picman Posted January 20, 2009 Share #81 Posted January 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If it is true that Canon has just bought the Contax assembly line and the rights to zeiss lenses it may mean a further reduction in price overall on MF equipment. Could you give some more info as to where this rumor comes from? Thanks, cheers, Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Hi picman, Take a look here price of the new S2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jamie Roberts Posted January 20, 2009 Share #82 Posted January 20, 2009 Jamie, I suggest you look at the diglloyd blog and scroll down to the comparison between the D3 and D3x. diglloyd Blog: January 2009 It is very apparent that the D3x is really a superior file to the D3. I can't comment on the DMR as I haven't seen a comparison. John--no sorry. I've disagreed with Lloyd before, and I don't see anything (other than the resolution difference) that would convince me of his bald assertion that the D3x has the best IQ of any dSLR anywhere. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it doesn't; I just don't see anything on the pages you pointed me to that convinces me. Personally, I would need to work the RAW files through a print workflow and have a critical look at the output. We all know that different folks can get different results due to workflow. Heck--maybe I'll do that myself this year. It depends on what Leica has planned, to tell the truth. There's too much hokey scaling pixel-peeping on the blog to yield anything like an relevant assessment to me. I also don't shoot cereal boxes. Anyway, I'll say it again: I'm not saying the D3x isn't the best dSLR camera ever; I just haven't heard anyone tell me it makes better-looking small prints given a good print workflow. And back on topic--I have no doubt at all the Kodak sensor in the S2 will deliver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted January 20, 2009 Share #83 Posted January 20, 2009 Jamie, What would be the point of comparing small prints? Do you need a 24MP camera for small prints? It seems to me that when one is talking in the 20MP plus arena one is talking large prints or extremely high quality spreads. Am I wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
canlogic Posted January 20, 2009 Share #84 Posted January 20, 2009 Could you give some more info as to where this rumor comes from? Thanks, cheers, Bob. Came from a thread I was reading on canon... Don't know if it is true but here is the quote. PhotoMark in Arizona where a big PhotoExpo is currently on-going. Canon rep claimed they just purchased the Contax assembly line and the exclusive rights to the Zeiss line-up of lenses. The rumored intent of course is for a Canon MF sized sensor in a Contax architecture. Apparently this could happen quickly (as in, steal some of Leica's thunder) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 20, 2009 Share #85 Posted January 20, 2009 Jamie,What would be the point of comparing small prints? Do you need a 24MP camera for small prints? It seems to me that when one is talking in the 20MP plus arena one is talking large prints or extremely high quality spreads. Am I wrong? No, John, you're not wrong, but high image quality and the ability to make large prints is not just a matter of resolution. For instance, at that blog thing you pointed me to, the author says the D3x is a better 12mp camera than the D3 Interesting. And really, when I say small, I mean up to 16 * 20. Not really that small. But yes--there is a case for much larger prints, but it's outside my business scenarios, mostly. I wouldn't mind more resolution, if only to crop, but there's usually tradeoffs in higher resolution imagers. The D3x though evidently (I still haven't see the raw files) also has better dynamic range (very interesting) and better effective colour depth than other cameras. To me, this is much much more important than resolution for 99% of my work. Not that resolution isn't important, but DR and colour depth and noise are more important (and colour fidelity, which is something you don't see tested so often). In the areas of colour depth and fidelity, I have yet to see the DMR's equal, though I'm willing to admit I might not have enough experience with the D3 yet. Of course there is no contest on noise or SNR; the D3 (and the D3x evidently) can do wonders there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 20, 2009 Share #86 Posted January 20, 2009 jamie, Peter, equipment notwithstanding, a comparison of Nikon files with DMR files is anything but "ridiculous" if your terms are a "normal" sized print. you do have a good point there. So in terms of comparison on an 11 * 14 print, for example, shot with a 50mm lens, printed on, say, a Lambda, I'm quite curious how the D3x would show a significant advantage in any shooting case whatsoever over a DMR and a current 50 R Lux. probably no -or albeit a very small- difference can be seen in those small prints. but can you see a difference in D3 and DMR at those printsizes? hard to tell a D3 from a D3x print at 11*14... So since many of us haven't had the opportunity to work with a D3x yet, could you elaborate on its superior detail characteristics against a more well-known quantity, say, the D3? well, since i do some serious pixel peeping, i would like to comment on what i see deep down in the file. and -aside from obvious resolution differences- it is mainly in tonality, where i see a big difference between D3 and D3x. also, D3x has a much better dynamic range (no scientific test that i have done but my feeling in this respect corresponds to the DXO measurements). That would help me, since I *do* know how the DMR stacks up against a D3; I shoot both all the time And if that is anything to go by, then I'd say I have quite a lot of faith in Leica getting to the image quality they need with the S2. well maybe this time things go better for leica than they did at the m8 launch, due to the involvement of phaseone. still, they opted for a sensor between 35mm and real medium format and might get squeezed to annihilation between canikon and hasselblad. But--and this is a big but--again, MF is a different game entirely. Given the rumours about its price, I'm more interested as the S2 as a platform than actually purchasing or leasing one. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 20, 2009 Share #87 Posted January 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) hi, well, both cameras have an AA filter infront of their sensors but micro detail in D3x images is very good. of course, not as good as H3DII50, but that is a trivial comment. however, let me say that i feel a huge improvement over D3/D700. peter Peter, I am very interested in your comments regarding the d3x. Can you comment how the d3x compared to the D3 at low ISO besides resolution? I feel the D3 is not that great in showing microdetail of skin for example. Do you feel the d3x is any better.The other question which came to my mind: What do you do with so many backs and systems??? Is there any paarticular reason to own a P45 qand the leaf back and the Hassy? Kind regards, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 20, 2009 Share #88 Posted January 20, 2009 For tests, comparisons and scientific studies? You can see some of Peter's images here, if he thinks something is bad, then I guess it can't be good. Universal pictures thanks for the publicity---))) peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 20, 2009 Share #89 Posted January 20, 2009 Peter--thanks for your replies! They help a lot! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted January 20, 2009 Share #90 Posted January 20, 2009 @peter When you own the Rodenstock/Schneider-lenses you should easily see the limits of Nikon-lenses in comparison!? The high-contrast even at high frequencies, the lack of aberrations, even in the outer zones struck me when I first saw large prints (from Alpa + P25). You have the new 50MP-Hassi? Well, add about 1 stop speed (microlenses), combine it with the optical quality of Rodenstock HR-lenses and reduce it's size to about 75% - that's basically the S2s-IQ, the sensor is the same. I have yet to see a camera which is capable of the IQ of MFDB/DMR/M8. The limting factor (under 800ASA) is simply it's file size. You need 300ppi to print tack-sharp, which basically means the M8-prints are limited to 22x33cm and hold up very well to DINA3+ (32x48cm) - but it can't do magic, that's when the S2 kicks in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 20, 2009 Share #91 Posted January 20, 2009 Well, add about 1 stop speed (microlenses), combine it with the optical quality of Rodenstock HR-lenses and reduce it's size to about 75% - that's basically the S2s-IQ, the sensor is the same. Based on your theory, a smaller R10 using the Kodak sensor and Leica R lenses will also have the same IQ as the S2, and in turns will have the same or better IQ as the H3D-50 so why waste money on the S2 and a H3D? It's probably only a marketing trick and all about file sizes as it was said in LFI. You need 300ppi to print tack-sharp, which basically means the M8-prints are limited to 22x33cm and hold up very well to DINA3+ (32x48cm) - but it can't do magic, that's when the S2 kicks in. The DMR/M8 can't do A3+ without interpolation (either in PS or handled by the printer), which is the native printing size of the D3x at 300 dpi. The S2 can do slightly larger at 16.7"x25" if printing at 300 dpi natively None of them can do magic beyond these sizes, that's when real medium format cameras kick in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 20, 2009 Share #92 Posted January 20, 2009 hi georg, well, i read you. but i still find the D3x with the very good nikon lenses a match for P25 + schneider, at least in prints (in pixel peeping i agree that nikon has less micro contrast). CA is rather well controlled in the top nikkors. they beat the canon wides by a HUGE margin (not starting a class war, i do like the 5D mark II video function--))). i doubt that the leica lenses will reach schneider/rodenstock levels, MTF charts nonwithstanding. also microlenses might give (maybe) a one stop advantage, but they eat up resolution (see P30). of course, the IQ of the H3DII50 is stellar (to pull out shadows and highlights is a wonderful experience), sometimes i feel that the images pop out of my eizo and jump at me---))) and PHOCUS does work very well. but then, why do i need an S2 (although i admit that i might buy one after all, reasoning notwithstanding----))) maybe the S2 is slightly lighter than the hassy, but how do you use schneider/rodenstocks on the S2---))))??? no problem on the hassy (sensor). m8? i had one with a large selection of lenses and initially i was pretty enthused. but not counting emotional rangefinder attachments it was an expensive letdown. 19th century looks and 19th century ergonomics, full of serious issues, bad service (1 month repair of a broken shutter), but admittedly ok IQ (depending on the level of the user's eyesight though and unless you happen to have black clothes in the image). i feel that the IQ people attribute to it is mainly due to the lack of AA, which to a large extent can be compensated by software sharpening. but at first sight, the images look more high res that those of AA cameras. all the best, peter @peter When you own the Rodenstock/Schneider-lenses you should easily see the limits of Nikon-lenses in comparison!? The high-contrast even at high frequencies, the lack of aberrations, even in the outer zones struck me when I first saw large prints (from Alpa + P25). You have the new 50MP-Hassi? Well, add about 1 stop speed (microlenses), combine it with the optical quality of Rodenstock HR-lenses and reduce it's size to about 75% - that's basically the S2s-IQ, the sensor is the same. I have yet to see a camera which is capable of the IQ of MFDB/DMR/M8. The limting factor (under 800ASA) is simply it's file size. You need 300ppi to print tack-sharp, which basically means the M8-prints are limited to 22x33cm and hold up very well to DINA3+ (32x48cm) - but it can't do magic, that's when the S2 kicks in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 20, 2009 Share #93 Posted January 20, 2009 None of them can do magic beyond these sizes, that's when real medium format cameras kick in. i completely agree. below real MF (P45 sensor size i mean) it is the D3x for me. then it also depends on the availability of sherpas---))) peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted January 20, 2009 Share #94 Posted January 20, 2009 ......and the 105 micro are very good..... peter A timely tip as I'm off to buy one tomorrow......my D3X arrived this morning:) . Apologies if this has been posted before: D3X Compare cameras Compare cameras It's a test of the sensor only of course but an impressive result for Nikon non-the-less, the best so far. I'm still hoping that the S2 will be something special, which will be good news for the R10 too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 20, 2009 Share #95 Posted January 20, 2009 ps: just a remark: the micro 105 mm VR does show some lateral CA, like most macro lenes (i have tried). otherwise very sharp above f 2.8, a joy to use. peter A timely tip as I'm off to buy one tomorrow......my D3X arrived this morning:) . Apologies if this has been posted before: D3X Compare cameras Compare cameras It's a test of the sensor only of course but an impressive result for Nikon non-the-less, the best so far. I'm still hoping that the S2 will be something special, which will be good news for the R10 too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted January 20, 2009 Share #96 Posted January 20, 2009 ps: just a remark: the micro 105 mm VR does show some lateral CA, like most macro lenes (i have tried). otherwise very sharp above f 2.8, a joy to use.peter Thanks Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted January 21, 2009 Share #97 Posted January 21, 2009 Most probably you have already seen it : Phase One's latest offer. Which means there is pressure in the DMF market to bring prices down or to attract buyers with goodies. Leica S2 will also feel the heat - which can only be a good news for the users;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted January 21, 2009 Share #98 Posted January 21, 2009 "Based on your theory, a smaller R10 using the Kodak sensor and Leica R lenses will also have the same IQ as the S2, and in turns will have the same or better IQ as the H3D-50 so why waste money on the S2 and a H3D?" Yes, only seeing per-pixel-quality. But as you and I already said: you cannot do magic with (too) small files... The newer Leica-lenses (Asph/Apo) from M/R with similar MTFs reach Rodenstock-HR-quality without any doubt - I don't expect the S-lenses to be any different and therefore I don't think S-photographers will miss Rodenstock/Schneider-lenses. But the Hasselblad is much bigger, heavier, worse build/material-quality, slower, bigger lenses (which aren't on par with Rodenstock/Schneider). The handling/ergonomics of the S2 are superior, the AF seems better, it's faster... Aren't these enough reasons to be excited about the S2? Microlenses don't cause resolution-loss, only vignetting/specific aberrations. The newer Nikon-Zooms are way to superior to Canon - that was my impression, too. But they can't deliver what my tiny Summicron 28mm or Summilux Asph 50mm can... But you can't like the M8 without liking M-photography itself, it's too different - the S2 is "just" a DSLR and pro's don't have to adjust that much. The information-loss of AA-filters cannot be restored by any kind of sharpening/post-production in the world. You can only imitate edge-sharpness but not information. So not using an AA-filter on professional cameras (medium-format and Leica) is not an accident or some kind of illusion - it's the only way to save micro-contrast/information but you have to deal with lot's of post-processing to hide nasty artifacts and that's against the idea of P&S-cameras with nice-looking JPGs - I'm not sure if the D3X falls into this category and if it wouldn't be better to leave the AA-filter away... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 21, 2009 Share #99 Posted January 21, 2009 "Based on your theory, a smaller R10 using the Kodak sensor and Leica R lenses will also have the same IQ as the S2, and in turns will have the same or better IQ as the H3D-50 so why waste money on the S2 and a H3D?" Yes, only seeing per-pixel-quality. But as you and I already said: you cannot do magic with (too) small files... exactly. comparing the S2 to the H3DII60 (out later this year) is like comparing the DX D300 to the FX D3x. fewer pixels and smaller sensor. no match there, if really big prints are your goal. and i am talking 1 meter width and up. The newer Leica-lenses (Asph/Apo) from M/R with similar MTFs reach Rodenstock-HR-quality without any doubt - I don't expect the S-lenses to be any different and therefore I don't think S-photographers will miss Rodenstock/Schneider-lenses. remains to be seen. there will only be one TS lens for the S system, right? on the alpas (almost) all lenses are TS...----))) and hassy will have the HTS very soon, giving us 5 TS lenses. But the Hasselblad is much bigger, heavier, worse build/material-quality, slower, bigger lenses (which aren't on par with Rodenstock/Schneider). The handling/ergonomics of the S2 are superior, the AF seems better, it's faster... i have not touched the S2 yet, but if i extrapolate from existing leica cameras ergonomics is not their strong suit. also, the S2 seems to be very heavy. and why is the S2 AF better? btw the HC lenses are quite good, particularly in combo with Phocus. Aren't these enough reasons to be excited about the S2? no, sorry, no. not so far. Microlenses don't cause resolution-loss, only vignetting/specific aberrations. agree, meant AA. sorry for the mistake, The newer Nikon-Zooms are way to superior to Canon - that was my impression, too. But they can't deliver what my tiny Summicron 28mm or Summilux Asph 50mm can... talking R or M? if you talk M, you know that M lenses are not built to have a mirror behind them. if you talk R...probably the fixed focals beat the nikons. But you can't like the M8 without liking M-photography itself, it's too different i like rangefinder photography, but the m8 is flawed on many accounts. just check the DXO sensor test. - the S2 is "just" a DSLR and pro's don't have to adjust that much. The information-loss of AA-filters cannot be restored by any kind of sharpening/post-production in the world. You can only imitate edge-sharpness but not information. sharpening restores acuity. information content is a very difficult subject (see shannon' work). people have removed AA filters from nikon cameras and...the results do not lok too convincing. just a tiny bit of resolution gain and huge moiree issues. i have not yet a definite opinion on the usefullness of AA filters. So not using an AA-filter on professional cameras (medium-format and Leica) is not an accident or some kind of illusion - it's the only way to save micro-contrast/information again, not necessarily true. do not confuse resolution with information. resolution: tiny gain. and so what? if you have enough pixels it suffices to gain acuity. but you have to deal with lot's of post-processing to hide nasty artifacts and that's against the idea of P&S-cameras with nice-looking JPGs - I'm not sure if the D3X falls into this category and if it wouldn't be better to leave the AA-filter away. you could also argue as follows: the only advantage of not having an AA filter is to get an acute image right out of the camera. do your careful sharpening of AA sensor images and you will get the same (or better) edge acuity, with the resolution of, say, a sensor with 10% fewer MPx.... again, i do not have a definite opinion on this yet, but both theories have their point. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 21, 2009 Share #100 Posted January 21, 2009 The newer Leica-lenses (Asph/Apo) from M/R with similar MTFs reach Rodenstock-HR-quality without any doubt - I don't expect the S-lenses to be any different and therefore I don't think S-photographers will miss Rodenstock/Schneider-lenses. Georg, I've posted countless times, full frame 645 has 40% more picture height than the S2 therefore, at the same angle of view, to resolve the same amount of detail, a S2 lens has to be 40% better than the HC lens. To resolve the same amount of detail as a large format 4x5 can do at the same picture angle, a S2 lens has to be 240% better than the Rodenstock lens or an equivalent Schneider lens. You can dream on but that will never happen. The biggest flaw of the S2? Leica doesn't build it as a removable back and limits its size at 30x45. Why do you think PhaseOne would help Leica with it? because it can never compete against Phase backs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.