Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Fujifilm Range Finder has better IQ than Canon DSLR and more expensive  (Read 5731 times)
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 544


« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2013, 02:57:43 AM »
ReplyReply

>> For example there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ.

Don't know what you are talking about. Do you? You've done the first hand and real comparison, haven't you? 

There is no need to personally test everything to have an informed opinion.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2013, 05:03:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

If you check out the info here on luminous landscape the Lunar is a Sony NEX 7 with an outer shell and the lenses are the same lenses Sony has.

With sensor, electronics and lens being exactly the same I don't think that there will be any difference in image quality. That is the exact reason I mentioned the Lunar as an example.

Best regards
Erik


I can't judge that yet, I haven't seen any Lunar sample. Have you? 
I've heard Lunar and Nex has the same sensor size, I won't doubt given the more advanced and sophisticated electronics and better lens, there could be big difference. I'm sure because I've seen big IQ differences between some old P&S and the new P&S, that have the same vendor and same sensor size. 
But I am willing to bet the Lunar's IQ won't be as good as 6D, no, not even close. I've compared the APS-C DSLR and the FF DSLR. Given the right lenses, and stays in the still photography, even the old Kodak DCS SLR/C puts the new T4i in the dust.

But I start to understand what the joke means. Yes, you can find inferior equipment that costs a lot more. The Fuji-X is exactly one of the example, and the Lunar may well be another one, (yet to see).

Logged

AlfSollund
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2013, 07:22:04 AM »
ReplyReply

No. For example there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ. People are paying 10X more just for the brand and the legend and the feeling it provides to the photographer. So the cost consists of real practical value and a bunch of imaginary qualities, for which people are sometimes willing to pay more than the basic "tool" worth. Basic marketing economics. And in the end the value really is whatever a buyer is willing to pay, no more, no less.

Overall I totally agree om your conclusion "the value really is whatever a buyer is willing to pay, no more, no less".

But to "there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ" I think you are setting your $1000 way to low. The IQ can be a combination of lens, sensor parameters (such as measured by DXOmark) and the resolution. You seems to be aiming at Leica M9. This has a resolution comparable to aprox 24Mp, the best optics (objectively) in nearly all focal ranges, but a sensor that can be bested by a few $1000 camera's on objective measurments.

So what $1000 camera should be purchase that best a M9 on IQ  Wink?
Logged

-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 544


« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2013, 07:57:51 AM »
ReplyReply


So what $1000 camera should be purchase that best a M9 on IQ  Wink?

I think you got my point, even if I was trolling a bit...

While there is some sort of statistical connection between the price and quality (there are many different qualities, by the way), we all (should) know they are not connected by a strict formula, and that there are cheap* cameras which produce terrific results, while it is possible to spend ten times more and not get the same IQ, but maybe something else like possible/imagined status or pride of ownership or better handling or whatever.

In photography and video it is fortunately fairly easy to compare picture quality between two cameras, so we do not have the same situation as in audio/hi-fi, where people are willing to pay idiotic amounts of money for tweaks which do not and can not work. It is not possible to make a straight comparison between two sounds, so people might pay thousands for a data cable. I have never seen anybody to claim that DR and color depth improve by using a $1000 special photo-USB cable for PC-Camera connection, which is not uncommon on the audio side.

*) cheap = around $1000 or so. Like Sigma Merrills...
Logged
EinstStein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2013, 11:10:27 AM »
ReplyReply

of course I knew you didn't have any direct experience on what you said.
But be careful, false witness is a sin. There is no point to spread an unconfirmed harmful rumor.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 11:29:16 AM by EinstStein » Logged
EinstStein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2013, 11:25:01 AM »
ReplyReply

The point you agreed and the mysterious $1000 magic system are not from the same poster. It's interesting to observe that how the Internet can flood with so much wisdom and irresponsible nonsense, side by side.

I think my question and the market driven pricing comment shares the same view. The facts of the pricing is so realistic and rediculous at the same time. Each buyer has to determine whether its reasonable or rediculous according to his own need, if  he can collect adequate truth and facts.

One post said my question is not a valid question. Well, there is only invalid answer, there is no such thing as invalid question.





Overall I totally agree om your conclusion "the value really is whatever a buyer is willing to pay, no more, no less".

But to "there is a rangefinder digital camera still made which costs over $10000 with a basic lens, but almost any recent $1000 amateur camera produces better IQ" I think you are setting your $1000 way to low. The IQ can be a combination of lens, sensor parameters (such as measured by DXOmark) and the resolution. You seems to be aiming at Leica M9. This has a resolution comparable to aprox 24Mp, the best optics (objectively) in nearly all focal ranges, but a sensor that can be bested by a few $1000 camera's on objective measurments.

So what $1000 camera should be purchase that best a M9 on IQ  Wink?
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #26 on: January 10, 2013, 01:19:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The thing about the Leica M digitals is that they DO enable me to get shots I couldn't really get with a dslr.  Its the handling and speed of manual focus, the lenses, as well as the rangefinder.  In terms of IQ, the Fuji X100 in most situations beats the M8, in fact it puts the M8 to shame, except in a very narrow range of circumstances (base ISO fast shutter stopped down).  The M9 is a different story.  I think the IQ is fantastic within its comfort zone.  What makes it better, than say a D800e?  Just that it is smaller and (for me) faster.  What makes it better than a DP2m?  Speed and the rangefinder.

That being said, the M9 and a good lens is not worth $7500, to me.  I don't care if they are assembled by Walkyrie and made from Wotan's own sword steel, the red dot in and of itself isn't valuable to me.

I sold my M8 and M9. I found that the X100 was equal in terms of IQ (edged out by the M9 but not by much).  I sold the X100 because of certain handling problems, mainly selection of the AF point and the pathetic manual focus function.  I might try the Sigmas, but they look to have the same issues with regard to AF selection and of course there is no RF coupled optical VF.  The search continues.
I think you got my point, even if I was trolling a bit...

While there is some sort of statistical connection between the price and quality (there are many different qualities, by the way), we all (should) know they are not connected by a strict formula, and that there are cheap* cameras which produce terrific results, while it is possible to spend ten times more and not get the same IQ, but maybe something else like possible/imagined status or pride of ownership or better handling or whatever.

In photography and video it is fortunately fairly easy to compare picture quality between two cameras, so we do not have the same situation as in audio/hi-fi, where people are willing to pay idiotic amounts of money for tweaks which do not and can not work. It is not possible to make a straight comparison between two sounds, so people might pay thousands for a data cable. I have never seen anybody to claim that DR and color depth improve by using a $1000 special photo-USB cable for PC-Camera connection, which is not uncommon on the audio side.

*) cheap = around $1000 or so. Like Sigma Merrills...
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2013, 05:38:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I can't judge that yet, I haven't seen any Lunar sample. Have you? 
I've heard Lunar and Nex has the same sensor size, I won't doubt given the more advanced and sophisticated electronics and better lens, there could be big difference. I'm sure because

The Hasselblad Lunar is a Sony Nex that Hasselblad put their logo on and pimped up the body by covering it
with vulgar wood, snakes skin and other crap. Made Hasselblad the laughing stock of Photokina.
While Hasselblad and their owner venture Capital company Ventiz hoped that the Lunar would be an easy
cash cow it turned out to be a disaster.

What is really funny is that they took one of the main winning features of the Nex... it's compact and efficient size and
made it a bloated ugly, clunky mess. It's also so bloody obvious that it's cobbled together...



more images here:

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/hasselblad_lunar_hands-on_photos/

The video from Hasselblad is a joke...

http://youtu.be/OUteaK0Ckjw
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 544


« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2013, 12:31:37 AM »
ReplyReply

This Lunar reminds me of some Hi-Fi players (a certain laserdisc long ago, more recently several CD/SACD/BluRay players) where a company making upper segment gear simply took an off-the-shelf unit and repacked it inside a bigger, heavier box and sold them at 5 to 10 times the price. So now we have the same with cameras. If you do not want a lowly Oppo player, get a Lexicon wrapper for it at 5 times the price, if Sony is too middle class, get a Hasselblad Lunar at 5 times the price...
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 850


« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2013, 05:28:38 AM »
ReplyReply

To me Hasselblad squandered their credibility entirely on the Lunar gambit.  The sickening promotional video is packed with lies and half-truths, and smells of desperation.  The product shows creative fatigue.  I'm not looking /them/ up for big ticket purchases.  Jeez, even the Saabaru (Saab 9-2x) didn't really cost any more than a Subaru, and looked just a bit better to boot.
Logged

Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2013, 06:32:21 AM »
ReplyReply

To me Hasselblad squandered their credibility entirely on the Lunar gambit.  The sickening promotional video is packed with lies and half-truths, and smells of desperation.  The product shows creative fatigue.  I'm not looking /them/ up for big ticket purchases.  Jeez, even the Saabaru (Saab 9-2x) didn't really cost any more than a Subaru, and looked just a bit better to boot.

Ho yeah. This just incredible what Hasselblad did, even with the sales politics...

In my country (France), I just can't believe what happened two weeks ago, in my little corner of this country. I know the official seller of Hasselblad system in this part of France, who is very serious, do have the different body's and back, know the system and the services around this system, is a true official leica store to and got my S2 from him but, in my town, (poor sad town) there is some photo shops who never ever touched at any MFDB or modern MF system. Well, late December, a guy I know got some money and decided to buy "the marvellous H4D31 + 110 f2.2" because he seen on the net "wonderfull photos out of it". The guy is not what I call a great photographer, he didn't even known how to old his Dslrs (wrong eye in the VF...), he never ever had or tested a 24x36 camera, just got Pentax APS-C and his most advanced photographs are barbie dolls in the kitchen or wastes on a table or people from his windows. Well... the little shop in my town convinced him it was a very good choice, this is a true MF, 24x36 is just shitty, no need to try, go on !! (evenb though it is a great client of this little shop, since years !).

So he putted a check of 14.000 + Euros and got his almost obsolete and not so friendly H4D31. They didn't even knew how to plug the handle. I seen his first photo on flickr done with this material and was like ... WTF !! What the hell did he bought ?? He landed at home and I explained him why H4D31 is not really the better choice actually (the lens is stellar but the body and the back ... lol), I asked him why on hearth he did bought that without trying, without knowing, without having a real computer for the files (3 years old samsung laptop) without having any kind of adapted tripod and any clue about MF systems ... It was surreal and I can't believe how silly is this situation.

I ended with the official Hasselblad dealer at phone who was annihilated, prostrate by this new and investigated that even little clueless shops can buy directly this kind of material via some behind market and this is just a shame.

So I blamed the guy (the one who bought the camera), explained him why it is not a real clever choice actually to invest 14000 in a H4D system (even more the 31 MP back), explained him that for less money he can have fare more better rendering in MF world (645DF + Leaf Aptus-II 5 touch screen !!!! and bigger sensor !!!! 25 ISO !!! + SEKOR AF 110MM F2.8 LS D leaf shutter !!! + Gitzo tripod ...) or in 24x36 world (D800 and all the best zeiss or Nikkor glass, even the D4) ...

The guy ended up very destabilized and I ended up very very angry that a firm like Hasselblad can permit this kind of error because this is an error and do not bring good notoriety to this brand, at the end.

Just lame.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 06:37:55 AM by Hulyss » Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2013, 07:32:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

You don't get it. Built with the finest snake oil...

Best regards
Erik



The Hasselblad Lunar is a Sony Nex that Hasselblad put their logo on and pimped up the body by covering it
with vulgar wood, snakes skin and other crap. Made Hasselblad the laughing stock of Photokina.
While Hasselblad and their owner venture Capital company Ventiz hoped that the Lunar would be an easy
cash cow it turned out to be a disaster.

What is really funny is that they took one of the main winning features of the Nex... it's compact and efficient size and
made it a bloated ugly, clunky mess. It's also so bloody obvious that it's cobbled together...



more images here:

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/hasselblad_lunar_hands-on_photos/

The video from Hasselblad is a joke...

http://youtu.be/OUteaK0Ckjw
Logged

Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139


« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2013, 02:08:47 PM »
ReplyReply

The guy is not what I call a great photographer, he didn't even known how to old his Dslrs (wrong eye in the VF...)

There's a wrong eye?
Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2013, 02:55:22 PM »
ReplyReply

If you do not have any ocular problems DSLR are made to use your RIGHT eye and hold with the right hand. Otherwise you will have hard time using your thumb on your pad and you will have your nose spreading sebum on your screen.

Yes, there is a wrong eye Smiley But if ppl want to use the other eye, its up to them (unless they have an ocular problem at the right eye).

There is also some rules to hold a DSLR but that is an another thread.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 02:58:13 PM by Hulyss » Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 544


« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2013, 03:57:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a highly regarded colleague who is left eyed and shoots his DSLR with left eye. Looks a bit funny, but that is the fault of the camera design made for the majority, not his. He has been able to shoot professionally for 30 years, even as the pool shooter for the Olympics. Using the "wrong" eye is not nearly as bad a crime as holding the lens the wrong way, with palm down...
Logged
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139


« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2013, 05:09:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I've always used my left eye and have never had a problem. I tried using my right eye a few times but I could never get it to the center of the VF quickly, it always ended up off center a bit and I struggled some. I'm not sure why I use my left eye as I am right handed but it just feels natural to me.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 850


« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2013, 06:14:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm right-handed, and have been using my left eye on the viewfinder for 40 years.  It uses my right brain more, and there is a noticeable difference in what I perceive with it as compared to the other eye.

As far as the camera goes, there's always something in the way, no matter which eye. 
Logged

Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2013, 06:54:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I perfectly understand what you are saying. The situation I explain is just about ergonomic. The guy was trying one of my Nikon bodys and said "I can't use the pad correctly, the camera is definitively not for me". I said it was strange because the pad is right under the thumb... then I saw his nose on the pad Grin

I often too, use my left eye but only when I use the body in portrait mode (it is maybe why I use more my body's in portrait mode than landscape mode).

Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
EinstStein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2013, 07:49:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Hasselblad V system is an amazing system, but since Hasselblad turned into Fujiblad, I haven't found anything impressive until now,... the Lunar.
It is really impressive, in the opposite way, although I try to hold my judge until the real Lunar shows up.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad