Two views from a small town in Iceland. I personally love the corrugated metal architecture. I'd love a house constructed in that fashion! As well as a fence to nowhere...
Panasonic G9. Olympus 12-100mm Pro lens. From 2018
Ok, I have been looking at the photos you have been posting from the Leica and the Lumix/Olymupus rigs. On my screen, I am not seeing any difference in the quality of photos or color or etc. I know that between Austin and Albuquerque, the web does result in a loss of quality. So, on your screen, what differences are you seeing between the Leica 24MP and the Pany 20MP images? And, considering our common problem of G.A.S., what do you see as gained from the extra $1000s of cost due to G.A.S.? That is, beyond getting a Red Dot. Just asking. And thanks.
Also, it is great we are seeing MJ getting back up to speed. I do like hearing about pool from both of you.
Hi Mike, For anything posted on the web there is little to no difference whatsoever. If I were smart and thrifty I would have stopped buying cameras and lenses at the time I got the two Panasonic G9 cameras and the bag of lenses I had for them. But...if you were to look at the 47 megapixel files I created for Abbott in November and compared them with similar images from m4:3 you would be amazed at the differences. I guess it all depends on the final target. Right?
I have gained the ability to compete with just about anyone when it comes to technical results. Whether they matter for everyday use, enthusiast's use, etc. it a whole different question.
Kirk, thanks for that response. Yes, it is ok to have different cameras for different uses. I do. I have a G9, a GX8, and an a7Riii. Each has a different use for me. Clearly, when pixel peeping, like you, the 42 MP just blows me away vs 20MP. At normal screen and print sizes, however, I rarely see any real difference, whenever the focus is spot on.
As a side note, at one time I owned a 6D, the GX8, and an RX100ii (still own the latter two), all 20 MP. In a comparison of the 3 different sensor sizes, I saw no real differences in normal-size viewing and very little difference when pixel peeping. Later with a 24MP a7ii vs my three 20MP cameras, mostly the same conclusion, but I did end up selling the 6D and moving to Sony, now to the a7Riii for the better battery, focus, and more, sometimes using my favorite Canon glass and other times my G.A.S. added FE glass. (I blame you and MJ for my adding a Sigma 45 f/2.8 Contemporary. Loving it!)
Moving on, I saw a post on the Lens Rental bog a while back on the "Leica Color." It concluded, as I recall, that post tweaks of images from other camera brands could produce the Leica look without much effort. I would say, however, that is only one man's conclusion. That led me to ask you for a second opinion about the 20MP G9 vs 24MP SL. Your comment on the 47MP SL2 makes total sense. You see, way back when I was a kid, a friend's dad had a Leicaflex. That caused me to lust for a Red Dot camera, something I long have been trying to shake. You are not helping with that effort. :-)
Am I correct in that OLYYMPUS was first to introduce a mirrorless camera system ? I wish it would have a resurgence, I love the ratio of M 4/3 and yes the images are more than just fine. I am tired of lugging my FF system around with those ginormous lenses, and ouch the prices. Those images of ICELAND are wonderful, YES M 4/3 can create beautiful images, a camera three lenses can fit into a medium size messenger bag and it weighs next to nothing.
This is a question that Ive also been puzzling over for a while. Back in the film days I could make a much better 8x10 print from a 120 triX negative then from a 35mm negative. While I know that the digital file from a larger sensor with more pixels is “better,” now that prints are a thing of the past (for me at least) and my photo viewing is done on computer screens, its hard to see how using much beyond a M43 camera provides any real benefit. Its very counterintuitive and certainly not what the photo influencers are pushing.
I agree with all of your comments in this post! I find myself using my 20MP Olympus cameras in preference to my 36MP full-frame DSLR kit and, except for extra crispness in the FF images, I really don't see much difference in carefully-made prints up to 20-22 inches high *at normal viewing distances*. Beyond that, it's medium and large format.
Vertical corrugated metal in more subtle greys seems to be used a great deal by architects in commercial buildings, at least up here in Alaska. It seems practical and economical for cool marine climates like coastal Iceland and Alaska. A competent architect can use it to good aesthetic effect, whether alone or in combination with other exterior materials.
Looking at the foundation under the left side of the "fence to nowhere," I suspect the fence is keeping people and animals from falling into the celler of the building that is no longer there. A much more attractive solution than the rented chain link fence sections that we'd use in the US.
I really like the 4:3 image format of these, which explains my µ43 kit remaining with me. It also partly explains my Pentax fandom: click image, press Play then down arrow and choose to crop in any of the typical 4 image ratios, with a bonus press to go from portrait to landscape. I had no idea that other brands didn't think this way. Pentax: simply different.
8 comments:
Ok, I have been looking at the photos you have been posting from the Leica and the Lumix/Olymupus rigs. On my screen, I am not seeing any difference in the quality of photos or color or etc. I know that between Austin and Albuquerque, the web does result in a loss of quality. So, on your screen, what differences are you seeing between the Leica 24MP and the Pany 20MP images? And, considering our common problem of G.A.S., what do you see as gained from the extra $1000s of cost due to G.A.S.? That is, beyond getting a Red Dot. Just asking. And thanks.
Also, it is great we are seeing MJ getting back up to speed. I do like hearing about pool from both of you.
Hi Mike, For anything posted on the web there is little to no difference whatsoever. If I were smart and thrifty I would have stopped buying cameras and lenses at the time I got the two Panasonic G9 cameras and the bag of lenses I had for them. But...if you were to look at the 47 megapixel files I created for Abbott in November and compared them with similar images from m4:3 you would be amazed at the differences. I guess it all depends on the final target. Right?
I have gained the ability to compete with just about anyone when it comes to technical results. Whether they matter for everyday use, enthusiast's use, etc. it a whole different question.
Is it okay to have both?
Kirk, thanks for that response. Yes, it is ok to have different cameras for different uses. I do. I have a G9, a GX8, and an a7Riii. Each has a different use for me. Clearly, when pixel peeping, like you, the 42 MP just blows me away vs 20MP. At normal screen and print sizes, however, I rarely see any real difference, whenever the focus is spot on.
As a side note, at one time I owned a 6D, the GX8, and an RX100ii (still own the latter two), all 20 MP. In a comparison of the 3 different sensor sizes, I saw no real differences in normal-size viewing and very little difference when pixel peeping. Later with a 24MP a7ii vs my three 20MP cameras, mostly the same conclusion, but I did end up selling the 6D and moving to Sony, now to the a7Riii for the better battery, focus, and more, sometimes using my favorite Canon glass and other times my G.A.S. added FE glass. (I blame you and MJ for my adding a Sigma 45 f/2.8 Contemporary. Loving it!)
Moving on, I saw a post on the Lens Rental bog a while back on the "Leica Color." It concluded, as I recall, that post tweaks of images from other camera brands could produce the Leica look without much effort. I would say, however, that is only one man's conclusion. That led me to ask you for a second opinion about the 20MP G9 vs 24MP SL. Your comment on the 47MP SL2 makes total sense. You see, way back when I was a kid, a friend's dad had a Leicaflex. That caused me to lust for a Red Dot camera, something I long have been trying to shake. You are not helping with that effort. :-)
Am I correct in that OLYYMPUS was first to introduce a mirrorless camera system ? I wish it would have a resurgence, I love the ratio of M 4/3 and yes the images are more than just fine. I am tired of lugging my FF system around with those ginormous lenses, and ouch the prices. Those images of ICELAND are wonderful, YES M 4/3 can create beautiful images, a camera three lenses can fit into a medium size messenger bag and it weighs next to nothing.
This is a question that Ive also been puzzling over for a while. Back in the film days I could make a much better 8x10 print from a 120 triX negative then from a 35mm negative.
While I know that the digital file from a larger sensor with more pixels is “better,” now that prints are a thing of the past (for me at least) and my photo viewing is done on computer screens, its hard to see how using much beyond a M43 camera provides any real benefit. Its very counterintuitive and certainly not what the photo influencers are pushing.
Hi, Kirk:
I agree with all of your comments in this post! I find myself using my 20MP Olympus cameras in preference to my 36MP full-frame DSLR kit and, except for extra crispness in the FF images, I really don't see much difference in carefully-made prints up to 20-22 inches high *at normal viewing distances*. Beyond that, it's medium and large format.
Vertical corrugated metal in more subtle greys seems to be used a great deal by architects in commercial buildings, at least up here in Alaska. It seems practical and economical for cool marine climates like coastal Iceland and Alaska. A competent architect can use it to good aesthetic effect, whether alone or in combination with other exterior materials.
Looking at the foundation under the left side of the "fence to nowhere," I suspect the fence is keeping people and animals from falling into the celler of the building that is no longer there. A much more attractive solution than the rented chain link fence sections that we'd use in the US.
I really like the 4:3 image format of these, which explains my µ43 kit remaining with me. It also partly explains my Pentax fandom: click image, press Play then down arrow and choose to crop in any of the typical 4 image ratios, with a bonus press to go from portrait to landscape. I had no idea that other brands didn't think this way. Pentax: simply different.
Post a Comment