Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: lisa_r on February 03, 2009, 09:38:21 am
-
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...d3)/Phase%20One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/301|0/(appareil2)/287|0/(appareil3)/304|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Hasselblad/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Phase%20One)
Here are some DR results for the a900, 5D2, P45+
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...d3)/Phase%20One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/265|0/(appareil2)/292|0/(appareil3)/304|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Sony/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Phase%20One)
-
I'm sure the numbers are right, but my experience and my daily work do not accept this... As Michael wrote, one thing is the test and one thing is the experience...
Oh they have to take my Phase back from my dead cold hands!
-
Look at the DXOMark numbers for Aptus 75s, P45+ and Canon 5DII. It has the Canon with higher dynamic range (actual number of stops). That's the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever seen.
I don't use these camera side by side, but when I shot a Phase p 30 (I think) and the 1Ds3 in a controlled test with strobes in the studio last fall, I did not see any appreciable difference in DR. This was shooting RAW and trying various converters. Even hunting around in shadows and using + exposure looking at the "shadow detail", there was very little difference in detail. The Canon did show more noise when boosting the shadows 2 or more stops looking for differences. Though I have never shot in image in real life where I have had to boost shadows by two or more stops.
The highlights seemed to clip right around the same point too, showing not much difference in DR.
Other than that, I have not shot MF and current 35 systems side by side in any controlled manner...
-
Don't believe them, it's a conspiracy
-
I don't use these camera side by side, but when I shot a Phase p 30 (I think) and the 1Ds3 in a controlled test with strobes in the studio last fall, I did not see any appreciable difference in DR. This was shooting RAW and trying various converters. Even hunting around in shadows and using + exposure looking at the "shadow detail", there was very little difference in detail. The Canon did show more noise when boosting the shadows 2 or more stops looking for differences. Though I have never shot in image in real life where I have had to boost shadows by two or more stops.
The highlights seemed to clip right around the same point too, showing not much difference in DR.
Other than that, I have not shot MF and current 35 systems side by side in any controlled manner...
I have shot most 35mm cameras next to medium format in a lot of real world productions and I don't think anything I see on the dxo site is that far from my own viewing.
As Michael says trust your eyes, but I think you can take this one step further (at least if you work in commerce or editorial for clients) and say trust your client's eyes, or even trust the viewers eyes, because if anyone sees any difference between the current line of high end dslrs to medium format will be seen more in the ability to capture the moment or get an image in focus than any pixel peeping comparision or lab tests.
In the end it really doesn't matter to the viewer what it was shot on if the image is compelling and it doesn't have an obvious flaw like missed focus or wildly out of range exposure.
Recently I shot a campaign where a woman is running out of a subway platform with heavy cross side light. I shot it with the Phase p30+ and a Canon 1dsIII and except for the different look in lens and AA filter I really could not see any appreciable difference in highlight to shadow.
In fact I shot some of this session with a Nikon D90 just because the focus sensor array covered more of the frame and when we put those d90 images in the computer on locaiton, I thought the d90 would really be awful compared to those other cameras. To a person, we were shocked at what a small difference there was expecally from the d90 to the Canon. Just nothing that noticeable and since more of the d90 images were in focus that ended up as the select.
Were talking about $900 cameras vs. $7,000 and $22,000 cameras and once again in the real world nobody noticed that much of a difference.
I'm not advocating everyone throw away their p45's or Leaf aptus and go buy a box ful of $900 cameras, but once again, in the real world this proved to me that medium grade consumer cameras have come a very long way and in fact have come much further than in a shorter amount of time than the high end specialty cameras.
In fact if a Leaf, Phase of Hasselblad had the lcd screen, shutter response, higher iso capability and focusing of a D90 it would be cause for massive celebration.
I work with one in house pre press manager that I think is probably the best pre press person in the world. He has written his own cmyk conversion and moved this retailer to a complete digital workflow and his group processes over half a million images a year that run on building sized posters in times square all the way down to instore, catalog, print advertising and the web and he will be the very first to tell you that anything over 20mpx is just not that noticeable once it gets through retouching and into print. In fact he would rather see a weeks shoot come to him from a dslr than from an medium format back because he sees less pattern moire usually more in focus images and finds the whole process of seeing a decent embedded preview for edititng to be a real benefit.
Then again if I was staring down half a million images a year, I would probably feel the same.
DXO labs or not what all of us know is for medium format to prosper they are going to have to up their game and offer more than just more megpixels. They really need to have a rethink on the whole process of how their cameras work in the real world and they are going to have to be positive that what they offer is more than 20% better image quality (whatever that means).
Still, and to be clear, I'm actually not advocating anything other than a compelling subject, beautiful lighting, a unique viewpoint is much more important than any chart comparing DR down to .003 of a difference or 5% more eyelash detail. Don't just trust your eyes on what you see at 200% on a computer screen but also trust your mind in knowing that the camera you used allowed you to shoot what you wanted.
I'm setting on an invesment of tens of thousands of dollars in digital backs and cameras and though they still have a use, I have to keep in mind that just because I bought them doesn't mean I have to always use them.
I actually find all of this amazing that so many photographers will go into a catatonic state if anyone dare say a Canon or Nikon performs better than a more expensive system, but instead of sticking there noses on a computer and comparing each pixel, I suggest step back and look at the image and in fact look at it the way you want your viewer to sees it.
In fact I would think that these are times to rejoice rather than condemn. I'm personally happy that lower costs cameras perform so well, but then again I care a lot more about the photograph that I do camera.
-
Based on some of their charts with P45+ data I have the impression that they tested a P45 non-plus camera.
The P45 is probably an ISOless back, and this is visible from the dynamic range and from the ISO sensitivity charts; however, the P45+ does have analog ISO gain.
EDIT: perhaps the Phase raw images are not supported by DxO and they have been using ACR. That would explain some issues, as ACR is mistreating the P45+ raw images.
-
In discussing the evaluation errors that DxO Mark introduces in measuring MF vs DSLR cameras, (Eyes vs. Numbers – which to believe? ) Michael said "DSLRs also apply a lot of noise reduction algorithms before storing the data." That's the first time I've ever heard of that. I thought RAW was raw, not processed in any way. Where does that info come from?
-
I noticed that they compared the absolute newest DSLRs against the 2006 era MF backs. I'm sure the MF sensors have gotten better with time too. But then again, Dxo only sells software for DSLRs, so I guess they need to make sure that DSLRs win.
-
In discussing the evaluation errors that DxO Mark introduces in measuring MF vs DSLR cameras, (Eyes vs. Numbers – which to believe? ) Michael said "DSLRs also apply a lot of noise reduction algorithms before storing the data." That's the first time I've ever heard of that. I thought RAW was raw, not processed in any way. Where does that info come from?
Do some reading of the technical literature.
A sensor is an analogue device. It produces a voltage varying by how much light hits each photo site. That voltage then needs to be converted to a digital signal. Virtually all sensor chips have some image processing done on chip, sometimes at the analogue stage, sometimes at the digital stage.
CCD chips produce more heat and consume more power than CMOS and therefore their designers prefer to move processing to the computer rather that having to have power hungry and heat producing ASICs on board. Also, by moving the primary noise reduction to post processing they provide the user with more control over the process (at least in theory), since much of the fixed pattern NR is done to the image prior to delinerarization and matrix decoding.
Michael
-
Could the low DxOMark Sensor scores be impacted by the generally low "Low-Light ISO" scores of these backs? I'm wondering if they generate the DxOMark Sensor score based off an average of the ISO sensitivity, SNR, Dynamic Range , tonal range, etc...?
-
Do some reading of the technical literature.
A sensor is an analogue device. It produces a voltage varying by how much light hits each photo site. That voltage then needs to be converted to a digital signal. Virtually all sensor chips have some image processing done on chip, sometimes at the analogue stage, sometimes at the digital stage.
CCD chips produce more heat and consume more power than CMOS and therefore their designers prefer to move processing to the computer rather that having to have power hungry and heat producing ASICs on board. Also, by moving the primary noise reduction to post processing they provide the user with more control over the process (at least in theory), since much of the fixed pattern NR is done to the image prior to delinerarization and matrix decoding.
Michael
Huh????
When you're taking measures to increase the S/N ratio in the analog domain this can hardly be called image processing (at least not anymore than an analogue sound amplifier using good quality capacitors vs bad quality ones can be said to do 'sound processing') not to mention noise reduction processing. Not doing that means you have to deal with a much dirtier signal in the digital domain. If you do noise processing you are really doing that after A/D conversion (which often takes place on the CMOS chip) and you're doing that in the digital domain.
Your last sentence sounds puzzling. What does user control have to do with NR being done prior to demosaicing?. There are theoretical benefits in doing noise reduction before demosaicing (you're getting cleaner data to demosaic thus you get more accurate demosaicing results) but what does it have to do with user control?
Also, are you suggesting that Nikon (for example) is doing noise reduction in the digital domain in camera prior to committing to raw now that they use CMOS while they were not doing that just 1 or 2 years ago when using CCD?
Could you point me to the technical literature that proves the dSLR manufacturers perform noise reduction (by definition in the digital domain) before committing to raw? Can they do that? Of course they can. Do they do that? I suspect that no one allowed to say knows, so I would be (pleasantly) surprised if this info exists in any technical literature in the public domain. *
You keep on maintaining both in your essay and in various threads that comparing the raw output of dSLRs vs the raw output of MFDBs puts the MFDBs at a disadvantage. You might have a point but I'm not sure what it is and I have yet to be convinced by your arguments. You either compare raw or compare the demosaiced results and there you have to cater for the intricacies of the raw converter. That's the same for all cameras. Noise results of the Nikons (for example) are better when using some NR in raw conversion and with Nikon's raw converter you are getting additional benefits like automatic CA control. Why is this any different from what MFDBs do with their proprietary raw conversion escapes my understanding.
I'm sorry to say this but it sounds a bit like you're parroting something some person working for an MFDB manufacturer told you without you really understanding what he was talking about. Either that or it was just marketing talk. I really hope I'm wrong.
I feel utterly confused....
*PS Thanks to Gabor (panokeeper) who reminded me that Sony are doing this with their A700 / A900, which caused a big fuss in the internet, but thankfully nowdays this can be turned completely off.
-
I think the overall score is just about useless. Look at the various data parameters, use the cameras and draw your own conclusions.
Could the low DxOMark Sensor scores be impacted by the generally low "Low-Light ISO" scores of these backs? I'm wondering if they generate the DxOMark Sensor score based off an average of the ISO sensitivity, SNR, Dynamic Range , tonal range, etc...?
As to the above statement, I think "generally Low-Light ISO scores" are indeed very important, and should drag a score down if you care about scores. In my experience, just about any modern camera can make a pretty picture with enough controlled light/strobes. It's when the light gets low that you really need a camera with great tricks - good mannered in the dark in terms of IQ, and with good low-light AF.
-
Do some reading of the technical literature.
A sensor is an analogue device. It produces a voltage varying by how much light hits each photo site. That voltage then needs to be converted to a digital signal. Virtually all sensor chips have some image processing done on chip, sometimes at the analogue stage, sometimes at the digital stage.
CCD chips produce more heat and consume more power than CMOS and therefore their designers prefer to move processing to the computer rather that having to have power hungry and heat producing ASICs on board. Also, by moving the primary noise reduction to post processing they provide the user with more control over the process (at least in theory), since much of the fixed pattern NR is done to the image prior to delinerarization and matrix decoding.
Michael
what you say is true of the previous (three year old) CCD sensor generation. today's CCDs (H3DII 50, P65, Aptus A10..) consume much less power and produce much less heat then the old ones, not even one order of magnitude more than CMOS.
also, most of the on-board noise reduction is better than what 99.9% of the users can do 'manually' by running noise ninja etc. one has to be very sophisticated if one wants to beat it, certainly tuning a few parameters in a standard commercial software does not do it. MF back producer also use your argument of maximizing control for the user's benefit, but most users (including 99.9999999999999999% of professional photographers) would be better of without it.
on a sideline, those DXO people are super sophisticated (i know what i am talking about here) and i do believe their measurements without restrictions. as michael says in his article, measured numbers have to be taken relatively to human perceptional
constraints but this is a triviality anyway.
peter
-
Look at the DXOMark numbers for Aptus 75s, P45+ and Canon 5DII. It has the Canon with higher dynamic range (actual number of stops). That's the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever seen.
I agree John.
Plugging in some cameras I have owned reveals obvious deficiencies in DxO;s numbers;
D200 + ZD + Aptus 65 (theirs 75S, same identical performance)
= shows D200 higher DR than both ZD and Aptus Gee wiz, why did I not like the D200 or ZD but find Aptus to yield MUCH more improved image quality on all counts?? I would even say better ISO than D200... D200 files simply falls apart in comparison. D200 files also falls apart in DR compared to ZD...
or...
plug in G9 ... whee... the little G9 near same DR...
It is very obvious the numbers are flawed or they have no idea how to do proper scientific testing. I would have thought DxO was reputable... guess not.
Regards
Anders
-
DXO has no credibility at all ... without any interest for me
-
Galileo Galilei was talking bull because anybody could see the sun is circling the earth.
-
Huh????
Could you point me to the technical literature that proves the dSLR manufacturers perform noise reduction (by definition in the digital domain) before committing to raw? Can they do that? Of course they can. Do they do that? I suspect that no one allowed to say knows, so I would be (pleasantly) surprised if this info exists in any technical literature in the public domain.
The Canon CMOS White Paper (http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/White%20Papers/Canon_CMOS_WP.pdf) describes Canon's on chip noise reduction (see Noise Issues, page 17 of the PDF). One should remember that the output of a CMOS chip is bits (digital), whereas the output of a CCD chip is voltage (Dalsa Paper (http://www.dalsa.com/corp/markets/CCD_vs_CMOS.aspx)). The output of a pixel in CMOS is voltage while the output of a pixel in CCD is an electron packet. Both of these outputs could be manipulated in the analog domain on chip.
Since CMOS chips have a digital output, any processing of data outside of the chip would have to be in the digital domain. Some NR is done on the chip, but further NR could be done to the raw data before it is written to the memory chip. It is difficult get this information out of the camera makers.
Bill
-
DXO has no credibility at all ... without any interest for me
Then I would say that your thought process is irrational and unscientific. If you read their web site, you will see that those fellows are quite adept technically. Dynamic range involves two measurements: the maximal and minimal useful signals. Their dynamic range measurements at the low end assume a signal:noise of 1. Now a S:N of one will not give a very good image and a decent photo should have at least a S:N of 10. A Nikon D3 may have a higher S:N than the 45 MP medium format camera, but the 45 MP camera has many more pixels and the noise will be much finer grained and less objectionable. Read here (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/More-pixels-offsets-noise) on the DXO site. Noise has character as well as quality, and some of these characteristics can be expressed as a frequency spectrum. However, ultimately the how much noise in the shadows is acceptable for a photographically useful DR calculation has to do with perception and is rather subjective. Here is where you need to supplement the numbers with observation and judgment, but don't argue with the scientific technique.
Bill
-
Some very impressive D3x landscapes:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30863275 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30863275)
-
The Canon CMOS White Paper (http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/White%20Papers/Canon_CMOS_WP.pdf) describes Canon's on chip noise reduction (see Noise Issues, page 17 of the PDF). One should remember that the output of a CMOS chip is bits (digital), whereas the output of a CCD chip is voltage (Dalsa Paper (http://www.dalsa.com/corp/markets/CCD_vs_CMOS.aspx)). The output of a pixel in CMOS is voltage while the output of a pixel in CCD is an electron packet. Both of these outputs could be manipulated in the analog domain on chip.
Since CMOS chips have a digital output, any processing of data outside of the chip would have to be in the digital domain. Some NR is done on the chip, but further NR could be done to the raw data before it is written to the memory chip. It is difficult get this information out of the camera makers.
Bill
Thank you. What is done on chip is no noise reduction in the sense that every photographer understands it and is done in the analog domain. It is noise avoidance or removal however you want to put it, and is at the photosite level. Must be done for all CMOS, no need to be done for CCD and cannot be done in post in the raw converter.
Panokeeper describes this succintly in another thread and I'm not going to go about repeating the same things here. http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....40&start=40 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31741&st=40&start=40)
Yes, noise reduction in the classic resolution robbing sense, can be done in camera prior to writing out raw. Sony has been doing that and that created a big fuss on the internet. Now this can be switched off by the user and I believe that DxO where not stupid enough to leave it on when testing.
I'm sure MFDB marketing talk has misled Michael in believing that the raw output is not comparable. MFDB raw can be noise reduced in the raw converter in the same way dSLR raw can be noise reduced in the raw converter. I fail to see any difference.
( Also, not all CMOS chips have digital output, it depends whether one chooses to have on chip ADCs and whether one uses the on chip ADCs rather than external ones. But this is of no consequence to what we are discussing)
-
I noticed that they compared the absolute newest DSLRs against the 2006 era MF backs. I'm sure the MF sensors have gotten better with time too. But then again, Dxo only sells software for DSLRs, so I guess they need to make sure that DSLRs win.
How would their sales be negatively affected if the MFDB won? What % of their potential customer would buy a back do you think?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ok, maybe DxO is right about sensors... They have measured them in studio situation, with tables and test chart, but what about the AA filters? Did they test the sharpness of a digital back against a Nikon or a Canon or whatever? What about the possibility of using the full range of digital lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider?
-
The old stuff yet again... To me it's very simple: I can't see much, if any, difference between P45+, H3D 39mk2, Canon 1DS3, Canon 5D2, Nikon D3x at print sizes up to about A2. BUT after that a really clear difference becomes apparent. The MFDB, whether Leaf, Hass or Phase all hold up much better. It's not hard to see why: if you have more pixels they can be blown up more.
I'm currently doing some stuff for an architect. He specified that his practice wants big prints for their office and he wants them to look good close up. No problem: I use MFD. If I use DSLR then I can go look elsewhere for work because my shots won't compare to the shots he already has on his wall. I know because I've done the comparison many times for my own decision-making process. I didn't want to spend an obscene amount of money for another camera system - I had no choice, if I want that level of work.
Please don't say that if you get DSLR exposure, etc just right it can be blown up to match MFD. It can't. Of course, there other reasons for working with a DSLR, eg high ISO needs, speed of taking shots, etc but if its big prints viewed fairly close you want (not billboards viewed from across the street) then a MFDB is a must.
-
I think that nobody (including DxO) disagrees about the nominal resolution advantage and what this entails when compared to files from lesser resolution cameras when taken beyond their resolution limits (i.e. significantly uprezzed).
I think that all the fuss is about DxO's findings regarding other 'qualities' like SNR and DR which would indirectly indicate no advantage of the MFDBs vs some dSLRS when compared at the least common denominator (print wise). If they meaure the right things correctly, that is.
In this sense I think you post is in line with their findings.
-
I think I will toss out my Leaf Aptus and go back to 35mm film again , after all can't be different from MFDB either, can it??? After all must be about same as 4x5...
Serious, the truly pathetic is that nobody claim that a D3X, 5DII or whatever is equal in image quality to Canon G9 or the like, well... is it not????... or did I miss something??? Though what folks do is pixel peeping, totally sold on pixels... even missing out on that and more so what is MF vs. 35mm based... Pick up any magazine and look at photos. 95% chance you will find countless photos of not very high image quality... both photographers and clients seeming sold on megapixels.
Will ignore the remaining in this thread based on the sheer stupidity in above post's claims of DSLR equalling MFDB, no offense to anyone... Perhaps (hold on to your seat)... I will even do something really WILD... such as go out and photograph!
After all, is there any respectable MFDB forum anymore??? You know the way this one was a year or two ago, discussing with quality and substance and not sheer incompetence, pardon me??
Anders
-
Some very impressive D3x landscapes:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30863275 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30863275)
Funny, indeed these look like could have been from a G9, but not a Leaf, Phase One or even ZD...
Or... this? http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/ (http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/) Sure beats the Dpreview link on D3X photos, but only if sensitive eyes will see...
-
Will ignore the remaining in this thread based on the sheer stupidity in above post's claims of DSLR equalling MFDB, no offense to anyone... Perhaps (hold on to your seat)... I will even do something really WILD... such as go out and photograph!
That reminds me of what my friend owning a Mark Levinson power amp weighting about 60kg was saying before he heard a Nuforce Ref 9 v2se for the first time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Funny, indeed these look like could have been from a G9, but not a Leaf, Phase One or even ZD...
This one too?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3313/3199290154_f20263f30f_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That reminds me of what my friend owning a Mark Levinson power amp weighting about 60kg was saying before he heard a Nuforce Ref 9 v2se for the first time.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, Show me images from a top of line DSLR that clear beats MFDB for landscapes, then we can speak. Before seeing is like before hearing... Have seen many images from latest top of line DSLRs... not just seeing but also speaking performance and nothing frank yet beats Aptus or the like at low ISO. And the DSLRs start off at higher than 50ISO too, which is not good thing for landscapes. All reminds me of when I was selling my D200 for the ZD and was near executed by believers of D200 following at Dpreview... sorry, I stand by my eyes until proven better. I could easily switch without loosing a $, also to D3X, but why? DSLRs are too many auto features. I did like my F100, excellent camera, albeit a tad heavy for 35mm.
Else, before shows, is like your friend... before they made Nuforce... perhaps D5X will feature a Foveon type sensor with far better colors than Velvia 50, 4x5 proportions and less automation like a real camera .. then please serious do page me . For now I recommend G10 to people that need high image quality... heck it even beats a G9
That photo looks good for a Nikon sensor, but not many pixels as posted... and too digital clean and too neutral tones for my eyes... such as too much shadow detail such as many digital posts. Just giving my honest impression. Sorry, I do not like the color quite, that was problem with Nikon sensors for me before also although granted D3/D3X is much improved in this compared to D200, and from what I can tell from photos of DR. Yet, sorry, not like MF to my eyes. Perhaps I found what I like, and not worry ... no problem, people are different. Film images impress me, perhaps that is why I like Leaf and Sigma images in digital? Sure, put many photos from both MF and DSLR and can be difficult to pick, yet it is more than that as a photographer, the files, systems... capture of images, ehhh... also the photographic part, that we all prefer and experience different. None of DSLRs will approach the F100 to me, MFDB and MF film does exceed it... although miss Velvia colors in digital...
Anders
-
What is it with people constantly trying to measure camera performances? Like my d*ck is bigger than yours... oh wait under these circumstances I get really turned on and now mine is bigger again... etc.. These comparisons have nothing anymore as discussions since the outcome is fixed for most people and some even dare to make determined bold statements without even having experience beyond the window or an hour test drive of what they are talking about.
Obviously most modern DSLR's are way better than any current MFDB offering. I still like prefer working with my MFDB's most of the time even if the results are scientifically inferior to those of the mighty 5DII or D3X or even D700. It is my favorite tool to do a certain job, personal preferences are important, at least to me they are. I do feel I get better results that way even if science has proven me wrong.
Let me say it, I agree. DSLR's are way better than MFDB. Now if everyone can simply agree to that and have it out of the way I hope the majority of the threads will actually revert back to MFDB and photography instead of endless comparisons.
Now is there anyone that wants to trade their Aptus75, AFI7, P45+ or H3D50 for a 5DII/D3X/D700? I will be most happy to help taking them from you.
-
Let's bring things back to reality, if I may.
For two weeks in January I shot with the Canon A900, Nikon Dx3 and P65+ in Antarctica. In all doing about 6,500 exposures. (The 5D MKII that we had for testing died on the second day of the trip).
I have now made some fifty 13X19" prints and about twenty 24X36" prints for an upcoming exhibition at my gallery. My comments are based on these real-world results.
Firstly, I can not see any difference whatsoever between the A900 and the D3x files, not at any print size, not at any ISO (I never shot at above 1600, and rarely at 800).
On prints up to 13X19" I can usually see the difference between the DSLR shots and the P65+ shots, but not always. In some cases it is moderately obvious and in a few is hugely obvious.
In print sizes above about 16X20" I can always see the difference. It is dramatic. Not just resolution (that's a given) but in terms of micro-contrast, smooth tonalities, and depth of colour rendition – those amazing iceberg blues.
If someone wants to tell me that bumblebees can't fly, that's fine. Think what you wish. But I tell you that I have the stings to prove that they can, and the prints to demonstrate what I am saying.
Just drop into my Toronto gallery any time in the next few months and see for yourself. This is an open invitation. My money is where my mouth is.
The rest is simply chatter.
Michael
-
Let's bring things back to reality, if I may.
For two weeks in January I shot with the Canon A900, Nikon Dx3 and P65+ in Antarctica. In all doing about 6,500 exposures. (The 5D MKII that we had for testing died on the second day of the trip).
I have now made some fifty 13X19" prints and about twenty 24X36" prints for an upcoming exhibition at my gallery. My comments are based on these real-world results.
Firstly, I can not see any difference whatsoever between the A900 and the D3x files, not at any print size, not at any ISO (I never shot at above 1600, and rarely at 800).
On prints up to 13X19" I can usually see the difference between the DSLR shots and the P65+ shots, but not always. In some cases it is moderately obvious and in a few is hugely obvious.
In print sizes above about 16X20" I can always see the difference. It is dramatic. Not just resolution (that's a given) but in terms of micro-contrast, smooth tonalities, and depth of colour rendition – those amazing iceberg blues.
If someone wants to tell me that bumblebees can't fly, that's fine. Think what you wish. But I tell you that I have the stings to prove that they can, and the prints to demonstrate what I am saying.
Just drop into my Toronto gallery any time in the next few months and see for yourself. This is an open invitation. My money is where my mouth is.
The rest is simply chatter.
Michael
I find in my work the difference between a 1ds mark 2 and a P21 is quite marked, it often depends on what your shooting, the light, how you push contrast or not etc, for me and my style it's a no brainer for the P21. Now, at 13 *19 inch print size, do you think you could tell a difference between the P45+ and the P65+? And also, do you think the P65+ has a disadvantage when printing at 13 *19 because of the need to downsample as compared to say a P25?
-
Bernard, Show me that images from a top of line DSLR that clear beats MFDB for landscapes,
Anders
After hearing what the owners of the D3x have to say about the files, I for one, am willing to try it. It appears to be a wonderful machine.
Measurements aside, what I like is the look of the files:
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_001b.jpg (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/img/pic_001b.jpg)
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_004b.jpg (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/img/pic_004b.jpg)
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_002b.jpg (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/img/pic_002b.jpg)
Also, thanks Michael. About seeing differences on very large prints, does one have more impact that the other from normal viewing distances? IMO, that would be the reason to shoot with the backs, as opposed to merely being able to spot a difference at very close range...thanks again for your insight.
p.s. Micheal this trip seems to have produced some of the best images you have ever taken (from what I have seen)
-
Conversely Anders, you could show us some M.F. back landscapes which could not have been done with a DSLR such as the D3x...these challenges don't ever go anywhere useful. I have not handled the D3x, but most of the full-size files I have seen from it have been very, very good.
After hearing what the owners of the D3x have to say about the files, I for one, am willing to try it. It appears to be a wonderful machine.
Measurements aside, what I like is the look of the files:
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_001b.jpg (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/img/pic_001b.jpg)
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_004b.jpg (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/img/pic_004b.jpg)
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_002b.jpg (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/img/pic_002b.jpg)
Lisa,
I think Dustbak pointed out correct in his post, and also much indeed so Michael.
If you like above photos from D3X and as tool D3X works to your pleasing, then be happy. I think noone should conflict you on that. However, as a MF shooter I do not experience those photos as good image quality wize as I seen from MF... but lets keep away from that argument, it is far more than pixels I speak of. No, I will not post more. I know I am content for myself for many years still, and nor do I mind that you will be with a D3X.
The sensitivity of eyes can be different. This forum is titled: Medium Format Digital Backs and Photography. There has been enough of look my "DSLR" thing measures bigger... it is silly. Any camera is merely a tool. If you like the D3X, there is no point of comparing to MFDB. DxO are clear wrong in what their numbers come across to show. My eye though tells me I like MFDB and am also stepping into 4x5 film. Nothing wrong with that either.
Anders
-
Obviously most modern DSLRs are way better than any current medium-format digital back offering.
They are? And obviously so!? What makes you believe that? Let me guess: the latest DxOMark rankings?
-- Olaf
-
On prints up to 13X19" I can usually see the difference between the DSLR shots and the P65+ shots, but not always. In some cases it is moderately obvious and in a few is hugely obvious.
What would you say are the characteristics within these images that reduces or increases the visible difference between MFDB and DSLR?
-
The overall DxOMark score is obviously useless where medium format is concerned - by including low-light capability, they are testing something that the MF makers never CLAIM to provide. It would be like a car magazine testing the off-road capability of a Ferrari, or an audio magazine testing the home theater credentials of a two-channel tube amplifier, then including that in a bogus overall ranking. Even the individual numbers surprise me, and I think there's something wrong. I bought my D3x after careful evaluation against medium format, and even as a very happy D3x shooter, I don't believe that it has MORE dynamic range than a Hasselblad - prints just don't bear that out!
DxO claims that the D3x has about 1.5-2 stops more DR than most older DSLRs like the Canon 1DsII - fine, I believe that - I'm putting ink on paper that shows a whole bunch of extra shadow detail, and holding some extra highlights as well. I haven't shot another DSLR that does anywhere near as well. I don't believe DxO's absolute DR numbers on ANY DSLR, but their relative numbers seem pretty good (they are always optimistic by about two stops, but their 13 stop D3x has ~11, while their ~11 stop 1DsmkII really has 9).
Hasselblad claims about 12 stops of real DR, and I can see that in prints they showed me - the prints look like they have slightly broader DR than even a D3x, and much broader than older DSLRs. I don't have real-world experience, only tests in controlled situations, but I'm inclined to take Hasselblad's (and the other MF makers) claims pretty much at face value.
DxO comes in claiming that the Hasselblad has half a stop LESS DR than the D3x... That doesn't seem right (12+ stops for the Hasselblad seems fine, but when you subtract the 2 stops that DxO routinely overestimates by, 10+ stops doesn't seem plausible).
The only thing I can think of is whether MF might have much lower shadow noise than anything else? In that case, the absolute DR (until black clipping) that DxO measures might be much closer to real-world photographic DR than from other cameras - the 2 stop "DxO correction factor" might not be needed...
-Dan
-
It would be like a car magazine testing the off-road capability of a Ferrari,
These dxo tests would mean very little if medium format had progressed to the usability of modern dslrs. Now, I'm talking in the professional sense of going to work and shooting because the photographer MUST get the photograph rather than WANTS to get the photograph.
What does matter is the dslrs get closer to medium format quality by the year and actually are producing imagery in a 35mm format that nobody ever thought was possible.
Actually all of this has less to do about digital and more to do with the actual physical size of the camera formats. In a professional sense using film, 645 was never considered to be the pinnacle of medium format. It was designed and marketed as a better image quality competitor to 35mm, not as a replacement for 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 or 8x10 cameras.
And 645 was also marketed as the perfect format as it went almost directly to 8x10 print size and was closer to a Vertical printed page size than 35mm.
That too is changing as we now shoot more and more horizontals as most of the world is now working on a wide screen pallet.
In fact I currently shoot about a 4 to 1 ratio of horizontal compared to vertical. 10 years ago it was 10 to 1 in the opposite direction.
-
I do not know you guys, but I can see the difference between a 31mp DB file and a 21mp DSRL file printed at a3 size, not even mention if the DB is 39mp. It take a couple of sec to focus my eyes properly to image detail, but then there will be not doubt between which is which.
About 70% of fashion and portrait advertising on the world, is shot with Canon. If you go through some well printed fashion magazine (ala Numero, POP, V, W etch) I can tell which is a photo taken with a DB and which one is a Canon. A part from the difference on crispiness, it is the poorer gradient of the skin tones that tells me immediately which one is a canon. I can see the same flatness on skin also on the Nikon shots at the Nikon web site that someone linked above. Especially the beauty shot ( appalling styling and make up by the way), probably because of the light as well, the image is very flat and pasty. To that pastiness it may contribute the lack of mid range contrast typical of some 35mm lenses. If you shot the same image with a 80mm mamiya, zeiss or hasselblad on 30mp back you immediately get more depth on the image. The difference will be like looking at a 35mm contact sheet next to a 6 by 6 made with an hassy on the old days.
Those that cannot discern these differences between images while working with their cameras, should stick to making between 30 to 50 posts a day on multiple photography web forums or looking at Doxo sites. Once you do that every day, when do you find the time to take photos properly and acquire real life experience?
-
I do not know you guys, but I can see the difference between a 31mp DB file and a 21mp DSRL file printed at a3 size, not even mention if the DB is 39mp. It take a couple of sec to focus my eyes properly to image detail, but then there will be not doubt between which is which.
About 70% of fashion and portrait advertising on the world, is shot with Canon. If you go through some well printed fashion magazine (ala Numero, POP, V, W etch) I can tell which is a photo taken with a DB and which one is a Canon. A part from the difference on crispiness, it is the poorer gradient of the skin tones that tells me immediately which one is a canon. I can see the same flatness on skin also on the Nikon shots at the Nikon web site that someone linked above. Especially the beauty shot ( appalling styling and make up by the way), probably because of the light as well, the image is very flat and pasty. To that pastiness it may contribute the lack of mid range contrast typical of some 35mm lenses. If you shot the same image with a 80mm mamiya, zeiss or hasselblad on 30mp back you immediately get more depth on the image. The difference will be like looking at a 35mm contact sheet next to a 6 by 6 made with an hassy on the old days.
Those that cannot discern these differences between images while working with their cameras, should stick to making between 30 to 50 posts a day on multiple photography web forums or looking at Doxo sites. Once you do that every day, when do you find the time to take photos properly and acquire real life experience?
I agree, I shoot main fashion for one of the really big fashion magazines and I can easily see that my pictures are shot with a phase back while others are shot with a canon, it really isn't that hard at all. A well printed magazine page shows the difference just as well as a good inkjet print.
-
I do not know you guys, but I can see the difference between a 31mp DB file and a 21mp DSRL file printed at a3 size, not even mention if the DB is 39mp. It take a couple of sec to focus my eyes properly to image detail, but then there will be not doubt between which is which.
About 70% of fashion and portrait advertising on the world, is shot with Canon. If you go through some well printed fashion magazine (ala Numero, POP, V, W etch) I can tell which is a photo taken with a DB and which one is a Canon. A part from the difference on crispiness, it is the poorer gradient of the skin tones that tells me immediately which one is a canon. I can see the same flatness on skin also on the Nikon shots at the Nikon web site that someone linked above. Especially the beauty shot ( appalling styling and make up by the way), probably because of the light as well, the image is very flat and pasty. To that pastiness it may contribute the lack of mid range contrast typical of some 35mm lenses. If you shot the same image with a 80mm mamiya, zeiss or hasselblad on 30mp back you immediately get more depth on the image. The difference will be like looking at a 35mm contact sheet next to a 6 by 6 made with an hassy on the old days.
Those that cannot discern these differences between images while working with their cameras, should stick to making between 30 to 50 posts a day on multiple photography web forums or looking at Doxo sites. Once you do that every day, when do you find the time to take photos properly and acquire real life experience?
I have to disagree with you on this when it comes to things printed on a web press. The only way to tell a 5D shot from a P45 shot from drum scanned 4x5 film is in the look. I base my opinion on my stuff that's been published in some of the better mags and on stuff I lit that was published in the better mags. There probably isn't more than three and a half stops between web press Ink Black (which aint black, by the way) and paper white. The nuance of an MFDB file (which is there on screen and in a print) is simply lost when printed on any web press.
-
I agree, I shoot main fashion for one of the really big fashion magazines and I can easily see that my pictures are shot with a phase back while others are shot with a canon, it really isn't that hard at all. A well printed magazine page shows the difference just as well as a good inkjet print.
Woof, good work. Perhaps you would say which magazines and issues so we could have a look - this is where the rubber meets the road.
-
Woof, good work. Perhaps you would say which magazines and issues so we could have a look - this is where the rubber meets the road.
Thanks, I prefer anonymity though.
-
I agree, I shoot main fashion for one of the really big fashion magazines and I can easily see that my pictures are shot with a phase back while others are shot with a canon, it really isn't that hard at all. A well printed magazine page shows the difference just as well as a good inkjet print.
Hi there! which one do you use?
-
Hi there! which one do you use?
P21, anything bigger and you have to down rez for editorial.
-
I have to disagree with you on this when it comes to things printed on a web press. The only way to tell a 5D shot from a P45 shot from drum scanned 4x5 film is in the look. I base my opinion on my stuff that's been published in some of the better mags and on stuff I lit that was published in the better mags. There probably isn't more than three and a half stops between web press Ink Black (which aint black, by the way) and paper white. The nuance of an MFDB file (which is there on screen and in a print) is simply lost when printed on any web press.
IMO on the magazines I mentioned above it shows also on the skin nuances. Also on good catalogues like the Borgdof & Goodman.
Especially if shot in studio with Umbrellas or Octas, I can see it around the arms and legs of the models, that Canon shots, have less "shades of pink" and depth, they are not as rich as the shots with a DB. On portraits and beauty, the highlights of lips and nose edge with shiny or wet make up, when shot with canons are more "sparkling" and the last bit of transition to white is steeper, contributing to a more digital look. especially with the older 5d. though the older 5d had a general better skin representations than the 1ds mark 2.
Also majority of fashion photographers and many retouchers simply use Lightroom and ACR, which contributes to average and smooth/clean up skins just on the straight conversion. that does not help either.
those things have definitively improved with the last batch of 20mp+ DSLR, but yet DB still shows its edge on reproducing skin.
cheers.
-
IMO on the magazines I mentioned above it shows also on the skin nuances. Also on good catalogues like the Borgdof & Goodman.
Especially if shot in studio with Umbrellas or Octas, I can see it around the arms and legs of the models, that Canon shots, have less "shades of pink" and depth, they are not as rich as the shots with a DB. On portraits and beauty, the highlights of lips and nose edge with shiny or wet make up, when shot with canons are more "sparkling" and the last bit of transition to white is steeper, contributing to a more digital look. especially with the older 5d. though the older 5d had a general better skin representations than the 1ds mark 2.
Also majority of fashion photographers and many retouchers simply use Lightroom and ACR, which contributes to average and smooth/clean up skins just on the straight conversion. that does not help either.
those things have definitively improved with the last batch of 20mp+ DSLR, but yet DB still shows its edge on reproducing skin.
cheers.
Glad someone else notices these things. I hate Lightroom and always use capture one. A really good example is work by inez and vinoodh (canon) and mert and marcus (phase).
-
When there is real money and important jobs on the line i will grab the MF system every time, I will use the 35mm for other non essential shooting like events and such. Just that simple, these tests do NOT tell the artistic story and say nothing whatsoever of just downright good raw processing and technique which counts for a lot of the total image. Also says absolutely nothing on how the image renders just like MTF charts. I NEVER bought a lens on MTF charts and will never buy a camera on DXO scores.
-
IMO on the magazines I mentioned above it shows also on the skin nuances. Also on good catalogues like the Borgdof & Goodman.
Especially if shot in studio with Umbrellas or Octas, I can see it around the arms and legs of the models, that Canon shots, have less "shades of pink" and depth, they are not as rich as the shots with a DB. On portraits and beauty, the highlights of lips and nose edge with shiny or wet make up, when shot with canons are more "sparkling" and the last bit of transition to white is steeper, contributing to a more digital look. especially with the older 5d. though the older 5d had a general better skin representations than the 1ds mark 2.
Also majority of fashion photographers and many retouchers simply use Lightroom and ACR, which contributes to average and smooth/clean up skins just on the straight conversion. that does not help either.
those things have definitively improved with the last batch of 20mp+ DSLR, but yet DB still shows its edge on reproducing skin.
cheers.
You know what, you got me thinking. I went back and looked at tears. Most everything I've shot for magazines has been with either an Aptus or a P30+, or on film. Mainly film. I can see a difference between the few 1ds2 shots, but only really in beauty. Waist up. Mainly what I see is the more pleasing rendering of the lenses on a larger sensor. No noticeable resolution differences. But yes, some beauty I shot on a Leaf 75 a few years ago really is noticably better in terms of skin than a similar Canon shot. The retouching was also top notch.
Its funny you mention Bergdorfs, as the stuff I've shot for them was with a 1ds2, a 5d and 645 film. Now I shoot video for them.
This DxO stuff is a tempest in a teapot. Really. MF has its place as does 4x5 as does 35. Its that simple. Photographers as opposed to gear collectors know this and use whatever gets the shot.
-
Firstly, I can not see any difference whatsoever between the A900 and the D3x files, not at any print size, not at any ISO (I never shot at above 1600, and rarely at 800).
On prints up to 13X19" I can usually see the difference between the DSLR shots and the P65+ shots, but not always. In some cases it is moderately obvious and in a few is hugely obvious.
In print sizes above about 16X20" I can always see the difference. It is dramatic. Not just resolution (that's a given) but in terms of micro-contrast, smooth tonalities, and depth of colour rendition – those amazing iceberg blues.
Michael,
Thanks for the information. I don't believe that your P65+ vs DSLR will surprise anyone. What would be more fun is a comparison between a P25+ and these DSLRs, or a comparison between a 6 images stitch from a D3x and the P65+...
As far as the lack of difference in print between A900 and D3x, it makes total sense for the kind of scenes you have been shooting in Antartica, especially if ACR/LR was used for conversion. You would probably see a larger gap at A1 if the D3x files were converted with Raw Developper and optimally sharpened but the gap will mostly show in scenes with more dynamic range still.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As far as the lack of difference in print between A900 and D3x, it makes total sense for the kind of scenes you have been shooting in Antartica, especially if ACR/LR was used for conversion. You would probably see a larger gap at A1 if the D3x files were converted with Raw Developper and optimally sharpened but the gap will mostly show in scenes with more dynamic range still.
Cheers,
Bernard
This seems to echo the Borg's findings, and they own both cameras. Iliah says the D3x is slightly better with shadow noise and in high DR landscape, where the A900 is better in lower DR landscape (better green separation,) and portraits of dark skin/haired people. There is enough difference that Iliah is keeping both cams, although I think a lot of it has to do with the ZA lenses. I wouldn't say either camera has better IQ, just different, and lens+raw converter selection is critical. Still, I think it's splitting hairs.
-
This seems to echo the Borg's findings, and they own both cameras. Iliah says the D3x is slightly better with shadow noise and in high DR landscape, where the A900 is better in lower DR landscape (better green separation,) and portraits of dark skin/haired people. There is enough difference that Iliah is keeping both cams, although I think a lot of it has to do with the ZA lenses. I wouldn't say either camera has better IQ, just different, and lens+raw converter selection is critical. Still, I think it's splitting hairs.
Honestly if the Borg bros process the a900 files with their convertor and using their own profile, I can tell you that they are not using the a900 at its best. their profiles delivers colors that are pretty much off and contrast is also a bit off. I have tested few files using their RPP software but with a color profile made by a third person and the results difference were quite significant.
I think the best way to go, as raw convertor, for the a900 is C1 or Raw Developer.
I doubt that a fashion or portrait/ beauty shot, taken with an a900 and a a 85mm or 135mm Zeiss or the 50mm and 100mm Sony, will look any worst than if it was taken with the nikon.
With those 4 primes, the final look on the images of the Sony, should have an edge on a down town Manhattan, Tokyo, Paris or Milan art director's palate blind taste.
For those who likes splitting hairs, here follow two links, where they tested both a900 and dx3 and with what ever lenses they used. the sony had an hair split advantage of about 50 lines per inch. I do not think those test are the absolute grail of the resolution test, since considering the cameras use the same sensor and have the exact same pixel count, the lens that will be used will dictate the difference on lines per inch. I doubt we are going to see any difference on detail at any print size especially if both are processed with Raw developer or C1.
Enjoy:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5700/nikon...line-page3.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5700/nikon-d3x-camera-test-bottom-line-page3.html)
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5624/sony-...tics-page3.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5624/sony-alpha-900-camera-test-vital-statistics-page3.html)
-
Honestly if the Borg bros process the a900 files with their convertor and using their own profile, I can tell you that they are not using the a900 at its best. their profiles delivers colors that are pretty much off and contrast is also a bit off. I have tested few files using their RPP software but with a color profile made by a third person and the results difference were quite significant.
I think the best way to go, as raw convertor, for the a900 is C1 or Raw Developer.
I doubt that a fashion or portrait/ beauty shot, taken with an a900 and a a 85mm or 135mm Zeiss or the 50mm and 100mm Sony, will look any worst than if it was taken with the nikon.
With those 4 primes, the final look on the images of the Sony, should have an edge on a down town Manhattan, Tokyo, Paris or Milan art director's palate blind taste.
For those who likes splitting hairs, here follow two links, where they tested both a900 and dx3 and with what ever lenses they used. the sony had an hair split advantage of about 50 lines per inch. I do not think those test are the absolute grail of the resolution test, since considering the cameras use the same sensor and have the exact same pixel count, the lens that will be used will dictate the difference on lines per inch. I doubt we are going to see any difference on detail at any print size especially if both are processed with Raw developer or C1.
Enjoy:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5700/nikon...line-page3.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5700/nikon-d3x-camera-test-bottom-line-page3.html)
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5624/sony-...tics-page3.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5624/sony-alpha-900-camera-test-vital-statistics-page3.html)
Yeah, I use C1 myself, and it seems great with the A900. The thing about the Iliah Borg is that he prefers a very flat image with desaturated color out of the RAW converter, because he does his contrast and color manipulation all in PS. Although that may be the way to eek out the best in an image, I'm fine with doing the bulk of my work in the RAW converter. I saw those popphoto tests, and the resolution of the two cams is pretty much identical. I think it's interesting that they found the A900's color to be so off. I haven't seen this complaint too often.
-
Has anyone compared a 5-20 image mosaic or panorama shot with a DSLR to a similar shot with MF? Will the IQ of the MF still be better when the resolution of the DSLR shot is much higher than the MF shot?
-
Has anyone compared a 5-20 image mosaic or panorama shot with a DSLR to a similar shot with MF? Will the IQ of the MF still be better when the resolution of the DSLR shot is much higher than the MF shot?
That is indeed exactly what is at stake here, but it seems to be very hard to get a clear answer on that one...
My current eductated bet is that A1 or A0 print size:
- D3x*1 = P25+
- D3x*4 >> P45+
- D3x*6 > P65+
- D3x*9 > drum scanned 4*5
Cheers,
Bernard
-
- D3x*4 >> P45+
- D3x*6 > P65+
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I'm wondering how much sense does this make in practice and for which application?
-
Bernard, I'm wondering how much sense does this make in practice and for which application?
Well, this makes sense within the confine of those applications that can be addressed well by stitching:
- The shooting takes longer (although I would argue that it is about as fast shoot a 6 frames pano with a D3x than a single one with a P65+ on an Alpa),
- The post-processing takes longer especially when HDR is part of the equation,
- There is always a risk that you messed up when shooting the pano and cannot come up with a usable image of perfect quality (less than 1% as far as I am concerned),
- Some types of moving subjects are not easy to deal with (that includes changing light)
- Critical sharpness is harder to reach in the outdoors at some shutter speeds
- Strobe shooting ends up being more difficult because you need one flash per pano frame
- Basically, it takes more logistics, skills and knowledge than a single capture on top of everything else
But when the conditions are met, my experience is that a stitched file is 100% impossible to distinguish from a single capture.
Stitching is progressing much faster than any other area of photography, both on the hardware (robotized head with fully scriptable control from a PDA/laptop) and software sides (totally automated stitches dealing with HDR and focus stacking).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
On prints up to 13X19" I can usually see the difference between the DSLR shots and the P65+ shots, but not always. In some cases it is moderately obvious and in a few is hugely obvious.
In print sizes above about 16X20" I can always see the difference. It is dramatic. Not just resolution (that's a given) but in terms of micro-contrast, smooth tonalities, and depth of colour rendition – those amazing iceberg blues.
Michael, how much of this difference would you attribute to the P65+, and how much simply to MF DBs? I am strongly considering picking up a Sinar eMotion 54LV, a 22MP back, and am curious...
-
I agree, I shoot main fashion for one of the really big fashion magazines and I can easily see that my pictures are shot with a phase back while others are shot with a canon, it really isn't that hard at all. A well printed magazine page shows the difference just as well as a good inkjet print.
i would call this - self fulfilling prophecy - and i too very much doubt that you are able to see a significant differences between perfect processed 35mm and mf files . using files for printing with resolution above what offset can handle leads to softer reproduction (rip interpolation ) and not increased detail. even under perfect conditions it is very hard to see a difference in a final offset print between 180 or 300 dpi.
-
i would call this - self fulfilling prophecy - and i too very much doubt that you are able to see a significant differences between perfect processed 35mm and mf files . using files for printing with resolution above what offset can handle leads to softer reproduction (rip interpolation ) and not increased detail. even under perfect conditions it is very hard to see a difference in a final offset print between 180 or 300 dpi.
It depends what you call significant, if I can see any difference that contributes to the look I want then I call that significant.
-
That photo looks good for a Nikon sensor, but not many pixels as posted... and too digital clean and too neutral tones for my eyes... such as too much shadow detail such as many digital posts.
Something like this maybe?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/3256020314_4e8c7d03a2_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3446/3255154241_d1a7a6c19f_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It depends what you call significant, if I can see any difference that contributes to the look I want then I call that significant.
but what makes you sure that the difference you see is caused by the camera only and not post processing ? i do a lot of retouching and color editing and i never had a problem make files from different sources like mf or dslr look the same.
-
Hey TMARK, do you care to mention which issues you are referring to (bergdorf goodman.) I have about 8 years worth of issues sitting right here.
-
but what makes you sure that the difference you see is caused by the camera only and not post processing ? i do a lot of retouching and color editing and i never had a problem make files from different sources like mf or dslr look the same.
I shoot both cameras and I know that I can't make my dslr look like my phase back. It totally depends upon your style, for most things you probably can, I have a very distinct style though that pretty much pushes the camera to the extreme where the phase is quite happy and the dslr starts to break up. I guess that in a "normal" scene you can make almost any of the new backs/dslr's look like anything else. I wish I could use the dslr for my work as I hate carrying a heavy mf round with me and I hate the way the camera works but it's the only way for me to get my look.
-
. I wish I could use the dslr for my work as I hate carrying a heavy mf round with me and I hate the way the camera works but it's the only way for me to get my look.
May we see one of these photos with the look?
-
May we see one of these photos with the look?
No, sorry, anonymity is my preference.
-
I guess that in a "normal" scene you can make almost any of the new backs/dslr's look like anything else.
yes i understand, but is this not the opposite what you claimed before ?
-
yes i understand, but is this not the opposite what you claimed before ?
I don't want to get caught up in a pointless back and forth, what I see is that for my work and my style there is a worthwhile difference between a back and a dslr that cannot be made up for in post processing, also I can often see that difference in other people's work. With say a normal, low or medium contrast landscape then I think it would be hard to tell the difference between mf and dslr.
-
I don't want to get caught up in a pointless back and forth, what I see is that for my work and my style there is a worthwhile difference between a back and a dslr that cannot be made up for in post processing, also I can often see that difference in other people's work. With say a normal, low or medium contrast landscape then I think it would be hard to tell the difference between mf and dslr.
What seems pretty obvious to me is that while there are many who have migrated to 35mm from medium format (and most of these from medium format film it should be pointed out), there are many others who would only allow you to pull their medium format digital product from their hands over their dead bodies.
And from that perspective, what DXO thinks they're analyzing and how they're doing it and what they're concluding from the process doesn't mean a damn thing, if I may be so bold.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
You can and i agree. Dead cold hands sounds like my best answer also. The DXO is completely meaningless just like MTF charts are. Tells me nothing
Sorry folks there is no real person behind these test that can actually think.
-
What seems pretty obvious to me is that while there are many who have migrated to 35mm from medium format (and most of these from medium format film it should be pointed out), there are many others who would only allow you to pull their medium format digital product from their hands over their dead bodies.
And from that perspective, what DXO thinks they're analyzing and how they're doing it and what they're concluding from the process doesn't mean a damn thing, if I may be so bold.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
I agree, pro's aren't stupid, the novelty of new cameras soon wears off when you use them all the time and you just don't use them because it sounds flash to use a phase back or whatever. There generally a pain to use compared to canon or nikon or whatever, we use them because there great tools. Another thing that happens when you eat sleep dream and work with images every day is you get a bit of an ability to perceive image quality things that others may not. It would be great to be able to break it down to numbers and the numbers are partially useful but only when used with intelligence. Find a number for beauty of tonality.
-
If we are talking about proffessional advertising photography: 99.9% of people buying and looking at a magazine don't give a shit about micro contrast and tonality. some photographers or art buyers might see the difference, sometimes I do, but i can't think of one single page in a magazine that would have been a better image if a digital medium format camera was used. i see a lot crap postproduction or dreadful lighting or horrible styling or all the bits that make or break a successfull ad. Micro contrast is not what makes a picture saleable. no photographer is booked because of micro contrast and fine detail @100%. i see an advantage for big fine art prints, definitely, but for magazine work i don't.
i very much second bcooters opinion about usability of current Medium Format systems.
-
February, 2009 PDN Article: DSLR vs MF
http://tinyurl.com/dkhze2 (http://tinyurl.com/dkhze2)
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
If we are talking about proffessional advertising photography: 99.9% of people buying and looking at a magazine don't give a shit about micro contrast and tonality. some photographers or art buyers might see the difference, sometimes I do, but i can't think of one single page in a magazine that would have been a better image if a digital medium format camera was used. i see a lot crap postproduction or dreadful lighting or horrible styling or all the bits that make or break a successfull ad. Micro contrast is not what makes a picture saleable. no photographer is booked because of micro contrast and fine detail @100%. i see an advantage for big fine art prints, definitely, but for magazine work i don't.
i very much second bcooters opinion about usability of current Medium Format systems.
Yes, but great photographers care about tonality and micro contrast and great photographers get the great jobs.
-
Yes, but great photographers care about tonality and micro contrast and great photographers get the great jobs.
really ? this can not be true considering the huge amount of horrible work, aesthetically and technically you can find everywhere. i don't believe this is all shot exclusive with 35mm. talking about professional advertising photography the real art is to know how to make a camera file look good in cmyk, this soft-skill is more important than the mythically advantage of MF.
-
really ? this can not be true considering the huge amount of horrible work, aesthetically and technically you can find everywhere. i don't believe this is all shot exclusive with 35mm. talking about professional advertising photography the real art is to know how to make a camera file look good in cmyk, this soft-skill is more important than the mythically advantage of MF.
This type of argument holds no water. This soft-skill can easily be combined with MF imaging to get even better quality.
-
Something like this maybe?
It is funny, what seem to reveal in above posts in this thread is that those who appreciate MFDB digital and the quality that those bring to their images are those who indeed have eyes to see differences and that are using high quality digital backs for that reason. I know Bernard had ZD before, but the ZD is a BIG gap from Leaf Aptus and Phase One digital backs, at least per my experience. When I bought the Aptus I said ^&*%^ to money because I wanted to enjoy photography and not the crap that Nikon had sold me, and if it would have failed, that I would returned to film. I like the image quality from the Aptus, it is much different from any that I seen from DSLR. For those who do not see the difference, what is possibly the point of arguing with those who do see it? It is silly and insulting.
For those who keep changing camera and camera, upgrading each cycle... are you sure you are into photography or simply just camera technologies?
Most folks who do use MFDB and who post in this forum are professionals and many of whom are very skilled and knowledgeable. That frank is one additional pleasure with medium format, for these folks are kind to reply to many questions and are happy to provide much knowledge for free. Much thanks to you all, for indeed you know who you are! Also of course to the credible in medium format business who post and support here, and likewise you too know who you are. Myself I am an amateur but I guess my eye is sensitive. DSLRs have been disappointing to me, as compared to my F100 with Fuji Velvia 50 was. Forget the pixels, there is so much more to an image. That said, indeed D700, D3/D3X, 5DII, 1DsMk3, A900 are improvements to the D200 I had, but... that does not mean they are medium format. Heck, I find the Foveon sensor more medium format like, but with less pixels, although Canon and Nikon have indeed improved.
If I were to go professional, chances are I would pick also a 5DII or something to get images quickly captured and done. It seems sad, but it seem to be that what sell to magazines are quick images at not absolute image quality, some actually poor quality. That is the high-tech generation we live in, not quality. However for the upper level of pros that shoot fashion and advertising it seems a MFDB is rather predominant, but some use top of line Canon and Nikon too. It is a preference thing, sort of like Ansel Adams and the like shot mostly large format, but Galen Rowell shot 35mm. That does not mean that DSLRs have reached medium format. That is silly.
To be frank, I do not see that DSLRs have reached 35mm film. They are still different. So... why should possibly DSLRs be able reach MFDB? There will always be differences, and with that... why not enjoy photography instead?
For those who are interested in MFDBs, try them. You will see a big difference in image quality, if your eye is sensitive, and if you do appreciate high image quality. For an amateur they are expensive $$$, but... they can last you a long time. That is my own thinking, the Aptus is a keeper for me for many years still, and much kind thanks to those in this forum who advised me on that one and the Phase-One about a year ago. It is funny with Nikon's pricing of D3X... indeed looking at $$$, the D3X is in medium format range, especially if include the lenses in comparison (Mamiya 645 lenses are for most part cheaper than Nikon ). Nikon's pricing is silly. The most expensive part on a MFDB is the sensor itself because it is large, and that is a by a large margin of the cost, I think around 85% or so. Perhaps Yaya or Thsinar can fill me in on that? That way it appears as a rip off to throw the money towards Nikon..., yet... if one invest in a long time keeper... then perhaps it is not that bad with either, provided that image quality last. Though what happens when D4X comes out? It will for sure beat the D3X, but I honest do not believe it will beat my Aptus 65 , yet that is my eye... but we shall see. Yet who cares, as long as I can enjoy my PHOTOGRAPHY???
Anders
-
really ? this can not be true considering the huge amount of horrible work, aesthetically and technically you can find everywhere. i don't believe this is all shot exclusive with 35mm. talking about professional advertising photography the real art is to know how to make a camera file look good in cmyk, this soft-skill is more important than the mythically advantage of MF.
I think you need to use some intelligence to try and understand what I'm saying. If you want to just win the argument by misrepresenting and willfully misunderstanding me you can have it if you want it and you won't have learnt a thing.
-
Ehh... not really, for could be (m)any camera, especially at that size. Last one... is near all white. Did you use a Canon G10 by chance????
Time to get you screen calibrated a bit better my friend... but I guess that you just don't see those things... why bother discussing.
More seriously, do you have some work visible somewhere, I'd love to see what you do (I really mean it).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
i would call this - self fulfilling prophecy - and i too very much doubt that you are able to see a significant differences between perfect processed 35mm and mf files . using files for printing with resolution above what offset can handle leads to softer reproduction (rip interpolation ) and not increased detail. even under perfect conditions it is very hard to see a difference in a final offset print between 180 or 300 dpi.
Guys, to each his own.
Some people do not see it, some others do.
One of the reasons I decided to get a new back and a MF camera on top of my DSLR 24mp cameras, was because I could see the difference, not just on my photos but just flipping pages of well printed fashion magazines. I could not bear it and I had to buy one myself to have it in my bag and ready to be used any time i want to.
There is not full filling prophecy on my case and i do not need to justify my purchase since I spend 4 grands more for the mamiya 645 body with 5 used lenses and 31mp back combined, than buying a naked d3x body. Those money are spent and forgotten.
-
If we are talking about proffessional advertising photography: 99.9% of people buying and looking at a magazine don't give a shit about micro contrast and tonality. some photographers or art buyers might see the difference, sometimes I do, but i can't think of one single page in a magazine that would have been a better image if a digital medium format camera was used. i see a lot crap postproduction or dreadful lighting or horrible styling or all the bits that make or break a successfull ad. Micro contrast is not what makes a picture saleable. no photographer is booked because of micro contrast and fine detail @100%. i see an advantage for big fine art prints, definitely, but for magazine work i don't.
i very much second bcooters opinion about usability of current Medium Format systems.
Sure is true, we normally get booked because we got certain models or stylist the client cannot normally get, we do beautiful pictures, we got a style that please the clients, we wear designer clothing's or dine at fine restaurants and the client thinks we have plenty of style, we ask less than the current guy they are using or simply because we just slept with an freshly divorce' editor begging to get laid.
It is very unlikely we get a booking thanks of midrange contrast and tonality on our images, but that is something some photographers like to have on top of all the above requirements to get booked.
-
Michael,
As far as the lack of difference in print between A900 and D3x, it makes total sense for the kind of scenes you have been shooting in Antartica, especially if ACR/LR was used for conversion. You would probably see a larger gap at A1 if the D3x files were converted with Raw Developper and optimally sharpened but the gap will mostly show in scenes with more dynamic range still.
Cheers,
Bernard
I really have to ask: "what are you talking about?"
If you use the Raw Reveloper or c1 for both files you will not see a zick of a difference among the two and in case if you put a prime between 50mm to 135mm, the a900 files will eventually show more detail and a better look at any size if shot below 800 iso.
-
I really have to ask: "what are you talking about?"
If you use the Raw Reveloper or c1 for both files you will not see a zick of a difference among the two and in case if you put a prime between 50mm to 135mm, the a900 files will eventually show more detail and a better look at any size if shot below 800 iso.
Have you checked that on actual images? I have and the facts just don't back up your claims.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What's funny about all this is that the art directors I know (NYC market, I have worked with ADs spanning the gamut from bergdorf goodman to macys) - and in my experience none of them know anything about cameras much at all. They do not ask about how many megapixels, bit depth, file size, or such. If anything, they think all digital is kind of lame compared to film, but that is changing fast. I have gotten comments like "wow, that's a nice lens! - it was the Canon 70-200 2.8. and I was shooting for a HUGE project for a residential building in Dubai - the tallest building in the world apparently; but for the most part, they do not notice or care about the camera at all. MF - fine. 35 - fine. They do not notice. Their relationship is with the MONITOR, not my camera. I asked an art director last week who is a friend (she has shot large campaigns for Victoria's Secret with Russell James, Patrick Demarchelier, bla bla bla, and she replied that she doesn't know a thing about it and does not care. She assumes that whatever camera they have brought is good enough for the job. What she looks at is the LIGHTING AND COMPOSITION ON THE MONITOR. Now these photographers I mentioned shoot on all kinds of cameras (Phase, Canons, etc.) and it looks like the camera choice is a non-issue for everyone but the photographer on these shoots with some of the largest budgets and biggest models in the world.
Are any of these guys getting fired for lack of micro contrast? Did the art director get scolded for letting a toy camera onto the set? Did inez and vinoodh's images at the fashion photo exhibit I went to look inferior to the other images because they shoot with Canons? Er, no.
Did Paolo Roversi's images look like magic in his show last fall? Yup. It's the lighting, the technique, the medium (film), the printing, models, etc., etc.
As far as I can tell the differences between these cameras we are discussing in this thread are just about microscopic compared to some of the bigger issues such as lighting and technique. And for the most part, anyone who is not the photographer or the retoucher has no clue about it. So while some can spot differences between these cameras (I can sometimes...) which have chips which are not very different in size (35mm vs. CROPPED 645) it can be said for sure that in many instances and for many photographers, the purchase of a cheaper, smaller, lighter camera which performs at 90% of the quality of the cropped 645 camera is a good idea. The extra $15,000 could then be spent on better models, locations, retouching, portfolios, plane tickets. $15,000 extra - thats a lot of trips.
I have personally shot MF and 35 for years, and I may buy one of these new Mamiya DL28 kits next week. But I am not going to kid myself that any of my clients are going to notice ;-)
-
Don't be surprised if they do. Mine did and sure let me know about it. Pleasantly I may add
-
Time to get you screen calibrated a bit better my friend... but I guess that you just don't see those things... why bother discussing.
More seriously, do you have some work visible somewhere, I'd love to see what you do (I really mean it).
Cheers,
Bernard
Yawn...
Screen is calibrated but tiny photos on internet will not do, perhaps not even JPGs. Do I have photos posted? You should know my name here, I been here awhile. If you missed, look up. Like you I am an amateur, but I do enjoy photography in a slight different way. Changing gear has been pina to me. I prefer to stay with one along time. Digital has not brought that for me. Except, the Aptus 65 because I do find it capable of superb image quality.
Seems the thread go in circles. There is a difference MFDB to DLSR, some see it and use MFDB. Others dont and prefer DSLR. Any problem? Apart from that, this thread is simply a big waste of time.
Cheers
Anders
-
This is my final post in this thread.
The small 3.1MP jpg attached cannot show the ability of a high resolution back. A full size JPG may help, a RAW can help more. You can download such of same photo here, yet such still not show all of a back or camera:
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/650321631/71375f...417c658e27909f2 (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/650321631/71375f20e2ba73ab8417c658e27909f2)
I am sure some may have comments on technical, pixel peeping etc + this and that. I will ignore all those and further posts in this thread, all respect. If someone have questions on the Aptus 65, please feel free to drop me a private message. I do like the Aptus for my shooting for many reasons. Nope, no interest in DSLR (except my DP1 in pocket).
CS3/CS4 can open or download Leaf Capture software. JPGs are defaults from CS3. Personally I often find colors at already pleasing departure point when I open files. As near sensation of slides as I have experienced in digital. That was on a used slight beaten AFD . Copyright of photo is mine.
Lisa, good luck on the Mamiya DL28. It is a good tool. Yet that is all what a camera is .
Regards
A
-
What's funny about all this is that the art directors I know (NYC market, I have worked with ADs spanning the gamut from bergdorf goodman to macys) - and in my experience none of them know anything about cameras much at all. They do not ask about how many megapixels, bit depth, file size, or such. If anything, they think all digital is kind of lame compared to film, but that is changing fast. I have gotten comments like "wow, that's a nice lens! - it was the Canon 70-200 2.8. and I was shooting for a HUGE project for a residential building in Dubai - the tallest building in the world apparently; but for the most part, they do not notice or care about the camera at all. MF - fine. 35 - fine. They do not notice. Their relationship is with the MONITOR, not my camera. I asked an art director last week who is a friend (she has shot large campaigns for Victoria's Secret with Russell James, Patrick Demarchelier, bla bla bla, and she replied that she doesn't know a thing about it and does not care. She assumes that whatever camera they have brought is good enough for the job. What she looks at is the LIGHTING AND COMPOSITION ON THE MONITOR. Now these photographers I mentioned shoot on all kinds of cameras (Phase, Canons, etc.) and it looks like the camera choice is a non-issue for everyone but the photographer on these shoots with some of the largest budgets and biggest models in the world.
