D800: Anyone have second thoughts on the MM/M9/M8 in terms of value?

Aristophanes: "For the price the M9 should have the D800's much superior sensor."

jaapv said:
For much inferior images... That sensor is not suitable for a rangefinder....... and CMos had insufficient acceptance angle for rangefinder use. ......
Most of the noise performance of the Nikons is by very good firmware and not specifically sensor choice. Not too easy to incorporate such processing in a small body... But they will never cook the file to the extent that Nikon does.
Click to expand...

What would you be saying if the M10 or M11 comes with a FF-CMOS sensor one day? Would this sensor be made by magicians or imported from Uranus?

How come you ended up with a conclusion "Most of the noise performance of the Nikons is by very good firmware and not specifically sensor choice."?? Are you trying to "invent" some new theories? Have any idea of where the CMOS technology reached these months? Did you hear something like ISO 204.800? Or 14.4Evs dynamic range?

" Not too easy to incorporate such processing in a small body." Sure.. the Nex-7 bodies are really larger than the M9, dealing with more MP than the M9, processing higher-ISO than the M9 besides a list of other features not available on the M9.. 😀

"But they will never cook the file to the extent that Nikon does."
"Cook"ing files? So actually their sensors are low-tech and they are trying to compensate it by "cooking the files"? Hmmmm.. How about a comparison between the D800E and the S2, the flagship of Leica?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40902419

I wonder what could be the reason to state such ungrounded "tales" on a photographic forum.. If such things are to be "declared" then why don't you leave it to Leica engineers?
 
Touched a nerve, have I ? 😀.

yep - Nikon applies very smart processing to get to the level of noisereduction the files exhibit - just compare offerings by Nikon to Sony's using the same sensors - but different processing. A bit silly to try and compare a MF CCD camera to a 135 CMos one, don't you agree?
 
jaapv said:
😕Nothing was more equalizing that film. Put the same film into any camera and you get the same look. The only difference one can make is by the lens. Now, with digital we get the added parameters of the (type) of sensor and in-camera file handling.
Click to expand...


You are joking? I think anyone here who develops their own film will dispute that statement!
 
jaapv said:
😕Nothing was more equalizing that film. Put the same film into any camera and you get the same look. The only difference one can make is by the lens. Now, with digital we get the added parameters of the (type) of sensor and in-camera file handling.
Click to expand...

If this were the case my TX negs would look exactly like Bruce Davidson's, HCB's, Ralph Gibson's and etc.

Each photographer, lab tech has his or her own signature driven by exposure, developer and development technique.

If you shoot jpg's in your M9 or whatever then the look is much closer within a brand and model of camera. The look is determined by someone writing software and is loaded into every camera of that model. On the other hand raw files give the flexibility to create ones own look through curves, profiles, etc.

Sensors do determine a more subtle difference in cameras. Each sensor type has a different color and tonal response but that can be and should be equalized for critical work by profiling ones camera. Profiling helps to eliminate those errors in color inherent in sensors and systems. As can be seen in several cameras like my Hasselblad digital back, it uses the same Kodak CCD sensor that Pentax uses in their 645D but produces a different image. It's how the firmware is written and the hardware driving the system.
 
Keith said:
You are joking? I think anyone here who develops their own film will dispute that statement!
Click to expand...
It still is camera-brand independent - Same film - same processing ( thought that was self-evident, clearly not)- impossible to differentiate the camera from the print. That is what I meant by equalizing.
Nowadays your "film" read sensor is welded to your camera. If you want a different "film"you need a different one.

You guys are talking about (post)processing. Whole different subject.
 
jaapv said:
It still is camera-brand independent - Same film - same processing ( thought that was self-evident, clearly not)- impossible to differentiate the camera from the print. That is what I meant by equalizing.
Nowadays your "film" read sensor is welded to your camera. If you want a different "film"you need a different one.

You guys are talking about (post)processing. Whole different subject.
Click to expand...

That's such a non statement. Certainly the box that you put the film in doesn't make any difference but thats not what you said. You painted with a broad brush and then started to back peddle.

Unless your lazy and shoot only jpg's you don't need a different digital camera for different looks. Like I said the same sensor in different cameras yields different images. It's all firmware / software in camera until it's in your computer. At that point the specific processing software and your personal skill and preferences come into play. C1 produces different images than the same file in Phocus, Photoshop and etc. They're totally different processing engines.
 
I always have viewed value as somewhat independent of price. If you purchase the right product and get many years of use from it you have received good value. So...for those of us who are not going to own a gazillion cameras (or whatever) carefully think what does the trick 75% of the time and go with it.
 
jaapv said:
For much inferior images... That sensor is not suitable for a rangefinder.
Click to expand...

That last bit sounds more like conjecture on your part than anything; you don't know that, and probably no one else either, except possibly a few guys who have tried an old protruding Nikkor-O 21/f4 or a CV 15/f4.5 or 12/f5.6 on the D800 in mirror lock-up mode.

However, since the only thing that may make a CMOS sensor "not suitable for a rangefinder" is the limited angle of acceptance, and that is due to the relative size of the front-mounted readout electronics in the CMOS system, which is also directly responsible for the relative sensitivity disadvantage of CMOS vis-a-vis CCD sensors, and that in turn has actively and successfully been worked upon, I wager that the sensor is every bit as rangefinder-suitable as everything built into a Leica. You may well be spreading 2005 wisdom there. And if there's room for a Bayer filter in front of it, then there'd be room for offset microlenses, too.

The truth is that the main reason why Leica still uses CCD sensors is probably that Leica's electronics partner is a company that makes medium-format digital backs, which so far have been practically exclusively CCDs. However, Jenoptic also makes CMOS imaging modules, so the basic expertise is there, even though it may require an updated filter design. The rumours about the S3 and its new CMOS imaging sensor seem to go in the same direction. The days of CCDs in Leicas are numbered, just like they have been in everybody else's cameras since five years ago.
 
x-ray said:
That's such a non statement. Certainly the box that you put the film in doesn't make any difference but thats not what you said. You painted with a broad brush and then started to back peddle.

Unless your lazy and shoot only jpg's you don't need a different digital camera for different looks. Like I said the same sensor in different cameras yields different images. It's all firmware / software in camera until it's in your computer. At that point the specific processing software and your personal skill and preferences come into play. C1 produces different images than the same file in Phocus, Photoshop and etc. They're totally different processing engines.
Click to expand...
I'm not backpedalling.That is exactly what I said. My statement is that film is the equalizer for film cameras because is is camera-independent How it is processed afterwards is utterly irrelevant for the statement.
Likewise postprocessing is irrelevant. The camera output is fixed to the camera with a digital one. So the brand is a determinant for the file you get.

That you can postprocess to your heart's desire is fine, like you can develop film any way you want, but is completely beside the point.
 
jaapv said:
😕Nothing was more equalizing that film. Put the same film into any camera and you get the same look. The only difference one can make is by the lens. Now, with digital we get the added parameters of the (type) of sensor and in-camera file handling.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Digital has allowed people who know nothing about photography to take good pictures, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a fact. But the ceiling has lowered, I believe.
 
Keith said:
I've noticed over the last few weeks there's a steady flow of M9s going through the classifieds ... there seems to be one every couple of days at the moment!

They all seem to be $5000 to $5000.500 or there abouts ... are people getting these prices easily or is it a struggle?
Click to expand...

There's a mint one there now with boxes, accessories and stuff that was just lowered from $5300 to $4900; that should tell you something. The curve is pointing downwards, I think.

Once they hit $3000 I might be considering one. 😀
 
jaapv said:
I'm not backpedalling.That is exactly what I said. My statement is that film is the equalizer for film cameras because is is camera-independent How it is processed afterwards is utterly irrelevant for the statement.
Likewise postprocessing is irrelevant. The camera output is fixed to the camera with a digital one. So the brand is a determinant for the file you get.

That you can postprocess to your heart's desire is fine, like you can develop film any way you want, but is completely beside the point.
Click to expand...

You're trying to remove the one element that drives the entire process, the human factor. OK put you camera on a table and see what kind of pictures it makes, now don't touch it and watch what happens. No human interaction, no picture. Don't use the self timer either, no cheating! What does the picture look like? A camera with film is nothing until the film is exposed, processed scanned or printed.

You can not remove the human element unless you don't fire the shutter.
 
jaapv said:
Touched a nerve, have I ? 😀.

yep - Nikon applies very smart processing to get to the level of noisereduction the files exhibit - just compare offerings by Nikon to Sony's using the same sensors - but different processing. A bit silly to try and compare a MF CCD camera to a 135 CMos one, don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Did not touch a nerve, I was only trying to remind you once again to not talk on the subjects you have limited insight; you are not “equipped” with correct and sufficient information to talk reliably on such technological subjects. The points you were trying to make are false; it’s apparent that part of your knowledge on these matters is based rather on your imagination…

Try to respond to my questions above one-by-one so we can have an idea about how much you are into such technologies.

And to compare a MF CCD camera to a 135 CMOS one was “a bit silly”? Tell it to Ming Thein, a highly regarded pro by Leica who had performed the same comparison?

Also when you start to distort the facts with an attitude of denial and fanboyism then you harm your credibility but also the reputation of an established company. Do Leica need your false and ungrounded statements?
 
It's like musical instruments, without the human element they produce nothing and each person extracts something different from the same instrument.
 
x-ray said:
You're trying to remove the one element that drives the entire process, the human factor. OK put you camera on a table and see what kind of pictures it makes, now don't touch it and watch what happens. No human interaction, no picture. Don't use the self timer either, no cheating! What does the picture look like? A camera with film is nothing until the film is exposed, processed scanned or printed.

You can not remove the human element unless you don't fire the shutter.
Click to expand...

I didn't remove it, it was simply no part of my observation.
As it is one could argue that the tendency to automate all aspects of photography diminishes the human factor.
 
steveyork said:
Wrong. Digital has allowed people who know nothing about photography to take good pictures, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a fact. But the ceiling has lowered, I believe.
Click to expand...

A lot of low-price, quality AF SLR's and P&S's had the same effect.

Evidence mostly in photo albums and not the internet.
 
I think what jaapv tried to say earlier was simply put (exactly like he said, with no reading in between the lines) if you pop tri-x into an Hexar RF / Leica M / Bessa, and then put the same Summicron on said cameras, your tri-X negs will look EXACTLY the (assuming you develop them the same) and that is absolutely true, no discussion. A cloth shutter or a copal metal bladed shutter in front of the negative doesn't make any difference.

Talk about making a hen from a feather guys.

But you have A LOT of chance to get unique looking images with film in my opinion, because for every combination of: 1) Lens + filter, 2) Film, 3) Developer, 4) development process (like 10+(?) additional variables here), 5) paper, 6) lens on enlarger, 7) paper developer 8) if you use condenser or diffuser enlarger... etc etc, you'll get different looking images at the end. Now that is a big big chance of doing something someone else has never done before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom