A900 vs... Hasselblad H3 and Mamyia AFDIII

[Dr. Harout]

You should see this:

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts ... 602#405602

[Cogito]

Looks like a G10 is as up there as an A900

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

[AJ Gressette]

Only if it were true.

[AJ Gressette]

Looks like a G10 is as up there as an A900

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

I picked up a G10 about 10 days ago and it does really well for a point and shoot at ISO 80. ISO 200 and above it looks like a photo copied from a 1970 color Television Set. Noise is bad. No, it is worst than bad. Its history and I will get the Ricoh 200.

[Yagil Henkin]

The A900 Is not all that much worse (if any) than medium-format.
The G-10 is not worse in many conditions than Medium format.
the Fuji F-31 is better in many conditions than the G-10.
then Surely the F-31 is not worse than a Hassie H3!
Anyone wants to trade?

Seriously, though, the A900 holds, from those photos, Amazingly well against the MF files. and since the Cheapest equivalent in MF costs around 10,000$ - A Mamia ZD camera, back and 80 mm lens - and that price would buy you 3 A900 plus 50 mm lenses - then Unless someone really neads the Shalower DOF or the 16-bit color, Buying a similar-resolution MF which doesn't affore advantages in lens range, ISO, speed, so forth - does not make much sense economically. For many small studios, the A900 will be a better buy than an MF.

[David Kilpatrick]

I have used the Mamiya ZD with 80mm, 50mm PC, 55-110mm and 35mm wide angle lenses. All of the lenses, the cheap 80mm included, have a quality of near-perfect open aperture performance including corner to corner sharpness which is very hard to find for 35mm DSLRs. If for example the classic 50mm f2.8 Tessar was re-made for Alpha by Zeiss, it might approach the Mamiya 80mm for the combination of microcontrast, coverage and sharpness but in fact the Mamiya format is slightly reduced over true 645. So, a 65mm Tessar or something would be needed. The reduced coverage may be why the medium format lenses resolve so well right into the corners.

David

[alphaomega]

A J Gressette wrote

picked up a G10 about 10 days ago and it does really well for a point and shoot at ISO 80. ISO 200 and above it looks like a photo copied from a 1970 color Television Set. Noise is bad. No, it is worst than bad. Its history and I will get the Ricoh 200.

I suggest you take a look at some of the reviews of Rioch's GX200. This is a 12 Mp P&S. My recollection is that it produces high quality images at ISO 100 RAW and that is it. Just like the G10 and other P&S cameras with 12 Mp "micro" size sensors.
I purchased the Panasonic LX3 with a Leica lens. This has a 10 Mp sensor. Panasonic claimed this is the optimum size for this type of camera. they restricted the zoom range to 24-60. I only use it at ISO100 RAW. The Ricoh is 24-72 and not a Leica.
Do make sure that you read all reviews before you splash out if you are looking for noise-free images above ISO100. My view is that you need to go to APS-C size to have a chance.

[alphaomega]

Reference Sonolta's info on the Fuji F30/31 I am a great admirer of Fuji's Super CCD technology. My family still use two E900 cameras and I have one spare. I used them for Alamy when I could not bring along my X700. As long as I kept myself to ISO100 & RAW they sailed through, but sometimes I really struggled to remove CA.
I find with my LX2/3 I am better off staying with ISO100 & RAW. I tried ISO200 in lower light with the LX2 and ditched the lot. If you look at the 100% F31 shots at ISO200 and above I would not be sure they would pass Alamy QC. I don't think I would try but I may be wrong. I really only wanted to alert A J Gissette to the fact that I had seen reviews of the GX200 hammering if for noise from ISO200 and up and he should make sure that it could perform adequately at the level of shooting he plans to do with it. At ISO100 it performed well. I would be surprised if the Ricoh performs better than the new Canon G10 at higher ISOs. I may be wrong as I cannot point to a comparison anywhere.

Did you see the comparison between A900, D700 and 5d as well as A900 v. A700 v.4 in http://anandtech.com/digitalcameras/sho ... i=3442&p=5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting the A700 outperforms A900 for noise. I have no idea how good these people are but A900 is top on resolution but sadly not on noise above ISO800.

[AJ Gressette]

Any thoughts on the Leica D Lux 4?

[alphaomega]

AJ Gressette wrote:

Any thoughts on the Leica D Lux 4?

As far as I can see from http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/ ... s/d-lux_4/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; this camera is more or less the Panasonic LX3 in Leica "clothes".
When I purchased my LX2 I paid £250 whereas th D Lux 3 cost a cool £475. With the LX3 you get a fully functioning Silkypix (for Panasonic only) whereas Leica appears to supply a copy of Capture One 4. This should be checked from the spec. sheet.

I would compare prices first and go for the LX3 unless you wish to be shown with a Leica camera. The Silkypix conversion software is odd to deal with mostly because of the peculiar English words and phrases they use to describe functionality. Takes a bit to get used to.

[A1000]

I think that the nedium format offers no real IQ advantage. Good 35 mm primes will resolve as much as good MF primes; there are no real wide ratio MF zooms. The DOF is shallower, but 35 mm lenses are faster, so this advantage is gone. Leef shutters and higher flash synch may be the only areas where MF will keep an advantage. As soon as Sony and Canon start making higher resolving image sensors, atc., I think that it will be the death of MF, except for special applications.