just bought leica sp2...
Stef C
Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA
Jk, but looking through bandh.com this is $$$$$27,000???? What!!?? Is it really That good? Someone explain ...
sinatraman
Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant
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.
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. ;)
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.
Stef C
Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA
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.
The picture quality is really noticeably $28k better?
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.
Stef C
Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA
Roger Hicks wrote:
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.
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?
Stef C wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
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.
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?
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.
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.
Ahh...Leica S2-P. The Leica SP2 is a microscope.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.