Home
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: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:

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.


The G1 shots look better in this test than I would have expected, and based on these samples alone I would call it the winner. But, like I've said before, I would still pick the Epson without hesitation if I could have either camera I think having a larger sensor offers more practical value than any pixel-peeping comparison can ever show, and being a true rangefinder camera wins the game easily despite any technical flaws the camera may have.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:

* 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..


Well, first, pixell density has almost nothing to do with high-ISO quality. Second, the medium format sensors are CCD, not CMOS like the DSLR-sensors are nowdays. This is a big deal for high-ISO. Third, I am sure Hasselblad et al are optimized for low-ISO-use (well lit studios etc.) Fourth, processing 15 bits or 22 bits or whatever in camera is often overkill as the CCD/CMOS doesn't capture enough data. In high-ISO most cameras would be fine with way less than 8-bits Smile

Also, the DSLR-manufacturers do have quite a bit more modern sensor-technology in use due to heavy competition.

Quote:

* 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.


This is a good and important point - the Epson just may suit you and your shooting style better.

Quote:

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

Yes, this does indeed happen. Even though LR settings seem identical to the user, they are not that to LR-engine.


Quote:

* 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.

No it is not. Only the very deepest shadows are really affected by pixel density. However, the tehnology used in sensors (and cameras) has improved quite a bit since the Epson release. And the basic technology used is already different.


Quote:

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


Yes, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with desired image quality. Canon buys (at least most if not all) small sensors from Sony and availability is a big issue. Also, maybe there was no high-MP chip of desired chip-generation available at all. Also one can use cheaper support electronics when less data needs to be handled. Also it is possible that the coonsumers have realized that for them it doesn't really make difference if the camera has 10 or 20 mp - web-sized images don't care Wink


Quote:

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.


Two very nice pictures taken with two cameras you obviously enjoy to use! They of course tell absolutely nothing aboout the IQ of the cameras used, but I am sure that wasn't really the point. You're much better people shooter than I am, that is for sure! Smile


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anu wrote:
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.


Fair point, but although off topic I wasn't actually commenting on the camera's capability, rather the photographer's work (hence the "good work" Wink

Tony, to stay on topic, I would suggest the first thing you need to do is decide why you want to change cameras. Ask yourself the question, why do I want to change camera?

* You want a rangefinder to help you get sharper shots
* You want a more comfortable grip
* You want a smaller body
* You want better high ISO performance
* You want a larger megapixel count to enable large crops
* You want better compatibility with old lenses
* You want mirror lock up
* You want full frame
* You want a bigger viewfinder
* You want a higher quality LCD

These are really the things you need to think about. For example, when I changed from a Sony a200 to a Canon EOS 30D I wanted a sterdier camera with better compatibility, larger viewfinder and better high ISO performance. When I changed from 30D to 40D I wanted live view and larger viewfinder and changable focus screens. When I changed to a 5D I wanted full frame images.

Another point everyone should remember is that image quality is often something which comes from good technique and understanding of basic principles (not necessarily experience). I see terrible shots in photography magazines every day, from photographers (some with 40+ years experience) shooting with the most expensive modern kit one can find, but the shots are mis-focussed, cluttered and boring!

Oh gawd, I've written an essay Laughing In summary, if you think your current camera is crap, and your technique is spot on, sell it and buy something else Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey graham

thanks for the thoughtful reply. however, i dont want to change cameras! i love my 5d and am having a great time with it. if you look at my original post, i merely wanted to hear peoples thoughts comparing the rd1 to the ep1, or other m4/3 cameras.

as ive said, i am a little disappointed with my ep1 (perhaps as you say it's my technique using lcd vs viewfinder), which i bought as a quality, compact alternative to taking a big rig everywhere. over the last year i have been reading a lot and viewing many images from the rd1. i view, again on a subjective basis, the rd1 as competition with micro 4/3 cameras in general, and i was simply curious about what knowledgeable people here thought of their relative IQs. i am not sure how anyone got the impression i wanted to supplant my 5d with an rd1, as i dont think i even mentioned that in any post.

many people here have multiple cameras for different purposes, so i didnt think having a compact alternative to the 5d was a major philosophical proposition. Smile am i missing something, or do we compare cameras and lenses all the time on the forum? tbh, i thought this comparison of rd1 with m4/3's would really be a fun excercise; perhaps i was wrong. Sad


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anu wrote:

Well, first, pixell density has almost nothing to do with high-ISO quality.


Sorry Anu, you make such bold statements with nothing backing.

You haven't picked up on the fact that most if not all my statements are "Maybe and perhaps". Reason behind that was to keep on point that it takes more than just a discussion of sensor design to fully understand why A makes B better. (I have done my own research but it is irrelevant for this discussion) Its a pointless discussion.. and will always be.

It goes like this.

1) Joe makes Statement A
2) Bob makes statement B
3) Joe, Bob: A and B are argued
4) Someone posts samples of B
5) Joe does the following
a) attacks the scientific validity of B
b) says that anything posted online is not valid anyways
c) restates A

Sound familiar? Notice that Statement A doesn't even have to be proven because Joe only has to argue against B. I refuse to be your "Bob". Hence why I chose to give my personal observations and samples and let everyone else decide for themselves.

My direct 100% personal experience with thousands of photos from the RD1 and a G1 that is approaching a few hundred using the same Leica M-mount lenses places my preferences squarely on the Epson R-D1. No matter how much you hold your breath, you can't argue that stance.

In the end.. that is all that matters. The photographer focuses on the creation of photos not the build of the camera.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
i love my 5d and am having a great time with it.


And you shouldn't change.. that's my opinion. I have a 1dMII and 5D MI. The 5D is a WONDERFUL camera bringing full frame to the masses. The only reason why I would trade it would be for the 1dsMII. Why? Because I don't want to perform a "mental" switch when I switch switch cameras as the layout and operation are different. I want to carry 1 set of batteries instead of 2 different.


Quote:

as ive said, i am a little disappointed with my ep1 (perhaps as you say it's my technique using lcd vs viewfinder), which i bought as a quality, compact alternative to taking a big rig everywhere. over the last year i have been reading a lot and viewing many images from the rd1. i view, again on a subjective basis, the rd1 as competition with micro 4/3 cameras in general,


I too was disappointed in the ep1. It was the viewfinder that was a show stopper for me. The Ep2 has an attaching viewfinder but I was disappointed to learn that it wasn't the same specs as the G1's EVF.

As for the R-D1 as an alternative, please do some research and perhaps ask questions at rangefinderforum's dedicated forum for the epson. I touched on it here but didn't feel this was the appropriate time to discuss in detail. It is a camera that is far from perfect. You should get a grasp of those imperfections before jumping. The cost of the Epson + lenses is significantly more than a m4/3rds and wouldn't want anyone to jump in blind.

Quote:

many people here have multiple cameras for different purposes,


I have 5 cars for the same purpose Razz That's who I am, I tend to purchase items to solve specific problems rather than general solutions. Some would say its a fault or weakness of mine (I am a pack rat). But hey what can you do?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit, thank you again for your thoughtful on topic reply. your input has been very valuable to me, but hopefully also of general interest. i also note your frustration at the absolutist statements from the technorati when you have been painstaking in using subjective analysis in your posts. welcome to the club; you handled your initiation better than i. Smile

i am also glad im not alone in my ep1 disappointment. lcd focusing perhaps being incompatible with my shooting style is certainly an issue, as is the crappy lcd screen itself. but also, i wasnt terribly impressed by the images i am getting, especially in low light, which tend to look smeared and noisy. that is not to say i havent taken some very nice shots, because i have. it's just an overall impression of not being impressed.

and please feel free to go into more detail on the shortcomings of the rd1--this is the perfect place for such a discussion, as i had hoped the thread would compare positives/negatives of rd1 vs ep1 (and m4/3 cameras generally).

thanks again


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:
places my preferences squarely on the Epson R-D1. No matter how much you hold your breath, you can't argue that stance.

In the end.. that is all that matters. The photographer focuses on the creation of photos not the build of the camera.


I don't think anyone here has ever argued anything that goes against either of these points. =)

rbelyell wrote:
i thought this comparison of rd1 with m4/3's would really be a fun excercise; perhaps i was wrong.


I thought it has been fun, otherwise I would not be posting in this thread. Sorry if you don't feel that way.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:
Anu wrote:

Well, first, pixell density has almost nothing to do with high-ISO quality.


Sorry Anu, you make such bold statements with nothing backing.


It is not a bold statement - this is a forum, not a peer reviewed study, so I see little point adding a link or several links to each and every statement I make.

Besides, high-ISO-quality doesn't really define what really is the issue here - are we talking about normal ISO-ranges, what kind of light is available, or are we talking about superhigh ISOs, like ISO a million, or are we shooting black cats in coal cellars or using high ISO to bump up the shutter speed to stop motion? Also please note my use of the word almost.

Image noise comes from two sources - photon shot noise and read noise (into which one can lump all sensor/electronics-based noise - I'll ignore pattern noise as it has nothing to do with this thread). For shot noise it is obvious that dividing the sensor are into smaller pieces does little or nothing (depending on microlenses etc.) to the amount of noise in the image, while more signal is gathered. Outside of the deepest shadows this is the dominant source of noise, as you can test yourself. In the deepest shadows photon shot noise's influence goes down in the overall noise level, and there the smaller pixel pitch may cause more noise.

Quote:

You haven't picked up on the fact that most if not all my statements are "Maybe and perhaps". Reason behind that was to keep on point that it

Even though you use such words, the statements do imply that the statement is likely to be true in your opinion. Should I just stay silent? Or should I start hunting for test results etc. from the internet even though I really don't have the time or the energy to do that?

Anyhow, here is a good link for you, though you may already have it. Definitely worth studying: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/

Quote:

My direct 100% personal experience with thousands of photos from the RD1 and a G1 that is approaching a few hundred using the same Leica M-mount lenses places my preferences squarely on the Epson R-D1. No matter how much you hold your breath, you can't argue that stance.


It sure sounds as you feel insulted by me daring to make a claim that doesn't praise your Epson. I would be sorry for that if there were a need for me to be.

I've not argued that you should not prefer one camera over the other. If you're happy with the Epson, fine, no problems, I am sure I'd like to have one too for street shooting. If you think it has superior image quality to G1, fine, perfectly ok by me. If (and I am not saying that you did or do, as I can't remember that much of this thread) you however advocate it's superiority without backing it up with evidence, even that is fine, but you should not be surprised, nor feel insulted if someone dares to disagree with you.

Quote:

In the end.. that is all that matters. The photographer focuses on the creation of photos not the build of the camera.


I don't think this thread was about what or what a photographer is, but about two different cameras and their capabilities.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
general interest. i also note your frustration at the absolutist statements from the technorati when you have been painstaking in using subjective analysis in your posts. welcome to the club; you handled your initiation better than i. Smile

Subjective analysis - sounds a bit like an oxymoron Wink

Quote:

i am also glad im not alone in my ep1 disappointment. lcd focusing perhaps being incompatible with my shooting style is certainly an issue, as is the crappy lcd screen itself. but also, i wasnt terribly impressed by the images i am getting, especially in low light, which tend to look smeared and noisy. that is not to say i havent taken some very nice shots, because i have. it's just an overall impression of not being impressed.

I am sure part of the reason why you've not been too impressed in the low light images of the ep1 is the absolute fact ( Smile ) that you have a wonderful full frame camera. As the ep1 has a sensor of only a quarter of the size of the sensor of a full frame camera, it only gathers about a quarter of the light (well, probably a bit more than that as 5D (mark 1) doesn't exactly have the best light gathering ability per sensor area in the world, but it sure has a huge sensor!). In low light this makes a big difference.

