Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leica Buys Sinar  (Read 8056 times)
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #40 on: November 28, 2013, 07:34:27 AM »
ReplyReply

...
1) Leica developed it's own CMOS sensor

Leica specified the sensor and got it designed and built by other companies.

Quote
2) Leica has an MFD camera with a fixed back on a rigid body

3) Leica probably sees the S-series as a long time effort

The S has still a ccd chip. If they want a CMOS chip under the same circumstances for the S the question is: How much chips do they have to order that it is financially doable? Then the next question is: How many S cameras are they selling. Perhaps they expect to have some overcapacity sensor-wise which they have to place somewhere. I don't know, it is just speculation.

BTW, im a long time Sinar user and have only limited experience with Leica cameras.

Best,
Johannes
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2013, 08:03:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi BC,

I tought you use live view on the Panasonic and even feel that EVF is great?

Regard a technical camera, you have three options:

A sliding back
Removing the back, focusing on a matte screen and remounting the back
Use an external viewfinder and a laser distance meter for focusing

Don't you think LV makes life easier?

Best regard
Erik

Leica prices are ok, not great but ok.  Lens prices for still cameras are insane and they're good, but not that good.

In regards to cmos, ok, they'll do it, they'll all probably do it, which is fine with me because I'll just buy the ccd version at a better price.

But live view for studio work.  I hear this all the time, can see some of the benefit, but how hard is it to take a shot, look at it on the computer, make an adjustment and take another shot.

That's almost as fast as most cameras live view anyway.

But what do I know, I don't shoot still life.

I still hold to my belief that ccd has a more unique look than cmos as long as you have a little bit of light.



IMO

BC
Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2013, 08:52:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi BC,

I tought you use live view on the Panasonic and even feel that EVF is great?


snip


Don't you think LV makes life easier?

Best regard
Erik


Uh, the live view I've used on the mirrorless cameras is the evf, but don't have much choice.

Probably LV would make a technical camera easier, though it's funny, the same people that love optical viewfinders and hate evf, also want live view.  

Don't get it, other than I think everyone is a traditionalist unless the old ways don't work, then they love new technology.

I probably am the same, as I thought I'd never use an evf, then used the RED's bomb, got use to it, then the Panasonic gh3's got use to it, then  . . .

But why you can't get an electronic view from ccd sensors?  

CCD video cameras in analog and digital had it forever.

It's interesting though that my leica m8 and the olympus em-5 have virtually the same level of detail.  It's almost impossible to say one is much if any better than the other, except in the depth of the file.

The m8 file is much more interesting.  I can make a cmos file look good, make it have depth, but it never is as deep as a ccd file in my work.

In the same subject when I recently tested a d800 I liked the camera, wasn't that wild about the color, though can work it, but found that any lens that wasn't the newer models with nano coating didn't hold up as well as my old Contax and p30+.  With the new lenses it was a dead match in detail, except I don't like the character of the newer Nikon lenses, but that's all down to personal taste.

What I find interesting is my contax and p30+ are 7 or 8 years old and it took dslrs that long to get to the same level of detail, though I still don't think the file has the same depth. 

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 10:10:23 AM by bcooter » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2013, 02:16:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi BC,

That has to do with type of CCD used. I got the impression that motion cameras and small sensor cameras use line transfer CCDs, for each line of sensor pixels there is line for buffer cells, so only half of the sensor area is used for making the image and the other half to transfer the image. The other issue may be heat build up.

CMOS is much more flexible, as you can access any pixel by raw and column.

The third factor is that many sensors use massively parallell converters, a 24 MP Sony sensor has about 6000 ADCs, so each ADC handles just 4000 pixels, allowing long conversion times. If you have a 24 MP CCD-sensor with say 6 external ADCs, each of those would need to handle 4 million pixels. So a raw conversion on a a Sony sensor is 1000 times longer than on said 24MP sensor with 6 ADCs.

Regarding EVF contra OVF, I don't know. I have both. Sony Alpha 900 has OVF, Hasselblad 555 ELD has OVF, Sony Alpha 99 has EVF. EVF make focusing on static objects easy. Sony Alpha VF image is large and bright but not easy to focus. Had a few iterations with the Hasselblad viewfinders, the PM5 I have works best for me. I have also a Pentax 67, that viewfinder reminds me of a black hole.

I do think that future belongs to EVF. It is just a simple and logical solution which happen to come at a low price. In the long run it will win.

Best regards
Erik



Uh, the live view I've used on the mirrorless cameras is the evf, but don't have much choice.

But why you can't get an electronic view from ccd sensors?  


« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 02:26:07 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 28, 2013, 02:54:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi BC,

From where I stand, I guess that it is more about the colour filters (CGA) on the sensor than about silicon. Both older Phase One backs at Leica m8/M9/ME are using Kodak Sensor with Kodak CGAs. Later generation Phase One backs use Dalsa designs, with Dalsa CGAs. Doug Peterson says most consumers prefer Dalsa color rendition to Kodak color rendition.

I am a landscape shooter. Personally I can see little difference between my P45+ and my Sony Alpha 99. The P45+ almost always wins on detail, but I cannot really say which is which on print or screen.

Best regards
Erik



Uh, the live view I've used on the mirrorless cameras is the evf, but don't have much choice.

hat my leica m8 and the olympus em-5 have virtually the same level of detail.  It's almost impossible to say one is much if any better than the other, except in the depth of the file.

The m8 file is much more interesting.  I can make a cmos file look good, make it have depth, but it never is as deep as a ccd file in my work.

In the same subject when I recently tested a d800 I liked the camera, wasn't that wild about the color, though can work it, but found that any lens that wasn't the newer models with nano coating didn't hold up as well as my old Contax and p30+.  With the new lenses it was a dead match in detail, except I don't like the character of the newer Nikon lenses, but that's all down to personal taste.

What I find interesting is my contax and p30+ are 7 or 8 years old and it took dslrs that long to get to the same level of detail, though I still don't think the file has the same depth. 

IMO

BC
Logged

Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553


WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 28, 2013, 08:28:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi BC,

From where I stand, I guess that it is more about the colour filters (CGA) on the sensor than about silicon. Both older Phase One backs at Leica m8/M9/ME are using Kodak Sensor with Kodak CGAs. Later generation Phase One backs use Dalsa designs, with Dalsa CGAs. Doug Peterson says most consumers prefer Dalsa color rendition to Kodak color rendition.

I am a landscape shooter. Personally I can see little difference between my P45+ and my Sony Alpha 99. The P45+ almost always wins on detail, but I cannot really say which is which on print or screen.

Best regards
Erik




Erik also one has to think about system resolution. You use the P45+ back on a Hasselblad CF camera and lenses which is not the ideal setup for landscape. You should try that back with a tech camera and schneider or rodenstock lenses made for digital. It is a significant difference. I have downloaded several of the P45+ raw files from your setup that you have posted and they have a softness at 100% that tells me that the back is capable of more. The file size is there obviously but the resolution is lacking a bit.

Regarding the Kodak vs Dalsa I have used medium format digital cameras with both and I personally prefer the Dalsa but either can be manipulated quite a bit in post. The Dalsa file handles the highlights better though and are easier to recover, both have excellent DR but the Dalsa might have .5 or 1 stop better DR.  

I played with some Leica S files and honestly did not find them that much different than the 645D files besides the better performance of the leica glass.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 28, 2013, 11:04:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken,

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I don't see me testing my P45+ on a tech camera. Getting into Hassy and P45+ was a significant stretch on my economy.

My latest comment was more related to color than detail. I am pretty much aware that modern lenses are better than the Zeiss lenses. But I find that prints are much more forgiving for lack of sharpness than actual pixels view.

I got a couple of images from Marc McCalmont that illustrate the difference in sharpness between his IQ180 with Rodenstock HR (left) and his Nikon D800E (right), really impressive:

 http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_upsize.jpg (full size)



Best regards
Erik





Erik also one has to think about system resolution. You use the P45+ back on a Hasselblad CF camera and lenses which is not the ideal setup for landscape. You should try that back with a tech camera and schneider or rodenstock lenses made for digital. It is a significant difference. I have downloaded several of the P45+ raw files from your setup that you have posted and they have a softness at 100% that tells me that the back is capable of more. The file size is there obviously but the resolution is lacking a bit.

Regarding the Kodak vs Dalsa I have used medium format digital cameras with both and I personally prefer the Dalsa but either can be manipulated quite a bit in post. The Dalsa  
« Last Edit: November 29, 2013, 12:58:27 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 29, 2013, 05:19:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Ken,

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I don't see me testing my P45+ on a tech camera. Getting into Hassy and P45+ was a significant stretch on my economy.

My latest comment was more related to color than detail. I am pretty much aware that modern lenses are better than the Zeiss lenses. But I find that prints are much more forgiving for lack of sharpness than actual pixels view.

