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: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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


I think Tony has a point as it was his post/original question....there is a lot of great reading in amongst this that will no doubt benefit people who want this kind of in depth discussion about the two cameras mentioned.I thank usayit for joining and bringing his point of view and hope he/she will stay around Smile.I don't think expressing opinions about what others have said adds anything to this thread.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mo wrote:
Arkku wrote:
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


I think Tony has a point as it was his post/original question....there is a lot of great reading in amongst this that will no doubt benefit people who want this kind of in depth discussion about the two cameras mentioned.I thank usayit for joining and bringing his point of view and hope he/she will stay around :).I don't think expressing opinions about what others have said adds anything to this thread.


I agree with you, Mo (except for the original poster's right to police what can be discussed in their thread). Arguing about ways to measure quality (and other things) has brought up a lot of good material in this thread, e.g. more photo samples from the cameras in question. Meanwhile arguing about the wording of used to express these arguments adds nothing. This is what I attempted to express in the bit you quoted: I don't see why rbelyell is/was arguing with me about Anu's choice of words in expressing her personal doubts about the subjective assessment of a sensor's peformance, except perhaps because I'm such fun to argue with.


Look at the starting point:

Arkku wrote:
long post directed to usayit, on-topic about cameras and quality assessment

(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. =)


Note that this last phrase in my post is in parentheses and followed by a smiley to indicate that its intended as an off-topic humorous remark on the side. Followed directly by a reply containing nothing but:

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.


In my opinion, if one does not want to hear my reply, or to take the discussion in that direction, such remarks should not be directed at meI don't think it's fair to start an off-topic argument and then expect the other person to keep quiet even if they honestly disagree. And I consider it somewhat improper to disengage from an argument one started by criticising the other party's person:

rbelyell wrote:
you like to hear yourself talk (or see yourself in print) way too much.


In conclusion, Mo, I respect your right to disagree with my arguments (they are not, after all, based on any provable fact), but I don't fancy being made a scapegoat here. I did not start this argument, and your post is just as off-topic as my replies to rbelyell. (Though admittedly mine are more verbose and numerous. =)


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:34 am    Post subject: raw stuff Reply with quote

Dear usayit,

Thank you for the raw files. I have problems with them and hope that you'd post new ones.

One problem with the files was that the Epson raw has a somewhat higher magnification of the subject and this gives it a bit of an unfair advantage when it comes to analyzing signal/noise. However, this is small compared to the following big problem:

The other thing about the raw files was that the Epson was given double the exposure time (1/6 vs. 1/13) - you gave Epson twice the light (assuming you used f/5.6 for both as you indicate when posting the original jpg-files), quite an advantage!. Now, the actual exposure of the G1 was still about half a stop brighter than the exposure of Epson (!!!), so I had to pull the G1 image down. The different exposures make the comparison impossible. It seems that the ISO 1600 of the Epson is almost 1.5 stops less sensitive than ISO 1600 of G1. I just checked the DxO-numbers and indeed G1 understates it's ISOs - ISO 1600 is actually way over ISO 2000!. On the other hand Epson's ISO 1600 seems to be more like ISO 800. This makes the comparison rather pointless.

So please, if you are interested in scientificly valid comparison (I would be very thankful!), please provide us with new raw-files where the subjects fill the same portion of the image (a bit difficult because on it 3:2 and the other 4:3 - the easiest way is to make the G1-subject a bit wide in the image than the Epson subject, so that both subject would fill the same percentage of the full image). Also please make sure that the exposure time and aperture are equal while the actual exposures remain similar - you should shoot at ISO 1600 on the Epson and ISO 800 on the G1 (if G1 has half-stops, then shooting at even lower ISO might be better - I don't know how G1 creates the half-stops if it has them, so it would be safer to just use 800).

Addendum:

I just checked the DxO Labs site and evidently the Panasonic GH1 is quite a lot better than the G1, especially in low light. Actually the GH1 seems to deliver mostly equal or better figures to the K20D I use, even though it has quite a bit smaler sensor than the Pentax. Makes me wonder if Samsung has managed to improve the image quality in their mirrorless camera.

I will answer to your posts later on when I have time.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps I'm a bit too late, but I have a R-D1, it's at Steve's Camera (CA) for a CLA and I miss it very much.

I think it's hard to compare both cameras and I can not speak personally for the GH1.
But perhaps some words about the R-D1 and why I like it might help.

It's a real Rangefinder and it feels like a true old(er) camera. I like to focus with a rangfinder patch, I like the advance lever, on the street most people will recognize your R-D1 as an old film camera, which can help in many situations.
I've printed some of my images on A3 photo paper and I liked the results (actually I'm very picky about print quality).


Last edited by Carlsson on Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks carlson, much appreciated. do you use it mostly with leica lenses?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Tony,
I only have three lenses, the Biogon 25, Biogon 35 and C Sonnar 50, just three but I'm very happy with them.
But there are plenty M lenses on the market, most of them are exceptional.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:
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.

I see no contradiction in asking for raw-files and then studying the images with different processing to see what the camera is capable of.

I could not care less if there is some noise or if the image is a bit soft at the pixel level. If however there is a need or interest to compare how two different cameras behave, going into details is necessary. One never knows how much one may need to crop or how much one may need to boost the exposure or in how low light one needs to take a shot, or how large print one may want to make.

Quote:

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.

Why so defensive? Why should some facts not be said?

Quote:

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.


As I told in my previous message, your raw-files were not usable for comparison - you gave the Epson twice the light, and still in recorded half a stop darker image than the Panasonic.

You like cars, I am sure. Let's go for a car analogy: we have two cars, according to their speedometers both drive at 160mph, but one goes around the lap more than twice in the time it take the other to go around the lap just one time. Now, it is clear that both cars are not travelling at 160mph. If you're interested to know which car is louder or which has the better mileage at this speed, would you say that we could figure it out from this test?

Quote:

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

Different cameras are calibrated in different ways. It sure seesm like G1 has more than twice as sensitive ISO 1600 than the Epson. See above car analogy.

Quote:

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.

If we are comparing about capabilities of two cars, would you start talking about how driving a car is what counts and that talking and studying the capabilities are stupid and/or irrelevant things to do.

Quote:

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.


If you're not interested in a discussion, why on earth do you participate in it? Just to yell the world that your favorite camera is great? Or just to attack people who dare to say that half a decade newer and a lot cheaper electronic product might actually give better image quality?

If you find something wrong with the data or flows in my logic or reasoning, please correct me - I would appreciate it as I have always happy to learn.

Quote:

Lets not get into a discussion regarding the success or failure of the R-D1 as a product for sale. Its

So after you want to stop this discussion by others, you decide to continue it yourself:

Quote:

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.

1. The Epson was (and is) an expensive camera.
2. The Epson is a rangefinder - not really useful for today's professionals.

When you consider those two, you must come to the conclusion that the camera was meant for a small niche market. Now, add all the other issues and you'll have low sales.

I am so sorry I continues on this even though you wanted to be the one to carve the history of this camera into stone.

Quote:

btw...Epson didn't manufacture the sensor. The

Like I didn't know that. Epson is not a camera sensor manufacturer.

Quote:

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.


False.

Would you please tell who made the sensor? And who told it was "one of the best" of the time?

I seem to remember that it used the same Sony CCD-sensor Nikon used in the old D70 (or was it even older D100?) - Sony doesn't make CCD-sensors for DSLRs any more, it's all very different CMOS.

I quickly looked at the numbers of the sensors inside the Epson and the Nikon and both have exactly same physical size and exactly same pixel-dimensions. Sure sounds like the same chip. The support electronics are of course different, and I would not bet a cent for them being better on the Epson than the Nikon (note, this is an opinion, not a statement of fact).

The Sony sensor (on a Nikon) was somewhat inferior to Canon 350D (Rebel XT) and 20D sensors. It's all right, but nothing special.

Now, Epson was a rangefinder and this means that the lens sits closer to the sensor. This means that the light will hit the surface of the sensor at larger angle than on DSLRs (like D70), and because sensors do not handle angled light well (for reasons I'm not going to go here, use google), the sensor itself will perform less well than identical sensor on a DSLR. Having off-axis microlenses can help to a degree, but AFAIK Epson didn't have them (I think Leica M8 was the first one with them, though I might be wrong), if it had microlenses at all.

If I am wrong with something above, please feel free to correct me as I am always open to learn more.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oy gevalt!


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:12 pm    Post subject: Re: raw stuff Reply with quote

Anu wrote:
Dear usayit,

One problem with the files was that the Epson raw has a somewhat higher magnification of the subject and this gives it a bit of an unfair advantage when it comes to analyzing signal/noise.


Nothing I can do with that. I don't have access to lenses that are close in make/model with the odd focal lengths to make it perfectly equal. The RD1 has a crop factor of 1.5x versus the G1's 2x crop. The Summarits I have are:

35, 50, 75, and 90. On the 2x crop that equates to, 70, 100, 150, and 180 which if you account for 1.5x crop is 46.67, 66.67, 100, 120. As such, the closest is the 35mm on the G1 and 50 on the RD1. I could tap into my other lenses of different focal lengths but now we are introducing more variance in the quality of the glass. In fact, the 35mm Summarit mounted on the G1 is actually slightly sharper than the 50mm Summarit on the RD1.

Quote:

The other thing about the raw files was that the Epson was given double the exposure time (1/6 vs. 1/13) -


You should know that the ISO ratings of digital cameras are far off... very far off. Simply put, they are marketing numbers. I had this discussion with another forum member (not here) asking why their external light meter isn't working or using sunny 16 always results in an underexposed picture. What had they not realized is that their digital Rebel is known to be over rated. Meaning an ISO of 200 on their camera was really ISO 150. I discovered this a long time ago and thus my cameras have a label on the bottom plate indicating the variance (I use a handheld meter). Also note, that I've noticed that the higher the quality the camera.. the more accurate the ISO rating. My M8 is spot on. You can see the same if you look at the dxomark results (you did it again.. make me refer to that darn site).

If you examine other more scientific tests, they usually allow the camera's meter to select the exposure since it would be far more accurately tuned to the sensor in the camera. If the same exposure settings were used across the board, certain cameras would have a tad more exposure and certain would be under. DXOmark (grr!!) actually reports the G1 is underrating. In other words, ISO100 settings is closer to ISO 129 which would account for some of the variance.

Furthermore, more exposure usually leads to less noise in the darker shadows ("expose to the right").. The slight over exposure should actually benefit the G1 not the RD1. Darkening the G1 photos in post would hide some of the noise in the shadows hence giving more advantage to the G1. Brightening the RD1 samples would actually bring out more noise in the shadows, again.. giving more advantage to the G1. Even if I compared the 1600 ISO Epson sample to the 800 ISO sample of the G1, I still think the final print would look a lot better for the Epson. The G1's noisy blue channel just doesn't yield good results and only improves slightly in ISO800.

Never the less... I will repeat what I have been saying over and over again in this thread. The camera and the whole is what makes one camera better than the other. On paper the older RD1 seems to be at the disadvantage but my experience, the RD1 yields a better result and experience. We already agree that even the camera's metering and handling is a factor. This is one such case.

The fact that you are asking for a tweak in the results leads me to believe that the clear better performer is not "obvious". Again.. a testament to the quality of the overall IQ of the RD1. A camera that is at 9 years senior the G1!!!


Unfortunately, I don't think I will have time to perform a redo. I have a busy schedule filled with things that are more aligned with my home life interests (Kids, Wife, Creating Photos, etc..) The best I can do is post the RAW files of the ISO 800 samples that already exist on my hard drive. I also forgot to zero out the color noise filter for those samples (which btw should also work in the G1's favor). Remember... when the camera is in my hand, I like to shutdown my left brain and allow the right half to run. I am at work right now... so it the ISO800 raw files will be posted later.



So the GH1 has been improved over the G1? Great! Lets start comparing a cameras that are 10 years apart! If in the end the GH1 produces even slightly better results over the G1, its still a testament to the RD1's abilities.


Last edited by usayit on Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:15 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carlsson wrote:
(actually I'm very picky about print quality).


Me too... nice to see someone else here who examines prints. Just saying Hi!


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anu wrote:

You like cars, I am sure. Let's go for a car analogy: we have two cars, according to their speedometers both drive at 160mph, but one goes around the lap more than twice in the time it take the other to go around the lap just one time. Now, it is clear that both cars are not travelling at 160mph. If you're interested to know which car is louder or which has the better mileage at this speed, would you say that we could figure it out from this test?


I had to respond to this...

For someone who is more interested in numbers sure it makes a difference. No argument from me there..

But when I'm on the track watching apex's and the driver trying to pass me up on the outside of a turn, I actually could care less about what the speedometer is reporting.

This is the difference between a photographer and someone obsessed with paper reported numbers.



The rest is not worth it. The OP asked for an opinion, I am providing it with real experience with both. I am a photographer (loosely see myself as one). I have experience with both G1 and RD1. REAL WORLD experience. I am stating that the RD1 is better. Don't know how more plain to put it? No matter how many numbers and data you throw up, it doesn't change anything. What were you expecting?


"Oh no.. I change my mind, the G1 is better because the numbers say so?"


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

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".


Yup... Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit, thanks for sticking in there! at some point i just throw up my hands because some just refuse to understand what 'opinion' or 'subjective' means. it's like that kid in the class who loves to hear himself talk and always has his hand up, causing the collective groan, 'no teacher, dont let this happen again! dont let this kid say the same thing over and over!'

btw, ive been meaning to ask you, i had heard/read etc that the rd1 was considered the poor man's m8, yet you have both! in what situations do you find it preferable to use the rd1 over the m8?


Last edited by rbelyell on Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:17 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

usayit wrote:
Carlsson wrote:
(actually I'm very picky about print quality).


Me too... nice to see someone else here who examines prints. Just saying Hi!

Warm welcome! Wink


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:22 pm    Post subject: Re: raw stuff Reply with quote

usayit wrote:
Anu wrote:
Dear usayit,

One problem with the files was that the Epson raw has a somewhat higher magnification of the subject and this gives it a bit of an unfair advantage when it comes to analyzing signal/noise.


Nothing I can do with that. I don't have access to lenses that are close in make/model with the odd focal lengths to make it perfectly equal. The RD1 has a crop factor of 1.5x versus the G1's 2x crop. The Summarits I have are:

You can not move the cameras? I don't care if the whole image is equal - just the subject needs to cover the same percentage of the frame. Surely you can move the camera.

Quote:
Quote:

The other thing about the raw files was that the Epson was given double the exposure time (1/6 vs. 1/13) -

You should know that the ISO ratings of digital cameras are far off... very far off. Simply put, they are marketing numbers. I had this discussion


Again false. They are actually quite close to what they should be. The Epson is very much below what is reasonable to expect.

Typically the camera's ISO ratings are off by at most 1/2 a stop, that is not "very far off". When it comes to marketing numbers, typically the "extended" ISOs are nothing but digital push, which when shooting raw does nothing but loses a stop of highlights.

Quote:

with another forum member (not here) asking why their external light meter isn't working or using sunny 16 always results in an underexposed picture. What had they not realized is that their digital Rebel is known to be over rated. Meaning an ISO of 200 on their camera was really ISO 150. I discovered this a
long time ago and thus my cameras have a label on the bottom plate indicating the variance (I use a handheld meter). Also note, that I've noticed that the higher the quality the camera.. the more accurate the ISO rating. My M8 is spot on. You can see the same if you look at the dxomark results (you did it again.. make me refer to that darn site).


Are you intentionally incorrect? Digital rebel ISO 200 is actually about 240, not 150 (source DxO).

That "the higher the quality the camera.. the more accurate the ISO rating" is a vast oversimplification. As you mentioned your M8, you might also check out M9-results - somewhat inferior accuracy to M8, though not likely to be an inferior quality camera Wink

Quote:

If you examine other more scientific tests, they usually allow the camera's meter to select the exposure since it would be far more accurately tuned to the sensor in the camera. If the same exposure settings were used across the board, certain cameras would have a tad more exposure and certain would be under. DXOmark (grr!!) actually reports the G1 is underrating. In other words, ISO100 settings is closer to ISO 129 which would account for some of the variance.

Now, this is nonsense. If we want to know how goood or bad two cameras are compared to each other regarding their high-ISO performance, there is nothing scientific in a test where one camera is given twice the light over the other camera.

If you want to be objective, you must try to make the exposures as similar as possible while maintaining the same aperture and shutter speed (actually the same exposure, amount of light through the lens). In practise, you may need to use different ISOs on each camera as the ISOs are differently calibrated (though the Epson seems to be really way off) for most sensibly comparable data.

Quote:

Furthermore, more exposure usually leads to less noise in the darker shadows ("expose to the right").. The slight over exposure should actually benefit the G1 not the RD1. Darkening the G1 photos in post
would hide some of the noise in the shadows hence giving more advantage to the G1. Brightening the RD1


Again, you are very wrong - you almost get it in your first sentence, but then come to totally illogical conclusion:

You give the Epson twice the exposure you give G1. You feed the Epson with twice the signal - twice the light, and this improves the signal/noise of the image ("reduces noise") as you almost know (I say almost, as your first line quoted here also indicates that you really don't have much clue, sorry). Now you somehow then totally ignore this fact and instead somehow see this as giving G1 an unfair advantage...

I do no understand how you can think that a scientific comparison of camera signal/noise performance is one where one of the cameras gets twice the exposure the other gets.

Quote:

samples would actually bring out more noise in the shadows, again.. giving more advantage to the G1. Even if I compared the 1600 ISO Epson sample to the 800 ISO sample of the G1, I still think the final print would look a lot better for the Epson. The G1's noisy blue channel just doesn't yield good results and only improves slightly in ISO800.

So you know the truth, no testing needed, you feel the truth, it was revealed to you by a higher power? Let me guess - you are a republican? Wink

Quote:

Never the less... I will repeat what I have been saying over and over again in this thread. The camera and the whole is what makes one camera better than the other. On paper the older RD1 seems to be at the disadvantage but my experience, the RD1 yields a better result and experience. We already agree that even the camera's metering and handling is a factor. This is one such case.

So in the field if you need to take an image in the streets with a camera, maybe stop motion, you'd use the Epson at 1/6th of a second and G1 at 1/13th of a second and consider them both stopping the motion equally well? What if you wanted to use Epson at the 1/13th of a second and still get as bright image as the G1 gets - you'd need to push the image 1.5 stops or so!

Anyhow, you don't need to repeat your statement about "the package" that makes the camera, as that is not the issue here and now and that is not something we disagree.

Quote:

The fact that you are asking for a tweak in the results leads me to believe that the clear better performer is not "obvious". Again.. a testament to the quality of the overall IQ of the RD1. A camera that is at 9 years senior the G1!!!


I did not say there is a clearly better performer. However, when your test gives one camera twice the exposure over the other and still the image is less exposed, your test procedure is a joke.

I though that the Epson was announced in 2004, G1 2008. Hardly 9 years of difference. Buy a new calculator and stop spreading false information, please.

Quote:

Unfortunately, I don't think I will have time to perform a redo. I have a busy schedule filled with

Somehow I knew this.

