lordarka wrote:
Bah! He never said that quality does not matter, simply that it is not too far removed from the 10D or the 1Ds that came before it.
Arka,
Allow me to quote him:
I believe that debates over image quality are becoming largely irrelevant. In each category, 5MP digicams, 8MP digicams, 6MP DSLRs, etc, while there are modest differences between cameras, these are actually now quite minor when real-world prints are viewed. Usually what people obsess about at 100% on-screen disappears when seem in a print, especially when every other aspect of image processing and production is less than exceptionally well done.
I said cropping matters. It does, sorry. That is why MF still exists. That is what limits my 35mm film from being blown up infinitely. I can see the difference in prints if I crop. So no, please read what I wrote more carefully!
Further, I don't think any of the 1 series digital cameras on the market today should be terribly limiting to anyone's art.
For cropping, the 4mp 1D is quite a limit. It's a limit for a landscape photographer. It limits his/her art.
I manage to get my 10D, which is supposedly a prosumer/toy camera, to meet the expectations of my art on a regular basis.
I am glad it works for you. I had a 10D (actually two, long story) and they did not work for my art.
Further, I would second Paul's comment. If you don't think MR's review tells you what you need, that's fine, but to spend time creating a thread discussing how Micheal Reichmann's writings don't slake your thirst for photographic knowledge is more than a little pointless. Of course, I guess it's just as pointless for me to be responding on that very thread, but I can never seem to resist.
I believe that debates over image quality are becoming largely irrelevant. In each category, 5MP digicams, 8MP digicams, 6MP DSLRs, etc, while there are modest differences between cameras, these are actually now quite minor when real-world prints are viewed. Usually what people obsess about at 100% on-screen disappears when seem in a print, especially when every other aspect of image processing and production is less than exceptionally well done.
I said cropping matters. It does, sorry. That is why MF still exists. That is what limits my 35mm film from being blown up infinitely. I can see the difference in prints if I crop. So no, please read what I wrote more carefully!
OK, I agree with you 100% that image quality matters. What I don't understand is how this relates to the matter at hand. It is an 8MP camera; it should be quite evident to you how much you can crop and retain decent image quality for a given print size; it will be a little better then a 10D and a little worse then the 1Ds. Even if it had perfect pixels, it still only has 8 million of them. All MR said that within the categories they are roughly equivalent. I don't see how your issue of cropping changes that in anyway.
All this "how big a print can be made" fuss baffles me. If you believe MR in that image quality is roughly equivalent to a 1Ds or 10D, then you can work it out yourself..take number of pixels, divide by desired print resolution, bing! there you go!. Unless your pixels in the 1DmkII are very crappy (and he has asserted that they are not), there is no question. It will end up being up to your lens, not the body.
Besides, he once claimed that images from a D30 equaled medium format film, so I guess the current crop of cameras are beyond large-format quality - and beyond his ability to judge...
molson wrote:
Not to a "pixel snob" like Mr. Reichmann...
Besides, he once claimed that images from a D30 equaled medium format film, so I guess the current crop of cameras are beyond large-format quality - and beyond his ability to judge...
This is exactly my point - the guy has no creadibility because most of his claims historically have been nonsense.
Arka - Take a look at the moire problems with the D70 - isn't this an SLR with image quality problems? I'm not saying so much I'm upset with the review, but the assertion that everything is more or less equal . Where MR says that photographers will use a camera with good ergonomics regardless of the image quality, I say photographers will use what takes good pictures regardless of the ergonomics issues.
By the way, from what I've seen the 1D Mk II would probably be pretty limiting to my art, because I haven't yet seen a sample that shows it delivers the kind of detail I need.
bouch wrote:
This is exactly my point - the guy has no creadibility because most of his claims historically have been nonsense.
It is not a credible claim on the part of molson. Find me one spot where he said this. He claimed the D30 rivaled 35mm. I happen to disagree with him, particularly at even moderate print sizes (11x14), but it wasn't a way-out-there claim. I also disagree that the 1Ds rivals MF in as many cases as he claims (although he now sticks more to rivals 645, and then only at moderate print sizes). But I don't get so excited; they are minor disagreements.
You guys just simply strongly dislike him for some reason I don't know. You constantly misquote him. He never said ergonomics are more important then image quality. He never said image quality doesn't matter. He never said a pro-DSLR is equivalent to a Sony P&S. In fact, just at about every term you guys have misquoted him. I can only conclude you have a strong bias for some reason or are just being argumentative. So, having a little sense left, I shall depart the argument.
By the way, from what I've seen the 1D Mk II would probably be pretty limiting to my art, because I haven't yet seen a sample that shows it delivers the kind of detail I need.
My sentiments exactly. I was hoping for really thorough evaluation of the camera's image quality, and getting Mr. Reichmann's pixel-peeping diatribe instead was quite a disappointment. I almost wish that article really was an April Fool's joke.
Guys, you really need to get out and take some photographs of your own. I think that is the point that Michael makes quite often. Lift up your heads and get away from the keyboard. Go outside and shoot shoot shoot, and when you are tired, shoot more. His points are all leading in a single direction. The quality of the recent digital SLR's is very high, and there isn't that much difference between them when we speak about the *quality* of the images. He didn't say the *size* of the files. There is a distinction. And he is not talking about cropping, either.
His point is that the equipment is at a point where we can now use other criteria for selecting the equipment for each individual person. No big deal.
As a few people have mentioned in earlier posts, it seems there are personal feelings against Michael. Fine. But I know him personally, and I don't know what the big deal is. He knows what he is talking about, and he uses his equipment more than most people use their own, so he understands what *shooting* photographers want out of their equipment.
Sorry for the rant everyone, but I just don't see why the animosity.
I know I am going to get flamed on this one, but I just don't care. I am starting to see some common things that are beginning to upset me. In particular, the tone of some posts on this forum and on others. I used to frequent many different forums to contribute ideas and answer questions in my limited free time. A while back I just stopped frequenting another forum, as the tone and amount of noise was unbearable. I really hope FM doesn't follow the same path.
I am pretty tired of hearing about softness of this image, and noise of that image. In the beginning, those can be very helpful criteria in determining if a camera is for you. But after while you have to step back and think to yourself "will this camera allow me to succeed in the type of photography that I want to do?"
Once you have answered that question, make a decision and get out and photograph with your new tool. Don't sweat the small things.
molson wrote:
Maybe it comes as a response to Michael's apparent need to insult or ridicule anyone (i.e, the "pixel peepers") who don't agree with his views?
I agree with molson here-- MR comes across as a snob.
I disagree. I think it is a matter of what makes up a review of a piece of equipment. His views are positioned from a usability point of view, rather than that of a specifications point of view. Two totally different ways of reviewing equipment.
I think his frustration comes from emails from people that just don't get the point that these are just tools that help us achieve photographic goals. Some people get caught up in the minute details and miss the big picture.
I personally love Michael Reichmann's site. I have been reading it since the D30 days. Michael has a style and personality that you either like or don't. There are some very dry reviews on other sites that only focus on the geeky side of the camera, and I like to read those reviews as well. I'm really surprised that Michael's review has stirred up this much emotion. (scrunchy face)
Personally, I'm a geek that loves photography and want the best archive of my family history. I have owned a Ricoh RDC-1, D30, D60, 10D, and 1DS. As I look through my photos, I like the pictures from my D30 and 10D best. The noise of the 1DS at higher ISOs kind of bugged me, but didn't show up in prints, and the pictures were consistently in focus - I couldn't say that about the D60. Michael mentions that the 1D Mark II didn't have as accurate auto white balance as the 1DS - that floors me, since I thought the 1DS auto white balance was crap, but easily fixed in post processing.
I will likely purchase a Mark II. The samples I've seen at higher ISOs are impressive. This camera fits my genre of shooting better than the 1DS, which is 95% candid family shots, some landscape, and a friend's wedding or two.
If Michael is reading this thread. Rock on buddy! Your site is unique and supplements information found on other sites with real honest opinions. Keep up the good work.
Edited by mmalleck on Apr 02, 2004 at 12:14 AM GMT
I agree with Andy Biggs on this thread... Why are we obsessed with over-analyzing MR's site and his review style Some folks find it useful and others don't.. Big Deal. Personally, I find much of what he says to be of value. I also don't agree with some of it, but why all the ranting about it on this forum As I recall, the first post on this thread was just to inform us that he had posted a review on the 1DMkII. I just don't get it.
Tom Conte wrote:
----- will be ahead in any generation. I'd like to know by how much and how it limits my art.
