drew.a wrote:
I was just going to ask, because I'm pretty ignorant of this pixel shift / multishot stuff...are these magnifying lens defects? So pixel shift / multishot effectively acts like a higher resolution, more pixel dense sensor, while with stitching you're effectively increasing the area covered by both the sensor and the lens.
This does seem like this would limit the utility of pixel shift / multishot to just the very best lenses available right now.
Yes, in order to maximise the benefits, only the best lenses will do.
Yes, this is one reason why I was thinking of adding a Panasonic to my bag.The result is truly impressive with real gain in details. But it's a feature that can only work in limited scenarios. So I'll wait till the huge price drop on the used market plus more practical lenses from them. By then Sony might just get its own pixelshift work the same way. It's really not a feature to drop a mature lens lineup over...
It's interesting, (to me anyway), that diglloyd is in no way a Panasonic fan boy. Far from it:
"The Panasonic S1R has arrived with all the desirability of a bloated carp floating in the lake during a bass-fishing tournament.
While I love its Multi-Shot High-Res mode (the best camera feature in years for landscape and similar), few seem to take note. In spite of my in depth reporting on it showing how incredible the image quality is, which is about much more than resolution.
There is so much brand fatigue that no one wants to risk a bet on a new mirrorless platform. Fear is a powerful persuader, and with real legitimacy in this case—fear of investing in a dead end system—Sony has won the mirrorless game.
I don’t really want to buy a Panasonic S1R because it’s all about the lenses. What I want is either/or all Nikon and Canon and Sony to get their shit together and implement Multi-Shot High-Res mode as good or better than Panasonic. Nor will this feeling change if we see a 70MP Sony A7R IV—it is just not going to compete."
Etherton wrote:
OP, if you don't want it to come off as a bashing thread I would not use terms like "SUCKS" & "CRAP".
If true, good for them. Panasonic needs a win to keep them afloat. I looked into the S1R but their lenses are too pricey for the FL's I would want.
Hi Etherton. I have actually already edited out quite a few of his expletives! I thought that if I edited them all, then they wouldn't be real quotes, and these are the 'mild' ones. I don't use those terms myself.
I read somewhere that the sales of Pana cams are very stagnant. They need to bring out bigger cameras and matching bigger lenses to the market to do better.
Etherton wrote:
OP, if you don't want it to come off as a bashing thread I would not use terms like "SUCKS" & "CRAP".
If true, good for them. Panasonic needs a win to keep them afloat. I looked into the S1R but their lenses are too pricey for the FL's I would want.
timballic wrote:
Comments on the Panasonic's mode rather than diglloyd please!
And what is your excuse for quoting him then? You could have started instead just a civil thread asking about Panasonic without quoting “suck” and “crap”.
Sony's pixel shift looks far more impressive on paper than in real life where you don't really notice a difference until you uprez and the workflow is annoying. I did some tests with the Panasonic's pixel shift and came to the conclusion that you get about 70 megapixels of detail which is impressive but not as much as the internet would have you believe. Personally I'm waiting for the 60-70 megapixel FF sensors that have to be on the way by now.
vdo1 wrote:
And what is your excuse for quoting him then? You could have started instead just a civil thread asking about Panasonic without quoting “suck” and “crap”.
DIggloyd is a highly reputable reviewer with very serious content. His choice of words was no accident - the images posted and the comparisons are indeed highly impressive. No reason for anyone to get offended - this is not about you and you are not the products you use
nazdravanul wrote:
DIggloyd is a highly reputable reviewer with very serious content. His choice of words was no accident - the images posted and the comparisons are indeed highly impressive. No reason for anyone to get offended - this is not about you and you are not the products you use
There are so many better people to respect (to the point of cross-promotion) than poor figjam Lloyd. Start right here with the content provided by the host and the community, then Phillip Reeve, and so many other honourable individuals and forums.
On this thus far failed technology, best to await real world balanced assessments by a consensus of more serious practitioners. You have a stronger chance of getting to the truth than by feeding a single guy's business model need to be 'ahead of the curve'.
nazdravanul wrote:
For internet photography warriors, yes, it's all about pixel peeping porn.
But, for 2m or 3m gallery prints, it's an invaluable creative tool. I'm spending way too much time just stitching (flat, nodal, mixed) and retouching files, instead of allocating that time to composition and lighting.
If someone requires to do 3m gallery prints, it may be an option. A few pros might really need it. But how many do really require this? A tiny tiny minority, in my opinion. I find it more amusing that amateurs consider buying a camera just for _one_ feature, which they hardly _really_use in the end.
How much room do people have for huge prints? What is the benefit if you are not selling huge prints? What is the benefit if all the images are just stored to a local HD? What is the benefit, if you don't look at really huge prints?
Holger wrote:
If someone requires to do 3m gallery prints, it may be an option. A few pros might really need it. But how many do really require this? A tiny tiny minority, in my opinion. I find it more amusing that amateurs consider buying a camera just for _one_ feature, which they hardly _really_use in the end.
How much room do people have for huge prints? What is the benefit if you are not selling huge prints? What is the benefit if all the images are just stored to a local HD? What is the benefit, if you don't look at really huge prints?...Show more →
philip_pj wrote:
There are so many better people to respect (to the point of cross-promotion) than poor figjam Lloyd. Start right here with the content provided by the host and the community, then Phillip Reeve, and so many other honourable individuals and forums.
On this thus far failed technology, best to await real world balanced assessments by a consensus of more serious practitioners. You have a stronger chance of getting to the truth than by feeding a single guy's business model need to be 'ahead of the curve'.
Lloyd Chambers technical reviews and tests are among the most serious and consistent I’ve seen. Full of detailed images and with a clearly explained methodology.
For 10 years now, his gear guides have been absolutely spot-on.
And both the dpreview lab tests and northlight-images are showing the exact same superb results for the S1R multishot mode.
Now, is there a serious reason for this outburst of negativity ?
Supporting diggloyd doesn’t imply dismissing other “honorable individuals and forums”. I see no reason why they shouldn’t peacefully coexist, without the added drama or insults from bystanders.
nazdravanul wrote:
DIggloyd is a highly reputable reviewer with very serious content. His choice of words was no accident - the images posted and the comparisons are indeed highly impressive. No reason for anyone to get offended - this is not about you and you are not the products you use
You're not addressing my question. It was not about anyone's "reputation". It was about the practice of extensively quoting someone, while asking the audience to not address the quoted author (and implicitly the quote).
Multi-shot works well for still-life and closeup work but is a bit less well suited for general landscapes, at least at the likely sophistication level of Panny's algorithm. But if anyone has some multi-shot S1R landscape examples I'd love to see them.
Btw, in case anyone wasn't already aware, the L-Mount on the Panny can use EF lenses with Sigma's MC-21 adapter.
timballic wrote:
It's interesting, (to me anyway), that diglloyd is in no way a Panasonic fan boy. Far from it:
"The Panasonic S1R has arrived with all the desirability of a bloated carp floating in the lake during a bass-fishing tournament.
While I love its Multi-Shot High-Res mode (the best camera feature in years for landscape and similar), few seem to take note. In spite of my in depth reporting on it showing how incredible the image quality is, which is about much more than resolution.
There is so much brand fatigue that no one wants to risk a bet on a new mirrorless platform. Fear is a powerful persuader, and with real legitimacy in this case—fear of investing in a dead end system—Sony has won the mirrorless game.
I don’t really want to buy a Panasonic S1R because it’s all about the lenses. What I want is either/or all Nikon and Canon and Sony to get their shit together and implement Multi-Shot High-Res mode as good or better than Panasonic. Nor will this feeling change if we see a 70MP Sony A7R IV—it is just not going to compete."...Show more →
I know the OP asked us not to discuss LC, but reading this I just can't resist (sorry, OP). This quote just perfectly sums up what is wrong with Chambers: Most of us grow up and by the time we've become adults, we have learned that the world doesn't revolve around us. Somehow LC hasn't gotten that message.
His attitude reminds me of a certain NYC sports radio talk host, who has the same ego issues. Just like the former (aka the Sports Pope), the Reviews Pope believes every organization/brand he covers has to do things the way he suggests, because only he knows the path to success/the truth. I wonder whether he has ever even just for a nano-second contemplated the possibility that camera makers are developing products for more people than just LC .
.