I got a couple of images from Marc McCalmont that illustrate the difference in sharpness between his IQ180 with Rodenstock HR (left) and his Nikon D800E (right), really impressive:

 http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_upsize.jpg (full size)



Best regards
Erik






Yeah, that is a nice comparison, you can see a huge difference and it is a macro shot where the smaller format D800 would have an edge due to much larger depth of field. On a distant landscape at longer distances and/or infinity the difference should be even greater.

I played with the Leica S and a few lenses and the system is superb but the sensor itself is no better than the one in the Nikon or the 645D. The lenses are better so the system resolution is a touch higher but not a huge difference. The Leica S would be awesome with a 50-60 mp sensor with a touch more DR. It is a great body looking for a sensor.
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1249


« Reply #48 on: November 29, 2013, 02:34:30 PM »
ReplyReply

The file is upsized to meet the IQ180, so it falling apart is expected.  How about the P45 vs D800E (39vs36mp is closer) using same Rod HR lens?
Thant would make more sense, no? Otherwise this says that if you upsize a file, you will lose in comparison?
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4267



« Reply #49 on: November 29, 2013, 02:38:42 PM »
ReplyReply

The file is upsized to meet the IQ180, so it falling apart is expected.  How about the P45 vs D800E (39vs36mp is closer) using same Rod HR lens?
Thant would make more sense, no? Otherwise this says that if you upsize a file, you will lose in comparison?

I agree that a like to like MP comparison would be more appropriate -and in the context here useful.

Edmund
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2452



WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 29, 2013, 02:47:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I've done a bunch of tests between d800E and AFi-ii 12.   Where the D800E fails is in the color information, but it does hold up well with luminosity detail. For flowers and things like that, you'll see a lot flatter image with D800E.   But as has been pointed out in other recent threads, there are a lot of reasons to choose a camera besides the sensor, or a chart or test or theoretical conjecture.
Logged

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

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 29, 2013, 04:01:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The reason you buy a high res back is that it is a high res back. The pair of images illustrate what you get for your 50 k$US (or so), this is also the difference you would see if you printed very large and looked close side by side.

The samples I show orignate from Marc McCalmont, and he used the best lens he could find for his Nikon D800E a Leica lens in a Leitax mount.

I was really responding to "Ken R", who in general seems to be of the opinion that low end MFDBs don't make a lot of sense as they are evenly matched with Nikon D800/D800E and probably the Sony A7r at a much lower price. Ken also says that my Hasselblad V & P45+ images don't make the P45+ justice as the old Zeiss lenses are not really good enough. That has also been stated by Doug Peterson, who also indicated that although the Zeiss lenses are nice the more modern designs from Phase One are significantly sharper, and I have little doubt that is the case.

Best regards
Erik




The file is upsized to meet the IQ180, so it falling apart is expected.  How about the P45 vs D800E (39vs36mp is closer) using same Rod HR lens?
Thant would make more sense, no? Otherwise this says that if you upsize a file, you will lose in comparison?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2013, 04:05:03 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1249


« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2013, 04:25:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I think placing the D800 on rails for use with the same lens and a good uprez will be much closer...I think. The grain in that file doesn't coincide with the info I have in mind.
But as you note, lenses can make all the difference, and sharpest Leica he found, not sure which it is on the Leitax mount, hope Ken gets some use out of.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2013, 05:42:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Doug Peterson, who also indicated that although the Zeiss lenses are nice the more modern designs from Phase One are significantly sharper, and I have little doubt that is the case.



I don't care that much about micro detail, but I'll take Doug up on any bet how the Zeiss  Contax lenses compare to any Phase One lens.

BC
Logged

Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2900


WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2013, 06:28:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't care that much about micro detail, but I'll take Doug up on any bet how the Zeiss  Contax lenses compare to any Phase One lens.

Zeiss Contax lenses were all very good.

But as long as I get to pick the lenses I'll take the bet.

Phase 150D or Schneider 110LS shot near wide open on a high res back (e.g. 60mp) will show a difference compared to the Contax equivalents. Other lenses like the 35D are less likely to show such an improvement.

Mind you this difference may be entirely unimportant to many styles of image making and for many output purposes. For instance the 150D really excels at corner sharpness wide open, but in a portrait or fashion shot the corners may not have any content which you want to render sharply.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2013, 10:06:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Hell of a photo Cooter!

Maybe Leica has too much money and Sinar doesn´t have enough... how did that happen?
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #56 on: November 30, 2013, 12:23:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Something that should be kept in mind is that absolute focus is seldom achieved, and it is only possible over a single plane. So, most part of most picture will be a bit out of focus. Rendition of out of focus areas is thus very important.

I am mostly a 'landscape' shooter. Landscape is a wide field but in many cases landscape shooting involves distant areas often involving tiny detail, like tree tops, that are very unforgiving.

I have five of the Sonnar lenses, 40/4, 50/4, 50/2.8, 120/4 and 150/4. Of the five I would say that the 150/4 is clearly the best one with the 40/4 being tricky.

Best regards
Erik

Zeiss Contax lenses were all very good.

But as long as I get to pick the lenses I'll take the bet.

Phase 150D or Schneider 110LS shot near wide open on a high res back (e.g. 60mp) will show a difference compared to the Contax equivalents. Other lenses like the 35D are less likely to show such an improvement.

Mind you this difference may be entirely unimportant to many styles of image making and for many output purposes. For instance the 150D really excels at corner sharpness wide open, but in a portrait or fashion shot the corners may not have any content which you want to render sharply.
Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 30, 2013, 04:17:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Zeiss Contax lenses were all very good.

But as long as I get to pick the lenses I'll take the bet.

Phase 150D or Schneider 110LS shot near wide open on a high res back (e.g. 60mp) will show a difference compared to the Contax equivalents. Other lenses like the 35D are less likely to show such an improvement.

Mind you this difference may be entirely unimportant to many styles of image making and for many output purposes. For instance the 150D really excels at corner sharpness wide open, but in a portrait or fashion shot the corners may not have any content which you want to render sharply.


OK,

I've now reduced myself to the level of a pixel staring crazy.  If I start shooting brick walls of fences, someone call the guys with white jackets and sleepy time hypos.

Anyway, these are real world samples, shot late at night. with a Contax and a Ziess 140mm lens on a p30+

A 7 year old back, a 9 year old camera and lens that was designed 15 years ago which was designed for film, not digital before anyone dreamed of a 30mpx back.

Phase had no imput to contax, contax obviously has no input to anyone anymore, my backs and cameras have never been mated, shimmed, examined or designed solely for each other.

Without editorial comment here are the results.

They were shot handheld, 1/90th of a second, with profoto acutes also handheld.

They were shot fast, probably 30 to 40 frames and on to the next.

For processing the sliders have been moved to add slight softness, not to present sharpening or over-sharpening.

Reduced full frame Full body Length Image


100% screen shot (open image in new window for detail)



Reduced full frame head and shoulders horizontal, more softness added with then noise sliders


100%  screen shot (open image in new window for detail)


Anymore sharpness than this and we're not talking about a photograph, we're talking about a science project.

My point is not negative towards phase, because obviously equipment this old and this viable is a testament to Contax, Zeiss and Phase.

My point is after so many years , lens sharpness hasn't improved, camera usability hasn't improved, if anything it's less useable with stationary prisms.

I haven't shot a df+ or a new iQ series back, except fooling around in a camera store and though they are newer, nothing compels me to ebay what I use today and go to something else.

In fact the only medium format I would add at this point would be a Leica S2 because it works well with my contax lenses, used sells for 10 grand and though the tethering on the S2 is limited, for non tethering work it would be worth 10 grand for the form factor and lcd and honestly what else would I gain with another system?

_______________

But here's the bet.

I'll pick the studio and talent.  My producer/stylist and  partner will cast and wardrobe we'll bring in top level hair and makeup because if we're going to shoot a photograph, might as well produce something worth showing.

Then as a bonus we'll go on location, take some small tungsten and shoot the same comparisons in low light, using the tungsten for keys and accents.

You can use my contax for an hour then your DF and tell me honestly at the end of the session which camera you find more enjoyable.

In post processing you tell me what sensor works better under these conditions.

The bet, My p30+ against your IQ back.  Well let's make it the cash value because on the very small chance I'd lose I'd wouldn't want to give up my p30+.

Sound good?

BC
« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 04:25:34 AM by bcooter » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #58 on: November 30, 2013, 04:56:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi BC,

I will not argue, I have a great respect for your view and your photography, but there is an another vision.

My vision is that a lens should reproduce the subject as faithfully as possible, that is for me the definition of an ideal lens. The lens should neither add nor subtract.

I can see that smoothness is important for the kind of shooting you do, but many of us don't earn our living by shooting stylished ladies and gentlemen for living. Personally I am mostly shooting landscape as a pastime (earning my income in reactor physics). Some people shoot architecture or food. Needs are different.

Best regards
Erik


[quoute]
Anymore sharpness than this and we're not talking about a photograph, we're talking about a science project.
[/quoute]
Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2013, 04:57:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice. Looks like provia with an 81a
 Wink
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad