D700 replacement!

[Tom dinning]

Tom and Theodoros,

I don't believe your interests and values are as different as they seem. One can have bread or pasta and think it makes a difference. The truth is that one is baked and the other is boiled, but all essentially from the same ingredients and prepared with the same devotion.

@ Theodoros, Tom could just as easily debate technical differences on a host of cameras he's used or wished for. His language, (spanning from erudite to obscene), always carries force of being "right"! He makes up for that with some exceptional pictures.

@ Tom,

Theodoros' early B&W pictures would be at home in your collections. He could have taught your students over the years, and, (as long he obeyed the local social laws), might have been your equal in effectiveness. Just that, instead, he got hooked Greek weddings and by the Archbishop's need for giant replicas of ancient planks, painted with saintly figures, all icons of the Church. This gig wouldn't have worked for you as you are led by your whims, the barber and the man in the bicycle store, and would likely as not, would have told the said Bishop to **gger off!

Asher

More likely to have told the bride to **** off, Asher. I've been to a Greek wedding. My sister's. I would prefer to be a crash dummy for Ford than go to another one, especially with the intentions of photographing it.

You don't need to act as a mediator either. Theo and I can stand at arms length and discuss any matter without actually drawing blood. He's even getting used to my sarcasm and I'm getting used to his seriousness.
The first criteria in Tolerance is to establish a point of disagreement. The next is to find a way of working with it. If we agree with each ones point of view, there is no tolerance. If we agree to agree, that's patronizing.
Theo has taught me a great deal about stuff I know nothing about. I still maintain my stance but at least I'm more informed. I'm sure we will continue to put our point of view forward with gusto and finesse. That's what we are here for, is it not?
Or would you prefer us to all agree with you?

 

[Doug Kerr]

Tom and Theodoros are precisely consistent in their prose style in that neither provide us with real paragraph breaks in their dissertations.

Best regards,

Doug

Not the inventor of the CR (Enter) key but a big fan of it nevertheless.

 

[Asher Kelman]

The first criteria in Tolerance is to establish a point of disagreement. The next is to find a way of working with it. If we agree with each ones point of view, there is no tolerance. If we agree to agree, that's patronizing.

Interesting start.

 

[Tom dinning]

Tom and Theodoros are precisely consistent in their prose style in that neither provide us with real paragraph breaks in their dissertations.

Best regards,

Doug

Not the inventor of the CR (Enter) key but a big fan of it nevertheless.

Only a bloody engineer would consider precision in literacy. I hope you're not using a slide rule to do the calculations, Doug. Or log tables. Or an abacus. Maybe you're counting on your fingers.

If Theo and I could resolve the issue with the resolute and more precise answer of 43, there would be no argument. Fortunately, the margin of error in language will probably give us a ball park figure with considerable deviation from the mean. It more fun that way.

 

[Jerome Marot]

I am always a bit puzzled when I hear about "recent major improvements in sensor technology". In my experience, sensor technology already reached a level close to the theoretical maximum about 3-4 years ago (depending a bit on the manufacturer). By theoretical maximum, I mean the limits imposed by quantum theory and the granularity of light. All the cameras I have tried that were manufactured since that time have shown to be equivalent for a given sensor size, the differences between them being of little practical consequence. The differences between one sensor size and the next one up are visible in some circumstances, but are a direct consequence of the sensor surface being bigger.

There are noticeable differences in the cameras' processing ability, especially in low light, but my experience has been that old raw files processed with modern noise reduction software are very similar to files produced by new cameras. Hence: the differences are entirely due to better built-in noise reduction software and not to better sensor hardware, whatever DXO is trying to let us believe.

There are differences in color rendering between different brands but the differences are smaller than the ones between the different rendering choice of a single camera or between what can be achieved by post processing. The differences may be important in some very demanding applications, but I have yet to be presented with a convincing proof that they come from sensor technology. This being said, if one charges for his time, the ability of a camera-software combination to produce easily the tones one wants is worth a lot of money.

All in one, I am not convinced that any recent camera will be a significant improvement on a camera of similar category that is about 3 years old when one uses modern raw converters on the old files. I came to that conclusion after having tried too many cameras for my own good, including a few that I borrowed from friends. By "significant improvement", I mean one that will show on a A3 (about 11"x16") or even A2 print (about 17"x24"). If you print wall-size and look at the print with a loupe or, what is the equivalent, peep at pixels on a screen, some minute differences remain.

The differences that remain significant are:
-differences between lenses, but only for some applications
-whether a camera/lens is stabilized or not
-differences in metering (but we are normally able to correct that)
-differences in the ergonomics between cameras.
On these 4 points, I don't feel that the industry has made progresses recently. I would even venture that some changes have been a regression.

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

More likely to have told the bride to **** off, Asher. I've been to a Greek wedding. My sister's. I would prefer to be a crash dummy for Ford than go to another one, especially with the intentions of photographing it.

You don't need to act as a mediator either. Theo and I can stand at arms length and discuss any matter without actually drawing blood. He's even getting used to my sarcasm and I'm getting used to his seriousness.
The first criteria in Tolerance is to establish a point of disagreement. The next is to find a way of working with it. If we agree with each ones point of view, there is no tolerance. If we agree to agree, that's patronizing.
Theo has taught me a great deal about stuff I know nothing about. I still maintain my stance but at least I'm more informed. I'm sure we will continue to put our point of view forward with gusto and finesse. That's what we are here for, is it not?
Or would you prefer us to all agree with you?

Good post… I guess I have to move a step further and explain my position:
IMO, there is artistic photography, there is "professional" photography and there is "snap/memory/instagram" photography… There are many photographers that are both artists and pros… Artistic photography is what I love, it's not a thing of the past for me, it's not an "abandoned passion" either… I will never stop creating artistic images, nor I will ever stop to visualise the "photograph" (the printed image) before I make the shot… Unfortunately, I live in a very bad economical environment, where art is the first that suffers (because people have "survival" criteria and art is the last they will pay for), hence, this influences my balance of interest.
OTOH, since photography is still "only the printed thing on paper", I don't see how one can think of improving his photography without trying to perfect his visualisation… Does anybody know another way (in any art - musical instruments, colour knowledge of painters, vocabulary and language origin for writing) that this can be accomplished? Have you ever thought why artistic photography (street too) is so much inferior with digital than it was with film? My opinion/answer to the previous, is simply because the technical knowledge in treating lighting altered the visualisation approach and compatibility with their technical knowledge (the reason why I was late into digital - I had to bring it under control first).
But, Tom… "that's what forums are for.." makes you right, the question is "which threads of the forum?" because otherwise we will end up discussing the same thing on all threads and then we will be damaging the forum…

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

I am always a bit puzzled when I hear about "recent major improvements in sensor technology". In my experience, sensor technology already reached a level close to the theoretical maximum about 3-4 years ago (depending a bit on the manufacturer). By theoretical maximum, I mean the limits imposed by quantum theory and the granularity of light. All the cameras I have tried that were manufactured since that time have shown to be equivalent for a given sensor size, the differences between them being of little practical consequence. The differences between one sensor size and the next one up are visible in some circumstances, but are a direct consequence of the sensor surface being bigger.

There are noticeable differences in the cameras' processing ability, especially in low light, but my experience has been that old raw files processed with modern noise reduction software are very similar to files produced by new cameras. Hence: the differences are entirely due to better built-in noise reduction software and not to better sensor hardware, whatever DXO is trying to let us believe.

There are differences in color rendering between different brands but the differences are smaller than the ones between the different rendering choice of a single camera or between what can be achieved by post processing. The differences may be important in some very demanding applications, but I have yet to be presented with a convincing proof that they come from sensor technology. This being said, if one charges for his time, the ability of a camera-software combination to produce easily the tones one wants is worth a lot of money.

All in one, I am not convinced that any recent camera will be a significant improvement on a camera of similar category that is about 3 years old when one uses modern raw converters on the old files. I came to that conclusion after having tried too many cameras for my own good, including a few that I borrowed from friends. By "significant improvement", I mean one that will show on a A3 (about 11"x16") or even A2 print (about 17"x24"). If you print wall-size and look at the print with a loupe or, what is the equivalent, peep at pixels on a screen, some minute differences remain.

The differences that remain significant are:
-differences between lenses, but only for some applications
-whether a camera/lens is stabilized or not
-differences in metering (but we are normally able to correct that)
-differences in the ergonomics between cameras.
On these 4 points, I don't feel that the industry has made progresses recently. I would even venture that some changes have been a regression.

Jerome….
1. D4'S sensor (2012) is five and a half (2006) "digital years" more advanced than the previous equivalent (the 12mp one of the D3/D700).
OTOH, one's perception of "difference" varies with the ability to spot and take advantage of the same "difference" (look above to my other post/reply to Tom).
Still, my opinion is that next generation sensors will have only marginal performance differences to improve ones abilities in photography.
My opinion, having studied "true colour" photography for too long now and having to move beyond known (automatic) photographic profiles to achieve perfection in art reproduction, is that unless we get reed of "Bayer pattern" and interpolated colour, no major improvement will be worthwhile in both colour or B&W photography. I've come to believe that "treating lighting" is a factor that most photographers have left on the hands of makers labs who do things for the mass of the market, which (along with the undervaluation" of the print as being the "photograph") "sabotages" the meaning of photography in general… If Adams (and some other masters of lighting) was alive, things would be different.

To make myself clear, MO is that now, digital photography by using an FF sensor of Sony or Nikon (especially D4's sensor) can exceed what was achievable on a print with film, while this wasn't true up to now (Canon sensors are near but not there IMO and no better than the original 5D which was well beyond its age). But still, photographers have difficulties to adapt their visualisation with digital and thus find their "true meaning" of photography…
Mind you that resolution and sharpness has nothing to do with my sentence above… nor it is related with photography IMO.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Jerome….
1. D4'S sensor (2012) is five and a half (2006) "digital years" more advanced than the previous equivalent (the 12mp one of the D3/D700).

Then, instead of writing "no major improvements in sensor technology have been made since 2009", I should have written: ""no major improvements in sensor technology have been made since 2006, when one compares the professional line of 2006 with today's amateur line".

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Then, instead of writing "no major improvements in sensor technology have been made since 2009", I should have written: ""no major improvements in sensor technology have been made since 2006, when one compares the professional line of 2006 with today's amateur line".

What do you mean Jerome? Do you have D3s's and D3X sensors in mind…? I say this, because D3s sensor is the same (or even worst) with the original one, but to the shape of the micro lenses (which makes performance better in higher sensitivities, but worst in the lower ones) and D3X uses A900's sensor which is of the same generation and no better in other than resolution than the D700 one...

 

[Jerome Marot]

Let us make this discussion simpler, because we are running in circles.

You believe that the D4 sensor is much better than the D700 sensor. If I recall correctly, you have the two cameras.

I don't believe you. Post pictures taken with the two cameras to show me the difference.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Theodoros,

. . .is that unless we get rid of "Bayer pattern" and interpolated colour, no major improvement will be worthwhile in both colour or B&W photography. . . .

Hear, hear,

I'm not sure I would agree about "no major improvement", but I think that certainly the "next big thing" must be non-interpolated chromaticity sensors.

It is a great tribute to the inventors involved that CFA sensor systems deliver the performance they do, but this is spinning not gold out of lead but perhaps just silver.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Let us make this discussion simpler, because we are running in circles.

You believe that the D4 sensor is much better than the D700 sensor. If I recall correctly, you have the two cameras.

I don't believe you. Post pictures taken with the two cameras to show me the difference.

I think you haven't understand a word of what I am saying Jerome…

1. I don't say that all pictures are achievable only by using the newer sensor, I say that there are pictures (important ones with difficult lighting) that the (visualised) result would fail with previous sensors and which where achievable with film or with latest generation sensors (D4's in particular).

