Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

ďOur autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selectsĒ  

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."  

 

Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking "if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow."  I looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a starving man.  Bill has worked as a photojournalist  for 25 years, keyword: WORK.  Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's  life that Bill has earned and enjoyed.  Probably Bill's most famous pic is Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still waving. 

 

Bill  has been published in many major magazines, including  Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match.  :His published books include  The Leica Manual,  War Torn, Survivors and Victims in the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America,  Human Rights in China,  Children of War.  Add to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums.  Magazine contributions include  Popular Photography,  Camera 35, Leica Manual,  Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist, and now RFF.  Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad,  and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award. Perhaps an ever bigger award is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."

 

I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson.  In person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his writing.  He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography.  I am happy to say he has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF  From time to time Bill will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions.  Sit down and enjoy the ride!

 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Price? Image quality??
Old 03-17-2019   #1
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,161
Price? Image quality??

I wonder how important camera price is these days in terms of image quality? The Leica M10 certainly has acceptable image quality. But, if you look at the DX0 ratings for the full frame Leica M10 (ballpark $7000) and the APS-c Samsung NX500 (ballpark $800), the half frame Samsung just edges out the Leicaís DX0 scores in all departments except low light. The improved image quality of the expensive medium format Fuji and Hasselblad digitals compared to some full framers with close to the same number of pixel (and, of course, smaller pixels) is best appreciated with you nose pressed against a larger print.

Even before I plug in my own limitations as craftsman or the fact that many good pictures donít require the ultimate in high resolution, am I an idiot for shooting with a Leica rather than a Samsung or, to reverse the equation, a $1200 half frame Fuji H1 rather than a $3400 full frame Nikon Z7? What has price got to do with image quality these days?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #2
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,103

If Samsung cameras are same quality as their phones, I would touch it with ten feet pole.

DXO means absolutely nothing for images, IMO. It is same as judging image by histogram.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #3
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,845
This is like saying that a Toyota Corolla is as equal to a Ferrari Testarossa, both vehicles will get you there... but in most cases that is not the point of whole endeavour .
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #4
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,961
Quote:
What has price got to do with image quality these days?
Very little, as little as it ever did before anyway. Which was rarely much, once you spent enough for a decent lens.

There's a heck of a lot more to a camera then whether it does well on a DXO rating.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #5
shimokita
白黒
 
shimokita's Avatar
 
shimokita is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Japan, Tokyo
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
What has price got to do with image quality these days?
Ignoring for the moment the bit about the validity of DXO scores as an example reference point of quantification, the question is still valid but probably rhetorical.

It's like buying wine... the trick is to find something good that you enjoy at a reasonable price...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #6
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
What has price got to do with image quality these days?
Like the others have already said, exceedingly little for 99%.
I'll just add though by saying that if you're chasing the last 1%, then price (as a measure of technical advancement) can have a large effect on image quality.

However, for some cameras (Leica M), price is not a measure of technical quality, so I think it was a bad example. The NX-500 scores 87 "good image quality points". There are 36 cameras that score more "good image quality points" all costing more than the NX-500, and more or less increasing in price. (I limited the launch date to the NX-500 on).
If you look at the graph, the NX-500 is at the peak of (sensor) performancerice, from then on it is demising returns on investment, but more investment will get you a better DXO measured camera.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #7
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
This is like saying that a Toyota Corolla is as equal to a Ferrari Testarossa, both vehicles will get you there... but in most cases that is not the point of whole endeavour .



The Toyota is better transportation. FAR more reliable, less expensive to buy, less expensive to insure, better gas mileage, cheaper to repair.


The Ferrari is a bauble for the rich.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #8
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,147
The problem these days is finding a camera system that has good quality all around. I like what I see from many cameras, but then it depends on what lenses you can get for them, and that may drive up the system price. Or in my case, finding out the native lenses lack distortion control, and I'm now looking for third party replacements or switching to a different system.


PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #9
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,889
Most interchangeable lens SLRs and Mirrorless digital cameras today have excellent image quality.

Higher price gets you things like better build quality, weather-resistance, better ergonomics, more sophisticated autofocus, higher frame rates. For some people, those features are worth the money. For others they're not.



Here's a personal example:

Many of you know that about a year ago, I sold all of my Canon fullframe gear and bought an Olympus Pen-F, a micro four thirds camera.

The Pen-F is a medium priced camera in the world of m4/3, costing about $1000 for the body. A couple weeks ago, I bought a new Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II. That's Olympus's top of the line "Pro" model, and it cost $1700.

Both cameras have a 20mp Micro Four Thirds sensor. Both have IBIS. They use the same lenses. Same viewscreen. Image quality nearly identical. So, what did an extra $700 get me?

The big thing for me was weather-sealing. I like to shoot in the rain and in other bad weather, and was afraid to take the non-sealed Pen-F out in the rain. I have taken the OM-D E-M1 mk II out in heavy rain already, using the weather-sealed Olympus pro lenses I have and it worked flawlessly.

The pro camera also offers faster framing rates and is supposed to have better AF with moving subjects. None of that matters for me, I don't shoot sports or wildlife, but it would make a difference for those who do.

The E-M1 mk II also has the best built-in grip of ANY camera I have ever used. It fits my small hands perfectly. The Pen-F has no handgrip and I found it hard to hold. I bought an add-on grip for it, which helped a lot but the Pen-F shutter release is on top of the body, not on the grip, so less ergonomic than the E-M1 mk II which has the button on the handgrip.

The E-M1 mk II has longer-lasting batteries and dual SD card slots, too, which is convenient.

So...the high priced camera does not offer better image quality, but DOES offer features that the cheaper model does not. Whether those features are worth the money is up to you, and depends on what kind of photography you do. For me, weather sealing is worth the money because I'll use it. I like the better ergonomics of the E-M1 mk II over the Pen-F, too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #10
Greg Maslak
Registered User
 
Greg Maslak's Avatar
 
Greg Maslak is offline
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: The Kootenay's, BC, Canada
Posts: 101
One of the privileges of affluence is the permission to rationalize our desires; but it is also a trap. It is impossible for a Rolex to measure and mark time more precisely than a Timex even though it cost vastly more. The beauty of the Rolex lies elsewhere. Youíre not foolish to desire the Leica over the Samsung; but you might be wise not to justify it by looking at pixel precision alone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #11
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
The Toyota is better transportation. FAR more reliable, less expensive to buy, less expensive to insure, better gas mileage, cheaper to repair.


The Ferrari is a bauble for the rich.
But that is not the point.

Not everything we humans do is based on logic or economics or common senses or "told you so" . Advertisers know this very well and they play on our emotions, ego and fantasies to sell us baubles and other overpriced stuff that we don't need.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #12
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
But that is not the point.

Not everything we humans do is based on logic or economics or common senses or "told you so" . Advertisers know this very well and they play on our emotions, ego and fantasies to sell us baubles and other overpriced stuff that we don't need.



That is the point. Bill asked if price was related to image quality. It isn't. As far as cars go, I think medium priced cars are the best buy. Cheap cars often are low quality, and expensive cars are overpriced baubles. Medium priced cars are usually very well-built, reliable, inexpensive to repair. They're not as fancy as expensive ones, but they're often more reliable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #13
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,636
Recently, I purchased a Pentax K1 (FF)(not the K1II) for $1495, didn't have to pay tax or shipping (even in California). Thought, even though I don't need it I have 5 lenses that will fit so what the heck. I can't remember the MP number but I can't tell any difference from my $300 (2014) mirrorless APS-c camera. I hope someone can tell me why I can't tell the difference.

I think I might be agreeing with Chris Crawford.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #14
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
The Toyota is better transportation. FAR more reliable, less expensive to buy, less expensive to insure, better gas mileage, cheaper to repair.


The Ferrari is a bauble for the rich.
Oh c'mon Chris, you know the Ferrari is far far faster, handles much better, has much better brakes, will be safer in crash, is built to a much higher level, and just looks and sounds gorgeous.
The Toyota is none of those things, but exactly what you pointed out.

Guess which one is cheaper and easier to make?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #15
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
That is the point. Bill asked if price was related to image quality. It isn't.
Actually it most definitely is. Cheaper cameras on the whole have worse image quality than expensive ones. There are outliers (like the Leica M) and there are bans where cameras share the same sensor in different bodies cost different amounts (like your Olympii) but on the whole, price = performance.

If you want to make the car analogy, image quality is lap times. Everything else you mentioned about cars speaks to usability, not performance. The Ferrari is faster. The Toyota might be more comfortable and easier to drive, but it's not faster.

Rolex is like Leica, it's a pretty good performing (actually very well performing) watch wrapped up in status. Sure, it's not as accurate as a phone that syncs automatically, but it's not in the same class. It's like comparing a film Leica to a digital Nikon.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #16
CharlesDAMorgan
Registered User
 
CharlesDAMorgan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: South East UK
Posts: 535
My Rolex would cost me £3000 to replace and it loses a minute a day. It requires servicing each year at a cost of £250 and will be away for a month. My £50 Seiko that I use to tell the time is totally accurate, needs no servicing and a battery every 3 years. Once you get out of the real cheap zone price is not about quality it is about perceived status, self image and the marketeers desire to get you to stump up for features that you need (like grips) but could have been engineered in for the same price as the base model.

Contemporary road ferraris are not good at track work, they are too heavy and too large, and will be beaten on most days by specialist track cars costing a fifth. They are simply status symbols, nothing more or less, and mostly sit in garages for their life as too many miles kills their value. If their owners feel good about them, great.

The relevance of either to cameras is moot anyway - it's the image that counts. I make no pretence of being a serious photographer and I love shooting my Leicas and other old cameras, but my pro friends will produce better images with their phones than I do with a Leica. Which sucks, but there we are.

Enjoy what you want to use.
__________________
Film amateur with a few rangefinders - Leica III, M2/M3, Werra 3 and Zeiss Super Ikonta 534/16 medium format.

Apart from that have a Rolleiflex 3.5F, the odd Minolta XD7, Hasselblad 500cm, a Topcon Super D and an Intrepid 5x4 large format (not the half of it but I am clearing them out, honest).

I do all my own black and white developing at home.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #17
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 948
Brand new Rolex has a 2 sec per day margin of error +/-.. and only needs servicing 1x every 10 years..thats pretty good..around $850 for that..
Service turnaround..3 weeks..
Leica turnaround..well...service isn't their strong point..lol..
Rolex and Ferrari..will get you..girls..or..gold diggers..
Timex and Hundai...well..
They will get you..
A wife..
Pick your poison..
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #18
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
@Charles,
For some of us we really just enjoy using cameras, image quality has been moot for a long time. The camera needs to be enjoyable, thatís why we buy Leicas and not Canons
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #19
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is online now
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 68
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
@Charles,
For some of us we really just enjoy using cameras, image quality has been moot for a long time. The camera needs to be enjoyable, thatís why we buy Leicas and not Canons
Where as some of use both Leica and Canon and enjoy them both
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #20
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
Where as some of use both Leica and Canon and enjoy them both


Surely you mean a screw mount Canon!

__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #21
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is online now
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 68
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post


Surely you mean a screw mount Canon!




  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #22
pgk
Registered User
 
pgk is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 232
Why did anyone buy anything other than the cheapest film SLR in the past? The cheapest models shared the same sensor (film) and brand lenses as the most expensive from the same manufacturer and so, in most situations, would produce identical images. Price and image quality have little to do with each other and haven't in the past either. I buy based on what I enjoy using, and it is this which makes the difference in my photo taking as far as I am concerned, not some esoteric and all too often irrelevant 'quality' score. There is so much more to photography than price and test results.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #23
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,423
Car is for transportation. Watch is for time-telling. Camera is for picture-taking. Once you get past the basics, you get expensive. Sometimes better quality...sometimes not. Most of the time you get extra features--more comfortable ride, more power for cars for instance. With a camera, you're pretty much assured of excellent image quality throughout the product line because everybody makes excellent cameras today. More money gets you a few features the lower priced model doesn't have but you can get just as good a photograph with either.

Most of us choose the car, watch, camera, whatever based on how it fits into our budgets and lifestyles--it's that simple.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #24
Yokosuka_Mike
The Beat Goes On
 
Yokosuka_Mike's Avatar
 
Yokosuka_Mike is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
Age: 64
Posts: 1,864
I donít have a car anymore,
I quit driving because I fear
Dying much more
Whatís this have to do with
The camera I shoot with
I donít know but Iíll play along
Just because of the watch
I wear is not so expensive
So, whatís the size of my sensor
Is it related to the price of my
Lens or the grip on my Bessa
Or my Panasonic or my Sony
Or should they be put in the dumpster?
ĎCause theyíre not so expensive
Afraid to contemplate
the direction this is going
Price, performance, results
Is getting to be a little bit
Boring
Never understood the desire to talk
About it
I think Iíll just grab my camera
And go out and use it

Mike

Some gotta win, some gotta lose
Good time charlie's got the blues

-- Danny O'Keefe
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #25
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
I wonder how important camera price is these days in terms of image quality?
I wonder how important image quality is in terms of camera price!
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #26
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
Brand new Rolex has a 2 sec per day margin of error +/-.. and only needs servicing 1x every 10 years..thats pretty good..around $850 for that..
If one believes that Rolex can manage such accuracy, happy dreams..
It requires a major service including parts replacement every 2 years..
It's mechanical with about 5~8 cycles per second.
A quartz movement like Seiko, Citizen or Swiss ETA is 32,760 C.P.S.
Game over!

Expensive cameras "used" to last lifetimes (My M3, M2).
Digital Leica not made for the long haul..sorry.

Price does not guarantee better in quantum results but in minor increments..
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #27
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,577
I shot 20+ images yesterday on a free gift Pentax Optio 3MP.
Images look fine on FB, where hi-rez is ruined anyway..
Unless one prints, pointless hi-rez..
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #28
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
That is the point. Bill asked if price was related to image quality. It isn't. As far as cars go, I think medium priced cars are the best buy. Cheap cars often are low quality, and expensive cars are overpriced baubles. Medium priced cars are usually very well-built, reliable, inexpensive to repair. They're not as fancy as expensive ones, but they're often more reliable.
We are both talking about the same thing.

Everyone knows that a quality low priced car like a Corolla will be more reliable, practical and lower cost to maintain than a Ferrari, but human beings are not always rational creatures, that was the crux of my original point.

There are sometimes other factors at play when we choose to buy and use a certain product, and it is not always based on good common sense or logic or even based on practicality and usability or economy.

Same analogy as the Leica M 10 versus the Samsung NX500 that Bill brought up in his original comment on this thread.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #29
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,409
“Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Our discussions once again prove that human nature never changes.


And, FWIW, modern Ferraris are not unreliable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #30
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,928
There is absolute nothing wrong appreciating b̶a̶u̶b̶l̶e̶s̶ the epitome of engineering and design.

Photographers have been doing this with film Leicas for nearly a century, when arguably there were far ‘better’ sensor options if one only looked strictly at IQ.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #31
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,322
Focusing on cameras for producing best images...

Interesting essay by Ming Thein about sensor size.

Compare shooting with these three very different systems: Olympus E-M1 mark II, 17/1.2. Nikon Z7, Z 35/1.8 S. Hasselblad X1D, XCD 45/3.5. (Doesn't include really inexpensive options, but there's a big cost progression in these.)

In daylight or in a studio, the MF 'Blad wins big for image quality.

But, indoors hand-held in dim lighting you might well have these shooting options:
- Olympus E-M1 mark II, 17/1.2: 1/8s f1.2 ISO 200 (excellent IBIS)
- Nikon Z7, Z 35/1.8 S: 1/30s f1.8 ISO 1600 (IBIS, but not as effective)
- Hasselblad X1D, XCD 45/3.5: 1/60s f3.5 ISO 12800

Interesting; more $ and more weight for MF gear doesn't get you better IQ in this scenario. I'll take the smaller, lower cost gear with the faster lens and IBIS. And, of course, there are faster lenses for the Olympus and Nikon.

I do a lot of shooting indoors, and I prefer ambient light. Ming's essay reinforces my experience that something smaller than 24x36mm sensor is the sweet spot for my photography.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nikon DX Fisheye, photos in this Flickr album.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #32
markjwyatt
Registered User
 
markjwyatt's Avatar
 
markjwyatt is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran View Post
Focusing on cameras for producing best images...

Interesting essay by Ming Thein about sensor size.

Compare shooting with these three very different systems: Olympus E-M1 mark II, 17/1.2. Nikon Z7, Z 35/1.8 S. Hasselblad X1D, XCD 45/3.5. (Doesn't include really inexpensive options, but there's a big cost progression in these.)

In daylight or in a studio, the MF 'Blad wins big for image quality.

But, indoors hand-held in dim lighting you might well have these shooting options:
- Olympus E-M1 mark II, 17/1.2: 1/8s f1.2 ISO 200 (excellent IBIS)
- Nikon Z7, Z 35/1.8 S: 1/30s f1.8 ISO 1600 (IBIS, but not as effective)
- Hasselblad X1D, XCD 45/3.5: 1/60s f3.5 ISO 12800

Interesting; more $ and more weight for MF gear doesn't get you better IQ in this scenario. I'll take the smaller, lower cost gear with the faster lens and IBIS. And, of course, there are faster lenses for the Olympus and Nikon.

I do a lot of shooting indoors, and I prefer ambient light. Ming's essay reinforces my experience that something smaller than 24x36mm sensor is the sweet spot for my photography.
It is an interesting article, but still does not quite address a key question: Does sensor size mean anything relative to how large of a print you can make- and I mean not just at "appropriate viewing distances". Is a pixel a pixel a pixel, given there is enough light that those other factors come into play (stabilization, hand holding, dof, etc.)? This may portend more to the future of digital cameras then to the present state as the linked article illustrates well.

For instance on a sunny day or maybe in open shade I get a 40 MP image from all with the same angle of view (say a "normal" lens) with no camera shake, no IBIS or OIS needed (even use a tripod if you want):

1. a good quality mobile device
2. a micro-4/3
3. an ASPC
4. a "Full frame" (35mm) sensor
5. A MF sensor

Can I make the same enlargement (say by ink jet or scanning enlarger on silver emulsion), put them all (1-5) up on a wall and and view them from far and near. Would they all look more or less the same?

If the answer is yes then within some limits (all the things in the article and more) a pixel is a pixel is a pixel. If the answer is no, then the actual size of the sensor still matters.

With film it is clear- if the same film and development is used (say FP4 in DDX using the recommended time for format) for any 1 degree of view the larger negative size will have more pixels per degree and will thus render better both in terms of resolution but also achieving full tonal variation. Also due to optical enlarging, optical effects will also come into play both on camera (which will some effect on the digital example) plus at the enlarger. If we scan the negative then ink jet print or use a laser scanning enlarger on silver emulsion, this aspect is in the same boat as the digital case, leaving mainly the grains/degree aspect.
__________________
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #33
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,644
Since you can get a brand new FF camera with a 24MP sensor for $799 (Sony A7) price vs. image quality really isn't an issue. If you are spending what is now $7995 for an M10, you are paying for the manual focus rangefinder experience. Whether that is worth it to you is a personal decision based on your shooting style and other factors. It is not about image quality.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #34
markjwyatt
Registered User
 
markjwyatt's Avatar
 
markjwyatt is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Since you can get a brand new FF camera with a 24MP sensor for $799 (Sony A7) price vs. image quality really isn't an issue. If you are spending what is now $7995 for an M10, you are paying for the manual focus rangefinder experience. Whether that is worth it to you is a personal decision based on your shooting style and other factors. It is not about image quality.
Agreed. I think the main competition to the Leica digital (for the "manual rangefinder experience") are the Fujifilm XPro2 for $2k or a film rangefinder of your choice ($50-$5k).
__________________
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #35
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjwyatt View Post
It is an interesting article, but still does not quite address a key question: Does sensor size mean anything relative to how large of a print you can make- and I mean not just at "appropriate viewing distances". Is a pixel a pixel a pixel, given there is enough light that those other factors come into play (stabilization, hand holding, dof, etc.)? This may portend more to the future of digital cameras then to the present state as the linked article illustrates well.

For instance on a sunny day or maybe in open shade I get a 40 MP image from all with the same angle of view (say a "normal" lens) with no camera shake, no IBIS or OIS needed (even use a tripod if you want):

1. a good quality mobile device
2. a micro-4/3
3. an ASPC
4. a "Full frame" (35mm) sensor
5. A MF sensor

Can I make the same enlargement (say by ink jet or scanning enlarger on silver emulsion), put them all (1-5) up on a wall and and view them from far and near. Would they all look more or less the same?

If the answer is yes then within some limits (all the things in the article and more) a pixel is a pixel is a pixel. If the answer is no, then the actual size of the sensor still matters.

With film it is clear- if the same film and development is used (say FP4 in DDX using the recommended time for format) for any 1 degree of view the larger negative size will have more pixels per degree and will thus render better both in terms of resolution but also achieving full tonal variation. Also due to optical enlarging, optical effects will also come into play both on camera (which will some effect on the digital example) plus at the enlarger. If we scan the negative then ink jet print or use a laser scanning enlarger on silver emulsion, this aspect is in the same boat as the digital case, leaving mainly the grains/degree aspect.



I can answer that!

I shot for several years with a Canon 5DmkII, which is a 20mp fullframe camera. For the last year, I have been shooting with 20mp Micro Four Thirds cameras (Olympus Pen-F and Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II).

So, we have two 20mp systems, one fullframe, the other Micro Four Thirds. Huge sensor-size difference. I think that fullframe has almost 4 times the surface area of m4/3. I have made and sold 16x20 prints from each.

The difference? To be honest, the m4/3 sensors give the finest detail resolution! Why? Part of it is that Canon uses a rather aggressive anti-aliasing filter on the 5DmkII's sensor. This softens fine detail, not all of which is recoverable through image sharpening. Olympus's 20mp sensors have no anti-aliasing filters. Another thing is that the Canon lens I used for the photos I printed large just plain aren't as sharp as the Micro Four Thirds lens I used.

I used the Canon 24-105mm F4L-IS lens for fullframe and the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens for m4/3. The Olympus lens is equivalent to a 24-80mm fullframe lens. I am continually amazed at the image quality of this lens.

So, a smaller sensor with better lenses and no anti-aliasing filter beats a much larger sensor with poorer lenses and an anti-aliasing filter that blurs the finest details.

There is one other difference, and that is noise. The fullframe Canon sensor has less of it than the Olympus Micro Four Thirds sensors. I've found, however, that even using more noise reduction in Lightroom to eliminate the m4/3 noise, the m4/3 images are still better, with more fine detail resolution. Even at high ISO.

More modern fullframe sensors have less noise than the one used on the Canon 5DmkII, so at high-ISO speeds a modern fullframe sensor might be superior to the m4/3 sensors.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #36
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,161
This morning BYTHOM posted a truly intelligent article on what we are discussing. That’s not unusual; the site often has posts with a rather wise perspective. But in terms of this discussion, this post certainly is timely.

https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nik...ing-gains.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #37
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,201
Cameras like digi M Leicas are worth it to many because they are just so enjoyable to use.
I have a Nikon Z7 which in every technical way is far far superior to my M240. And yet I do not enjoy using it, but I love using the Leica.

That is why it is worth so much more money.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #38
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,861
I have a question for Chris Crawford. How did you find the transition from an optical viewfinder to an electronic viewfinder? The few mirrorless cameras I've had a chance to look through have not been very impressive, at least compared to my OM-1 with an all matte screen, which is my benchmark. The latest electronic vf I've tried was a OMD-EM5 so I suspect there have been improvements. Unfortunately I live in the sticks and even finding a store that would have the Olympus line.....well I might have to travel several hundred miles roundtrip. That, I don't want to do.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #39
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 1,061
I've come to a conclusion that for IQ, it all depends on your final output.
For my large prints (16x20 and higher), IQ is very important and to achieve that I use a high MP camera (42MP Sony A7RIII) and lenses that can resolve it.

However, for social media or printing 8x10 photo books I actually find smaller sensors are more than capable. I've done 8x10 prints of photos taken with my iphone that I'm proud of.

Right now I'm exploring photography using P&S cameras, I purchased an Olympus Tough TG-5 (1/2.3" sensor size) as my daily/street camera as it is more rugged than my iphone and less intimidating than a more professional looking camera.
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019   #40
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
This morning BYTHOM posted a truly intelligent article on what we are discussing. That’s not unusual; the site often has posts with a rather wise perspective. But in terms of this discussion, this post certainly is timely.

https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nik...ing-gains.html
I find it ironic that he owns a Z7. Basically he is saying that the camera doesn't matter much, yet he owns the latest model. This happens quite frequently. Do as I say, not as I do.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:18.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.