[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/p/ - Photography

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

File: m9_black.gif-(44 KB, 350x233)
Posit:All m4/3 shooters are...
Anonymous 07/04/14(Fri)23:50 UTC+1 No.2355979 Report

Posit:
All m4/3 shooters are wannabe Leica shooters who can't afford Leica.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)00:20 UTC+1 No.2355988 Report

Everyone WANTS a Leica, just because they're cool and obscenely priced. What's your point?
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)00:27 UTC+1 No.2355991 Report

>>2355979
Why are they so expensive (rhetorical question).

Since it came out I always wanted an M9. Now, after 5 years it still costs around 2800€ and is still too expensive for me. Especially when I think of how one can get better cameras for a lot less. The sensor is still good at ISO 160 but only goes up to 2500 and gets very noise from 640. Also if I would buy it I would be afraid of it breaking and me having to shell out like 1000€ for a repair because from what I can read on the forums it's not the most reliable camera.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)00:34 UTC+1 No.2355994 Report
File: 5494289480_c6136fefc1_b.jpg-(125x125)
>>2355979Don't you...
>>2355979
Don't you mean:
All X100(s) shooters are wannabe Leica shooters who can't afford Leica
?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width660
Image Height660
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)00:50 UTC+1 No.2356000 Report

>>2355991
wait are you for real
an m9 only goes up to iso 2500?
that's fucking bananas. that doesn't make any goddamn sense.

please tell me you're joking, because if that's true then I can't believe anyone actually bought an m9
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)00:50 UTC+1 No.2356001 Report

>>2355994
Nah, they're just the ones who tend to be the most up front about it.

I mean, what else is m43 than the new rangefinder and to many, many photogs (especially those who lust after gear), there is no rangefinder but Leica
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)00:53 UTC+1 No.2356005 Report

>>2356000
Digital Leicas have mediocre sensors
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)00:56 UTC+1 No.2356010 Report

>>2356000
>that's fucking bananas. that doesn't make any goddamn sense.

That's because it has a CCD sensor. Also it's not that bad if you are used to film. With a fast lens 2500 is enough and it doesn't even look that bad. Sure it's grainy but it's more like grain overlaid over an ISO 160 image than the cellphone like images one gets out of CMOS sensors at high isos.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)01:34 UTC+1 No.2356033 Report

>>2355979
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-afford-anything.htm
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)01:46 UTC+1 No.2356040 Report

No, really
Why am I supposed to want a Leica?
I've only used canikon and never even paid attention to anything else. I don't understand what the advantage is over than conspicuous consumption
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)01:48 UTC+1 No.2356043 Report

Why are you still buying those european toys?
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)02:04 UTC+1 No.2356050 Report
File: 5b4a57876937f024333c8f70ef62293d094b27f2_full.jpg-(125x125)
>>2356005yeah ok, keep...
>>2356005
yeah ok, keep telling yourself that.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)03:18 UTC+1 No.2356076 Report

>>2356040
If you've ever used one, you'd know. Its like driving a really nice car.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)03:26 UTC+1 No.2356081 Report

Do people actually buy leica bodies? I mean, its one thing if those stupidly expensive bodies if had some 'killer-app' type feature, or just straight up higher performance than anything on the market. But they don't, if anything, they're significantly underspeced.

Leica lenses, on the other hand, make much more sense.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)04:43 UTC+1 No.2356106 Report

>>2356081
Not many folks buy digital leicas. Film Leicas are well built and much more reasonably priced.

all about those lenses
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)05:14 UTC+1 No.2356121 Report

>>2355991
You not supposed to actually use M9s they're for posing with.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)05:51 UTC+1 No.2356129 Report

>>2355994
Does anyone else think the X100 looks like a cheap children's toy? The leather looks all wrong and the chrome parts have the texture of that shitty chromed plastic. The exposed flash pretending to be a rangefinder window looks worse the longer I look at it, too.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)07:13 UTC+1 No.2356168 Report

>>2356129
Not a single person who owns one, no.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)10:26 UTC+1 No.2356209 Report

>>2356129
Yes I agree, its astonishing to me that these peasants think those toys are "well built" and "beautifully designed." They weight about as much as a point and shoot and the fake leatherette covering is actually plastic. The lens also has no character. Toys
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)11:01 UTC+1 No.2356213 Report

>>2356129
Yeah. I have a Fuji X100 myself and while I love the camera for its performance and ergonomics I do have to say it looks pretty ugly. Like a knockoff with that silver-colored plastic and plasticy feeling leather.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)14:40 UTC+1 No.2356277 Report
File: 2.jpg-(125x82)
nothing special but this is...
nothing special but this is the
>Leica Summicron R 50mm/ 2
>on nikon d5100

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D5100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern866
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4294
Image Height2844
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2014:07:05 15:38:28
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1600
Image Height1060
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypePortrait
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)14:41 UTC+1 No.2356278 Report
File: _DSC0085.jpg-(125x82)
>>2356277>another...
>>2356277
>another one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D5100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern794
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4928
Image Height3264
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2014:07:05 15:37:44
Exposure Time1/100 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1500
Image Height994
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypePortrait
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)15:20 UTC+1 No.2356309 Report

>>2356000
g8 b8 m8
>every photo has to be shot at ISO 53789!!!

There is literally no reason to have more than ISO 1600.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)16:27 UTC+1 No.2356352 Report

Threads like this should get people banned.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)16:31 UTC+1 No.2356354 Report

>>2356309
>There is literally no reason to have more than ISO 1600.
I disagree.
I shoot 3200 regularly, on film and digital.

I'd say that after 3200 you're kind of pushing it, but I will agree that there's pretty much no reason to need a camera that goes to iso 0123456789
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)16:47 UTC+1 No.2356364 Report

>>2356354
>>2356309
>I don't understand how electronics work.

Look, the better a camera performs at higher ISOs, the better it performs at lower ISOs.

It's kind of like most of the time you don't buy a f/1.2 to shoot it at 1.2, but because it's generally sharper at like 2.0 than a 1.8 is.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)16:51 UTC+1 No.2356366 Report

>>2356364
>It's kind of like most of the time you don't buy a f/1.2 to shoot it at 1.2
you are a fucking idiot.

the ONLY reason people buy lenses faster than 1.4 is because they intend to use them wide open all the time.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)16:53 UTC+1 No.2356369 Report

>>2356366
>the ONLY reason people buy lenses faster than 1.4 is because they intend to use them wide open all the time.
Only stupid people. 1.4 lenses have far better sharpness through all stops than their slower versions
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)16:57 UTC+1 No.2356372 Report

>>2356364
What the fuck, man

People DO buy f/1.2 lenses to shoot at f/1.2 because that's the whole fucking point of buying such a wide aperture lens. Wide aperture lenses are heavy and expensive and slower to focus because of all the glass that needs to be moved around. People who want to shoot stopped down usually buy no faster than f/1.8 because when you stop any lens down to f/5.6 or so the differences in image quality are often negligible at best.

Also, cameras like the M9 with CCD sensors instead of CMOS perform wonderfully at low ISO; sometimes even better than CMOS cameras. "Cleaner" high ISO performance does not always translate to better low ISO, especially since those ultra high ISOs are often simulated and use very aggressive noise-reduction algorithms, at the expensive of finer detail.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)18:59 UTC+1 No.2356438 Report

>>2356129
Yep. Own one and love it, but out of all my frequently-used possessions it's easily the worst designed.
>>
Anonymous 07/05/14(Sat)19:01 UTC+1 No.2356439 Report

>>2356369
Name a 1.2 lens that is sharper through all its stops than all slower equivalents.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)10:13 UTC+1 No.2356892 Report

>>2356369
My Nikkor 50 1.8 AIS performs slightly better than my 1.4 AIS throughout its range. My ZM 50 planar f2 fucks them both without lube, it is so much better.

Faster lenses are softer lenses.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)12:29 UTC+1 No.2356920 Report

>>2356364
>Look, the better a camera performs at higher ISOs, the better it performs at lower ISOs.
WRONG WRONG WRONG
Get the fuck out, damn.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)12:34 UTC+1 No.2356921 Report

>>2356439
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L is sharper than Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8.
So yeah.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)12:42 UTC+1 No.2356924 Report

>>2356366
>>2356369
>>2356439
>Hurr all lenses follow the same pattern

It's kinda obvious that different lens designs will have different relation between sharpness and aperture.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)12:44 UTC+1 No.2356926 Report

>>2356920
Actually, you are massively wrong here. You might want to take some classes/read up on signal processing.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)12:53 UTC+1 No.2356939 Report

>>2356926
No, I'm not.
If you want to disprove it, show some data, but the rest of us already know that base ISO quality is not determined solely by how good ISO 357189 is.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)12:54 UTC+1 No.2356940 Report

>>2356920
>>2356926
Camera noise is caused by different factors and does not have a fully linear relation to ISO, moreso when you combine analog amplification with digital scaling. Different noise patterns also may be more or less subjectively annoying.
However, "CCD has lower noise than CMOS at low ISO" is mostly placebo, I don't think I've ever seen any tests or real-life shot comparisons substantiating that.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)12:55 UTC+1 No.2356944 Report

>>2356940
>"CCD has lower noise than CMOS at low ISO"
That wasn't the statement.

The statement was that any camera's performance at low ISO was directly attributed to it's performance at high ISO, which is laughable.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:00 UTC+1 No.2356951 Report

>>2356944
>That wasn't the statement.
I know, just throwing it in there because it's a notion commonly associated with noise to ISO relation.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:00 UTC+1 No.2356952 Report

>>2356354
Yeah yeah, I was partially trolling.
But with regard to the M9, you can treat it just like film. Shoot it at ISO whatever and push it in post. Yes, it is noisy, but I've noticed that compared to my D800, it's not really that much noisier when pushed and some noise reduction is applied. The detail is retained so the noise reduction doesn't kill the image.

I took some pictures in a really dark bar and it was fine when pushed to 5000 or so.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:06 UTC+1 No.2356961 Report

>>2356944
Well, the relation between ISO and noise is fairly close to being linear for current cameras if you go by dxo's measurements. Not completely linear, though, and different cameras show slightly different curves for noise vs. brightness within the same image.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:22 UTC+1 No.2356967 Report

>>2356944
>>2356961
I would venture a guess that sensors sporting higher ISO capabilities have better ISO performance across the range because they are newer, and not just because they can achieve cleaner high ISO.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:33 UTC+1 No.2356970 Report

>>2356940
>>2356939
I'm not about to begin to teach a class on this topic but I'll give you the overview:
With electronics, especially those that involve transduction and signal detection/processing, the wider the response gamut, the better the sensitivity you see in the middle ranges of the response curves. Look at audiophile equipment for a classic example of this: they build and purchase retardedly high wattage systems and never use these systems at full capacity because the extra headroom=better performance in the "normal" use ranges. Digital camera systems work the exact same way with regards to signal transduction and processing. This is a function of the electronics involved, not of any inherent property of either light or sound. Signal gain is signal gain. Signal amplification is signal amplification (yes, there are differences in the algorithms involved, but that's because of the differences in the shape of the signal waves and a difference of optimization, not function).

Now, I know someone is going to attempt to be smart and bring up noise introduced through interpolation or some other artifact of processing, but that is simply a product of the processing and not pushing the sensor to its extremes like using ISO at the highest settings.

ISO is merely an indication of how strong of an amplifier you have. To perform well at high amplification, you have to have firstly enough signal to amplify, which means that the sensor has to be able to cope with the lower signal density without producing enough noise to make pointless any attempts at amplification. A sensor that can do this will, by the laws of physics, have less noise at lower amplification levels (because when you amplify, you amplify noise and signal).
>But wait! There can be systems in place to reduce noise before amplification takes place.
There can be, but that would be mostly stupid because when you reduce noise you destroy signal...
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:36 UTC+1 No.2356971 Report

>>2356970
(continued)
Which happens at any point where you reduce noise, but is best dealt with either by having less noise to deal with in the first place by being more sensitive or doing noise reduction after the fact.

Basically, start reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem
Then keep clicking on blue links until you understand.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:39 UTC+1 No.2356972 Report

>>2356970
>>2356971
Except the "middle range" is not the base ISO.

The Leica M9 at base ISO is not any noisier than, say, the D800 at base ISO. Period.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:45 UTC+1 No.2356977 Report

>>2356972
>Except the "middle range" is not the base ISO.
>The Leica M9 at base ISO is not any noisier than, say, the D800 at base ISO. Period.
Actually in this case what your missing is the "middle range' is where base ISO falls and the higher you push the maximum ISO, the higher you can place base ISO.

You're comparing apples to oranges.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:49 UTC+1 No.2356981 Report

>>2356977
Wrong.
Leica M9: Base 160, High 2500
Nikon D700: Base 200, High 6400
Nikon D800: Base 100, High 6400
Nikon D810: Base 64, High ???

I don't care to look up the specs on the 810 I just remembered the base was lowered to 64. So no, you're wrong, yet again.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:56 UTC+1 No.2356987 Report

>>2356981
High ISO on D810 is 12800.

TMYK
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)13:56 UTC+1 No.2356988 Report

>>2356981
...yes, the base ISOs vary. Is that some sort of magical mystery? That's what I'm referring to when I say you're comparing apples to oranges.

Additionally I never claimed that it's impossible to improve signal processing algorithms.

Further, you're also assuming that there's an industry standard as to what is acceptable noise levels in an image versus what a company is willing to allow out in the market as being associated with them (e.g. the Leica's sensor data can probably be easily amplified well beyond ISO 2500, but Leica doesn't want any more noise than is present at 2500 to be out there).
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)14:01 UTC+1 No.2356990 Report

>Leica thread
>full of autist discussing technical details.

typical.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)14:01 UTC+1 No.2356992 Report

>>2356987
Thanks
So the point here is it was stated here:
>>2356977
>the higher you push the maximum ISO, the higher you can place base ISO
Is clearly flat out wrong.
>>2356988
I would agree that you can push the Leica further and that they wanted to limit it for marketing reasons.

So let's go back to the original statements.
What are you trying to argue?
My entire response has been about someone claiming the base ISO on the M9 is "noisy" because it can only go to 2500 [sic]. That's bullshit.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)14:06 UTC+1 No.2356995 Report

>>2356992
>is clearly flat out wrong
No it's not. CAN place...doesn't mean you have to. It goes back to that marketing thing. Instead of pushing the envelope and riding the bleeding edge of performance, they may start amplifying signal at a lower level than is strictly necessary to capture additional detail--or just make damn sure that the advertised maximum has as little noise as is possible.

>what are you arguing
That you can tell a lot about the response curve by looking at its maximums which someone said was impossible.

I've never said shit about the base ISO being noisier or less noisy because at that point you're talking less about the signal processing and amplification and are talking about faults in the transduction process.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)14:12 UTC+1 No.2356998 Report

>>2356995
Well then you butted in and took my statement out of context. Fuck you.

Anyone who moans and bitches that the Leica M9 can "only" go to 2500 is a dumb cunt. Anyone who thinks the Leica at base ISO is appreciably worse than any other camera wrt noise is also a moron.

Doesn't really matter either way, as you (or whomever) is already set in their ways (and many of the anti-Leica brigade has probably never even held one or owns anything more than a Rabal) so it's pointless. I'm going to stop wasting time now and go to the coast and shoot photos.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)14:21 UTC+1 No.2357001 Report

>>2356998
Actually I butted in to tell:
>I'd say that after 3200 you're kind of pushing it, but I will agree that there's pretty much no reason to need a camera that goes to iso 0123456789
That they were wrong.
I don't care either way about what people shoot.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)19:36 UTC+1 No.2357140 Report

>>2356970
>ISO is merely an indication of how strong of an amplifier you have
Not exactly the case with CCDs, as you can change the biasing.

>that would be mostly stupid because when you reduce noise you destroy signal
Again, with CCDs you can do dark frame subtraction, which is not really destructive, just inconvenient.

>>2356972
>The Leica M9 at base ISO is not any noisier than, say, the D800 at base ISO. Period.
Visually? They're both obviously very clean and you won't notice any noise until you start pushing the shadows really hard. By cold hard measurements? M9 is noisier by 5dB by dxo's measurements (or ~2.5dB if D800 is taken at comparable ISO).
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)20:33 UTC+1 No.2357153 Report

I use a film Leica but I still feel a lust after the M9. But I tried one out and compared to film Leicas it felt cheap. Also the shutter-recocking sound is loud and ugly. I looked at the images taken with one, even with very expensive lenses, and yet they looked like they were taken with any other digital camera. Now that you can get a full frame mirrorless with a newer sensor for like $1500 I find it hard to justify an M9 which can fail any time since it's already 5 years old.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)20:35 UTC+1 No.2357157 Report

>>2357153
>I looked at the images taken with one, even with very expensive lenses, and yet they looked like they were taken with any other digital camera.

Spoiler alert: if you look at images taken with a film Leica, they will look like they were taken with any other film camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)20:41 UTC+1 No.2357159 Report

>/p/ - Dentistry
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)20:44 UTC+1 No.2357162 Report

>>2357157
Yeah but it's film so it doesn't look awful like digital.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)20:46 UTC+1 No.2357164 Report
File: 1387547774572.jpg-(124x125)
>>2357162
>>2357162
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)20:50 UTC+1 No.2357168 Report

We need a macro that shows a fish on a hook casting another fishing line down to other fish for situations like this.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)20:58 UTC+1 No.2357169 Report

>>2357164
How is the truth bait you memespouting retard?
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)21:15 UTC+1 No.2357181 Report

>>2357157
Sure, but why pay for a Leica when a $25 Canonet gives the same images?
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)21:17 UTC+1 No.2357184 Report

>>2357169
I don't really see it as "truth" though.

I prefer film when it comes to black and white and it's partially for the look but mostly for the process. As far as color film is concerned I have no preference for one or the other and simply shoot whatever I feel like at the time.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)21:21 UTC+1 No.2357185 Report

>>2357184
>As far as color film is concerned I have no preference for one or the other
Confirmed for color-blind or stupid.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)21:33 UTC+1 No.2357189 Report

>>2357185
>Having no preference is the exact same as saying they're all the same
Confirmed for a fucking retard who cannot read
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)21:41 UTC+1 No.2357192 Report

>>2357189
In a very real sense that's what having no preference means.

Even if you are aware of the different characteristics between different films, stating that you have no preference between them is the same as saying that you'll use any whenever irrespective of differences, be they technical (choosing the correct ISO for the conditions) or aesthetic.

Do note that "having no preference" does not mean the same thing as "use the one with the desired characteristics".
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)22:42 UTC+1 No.2357220 Report

>>2357184
>>2357185
Yeah I get what you're saying.

What I mean when I said no preference is I don't think one is better than the other. I'll just state that next time.
>>
Anonymous 07/06/14(Sun)23:04 UTC+1 No.2357232 Report

>>2357192
>In a very real sense that's what having no preference means.
I have no preference between blondes and brunettes, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between them.
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.