What type of camera would you rather use?

[Solarflare]

So what ?

 

[pixmedic]

So what ?

so...according to the article you linked...the Leica was a better camera on all counts.
the lenses are better, the camera is better, the results were better.
at base iso on a tripod, you can get the same picture quality on a D5200 as you can on your D600...
so why get your D600? why spend that much more money?
the answer? because its a better camera.
same thing with the Leica S2 and the D800.
the leica is simply a better camera, so people that want a better camera, and can afford it, get it.
just like the people that get the D800 instead of a D5300 or something.

 

[Solarflare]

Um ... no, not at all.

The S2 is a typical medium format camera - great at or near ISO 100, but dont try to get too high or the image quality will be inferior. Its the same with the Panasonic 645D, the Hassleblad cameras, Phase One Digital backs etc.

The issue is simply that for formats above 36x24mm, no existing factory can produce the sensor in one piece. Thus multiple sensors have to be "stiched" together to get the final sensor. Apparently this only works with CCD type sensors, not with CMOS (I havent found a good explanation why thats the case). The market of medium format cameras is simply too small to make it feasible to create a factory that can produce larger sensors in one step. Thus, unfortunately, right now medium format sensors are inferior when it comes to high ISO.

Also, Leica S, like all medium format cameras, doesnt really have such a great autofocus, at least not in comparison. While the D800 will allow you to shoot sports just fine. Granted, not with a high fps like specialized cameras, and not with the high ISO reserves of specialized cameras, but the autofocus system will keep up nicely - the D800 has the same autofocus chip as the Nikon D4, and in fact the D800 has the least shutter lag of all cameras when it was released (I'm not sure if that still is the case).

The S2 great if you want the ultimate image quality and have enough light. The D800 is kind of the small format equivalent to that, from its specialization; but its also a great general purpose camera.

I have chosen the D600 since I wanted a camera that gives me more reserves when it comes to low light, and I wanted autofocus thats able to handle sports and action, in case I needed that. Thats why I use Nikon glass. Great Nikon glass, but its not as good as Zeiss stuff. Its much cheaper though, its still very good, and it has autofocus.

Your belief more expensive = must be better is wrong. Up to a certain point, you have the large companies with their massive knowhow. Above that, the small companies that fill the niches. The small companies can give you ultimate image quality - but for a small improvement, you will pay a lot, and the cameras wont have all the nice and fancy stuff of the cameras of the big companies.

 

[gsgary]

Um ... no, not at all.

The S2 is a typical medium format camera - great at or near ISO 100, but dont try to get too high or the image quality will be inferior. Its the same with the Panasonic 645D, the Hassleblad cameras, Phase One Digital backs etc.

The issue is simply that for formats above 36x24mm, no existing factory can produce the sensor in one piece. Thus multiple sensors have to be "stiched" together to get the final sensor. Apparently this only works with CCD type sensors, not with CMOS (I havent found a good explanation why thats the case). The market of medium format cameras is simply too small to make it feasible to create a factory that can produce larger sensors in one step. Thus, unfortunately, right now medium format sensors are inferior when it comes to high ISO.

Also, Leica S, like all medium format cameras, doesnt really have such a great autofocus, at least not in comparison. While the D800 will allow you to shoot sports just fine. Granted, not with a high fps like specialized cameras, and not with the high ISO reserves of specialized cameras, but the autofocus system will keep up nicely - the D800 has the same autofocus chip as the Nikon D4, and in fact the D800 has the least shutter lag of all cameras when it was released (I'm not sure if that still is the case).

The S2 great if you want the ultimate image quality and have enough light. The D800 is kind of the small format equivalent to that, from its specialization; but its also a great general purpose camera.

I have chosen the D600 since I wanted a camera that gives me more reserves when it comes to low light, and I wanted autofocus thats able to handle sports and action, in case I needed that. Thats why I use Nikon glass. Great Nikon glass, but its not as good as Zeiss stuff. Its much cheaper though, its still very good, and it has autofocus.

Your belief more expensive = must be better is wrong. Up to a certain point, you have the large companies with their massive knowhow. Above that, the small companies that fill the niches. The small companies can give you ultimate image quality - but for a small improvement, you will pay a lot, and the cameras wont have all the nice and fancy stuff of the cameras of the big companies.

Why would you want to shoot high iso's with a medium format any way

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[pixmedic]

Um ... no, not at all.

The S2 is a typical medium format camera - great at or near ISO 100, but dont try to get too high or the image quality will be inferior. Its the same with the Panasonic 645D, the Hassleblad cameras, Phase One Digital backs etc.

The issue is simply that for formats above 36x24mm, no existing factory can produce the sensor in one piece. Thus multiple sensors have to be "stiched" together to get the final sensor. Apparently this only works with CCD type sensors, not with CMOS (I havent found a good explanation why thats the case). The market of medium format cameras is simply too small to make it feasible to create a factory that can produce larger sensors in one step. Thus, unfortunately, right now medium format sensors are inferior when it comes to high ISO.

Also, Leica S, like all medium format cameras, doesnt really have such a great autofocus, at least not in comparison. While the D800 will allow you to shoot sports just fine. Granted, not with a high fps like specialized cameras, and not with the high ISO reserves of specialized cameras, but the autofocus system will keep up nicely - the D800 has the same autofocus chip as the Nikon D4, and in fact the D800 has the least shutter lag of all cameras when it was released (I'm not sure if that still is the case).

The S2 great if you want the ultimate image quality and have enough light. The D800 is kind of the small format equivalent to that, from its specialization; but its also a great general purpose camera.

I have chosen the D600 since I wanted a camera that gives me more reserves when it comes to low light, and I wanted autofocus thats able to handle sports and action, in case I needed that. Thats why I use Nikon glass. Great Nikon glass, but its not as good as Zeiss stuff. Its much cheaper though, its still very good, and it has autofocus.

Your belief more expensive = must be better is wrong. Up to a certain point, you have the large companies with their massive knowhow. Above that, the small companies that fill the niches. The small companies can give you ultimate image quality - but for a small improvement, you will pay a lot, and the cameras wont have all the nice and fancy stuff of the cameras of the big companies.

\

more expensive is typically better. you get more options and features, better build quality. that's why they cost more money.
and according to the link that YOU posted, the guy even says the Leica tested better in all areas than the D800e.
how MUCH better is irrelevant as long as there are some people willing to pay for the difference.
the Leica proved to have better image quality than the D800e.
whether or not you want to spend the money on the better camera is up to the buyer.
whether or not small upgrades are worth a larger premium is up to the buyer.
whether the upgrades are are even important is up to the buyer.
but the fact still remains, the more expensive cameras are usually better than the less expensive ones.
just like the D600 is better than your prior D5100, and just so happens to be more expensive. coincidence? I think not.
you thought the upgrades were worth the higher price, so you paid it. its no different than people that think the Leica is worth the extra money.

 

[robbins.photo]

guess this is odd, but I'd rather shoot with my current camera D600. Love will not leave it. Die with the *****. just kiddin about the die with thing. later Ed

I dunno, I rather like that. I can see it now, on the tombstone - Here lies T. Robbins. Lousy father, terrible husband, a real plague on humanity - but he loved his D600. Yup. .that has serious possibilites.. lol

 

[robbins.photo]

Um ... no, not at all.

The S2 is a typical medium format camera - great at or near ISO 100, but dont try to get too high or the image quality will be inferior. Its the same with the Panasonic 645D, the Hassleblad cameras, Phase One Digital backs etc.

The issue is simply that for formats above 36x24mm, no existing factory can produce the sensor in one piece. Thus multiple sensors have to be "stiched" together to get the final sensor. Apparently this only works with CCD type sensors, not with CMOS (I havent found a good explanation why thats the case). The market of medium format cameras is simply too small to make it feasible to create a factory that can produce larger sensors in one step. Thus, unfortunately, right now medium format sensors are inferior when it comes to high ISO.

Also, Leica S, like all medium format cameras, doesnt really have such a great autofocus, at least not in comparison. While the D800 will allow you to shoot sports just fine. Granted, not with a high fps like specialized cameras, and not with the high ISO reserves of specialized cameras, but the autofocus system will keep up nicely - the D800 has the same autofocus chip as the Nikon D4, and in fact the D800 has the least shutter lag of all cameras when it was released (I'm not sure if that still is the case).

The S2 great if you want the ultimate image quality and have enough light. The D800 is kind of the small format equivalent to that, from its specialization; but its also a great general purpose camera.

I have chosen the D600 since I wanted a camera that gives me more reserves when it comes to low light, and I wanted autofocus thats able to handle sports and action, in case I needed that. Thats why I use Nikon glass. Great Nikon glass, but its not as good as Zeiss stuff. Its much cheaper though, its still very good, and it has autofocus.

Your belief more expensive = must be better is wrong. Up to a certain point, you have the large companies with their massive knowhow. Above that, the small companies that fill the niches. The small companies can give you ultimate image quality - but for a small improvement, you will pay a lot, and the cameras wont have all the nice and fancy stuff of the cameras of the big companies.

\

more expensive is typically better. you get more options and features, better build quality. that's why they cost more money.
and according to the link that YOU posted, the guy even says the Leica tested better in all areas than the D800e.
how MUCH better is irrelevant as long as there are some people willing to pay for the difference.
the Leica proved to have better image quality than the D800e.
whether or not you want to spend the money on the better camera is up to the buyer.
whether or not small upgrades are worth a larger premium is up to the buyer.
whether the upgrades are are even important is up to the buyer.
but the fact still remains, the more expensive cameras are usually better than the less expensive ones.
just like the D600 is better than your prior D5100, and just so happens to be more expensive. coincidence? I think not.
you thought the upgrades were worth the higher price, so you paid it. its no different than people that think the Leica is worth the extra money.

Guys.. guys.. woah. This can be settled very easily in a very civilized fashion. Ok, were going to need some ace bandages, some resin, a couple of bowls full of broken glass and a pit. Anyone have a nice pit in their back yard that we can use?

 

[limr]

guess this is odd, but I'd rather shoot with my current camera D600. Love will not leave it. Die with the *****. just kiddin about the die with thing. later Ed

I dunno, I rather like that. I can see it now, on the tombstone - Here lies T. Robbins. Lousy father, terrible husband, a real plague on humanity - but he loved his D600. Yup. .that has serious possibilites.. lol

Well, I might have my K1000 cremated with me

I read all the posts about the sensors and the ISO performance differences and yadda yadda, I'd still take the Leica film rangefinder. These are exactly the kind of discussions that make my eyes glaze over and run screaming from digital. I stand by my original answer: give me the Leica, I'll slap a roll of TriX in it and then go shooting. Boom, done. I don't care if the OP meant a digital Leica - he left it ambiguous, so I defined the parameters myself.

 

[robbins.photo]

guess this is odd, but I'd rather shoot with my current camera D600. Love will not leave it. Die with the *****. just kiddin about the die with thing. later Ed

I dunno, I rather like that. I can see it now, on the tombstone - Here lies T. Robbins. Lousy father, terrible husband, a real plague on humanity - but he loved his D600. Yup. .that has serious possibilites.. lol

Well, I might have my K1000 cremated with me

I read all the posts about the sensors and the ISO performance differences and yadda yadda, I'd still take the Leica film rangefinder. These are exactly the kind of discussions that make my eyes glaze over and run screaming from digital. I stand by my original answer: give me the Leica, I'll slap a roll of TriX in it and then go shooting. Boom, done. I don't care if the OP meant a digital Leica - he left it ambiguous, so I defined the parameters myself.

Well it's a female's perogative to be able to define her own parameters. Then change her mind about them. Then change it back. Then nag you for not knowing she changed back, because if you really cared about her you'd pay attention to those sort of details.

So ya, you women folk pretty much have it made.. lol. As for the rest, I guess if I ever get to the point where I've got 15-30 grand in income that is so disposable that I could justify buying a camera with it then maybe I'll get worked up about it. Till then.. eh, not so much. Lol

 

[limr]

Dude, you all are doing the same thing! OP said "Leica" - it was the men who decided that meant the complicated digital gear-focused discussion. I was the one who simplified

[Edited: Just because you only deal with capricious women doesn't mean we're all like that, btw. I'm a cards-on-the-table sort of a girl. But then again, that's perhaps why a lot of folks here thought I was a man ]

 

[robbins.photo]

Dude, you all are doing the same thing! OP said "Leica" - it was the men who decided that meant the complicated digital gear-focused discussion. I was the one who simplified

[Edited: Just because you only deal with capricious women doesn't mean we're all like that, btw. I'm a cards-on-the-table sort of a girl. But then again, that's perhaps why a lot of folks here thought I was a man ]

Well ya.. duh. We're men. We get obsessed over silly, meaningless technical details. Other than burping and farting it's really the only niche we can properly fill.. lol

 

[limr]

Well, okay, just as long as you're stereotyping yourselves as well :mrgreen:

 

[robbins.photo]

Well, okay, just as long as you're stereotyping yourselves as well :mrgreen:

I got over most of my self-delusions years ago - lol. So do you have a nice pit or know where we could borrow one to get this thing settled? Lol

 

[usayit]

I believe this is what the OP intended to happen in this thread....

 

[pixmedic]

I believe this is what the OP intended to happen in this thread....

TPF hates to disappoint.