RRJackson

RRJackson

Lives in United States Bradenton, United States
Joined on Apr 27, 2008

Comments

Total: 100, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Pixel density will drive things towards larger sensors. The D800 is already up above 36 megapixels. Even with a 135 sensor you're still working the glass pretty hard at resolutions like that. Stepping up to 645 will add a decade to the high end. It's been kind of a slog to get there because it's been really hard to make larger sensors, but things keep moving along.

Mitchell Feinberg had a 10 megapixel 8" x 10" back built to replace the Polaroids he used to shoot when setting up. In time I think we'll see large format backs that don't have to rely on scanning. Of course, sensors aren't flat like film so there may be severe limits to the range of the movements.

Personally, I'm still waiting for a digital 6x9 folder that doesn't weigh any more than the pocketable beasties of days gone by. Hopefully I'll still have some of my vision left by the time they roll out. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2013 at 01:00 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

RRJackson: SO they made it bigger and clunkier. Well, that sure is a selling point for a camera designed to take advantage of a small sensor. And the lenses are still huge, too.

I completely respect the sensor size and the software/hardware technology of the system, but making it bigger does not seem like the way.

There's no way that grip doesn't make the body thicker. Those measurements must completely ignore the grip.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 06:04 UTC
In reply to:

Ignacio Feito: Still a micro sensor camera... Why?

It's a good sensor size, IMO. It's big enough to yield excellent image quality and allow some degree of selective focus, but it's small enough to (theoretically) allow very small primes. The trouble is most of the lenses are big clunky zooms. Of course, the market they seem to be reaching is dominated by a desire for ultra-wide to super-telephoto zoom lenses, so they may just be feeding the beast.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 04:26 UTC

SO they made it bigger and clunkier. Well, that sure is a selling point for a camera designed to take advantage of a small sensor. And the lenses are still huge, too.

I completely respect the sensor size and the software/hardware technology of the system, but making it bigger does not seem like the way.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 04:22 UTC as 277th comment | 3 replies

Why do people always insist on zoom lenses? Why can't anyone be happy with primes?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 13:00 UTC as 285th comment | 1 reply

Samsung had originally been teasing a 55mm f/1.8 pancake and then later it leaked that it would be a 45mm f/1.8 pancake. Either of which sounded wonderful to me, since I exclusively use the 30mm f/2 with my Samsung and have been wishing for a slightly steeper focal length pancake.

Well, this isn't it, unfortunately. To me the entire appeal of the Samsung system is the pancakes and that the camera with a pancake attached will fit in a cargo pocket which will get it into places where a DSLR isn't allowed. That list of places just keeps growing, too. More and more places in the United States are pretending like having a camera is a threat to national security, so compact is good.

I've been eagerly awaiting this lens for nearly a year. It's a huge disappointment to me that it ended up being too large for me to consider buying.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 06:13 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

semorg: I'll wait an see if they are truly f/2.8 at the 1:1 ratio position or if the the 2.8 is at longer range. Also I would be curious about the diaphragm design and the kind of bokeh this lens can produce. For me the best 180 lens and probably the best lens created remains to be leica 180/2.8 apo.

I have the 150mm f/2.8 APO Macro. At its minimum focus distance my D700 reads f/5.6, so the lens actually does reflect the light loss at close range with its electronic output.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 10:05 UTC
In reply to:

dansclic: High quality at moderate prices ???? I Am dead !!!! If you want quality you have to pay for, cheap stuff from sigma is not a good deal : 50 per cent is decentered, mecanical problems, un reliable autofocus.....
So again a 1700 USD Lens and what ? Buy a used nikon or canon instead.

Yeah, I've owned a few Sigma lenses, too. Going all the way back to my old Sigma manual focus 70-210mm f/2.8 APO. Currently I have the 20-40mm f/2.8 EX DG Aspherical, the 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM, the 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO Macro and the 300mm f/4 APO Tele Macro. I've had no problems with any of them. No decentering. No autofocus issues. Nothing. My guess is that a LOT of the complaining about quality issues with 3rd party lenses is coming from people hired by the majors to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 09:23 UTC
On Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview preview (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

PioneerPhoto: And I thought white lenses looked bad...

Aw man, what about those white Mitchell high speed cameras that NASA and the military used to use? Those were cool. They were white to minimize heat when used in the desert.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2012 at 15:44 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

ybizzle: Nothing that a D800 or 5D MKIII couldn't produce...At less than half the cost!

@rhlpetrus Actually, that's a terrible way to work, IMO. It's a subtractive process. What you're doing is dropping the levels on one of your color channels and essentially removing even more information from your photograph. It's much better to use an optical filter with a monochrome sensor the same way you did when you shot B&W film.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 23:34 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

bigdaddave: 1930's throwback intentionally crippled and they want how much for it?

If I ever see someone with one of these I will make sure I laugh at them

BTW, in terms of filters I've gone through years of my life with a #8 yellow filter on my lens. I'm not saying that's an ideal methodology, but it's a very good general-purpose filter for B&W and it only knocks a stop off the incoming light. I have a small cabinet full of filters, but even now I tend to use a #8 yellow filter when I shoot B&W.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 22:37 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lupti: Ok, I say take an ordinary DSLR, set it to B/W and take the same shots. I doubt that most people can distinguish them from the Leica shots if not told from what camera they are. Really. I also would go as far as taking an ordinary P&S with B/W mode and compare them with these.
I don´t see the point of this camera aside from being a new toy for people with too much money. I also never understood what´s so great about the Leica system, the cameras and lenses cost megabucks for what reason? Handmade in Germany, a red dot? But the parts are so expensive there isn´t money anmyore for a higher resolution display? Okay...there are still too much people with too much money.
And no, there is no envy at all.
Now I think some people will tell me I´m trolling(I´m not) or that I don´t understand the special art of photographing with a Leica, but really, I couldn´t care less.

Photos can be taken however you feel like taking them. B&W photos taken using a camera with a Bayer filter will show artifacts (defects, errors...whatever word works best for you) that betray the limitations of the process. Many professionals will recognize this limitation of your methodology, but that doesn't mean you can't use it. People have shot parts of feature films on Fisher-Price Pixelvision cameras.

As far as coming up with a percentage of detriment, the green pixels make up 50% of the pixels captured. That's the highest percentage of pixels captured by a single set of pixels, so in absolute terms a Bayer camera will be able to capture half as much resolution as a similar non-Bayer camera. But it isn't that simple because the Debayer algorithms have become very sophisticated at interpolation, so there appears to be more information on-hand than there actually is. So '25% detrimental' may be a good apparent conclusion.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 22:27 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bluetrain048: For those debating the PS/Lightroom black&white conversions versus this black&white sensor, there is one thing to consider.

It has already been mentioned that having no CFA, AA and debayering going on you gain a large resolution advantage (and the samples, to me, really show it).

However, when you use the colour sliders to adjust the black and white conversion from colour, you are losing even more resolution. If you drop the blue channel for instance (to simulate a dark red filter - gives you dramatic skies), you are essentially losing much of the information / resolution those blue pixels would provide.

Try it. Crank down the blue and green sliders in a black and white conversion and then look 100% at the sky, the clouds, the hills and surrounding areas. You will probably notice nasty pixelisation, posterisation and other artifacts.

FWIW I 'get' both sides of the colour vs B&W argument. But a conversion versus a native mono sensor will be leagues apart.

Like I said, if Instagram-style pretend-B&W images are your goal then you'll do just fine in Lightroom or PS. I mean, I do it sometimes, too. I have Alien Skins Exposure. I find it does a fairly good job of approximating the look of B&W film for the occasional shot where it seems apropos. But it's a subtractive process and it does degrade the image. Just like correcting for lens distortion degrades the image. In a web-sized image you won't notice it most of the time, but in a large print it will sometimes jump right out at you.

But yes, mediocre quality is good enough for most people most of the time.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 19:31 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

ybizzle: Nothing that a D800 or 5D MKIII couldn't produce...At less than half the cost!

It's not a question of "how sharp" it is in that, "Hey, this here lens is pretty sharp!" kind of way. Monochrome capture is a process that eliminates the Bayer array, so data interpolation is absent from the process. Now this may or may not appeal to you and the cost may drive you into some kind of frenzy, but it's a superior methodology to Bayer capture if a monochrome end result is your goal.

Now certainly you can bemoan the old Kodak CCD technology underlying the camera. I prefer CCDs in a lot of ways, but low light capture hasn't been their strong suit and it's been a point of contention. And you can bemoan the manual focus rangefinder design which is again a matter of personal taste.

At the end of the day all you can really say is that the way you capture monochrome images is good enough for you and you don't need superior dedicated monochrome capture equipment. And that's fine. It could never be asserted that this is a camera for the masses.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 19:09 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

hammerheadfistpunch: pretty images? yeah. better images? Arguable. but the thing that I keep coming back to is the term "diminishing returns". $13 grand is a lot of money for a camera that does one thing, albeit well.

You don't have to mount the most expensive lens made by Leica to use the camera. My personal preference would be the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5, which is $1100.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 19:01 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

ybizzle: Nothing that a D800 or 5D MKIII couldn't produce...At less than half the cost!

The comparable explanation is that current sensors can't capture color information. So the way people approximate that is by using a process similar to the old Technicolor 3-strip process. An 18-megapixel "color" camera takes 9 million green photos, 4 1/2 million blue photos and 4 1/2 million red photos for every exposure. And then an automated process combines those and approximates what the output might have looked like if 18 million full-color images had been captured. The difference or error is something we just live with. And then on top of that level of distortion some people like to do a subtractive conversion that removes even more information and they think this B&W end result is an acceptable substitute for a process that removes all of these variables from the process of capture. But it isn't.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 18:01 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

hammerheadfistpunch: pretty images? yeah. better images? Arguable. but the thing that I keep coming back to is the term "diminishing returns". $13 grand is a lot of money for a camera that does one thing, albeit well.

The camera lists for $7950, not $13,000.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 17:55 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bluetrain048: For those debating the PS/Lightroom black&white conversions versus this black&white sensor, there is one thing to consider.

It has already been mentioned that having no CFA, AA and debayering going on you gain a large resolution advantage (and the samples, to me, really show it).

However, when you use the colour sliders to adjust the black and white conversion from colour, you are losing even more resolution. If you drop the blue channel for instance (to simulate a dark red filter - gives you dramatic skies), you are essentially losing much of the information / resolution those blue pixels would provide.

Try it. Crank down the blue and green sliders in a black and white conversion and then look 100% at the sky, the clouds, the hills and surrounding areas. You will probably notice nasty pixelisation, posterisation and other artifacts.

FWIW I 'get' both sides of the colour vs B&W argument. But a conversion versus a native mono sensor will be leagues apart.

I'm not sure you actually understood what Bluetrain048 said. Subtractive editing is inherently inferior to filtration at the point of capture. I mean, it's fine if Instagram-style photos are your goal, but it's certainly not a superior methodology.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 17:52 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joel Pimenta: Voigtlander Bessa (any) - 700 or 800
Voigtlander 40:1.4 - 400 or 500
Kodak TMAX 400, 800, 1600... 4 or 5

That's a better BW option for a "cheap" rangefinder.

It's a nice option, but I doubt your TMAX is going to look very good at ISO 10,000. Personally I top out at about 1600 in practical terms using HP5+ and stand processing. Past that the grain structure is just too pronounced for my tastes. Although bigger film helps a lot. This is at 1600 with 6x7 and to me the grain seems very fine.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/2144189107/

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 17:49 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

ybizzle: Nothing that a D800 or 5D MKIII couldn't produce...At less than half the cost!

And that's the real subject of most of the comments here. It's like someone saying, "$225,000 for an electron microscope!?!?! It outputs in B&W!!! For $75 the microscopes at my community college output color and you can just convert those to B&W if that's what you want to see!!!"

And it's difficult to explain why that's not the same thing to someone who has no idea what they're talking about. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 17:44 UTC
Total: 100, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »