perhaps) the divide between those who wants to understand (objective-oriented), and those who prefer to act on feeling (sensuality-oriented). But that is not a question of engineers vs artists, but between two mentalities the we all possess in variable amounts for various parts of our lives. I, for one, am blissfully ignorant about how my washing machine works. It just works, and I don't want to analyze its behaviour as long as it does. But then I don't depend on my washing machine for my livelihood or for my hobbies, it is just a tool to avoid having to wear dirty clothes.
-h
-
but Coots, you buy Leica for the glass not the body!
I've been on a Leica binge lately.
Leica R 70-180 2.8 on the Sony
(http://christopherbarrett.net/forum_images/A7r0028.jpg)
A trio of Leica R Summiluxes I had rehoused in the UK for Cine use
(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/s720x720/1456065_10201931157935629_1922227625_n.jpg)
-
but Coots, you buy Leica for the glass not the body!
This is very true: Leica glasses
BUT, at the same time there is something special in some Leica bodies,
I think of the M (and the S to some extend).
Well, the particular design and engineering of the M body affects by a large extend
the photographer's approach and operation and it result in general that for some
kinds of photography the rate of keepers is higher.
(in my personal experience with the M, that I will shoot again this saturday, I find it
way more performant for composition while focusing accuracy is chalenging and
from another age. And when discretion is needed...no rival)
A trio of Leica R Summiluxes I had rehoused in the UK for Cine use
What are your sensations compare to the Cooke?
-
I think they're gorgeous with a feel somewhere between Cooke and Zeiss. I initially bought these for low light situations since my Cookes are all 2.8s. We shot this short film (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=2590) all on Leica R glass.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FaGTC_Blog_009.jpg)
-
I agree. The sculptor Michelangelo designed, what to this day remain, some of the most inspiring buildings in the world. The Greek Parthenon was also built with an artist in charge of the techies.
And Leonardo da Vinci designed the canal system of Milan (painting "The Last Supper" on the side), and wrote a very technical book on making paints and such. We should remember that the root of the word "art" is about skill in making things, as in "artisan" or "artificial", and a silly "left brain, right brain" dichotomy between artists and scientists is unfortunate.
In an activity like photography, a balance of both sorts of "art" are valuable. I like the compromise of considering myself to be a photographic artisan, learning and using technologies to achieve esthetic goals.
-
Yes but the accountant gets the final word, that's why we end up with overpriced junk with a large side order of bullshit to go with it.
Which is where the photographer comes in - to make the bullshit look like art :)
Look at a pair of Nikes, $2 of plastic, priced at $100 thanks to product placement, talent and competent lensing.
Edmund
-
I think they're gorgeous with a feel somewhere between Cooke and Zeiss. I initially bought these for low light situations since my Cookes are all 2.8s. We shot this short film (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=2590) all on Leica R glass.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FaGTC_Blog_009.jpg)
Agree. Gorgeous indeed.
Mmmm...I have a friend who has a lot of those R glasses he hardly uses. Maybe I convince him to do a good deal. Thanks for sharing.
-
... I rather have a drink with an engineer
Than with many dudes I met into the
So called artistic elite.
Smart choice. The chances are, the former could, and would, pay for the drinks... with the latter, I am afraid, it would be the other way around. ;)
-
Smart choice. The chances are, the former could, and would, pay for the drinks... with the latter, I am afraid, it would be the other way around. ;)
;D ;D
-
And loenardo da Vinci designed the canal system of Milan painting "The Last Supper" on the side), and wrote a veey technocsl book on making paints and such. We should remember that the root of the word "art" is about skill in making things, as in "artisan" or "artificial", and a silly "left brain, right brain" dichotomoy between artists and scientists is unfortunate.
In an activity like photography, a balance of both sorts of "art" are valuable. I like the compromise of considering myself to be a photographic artisan, learning and using technologies to achieve esthetic goals.
It's easier for the scientist to gain an understanding of the arts then the other way around. I don't believe in any left brain right brain dichotomy, in fact the research says there is none.
I agree, the artisan life or a zen like life is very rewarding.
-
... I don't believe in any left brain right brain dichotomy, in fact the research says there is none...
Really!? What research?
-
Really!? What research?
I will look it up for you. Basically they are saying men have more wiring front to back in the brain, enabling more technical/spacial type thinking while females have more side to side wiring potentially helping multitasking. They are not finding people mostly active on one side of the brain. If you see brain activity maps on shows you will not see one side dark relative to the other unless there is some damage like a stroke.
-
Hi,
I started a new topic about art and science in "coffe corner". Let's keep this thread about the A7/A7r.
Best regards
Erik
I will look it up for you. Basically they are saying men have more wiring front to back in the brain, enabling more technical/spacial type thinking while females have more side to side wiring potentially helping multitasking. They are not finding people mostly active on one side of the brain. If you see brain activity maps on shows you will not see one side dark relative to the other unless there is some damage like a stroke.
-
I believe this calls for a chart!
(http://kamasmind.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/left-brain-right-brain-chart-96-dpi-2008-12-141-1024x724.jpg)
-
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/ (http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/)
-
... Let's keep this thread about the A7/A7r...
