sdai Posted April 30, 2009 Share #221 Posted April 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Compare it to 5,13 and 5,1335 in the decimal domain. The first three digits of both numbers are the same, but the second number has an extra fraction.If this number has an accuracy of 1%, then the second number does not give you any more information as the first number, the extra 0.0035 is just noise. Your theory is laughable to say the least, Hans. LOL If 5.13 has an accuracy of 1%, then 5.1335 has an accuracy of 1/10000. How can you come to the conclusion that the last 2 digits are noise? Boy, this is how your bank gets your money. Between 2^14 (16384) and 2^16 (65536) there are 49152 extra steps, by your theory they're all noise, man the Kodak sensor's noise level is REALLY HIGH. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 30, 2009 Posted April 30, 2009 Hi sdai, Take a look here S2 under pricing pressure. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
R10dreamer Posted May 1, 2009 Share #222 Posted May 1, 2009 Your theory is laughable to say the least, Hans. LOL If 5.13 has an accuracy of 1%, then 5.1335 has an accuracy of 1/10000. How can you come to the conclusion that the last 2 digits are noise? Boy, this is how your bank gets your money. Between 2^14 (16384) and 2^16 (65536) there are 49152 extra steps, by your theory they're all noise, man the Kodak sensor's noise level is REALLY HIGH. LOL How does being rude work for you? http://www.garydwhalen.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted May 1, 2009 Share #223 Posted May 1, 2009 Your theory is laughable to say the least, Hans. LOL If 5.13 has an accuracy of 1%, then 5.1335 has an accuracy of 1/10000. How can you come to the conclusion that the last 2 digits are noise? Boy, this is how your bank gets your money. Between 2^14 (16384) and 2^16 (65536) there are 49152 extra steps, by your theory they're all noise, man the Kodak sensor's noise level is REALLY HIGH. LOL If 5.13 is accurate to within 1% that's 5.13 plus or minus .0513. Adding more decimal places doesn't change the .0513 significantly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted May 1, 2009 Share #224 Posted May 1, 2009 In fact, please disregard my last post, folks. I chopped off a whole paragraph when I took a phone call, hit enter and walked out. It's not what I wanted to type but I forgot what I wanted to type anyways. My apologies if my post sounded rude, I'm not gonna play on this subject any longer and it's actually pretty easy to crush the Internet wisdom of the last 2 bits. By claiming last the 2 bits of a 16-bit A/D converter are garbage and putting an equal sign between 16-bit ADC and a 14-bit ADC, you are assuming that the 14 bit ADC is noise free. If you consider the last 2 bits of a 16-bit A/D converter are pure noise, then the last couple of bits of a 14-bit A/D are also garbage ... you say the effective resolution of a 16 bit ADC is 14 bit, I take it ... because minus 2 bits noise, the effective resolution of a 14 bit A/D converter is only 12 bit. If you have time, just go through the spec. pages on Analog Devices's web site. 16 bit ADC also have higher signal noise ratio (between 80-86 db) than the 14 bit ADCs (70-73db) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t024484 Posted May 1, 2009 Share #225 Posted May 1, 2009 If 5.13 is accurate to within 1% that's 5.13 plus or minus .0513. Adding more decimal places doesn't change the .0513 significantly. Hi Doug, Thanks for your support. Reading and understandig is art. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t024484 Posted May 1, 2009 Share #226 Posted May 1, 2009 I'm not an engineer, I don't know what you're talking about ... . Let's leave it that way. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuno Cruces Posted May 1, 2009 Share #227 Posted May 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you consider the last 2 bits of a 16-bit A/D converter are pure noise, then the last couple of bits of a 14-bit A/D are also garbage ... you say the effective resolution of a 16 bit ADC is 14 bit, I take it ... because minus 2 bits noise, the effective resolution of a 14 bit A/D converter is only 12 bit. If the signal the ADC is digitizing is only good for 14 bits, there's no point in using a 16 bits ADC. The noise comes (for the most part) from the signal, not the converter. Adding a "better" ADC to a "bad" sensor only lands you bigger files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevesanacore Posted May 1, 2009 Share #228 Posted May 1, 2009 I too have very high hopes for the S2, but after the fiasco with the M8 it's hard for me to trust anything Leica is hyping before we get a chance to really test it. I however, have no doubt in their ability to make great optics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted May 1, 2009 Share #229 Posted May 1, 2009 If the signal the ADC is digitizing is only good for 14 bits, there's no point in using a 16 bits ADC. The noise comes (for the most part) from the signal, not the converter. Adding a "better" ADC to a "bad" sensor only lands you bigger files. Nuno, that's part what I meant to say in my second last post (#221). I chopped off a whole paragraph when editing, took a phone call, hit enter and walked out to a coffee shop with friend. I couldn't edit it when I came back. As you've said, if the noise level is high from the Kodak sensor, of course there's no advantage choosing a 16 bit ADC over a 14 bit ADC. Now, many folks claim that the last 2 bit "in" a 16 bit ADC are pure noise so it's only equivalent to a 14 bit ADC, but that's only true when the 14- bit ADC itself is noise free. Well, unfortunately, noise is a feature that comes with all data devices, you take 1 bit out of the 14 bit then the 14-bit ADC only has an effective resolution of 13 bits, if you take 2 bits noise out, the 14 bit ADC can only provide 12 bit effective resolution. One doesn't need sophisticated engineering knowledge to understand this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted May 1, 2009 Share #230 Posted May 1, 2009 I have some trust in that Leica has learned from the past and will do things better this time. And I have great hope that the S2 becomes a good and reliable and perfect supported product which will also have a clear future. Because the ideas are great behind this system. I have done lot of homework now in finding the right MF digital system. And the more I dig into this the more I see what Leica could achieve with the S System if they do things right. But only time will tell if they are performing right this time. I wish them the best anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted May 2, 2009 Share #231 Posted May 2, 2009 I am confident that Leica will not repeat the mistakes of the past. The question is if they come up with new ones, or if they simply do a lot more testing that the last two times. Given how long it is taking the S2 to move from physical prototype to final camera, I am hopeful that they are simply testing much more, to get out all major and most minor bugs before shipping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted May 2, 2009 Share #232 Posted May 2, 2009 I am confident that Leica will not repeat the mistakes of the past. The question is if they come up with new ones, or if they simply do a lot more testing that the last two times. Given how long it is taking the S2 to move from physical prototype to final camera, I am hopeful that they are simply testing much more, to get out all major and most minor bugs before shipping. If I can test this thing before autumn and I am happy and satisfied with the operation and results, this really could get my system for the high IQ part of my photographic life. I am confident meanwhile that I can see the weaknesses and flaws of such a camera pretty fast. I am very fluent with several brands of digital cameras and SW (which costs a lot of money BTW) that I can judge this system to be excellent and ok or a no go within a few days. I am having more and more hope into the abilities and features of he S System. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 3, 2009 Share #233 Posted May 3, 2009 Let's put it this way ... Leica is Rolls Royce, or Mini depicted in your picture. None of them had the capacity, or capability to broaden their product range and sustain competition. : Way OT but BMW's Rolls Royce 'division' is pretty much pure BMW and has nothing in common with the Rolls Royce motor company of old which was sold to VW. BMW essentially bought the right to use the name and built a new factory in Sussex to build the BMW designed cars. As far as the Mini (or MINI, as BMW styles it) goes, I believe that BMW already owned Rover when they decided to introduce the brand new Mini-inspired car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lxlim Posted May 3, 2009 Share #234 Posted May 3, 2009 Personally, I feel that Leica could weather the economic situation better than many expect. In the last financial bloodbath I went thru (1997, asian economic crisis) many pros disappear from their niches but when things picked up, new talents came in and were extremely well financed to meet the demands of the market. Some of these were financed by patrons wishing to indulge their hobby but needed a business reason to justify. What better reason than to support their marketing needs with a grateful young talent. The S2 is not yet out so the financial commitment is only R&D not supporting distribution channels and customer needs. Time is on Leica's side and they can easily limit the S2 debut to Germany. In the short term, the S2 does not really need the professional market which is in for considerable upheaval (at least from my perspective) except for building their name in the MF space. When the competition starts faltering they can recruit the best support people they need and re-train & target them at the most successful pros and the richest advanced amateurs. I think that pricing will be competitive but supply severely limited to prevent outbreaks of internet forum ..... whatever. As for pricing pressure. It seems to me that somebody blinked first and price slashing is usually a sign of desperation. When the economy lifts, I wonder if Leica would be leading the MF pack. Just some musings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted May 3, 2009 Share #235 Posted May 3, 2009 As for pricing pressure. It seems to me that somebody blinked first and price slashing is usually a sign of desperation. I was thinking the same thing, The competitors consider the S2 a serious contender and are cutting prices as a pre-emptive tactic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted May 4, 2009 Share #236 Posted May 4, 2009 For me it is easy 1) if the S2 does only reduce overall MF system prices it is already great! 2) if the S System also becomes a fantastic system and is well supported it is even better So in the end of the day I have to be grateful to Leica Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 4, 2009 Share #237 Posted May 4, 2009 I was thinking the same thing, The competitors consider the S2 a serious contender and are cutting prices as a pre-emptive tactic. Not really the case , we would like to think that but the economy is killing all camera sales in large numbers. Even the DSLR' have been hit pretty hard in sales. People are just not spending. Of course some MF are looking at the Leica but until it is out and running they are maybe only preparing and building for it. They will not sit around and wait but will do something about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted May 4, 2009 Share #238 Posted May 4, 2009 The MF market will be even hit harder over the next 12 months. I think we only have seen the tip of the iceberg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted May 4, 2009 Share #239 Posted May 4, 2009 It's like the comparison between APS-C sensors and 35mm full frame sensors, the cropped frame sensors will always be a lot cheaper than full frame sensors. I don't think the 645 "full frame" MFDBs' prices will come down anytime soon while you see the avalanche of 33x44 or 36x48 prices. By selling the cropped sensor sizes such as 33x44, 36x48 or 30x45 at about $20k a piece, these companies still have a lot of profit to make. After all, it's a market with very limited capacity, the more bulls to fight, the more bloodshed we'll see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted May 4, 2009 Share #240 Posted May 4, 2009 I am pretty confident, that when Hasselblad introduce their 60MP back in summer the prices for their 50MP and 39MP back will be lowered - maybe not immediately but over th next following months, definitely before end of 2009. Which is what we all need and want. Once it will come to a price/MP/IQ/speed ratio which is just ok for most of us. And this is all what counts in the end of the day. Actually I do not care how many of these MF vendors go bankrupt till then, but the prices need to come down SORRY Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.