Quote:

things that are more aligned with my home life interests (Kids, Wife, Creating Photos, etc..) The best I can do is post the RAW files of the ISO 800 samples that already exist on my hard drive. I also forgot to zero out the color noise filter for those samples (which btw should also work in the G1's favor). Remember... when the camera is in my hand,


No offence ment, but you really don't know much about digital cameras and the technology used (like the issue with the sensor of the Epson, which was supposed to be the mother of the current sensors from the manufacturer, which of course was wrong) - the raw files are not influenced by the camera noise reduction settings.

Anyhow, posting random raw-files is not too useful as the light etc. is critical for image quality (noise levels on different channels), but sure, if you feel like it, post some, I am sure they will do no harm and the folks considering the camera will appreciate seeing real data, not processed jpgs.

Quote:

I like to shutdown my left brain and allow the right half to run. I am at work right now... so it the ISO800 raw files will be posted later.

Well, when talking about image quality of cameras one needs to use analytical mind, otherwise it is pointless to even try.

Quote:

So the GH1 has been improved over the G1? Great! Lets start comparing a cameras that are 10 years apart! If in the end the GH1 produces even slightly better results over the G1, its still a testament to the RD1's abilities.


Now, when was that Epson announced... March of 2004. If you can not get even these basic numbers right, but tweak them to suit your agenda...

GH1 is far superior to G1 in image quality department - the sensors are very different. Check DxO if you care enough.

RD1 has almost certainly a decent Sony CCD, a sensor that is inferior to for example Canon 350D's (Rebel XT) and it's big brothers, Canon 20D's sensor, even inferior to Canon 10D's sensor (or so it seems, looking at DxO). Add the problems of the angled light created by the short flange focal distance and you'll get something that is not quite as great as you think.

I am happy for you, if you like that camera, and as I've said before, I'd be happy to have one as well.

In the future, please try to get even some facts right and produce some valid evidence.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:33 pm    Post subject: Re: raw stuff Reply with quote

Anu I find the tone of your remarks rude, unnecessary and trolling.
This is a warning. There has been discussion among the Moderators in regards to your impolite manner.
Up to this point I have argued in your favor. No longer is that the case as I feel you are not contributing but rather simply taunting.
Any more of it and I push the red button.


Anu wrote:
usayit wrote:
Anu wrote:
Dear usayit,

One problem with the files was that the Epson raw has a somewhat higher magnification of the subject and this gives it a bit of an unfair advantage when it comes to analyzing signal/noise.


Nothing I can do with that. I don't have access to lenses that are close in make/model with the odd focal lengths to make it perfectly equal. The RD1 has a crop factor of 1.5x versus the G1's 2x crop. The Summarits I have are:

You can not move the cameras? I don't care if the whole image is equal - just the subject needs to cover the same percentage of the frame. Surely you can move the camera.

Quote:
Quote:

The other thing about the raw files was that the Epson was given double the exposure time (1/6 vs. 1/13) -

You should know that the ISO ratings of digital cameras are far off... very far off. Simply put, they are marketing numbers. I had this discussion


Again false. They are actually quite close to what they should be. The Epson is very much below what is reasonable to expect.

Typically the camera's ISO ratings are off by at most 1/2 a stop, that is not "very far off". When it comes to marketing numbers, typically the "extended" ISOs are nothing but digital push, which when shooting raw does nothing but loses a stop of highlights.

Quote:

with another forum member (not here) asking why their external light meter isn't working or using sunny 16 always results in an underexposed picture. What had they not realized is that their digital Rebel is known to be over rated. Meaning an ISO of 200 on their camera was really ISO 150. I discovered this a
long time ago and thus my cameras have a label on the bottom plate indicating the variance (I use a handheld meter). Also note, that I've noticed that the higher the quality the camera.. the more accurate the ISO rating. My M8 is spot on. You can see the same if you look at the dxomark results (you did it again.. make me refer to that darn site).


Are you intentionally incorrect? Digital rebel ISO 200 is actually about 240, not 150 (source DxO).

That "the higher the quality the camera.. the more accurate the ISO rating" is a vast oversimplification. As you mentioned your M8, you might also check out M9-results - somewhat inferior accuracy to M8, though not likely to be an inferior quality camera Wink

Quote:

If you examine other more scientific tests, they usually allow the camera's meter to select the exposure since it would be far more accurately tuned to the sensor in the camera. If the same exposure settings were used across the board, certain cameras would have a tad more exposure and certain would be under. DXOmark (grr!!) actually reports the G1 is underrating. In other words, ISO100 settings is closer to ISO 129 which would account for some of the variance.

Now, this is nonsense. If we want to know how goood or bad two cameras are compared to each other regarding their high-ISO performance, there is nothing scientific in a test where one camera is given twice the light over the other camera.

If you want to be objective, you must try to make the exposures as similar as possible while maintaining the same aperture and shutter speed (actually the same exposure, amount of light through the lens). In practise, you may need to use different ISOs on each camera as the ISOs are differently calibrated (though the Epson seems to be really way off) for most sensibly comparable data.

Quote:

Furthermore, more exposure usually leads to less noise in the darker shadows ("expose to the right").. The slight over exposure should actually benefit the G1 not the RD1. Darkening the G1 photos in post
would hide some of the noise in the shadows hence giving more advantage to the G1. Brightening the RD1


Again, you are very wrong - you almost get it in your first sentence, but then come to totally illogical conclusion:

You give the Epson twice the exposure you give G1. You feed the Epson with twice the signal - twice the light, and this improves the signal/noise of the image ("reduces noise") as you almost know (I say almost, as your first line quoted here also indicates that you really don't have much clue, sorry). Now you somehow then totally ignore this fact and instead somehow see this as giving G1 an unfair advantage...

I do no understand how you can think that a scientific comparison of camera signal/noise performance is one where one of the cameras gets twice the exposure the other gets.

Quote:

samples would actually bring out more noise in the shadows, again.. giving more advantage to the G1. Even if I compared the 1600 ISO Epson sample to the 800 ISO sample of the G1, I still think the final print would look a lot better for the Epson. The G1's noisy blue channel just doesn't yield good results and only improves slightly in ISO800.

So you know the truth, no testing needed, you feel the truth, it was revealed to you by a higher power? Let me guess - you are a republican? Wink

Quote:

Never the less... I will repeat what I have been saying over and over again in this thread. The camera and the whole is what makes one camera better than the other. On paper the older RD1 seems to be at the disadvantage but my experience, the RD1 yields a better result and experience. We already agree that even the camera's metering and handling is a factor. This is one such case.

So in the field if you need to take an image in the streets with a camera, maybe stop motion, you'd use the Epson at 1/6th of a second and G1 at 1/13th of a second and consider them both stopping the motion equally well? What if you wanted to use Epson at the 1/13th of a second and still get as bright image as the G1 gets - you'd need to push the image 1.5 stops or so!

Anyhow, you don't need to repeat your statement about "the package" that makes the camera, as that is not the issue here and now and that is not something we disagree.

Quote:

The fact that you are asking for a tweak in the results leads me to believe that the clear better performer is not "obvious". Again.. a testament to the quality of the overall IQ of the RD1. A camera that is at 9 years senior the G1!!!


I did not say there is a clearly better performer. However, when your test gives one camera twice the exposure over the other and still the image is less exposed, your test procedure is a joke.

I though that the Epson was announced in 2004, G1 2008. Hardly 9 years of difference. Buy a new calculator and stop spreading false information, please.

Quote:

Unfortunately, I don't think I will have time to perform a redo. I have a busy schedule filled with

Somehow I knew this.

Quote:

things that are more aligned with my home life interests (Kids, Wife, Creating Photos, etc..) The best I can do is post the RAW files of the ISO 800 samples that already exist on my hard drive. I also forgot to zero out the color noise filter for those samples (which btw should also work in the G1's favor). Remember... when the camera is in my hand,


No offence ment, but you really don't know much about digital cameras and the technology used (like the issue with the sensor of the Epson, which was supposed to be the mother of the current sensors from the manufacturer, which of course was wrong) - the raw files are not influenced by the camera noise reduction settings.

Anyhow, posting random raw-files is not too useful as the light etc. is critical for image quality (noise levels on different channels), but sure, if you feel like it, post some, I am sure they will do no harm and the folks considering the camera will appreciate seeing real data, not processed jpgs.

Quote:

I like to shutdown my left brain and allow the right half to run. I am at work right now... so it the ISO800 raw files will be posted later.

Well, when talking about image quality of cameras one needs to use analytical mind, otherwise it is pointless to even try.

Quote:

So the GH1 has been improved over the G1? Great! Lets start comparing a cameras that are 10 years apart! If in the end the GH1 produces even slightly better results over the G1, its still a testament to the RD1's abilities.


Now, when was that Epson announced... March of 2004. If you can not get even these basic numbers right, but tweak them to suit your agenda...

GH1 is far superior to G1 in image quality department - the sensors are very different. Check DxO if you care enough.

RD1 has almost certainly a decent Sony CCD, a sensor that is inferior to for example Canon 350D's (Rebel XT) and it's big brothers, Canon 20D's sensor, even inferior to Canon 10D's sensor (or so it seems, looking at DxO). Add the problems of the angled light created by the short flange focal distance and you'll get something that is not quite as great as you think.

I am happy for you, if you like that camera, and as I've said before, I'd be happy to have one as well.

In the future, please try to get even some facts right and produce some valid evidence.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:04 pm    Post subject: Re: raw stuff Reply with quote

Anu wrote:

You can not move the cameras? I don't care if the whole image is equal - just the subject needs to cover the same percentage of the frame. Surely you can move the camera.


Nope...


Quote:

Again false. They are actually quite close to what they should be. The Epson is very much below what is reasonable to expect.


Nope... because even dxomark maps the measured to manufacturer specified ISO values.

Quote:

Typically the camera's ISO ratings are off by at most 1/2 a stop, that is not "very far off".


That's a lot.


Quote:

Are you intentionally incorrect? Digital rebel ISO 200 is actually about 240, not 150 (source DxO).


Look up the 550D. At 200 its 152 measured.

Quote:

That "the higher the quality the camera.. the more accurate the ISO rating" is a vast oversimplification. As you mentioned your M8, you might also check out M9-results - somewhat inferior accuracy to M8, though not likely to be an inferior quality camera Wink


What part of "I've noticed" do you not understand? I don't have an M9 so I can't comment... (dxomark actually is not my preferred resource btw).

Like you don't have an RD1, M8 and G1...

Quote:

Now, this is nonsense. If we want to know how goood or bad two cameras are compared to each other regarding their high-ISO performance, there is nothing scientific in a test where one camera is given twice the light over the other camera.

If you want to be objective, you must try to make the exposures as similar as possible while maintaining the same aperture and shutter speed (actually the same exposure, amount of light through the lens). In practise, you may need to use different ISOs on each camera as the ISOs are differently calibrated (though the Epson seems to be really way off) for most sensibly comparable data.


Nope... you are suppose to compare properly exposures for the sensor regardless of aperture and shutter settings.

And if you haven't figured this out yet.... your taking apart/criticizing samples taken outside of a controlled experiment (see my previous post).... hahah lol

Quote:

Again, you are very wrong - you almost get it in your first sentence, but then come to totally illogical conclusion:


Nope I believe you are wrong. Underexposing (as you have pointed out to the RD1) avoids the spectrum in which noise becomes more apparent. Slightly over exposing (staying within narrow Dynamic range) does the opposite. The G1s samples should have less apparent noise if it is over exposed.

Quote:

So you know the truth, no testing needed, you feel the truth, it was revealed to you by a higher power? Let me guess - you are a republican? Wink


Actually I'm a centrist who has voted for both republicans and democrats.. depending on the candidates stances on the issues.

Quote:

So in the field if you need to take an image in the streets with a camera, maybe stop motion, you'd use the Epson at 1/6th of a second and G1 at 1/13th of a second and consider them both stopping the motion equally well? What if you wanted to use Epson at the 1/13th of a second and still get as bright image as the G1 gets - you'd need to push the image 1.5 stops or so!


Nope because I can intentionally underexpose the Epson know very well that the noise is controlled and additionally assisted in post.

Quote:

I did not say there is a clearly better performer. However, when your test gives one camera twice the exposure over the other and still the image is less exposed, your test procedure is a joke.


Again... if you haven't figured it out yet.. this wasn't a test. simply samples in my living room. Next your going to say that my bear is ugly and that it too has an impact.

Quote:

I though that the Epson was announced in 2004, G1 2008. Hardly 9 years of difference. Buy a new calculator and stop spreading false information, please.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022701epsonrd1xrangefinder.asp

RD1x was announced in 2009. The RD1 (mine) is older. I don't need a calculator to figure the rest out.

Quote:

Somehow I knew this.


Yup.. because your so worth it.

Quote:

No offence ment, but you really don't know much about digital cameras and the technology.


I know noise filtering doesn't apply to RAW... BUT the amount of light (the lack of it) does directly relate to the noise introduced. As ISO is increased, the photo-sites' signals are further amplified. This impacts signal to noise ratios (along with heat.. relates to density too). Increase the signal (more light) the signal to noise ration gets better. Decrease the light, the signal the noise ratio gets worse. I work in a somewhat related field and been shooting digital for a while now. I may not be an expert but I do know the behaviors from what I've seen. Increase ISO, dynamic range narrows and you have to work the signal noise. Over expose (expose as far left as possible) to avoid the signal noise at the left of the histogram and compensate in post (reduce).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Quote:

Well, when talking about image quality of cameras one needs to use analytical mind, otherwise it is pointless to even try.


I'm probably a lot more analytical and technical than you think.... you don't know me... Have you bothered to wonder why I have access to so many digital cameras?

Quote:

Now, when was that Epson announced... March of 2004. If you can not get even these basic numbers right, but tweak them to suit your agenda...


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022701epsonrd1xrangefinder.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Epson/epson_rd1.asp
yup... so your point? By your posts its still ancient history.

Quote:

In the future, please try to get even some facts right and produce some valid evidence.


You haven't really provided evidence either ..


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:

btw, ive been meaning to ask you, i had heard/read etc that the rd1 was considered the poor man's m8, yet you have both! in what situations do you find it preferable to use the rd1 over the m8?


Ah.. a good question..

First of all... No self respecting Leica shooter would mount Leica glass on anything else but a Leica! Hence the M8 Laughing I'm joking.

Seriously... When the R-D1 was released, Leica's response was that it wasn't technically possible. The R-D1 brought a push for Leica to start development on the M8. By the time the M8 was released, the R-D1 was already discontinued. So most of us M8/RD1 users ended up where we were because R-D1 -> M8 was the upgrade path that came to be. The only choice to be made was whether or not to keep the R-D1 when the M8 was purchased. As such, I personally never saw the R-D1 as a poor man's Leica M8.

As you can see, I take enjoyment out of the whole process of creating a photo... with many different cameras/tools. On the surface, the M8 and RD1 are similar... much like (bringing cars back into it) my Miata and my Audi TT Convertible. On the surface the two are similar but "drive" them and you will see a big difference (Miata = go-kart, Audi TT = Grand Tourer).

The RD1 only has 3 framelines; 28, 35, 50 and a shorter rangefinder base length which can be limiting in terms of focusing accurately with longer lenses. It has a 1:1 viewfinder which lends itself to shooting with both eyes open... a wonderful experience. Just like the Bessa's it is built on, its a good street shooter. All the controls that are important are old fashioned mechanical and don't require access to the LCD. Flip the LCD inward and the experience is IDENTICAL to that of a film shooter. That's the experience that I like... with the RD1. Its a film rangefinder that just happens to have a CCD in the film plane.

The M8 is an evolutionary step to the classic M-body. Unlike the RD1, it makes no excuses and doesn't pretend to be a film camera. True to Leica's quality, it exudes the feeling of quality. It has a more complete set of frame lines and the IQ is better than the RD1. Both of which make it a more "usable' camera. The frameline selection is automatic and it has a x.72 magnification viewfinder. Its finder is also brighter and better quality. To handle the longer focal lengths, the M8 also has the longer base length that has been in use with the M bodies since the M3. The patch itself always remains centered no matter focus distance while the RD1 shifts just the framelines.

Just like the Miata is the Mazda's interpretation of the British roadster the RD1 is Epson's interpretation of the Voigtlander Film Bessa. The Audi TT may have design cues from the old days but it makes no excuses nor pretends.. Just like the M8 it is modern.

As for how I use them... The RD1 generally remains the backup for my M8. The M8 generally alternates between 35mm and 75mm Summarits while the RD1 gets the 12mm Heliar and 24mm Elmarit. Unlike many Leica fans, I don't hesitate to mix and match. At times, I'll switch it up a bit and carry the 12, 24, 50, 90 focal lengths often leaving the 50 on the RD1 and the 90 on the M8. In low light, the 28mm f/1.9 is on the RD1 and the M8 gets the 50mm Noctilux. If I were to bring just one camera in low light, I won't hesitate with the RD1 + 35mm Nokton.

Sorry for the ramble... but now I think of it... I basically just look at them and pick one. Again.. neither the M8 nor the RD1 are perfect... do research if you are considering them.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks for the illumination!

btw, i really liked the tt when i had it, but it was definitely light on the hp...the next in line, the mustang gt 325 was much more fun, but not as much as my present wrx (though, unfortunately, it doesnt come in ragtop!) nothing more fun than cars and cameras. oh, maybe one thing. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:25 pm    Post subject: Re: raw stuff Reply with quote

usayit wrote:
Anu wrote:

Somehow I knew this.

Yup.. because your so worth it.


Please stop it. Both of you.

Orio
Admin.


Last edited by Orio on Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:08 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure.. that's pretty easy for me...

Arrow (stage left)


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:25 pm    Post subject: Re: raw stuff Reply with quote

F16SUNSHINE wrote:
Anu I find the tone of your remarks rude, unnecessary and trolling.
This is a warning. There has been discussion among the Moderators in regards to your impolite manner.
Up to this point I have argued in your favor. No longer is that the case as I feel you are not contributing but rather simply taunting.
Any more of it and I push the red button.


Fine. From now one I will happily let false information and badly done and non-objective test shots rule the world. Who cares if someone uses his last pennies and buys the wrong camera based on bad advice. Logic and reason are dead, long live superstitons and junk-science.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:19 pm    Post subject: Re: raw stuff Reply with quote

Anu wrote:

Fine. From now one I will happily let false information and badly done and non-objective test shots rule the world. Who cares if someone uses his last pennies and buys the wrong camera based on bad advice. Logic and reason are dead, long live superstitons and junk-science.


Anu, Andy's remark to you was about the tone, not the content. There are many ways to phrase concepts, it is possible to be severely critical and respectful at the same time.

I always read your content with interest.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry to see folks squabbling on here - MF Lenses is usually a good natured forum.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Up to this point I have argued in your favor. No longer is that the case as I feel you are not contributing but rather simply taunting.


I can't believe this behavior has been allowed... and tolerated

Quote:

Please stop it. Both of you.


Follow the thread and I've been nothing but accommodating going well beyond what I would consider simply contributing. I make one remark as a hint why I don't think Anu deserves my assistance reproducing "samples" and I'm told to stop.


I have no problems dealing with trolls but when the admins' respond in such manner, it just flat out seems unwelcome. Too bad because I thought that finding a forum with in an interest in vintage glass is such a novel idea.

what a great first impression.. Cheers... Rolling Eyes