Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mhecker* on October 31, 2008, 11:39:20 am
-
An informal test by a working photographer of the 3 cameras.
See http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...sl=pl&tl=en (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swiatobrazu.pl%2F_i_stanely_naprzeciw_siebie_hasselblad_h3_mamiya_afdiii_sony_alpha_900__test_por.html%2C3&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=pl&tl=en)
Full resolution 16 bit TIF's are available for download. 100-240MB each!
I'll let the shots speak for themselves....
-
Brian Smith, who posts here sometimes, humorously, is your resident Sony Spokesman.
He might shed some light on this comparison. He also shoots the A75.
-
the hassy is the 39Mp and the mamiya the ZDII. it is all there in the text
-
Well, it's a pity I don't speak Spanish, Polish, Italian and so on because a lot of good stuff is written in languages unfamiliar to me.
Erik
Yes, I missed the tiny page numbers. All in the text and what lovely translational Google text it is: "In the comparable picture quality, Picture of the election system in practice decide the economic factors, as well as the requirements of customers." and so much more.
-
Hi,
I have downloaded some of the images (the bearded man against dark background). I compared the images without knowing which one was which. In my view the Sony A900 image was preferable quality wise to the Hassy/P39.
Erik
Well, it's a pity I don't speak Spanish, Polish, Italian and so on because a lot of good stuff is written in languages unfamiliar to me.
Erik
-
Mmmmm... Interesting test especially with the colourful translation!
I don't know what they did with the P30/AFD shot to get that big streak on the right hand side... did they not mount the back properly? Can't think there would be any other reason which makes me wonder how used they were to these cameras.
I had a look at the metadata on the H3D shot. Lens was listed as a CF110mm lens. Not that this is a bad lens I just wonder why they didn't use an H lens?
Also they processed everything through Camera Raw. I can't speak for Phase One but the quality of conversion is waaaay poor compared to using Phocus. You can see that easily with the noise levels in the shadows.
Also I reckon they are about a stop under with the histogram being all bunched up to the left.
Looking at the Sony file it is pretty good! I do note though there is absolutely nothing left in the blacks though.
So it would be nice to have the raw file and do a Phocus conversion and compare. Would be interesting for the P30 as well.
Anyone speak Polish?
Cheers on a rainy Saturday,
David
EDIT - Oh! I see it was a ZDII so disregard what I said earlier re the P30.
-
Mmmmm... Interesting test especially with the colourful translation!
I don't know what they did with the P30/AFD shot to get that big streak on the right hand side... did they not mount the back properly? Can't think there would be any other reason which makes me wonder how used they were to these cameras.
David
EDIT - Oh! I see it was a ZDII so disregard what I said earlier re the P30.
Correct - let's make this perfectly clear that is a ZD file (which looks horrible) and Phase One was not part of this test.
Thanks for editing David.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Yes, the MFDB makers do have to worry seriously about the a900 and the lenses available for it. This camera performes best at the same ISO values as most MFDBs do, making it a great studio- and controlled location camera. I do have an a900 myself with some of the best lenses available for 35mm and I have to confirm the findings of the comparison. Being a medium format photographer too (Rollei 6000 system) I can see only one way to go for the MFDB makers: full 6x6 (or bigger) sensors. Otherwise they'd better fold.
[/quote]
Very true. Now that the Zeiss lenses are available for Canon's hi rez cameras as well, the game is REALLY changing. Every time one of teh Japanese makers innovates, the advantages of MF erode further.
-
The world is changing for the better in a very fast way as we can see.... A company that never produced a decent ccd ( at least not at canon, dalsa or kodak level) now introduced to the world a semi pro camera that has such an incredible image quality ( as said by some people) that we now can trow away or MF systems........
Do we really believe this or could it be that maybe it is just a hype of the moment???? The 1DsMk3 is also a capable beast but nowere near a H3d. I think it is more of what we have seen in the past: at the end size really matters.
-
Hi All
I can only smile after reading this article. The most funny thing is that Mr Bonecki rent this equipment from us, and didn't want assistant from our side because it is too expensive. Why they don;t ask me about doing the test ??? I will do it for free and the test will be more reliable. I know this equipment inside and out. If a photographer does not read messages on the display and can not cope with the hardware. Let them do not write that it is equipment. ( They call to me during this session, because they connect the camera with newer firmware to computer with older software and start loading older ver. of firmware and they have problem with it ). In my opinion it is not professional.
I can;t believe that the files of the Mamiya ZD is so bad. It is probably lack of knowledge.
Why they converting files to DNG?? Why they don't ask Hasselblad and Mamiya guys to do the test ?? Who believe that A900 has a better dynamic range, better colors? Who believe that H3DII has bad display where colors are not correct ?? ( Everybody who has this camera in the hand know that is not a true) Who believe that Mamiya is so bad? At the end of this test: specialist of large format printer write that MFDB is dead. LOL
It is not professional. Clearly feel that it is advertorial. It is so Polish...
Anyway - Believe me, we have good specialists in Poland too :-)
Design Freak
------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
------------------------------------
-
To David Grover:
Here is another comparison (from an owner of both systems) between a900 with Carl Zeiss zoom (24-75) and H1 with P30 and 80mm H-lens. IMO the Sony puts Hassy to shame. This time round the poster makes raw files of both tests available for download. Please show us what you can do in Phocus with both files to convince us of the superiority of the Hassy-Phase combo.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29852201 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29852201)
EPd
P.S.: PhaseOne reps are free to try their best with their own software as well, of course. I'm all eyes.
LOL
It's really nice... Do you know Hasselblad products? Probably you don;t know. We produce H3DII not P30, so why you ask us to do something in Phocus software ?? Phocus is our raw converter to processing hasselblad files. It makes sense to compare discontinue hardware ?? ( from 2 years ) Please note that camera is a tool like a car for a taxi driver. If you want to be a taxi driver, you probably buy big sedan or van not a supercar. MFDB give us maximum possible quallity in the studio. We use lowest possible ISO ( 50, 100) and get the best quality. If you want to shoot with high iso you need nikon d3. Please compare a900 with H3DII at lowest possible ISO and look at 100% view...
Design Freak
-------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
-------------------------------------
-
Every time one of teh Japanese makers innovates, the advantages of MF erode further.
Wake me up if Canikony every makes a 48x36mm or larger sensor, if they have 1/1000 flash sync or faster, if the dynamic range is 12 bits or higher, if the files are 16 bit or more, if there is fast and rock-solid tethering, if there is no AA filter, and if the lenses to cover those sensors are better than my Rollei lenses. Until then these comparisons are just putting me to sleep. No amount of pixels or HD movie modes or facial recognition features are going to change that!
-
Here is another comparison (from an owner of both systems) between a900 with Carl Zeiss zoom (24-75) and H1 with P30 and 80mm H-lens. IMO the Sony puts Hassy to shame. This time round the poster makes raw files of both tests available for download. Please show us what you can do in Phocus with both files to convince us of the superiority of the Hassy-Phase combo.
Please go back and look again. There is something seriously and obviously wrong with the H1/P30/80mm results. He has just posted another shot with the 35mm lens, and this one is sharper and higher res than the A900 shot, as it should be (no AA filter, 31MP vs. 24MP, yadda yadda). One might well argue that the A900 is a hell of a lot of bang for the buck, that it is enough for many tasks, that it yields nearly as good results in many situations, that it is easier to use, possibly that it is more reliable, but it does not have higher IQ, and I don't believe that there is a lot more resolution to be had with the 35mm form factor than what the 1Ds3 and A900 give, whereas MF still has room, in case someone needs resolution. The A900 also has only 12 bits, so under heavy editing it might posterize. Time will show. It apparently also has some noise in the shadows, although I cannot confirm this, not owning one.
-
Graham,
Down load the files - the amazing thing is the level of detail is close in all three and actually if any of them stand out as being bad its the ZD file. It's actually really impressive for the Sony. Looks like all files were under exposed and you can see the lower amount of DR in the Sony, but it comes up big on color and detail. To take away the color differences, I desaturated them all and compared again. They all look pretty good, but probably my pick is then the Hasselblad, then the mamiya and then the sony, but I'd guess this is because of the lens character more than anything. I do think the MF lenses offer a different look.
Certainly there are other tests that might be able to show the strengths of the MF cameras - I'm guessing that with the tiny pixels on the Sony that anything with small apertures is going to suffer and probably most MFDB's are going to have about 2 stops more DR, maybe 3 so subjects with rich color or light extremes are going to be captured better - but I'm very impressed with the Sony. Has anyone compared it to a 1Ds3?
Eric
-
Why do the MF solutions in these different comparisons need so many excuses all the time? "Something must be wrong with the lens", "Something must be wrong with the focus", "Something must be wrong with the RAW conversion", et cetera. We have at least 5 official representatives of MFDB makers here in this forum, but none has convincingly shown so far that their offerings can simply win hands down from the Sony a900, without needing an entire team of factory technicians to make their product work.
This is very case-dependent. Look at how long it took Canon to even admit that the 1D mark III was not focusing right, and then only under pressure from Rob Galbraith. There is no general truth in such a statement. This guy happens to have an 80mm H lens which doesn't focus right. That has also happened to Zeiss and Sony.
-
Well, I do know Hasselblad's current offerings (and as I wrote I am an MF user myself), but I do not work with them. That's why I ask official Hasselblad people to take the RAW files and debunk the impression if it is wrong. Yes, I know that a P30 is a Phase One back. That's why I wrote the post scriptum. But all you can do is telling us that we need to invest another 45k euros and use it only in a well lit studio at lowest ISO and then we might see some win over a cheap 35mm DSLR. Not very convincing.
Why do the MF solutions in these different comparisons need so many excuses all the time? "Something must be wrong with the lens", "Something must be wrong with the focus", "Something must be wrong with the RAW conversion", et cetera. We have at least 5 official representatives of MFDB makers here in this forum, but none has convincingly shown so far that their offerings can simply win hands down from the Sony a900, without needing an entire team of factory technicians to make their product work.
We don't telling you that you must invest any money to anything.
I wrote that we can;t process p1 files... and that I don;t see sense to test a900 and compare it with P30 that is from 2 years discontinue.
I think that H3DII is very easy to operate, especially with Phocus software. But we need to know basic things. If somebody work first time with equipment it is not good time to do the tests. Because he don;t know the equipment!! ( Polish Sony Ambasador test comparing A900 with Hasselblad and Mamiya) Believe me, this equipment don;t need factory technicians to work. I don;t tell that A900 is bad, but telling people that it is better that 39mpix camera, that A900 have better dynamic range, reproduction of colors are better, that lenses are better.. It;s simply not true. I know this camera cost 2k Euro. If we get that quality for 2k Euro it;s very nice, but we can;t telling that in this fact this equipment is better.
Design Freak
-------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
-------------------------------------
-
The world is changing for the better in a very fast way as we can see.... A company that never produced a decent ccd ( at least not at canon, dalsa or kodak level) now introduced to the world a semi pro camera that has such an incredible image quality ( as said by some people) that we now can trow away or MF systems........
Do we really believe this or could it be that maybe it is just a hype of the moment???? The 1DsMk3 is also a capable beast but nowere near a H3d. I think it is more of what we have seen in the past: at the end size really matters.
This is quite a statement. All of Sony's APS-C CCDs have done very, very well in low to mid ISO applications, with Canon separating itself with high ISO. I wouldn't imagine that high ISO situations are applicable in this discussion.
About the A900, I wanted to point out that the camera gets another 1 EV of DR at ISO 160-200 over ISO 100, so this isn't the best we can see out of the A900, either. Also, in regards to the A900 vs. P30 test, the Zeiss 24-70 lens being used is at f8, but it's optimum aperture is f4. I'm not saying this stuff would make a drastic difference, but if we're gonna point out problems with the MFDB setups, we should point out this stuff with the A900, too.
-
Since I am Polish myself I have read the entire article and its conclusions in the original version. I find it as bias as it can possibly be. The tone of the language further proves that there is an agenda here. By the way to me personally the results are a joke. Here in LL we all know that Sony is better than any DB but still not as good as 5D.
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
-
I really don't know why some of you guys have so much trouble with your methodology when comparing equipment. I've frequently got a sense of great irrationality in this process, where MFDBs are involved.
It's almost as though the act of spending $100,000 on a camera is itself an act of irrationality that carries over to all comparisons with other equipment that might be considerably cheaper but almost of equal quality.
-
Graham,
Down load the files - the amazing thing is the level of detail is close in all three and actually if any of them stand out as being bad its the ZD file.
Hi Eric, I guess what I was trying to say is that it doesn't matter to me if the Sony has caught up to MFDB in the resolution game - there are other reasons why MFDB will be a better choice for some people. All I see are tests which compare resolution. Let's see some tests showing all other aspects of performance.
As for the price difference, the Sinar eMotion54 I use is now only €6K new. It's really not that much more than the Sony if you're a pro making your income from the camera for the next few years and you happen to need the advantages of a MF system.
-
Hi,
I would suggest that the comparisons we see are valid. I don't think they are tweaked. A couple of test pictures cannot evaluate all aspects of an imaging system. In my thinking there are essentially two approaches to testing:
1) Shoot real scenes with the equipment and find out if you like it or not.
2) Construct artificial scenes to evaluate different aspects of imaging and evaluate with some kind of standardized methods.
I have downloaded a couple of the images discussed on this forum, and I'd suggest that I can see a definite advantage regarding sharpness for the A900. We need to keep in mind that it's not just the body, the lenses are much cheaper than Hassy lenses, at least when aperture is taken into account.
I'd suggest that the sharpness advantage I see on the A900 is probably more related to lens performance than sensor performance and possibly focusing issues. Attaining perfect focus is known to be very difficult.
Erik
I really don't know why some of you guys have so much trouble with your methodology when comparing equipment. I've frequently got a sense of great irrationality in this process, where MFDBs are involved.
It's almost as though the act of spending $100,000 on a camera is itself an act of irrationality that carries over to all comparisons with other equipment that might be considerably cheaper but almost of equal quality.
-
Since I am Polish myself I have read the entire article and its conclusions in the original version. I find it as bias as it can possibly be. The tone of the language further proves that there is an agenda here. By the way to me personally the results are a joke. Here in LL we all know that Sony is better than any DB but still not as good as 5D.
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
Thank you Andre
Excellent summary,I am not able to write this better.
I'm going to take a few photos...
Best regards,
Design Freak
-------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
-------------------------------------
-
Processed them both in Capure One 4.5.1 - looks quite different.
ACR is not the ideal converter for Phase DBs from my point of view.
Both without sharpening (no further color adjustments; just white balance); crop from center
A900
[attachment=9400:DSC00191.jpg]
H/P30
[attachment=9401:CF015373.jpg]
-
If Capture One is the ideal converter for Phase DB's, why do I still see the same color artifacts and also white specks this time? (Apart from the very mushy look.)
you should address these questions to Phase One ;-)
as to the color artifacts there seems to be more than just moiree.
I don't have artifacts like these with my P45 (though moiree periodically).
as to the "mushy" look it's easy to adjust everything like you want it to look like...
-
Shooting an albeit older phase p20 myself, there is no question in my mind that phase software will yield the best conversion for phase backs - however I find that the older 3.79 version is still better for some types of images and one of the areas its better at than LR/ACR is the color artifacts in small detail areas.
Eric
-
I didn't think the images were that close, and without providing raw files for download the whole workflow is thrown into question.
-
however I find that the older 3.79 version is still better for some types of images and one of the areas its better at than LR/ACR is the color artifacts in small detail areas.
Here's the H/P30 file again out of V3:
[attachment=9402:CF015373_v3.jpg]
And with a little color noise reduction:
[attachment=9403:CF015373_v3_cn.jpg]
-
Processed them both in Capure One 4.5.1 - looks quite different.
ACR is not the ideal converter for Phase DBs from my point of view.
Both without sharpening (no further color adjustments; just white balance); crop from center
A900
[attachment=9400:DSC00191.jpg]
H/P30
[attachment=9401:CF015373.jpg]
hi thomas,
i dont believe that the phase file is not sharpened. ofcourse i dont have doubts that YOU havent applied usm, but in this case it seems as p1 adds as default usm to its files as soon it realises ( in exif ) that a phaseone file is converted.
i applied to the sony file 250% 0,5 usm in photoshop. it looks decent sharpened with this setting without any oversharpening effects at 100% pixelpeep view.
if i apply the same to the p30 file it looks very oversharpened. to all unsharpened mf- raw files i know its possible to apply small radius sizes 0,3-05 in a 200% - 250% amount without showing any oversharpening artefacts, something seems to be wrong here with the "unsharpened" p30 file.
if i apply app. 90% 0,5radius to the p30 file it seems to be the maximum which it can get without oversharpened look.
but in this case the a900 file looks smaller but similar sharp. shadows are similar ( if raised up ),- unfortunately with an edge for the sony.
further are the color artefacts in the p30 files everything else than pleasing, and look like a not very good bayer processing algorythm- they are not (only) the result of the absent aa filter.
sony with 250% 0,5 radius
[attachment=9408:DSC00191...50_0_5_2.jpg]
P30 with 250% 0,5 radius
[attachment=9410:CF015373...d250_0_5.jpg]
P30 with 90% 0,5 radius
[attachment=9409:CF015373...ed90_0_5.jpg]
-
i dont believe that the phase file is not sharpened. ofcourse i dont have doubts that YOU havent applied usm, but in this case it seems as p1 adds as default usm to its files as soon it realises ( in exif ) that a phaseone file is converted
Hi Rainer,
I don't know. Actually I doubt that the Phase One software guys are smart enough to code something like that in that buggy piece of software...
When I compare the P30 shot from V3 and V4 I think there is something wrong with the conversion of the P30 in V4 (might be just as well my fault).
I V3 there is always some sharpening applied even with the sliders set to zero as long as you don't disable sharpening on ouptut in the preferences (with all cameras).
But I disabled sharpening on output both in V3 and V4 here ...
-
Hi Rainer,
I don't know. Actually I doubt that the Phase One software guys are smart enough to code something like that in that buggy piece of software...
When I compare the P30 shot from V3 and V4 I think there is something wrong with the conversion of the P30 in V4 (might be just as well my fault).
I V3 there is always some sharpening applied even with the sliders set to zero as long as you don't disable sharpening on ouptut in the preferences (with all cameras).
But I disabled sharpening on output both in V3 and V4 here ...
looks as they tweaked their software to get most sharpness as possible and they didnt care the price they pay with artefacts.
the p30 file looks very bad for me,- but sharp.
-
I suspect that the Phase Software does a similar trick with noise reduction, which causes all sorts of problems when doing side by side comparisons with other digital backs. There's no level playing field.
-
looks as they tweaked their software to get most sharpness as possible and they didnt care the price they pay with artefacts. the p30 file looks very bad for me,- but sharp.
as it is the same chip as that of my P45 ... to me it looks quite bad, too. Overall.
But that's always hard to tell if you don't know about the conditions.
-
mhecker
Despite all the naysayers on this thread, it should come as no surprise to members of this forum that the A900 has nearly closed the gap with MFDBs. All they need do is read MR's comparison of the Canon G10 to his Hassy (albeit under ideal conditions) to realize that Sony's accomplishment was inevitable. Even the A900 has some shortcomings (e.g. high ISO noise). I would have thought that the professionals who own MDFBs would not react to your data the way amateur fanboys do on other sites. Progress is to be expected.
-
Progress is to be expected.
Probably soon with the A900 itself. The A700 was getting better and better from firmware 1.0 to 4.0 now. I think the next A900 firmware update will adress color noise in high ISO.
If you consider that you "save" about two f stops in ISO according to the anti shake chip (actually you shoot at ISO400 when the 1DsIII or 5DII is set to ISO1600), consider the great ZA and G lenses and consider the really outstanding viewfinder... the A900 is by far the most interessting DLSR currently from my point of view.
-
perhaps the reviewer was biased (I think it to be very likely), but whatever his bias was, .
I think his bias is pretty clear by way of his signature
"Jacek red Bonecki
Polish film, photographer, journalist and television producer.
Honorary Ambassador of Sony. "
-
The "official" rep from Sinar has nothing to say. Why should I have to intervene or justify myself regarding such a comparison? I prefer making such tests myself, or knowing that all shooting parameters and factors are the same, IF I feel like wanting to compare. I do never throw conclusions from a test when I have not seen/done it myself.
Whatever the conditions of the test are, the A900 file looks good, but I know also that I have seen better results coming out of a 16 MPx old back.
On the other side, and this has been said by many, there is much more than just comparing what has been compared here. And what has been said by Rainer and Graham is exactly the same experience I have myself (sharpening/NR)
Best regards,
Thierry
And what I find more worrying is that the official representatives (who are always jumping in by droves when their reputation is at stake) keep very, very quiet this time.
-
Thierry,
It was nice of you to chime in, but I was actually more aiming at the representatives whose products are at stake here: Hasselblad and Phase One (just let's forget about the Mamiya input since anyone can see that the unit is defective). David Grover complained that he needed RAW files. Now that these are available I would like to hear his further comments. Also, if there is something to say about the bad artifacts of the Phase One back I would like to hear someone knowledgeable to provide some antidote. In the Polish comparison Steve Hendrix hastened to say that Phase One had nothing to do with it, but now that Phase has something to do with the other comparison and leaves a very bad impression we don't hear from him anymore. Sometimes the MF threads here on LL seem to be completely salesmen driven, but when some rational comments from them would be wished for (as in this case) they keep silent. It's what some governments do as well: just refrain from any comments and everything will blow over one day. I wish Michael would make a separate sales representatives corner where we all could go if we needed them, but that the other threads would be kept clean from their littering. At least they wouldn't have to excuse themselves for not showing up in threads like these.
EPd
Well, my only interest was in clarifying whether Phase One was part of the test or not. In one of the tests, there was a Mamiya ZD, which was referred to as Mamiya AFDIII, and some assumed it was matched with a Phase One back. That's really my only interest. The reason that is so is because if I sell someone a product that I believe offers superior image quality, I would not prove it by a 1 shot example, especially without raw files. As far as the file itself goes, I pulled the raws into Capture One and I see nothing to criticize, except that I think that 80mm HC lens has been dropped because the right side is significantly softer than the left. I'm referring to files CF015369 and CF015371.
To be clear, I have never criticized image quality from 35mm DSLR's. I've shot with them enough myself, and many (in fact most) of my medium format customers also shoot 35mm on occasion, so I know what they are capable of and they are very good and certainly offer good bang for the buck. I would also say that over the course of many jobs with different subject matter, lighting situations, and post capture treatment, there is no question medium format provides superior quality (except for high ISO, of course, but even then it depends on which DB). That said, in many situations 35mm is quite close and obviously the majority of the market think it's close enough, and also the price is right.
Despite that, most photographers who shoot medium format digital do not wish to part with their MF cameras and shoot exclusively 35mm. They do wish medium format would step up its evolution (and I have the same hope), but generally they are not willing to accept the lower, though acceptable, quality of 35mm and they value the positive aspects of shooting medium format above and beyond image quality - large bright viewfinders, film shooting options, technical or view camera options, high-performance lenses, optimized tethered workflow, and so on.
I've done the same type of comparison tests between 35mm and medium format. Often the results are pretty close, as in these posted tests. Sometimes, 35mm is significantly lacking. I've had these results pointed out to me by my customers as well. So, yeah, it's one shot and one type of shot, and the Sony seems to hold up pretty well in this shot (without looking at the Sony raws). But it doesn't convince me that over many jobs, the P30 is not going to be superior in nearly all if not all of them.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Thierry,
It was nice of you to chime in, but I was actually more aiming at the representatives whose products are at stake here: Hasselblad and Phase One (just let's forget about the Mamiya input since anyone can see that the unit is defective). David Grover complained that he needed RAW files. Now that these are available I would like to hear his further comments. Also, if there is something to say about the bad artifacts of the Phase One back I would like to hear someone knowledgeable to provide some antidote. In the Polish comparison Steve Hendrix hastened to say that Phase One had nothing to do with it, but now that Phase has something to do with the other comparison and leaves a very bad impression we don't hear from him anymore. Sometimes the MF threads here on LL seem to be completely salesmen driven, but when some rational comments from them would be wished for (as in this case) they keep silent. It's what some governments do as well: just refrain from any comments and everything will blow over one day. I wish Michael would make a separate sales representatives corner where we all could go if we needed them, but that the other threads would be kept clean from their littering. At least they wouldn't have to excuse themselves for not showing up in threads like these.
EPd
Forgive me but it was the weekend.
Ill look for the RAW files and see whats what.
As Steve says I have absolutely no criticism of 35mm systems. I don't see any reason why I would.
Best,
David
-
@ EpD..
As design_freak explained these are files from a P30 - Phase One.
They cannot be processed in Phocus as this is Hasselblad software for our H3D, CF, CFV etc etc. When I 'complained' (I would rather say asked) if there was raw files I was referring to the original test.
Others have made a few exports from Capture One and I would assume they would be far more experienced than me in using this software.
If they happen to shoot with an H3D31 I will gladly stick my oar in. I believe it would be 'littering the thread' (to quote) if I was to make comments on a product which is not mine.
Best,
David
-
steve:
i would like to hear something about my thoughts i wrote above about the default sharpening of p30 files in p1 and the strong bayer artefacts the cropfile shows.
thanks...
-
steve:
i would like to hear something about my thoughts i wrote above about the default sharpening of p30 files in p1 and the strong bayer artefacts the cropfile shows.
thanks...
Rainer:
I tried downloading that raw file and I get a "page not found" error.
I was only able to download the original test shot under sunnier conditions and I do not see any artifacts in those files. If you know another way to get the raw file I will look at it, or perhaps since you have it you could send it to me.
sth@phaseone.com
Thanks,
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
They're here:
http://www.dboyd.com/Photos_08/HasselbladvsSony/test@35mm/ (http://www.dboyd.com/Photos_08/HasselbladvsSony/test@35mm/)
Thanks EPD, I'll take a look.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
steve:
i would like to hear something about my thoughts i wrote above about the default sharpening of p30 files in p1 and the strong bayer artefacts the cropfile shows.
thanks...
Rainer:
I do see some coloration in the palmetto fronds. Applying a combination of the color noise removal tool and the moire removal tool eliminated nearly all of that coloration in the fronds. I still see a little pattern weirdness, but it's possible that there was some wind producing movement of the fronds.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Rainer:
I do see some coloration in the palmetto fronds. Applying a combination of the color noise removal tool and the moire removal tool eliminated nearly all of that coloration in the fronds. I still see a little pattern weirdness, but it's possible that there was some wind producing movement of the fronds.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
i am asking at first about the default "zero" sharpening in p1 sw. i havent handled any file with zero sharpening which accepted so little usm than this "unsharpened"
p30 file converted in p1. do you use in your algorythm some default usm or sharpening which is applied to phase backs only? and which let them appear sharper if you compare these files with other backs or the same file with other softwares? i dont have much other explanation than this, because its not logical that an unsharpened file cant be treated with usm in post anymore without looking strongly oversharpened.
my second point are the nyquist artefacts ( not so the color defects which are easy to soften but there are many of little crosses, patterns and stairsteps in zones where the sensor resolution is surpassed). clearly all backs without aa filters may show similar patterns, but they look very strong in the p30/p1 file.
my theory is that one thing ( default zero sharpening which seems to be everything but zero with the p30 file) hangs together with the other thing ( artefacts ).
-
i am asking at first about the default "zero" sharpening in p1 sw. i havent handled any file with zero sharpening which accepted so little usm than this "unsharpened"
p30 file converted in p1. do you use in your algorythm some default usm or sharpening which is applied to phase backs only? and which let them appear sharper if you compare these files with other backs or the same file with other softwares? i dont have much other explanation than this, because its not logical that an unsharpened file cant be treated with usm in post anymore without looking strongly oversharpened.
my second point are the nyquist artefacts ( not so the color defects which are easy to soften but there are many of little crosses, patterns and stairsteps in zones where the sensor resolution is surpassed). clearly all backs without aa filters may show similar patterns, but they look very strong in the p30/p1 file.
my theory is that one thing ( default zero sharpening which seems to be everything but zero with the p30 file) hangs together with the other thing ( artefacts ).
Rainer:
The "no sharpening" setting in C14.5 or the sharpening amount slider pushed all the way to the left is the least sharp you will see. In my experience, Sinar and Hasselblad raw files are at default least sharp, Leaf and Phase One files at default are sharper. I should point out that they "start" sharper with the setting set to no sharpening. I'm not saying because of this our files will wind up being sharper, simply referring to the beginning state itself. This has been the case with Phase One files going back quite a while.
I do see the little weird artifacts you're talking about. I'm not sure what they are, whether they are bayer artifacts, movement-produced artifacts, or it is possible something is not quite right with that particular unit. It almost appears as if there is a calibration error with the sensor calibration file itself. It looks similar to what I've seen with other DB's when there have been corrupted calibration files. Hard to say...
Steve hendrix
Phase One
-
Dear Steve,
Just to make things clear: Sinar does not apply ANY sharpening by default at any stage of the raws, but I think you know this. It is always a free user choice to sharpen or not, in the capture soft or later in CS or whatsoever.
Therefore, if the Sinar files look less sharp than Phase One files, or better said Phase One files look sharper than Sinar ones, that implies that there is some sharpening taking place somewhere with this Phase file.
Could you clarify this?
I have made the same experience, by sharpening PO files with a basic sharpening of 240/0.4, and it does simply look over-sharpened, as compared to Sinar files with the same settings.
Thanks for your time and best regards,
Thierry
The "no sharpening" setting in C14.5 or the sharpening amount slider pushed all the way to the left is the least sharp you will see. In my experience, Sinar and Hasselblad raw files are at default least sharp, Leaf and Phase One files at default are sharper. I should point out that they "start" sharper with the setting set to no sharpening.
Steve hendrix
Phase One
-
Dear Steve,
Just to make things clear: Sinar does not apply ANY sharpening by default at any stage of the raws, but I think you know this. It is always a free user choice to sharpen or not, in the capture soft or later in CS or whatsoever.
Therefore, if the Sinar files look less sharp than Phase One files, or better said Phase One files look sharper than Sinar ones, that implies that there is some sharpening taking place somewhere with this Phase file.
Could you clarify this?
I have made the same experience, by sharpening PO files with a basic sharpening of 240/0.4, and it does simply look over-sharpened, as compared to Sinar files with the same settings.
Thanks for your time and best regards,
Thierry
Um, I think I already did.
There is little to no sharpening applied in the base conversion algorithm with Sinar files, while Phase One does provide some amount of sharpening in the base conversion itself.
It might be added that at the actual raw capture stage, all digital capture devices have some sharpening in the mix (as well as a number of other elements). At least this has been my understanding as explained to me by several raw development programmers.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Steve,
Thanks and sorry, I just wanted to make sure I understood it right.
I confirm again: there is NO sharpening in Sinar RAW files, not even a little.
Best regards,
Thierry
Um, I think I already did.
There is little to no sharpening applied in the base conversion algorithm with Sinar files, while Phase One does provide some amount of sharpening in the base conversion itself.
It might be added that at the actual raw capture stage, all digital capture devices have some sharpening in the mix (as well as a number of other elements). At least this has been my understanding as explained to me by several raw development programmers.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
All,
I have just done some more testing in my comparison of Sony a900 and Hasselblad H1-P30. It is here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29934382 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29934382) . I compared a cheap "Beercan" zoom against the Hasselblad HC 150mm Prime. The Beercan needed some CA correction, but after correction there is very little if any difference in result. The raw files can be downloaded at the link.
==Doug
-
Hi!
I have checked out both images in LR 2.1. The observations I have made:
- I don't see the "halos" on the Hassy image that were visible on the original posting.
- I didn't see color fringing in the corner on the A 900 but a lot on the Hassy.
- The beercan seems to be sharper especially in the corners
- I see much more moiré on the Hassy than on the A900
I enclose a screendump from LR with "yellow/blue" fringing corrected on Hassy and no correction on the A900. No sharpening (amount = 0) on both.
[attachment=9504:Bild_9.jpg]
All,
I have just done some more testing in my comparison of Sony a900 and Hasselblad H1-P30. It is here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29934382 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29934382) . I compared a cheap "Beercan" zoom against the Hasselblad HC 150mm Prime. The Beercan needed some CA correction, but after correction there is very little if any difference in result. The raw files can be downloaded at the link.
==Doug
-
All,
I have just done some more testing in my comparison of Sony a900 and Hasselblad H1-P30. It is here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29934382 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29934382) . I compared a cheap "Beercan" zoom against the Hasselblad HC 150mm Prime. The Beercan needed some CA correction, but after correction there is very little if any difference in result. The raw files can be downloaded at the link.
==Doug
Please add to dpreview that it is H1 with P30. Because if sombody read "Hasselblad" think H3DII...
Thank you
Design Freak
-------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
-------------------------------------
-
Furthermore. I consider the 150 the weakest lens of the HC lenses right after the 80 (the 80 is the weakest). At least of all the HC lenses I own these 2 have the least performance. The 150 has excellent AF speed though (for MF standards that is ).
Having said that I think the Sony has great performance but we already knew the 24MP DSLR's are great tools.
-
Rainer:
I do see the little weird artifacts you're talking about. I'm not sure what they are, whether they are bayer artifacts, movement-produced artifacts, or it is possible something is not quite right with that particular unit. It almost appears as if there is a calibration error with the sensor calibration file itself. It looks similar to what I've seen with other DB's when there have been corrupted calibration files. Hard to say...
Steve hendrix
Phase One
well, i studied various bayer artefact patterns in the past and for me they look like. ofcourse they jump into the eye more for the already applied
sharpening. no idea how a calibration file could affect this, and for sure its not blur or movement.
one word about "default" sharpening. i understand that this is a nice marketing thing cause your files look sharper
in direct comparision. further there is no problem with this way of konverting as long you dont uprez the images by much.
but if you do it can be very difficult to start with an already sharpened file, more so because the applied sharpening in C1
at 0setting is not so little. i do this quite often ( uprezzing ) and starting with sharpened files i cant avoid to run into stairstepping
issues and other artefacts, which are nearly impossibler to hide at big sizes. also blurring the (bayer?)artefacts becomes very visible
in this case, they would be much softer if starting with unsharpened files.
there is a reason why many people suggest to sharpen files at the end of the chain.
-
Thanks for the link.
Interesting results indeed, the A900 can now be had at 2500 US$ in Tokyo...
If Nikon doens't announce something interesting before the end of November, I will probably become a Sony user soon... that would be as an addition to my Nikon set up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Furthermore. I consider the 150 the weakest lens of the HC lenses right after the 80 (the 80 is the weakest). At least of all the HC lenses I own these 2 have the least performance. The 150 has excellent AF speed though (for MF standards that is ).
Having said that I think the Sony has great performance but we already knew the 24MP DSLR's are great tools.
True, but keep in mind that this test is done with a 20+ year old Minolta lens that goes for <$250 on ebay. The Sony ZA 135mm 1.8 or 70-200mm 2.8 would probably blow that old Minolta "beercan" lens out of the water.
-
Bernard,
I was in the same position as you since I owned a bunch of Nikon lenses. But even if Nikon anounces at the end of November, it may still be months before you can actually buy it. In the meantime, the a900 is already in the price reduction cycle, and I'm sure Sony is hard at work on the 48 mpixel sensor for the next model. Right now I am testing my Nikon lenses on the a900 using a Nikon to A-mount adapter. You loose AE and AF, but the resolution doesn't look bad so far. In any case it is not expensive to load up on a collection of Sony A-mount lenses if you buy the older Minolta lenses. These seem excellent so far, and are very affordable on eBay. I did buy two Zeiss lenses, but I'm having a hard time finding any advantage to them. In fact, my CZ 24-70mm f2.8 lens is both overweight and overpriced compared to Minolta 24-105mm f3.5-4.5. I can't see (or hear) any difference in focus performance.
==Doug
Thanks for the link.
Interesting results indeed, the A900 can now be had at 2500 US$ in Tokyo...
If Nikon doens't announce something interesting before the end of November, I will probably become a Sony user soon... that would be as an addition to my Nikon set up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
there is no problem with this way of konverting as long you dont uprez the images by much.
but if you do it can be very difficult to start with an already sharpened file, more so because the applied sharpening in C1
at 0setting is not so little. i do this quite often ( uprezzing ) and starting with sharpened files i cant avoid to run into stairstepping
issues and other artefacts, which are nearly impossibler to hide at big sizes.
Hi Rainer,
very true!
But...
If there is some default sharpening in Capture One for Phase files (and there might be some) it's quite well balanced. At least for sensors without microlenses.
Attached a comparision of a P45 file crop in Capture One and ACR.
With ACR I just don't get the same details - even after sharpening (in Photoshop here with the values you proposed above and without noise reduction).
The C1 file is slightly sharper but at the same time has more details so looks more filigreed.
And on the other hand I can't see C1 pushes artifacts of my P45 files; sole thing is moiree but I repair only the affected parts on layers in Photoshop so this works quite well (though takes time).
I do a lot of upscaling, too (about 300% or so depending on the image). But files out of C1 are still "smooth" enough for upscaling without significant artifacts.
Starting with the same file out of ACR... I end up with squashy images and sharpening afterwards (even with sophisticated procedures) can't bring back the details C1 produces from the very beginning.
So... might be different with files from microlenses sensors but for those without I can't note problems with C1 even when upscaling.
Best Regards,
Thomas
[attachment=9734:c1_acr.jpg]
-
Bernard,
I was in the same position as you since I owned a bunch of Nikon lenses. But even if Nikon anounces at the end of November, it may still be months before you can actually buy it.
Which would be OK in fact. I am getting excellent results from my D3 and stitching has become a second nature, I could wait until mid February.
I am not sure that it would take months until availability though. Nikon has been much better with this recently and both the D700 and D90 were available for purchase within 3 weeks of announcement. Most Japanese employees get a significant bonus on Dec 25th, and my bet would be that Nikon would be targetting availability around mid December... that is of course if something significant is announced on Nov 20th.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
besides all responds: I've been there durning this test. all the results you have to split by yourself. The mamiya back is an old demo, overheated (you can it clearly see on ISO400) and the raws were developed by photoshop, not a mamiya digital studio. hassy? forget it - all the time problems with software, monits "pull out the cable", "remove the lens", "remove the battery". damn, one of the worst cameras i've ever have. and one more thing: people who made and published this article, are sony alpha's fans. what can i add? if you have any other questions about this test: please feel free to ask.
-
That was clear from day one i saw this test ( the part that they were sony enthusiasts). i never got the part how it would be possible that a mediocre sensor builder got the best chip ever made, supposedly better than the canon cmos.... and even better than anything available on the MF marked. Until now I haven't seen anything from canon or nikon that delivers images of a quality that surpasses my old leaf Cantare or other 6Mp from last millenium. Yes they are faster, portable, higher iso etc but they never deliver a cleaner image like file as from even the oldest MF backs. It is like people are in a smoke of some good hashes or other overwhelming narcotic.
-
besides all responds: I've been there durning this test. all the results you have to split by yourself. The mamiya back is an old demo, overheated (you can it clearly see on ISO400) and the raws were developed by photoshop, not a mamiya digital studio. hassy? forget it - all the time problems with software, monits "pull out the cable", "remove the lens", "remove the battery". damn, one of the worst cameras i've ever have. and one more thing: people who made and published this article, are sony alpha's fans. what can i add? if you have any other questions about this test: please feel free to ask.
Hello Krystian,
I have some questions about Hasselblad H3DII39:
What kind of computer was used during the test? MAC or PC? Flexcolor or Phocus? (version) Why they export files to dng? They use graycard to whitebalance or not? Anybody work with this camera ever? I ask because, I think that I know what happen.
I don't understand why photographer compare DOF between MFDB and A900 ( a900 had f16 Mamiya and Hassy had f11) If we get 8"x 10" camera with f11 and compare to MF we will get different DOF, but who want to do this if everybody know that DOF is different in different type of cameras (35mm, MF, LF). It's pure mathematic.
Br
Design Freak
--------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
--------------------------------------
-
Hi Freak
In studio it was Sony Vaio, with Phocus installed. Add the files went o dng, to open them the same way in photoshop. Not all the time, but we're working with sekonic c-500 colormeter. I did not process this files, so don't know to much since we've left the studio. It was the first touch of the author with digital hassie and mamiya (what about the phocus, we've got it installed on computer by one of the hassie tech guys).
I've no idea why he mentoned dof, also few other things. My personal opinion about this confrontation is different than the authors conslusion, but well - i didn't write that.
Hello Krystian,
I have some questions about Hasselblad H3DII39:
What kind of computer was used during the test? MAC or PC? Flexcolor or Phocus? (version) Why they export files to dng? They use graycard to whitebalance or not? Anybody work with this camera ever? I ask because, I think that I know what happen.
I don't understand why photographer compare DOF between MFDB and A900 ( a900 had f16 Mamiya and Hassy had f11) If we get 8"x 10" camera with f11 and compare to MF we will get different DOF, but who want to do this if everybody know that DOF is different in different type of cameras (35mm, MF, LF). It's pure mathematic.
Br
Design Freak
--------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
--------------------------------------
-
In studio it was Sony Vaio, with Phocus installed. (what about the phocus, we've got it installed on computer by one of the hassie tech guys).
Er, Phocus is not yet released for pc and Sony Vaio is not a Mac. Are you saying the "hassie tech guys" installed a pc version of Phocus on the Sony? Were they really employees of Hasselblad (if so, any chance of names as I know a few people there) or simply "techs" claiming some specialist Hasselbled knowledge. Sorry if this sounds accusing but some bits just don't add up.
-
Er, Phocus is not yet released for pc and Sony Vaio is not a Mac. Are you saying the "hassie tech guys" installed a pc version of Phocus on the Sony? Were they really employees of Hasselblad (if so, any chance of names as I know a few people there) or simply "techs" claiming some specialist Hasselbled knowledge. Sorry if this sounds accusing but some bits just don't add up.
Also, as we learned in another thread, Phocus is required for DNG export, and the DAC mods cannot be applied (possibly unless Flex was used?), so you were not getting max quality from the Hasselblad.
-
Thanks Krystian,
So it was PC ( Flexcolor)
Now I am 100% sure what happened. The camera was borrowed from our company. Uploaded was the latest firmware in this camera. The photographer has used the Flexcolor, which uses an earlier version of the firmware. This explains the problems with the hardware.In the test, we read that delaying the shutter is so great that makes it impossible to work with this camera. The delay time can be set in the camera, it is important to eliminate vibration and obtain a sharp photographs of the hand with longer exposure times. Our company borrow the equipment a few years, so we were surprised by reading this test. Article certainly sponsored by Sony. May be cheap but effective way to the advert. Too bad that does not told for what purpose the equipment is rented. Help our company would be obvious.
Best regards,
Design Freak
--------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
--------------------------------------
-
Thanks Krystian,
So it was PC ( Flexcolor)
Now I am 100% sure what happened. The camera was borrowed from our company. Uploaded was the latest firmware in this camera. The photographer has used the Flexcolor, which uses an earlier version of the firmware. This explains the problems with the hardware.In the test, we read that delaying the shutter is so great that makes it impossible to work with this camera. The delay time can be set in the camera, it is important to eliminate vibration and obtain a sharp photographs of the hand with longer exposure times. Our company borrow the equipment a few years, so we were surprised by reading this test. Article certainly sponsored by Sony. May be cheap but effective way to the advert. Too bad that does not told for what purpose the equipment is rented. Help our company would be obvious.
Best regards,
Design Freak
--------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
--------------------------------------
Hey just a heads up, but one shouldn't disparage another company, i.e., by declaring that Sony sponsored the obviously flawed and biased test. In the US its called Unfair Competition. It has a different name in the EU, but most definately exists.
-
Very [possible, thanks for clearing it up. Hassie is not my system, i prefer mamiya so i don't know it very well but in fact they should if're making tests like this.
Article certainly sponsored by Sony.
Known from the first read.
-
Hey just a heads up, but one shouldn't disparage another company, i.e., by declaring that Sony sponsored the obviously flawed and biased test. In the US its called Unfair Competition. It has a different name in the EU, but most definately exists.
And what can think after reading such a test? Text wrote Sony Ambassador ( A Polish film, photographer, journalist and television producer. Honorary Ambassador of Sony. )
Unfair competition is the creation of such articles. Of course, these articles raise a number of noise, which probably was the intention of the author. There is no cheaper ads. Why are we doing tests? To provide equipment, pass straight Information for people who wish to select the equipment or want to get information about it. Unfortunately, this article is not.
I do not think that the Sony A900 is a bad camera. On the contrary, it is good equipment such as its price.
I do not like the way in which this was presented. To carry out the test by people who saw the equipment the first time in the reports as Krystian, is unfair. (MFDB) All this is simply sad.
Best regards,
Design Freak
--------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
--------------------------------------
-
A month ago I had i chance to play with sony A900, I made few shot of the same scene with Sony and my Canon 1DSmk3, my conclusion is that much more details in canons files.I didnt even try to compare with files fom my hasselblad and phase one setup as they are proven winner over the canons files.
All I can say about this topic is funny
-
The funny part to me is that even respected photographers are looking for evidence that a toycam could be as good as a MFDB. It's like as if Sony has found the Holy Grail. I don't think so and they will never do that.
-
The funny part to me is that even respected photographers are looking for evidence that a toycam could be as good as a MFDB. It's like as if Sony has found the Holy Grail. I don't think so and they will never do that.
I find most of these conversations amusing. So many great photographs shot for decades by amazing photographers have been shot with every kind of format imaginable, from polaroid, to holgas, 8x10 Sinars to old wobbly deardorfs, nikon FM's and leicaflex's.
In fact I think people here would be quite surprised at the number of photographer's whose work they cherish are shooting with film and rzs, blads, rollei's, some are still working in large formats.
and though film does have a specific look, it's still got huge clumps of "noise" and is not the easiest workflow in the world, especially when you put it into the digital domain.
I also know that none of these photographers would waste ten minutes discussing the merits of pixel pitch, file size, dr, software, or workflows.
can you imagine avedon, guy Bourdin, helmet newton sitting around a computer talking about which camera was better, the nikon or the hasselblad, the sony or the canon, or which software was better c-1 or lightroom.
in fact if those photographers started their careers today I doubt seriously if the sony or the hasselblad would make that much difference in their final look.
I've just finished a 7 week project, carrying canons, nikons, phase and leicas and used them all for different reasons. none were bad, it's just some were better in certain situations than others.
most of the project was shot with canons because they are kind of the intermediate step between the high iso Nikons and the high pixel count phase, but none are perfect and given my wishes, the perfect camera for me would be the 31mpx detail of the phase, the file look of a leaf in photoshop, the iso of the Nikons and the skin tones of the Canons all in the size of a leica m8.
even if that camera existed today for $45, I am sure this forum would light up with brand loyalists claiming it isn't as good as the new whatever or could never be printed larger than 4" across because it didn't have enough megpixels, dynamic range or bit depth.
in fact the camera i used the most was the camera that gave the best look in the computer or on the camera lcd as the first and only thing I want a client to say is wow.
honestly, the first thing I want to say is wow, the second is the client's reaction.
personally I hope Sony becomes another big player and pushes everyone to make better cameras. we have nothing to lose from this.
I'm beyond brand loyalty in the digital world. I really don't think it's possible to say you are only going to shoot with one camera or only going to work with one raw processor. that would be like shooting with only one film or lens. some people can do it, but in the paying world few can.
our industry is changing, some of it for the better as we get to see the image immediately, some worse as we lose some spontaneity shooting for committees huddled around computers, but the only thing that is important in photography is the photograph.
we've become such a brand conscience society that I wonder why it is so important that anyone know what camera you use in the first place. maybe I'm missing something but the camera companies I have dealt with are not tossing out big bucks or even giving complete creative freedom unless it exactly fits thier brand, so in my mind all of these associations may be a good way to raise your google rating, but doesn't mean much to the people that hire you. the camera companies push their brands and if using your name helps them your in the headline, if it doesn't then your in 10pt body copy.
do you really think a client knows the difference between a phase, sinar, or leaf digital back. in fact the client that requests you use a specific back is probably the client you don't want to know, because next they are going to start cropping heads off of full length images and that doesn't do much for your career.
the only camera announcement I've seen in 15 years that sounds really breakthrough is the red. why so many people on this forum are against the concept is beyond me. everyone keeps asking modular, upgradable systems that shoot faster and are equal in versatility to the dslrs and it seems red understands that. whether it works or not in my view red should be praised for being brave enough to break the mold.
http://www.mergegroup.com/related-stuff/20...blown-away.html (http://www.mergegroup.com/related-stuff/2008/11/13/get-ready-to-be-blown-away.html)
actually all of america should be jumping up and down with joy over the red, because last time I read the business section of the NYT it didn't seem like anything is made in the u.s. anymore.
I don't think for a moment that the world is going to change the moment the new red cameras appear. still photography has to be shot like stills, motion like motion, but if the red allows the ability to use one system for both, then I might be able to carry one system rather than 2 or 3 or 4. then again maybe the visual world will change because there are some very brilliant and talented people with open minds that can see how mixing motion with amazingly detailed stills can captivate.
maybe none of this will come to pass and we'll all keep shooting our legacy film cameras stuck with digital sensors in them, waiting for the next incremental upgrade. I do know that I'm not sitting here waiting for my leather NASCAR jacket with 12 camera logos on them and fully expect the moment I put down the cash for the red or any new camera I'll pay retail.
-
Ok, which RAW-converter have you used?
Erik
A month ago I had i chance to play with sony A900, I made few shot of the same scene with Sony and my Canon 1DSmk3, my conclusion is that much more details in canons files.I didnt even try to compare with files fom my hasselblad and phase one setup as they are proven winner over the canons files.
All I can say about this topic is funny
-
A month ago I had i chance to play with sony A900, I made few shot of the same scene with Sony and my Canon 1DSmk3, my conclusion is that much more details in canons files.I didnt even try to compare with files fom my hasselblad and phase one setup as they are proven winner over the canons files.
All I can say about this topic is funny
Indeed, the comparisons I have seen show that the Canon 1Ds3 has more detail and the files are sharper than the Sony's. Though the appear to be very close. And the Canon apparently has far less noise at ISOs higher than 200.
-
can you imagine avedon, guy Bourdin, helmet newton sitting around a computer talking about which camera was better, the nikon or the hasselblad, the sony or the canon, or which software was better c-1 or lightroom.
No....but I can imagine Ansel Adams doing so.
-
the only camera announcement I've seen in 15 years that sounds really breakthrough is the red. why so many people on this forum are against the concept is beyond me. everyone keeps asking modular, upgradable systems that shoot faster and are equal in versatility to the dslrs and it seems red understands that. whether it works or not in my view red should be praised for being brave enough to break the mold.
http://www.mergegroup.com/related-stuff/20...blown-away.html (http://www.mergegroup.com/related-stuff/2008/11/13/get-ready-to-be-blown-away.html)
actually all of america should be jumping up and down with joy over the red, because last time I read the business section of the NYT it didn't seem like anything is made in the u.s. anymore.
I think your post was very clever until this point.
There are many reasons why people don't like the red one. Me being one of them, I simply don't see the revolution for what I do.
There is a big group of photogs here saying they'd buy a red one at any time. How many of them has some kind of video on their websites or offer video services? 1%. But the RED looks cool to them (personally I think it looks like a Transformer robot) and the idea of owning one is tempting. But a video camera (that's what the red is) is not a photo camera and this one isn't cheap either.
Let's see how many of you actually bought one in 5 years from now.
Regards.
-
I think your post was very clever until this point.
There are many reasons why people don't like the red one. Me being one of them, I simply don't see the revolution for what I do.
There is a big group of photogs here saying they'd buy a red one at any time. How many of them has some kind of video on their websites or offer video services? 1%. But the RED looks cool to them (personally I think it looks like a Transformer robot) and the idea of owning one is tempting. But a video camera (that's what the red is) is not a photo camera and this one isn't cheap either.
Let's see how many of you actually bought one in 5 years from now.
Regards.
actually I shoot motion in parallel and direct motion in stand alone videos so I might not be the best example of the red, or maybe I am the example, who knows.
but I was not mentioning the red for it's video capabilties other than it's high frame rate and it's modular system. I agree it does look somewhat transformerish, but I haven't seen too many new medium format cameras that I find as pretty as the film counterparts. I also like the red for it's lcd viewfinder (if it works) because I find optical viewfinders in the digital world to be challanged. The H-1 and I'm told the HY6 prism bends and even the canons and nikons do not show an accurate view of dof compared to the final file.
I've also focused a lot of high def video cameras through various monitors; large field, on camera and battery powered high def lcds and they focus as well as any optical finder I've used for digital capture.
regardless I applaud red for the attempt and for maybe waking/shaking up the industry. since the start of digital capture we've been handed incremental upgrades that move glacier slow and I have little doubt given red's history of sales with their original motion camera that they won't have success in the professional still camera market.
time will tell, but in the end of the day it really doesn't matter. photographers will use what they want until the market demands they change.
though in regards to adding motion to a still photographer's repertoire I can see that coming faster than most want to admit. all reports say canon's 5dII is the most preordered dslr in history.
-
all reports say canon's 5dII is the most preordered dslr in history.
Thinking of that 5DII video function, I'm not sure why this comes to mind:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/yout...hallenges_users (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/youtube_contest_challenges_users)
-
Erik
One of my close friends has a camera shop, i went there to get some tripods for my studio and he told me that they get new camera in the shop,Sony A900. He insisted to do some shot to compare with Canon 1dsMk3. We couldn't use the same raw covertor for both files since lightroom which we had couldn't open Sony files, he installed software for Sony i don't remeber the name of it. we try to squeezed most from both files during conversion and result is that canon is clear winner , more sharp, much more details in dark area etc, that's my personal opinion, and i think i have enough experience with high end photo equipment.
Also i know very well what hasselblad can produce. I don't have phase one p30+ back, but i do own P25 and P45+. All my friends are speechless when they see a difference with any of 35mm cameras. Personally i would be very happy to get quality of MFDB for 3000E what is the price for Sony. I will not post anymore on this topic as I said on previous post this is FUNNY. Anyone who used Hasselblad knows what im talking about.
Canon G10 has a 15 mp almost the same as Canon 1DSmk2, many G10 owners would be very happy to hear they have camera which is similar to 1dsmk2, but its not just about number of pixels isn't it
-
Thinking of that 5DII video function, I'm not sure why this comes to mind:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/yout...hallenges_users (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/youtube_contest_challenges_users)
that's pretty funny and I agree, better cameras won't make anyone more creative, in still or motion.
but for the next 18 months there is this to consider;
http://tinyurl.com/5p5n3e (http://tinyurl.com/5p5n3e)
and when you think about it, as photographers how do you advertise. is your effort and visibility in print or is it mostly in web/interactive.
something to think about.
but then you go to this http://creativity-online.com/work/view?seed=22f4c7ac (http://creativity-online.com/work/view?seed=22f4c7ac) and you wonder if his work starts in medium format, 35mm, his cell phone or screen grabs.
-
An informal test by a working photographer of the 3 cameras.
See http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...sl=pl&tl=en (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swiatobrazu.pl%2F_i_stanely_naprzeciw_siebie_hasselblad_h3_mamiya_afdiii_sony_alpha_900__test_por.html%2C3&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=pl&tl=en)
Full resolution 16 bit TIF's are available for download. 100-240MB each!
I'll let the shots speak for themselves....
Well.. reading the article in Polish, its smells of being a Sony ad
In my Warsaw apartment I happen to have two cameras laying around :
If anyone is interested I can take a couple of photos with both for another comparison. But of course its totally different cameras, for different uses.
Svein Erik
-
I find most of these conversations amusing. So many great photographs shot for decades by amazing photographers have been shot with every kind of format imaginable, from polaroid, to holgas, 8x10 Sinars to old wobbly deardorfs, nikon FM's and leicaflex's.
I also know that none of these photographers would waste ten minutes discussing the merits of pixel pitch, file size, dr, software, or workflows.
can you imagine avedon, guy Bourdin, helmet newton sitting around a computer talking about which camera was better, the nikon or the hasselblad, the sony or the canon, or which software was better c-1 or lightroom.
in fact if those photographers started their careers today I doubt seriously if the sony or the hasselblad would make that much difference in their final look.
Sure they did/would. Anyone who is obsessed about the quality of their own work will try to improve every part of their chain of production. Not just what camera, lenses, RAW converter etc, but also what people to work with, models, makeup, retouching, post production, lighting, posing, communication, project planning and mental preparations etc. Few people just grab some camera and produce masterpieces.
I could probably produce the same "photo" with most of my cameras (as long as there is not some special characteristics of the camera/lens needed such as super high res, view camera tilting etc), but they are all really different tools for different situations.
-
Indeed, the comparisons I have seen show that the Canon 1Ds3 has more detail and the files are sharper than the Sony's. Though the appear to be very close. And the Canon apparently has far less noise at ISOs higher than 200.
The comparisons I have seen show much more measurable detail with the Sony and comparable noise in RAW using a good convertor (note, ACR and Sony's own IDC software are lousy with the Alpha cameras, including the Alpha 900).
I'm very curious, where did you see a comparison showing higher resolution from the 1DsIII?
-
It's like as if Sony has found the Holy Grail. I don't think so and they will never do that.
I wouldn't bet again Sony Semi-condictors as far as applied research capability is concerned. They have significantly more muscle to bend that the 2 medium format sensor manufacturers. The only thing that might save Kodak and Dalsa is the lack of interest of Sony for larger sensor, but in pure technological terms, I wouldn't bet a cent on their ability to develop new sensor technology faster than Sony. As a banker I would also not lend them a cent for such research knowing the tiny size of the market they have been locking themselves in.
We have come at a point where only a breakthrough can really change the game with sensors. Those breakthrough cost billions of $ in research and developement, and Sony is probably one of the very few companies on earth with the ability do deliver.
Just look at what happened in the high end engineering graphic cards market...
Cheers,
Bernard