Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DSLR killer  (Read 6924 times)
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 839


« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2013, 11:38:58 AM »
ReplyReply

How much of the color is in the sensor, and how much in the profiles, raw processing engine and they eyes of the beholder? Interested in your take on this.

What I was thinking at the moment was mainly of the effect of implicit tone curves on the tonal integrity of the image.  The various breeds (NX, C1, LR) of "standard" profile all imply a kind of sigmoid tone curve.  This invariably causes tones to bunch up and for saturation to be uneven across the image.  Most of the standard curves I've used do bad things to skin tone transitions.  The various breeds of "portrait" profile seem to mitigate this to an extent.  In one important sense, it's only the "linear" profile that gives me the cleanest colors to start with, with the understanding that I have to roll my own when it comes to local/global contrast adjustment. 

Aside from that, I've no scientific basis to compare CFA response and processing across sensors and raw converters.  I have felt that the D3x looked great in any process, and always seemed to have a certain beauty when it came to the colors, similar to the A900. 
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7908


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2013, 02:59:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks!

Erik

What I was thinking at the moment was mainly of the effect of implicit tone curves on the tonal integrity of the image.  The various breeds (NX, C1, LR) of "standard" profile all imply a kind of sigmoid tone curve.  This invariably causes tones to bunch up and for saturation to be uneven across the image.  Most of the standard curves I've used do bad things to skin tone transitions.  The various breeds of "portrait" profile seem to mitigate this to an extent.  In one important sense, it's only the "linear" profile that gives me the cleanest colors to start with, with the understanding that I have to roll my own when it comes to local/global contrast adjustment. 

Aside from that, I've no scientific basis to compare CFA response and processing across sensors and raw converters.  I have felt that the D3x looked great in any process, and always seemed to have a certain beauty when it came to the colors, similar to the A900. 
Logged

Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2013, 04:44:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I think there already is the perfect DSLR "killer" - you can already buy it -itīs name is Sony RX-1

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1/9

just try a comparison between RX1-LeicaM9-FujiX100 and Fuji XPro1

I think that says about anything.

Probably only competition a new M Leica with higher res. But this is significantly more expensive.

Regards
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7908


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2013, 05:15:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Well, Tim Ashley wrote a lot about RX-1 and felt it gives a fair fight to his ex. IQ180 and his D800E.

But as soon as one needs another lens the RX-1 is pretty much out. Also I think the EVF should be built in.

Best regards
Erik

I think there already is the perfect DSLR "killer" - you can already buy it -itīs name is Sony RX-1

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1/9

just try a comparison between RX1-LeicaM9-FujiX100 and Fuji XPro1

I think that says about anything.

Probably only competition a new M Leica with higher res. But this is significantly more expensive.

Regards
Stefan
Logged

Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1152


« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2013, 05:57:28 PM »
ReplyReply

What I was thinking at the moment was mainly of the effect of implicit tone curves on the tonal integrity of the image.  The various breeds (NX, C1, LR) of "standard" profile all imply a kind of sigmoid tone curve.  This invariably causes tones to bunch up and for saturation to be uneven across the image.  Most of the standard curves I've used do bad things to skin tone transitions.  The various breeds of "portrait" profile seem to mitigate this to an extent.  In one important sense, it's only the "linear" profile that gives me the cleanest colors to start with, with the understanding that I have to roll my own when it comes to local/global contrast adjustment. 

Aside from that, I've no scientific basis to compare CFA response and processing across sensors and raw converters.  I have felt that the D3x looked great in any process, and always seemed to have a certain beauty when it came to the colors, similar to the A900. 

I agree, a lot of the problems I had with bunched up highlights simply disappeared when I started using a program that provides straight linear conversion. At first it was very difficult to find a curve that made any realistic adjustment from linear.

There are so many options. With some practice you find you can get detail popping like you never could with several regular RAW converters. Suddenly whites are a vast region of tones. You can compress or leave them as you desire. The logic of the default gamma curve is not bad. I can understand that most of the time it gives you a normal looking image. Sometimes though, all the detail you want is in a small range.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4208



« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2013, 07:44:23 PM »
ReplyReply

BC, TMARK,

 There is this strange Mamiya modded for digital which keeps cropping up on eBay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Modified-Mamiya-6-camera-for-Hasselblad-V-mount-digital-back-with-75mm-Lens-/261096296055?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item3cca8d4e77

Edmund
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2013, 07:08:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I think there already is the perfect DSLR "killer" - you can already buy it -itīs name is Sony RX-1

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1/9

just try a comparison between RX1-LeicaM9-FujiX100 and Fuji XPro1

I think that says about anything.

Oh dear, I hope you not mere compare those crops for resolution and pixels??? Something very key in my OP was about the lenses and how they make the image look photographically, not at all pixel peeping. My example was to look at standard ~50mm equivalent lenses, that are relatively simple to design. All of us have of course different preferences, but the RX1 35mm lens does not seem to have very smooth bokeh and of course is a wide lens. It is also a fixed lens... something I would assume a DSLR killer would not have...

Having taken a live look at some cameras I noted following;

Sony RX1 --- Looks cute, but feels in hands like a lower priced point and shoot camera. Not at all feeling of a real camera in hands. There is no knob for setting shutter like on a Leica or X-Pro1. There is no viewfinder and an external one can be used, but it all adds to make tad difficult to determine where is focus on.

Nikon D800 --- Damn, you gotta be kidding me! What are people raving about??? I grew serious into photography with a Nikon F100 and expected the D800 to fall as well in my hands. What a disappointment. It feels awful in my hands, very poor ergonomics, tad like it has been put together very cheap and cheap materials compared to F100 was. Zillion of focus points in a very dim viewfinder, not at all for my preference for viewing when shooting an image. Yuck, and people argue this should rival medium format. Ha! I did not find Mamiya 645 AFD or AFDIII ergonomic, but they far beat the D800 to me.  Grin

Leica X2 --- Having had Leica M8 before and keenly looked at the X1 the other year, I had my hopes up Smiley. I like the simplicity of a Leica and the menus are really great. Again, same as the Sony an external viewfinder, and the Leica optical clip on did not impress me; too small to view through. They had me look through the Leica EVF. My impression of it was: garbage, such lag and keeping me from seeing the scene optically infront of me.

X-Pro1 --- It is made of metal alright, but... very thin such... not what I had expected. However, I was blown away by the optical viewfinder, significant larger and brighter than I had expected, and the frame lines and other information looked very significant better than I have prior seen on photos; in fact it looked really great to view through it! When pressing the shutter, the EVF came in and displayed the image. I cannot say I like EVF (I do not... but...), but it worked seemless and very well to show the DOF used. The X-Pro1 feels very light... perhaps too light. But... the lasting impression is the optical finder, along with what is known to be a very exceptional 35mm standard lens with a very very smooth bokeh. And very high image quality indeed, straight from the JPGs. See my OP above.

I am not shopping, mere made what I felt was an interesting compare. If we consider that sensors will grow in MP, the Fuji do make alot of sense. A DSLR does not in my view. There we go... a DSLR killer...  Grin

Just my 2c  Wink

Anders
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 07:12:42 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7908


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2013, 07:14:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Stefan didn't mention the D800, did he?

In case you missed, Stefan Steib is Mr. Hartblei DE. The guy who builds the Hartblei HCam and Zeiss by Hartblei lenses.

Best regards
Erik

Oh dear, I hope you not mere compare those crops for resolution and pixels??? Something very key in my OP was about the lenses and how they make the image look photographically, not at all pixel peeping. My example was to look at standard ~50mm equivalent lenses, that are relatively simple to design. All of us have of course different preferences, but the RX1 35mm lens does not seem to have very smooth bokeh and of course is a wide lens. It is also a fixed lens... something I would assume a DSLR killer would not have...

Having taken a live look at some cameras I noted following;

Sony RX1 --- Looks cute, but feels in hands like a lower priced point and shoot camera. Not at all feeling of a real camera in hands. There is no knob for setting shutter like on a Leica or X-Pro1. There is no viewfinder and an external one can be used, but it all adds to make tad difficult to determine where is focus on.

Nikon D800 --- Damn, you gotta be kidding me! What are people raving about??? I grew serious into photography with a Nikon F100 and expected the D800 to fall as well in my hands. What a disappointment. It feels awful in my hands, very poor ergonomics, tad like it has been put together very cheap and cheap materials compared to F100 was. Zillion of focus points in a very dim viewfinder, not at all for my preference for viewing when shooting an image. Yuck, and people argue this should rival medium format. Ha! I did not find Mamiya 645 AFD or AFDIII ergonomic, but they far beat the D800 to me.  Grin

Leica X2 --- Having had Leica M8 before and keenly looked at the X1 the other year, I had my hopes up Smiley. I like the simplicity of a Leica and the menus are really great. Again, same as the Sony an external viewfinder, and the Leica optical clip on did not impress me; too small to view through. They had me look through the Leica EVF. My impression of it was: garbage, such lag and keeping me from seeing the scene optically infront of me.

X-Pro1 --- It is made of metal alright, but... very thin such... not what I had expected. However, I was blown away by the optical viewfinder, significant larger and brighter than I had expected, and the frame lines and other information looked very significant better than I have prior seen on photos; in fact it looked really great to view through it! When pressing the shutter, the EVF came in and displayed the image. I cannot say I like EVF (I do not... but...), but it worked seemless and very well to show the DOF used. The X-Pro1 feels very light... perhaps too light. But... the lasting impression is the optical finder, along with what is known to be a very exceptional 35mm standard lens with a very very smooth bokeh. See my OP above.

I am not shopping, mere made what I felt was an interesting compare. If we consider that sensors will grow in MP, the Fuji do make alot of sense. A DSLR does not in my view.

Just my 2c  Wink

Anders
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2013, 10:10:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Sony RX1 --- Looks cute, but feels in hands like a lower priced point and shoot camera. Not at all feeling of a real camera in hands. There is no knob for setting shutter like on a Leica or X-Pro1. There is no viewfinder and an external one can be used, but it all adds to make tad difficult to determine where is focus on.

Nikon D800 --- Damn, you gotta be kidding me! What are people raving about??? I grew serious into photography with a Nikon F100 and expected the D800 to fall as well in my hands. What a disappointment. It feels awful in my hands, very poor ergonomics, tad like it has been put together very cheap and cheap materials compared to F100 was. Zillion of focus points in a very dim viewfinder, not at all for my preference for viewing when shooting an image. Yuck, and people argue this should rival medium format. Ha! I did not find Mamiya 645 AFD or AFDIII ergonomic, but they far beat the D800 to me.  Grin

Do you react the same way about other brands of vacuum cleaners?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7908


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2013, 10:31:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Anders HK has a good point about the RX-1 beeing out of the competition because the lens is not interchangeable.

Personally, I would say that any camera doing a better service than a DSLR could be a DSLR killer. It depends much on capabilities and needs. I am under the impression that mirrorless cameras are making serious inroads into DSLR territory. This applies Fujinon-X, 4/3 (Panasonic and Oly) but also NEX. The "speed booster" designad by Brian Caldwell may help mirrorless to even more popularity, as it makes all old lenses useful by removing the crop and keeping the image quality.

For my part I'm not very sentimental about cameras. They are tools for making images. Preferably good tools.

Personally, I feel that live view and articulated screens are important features. Live view makes for accurate manual focus and an articulated screen is helpful in getting close to the ground.

Anders HK has also a good point on lenses. Out of focus imaging is as important as absolute sharpness.

In short, a DSLR killer is a camera that gives you the image quality you need, the lenses you need and works well enough to replace a DSLR.

Best regards
Erik

Do you react the same way about other brands of vacuum cleaners?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2013, 10:35:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you react the same way about other brands of vacuum cleaners?

Cheers,
Bernard

Exactly ... they are all just cameras ...
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2013, 07:38:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you react the same way about other brands of vacuum cleaners?

Bernard, I obvious do not react about the brands, but about the products --- such as in TOOLS. Actually, you may well find the X-Pro1 interesting for the panorama function it feature. That means you could give up your D800 and panoramic gear and carry far less in your bag, and at same time deposit $$ into the bank.  Wink

----

The X-Pro1 is interesting for the reasons I have mentioned in posts above. Smaller format DSLRs - in my opinion - are overgrown to point of madness (zillions of buttons, zillion of auto features, too heavy lenses, double duty as video cams). Each new model offer incremental additions to make people upgrade and upgrade again and again. All while the gigantic marketing machinery from Nikon, Canon and Sony convince people to spend more $$$ on a new offering that will make them take even better pictures, and now even marketed with the lie that they are to levels of medium format cameras. Truth is that medium format significant exceed smaller formats in image quality where it matters; at low ISO. Heck, compared to DSLRs medium format is not really heavier, my Hy6 with two lenses weigh less than most Nikon, Canon and Sony shooters carry in bags. The X-Pro1 notably obvious weight even less.

It is interesting to note that (number of pixels aside), the X-Pro1 raelly seem to have a better image quality and image rendering than top of line DSLRs from Nikon, Canon and Sony, and it deliver it in JPGs straight from the camera! How? The specifics of the sensor, internal RAW engine and top notch lens. That to me that is a DSLR killer, and would make a nice addition to carry along larger formats.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 07:40:02 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7908


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2013, 08:13:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Anders,

I guess that DSLRs are not intended for you. You are entitled to your opinion, but so are the 7 billion other people the planet entitled to theirs. Most of them care more about food tomorrow, basic medicine and basic rights than image quality.

I guess that camera manufacturers sell the stuff customers are willing to buy.

Folks have different ambitions and different needs, perceived or real. The present state of the industry is there is stuff for all. MFDBs, DSLRs, EVIL, 4/3 P&S, Bridge. People have choice and that is called market economy. I actually don't think customers are stupid, they can choose what is appropriate for their needs, rather than mine or yours.


Smaller format DSLRs - in my opinion - are overgrown to point of madness (zillions of buttons, zillion of auto features, too heavy lenses, double duty as video cams). Each new model offer incremental additions to make people upgrade and upgrade again and again. All while the gigantic marketing machinery from Nikon, Canon and Sony convince people to spend more $$$ on a new offering that will make them take even better pictures, and now even marketed with the lie that they are to levels of medium format cameras.

The pixel aside is not so easy to ignore. The reason that camera JPEGs come out better than RAW is in part because most raw processors have problems with Fujifilm's non bayer RGB arrangement. Another factor may be that Fujifilm used to be a film maker and knows a lot about pleasantness of color. Still, what is thrown out in JPEG conversion, and that is about 99.999% of the information cannot be recovered, nor can sharpening artifacts. How good the JPEG is there is still reason for raw.

Just to explain, JPEG is 8 bit and I assume the X-Pro1 is 12 bit. If it is 14 bit doesn't really matter. So if you go from 12 bits to 8 bits you throw away you keep 1/16 of the data for each channel. So you throw away 4096 times more data than you keep. Now the 8 bits you keep are well chosen in a gamma coded space, and that helps a lot but much of the information is lost once you go to JPEG.
Quote
It is interesting to note that (number of pixels aside), the X-Pro1 raelly seem to have a better image quality and image rendering than top of line DSLRs from Nikon, Canon and Sony, and it deliver it in JPGs straight from the camera! How? The specifics of the sensor, internal RAW engine and top notch lens. That to me that is a DSLR killer, and would make a nice addition to carry along larger formats.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 10:52:57 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2013, 11:55:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard, I obvious do not react about the brands, but about the products --- such as in TOOLS. Actually, you may well find the X-Pro1 interesting for the panorama function it feature. That means you could give up your D800 and panoramic gear and carry far less in your bag, and at same time deposit $$ into the bank.  Wink

Right, your repeated posts don't convey any hint of irrational brand hatred...

