Still accurate and current
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!
One body, one prime -- your thoughts
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
Tim
Active member
I did this just to get a sense of the size of things
Compact Camera Meter
Seeing the fact that there is nothing between Jack's Nikons size wise, I'd take the 810 (for its resolution option) and the 28mm if I had Jack's camera equipment.
Me, I'd take my GR with its APS-C sensor and 28mm equivalent, and I have traveled with this one camera one lens in the past.
When the family is in tow it makes it easier than the DSLR.
The Sony and Leica make sense.
Cheers
Compact Camera Meter
Seeing the fact that there is nothing between Jack's Nikons size wise, I'd take the 810 (for its resolution option) and the 28mm if I had Jack's camera equipment.
Me, I'd take my GR with its APS-C sensor and 28mm equivalent, and I have traveled with this one camera one lens in the past.
When the family is in tow it makes it easier than the DSLR.
The Sony and Leica make sense.
Cheers
Tim
Active member
However I have seen a number of matched lens to sensor combos that no ICL/lens camera combo has ever beaten.
And even after it all dies the images remain that no ICL was even able to match.
In the end its about the images after all .. (that trumps all)
Most viewers of images don't care how or what it was taken on.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
Absolutely :thumbup:
It's just me being obsessed with separate optics, i.e. with camera systems where the optics can last for many decades and thus for many generations of camera bodies (my oldest lens is now 55 years old).
I don't mind the tool character and size of a camera system.
Actually I do not own any pocket-size camera at all - not even a smart telephone
In other words, It's just me, don't take too much notice (besides, I may have taken the headline too literally).
V
Vivek
Guest
Only 55 years old?
That is like being stuck in the Simon and Garfunkel era with a Nikon F!
That is like being stuck in the Simon and Garfunkel era with a Nikon F!
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
(...) Actually I do not own any pocket-size camera at all - not even a smart telephone
Don't get me wrong, I do have a battery-driven telephone, in order to be independent of telephone booths, they have become so rare.
Perhaps not the most trendy brand nowadays, but never mind, I'm sure we are all brand agnostic here on GetDPI.
After 13 years it still works like a charm, interchangeable battery and all.
Oops, here we go again - yeah I prefer removable batteries just like I prefer removable lenses, maybe I'm the modular type .-)
Anyway, sorry for the digression, back on topic.
© • click for actual pixels
© • Nikon D500 • Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100mm ZF • 1/10 sec at f/5.6 ISO 100 • Capture NX-D
© • Nikon D800E • AF-S Nikkor 1.8/28mm G • 1/60 sec. at f/11 ISO 100 • Capture NX-D
© • Nikon D500 • Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100mm ZF • 1/10 sec at f/5.6 ISO 100 • Capture NX-D
© • Nikon D800E • AF-S Nikkor 1.8/28mm G • 1/60 sec. at f/11 ISO 100 • Capture NX-D
V
Vivek
Guest
Slightly older than 52 years (I have older ones..):
Sony RX1RII, Close up function
I have not heard of another sample of that "Ortho El Nikkor"!
Sony RX1RII, Close up function
I have not heard of another sample of that "Ortho El Nikkor"!
Ha, yes that's exactly my time
Tim
Active member
The integrated lens/camea does have its issues in digital form, often they suffer from dust on the sensor usually requiring an expensive clean.Absolutely :thumbup:
It's just me being obsessed with separate optics, i.e. with camera systems where the optics can last for many decades and thus for many generations of camera bodies (my oldest lens is now 55 years old).
I don't mind the tool character and size of a camera system.
Actually I do not own any pocket-size camera at all - not even a smart telephone
In other words, It's just me, don't take too much notice (besides, I may have taken the headline too literally).
Your DSLR has a cleaning port. :clap:
Like most things in photography every choice is a trade-off.
I had a ICL one lens combo for some time with my Leica MP and 50mm cron.
I was so worried about dust that I changed the sensor with every image in the MP.
Jack, I think the operative phrase here is "... that has already been creatively photographed to death".
As I have aged and been shooting photographs for decades and decades, plus digital has made the results from millions of people shooting billions of images, the specter of repetition has become very real. Yet, life always presents some new experience just waiting to be captured if we can just wrench ourselves out of the mainstream of thinking and seeing.
For me, one way to approach this issue is to shoot B&W ... especially in places that seem to scream for color ... like Hawaii. While I had shot B&W for most my life, digital sort of moved me toward color works. Then I got a B&W digital camera, and when I shoot in Florida or any other color centric place I deliberately take only that camera and usually one or two lenses ... my preference is a 35/1.4. If I want some color snap for social media or the like, I use my cell phone.
I find that B&W forces the issue of content ... if you can't capture that coral sunset, or exotic color flower, you tend to not waste time shooting it along with 20 other tourists. You start seeing other things, other opportunities, other moments, other iterations of light.
It's not the only way, but I find it is an effect one.
- Marc
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I've written this down. Thanks.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
Marc, do you have - or do you know of - illustrative and educational B&W side by side comparison shots, with and without a Bayer filter, and ideally accessible as RAW files, so that I (and others) can experience the difference directly in post-processing ?
I assume that Leica M9 and Leica MM shots would be the ideal candidates for a comparison.
I have often wondered how big the difference really is between a Bayer-filter capture and a non-Bayer ditto, when rendered as Black-and-White.
To me it would seem like a quite high price to pay, to relegate my occasional color captures to a telephone with all its tiny-sensor implications on image rendering, even if the primary goal for my outing was a B&W hunt.
Yeah, I keep fighting 'The Telephone Threat'
pegelli
Well-known member
Great question, If I limit my choice to equipment I own I would say that until not long ago it would have been my Sony A850 and Minolta 35/2. Probably now it would be my Sony A7 with the Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 II since it's a lighter combination and I don't mind MF and it will give slightly better low light results.
If somebody would send me a camera for free I'd choose a Sony RX1Rii for such a challenge, allthough I would never pay so much money for a fixed focal length camera myself.
Marc,
Excellent point. I actually have dedicated B&W modes set up in both my Nikon bodies for precisely this reason. I find having the B&W version on review helps tremendously in structuring the content properly.
Steen,
I had the opportunity to shoot the Monochrome P45+ alongside my regular P45+ several years back. At that time my takeaway was that the mono cam definitely delivered more detail, and IIRC it felt like about 25% more pixels to work with. However, B&W tonality was not as significantly different comparing the color image with B&W conversion tool available in Capture One software at that time, and C1 has only gotten better since. In the end, the dedicated mono cam delivered a little "cleaner" file all around, but my takeaway was the difference while notable on-screen was not really significant enough in a print to justify the cost.
The however-but is this: I also have a Sony A7r (same sensor as Nikon D810) I converted to full-spectrum. If you take an actual full-spectrum image without filtration -- meaning all visible colors with both UV and IR pollution present -- then convert that image to B&W in C1, I find I get a more traditional-looking "Panchromatic" B&W film look than I do from a color conversion off my D810 with the same sensor. Advantage then is of course it's easy to add conventional B&W Yellow, Orange, Red or Green filtration to after the fact in post to desired effect. (Benefit of doing a Sony A7r over a donor D800 is with the live LCD viewing, you get real-time filtration effects, even with very dark IR filters as the live-view auto-compensates to light level output. The A7r with Sony 24-70 is a convenient-size alternative camera package too.)
Excellent point. I actually have dedicated B&W modes set up in both my Nikon bodies for precisely this reason. I find having the B&W version on review helps tremendously in structuring the content properly.
Steen,
I had the opportunity to shoot the Monochrome P45+ alongside my regular P45+ several years back. At that time my takeaway was that the mono cam definitely delivered more detail, and IIRC it felt like about 25% more pixels to work with. However, B&W tonality was not as significantly different comparing the color image with B&W conversion tool available in Capture One software at that time, and C1 has only gotten better since. In the end, the dedicated mono cam delivered a little "cleaner" file all around, but my takeaway was the difference while notable on-screen was not really significant enough in a print to justify the cost.
The however-but is this: I also have a Sony A7r (same sensor as Nikon D810) I converted to full-spectrum. If you take an actual full-spectrum image without filtration -- meaning all visible colors with both UV and IR pollution present -- then convert that image to B&W in C1, I find I get a more traditional-looking "Panchromatic" B&W film look than I do from a color conversion off my D810 with the same sensor. Advantage then is of course it's easy to add conventional B&W Yellow, Orange, Red or Green filtration to after the fact in post to desired effect. (Benefit of doing a Sony A7r over a donor D800 is with the live LCD viewing, you get real-time filtration effects, even with very dark IR filters as the live-view auto-compensates to light level output. The A7r with Sony 24-70 is a convenient-size alternative camera package too.)
Seen, prior to the MM being available, I shot with a M8, then the M9. Personally, I preferred the M8 B&W conversions over the M9. IMO, the MM beats both in terms of detail and rendering micro contrast. I use Nik Silver Efex to process the MM files.
Marc, do you have - or do you know of - illustrative and educational B&W side by side comparison shots, with and without a Bayer filter, and ideally accessible as RAW files, so that I (and others) can experience the difference directly in post-processing ?
I assume that Leica M9 and Leica MM shots would be the ideal candidates for a comparison.
I have often wondered how big the difference really is between a Bayer-filter capture and a non-Bayer ditto, when rendered as Black-and-White.
To me it would seem like a quite high price to pay, to relegate my occasional color captures to a telephone with all its tiny-sensor implications on image rendering, even if the primary goal for my outing was a B&W hunt.
Yeah, I keep fighting 'The Telephone Threat'
Regardless of preferences regarding detail (which could be highly subjective), the one area where the MM blows away the M8/M9 is high iSO performance. So, even if the color conversions were a wash, the ISO advantage would make it the go to choice for me.
When I'm out shooting for personal work with the rangefinder, I couldn't care less about color ... but every once in a while there is something colorful I want to share with friends and the phone is fine for that.
- Marc
V
Vivek
Guest
Steen,
AA, Bayer dye etc, notwithstanding, do not forget that you have a gem of a performer in your Df! It can take on the MM, etc for high ISO performance, tonality, etc. :lecture:
AA, Bayer dye etc, notwithstanding, do not forget that you have a gem of a performer in your Df! It can take on the MM, etc for high ISO performance, tonality, etc.
:lecture:
^^^ One of the main reasons I keep mineSteen,
AA, Bayer dye etc, notwithstanding, do not forget that you have a gem of a performer in your Df! It can take on the MM, etc for high ISO performance, tonality, etc.
(The other is a color palette reminiscent of one of my old favorites -- Vericolor film! :shocked
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
This thread has drifted into some interesting territory. I don't want to completely hammer what might be seen as a dead issue, but I've recently returned from an extended fishing trip into the Maine woods. We fish for native trout in remote ponds from canoes. It's wet, buggy, and messy. The notion of taking my expensive Nikon gear (in a well protected bag or otherwise) along in a canoe and exposing it to the vagaries of chance gives me heartburn. So I simply used my phone. And for the few times I had the presence of mind to put down the fly rod and take out the phone, it worked just fine. The example below is an illustration. What it doesn't show is the cloud of black flies and mosquitoes that surrounded me in spite of being drenched in plastic-melting quantities of repellent.
