New photos from Brandon

I like what he says......

"The question was asked about what happens when you switch the file format to a 1:1 ratio. The neat thing is that it is of course shown on the LCD, EVF and OVF ! No worries about not seeing the format change. Image size will be 3264 x 3264"
 
Looks great! I recently posted a portrait here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1810105#post1810105

(post #2686) The snap was taken with an M9 and in the native file the level of detail is similar to what was posted on Brandon Remler's site. The posted portrait at the link above is at ISO 160, and at that ISO the M8 was also pretty great. "Medium Format"-like was what I thought when I first saw M8 files. The M9, of course, has even more resolution. Looking forward to the X1 with great anticipation.
 
All I want to know is the manual focus actually usable in darkness.

Because it was utter crap on the x100.

All we need is manual focus that works like the GF1 and GF series panasonic cameras. its fly by wire but they work so well....
 
jbf said:
All I want to know is the manual focus actually usable in darkness.

Because it was utter crap on the x100.

All we need is manual focus that works like the GF1 and GF series panasonic cameras. its fly by wire but they work so well....
Click to expand...

Don't make me go and post shots taken with my x100 in darkness to prove you wrong...
 
Could be me, but we reached a point where i see no significant differences between files from (high-end) digital cameras anymore. Yes these samples could also be from an M9, D700, Canon 5D....... whatever. At least to my eye.
 
J. Borger said:
Could be me, but we reached a point where i see no significant differences between files from (high-end) digital cameras anymore. Yes these samples could also be from an M9, D700, Canon 5D....... whatever. At least to my eye.
Click to expand...


Try puting a roll of Tri-X or maybe Ektar through a Canon SLR, Nikon SLR, OM, Pentax, Leica etc and see if you can pick any significant difference with scanned web based images!

What differences are you looking for?
 
j j said:
More to the point, try putting Tri-X in one camera and TMax in another.
Click to expand...


That's the point I was making ... sort of. :D

There's not really that much difference in the way sensors render ... what you get is what you get and you change it in post if you feel like doing so.

With analog if you want a different look you choose a different emulsion or possibly push/pull the one you're using!
 
f6andBthere said:
That's the point I was making ... sort of. :D

There's not really that much difference in the way sensors render ... what you get is what you get and you change it in post if you feel like doing so.
Click to expand...

Different sensors yield different color results IMO. There is a distinct difference between certain colors on the Kodak sensor of the M9 and the Fuji sensor (not sure who makes it) of the X100. The Kodak sensors of the M8 and M9 can remind me of Kodak slide film at times.
 
jsrockit,
Gasp, I'm going to paraphrase or invoke or mention Ken Rockwell, but he said something similar about the differences between Kodak CCDs and Japanese CMOS sensors and compared them to the color reproduction tendencies of Ektachrome and Provia/Velvia. Having shot with the Olympus E-1 and M8 as well as a slew of CMOS sensors, I think he's on to something there.

I've been very cool about the X-1 pro until now, seeing the buzz its generated here to be somewhat unreasonable given how little we know about what it will do with our treasured M lenses, but the 1:1 format is really freaking cool. It's something I love about the Pen series and my Ricoh GXR. It's just great to see in squares, especially if you came from TLRs like I did. That the framelines change to squares in the OVF is doing it right. So score +1 for the X-1 pro in my book.
 
dreilly said:
jsrockit,
Gasp, I'm going to paraphrase or invoke or mention Ken Rockwell, but he said something similar about the differences between Kodak CCDs and Japanese CMOS sensors and compared them to the color reproduction tendencies of Ektachrome and Provia/Velvia.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking too... something to that effect.

but the 1:1 format is really freaking cool. It's something I love about the Pen series and my Ricoh GXR. It's just great to see in squares, especially if you came from TLRs like I did. That the framelines change to squares in the OVF is doing it right. So score +1 for the X-1 pro in my book.
Click to expand...

I agree regarding the square. However, only if we have square framelines in the OVF will I really be happy.
 
f6andBthere said:
Try puting a roll of Tri-X or maybe Ektar through a Canon SLR, Nikon SLR, OM, Pentax, Leica etc and see if you can pick any significant difference with scanned web based images!

What differences are you looking for?
Click to expand...

I am not looking for differences because there are no significant ones to my eyes any more. I switched back to film for that reason.
Even my Leica dealer stated he could not distinguish M9 files from Nex5+Leica glas files. And i honestley could not either when he showed some files. The fact there is even discussion IF there is difference comparing cameras like that says enough.

So if i would consider another digital camera i would choose on completely different criteria than the performance of the sensor at this moment!!
 
jsrockit said:
I agree regarding the square. However, only if we have square framelines in the OVF will I really be happy.
Click to expand...

That seems to be what Brandon is saying, square in LCD, EVF and OVF.

"The question was asked about what happens when you switch the file format to a 1:1 ratio. The neat thing is that it is of course shown on the LCD, EVF and OVF ! No worries about not seeing the format change. Image size will be 3264 x 3264"
 
My NEX-7 just shipped from Amazon and the X-PRO1 and three lenses on order. I was hoping to get some idea which way to go by reading reviews, but my time is up. Most of my photos involve my family and the video on the NEX-7 is competing with my love of OVFs. I think that I've also come to the conclusion that many of these cameras have progressed to the point where they are more technically capable than I'm creatively adept, so I guess that I will try and return. I hope that the Fuji makes it before I have to make a decision on the NEX. I'll be downsizing all NEX-7 images and I suspect that downsizing the NEX-7 with great glass will look much the same as the Fuji files. The next meaningful improvement will be a large sensor fast/accurate autofocus system. I would not be surprised if Canon came late but with a true SLR replacement. I continue to love film for B&W and really love Velvia 50 and Ektar, but I've been without time to process and have been shooting mostly digital recently. The realities of life in a down economy.
 
gavinlg said:
Don't make me go and post shots taken with my x100 in darkness to prove you wrong...
Click to expand...


Hahaha. You must not have understood what I said.

That doesnt prove anything. Im talking about the speed of manual focus. Using an optical sensor in a lens barrel to control focus which is 100% dependent on the amount of light entering the lens is ****ing stupid. That is bad design 100%.

I owned the camera, btw. I know it was slow to focus based on ambient light level. It was erratic at best.

Dont misunderstand. At the end of the day a camera is just a tool to get me where I want to be. I wont waste my time/money on something that doesnt perform the most basic of functions well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom