Excellent update. Thanks. I should not worry, though I have several worries.1. Design/engineering standards at the manufacturers' and testers'. Insufficiently based in real life photography where serious photographers seek difficult lighting conditions more often than not. Nikon had seriously reviewed this after the D600 debacle. They said.2. Manufacturing quality control.3. Handling of problems: admitting, communication, as well as follow up.
The photo above of the mirror box camera innards shows a lot of reflective points on the side walls with a flat surface. In the old days some cameras had these surfaces ribbed as mimicking bellows and the matte black was more matte. With increasing dynamic range of sensors, should this finish be my next worry?
Scales USA: As a Canon owner, I'm not really worried about buying from Canon or Nikon, all cameras have a personality, and the most important thing is the response from the manufacturer when a issue is discovered.
I do think that some go overboard about a almost undetectable issue.
Totally agree. And those peeps even think they get better pictures from posting here. And can review based on specs.Still, people seem to invest prestige in their choices. Some will be disappointed in "their team" losing, whilst others need to be motivated in their choice for the other team. Tribal wars.
JPdeJ: The biggest equivalence thing - optics diameter.Aperture being relative to focal length, with different sensor sizes, for an 85mm equivalent, 1.2 has a different diameter related to sensor size.The optics diameter influences how 3D is projected onto the 2D sensor.If you take take head shots, larger diameter lenses will show more of the sides of the head than smaller diameter lenses.You will have heard TV presenters say "the camera makes me 10 or 20lbs heavier." That was the effect of the large diameter optics of old TV cameras. Or 70mm for that matter.Or, there is a subtle difference in depiction of perspective.Related to optics diameter. That is generally related to sensor size.Peter
[...continued] But my point is slightly different than transmission.There is a subtle difference between lenses of different diameter in the way they would project, say, a globe on sensor or film.Larger diameters just reveal more of that globe.This is ignored in "perspective is a function of distance" (implying it is not one of lens), and in the equivalence discussion on sensor size.If the lenses for 4"x5" or 8"x10" would have been 1.4 max aperture, they would have created very different portraits.
As we want artistically beautiful pictures - portraits - such nuances become very important.My old 85/1.8 in this sense is an easier tool than the very large entry pupil modern 85/1.4.
GB, thanks for your reply. The optical/sensor/physics in that URL is very good.In my photography training, ages ago, we were taught that perspective is a function of distance. And I would adjust my studio meter for the transmission (total light coming through) of the lens put on the camera. Today, using my Sekonic 758 with my dslr, I still have to adapt to lens: 1.6 Tstop is the best, 3.3 the worst lens I use - more than a stop difference. Using the Sinarsix light meter (way back) defeated the transmission differences (being TTL). [continued...]
"Shooting experience"? Look at the photos with the article. "I don't know what to shoot. I just need some content." Hardly any qualities that entitle to an opinion.
The camera is part of a system. It allows you to use M lenses with full functionality. I would have wanted that to be part of the review "experience."
Expensive? Think of Oscar Wilde - the "simple taste" man - some people know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Would I buy this one? Never bought Leica. Shot Hasselblad with Zeiss lenses, yes. Nikon with Nikon yes. Sinar with Schneider and others, yes.Still, the other day I was looking at a second hand Leica R lens for my Nikon full-frame. Only 3000 of these Leica lenses were ever made and second hand prices go up into 4-5 thousand USD range.Do I now hate Leica?No.
In response to sb. below. The human eye - 50 degrees and standard lens on 35mm?Most humans have the functional use of two eyes with a significant distance relative to sensor size and optics.That means horizontally we see differently than vertically.Image processing in the brain helps us and sometimes fools us.The angle of view is the conscious part of _male_ (=tunnel) vision.
My first wide-angle lens (28mm on 24x36) seemed an eye opener. After some time I needed 24mm. Then I moved to 20mm on 24x36. After 10,000 conscious shots, I noticed a sudden change and it seemed all lenses "narrower" than 180..220 degrees were actually a limitation. The male tunnel had gone. Through learning. Neuronal connections, etc.
Or, "standard" or "normal" are so relative.
The biggest equivalence thing - optics diameter.Aperture being relative to focal length, with different sensor sizes, for an 85mm equivalent, 1.2 has a different diameter related to sensor size.The optics diameter influences how 3D is projected onto the 2D sensor.If you take take head shots, larger diameter lenses will show more of the sides of the head than smaller diameter lenses.You will have heard TV presenters say "the camera makes me 10 or 20lbs heavier." That was the effect of the large diameter optics of old TV cameras. Or 70mm for that matter.Or, there is a subtle difference in depiction of perspective.Related to optics diameter. That is generally related to sensor size.Peter
"Frame" - history. Half? Double? Full?(by heart)35mm film originally a cine/movie film format, its frame size was 18x24mm.Leitz introduced the Leitz camera (Leitz + camera = Leica) using that film and doubled the frame size. Look up old pre-WWII National Geographic and you'll see Leica adverts calling the Leica "double frame".After WWII, when Leica was joined by a large population of Kodak, Agfa, Exakta, Zeiss Ikon, Nikon, etc. the "double frame" was forgotten. When Olympus brought the Pen camera, with its 18x24mm recording size, it was called "half frame." Typically a "35mm" thing.Peter
@Damien,Technically, in the old days, film was the limiting factor. Now glass is.Magenta blush on your subject's nose and a green edge around the ear is what we want to get rid of now, first.We do not buy 1.4G lenses to NOT use 1.4.We want consistency in tone/gradation, both in color/BW and resolution/distortion of our glass.If we want to evaluate products/technology based on specs, we should conclude what variables to include in hands-on testing and their relative weights.
If a camera can do RAW, we should maybe forget about plain ISO. What is the native ISO sensitivity? (widest contrast copying or dynamic range.) How relates ISO to this?
Now give me an F2 inspired new Df - no movie stuff - with D810 specs.Separate wheels for exposure, aperture, ISO, compensation.And a communication protocol to receive exposure settings from my Sekonic 758DR.And DoPs will want one for movie work as well.
OK, the D810 increased dynamic range competes with medium format. Now the glass.
PeterLHughes: There is a much easier and cheaper way. Shoot transparency film with a 5"x4" bellows camera. Scan that single shot at 4,000 ppi and it will give you a 320 MP image. Your shutter speed of 1/125th sec with studio flash means that your model can have expression rather than having to hold a death like pose for half an hour. Also if you look closely at the samples in the review above you can see stitching errors which are unacceptable for professional work. If 320 MP doesn't impress you, then get hold of a 10"x8" film camera. That will give you 1,280 MP images. In other words a 300 dpi print would be 11ft high. I've just checked on ebay and you can pick up all the camera kit you need for under £1,000.
On the artistic level I agree. I have not looked into the details of the 900MP photo. But, if it gives the detail of 24MP for each of the stitched parts, then there is no comparison with 4x5" nor 8x10". With increase of size their resolution decreases, both in the glass and in the film. Then with increase of size focal length increases and DOF decreases, meaning you have to stop down - generally you shoot between f/22 and f/64 depending on size. This means you lose sharpness.What you gain with the size is colour saturation and gradation. Effortless saturation of velvety naturalness.And then the ~perfect Gaussian lenses without colour fringing. Remember the 8x10" Ektachrome pro or Cibachrome on your 5000K light tray with the 8x loupe?Those were the days.In portraits, you may not want the facial down hair to become visible - which you already get with FF 24x36 24MP and 85mm in a single shot.Now if I were into forensics ...
Not so practical, I would say. What use cases do you chose ball heads for? Personally, for medium fast studio, portrait, working from tripod. Or when traveling light. (Photographers always have the wrong tripods/heads, bags, light modifiers.)My favorite ball head is Manfrotto 054 with quick release (Q2). Only $200 (EUR 160 including 21% VAT). It is light, smooth, sturdy and precise. When you bring out the really heavy cameras, put on very heavy lenses with integrated tripod collar mounts, then I would switch to a heavy tripod with a large tripod head, not the ball type.Testing "sag" is nice, but what is required with a full frame sensor and, say, 600mm on a longer exposure and how do you isolate testing the ball head's vibration damping capacity from that of the tripod? When vibration likely stems from moving parts in the camera that we can bypass with live view.Just remember to carry a (hex) screw driver to fix the QR lever's screw that might loosen after a while (Loctite?)