Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 07-11-2018   #161
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Klaus,

YES!

We just had some friends around for lunch. He shoots 5x7 inch wet-plate (none of this wimpish film stuff). I gave him a "new" lens: a 99-year-old 300/3.5 Tessar. I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

Anyone who thinks that aesthetics are quantifiable is not only barking up the wrong tree: they're not even sure what a tree looks like.

Cheers,

R.

I take it, your friend didn't care too much about any DXO ratings of the lens.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #162
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
I take it, your friend didn't care too much about any DXO ratings of the lens.
Dear Klaus,

Indeed, but it's MUCH easier to look at a set of (disputable) figures than to be bold enough to say, "I don't give a flying **** about DXO* but I know what I like".

*Was it Catullus who said, "Utter indifference to your welfare, O Caesar, is matched only by determined ignorance of who you are"? The quote may be somewhat distorted -- it's from memory as well as in translation -- but it does rather reflect how I feel about DXO.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #163
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Just so we all know, Nick used to shoot APSC and had similar threads telling us we were dumb for not using a Nikon D5XXX with 35mm 1.8DX lens (due to price / performance ratio). Once the FF came down to his price point, then of course APSC isnt good enough anymore. I`m a proud APSC user because I think it is a great balance between IQ and size. I do not like big cameras and modern APSC is great. You cannot compare it to APSC film... it is not anywhere near the same thing.
Given that the absolute cost differential between APS-C, FF 24MP, and FF 36-42MP is not that much, why not just buy a used FF 36-42MP instead of incrementally upgrading over time based on some unstated price/performance metric. It makes more sense to maximize image quality over time than to maximize price/performance ratios over the same period.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #164
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Given that the absolute cost differential between APS-C, FF 24MP, and FF 36-42MP is not that much, why not just buy a used FF 36-42MP instead of incrementally upgrading over time based on some unstated price/performance metric. It makes more sense to maximize image quality over time than to maximize price/performance ratios over the same period.
According, of course, to an unstated metric...

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #165
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by emraphoto View Post
Im curious David... What do you think is wrong about the concept? With the concept being that for a lot of photographers interested in photojournalism/documentary/street the gear, megapixels, full frame narrative is a distraction at best.
Hi,

I was commenting on the language and logic; I didn't mention my opinion of the concept. I just didn't like the division of people into those who get it and those who don't, as if no other view was possible...

Regard, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #166
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Just so we all know, Nick used to shoot APSC and had similar threads telling us we were dumb for not using a Nikon D5XXX with 35mm 1.8DX lens (due to price / performance ratio). Once the FF came down to his price point, then of course APSC isnt good enough anymore. I`m a proud APSC user because I think it is a great balance between IQ and size. I do not like big cameras and modern APSC is great. You cannot compare it to APSC film... it is not anywhere near the same thing.
Given that the absolute cost differential between APS-C, FF 24MP, and FF 36-42MP is not that much, why not just buy a used FF 36-42MP instead of incrementally upgrading over time based on some unstated price/performance metric? What is more important: optimizing technical image quality or optimizing a spreadsheet?
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #167
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Given that the absolute cost differential between APS-C, FF 24MP, and FF 36-42MP is not that much, why not just buy a used FF 36-42MP instead of incrementally upgrading over time based on some unstated price/performance metric. It makes more sense to maximize image quality over time than to maximize price/performance ratios over the same period.
Since you've quoted me twice regarding the same thing, I guess I'll answer so you don't do it a third time. I prefer the size of APSC bodies and lenses. I like what Fujifilm offers ergonomically and in regard to shutter speed dials and aperture rings. I believe the results are good enough from these cameras for my type of photography. I've used 36mp Nikon / Sony (D800E and A7R) and 42mp Sony (RX1R II) cameras (as well as a few other FF cameras from Leica and Canon) and I do not care for them as much as the Fuji's I currently use. For me, the sensor is only one piece of the puzzle. I'm not incrementally upgrading over time...so I'm not sure where you got that info.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #168
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 45
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Since you've quoted me twice regarding the same thing, I guess I'll answer so you don't do it a third time. I prefer the size of APSC bodies and lenses. I like what Fujifilm offers ergonomically and in regard to shutter speed dials and aperture rings. I believe the results are good enough from these cameras for my type of photography. I've used 36mp Nikon / Sony (D800E and A7R) and 42mp Sony (RX1R II) cameras (as well as a few other FF cameras from Leica and Canon) and I do not care for them as much as the Fuji's I currently use. For me, the sensor is only one piece of the puzzle. I'm not incrementally upgrading over time...so I'm not sure where you got that info.
Quite like you thinking jsrockit.

"Like" and "Being comfortable" is a great plus while choosing equipment. Technical specs, for me, are secondary to ergonomics and fun factor.

Unfortunately those are subjective factors and different from person to person. That is the beauty of it, there are different answer for different people,and, for me, no right/wrong answer.

Regards

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #169
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Since you've quoted me twice regarding the same thing, I guess I'll answer so you don't do it a third time.
I only quoted you because you filled in detail that the OP had previously advocated APS-C and was now advocating FF 24MP in the typical upgrade-itis scenario. My comments were directed at his behavior not yours.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #170
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,119
When digital was fairly new, 10-12 years ago, the full frame camera was what most of us wanted. After all, we were used to 35mm and 24x36 was the norm. Full frame also made more sense at the time because there were few really good lenses made for APS-C format cameras. APS-C users mostly used 35mm format lenses and waited until they could afford a full frame body. Expectations for APS-C were low. It was just a stop-gap format.

Today things are different in many ways. Lots of us discovered APS-C is pretty good on its own and we don't envy or lust for FF equipment any longer. There are a lot of really outstanding optics made by various companies that are designed for the APS-C format these days. Camera manufacturers are now giving their lowly APS-C models the same features as their FF models. We have mirrorless designs in APS-C format that compare favorably with Micro 4/3 bodies in size. Of course the technology that improved APS-C also improved FF but the difference between the two is not as great as it was 10-12 years ago. It's like discovering a Honda Civic is now able to outperform the old Detroit muscle cars and European sports models of the 1960's and 1970's.

I'm perfectly happy with Fuji APS-C equipment today. I enjoy using the XPro and X100 models more than I've enjoyed using any cameras since the Leica. The Fujis may not be the fastest, nimblest, most high performance cameras available but neither was the Leica M6 at the time I was using them. But using these cameras made/make me happy and the pictures I made/make with them are satisfying to me. Fact is, I've made really good pictures with a lot of different cameras over the years. Not a single one of those pictures can be credited to the camera I was using at the time. No, it was me using the camera, whichever one it was. I've made quite a few really bad pictures as well but, once again, I can't attribute those to the cameras either. The mistakes and poor judgement was mine as well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #171
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I only quoted you because you filled in detail that the OP had previously advocated APS-C and was now advocating FF 24MP in the typical upgrade-itis scenario. My comments were directed at his behavior not yours.
Ok, understood, sorry...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #172
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
I enjoy using the XPro and X100 models more than I've enjoyed using any cameras since the Leica. The Fujis may not be the fastest, nimblest, most high performance cameras available but neither was the Leica M6 at the time I was using them. But using these cameras made/make me happy and the pictures I made/make with them are satisfying to me.
Exactly my thoughts and with the same gear...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #173
sjones
Registered User
 
sjones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 117
I had assumed (and still believe to some extent) that much of the OP’s delivery accompanied a tongue firmly plastered against cheek. This said, for anyone who actually argues that, all else being equal, the person with the most technically sophisticated camera will take the best photograph, I emphatically suggest that you qualify such contention as one acutely codependent on personal preference.

I’ve seen photos from toy and pinhole cameras that impress me as much as photos from any other type of camera, and since this is a matter of opinion, it’s not debatable.

Also, and just my personal concern, if a camera doesn’t have a film advance, screw it…love the tactile joys of a film advance…love it!

Really, though, it's like airfrogusmc said a few posts back: “It's not about buying the technically best gear you can afford but it is and should be about having equipment that best matches the way that you see and work.”

Anyway, it appears that one man’s troll is another man’s clever provocateur.
__________________
Smugmug Site
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #174
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,454
Hi David;

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

I also think that most of the concepts that are praised so highly are ignored or not even noticed by most people. Most of the time they just notice the subject...

Regards, David
Let me rephrase that.. Some people get it, most people don't.

Best, pkr
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2018   #175
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
Hi David;

Let me rephrase that.. Some people get it, most people don't.

Best, pkr
Splendid, I see great minds thinking alike...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #176
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjones View Post
I had assumed (and still believe to some extent) that much of the OP’s delivery accompanied a tongue firmly plastered against cheek. This said, for anyone who actually argues that, all else being equal, the person with the most technically sophisticated camera will take the best photograph, I emphatically suggest that you qualify such contention as one acutely codependent on personal preference.

Anyway, it appears that one man’s troll is another man’s clever provocateur.
Not saying that at all -- rather a straw man argument you floated here, seems to me, sir (presumably). My gear suggestions are decidedly not to get THE most sophistated gear available. I recommended a six year old digital camera body and (mostly) 20 year old lenses none of which cost over $450 new ($212 average price per lens on six lenses...)

What I am suggesting innanutshell is that if this choice be based strictly on price/performance, logic, reason sans any emotional (or emotional appeal) considerations...

... despite a veritable sea of available gear at all price points from which to choose, the choices both for bodies and lenses at the top of the funnel, truly narrows down to really just one obvious camera body, currently.

That -- in turn, narrows your lens choices exponentially to lens recommendations that will mount to that particular body, and I explained my reasoning behind that.

And that current body is a used Nikon D600 because it has a sensor that has been measured to be by independent lab testing on par with the best available full frame sensors currently, and its resolution specs are up-to-date (and will be for some time). This is because early production issues and resultant internet chatter have artificially impacted prices dramatically downward on the used market. It's a pariah to buyers because of this unfounded concern. Nowhere in the used camera market can you pick up this high-a-quality camera in +Excellent condition with relatively low actuations for $6-700 going rate from reputable used camera retailers.

I am not recommending -- and and no point did I recommend "the most technically sophisticated camera".

Next lenses -- used, minty D-series primes (mostly)

Tier I -- 50/24

1. Start with the 50/1/4 AF-D as your prime-prime (I won't rehash the reasons for that). Stick with just a 50 for ???? (I did for a decade with my first film camera...)

2. Your next lens: Quantaray Tech-10 24/2.8 AF macro (or Sigma Ultrawide II but you'll pay a little more for the name brand. Same lens). A small wide prime to pair with the 50 for a two-lens combo. Great lens, on par with the Nikon equivalent -- less than $100.


So. You gotchyer fast "prime-prime", a lens with which to pair it. You're set. Want more lenses?

__________________________

Tier 2 35/85

3. Your third lens. A portrait lens. Short-tele. Many to choose from here. I went with the 85/1.8G Nikon.

4. Your 4th lens. A 35. Really you can swap out the 50 and 24 combo if you're a "wedding shooter" -- many of whom use a 35/85 pairing. (Or? As I do, have both parings.) 35 as their main, 85 as their portraiture prime. the 85 "overlaps" with both tiers. Several choices here, I went with the 35/2D. An excellent, overlooked classic.

__________________________________________________ _______

Tier 3 "The ends" ancillary/optional lenses.

Here you are allowed (in fact it's recommended) you shoot zooms on either side of the prime focal length ranges -- tele and wide.

5. Your 5th lens -- do your homework and get the bast value ultrawide zoom in the 14-35 range. Because these lenses are typlically shot stopped down to f8, f11 on a tripod it almost doesn't matter which one you get. I went with a Tokina 17-35/4.

6. Your 6th lens -- a telephoto in the 70/80 -- 200/300 range. Because I don't shoot telephoto often but this is where things can get really "choppy" with crappy zoom lenses, I prioritized cost and optical performance over all else, and went with an optically good sample of the manual one touch Nikon 80-200/f4.5 -- an $1800 pro lens in its day that can now be had for $50 for a reasonable sample. Plenty of other inexpensive zooms in this range with AF.


The above illustrates a logical decision-making path for gear purchasing. At no point does this path suggest purchasing "THE most sophisticated equipment available". Rather, I am stating outright this the optimal "bang-for-the-buck" path that gives the highest quality IQ for the lowest cost. Under $1000 if you stick with the body and just tier 1 recomendations. That's less than some inferior Amateur Photo System digital in all its "retro-rangefinder" and DSL form factors. The combo I recommended with either the 35 or the 50 recommended is nearly as small and light.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #177
Axel100
Registered User
 
Axel100's Avatar
 
Axel100 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany, north
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
...
The above illustrates a logical decision-making path for gear purchasing. At no point does this path suggest purchasing "THE most sophisticated equipment available".
Shure it does.
And it all is anchored on the ratings of a company you suggest as relevant.

Maybe that´s your way of choosing gear but there is no reason to instruct all others they were wrong.
__________________
its all Fuji my photos here
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #178
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axel100 View Post
Shure it does.
And it all is anchored on the ratings of a company you suggest as relevant.

Maybe that´s your way of choosing gear but there is no reason to instruct all others they were wrong.
1. Yes. That company is relevant. They provide data baseed on rigorous testing. That data is relevant. Sorry. The sensor in your whatever brand camera does or doesn't measure up with Sony sensors in bit-depth, dynamic range, or low-light performance according to lab testing. Here's how the current crop of sensors rank based on these key metrics. This is how much each costs. Where on that "linear programming" grid is the IQ optimal and the cost minimal? There is only one point where those lines intersect. Down the road that may change. But this is where it is now...

2. Yes. Your choice is wrong because it was likely an emotion-based not reason-based decision. I provided the reason based path, which is a fairly narrow one, right down the line from body to lenses provided your goal is to maximize IQ and minimize cost.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #179
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,947
Hey Nick,
besides telling all others they are wrong for not following your personal choice of reason, how did all the gear that you choose based on your assessment, how did this help you to take better pictures?

Show some in the RFF gallery ... w/o exif data please and we will give you feedback on which pictures we think might be better ...for total personal preference obviously and not based on some rigorous testing.

[missing tongue in cheek smiley as well]
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #180
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axel100 View Post

Maybe that´s your way of choosing gear but there is no reason to instruct all others they were wrong.
Exactly.

And if we're talking bang for the buck... my best deal so far has been a barely used mint Leica X2 (Yes APS-C ) with a case for $250. A unique deal, I admit. And while it's limited to a fixed lens, I find I work more creatively with one lens, rather than a bag full. I like the results from the X2 quite lot.

Purely for the much less important technical side, while I appreciate digital Full Frame (Canon btw) when it's appropriate and needed, I rarely use my FF for the fun stuff just because I hate carrying DSLRs. I like smaller cameras in general whether FF or APS. My most technically superior digital files come from a fixed lens compact camera with an APS-C sensor and the output rivals all of my digitals, and I would argue some of the earlier Phase One backs (haven't compared recent ones). And of course that is my opinion, crazy as it may seem, but I'm entitled to it.

On top of that, I also shoot more film than digital lately, and I happen to believe the results are superior to digital for my needs and aesthetic.

So I won't be buying the Nikon 600 whatever. It would just collect dust.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #181
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 45
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
1. Yes. That company is relevant. They provide data based on rigorous testing. That data is relevant. Sorry. The sensor in your whatever brand camera does or doesn't measure up with Sony sensors in bit-depth, dynamic range, or low-light performance according to lab testing. Here's how the current crop of sensors rank based on these key metrics. This is how much each costs. Where on that "linear programming" grid is the IQ optimal and the cost minimal? There is only one point where those lines intersect. Down the road that may change. But this is where it is now...

2. Yes. Your choice is wrong because it was likely an emotion-based not reason-based decision. I provided the reason based path, which is a fairly narrow one, right down the line from body to lenses provided your goal is to maximize IQ and minimize cost.
I think no one is questioning the data relevancy, rather the relevancy of that data (and the company per se) related to how it makes your photography better.

Regards

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #182
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
I think no one is questioning the data relevancy, rather the relevancy of that data (and the company per se) related to how it makes your photography better.

Regards

Marcelo
Dear Marcelo,

Elegantly phrased!

Cheers,

R
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #183
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
1. . . Your choice is wrong because it was likely an emotion-based not reason-based decision. . . . .
Dear Nick,

And of course all art is based on reason rather than emotion...

Come to that, convenience and ease of use are not entirely based on raw, robotic pseudo-reason. DXO ratings are a bit like economics: build a grossly oversimplified model, ignoring anything that's hard or even inconvenient to incorporate, then base your arguments on the model rather than on messy reality.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #184
Axel100
Registered User
 
Axel100's Avatar
 
Axel100 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany, north
Posts: 520
Yes.

And...

if a reviewing company some day will deeply influence my decision for a camera
- whatever reviewing company or camera that could be -
I would start to reflect my photography in whole whether it has went so poor.

And...

if some wants to tell me that I have to buy a mirror-slapping monster from a system that
does everything in a wrong way and where I have no chance to use my lenses the answer
would be never ever.
You read it here.

And...

the Sony A7II is a very innovative, modern and useful camera for a lot of photographers and photographic tasks.
Its sensor for me and some of my friends is just... okay.
Its full frame.
Nice
__________________
its all Fuji my photos here
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #185
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,160
Since when did bang for buck become the relevant metric for photography?
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #186
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,759
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about reason but here it's trust these people and ignore what you think and like etc. I don't know if I should trust them or not...

As for reason in general, it's a bit odd at present.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #187
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 45
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Since when did bang for buck become the relevant metric for photography?
Well it is for my budget fast food meals

Regards

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #188
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,119
I was just browsing one of the lens review websites this morning and found an old review of one of my lenses. The conclusion was that it was a failed product because it had only average performance and a price that was too high compared to the competition. Hmm. Okay. It was kind of expensive but I really do like the way the pictures look when I use this lens. It's one of my favorites.

So much for objectivity.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #189
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
I was just browsing one of the lens review websites this morning and found an old review of one of my lenses. The conclusion was that it was a failed product because it had only average performance and a price that was too high compared to the competition. Hmm. Okay. It was kind of expensive but I really do like the way the pictures look when I use this lens. It's one of my favorites.

So much for objectivity.
No, no. You're WRONG. Ask DXO!

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #190
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,875
You are becoming emotional (forgivable, always -- part of the human condoition) because what I proposed isn't likely something you have or would consider. However, this wasn't really a recommendation per se. It is a solution.

This key is to follow a linear programming model. Given the available data, at what point is image quality maximized and cost minimized?

There is but one solution to this equation.

I have provided it. And in this instance it is a fairly obvious solution. It's not a case of 1.0001 > 1. It's a cast of 7 > 2 by way of analogy. The solution to this max/min propblem is clearly, thus:

A used Nikon D600.

Sensor rating 94. Average cost ~ $680.

Now that the rational body decision has been made applying data and logical reasoning, this vastly naturally narrows your lens options as this is a finish -> start task relationship. You can't select lenses until a buying decision for the body has been determined. Once that process is finished you can start acquiring lenses. I have shown the pathway for the proper order of lens acquisitions in terms of focal lengths and which lens within each focal length applying similar reasoning. You must start with a 50/1.4 with auto focus. Among the available 50/1.4's the correct decision is the AF-D model. Next, you need a wide angle prime to pair with it. That would be the Sigma Ultra Wide II (aka Quantaray Tech 10) 24/2.8 AF Macro.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #191
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Just so we all know, Nick used to shoot APSC and had similar threads telling us we were dumb for not using a Nikon D5XXX with 35mm 1.8DX lens (due to price / performance ratio). Once the FF came down to his price point, then of course APSC isnt good enough anymore. I`m a proud APSC user because I think it is a great balance between IQ and size. I do not like big cameras and modern APSC is great. You cannot compare it to APSC film... it is not anywhere near the same thing.
APSC is quite spectacular at the moment.

I shoot FF for work and have an additional body that I use on the street sometimes, but also use the Ricoh GR/GRII for street, and because I'm quite attached to a couple of APSC lenses I have some APSC bodies, and the output is genuinely great.

Obviously there are limitations, but I've been finding that it's the APSC stuff that's getting more outings at the moment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #192
Axel100
Registered User
 
Axel100's Avatar
 
Axel100 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany, north
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
You are becoming emotional
Indeed. Perhaps this is misplaced in such a rational forum as the rangefinderforum

Btw. - is it rational to recommend a DSLR as the only right gear in a rangefinderforum?
__________________
its all Fuji my photos here
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #193
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 45
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
You are becoming emotional (forgivable, always -- part of the human condition) because what I proposed isn't likely something you have or would consider. However, this wasn't really a recommendation per se. It is a solution.

This key is to follow a linear programming model. Given the available data, at what point is image quality maximized and cost minimized?

There is but one solution to this equation.

I have provided it. And in this instance it is a fairly obvious solution. It's not a case of 1.0001 > 1. It's a cast of 7 > 2 by way of analogy. The solution to this max/min problem is clearly, thus:

A used Nikon D600.

Sensor rating 94. Average cost ~ $680.

Now that the rational body decision has been made applying data and logical reasoning, this vastly naturally narrows your lens options as this is a finish -> start task relationship. You can't select lenses until a buying decision for the body has been determined. Once that process is finished you can start acquiring lenses. I have shown the pathway for the proper order of lens acquisitions in terms of focal lengths and which lens within each focal length applying similar reasoning. You must start with a 50/1.4 with auto focus. Among the available 50/1.4's the correct decision is the AF-D model. Next, you need a wide angle prime to pair with it. That would be the Sigma Ultra Wide II (aka Quantaray Tech 10) 24/2.8 AF Macro.
I agree on your thought train if you are only taking photos to get an impression of a visual situation with the best quality and the lower cost. Your evaluation, OMHO, is sound and logic. For this, your solution, seems logical.

However, one must ask oneself the question "why do I take photos?" Do I do it for a living (your solution surely stand) Do I do it to create the highest quality image at the lower cost? (still, your solution stand). Do I do it for the sole personal enjoyment? With all due respect, this is where your logic starts to collapse, because you see, personal taste and pleasure don't necessarily stick to logic. And it is then that there is no one unique solution.

Frankly I respect and admire your research for the equipment that make sense for you. Also respect someone that stand for his/her opinion. That is pretty admirable in our age when people just follow trends. On the same measure, I think your solution doesn't suit or work for me, for the reason I create photographs, which is for personal pleasure (both for the taking process and the picture itself).

Thanks for the great thread Nick

Regards
Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #194
Sumarongi
Registered User
 
Sumarongi's Avatar
 
Sumarongi is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
No, no. You're WRONG. Ask DXO!

Cheers,

R.
Dear Roger,

thank you, finally I understand what this thread here is all about.

It's DXO... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextrorphan
__________________
**Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.** (Daniel Bell Heuer's Law.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #195
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,160
So much emphasis on DxO, and yet OP picks lenses without reference to objective criteria. The advice is to just use them at f8 on a tripod and not worry about it. While, as a landscape photographer, I frequently work on a tripod, from the images I typically see posted on RFF, I doubt many here do. While it may work for the OP, it is dubious value to others.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #196
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
. . . if you are only taking photos to get an impresion of a visual situation with the best quality and the lower cost. . . .
Dear Marcelo,

Record, not impression. See post 183.

Cheers,

R
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #197
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 45
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Marcelo,

Record, not impression. See post 183.

Cheers,

R
Thanks Roger. I stand corrected.

Regards

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

A question for the OP
Old 07-13-2018   #198
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 325
A question for the OP

Dear Nick,

I'm curious as to whether you apply the same rigorous rules to everything that you purchase? There are tests done on almost everything you could possibly want to purchase, so it follows from the methodology used in your choice of camera equipment that you own the verified "best for the buck" car, washing machine, toaster oven, sneakers, underwear, toilet paper, etc etc.

Myself, I read reviews, often extensively, but generally buy what I want regardless. To me a great deal of satisfaction comes from discovering the way to the use something in the most effective manner for my needs. There is no enjoyment for me in starting out with "perfection." I'd much rather discover it. To me the journey is an important step, but I recognize that I'm different from many people in that regard.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA
__________________
Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #199
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,947
I feel my leg getting pulled so hard, it starts to hurt.
Have fun, I'm out.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2018   #200
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,033
Nicks a vulcan. LOL
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:39.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.