Scans Versus 4/3 or NEX Pix: Can You See A Difference?
- Thread starter wgerrard
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 53
- Views 11K
wgerrard
Veteran
It occurs to me that one unsung advantage of using a small digital for travel, where convenience takes precedence over quality, is that you don't need to take up space with rolls of film. That may sound both obvious and silly. But, for someone like me who routinely takes only a carryon, the space in that bag taken by a couple large Ziplocs of film can happily be replaced by, say, a couple shirts.
--
Well-known
The batteries run flat quickly - in a couple of days - if left in the camera. I wonder if it is the same as with the original Nikon D70 that as far as I know always drew a little bit on the batteries which made it possible to start quite fast. Only, the DP-series does not start that fast...
If you walk with the camera turned on (in my camera - I write this, because apparently there are some differences on battery drain between cameras of the same kind - say DP2) a battery lasts between 60 and 90 minutes. As stated elsewhere the DP2s should be (somewhat) better. On the upside (I guess) there seems to be little to no difference depending on the weather. It does not matter if it is cold outside or blazing sun. The batteries just don't last very long 🙁
If you make it a habit of turning on/off every time you shoot, then it will last longer. I often do that, but it is not optimal. Partly there is mechanical wear and tear on the lens moving in and out and partly there is a risk of the movements sucking in dust. I had this happening with a Ricoh GRD.
That, at least, is one of the advantages of the mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses - you can clean the sensor.
You may want to buy a little external harddisk with cardreader that will allow you to backup your pictures while traveling. It is smaller than a six-pack of films (if you have laptop that is of course also an option).
I think you made the right call buying the original external viewfinder. I got stingy and bought a used Voigtländer 50mm, which is a little too tight. It also did not fit the hot shoe very well. Actually I ended up swapping hot shoes between the DP2 and another camera. The Voigtländer is literally brilliant though.
I really hope that you will come to like the output of the DP2. I am constantly surprised as to how much "extra" the SPP program included can pull from the pictures if shooting raw. The program is quite slow, though, so slow that you will eventually start thinking that the program might have crashed. It most likely didn't.
Also I have found that there is no need (at least for my kind of shooting and yours does not seem that different) for fast cards in the cameras [unlike in the DP1].
Just out of curiosity - sorry if I missed it - what kind of rangefinder film equipment do you use?
...Xpanded
wgerrard
Veteran
Well, that's not encouraging. I'll be sure to test mine ASAP.
It can't be difficult to locate the cause of a constant battery drain, if that's the problem. Fixing it, of course, is a different matter.
Fear of a bad fit is the reason I sprung for the Sigma VF.
An M2 and a Bessa R4M, plus an Oly OM-2N. I never wear the camera bag locally. I may use it to carry stuff in the car, but it's never draped over my shoulder when I'm out and about. When I travel, I typically spend 8-10 hours each day on my feet, carrying the bag. After 4-5 days, it begins to get annoying and uncomfortable.
I've found that messing around with the camera, the lenses, the bag and such tends to distract me from just enjoying the place I traveled to. I.e., I'm focused on looking for the next picture and thinking about lens choice, exposure, etc., to the detriment of just relaxing and having a good time. I know I've occasionally spent considerable time in particular locations because they promised to be photogenic, but later realized that, pictures or no, I'd rather have been somewhere else. I want to dial all that back a notch.
jenhao
Established
Same here, Bill.
In fact, on my last trip to California where I visited Morro Bay, Death Valley and other photogenic places, I took no camera at all and had a great time with my friend. Next time, though I will take my camera and as you say, just "dial all that back a notch."
Mark
P
Pico
Guest
4/3 cannot approach scanned 35mm for IQ.
But if you cannot see, or appreciate the difference, then go with 4/3 and be happy.
End of subject, methinks.
But if you cannot see, or appreciate the difference, then go with 4/3 and be happy.
End of subject, methinks.
Last edited by a moderator:
wgerrard
Veteran
Pico, the context here is not wanting to carry an RF and lenses while traveling. Perhaps I should have phrased my original post a bit differently, something like, "Does the convenience of traveling with an m4/3 or similar camera make up for the potential loss of image quality compared with scanned 35mm film?".
After all, if image quality was the sole criterion, none of us would be using 35m cameras. Frankly, an RF is the largest camera I'd every consider traveling with. I had a Canon DSLR once, with a few lenses. No way i would have walked around all day with that stuff hanging off my shoulder. I like to enjoy my travel, not nurse a sore shoulder.
Cerebus
Newbie
You know, another other option is to simply pack less. For example, take the SLR with only one lens (and I don't mean a big honking 28-200 either). I've travelled on business with an SLR and nothing but a fast 50 on many occasions (usually my MX as size does matter some). I usually don't even pack it--I sling it on my Black Rapid and it didn't even count as carry-on.
The same philosophy applies to RFs too. There's no need to take all your lenses. Just take one.
I find it to be a good creative exercise to work within a limited kit as well. Another advantage is this doesn't cost you a cent.
-- C
vidgamer
Established
Seems a bit controversial! In the bright sun it's hard to see details (on my Nex), so I do more like you suggest and just try to get the framing on the LCD. Most of the time I'm fine with the LCD, but I'm a bit undecided as to which is better (that or vf). I guess I like the LCD live view just fine, except for direct sun.
I'm actually finding it easy to manually focus with the LCD (although you have to use the zoom assist if you need to be precise).
kevinparis
Established
No idea what you have done here - but those are the noisiest ISO 100 and 320 shots I have ever seen. Not a typical example of files from a micro 4/3 camera
K
K
You tell me
ISO 100 and 320 on Panasonic G1 with a CV 25mm snapshot (A very sharp lens)
I don't have a film comparison... But the finer detail on the 100% crop is pretty impressive with a 12mp m43 camera and sharp adapted lens.
Film may be finer grained.. don't know
ISO 320 w/ 100% crop
100%
ISO 100 w/ 100% Crop
100%
wgerrard
Veteran
Eyesight, I think, plays here. I wear glasses with progressive lenses. There is a small and specific range of distance from my eyes in which I can focus on an LCD's image. Hold the LCD too far away or too close and I can't see it clearly enough to be useful. Holding the camera within the required range is awkward and unpleasant for me.
Now, if I remove my glasses and hold the LCD within an inch or so of my eye, that's fine. But, then, it's just a big viewfinder.
And, of course, if a do take my glasses off, I can't see what I'm trying to shoot.
Those of you who haven't yet had to deal with such issues, remember, everything is downhill after 23. 🙂
DNG
Film Friendly
not sure where you coming from...
But, both 100% crops represent about a 250 foot distance from the camera. Plus, I don't use noise reduction to "eliminate" noise...May be tone it down. But for samples IQ shots.. I Never Use NR. So you can see what the lens can produce in the detail available, before NR applied destroys some of it. And considering the detail of the decorative wood above the patio on the 2nd 100% crop, It's pretty good, I don't think you could see that kind of detail -- just looking at -- from about 250 feet away.
Now, I do use NR on images to only reduce the grain a little, much more than that, and the image losses the quality of OOF areas and Sharp edges that expensive lens in known for, and to much NR smears finer detail from that fine lens can produce. GRAIN IS OK.....And on stuff that is not "Test Samples" I will use it in moderation.
Too Many Young photographers have no idea that a certain amount grain can ADD to impact.. of some images...
All they want is Noise-Less ISO 6400 and under.... Sheeeesh.... Get real man!
If, you should use a 400 film, do you really expect it to be "Grain Free" ?? Or ISO 800-1600 Film?? Would you "Eliminate" the grain, thinking "any grain" is bad? Even if it destroyed all your fine detail and sharp edges??
Rant Over...
Please show me some of your m/43 images of a similar subject and with a 100% crop, with a 3rd party lens and NO NOISE REDUCTION used (to be fair), of 100 and 320 ISO... NR in camera is OFF like mine was. I was using a 25mm lens made for a Leica SM camera.
Last edited:
kevinparis
Established
as an almost 52 year old who has shot film over the past 35 years I am mildly amused to be thought of as a young photographer 🙂
Noiseless 6400 ISO will happen at some point and probably pretty soon
I will check my cameras to see what setting I have regarding NR and maybe do some comparison shots to see what results I get - though maybe not today as it is very dark and wet here in Belgium.
peace
Kevin
Noiseless 6400 ISO will happen at some point and probably pretty soon
I will check my cameras to see what setting I have regarding NR and maybe do some comparison shots to see what results I get - though maybe not today as it is very dark and wet here in Belgium.
peace
Kevin
kevinparis
Established
OK - struggling with this forums odd rules about up loading pictures
But I took my E-p1, turned off everything i could relating to noise reduction, Put on a OM 24/2 and focused on the wall across my very rainy courtyard.
Took the raw files into Aperture, made sure the Noise slider in the raw convert was fully off and then made a crop and exported at 100%
these are at 200, 400 and 800 ISO
bottom line is my shots look nowhere as noisy as the poster DNG's did
cheers K
But I took my E-p1, turned off everything i could relating to noise reduction, Put on a OM 24/2 and focused on the wall across my very rainy courtyard.
Took the raw files into Aperture, made sure the Noise slider in the raw convert was fully off and then made a crop and exported at 100%
these are at 200, 400 and 800 ISO
bottom line is my shots look nowhere as noisy as the poster DNG's did
cheers K
Attachments
Similar threads
