Chris Joy: Not very impressed when looking at the studio scene, A7II has more detail and A7rII has a much better image when resized to 24mp. Leica should have used a Sony sensor.
Add the Canon 24-70/2.8II, a 70-200/2.8II and a few nice primes to the RII and you have higher IQ setup that's F/2.8 or faster across the range and will cost less than the SL with just one lens.
This camera will be completely ignored by everyone outside of a few Leicaphiles. And by ignored I mean people actually buying the camera, not mocking or praising it on the interweb.
It gets worse - if you look at the <Raw DR: Exposure Latitude> page, it seems its not just the lens. Truly awful results.
DPR - this needs a re-take? As mentioned by others, the whole scene looks oof. Look at the cross-hatching in the engraving above the man's head with right hand shielding his eyes - and compare this to A6000... there is something obviously wrong.
DPR, having looked at this again, the whole test scene just looks out of focus, rather than v. poor iq. Re-take?
There seems to be a prob with either focus or lens sample quality - my go-to area, the cross-hatching in the engraving to the right of the left-hand side woman is extremely poor. Compare it to the Sony a6000... something must be at fault here, surely.
Q versus Alpha 6000 with 55 1.8 - compare anywhere on the studio scene and the alpha is streets ahead - at least in jpg, not in raw. Yet Sony is a fraction of the price - and also just aps-c. DPR seems to be in love with the Q... with a clearly (relatively, considering the cost of the Q) very inferior IQ to a plastic box (albeit poking a great lens) - why?
tonywong: Industry people will have to migrate to this eventually as more features get put into the files so designers and photographers will be able to work on files they get from CC.
The biggest problem with this subscription implementation is that CC will not even allow you to open or print any file once the subscription has lapsed. If Adobe were to allow a way to open/view/export (limited) regardless of subscription status it would go a long way towards alleviating concerns.
After that is the price, but Adobe products have never been cheap, and it was hard to 'skip' a version if you were always working with other studios and designers giving you more recent Adobe files.
Agree - for the rest of my professional life I now owe Adobe every single month on caution of expiring my livelihood applications. Fine, but after spending £1,000's regularly over 25 years I would prefer if the products were lean and stable, rather than incremental bloatware - illustrator cs6 took over 10 minutes to quit today, without any heavy cache overheads. And still crap compared to Freehand 8. Adobe needs to stop ripping off loyal customers, whilst holding a gun to their head every month.
nikonf2as: Hopefully this observation of D800 vs OM-D E-M5 will prove helpful to some.
Downloaded the 2 jpgs (switching the pentax 645 for M5) and up-ressed the M5 to match the D800 in Ps.
Firstly, the D800 FF inevitably has shallow DOF at f11. At f6.3, 4/3 M5 has focus front to back - have a look at the Queen of Hearts, or the text Eastman Kodak Company, 1997, top left on the greycard - the D800 is simply out of focus (as is the A900 and 5d mkIII at this focus point).
Secondly however, the D800 clearly has huge DR (compare the purples on the Q-60 colour target, and the highlights on the globe with the M5), and when it hits the spot focus-wise (the gauze to the left of the card, underneath the hairs) it trounces the M5 - as you would hope for and expect.
So what would you rather - a sharp result, with less fidelity, or an out-of-focus one (DOF-wise) with smooth colours? As a studio camera on a heavy tripod the D800 will excel - but forget hand-holding it at a 60th at f8 with a non-IS prime.
You've all completely missed the points I was making - DOF is shallower on FF than smaller sensors - fact. And the effect of hand-holding a hi-res camera (without IS) is magnified compared to a small sensor.
tresise - the up-ressing of the M5 jpg to match D800 blatantly shows shallow DOF on D800 at the points indicated. It's nothing to do whatsoever with whether it's a jpg or not - as I said, if you'd actually read the post, I said the D800 has excellent resolution - at the 85mm's optimum focus point. But even with the bump-up in size, even from jpg, the M5 still out-performs the D800 in terms of DOF - i.e., apparent overall sharpness. It's nothing to do with base resolution, or up-ressing, or pixel count. Have a go yourself and you'll soon see the point.
Stanley zheng - not been smoking anything mate, and nothing wrong with me, thanks for being concerned about my state of health and kudos for the comedy moment - good luck with hand-holding a non-IS 85mm at 125th on a 36mp sensor.
Correct. But that doesn't deal with the issue of why you'd want such a high-res camera in the first place - i.e., bigger images. The DOF issue (along with camera shake if not using a tripod) will be magnified. Anyway... any professional photographers out there who have a considered response to my original post? Bored now.
Most 5x4 images hand-held were done using flash - Graflex for instance only delivered sharp images because of a flashbulb. You're misunderstanding the issue - it's not silly, it's a technical issue to do with modern high-resolution digital sensors. Yes cameras like the arca-swiss are designed to be hand-holdable, but it's the same situation with a 500c/m versus an HD40 - the digital medium format equivalent is not hand-holdable if you want to get the best from it... unless you're using studio flash...
Thanks Peli01, D700 is a brilliant camera, but the more MP, the more magnified the effect of camera shake seems to become - something the manufacturers haven't mentioned it seems (at least without using IS technology). Like you I had no problem with handholding my similar 5Dmk II but the replacement Mk III is unreliable to use below 125th for a sharp result - and that's on a zeiss 35mm f2, heavier than the 50mm nikkor.
Hopefully this observation of D800 vs OM-D E-M5 will prove helpful to some.