Jump to content

Entry into S system. 007 v S3


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a printer I would split the middle between the two of you. Additional resolution will make a print look better at very large sizes, and it can also help a lot with tonality and cropping, but in most practical cases, 35-50mp shot properly is enough to render a detailed print large enough to be convincing at any normal size. That said, additional resolution DOES make the print look better up close. I think people tend to think of viewing distance as a fixed concept, but in my experience it really isn't. People appreciate prints from far enough away to experience the whole image, and then they close in and look at details. People photographing portraits or abstract subjects can often get away with much less resolution than landscape shooters, as they are more likely to have a lot of bokeh and smoother details. Landscape often brings in a lot of high frequency detail that can be disturbing when it is too soft. Basically, no one tool fits everyone, and no one tool even fits every image from a given photographer.

Edited by Stuart Richardson
Link to post
Share on other sites

@geddon_jt, going from the SL to the S007 is an increase in MP from 24 to 37, so you will most likely enjoy the increase.  The SL2 is a 47mp sensor and so a little different adjustment.  I do find the S007 dynamic range better than both SL and SL2 which you will like.  In terms of lenses, the 100 has such a slim DOF,  will most likely not use the f/2 to take images of horses and non-studio portraits.  Look at Mark Mann who uses 120 exclusively and lens is much less.  I think you might also enjoy the 45 (35mm equivalent) for some work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2021 at 11:16 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

As a printer I would split the middle between the two of you. Additional resolution will make a print look better at very large sizes, and it can also help a lot with tonality and cropping, but in most practical cases, 35-50mp shot properly is enough to render a detailed print large enough to be convincing at any normal size. That said, additional resolution DOES make the print look better up close. I think people tend to think of viewing distance as a fixed concept, but in my experience it really isn't. People appreciate prints from far enough away to experience the whole image, and then they close in and look at details. People photographing portraits or abstract subjects can often get away with much less resolution than landscape shooters, as they are more likely to have a lot of bokeh and smoother details. Landscape often brings in a lot of high frequency detail that can be disturbing when it is too soft. Basically, no one tool fits everyone, and no one tool even fits every image from a given photographer.

Tonality is such an important part of the image quality. I'm curious to know if the 16 bit files in the S make a difference to that or not. On paper they absolutely should, but I am aware that there is disagreement as to whether the S is truly 16 bit or rather 14 bit with two additional 1bit channels (which I have been told means it's not truly 16-bit).

Either way, tonality is wy I went back to shooting film. You cannot get the tonal transition in digital that you can get from large or medium format film (well not at anything like sane levels of money and even then I think large format still trumps all digital).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, geetee1972 said:

Tonality is such an important part of the image quality. I'm curious to know if the 16 bit files in the S make a difference to that or not. On paper they absolutely should, but I am aware that there is disagreement as to whether the S is truly 16 bit or rather 14 bit with two additional 1bit channels (which I have been told means it's not truly 16-bit).

Either way, tonality is wy I went back to shooting film. You cannot get the tonal transition in digital that you can get from large or medium format film (well not at anything like sane levels of money and even then I think large format still trumps all digital).

14 bit files in a 16 bit container.  In my experience, film or digital, larger format sizes (negative or sensor size) potentially make an important difference in terms of tonal gradations, assuming all other shooting and print workflow variables are reasonably comparable.  But those shooting (lighting) and workflow variables are key for extracting the most tonality and image quality, regardless of format size.

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, geddon_jt said:

So I found a good deal on a 120mm S macro lens and pulled the trigger, along with a S to L mount adapter. Gonna experiment with this on an SL before pulling the trigger on an S camera. Thanks again everyone!

I did the same thing but with S lenses on an SL2. I lasted about 9 months before the S camera “siren song” won me over and I got a used S 007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quick update. Today we tested the macro 120mm on the SL 601. We have been using the SL since 2018 primarily with the 75 noctilux which of course is a much more expensive lens. But to say we were blown away by the rendering of the 120 macro is an understatement. Wow!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...