High Speed

[sojournerphoto]

how high iso

how high iso

First a question? How fast do these new Latest And Greatest<tm> DSLRs go, ISO-wise, and do they really give acceptable results up there?

Now ...

(Said while grabbing whip and looking for a dead horse to beat ...)



Why is it that NOBODY has come up with a practical way of switching between film and digital in the same camera? I would think that it would be practical to adapt a modern DSLR (or DRF) design to include an optional film transport.

I was REALLY hoping for a digital film type product, but it looks like all of that vaporware has vanished. I would really like to see digital as an option and not as a lifelong commitment.

And yes, I know about the Leica SLR and the DMR, and other than the obvious coincidence, it does not appeal to me. It looks like it would be like carrying around a Speed Graphic in the digital mode! 🙁

How fast
Look here http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7792 for a sample from a 1Ds3 at iso8000+ (3200 pushed in post). It makes a nice 12 by 8 print and the grain in the B&W version is much lower than that from HP5+ at 400 in rodinal - in fact probably better than FP4. The cooour version is also entirely printable. My 50 1.4 will give me the same exposure with 3 stops less light!!

Apparently the Nikon D3/D700 and Canon 5D2 are better...


What about interchangeable backs?
I believe the Sinar mediyum format camera has this feature, at a price.


Mike

 

[Bill Pierce]

considering the weight of the DSLR camera plus a fast prime lens, I will never give up rangefinder unless the size and weight of DSLR can be managed.

Interestingly enough, a Canon 5D Mark II with a 35/2 weighs about the same as an M8 with a CV 35/1.2 (which partially makes up for the difference in image quality at high ISOs in that you can use a lower ISO with the M8 and the faster lens).

 

[35mmdelux]

Digital images remind me of the movie where all the women obeyed and always looked perfect. I attended a university photography exhibit and observed that each image by a particular photog had a certain look about them. I wondered if they were digital? Later I picked up a catalogue; yes, indeed, they were digital.

Is f/2.8 the digital eqiv of film f/1.4? Absolutely yes.

 

[FifthLeaf]

The low ISO performance does undercut one of the RF's advantages. I don't know how professionals work, but do the ones that use rangefinders use them because of low light performance ? Or because they prefer that style of camera?

For me, it's the latter. And I would guess the same is true for most people on this forum. It seems like the biggest threat to rangefinder users is micro 4/3 or perhaps another future (larger) standard like it.

 

[FifthLeaf]

Pherdinand,
Never say that you were not prepared next time you visit Rio. The sentence is: "será que eu posso tirar o filme da máquina antes de você levá-la?"

Of course, to sound like a local you'll have to say it more like "sherá que eu posho tirahh o filme..."

 

[Dogman]

Sometime back in the late 70's (my recollection is hazy), I attended an NPPA weekend seminar where a prototype digital movie camera was demonstrated. With the lights out during a slide presentation, random shots of the crowd were made and were later part of the presentation. It was an amazing presentation to those of us who worked nights and shot Tri-X at an EI of 1600. If I remember correctly, it was black and white, it was grainy and it was not super sharp but it was "acceptable" by the standards of 1970's newspaper photography when a grainy and soft picture of an important event was better than no picture at all. Today, the average news photographer can buy a Canon or Nikon capable of producing a better quality photo under the same low light conditions and it would cost less in relative dollar amounts than a Nikon F2 with motor drive cost me in the 1970's.

There's no reason a topline digital rangefinder wouldn't be able to perform as well as the top-line Canon and Nikon DSLRs in regard to high ISOs. But no one is making a digital rangefinder capable of performing this well. Leica certainly doesn't appear to have the ability to do so and, if they ever managed to develop the ability, it would cost five times more than the competition and be outside the financial reach of any pro photographer who needs the high ISO features.

Pretty much all the advantages of rangefinders are being overcome by various technologies today. Mirror-less systems with electronic viewfinders are the most recent development. Autofocus keeps getting better and, for some of us with poor eyesight, it's more accurate than rangefinder focusing. The resolution of digital sensors is becoming so good it will likely outperform the best optical designs and software will be used in post production to take advantage of this capacity. All those wonderful Leitz/Leica and Zeiss lenses would then lose their advantage over "lesser" glass.

The only real advantage rangefinders will continue to have is the sheer enjoyment they give to those who appreciate them even if they're only considered as "quaint" by most folks.

 

[Rhoyle]

None of us have to use RF cameras. We do it because we like them. I use it for normal to wide angle, because it's a better system for those focal lengths. I use an SLR for tele stuff. However, I find that I'm shooting more wide angle because I like shooting with the rangefinder better. My simple preference.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Sometime back in the late 70's (my recollection is hazy), I attended an NPPA weekend seminar where a prototype digital movie camera was demonstrated. With the lights out during a slide presentation, random shots of the crowd were made and were later part of the presentation. It was an amazing presentation to those of us who worked nights and shot Tri-X at an EI of 1600. If I remember correctly, it was black and white, it was grainy and it was not super sharp but it was "acceptable" by the standards of 1970's newspaper photography when a grainy and soft picture of an important event was better than no picture at all. Today, the average news photographer can buy a Canon or Nikon capable of producing a better quality photo under the same low light conditions and it would cost less in relative dollar amounts than a Nikon F2 with motor drive cost me in the 1970's.

There's no reason a topline digital rangefinder wouldn't be able to perform as well as the top-line Canon and Nikon DSLRs in regard to high ISOs. But no one is making a digital rangefinder capable of performing this well. Leica certainly doesn't appear to have the ability to do so and, if they ever managed to develop the ability, it would cost five times more than the competition and be outside the financial reach of any pro photographer who needs the high ISO features.

Pretty much all the advantages of rangefinders are being overcome by various technologies today. Mirror-less systems with electronic viewfinders are the most recent development. Autofocus keeps getting better and, for some of us with poor eyesight, it's more accurate than rangefinder focusing. The resolution of digital sensors is becoming so good it will likely outperform the best optical designs and software will be used in post production to take advantage of this capacity. All those wonderful Leitz/Leica and Zeiss lenses would then lose their advantage over "lesser" glass.

The only real advantage rangefinders will continue to have is the sheer enjoyment they give to those who appreciate them even if they're only considered as "quaint" by most folks.

Yep the panasonic G1 is the beginning of a new era - the natural successor to the rf. Interestingly, the included raw converter abnd the camera for jpgs applies lens corrections automatically.

Mike

 

[Ronald_H]

Yes, the G1 had to come up.

I tried one, and this is the third time I post this, but I feel very strongly about it. RFs and SLRs are made obsolete by this camera. You might not like 4/3rds, or digital, or looking at an electronic image for focusing, or the fact that it feels and looks a bit like a toy... this IS the revolution.

If reviews may be believed, it is a decent enough digital camera, on par with cheaper SLRs, which means it's very good. But you avoid all the disadvantages of an RF (imprecise framing, less accurate at longer focal lengths, teles cannot be used) and all the disadvantages of an SLR (mirror slap, retrofocus wide angles needed, less accurate with low light and wide angle lenses). On the other hand, it has the advantages of both: No mirror slap, short flange distance, accurate full frame view, and most of all, accurate manual focusing with all lenses under all circumstances.

It might not go to 6400ISO or higher, but it does do good 800 and decent 1600. It won't look like Tri-X, but I have a closet full of good RF's and SLRs that can take care of that.

Go out and try. Set it to MF and see how it works for you. For me it works brilliantly.

 

[Nikon Bob]

None of us have to use RF cameras. We do it because we like them. I use it for normal to wide angle, because it's a better system for those focal lengths. I use an SLR for tele stuff. However, I find that I'm shooting more wide angle because I like shooting with the rangefinder better. My simple preference.

A good and logical defense of the RF system. Have you any comment on the original question regarding high digital iso performance? I am asking because some people who use RFs seem to get defensive about discussing changing technical aspects of photography and how it may effect RF use. Would you mind using a FF M8 type RF if one were available at reasonable cost with the same performance levels as the new DSLRs FF sensors have? For me that would be a good combination of tradition with modern performance.

Bob

 

[shadowfox]

maybe I don't get it -- it's digital, why did they ever design the mirror based system -- pixels are pixels -- in theory digital should be silent, except for autofocus and they could probably manage that -- it seems most dslr's could be put in a package the size of an m3 -- but the people expect the slr body size and look and feel

Blake, I think you just summarized the rational behind Panasonic and Olympus' m4/3rd format.

Added to that the advanced EVF they are able to produce now, one that in the near future should be able to do variable magnification, and contrast compensation for low-low-light situations.

Heck, if one of the designers take the right drugs, they may opt to *simulate* an optical RF on the EVF.

Yeah, we use RF because we want to, not because we need to.
And that's fine by me... 🙂

 

[Bill Pierce]

There's no reason a topline digital rangefinder wouldn't be able to perform as well as the top-line Canon and Nikon DSLRs in regard to high ISOs. But no one is making a digital rangefinder capable of performing this well. Leica certainly doesn't appear to have the ability to do so and, if they ever managed to develop the ability, it would cost five times more than the competition and be outside the financial reach of any pro photographer who needs the high ISO features.

I started this thread by asking about high E.I. in digital cameras. It interested me because the Leica was a great low light camera in the film days, and, yet, one of the M8's weaknesses is its image quality at high E.I.'s. Sometimes I can't see the woods for the trees. Thank goodness Dogman reminded us that it's not that the digital rangefinder couldn't be a great low light tool; it's just that the specific sensor in the M8 isn't a great low light tool. Since the sensor isn't made by Leitz, maybe they'll install a better sensor in the M8.3. Who knows...

Bill