Price? Image quality??

michaelwj said:
:eek::eek::eek:

Surely you mean a screw mount Canon!

:D
Click to expand...

35901661473_83341405e7_c.jpg



:eek::eek::eek:
 
Why did anyone buy anything other than the cheapest film SLR in the past? The cheapest models shared the same sensor (film) and brand lenses as the most expensive from the same manufacturer and so, in most situations, would produce identical images. Price and image quality have little to do with each other and haven't in the past either. I buy based on what I enjoy using, and it is this which makes the difference in my photo taking as far as I am concerned, not some esoteric and all too often irrelevant 'quality' score. There is so much more to photography than price and test results.
 
Car is for transportation. Watch is for time-telling. Camera is for picture-taking. Once you get past the basics, you get expensive. Sometimes better quality...sometimes not. Most of the time you get extra features--more comfortable ride, more power for cars for instance. With a camera, you're pretty much assured of excellent image quality throughout the product line because everybody makes excellent cameras today. More money gets you a few features the lower priced model doesn't have but you can get just as good a photograph with either.

Most of us choose the car, watch, camera, whatever based on how it fits into our budgets and lifestyles--it's that simple.
 
I don’t have a car anymore,
I quit driving because I fear
Dying much more
What’s this have to do with
The camera I shoot with
I don’t know but I’ll play along
Just because of the watch
I wear is not so expensive
So, what’s the size of my sensor
Is it related to the price of my
Lens or the grip on my Bessa
Or my Panasonic or my Sony
Or should they be put in the dumpster?
‘Cause they’re not so expensive
Afraid to contemplate
the direction this is going
Price, performance, results
Is getting to be a little bit
Boring
Never understood the desire to talk
About it
I think I’ll just grab my camera
And go out and use it

Mike

Some gotta win, some gotta lose
Good time charlie's got the blues
-- Danny O'Keefe
 
Emile de Leon said:
Brand new Rolex has a 2 sec per day margin of error +/-.. and only needs servicing 1x every 10 years..thats pretty good..around $850 for that..
Click to expand...

If one believes that Rolex can manage such accuracy, happy dreams..
It requires a major service including parts replacement every 2 years..
It's mechanical with about 5~8 cycles per second.
A quartz movement like Seiko, Citizen or Swiss ETA is 32,760 C.P.S.
Game over!

Expensive cameras "used" to last lifetimes (My M3, M2).
Digital Leica not made for the long haul..sorry.

Price does not guarantee better in quantum results but in minor increments..
 
I shot 20+ images yesterday on a free gift Pentax Optio 3MP.
Images look fine on FB, where hi-rez is ruined anyway..
Unless one prints, pointless hi-rez..
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
That is the point. Bill asked if price was related to image quality. It isn't. As far as cars go, I think medium priced cars are the best buy. Cheap cars often are low quality, and expensive cars are overpriced baubles. Medium priced cars are usually very well-built, reliable, inexpensive to repair. They're not as fancy as expensive ones, but they're often more reliable.
Click to expand...

We are both talking about the same thing.

Everyone knows that a quality low priced car like a Corolla will be more reliable, practical and lower cost to maintain than a Ferrari, but human beings are not always rational creatures, that was the crux of my original point.

There are sometimes other factors at play when we choose to buy and use a certain product, and it is not always based on good common sense or logic or even based on practicality and usability or economy.

Same analogy as the Leica M 10 versus the Samsung NX500 that Bill brought up in his original comment on this thread.
 
“Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Our discussions once again prove that human nature never changes.


And, FWIW, modern Ferraris are not unreliable.
 
There is absolute nothing wrong appreciating b̶a̶u̶b̶l̶e̶s̶ the epitome of engineering and design.

Photographers have been doing this with film Leicas for nearly a century, when arguably there were far ‘better’ sensor options if one only looked strictly at IQ.
 
Focusing on cameras for producing best images...

Interesting essay by Ming Thein about sensor size.

Compare shooting with these three very different systems: Olympus E-M1 mark II, 17/1.2. Nikon Z7, Z 35/1.8 S. Hasselblad X1D, XCD 45/3.5. (Doesn't include really inexpensive options, but there's a big cost progression in these.)

In daylight or in a studio, the MF 'Blad wins big for image quality.

But, indoors hand-held in dim lighting you might well have these shooting options:
- Olympus E-M1 mark II, 17/1.2: 1/8s f1.2 ISO 200 (excellent IBIS)
- Nikon Z7, Z 35/1.8 S: 1/30s f1.8 ISO 1600 (IBIS, but not as effective)
- Hasselblad X1D, XCD 45/3.5: 1/60s f3.5 ISO 12800

Interesting; more $ and more weight for MF gear doesn't get you better IQ in this scenario. I'll take the smaller, lower cost gear with the faster lens and IBIS. And, of course, there are faster lenses for the Olympus and Nikon.

I do a lot of shooting indoors, and I prefer ambient light. Ming's essay reinforces my experience that something smaller than 24x36mm sensor is the sweet spot for my photography.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
Focusing on cameras for producing best images...

Interesting essay by Ming Thein about sensor size.

Compare shooting with these three very different systems: Olympus E-M1 mark II, 17/1.2. Nikon Z7, Z 35/1.8 S. Hasselblad X1D, XCD 45/3.5. (Doesn't include really inexpensive options, but there's a big cost progression in these.)

In daylight or in a studio, the MF 'Blad wins big for image quality.

But, indoors hand-held in dim lighting you might well have these shooting options:
- Olympus E-M1 mark II, 17/1.2: 1/8s f1.2 ISO 200 (excellent IBIS)
- Nikon Z7, Z 35/1.8 S: 1/30s f1.8 ISO 1600 (IBIS, but not as effective)
- Hasselblad X1D, XCD 45/3.5: 1/60s f3.5 ISO 12800

Interesting; more $ and more weight for MF gear doesn't get you better IQ in this scenario. I'll take the smaller, lower cost gear with the faster lens and IBIS. And, of course, there are faster lenses for the Olympus and Nikon.

I do a lot of shooting indoors, and I prefer ambient light. Ming's essay reinforces my experience that something smaller than 24x36mm sensor is the sweet spot for my photography.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting article, but still does not quite address a key question: Does sensor size mean anything relative to how large of a print you can make- and I mean not just at "appropriate viewing distances". Is a pixel a pixel a pixel, given there is enough light that those other factors come into play (stabilization, hand holding, dof, etc.)? This may portend more to the future of digital cameras then to the present state as the linked article illustrates well.

For instance on a sunny day or maybe in open shade I get a 40 MP image from all with the same angle of view (say a "normal" lens) with no camera shake, no IBIS or OIS needed (even use a tripod if you want):

1. a good quality mobile device
2. a micro-4/3
3. an ASPC
4. a "Full frame" (35mm) sensor
5. A MF sensor

Can I make the same enlargement (say by ink jet or scanning enlarger on silver emulsion), put them all (1-5) up on a wall and and view them from far and near. Would they all look more or less the same?

If the answer is yes then within some limits (all the things in the article and more) a pixel is a pixel is a pixel. If the answer is no, then the actual size of the sensor still matters.

With film it is clear- if the same film and development is used (say FP4 in DDX using the recommended time for format) for any 1 degree of view the larger negative size will have more pixels per degree and will thus render better both in terms of resolution but also achieving full tonal variation. Also due to optical enlarging, optical effects will also come into play both on camera (which will some effect on the digital example) plus at the enlarger. If we scan the negative then ink jet print or use a laser scanning enlarger on silver emulsion, this aspect is in the same boat as the digital case, leaving mainly the grains/degree aspect.
 
Since you can get a brand new FF camera with a 24MP sensor for $799 (Sony A7) price vs. image quality really isn't an issue. If you are spending what is now $7995 for an M10, you are paying for the manual focus rangefinder experience. Whether that is worth it to you is a personal decision based on your shooting style and other factors. It is not about image quality.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Since you can get a brand new FF camera with a 24MP sensor for $799 (Sony A7) price vs. image quality really isn't an issue. If you are spending what is now $7995 for an M10, you are paying for the manual focus rangefinder experience. Whether that is worth it to you is a personal decision based on your shooting style and other factors. It is not about image quality.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the main competition to the Leica digital (for the "manual rangefinder experience") are the Fujifilm XPro2 for $2k or a film rangefinder of your choice ($50-$5k).
 
markjwyatt said:
It is an interesting article, but still does not quite address a key question: Does sensor size mean anything relative to how large of a print you can make- and I mean not just at "appropriate viewing distances". Is a pixel a pixel a pixel, given there is enough light that those other factors come into play (stabilization, hand holding, dof, etc.)? This may portend more to the future of digital cameras then to the present state as the linked article illustrates well.

For instance on a sunny day or maybe in open shade I get a 40 MP image from all with the same angle of view (say a "normal" lens) with no camera shake, no IBIS or OIS needed (even use a tripod if you want):

1. a good quality mobile device
2. a micro-4/3
3. an ASPC
4. a "Full frame" (35mm) sensor
5. A MF sensor

Can I make the same enlargement (say by ink jet or scanning enlarger on silver emulsion), put them all (1-5) up on a wall and and view them from far and near. Would they all look more or less the same?

If the answer is yes then within some limits (all the things in the article and more) a pixel is a pixel is a pixel. If the answer is no, then the actual size of the sensor still matters.

With film it is clear- if the same film and development is used (say FP4 in DDX using the recommended time for format) for any 1 degree of view the larger negative size will have more pixels per degree and will thus render better both in terms of resolution but also achieving full tonal variation. Also due to optical enlarging, optical effects will also come into play both on camera (which will some effect on the digital example) plus at the enlarger. If we scan the negative then ink jet print or use a laser scanning enlarger on silver emulsion, this aspect is in the same boat as the digital case, leaving mainly the grains/degree aspect.
Click to expand...




I can answer that!

I shot for several years with a Canon 5DmkII, which is a 20mp fullframe camera. For the last year, I have been shooting with 20mp Micro Four Thirds cameras (Olympus Pen-F and Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II).

So, we have two 20mp systems, one fullframe, the other Micro Four Thirds. Huge sensor-size difference. I think that fullframe has almost 4 times the surface area of m4/3. I have made and sold 16x20 prints from each.

The difference? To be honest, the m4/3 sensors give the finest detail resolution! Why? Part of it is that Canon uses a rather aggressive anti-aliasing filter on the 5DmkII's sensor. This softens fine detail, not all of which is recoverable through image sharpening. Olympus's 20mp sensors have no anti-aliasing filters. Another thing is that the Canon lens I used for the photos I printed large just plain aren't as sharp as the Micro Four Thirds lens I used.

I used the Canon 24-105mm F4L-IS lens for fullframe and the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens for m4/3. The Olympus lens is equivalent to a 24-80mm fullframe lens. I am continually amazed at the image quality of this lens.

So, a smaller sensor with better lenses and no anti-aliasing filter beats a much larger sensor with poorer lenses and an anti-aliasing filter that blurs the finest details.

There is one other difference, and that is noise. The fullframe Canon sensor has less of it than the Olympus Micro Four Thirds sensors. I've found, however, that even using more noise reduction in Lightroom to eliminate the m4/3 noise, the m4/3 images are still better, with more fine detail resolution. Even at high ISO.

More modern fullframe sensors have less noise than the one used on the Canon 5DmkII, so at high-ISO speeds a modern fullframe sensor might be superior to the m4/3 sensors.
 
Cameras like digi M Leicas are worth it to many because they are just so enjoyable to use.
I have a Nikon Z7 which in every technical way is far far superior to my M240. And yet I do not enjoy using it, but I love using the Leica.

That is why it is worth so much more money.
 
I have a question for Chris Crawford. How did you find the transition from an optical viewfinder to an electronic viewfinder? The few mirrorless cameras I've had a chance to look through have not been very impressive, at least compared to my OM-1 with an all matte screen, which is my benchmark. The latest electronic vf I've tried was a OMD-EM5 so I suspect there have been improvements. Unfortunately I live in the sticks and even finding a store that would have the Olympus line.....well I might have to travel several hundred miles roundtrip. That, I don't want to do.
 
I've come to a conclusion that for IQ, it all depends on your final output.
For my large prints (16x20 and higher), IQ is very important and to achieve that I use a high MP camera (42MP Sony A7RIII) and lenses that can resolve it.

However, for social media or printing 8x10 photo books I actually find smaller sensors are more than capable. I've done 8x10 prints of photos taken with my iphone that I'm proud of.

Right now I'm exploring photography using P&S cameras, I purchased an Olympus Tough TG-5 (1/2.3" sensor size) as my daily/street camera as it is more rugged than my iphone and less intimidating than a more professional looking camera.
 
Bill Pierce said:
This morning BYTHOM posted a truly intelligent article on what we are discussing. That’s not unusual; the site often has posts with a rather wise perspective. But in terms of this discussion, this post certainly is timely.

https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/march-2019-nikon-canon/chasing-gains.html
Click to expand...
I find it ironic that he owns a Z7. Basically he is saying that the camera doesn't matter much, yet he owns the latest model. This happens quite frequently. Do as I say, not as I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom