Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

r-d1 vs e-p1: opinions sought!!!
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i didnt intend,nor do i want, to turn my thread into a techo-argument.

to focus on what is important to me as the author of the thread: arkku i never said, nor did andy, that IQ or camera quality should be judged by pixel density alone. what we have both said, and all i really care about, is that we have both,independently, been disappointed in the IQ of some cameras with a high pixel density on small sensors. whether this is scientifically supportable is irrelevant to us, its what we see, and it is really a very tangential point to the purpose of the thread.

also, some have been offended that i didnt define what i mean by 'better IQ'. it was my intention NOT to define it. because we all define it differently, because some aspects are more important to some and not to others, i purposefully wanted each person who responded to interepret it his/her own way so that i could receive the widest possible set of opinions over the widest possible set of parameters.

having said all that, it would be great if some other forum members who have rd1/ep1/gf1 weigh in with their opinions!
thanks


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

F16SUNSHINE wrote:

Trust your eyes not the Pundits.


For a subjective evaluation of a camera for your needs I fully agree; but if you wish to draw any meaningful conclusions about things like the effects of pixel density, you must make a fair comparison and reveal your test setting and methods for others to evaluate and repeat.

It is downright misleading to present the effects technical details, down to a magic number that is supposed to establish some threshold for pixel density, and then claim that it's a matter of opinion and/or to trust your eyes (i.e. not my eyes which have not seen the data you base your findings on, but yours). If something is presented in a technical/scientific-looking manner, people tend to expect that it's based on some scientific principle.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:

to focus on what is important to me as the author of the thread: arkku i never said, nor did andy, that IQ or camera quality should be judged by pixel density alone.


The difference is that I said I think it's pointless to assess a camera based on pixel density (at all).

rbelyell wrote:

what we have both said, and all i really care about, is that we have both,independently, been disappointed in the IQ of some cameras with a high pixel density on small sensors.


The key is small sensor; like I've repeatedly said, out of the choices presented I would pick the Epson for its larger sensor. And if the Epson had 50 megapixels in its sensor of the same size, I am fairly certain that in a fair comparison (not 100% crop) it would beat the 6 megapixel sensor in all aspects.

rbelyell wrote:

whether this is scientifically supportable is irrelevant to us, its what we see, and it is really a very tangential point to the purpose of the thread.


Your disappointment does not need to be scientifically supported, but it is not grounds to extrapolate a theory on the evils of pixel density. If you are truly interested in finding the camera with the best image quality for your use, it would make sense to choose a way to compare the options in a manner that's consistent with your practical use instead of trying to find a shortcut by looking at figures in specifications.

rbelyell wrote:

also, some have been offended that i didnt define what i mean by 'better IQ'. it was my intention NOT to define it. because we all define it differently,


Who was offended? Hopefully you are not referring to me, because my suggestion has consistently been to compare real-world images to accommodate your personal definition; I doubt I could compare them for you even if you tried to put your definition into words.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure Arkku
In my original post I said that I'm not an expert, google for more info.
Tony asked for info. I gave him what I understand and had experienced.

Anu
when you get a sample image from that 100mp camera Mr Sheehey is touting. Maybe you could send me a raw file to work with. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

F16SUNSHINE wrote:

Anu
when you get a sample image from that 100mp camera Mr Sheehey is touting. Maybe you could send me a raw file to work with. Wink


Now, I diid not write that, did I?

What I meant was that if we had a DSLR-sensor with pocket-camera pixels, that sensor would at APS-C size have about 100 million pixels.

One does not need to have sucvh a sensor to measure how it would behave. If you take a square centimeter of sensor area of a DSLR-sensor and a square centimeter of a pocket camera with tiny pixels, the pocket camera has quite a bit better image quality - better S/N and better high ISO performance.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkku wrote:

The difference is that I said I think it's pointless to assess a camera based on pixel density (at all).


In general I of course agree with you with pretty much everything what you've written in this thread, but pixel density measurement (though, preferraby reported as pixel pitch, as the rest of the world does it) can be of use if one wants to maximise the reach with the tele-lenses.

I know that you know this, but the readers might not, though they also probably do. I guess I made myself unclear enough Wink


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

F16SUNSHINE wrote:

That appears to be Canikon who have gone to larger and fewer pixels in some of their latest offerings.


Didn't notice this part of your message earlier.

Canon's semipro line, 10D -> 50D and now 7D (or whatever the single digit one was) and also their consumer line have constantly have more and more pixels in a sensor of same size. I don't think they've lowered the pixel count in the pro cameras either, though haven't really payed much attention.

Regarding pocket cameras the latest of the G-series did have fewer pixels, but that had nothing to do with image quality. Canon buys most if not all the pocket camera sensors it uses from Sony and if there isn't enough availability of certain sensor, it can't be used. Also there may be numerous other reasons for using the sensor they used instead of something with more pixels. Maybe this sensor allows for faster image reading, or maybe it is a lot cheaper, or maybe it needs fewer support chips, or whatever.

Nikon hasn't (at least regarding DSLRs) done what you claimed. Don't know about their pocket cameras as I don't really follow that market as I don't have any interest in buying a small sensor camera.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks so much for continuing to make my thread about pixel count/density regardless of my efforts to get it back on the track i intended.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, does any other forum member have the Epson R-D1? (It's a very rare camera.)

If yes, please feel free to interrupt the tech-talk.

rbelyell wrote:

having said all that, it would be great if some other forum members who have rd1/ep1/gf1 weigh in with their opinions!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have you seen this site I just popped the name into Google and it threw out this
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml

I hope you get what you are looking for Tony Very Happy I like the look of it and that's about as good as I can give you on opinion.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkku wrote:
Well, does any other forum member have the Epson R-D1? (It's a very rare camera.)

If yes, please feel free to interrupt the tech-talk.

rbelyell wrote:

having said all that, it would be great if some other forum members who have rd1/ep1/gf1 weigh in with their opinions!


+1 I'm with Arkku
Certainly I have learned something here even if I don't buy into all of it. Surely other will have as well.
Too bad you are disappointed Tony.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey andy

not so disappointed, some good info was provided certainly. tbh, the most interesting thing i learned was that you saw the same thing i did in images with high density pixels! i find the techoarguments informative, but ultimately, like you, its about what i see.

while i really wanted to get more of a cross section of opinion on comparing the rd1 w the ep1/gf1, hopefully, we will get some!

@mofo: thanks, i had read that. that site has some very interesting articles about using cameras in the field, as opposed to in the lab. i always find those more interesting reading and more appropriate for my purposes.
t


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't comment in comparison of the R-D1 to the GF1 but I do own the G1 that has been adapted to the same the lenses.

The most obvious difference (that no one has yet made apparent) is that the GF1 is ~not~ a rangefinder and the R-D1 is a real rangefinder. As such they handle differently and focus differently. Being that the R-D1 is a true rangefinder, your results may vary and depend greatly on whether or not you have experiences with a real rangefinder (Contax, Hexar, Leica, Nikon, Voigtlander.. etc). I find that photographers either hate them or absolutely love them. Me, I am obviously the later (M8, M6, M3 also in my possession)

For me, the R-D1 is as fluid as any other rangefinder I have every handled. It has a 1-1 viewfinder which allows you to view the world naturally with both eyes open and capture images at a glance. This is an excellent camera for street shooters. The camera doesn't have the feel of a leica but it is substantial... it feels like a film camera that just happens to capture images digitally. The dials are just as they should be, dials from the sister Voigtlander Rangefinders. The indicators are analog like a watch. It still the film advanced lever which oddly enough makes the camera more discreet (near silent film advance and to others looks like an old film camera).

I have written and responded to numerous people (other forums) about the emerging m4/3rds system and how it adequately augments my "toolbox" of photographic toys. Be more than happy to go into more detail if more specific questions are asked. Obviously, the G1 will fill in where rangefinders have weaknesses (macro, telephoto, adaptable to more mounts; M42, PK in my case)... not to mention compact autofocus and image stabilized lenses.

I'm not really sure what else to say... except that you are either looking for a real digital rangefinder of which there are not that many choices; Epson R-D1(s/x) or a Leica (M8/M9). Or.. you move on.. get a DSLR or m4/3rds or whatever else...

As for image quality, I'd still edge out the advantage to the epson. Neither camera can perform at high iso with the likes of Canon and Nikon (it doesn't bother me) but I'd say 1600 looks better on the Epson than the G1. Let me restate it more accurately; Overall MY EXPERIENCE is that I can produce slightly better images easily with the Epson. I emphasize "My Expereience" because it is important to note that I have NO lenses native to the m4/3rds system. This means none of my lenses are optimized AND most of how I enjoy the G1 is through vintage glass. So take my response with a grain of salt. The samples I've seen produced from the G1 elsewhere lead me to believe there is a fair amount of optimization going on.

After a few years when my memory fails me, I probably could not tell you which camera took which photos while examining prints. I don't think the differences are that significant given either camera in good hands.

[EDIT] well.. I was going to post samples from both rd1 and g1 but I can't seem to get it to work .. oh well. Shows up only in preview but not when I submit. Anything I place with the "img" and "/img" tags gets munged up in parse. using "code" tags seems the best i can do.

Code:
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/2865825/386157297.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/7379777/386157255.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/7379777/386157254.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386157280.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386157277.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386157275.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386157274.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/5508688/386157241.jpg


Now a few from the G1 using vintage Takumar lenses:

Code:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386147786.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386147784.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/7379777/386147854.jpg


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi usayit and welcome to the forum.Very Happy

The first images don't show up as a anti spam measure.


Quote:

Code:
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/2865825/386157297.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/7379777/386157255.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/7379777/386157254.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386157280.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386157277.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386157275.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386157274.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/5508688/386157241.jpg


Now a few from the G1 using vintage Takumar lenses:

Code:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386147786.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/14032965/386147784.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/7379777/386147854.jpg


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey u

what a great response to the original question! i had given up hope on that front!

i found your thoughts very helpful, especially on the comparative hi iso IQ.

thanks very much
tony


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm blown away by those first two RD1 photos! The colours are incredible and the butterfly on the sunflower is pin sharp with gorgeous buttery bokeh - great work!


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
I'm blown away by those first two RD1 photos! The colours are incredible and the butterfly on the sunflower is pin sharp with gorgeous buttery bokeh - great work!


While artisticly the images are very nice, just about the only techinical thing one can judge from such small images is the quality of the bokeh and that doesn't really have anything to do with the capability of the sensor.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:

As for image quality, I'd still edge out the advantage to the epson. Neither camera can perform at high iso with the likes of Canon and Nikon (it doesn't bother me) but I'd say 1600 looks better on the Epson than the G1.


I don't have either camera, though I would like to own either.

However I do trouble accepting what you say above. I seriously doubt an old CCD, while somewhat larger, can outperform a modern CMOS, especially at higher ISOs.

I don't know how you've compared them - at 100% view or some other way, or if you're compared jpgs or raws and what kind of processing has been used.

Very nice pictures, btw Smile


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a software engineer by trade.. I spend most of my time thinking about technology and its implementation of it. One thing I take away from it is that its not about a single part of technology its who the whole implementation working as a whole. I avoid thinking about the technology behind photography now a days... photography is my creative outlet... a way to tell my dominant left brain to shut the hell up and allow the right half to run amuck. As such, I place great importance on the final look of the image.... what tools involved either hindered or help to create the image. Heck... I cherish my so called "snapshots" just as much as the photos a set out to create. Why.. because its still the right brain running amuck.

Sorry for the ramble.. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are too many variables involved in the final outcome. My assessment was based on my right brain sayin.. wow that's nice..

<Switches>

case in point...

* Hasselblad well known for their IQ are cameras that are notoriously horrible at high ISOs. The sensors are the latest in their line are no different. Pixel density is significantly less than what is out in most consumer cameras. Heck dxomark (don't make me refer to that sight again.. lol) ranks their sensors pretty low as well. Yet the output of these cameras will rival anything from the likes of Canon and Nikon. Why? I don't know the answer. As I said, there is so much involved that I'd have to put in research... what is the fun in that? Maybe its the processing.. maybe the fact that it processes 15 bits per pixel which us unusually high..
Maybe Hasselblad engineers borrowed magic fairy dust from the Leica engineers and figure out how to sprinkle it on both their glass and sensors but forgot to ask magic fairy dust from Nikon or Canon?

* Maybe the difference between the two is the sensor size. You mentioned DOF but it may go much deeper than that. A crop sensor is in my mind analogous to digital zoom.... everyone knows that digital zoom results in image loss because you are essentially enlarging the data collected in a smaller area. Well.. that goes the same with glass as well. You are enlarging the middle area of the glass thus also enlarging the deficiencies in the glass as well. The same reason why blurry images look sharp on the back of the LCD but look horrible when enlarged on a monitor. Perhaps? I'm not an expert in this area.

* Maybe the difference is that the Epson handles so well that I'm able to nail the exposures more evenly. HIgh ISO equates to narrower dynamic range... Maybe in low light, I can handhold lower shutter speeds.. and prevent the loss of clarity.

* Maybe its the dynamic range of the two?

* Maybe there is a difference in the files that lend themselves well to the raw processor that I'm using (Lightroom 2).

* Maybe it is pixel density.. in the microchip world, the more densely packed the transistors the more difficult it is to maintain signal to noise ratios.

I don't know.. seriously. In my mind, this is similar to the whole automotive performance debate. I've seen small 200hp cars out do vehicles that have 800hp. Why is the Porsche 911 valued so highly as performance cars when are nearly always underpowered compared to the competition? So many factors.. type of track, weight of vehicle, gear ratios, the driver, power curve, etc... Maybe the 911 can make more efficient use of the power it does have? Maybe the Epson makes better use of each pixel in its sensor?

btw.. did you notice Canon decided to go from 14.7 mp in the G10 to the 10mp sensor in the G11?

First one is from the G1 at ISO800 and the second is the Epson at ISO800. Both were put through the same workflow I have that includes Lightroom 2 and Noise ninja.

Quote:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/5508688/386190883.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/5508688/386190879.jpg


excuse my mess.. still can't post pictures.


btw.. thanks for the comments on the photos. I very rarely post photos online... I don't know why... somehow they never seem to be as satisfying as those that have been carefully processed and printed. I guess it goes along the lines of keeping this as a hobby and a distant 2nd priority to other things in life.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks again U; many say it, but i think youve said it best here. photography is an art, not a science. sure there is science involved as the basis for the hardware and software, obviously. and that science is extremely important. but it is not definitive, otherwise we'd all just ask anu what the best sensor is, in what camera it is and we'd all buy that.

there is subjectivity here. how we each, subjectively, see the image is what is most important to each of us as photographers. how anyone 'can have trouble believing' that another human being can subjectively prefer the image from one camera to another with a scientifically superior sensor is, frankly, ludicrous. we believe what we see; no one should question what we see.

that's why i was so happy to get your post--because MY original post starting this thread requested subjective feelings, but then it got hijacked by the 'technorati', and the purpose of my post was lost. so here you come along and bring the post back to where I, THE AUTHOR, requested that it be, and we again are taken back to the technical argument that you cant feel the way you feel because the science doesnt support it! totally exasperating! but thanks again for you posts; hopefully that'll be the end of the tech debate here, but i doubt it.

btw U, i dont care how 'small' the samples are, that butterfly picture is one of the best ive seen on this forum!


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
photography is an art, not a science.


I'd say it's a an art, a craft, and a science.

rbelyell wrote:
but it is not definitive, otherwise we'd all just ask anu what the best sensor is, in what camera it is and we'd all buy that.


The funny thing is that you seem to be the only one who's obsessed with getting the best-performing camera (e.g. explicitly stating earlier in this thread that your interest is just comparing image quality) while everyone participating in the debate on sensor properties has agreed that the performance of the sensor alone does not decide the matter, e.g. Anu said that she would love to own the Epson.

rbelyell wrote:
how anyone 'can have trouble believing' that another human being can subjectively prefer the image from one camera to another with a scientifically superior sensor is, frankly, ludicrous.


No-one said anything of this sort, and I think it's ludicrous that you constantly misquote others and reply to that instead of what they are actually saying. For example, Anu said that she has trouble believing that the performance at ISO 1600 looks better on the Epson than the G1; nothing about subjectively preferring the image.

For example, in the low-resolution samples posted above at ISO 800; I subjectively think that the Epson image is by far superior in image quality, but not really distinguishable in terms of sensor perfomance (e.g. noise) at this resolution. If anything, the noise in the shadows may be slightly worse, but the main subject is so much better lit, focused, and exposed that the image is a clear winner.

rbelyell wrote:

so here you come along and bring the post back to where I, THE AUTHOR, requested that it be, and we again are taken back to the technical argument that you cant feel the way you feel because the science doesnt support it!


I don't think THE AUTHOR (or, more accurately, the original poster) has (or should have) any particular say in where the discussion is headed on a forum like this.

In any case, why do you care if there's a technical argument about something on the side; you got more sample pictures already and the discussion probably would not have continued from there if the technical aspects had not been brought into question: the two samples at ISO 800 were posted in response to the technical argument. How was that anybody's loss or bad for the thread?

Personally I'm hoping the technical arguments will continue to provoke more samples, perhaps higher resolution and/or unprocessed ones. =)

rbelyell wrote:

btw U, i dont care how 'small' the samples are, that butterfly picture is one of the best ive seen on this forum!


If you are interested in comparing the image quality of the two cameras, does the small butterfly sample picture tell you anything other than that the poster is a good photographer, especially considering that the G1 samples were also good

Of course, if this matches your practical use of the images from the camera, then looking at those is what I've suggested all along. =)


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

are you kidding me??!! reading comes pretty easily to me arkku, so maybe you should go back and re read the posts.

usayit said "As for image quality, I'd still edge out the advantage to the epson... I'd say 1600 looks better on the Epson than the G1."

his statement implies this is his subjective opinion, as does his entire next post!!!

anu's reply was: "I do trouble accepting what you say above. I seriously doubt an old CCD, while somewhat larger, can outperform a modern CMOS, especially at higher ISOs."

if there is trouble "accepting what (usayit) says above" and what he said was his subjective opinion, then anu has trouble with his opinion!!! usayit made no claim about sensors, his statement, as he verified in his next post, was about what he SAW. taking issue with that is taking issue with his subjective opinion, which is what you two do with the constancy, and monotony, of a metronome!

as for where a thread goes, ive read the term 'hijack' on this forum quite a bit, and not in jest either. there should be a tiny amount of thoughtfulness as to what the original poster was trying to accomplish through the start of a thread. i was soliciting subjective opinions not 'objective facts or data' and it would be nice and courteous if you would keep that in mind.

as for what i'm 'obsessed' about, that's none of your concern, unless youre obsessed with me, which i'm starting to believe you are. i consider that statement personally insulting and out of bounds.

as i am sure you will take the last word, please know i'm done engaging on this point. obviously you will do as you please, regardless of courtesy, so do it, but i will not reply. its your thread now, enjoy it.


Last edited by rbelyell on Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:53 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok... Now this is starting to feel like left brain stuff.. on a weekend no doubt.

Laughing

I usually hesitate to do these because 1) its left brain stuff 2) someone will criticize the methods 3) someone will say "it doesn't matter in the real world". Right brain kinda agrees with #3 and the unspoken contestant #4 Mr. "who cares".

Anyways.

Both shot under the terrible lighting conditions of my living room. The RD1 was equipped with a Summarit 50mm f/2.5. The G1 was equipped with a Summarit 35mm f/2.5. This was so that the images were close to the same perspective without having to do any post work. I would also assume that the performance between both lenses are similar enough for this exercise given they are from the same manufacturer, line, and vintage. Shot at camera default settings and the camera decided the exposure. Both lenses were stopped down to f/5.6 (you can see less DOF in the RD1). RD1 was tripped via a cable air plunger and I used the 2 second timer on the G1. Both cameras were set to RAW. Images were loaded into LR2 and immediately exported to JPEG at 100%.

Did I miss anything?

Here goes..

(note: probably should open this in another window.. files are big)

Quote:

Panasonic G1 @ 1600
http://www.silveredemulsions.com/temp/G1vsRD1/G1_1600.jpg

Epson RD1 @ 1600
http://www.silveredemulsions.com/temp/G1vsRD1/Epson_1600.jpg

Panasonic G1 @ 800
http://www.silveredemulsions.com/temp/G1vsRD1/G1_800.jpg

Epson RD1 @ 800
http://www.silveredemulsions.com/temp/G1vsRD1/Epson_800.jpg


Regardless of what you think of these results, my experience with both tells me that the Epson produces better images. At the very least, it "enables" my creativity. No doubt though, the G1 has its advantages and I am excited to follow this new emerging system. As for the Epson... I love the camera but I will be frank.. it isn't perfect .


IF EPSON IS LISTENING, BUILD ME THE RD2!!! Watch the QA and Don't screw up the marketing this time. Oh and please make it easier for someone in the U.S. to buy one. I had to go through hoops to get mine.


oh.. just because and since I already had this photo hosted.. this is my RD1 sporting a Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 nokton and a custom modified Leica grip:

Quote:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL262/1501137/2865639/320270403.jpg


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usayit, could you please post (maybe in a different thread) some image samples taken with your Nokt 35/1.2 ?
Thanks


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm... Let me see what I can do.. I can't promise though.. Unless I go through the motions and take one now... the chances are slim.

As I said in my previous post, I usually don't take note of what took what ... I simply print and enjoy. You know what else is the problem with these lenses? They don't inform the camera what they are so its impossible to search exif. Not even an aperture value. (oh wait, I just forgot I'm on the MFlenses forum so you guys already know this). Heck... even if it did have a way to record focal length I wouldn't know which one for certain.



[EDIT] Sorry.. the linked photo wasn't taken with the Nokton. I just recalled I didn't own the lens until after my son was already 1 year old.