markowich Posted January 23, 2009 Share #121 Posted January 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) m-lenses an investment? how can you invest into the past?---)))) peter @markowich A D700 with fixed lens is about twice as heavy and big than an M8! We might not use the full potential of the M-lenses on this cropped camera, but they're an investment into the future. The D700 (+system) is much more versatile (long lenses, speed and usable 1600-3200ASA), but it can't match the M8 on it's strengths (high-quality fast-lenses, no mirror slap, compactness). Combined with a usable zoom I even would say it's huge: L1020363.JPG (image) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Hi markowich, Take a look here price of the new S2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted January 23, 2009 Share #122 Posted January 23, 2009 Simon, that's an odd statement to make. *None* of the 1ds3 shooters I know use a tripod for the majority of their work; the world is not made up of landscape shooters I almost never used a tripod shooting my 16mp 1ds2. So if the S2 (and I haven't seen one, natch) looks like it's about the same size as a d3 / d3x; given enough ISO capability, shutter speed should take care of camera shake a lot of the time (though it depends on all kinds of other stuff). But resolution alone doesn't necessitate a tripod. Good catch ... Jamie. But since Georg never forgot to mention about the Rodenstock lenses in almost all of his posts, I was assuming he is a landscape/architecture guy. Above was posed as a question rather than a statement. To each his own ... people have their own choices but I always use a tripod whenever possible - even with the Canon G10, I almost never buy anything which doesn't allow use of a cable switch. IMHO handholding "Leica-style" photography don't really need more than 12mp, and in the foreseeable future nothing can beat the D3/D700 in that ball park. Speaking on my own behalf, If I's spend over 20k + to buy 37.5 million pixels there would only one reason to do so and that is for resolution, and the best chance to achieve best possible results is on a tripod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 23, 2009 Share #123 Posted January 23, 2009 m-lenses an investment? how can you invest into the past?---))))peter In case one has bought the wrong stock such as Lehman Brothers and put his trust in Madoff, the M lenses may be seen as better "investment". LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 23, 2009 Share #124 Posted January 23, 2009 {snipped}Speaking on my own behalf, If I's spend over 20k + to buy 37.5 million pixels there would only one reason to do so and that is for resolution, and the best chance to achieve best possible results is on a tripod. I guess that's why I still want an R10 I'd personally rather have more dynamic range, lower noise and greater colour depth / higher quality reproduction than higher resolution per se, though I wouldn't say no to 20mp if the other elements are there too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 24, 2009 Share #125 Posted January 24, 2009 FWIW, ISO changing on the M8 is a lot less onerous and error-print than it is on my D3, where I could hit picture quality by mistake on the micro buttons provided! Nothing like shooting small JPEG when you think you're shooting RAW Jamie, that surprises me because you can see the selected ISO in the viewfinder... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 24, 2009 Share #126 Posted January 24, 2009 Jamie, that surprises me because you can see the selected ISO in the viewfinder... --a thread hijack here, but wth--- Hey Mark--it surprised me too the first time I nearly did it! There I was, spinning the ISO button (or so I thought) and nothing was happening. What I *was* doing was changing file quality instead. Yeesh. I don't do that now that I know the camera, and it's nice not to have to move your eye from the camera, but it did throw me. A minor design flaw, for sure, on an otherwise very well designed camera. Anyway, in the dark I'd much prefer to change the M8's menu, though of course now that I'm more familiar with the D3 I know where the right button is. even when I can't see it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t024484 Posted January 24, 2009 Share #127 Posted January 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've said many times but, I'll repeat once more ... you're comparing apples to oranges. The Hasselblad Zeiss lenses were designed to work on a 56mm x 56mm picture frame so, a S lens with an identical FOV needs to have (56-30)/30=86.67% higher resolution vertically or (56-45)/45=24.44% higher resolution horizontally to beat it in terms of final results. Not to mention Schneider lenses for Large format ... there's no comparison among them. Many other people also argue that the S2 is more portable than traditional medium cameras, which is quite deceiving IMO ... keep in mind it has 37 million pixels each is as tiny as 6 microns, anyone who has played with a 15MP + camera would tell you if you want deliverable results, you're gonna mount this camera on a tripod ... just do a reality check with those 1Ds MK X and D3x shooters. How many of them don't use a tripod? so the S2's slimmer body size, lighter weight all come to a wash. Lens speed, most S lenses only have a half stop advantage to the HC lenses or Mamiya 645 lenses, the HC 100 is actually a half stop faster than an equivalent S (which is the 70/2.5) and ZERO advantage to the Contax 645 lenses. Speaking of effective DOF, they're almost all equivalent. All comes back to square one ... Hi Simon, 1) I am confused by all the different sizes that seem to be hiding behind "645" So far I have seen: 4*5, 4.2*5.6, 4.5*6.0. Is this all one and the same 645 ?? I am not at all familiar with this world, but I am highly interested in the S2 since it seems that I can use it almost as a "normal" TTL camera. 2) You mention in your postings that a a smaller sensor needs a lens with a higher resolution of exactly the ratio between the sensors to get the same result. This can only be true if the lens is by far the limiting factor. Have you any reasons to believe that this is the case ? If the lens and the sensor are roughly having the same resolution, then the relation is quite different. So as an example, assume in case of a 4.2*5.6 Sensor that the lens and the sensor have the same resolution R, then the resulting picture resolution is roughly R/SQRT2 = 0.7 R. Assume a second sensor that is 0.7 the size of the previous one, just like the S2 has, and that it has the same pixel size. This Sensor will then have a resolution of 0.7R. A Lens for this second sensor needs a resolution that is almost 10 times better as the first lens, to keep the total resolution at the same 0.7R as the first combination. If the second lens was only 30% better , having a resolution of 1.3R, the resulting resolution would be something like 0.52R. It is just an example, but the point is that you have to look at the combination of lens and sensor and not just the lens. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted January 24, 2009 Share #128 Posted January 24, 2009 Speaking on my own behalf, If I's spend over 20k + to buy 37.5 million pixels there would only one reason to do so and that is for resolution, and the best chance to achieve best possible results is on a tripod. Simon, I rarely use a tripod and few would argue with the quality of my results. There are many ways around the perceived need for a tripod that are entirely consistent with best possible results, even with a 560mm lens and DMR (field of view equivalent to 800mm on a full-frame camera). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted January 24, 2009 Share #129 Posted January 24, 2009 So the S2 is a point-and-shoot then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 24, 2009 Share #130 Posted January 24, 2009 So the S2 is a point-and-shoot then. Yup. You bring the camera home, point to it and say how much it cost, and your partner shoots you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 24, 2009 Share #131 Posted January 24, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 24, 2009 Share #132 Posted January 24, 2009 1) I am confused by all the different sizes that seem to be hiding behind "645"So far I have seen: 4*5, 4.2*5.6, 4.5*6.0. Is this all one and the same 645 ?? Hans, the standard 645 size is 42mm x 56mm, This can only be true if the lens is by far the limiting factor.Have you any reasons to believe that this is the case ? Lens is a limiting factor in many cases, that's why people complain about Canon's lenses with the 1Ds2 and 1Ds3, right? The highest resolution film SPUR-DSX can do 600 lp/mm, can any Leica lens handle that? I don't think so, the film is designed for microscopes. We're doing some simple math here. For example, we cut two sensors from the same wafer, one at 42x56 in size, another 30x45 in size, per pixel size and quality would be exactly the same right? Now, with an identical view angle, to project a test target with 2000 line pairs on to the 42mm tall picture frame, the lens needs a resolution of 2000/42=47.62 lp/mm, to do the same on a 30mm tall picture frame, the smaller lens must handle 2000/30=66.67 lp/mm. I've outside right now ... will come back when possible. Have a nice weekend, folks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted January 24, 2009 Share #133 Posted January 24, 2009 Back in teh 60's when I worked with photo intelligence we had B&W 35mm, 70mm and 5" film the we could resolve down to a (I'can't say as it may still be classified) from 100,000 feet. I'm sure some of you have read about the capabilities in news stories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 25, 2009 Share #134 Posted January 25, 2009 Current record of lens resolution power is held by the ZM 2.8/25, it peaks at f/4 with 400 lp/mm, which is the theoretical maximum resolution possible at that aperture - cost you only 969 USD at B&H. Resolving Power Record with ZEISS Biogon T* 2,8/25 ZM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted January 25, 2009 Share #135 Posted January 25, 2009 There are many extremely powerful-lenses which are capable of very high-resolutions - although the contrast isn't very high at these frequencies. 400lp/mm are pretty unrealistic even under ideal §real" conditions - that's where the larger formats kick in. When you're comparing two different sized systems, do you want the same resulting resolution from the smaller sensor - you need more powerful lenses. You compare sensors "cut from the same wafer" you always have the same demand for lens-resolution - which is the the case right now with the S-system using sensors with "normal pixel-pitch" (as other MFDBs). I picked Rodenstock/Schneider-lenses because I knew them from several samples from Alpa (and a few shots I've done myself) and to me they currently define the reference in medium-format-lenses. So what could we expect from the S-System with really great new Leica-lenses in comparison to other systems like Hasselblad/Fuji? And I think the HR/Digitars might show the advanteges of superior lens-quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 25, 2009 Share #136 Posted January 25, 2009 So what could we expect from the S-System with really great new Leica-lenses in comparison to other systems like Hasselblad/Fuji? I think the HR/Digitars might show the advanteges of superior lens-quality. Very unfortunately, Leica S lenses are NOT HR/Digitar lenses, and 30x45 will never come close to real medium format, not to mention about the Rodenstock/Schneider stuff, which is "large format". I'll not put up another post in this thread, all I've said is quite clear. Ciao. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 26, 2009 Share #137 Posted January 26, 2009 Very unfortunately, Leica S lenses are NOT HR/Digitar lenses, and 30x45 will never come close to real medium format, not to mention about the Rodenstock/Schneider stuff, which is "large format". I'll not put up another post in this thread, all I've said is quite clear. Ciao. well, i shall put in one more post, then i shall quit as well. as you all know, the output quality of digital images (whatver the output may be, print or pixel peeping) depends on a chain of issues, ranging from sensor quality, autofocus quality, lens quality, software, postprocessing....given today's track record i'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the S2 will reach D3x level (total) IQ. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted January 26, 2009 Share #138 Posted January 26, 2009 well, i shall put in one more post, then i shall quit as well. as you all know, the output quality of digital images (whatver the output may be, print or pixel peeping) depends on a chain of issues, ranging from sensor quality, autofocus quality, lens quality, software, postprocessing....given today's track record i'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the S2 will reach D3x level (total) IQ. peter This is windup right? This is not an "M" camera... Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t024484 Posted January 27, 2009 Share #139 Posted January 27, 2009 well, i shall put in one more post, then i shall quit as well. as you all know, the output quality of digital images (whatver the output may be, print or pixel peeping) depends on a chain of issues, ranging from sensor quality, autofocus quality, lens quality, software, postprocessing....given today's track record i'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the S2 will reach D3x level (total) IQ. peter What a fatalistic and cynical approach. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulmoore Posted January 28, 2009 Share #140 Posted January 28, 2009 well, i shall put in one more post, then i shall quit as well. as you all know, the output quality of digital images (whatver the output may be, print or pixel peeping) depends on a chain of issues, ranging from sensor quality, autofocus quality, lens quality, software, postprocessing....given today's track record i'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the S2 will reach D3x level (total) IQ. peter over 50% larger sensor and more megapixels, leitz glass vs. nikkor, and you would be pleasantly surprised if the s2 will reach the image quality of the d3x?? what are you smoking? they would not even bother if it didn't exceed any and all 35mm ff digital.. I think you are just that, a windup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.