Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, irenedp said:

Someone has mentioned some of the Phase One features. The Phase One processing capabilities are significant (e.g. frame averaging), but not devoid of issues. For instance, to produce an empty street and not get any halos or veils you have to get your good five minutes shooting and, regardless, take 2 separate exposures to be able to clean areas that have been affected by people standing still for long. It is really useful if you are photographing architecture; also. to get the nice effects of long exposures, but after all, just a gimmick for most.

For me, frame averaging is more about reducing noise. A sigma fp-L has frame averaging when shooting at ISO lower than native (e.g., ISO 6). The benefit is visible in high-contrast scenes when you need to lift shadows. The measured max PDR of fp-L at ISO 6 is two-thirds stops higher than the PDR of X2D/GFX100 or 1.6 stops higher than when shot at native ISO. The improvement scales up, especially if 16 bits are used to assemble the frames.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

For me, frame averaging is more about reducing noise. A sigma fp-L has frame averaging when shooting at ISO lower than native (e.g., ISO 6). The benefit is visible in high-contrast scenes when you need to lift shadows. The measured max PDR of fp-L at ISO 6 is two-thirds stops higher than the PDR of X2D/GFX100 or 1.6 stops higher than when shot at native ISO. The improvement scales up, especially if 16 bits are used to assemble the frames.

it does have that effect, and can be used for that, but the IQ4 has the advantage of what they call double exposure, which is much more effective than frame averaging in reducing noise in high dynamic range scenes. I haven’t used frame average a lot but has been more for architecture work and ensuring an image clear of distractions. 

Edited by irenedp
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, irenedp said:

it does have that effect, and can be used for that, but the IQ4 has the advantage of what they call double exposure, which is much more effective than frame averaging in reducing noise in high dynamic range scenes. I haven’t used frame average a lot but has been more for architecture work and ensuring an image clear of distractions. 

Double exposure is like bracketing, but it merges two shots into one file. Merging bracketed shots has its own set of issues. I have found frame averaging to work better than merging bracketed exposures (varying shutter speed).

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, of course dual exposure is like bracketing. But in practice, files are extremely clean. In my personal experience, it pays better than spending a few minutes frame averaging.

The image below is a frame averaged one. Taken in reasonably good light, at around 9 am, this winter.

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!

Edited by irenedp
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

and the following was taken using dual exposure. Very high dynamic range, but negligible noise. 

The following video - shot during the pandemic- shows additional examples.

 

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!

Edited by irenedp
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, sincurves said:

Excited to see what Leica come up with. Will lenses be digitally corrected? Will form factor be 4:3? Mirrorless and 100+ MP sensor is a given, I think. Hoping for IBIS, flip-screen and a size that works well when travelling. 

Leica seems pretty much dedicated to 2:3. The rest of your requirements could be filled by an SL with a higher resolution sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

The rest of your requirements could be filled by an SL with a higher resolution sensor.

Except for the larger sensor size, which is the whole point here. Form factor, size and weight will be interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Except for the larger sensor size, which is the whole point here. Form factor, size and weight will be interesting.

Post #27 did not mention wanting a larger sensor, just a different aspect ratio.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know well that his is the S forum, But this thread seems to be quite irrational.

 

A mirrorless S4 would have nothing in common with the rest of the S cameras, not even the lenses. So what everyone is wishing for could easily be delivered by an SL, and probably more likely, too.

Edited by Pieter12
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

A mirrorless S4 would have nothing in common with the rest of the S cameras, not even the lenses. So what everyone is wishing for could easily be delivered by an SL, and probably more likely, too.

Medium format and mirrorless are independent factors.  The discussion seems quite rational to me, given that sales for the current OVF-based S are dead.  It either goes mirrorless or it goes away.

The SL is not medium format; thinking otherwise seems the irrational part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

My guess is it goes away. A mirrorless medium format Leica would probably be given a different designation than S.

We just call it the S4 because we don't know what the name will be. The name isn't important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

We just call it the S4 because we don't know what the name will be. The name isn't important.

It sort of implies that this camera would be an evolution and extension of the existing S system rather than a new camera with different lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

It sort of implies that this camera would be an evolution and extension of the existing S system rather than a new camera with different lenses.

True, but it's just a placeholder name. It do for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

But being in the S forum, it makes it harder for others to add to the silliness.

About as silly as an M staying an M since inception, film and digital?  

Btw, have you seen the S1, the first in this so-called “tradition”? 🤪

https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/cameras/item/leica-s1

Everyone else here understands what’s meant by S4 speculation, regardless the name, or features.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

About as silly as an M staying an M since inception, film and digital?  

Btw, have you seen the S1, the first in this so-called “tradition”? 🤪

https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/cameras/item/leica-s1

Everyone else here understands what’s meant by S4 speculation, regardless the name, or features.  

A few things. My point was that this discussion being in the S forum does not allow others to easily take part in it.

Secondly, I had forgotten about the S1, thank you for pointing that out.

And third, the M as far as I am aware has always been a 24x36mm rangefinder camera. There might be some oddball exceptions like half-frame film or APS-C early in the digital progression, but otherwise that seems to be what is expected of a Leica with an M model designation. So an M stays an M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...