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!

Next Gen Alpha FF DSLR

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
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?
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
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
Question is ... after everyone selected the G2 shot ... did the tester dump all his gear and buy a G2? :D 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. :rolleyes: 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.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Question is ... after everyone selected the G2 shot ... did the tester dump all his gear and buy a G2? :D 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. :rolleyes: 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.
G10, 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
 
Last edited:

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
I don't think the two comparison pictures in Michael Reichmanns article serve as a good illustration of the strength of the two cameras.
(I have explained why I don't think so in post # 94).

For me the interesting part is summarized in the second-last paragraph "The Lesson" where Michael Reichmann (MR) among other things writes this:

"(...) let's take audiophile equipment for example, we have long known that it takes larger and larger amounts of money to achieve smaller and smaller incremental gains in sound quality. (...)"

"(...) Only a few years ago DVD players cost $1,000. Now they're $20. (...)"


Now and then I for one remind myself about these facts just by looking at my black-and-white laser printer as an example.
I think the first one I bought 25 years ago was about $4000 ... :eek:
The one I have today is less than $200 and has about 16 times more memory :rolleyes:

All in all I find MR's article very interesting, in spite of the somewhat problematic illustration.
Excellent food for thoughts, e.g. about competitive companies. And other companies.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
G10, 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 don't need to chill I'm always cool :cool:

... I could see the difference on screen immediately even with all the equalization of web images. The processing of the Phase One image sucks ... none of the subtile separations in yellow leaves was maintained as one example ... which I could manage to do even with a screen grab.

I could make most any comparison work to achieve the same thing outcome by not using what's there to use.

Gullibility knows no bounds.
 
P

Phil Indeblanc

Guest
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
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)

Also...
I agree with this above post very firmly.

creating backgrounds in post...? that all depends on your background now doesn't it. if it is entirely post, perhaps.

IQ is not something you judge on a print. IQ is something you judge for your own acceptance, and yes pixel peep if you want to call it that. The harder you are on it, the more you will squeeze out, and 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.
 
P

Phil Indeblanc

Guest
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 :cool:
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!
 
Last edited:
P

Phil Indeblanc

Guest
Dont get me wrong, I love what LL puts out, but this as the title says, "Kidding".

I have noticed from years back to now, Michaels getting a bit tired of lugging all that gear, and who can blame him. When shooting in uncontrolled public environments, there is a speed factor, a size factor, a convenience factor.

All this is set aside when you take it to the studio for IQ, specially for subjects that demand it.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I am new to this form.

IQ is not something you judge on a print.
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.

...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.
Absolutely. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

Quentin
 
P

Phil Indeblanc

Guest
It may be if your output is intended for print (where you do the printing).
Quentin
Thanks 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.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
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's not a matter of being riled up about it ... it's the implication that anyone who has stretched to produce the best IQ going in is somehow not able to detect the difference going out ... which is a premiss I find lacks credibility ... therefore makes me suspicious of the test methodology and the hand behind it.

Personally, I don't care what kind of comparison tests someone else did ... the only observations I care about are my own and those of my paying clients.

I also disagree that a print is more forgiving ... if prepared correctly. I am constantly printing 17" X 22" images shot in the same conditions with a A900 and Zeiss optics and the 39 meg digital camera ... and MFD outdoes it in print form every single time. Even some of my neophyte wedding clients can see the difference ... let alone an eagle-eyed Art Director.

Okay, I admit it ... enough ... the horsey is dead as a doornail :deadhorse:
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Thanks 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.
Hi Phil

Most of the shots I take are destined for stock and therefore not printed. But I also do some fine art printing on my Epson Pro 7900. What I meant about me doing the printing was that if you are handing the file over to a publisher and who knows at the outset what they may want :D

In any event, I agree you should always go for the best quality with whatever tool you are using - you won't usually get a second chance.

I still think that print is more forgiving. I use the G10 for some stock shots - and it can be great if you nail the exposure at low ISO, but the per pixel quality is not as good as a dslr, of course. On the other hand, if I only have the G10 with me, its 100% better than no camera at all! Now, with stock libraries examining submissions at 100%, a G10 or other small sensor camera shot may need more work to sort our than a A900 or MFDB shot will need. For print, that is not always the case. Or maybe I'm just good at post processing :p

One final point. For a couple of years I helped to run a small stock library and the variation in quality from contributing photographers was quite an eye opener and an education.

Quentin
 

roweraay

New member
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..
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.

Sony has now clawed back up to "over 10%", with the real number being rumored to be 13%, end of 2008. The 2009 numbers should be a few percentage higher than the 2008 number, if I were to guess.
 

douglasf13

New member
Yep, although the numbers in Japan and the US are much lower. Sony's market strength is in Europe and some Asian countries.
 

roweraay

New member
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.
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.

Also, Nikon is a fairly large customer of SSK but a majority of SSK's business and margin does not come from Nikon - even though Nikon customers want to believe otherwise. Sony sells VERY specialized and extremely high-margin sensors for the high-end video and broad-cast line, including to their own overwhelmingly dominating internal divisions and also to Canon, JVC and others. Their p&s sensors (which accounts for the bulk of all imaging sensors sold worldwide) are sold to every camera manufacturer on earth, except for maybe some models from Panasonic or Olympus etc. Nobody else, including Panasonic or Samsung or Kodak or Dalsa, makes large Full-frame CMOS sensors commercially (except for Canon who don't sell it externally) - making a FF CMOS sensor requires a MUCH higher degree of expertise than making upto an APS-H sized sensor, due to the complex lithographic stitching etc that comes into play when the sensor size exceeds the APS-H size (even Nikon D3/D3S/D700 sensors are rumored to be utilizing/leasing Sony Semi-conductor facilities for their fabrication, even though Sony was not involved in the R&D effort).
 

philip_pj

New member
I recall reading that Sony has (recent data) about 6-7% in the US and Japan, but much higher in continental Europe and the UK, up to 20%.

They appear to miss the importance the market for their mid-high end products attaches to a broad mid-high quality lens range - not primarily exotica like TS and Macro (important as they are), but great primes of say: 21/28/35/50 and a light 24-105/4 or slow CZ 35-70 even. This idea sure beats the recycled 28-75/2.8 they just pulled. Or maybe they can do a deal to get the whole Voigtlander range in A mount!

Users of the A500/550 and A700 and its replacement can aspire to these, or adapt them to crop sensor cameras, and many will eventually take up the A850 option in time.

On the MR issue, maybe his website traffic was slow back then; he sure had to work hard to dumb down the MF camera, lousy technique/timing and no output sharpening (?), all of which invalidates the comparo. Back to Printing 101 for him. Why print this stuff at all, to show he can fool his mates?

Live View yes, vid no.
 
Top