Agreed ... except for the horrible noise in every black tux I ever shot above ISO 400.
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!
Leaf moves manufacture to China?
- Thread starter evgeny
- Start date
RE: point number 2.While the observation that MF sensors are in general better today than DSLR sensors is somehow true, based on my experiences there are 2 issues:
1) MF sensors are better than DSLR sensors - this is the fact today! But why cannot DSLR sensors reach the same quality than MF sensors in the future? Especially if some wise camera manufacturers design a camera without AA filter ???? And why the M8 is so good has 2 reasons - 1st the lenses of course, but 2nd the lack of an AA filter. There is no other magic about that Kodak sensor - sorry!
2) already today these 24MP DSLRs come pretty close to 30MP MFDBs. There are some differences, but I am pretty sure I meanwhile can treat a 24MP DSLR photo that way in post processing, that you will not be able to tell the difference to a 31MP or 33MP MFDB photo when printed to 60" by 40".
Maybe this is not what you like to accept, maybe you can argue that this is manipulation etc, but it is fact. Have done with already with my Canon 5D2 and Canon glass, and I am pretty sure to be able to do it even better with Sony A900 and Zeiss glass. Always taken into account optimal conditions (lightning, tripod, etc etc.)
I am not saying that digital MF does not have it's area of application of course and with 39MP backs you can definitely achieve much better results than with today's FF DSLRs but I strongly believe that Sony and Canon will be able to get closer to this level with their next generation sensors
If there is Kodak around in these future times? We will see, they are having big troubles today - unfortunately.
And yes, it could of course also be a Dalsa (or Kodak) sensor in a future DSLR, maybe in the R10? But I ask myself, WHY did sony and Nikon and Canon not use Kodak or Dalsa? Easy answer, Canon wants to be independent, Sony as well and Nikon - well they could gave chosen that great Kodak train of sensors, but they decided to go with Sony for some reasons.
So in fact the Kodak / Dalsa offerings seem not to be so good for FF DSLR vendors !?!
A little story ... a few days ago I was running through my portfolio of paying work with another photographer. A very accomplished and successful photographer. Among the collection were a number of shots done with a couple of different 24 meg DSLRs. When we got to some shots done with the MFD 31 meg camera he stopped me ... looked at the work and quipped ... why is it that there are those who persist in actually saying in public that the 35mm digital cameras can come even close to this? I just shrugged.
RE: your point #2 ... shrug
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Exactly that was it's downfall. Noise in the shadows and high ISO's but I should have never sold it for the 1dsMKIAgreed ... except for the horrible noise in every black tux I ever shot above ISO 400.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I agree and Peter will see this first hand in a couple weeks at the workshop. Be prepared to be impressed. I am not kidding either. I about fell on the floor after seeing my first P25+ shots. I still think nothing can touch that back in 35mm. Just wait until you see the P45+, P30+ and P40+ files. We may even have a P65+ on hand. I'm in deep do doRE: point number 2.
A little story ... a few days ago I was running through my portfolio of paying work with another photographer. A very accomplished and successful photographer. Among the collection were a number of shots done with a couple of different 24 meg DSLRs. When we got to some shots done with the MFD 31 meg camera he stopped me ... looked at the work and quipped ... why is it that there are those who persist in actually saying in public that the 35mm digital cameras can come even close to this? I just shrugged.
RE: your point #2 ... shrug
I shot with my 1Ds MKIII with all the best L lenses for about 1 year before I got my P30+. I kept telling myself, the files were as good as those from MFDB. Boy how wrong I was. Now that I'm shooting with the P30+, I see immediately how different IQ is. It's not just sharpness.RE: point number 2.
A little story ... a few days ago I was running through my portfolio of paying work with another photographer. A very accomplished and successful photographer. Among the collection were a number of shots done with a couple of different 24 meg DSLRs. When we got to some shots done with the MFD 31 meg camera he stopped me ... looked at the work and quipped ... why is it that there are those who persist in actually saying in public that the 35mm digital cameras can come even close to this? I just shrugged.
RE: your point #2 ... shrug
K
K3N
Guest
Goodness me. Gotta stop reading these kind of threads.
etrigan63
Active member
Sensor+ may make MFDB viable for my stage work. However, there will need to be a substantial increase in the frame rate for me to consider it. 1.8 fps on the P40+ in Sensor+ mode is not adequate for shooting ballet or lyrical dance. Tap for sure, as well as plays. Then there's the question of shutter noise in a small theater. For now, I will stick with my D700 and may look at the D3H when released.
Carlos,
I don't think MFDB is all things to all people. When I shoot stage projects or plays, I still pick up my DSLRs. Not that the files are too noisy (I find on P30+ ISO1600 when downsized to 24Mp to be very good indeed) but rather because the platform is slower and more clunky. Also, mirror slapping noise can be objectionable in that environment.
I don't think MFDB is all things to all people. When I shoot stage projects or plays, I still pick up my DSLRs. Not that the files are too noisy (I find on P30+ ISO1600 when downsized to 24Mp to be very good indeed) but rather because the platform is slower and more clunky. Also, mirror slapping noise can be objectionable in that environment.
etrigan63
Active member
I completely agree with you Henry. I was getting some "looks" from the parents as i was photographing some dance recitals this month and that was from my D700! I told them (tongue planted firmly in cheek - they're friends of mine) that if they want me to use a quieter camera, they had to buy lots of pictures so I could afford it!
And...RE: point number 2.
A little story ... a few days ago I was running through my portfolio of paying work with another photographer. A very accomplished and successful photographer. Among the collection were a number of shots done with a couple of different 24 meg DSLRs. When we got to some shots done with the MFD 31 meg camera he stopped me ... looked at the work and quipped ... why is it that there are those who persist in actually saying in public that the 35mm digital cameras can come even close to this? I just shrugged.
RE: your point #2 ... shrug
- one guy in Australia told me he could not find the 5DII files near ZD quality.
- one guy in California told me he could not find the A900 near his Leica R9, albeit the MPs are different.
etc...
Regards
Anders
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Looking forward to this
and I am almost sure that it will hurt me :ROTFL: unfortunately!I am also very interested in how good the A900 with Zeiss glass will hold up against the P45+ and P40+ - will be interesting to see!
My argumentation is currently to wait as long as I can before I decide for an MF system (I still am intrigued by the S2 - call me silly or sick or whatever you want) and so I hope that the A900 together with Zeiss glass can keep me somehow happy during this phase. At least it was a no cost change from some of my Canon and Nikon gear and from what I have seen so far and my past experiences with Zeiss lenses it it looks promising for what I want to use this combo.
I hope at least! Investing in MF means around $ 30.000.- including some lenses and for this decision I want to be able to also see and judge the S2. And then I should be ready to jump in and stay as long as I can :angel:
Man, I'm glad SOMEONE said that out loud.
I find some of these comparisons to be odd, bordering on weird.
It's no different from the film days. Pick the tool to do the job. If you have a lot of different jobs or shooting conditions, you'll have a lot of different tools.
Perhaps the difficulty in keeping things straight lies in the fact that each category of tool has become closer than in the past. The gap has closed a bit. But to say the gap is very narrow, or there is none, just tells me it's a poor eye doing the comparison, or its wishful thinking, or the person is so gullible as to actually swallow marketing copy hook line and sinker ... like I used to write during my advertising career
I actually empathize with some who want to believe some D35mm IQ is just as good as MFD. I mean, come on, who wants to drop that kind of cash on camera stuff that the marketing nerds (like me) make you feel inferior about owning with-in 6 months?
In fact, now it's come to speculating on futures. Not only is it the most recent here-and-now that pollutes the mind ... it's what may be, or is coming. It's a bunch of people with their hands in shooting position ... with nothing in their hands ...:ROTFL:
Conversely, IF these wishful thinking scenarios where actually true, a vast number of very pragmatic photographic people running a business would have voted with their wallets and put the MFD companies out of business a long time ago.
-Marc
Isn't this confusing looking with talking?
Also, it may be important to ask if the people doing the comparison in words have actually used the things being compared.
As is stated later in this thread, they are different tools ... comparing a ZD to a 5D-II is a race horse and plow horse comparison.
Same for something like a DMR/R9 and an A900 (both of which I've actually used). The A900 is AF and all the lenses are image stabilized. For what a 35mm DSLR is intended for ... the A900 IQ is superior on more images than the Leica because you actually get the image
IF it's pure IQ without any other consideration, then for what the DMR and Leica glass cost, you can get a more modest MFD camera which will out IQ the DMR.
Granted ... it's all subjective, "eye of the beholder" and all that. Question is ... should the gear be questioned, or should the "eye"? I usually opt for the latter rather than the former ... because that is far more of a varible than the gear ... which "is what it is." Its people "talking" who make it more or less than it is.
HiIsn't this confusing looking with talking?
Also, it may be important to ask if the people doing the comparison in words have actually used the things being compared.
As is stated later in this thread, they are different tools ... comparing a ZD to a 5D-II is a race horse and plow horse comparison.
Same for something like a DMR/R9 and an A900 (both of which I've actually used). The A900 is AF and all the lenses are image stabilized. For what a 35mm DSLR is intended for ... the A900 IQ is superior on more images than the Leica because you actually get the image
IF it's pure IQ without any other consideration, then for what the DMR and Leica glass cost, you can get a more modest MFD camera which will out IQ the DMR.
Granted ... it's all subjective, "eye of the beholder" and all that. Question is ... should the gear be questioned, or should the "eye"? I usually opt for the latter rather than the former ... because that is far more of a varible than the gear ... which "is what it is." Its people "talking" who make it more or less than it is.
I agree with your thoughts, but yes those guys tried both. They had one and was considering dslr, due all marketing hype and raving about DSLR 20+ MP dslrs being, well so "better" quality, but... I admire their eyes for seeing truth. :toocool:
And yes, very different tools. On my side, different tools as amateur still using film ... that not makes easier carrying different tools. Film days were simpler to me! That is another side of coin of course.
Anders
Jeff Turner
Member
and Jason Gold is still replying to questions on the Leaf Customer Forums.