Tom
The only limitation to one's art is one's own imagination -- true better equipment will help you capturing a shot which would otherwise be impossible for example capturing and freezing a bullet in flight would be quite impossible to do with a disposable camera -- but it's your own imagination that drives the equipment not the other way round.
I'm surprised at the amount of heat this thread has generated -- all MR was doing was writing a review AS HE SAW FIT. He wasn't writing this as "The Holy Gospel According to St. Michael". Read his article and either accept it or ignore it.
I think we all would have liked some discussion on image quality -- but as he says these days all PRO equipment will yield acceptable results and he finds more value now in how the stuff actually handles in the field -- sort of "Do you get a BMW or a Merc" -- little to choose between them technically and you know even without having to read a review that they are both excellent makes of cars but they feel and handle differently and that is usually the most interesting part of the review.
Go back and read MR's addendum : The digital dark ages are over
I just don't buy that I should not consider an increase in mp or an increase in ISO performance when looking at a generation of DSLRs. I want the best images I can get out of a camera. If presented in 2006 with a field of 10 cameras, each producing 22mp images, you're darn tootin' I'm going to look long and hard at image quality.
The judgement of image quality is not a 'dark age'. Nor will it ever be over.
Sorry, I still cannot agree with him.
And further, I just don't get why the comparisons between cameras can't be on both shooting "look and feel" performance and on the image quality. I want the best bang for the buck. I don't want to sit out two or three generations, gripping onto my lens collection like there is no tomorrow, if the makers of cameras for my mount can't seem to get reasonable images out of their cameras (fill in the blank for whatever company you wish here, it may change completely by 2006, it surely did since 2000).
And Kyle, for what it's worth and to address your analogy, I drive a BMW because Mercedes performance, while it may be up to snuff for my aggressive habits, costs about 2x for anything that ends in 55 vs. anything that begins with an M.
Hi Tom -- I like and drive Beamers as well and IMO are very much better bang for buck than the big 'M'.
Of course we all want best value for money -- but I'm sure as soon as we see some 22 MP cameras appear -- unless there is a particular problem such as Moire (on the current Nikon D70) I really doubt whether there will be any significant noticeable difference in image quality -- particularly at the sizes we normally print at
My photography will definitely be the limiting factor for these sort of cams so I'll choose other criteria for buying -- maybe weight, size, "coolness or wow factor", storage options, dust, wireless features, ISO bracketing etc etc.
I have no doubt that image quality from these new cams will be outstanding -- whoever makes them.
You drive a motorcycle? In any regard, someone else has noted to me privately that I was oblique. Something that "ends in 55" is an MB AMG version, something that begins with "M" is a BMW group-M version (eg, M3, M5, and, yowza, the new MZ4).
But I digress.
For me, I like and want the ability to crop an image if I find something in the image was compelling. I always welcome the lattitude to rethink my framing decision or my lens choice. So for me, there will never be enough mp to make me happy. That's my disease, I suppose. But I don't imagine I'm alone in that.
I will agree with Michael on one thing hands down-- the company that delivers an affordable FOVC = 1.0 that is noiseless at high ISO has my undying loyalty. It hasn't happened yet.
I think we're converging. Back to what someone else said above, then. FM is still way more collegial and friendly than those other boards.
Tom Conte wrote:
I said cropping matters. It does, sorry. That is why MF still exists. That is what limits my 35mm film from being blown up infinitely. I can see the difference in prints if I crop. So no, please read what I wrote more carefully!
For cropping, the 4mp 1D is quite a limit. It's a limit for a landscape photographer. It limits his/her art.
I am glad it works for you. I had a 10D (actually two, long story) and they did not work for my art.
Tom
Well, if cropping matters, you have most of the information you already need to know about the 1DII at your fingertips. Look at samples from the website, and samples posted on various Asian forums already highlighted here. MR provides you with S/N information against known cameras, the 1Ds and the 1D. And you know how many pixels you are dealing with. Figure out how it limits you.
Secondly, I do a fair bit of landscape photography, and for that 'art,' I have in fact been able to use a 10D. All cameras have limits. I personally have found it more satisfying to push those limits in the field than complain on a forum about how they stifle me artistically.
Some folks find it useful and others don't.. Big Deal. Personally, I find much of what he says to be of value. I also don't agree with some of it, but why all the ranting about it on this forum 
and IMO are very much better bang for buck than the big 'M'.