shigzeo

shigzeo

Lives in Japan Chiba, Japan
Works as a Writer, Audio Critic
Has a website at http://ohm-image.net
Joined on Sep 14, 2010
About me:

utterly impressionable

Comments

Total: 290, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Richard Craze: Love that Sony now have in body stabilisation. Does that mean they can start to produce smaller and lighter lenses? The size of the Olympus system lenses is just amazing, I know that 35mm lenses are going to be bigger and heaver but we can all remember the size of 35mm lenses before auto focus came along!

You don't find Olympus's lenses large? Each of them suprise me, considering that they are aiming for a 35mm traditional equivalent and delivers something whose effective system-wise-output is similar to what one finds in an f/4 or f/5,6 lens on 35mm FF.

Size is only an issue in modern lenses, system independent. Even Leica's recent lenses are huge. I'd be very happy if FE lenses shrunk in size, but it's not because they are 35mm that they are large.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 12:50 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: Impressive IQ, for both the Pentax 645Z and also the Sony Alpha 7R (in his class). For street photography in available light too, as it's prformance is really great at 6400 ISO with regularly-random grain!

I'm fine being off topic. The definition of 'decimation' has me glued here. I use only the Oxford Dictionary of English, in which the definition:

decimate: to kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group. the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers.

refers to historical, not modern, usage. And, since I've not heard or read it used the way you suggest, I reckon you are a historian. But it isn't used that way today. And probably hasn't been used that way for hundreds of years.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 12:47 UTC

It's 20 November now. 30 more days.

Edit: Fixed the month thing.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 05:27 UTC as 49th comment
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: Impressive IQ, for both the Pentax 645Z and also the Sony Alpha 7R (in his class). For street photography in available light too, as it's prformance is really great at 6400 ISO with regularly-random grain!

@The Euler: I used the word 'decimate' very carefully. Absolutely there is no comparison at all. I didn't expect such difference even at 50MP.

I stare at pixels like 10 hours a day, so this sort of detail and jump really jump out at me.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 04:58 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: In a professional context, for example for fashion photography in a studio, what is the advantage of a medium format camera today?

Today's full frame sensors and optics provide more than enough resolution for even very large printed ads, and dynamic range there is plenty as well. Furthermore, in a studio environment, I expect lighting to be perfect and the pro photographer to frame close to the final result.

For landscape photography medium format is interesting, but that's not my question.

@Paul: no matter that 95% of some work may be doable with 15 or 6 or 22 MP isn't the matter. The matter simply is that better detail obviously can be retrieved by more megapixels as seen above.

Nothing to debate.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 18:48 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: Impressive IQ, for both the Pentax 645Z and also the Sony Alpha 7R (in his class). For street photography in available light too, as it's prformance is really great at 6400 ISO with regularly-random grain!

@TheEuler: I'll grant that your know more about the origins of English than I do.

I was (most probably, improperly) referring to this usage: 1 kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of: the inhabitants of the country had been decimated.
• drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): public transport has been decimated.

You can also use an iPhone 6 and a good telephoto and get the same detail if you enlarge a single portion with the entire sensor. And maybe I wasn't clear, but it is clear that both MF cameras render far more detail than do the smaller sensor cameras. And naturally, the technology behind it all will be rather similar.

If you want, you can stitch and get more resolution. Hell, you could do a 30-image pano and come away with something like 1000mps. The point isn't that a part of an image could be as good if... the point is that the image is far more detailed via either of the MF cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 18:43 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: In a professional context, for example for fashion photography in a studio, what is the advantage of a medium format camera today?

Today's full frame sensors and optics provide more than enough resolution for even very large printed ads, and dynamic range there is plenty as well. Furthermore, in a studio environment, I expect lighting to be perfect and the pro photographer to frame close to the final result.

For landscape photography medium format is interesting, but that's not my question.

@Andy: indeed. Detail retrieval in these high-MP MF sensors is incredible.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 15:31 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: Impressive IQ, for both the Pentax 645Z and also the Sony Alpha 7R (in his class). For street photography in available light too, as it's prformance is really great at 6400 ISO with regularly-random grain!

@Zorak: read my entire comment. Where fine detail rather than geometric symmetry matters, the higher megapixel, larger sensors are far, far better.

Cards? Faces? Not much between them. Look at the feathers and fluff. The differences are: blur and smudge on both the D800 and A7r, and finely rendered lines and fine detail in the MF sensors. It's a shame The IQ180 lacks higher than ISO 35 shots.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 15:22 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: Impressive IQ, for both the Pentax 645Z and also the Sony Alpha 7R (in his class). For street photography in available light too, as it's prformance is really great at 6400 ISO with regularly-random grain!

Check the feathers. Both MF sensors decimate the small-format competition. Apart form those portions, the differences are minimal.But that is always the way it is.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 13:50 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: In a professional context, for example for fashion photography in a studio, what is the advantage of a medium format camera today?

Today's full frame sensors and optics provide more than enough resolution for even very large printed ads, and dynamic range there is plenty as well. Furthermore, in a studio environment, I expect lighting to be perfect and the pro photographer to frame close to the final result.

For landscape photography medium format is interesting, but that's not my question.

utphoto: I admit, I've not shot the 645z in any work environment. Ditto the leica S2. I've merely compared them side by side. It's like comparing a WWII-era steel shopping bicycle with a modern steel road bike. Same materials, but one is far easier on your knees, not to mention, much easier to use on the long haul.

Other than that, looks like the new sensor is a winner. Too bad it's stuck in a body that is stuck way in the past.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 13:49 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: In a professional context, for example for fashion photography in a studio, what is the advantage of a medium format camera today?

Today's full frame sensors and optics provide more than enough resolution for even very large printed ads, and dynamic range there is plenty as well. Furthermore, in a studio environment, I expect lighting to be perfect and the pro photographer to frame close to the final result.

For landscape photography medium format is interesting, but that's not my question.

MF in a body like this... I see little to no point. The Leica S2 is at least sleek and easy to use. This is 100% a brick and nothing else.

MF backs, on the other hand, are completely different. They allow wide angle lenses with extremely close sensor relations to work on bellows and focal plane shift cameras, and are absolutely necessary for extreme architecture photography and still life where a single image is better suited than a composit.

MF backs with the right camera make 100% sense if you use them for their strengths. They make no sense at all if you use them exactly as you would your D800.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 13:30 UTC
In reply to:

JoEick: Oh snap! Talk about something out of left field.

Sony should be out with theirs soon enough. :)

One thing to keep in mind: the MF cameras rumoured about in various press sites are all complete bodies, not separate, enclosed, open-frame sensors. Open frame sensors are the most adaptable capture equipment on the planet. If you put it inside a body, you then contend with longer flange distance, greater fragility, the possibility to break both the sensor and camera, or failing that, suffer a hardware failure of one and lose both.

This is a medium format back on a focal plane adapter. It is not, like the Pentax 645 or Leica S2, a medium format camera body.

The two are incredibly different. Sony, if they bring a MF thing out, it won't be open like this; it will be trapped inside a body and unable, therefore, to work with wide angle LF lenses and because of flange distances and body sizes, not properly be adaptable to 4x5 cameras without further extending that same distance.

A back is not the same thing as a camera body. I'm surprised that still people compare camera backs and body

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 12:53 UTC
In reply to:

DanK7: This just shows what engineers left alone without production, marketing, accounting and other unnecessary hangers-on can come up with, haha. Interesting to see what sector of the industry will find a useful application for this package. Any ideas? I think I'd put my money toward a Pentax 645 not knowing any better.

A focal-plane shutter for a digital back is an incredible asset: you can use wide-ange LF lenses without the necessity of lens shutters, adapt bellows, pin holes, and much more. Not to mention, most important camera movements can only be done with lenses of longer than 80mm focal length.

Large sensors are vital. And currently the only way to get all the stuff I mentioned above plus a LOT more, is with a shallow flange back. Even your Sony E mount is too deep. This is vital and will continue to be vital for photographers like me, who shoot products for a living.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 12:47 UTC
In reply to:

DavidsfotosDotCom: Whats the dynamic range & bit depth? Should be waterproof for that price.

I assume your comment is sarcasm intended to beat the whiners at their own game. 'Miright?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 09:26 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II: A professional's opinion article (502 comments in total)
In reply to:

Donnie G: Thanks DPR,

This forum could use more user insight from professional photographers who actually choose and use equipment based on its ability to help them earn a living. Ms. Hansen's critique of the 7D Mk II clearly shows how Canon chose to improve on and address real issues that affect serious photographers who were looking for a low cost pro-grade camera to add to their kits. To hell with WiFi, hope Canon adds the voice recorder function to the Mark III version. :)

You might be surprised how many professionals there are in this forum that DO choose small 35mm or APS-C cameras to do their work. They chime in here and there. But largely, they are overlooked.

This is a gear forum and I'm not sure the opinion of professionals is that important to the general reader.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

dtssound: Forget about small format. I want a full frame mirrorless medium format with 645 size sensor camera. Fujifilm should make a medium format version of all the X series cameras. They will be game changers!

And sell like hotcakes.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 13:15 UTC
In reply to:

hexxthalion: I like the S, not much bigger than your CaNikon pro body yet it's so much nicer in the hand and doesn't have billion buttons

@hexxthalion: thank you for the link. I use 4x5 backs with both A7r and with Phase One backs (rented). The big difference is the flange difference. Even the A7r, with its shallow flange, misses infinity on wide angle lenses even with wide angle bellows. The S, with its deep flange distance, wouldn't be able to hit infinity with great 45mm Rodagon APO digital, which doesn't work very well with long flanges.

But for non-bellows work, the S looks great.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 12:01 UTC
In reply to:

hexxthalion: I like the S, not much bigger than your CaNikon pro body yet it's so much nicer in the hand and doesn't have billion buttons

It is an awesome design. If I didn't rely on bellows and extension with wide angle lenses, I'd love to grab one. It's just that it's nice to exchange backs, and that can't be done with the S. But wonderful, easy-to-use, design that looks and performs well.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 22:55 UTC

You can tell a collector's camera by how fugly it is. I'd love for the M60 to become a reality for regular M owners and Leica fans, but at normal Leica prices, and in a normal M package. That thing looks like a cylon.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 22:51 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: I will NEVER understand why people buy a film camera for 3800$ nor why they will buy a full frame camera for 8000$ when they can get far better camera's for far less a price, let us not kid our self's, you are paying ONLY for the name, not the image quality that comes third, second place being build quality.
(guess Leica doesn't care so much about image quality huh?)

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey."

John Ruskin

The idea that 'better' means 'more features' is subjective. Leica is the only digital camera company that has a brand to sell. Every other company has pandered to the worst of the quote above so that you buy knowing full well that what you have in your hand could be another camera, from another brand. If only the price is right.

What happens when your corporate modus operandi is best-price-for-features is that you shed things that matter in the long run. Canon customers are not in it for the long run. Ditto Nikon. Ditto Sony. Ditto everyone else.

Only Leica have lifelong customers (of course not everyone fits this mould), and have a brand, and image, and expectation.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 22:50 UTC
Total: 290, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »