The Unbelievable Camera

[charjohncarter]

To answer your question, both of those companies knew how to make a quality product. Although I put my quality money on the lens. E.I. all digital cameras are basically the same.

 

[raid]

Like Robert said above; most likely, it was the photographer, the lens, and the camera. Well done to you three!

 

[David Hughes]

WFMAT?

G

Hi,

Words Fail Me At Times...

Probably like DAK, BLX, TUNHO, QSA and ZAC (or was it ZAK?): I guess no one uses them any more. A pity as the Morse ones hit the nail on the head a lot of the time. Luckily we've still got ORAKO etc.

Regards, David

 

[Godfrey]

To answer your question, both of those companies knew how to make a quality product. Although I put my quality money on the lens. E.I. all digital cameras are basically the same.

Hmm. There I have to disagree. I have five digital cameras, four with interchangeable lenses, and each one renders differently even fitted with the same lens.

G

 

[Godfrey]

...
Surely the question is rhetorical - otherwise the only possible answer is, "...because it has nothing to do with the camera and lens."

It was at least tongue in cheek, but I am seriously quite amazed at the technical capability of this ancient, for a digital camera, equipment. For sake of testing, I ran a few frames yesterday morning at ISO 3200 sensitivity ... Captured raw and processed in Lightroom 5.2RC, they're coarse but quite pleasing. The color noise is suppressed to almost nonexistent even by default and a touch of luminance noise filtering gives them a rendering look similar to 800 print film pushed a stop. I wouldn't normally shoot over ISO 800 with this sensor for good detailing, but I can see using the higher end for when the coarse rendering has aesthetic appeal.

G

 

[IanBiggar]

Did anyone else pick up on the phrase you used - Great "SPECS" and a great camera or is it just my warped sense of humour!
Ian

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I have five digital cameras, four with interchangeable lenses, and each one renders differently even fitted with the same lens.

G

And those differences would be coming from, probably, sensor, software, and the camera settings selected by the photographer.

As to the original post... I find the old cameras can do great images in the right conditions with good technique. But, for indoor available light, I'll take a newer digital body every time.

 

[daveleo]

A great "old" digital camera is the Leica Digilux 2 (when used at ISO 100).
The jpg "engine" is wonderful and the camera B&W conversions are even more wonderful 😀

 

[Godfrey]

And those differences would be coming from, probably, sensor, software, and the camera settings selected by the photographer.

As to the original post... I find the old cameras can do great images in the right conditions with good technique. But, for indoor available light, I'll take a newer digital body every time.

I dont disagree, but Working exclusively with raw files and always with the same raw conversion sw levels the software differences a good bit. Presuming that I use similar exposures for similar lighting situations, the differences in sensors—resolution, AA filters, A->D converters, comb filters, etc—that are part and parcel of different cameras are likely the biggest influences causing the differences I see.

And I certainly agree that when I need more sensitivity, going for a newer camera is the way to go. It just happens that I find the need for greater than ISO 800 to be a relative rarity. 🙂

G

 

[charjohncarter]

Hmm. There I have to disagree. I have five digital cameras, four with interchangeable lenses, and each one renders differently even fitted with the same lens.

G

Check out ColorPerfects website and look at their PerfectRaw processor.

 

[Godfrey]

Check out ColorPerfects website and look at their PerfectRaw processor.

Been there, looked at ColorPerfect (AKA ColorNeg etc) some time back. Doesn't make any difference to my statement as far as I could see.

Different sensors, different AA filters, different A->D converters, different signal processors, etc all make a difference.

Pushing to make the basis of a rendered image by starting with a linear gamma, RGB 16bit-per-component image file as processed from the camera's raw data or out of a scanner is a simplistic way to eliminate all differences and homogenize the results. You can create great renderings that way, but you give up the individual qualities of particular cameras/scanners in the process.

It's like making all the film in the world into Kodachrome 25 as a starting point.. Nice as Kodachrome 25 might be, there's room in the world for Ektachrome, Velvia, etc.

G

 

[David Hughes]

A great "old" digital camera is the Leica Digilux 2 (when used at ISO 100).
The jpg "engine" is wonderful and the camera B&W conversions are even more wonderful 😀

I'll second that and it has a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and ring for changing the zoom; plus that wonderful bounce flash position...

Regards, David

 

[Mystyler]

ISO 800? Wow. If only my budget stretched to the E-1 when I bought my first digital SLR. Still, the E-500 served me well.