pleaaaase no video :-)
pleaaaase no video :-)
And yes, I have great fun with my G10
And now you feel so bad about spending so much on a MFDB, to salve your concience, I am willing to swap my G10 for your MFDB
Did the tester buy into his own premiss, or did he dupe a bunch of gullible people? People who then go out and publicly evangelize their having been duped. Bernie Madoff would have loved you guys.
The underlying premiss is obviously ridiculous no matter how the comparison was rigged, so the other question is: why would anyone openly admit to being duped?
To each his/her own I guess.
I have owned a G10 3 months and sold it ... the only think I liked was the size of the camera
Check out "You've got to be kidding" which is an article Michael Reichmann wrote about the original version of the "test".
And please, chill. Its just fun, but helps show just how far digital cameras have come in the last decade.
PS: Same site has a new short user review by Bill of the A900 here
I don't think the two comparison pictures in Michael Reichmanns article serve as a good illustration of the strength of the two cameras.
(I have explained why I don't think so in post # 94).
For me the interesting part is summarized in the second-last paragraph "The Lesson" where Michael Reichmann (MR) among other things writes this:
"(...) let's take audiophile equipment for example, we have long known that it takes larger and larger amounts of money to achieve smaller and smaller incremental gains in sound quality. (...)"
"(...) Only a few years ago DVD players cost $1,000. Now they're $20. (...)"
Now and then I for one remind myself about these facts just by looking at my black-and-white laser printer as an example.
I think the first one I bought 25 years ago was about $4000 ...
The one I have today is less than $200 and has about 16 times more memory
All in all I find MR's article very interesting, in spite of the somewhat problematic illustration.
Excellent food for thoughts, e.g. about competitive companies. And other companies.
... I could see the difference on screen immediately even with all the equalization of web images. The processing of the Phase One image sucks ... none of the subtile separations in yellow leaves was maintained as one example ... which I could manage to do even with a screen grab.
I could make most any comparison work to achieve the same thing outcome by not using what's there to use.
Gullibility knows no bounds.
I agree with this above post very firmly.
creating backgrounds in post...? that all depends on your background now doesn't it. if it is entirely post, perhaps.
IQ is not something you judge on a print. IQ is something you judge for your own acceptance, and yes pixel peep if you want to call it that. The harder you are on it, the more you will squeeze out, and the demand for IQ in commercial work that I do, it is not something you can compromise, it is expected from the agencies that I worked with. If you don't you will know about it, as they hand someone else the work.
Last edited by Phil Indeblanc; 27th December 2009 at 13:23. Reason: clarify
Dont get me wrong, I love what LL puts out, but this as the title says, "Kidding".
I have noticed from years back to now, Michaels getting a bit tired of lugging all that gear, and who can blame him. When shooting in uncontrolled public environments, there is a speed factor, a size factor, a convenience factor.
All this is set aside when you take it to the studio for IQ, specially for subjects that demand it.
And welcome to the forum.
Absolutely. I don't think anyone would argue with that.
...the demand for IQ in commercial work that I do, it is not something you can compromise, it is expected from the agencies that I worked with. If you don't you will know about it, as they hand someone else the work.
Why would you limit yourself to doing the printing?. I disagree with print tests in a commercial professional situation. For the studio shoots, my philosophy is the get the best image with best IQ possible regardless of what the output need is at that moment. What will be done to the image is not 1 time, but that will likely be the only chance to shoot such subject in such condition in such mind set, etc etc(your capture is 1x). The image can be reproduced in many ways, web, fine wall print., etc. The limiting factor will be the choice of system you use.
The situation is regular, not rare in commercial work.
It's not a matter of being riled up about it ... it's the implication that anyone who has stretched to produce the best IQ going in is somehow not able to detect the difference going out ... which is a premiss I find lacks credibility ... therefore makes me suspicious of the test methodology and the hand behind it.
Personally, I don't care what kind of comparison tests someone else did ... the only observations I care about are my own and those of my paying clients.
I also disagree that a print is more forgiving ... if prepared correctly. I am constantly printing 17" X 22" images shot in the same conditions with a A900 and Zeiss optics and the 39 meg digital camera ... and MFD outdoes it in print form every single time. Even some of my neophyte wedding clients can see the difference ... let alone an eagle-eyed Art Director.
Okay, I admit it ... enough ... the horsey is dead as a doornail
Most of the shots I take are destined for stock and therefore not printed. But I also do some fine art printing on my Epson Pro 7900. What I meant about me doing the printing was that if you are handing the file over to a publisher and who knows at the outset what they may want
In any event, I agree you should always go for the best quality with whatever tool you are using - you won't usually get a second chance.
I still think that print is more forgiving. I use the G10 for some stock shots - and it can be great if you nail the exposure at low ISO, but the per pixel quality is not as good as a dslr, of course. On the other hand, if I only have the G10 with me, its 100% better than no camera at all! Now, with stock libraries examining submissions at 100%, a G10 or other small sensor camera shot may need more work to sort our than a A900 or MFDB shot will need. For print, that is not always the case. Or maybe I'm just good at post processing
One final point. For a couple of years I helped to run a small stock library and the variation in quality from contributing photographers was quite an eye opener and an education.
Sony has now clawed back up to "over 10%", with the real number being rumored to be 13%, end of 2008. The 2009 numbers should be a few percentage higher than the 2008 number, if I were to guess.
A900 with a few lenses, flashes etc.
Yep, although the numbers in Japan and the US are much lower. Sony's market strength is in Europe and some Asian countries.
Also, Nikon is a fairly large customer of SSK but a majority of SSK's business and margin does not come from Nikon - even though Nikon customers want to believe otherwise. Sony sells VERY specialized and extremely high-margin sensors for the high-end video and broad-cast line, including to their own overwhelmingly dominating internal divisions and also to Canon, JVC and others. Their p&s sensors (which accounts for the bulk of all imaging sensors sold worldwide) are sold to every camera manufacturer on earth, except for maybe some models from Panasonic or Olympus etc. Nobody else, including Panasonic or Samsung or Kodak or Dalsa, makes large Full-frame CMOS sensors commercially (except for Canon who don't sell it externally) - making a FF CMOS sensor requires a MUCH higher degree of expertise than making upto an APS-H sized sensor, due to the complex lithographic stitching etc that comes into play when the sensor size exceeds the APS-H size (even Nikon D3/D3S/D700 sensors are rumored to be utilizing/leasing Sony Semi-conductor facilities for their fabrication, even though Sony was not involved in the R&D effort).
A900 with a few lenses, flashes etc.
I recall reading that Sony has (recent data) about 6-7% in the US and Japan, but much higher in continental Europe and the UK, up to 20%.
They appear to miss the importance the market for their mid-high end products attaches to a broad mid-high quality lens range - not primarily exotica like TS and Macro (important as they are), but great primes of say: 21/28/35/50 and a light 24-105/4 or slow CZ 35-70 even. This idea sure beats the recycled 28-75/2.8 they just pulled. Or maybe they can do a deal to get the whole Voigtlander range in A mount!
Users of the A500/550 and A700 and its replacement can aspire to these, or adapt them to crop sensor cameras, and many will eventually take up the A850 option in time.
On the MR issue, maybe his website traffic was slow back then; he sure had to work hard to dumb down the MF camera, lousy technique/timing and no output sharpening (?), all of which invalidates the comparo. Back to Printing 101 for him. Why print this stuff at all, to show he can fool his mates?
Live View yes, vid no.
Hear hear, Quentin!
With all due respect to both Quentin and Bill, Michael Reichmann's ability to make a good fine-art print in general does not mean that the ball wasn't dropped on the MF shot in the G10-MFDB comparo. I could also spot the difference in the web output, and the things I was seeing wouldn't be hidden in a print.
I admit that the difference wasn't large, but when I look at similar work I have done with my 22MP MFDB, I am shocked at how lousy the image that MR put up looks. It should have looked way better. The G10, on the other hand, was probably running pretty close to its limits.
I addressed the situation when they were in good business with their cameras 7D and 5D. Minolta customers waited for years for the first DSLR products. Then the market share was around 10% worldwide.
If I remember correctly, after another period of waiting these Minolta customers were made happy with Sony's first DSLR camera. They were hungry again and bought the Alpha 100. For a certain period these sales were enough to gain a market share of around 10% again.
With their many small cameras Sony managed to improve this share by 3% and were lately around 13% market share worldwide.
