Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Exactly. YOU shouldn't need to tweak and tweak because the software processing it should be specifically tuned to create a nearly perfect image requiring as little work as possible. Leica makes amazing glass, and I'm sure the camera body will be great, but it's still just a Kodak sensor and each generation of Kodak sensors (or any brand/make/model sensors) have quirks and oddities. Addressing these specific sensor characteristics (noise characteristics, long exposure and high ISO characteristics, micro lenses or not, spectral response, tendency to moire, reaction to ambient temperature, propensity to cross-over or drift in shadow color etc) MUST be done in the raw processing software if the goal is absolute max quality. This is all done (or isn't done) in the background without your knowledge so that when you open the file it looks "right" from the get go with natural accurate color and minimal obtrusive noise.Sorry for my ignorance, but why suddenly all these worries about DNG? It seems to work fine with the DMR, the M8, the Pentaxes and the Ricohs. Actually, from most photographers, It's mostly been seen as an advantage, or at least that's my impression. Why should it suddenly become a disadvantage?
Yes, I know; tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and tweaking, but my impression of the S2, is that it's supposed to be an easy-to-use camera with a big sensor and high quality optics in a DSLR body. If I bought it, and felt that my files needed tweaking and tweaking and tweaking and tweaking, I would surely be disappointed
Hi Jack,Pete:
So are you buying one of the first ones available, and with a complete set of glass?
,
I suspect it's a manifestation of the economic downturn that many of us are feeling. A couple of years back I don't think you'd be hearing this much of an outcry. It's a sign of the times...I just dont get all the fixation and angst about price
The importance of many PhDs and hundreds of man hours can be overstated. Both RPP and RD have users which believe them to yield superior results to C1, and both are one-man shops. Rainer Viertlböck uses RPP, for example.Nothing can replace the many hundreds of man hours that go into tweaking the processing algorithms, noise profiles, color profiles, and other aspects of raw conversion to each specific camera. There are Image Processing PHDs at Phase One who spend the majority of their time doing just this.
I am sure that you are not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with DNG as a format. That would be a very silly statement, since it is simply a container for data, with provision for maker-specific information for whatever you need. In that case, I can only conclude that Hasselblad couldn't pull it off, not for reasons to do with DNG, but for... erm... other reasons.I'm with Doug on this. Hasselblad experimented with in-camera DNG but the quality just wasn't right. Why spend a great deal of money on what will no doubt be a very well engineered camera and then dumb down the results by converting to DNG.
Have you read the DNG spec? DNG provides for whatever you want. Of course, if someone writes special fields, a generalized processor will not be able to take advantage of it, but this is even more the case with proprietary formats.DNG support does not generally include the sorts of proprietary datasets used by companies like Phase to pass information from the back to the raw processor to get the most out of the file (especially as regards DR and noise). Two examples from Phase is the ambient temperature and the black-cal capture.
Why always compare with lightroom? As Carsten points out, there are other converters which are preferred - RPP may be a dog to use, but it certainly gets more detail out of the M8 and other cameras.Phase One put a lot of effort into making M8 files sing, and even OEM'd a version with Leica specific to the M8 along with color profiles meant to help Leica address the IR issue they had with the M8. Put an M8 file through LR (generic support through DNG) and then through C1 (specifically tweaked DNG support) and see the difference I'm talking about.
of course the question is not which data container you use but the extend of support of the data.The implication that DNG is inferior is disingenuous
+1I am sure that you are not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with DNG as a format.
Agreed - that would be best solution.IMO all camera makers could use DNG as raw format but still could add proprietary data in the files to take adavantage of it in the own manufacturers raw software.
not sure if I understand it right... Phase backs record the ambient temperature (so the temperature of the sensor in the moment of capture) and the processing in C1 refers to these data?Two examples from Phase is the ambient temperature and the black-cal capture.
Hi ThomasAnd this is why ACR/LR sucks as they treat all cameras more or less in the same way
Absolutely . . . but don't write off the effect of that flawed Kodak sensor - a variant of it occurred in the E1, and whatever other shortcomings the files did (and still do) look lovely - The S2 is going to have another Kodak sensor, and hopefully that will add the little bit of magic found in the M8 files (which, from Douglas and other's writings, I suspect other manufacturers whisk away in a quest for noise free high ISO).The trump cards that Leica holds are the lenses. In general (and most certainly in my opinion) my M8s hold their own against the very latest, greatest from anyone mostly because of the optics. It's saying something when 8X10 prints from a flawed 10 meg crop frame camera generally and consistently look better than those from a 24 meg FF 35mm DSLR sporting Zeiss optics. If the S2 follows suit, then we'll see if this thing is really "too expensive".
The sensor/in-camera processor performance is indeed another element that's as of yet an unknown. If higher ISOs are achieved without the filter schmeer that other makers employed to get there ... it'll be quite an achievement. Just get it clean to ISO 1250 and I'd be a happy snapper. Wish the M8 had that ability.Absolutely . . . but don't write off the effect of that flawed Kodak sensor - a variant of it occurred in the E1, and whatever other shortcomings the files did (and still do) look lovely - The S2 is going to have another Kodak sensor, and hopefully that will add the little bit of magic found in the M8 files (which, from Douglas and other's writings, I suspect other manufacturers whisk away in a quest for noise free high ISO).
First Peter the prices are not even close so where that comes from is beyond me. It's 34k for a S2 with lens and 22k for a Phase or Hassy. Now correct me if I am wrong but that is 12 thousand dollar difference that is not what I would call comparable in the slightest and given no track record than you follow your comments up with thisGuy - I reckon you have gone way over the top with some of your comments about Leica's pricing. It pretty much comes in line with Hasselblad and Phase One entry levels - and as I have said before - look up the costs of good glass again pretty much the same.
Regarding hack shooters views on following so called professional shooter's choices - well that is up to hack shooters and internet noise makers.The absolute LAST person I care about is the so called self labelled pro shooter's views on camera gear or photography .
Like any product - you either like it or not. I dont think anyone has enough information to make a decision about Leica S2 or not yet.
The simple truth is that maginificent images can be made with a $50 camera or a $50,000 dollar camera - everything betwen these two extremes is simply buyer's choice and personal preference.
People are entitled to their biases - but any individual's decision is interesting ONLY regarding the decision tree they follow regarding their decision - I just dont get all the fixation and angst about price - if something is too expensive - dont buy it, 'too expensive' is a different answer for ifferent people.
I thought it was 27 and a half - am I missing something? (what's 6k amongst friends anywayFirst Peter the prices are not even close so where that comes from is beyond me. It's 34k for a S2 with lens
Jano, I know that camera raw supports specific cameras. They even provide 2 (internal) profiles for both tungsten and daylight for each camera. I am just not convinced by their efforts and results. File management and workflow is certainly very good in LR (this is why it is so popular IMO) but IQ wise ACR/LR is a paper tiger to me. So I'd probably take Aperture, Bibble, RD or RPP rather than Adobe raw conversion. Fortunately I have no reason to do so by now.Hi Thomas
Actually - Adobe supports camera specific information in a lot of DNG files:
M8, Panasonic G1, Ricoh, Leica digilux are ones I know about.