wstotler Posted February 9, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted February 9, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) fotografz--thanks for the details and comparison! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 9, 2007 Share #22 Â Posted February 9, 2007 Marc, Â Thanks for the salient sanity check, and for the great information. Â I must admit, part of me is champing at the bit to have a portable MF option, but I still can't cost-justify the investment for the event-based business (we don't do very much product work, though I did with film a long time ago). I'd love to shoot with those cameras again, and gain all the larger sensor benefits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffreyTotaro Posted February 9, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted February 9, 2007 I have not read Puts' comparision/review, not will I. I will say this. I shoot regularly with a Phase One P25 & P45 on a Cambo Wide DS with Schneider Digitar lenses. Basically the ultimate in medium/large format digital capture. I received my M8 a week ago with the 50 lux and just got the 28 2.8 yesterday. I am amazed at how good this camera is!. The obvious difference is file size, but the files are really good. It's hard to beat 39mp with 10mp. These cameras are not meant to compete against each other in the first place so it's odd to comare them. Â Just my 2 cents. This is a great camera - no doubt! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted February 9, 2007 Author Share #24 Â Posted February 9, 2007 There are some other interesting aspects comparisons. Â One way to compare cameras is to look at the best shot each will produce. Another way is to look at weak spots...one Hassy user said the H3D has a "marginal" ISO 400. What happens when you compare a H3D ISO 400 shot with an M8 ISO 400 shot? The underlying assumption of the H3D (it seems to me) is that you're shooting in a studio and that light isn't an issue. What happens to image quality if you move out of the studio where light IS an issue? Or is that unfair? Â There's also a psychological component: do people really pick up differences in printed image quality between, sat, a 20x40 image shot with an H3D or an M8? If it's a picture of a supermodel in her underwear, do on-lookers really wonder at the jaggies on her heel...or is that something that only art directors worry about, who are looking at the image from six inches rather than six feet? Â And I have to confess I like the 1.2x comparison...it puts a number on something that isn't quantifiable, just another way of saying that something is a "titch" better or a "hair" better, but this gives a nice scale to "titch." I personally feel that the H3D is 1.4x better. Â JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 9, 2007 Share #25 Â Posted February 9, 2007 This attempt to compare 35mm digital with medium format (digital or film) is so tired. They are two different types of cameras with two differnet types of looks. Canon could come out with a 50mp dslr tomorrow and it would still have a 35mm look to it compared to my 40 year old Rollei TLR, albeit very highly resolved (or whatever). Medium format lenses give one a different sense of depth, as well as framing and working style, than 35mm. It's not that one is better or worse - they're just differnent. Personally, Iikee to push the envelope when it comes to shooting MF, using it in situations when one would normally think of turning to 35, ala Larry Fink. Like the project I'm shooting on breakdancers. Mamiya rangefinders are great for that and the look I get immediately sets the images apart. My dream camera would be a Mamiya 7 digital. I use Leica when I purposefully want my pics to look 35mm (gritty, grainy, photojournalistic) and people hire me for that look. Grain, and even digital noise, can be used as ones' style, the same as some use large format to theirs. It's apples and oranges. Â Charles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 9, 2007 Share #26 Â Posted February 9, 2007 The "marginal" ISO 400 is based on self comparison to ISO 200 on the same HD3 camera. The expectations for this kit are pretty high. In short, the H3D 400 murders the Leica 320 by a big margin. Â Art Directors aren't concerned with pressing their nose against an image. They are dealing with a lower rung in the the reproduction ladder, with each rung a step away from the original. Therefore the best "starting point possible" is the objective. Tonal gradation and and fine detail makes up the over-all impression of any image. Â Since there seems to be a craving to place some comparative number on this ... like 1.2X or 1.4X, I'll pull one out of the same orifice, and say it is at least 2.5X better ... but my number is based on actually using both cameras, (or either at all), for more than a few minutes, and for shooting thousands of images other than flowers and test charts : -) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_w_davies Posted February 9, 2007 Share #27 Â Posted February 9, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Looking at the photos on the Puts article 2.5 seems a little conservative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 9, 2007 Share #28  Posted February 9, 2007 Okay, I'll be clearer. Despite all his apparent scientific approach, Puts is out of his depth here, and has left out some critical data that creates a bias that borders on being ludicrous.  I also use a 33 meg Leaf Aptus 75 digital back. The M8 is no match for that either.  This isn't a defense based on the amount of money spent BTW. The digital backs pay for themselves through digital capture/rental fees via commercial work (average $400-$500 per day). The Leica came out of my own pocket, and is not usable for 90% of the type of commercial work I do. If I could, I'd capture fees for it also. But not one Art Director I know will let me shoot a product shot for an in-store poster with my Canon 1DsMKII, let alone a M8. They want the big MF files.  Aren't you an art director? <G>  Cheers,  Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 9, 2007 Share #29 Â Posted February 9, 2007 Yes, that is my background Sean. I now am an owner/partner of an ad agency producing national print and TV, and have Art Directors who work for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted February 12, 2007 Share #30 Â Posted February 12, 2007 Marc-- In your post http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/15942-puts-m8-vs-hassy.html#post166582 above, where did you get your pixel resolution count for the M8? Why does it differ both from Leica's stated resolution and from the 1.5x aspect ratio we expect from Leica? Â Thanks! Â --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 12, 2007 Share #31 Â Posted February 12, 2007 Yes, that is my background Sean. I now am an owner/partner of an ad agency producing national print and TV, and have Art Directors who work for me. Â I thought so. Â Cheers, Â Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.