10 and 3 seems to be magic numbers for this system. Sony's DSLR managers must be in big trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if the Cybershot top mangement use this situation to gain control of the DSLR business and eat the DSLR division for breakfast.
Sony achieved a 6.2% market share with the A100 the first year. Sony DSLR's stated market goal for 2008 was 10%. It took the A200,300,350 to slightly beat that goal. When Sony took over KM, they were hoping for a 20% market share within few years, and, while they haven't gotten there yet, I'd say things are still looking up for them.
6,2% are not so bad over 12 months for a single camera that isn't a Nikon or Canon.
The A100 was announced in June 06. What Sony launched later on in the entry level camera market was much more criticized in the forums. My very personal impression is that Sony did a few things wrong with the A200 and A300 series, they did their own way of camera and feature design and didn't care much of what the experienced photo communities wanted.
Their forth year in the DSLR business is half over. I hope that they adjusted the A500 series a bit better to the market demand and will have success.
Honestly, I don't think that the company allows themselve such a distant 3rd place in any market for much more than 4 years. And I don't want to change the system because there will be no other company that continues A mount business like Sony did when they took it over from KonicaMinolta.
Pentax and Olympus have been doing that for years, but who knows where they'll go from here? For me, personally, I could really care less about the a-mount itself, and I would already be shooting another DSLR brand if I liked the system better. Granted, I am still considering a move to the M9.
Douglas, you should seriously consider keeping the A900 and adding an M8 instead. The M9 has some minor teething trouble and it is still an M, i.e. no macro, no auto-focus, no T/S, no telephoto, and so on. In fact, I have an M8 and am considering adding an A900 I just have to make a decision on my MFDB.
I think I've already made up my mind, but thanks for the head's up. I've gone back to being a 50mm only shooter for the last six months, and I plan on staying that way for a while. A digital rangefinder is my dream camera for now, and I'd just add an M8, but I'm starting a new business, so I don't wanna spend a dime extra on the move. I'm gonna sell my A900 and all the lenses, but the tougher part will be selling my 1958 Reissue Les Paul that's been sitting in case for a year. Gulp. Time to talk to Jono a bit before I finally commit....
Then again, I could always just get an M8, like you say, and a Summicron 40mm. Hmmm...
I would go for a Summicron 35 IV over the 40mm on the M8, but that is a question of taste. The M8 is a great little camera with really nice colour and N&W results, but it isn't good at everything. Perhaps you can sell one or two lenses to fund the move. Don't sell the Les Paul...
Don't take me up wrong, I love the a900's I have and they work very well together. But there was just something in the images I managed to get in focus with the M8 that I can't describe. Perhaps I'm crazy thinking about a Leica again, it would in effect become a pocket camera with perhaps a single lens like the 35 Cron Asph.
The things putting me off at the moment is cost and teething problems, I really don't want the same grief I had with the M8 for the best part of a year in the 2 years I owned it. The reliability issues around the sensor lines and M8 shutters are a real concern for me.
Perhaps I'll sit this release out and wait for a M10, see what that's like and either opt for that or jump on the sub €2000 M9's that will be floating around.
As I said in another thread elsewhere, Note to self, when they tell you to "never sell a leica", listen to them.
A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85
My M9 has been completely the opposite experience. Flawless from day one. Focus is spot on (I can attest to that based on using a 50/0.95 and 75/1.4). No hiccups or SNAFUs to date. Buffer's slow, as is formatting ... but those are my only gripes ... neither affect my way of shooting with a rangefinder anyway, so it's a non-issue for me.
I accept what you say Marc, and from what others have said focus accuracy seems somewhat improved with the M9 even with the shallower DOF of full frame. All good news for me who had issues with focus. How much of that was down to my eyesight remains a question.
However, I'm not prepared to suffer AWB issues like I did with the M8 for nearly a year before the firmware update finally fixed the issue. Lines in the sensor was an ongoing problem for me finally resulting in the camera being replaced.
From images I've seen over the web there is still some issues (to my eyes) with IR. But how much of this is due to the lack of canned or correct profiles in the raw decoders I don't know yet. And of course the issues I mentioned in my post above.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Solms will fix any and all the issues as they have do so for me in the past, but I refuse to drop €5000 on a body and €5000 on a couple of lenses only to wait for the DHL man shuttle back 'n' forth between Dublin and Solms as I did in the past.
I believe in the image ability of the Leica products, however product release quality control and general reliability seem to be a weakness that they have not overcome. It doesn't matter how good or obliging Leica CS are, it's still a PIA to pack and ship your camera off for a 4 week repair session.
But in a strange way it somehow seems acceptable (even to me). The grand old master of film images is learning to survive in the digital era. I loved the results I got with the M8 and genuinely regret not keeping it.
A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85
I have the same feelings about the M9 as you do, Eoin, whether substantiated or not. I just feel that there are some open issues, and given how well I get along with my M8, I just can't justify sinking that much money into a switch.
Hilariously, I just did a quick price assessment of all of my Sony gear and a few older film cams that I have, and the going rate is nearly exactly what I can get an M9 and a used Summicron 50 (or Planar 50 f2) for.
Leica seems to be pretty open about the M9 sensor glass breaking issue, and I'm not TOO concerned about it, but it's certainly an issue. Maybe by the time I actually get an M9, it'll be fixed
Ouch... just goes to show, no amount of $$$ spent on any item will ensure that you don't end up with a mfr. defect...
α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.
Well since I didn't get to play as much as I wished to last time around my friend in deep close contact with Sony, is overnighting me a Sony a900with the Zeiss 24-70 and few Flashes to test out for a shoot that we will do for Sony after the CES here in Vegas.
For the actual shoot I'll get the entire Sony Alpha line up, so that will surely give me a good perspective on the entire system.
This is for a series of Commercial videos for Sony which I will be Directing, and not so much on what and how the camera does, even so it is for the Public, for which Sony desires attract the attention to the Alpha system, and to my understanding at list for now have shown no interested on going after the Pro market, but we know how fast that can change.
I'll be at CES all week to play with all the new toys in the Stereo 3D media for the consumer, big thing in my business what is happening now in 3D, and will also be able to see first hand what rumors are true and which are not, since Sony amongst others will have their full new line of electronics there.
For now look forward in spending some quality time with the a900 and the Zeiss lenses.
We are perfect consumers for all brands , profesional or not there is something in us that makes us change equipmetn even if we love it or are happy with what we've got . In my case I was happy with my a700 and CZ glass I still look at shots and think all the money lost since I sold it , went to M8 and a lot of glass , sold it ( loved it but my sight isn't made for RF) an now with a900 , and I'm almost in the same place :-( , yes it's better , but I still don't shoot betert photos , I still only do A4 prints ,....
It's only a hobby for me ( I understand it hapens to pros but there is sone of it too)
the point is we would change all we have just to try a new camera , take the 500 same first shots of each new great camera, and look aoround to see if the next gen is out.
But , I think nobody is going to change us
so reading this thread, I still have not understood why a MF can do without the AA, and the DSLR cannot...
I might have missed something somewhere...?
(enough with this poor horse getting a wacking)
It's just a matter of trade offs. No AA and you get more detail, but moire in some instances. With AA, you don't get moire, but sharpening is required to bring back fine detail. I've had cameras with and without AA filters, and neither way is perfect, IMO.
Sorry about the donkey , it's only an old expresion , but perhaps you could do a poll and if it's ok for the mayority take it of the forum
Last edited by Jamesmd; 5th January 2010 at 12:22.
To me it sounds like nearly 'everybody' on the different photography forums would 'any time' prefer the non-AA sensor solution over a sensor with Anti-Aliasing filter (and wouldn't you yourself ?).
That's why it's a mystery to me why Leica seems so far to be the only 35mm format manufacturer who tries to derive advantage from providing cameras without AA filters
I'm not sure, Steen. It looks like I'm really close to going ahead and ordering an m9, but I certainly have had some frustrating clothing pattern moire with my old Hassie back that was impossible to remove, and I'm really up in the air about which method I prefer. It would be cool if it was an option on most cameras.
And the Mamiya ZD MF camera also has a removable IR filter than can be replaced, using a clever casette mechanism, with an AA filter.
It is perfectly possible for Canon, Nikon or Sony to produce a pro spec DSLR with a removable AA filter if they think the cost of doing so is justified. It seems they don't think it is worth the costs and hassle.
Does anyone recall what the Mamiya IR filter cost? I seem to remember that it was rather pricy.