phancj Posted September 1, 2010 Share #41 Posted September 1, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Richard,I saw Steves comparisons before. Regarding the images I posted: the one with the ofrest and sky does include some pretty strong contrast IMO and the DR of the m4/3 holds up pretty well IMO. If you guys write "ahead"- which regard do you mean mainly? detail? or anything in the tones; or color? Again- in the end its not that important if we do totally agree or not - I just stay with my opinion that the IQ difference between the x1 and m4/3 is not that big under most conditions-even with the 17/2.8 lens which does not have the very best reputation. Of course as soon as we reach 1600 or even 3200 ISO (which I believe is indeed usable with the x1) the world looks different. From the full size photos you kindly put up the difference were mainly in colors, tonality and overall crispness. At least to me. Not sure how everyone else sees them. Maybe I am biased? Hope not as I tried to look at them objectively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 1, 2010 Posted September 1, 2010 Hi phancj, Take a look here For those interested in facts..... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest stnami Posted September 1, 2010 Share #42 Posted September 1, 2010 Judging by the amount of "print talk" on this forum most here don't even print photos and just either look at them on a backlit screen or as net images so all this IQ talk is pretty much bullshit as the images are srgb and of a small gammut space and 256 unique sRGB colour values. ...... and yes I do print my own images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanCderidder Posted September 1, 2010 Share #43 Posted September 1, 2010 Judging by the amount of "print talk" on this forum most here don't even print photos and just either look at them on a backlit screen or as net images so all this IQ talk is pretty much bullshit as the images are srgb and of a small gammut space and 256 unique sRGB colour values. ...... and yes I do print my own images. Imants you mean "dry-printing" as in making use of a printer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 1, 2010 Share #44 Posted September 1, 2010 I print digital injet and I run a traditional chemical darkroom though I haven't printed a glass plate for a while. ............and shoot the odd impossible/polaroid shots, though I have never been tempted to use a holga Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 1, 2010 Share #45 Posted September 1, 2010 Judging by the amount of "print talk" on this forum most here don't even print photos and just either look at them on a backlit screen or as net images so all this IQ talk is pretty much bullshit as the images are srgb and of a small gammut space and 256 unique sRGB colour values. ...... and yes I do print my own images. and I believe that if you dont see a difference in 100% on a good screen you would barely see a difference in print. I find what I see at 50% on screen comes closest to the visual impression of a print. What looks noisy at 100% on screen still often looks good to me in print. I also believe that I personally cant really see the difference between an image which has been converted to srgb before print and one printed in adobe rgb on my Epson 7900. I do understand that my printer can print a wider garmut than srgb per difinition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 1, 2010 Share #46 Posted September 1, 2010 There is a difference within the tonal ranges especially in the upper mid ranges as well as greater graduations in hue changes especially in tints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 1, 2010 Share #47 Posted September 1, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Camera companies have been pretty successful in killing off the photographer and converting us into camera users. ......... interested in facts is about cameras and has very little to do with photography I have found myself guilty of using a camera and no longer photographing since the advent of high end digital so it has been quite a reality check and has taken me a while to get back what I lost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 1, 2010 Share #48 Posted September 1, 2010 There is a difference within the tonal ranges especially in the upper mid ranges as well as greater graduations in hue changes. I have to admit that I dont print that much and therefore maybe my post processing skills to prepare images for print are by far not the optimum. I do keep my workflow mainly in adobe rgb for my personal printing on my Epsons, but when I get prints from a local photo store on a Fujiy Frontier they want it in srgb and I dont get the feeling the tonal transitions look abrubt or flat on those. Anyways - I do not doubt that there is some difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 1, 2010 Share #49 Posted September 1, 2010 tonal transitions look abrubt or flat on those.......becomes more evident the larger the print,...... shrug,,., few here are interested in printed images so lets get back to cameras:rolleyes: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM8 Posted September 1, 2010 Share #50 Posted September 1, 2010 I've made two 100% crops from the daylight images taken by Steve. The EP2 vs the X1, both shot at base ISO and f/5.6. The pixel count causes the different size. Maybe my eyes and screen are wrong but if this isn't a substantial difference I don't know what is... If this is not allowed I'm sure Andy will step in right away... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 1, 2010 Share #51 Posted September 1, 2010 Great to see that it takes no time to get away from photography......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM8 Posted September 1, 2010 Share #52 Posted September 1, 2010 So do pointless remarks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 1, 2010 Share #53 Posted September 1, 2010 Nothing pointless remarking about printing and the urge for people to see cameras as the means and end all as far as photography is concerned. But then I didn't expect you to see that aspect considering that you see fit to use someone else's work but that is the way of the net ai! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelb Posted September 1, 2010 Share #54 Posted September 1, 2010 Good thread for pixel peepers. 100% crops do nothing for me, stnami has a point in that more emphasis should be put on the photography and what the image conveys to us, which is where I sit. The Digilux 2 and E-P1 do all I want as far as gear is concerned, no matter what the 4/3 or M4/3 bashers think, leaving me to concentrate on the photography and not continually wishing my gear was just that little bit better. There are lots of people out there using M4/3 and taking great photographs. We don't hear artists continually bickering about the best brushes, canvases and paint brands - its all in their hands and eyes. Likewise photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM8 Posted September 1, 2010 Share #55 Posted September 1, 2010 But then I didn't expect you to see that aspect considering that you see fit to use someone else's work but that is the way of the net ai! Auch!! Sharp!! Tell me if you need a door that's even more open to be clever... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 1, 2010 Share #56 Posted September 1, 2010 We had to close a thread in this subsection last week due to personal in-fighting. Please don't make it necessary to do that again. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 1, 2010 Share #57 Posted September 1, 2010 If this is not allowed I'm sure Andy will step in right away... Because you have chosen to have these two images hosted on an external site, I cannot see them and I will have to wait until I get home to respond to your comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted September 1, 2010 Share #58 Posted September 1, 2010 Auch!! Sharp!! Tell me if you need a door that's even more open to be clever... Richard, I can only advise you to take the high road, enjoy your camera, post nice pcitures in the forum, and use the ignore list. It's great! We had to close a thread in this subsection last week due to personal in-fighting. Please don't make it necessary to do that again. Thank you. Two positive things actually came out of last week's debacle in this forum for me: 1) I learnt of the ignore button which works wonders like a charm so its total bliss for me; 2) I started to post photos on the main photo forum where I got many constructive feedback, not the kind of nitpicking and slamming that is more prevalent in the X1 forum. I have you, Andy, to thank for advising us to post in the main photo forum instead. I still visit this forum to try and learn something new so I can take photos better, but think this thread and some others are fast becoming stale, as more detractors appear with a mission it seems to be plain nasty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 1, 2010 Share #59 Posted September 1, 2010 Great to see that it takes no time to get away from photography......... Almost all 'photographic' forums have very little to do with photography and a lot to do with cameras and lenses. Here is no different. That doesn't mean it's a bad place, but if your looking for discussion of photography you're proabably in the wrong forum. Not that I find talking about photography very easy. I know what I like when I see it, but find it very diffiult to express why. Should I be bothered? What the heck, I'm off to a huge festival of _photography_ next week. Lots to look as, another chance to realise that there are people far more talented than I'll ever be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanCderidder Posted September 1, 2010 Share #60 Posted September 1, 2010 I think Imants is actually right. I became a member of this forum to get some questions answered regarding the use of the X1, perhaps some tips but most of all to learn something about photography. But I see myself getting involved in all sorts of useless technical discussions and discussion about the IQ of one model compared to another, even if the 4/3 IQ is miles better to that of the X1 it's totally irrelevant to me at this point in time, not only irrelevant to me but also to that of the final printed image. I look at the image and see whether I like it or not, I actually don't give a cats fiddle with what camera model/lens it was taken. Why I got the X1 then? .... it seems to fit within my view of things, I like it but if the x, y or even the z is better ... so what, I don't own it, I don't want it because I'm happy with my X1. Back to photography I say .... Hey Ho, let's go .... (Ramones, not the seven dwarfs!)) :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.