This was made with the MX-1, at ISO 800, in Montreal back in August: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbuhler/49035747651/in/photostream/lightbox/
I think it shows why I like 1/1'7" sensor cameras so much: the small sensor look. At 400 or even 800 ISO, the sensor noise looks a lot like Tri-X. This is, of course, when shooting RAW. I find that the jpeg compression combined with the sensor noise produces horrible results, maybe acceptable if you use the image as-is but terrible if you do any amount of processing. Compare with this frame from 2003, made with a Pentax MX and K35/3.5 lens on Tri-X: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbuhler/49035249738/in/photostream/lightbox/ Developed by some lab in Paris, scanned with a Polaroid scanner at 4000DPI and resized to the same size of the MX-1 image. The digital image is a little more noisy, but it's in the ball park. The MX-1 image was at 800 ISO, also. I love how the MX-1 image is just as "gritty" as the film one. Current APS-C or full frame 24MP and higher cameras make images that are too "clean" and sterile. Granted, there's plenty of reasons to use them, like very high ISO performance, speed, AF, etc. But I wish Ricoh made an MX-2, with similar features and looks and a 20MP 1 inch sensor. j -- Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
