erick.boileau
Member
pleaaaase no video
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!
Ditto!pleaaaase no video
Its not a premise; its the result of a blind test with everyone who takes it having a similar result. If you took the test, I wager you too would struggle and probably fail choose the MFDB over the G10 prints.Sorry, bad attempt at humor.
However, consider the implications ... basically the thought forwarded is that there's not much discernible difference between a G10 and a MFD capture ... which means there is even less difference between the G10 and the Sony A900.
Do people really buy into that premiss?
Question is ... after everyone selected the G2 shot ... did the tester dump all his gear and buy a G2? There-in lies the truth of the matter.Its not a premise; its the result of a blind test with everyone who takes it having a similar result. If you took the test, I wager you too would struggle and probably fail choose the MFDB over the G10 prints.
And yes, I have great fun with my G10 :angel:
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 :ROTFL:
Quentin
G10, not G2. There was no attempt to "dupe" anyone.Question is ... after everyone selected the G2 shot ... did the tester dump all his gear and buy a G2? There-in lies the truth of the matter.
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. :thumbup:
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? :wtf:
To each his/her own I guess.
I don't need to chill I'm always coolG10, not G2. There was no attempt to "dupe" anyone.
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.
Quentin
PS: Same site has a new short user review by Bill of the A900 here
I am new to this form. I got interest when I read 35 FF with no AA, and I just wanted to add another multi format regularly published user to add one more vote for NO AA filter on 35! And if its not 16 bit, forget it.(at least 14)Other subjects and creative objectives demand other tools be used ... and it doesn't matter how much the CMYK printing process dumbs down the result ... despite expert lighting and top talent doing it, if you can't fully capture the chrome on a car, or the specular sparkle of jewelry or faint whiff of steam rising from a baked potato going in, then it'll never be there without spending a fortune in retouching ... which almost always looks a bit fake compared to the real thing. The age of willy-nilly cost over-runs for retouching are long gone, and photographers that force me to the retoucher's studio unnecessarily piss me off :angry:
As to MFD applications, many of the food shots and images involving fabrics that I bought in the past few years weren't just shot on MFD ... they were multi-shot MFDs! Minimum retouching was required in post thanks to the incredible fidelity of the original captures.
If you do a variety of work it's nice to be prepared for different demands
-Marc
Yes, and talk about a problematic subject to shoot! long exposer cant keep a thing still. Take this test to the studio and then compare, please. Lets not let environment be the crippling factor on IQ!Philip, you can see the comparison here.
And you can download the two compared jpg-files here.
The two comparison files are: G10.jpg and H2-P45.jpg
I think it is a somewhat problematic comparison.
I have a hard time finding anything sharp / in focus in the "Hasselblad / Phase One" shot.
Everything looks blurry to me, even the focused part "the large knot in the foreground tree".
Maybe the camera was shaken during this 1 sec. capture. Or stirred
Apparently...but don't feel bad about it :ROTFL:Gullibility knows no bounds.
It may be if your output is intended for print (where you do the printing). However, print is more forgiving, which is one of the reasons Michael's G10 v P45 print comparison, that seems to have some people so riled , actually works.I am new to this form.
IQ is not something you judge on a print.
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.
Thanks for the welcome Quentin.It may be if your output is intended for print (where you do the printing).
Quentin
It actually may actually work for some people's standards ... but maybe not everyone's. Seriously, can't you see the difference even in the web uploads?It may be if your output is intended for print (where you do the printing). However, print is more forgiving, which is one of the reasons Michael's G10 v P45 print comparison, that seems to have some people so riled , actually works.
And welcome to the forum.
Absolutely. I don't think anyone would argue with that.
Quentin
Hi PhilThanks for the welcome Quentin.
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.
When Konica Minolta exited the scene, they were barely at 3% from what I recall and DECLINING rapidly. If Sony had not come along, there would be no A-mount left to talk about.When? Market share could be an indicator. Sony started with around 10% which was exactly the share that KonicaMinolta had when they left the market..
Sony Semi-conductor Kyushu (SSK) is a giant and probably larger than Nikon Corporation taken as a whole. I doubt Sony Semi-conductor Kyushu's R&D arm would need any "technology" from a bit player like Nikon Precision to get along, other than maybe utilizing Nikon as a primary supplier for Steppers (there are other Stepper suppliers too, who would willingly take up the slack, if Nikon plays funny). The number of Sensor related patents filed by Sony are significantly more than Canon, let alone a minnow like Nikon (purely from the perspective of sensor design capability), including a full-color sensor (conceptually similar to the Foveon technology) filed end of 2009.You appear not to be aware that there are two separate Sony divisions involved: Sony Semiconductor (which designs and manufactures the sensors) and Sony Imaging (which uses those sensors in the various Sony cameras). There is also a strong relationship between Sony Semiconductor and Nikon Precision (which makes technology that Sony Semiconductor uses to manufacture the sensors that both Sony Imaging and Nikon Imaging purchase).
It would hardly be in Sony Semiconductor's interest to alienate Nikon Imaging -- one of their biggest customers, apart from Sony Imaging -- by refusing to sell them a high-end sensor that would only be used in a relatively small number of Sony cameras. Such an action would create the kind of unnecessary tension that tightly interlocked Japanese companies do their best to avoid.