just bought leica sp2...
Feb 14, 2012 20:13:13 #
Jk, but looking through bandh.com this is $$$$$27,000???? What!!?? Is it really That good? Someone explain ...
Feb 14, 2012 20:58:53 #
it is a new format between dslr and medium format. leica is going after the top end fashion photography market. and of course its a leica so its got to be expensive, a reputation to uphold. course they do make darn good cameras.
Feb 14, 2012 22:28:21 #
By the time you get a lens and a flash on it, you're well past $30,000.
Of course with an expensive camera, you'll take better photos. ;)
Of course with an expensive camera, you'll take better photos. ;)
Feb 15, 2012 04:11:23 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
Have you seen the price of the comparable Hasselblads? These are not happy-snap cameras. Image quality is roughly equivalent to medium format (roll film), whereas most DSLRs have some difficulty in approaching the quality of 35mm.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Feb 15, 2012 08:30:40 #
Roger Hicks wrote:
Have you seen the price of the comparable Hasselblads? These are not happy-snap cameras. Image quality is roughly equivalent to medium format (roll film), whereas most DSLRs have some difficulty in approaching the quality of 35mm.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
The picture quality is really noticeably $28k better?
Feb 15, 2012 09:17:22 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
Stef C wrote:
The picture quality is really noticeably $28k better?
Well, yes, really. It depends on how you define '$28K better'. It is very significantly better, and $28K is what it costs for the extra quality. If you are shooting high-end advertising, for example, and you need high quality from a digital camera, there are not really many ways to obtain it. You need lots of megapixels, and the bigger the sensor, the lower the pixel density, which translates into higher quality.
Very few people do need that sort of quality, it's true, but those who do, have little choice but to pay the money. Remember, many people used to shoot 4x5 inch, 5x7 inch, 8x10 inch and 11x14 inch transparencies as a matter of course.
Cheers,
R.
Feb 15, 2012 09:59:06 #
Roger Hicks wrote:
quote=Stef C The picture quality is really notice... (show quote)
I noticed some of them are 50MP... is this kind of stuff for billboards and large ads? Do magazine ads need that high of quality?
Feb 15, 2012 11:53:38 #
friedeye
Loc: Los Angeles
Stef C wrote:
quote=Roger Hicks quote=Stef C The picture quali... (show quote)
Yeah, they really do. For billboards, the sides of buildings... they want all the detail they can get. The images from one shoot have to be able to cover it all.
Feb 15, 2012 12:04:43 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
Stef C wrote:
Do magazine ads need that high of quality?
Hard to say. For a double-page spread in a glossy, yes, you probably could see the difference. At least as importantly, it's what the clients expect. It was like shooting food on 6x7cm instead of 4x5 inch: more than enough quality, but the clients expected 4x5...
Billboards; BIG display pics, over about 2x3 feet; that's where you'll start seeing the differences quite clearly. There are surprisingly many places where pics are blown up to that sort of size: just look in your supermarket, your hairdresser, your automobile showroom...
Cheers,
R.
Feb 15, 2012 13:41:16 #
RocketScientist wrote:
By the time you get a lens and a flash on it, you're well past $30,000.
Of course with an expensive camera, you'll take better photos. ;)
Of course with an expensive camera, you'll take better photos. ;)
Love that, Rocket!!
Feb 15, 2012 18:19:42 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.