Something left to say about it, after 8 pages? ;)
-
Random A7 content: The camera comes with no charger (LAME). You have to charge the battery in camera for 3 hours. Happily, this charger that I bought (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/837092-REG/watson_d_1517_duo_lcd_charger_with.html) for my BlackMagic Pocket Cine Camera has adapter plates at $1.50 US.
-
Does it have mirror up?
;D
-
Hi,
It has neither MLU nor MLD.
Best regards
Erik
Does it have mirror up?
;D
-
I wonder if there are any shutter bounce issues? Is there no timer delay/electronic shutter thing?
-
Does it have a sliding keyboard for text messaging? How is the phone reception? Oh wait, wrong board.
-
Hi,
A7 has electronic first curtain but A7r has not. The A7r probably is using the same chip as the D800/D800, while the A7 shares technology with the Alpha 99.
As pointed out by a knowledgeable person, the second curtain will also cause shake. The great advantage of the electronic shutter is that they don't need to close and than open the first curtain. Obviously good thing to have.
Best regards
Erik
I wonder if there are any shutter bounce issues? Is there no timer delay/electronic shutter thing?
-
Smart choice. The chances are, the former could, and would, pay for the drinks... with the latter, I am afraid, it would be the other way around. ;)
Slob ol' buddy.
Your hanging around the wrong photographers and I've got the Amex bill delivered on a fork lift to prove it.
BC
-
BC,
Nice to hear! You really need the bill delivered on a fork lift? Never heard about PDF(cc) ?
Best regards
Erik
Your hanging around the wrong photographers and I've got the Amex bill delivered on a fork lift to prove it.
BC
-
Love it! Haven't seen that performance in many years. Funny watching Kurt playing a clean white Strat too.
-Dave-
I remember one thing about that Nirvana performance SO WELL! Krist Novoselic injuring his head, trying to catch his bass guitar after he hurled it into the air, near the end. You see him fall over, and then stumble dazed around the stage. More info. (http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2013/10/nirvanas-eight-most-rock-n-roll-moments.html)
Ray
-
I believe this calls for a chart!
(http://kamasmind.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/left-brain-right-brain-chart-96-dpi-2008-12-141-1024x724.jpg)
Who on earth designed that chart?! This "Dr. C Daniels" is somone with a clear bias against those whose strengths lie with the left hemisphere, that's for sure. It is so utterly WRONG to depict the joys of science (and it is real joy, real wonder, and real beauty) as grey people crammed into grey cubicles, while the creative types frolic in beautiful meadows in colour. FFS!
Ray
-
BC,
Nice to hear! You really need the bill delivered on a fork lift? Never heard about PDF(cc) ?
Best regards
Erik
No we work electronically. I was just making a point because I hate generalities and as foolish as this may sound I'm proud of my profession.
Not every photographer is living off a trust fund, or lifting the mastercard from his mother's purse, or marries into money.
But I use to like when the amex bill came in on paper because I could highlight the items that proved how stupid I was.
Also writing a check was painful and made me more aware. Now it's just a spread sheet.
IMO
BC
-
But I use to like when the bill came in on paper because I could highlight the items that proved how stupid I was.
Ever tried printing out a pdf ?
-
Ever tried printing out a pdf ?
What's printing?
Edmund
-
I make them send me paper. I'm not letting AMEX shift the cost of paper and printing to me.
Ever tried printing out a pdf ?
-
I think the photo industry is a s__t magnate and even knowing that I love the profession.
I grow weary of the view that a photographer or artist is a guy with dirty jeans that can't pay his rent, do business, multitask, run an honest company and still produce viable content.
Now saying all of that I believe that most the people on this forum are the best of photography. Not the best photographers (that covers a lot of territory), but the best intentioned.
This really isn't a forum to gain fame or a twitter following, this is a place to talk gear, a little business, a little life with a common bond.
This is a good place, especially since after every project I spend horrid hours watching three computers transcode, encode, decode and explode.
BC
-
Shit. That reminds me; I need to wash my jeans.
-
I think the photo industry is a s__t magnate and even knowing that I love the profession.
I grow weary of the view that a photographer or artist is a guy with dirty jeans that can't pay his rent, do business, multitask, run an honest company and still produce viable content.
Now saying all of that I believe that most the people on this forum are the best of photography. Not the best photographers (that covers a lot of territory), but the best intentioned.
This really isn't a forum to gain fame or a twitter following, this is a place to talk gear, a little business, a little life with a common bond.
This is a good place, especially since after every project I spend horrid hours watching three computers transcode, encode, decode and explode.
BC
Great input! :-) too true
-
Shit. That reminds me; I need to wash my jeans.
Surely every photographer wears cone mills/Okinawa selvage and just dry cleans them now and again?
-
I guess every region has their own marketing and process hype to create a brand and charge $250 for a pair of denim that originally cost $30 just 20 years ago, perhaps before there was a market for "elite denim".
Sure they're more supple soft and form fitting....also thinner, faster wearing, easy rip, harder to replace with same form-cut..... and When was denim born? Sometimes production efficiency is a cost the manufacturer gains from the buyer, and hypes it as a "better" product. Raw cotton must be getting scares.
-
Yes, but only for a week before tossing them to the Salvation Army.
Surely every photographer wears cone mills/Okinawa selvage and just dry cleans them now and again?
-
Yes, but only for a week before tossing them to the Salvation Army.
Romeo Shrimp meet Satokibi
This forum is indeed educational
Edmund