Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Frank Doorhof on June 06, 2007, 06:40:27 pm
-
WEBMASTER...
I have posted a link to my page with the review because I don't know if I break any rules by the large pictures.
If you want to copy paste feel free, but for safe keeping I used the link.
http://www.doorhof.nl/blog/index.php?topic...msg3225#msg3225 (http://www.doorhof.nl/blog/index.php?topic=1123.msg3225#msg3225)
Greetings,
Frank
www.frankdoorhof.com
-
Frank:
Thanks a lot for your prompt review.
I believe you when you say about ZD superiority over a Canon 5D.
It is hard to tell the whole story over the internet.
In your review, the ZD files look definetely better than those from the 5D.
However, nothing spectacular.
I concour with you that according to present standards the ZD back price is a steal.
Where does this statement put the 5D?
Best photography bargain of all times?
Thanks again, for your effort. I started myself considering going Mamiya instead of waiting for a bigger sensor CFV back.(???) - Who will get my hard earned pesos?
Time will tell.
Best
Eduardo
-
Frank:
Thanks a lot for your prompt review.
I believe you when you say about ZD superiority over a Canon 5D.
It is hard to tell the whole story over the internet.
In your review, the ZD files look definetely better than those from the 5D.
However, nothing spectacular.
I concour with you that according to present standards the ZD back price is a steal.
Where does this statement put the 5D?
Best photography bargain of all times?
Thanks again, for your effort. I started myself considering going Mamiya instead of waiting for a bigger sensor CFV back.(???) - Who will get my hard earned pesos?
Time will tell.
Best
Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't want to say this too loudly, but the 5D files look like they could benefit re color and dharpness from some better Raw processing. Canon DPP with a small amount of sharpening will show what the camera can really do.
If you are using Mamiya software with the Mamiya, you should be using Canon software fro the Canon.
When I moved my keepers from ACR to DPP somebody I know started talking of my "hyper-realistic images".
Anyway, the Mamiya images look fantastic.
You can use www.yousendit.com and forward the link to send us the Raw files, that would be really nice. My email is edmundronald at gmail dot com.
Edmund
-
Both files were handled with ACR from Adobe.
I did not wanted to have either one an advantage.
Today I will do a model session and than I will really know the story because that's my field of work
-
Although you can get a bit more out of the canon files by using DPP software, this test looks to me to pretty well show the generall difference in look of a big CCD compared to a small CMOS sensor.
-
If you are using Mamiya software with the Mamiya...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank didn't use the Mamiya software, and you really wouldn't want to use it either... There is a reason why Mamiya is shpping the back with Lightroom in the US...
ACR is a neutral choise, you can extract a bit more details from ZD files with Raw Developper on Mac.
Nice review by the way.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks for putting up the link to the shots.
Interesting to see the two cameras side by side - yes the Mamiya is good, but the 5D is good for the money as well..
-
Thanks for putting up the link to the shots.
Interesting to see the two cameras side by side - yes the Mamiya is good, but the 5D is good for the money as well..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did some 5D profiling tests, and shot some additional check images - and the 5D lent by Canon blew my own 1DsII and 1Ds out of the water with sharpness. I couldn't believe it.
Edmund
-
I have the Mamiya 645 AFD II with 35mm, 45mm, 80mm, 120mm, 150mm, and the two zoom lens. My logical step is to get the ZD back for the money, and sell my Kodak Digital back. I may later upgrade to Phase One back or something like that, but right now, I can use my Hasselblad H1D as a backup. LOL.
-
Understand me correctly I think the 5D is handsdown the best DSLR on the market, rivaling the 1DsII in most cases, that's why I bought it instead of the 1DsII, one day with both was enough, the 5D files are cleaner and have a much nicer colorrendition.
What DOES stand out when comparing with the Mamiya is the cleanness of the detail, the 5D does look harsch and digital compared to the Mamiya (RAW without sharpening), and that was a surprise because the 5D uses a AA filter but still the mamiya looks so much more detailed.
It's funny.
It's like switching from a wonderful TFT monitor back to CRT.
First you think, oh my this monitor is softer, but after a few minutes you realise that you see MUCH more detail.
Especially in the church/anker shot you can see it clearly in the small flowers.
I never understood why landscape photographers were so putting down the DSLR's, now I understand completly
Just finished a model session (test) with the camera and will work on those shots tonight, what I have seen is stunning.
Manual focus is so much easier with the big viewfinder.
-
I did some 5D profiling tests, and shot some additional check images - and the 5D lent by Canon blew my own 1DsII and 1Ds out of the water with sharpness. I couldn't believe it.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
that sounds interesting edmund, any chance of posting a side by side example?
-
I did some 5D profiling tests, and shot some additional check images - and the 5D lent by Canon blew my own 1DsII and 1Ds out of the water with sharpness. I couldn't believe it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Guys, I have been claiming for years that the D2x was sharper than the 1ds2 and nobody wanted to believe me because of those 4 miserable mP difference...
I hope that these new 5D results will contribute once for all to ancer the idea that MP count means little.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks a lot for your prompt review.
I believe you when you say about ZD superiority over a Canon 5D.
It is hard to tell the whole story over the internet.
In your review, the ZD files look definetely better than those from the 5D.
However, nothing spectacular.
I concour with you that according to present standards the ZD back price is a steal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Frank - good job! Nice to see some well-exposed Dutch images. Not sure though if I can see in your pictures what you mean in terms of vast differences between the ZD and 5D. Seeing these images I personally rather veer towards the 5D than the ZD, bearing in mind other considerations such as portability, lens selection etc.
Thanks again, your efforts are much appreciated - am looking forward to more discussion on this.
-
8 bits internet version really doesn't do justice to the files.
16 bits tiff are breathtaking.
From the model shoot today I will post some tiffs up tonight for who is interested.
-
Thanks Frank - good job! Nice to see some well-exposed Dutch images. Not sure though if I can see in your pictures what you mean in terms of vast differences between the ZD and 5D. Seeing these images I personally rather veer towards the 5D than the ZD, bearing in mind other considerations such as portability, lens selection etc.
Thanks again, your efforts are much appreciated - am looking forward to more discussion on this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What is that? Are we Dutch Photographers known for our badly exposed images
-
am i the only person seeing what looks like HEAVY noise reduction in almost all the shots? muddy shadows? the files look almost the same as the 5D files....only bigger! the crop of the clocktower looks like watercolor to me with the supermuddy out of focus grey roof? infront.....the water in all the shots has a very strange "structure"....
again thanks for putting up this test....but it is a clear advertising for the 5D! take these files into GF and make up the size and there is little difference....i doubt i would see any difference in a printed 11x14 between both files without GF.....look at the red roof shingles....the detail is extremely watercolor like.....
maybe i am just crazy....
can't wait to see what this does to the models hair (especially in the transition from forhead into the hair).....please show a crop of this with one from the 5D...thanks
-
Can't see what you mean, but maybe I'm not used to what you are using of course.
I did not use noisereduction and in the back it's off, also on the 5D it's off.
here some of the model shoot from today, and will update my blog review in about half an hour.
1.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Corine_070607_3_(3).jpg)
2.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Corine_070607_4_(3).jpg)
3.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Corine_070607_1_(4).jpg)
4.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Corine_070607_1_(2).jpg)
MvrGr.
Frank
-
By the way the blacks in the hair is something I use alot in my shots, I can add a reflector to open it up but that is NOT the fault of the back.
-
With the newest ACR's deconvolution based sharpening tools (detail 45,
radius 0.5, amount 80, for example), with good lenses, on resolution
charts (up to 120lp/mm) the D2x almost doubles the 5D resolution,
because Nikon uses weaker AA filters. The 5D and 1DsII have lower
noise, but for us landscape photographers D2x provides the best
per pixel sharpness, with good lens (more picky than the Canons since
the smaller pixel spacing). I own and use both 5D and D2x and I am
not biased. We even did a detailed comparison 5D/D2x/Contax 645,
and the conclusion is with careful RAW conversion (Raw Developer is
the first choice, DxO second, ACR is never good for landscapes) the
DSLRs reaches about 60-70% of drum scanned 645 Velvia film level
in resolution.
Also since the pixel spacing difference, they work on the different
regions of lens MTF, so at 4-10 pixel level the Canon's "micro" or
local detail contrast is higher, which in general tend to improves
the prints. However, if you do a pre-sharpening USM such as
2.2/40/0 before the major USM or Smart Sharpening (which is
deconvolution based with "Lens Blur"), prints of the Nikon images
will look the same, although the step makes the noise issue little bit
even worse, which I don't care personally, since I paid DxO $60
for their "FilmPack" to ADD noise ("film grain" of selected "emulsion")
to my images to drastically enhance the "3D looking" as well as to
mask the digital demosiacing artifacts. The 5D's ISO 50 mode is
quite wonderful for more vibrant color and higher contrast -- sorry
we are from the Velvia film background (and actually still shoot RVP
50 for 80% of time).
I have been talking to Charlie Cramer, the landscape master who
switched from 4x5 to Mamiya AFDII with the P45 back, and thinking
about jumping to the ZD back as my entry move. One big factor
is the 12.4/12.8MP figure reduces to merely ~10MP when cropped
to 4x5, the ratio we still love and prefer and it is a bigger jump
from 10 to 22MP (46% increase of linear resolution from the D2x).
And nothing beats MF lens at wide angles -- as MR said many times
no 35mm wide lens reproduce the corner sharpness and the overall
distorsion-free and 3-D feeling of the MF/LF wide angle optics.
Hope the price of these cheap Mamiya 645 MF and AF lenses now in
the 2nd hand market will not go back up. Shouldn't, since not every
one will pay the $7K for a ZD back, with the 1DsIII / D3x on the
horizen, correct?
Guys, I have been claiming for years that the D2x was sharper than the 1ds2 and nobody wanted to believe me because of those 4 miserable mP difference...
I hope that these new 5D results will contribute once for all to ancer the idea that MP count means little.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi Frank
Since you have the ZD back could you test it on a copy situation. For people archiving art work & documents. Just to check how even the back records, white paper would be a good start. Thanks for your testing so far.I own a ZD camera & a 5D. I only use the ZD for people & landscapes in the 50-100 iso range.
Thanks Denis
-
will try to do that today but can't promise anything.
-
Is there going to be ZD adapter for Contax maybe?
-
Guys, I have been claiming for years that the D2x was sharper than the 1ds2 and nobody wanted to believe me because of those 4 miserable mP difference...
I hope that these new 5D results will contribute once for all to ancer the idea that MP count means little.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I too was interested but not very surprised. At least this is more evidence that a small difference like the 14% in linear pixel density (30% in pixel count) between 5D and 1DsMkII is either hard to notice, or easily outweighed by other factors, or both.
I like the naive rule of thumb that the smallest really worthwhile upgrade is about "one stop" or "one standard print size larger at equal PPI", meaning a doubling of pixel count and 1.4x increase in linear pixel density and potential resolution.
Not that a sensor maker should not increase pixel count by a smaller increment when it designs a new sensor to take advantage of incremental technological improvements, just that most of us can safely skip several generations of minor sensor resolution increments between camera upgrades.
P. S. Could and should Canon offer a "1Ds lite", with EOS-1 class body, AF, AE etc. but less expensive 5D class sensor and DSP chips? Could that be done for roughly D2Xs/1DMkIII price level? It could be good for those who do not care about high frame rates or pixel count one-upmanship.
-
Thanks for the great mini-review. I wasn't too impressed by the boat shot, as the differences were minute to my eyes. But the detail in the forest crop, and the dynamic range are _very_ impressive. My main complaint with my 30D is the lack of dynamic range, which is a bitch with low-light, long-exposure photography which I do a lot.
Also, the model shots are outstanding!
I was wondering about your (obviously subjective but to my eyes accurate) assessment that the Mamiya has a definite 3D-look to it. I suspect this is due to the shallower DOF of medium format backs, but that's just a (somewhat) educated guess. Perhaps some people with real optics knowledge can shed some light on this?
It'll be very intriguing to see how the forthcoming Canon will fare against the Mamiya.
By the way, how are the ease-of-use, ergonomics and the user interface on the Mamiya? I was complaining about the atrocious Canon UI on another thread, and was wondering about that. Mirror lock-up under 5 menu levels?
In any case, I'm starting to save for a MFDB. I miss my Mamiya 6x6...
-
You can't compare it to a DSLR, it's a different way of photography.
But I love it
-
I've been using Canon DSLR's for the last 4 years - a Canon 5D for the last 18 months or so and have recently bought a ZD (camera - not back). I've just returned from my first shoot with it and my thoughts are very much in line with Frank's.
While away in the bush, I'd noticed the greater depth or '3D' effect while reveiwing images of the same subject taken with the ZD & 5D on my laptop, so was interested to see Frank report the same thing. I don't know what the reason is - I don't think it's due the the shallower DoF, but whatever it is, I like it.
Feppe, there is good and bad in the comparison of usability between the ZD and 5D. Generally the ZD is very easy to use. For Canon users the MLU is brilliant! The buttons are well laid out and logical. Autofocus is fast and very accurate, though I found myself using manual focus most of the time - I generally use AF with the 5D.
But there are some real quirks in the menu and image review area. As Michael pointed out in his review, the menu system is very 80's and could be made to be much better with a bit of expertise. Having said that, once you get used to it it's not hard to find what you're looking for.
As widely reported the review screen is so small as to be almost unusable. Additionally while you get a histogram and flashing overexposure (and underexposure if you want) warning with the initial review image, you cannot get either if you call up an image later from the card. You only get the image itself. Also, if you set the review to display histogram & flashing highlights, the image is so small that you can hardly see the flashing highlights anyway. This area badly needs improvement.
This along with speed of image review and writing to the card are the areas I would like to see improved.
Despite my criticisms, I've absolutely no regrets about having bought the camera.
In addition I was amazed at how easy and cheap it was to assemble a good range of Mamiya lenses. Apart from the 35mm, which is just OK, they're excellent.
Regards
(another) Frank
-
As widely reported the review screen is so small as to be almost unusable. Additionally while you get a histogram and flashing overexposure (and underexposure if you want) warning with the initial review image, you cannot get either if you call up an image later from the card. You only get the image itself. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Franck,
You might want a try pushing the "info" button while using the joystick in the north-south direction. This will enable you to view an older image on the card in histogram mode.
Regards,
Bernard
-
You might want a try pushing the "info" button while using the joystick in the north-south direction. This will enable you to view an older image on the card in histogram mode.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah yes, I missed the bit about the joystick/selection key - should have read the manual more closely....
Thanks Bernard.
-
I did some 5D profiling tests, and shot some additional check images - and the 5D lent by Canon blew my own 1DsII and 1Ds out of the water with sharpness. I couldn't believe it.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 5D is an astonishing camera. And used with the mirror lock-up mode (Custom Function 13, I think) it's like using a much higher resolution camera. I only ever use it this way now.
The problem, for my money, with Canon isn't the cameras. It's the glass. The 90mm TSE is the best glass I have ever owned, bar none. And that includes my Sinar glass. But, the 17-40mm L zoom is junk (it does not deserve the lable 'L' Series) and I can't find a lens for copy work that is the equal of the 90mm. The 50mm macro is OK, but not great.
D.
-
The 5D is an astonishing camera. And used with the mirror lock-up mode (Custom Function 13, I think) it's like using a much higher resolution camera. I only ever use it this way now.
The problem, for my money, with Canon isn't the cameras. It's the glass. The 90mm TSE is the best glass I have ever owned, bar none. And that includes my Sinar glass. But, the 17-40mm L zoom is junk (it does not deserve the lable 'L' Series) and I can't find a lens for copy work that is the equal of the 90mm. The 50mm macro is OK, but not great.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree about the 17-40mm, buy I find myself using it all the time. I think it's quite a punchy lens for contrast and nice and sharp in the middle. I dare not use it less than about f10. so I find I'm shooting at 400iso. I would love a decent wide zoom, I've yet to investigate the new 16-35mm f2.8 at widish apertures, anyone here know how it performs.
Because of this I just bought a Linhof 612 for the times I need top quality across the frame corner to corner.
Kevin.
Kevin.
-
Added some ISO400 crops with and without post in my blog review.
And some more highcontrast scenes.
-
The 90mm TSE is the best glass I have ever owned, bar none. And that includes my Sinar glass.
I'm a bit surprised to hear that. It's not bad but nothing outstanding either:
(http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CATSE9028.gif)
-
Just curious then..........
What Canon lens(es) between 50-100mm do you consider sharper?
Thanks.
D.
-
Just curious then..........
What Canon lens(es) between 50-100mm do you consider sharper?
Thanks.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 100/2.8 macro is very sharp, as is the 50mm macro (although less so). The 135/2 is their sharpest lens.
Ron
-
The 100/2.8 macro is very sharp, as is the 50mm macro (although less so). The 135/2 is their sharpest lens.
Ron
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122250\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting. I own both of those lenses too. Yes, the 100m is both sharp and sharper than the 50mm, but my TSE 90mm is sharper than both of them. Could be just the day that was in it, of course.
I use the 50mm macro for flat art copy work. Is that my sharpest option?....allowing for convenience of focal length, of course.
Thanks.
D.
-
The old 85/1.2 is very sharp too and has the right look for people photos.
Edmund
Interesting. I own both of those lenses too. Yes, the 100m is both sharp and sharper than the 50mm, but my TSE 90mm is sharper than both of them. Could be just the day that was in it, of course.
I use the 50mm macro for flat art copy work. Is that my sharpest option?....allowing for convenience of focal length, of course.
Thanks.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/535627/53 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/535627/53)
Have a look at this thread to see 2 pics from Mk3 and 5D.
I see more "3D" from the 5D, but probably is just that the lighting is more contrasty in the 5D's
Perhaps, 3D look is indeed a matter of film/sensor size.
Hah! There's nothing new under the sun.
Eduardo
-
I'm a bit surprised to hear that. It's not bad but nothing outstanding either:
(http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CATSE9028.gif)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Graham,
If I didn't have the lens myself, I'd come to the same conclusion as you did. However the TSE 90 is one of my favorite lenses to use. It's very sharp, has good color and contrast and is easy to manual focus. It works well with the 2x extender, macro extensions or a combination of both. It's just a great lens. When my friend Gib was trying to convince me I should go Leica, he and I had a shoot out - me with my best canon lens at the time the t-se 90 and he with his, the leica 100 mm apo macro. Well I did go buy a leica DMR and some leica lenses but not because the 90mm was trash - sharpness was similar between the two, but the dyanamic range of the DMR was significantly better than my canon 5D. Well anyhow I've had a lot of canon glass and the tse 90 is my favorite. I've seen a lot of canon glass that performs lower than their MTF but this one is definitely better and I don't think its just my copy.
Regards,
Eric
-
Perhaps, 3D look is indeed a matter of film/sensor size.
Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122517\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or perhaps the difference is the lack of colour compression when you move from 8bit per channel (256 shades per channel) to 12bit per channel (4096 shades per channel)
The improvement in '3d' impression (especially on paper) is easy to explain.
-
Added some more views and pictures.
-
Added some more views and pictures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Frank, this pictures are taken with the camera in your hands am I right? Manual focus, no tripod, no mirror lockup etc...
In this case I think the quality is... wooowww
-
Yep correct.
I never use a tripod in the studio and mirror lockup is a problem in the workflow for fashion/glamour (well at least for me).
-
Jon:
How would you explain the more 3d look (whatever it is) found usually in bigger fim formats and more rarely seen in 35mm?
Best
Eduardo
Or perhaps the difference is the lack of colour compression when you move from 8bit per channel (256 shades per channel) to 12bit per channel (4096 shades per channel)
The improvement in '3d' impression (especially on paper) is easy to explain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Jon:
How would you explain the more 3d look (whatever it is) found usually in bigger fim formats and more rarely seen in 35mm?
Best
Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122738\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apologies that my original supposition that the sensors in dslr's is only 8bit. This is wrong.
Certainly with 16bit backs the greater range of colours available should result in better tonal gradation, and a better impression to the eye of depth. While the human eye may not be sensitive to the infinite range of colours in any 'scene', the brain is very good at processing a limited range of colours from within the scene, using the centre of the eye.
I thought that the MF pics looked more 3d, partly because of having more colours, but also having better detail resolution IMO, than 35 mm. However, this could be explained also (or in combination) with any filtering (eg AA filtering) carried out by the camera. I understand that many MFDb's don't do this whereas 35mm does.
What do you think? I'm completely open to having any misconceptions corrected; I'm not new to photography, but I am a rank beginner when it comes to digital MF, and I'm trying to get up to speed as fast as possible.
Thanks
-
I think it's mostly the micro detail and sensor size.
Look at HD broadcasts they are also more 3D than normal broadcasts.
The 5D pictures compared to the MF back shots are all muddy in the small details.
-
Jon,
Thanks for your reply.
Like I pointed in my first post. It could be that the 5D pic is better exposed than that from the M3, but despite the latter one is 14bit, I see more 3D from the the 5D pic.
Actually, the first time I saw the 3D look, was 20 years ago from a fiber based 8X10 b&w picture shot with a Leica. But I had to admit in that time I already heard about this quality from german glass, and you know how the brain can fool you any time, about seeing something you expect or desire to see. The second time I experienced some 3D, was after printing for first time some 11X14" prints from Kodak Panatomic shot with my Nikon.
Later on, I bought my 500Cm and the quality blew me away. After sometime, I got used to the quality and never again thought about 3D. Well, until now.
Personally, I think the 5D is one damn good camera for the money. If it would turn out to be my last camera, I could live with that, but I doubt it. Since I bought my Epson 7600 printer 4 years ago, I love to print 24X30". I think this preference will last the rest of my life. So, I'm here crossing fingers and praying for dbacks to become under my reach. That is, at least a 22mp 36X48 sensor for under 10k usd. The Mamiya dback probably is the best thing that happenned to meduim formar since the world turned digital. Too bad for me, I am a waist level finder guy. So, for me is a CFV2 or something within the next 12 months, or a new Hy6 system in 2, 3 or 4 years.
Best
Eduardo
Apologies that my original supposition that the sensors in dslr's is only 8bit. This is wrong.
Certainly with 16bit backs the greater range of colours available should result in better tonal gradation, and a better impression to the eye of depth. While the human eye may not be sensitive to the infinite range of colours in any 'scene', the brain is very good at processing a limited range of colours from within the scene, using the centre of the eye.
I thought that the MF pics looked more 3d, partly because of having more colours, but also having better detail resolution IMO, than 35 mm. However, this could be explained also (or in combination) with any filtering (eg AA filtering) carried out by the camera. I understand that many MFDb's don't do this whereas 35mm does.
What do you think? I'm completely open to having any misconceptions corrected; I'm not new to photography, but I am a rank beginner when it comes to digital MF, and I'm trying to get up to speed as fast as possible.
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Is it just me or...
The files (all be it looking very nice on screen) seem to have very little or no shadow detail or very noisy shadows.
Do I need my eyes tested?
-
Is it just me or...
The files (all be it looking very nice on screen) seem to have very little or no shadow detail or very noisy shadows.
Do I need my eyes tested?
Yes,
Specsavers have got a really good deal going at the moment. Two pairs for the price of one. Hurry hurry.......
-
Is it just me or...
The files (all be it looking very nice on screen) seem to have very little or no shadow detail or very noisy shadows.
Do I need my eyes tested?
Yes,
Specsavers have got a really good deal going at the moment. Two pairs for the price of one. Hurry hurry.......
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122937\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ha ha good one.
I am being a bit serious though - does nobody else see this? Maybe its the JPEG compression at work
@ Frank D..
Wouldn't mind seeing some of the hair detail at 100% crop or some of he hair shadow areas if it is not too much trouble.
Ta!
Jo S.x
-
<snip>
...I think the 5D is one damn good camera for the money. If it would turn out to be my last camera, I could live with that, but I doubt it. Since I bought my Epson 7600 printer 4 years ago, I love to print 24X30". I think this preference will last the rest of my life. So, I'm here crossing fingers and praying for dbacks to become under my reach. That is, at least a 22mp 36X48 sensor for under 10k usd. The Mamiya dback probably is the best thing that happenned to meduim formar since the world turned digital.
<snip>
Best
Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Eduardo,
I completely agree. 5D can't be beaten (on most criteria) as a 35 mm camera. However it won't satisfy the needs of advertising photography (similar in demand to your very large print production), since photo editors are used to getting big and detailed MF images. Frankly, I don't think there is any strong technical reason why 5D images couldn't be used in this context.
If anyone has experience in using the 5D for Advertising Photos, I'd be delighted to hear your experiences of dealing with photo editors / advertising agencies and such like.
Thanks
Jon
-
Ha ha good one.
I am being a bit serious though - does nobody else see this? Maybe its the JPEG compression at work
@ Frank D..
Wouldn't mind seeing some of the hair detail at 100% crop or some of he hair shadow areas if it is not too much trouble.
Ta!
Jo S.x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thanks, i thought i was the only one....(see my earlier post in this tread)...
i think everything looks great, but i don't really see the major step up from the 5D....there is not that much more detail and the shadows are just as noisy and muddy....which of course is not bad at all, but no real competition to the 16bit backs.....
i mentioned this before here, a friend of mine shoots with a 5D right now and is looking to get a DMF back...he has all mamiya, so i pointed the ZD out and emailed him a link to this test blog....he said that he could see a definite step up from the 5D in DR, he mentioned the clock tower shot....
either way he is looking at a P21, which is about the same price refurb.....