If the output looks smeared to you, it is because of noise reduction - yoiu might want to try to handle the noise more lighthandedly, though nothing will make the camera perform even close to the 5D.

Quote:

and please feel free to go into more detail on the shortcomings of the rd1--this is the perfect place for such a discussion, as i had hoped the thread would compare positives/negatives of rd1 vs ep1 (and m4/3 cameras generally).


Can I participate too, can I, can I Wink

Bad joking aside, the problem is that you have too good camera as your main tool at the moment Smile Neither of the two small cameras will deliver similar image quality, especiallly not in low light. In my opinion you should probably ignore the image quality aspect as both take decent photos, and consider usability instead. Viewfinder, buttons, operation speed, grip - ergonomics in general. Oh, and the absolute techno fact that the Epson has a larger sensor and allows old lenses to be used will less crop and with more control over the DOF. I think I'd actually pick the epson just for this very reason.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anu what you say is extremely interesting. maybe that's correct, i just expect too much from the compact cameras. (btw, re smearing, i dont think i can turn off the ep1's noise reduction setting. perhaps i missed something, so i have been meaning to check the manual again, but i dont think user has control of how olympus set the NR of the camera)

regarding IQ differences, i guess what youre saying is the rd1's larger sensor will have more of an impact on IQ than the ep1s extra pixels--that makes sense to me...

your thoughts on the nonIQ differences between the ep1 and rd1 are also very interesting, and may in fact effect IQ because of improved comfort level.

thank you for your comments, they are making me think and focusing me in on what i actually need to think about.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:

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

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

I actually missed these test images, sorry about that.
Now, I only looked at the ISO 1600-images, so following only applies to them (though it might apply to ISO 800 too, don't know Smile ).

Both images are very processed - the Epson image is very heavily noise reducted, though edges have been preserved. Some people like this look, but plastic look is not what I am after. Panasonic has quite bad noise reduction - it is so bad, I even prefer the Epson's plastic performance. No only does the Panasonic smear, it also fails to remove chroma-noise Epson processing has removed well.

Now, as the two images are of very different dimension, I cropped parts of them and then upsized both crops so that the maginification would be the same. Of course I just noticed I had upsized the Epson image a bit too much, so these two images give a very small (and unfair) advantage to the Panasonic.

I tried NeatImaging both crops - with the Epson crop it was better to not NeatImage it as there isn't really any noise there as it's allready processed away. The Panasonic crop I processed to get rid of most of the colour blotches - some colour was also lost in this Q&D job. I did leave almost all the luminance noise there as I don't like plastic look as I said earlier. I did add a little Q&D sharpening to the Epson.

Epson:


Panasonic


To my eye the Panasonic image looks far more detailed and pleasing. But I must emphasize that it is not exactly too scientific to try to post process images for comparision purpouses if the images have already been post-processed (by the camera or by a raw-converter) rather heavy handedly.

With this sample I just wanted to show a different view to the files and what differences different settings and post processing can do, and not to proove anykind of Camera X is superior to Camera Y argumnent.


Quote:

IF EPSON IS LISTENING, BUILD ME THE RD2!!! Watch the QA and Don't screw up the marketing this time.

I don't think it was much the marketing's fall that the camera failed. (Or did it? I don't know.) Markets for rangefinders are limited, much more so than markets for point and shoots and DSLRs. But even worse problem was the price of the camera. If one affords to have five cars, it might not be a big deal, but to Jill/Joe Average the camera was simply way too expensive.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
anu what you say is extremely interesting. maybe that's correct, i just expect too much from the compact cameras. (btw, re smearing, i dont think i can turn off the ep1's noise reduction setting. perhaps i missed something, so i have been meaning to check the manual again, but i dont think user has control of how olympus set the NR of the camera)

Even though I am often critical of the dpreview's reviews, I just checked the review of the Olympus, and there are several settings for the noise reduction http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page19.asp. You might also want to shoot in raw - even if only for making it easy to fix white balance issues.

Quote:

regarding IQ differences, i guess what youre saying is the rd1's larger sensor will have more of an impact on IQ than the ep1s extra pixels--that makes sense to me...

One must also remember that the Epson sensior (and support electronics) is very old technology relatively speaking. Also the microlenses are surely better on the much newer camera as they've improved lots over the year ( - I'm not sure if the Epson has microlenses actually).

If the Epson were based on modern chips, I'm sure it'd outperform the m43-competitor, but there's half a decade between them. A full and proper comparison would be an interesting read, but not likely to appear anywhere Sad

Quote:

your thoughts on the nonIQ differences between the ep1 and rd1 are also very interesting, and may in fact effect IQ because of improved comfort level.

Yes, I agree with comforts and ergonomics influence on IQ - also with proper comfort level one might get the picture a less ergonomic tool would cause one to miss! Even a suboptimal picture is better than no picture at all.

Quote:

thank you for your comments, they are making me think and focusing me in on what i actually need to think about.


It was my pleasure. I hope, and I am sure that you'll end up with a choice that is the best for you! Enjoy the hunt for the camera - it is half of the fun Smile


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

see, that's so funny to me, because on my screen, it's not even close, the epson image is far superior. the panny seems washed out, lifeless and even blurry. the colors and sharpness of the epson is frankly great to me for a crop of iso 1600, while the panny is maybe even worse than i expect from my olly.

also, thanks for pointing me to the dpreview. it forced me to go back to the camera and check my settings: i had in fact at some point set NR to off.

re shooting raw, i always do w my 5d. i started out doing so with my ep1, but frankly the images were so messy i dropped down to an 8mp jpeg! i find, totally unscientifically i might add, that when i took the same subject in series w raw, 10mp jpeg and 8mp jpeg i liked the 8mp better every time, so that's where i left the setting. i try to be very careful w the white balance, and always customize it in low light...


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's the problem with pixel peepers...

On one hand they say IQ can't be analyzed on JPEG converted images posted online

On the other hand, they are the first to zoom in at very close ranges that are so far off from normal viewing distances to prove their point.

Anu, you are comparing a 6mp camera to a 12mp camera. Of course the detail will not be the same and that's why billboards and poster sized images wouldn't be created from an Epson R-D1. I can do the same with a 645 frame even slightly out of focus will still resolve more detail than a 35mm negative and prove the same point.

What you have done is point out the obvious to prove a very generalized unspecific point. Your demonstration is about as unsubstantiated than your other points. Yet you fail to recognize the amount noise that's introduced into the frame at the darker background. Pull out the blue channel on both images and you will see the G1 has significantly more noise. Previously someone also said "unprocessed"... heck what's the point. NO one ever looks at a negative as the final product.... THis is no different than a "digital negative". The same reason applies to viewing distances.

On reasonable print sizes, at normal viewing distances the R-D1 is far more pleasing at 1600 and even at normal light. The R-D1's capabilities improve as the ISO is lowered (all around) and the G1 pretty much just becomes less noisy. Compared to my LX3 (wonderful P&S btw), the G1 is definitely much better for the same reasons... the R-D1 placed above both. Heck, (forgiveness from the Leica gods).. I'd place the R-D1 above my M8 in terms of ISO performance as well but the details, look and feel are no where close to the M8.

The appropriate test would be increase the focal length of the lens on the RD1 so that the final crop would be two images, same perspective of subjects, but more importantly.. the amount of data presented is also the same. Even then.. what's the point... doesn't translate to photography in its truest form.

These responses is the same crap that occurs in all forums on the internet. This is part of the reason why I generally don't partake.



Lets not get into a discussion regarding the success or failure of the R-D1 as a product for sale. Its been discussed at length in detail with some responses from those involved in the project on other forums. It was a bold move by Epson in a time when Leica said it was not possible. The president of Epson (who is a Leica fan too) should be proud of what he has accomplished. It was a product way way way out of line from Epson's current capabilities and not aligned with their investors interests. For one.. you don't sell a camera without lenses. Period. Photographers buy systems not cameras. They also had serious.. I mean serious quality issues in manufacturing.. this is going back to the fact that Epson is not a camera company. When those quality issues surfaced, there wasn't enough infrastructure to support repairs. To the point that many went to others parties to repair the mechanicals. This drastically damaged their line. It is also argued that if the camera was sold under the Voigtlander name supported by all those good Voigtlander glass, it would have been a far more successful product. Its tough to sell a $3000 camera with no lenses with the Epson name. However, I do agree the chances of an R-D2 is slim to none. No matter how good the camera is, it still was a painful situation for Epson and their investors. To bring it up surely would cause some of those folks to grit their teeth.






btw...Epson didn't manufacture the sensor. The sensor they did source was one of the best at the time. The same design still exists today but in a denser more updated form.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:

Previously someone also said "unprocessed"... heck what's the point. NO one ever looks at a negative as the final product.... THis is no different than a "digital negative".


Exactly right, which is why an unprocessed sample (e.g. raw file) would be the best material for making one's own practical comparison; i.e. process the image as one normally would, and then look at it at some realistic size. This would separate the other person's workflow and post-processing skill + software from the capabilities of the camera, without inconveniencing the person with the camera into making an unnatural test setting.

Throughout this thread I've advocated looking at practical samples from the camerassimilar to photos one would be using them forinstead of pixel peeping. However, since relatively technical and non-practical topics like high ISO performance keep popping up without any images suitable for making a fair comparison, I would personally find it more interesting to be able to make the comparison myself with my own criteria instead of reading the opinions of others', whose criteria may be completely different than mine.

(Then again, I don't personally consider high ISO performance of any particular interest for my practical uses, but it is a pet peeve of mine that sites like dpreview always focus on it and then proceed to make idiotic pixel-peeping 100% crop comparisons instead of e.g. resampling the images from different cameras to have the same pixel counts. But this we went over earlier in this thread several times.)


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkku wrote:

Exactly right, which is why an unprocessed sample (e.g. raw file) would be the best material for making one's own practical comparison;


I'm in close agreement on this but I'd say its the beginnings of a fair comparison of two cameras BUT not a PRACTICAL one. G1 might have more details when examined at crops BUT the noise introduction makes them much more difficult to work with to the final print. In the real world the final print from the 6mp camera is more pleasing.. that is my assessment. Unless the participants are more interested in technology the practical or "real world" results are all that matter. If it were more important for me, I would have posted crops of my photos from raw files rather than the finished image.

This is part of the reason I've been saying (to Anu? i think.. lost track) that there are too many variables to examine for a discussion like the ones at the beginning of this thread (before I posted). We are photographers not technologists and as such we should be looking at the final print.. Its the reason why I posted samples to allow all those to discuss. I believe you said you liked the G1 photos.. that's great! I think you should consider one as they are still a good camera.

I'm a technologist by trade and choose not to be one with a camera in my hands. Its funny... when I post photos online people ask about the equipment when shown an image. In real life under prints, those that I bring into discussion focus more on the print, composition, etc.. Kinda guess that's why I prefer to discuss photography in person and leave my online self to wear the technologist hat.

I have done my best to steer away from getting to involved with the technical comparison of the G1 versus the Epson. But how do you address "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. "? (side note.. some of the high end cameras choose to stick with CCDs.. there are definite technical reasons that are interested to look at... but not for this discussion. Phase One, M8, M9, Hassys, etc.. different tool.. different job... different target audience)

In the end, the OP asked for opinions (real world). My opinion is still that the G1 still has a spot in my toolbox.. Along with the R-D1 and my M8. If I had to choose between the G1 and R-D1, most of the time.. I will choose the R-D1...

Anyways.. I do have to apologize. I just realized I've been confusing your posts with Anu's. I might have incorrectly referred to either of you in my responses.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:
Arkku wrote:

Exactly right, which is why an unprocessed sample (e.g. raw file) would be the best material for making one's own practical comparison;


I'm in close agreement on this but I'd say its the beginnings of a fair comparison of two cameras BUT not a PRACTICAL one. G1 might have more details when examined at crops BUT the noise introduction makes them much more difficult to work with to the final print.


Then why not start from the raw file from both cameras and print them at the size you would practically be working with? This is what I mean by practical comparison; process the shots as you would for the kind of use that matters for you. Any other starting point than raw already has some processing that depends on another person's settings (whether done in camera or with external software).


usayit wrote:
In the real world the final print from the 6mp camera is more pleasing.. that is my assessment. Unless the participants are more interested in technology the practical or "real world" results are all that matter.


Yes, as I said (much) earlier in this thread I don't see much point in comparing the pure image quality of these cameras as long as they are good enough for the practical, real world use. (Meanwhile, rbelyell, the original poster, continued to advocate more comparisons, and disagreements on what is or would make a good comparison are what we have been mostly talking about since =)

I think everyone who has expressed an opinion on the matter in this thread has concluded that the Epson would be the camera of their choice (presumably factoring price and such out of the equation). For me, it would be definitely be the #1 choice (of these options, which I'm not considering); first due being a rangefinder camera, and second due to having a larger sensor (not for any pixel-peeping reason, but for FoV and DoF benefits).

usayit wrote:
If it were more important for me, I would have posted crops of my photos from raw files rather than the finished image.


I think the so-dubbed technorati (I thought that was a search engine?) have unanimously agreed that straight crops are not the way to compare. The images should be processed to a common size (or printed on a common size of paper) and those compared

In any case I didn't mean that unprocessed images should be compared, but quite the opposite: If we had unprocessed images, they could serve as the raw material for processing in various ways for whatever comparison is desired, without one person having to accommodate all variants and list all variables to satisfy all parties.

usayit wrote:

we should be looking at the final print..


My point exactly, although final print can be substituted with final digital version for those who do not intend to print all/most of their photos.

usayit wrote:
Its the reason why I posted samples to allow all those to discuss. I believe you said you liked the G1 photos.. that's great! I think you should consider one as they are still a good camera.


I'd much prefer the Epson, although honestly I can't justify the cost of a proper digital rangefinder system (even if its not Leica). As someone who uses vintage lenses intended for full frame 135 film, I find the sensor size of the 4/3 systems too limiting for the lenses I have. 4/3 might be interesting with C-mount lenses, but I don't have any and I don't want to start another collection right now. I may look into an APS-C-sized EVIL camera at some point as more and more manufacturers are entering that game.


usayit wrote:

I have done my best to steer away from getting to involved with the technical comparison of the G1 versus the Epson. But how do you address "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. "?


Well, it was Anu's statement, so maybe she can address it further if required. Personally I don't know if anything definitive can be said of such shots when I wouldn't have left either shot in its present state had I been processing them. Currently it looks like the G1 shot is somewhat more detailed (though partly due to greater depth of field), and as such could still take more noise reduction before it started losing to the Epson in that departmentperhaps the Epson might still win there, but it's a matter of preference (e.g. Anu said she prefers the higher luminance noise to the plastic look of the Epson shot). The G1 shot also looks washed out while the Epson shot seems to have an overall yellow cast. They should also be scaled to a common size (or printed on a common size of paper) to see practical results.

(One should also note that I seriously doubt does not mean I will never accept that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. =)


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

one should not 'seriously doubt' something stated as an opinion. there's nothing to doubt, except that the person honestly holds the opinion.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
one should not 'seriously doubt' something stated as an opinion. there's nothing to doubt, except that the person honestly holds the opinion.


If you accept that the performance of a sensor is a matter of opinion*, why is it acceptable to have an absolute opinion one way (in my opinion A is better than B) but not a less absolute counter-opinion the other way (I seriously doubt that A can better than B i.e. I'm fairly certain that A should turn out inferior to B if assessed by my criteria)? Had the statement been directed at me, I would have seen it as a way of asking me to show the evidence I used to form my opinionnot a denial of the right to hold that opinion, but rather an expression of doubt that one would come to the same conclusion after being able to assess the cameras. Not something to get offended about.

* One might also argue that it's not a matter of opinion, but as there is also a subjective component to practical assessment of image quality, let us not go that way.

In a strict nitpicking sense, the former seems to preclude argument (God exists) but the latter would accept proof to the contrary, however serious the doubt might be (I seriously doubt that a god could exist). Of course, I doubt either point was intended in such literal sense. =)


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know if it matters to anyone still following but I just noticed that in my haste the G1 and RD1 1600 samples were posted with no luminance noise reduction but I forgot to bring color noise to zero. The differences doesn't work in the G1's favor because the unprocessed raw files do show quite a bit more noise in the blue channel.

Quote:

2nd attempt

Epson @1600
http://www.silveredemulsions.com/temp/G1vsRD1/Epson_1600_2.jpg

G1 @1600
http://www.silveredemulsions.com/temp/G1vsRD1/G1_1600_2.jpg

Comparison crop (Epson on left and G1 on Right)
http://www.silveredemulsions.com/temp/G1vsRD1/Compared.jpg

Just for kickers.. raws

G1
http://www.silveredemulsions.com/temp/G1vsRD1/G1Raw1600.RW2

Epson
http://www.silveredemulsions.com/temp/G1vsRD1/EpsonRaw1600.ERF


You can draw your own conclusions.


Oh and regarding white balance, the R-D1 is a bit warm (bear isn't that yellow) and the G1 is too cool (the bear isn't beige).


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

again usayit's quote was that "at iso 1600 the epson LOOKS better than the g1", from which anu directly quoted and responded:
"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. "

the first statement was expressly made as an opinion; the second took issue with the opinion based on her understanding of scientific fact. the point, which has been made maybe a thousand times in this thread by a couple of different people, is that you cannot counter what someone SEES with science.

since youre such a smart guy, "i have trouble accepting" you dont understand when an opinion is expressed, so i am thus forced to conclude that you just want to argue for arguing sake. that's not fun, just a waste of time.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:
I don't know if it matters to anyone still following


I'm certainly interested in these new samples even though I'm not sure if any of this strictly matters to me as I'm not considering the purchase of either camera. In any case I might give processing the raw files a go; it's interesting to see how much of a difference processing with different software/etc might make.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:

the first statement was expressly made as an opinion; the second took issue with the opinion based on her understanding of scientific fact.


There is no expression of scientific fact anywhere in the quoted statements. At most there is an implication that Anu considers usayit's opinion (and therefore assessment of the photos) non-scientificbut that's already given, as usayit did not ever claim to have made a scientific comparison. The rest is an expression of doubt that an assessment of performance by some (unspecified, possibly scientific, possibly partly subjective) criteria would not agree with usayit's opinion.

rbelyell wrote:

since youre such a smart guy, "i have trouble accepting" you dont understand when an opinion is expressed, so i am thus forced to conclude that you just want to argue for arguing sake. that's not fun, just a waste of time.


I think it's fun, sorry if you don't think so. But if you don't find it fun, why are you arguing with me about an exchange between two people, neither of whom is either of the two of us? I don't we two can argue about that other than for the fun of it, at least to any meaningful conclusion After all, it's about the opinions of others.

(As for having trouble understanding when an opinion is expressed, it seems to me that you are not accepting Anu's statement as an opinion, which I think it clearly is. If it was a fact, there would be no doubt. =)


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

you like to hear yourself talk (or see yourself in print) way too much. over and out.