Now, the Fuji is an interesting option, mostly for the lenses. I'll look at it seriously when Fujifilm will have fixed the color smearing issue observed by Lloyd Chambers and a few other objective testers. I do not feel like going back to my Kodak SLRn days, I have wasted enough money on innovative half cooked experiments.

For now my DP2m does a great job at replacing the D800 when I need to travel lighter. It's image quality is clearly superior to that of the Fuji at base ISO, even if it remains behind the D800.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2013, 12:56:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Sony RX1 --- Looks cute, but feels in hands like a lower priced point and shoot camera. Not at all feeling of a real camera in hands. There is no knob for setting shutter like on a Leica or X-Pro1. There is no viewfinder and an external one can be used, but it all adds to make tad difficult to determine where is focus on.

LOL. You should actually see one in person.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2013, 01:00:16 PM »
ReplyReply

What I find amusing is all the "DSLR Killers" are DSLRs. The Hy6, Hasselblad H, Phase Mamiya cameras are all DSLRs.
Logged
erstwhile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2013, 01:34:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, you may well find the X-Pro1 interesting for the panorama function it feature. That means you could give up your D800 and panoramic gear and carry far less in your bag, and at same time deposit $$ into the bank. 

Except a sweep pan can only do single row or column pans, not 2D tiled matrix stitching. And has limited resolution. And can't loiter on individual tiles in order to either bracket for exposure or sample local periodic motion at multiple positions in order to optimize cross-boundary stitching. And has crappier/non-existent feature detection/masking capabilities than most stitching software running on PCs.

It's kind of weird that people like to post stuff about things that they have no working knowledge of. Oh wait, it's the internet; nevermind. 
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7908


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2013, 03:07:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Not really. I agree that Hy6, Hasselblad H and Phase Mamiya are DSLRs, unless you use them with a film back, in which case they are SLRs. Alpas, Arcas, Arctechs and Cambos are not SLRs, no mirror, you know. And they may be DSLR killers, depending on the task at hand.

What kills what depends on context. Photo reporters seldom use Alpa's, I guess.

Best regards
Erik

What I find amusing is all the "DSLR Killers" are DSLRs. The Hy6, Hasselblad H, Phase Mamiya cameras are all DSLRs.
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2013, 05:43:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Not really. I agree that Hy6, Hasselblad H and Phase Mamiya are DSLRs, unless you use them with a film back, in which case they are SLRs. Alpas, Arcas, Arctechs and Cambos are not SLRs, no mirror, you know. And they may be DSLR killers, depending on the task at hand.

What kills what depends on context. Photo reporters seldom use Alpa's, I guess.

Best regards
Erik


I am not sure why the lenses the OP listed as the killers would be mounted to a tech camera. Not even sure if you have aperture control on a tech camera with those optics.

Naturally, it is rather difficult to take any thread proclaiming the death of any camera type seriously.

The real problem comes from the fact that the world's greatest camera manufacturers are all Japanese anyway. They are really the innovators. Sure, Leica and Hasselblad came up with one good idea long ago. When they needed to have another idea, they asked the folks from Minolta, Fuji, and Panasonic to come up with it for them. And they really need to listen to the Japanese because the Lunar is a disaster--it might be a Nex 7, but no Japanese manufacturer would dress it up that way, at least not sober.
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1152


« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2013, 01:51:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Right, your repeated posts don't convey any hint of irrational brand hatred...

Now, the Fuji is an interesting option, mostly for the lenses. I'll look at it seriously when Fujifilm will have fixed the color smearing issue observed by Lloyd Chambers and a few other objective testers. I do not feel like going back to my Kodak SLRn days, I have wasted enough money on innovative half cooked experiments.

For now my DP2m does a great job at replacing the D800 when I need to travel lighter. It's image quality is clearly superior to that of the Fuji at base ISO, even if it remains behind the D800.

Cheers,
Bernard


Al dente is delicious!  Wink

« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 01:53:26 PM by Fine_Art » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad