tom in mpls
Active member
And why not? I love the ability to shoot without flash and have minimal noise. All DSLR size sensors seem to do a fine job now when there's lots of light.Unfortunately, there is a trend recently to glorify high ISO...
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
And why not? I love the ability to shoot without flash and have minimal noise. All DSLR size sensors seem to do a fine job now when there's lots of light.Unfortunately, there is a trend recently to glorify high ISO...
So who said it was? Or that that was all the X100 provided?Godfrey, it is not art to produce noiseless high ISO pictures - without details. ...
+1Godfrey, it is not art to produce noiseless high ISO pictures - without details.
I prefer best quality at low ISO, and in 2nd step - as good as possible - high ISO.
Unfortunately, there is a trend recently to glorify high ISO...
Do not interpolate your thoughts to other people.The impetus behind all the "which sensor it is" stuff is the high ISO stuff.
I do not know where your enthusiasm come from, but me and many people I know - are not so happy. Especially people used to more analog look like or missed AA filter.I'm sure the X100 will do a beautiful job at ISO 100 ...
Because delivering it decreases quality on lowest ISOs.And why not?
To assume a priori that hight ISO will mean worse quality on low ISO is a mistake. Technology advances.Because delivering it decreases quality on lowest ISOs.
I understand that you like the Sigma, but it remains digital none the less.But Sigma is more clean, detailed and analog.
I don't look at the examples myself other than for entertainment. Nor do I read reviews, other than to enjoy the list of features and the pictures. I don't see the point. But that casual glance for the usual blah test photos looked pretty good.... For me "which sensor" is not about high ISO, but about quality. I hoped to see something exceptional, with many details, live colors, like other APS-C compacts deliver (Sigmas, X1, Ricohs).
So far, based on samples -
...
I do not know where your enthusiasm come from, but me and many people I know
...
Ain't it the truth, bruddah. I think it's silly at this time to claim either how perfect or imperfect it is. I like it's concept and promise, and am looking forward to trying it.Speculating over whose sensor it is, looking at sample jpegs on line with a microscope, etc, is just a waste of time prognosticating what cannot be known until a production camera is in your hands and you can see what it actually produces.
We associate grain pattern with classic reportage (in a broad sense from Eisenstaedt to Salgado). Unfortunately high iso banding from digicams doesnt get the same kind of emotional response.Godfrey, it is not art to produce noiseless high ISO pictures - without details.
Well I will pay ANYTHING (but Leica M9 tax) to get back my TMAX P3200 pulled to 1600 in Rodinal in digital-land. Even better if I get to decide where to apply USM as the X100 seems to offer, even in JPG.I prefer best quality at low ISO, and in 2nd step - as good as possible - high ISO.
Again different strokes for different folks... You dont care much for high ISO, good for you, yet the X100 was built for available light candid photography. Should a Porsche be blamed for no seating 7 people ?Unfortunately, there is a trend recently to glorify high ISO...
I do care, but only when low ISO is not affectedYou dont care much for high ISO, good for you
No, technology, producers - split more and more. Not all follow high ISO race for masses, like it would be most important in photography.To assume a priori that hight ISO will mean worse quality on low ISO is a mistake. Technology advances.
I don't think we can open RAWs in LR\ACR.downloaded any of the full sized samples
Jerry, we disagree but I am listening to your argument. However, I'm not sure what you meant in the above statement. If you don't mind, would you explain that further for me?No, technology, producers - split more and more. Not all follow high ISO race for masses, like it would be most important in photography.
Because it allows for handheld photography in even darker environments than we have been used to... what's wrong with that?Unfortunately, there is a trend recently to glorify high ISO...
Do you think I do not know it? Do you think I am against it?Because it allows for handheld photography in even darker environments than we have been used to... what's wrong with that?
Jerry's point is that he has observed that maximizing high ISO abilities comes at the cost of lesser quality at low ISO's.Because it allows for handheld photography in even darker environments than we have been used to... what's wrong with that?