Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: You've Got To Be Kidding!  (Read 19237 times)
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 24, 2008, 10:58:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Oh come on.
...

Your skin must be at least two or three inches thick!

Thanks for the G10 and other small camera reviews and experiences.



Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #41 on: October 25, 2008, 06:13:30 AM »
ReplyReply

If you saw some of the emails I receive, or what people write on "some other forums" you'd have some idea of why an elephant hide is necessary in this job.

Now I know how politicians must feel with their every word and action parsed and critiqued.

Michael

Logged
billh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


« Reply #42 on: October 25, 2008, 08:09:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
If you saw some of the emails I receive, or what people write on "some other forums" you'd have some idea of why an elephant hide is necessary in this job.

Now I know how politicians must feel with their every word and action parsed and critiqued.

Michael

Michael,

Have you noticed that the most frequent, nastiest posters almost never post or have links to their photos? When, in the rare case they finally do make one available, they are truly awful. I have seen that time and time again.

The other thing I see is the difficulty of trying to determine comparisons or facets of a camera or lens compared to another one. I used Nikons (film) for years, switched to Canon (1Ds,1D2,1Ds2), then back to Nikon (D3) because of the AF tracking of the D3 (worked better for what I was doing). The perennial question is whether to buy the Nikon version of the 300 f2.8, or get the 200-400 f4.0. Try posting a question about them and you get many strong opinions, but very few examples of images - and most I saw were simply unsharp. (I ended up taking a chance on the 200-400, and while long and heavy, it is very sharp with excellent contrast).

I find the information on your site to consistently be the best available -  When I use equipment or software you have reviewed, I find myself in agreement with comments you have written. I am glad you do have such thick skin!

Bill
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2008, 09:35:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I might disagree with Michael on a few things, but the key element here is respect.
Have to say, I wouldn't want to compare myself to a politician though, as I think so little of them in general, find an honest one..you will be kept looking for some time.
Overall this is a good site, with mostly good people. Though I have always felt that the emphasis has been a little too much on testing. But then I am not the one running a "successful"  website, so credit where it is due.
Most people are adult enough to be able to disagree, in a civilised way. I like Michael's work, it's very nice, still does not convince me about the 6mp v 35mm argument though ;-) But there are surely more important matters to concern ourselves with.
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 25, 2008, 12:08:59 PM »
ReplyReply

After Michael's review I engaged in some "impulse buying" and rushed to my local camera store and purchased a G10.  Since I don't have a little discrete camera to carry around I though this would be a good move.  What I found after carrying the camera around with me yesterday quickly shooting this and that, is this can be a handy thing to have.  I can carry it in my very small purse, hang it from my wrist, or drop in my Camelback pack during a hike.....For me I need to stay at 80 or 100 iso (preferably 80) and have reasonable lighting. (but keep in mind I always try to use 50 iso on my Phase back and the "L" setting on my Canon).... I made a stunning 13X19 print of some flower pots and  you would be hard pressed to tell this was from a point and shoot...really. (excellent detail in highlights and shadows)..... I am used to shooting with an H2 with a P45+ Phase back so I know what good files look like.  Of course this is different from my Phase files and from my larger Canon 35mm files but these files from this little camera are good and all I had to process the raw from them was the Canon software which isn't all that great.  

Attached is a small jpg of the file I printed from 16 bit tiff.  (or I hope it's attached because I don't see it in the message window!) Eleanor
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 25, 2008, 02:42:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

I think that Michael just did an adhoc test. We all now that smaller formats have greater DOF, in some cases this works in favor of smaller formats and sometimes against. I actually had a similar experience when I was shooting MF film when I run out of 135 film. I was shooting MF as I would shoot 135, results were really worse than with 135 mostly because of lack of DOF. Normally my MF pictures were much better than my 135 work but not this time. Horses for the courses, Michael used to say.

I would say that tripod is what makes MF work. With tripod you can stop down. A tripod also helps to calm down, work slowly. With a small camera you can shoot free hand, large aperture. Image stabilisation certainly helps. I guess that smaller format always wins regarding convenience. To fully utilize larger formats needs some careful work.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: Ray
The point has probably been missed by some of you, that F11 on a DB produces a shallower DoF than F3.5 on a P&S, so there are inevitably some parts of that MFDB image that are less sharp than the G10 image. This is why I say that the circumstances where the P&S can take on the much heavier and more expensive camera are narrow.

Michael appears to have started with the MFDB shot, choosing an aperture that is moderately sharp and which provides a reasonable DoF, then as an after thought decided to shoot the same scene with the G10. To get the same DoF with the G10, he would have needed to use F1.8 which the G10 obviously doesn't have. Alternatively, he could have retaken the DB shot using F22 instead of F11. Doing that might have produced an even more shocking result because then the DB image might have been noticeably less sharp than the G10 in all parts of the image.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 02:45:03 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #46 on: October 25, 2008, 06:40:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eleanorbrown
After Michael's review I engaged in some "impulse buying" and rushed to my local camera store and purchased a G10.....
Very nice photo. If what you get from a camera is a function of how much effort you put in (given the skills you already have), then the return ratio on the G10 is very, very good.
Logged
Brad01
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


WWW
« Reply #47 on: October 25, 2008, 07:29:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
Very nice photo. If what you get from a camera is a function of how much effort you put in (given the skills you already have), then the return ratio on the G10 is very, very good.

This is my first post to this forum and my decision to join was triggered by Michaels' article which struck a chord with me, (though I have been visiting the site regularly for years).

Without going into to too many details, I earn 75% of my income from teaching digital photography and related skills and I have been expressing the same sentiments as Michael in classes for a long time now, in fact I have held 2 exhibitions in the last 6 months in which the great majority of the images were shot on compacts (all 10 megs or less).  The most common question I get from students and exhibition attendees is usually "what camera did you shoot that on"  I actually try to avoid telling people as much as possible, usually saying something like "well what do you think of the image'.  The problem is a lot of people seem to equate the value of the image with the gear used, so as soon as you say Oh it was shot on this (expensive camera or DSLR etc) they respond with, "so that's why its so good". This really is an insult to the photographers skill and vision, so I try to avoid it so as my students can start to realize that learning skills is more important than collecting gear.

Of course when they find out that the 20 by 24 inch image they are looking at was shot on a lowly 6 meg Fuji f30 or similar they are at a loss for words.

I really do thank Michael for his article, I think it is fair, down to earth and makes very valid points, I just hope his flame suit is intact as the fires are breathing heavy over at DP review, suddenly he has gone from knowledgeable expert to hack snapper, what an insult to his skills and contribution to the art over the years.  We have great gear out there in all formats and there is no reason why they can't all find happy homes side by side in camera bags.  Right camera for the right job, that's what really matters I feel.

A couple of quick questions: Is it Ok to place a link to ones website here in a post, some folk may be interested to have a look at my compact exhibition images (note there is no indicators on any image of what they were shot on, I have stripped the exif date deliberately).

Secondly to Michael, I have a 10 page article on this very issue which I have written over the past 3 weeks and I am posting it to my Website tomorrow, I was wondering if it would be OK to cut and paste a couple of you conclusion paragraphs for the article, (with credit and links of course), it would add a little extra I feel.  (I can send you a PDF first to look at, if you like).

Cheers
Brad
Logged

Brad
If my photos are any good today, its only because I have made lots of mistakes in the past!
01imaging.com
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3239



WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 25, 2008, 08:51:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: billh
Michael,
Have you noticed that the most frequent, nastiest posters almost never post or have links to their photos? When, in the rare case they finally do make one available, they are truly awful. I have seen that time and time again.
And if queried about not showing their work they come up with all sorts of really lame excuses.
It would be nice if you could only post on here if you didn't hide behind an alias and also had a website to show your work.

Brad's post above reminded me of the fact that some of the most popular images in my print portfolio were taken on an Ixus II - a 2.1MP camera.
I'd be interested to see your shots Brad. BTW - You can simply add your website to your signature or to your profile.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Brad01
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 25, 2008, 09:42:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
And if queried about not showing their work they come up with all sorts of really lame excuses.
It would be nice if you could only post on here if you didn't hide behind an alias and also had a website to show your work.

Brad's post above reminded me of the fact that some of the most popular images in my print portfolio were taken on an Ixus II - a 2.1MP camera.
I'd be interested to see your shots Brad. BTW - You can simply add your website to your signature or to your profile.


Thanks JJJ, sorted that out.

By all means check the site, its pretty new (just a couple of months) so I still have lots of pics and articles I have written to post but time is short till Christmas, most colour images are shot on compacts, though some are on film and DSLR.  Monochromes are from compacts and film.
Logged

Brad
If my photos are any good today, its only because I have made lots of mistakes in the past!
01imaging.com
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #50 on: October 25, 2008, 11:03:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Ray,

I think that Michael just did an adhoc test. We all now that smaller formats have greater DOF, in some cases this works in favor of smaller formats and sometimes against. I actually had a similar experience when I was shooting MF film when I run out of 135 film. I was shooting MF as I would shoot 135, results were really worse than with 135 mostly because of lack of DOF. Normally my MF pictures were much better than my 135 work but not this time. Horses for the courses, Michael used to say.

I would say that tripod is what makes MF work. With tripod you can stop down. A tripod also helps to calm down, work slowly. With a small camera you can shoot free hand, large aperture. Image stabilisation certainly helps. I guess that smaller format always wins regarding convenience. To fully utilize larger formats needs some careful work.

Best regards
Erik

I know. I wasn't criticising Michael's comparison. Merely pointing out that any sense that the MFDB image is not as sharp as it could be is probably due to its shallower DoF, plus the fact that modern lenses designed for MFDBs, with their smaller image circle, are generally not sharpest at F11, although maybe acceptably sharp.

The fact is, the higher pixel count DBs have the pixel density of full frame 35mm DSLRs, and we all know that F22 (the equivalent DoF aperture to the G10's F3.5) is the aperture where diffraction effects are fairly obvious and resolution noticeably soft.

The strengths of the P&S are its extensive DoF and excellent macro capability. It's weaknesses are in the areas of DR, shutter lag, lack of shallow DoF, slow frame rates. I'd like to see a P&S like the G10 made of lighter materials, and the weight savings used to provide additional circuitry and processing power to enable faster frame rates in RAW mode (6 fps) with autobracketing of exposure to help overcome its DR disadvantage.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 12:14:11 AM by Ray » Logged
laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


« Reply #51 on: October 26, 2008, 06:50:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Greetings,

I am that chap who went on shooting with Michael for a few days in beautiful parts of Ontario. So I had a chance to examine prints made from the G10 first hand, my own judgement is such that I would have no problem selling fine art prints up to 13x19 carefully crafted with the G10! ymmv

I was tempted to offer Michael a bet on how many BS emails he will receive in the first 24 hours after releasing this article, my guess would have been above 100.  

As Jeff Schewe probably would say <grin>...."In the grand scheme of things....", this camera is capable to produce stunning details, comparable to the output of backs that cost considerably more.

Best wishes

Georg Baumann
Oceanviewstudio - Ireland
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 06:51:24 AM by laughingbear » Logged
Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2008, 06:57:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: laughingbear
I am that chap who went on shooting with Michael for a few days in beautiful parts of Ontario. So I had a chance to examine prints made from the G10 first hand, my own judgement is such that I would have no problem selling fine art prints up to 13x19 carefully crafted with the G10! ymmv

I'm convinced! But my G9 isn't bad either at low ISO and in good light. I'm looking forward to a direct comparison between the G9 and the G10 using the same RAW converter for both (when support for the G10 becomes available), to see if the improvement is large enough to warrant the upgrade from G9 to G10.
Logged

frankric
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2008, 07:50:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eleanorbrown
(but keep in mind I always try to use 50 iso on my Phase back and the "L" setting on my Canon)....

Eleanor

FWIW I remember reading some time ago (from a source I respect but cannot now remember) that the "L" setting on Canons roughly halves the base ISO, but the image quality is actually a little poorer than that at the base ISO setting.

It's not something I've tested for myself, as I've been perfectly happy with the image quality of my Canons at 100 ISO and have not felt the need to go down to 50 ISO.

Thought it was worth mentioning....

Regards

Frank
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 07:51:27 AM by frankric » Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2008, 08:26:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mikelouw
I'm convinced! But my G9 isn't bad either at low ISO and in good light. I'm looking forward to a direct comparison between the G9 and the G10 using the same RAW converter for both (when support for the G10 becomes available), to see if the improvement is large enough to warrant the upgrade from G9 to G10.

I would say the same altho' I don't really plan to upgrade regardless, but  my problem isn't with IQ but rather with the use of the G9.  I just have problems using the LCD for composition.  In moderate light or with shadowing with one hand (and I hate shooting with just one hand) then I can generally see 'well enough' to compose, focus, but in many cases with just normal daylight, its really not good enough to be more than generally sure.  I bought a Voigtlander 35mm VF and like it at 35 very much--but don't use it at that FL all the time.  I tried adapting to the 80% or so view of the VF and sometimes that's fine, but just in general---I find myself often frustrated wtih the LCD.    Then there are lower light issues where I can compose and focus just fine--but the need for higher ISOs negates the pluses.  I did find the IS did make it possible to shoot at lower ISOs and lower shutter speeds by a good bit from my DSLRs though.

  I'm ready for a really good small cam.  I'll hang onto the G9 for now (though I use it very little--I bought a used 400D that I carry with small primes for hiking) and watch as things evolve in the small camera market.

Diane
Logged
bigwade
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #55 on: October 26, 2008, 02:14:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, First post here.

A compact like a G10 isn't a bad idea for landscapes at all.
If a higher resolution is needed just do a multishot and stitch them.
No MF needed unless you want to play with DOF.
At Max Lyons Forum: http://tinyurl.com/6colyd all Hi-Res images are composed.

My own from april this year:
G9, RRS L-bracket, Q-Top Quickmount, Feisol 3441 Travel tripod, upper part of the centre column used as rotator,
1,4 kilo all together
Camera at M, AF, only one row, JPG, 80 iso, daylight etc. 8bit.

http://tinyurl.com/3fowux
Use the arrows left/right at the bottom for next/previous

01) 18498x3997 pix - 211,5Mb
02) 19360x3904 pix - 216,2Mb
03) 14130x3651 pix - 147,6Mb
04) 5807x3382 pix - 56,2Mb
05) 15764x2898 pix - 130,7Mb
06) 11825x3829 pix - 129,5Mb

At 100% these images are not as nice as results from a dslr.
Should have shot RAW's :-(
Good enough for print anyway.

The G9 misses a remote option and bracketing at "M".
The G10 has a remote option but still misses bracketing at "M".

Shooting with more rows can result in  very Hi-Res images.....
No need to buy a Hassy for me..
Have Fun !
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 26, 2008, 05:25:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Frank for your input.  My personal experience with "L" setting (ie: 50 iso) is that I get better dynamic range and smoother overall tonalities---I have "better exposed pixels" to work with in the low range for RAW adjustments and end up with really wonderful results. I can pull tons of information out of my shadows.....I never liked grain when I worked in the darkroom with film and I don't like noise in digital...that's just me.  eleanor


Quote from: frankric
Eleanor

FWIW I remember reading some time ago (from a source I respect but cannot now remember) that the "L" setting on Canons roughly halves the base ISO, but the image quality is actually a little poorer than that at the base ISO setting.

It's not something I've tested for myself, as I've been perfectly happy with the image quality of my Canons at 100 ISO and have not felt the need to go down to 50 ISO.

Thought it was worth mentioning....

Regards

Frank
Logged

bigwade
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #57 on: October 26, 2008, 05:58:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eleanorbrown
Thanks Frank for your input.  My personal experience with "L" setting (ie: 50 iso) is that I get better dynamic range and smoother overall tonalities---I have "better exposed pixels" to work with in the low range for RAW adjustments and end up with really wonderful results. I can pull tons of information out of my shadows.....I never liked grain when I worked in the darkroom with film and I don't like noise in digital...that's just me.  eleanor

Eleanor, please look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page22.asp
DR @50 is Less !
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #58 on: October 26, 2008, 06:45:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Prehaps I used dynamic range when I should have said shadow range or something of that effect.  What I'm interested in is a minimum amount of noise in my shadows and I want the option to pull out all the high quality shadow noiseless detail I can and by trial and error L "curve" setting gave me that option.   Honestly I very seldom read instructions and don't pay too much attention to charts...I experiment with  different settings on my cameras and find the settings that do what I'm looking for and go from there.......and the L setting really works for me in many instances for the reasons I've outlined.  My background is in low iso 4X5 large format films and fine grain developing and the need for that "look" carries over to digital for me.  I also have a Canon 5D that is converted for IR photography only and have tried the L setting on that camera too and and am getting some really nice results.  Eleanor

Quote from: bigwade
Eleanor, please look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page22.asp
DR @50 is Less !
Logged

larsrc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 28, 2008, 08:33:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Oh come on.

This was one file, and both cameras had the same advantages and disadvantages under the situation.

Lots of other files were shot and my point about experts not being able to see differences on 13X19" prints stands.

One can nit pick, but it doesn't change the results.

And yes, trust me, after some tens of thousands of medium format shots with a dozen different cameras and at least half that many backs I do indeed know what a technically good shot looks like.

If I'd posted another pair someone would likely have found some other nit to pick.

Just download some of my sample G10 files, make a print or two, and then judge for yourself what this little sucker can do.

Michael

In fact, if it were the case that a MF camera was so hard to use that even a long-time user like you, trying to be precise, would still not be able to get a good shot, then that'd be another bonus for the G10: They can actually be used by human beings.

-Lars
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad