DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

G2 Newbies Observations

Joe,

Very insightful and detailed observations. Your note about how the G2 feels reminds me of my own response to it after not having used it for awhile, I practically say "Ahh" aloud every time I pick it up, there's a wonderful tactile communication with it that I don't get from any other camera (and I have quite a few to select among).

The autofocus has its quirks, and one of the steepest parts of the learning curve for me was anticipating which sort of subjects will be difficult to get a good lock on. Oftentimes compensating is as simple as tilting the camera to get focus lock, then composing and shooting.

You had asked about a cover. I've found the basic Zing SLR neoprene cover to be very handy and great for protecting it from knocks and the weather. Because it doesn't say "Contax" it's also cheap!

--Rick
 
If anyone was comparing the new Sony F828 to a G2, and I know I've heard some people talking about the new Sony...

If these specs are correct,

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY _DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=f-_2y43xGrb22LJL-hj8wMLh0OvuLz7Sp6 0 =?CategoryName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_CybershotProDigitalCameras&Dept= dcc& TemplateName=item%2fsy_item_b&ProductSKU=DSCF828&ContentItemPage=

And

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f828.html

Your aperture is a min to max of: f2.0 - F2 to F8! ???

I'm sure it's a nice little chunk of glass, anybody know why not (theorize) F16 or F22?

Anyway, once I get my 167MT in I'm going to start looking at a G2 again.

By the way, have y'all noticed the nice new look of the Yashica/Contax web site?

http://www.kyoceraimaging.com/product.asp?itemnum=202000

This is really beautifully done!

-Dana
 
> what is perceived as > an image "remains in memory" for up to 1/15 sec.

Then that explains why, in my perpheral vision, I see rotating automobile wheels, moving left to right, in stop action.
 
For Pete's sake guys, to quote William Shatner,

"Get a life!"

A lot of these film images will probably be scanned down to display on an uncalibrated monitor anyway, at 72dpi, which ruins the look anyway.

If you like digital (and there are some very pretty digital images out there) then use digital. The second episode of Star Wars (which for all its horrible acting was quite pretty) was all digital (expensive custom cameras and lenses). The rest of the movie industry still puts stuff on the silver screen on 35mm or 70 mm, and it looks great blown up to billboard size, but there are digital CGI effects almost always mixed in!

Film reacts to light on a molecular level, which should be better than digital (especially if you look at virtually grainless Kodachome 25/63 etc), but digital is MORE CONVENIENT.

I use digital point and shoot and a Contax G1. There is room for both film and digital, and everbody has their own bias and vested interests, and this thread is giving me a headache.

Can't we argue religion or politics instead?

-Dana
 
Mike,
This gets more and more bizarre....

Of course i used the same "methodology" as Reichman when comparing digital and film. It's the same process photographers use to make pictures. Shoot > process > scan > analyze, and shoot > download > analyze. I suppose this is the point we're arguing over: for any commercial use, film is going to be scanned. Unless the end goal for photographs is to look at the on a projector or to simply have raw negs/chromes, the end result is not the film in this form. Either you make prints, or you scan for reproduction. As you seem to acknowledge, i believe photographic prints to be better than inkjets, so the discussion is really about whether or not digital capture is a match for film.

Since you've declared that Digital Sucks, the logical discourse is probably moot. But, to address your misstatements:

1."Resolving power of 35mm lenses is higher than medium format. Thus - even more detail stuffed on same type of emulsion. Bigger enlargement though, but that's a different story."
Your third statement negates the first, which although it should be common knowledge, is really irrelevant.

2. "First of all, math is an accurate science. Second, my eyes made the decision - digital sucks."
Math is accurate, sure. But, statistics can be manipulated to say/mean anything. Especially when those statistics, made up to look like facts, are misapplied or are inappropriate for the context. All of the "math" you cite is used to demonstrate that digital doesn't yet even have the capacity to do what, to the eye, it clearly does. These citations are also evidence that you haven't experienced professional digital in any meaningful sense - and certainly not enough to make these broad generalizations. It would be interesting to hear your explanation for how a Canon 1D file (4Mp) could be better than that of a 10D (6Mp). You refered to a model/ex&le where you assert that a digital file would have to contain X number of pixels in order to equal an frame of film. But, your 'calculations' are based in practical reality. It almost makes sense on the surface, but there is much more involved. Take a 1D image and scale it compared to a 10D image. The smaller MP file actually scales better than the larger file. That's not in keeping with your math. Similarly, scale a 16Mp film scan versus a 16Mp digital capture. The film version will be unusable before that of the digital file, Even Though The Film Has More 'Information,' as you state it.

On MR's ex&le: "It demonstrates one thing - his bias and incompetence. The comparison "review" he is doing is totally flawed and that's the whole problem."
You've already declared the Digital Sucks. I can't imagine how you could feel that MR, who uses both film and digital, has more of a bias than you, who apparently have experience with only the former. But, how, then, do you qualify my comments? I'm biased, as well? If anything, i would like to believe that my remarks are objective. I say it clearly: "I prefer film." In the same breath, i'll say: "Digital is a match for medium format film, and can surpass 35mm." This is, of course, without deference to aesthetic concerns, which are sometimes perceived, and sometimes imagined.

Back to the microscope issue? It seems you believe one can compare two separate media under two completely different sets of conditions. I have to disagree with that. Since one cannot examine a digital file with a microscope, the microscope becomes INVALID as a tool for COMPARING digital and film. "Examine it at the source," you say? This is where everything in your last post reaches absurdity. "...with digital there is no image actually. It's a series of bits." I guess this will now become a war of rhetoric. What, exactly, is an "image?" What is "vision?" If you have a slide, but no light, is there still an image? If there's a slide presentation in the forest, but no one there to watch it....

"So, if you really want to compare them using exact same methods - get that file to the slide (there are machines that do that) and by doing so you don't lose any "detail" that that file had - since it's just a direct film exposure using laser and compare it to the slide you obtained using traditional film system."
This is fundamentally incorrect. And, those devices that resolve digital files to film are far less proficient at doing so than drum scanners are at the opposite process. But, you seem so against scanning....

"You want high quality print from film - get good enlarger. You want to actually see all that detail and color - get microscope or high-quality projector."
I'm certain i don't know a single working professional who shoots for slide shows. And, further, not one who makes photographs for microscope shows. The microscope thing is ridiculous and doesn't apply to any scenario in the real world. And, possibly more significantly, your set of requirements denies any possibility of digital image manipulation. The commercial (and art) world pretty much demand that capacity. I doubt you could find a published image that is 'straight,' and without manipulation. But, of course, you're perfectly able to apply such theoretical models when there are no demands on the imagery other than laboratory viewing of first generation materials.

It would be interesting to know your particular experience with digital and the reasons for your extraordinary prejudices. I suppose you must be able to demonstrate that Digital Sucks, other than with equations. On the other hand, i can easily point to the work of a good number of the most highly regarded photographers who have used digital capture. With the budgets and fees these people command, and the requirements for 'image quality' demanded by their clients, one would have to believe that they have chosen their tools without fear of compromise.
 
Derek,

> 1."Resolving power of 35mm lenses is higher than > medium format. Thus - even more detail stuffed
> on same type of emulsion. Bigger enlargement
> though, but that's a different story."
> Your third statement negates the first, which
> athough it should be common knowledge, is really
> irrelevant.

My response was to your original suggestion to "extrapolate" results down to 35mm. I wanted to point out that there is no need to extrapolate anything, it's a known fact that 35mm lenses provide better resolution.

> Math is accurate, sure. But, statistics can be
> manipulated to say/mean anything.

Well, sorry, but statistics is no subject to intepretation. If statistically every year 40,000 americans get killed in car accidents, it means that there is an almost 100% chance that this year another 40,000 americans will die in car accidents. It can't be interpreted as having any effect on El Nino or currency exchange rates.

Although I don't actually understand what "statistics" you're talking about?

> It would be interesting to hear your explanation
> for how a Canon 1D file (4Mp) could be better
> than that of a 10D (6Mp)

See one of my earlier posts to a different thread. Megapixel count has NOTHING to do with quality of the image or detail recorded. I think you don't understand how CCDs or CMOS works.

From that point, Austin's comment about 2-pixel camera being the sharpest hits the nail right on the head. But if you don't understand the concept then I don't believe I can really explain it. I tried, doesn't seem to work
happy.gif


> You've already declared the Digital Sucks

On your suggestion of evaluating the results by deciding with my eyes what's best. Which is purely subjective matter and for that reason has nothing to do with doing an objective comparison.

> This is fundamentally incorrect. And, those
> devices that resolve digital files to film are
> far less proficient at doing so than drum
> scanners are at the opposite process. But, you
> seem so against scanning....

You're wrong, but I'm already tired of trying to explain it. There are no digital devices that "resolve" anything to film. The concepts behind two devices (scanner, vs. laser exposing film) are different.

Anyway, I'll stop at that, I think that's enough.


Mike.
 
Marco,

> All life long you are digitally > scanning x times per second your environment !!

What, precisely, is digital, in your opinion, about the human eye?

BTW, scanning something does NOT make it digital. Analog TVs scan, and they are not digital. I think you guys are missing what the term "digital" means. Digital means digit, or number. The human eye does NOT convert it's input into a number. It is purely an analog system, plain and simple.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Derek,

> 1."Resolving power of 35mm lenses is higher than medium format. Thus - > even more detail stuffed on same type of emulsion. Bigger enlargement > though, but that's a different story." > Your third statement negates the first, which although it should be > common knowledge, is really irrelevant.

This is actually true. And, this is a generalization. Of course, there are some MF lenses that are better than some 35mm lenses...but becasue of the amount of image area they have to cover, typically MF lenses have a lower MTF than comparable 35mm lenses of the same focal length. As I said, there are some exceptions...

Regards,

Austin
 
Do you know how many gradations of color and grey the average human eye can discern? I'm sure there are millions...



Dana
 
Hi Dana,

> Do you know how many gradations of color and grey the average human > eye can discern? I'm sure there are millions...

Color is around 16M, and gray is around 100, less than 200.

Regards,

Austin
 
Back
Top