The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

S Is For Show Us Your S2 Shots

D&A

Well-known member
Hi Jono,

Below is a link to a 2008 article from Kodak announcing Kodak's foray into making a new type CMOS sensor based on what appears (according to them) a new design that has some (many) of the advantages of CCD. Kodak actually made their first small CMOS sensors way back in 2001. The article is quite simple and understandable for us "lugheads" (which at this point, I'm only including myself in this group :) )

Within that article is a link to preliminary 2008 Kodak article entitiled Image Sensors 101: CMOS vs CCD . Although it relates to smaller sensors, it appears Kodak feels the gap between CMOS and CCD is closing. This article is very basic and doesn't contain much info.

Assuming this and more current technology based on similar ideas becomes available, maybe we'll see the higher ISO performing CMOS chips incorporated into cameras like the S2 and other DMF bodies sometime in the future.

Still this doesn't answer the other question of CMOS without AA filters. I'm in the dark about that one.

OK, here is the link to the main article (newer type of CMOS):

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...+make+a+CMOS+sensor?&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Now here is the link to "Image Sensors 101: CMOS vs CCD":

http://pluggedin.kodak.com/post/?id=664294

Dave (D&A)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I am following this thread and find it very interesting.
No because I think about the S2 but because I think about the Pentax 645.(sorry but for what I would intend to do those are comparable cameras for me)

Now things which come to my mind are:

1) (if) a M9 and lenses are calibrated fine and if 16MP are enough a M9-kit can probably do (nearly?) the same IQ as MF camera (even though I find the M9 color tricky sometimes) at a much much much lower weight/size/bulk tham MF.

2) would a DSLR (D3x, D4?) where I would let somebody take the AA filter out maybe be nearly the same IQ?? Advantage much more flexible system with really usable and fast AF
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I am following this thread and find it very interesting.
No because I think about the S2 but because I think about the Pentax 645.(sorry but for what I would intend to do those are comparable cameras for me)

Now things which come to my mind are:

1) (if) a M9 and lenses are calibrated fine and if 16MP are enough a M9-kit can probably do (nearly?) the same IQ as MF camera (even though I find the M9 color tricky sometimes) at a much much much lower weight/size/bulk tham MF.

2) would a DSLR (D3x, D4?) where I would let somebody take the AA filter out maybe be nearly the same IQ?? Advantage much more flexible system with really usable and fast AF
IMO, using the criteria of IQ, nope, and nope.

My M9 is great no doubt ... but it ain't that great.

Same for the D3X I once owned (with the AA filter ... which was there for a reason I suspect).

Unfortunately is has to be experienced, since no amount of words or sub one meg web images can convey the difference MFD makes. So at least on forums, reason and logic has to come into play at some point ... it's just physics. 35mm frame restriction, verses sensors up to almost twice as large. Just do the math.

Once you work with a MFD kit for a while it becomes obvious ... and your visual standards and expectations change regarding IQ. However, it does become something of a curse ... since as far as IQ (not content, handling, etc) is concerned, raising the bar leads to dissatisfaction with smaller formats ... and you can find yourself wishing you had shot certain images with the MFD rig.

Of interest, my album printer has remarked more than once on the quality of certain images for my premium album which is 20" X 20" spreads when opened. Every time he was referencing a MFD image amongst my M9 and Sony A900 shots.

On the other hand, IQ plays second fiddle to content, speed and all that for certain styles of shooting ... (thus "Horses For Courses).

One is not the other. However, the IQ has improved on the 35mm DSLRs, as has the handling and speed of the MFD systems. Regardless, MFD is still the IQ champion and probably always will be. So, does one give up some speed and handling for improved IQ or not?

Since the handling aspects of current MFD rigs have reached a relatively excellent level for most shooting scenarios, my choice is to use the MFD unless the need for other over-riding attributes are glaringly obvious.

For example, I have no idea how it was achieved nor do I care, but the S2 AF is like night and day compared to my first test done a year ago. :thumbup:

Just my 2¢ worth.

-Marc
 

D&A

Well-known member
Same for the D3X I once owned (with the AA filter ... which was there for a reason I suspect).

Once you work with a MFD kit for a while it becomes obvious ... and your visual standards and expectations change regarding IQ. However, it does become something of a curse ... since as far as IQ (not content, handling, etc) is concerned, raising the bar leads to dissatisfaction with smaller formats ... and you can find yourself wishing you had shot certain images with the MFD rig.

-Marc
Hi Marc,

Regarding two of your statements, quoted above...

As you know, there are a couple of "after market companies" offering to remove the AA filter from many DSLR's and replacing them with a clear cover glass. There is certainly improved image quality (ie: increased apparent resolution) but it also appears that aliasing issues are more prevelent than say one of the numerious CCD cameras with weak or no filter. Technically, why that is, I don't know. I've had an opportunity to work with a higher end "higher resolution" DSLR that had this mod done, and even there it was no match for DMF...so your other points regarding the comparisons of the two systems (full frame 24x36mm DSLRs vs. DMF) in their current state, "image wise", is well noted.

All I have to say in regards to your second statement quoted above is "ain't that the truth! I think we all look back on some of our most successful images and lament the fact it was taken on a much earlier generation of digital camera or even a camera with a smaller format. The bar many times is often raised by our upgrading camera bodies & systems and although the image content itself is what is and foremost most important, its often no doubt helped by these upgrades and improvements.

It's a cycle that really never ends and can be apllied to most every consumer good, especially the ones that are intertwined with both our passions and those that are work related (or a combination of the two). At what point its levels out and becomes completely useable and acceptable in its present form, may be quite different for the needs or desires of another. Then there are often the times of "trade-offs" one is confronted with, when contemplating camera body upgrades or complete system changes, having to sacrifice one or a number of attributes in order to gain other advantages. A difficult decision at times.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:
Just finished re-reading the Digilloyd review of this system and it seems like Lloyd had some consistent back focusing issues. Wondering if any one who's currently using the system has experienced this problem...
David, I have not experienced any sort of "consistent" back focus. Of course I have some photos that show back focus. However, I attribute that to my own body sway or sway/movement of the person being photographed because I plenty of photos (often during the same shoot) which are focused exactly where I intended. I have not detected back focus when the camera is mounted on a tripod and shooting static subjects. In fact, I find the autofocus to be very accurate.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hi CEH,

Lovely tonality in your image and it has a feel and look of quiet desolation, yet stark beauty. Hope to see more of your posted images. Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 

David K

Workshop Member
David, I have not experienced any sort of "consistent" back focus. Of course I have some photos that show back focus. However, I attribute that to my own body sway or sway/movement of the person being photographed because I plenty of photos (often during the same shoot) which are focused exactly where I intended. I have not detected back focus when the camera is mounted on a tripod and shooting static subjects. In fact, I find the autofocus to be very accurate.
Mark, thanks for the response and reassurance. Marc has also mentioned that the AF has improved substantially since his early trial. I'll do some testing for this when I get my kit on Wednesday.
 

MikeScecina

Workshop Member
In the spirit of this thread, more pictures please and those taken with the FE lenses when possible. The IQ is the bottom line. Thank you, Kurt, for initiating this thread and to the rest of the players for your contributions.
 
Top