tunisia wrote:
Hi zygibajt:
Always liked the skin tones I got from the canon 1ds; still have it and nice to see someone using it.
Thanks,
Yes and this is my choice using this camera. Prefer it over MKII and MKIII. And not only for skin tones. I'm not the fun of today's top cameras regardless of the lenses used. To me 1Ds gives one of the best digital pictures of cameras ever. But there is one that is better discontinued leica DMR... and there are some medium formats ofcourse. I also use Leicea R6 a lot and nowadays I tend more to scan film than digital. Kind Regards
I agree. I still can’t get the same skin tone as D700 after all these years with Nikon. S006 give me best skin tone that hard to recreate from any latest camera system, this is one of the reasons keep me with the system.
I can see magic skin color render from your little girl portrait on small computer screen though I don’t think most people as sensitive about digital camera color which is sad fact.
R fit you well with your 1ds
zygibajt wrote:
Thanks,
Yes and this is my choice using this camera. Prefer it over MKII and MKIII. And not only for skin tones. I'm not the fun of today's top cameras regardless of the lenses used. To me 1Ds gives one of the best digital pictures of cameras ever. But there is one that is better discontinued leica DMR... and there are some medium formats ofcourse. I also use Leicea R6 a lot and nowadays I tend more to scan film than digital. Kind Regards
I'm a total amateur, never been proffesional and do the pictures only to relax after work or stress. The little giirl is my almost 5 years old doughter.
I'm very sensitive to colour and tonal balance, I use Eizo CG screen which are great. But I must also say that even todays iPad are very good screens, once you get the right one as they differ a lot from one to another. Sadly today even proffesionals serve you the pictures where the grass very often is fluorescent instead of simply green.
I always sticked to Canon, do not know Nikon much but there were also some old models that gave great picture, skin tones etc. Probably some other brands also. I think many older sensors give great picture. What I think it is some trade of in newer cameras. You get low noise at high iso but you loose something in trade. Ofcourse new cameras give so much, for someone who work with camera, has to get great results regardless of light etc they are just great and older are almost useless for some purposes. But for the natural picture and quality, skin tones etc my opinion is that older generation cameras gave better results. And it is not only 1Ds but this one is quite unique and every since I saw the pictures from it I wanted to get one and to cope it with leica R lenses. I managed to buy one with less than 1K clicks virtually unused in like new cosmetics some 4 years ago. It is a bit pain in the a.. to work with, heavy and it is just hard to get good picture with it (unlike 5D which I also have and think it is very easy to get a nice good picture with it, but I just don't like what I get from it), but some features like viewfinder in 1Ds are still great even today.
Sorry for long post. About the older sensors here is one more from 1Ds from few years back, the same lady: Also Summicron R 50/2
And here is the one from old Canon 10D worth maybe 20 Euro today if in good condition. Just the camera no one would use these days. Also Summicron R 50/2
zygibajt wrote:
Yes it is true. Thanks for liking the outcome.
I'm a total amateur, never been proffesional and do the pictures only to relax after work or stress. The little giirl is my almost 5 years old doughter.
I'm very sensitive to colour and tonal balance, I use Eizo CG screen which are great. But I must also say that even todays iPad are very good screens, once you get the right one as they differ a lot from one to another. Sadly today even proffesionals serve you the pictures where the grass very often is fluorescent instead of simply green.
I always sticked to Canon, do not know Nikon much but there were also some old models that gave great picture, skin tones etc. Probably some other brands also. I think many older sensors give great picture. What I think it is some trade of in newer cameras. You get low noise at high iso but you loose something in trade. Ofcourse new cameras give so much, for someone who work with camera, has to get great results regardless of light etc they are just great and older are almost useless for some purposes. But for the natural picture and quality, skin tones etc my opinion is that older generation cameras gave better results. And it is not only 1Ds but this one is quite unique and every since I saw the pictures from it I wanted to get one and to cope it with leica R lenses. I managed to buy one with less than 1K clicks virtually unused in like new cosmetics some 4 years ago. It is a bit pain in the a.. to work with, heavy and it is just hard to get good picture with it (unlike 5D which I also have and think it is very easy to get a nice good picture with it, but I just don't like what I get from it), but some features like viewfinder in 1Ds are still great even today.
Sorry for long post. About the older sensors here is one more from 1Ds from few years back, the same lady: Also Summicron R 50/2
And here is the one from old Canon 10D worth maybe 20 Euro today if in good condition. Just the camera no one would use these days. Also Summicron R 50/2
Nice to see picturesfrom another man,inhabitant of the same city
A72+Telyt R 250/4 v1 - I have still a limited experience with this lens on Sony ILCE FF/APS-C cameras,(ars longa,vita brevis,tempus praeceps,or rather ignorari transintibus I would say :-))) )
Nevertheless it is a decent lens.Be carefull when focusing - it has rather long focusing throw,but once focused properly,it is sharp enough,even wo.LoCa are hardly visible at f5.6 and dissappear at f8.Colours are typical Leica.
It's been quite a few years since I looked at this forum. I too was a Leica R user first for Canon 1Ds, 5D etc. back in the day when Canon lenses were hurting on their latest high mp sensors. Then I switched the mounts to Nikon and used them on my D800E for a few years. When I moved to Sony, I found them harder to use for some reason and sold a few. I still have my 35 Summicron which seems to work beautifully when stopped down a bit. After looking on here I'm wondering if I shouldn't take another look at some R or M glass again. I'm looking for a 50, 90 and maybe 135. I was thinking about Zeiss Loxia but I wouldn't mind going to Leica R or M's instead if those of you who have experience think they would be as good (or better). Any suggestions to specific lenses would be appreciated!
@stevesanacore Steve, you should opt for Leica R (and M) if you want character—or tactile pleasure. The latest lenses from many manufacturers are so high performance that even the greatest R optics are looking merely excellent rather than epic. I truly hesitant to compare my AT280/4 and Nikkor 70-200E. Besides being cheaper, some of the classic Leica glass has a satisfying rendition and I don't hesitate to shoot with them. Prime examples are the Elmar 50/2.8 v1 and Elmar 4-element 90, both available for $100 or so. Thanks to Visoflex compatibility, I can shoot my 90/135/280mm Leitz on my Canon EF and Nikon F cameras while Sony can adapt anything (although M 35mm and wider starts to fall apart at the edges).
