Canon 1Ds MII vs medium format digital back

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ [...] -p25.shtml

Reichmann has spent $30k on a camera and he wants it to be "better"
than an $8k camera. He basically says as much when be conjures up the
high-end audio fruitcakes and their "subjective evaluations" of
multi-thousand dollar glow-in-the-dark tube-amps (!), monster cable
(ha ha ha), and related nonsense. Either he is profoundly ignorant of
the genre, or worse, knows what he is connecting himself to and just
doesn't care anymore. As long as he says it's better, it's better.
La la la la la!

His rejection of detailed, quantitative and qualitative analysis makes
the entire review a collection of baseless assertions and unequivocal
opinion. Cameras are not meals at a restaurant, movies, plays, or
pieces of music -- where the subjective factor _IS_ paramount.
Cameras, as technological artifacts, have measurable properties,
user-interfaces, and other comparable elements. The job of a reviewer
is not to give mealy-mouthed complaints that the photographic
untermenschen are bothering him with "pixel peeping", but lay out the
facts, measure the data, and present a model -- even a fully
subjective one, but still one that is _known_ to the reader -- that
backs up his final evaluation.

Basically, Michael Reichmann likes the P25 but refuses to tell us why
in any objective manner. Certainly his choice; but really, why
should we shive a git?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news3c57e81.0412021110.2814f8e3@posting.google.com...
> bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton) wrote:
>
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ [...] -p25.shtml
>
The job of a reviewer
> is not to give mealy-mouthed complaints that the photographic
> untermenschen are bothering him with "pixel peeping", but lay out the
> facts, measure the data, and present a model -- even a fully
> subjective one, but still one that is _known_ to the reader -- that
> backs up his final evaluation.
>
> Basically, Michael Reichmann likes the P25 but refuses to tell us why
> in any objective manner. Certainly his choice; but really, why
> should we shive a git?

It is clear from your post that you are of a different generation from
Michael. His article - you could hardly call it a review - is about what he
thinks is appropriate comparison of two totally different approaches to the
same thing. It would be useless in the extreme to try and measure any
difference in 2 cameras with different formats. Almost as useless as
comparing a Medium format camera with a digicam. Both produce a photo but
for different segments of a market.

I don't have the money to squander that Michael seemingly has but I sell my
photographs in sizes 20" x 30" and larger. Michael's stop where mine start.
The difference between one of my prints and one of his is only in the
subject and maybe the price he commands although I doubt he sells wall art
to be hung like wallpaper as I do.

I personally thought he lacked the ability to get electronically technical.
That's OK, he is after all a Photographer and photography is all about
taking photographs... The technical complexity of equipment should be left
to technicians. Photographers ought to be allowed to photograph aided by
their equipment, not hindered by the technicality of it.

Doug

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:

> > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ [...] -p25.shtml
> >
> > Reichmann has spent $30k on a camera and he wants it to be "better"
> > than an $8k camera. He basically says as much when be conjures up the'
>
> Not really, he states that the P25 back isn't really worth the extra
> $22,000 to most individuals. He likes it because of the photography he
> shoots and the results it provides him. Nothing too crazy there.

I'm saying that the lack of the "pixel peeping" (as he calls it)
suggests that the amount of the cheque he signed has alot to do with
his liking of the camera and the "results it provides him". I say
this because it is oh so common with the lunatics who buy
mega-expensive tube amplifiers .. who -- surprise! -- naturally grow
to love their lumpy transfer functions.

> > high-end audio fruitcakes and their "subjective evaluations" of
> > multi-thousand dollar glow-in-the-dark tube-amps (!), monster cable
> > (ha ha ha), and related nonsense. Either he is profoundly ignorant of
> > the genre, or worse, knows what he is connecting himself to and just
> > doesn't care anymore. As long as he says it's better, it's better.
> > La la la la la!
>
> Well, no one should try and confuse audio snobs and photo snobs.

What can I say? Reichmann was the one who introduced them, not me.

> Hearing is far more subjective than vision.

How can hearing be "more subjective" than vision? Is this like woman
A being "less pregnant" than woman B? And even if there was a way to
quantify subjectivity(!), one would have to ask how your claim squares
with the observation that the human brain has a relatively huge vision
processing areas compared to the parts that handle aural input
(language processing notwithstanding). Heck, even sensory bandwidth
estimates make your statement look rather silly.

> > His rejection of detailed, quantitative and qualitative analysis makes
> > the entire review a collection of baseless assertions and unequivocal
> > opinion. Cameras are not meals at a restaurant, movies, plays, or
> > pieces of music -- where the subjective factor _IS_ paramount.
> > Cameras, as technological artifacts, have measurable properties,
> > user-interfaces, and other comparable elements. The job of a reviewer
> > is not to give mealy-mouthed complaints that the photographic
> > untermenschen are bothering him with "pixel peeping", but lay out the
> > facts, measure the data, and present a model -- even a fully
> > subjective one, but still one that is _known_ to the reader -- that
> > backs up his final evaluation.
> >
> > Basically, Michael Reichmann likes the P25 but refuses to tell us why
> > in any objective manner. Certainly his choice; but really, why
> > should we shive a git?
>
> I think you misinterpreted his "review" quite a lot.

I'm gnawing on Reichmann because he has (apparently) become a
touchy-feely photo-snob, when in the past he has produced reasonable
reviews.

> Let other sites do what Michael has never been particularly good at,
> namely performance analysis. His opinions are important, as are those
> of his colleagues because they are the ones USING this expensive gear
> and paying for it by PRODUCING images that people BUY. No one wants to
> buy a photo of a test chart.

You aren't making sense again. The customer is going to buy the image
because it serves their purpose, not because Michael Reichmann or his
clique of cronies has a favourable opinion of the camera that took it.
And one would think -- ghod only knows where these kooky ideas come
from -- that given two otherwise identical images, the noisier one,
the one with reduced DR, would be harder to sell.

> Additionally, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that noise
> performance and resolution have parted from each other more and more
> with each new advance in digital technology.

It has? As far as I know, the 1Ds and the P25 are subject to the
usual laws of physics. Small pixels are noiser than large ones --
photon shot noise is unavoidable in this reality. This remains true
even if the readout noise was (somehow) reduced to zero.

> I don't see anything wrong
> with reviewing the cameras based upon your preference for the final
> output - that is, after all, what these cameras are for. Michael
> doesn't claim his review to be "scientific" or even close. He's
> providing you with his opinions.

That's what I said too. The question remains: why should we shive a
git? Or is Reichmann's opinion going to reduce the price of the
camera? WIll he help pay for mine, given his positive review? If
not, then maybe it's just me, but one expect a certain amount of
"pixel peeping" in an honest review when 30 kilobucks is on the line.

> So I recommend you take a valium, re-read the article and then lie down
> for a nice nap.

I'll leave you to your own peculiar habits, but thanks anyways.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> It has? As far as I know, the 1Ds and the P25 are subject to the
> usual laws of physics. Small pixels are noiser than large ones --
> photon shot noise is unavoidable in this reality. This remains true
> even if the readout noise was (somehow) reduced to zero.

Sure, of course, but anything actively cooled is potentially better.
The H25, however, doesn't seem to have any kind of active cooling, so
noise figures would be extremely interesting. Especially under hot
studio lights.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:


> Bill Hilton wrote:
>> An interesting comparison between two high end digitals, the 16 Mpixel Canon
>> 1Ds Mark II ($8,000) and the Phase One P25 22 Mpixel digital back for medium
>> format ($30,000 plus the cost of a body) ...
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ [...] -p25.shtml

> We've got to see at least a couple of blow-ups or full size images from
> the two cameras. Just showing us these postcard sized images tells us
> nothing.

> I have often wondered if the comparison between medium format and 35 is
> still valid in digital. Seems like all that counts, as far as resolution
> is concerned, would be number of pixels.

That's true, but sensor size is directly related to noise, and the
bigger the better.

Smaller sensors can benefit from come very sharp 35mm lenses. Medium
format, however, has lenses like the Schneider Xenotar 80/2.8, a snip
at two thousand bucks. Some people use digital backs so that they can
continue to use the lenses they love.

> I do understand that the lens is at least as important, and the
> larger the imager the easier it may be to get a sharp image of the
> same thing, but, all else being equal, megapixels may be more
> important than imager size.

Maybe. It's a matter of noise.

Andrew.