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!

A must read comparison

fotografz

Well-known member
Generally, you can get a feel for image making potential of this gear pretty quickly, and then spend weeks or months squeezing more quality out of it via post ... which in turn can teach you how to go back and tweak how you shoot the camera. However, in reality it rarely alters the fundamental image making impressions you get with-in a short time.

In short, some things just click right out of the box, and some take longer, and some never really click for a user. Anyone that's made this trek for a while can attest to this, and have their stories.

In the end, it's what the photos look like to the eye of the beholder. Subjectivity is the final determining factor, not brick wall tests and shooting charts. In fact I don't actually trust those anymore even done in the strictest of circumstances. They can trick you into a technical mind set that increasingly distances itself from making interesting photos. Which is why some are less focused on technical perfection from the tools they use.

I personally do not like this bully trend, where feel is subjugated to statistics and specifications.

I personally do not like what I've seen from this Pentax camera so far, and I trust my eye far more than words from these guys. For that matter, I have the same opinion of the S2 which I've made no secret of ... even the excellent photography showcased in the latest Leica magazine left me cool about the "feel" produced by the S2. So, price sure isn't the determining factor, subjectivity is. Do you love the stuff you get from it?

-Marc
 
T

tokengirl

Guest
In the end, it's what the photos look like to the eye of the beholder. Subjectivity is the final determining factor, not brick wall tests and shooting charts. In fact I don't actually trust those anymore even done in the strictest of circumstances. They can trick you into a technical mind set that increasingly distances itself from making interesting photos. Which is why some are less focused on technical perfection from the tools they use.

I personally do not like this bully trend, where feel is subjugated to statistics and specifications.
Amen!!! Thank you for articulating this so well.

And I did finally find something interesting - if you're interested in the Pentax, bookmark this guy's Flickr stream and check back regularly:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/harklee/

He recently acquired the Pentax, he was shooting with a 5DMkII before that. He has included some of his observations in his photostream, and I look forward to seeing his future work with this new camera. Because he is using this tool to make the kind of photos that he likes rather than photos of brick walls, his opinion of this camera is far more useful, IMO.
 
I find it interesting he says he didn't notice much difference in Dynamic Range compared to his 5d mkII, I found quite a big difference with my Hassy compared to the 5d mkII.. seeing as they use the same sensor you would think they would be similar... wonder how he converts his raw files.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'll go out on a limb here on the Pentax from what I have seen so far it reminds me from a image standpoint of a ZD back. The ZD is a nice back but it does not have a look that resembles some of the newer backs with neutrality in color and the files look a little crunchy to me. A lot like my old P25+ with the 9 micron sensor which I did love but it certainly has a different feel than the P40+ and Hassy HD40. Even the S2 for that matter which has a similar sensor looks a little more opened up and less crunchy. Now maybe it is the processing that I am seeing or something else just not sure since I have yet to play with these files from it. So I do reserve final judgement on it for sure. Just have not really seen images that are saying something else than what I am thinking.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Amen!!! Thank you for articulating this so well.

And I did finally find something interesting - if you're interested in the Pentax, bookmark this guy's Flickr stream and check back regularly:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/harklee/

He recently acquired the Pentax, he was shooting with a 5DMkII before that. He has included some of his observations in his photostream, and I look forward to seeing his future work with this new camera. Because he is using this tool to make the kind of photos that he likes rather than photos of brick walls, his opinion of this camera is far more useful, IMO.
Yeah, that guy seems to know what he's doing no doubt ... with his new Pentax AND his older Canon 5DMKII.

BTW, I think it is fine to assess technical capabilities ... but as you say, it is far more useful in context to what you have a passion for shooting. While photographer's aren't necessarily scientists, they usually are good at subjectively assessing gear from the perspective of how they make photographs, and of what.

Generally, my investigations revolve around shooting people. In studio, on the street, at events and environmental portraits ... and very little landscape work, so what I look for isn't necessarily in tune with those types of shooters.

-Marc
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Yeah, that guy seems to know what he's doing no doubt ... with his new Pentax AND his older Canon 5DMKII.

BTW, I think it is fine to assess technical capabilities ... but as you say, it is far more useful in context to what you have a passion for shooting. While photographer's aren't necessarily scientists, they usually are good at subjectively assessing gear from the perspective of how they make photographs, and of what.

Generally, my investigations revolve around shooting people. In studio, on the street, at events and environmental portraits ... and very little landscape work, so what I look for isn't necessarily in tune with those types of shooters.

-Marc
Great point,
and if you would ever like to touch off a firestorm, just start a thread on which camera gives you the "best" skin tones LOL
-bob
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Great point,
and if you would ever like to touch off a firestorm, just start a thread on which camera gives you the "best" skin tones LOL
-bob
Lets not go there. Been fighting this war in 35mm for 20 years. I'm on to Sony now.

My Phase is wonderful in this area for sure as most MF systems are. I'm just a CCD person at heart.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'll go out on a limb here on the Pentax from what I have seen so far it reminds me from a image standpoint of a ZD back. The ZD is a nice back but it does not have a look that resembles some of the newer backs with neutrality in color and the files look a little crunchy to me. A lot like my old P25+ with the 9 micron sensor which I did love but it certainly has a different feel than the P40+ and Hassy HD40. Even the S2 for that matter which has a similar sensor looks a little more opened up and less crunchy. Now maybe it is the processing that I am seeing or something else just not sure since I have yet to play with these files from it. So I do reserve final judgement on it for sure. Just have not really seen images that are saying something else than what I am thinking.
That's what I mean ... "crunchy" means more to me that a bunch of tech jargon ... :ROTFL:

It's like the "waxy" comments made about some of the later Canon cameras that cheesed off so many Canon users ... but I was one of those Canon owners, and in truth couldn't disagree. :eek:

However, different strokes for different folks ... and one person's this, is another person's that.

-Marc
 

PeterA

Well-known member
re shimming

In woodwork excellent joinery is measured by fairly loose tolerances millimeters even on the best dovetail for example - doesn't matter because wood is live - sucking in moisture and reacting to temperature changing all the time but we hardly notice this stuff - except when poor material meets poor craftsmanship ..and the old sticky drawer routine kicks in!

In metal work a good job is accurate to .0005 of an inch..even metal expands and contracts at relatively minor temp changes - do you really think that your camera body mated tolerances to back and lens are consistent in any conditions?:ROTFL::ROTFL: I mean these chips are designed as components at the microscopic level - (Leica make nice 'scopes ya know) :bugeyes:

taking this brief diversion a little further.

In photography using a large megapixel digi back ? I doubt very very much that the crapola these guys sell to us ( I mean that in the technical sense of the word) does justice to the capabilities of any back - you are working with molded bodies and all sorts of bits and pieces in side and out ..

Itake my hat off to all the manufacturers working as well as they do!

hence the basic tech camera set up properly will give the most fastidious user and fuss pot the best outcome as measured by whatever brick wall or focus chart test they prefer

however - photography isn't about this kind of (b)anality - for me anyway

for exactitude -

I am currently shopping around for a milling machine and a lathe - maybe CNC or not - I don't know if I can be bothered learning autocad and various different programs to do the G Code conversion ( a basic machine language in the true sense of the word)

I can buy a high end milling machine and lathe for less than the cost of what I paid for my 40 megapixel backs..this equipment will outlast me and with good care the offspring of my progeny - meanwhile the MFD makers make each of our best ever cameras and backs obsolete every time they bring out the new bestest...

My first want to make project is my own custom made to fit arca style plates and other photo gear stuff..it is ridiculous how much many of use have forked out for a Cube for example ..

later it will be fun to make my own alpa style frames - I may even copy them as a hobbyist with access to some fine old gentlemen toolmakers (machinists) to teach me some tricks - I look forward to this new adventure..

Cheers
pete
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I find it interesting he says he didn't notice much difference in Dynamic Range compared to his 5d mkII, I found quite a big difference with my Hassy compared to the 5d mkII.. seeing as they use the same sensor you would think they would be similar... wonder how he converts his raw files.
Yeah, I wrinkled a brow over that myself. Is the Pentax 16 bit? And I wonder if having to use DNG RAW software has anything to do with that? I know that opening Hassey files in LR doesn't seem to have as much latitude as when processed in Phocus. I can make up for it a little bit in LR by using selective tools to pull out more in areas ... but it can get dicey.

-Marc
 

Terry

New member

SergeiR

New member
No it is not, it's 14 bit. Could that explain it?
in part.

I did comparition between D700 and ZDb , both runnin' at 14 bits, a while back, and ZD still would pull out a bit more "umph" in 3D feel of image.

As does 645D, from what we seen so far. You cant beat simple thing called "physics".

Bigger sensors / bigger film wins on larger prints.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
It would be great if you could simply read a spec on the number of bits of conversion in the A/D filter and that would tell you everything.

It IS an important part of the puzzle. But the quality of the A/D convertor (not all 12 bit converters are equal, not all 14 bit converters are equal, not all 16 bit converts are equal), the heat sinking, electrical isolation, and quality of wiring between the sensor and A/D convertor matter, the use (or non use) of dark frame calibration and the quality of that dark frame calibration matter, the type/quality of demosasicing, noise reduction, and sharpening math matters (most raw developers start with relatively generic math which is open-source or university-researched but spend lots of time and money on tweaking them).

So sure, you can blame the bits (it does play a big role) but the dynamic range, and importantly how natural the outer range of the dynamic range can be rendered (tonal smoothness, shadow color accuracy etc) cannot simply be reduced to one thing.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One at 10% off
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
I taught a photographer how to use LR a couple of days ago. He's a big name in this town but he tells me he's a photographer not a technician and changed to digital thinking he could shoot and develop like film and got a rude awakening so he employed me to show him how to do it properly.

I calibrated his screen for a start. I then showed him how the different tools worked, when to use what for which usage, etc. He kept asking me how I knew what numbers to dial in, how far to push the slider. He kept asking me whether the histogram was correct. In other words he'd been reading too much.

The simple answer was 'when it looks right'. You use the tools for the correct purpose but when you know what to use when, just twiddle it until you like how it looks and screw what people tell you should be right.

There was an interesting article by Andrew Rodney on LuLa recently about calibrating a screen to print. He shrugged off all the conventional wisdom and put it in a nutshell 'when it looks right'.

I remembered this when I read Marc's post. The numbers don't mean squat. It's what it looks like and how it resonates with you personally for your needs. Anything else is just measurabating.

One persons needs cannot dictate your specific needs, what you try to achieve. I like good tonality and facial tones but couldn't give a bleep about accurate colours elsewhere. For someone else this is essential. Heck you could find a million other examples.

That article by two people who are neither pro photographers, neither skilled reviewers and neither experienced with the systems or software they used told me nothing. They weren't sure it even told themselves anything at the end of the day!

Bottom line, only opinion that counts is when you've shot it your way, processed it your way, printed it your way and you say whether it 'clicks' for you or not. Anything else is just an entertaining use of time reading academic studies of an subjective opinion about a camera based on the users specific personal needs, chips on shoulders and personal bugbears.

I like DPReview, he tells me what features the camera has with screenshots (nothing else). LuLa is amusing and entertaining but it tells me practically nothing about the fulfillment of my own needs.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Ben my theory numbers really count when you DON'T have a calibrated system otherwise they are nice guides to go by than do what looks the best. I ALWAYS tell folks on the workshops when they are processing WB means very little if you like a certain look in your files go with what feels good to yourself. People it is obviously a little more critical but again even after WB i will sometimes adjust to my liking. This is not to say though you should not know your raw processing better than you know yourself far from it become a master at it. If you know the software there is always a little gold token at the end of the process. LOL
 

sinwen

Member
..... It's really a shame that Leica's managerial and financial issues at the time prevented the company from developing a serious replacement......
There was no financial issues, otherwise they wouldn't produced the S2 !
It would have cost far less to produce a 10 !
No it was a missed management which in return can raise up financial issues now. The sales of the M9 are done and the S2 looks like a flop, hard times ahead probably.
 
Top