adan Posted November 15, 2009 Share #201 Posted November 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) @ barjohn: well, the color problem I see in your deck/trees shot is mostly the "brown LA haze" Jimmy Buffett sings about. I grew up in Altadena, and took one look at those pink trees in the distance and said to myself "Hah, LA Basin!" - and only then noticed your Riverside logon. A little different than stunsworth's rainwashed English atmosphere. Hard to compare cameras' color when the "terroir" is so different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 Hi adan, Take a look here The ricoh rival . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
barjohn Posted November 15, 2009 Share #202 Posted November 15, 2009 @ barjohn: well, the color problem I see in your deck/trees shot is mostly the "brown LA haze" Jimmy Buffett sings about. I grew up in Altadena, and took one look at those pink trees in the distance and said to myself "Hah, LA Basin!" - and only then noticed your Riverside logon. A little different than stunsworth's rainwashed English atmosphere. Hard to compare cameras' color when the "terroir" is so different. Maybe it's because we are the heart of the "motion picture" industry that our pictures take on that frame from a video look that jsrocket doesn't like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted November 15, 2009 Share #203 Posted November 15, 2009 actually, i do think Andy has a point... i'm a SoCal gal (sorry to disillusion you, barjohn) and notice the light is very different from over here when i visit the folks. it does take on a more video-like look, and that has nothing to do with the camera used. but, oh, those sunsets!!! especially when there's a fire in Malibu... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 15, 2009 Share #204 Posted November 15, 2009 It's the kind of light many photographers like, especially when you are down at the beach. It has a nice warmth to it that flatters most people by making them look vibrant and alive! I travel a fair amount in my work and there are few places with any nicer light. A couple of examples. (Fixed Rotation) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/103229-the-ricoh-rival/?do=findComment&comment=1117778'>More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 15, 2009 Share #205 Posted November 15, 2009 Perhaps I'm crazy, but the images just don't look that sharp... they seem to have a slight motion blur to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 15, 2009 Share #206 Posted November 15, 2009 There is something wrong with this camera IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 16, 2009 Share #207 Posted November 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here are 100% crops from the above images. Other than the fact the girl hitting the ball is in motion I don't see the blur you refer to. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/103229-the-ricoh-rival/?do=findComment&comment=1118200'>More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 16, 2009 Share #208 Posted November 16, 2009 I'll admit that the volleyball does look good as a crop... but the other... I will keep my stance. Barjohn, in reality it doesn't matter what I think. If you love the camera, that is all that matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 16, 2009 Share #209 Posted November 16, 2009 jsrockit, you missed the point. The point being that it is all in your head as some of the images I posted were shot with the Nikon D90 (Same sensor as X1) and some were shot with Olympus EP-1. None were shot with the Panasonic GF1. Thus, it is in your imagination rather than reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted November 16, 2009 Share #210 Posted November 16, 2009 72 dpi for our screens is soft compare to printed output......or it's oversharped and looks ugly.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 16, 2009 Share #211 Posted November 16, 2009 ... Thus, it is in your imagination rather than reality. I'm not a sharpness maniac by far but your Turrent pic looks soft as well to me. Now tell me that you've shot it with a Leica M9 please so that i can save a lot of money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 16, 2009 Share #212 Posted November 16, 2009 The girl is in the midst of hitting a ball for god's sake..she wan't standing still and posing for me. Shot at ISO 200, f8, 1/400 and using 43mm Zoom at 42mm. (Probably some diffraction at f8, I should have shot at faster shutter speed but it was a quick snap with no time to focus critically or do anything else to capture the action.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 16, 2009 Share #213 Posted November 16, 2009 jsrockit, you missed the point. The point being that it is all in your head as some of the images I posted were shot with the Nikon D90 (Same sensor as X1) and some were shot with Olympus EP-1. None were shot with the Panasonic GF1. Thus, it is in your imagination rather than reality. It's not my imagination... the one image does look bad...even if you told me you made it with a $30,000 Hassleblad. Now, it makes sense... you were trying to trick us. I was wondering why you would be using a bad photo to support your love of the Panasonic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 16, 2009 Share #214 Posted November 16, 2009 For the record, I don't have a love of the Panasonic or any camera for that matter. I am just seeking a camera that produces very high IQ images in as high an ISO range as possible while being as small as possible. Put a FF sensor in a CL and I would buy it in a heart beat. I have yet to see any X1 images that I thought were stunning examples of high IQ. The images on Sean's review are too small and when I enlarge them using the iMac's zoom they are very soft and out of focus and the high ISO images show a lot of noise. Since Sean does not make images available for download I can't evaluate the RAW images for myself in any meaningful way. All I was pointing out was your susceptibility to the placebo effect. You wanted to believe the X1 images were different in some meaningful way so you attributed some esoteric notion that the other images looked like they were stills from a video which you attributed to the sensor difference. I was just illustrating that you see the same thing even when the same sensor is used because you believed it was attributable to a particular camera. There were no Panasonic images shown and the Nikon uses the same sensor as the X1. On the other hand I have seen some Ricoh images that are larger than my 24" iMac monitor and are stunning for their IQ. Maybe we will get some of those for the X1, I just haven't seen them yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 16, 2009 Share #215 Posted November 16, 2009 For the record, I don't have a love of the Panasonic or any camera for that matter. I am just seeking a camera that produces very high IQ images in as high an ISO range as possible while being as small as possible. Put a FF sensor in a CL and I would buy it in a heart beat. I have yet to see any X1 images that I thought were stunning examples of high IQ. The images on Sean's review are too small and when I enlarge them using the iMac's zoom they are very soft and out of focus and the high ISO images show a lot of noise. Since Sean does not make images available for download I can't evaluate the RAW images for myself in any meaningful way. All I was pointing out was your susceptibility to the placebo effect. You wanted to believe the X1 images were different in some meaningful way so you attributed some esoteric notion that the other images looked like they were stills from a video which you attributed to the sensor difference. I was just illustrating that you see the same thing even when the same sensor is used because you believed it was attributable to a particular camera. There were no Panasonic images shown and the Nikon uses the same sensor as the X1. On the other hand I have seen some Ricoh images that are larger than my 24" iMac monitor and are stunning for their IQ. Maybe we will get some of those for the X1, I just haven't seen them yet. Hi John, As I'm sure you know, magnifying small JPEGs always looks terrible. That won't tell you anything. DPreview has some full size X1 files you might want to try at: Leica X1 Hands on Preview: 10. Samples: Digital Photography Review Later this week, I hope to have my fruit and vegetable comparison pictures done and there will be crops from actual size files to look at. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 16, 2009 Share #216 Posted November 16, 2009 {snipped}I have yet to see any X1 images that I thought were stunning examples of high IQ. The images on Sean's review are too small and when I enlarge them using the iMac's zoom they are very soft and out of focus and the high ISO images show a lot of noise. {snipped}. John--just to level set all of us... Do you think the shots you posted above are indicative of high IQ in some sense? Or flattering light, even? If so, could you please explain to us why you think that? I'm being serious; we've disagreed on a number of things over the years and I'd like to understand where you're coming from, exactly. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 16, 2009 Share #217 Posted November 16, 2009 All I was pointing out was your susceptibility to the placebo effect. You wanted to believe the X1 images were different in some meaningful way so you attributed some esoteric notion that the other images looked like they were stills from a video which you attributed to the sensor difference. I was just illustrating that you see the same thing even when the same sensor is used because you believed it was attributable to a particular camera. There were no Panasonic images shown and the Nikon uses the same sensor as the X1. First of all, I never said anything about the X1's images being different simply because they are from a Leica. I like the X1 because it is designed in a simple straight forward manner... something most camera companies have forgotten about. I think the images from the Ricoh and the X1 look good. Secondly, you posted poor photos that, I believe you said (maybe I'm wrong), were from the Panasonic. Why would I think that you are posting photos from multiple cameras just to trick me? That is some nerd BS IMHO. Any camera is capable of poor images... so the only reason I dissed the Panasonic is because I believed they were from the Panasonic. If they happened to be from a Leica M9, and they sucked, I'd still say they sucked. No placebo here... just bad photos, regardless of camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 16, 2009 Share #218 Posted November 16, 2009 I'd just like to say that my photos _were_ from a Panasonic LX2. If you want crap photos let me know, I have thousands of them taken with a wide range of equipment <grin>. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglasco Posted November 16, 2009 Share #219 Posted November 16, 2009 Barjohn That first image whatever camera it is taken with is very poor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 16, 2009 Share #220 Posted November 16, 2009 First, I never said any of the images were from a Panasonic. Second, I never claimed any were particularly good images or meant to be examples of good images. Third, the firts three images were taken with a nikon D90 with kit lens (the same sensor reported to be used in the X1) and the last two were taken with the Olympus EP-1 with kit lens. I included the beach scenes in response to a comment about the smog in southern california to show that we have nice clean skies in the area (at least by the bech). Jamie, no where did I claim these were examples of flat light or high IQ. Douglas, I don't mind if someone thinks an image is poor or not but it would help (you are trying to be helpful aren't you?) if you would elaborate on what you mean by poor. Do you mean you don't like it, you don't like the composition, you don't like the color, you think it is too soft, etc. Otherwise the statement is meaningless. All I was trying to illustrate was that when we bring preconcieved ideas to an image we see our preconceptions in that image. When I allowed everyone to think they were Panasonic images everyone saw their preconcieved ideas about Panasonic images to be projected onto the images. They were too soft, they had Panasonic's bad colors, etc. I have often observed the opposite phenomena with M8 and M9 images were compliments flow about an image that I look at and wonder if we are looking at the same image. Back in the film days I could take the same film brand and shoot a roll in a Nikon and a roll in a Leica, have them processed and printed and it would be easy to spot the Leica prints from the Nikon ones. They had a crisp sharpness and smooth tonality that was not present in the Nikon one. Today, it gets much more difficult. The M8 does exxhibit a sharpness that is above many other cameras but I have always found its rendition of skin tones to be off and despite Jamie's and others valient attempts to create profiles to address the issue they have never quite done it for me. I attribute this to the sensors overly high sensitivity to reds and infrareds. From what I have seen the M9 appears to do a better job I just wish they had fixed the processor/firmware glitches that seem to stay with Leica and priced it more reasonably. I can't justify to myself spending $7K plus for a hobby tool when I would rather spend the money traveling and having fun in other ways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.