Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Chinese are coming  (Read 18355 times)
peterv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #120 on: August 03, 2013, 04:02:52 AM »
ReplyReply

If a single purpose camera would work for me I'd go that way.  If the S had a real oem dedicated tethering suite as robust as C-1 I'd also give it more thought, but my world has changed.

Yes I like the ccd m8 files, probably would like the m9 files (obviously some people do because those cameras are sold out everywhere), and I'm sure I'd love an S series.

The thing is we shoot so differently today.  I'd love the time to set strobes for 2 hours, shoot 1 frame every few seconds (at most) and never here the word video, motion, A roll, B roll, C roll, a cam, b cam, c cam again, but honestly my world isn't like that anymore.

Even for a "dedicated" still shoot that requires "some" video, we'll spend a week on still post production, a month on motion and everybody forgets about the stills, and asks about the video.

I got out of a creative meeting yesterday in NY and the gig was a "still" shoot and was told video wasn't that important.  By the end of the meeting we talked about the video for 1 hour, 20 minutes about the stills because everything shot will go on into in store lcds and on large time square panels and well, lcds move.

To me 7 years ago I'd jump at an S2 or S.   Those were the days where I was a still photographer, not a content provider, but times have changed, client briefs are different and money has to be allocated towards what is expected.

$40,000 for a still camera only is a big outlay, considering the camera is beautiful.

IMO

BC


I understand what you're saying. Times have changed very fast these past few years, budgets are tight and video has become so important. BTW, there now is a Contax to Leica S adapter. You'd still be able to use your beloved lenses. Maybe in a year or two when the S might go CMOS, there'll be a video option, though probably with focus difficulties, having such a large sensor. But by then the system might loose the CCD- look ...

All the best,

Peter
« Last Edit: August 03, 2013, 04:04:41 AM by peterv » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #121 on: August 03, 2013, 05:59:25 AM »
ReplyReply


Amazing! Must buy some Belgian chocs.

Yup, the ultimate cringe.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7680


WWW
« Reply #122 on: August 03, 2013, 08:20:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Just a small reflection...

The Leica M8 and the M9 use essentially the same sensor design. There are several aspects, the sensor on it's own is a monochrome device. Color is provided by the CGA (Color Grid Array) in front of it and some math describing the CGA. Implementation of IR-cut filter and UV-filter may also matter.

Some of the differences depend on the filter implementation, and this may relate to the vendor of the sensor and their preferences. I guess that Kodak sensors may be a bit different from Dalsa sensors in their CGA design.

One thing that CCD vs. CMOS can affect is that CMOS can have some noise reduction that CCD cannot have. All CMOS sensors, AFIK, have correlated double sampling. That is, they compare sensor voltages before and after exposure, eliminating some of the noise. Many CMOS sensors of modern design have massively parallel on chip converters, that is a technique that may reduce noise.

My point is that CCD vs. CMOS does not affect color rendition, but there may be a difference between vendors. Leica DMR, M8, M9, Hasselblad backs, Pentax 645D and older Phase One all use Kodak sensors, and some of the advantages perceived with those backs may come from Kodak's CGA design. Later Phase One sensors use Dalsa designs and they may offer different color rendition. That difference is not due to CCD/CMOS but to different CGA designs.

Best regards
Erik





I understand what you're saying. Times have changed very fast these past few years, budgets are tight and video has become so important. BTW, there now is a Contax to Leica S adapter. You'd still be able to use your beloved lenses. Maybe in a year or two when the S might go CMOS, there'll be a video option, though probably with focus difficulties, having such a large sensor. But by then the system might loose the CCD- look ...

All the best,

Peter
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4125



« Reply #123 on: August 03, 2013, 08:03:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik,

 One difference between M8 and M9 seems to be a hugely IR absorbing cover glass stuck over the sensor. As such has a progressive cut off, the color rendering ...

 As for CCD vs CMOS, I think CMOS are engineered with a shoulder these days thanks to the antiblooming circuitry, which might account for the difference in looks - the shoulder needs tuning.

Edmund

Hi,

Just a small reflection...

The Leica M8 and the M9 use essentially the same sensor design. There are several aspects, the sensor on it's own is a monochrome device. Color is provided by the CGA (Color Grid Array) in front of it and some math describing the CGA. Implementation of IR-cut filter and UV-filter may also matter.

Some of the differences depend on the filter implementation, and this may relate to the vendor of the sensor and their preferences. I guess that Kodak sensors may be a bit different from Dalsa sensors in their CGA design.

One thing that CCD vs. CMOS can affect is that CMOS can have some noise reduction that CCD cannot have. All CMOS sensors, AFIK, have correlated double sampling. That is, they compare sensor voltages before and after exposure, eliminating some of the noise. Many CMOS sensors of modern design have massively parallel on chip converters, that is a technique that may reduce noise.

My point is that CCD vs. CMOS does not affect color rendition, but there may be a difference between vendors. Leica DMR, M8, M9, Hasselblad backs, Pentax 645D and older Phase One all use Kodak sensors, and some of the advantages perceived with those backs may come from Kodak's CGA design. Later Phase One sensors use Dalsa designs and they may offer different color rendition. That difference is not due to CCD/CMOS but to different CGA designs.

Best regards
Erik





Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #124 on: August 04, 2013, 07:34:25 PM »
ReplyReply


While you don't need IR block filters you can still get the IR problem with the M9, so I don't think the M9's IR filter is "hugely IR absorbing". I like the M9 colors very much, but C1v6's profile was not great. LR was much better. C17 is pretty good.

Erik,

 One difference between M8 and M9 seems to be a hugely IR absorbing cover glass stuck over the sensor. As such has a progressive cut off, the color rendering ...

 As for CCD vs CMOS, I think CMOS are engineered with a shoulder these days thanks to the antiblooming circuitry, which might account for the difference in looks - the shoulder needs tuning.

Edmund

Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4125



« Reply #125 on: August 05, 2013, 03:06:58 PM »
ReplyReply

While you don't need IR block filters you can still get the IR problem with the M9, so I don't think the M9's IR filter is "hugely IR absorbing". I like the M9 colors very much, but C1v6's profile was not great. LR was much better. C17 is pretty good.


If you want to spend the time, I can profile your camera, but you will need to make and send me a very specific test shot.

Edmund
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad