JohnL
Very confused
However much I'd like to, I don;t think I can make it from Sao Paulosreidvt said:
lxlim
Member
Sean and Jaap, thanks!
I hope I will be able to try out the 135f2.8. The leica scene in my country is quite rarified here and no trying out of the equipment. In fact, at the leica launch only new products were available, so I was not able to figure out the pros and cons wrt DSLR vs RF for the 135mm.
I hope I will be able to try out the 135f2.8. The leica scene in my country is quite rarified here and no trying out of the equipment. In fact, at the leica launch only new products were available, so I was not able to figure out the pros and cons wrt DSLR vs RF for the 135mm.
S
sreidvt
Guest
Peter Klein said:Sean: First off, thank you so much for keeping us posted about this. As I've said before, you're one of the good guys!
Let me add an "amen" to jlw and John Camp's suggestions about posting an initial file or two taken on a tripod with a known good lens (maybe a 50 Summicron, as most of us know what that lens "looks" like). And a high ISO file or two. Just something for us to peruse while you write and test carefully, that takes lens quality and camera shake out of the equation.
In your review, I'd hope you'll do an A/B shot of the same subject with the M8 and the R-D1, using the same lens and the same subject size in the image.
We live in exciting times!
--Peter
Hi Peter,
Thanks very much. I will be doing direct comparisons between the M8 and both the R-D1 and Canon 5D (for part 3 in the series).
Cheers,
Sean
S
sreidvt
Guest
skimmel said:
Hi Steve,
I know that would be of interest to many and I'm sure someone will do this. It won't be me, however, for two reasons:
1. There are a lot of potential confounding variables
2. Any testing with film is very time consuming and I have a long list of articles that need to be done (not only the M8 but many new lens articles as well).
Best,
Sean
skimmel
Established
sreidvt said:
Thanks Sean. Makes sense.
I agree also that it would be a different type of comparison versus comparing 2 lenses or comparing two digital cameras. The confounding variables are huge -- the extra variable of scan quality itself makes this tough. For me, I guess the real question will be how film vs digital M compare in print form as this will be the key to my decision about switching from film M to digital M. And this is not something that can be demonstrated on the web. (Of course, there is a strong likelihood that if the quality of the digital M is as high as expected, the temptation may be strong enough to overcome the anxiety of parting with so much money!
)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
skimmel said:Thanks Sean. Makes sense.
I agree also that it would be a different type of comparison versus comparing 2 lenses or comparing two digital cameras. The confounding variables are huge -- the extra variable of scan quality itself makes this tough. For me, I guess the real question will be how film vs digital M compare in print form as this will be the key to my decision about switching from film M to digital M. And this is not something that can be demonstrated on the web. (Of course, there is a strong likelihood that if the quality of the digital M is as high as expected, the temptation may be strong enough to overcome the anxiety of parting with so much money!
Finally! Somebody else said it as well. The print quality counts and web images are - well... web images. So true your post
skimmel
Established
jaapv said:Finally! Somebody else said it as well. The print quality counts and web images are - well... web images. So true your post
I agree that scaled-down images for the web are hard to judge. I think that electronic images can be assessed and compared with each other quite well by seasoned reviewers, especially since they have the full-scale images. I use both film and digital (DSLR) and have found over the years that I am getting better and better at judging how a print will look based on what I see on my screen (often looking at 100%).
For a digital vs. film comparison I think Sean is write -- there are just too many variables. I think prints are the best way to try to level the playing field for this type of comparison (with the caveat that there are variables at play with printing too!).
Ultimately, it's a combination of assessment techniques that I find most helpful in helping me to make a decision about a purchase.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
jaapv said:Finally! Somebody else said it as well. The print quality counts and web images are - well... web images. So true your post
What if you never make prints? Sad but true, I almost never print my images any more. For publication, I deliver them on a CD or FTP them to the printer. (Yes, I suppose publication counts as "printing," but the process is so different from photo printing that it introduces a whole new batch of, to borrow the elegant phrase introduced into this discussion by Sean, confounding variables.)
For friends-and-family viewing, I put the images on a web server or make DVDs that people can watch on their TV sets. The web images are available to download for people who want to send them to online labs for prints (I've tried this and the quality seems quite good) but, somewhat to my surprise, hardly anybody ever does this. Most people say they're perfectly happy viewing the images on their computer monitors.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
jlw said:
Sigh- a sign of our sorry times?
pstevenin
Established
Gid said:Sean,
You are a lucky man. As always, I look forward to reading the results of your tests which usually end up costing me money
I'm in the same bucket. My bank account does not like you Sean, but I'll probably check my mail every hour this WE, talented man...
skimmel
Established
jlw said:
What program do you use to make DVDs for TV viewing?
S
sreidvt
Guest
pstevenin said:
Thanks but there's no need to do that. Part 2 will probably be up Monday.
Cheers,
Sean
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
skimmel said:
Apologies to other readers for veering off-topic, but this is where the question was asked, so I thought I'd answer it here:
I work on a Mac and use a $50 program called Photo to Movie 4 (available for Mac or Windows; link here) to sequence the photos and add transitions, zooms, motion, titles, etc. iPhoto and iMove, which come included on Macs, can do similar effects, but Photo to Movie makes a higher-quality final file because it retains more of the original image's resolution.
When the movie is finished, Photo to Movie automatically passes the finished movie file to iDVD (comes with Macs) which preps it for DVD burning. I set the options so the movie auto-plays when inserted into the DVD player -- can't get much more grandma-friendly than that!
Once the DVDs are done, I design a simple label (usually using one of the photos on the disc) and print it onto the printable discs using my Epson R-800 printer. (I bought this printer for printing photos, but mostly use it for printing CDs and DVDs!)
This makes a nice-looking finished product that people seem to appreciate, and the discs cost very little to make. Encoding the first DVD takes several hours -- but once it has been encoded, iDVD will spit out further duplicates in 10 or 15 minutes apiece, so in one evening I can make enough discs to give everyone who attended a party, event, or whatever.
skimmel
Established
Thanks JLW. I realize that was off-topic but I appreciate the opportunity to get your advice.