2. I say that difference is obvious if you seek an image that requires the difference to be achieved…

3. I say that a photograph is only the printed thing on paper… not your screen (or monitor) presentation. Thus don't ask me on posting you web examples which are irrelevant…

You really have to understand Jerome, that DR is the treatment of lighting and thus the most important aspect in what we call photography… but since photography is only the printed thing on paper, what a sensor records as achievable DR, …is very different that what DR remains to be printed after development of the image to achieve the original visualisation…

P.S: No Jerrome, I don't still own the D700 (what would be the point with D4 in my possession?) I only have the D4 and a D800E… nor if I had it I would shoot "any image", develop it "the same" and post you the result for you to judge "all things been equal" nonsense… this is because: 1. None can judge an image unless he prints it… 2. Each image coming out of a different sensor needs different development to maximise its impact… hence the "reviews" (or lab tests) you read on web are mostly crap… and I don't do crap, I only communicate (and support) my opinion.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Theodoros,

I say that a photograph is only the printed thing on paper… not your screen (or monitor) presentation.

And perhaps only if originally captured on a glass plate (wet, preferably).

I can't agree with your outlook on what a photograph must be. For example, there is no conceptual reason that an image seen on an electronic display (perhaps on a gallery wall) is not every bit as much a photograph as one printed with an ink-jet printer on a plastic substrate (oh, you said paper, didn't you).

Of course the "printed" product is still an important form. And our ability to produce that form, when that is what is needed, places many requirements on the whole chain. But it is not "the photographic form".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jerome Marot]

Then send me samples to be printed. I can print them using an Epson 3880 or send them to a photo lab.

It is quite simple: either I see it or I don't believe it.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Jerome,

Then send me samples to be printed. I can print them using an Epson 3880 or send them to a photo lab.

A good plan.

But will you burn and dodge them the way Theo would have?

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Hi, Jerome,



A good plan.

But will you burn and dodge them the way Theo would have?

Best regards,

Doug

No he won't… there isn't such a thing as two different labs in this world that will print the same outcome out of the same file (not even if material is the same)… I won't turn this into DPR logic… if Jerome needs proof, he better come in my lab and he will have enough… if he want's things "his way" or the way that DPR or LuLa nameless trolls require the "results", he better go with them and seek that truth… it won't make me change what I research for or what I consider best…
My intension was never to convince him… it is my justified opinion on what I consider best and I am willing to share it with those that want to discuss it and either criticise it, or accept its justification I won't play the "Einstein" here… it's only findings that needs discussion in forums with others that have similar or completely different results.

If you ask me, "DXO said" or "the findings of Guru" is all crap… unless one tries things, explores the limits of things, wonders about findings and have "own justified opinion" he a "repeater" of other mouths than his…. which isn't a good thing.

OTOH, if one asks for proven results, …I think (if he has a real opposition and is sure about the opposite outcome) he can always post his opposite results… that would prove him smart …not SmartA… wouldn't it?

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Hi, Theodoros,



And perhaps only if originally captured on a glass plate (wet, preferably).

I can't agree with your outlook on what a photograph must be. For example, there is no conceptual reason that an image seen on an electronic display (perhaps on a gallery wall) is not every bit as much a photograph as one printed with an ink-jet printer on a plastic substrate (oh, you said paper, didn't you).

Of course the "printed" product is still an important form. And our ability to produce that form, when that is what is needed, places many requirements on the whole chain. But it is not "the photographic form".

Best regards,

Doug

Doug, there are many people that would buy (much cheaper) the digital file of a novel…. IS THAT A BOOK? …the author is still an author alright! …but is it a book?

 

[Jerome Marot]

No he won't… there isn't such a thing as two different labs in this world that will print the same outcome out of the same file (not even if material is the same)… I won't turn this into DPR logic… if Jerome needs proof, he better come in my lab and he will have enough… if he want's things "his way" or the way that DPR or LuLa nameless trolls require the "results", he better go with them and seek that truth… it won't make me change what I research for or what I consider best…
My intension was never to convince him… it is my justified opinion on what I consider best and I am willing to share it with those that want to discuss it and either criticise it, or accept its justification I won't play the "Einstein" here… it's only findings that needs discussion in forums with others that have similar or completely different results.

If you ask me, "DXO said" or "the findings of Guru" is all crap… unless one tries things, explores the limits of things, wonders about findings and have "own justified opinion" he a "repeater" of other mouths than his…. which isn't a good thing.

OTOH, if one asks for proven results, …I think (if he has a real opposition and is sure about the opposite outcome) he can always post his opposite results… that would prove him smart …not SmartA… wouldn't it?

Great. I am glad we got this sorted out that quickly.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Theodoros,

Doug, there are many people that would buy (much cheaper) the digital file of a novel…. IS THAT A BOOK? …the author is still an author alright! …but is it a book?

Carla buys almost all her literary works that way.

They are billed as books.

I have no idea if they are "books" or not, nor what I would knew if I knew that.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Tom dinning]

Good post… I guess I have to move a step further and explain my position:
IMO, there is artistic photography, there is "professional" photography and there is "snap/memory/instagram" photography… There are many photographers that are both artists and pros… Artistic photography is what I love, it's not a thing of the past for me, it's not an "abandoned passion" either… I will never stop creating artistic images, nor I will ever stop to visualise the "photograph" (the printed image) before I make the shot… Unfortunately, I live in a very bad economical environment, where art is the first that suffers (because people have "survival" criteria and art is the last they will pay for), hence, this influences my balance of interest.
OTOH, since photography is still "only the printed thing on paper", I don't see how one can think of improving his photography without trying to perfect his visualisation… Does anybody know another way (in any art - musical instruments, colour knowledge of painters, vocabulary and language origin for writing) that this can be accomplished? Have you ever thought why artistic photography (street too) is so much inferior with digital than it was with film? My opinion/answer to the previous, is simply because the technical knowledge in treating lighting altered the visualisation approach and compatibility with their technical knowledge (the reason why I was late into digital - I had to bring it under control first).
But, Tom… "that's what forums are for.." makes you right, the question is "which threads of the forum?" because otherwise we will end up discussing the same thing on all threads and then we will be damaging the forum…

I think its a cultural thing, Theo. My wife, Christine is from another culture. They sort of speak english but I swear its her second language. Nevertheless, she persists with keeping to the topic and constantly grabs the steering wheel to pull be of the gravel. When I first met her she sat quietly with a group of my Aussie friends (she was 'with' someone else at the time) and hardly said a word all evening and spoke only when she was spoken to. I immediately fell in love with her on that basis alone. Her beauty was a secondary consideration.
I later asked her how she enjoyed the evening. "Fine," she said, 'but how do you ever get anything resolved between you. You talk over one another, butt in, go completely off track and never listen to what the other person is saying?"
"Do we?" I asked.
Then I began to take notice. Aussies do that. Get a group together and its in for a quid, as they say. Shouting, abuse, sarcasm, threats, off-track, irrelevant information, in general, absolute mayhem. At the end of the day we all part friends (sort of) and repeat the same another day in another place. Same topics, same jokes, same people, same arguments, same conclusion: no-one knows what they are talking about. But oh, what fun we had. As soon as someone gets serious they get lampooned and told to go talk to a priest or their mother.
Christine still doesn't get it after 35 years.
Its a cultural thing, and I'm proud to be part it.
Cheers
Tom

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Theodoros,

. . . but to the shape of the micro lenses (which makes performance better in higher sensitivities, but worst in the lower ones). . .

That is interesting. Better how? Worse how? Could you describe how that happens?

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Hi, Theodoros,



That is interesting. Better how? Worse how? Could you describe how that happens?

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,
The purpose of micro lenses is to direct as many photons to the bottom of a pixel and thus improve the S/N ratio, thus the shape of the micro lenses affects noise performance… an aggressive shape, does direct more photons to the bottom of a pixel but also deflects more photons, the result is beneficial in higher sensitivities because one gets cleaner (although a bit less) signal to be amplified but also reduces the amount of photons in low sensitivities… A good example is Phase One's P31+ and P45+ MFDBs where the sensor is identical, but one of them is using micro lenses while the other one doesn't… The smaller sensor that does use microlenses is much better in higher sensitivities but it has inferior performance in lower ones… Also the smaller sensor has less size to avoid the higher deflection of photons that happens at the edges of the light sensitive area where the angle of light rays would be more aggressive. Obviously the combination of having a large pixel combined with micro lens is that one has enough amount of "clean" photons entering the pixel.

 

[Tom dinning]

Aaaaahhhh! (Cry of anguish)

Cats on one thread, computations on another. Where is there life?
I read these threads and I still don't get it.
Am I outdated, obsolete, archaic, in my ignorance or do I just have a persistence that does not want to understand?
Is there anyone else out there?

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Aaaaahhhh! (Cry of anguish)

Cats on one thread, computations on another. Where is there life?
I read these threads and I still don't get it.
Am I outdated, obsolete, archaic, in my ignorance or do I just have a persistence that does not want to understand?
Is there anyone else out there?

Now don't be a whiner Tom. The thread with the cat photo is actually about showing and telling of real life photos.

 

[Tom dinning]

Now don't be a whiner Tom. The thread with the cat photo is actually about showing and telling of real life photos.

In Oz we call them WHINGER as in 'whinging pommy bastard' or 'whinging sheila'
I'm desperate to understand, that's all. How much do we need to know? Really! All the way down to 'clean' photons, whatever the **** they are! Does anyone drive better to their destination because they know the doovalacky is attached to the watsimicallit in the internat combustion engine?
I kep reading but there is no evidence, no living proof, not even a decent hypothesis around which we could construct a few trials. Just talk. Theo knows more than Doug knows more than Jerome ....... sort of thing.
Most of what I have read here is hearsay anyway. **** dug up from the internet with little or nothing concrete to support it but a bunch of mambo jumbo, pseudo-science from non-specialists in the field.

At least you cat is real. I've seen it move. Mind you, it's getting a bit fat. It won't out pace me next I visit. It will look good as slippers to keep my feet warm!

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Theodoros,

Hi Doug,
The purpose of micro lenses is to direct as many photons to the bottom of a pixel and thus improve the S/N ratio, thus the shape of the micro lenses affects noise performance… an aggressive shape, does direct more photons to the bottom of a pixel but also deflects more photons, the result is beneficial in higher sensitivities because one gets cleaner (although a bit less) signal to be amplified but also reduces the amount of photons in low sensitivities… A good example is Phase One's P31+ and P45+ MFDBs where the sensor is identical, but one of them is using micro lenses while the other one doesn't… The smaller sensor that does use microlenses is much better in higher sensitivities but it has inferior performance in lower ones… Also the smaller sensor has less size to avoid the higher deflection of photons that happens at the edges of the light sensitive area where the angle of light rays would be more aggressive. Obviously the combination of having a large pixel combined with micro lens is that one has enough amount of "clean" photons entering the pixel.

Thank you.

I don't understand "deflecting" photons.

Are you saying that the disadvantage of a sensor with microlenses that gather a larger fraction of the overall incident photometric energy into the detectors is:

The effective sensitivity is less for greater angles of incidence (which phenomenon overall has a greater effect as we go out from the center of the image?​

?

If so, why would that be more of a problem at lower sensitivities? Does it somehow relate to the fact that, at lower sensitivities, we must accept more photons in each photodetector detector over the course of the exposure?

If that is not what you mean, maybe you could explain further. I would especially be interested in more clarification regarding "deflection" of photons.

And again, it would be helpful to know in what way was the performance "inferior" at lower sensitivities?

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Tom,

In Oz we call them WHINGER as in 'whinging pommy bastard' or 'whinging sheila'
I'm desperate to understand, that's all. How much do we need to know? Really! All the way down to 'clean' photons, whatever the **** they are! Does anyone drive better to their destination because they know the doovalacky is attached to the watsimicallit in the internat combustion engine?
I kep reading but there is no evidence, no living proof, not even a decent hypothesis around which we could construct a few trials. Just talk. Theo knows more than Doug knows more than Jerome ....... sort of thing.

I enjoy many of your essays.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

In Oz we call them WHINGER as in 'whinging pommy bastard' or 'whinging sheila'
I'm desperate to understand, that's all. How much do we need to know? Really! All the way down to 'clean' photons, whatever the **** they are! Does anyone drive better to their destination because they know the doovalacky is attached to the watsimicallit in the internat combustion engine?
I kep reading but there is no evidence, no living proof, not even a decent hypothesis around which we could construct a few trials. Just talk. Theo knows more than Doug knows more than Jerome ....... sort of thing.
Most of what I have read here is hearsay anyway. **** dug up from the internet with little or nothing concrete to support it but a bunch of mambo jumbo, pseudo-science from non-specialists in the field.

At least you cat is real. I've seen it move. Mind you, it's getting a bit fat. It won't out pace me next I visit. It will look good as slippers to keep my feet warm!

As you said it's a forum Tom… Doug had an enquire from me… I wouldn't have gone into the subject if he didn't have…
Anyway, I would like your opinion on the ergonomics of this new camera… what do you think? I am also glad to inform you, that one with little skills can remove the leatherettes that cover it and replace them with red ones!

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Theodoros,

OTOH, since photography is still "only the printed thing on paper", I don't see how one can think of improving his photography without trying to perfect his visualisation…

I certainly agree with the green, but I can't see how it flows from the red (a questionably notion in its own right).

If I am preparing an image that I expect to be viewed, perhaps by my colleagues in this forum, on an electronic display, I certainly need to give every bit as much attention to visualizing the delivered result as if I planned to print it in reflective media on some physical substrate and mail a copy to each of you.

Have you ever thought why artistic photography (street too) is so much inferior with digital than it was with film?

Wow! I had never realized that!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Hi, Theodoros,


Thank you.

I don't understand "deflecting" photons.

Are you saying that the disadvantage of a sensor with microlenses that gather a larger fraction of the overall incident photometric energy into the detectors is:

The effective sensitivity is less for greater angles of incidence (which phenomenon overall has a greater effect as we go out from the center of the image?​

?

If so, why would that be more of a problem at lower sensitivities? Does it somehow relate to the fact that, at lower sensitivities, we must accept more photons in each photodetector detector over the course of the exposure?

If that is not what you mean, maybe you could explain further. I would especially be interested in more clarification regarding "deflection" of photons.

And again, it would be helpful to know in what way was the performance "inferior" at lower sensitivities?

Best regards,

Doug

Oh com'on Doug… we can go for ages on this… One answer only (last one), deflection occurs on any curved surface depending on the angle, it's the short of thing like a space craft entering the atmosphere… the more the angle the more easy the deflection is, ...obviously a deflected photon can enter a different pixel than where it should go in the first place, but I bet you know all this. The point for photographers is what the results are, not how engineers design sensors...
Anyway… Tom is right, we are about to turn this forum into Lula or DPR… we don't want this, ...do we? What about the ergonomics of this new camera? Do you prefer it? Personally I do, but I would prefer it if they would also bring the aperture ring back on their lenses… I hate the single SD card they decided though… and of course the inexcusable price for the limitations they decided on the camera…
Why do I like it? I do some teaching into quick seminars… first thing I require from my "students" after I teach them the exposure parameters (shutter speed, sensitivity and especially aperture - I insist a lot in aperture) I require from them to use an old mechanical camera (preferably a Zenith) and ask them to learn how to treat lighting without using an exposure meter at all… By this, I aim to succeed that their eye will be able to exercise in light differences and that their brains will exercise the visualisation of the print…
IMO, with the ergonomics of this new camera and if one uses an old MF Nikkor lens on it, it could make for the perfect digital SLR camera for "knowledgeable" photography where one is a true "manual" user (and thus a creator of its own lighting) than another that has the automatic light meter to involve all the time and only uses the camera in "manual" mode… (which of course isn't manual anymore).