jdlaing Posted November 13, 2020 Share #401 Posted November 13, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 10 minutes ago, Dennis said: 😂 It totally makes sense, you're right! Now, look at the DNG file, and tell me what you think https://www.dropbox.com/t/EYYyTCxAE2SOhNox Much better.........to me. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 13, 2020 Posted November 13, 2020 Hi jdlaing, Take a look here 24meg verses 40meg aesthetic. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Dennis Posted November 13, 2020 Share #402 Posted November 13, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Jeff S said: I commented more than once earlier than phone pics suffice for online posting. So, no surprise. (And too dark.) Jeff Did you take a look at the raw? I think is a very solid DNG. With the proper exposure, one can achieve great result ... I guess I mean, I like the and this 24meg aesthetics 🙂 Edited November 13, 2020 by Dennis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 13, 2020 Share #403 Posted November 13, 2020 No, but lots of gear these days is more than capable in the right hands. As always. I judge my own prints; no value for me whatsoever exploring others’ files. Not even the pandemic makes me that bored. Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Posted November 13, 2020 Share #404 Posted November 13, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Jeff S said: No, but lots of gear these days is more than capable in the right hands. As always. I judge my own prints; no value for me whatsoever exploring others’ files. Not even the pandemic makes me that bored. Jeff Once I have chance, I'll print out photos. I'm very curious to see final results. But so far, I can't believe what a 1/1.33 sensor is capable to do. I'm still shocked. But I leave this here, I don't want to bother you with this. I thought it was inherent to this 24meg post 🙂 Edited November 13, 2020 by Dennis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 13, 2020 Share #405 Posted November 13, 2020 I’m not bothered in the least. Just surprised that you’re surprised by the online results after all this. I guess you’d also be pleasantly surprised with others phones, or various low resolution cameras. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Posted November 13, 2020 Share #406 Posted November 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Jeff S said: Just surprised that you’re surprised by the online results after all this I didn't understand which online result? Do you mean the fact I didn't print them yet? I just got a new smartphone, and I really enjoy the result, the fact I can shoot DNG with it, 6000x4000 resolution, yes please. When I want to shoot photos, I always use my Leica M10. But when I don't have it with me for some reason, I can now use my phone. Let's say I see many more photos with my eyes than the ones I actually take with a camera. But having a camera always with me, now I can achieve to don't lose part of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 13, 2020 Share #407 Posted November 13, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 12 minutes ago, Dennis said: I didn't understand which online result? Do you mean the fact I didn't print them yet? I just got a new smartphone, and I really enjoy the result, the fact I can shoot DNG with it, 6000x4000 resolution, yes please. When I want to shoot photos, I always use my Leica M10. But when I don't have it with me for some reason, I can now use my phone. Let's say I see many more photos with my eyes than the ones I actually take with a camera. But having a camera always with me, now I can achieve to don't lose part of them. Once again, pics from practically any modern phone or camera can look fine on screen, provided the user understands processing fundamentals. And probably even in small prints, again in the right hands. I’d only be shocked if any of these high quality modern cameras...phone, mirrorless, DSLR, or otherwise...didn’t produce files sufficient for posting or for small prints. We’ve beat this to death. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Posted November 13, 2020 Share #408 Posted November 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Jeff S said: any modern phone or camera can look fine on screen, provided the user understands processing fundamentals. And probably even in small prints, Yes, but not all the smartphones give you 24meg DNG file can can match with APS-C standards I guess. This is why i'm surprised, sorry 🤷♂️ 8 minutes ago, Jeff S said: I’d only be shocked if any of these high quality modern cameras...phone, mirrorless, DSLR, or otherwise...didn’t produce files sufficient for posting or for small prints Agree 100% here ... And I think that this DNG can also produce impressive results in a no-small print. What about an 8x12 or even 13x20 ... Just saying. But I'm not the expert. This smartphone can produce excellent results only with favorable light, outdoor, and at 100/200 ISO only, I tested a little. In other light situations, this smartphone is not enough, and the final product could just be online or personal memory, which is excellent. But I really think that in the chosen conditions, one can assume that it is a mirrorless camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus2000 Posted November 13, 2020 Share #409 Posted November 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Dennis said: Yes, but not all the smartphones give you 24meg DNG file can can match with APS-C standards I guess. This is why i'm surprised, sorry 🤷♂️ It does look noisy though at iso 100 and the detail is not there, so I am not sure how you think it compares with an APS-C level sensor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwesi Posted November 13, 2020 Share #410 Posted November 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Dennis said: Yes, but not all the smartphones give you 24meg DNG file can can match with APS-C standards I guess. This is why i'm surprised, sorry 🤷♂️ Agree 100% here ... And I think that this DNG can also produce impressive results in a no-small print. What about an 8x12 or even 13x20 ... Just saying. But I'm not the expert. This smartphone can produce excellent results only with favorable light, outdoor, and at 100/200 ISO only, I tested a little. In other light situations, this smartphone is not enough, and the final product could just be online or personal memory, which is excellent. But I really think that in the chosen conditions, one can assume that it is a mirrorless camera. Dennis, its definitely not bad for a smartphone sized sensor and its nice that it gives you a a very workable DNG file BUT BUT BUT don't leave your M10 at home!!! 😀 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/314500-24meg-verses-40meg-aesthetic/?do=findComment&comment=4079770'>More sharing options...
Dennis Posted November 13, 2020 Share #411 Posted November 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Daedalus2000 said: It does look noisy though at iso 100 and the detail is not there Not sure what your standards are, but yes, I saw many APS-C camera producing a similar raw. Look, I'm not saying is beautiful, it's not reach. But it's very workable, and it's a phone. 1 hour ago, Kwesi said: its definitely not bad for a smartphone sized sensor and its nice that it gives you a a very workable DNG file That's right. 1 hour ago, Kwesi said: BUT BUT BUT don't leave your M10 at home!!! For sure, don't worry. It's my baby. When I go out, generally I bring the camera with me. But I often go to the beach, and not always get my Leica. Sometimes I just want to swim or walk on the beach, and don't worry about an expensive camera on the beach towel. The phone compensates when "SHE" is not available. 😬 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus2000 Posted November 14, 2020 Share #412 Posted November 14, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, Dennis said: Not sure what your standards are, but yes, I saw many APS-C camera producing a similar raw. Look, I'm not saying is beautiful, it's not reach. But it's very workable, and it's a phone. I will agree that is workable. My standards are the the Ricoh GR and the Leica TL2 that I have. I also have a 1 inch sensor camera and it looks much closer to it. I am not trying to say that it is not impressive what they have achieved, I am just saying my opinion about the level they have achieved. And thanks for sharing, always great to back an opinion which actual files. All the best Edited November 14, 2020 by Daedalus2000 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio Colker Posted November 14, 2020 Share #413 Posted November 14, 2020 I am more concerned w/ the type of sensor than sharpness of the files. A ccd sensor captures different than cmos. Cmos has more light sensitivity, more ISO and everybody impressed w/ 51.000 ASA... when tonality, contrast and how the sensor reads the optical image is way more important. CCD has wild colors unlike cmos. Kodachrome 25 asa is the benchmark for color film. No one cared for ekatachrome w/more ISO.. it was kodachrome that brought the deep reds. Very rarely i need more than 12mp but sometimes i do. Otoh i would like to have different sensors just like i had different film without going w/ "simulations" on jpg. The worse part of digital photography is the constant push for a new camera. Not tyhe case w/ Leica but all the other brands insist on sellling me a hybrid thing that comes w/ every single "why not.." option. I don´t want to retouch on camera. All i want is a raw file that´s elastic to work with and bring atmosphere to the image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 18, 2020 Share #414 Posted November 18, 2020 On 11/13/2020 at 1:50 PM, Dennis said: Yes, but not all the smartphones give you 24meg DNG file can can match with APS-C standards I guess. This is why i'm surprised, sorry 🤷♂️ Agree 100% here ... And I think that this DNG can also produce impressive results in a no-small print. What about an 8x12 or even 13x20 ... Just saying. But I'm not the expert. This smartphone can produce excellent results only with favorable light, outdoor, and at 100/200 ISO only, I tested a little. In other light situations, this smartphone is not enough, and the final product could just be online or personal memory, which is excellent. But I really think that in the chosen conditions, one can assume that it is a mirrorless camera. I just remembered this old article from the late Michael Reichmann. He made 13x19 prints using a $40k camera system and a $500 camera, and asked photographers and industry pros to identify each. Michael was a superb photographer and printer btw. https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/ Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Posted November 18, 2020 Share #415 Posted November 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Jeff S said: I just remembered this old article from the late Michael Reichmann. He made 13x19 prints using a $40k camera system and a $500 camera, and asked photographers and industry pros to identify each. Michael was a superb photographer and printer btw. https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/ Jeff I'll checked it out. Guess $1 subscription needed. So, please tell me which was the point ... How it ends Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 18, 2020 Share #416 Posted November 18, 2020 10 minutes ago, Dennis said: I'll checked it out. Guess $1 subscription needed. So, please tell me which was the point ... How it ends Sorry, didn’t realize it was behind paywall. Not worth subscribing to the site, which isn’t remotely like when Michael ran it. Bottom line, the viewers were no better than random chance distinguishing prints from the Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45 MF back (39MP) vs a cheap Canon G10 (15 MP). And that was despite some viewers figuring out that the MF image had a bit less DOF. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Posted November 18, 2020 Share #417 Posted November 18, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Jeff S said: Bottom line, the viewers were no better than random chance distinguishing prints from the Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45 MF back (39MP) vs a cheap Canon G10 (15 MP). And that was despite some viewers figuring out that the MF image had a bit less DOF. 😂 24meg VS 24meg(mobile) VS 40meg aesthetics 😂 ... Just kidding I have at home a 70x100cm standard-quality print, taken with a Ricoh GR V1. If I recall, 26mp APS-C. It's great. So I guess, I could print 8x12" for my mobile DNG files with interesting results. Once I have chance to print out, I'll try and let you know. Edited November 18, 2020 by Dennis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted November 21, 2020 Share #418 Posted November 21, 2020 (edited) On 11/17/2020 at 7:24 PM, Jeff S said: I just remembered this old article from the late Michael Reichmann. He made 13x19 prints using a $40k camera system and a $500 camera, and asked photographers and industry pros to identify each. Michael was a superb photographer and printer btw. https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/ Jeff He made it look dramatic in his post. Difference between his 39mp medium format and 10mp Canon G10 is only 1.6 times in linear dimension. Lens quality, focusing, PP sharpening, subject etc. will have bigger difference in how final print looks than due to x1.6 linear dimension extra pixels. Big number in higher mp figures are deceptive. Edited November 21, 2020 by jmahto Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 21, 2020 Share #419 Posted November 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, jmahto said: He made it look dramatic in his post. Difference between his 39mp medium format and 10mp Canon G10 is only 1.6 times in linear dimension. Lens quality, focusing, PP sharpening, subject etc. will have bigger difference in how final print looks than due to x1.6 linear dimension extra pixels. Big number in higher mp figures are deceptive. Tell that to the OP of this discussion, which involves an even closer MP distinction. Many of us have already explained the importance of the other variables you mention, as well as print size. As for Reichmann, he didn’t dramatize the difference in gear... $40,000 vs $500 did that for him. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 21, 2020 Share #420 Posted November 21, 2020 Oh, and btw, the difference in cameras wasn't just the MP or the price.....the sensor size difference was MF (44x33mm) vs digicam (7.5x5.6mm). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now