Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples  (Read 23482 times)
bigalbest
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53



« Reply #140 on: February 22, 2010, 02:08:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ced
bigalbest thanks but you ought to put a 35dslr image (i.e to directly compare) so the viewers can see what you mean by the claim. KR!

That's alright, I really don't care if you agree with me or not. I also don't know how I let myself get sucked into this pointless discussion and probably won't comment on 35mm vs. MF again. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.  
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #141 on: February 22, 2010, 02:10:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Here is a article that explains ND and Polarizers http://nyfalls.com/article-photographing-2.html. Also you have to remember your shooting a 35mm at Base ISO 200 with a AA filter to start now your going to add a filter or even more than one filter which is adding more glass to the front end that cause more degradation to the image. Bright sun at F16 is 1/250 at base ISO 200. You can't stop down any further with 35mm without diffraction so to get it down to a number that can blur maybe up to 6 stops that means now you just added two filters. 2 stops for a Polarizer and many folks will buy a 4 stop ND so they have 2, 4 and 6 stops to work with, I know people that buy a 6 stop ND . Take 6 stops off and you are at 1/4 of a second which maybe not enough to get a effect you may desire some yes depending on water flow but you just added a lot of stuff on the front end of your lens. Now i should have not said the word fact so forgive me but shooting water under different varies lighting and movement of water sometimes you want to get to even 6 seconds or more. I have done 30 at F22 ISO 50 in the very early predawn
Sunny 16 exposure rarely comes into play when shooting water features though, at least for me. I don't usually try for that "smooth" waterfall/creek shot under full midday sun. I have a Vari-ND, which lets me dial in anywhere from 2-8 stops of filtration with a single high-quality filter. But to be honest I almost never use it, usually a polarizer gives me slow enough shutter speeds when shooting that sort of stuff, and I sually want at least some polarizing effect for those types of scenes anyway.  Getting a long shutter speed during twilight/dusk hours, or in a heavily shaded forest canopy on an overcast day, just isn't a problem even at ISO-200.

I shoot with a D3x now, so my base ISO is 100. But after previously shooting with a base-ISO of 200, I miss it. More often than not, a fast shutter speed is preferable to avoid wind-induced movement in foliage and trees. So for me, adding extra filtration on those rare occasions when I need a slow shutter speed is preferable to having to bump ISO when I need a faster shutter speed.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 02:16:34 PM by JeffKohn » Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #142 on: February 22, 2010, 02:53:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Different strokes but I rather have a base ISO at 50 my last back was 100 the P30+ and there are times I wished for a slower shutter without resorting to a Polarizer. ISO 200 on the P40+ is just a no brainer now if I need it. But I can tell ya that is all I have in my bag , there is no need for a ND at all. Besides all that i don't want anything ever in front of my sensor that includes AA filters. To me it's like shooting through a screen door. One of the main reasons I shot Leica's for a long time with the DMR and M8 was no AA filters , going to MF was a natural progression up in sensor. But many feel that the DSLR's are enough for them and I am not here to argue that point at all. We all make choices on gear and I have no regrets spending the money on MF and actually end of day think it was a good investment for what i do. Even though I will lose my shirt on resale that is just the way MF is it seems. I went from the P30+ to P40+ in a upgrade and i tested it 3 times before I made that decision which is way more than I normally would but I wanted to see what that upgrade actually did for me. Anyway not everyone wants to buy into MF as well and totally understand that but people need to try it before beating it down the hill because there is so much more to them than just general argument points. No question they have there limits as well. There is no perfect solution and NEVER will be. Anything you buy is a compromise on something what the buyer needs to figure out is what they can live with.
Logged

mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #143 on: February 22, 2010, 04:10:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Off to the Olympics.

yeah, I'm going to go argue somewhere about ski wax.

I remember when I bought my first $100 an ounce Cera F glide wax in what, 1986? That was **great** wax!  

of course now I am 40 pounds heavier and have not skied in 6 years.

I also remember the 5 pound jars of hydroquinine from mixing my own developer 30 years ago, my first $2,500 (home) medium format film scanner from 1998, etc.

Guess I should have paid more attention to content  and ideas. Might have somehing to show for all that .....

I do appreciate the review Ted, and the informed discussions. It all just gets so tedius......

Cheers,
Michael
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 04:16:14 PM by mmurph » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #144 on: February 22, 2010, 05:13:10 PM »
ReplyReply

You wonder why I don't visit the Canon and Nikon forums. LOL
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #145 on: February 22, 2010, 06:33:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

Much depends on how big you print, but also on subject selection. The experiment you mention with the P45+ and the G10 was just one case.

I have done some testing recently, essentially looking into Full Frame vs. APS-C. I a sense this is similar to the DSLR vs. MFDB. There are also differences as both formats in this case use very similar basic technology. The basis of my comparisons was A2-size prints. In all the tests I have made the FF images were much better when scaled to the same size and seen at actual pixels, in print however much smaller difference could be seen. In one of the tests no difference could be seen.

The processing chain obviously plays a major role here. Would I print larger like A1 the differences would be more obvious.

Another observation I may make is that an FF DSLR at optimum aperture (around f/8) would perform like an MFDB with lens stopped down to f/16 or f/22, due to diffraction.

Of course, there are other factors than MTF and resolution.

I also have a comment on the DR figure. MF sensors have larger pixels, so they can store more electrons. That essentially means that they will have less stochastic noise. Now, DxO-mark measures DR defined as

(maximum signal)/(signal at SNR=1)

noise here is defined as read noise in the sensor. But, for normal photography an SNR of 1 is not really useful. At larger SNR photon noise would play a larger role. Therefore an MFDB may perform better regarding DR/noise characteristics compared to DSLRs with smaller pixels. The DxO definition of DR is the technically correct generally accepted definition, by the way.

A good thing about this discussion may be that some people may save some money. In my view it's quite obvious that MFDBs have some advantages, but some folks may assume that they need MFDBs to make sellable images. That need may be smaller than perceived by many.

Finally, whatever technological advantages one tool, like MFDBs, may have it may be quickly destroyed by sloppy technique.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Ray
I can believe you missed it because you also missed my reply to Jack where I stated that a more affordable, lighter and less disadvantaged digital MF would be appealing.

In the days of film, not only was the price difference between 35mm format and MF not nearly as great as it is between the DSLR and the DB, but we also had more substantial differences in quality between the formats. Quite often the additional resolution provided by the larger piece of film was not required, but the smoothness, the greater tonality and the freedom of grain were always apparent at any reasonable print size.

It's difficult to imagine that it might be impossible for viewers to guess which camera was used when comparing two A3 size prints of the same scene, one taken with 35mm film and the other taken with 6x7 format. However, such difficulty in seeing the difference between the Canon G10 and the P45+ on A3+ prints was recently demonstrated by Michael.

You probably also missed in this thread the fact that I've admitted (and in fact have never denied on any thread) that the larger sensor always tends to have some qualitative advantage over the smaller sensor, whether it be higher resolution, greater DR or better tonal range. My complaint is that the qualitative differences between the formats are now not as great as they used to be in the days of film, especially using the D3X as a benchmark, but the price difference certainly is.

I get the impression that those who extoll the virtues of the current MFDB systems are engaging in a bit of hyperbole to justify the outrageous prices.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 06:36:15 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8878


« Reply #146 on: February 22, 2010, 10:46:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Ray you did not answer the question but went off on some other path. Bottom line is they sell to Nikon does it pay to show a P65 better. Makes you wonder. I never trusted DXO numbers first it is not real world and that is fine if you do . Not here to debate them but i can tell you I could not get this detail in the foreground with 35mm period. I would maybe even get it with a P25+ a P45+ I would say pretty much but after a lot of testing the P65 and P40 smoke those 2 backs on DR. This is a P40+ shot which without any work to it I don't believe shooting into a sunset this detail would show. This is the stuff I go by. If you want to go by DXO numbers great but I go by direct comparisons of known backs and real world situations. With that I have work to get done. But go out and test. I do it all the time with public results . If I wanted a D3X i would buy one without concern I know it is a good cam. That is not the point though. I can buy anything I want, it's all a write off anyway.

You also admit that cost is a concern and i hear that everyday and totally understand it but there is a lot to MF that many just want to blank out as well because they simply want to avoid paying. Which in turn makes there 35mm chose the best thing going. Sorry folks i own a forum too but i see this everyday in a Canon or Nikon forum. Defending it until the cows come home, which is fine but if your really interested in MF than you should go demo it and work with the files. There is a lot to it than just simple DR , noise levels. Honestly i don't care what folks buy all I care about is they have the correct information before they buy anything.


Guy, I thought I'd answered you pretty clearly. I tend to base my opinions on the evidence. If I have reason to doubt the impartiality or accuracy of the evidence presented, I'll do my own tests, if I'm able to without too much expense and inconvenience, and if I have the time.

When the 15mp Canon 50D was realeased over a year ago, an upgrade from the 10mp 40D, I decided the upgraded features were significant enough to justify the purchase of the camera even though I already owned a 40D.

One point that was raised by many folks on this forum and elswhere, was that the 50% increase in pixel count of the 50D meant that the camera would provide no resolution benefit (compared with the 40D) at apertures smaller than F8 because the effects of diffraction would negate any potential increase in resolution. Such opinions seemed to be based on theories relating to the diffraction spot size or Airey disc at F stops greater than F8, compared with the 50D pixel size.

Owning both cameras, I decided to check this issue for myself, using one of my best prime lenses, the Canon 50/1.4, using the LiveView feature on both cameras to achieve accurate focussing, using tripod remote cord and MLU enabled, as well as employing in all respects the usual flawless technique for which I am famous. I confirmed for myself that F22 was the stop at which no resolution benefit was gained from the 50D. At F16, the resolution of the 50D images is about the same as the resolution of the 40D at F11, and the resolution of the 50D images at F11 is about the same as that of the 40D at F8.

Now theories should always be tested against reality. DXO Mark's data are not theory. They are practical results flowing from highly specialised and carefully conducted test procedures. The idea that DXO Labs are in the pocket of Nikon, deliberately exagerating the impressiveness of the D3X test results, and/or deliberately diminishing the P65+ test results to make the D3X results appear more impressive, is just preposterous, unless you are into conspiracy theories.

DXO Labs produce a RAW converter for many brands of cameras, Pentax, Canon, Sony, Panasonic etc. How do you think those other manufacturers would feel, as well as DXO customers, if they thought Nikon was getting special treatment which was not deserved?

The D3X appears to be the only 35mm camera that exceeds the image quality of MFDB in some respects, but not in any significant way. A half stop increase in DR, compared with the P65+, on same size prints, is no big deal, but it's better than 1/2 a stop worse DR. Of course there are other areas in performance where the P65+ is at least slightly better than the D3X, such as marginally better tonal range, marginally better color sensitivity and marginally lower noise at 18% grey, not to mention the obvious improvement of increased resolution on very big prints. Anyone who owns an Epson Stylus 9900 or 11880 would find the additional pixel count of the P65+ very useful.

So, once again, I have no reason to suspect that the DXO test procedure is flawed. If you do have reason to suspect it is flawed with respect to the P65+, then please do us all a favour by demonstrating this with evidence.

If you do decide to do this, a few words of advice; make sure the lighting is the same for both shots and that both shots are truly and equally exposed-to-the-right; try to get the focussing exactly on the same spot in both shots, and always adjust focal length and aperture for equal FoV and DoF.

The P65+ sensor is slightly larger than most DBs which means there'll be slightly more than a stop difference for same DoF. F8 on the P65+ should be equivalent to F5 on the D3X, and F13 on the P65+ should be equivalent to F8 on the D3X.

Although your sunset shot with dark foreground is a lovely shot, it cannot demonstrate the qualities of MFDB. You need a comparison of the same scene. In any case, you must have read of Michael's comparison between the P45+ and the Canon G10 P&S. After showing A3+ prints of both images, experienced photographers found it impossible to tell which print was from which camera, until it was realised that the slightly shallower DoF in one of the prints was a clue that the print was probably made for the MFDB image. Your web image is smaller than A3.

I've also got a sunset shot with a dark foreground which is reasonably clean, taken many years ago with my first DSLR, the very limited 6mp cropped-format Canon D60.  

[attachment=20431:Sunset_at_Karumba.jpg]
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 10:50:49 PM by Ray » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #147 on: February 22, 2010, 11:48:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray honestly I could care less what ANY 35mm does at all been there done that have the gold T shirt. It's not what I want to shoot  again if I can help it. You can continue to pick everything in the world apart that is your right for sure. I have been doing this for 35 years and digital since 1990 that's 20 years in Digital alone. If I am shooting MF digital that sort of tells you something does it not.

Answering any more of your comments is seriously just flat out insane to do . Your better served on any Canon forum where people actually may listen to you. Sorry bud I don't need your advice on photography. Let's be very clear on that one.  Bye Bye
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 11:58:31 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8878


« Reply #148 on: February 23, 2010, 12:40:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi!

Much depends on how big you print, but also on subject selection. The experiment you mention with the P45+ and the G10 was just one case.

I have done some testing recently, essentially looking into Full Frame vs. APS-C. I a sense this is similar to the DSLR vs. MFDB. There are also differences as both formats in this case use very similar basic technology. The basis of my comparisons was A2-size prints. In all the tests I have made the FF images were much better when scaled to the same size and seen at actual pixels, in print however much smaller difference could be seen. In one of the tests no difference could be seen.

The processing chain obviously plays a major role here. Would I print larger like A1 the differences would be more obvious.

Another observation I may make is that an FF DSLR at optimum aperture (around f/8) would perform like an MFDB with lens stopped down to f/16 or f/22, due to diffraction.

Of course, there are other factors than MTF and resolution.

I also have a comment on the DR figure. MF sensors have larger pixels, so they can store more electrons. That essentially means that they will have less stochastic noise. Now, DxO-mark measures DR defined as

(maximum signal)/(signal at SNR=1)

noise here is defined as read noise in the sensor. But, for normal photography an SNR of 1 is not really useful. At larger SNR photon noise would play a larger role. Therefore an MFDB may perform better regarding DR/noise characteristics compared to DSLRs with smaller pixels. The DxO definition of DR is the technically correct generally accepted definition, by the way.

A good thing about this discussion may be that some people may save some money. In my view it's quite obvious that MFDBs have some advantages, but some folks may assume that they need MFDBs to make sellable images. That need may be smaller than perceived by many.

Finally, whatever technological advantages one tool, like MFDBs, may have it may be quickly destroyed by sloppy technique.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,
You make some good points which need further investigation.

Quote
Much depends on how big you print, but also on subject selection. The experiment you mention with the P45+ and the G10 was just one case.

I know. I'm surprised Michael published this test. It raises a few unanswered questions. It's true that the nature of the subject was not suitable to reveal DR differences, for example, because there was a blown sky in both shots. But what intrigues me is the possibility that the use of an appropriate aperture with the P45 to equalise DoF, which instead of the F11 which was used, should have been something like F18, might not only have truly made it impossible to distinguish between the two prints, but the two prints could have been slightly larger because of the slightly reduced resolution of the P45 at F18.

Quote
I have done some testing recently, essentially looking into Full Frame vs. APS-C. I a sense this is similar to the DSLR vs. MFDB. There are also differences as both formats in this case use very similar basic technology. The basis of my comparisons was A2-size prints. In all the tests I have made the FF images were much better when scaled to the same size and seen at actual pixels, in print however much smaller difference could be seen. In one of the tests no difference could be seen.

I can believe that's true. I've done my own tests in this regard and found that none of my cropped-format DSLRs have quite the same tonal range and freedom from noise as my full frame cameras.

However, again one should be wary about exaggerating the differences. Different format cameras require different focal length lenses and different apertures for the same FoV and DoF.

If your purpose is to get the shallowest of DoFs with the lowest possible noise and the greatest DR, then the larger format does have a clear advantage. For example, cropped-format or APS-C lenses do not have wider maximum apertures than full frame lenses. An equivalent to the 85/1.2 for cropped-format would need to be a 50/0.75. There's no such lens. The closest is the 50/1.2, equivalent to an 85mm (or more precisely 80mm, but let's not quibble) at F2.

Now I don't have any MTF charts to present, but I'm pretty sure the 85/1.2 at F2 is sharper than the 50/1.2 at F1.2. Since the cropped-format tends to have a higher pixel density, its lenses at whatever aperture used, need to be sharper, not less sharp.

However, at the other end of the spectrum, the situation is markedly different. The smaller format tends to have the advantage, especially when you take shutter speed into consideration.

There have been many comments in this thread about the MFDB advantages of low ISO and long shutter speeds. You don't need to use an ND filter with MFDB, which we all know are terribly inconvenient, terribly difficult to fit to the lens and really require a special training course to get the hang of it, unless of course you are terribly adept and have natural talent like me.

However, consider the consequences whenever a high shutter speed is required to freeze any motion in the scene. Your F11 at 1/200th sec and ISO 100 with the cropped-format, becomes F18 at ISO 250. In these circumstances, the full frame 35mm has a much smaller advantage. In fact, very marginal according to my own tests.

Quote
I also have a comment on the DR figure. MF sensors have larger pixels, so they can store more electrons. That essentially means that they will have less stochastic noise. Now, DxO-mark measures DR defined as

(maximum signal)/(signal at SNR=1)

noise here is defined as read noise in the sensor. But, for normal photography an SNR of 1 is not really useful. At larger SNR photon noise would play a larger role. Therefore an MFDB may perform better regarding DR/noise characteristics compared to DSLRs with smaller pixels. The DxO definition of DR is the technically correct generally accepted definition, by the way.

My understanding is that photon noise is generally insignificant at base ISO, unless the format is really small, as in P&S cameras. At smaller SNR, not larger, photon noise plays a larger role
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8878


« Reply #149 on: February 23, 2010, 12:46:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Ray honestly I could care less what ANY 35mm does at all been there done that have the gold T shirt. It's not what I want to shoot  again if I can help it. You can continue to pick everything in the world apart that is your right for sure. I have been doing this for 35 years and digital since 1990 that's 20 years in Digital alone. If I am shooting MF digital that sort of tells you something does it not.

Answering any more of your comments is seriously just flat out insane to do . Your better served on any Canon forum where people actually may listen to you. Sorry bud I don't need your advice on photography. Let's be very clear on that one.  Bye Bye


What a terribly arrogant attitude to have. I'm not hurt one bit that you want to pick up your ball and go home, but surely you must realise that such an attitude simply reinforces any perception out there that that the MFDB advantage over 35mm is a bit of a con.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #150 on: February 23, 2010, 01:41:38 AM »
ReplyReply

And you post that time and again on a MFDB FORUM !!!!
It's like posting time and time again on a Volvo forum that an Opel is better, but also saying you never ever drove a Volvo yourself.

Ray,
you never gave a good answer to my remarks about things a DSLR can't do, but keep preaching your believes.
This shows me that you are just a techhead without any idea about real world applications.

To be honest I couldn't care less if a MFDB had 1 stop less dynamic range than a D3X, as long as I can shoot f16 on ISO50 with strobes and still get a wonderful DOF instead of using f32 on a base 200 ISO machine and getting terrible diffraction and DOF from begin to end the story is nul and void for me.

When do you realize that both systems take photos, both systems can take breathtaking photos when operated by a good photographer.
But both systems are also different in approach and possibilities.

There is NO WINNER.

That said.
The pure IMAGE quality of MF beats any 35mm DSLR I've seen when viewed straight out of the camera, with the Leica in a close second.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8878


« Reply #151 on: February 23, 2010, 01:53:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
And you post that time and again on a MFDB FORUM !!!!
It's like posting time and time again on a Volvo forum that an Opel is better, but also saying you never ever drove a Volvo yourself.

Ray,
you never gave a good answer to my remarks about things a DSLR can't do, but keep preaching your believes.
This shows me that you are just a techhead without any idea about real world applications.

To be honest I couldn't care less if a MFDB had 1 stop less dynamic range than a D3X, as long as I can shoot f16 on ISO50 with strobes and still get a wonderful DOF instead of using f32 on a base 200 ISO machine and getting terrible diffraction and DOF from begin to end the story is nul and void for me.

When do you realize that both systems take photos, both systems can take breathtaking photos when operated by a good photographer.
But both systems are also different in approach and possibilities.

There is NO WINNER.

That said.
The pure IMAGE quality of MF beats any 35mm DSLR I've seen when viewed straight out of the camera, with the Leica in a close second.


No! no! no!, Frank,
You've got me all wrong. I'm not into belief systems. I form an opinion based only on the evidence. I know that 100% crops of MFDB files are sharper and more detailed than 100% crops of any FF 35mm files, provide the MFDB has a greater pixel count, which is usually the case.

It's the print that counts. If the production of large prints, 4'x6' and larger, is your speciality, then the MFDB, especialyy the P65+, is the obvious choice. I wouln't argue with that. I'm not silly.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2399



WWW
« Reply #152 on: February 23, 2010, 02:31:57 AM »
ReplyReply

The ignore button works wonders in cases like this where a single individual continues to instigate with no real interest or use in the answers. He has stated he never plans to buy use or test any MF gear.  Basically he's got time to kill and he's burning up yours.  And the very worst part of it all is in just a month or two he's going to do the same thing all over again because he can and someone always takes the bait.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #153 on: February 23, 2010, 03:30:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey there Ray.  Just one simple question, you think you could answer it for me?  

...you ever actually shot with a MFDB?

Logged

Ted Dillard
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8878


« Reply #154 on: February 23, 2010, 05:34:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
Hey there Ray.  Just one simple question, you think you could answer it for me?  

...you ever actually shot with a MFDB?
 

No. Show me how much better it can be. Have you ever shot with a D3X? Let's see the difference. Remember the adage, a picture is worth a thousand words.

An honest comparison is worth ten thousand words.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #155 on: February 23, 2010, 05:59:06 AM »
ReplyReply

   
I've never seen such a thread like this!!!

I think Ray will not rest till someone can post a same subject taken in the same conditions with both D3x and a MFD at 100%.



Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #156 on: February 23, 2010, 06:12:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Show me how much better it can be.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...57614936120567/

Well, even those photgraphers here who own and use both and prefer DSLRs for the vast majority of their business (or even do not use MFD anymore at all) admit that the absolute file quality (under appropriate conditions) of MFD is superior. They just don't think they need that little extra more IQ for their business (at least not at that price and especially not if they take the slow workflow and the final size of the image into account) ... and that's certainly an entirely legitimate point of view. Of course it is, as it is based on their daily experience.
But you ... you are the only one who claims there is no noticeable difference. Solely based on your reading of DXO numbers.
And when I tell you the P21+ smokes the A900 at base ISO (yes, even with regard to resolution) you don't belive it because you can't find any numbers about the P21+ at DXOmark.
The point is: you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are just drawing conclusions from numbers on a web page.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #157 on: February 23, 2010, 06:33:51 AM »
ReplyReply

This seems to sum up this thread.


And Ray counter to what you said, you do have a belief system, one that says reading other people's opinion on a camera you have never seen or touched can tell you how good it is for you.
I believe I need to handle kit to to be able to judge it properly, as tech specs are only a small part of the equation whether something is any good or not. As cameras are hand held tools how they fit in the hand and how the UI is designed is incredibly important, as it directly affects how you take photos.
Logged

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

Posts: 36


« Reply #158 on: February 23, 2010, 08:20:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
This seems to sum up this thread.


And Ray counter to what you said, you do have a belief system, one that says reading other people's opinion on a camera you have never seen or touched can tell you how good it is for you.
I believe I need to handle kit to to be able to judge it properly, as tech specs are only a small part of the equation whether something is any good or not. As cameras are hand held tools how they fit in the hand and how the UI is designed is incredibly important, as it directly affects how you take photos.

You could at least post a warning on that gif, I really did almost spit coffee all over my screen when I scrolled down and saw it. I'm a little confused as to why someone who's happy with a 50D is even posting in the MFDB forum to begin with if it's not to instigate shit. It's sort of like posting how you don't like big women on a jenny craig forum. Just isn't going to lead to good things.
Logged

___________________________________
brentwardphoto
splashpour.com
pcunite
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #159 on: February 23, 2010, 08:30:14 AM »
ReplyReply

jjj,
Wow that is gory!

I think Ray wants to hear a MFD user say that they use MFD for other reasons than absolute image quality and then he wants to argue that point maybe in favor of 35mm.

Hey Ray, I use 35mm and it is not because of the image quality! But I would rather use a MFD that was more like 35mm handling if one existed for the simple reason that when you look through the viewfinder for slow paced work it would be such a pleasure. Is that wrong to want that? Of course when LiveView with really nice LCD screens come out the point will be moot.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 08:33:45 AM by pcunite » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad