When I hear "IQ" I reach for my gun

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What gets me is that people considering small sensor cameras like the Leica D-Lux 3 and the Ricoh GR-D usally seem to be obsessed with "image quality": most people these days don't want to see any grain at all, even at ISO 400 or 800, and some even at 1600. They seem to want these cameras to draw the same way as cameras with much larger sensors.

 

Looking at results from the M8 on the web and reading Sean Reid's reviews, it seems to me that pictures from this cameras resemble medium format film in their gradation and lack of grain. One cannot, at least at this stage of sensor development, expect small sensor cameras to have this look at all. Now, my own preference stems from shooting (until last July) with an M6 and Tri-X and HP5: plenty of grain, whose size and character depended on the developer and contrast, with Rodinal giving particularly large grain. But I liked the look of the 35mm aesthetic, which gave a "bite" to the image that medium format film didn't have, clearly a matter of taste.

 

This is why I now use the D-Lux 3 and the GR-D. These small sensor cameras represent a new type of format, as Sean Reid has also written, characterized by graininess at higher ISOs and huge depth of field: a new type of camera format the way the first Leicas were a new type format when first introduced. In my view, the image quality of these cameras, particulalrly in terms of grain, should be compared to that of 35mm film, not to that of larger sensor digital cameras. And whether you like the way these cameras draw or not is really an aesthetic choice. If you don't, you'd better get a larger sensor camera. (I should hasten to add that for many professional applications the medium format look is necassary, for which a larger sensor camera is indeed required.

 

—MItch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[4season]

I like using these small digicams for informal macro work, because they typically focus down to just a few centimeters, have TTL viewing, and the deep depth of field really works to their advantage at these macro ranges, so I think I really do get a look not readily possible with a bigger camera.

[audidudi]

Perhaps surprisingly, considering that I've shot almost exclusively with an 8x10 view camera for the past four years and various MF cameras for several years before that, I've found that I am gaining a new appreciation for small photographs, something that small-sensor cameras seem to encourage and do well almost by default.

 

I've always been amazed at how well the images in Lenswork hold together whereas my minimum print size for my 8x8 originals (I shoot for a square format and crop 8x10s down to 8x8s) has been 12x12 and my good images all seem to end up printed at 24x24 and all too often, even larger still.

 

With my LC1/D2, however, 6x6 seems a nice size for square images and 6x8 works well for full-frame 4/3 format ones. Now, instead of composing photos of the forest by capturing lots of details of trees, so to speak, I've started to focus on the forest directly and let the details fall where they may. It's been an interesting experience, to say the least, and as a byproduct of this, I've even started shooting handheld -- gasp! -- as well subjects with a pulse, something I've previously shied away from doing...

[cbretteville]

Mitch,

I totally agree with you. I've had the image I posted in this thread, shot with the C-Lux1, enlarged to 30x40 cm by a std commercial lab (using a Fuji Fronitier I beleive): http://www.leica-camera-user.com/landscape-travel/14478-winter-morning.html The result is a great looking enlargement that deserves a frame and to hang on a wall.

 

I was able to get this shot because I had the camera with me that morning. It may have been even better if shot with a camera with a larger sensor, but: An M can't beat the size of this thing. The D-Lux3 isn't that much larger. Its all about being there with a camara when the motif presents it self. A small, go anywhere like the C-Lux1 allows me to do that more often than with the D2 or the M6.

 

I am, however, afraid that the pixel peepers will be continuing their quest.

 

- Carl

[mwilliamsphotography]

... But I liked the look of the 35mm aesthetic, which gave a "bite" to the image that medium format film didn't have, clearly a matter of taste.

 

—MItch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

 

Mitch, I couldn't agree with you more. The relentless obsession with clinically smooth digital images is pushing a whole art-form toward extinction IMO. The raw emotional aspects of 35mm film is fast disappearing from the photographic scene, only to be replaced with the uniformity of an "Stepford Wives" digital aesthetic. Sad new world.

 

Good to hear someone is migrating the old way of seeing into their digital approach. Me? I'm sticking with film for that sort of thing.

[Guest xxl-user]

the grain of tri-x in rodinal is an aesthetic pleasure, but the noise of the small sensor cameras is just ugly.

 

panasonic made the mistake to give the lx-2 and d-lux3 10 megapixel on it´s way so you just can use it with iso 100 and 200. they should make this small sensors with 6 megapixel and better image quality, but for those who buy this cameras it´s megapixel that count.

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

before that, I've found that I am gaining a new appreciation for small photographs, something that small-sensor cameras seem to encourage and do well almost by default.

Actually, I'm not making small prints, but have made huge prints with my GR-D: 100x133cm, or 40x52 inches.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

[Guest malland]

the grain of tri-x in rodinal is an aesthetic pleasure, but the noise of the small sensor cameras is just ugly.

In my experience that simply is not true. Indeed, what I like about the GR-D is it's film-like grain — and I'm finding a similar experience with the D-Lux 3.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[lct]

Besides PP, is there any way to get optical blur with those small sensor digicams?

[cbretteville]

the grain of tri-x in rodinal is an aesthetic pleasure

 

I respect your right to feel this way, but I beg to differ. I never liked anything I souped in Rodinal. My results are just plain ugly. To me even Tri-X and APX100 looks better in XTol or D76 than Rodinal.

[tom0511]

I agree for some part. However I think noise looks much worse than grain.

My GRD is ok for me from 80-200 ISO, but I avoid to use it above 200 ISO.

Regarding tones and fine gradiation, as well as color, IMO small sensor cameras have not reached the level of 35mm film. Many images just seem flat. Resolution wise maybe yes.

Still there are moments when a small camera is such sovonvenient and I agree that the large DOF does have it positive sides as well.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I respect your right to feel this way, but I beg to differ. I never liked anything I souped in Rodinal. My results are just plain ugly. To me even Tri-X and APX100 looks better in XTol or D76 than Rodinal.

 

If it's fair to judge from the landscape that you posted, you are going for something different than high acutance and aggressive texture. I lived in Chicago for two years in the early 1970's, was shooting a lot then, and the Tri-X/Rodinal combination fit it perfectly.

 

But that was long ago. Isn't it nice that (a few) pocket cameras have reached the point where they can make strong images with their own flavor? I'm quite enamoured of the M8 right now, but a GR-D which I used all last year is not idle.

 

regards,

 

scott

 

(Sorry that I missed your post back in December on the same info I "rediscovered" last night. Anyway, the interpretation proceeded a bit further.)

[stunsworth]

I have to agree that I find film grain aesthetically more pleasing than digital noise.

 

However, I also believe that the digital noise can look much worse if you pixel peep. A better way to jusdge is either using a print, or if intended for web display, a reduced Jpeg.

[Guest xxl-user]

In my experience that simply is not true. Indeed, what I like about the GR-D is it's film-like grain — and I'm finding a similar experience with the D-Lux 3.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

if you convert to black & white it may be o.k., but i don´t like the noise at high iso of this small chips if you shoot color!

 

i have even done portrait´s using profoto lighting, nd-filter and t-max 3200 (at iso 1600) in rodinal.

 

that´s cool man!

[Guest stnami]

ahhh but you can make the noise work for you in colour though not always easy, bit via desaturation and saturation from one colour space to another it is possible

[Riley]

pardon me but, in the million years ago when i shot film

I always understood that I would be better off without grain

[Guest malland]

There's nothing better or worse about no grain or grain: it's an aesthetic choice. Here's mine, and there grain in a large print looks good:

 

Lubumbashi/GR-D at ISO1600

[Guest malland]

And I can't resist another GR-D/ISO1600 shot.

 

Paris/Rue Montorguiel

[Guest stnami]

c

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stunsworth]

Rob, it's one of those things that's a personnal choice, and I guess it depends on the effect the photographer want's to achieve. Most of the time I would agree with you, what I was looking for was minimal grain, but sometimes a film like Delta 3200 can look good with its large grain.

 

Last summer I saw the huge Erwitt retrospective and many of his shots had very obvious grain (and were printed large). I assumed he was shooting Tri-X, but to be honest the grain didn't detract.

 

Digital noise just doesn't look 'right'. Maybe it's because of years of conditioning to film. I'm sure Imants is right about using digital noise in a positive way, but I don't have the ability to do that and tend to convert to b&w (which I often prefer anyway :-)