I have to say that the Kodak DCS 460 has always impressed me.
April 24, 2023
221
-
-
Lumix DMC-GX7 (2013) / Sony Alpha 7 (2013)
My ML µ4/3 and ML FF cameras
Here's a comparison between my lovely GX7 and the very first FF ML
Very representative of the 2013 technology
Lumix DMC-GX7 (2013) / Sony Alpha 7 (2013) by Marc Aubry, sur FlickrWith six different lenses
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720320295667/Panasonic Lumix GX7 (2013)
16.1 MP µ4/3 sensor ( 4592 x 3448 )
Price : $1,000.00 US
Photo taken with the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f/1.8 MSC AF
the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8
and the Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 II
(multiplication factor 2.0)
ISO 125-25600________________________Sony Alpha 7 (2013)
24 MP FF sensor (6000 x 4000)
First ML FF
Price: $1,700.00 US
Photos taken with the Sony FE 85mm F1.8
the nikkor AF 180mm f/2.8 D ED
and the nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D
(multiplication factor 1.0)
100-6400 (50-25600) ISO
Lumix DMC-GX7 (2013) 50% / Sony Alpha 7 (2013) 40% Prorata by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr
Lumix DMC-GX7 (400 ISO) 50% / Sony Alpha 7 (400 ISO) 50% by Marc Aubry, sur FlickrYour turn to judge
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720320295667/
Your remarks are welcome ! -
I love the colours from the Lumix - less so the Sony.
Alan
-
iPhone 4 (2010) / Pentax 645D (2010)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720321157234/
iPhone 4 (2010) / Pentax 645D (2010) by Marc Aubry, sur FlickriPhone 4 (2010)
5 MP sensor (2592x1936)
1/3.2" 4.54mm x 3.42mm
3.85mm f/2.8 camera
(with 7.6x multiplication factor) = 29.26mm
80 ISO
my first personal iPhone________________Pentax 645D (2010)
40 MP MF sensor (7264 x 5440 )
The first Pentax MF Digital
Price: $9,400.00 US
Photos taken with the Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8
(multiplication factor of 0.8 )
200-1000 (100-1600) ISOBetween the iPhone 4 (2010) and the Pentax 645D (2010)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720321157234/
Your remarks are welcome ! -
Interesting comparison. Initially, the flower pictures look OK on the iPhone, until you look at the out of focus areas. The bokeh is horrible.
Alan
-
Thanks!
I don't think the term "bokeh" is appropriate for a 2010 iPhone.
In 2010 we are at the very beginning of photography with smartphones.
Companies do not yet see the threat to the compact camera market, we know the rest.
Things have changed a lot in the last 15 years and the next 15 will probably be very interesting. -
The year 2017
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720321564819/
Sigma sd Quattro H (2017) / iPhone X (2017) by Marc Aubry, sur FlickrSigma sd Quattro H (2016-17)
25.56 MP APS-H sensor (6192 x 4128)
Price: $1,200.00 USD
Photos taken with the Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art
(with a multiplication factor of 1.35)
ISO 100-6400
______iPhone X (2017)
12MP sensor (4032x3024)
Main camera: 12MP, ƒ/1.8 28mm (wide)
1/3.0" 1.22µm sensor
Telephoto camera: 12MP, ƒ/2.4 52mm (telephoto)
Sensor 1/3.4" 1.0µm
1x 2x optical zoom
(with 7x multiplication factor)
Selfie camera 7 MP f/2.2, 32mm (standard)For those interested, see the comparison
right here: www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720321564819/
I would like to have your comments if possible, thank you! -
Looking at some of the images, the iPhone seems over saturated and muddy compared to the sigma. Maybe it's just my eyes.
And, of course, the Sigma does DoF much better.
Alan
-
No, it is not your eyes - Sigma with its Foveon/X3 sensor and without AA filter is very sharp beast, even for Quattro series (where some intrerpolation is required). Saturation can be tuned (people like saturated colors => Apple tunes saturation up), native detail/sharpness not so easily.
-
Fortunately, Sigma's results are superior. Did you realize the difference in lens sizes here?
I find it much harder to slip the Sigma into my trouser pocket. -
Nikon D1 D2 D3
Nikon D1 (1999-2000)
Nikon D2X (2005)
Nikon D3S (2009)
Nikon D1 D2 D3 by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr -
Sirs,
Undoubtedly ancient digital devices did make photos, but my experience with the later EF mount 14mpKodaks was rather disappointing.Anything beyond 400ASA was terriby noisy, however the Kodak software gave very pleasant ressults comared to Photoshop at that time.
(Since enveryone here go on about their susequent equipment use, I can join in) and point out that I have kept my analogue Leitz , Zeiss and Nikon stuff especially their optics. but find that the overly fat and heavy Nikoin Z 7 plus the reasonably smaller Leitz CLdigital, serves my needs even if the erratical movements of their focus- and light metering points plus loosely moving adjiustment wheels are annoying.
p.
-
The Kodak DCS 14n is a camera that was heavily criticized when it was released. And rightly so!
This is a particularly unpleasant camera to use, one of the worst I own!Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickrwww.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720307824390/
I am interested in only the new Nikon MLs, the Z8. However, its price and weight are rather dissuasive.
I prefer a less bulky camera like my Fujifilm X-T5www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720312520077/
Nikon D810 (2014) / Fujifilm X-T5 (2022) Macro by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr -
As usual, excellent and fair comparisons, Marc !!
Especially fair because no resizing is used, the comparisons are between 100% resolutions.
-
Thank 👍🏻
-
Hi,
The 14n, SLR/n and SLR/c were DCS models I skipped. I had 560 and 660 units, and Nikon D1 and D2 units and Canon 1D and 1Ds units. All at the same time, when the new CMOS 14 MP units were what was in production. They did not appeal to me, and then the chatter on the forums regarding them meant that they would never appeal to me.
I sold off my most of my set of cameras and bought a fire sale DCS 760c and 720x pair. I kept only the 520c and a 660m along with a well used Nikon D1H. That was 2003 and I didn't buy anything newer until the Df. Then I sold the 720x. I sold the 660m I. 2020 after I bought a Pentax 645D. I still have some dedicated uses for the other three.
What I decided to do in '03 for higher resolution than 6 MP was get a Kodak Pro Back Plus (another fire sale) and a Contax 645. That gave me 16 MP rather than 14 MP. I only kept it until 2009 though.
In the end, I am glad I went that route than go for one of the 14 MP models.
Stan
-
👍🏻
Unlike the Kodak 14n. The Pentax 645D is a real success and a pleasure to use.
Its viewfinder is magnificent 🎓www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157720071808920/
Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) / Pentax 645D (2010) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr -
Hi,
The 645D is also quite the improvement over the Kodak Pro Back Plus on a Contax 645 I had by way of a high res unit alongside the Kodak 760c. And I am talking much more than just the 40 v 16 MP part.
Stan
-
Sony Alpha 100 (2006) / Sony Alpha 7 (2013)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720323290081/
Sony Alpha 100 (2006) / Sony Alpha 7 (2013) by Marc Aubry, sur FlickrComparison between the first digital SLR and the first ML FF from Sony.
Two cameras that paved the way for the success of Sony -
Two examples
100 ISO
Sony Alpha 100 (2006) 100% / Sony Alpha 7 (2013) 100%
Sony Alpha 100 (2006) 100% / Sony Alpha 7 (2013) 100% by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr1600 ISO
Sony Alpha 100 (1600 ISO) 100% / Sony Alpha 7 (1600 ISO) 100% by Marc Aubry, sur Flickrr -
Nikon D200 (2005) / Nikon D3s (2009)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720324328071/
I had fun making a comparison with my old D3s and my very old D200 😁
Nikon D200 (800 ISO) 100% / Nikon D3s (800 ISO) 100% by Marc Aubry, sur FlickrNikon D200 (2005)
10.2 MP ( 3872 x 2592 ) APS-C CCD sensor (23.6 x 15.8 mm)
Price: $1,700.00 US
Photos taken with the nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D
(1.5x multiplier)
100-1600 (3200) ISO
Nikon D3S (2009)
12.1 MP ( 4256 x 2832 ) FF CMOS sensor
Price: $5,200.00 US
Photos taken with the nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8
and the nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G
(multiplication factor 1.0)
200-12800 (100-102400) H3 ISO
Nikon D200 (2005) 100% / Nikon D3s (2009) 100% by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr
Nikon D200 (3200 ISO) 100% / Nikon D3s (3200 ISO) 100% by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr -
Love the comparison. CCD sensor cameras have beautiful color. That big sensor just makes it even better. I shoot a Pentax 645Z, a much improved camera, but sometimes I crave a 645D. Might make it happen someday.
Thanks for the history lessons,
barondla -
Fine comparison. Borrowed the A100 from work. Was surprised at the noise in the photos. At the time my camera was the Pentax ist* DS. It's lowest ISO was 200. The Sony grain was much more prominent and un-film like. Many hated Sony menus, but I found them fairly easy.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla -
Thank you very much for your feedback, it is appreciated. 👍🏼