Are any of these guys getting fired for lack of micro contrast? Did the art director get scolded for letting a toy camera onto the set? Did inez and vinoodh's images at the fashion photo exhibit I went to look inferior to the other images because they shoot with Canons? Er, no.
Did Paolo Roversi's images look like magic in his show last fall? Yup. It's the lighting, the technique, the medium (film), the printing, models, etc., etc.
As far as I can tell the differences between these cameras we are discussing in this thread are just about microscopic compared to some of the bigger issues such as lighting and technique. And for the most part, anyone who is not the photographer or the retoucher has no clue about it. So while some can spot differences between these cameras (I can sometimes...) which have chips which are not very different in size (35mm vs. CROPPED 645) it can be said for sure that in many instances and for many photographers, the purchase of a cheaper, smaller, lighter camera which performs at 90% of the quality of the cropped 645 camera is a good idea. The extra $15,000 could then be spent on better models, locations, retouching, portfolios, plane tickets. $15,000 extra - thats a lot of trips.
I have personally shot MF and 35 for years, and I may buy one of these new Mamiya DL28 kits next week. But I am not going to kid myself that any of my clients are going to notice ;-)
Yes the art directors that work with me neither know nor care what my camera is, what they care about is the picture on the screen, THE LOOK I GET "MY STYLE" IS PARTIALLY A RESULT OF MY CAMERA. I GET HIRED FOR MY STYLE WHICH IS MADE UP OF MANY THINGS (LIGHT, COMPOSITION ETC) BUT HOW MY PICTURE JUST LOOKS, VISUALLY, IS AFFECTED BY WHAT TYPE OF CAMERA/BACK I USE.
If there is no point in using these digital backs sometime when you want a certain look, then why do some of the best photographers in the world still use them. Are you so arrogant that you think that you know more about the use of a certain camera/back to achieve Demarchelier's style than Demarchelier himself?
-
Bernard, I'm wondering how much sense does this make in practice and for which application?
Following up on your question, I have just uploaded a full size 3 frames stitch from the D3x that is about 42 mega pixels. The lens used was a Zeiss 100 mm f2.0, my main stitching lens these days. The image had to be saved in quality 8 jpg to stay below flickr's limit, but it shouldn't impact too much for this image.
I feel that this is representative of the quality I am typically getting, except for the fact that I normally stitch more frames. Don't know how you guys will feel about the quality relative to that of a typical 40MP back.
You will have to click on "all sizes" on top of the image, then "Original size".
http://flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3259513393/ (http://flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3259513393/)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Speaking of 'look' and Art Directors, I find that my 1DsIII is still vastly inferior to my P30+, and my clients agree on the monitor and the printed page. I use the Canon only when time is short (during the filming of a commercial) or the location is particularly unforgiving.
The P30+ excels in studio or indoor locations, even in dim lighting. It tends to have more grain in the final image that the Canons, but the detail and 'look' of medium format is preserved.
I'm not sure if it's the lenses or the Phase sensor, but I certainly notice the difference when the images are printed for advertising. Most of all, wide angle images with the P30+ don't have that characteristic 35mm crappy wide look like my wide Canon shots do. It's hard to describe, but the P30+ shots always look more flattering, with a nicer perspective. I shoot people, by the way.
And it's always important in the business to have a camera the AD doesn't have, or couldn't have. Many of the ADs I work with notice the camera, and comment. Unfortunately, in some jobs, my equipment is a statement of my professionalism, and if you can 'make the grade' to have the best. Yes it's ridiculous, but if we are charging thousands of dollars per day, some clients demand it.
The Canons are great for location fashion, where getting the shot is far more of an issue. I may be the only one, but I prefer the skin tones with my 1DsII to the 1DsIII, and that the 1DsII focuses more reliably.
What's the need to see more detail in facial pores, and unwanted hair?
-
And it's always important in the business to have a camera the AD doesn't have, or couldn't have. Many of the ADs I work with notice the camera, and comment. Unfortunately, here in Mexico, my equipment is a statement of my professionalism, and if you can 'make the grade' to have the best. Yes it's ridiculous, but if we are charging thousands of dollars per day, some clients demand it.
I know this sounds really stupid but the bottom line fact is it is very true. My clients look at my gear and want to know all about it including the costs and what the files will do for them. Anyone with half a brain makes it a point to sell this technology to there clients. It makes them feel if you spent the money on them to impress them with your gear and images than you are worth hiring. Sounds absolutely ridiculous to you and me but the sad fact is they want to be impressed and this is very much a part of being a Pro and the Professionalism that you show your client. Yes it is all about your work and your style but do NOT underestimate the professionalism you show in your gear , your look , your assistants and what you represent. Some may not care but many of my clients are professionals in different sectors of business that wear suits everyday. You spent the money on the gear to improve your style than follow it up with your professionalism to go with it. This stuff actually sells you
-
Following up on your question, I have just uploaded a full size 3 frames stitch from the D3x that is about 42 mega pixels. The lens used was a Zeiss 100 mm f2.0, my main stitching lens these days. The image had to be saved in quality 8 jpg to stay below flickr's limit, but it shouldn't impact too much for this image.
I feel that this is representative of the quality I am typically getting, except for the fact that I normally stitch more frames. Don't know how you guys will feel about the quality relative to that of a typical 40MP back.
You will have to click on "all sizes" on top of the image, then "Original size".
http://flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3259513393/ (http://flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3259513393/)
Cheers,
Bernard
Breaking my rule: Bernard, apart from lots of pixels I see purple all over that image, not only in shadows, worse than my ZD did in same condition. Perhaps check your D3X for problem, or some extreme processing image file could not handle??? Where is Snook, he has good eye for purple, he did for ZD and he frank was right and correct. Apart from that, pixel peeping and it looks flat, my Aptus beats it hands down at 100% in same condition, at least per my sensitive eye. Image looks flat DSLR. I would have expected better with all raving you and others do of equal to MFDBs. ZD would have looked better in same condtion, no offense.
Anders
-
A well-known mentor once told me, a long time ago, that one of the most important things in this business is your personal presentation. Be in shape, wear cool clothes, and be an attractive, charismatic person.
Most times they are many photographers who could fulfill the same job, so sometimes it comes down to what the client remembers the next day. Have a nice time, play good music, treat people well, and serve great coffee. At the end of things, we are all in a service business.
It may sound stupid, but that's the way it is. And, most of all, find a really great retoucher.
-
Breaking my rule: Bernard, apart from lots of pixels I see purple all over that image, not only in shadows, worse than my ZD did in same condition.
Hum... I guess that it probably doesn't have much to do with the fact that it is a picture of a purple building?
Apart from that, pixel peeping and it looks flat, my Aptus beats it hands down at 100% in same condition, at least per my sensitive eye. Image looks flat DSLR. I would have expected better with all raving you and others do of equal to MFDBs. ZD would have looked better in same condtion, no offense.
No offense taken Anders. I am sure though that it your PS skills are as advanced as your eyes are sensitive then you wouldn't need more than a few seconds to give this image more pops if that's how you like them.
Once more, I'd love to see what the images you like look like, please post one somewhere. I am not questioning your expertise, I just would like to see what you are talking about. Who knows, perhaps I'd be able to comprehend a few percents in a good day?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just checked that image Bernard. Now it is very hard to look at something and state that another tool might have done it better but in this case I am pretty sure the 39MP H would have done a much better job even in single mode.
Sure you can get rid of the excess magenta and tweak the color until it appears more natural (it might just have been like that so I have no judgement over it). You can also apply sharpening to get the image pop more. It still will not render what the MF equipment will do even if you can come close. It will also take you more effort.
I agree that stitiching DSLR files can generete really nice large images. I do it myself as well. OTOH the same trick can be performed with MF equipment where the Hasselblad has the advantage of correcting the lines before stitching.
As Anders pointed out, these things are merely tools. Even different tools.
-
Once more, I'd love to see what the images you like look like, please post one somewhere.
Ehh... Did you see the one above??? I am sure others if interested already have found my old on photonet by clicking on my name to see my profile... then bear in mind that I got serious into photography (such as serious interest and began learning) as recent as 2003. Most recent ones in there are two with D200 from 2006, and while I like those photos, I do not like their lack of detail or flatness of DSLR style. That lead me into larger format and larger pixels. For ZD vs. 6x7 Velvia 50 I am sure you must recall this one... http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....w=&st=& (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970&pid=153549&mode=threaded&show=&st=&). Or simply search under my name for other posts... Sorry, but no Flickr or similar with snaps... that is not me. I prefer slow.
Nope was not referring to purple reflections, looks like noise to me. Perhaps worth to keep eye on or test. Actually looks much like ZD was in shadows under certain conditions, but not such as that one.
Anders
-
This is my final post in this thread.
The small 3.1MP jpg attached cannot show the ability of a high resolution back. A full size JPG may help, a RAW can help more. You can download such of same photo here, yet such still not show all of a back or camera:
Thanks for posting Anders and all the best with you tool of choice.
My goal has never been to convince you that a DSLR could be a better option for you, just to provide information as objective as possible about what I see with the tool I am currently using.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just checked that image Bernard. Now it is very hard to look at something and state that another tool might have done it better but in this case I am pretty sure the 39MP H would have done a much better job even in single mode.
Thanks for the feedback.
Sure you can get rid of the excess magenta and tweak the color until it appears more natural (it might just have been like that so I have no judgement over it). You can also apply sharpening to get the image pop more. It still will not render what the MF equipment will do even if you can come close. It will also take you more effort.
The colors are basically OK and close enough to how the scene looked. I took a picture of a color chart also, and trying to neutralize the greys results in a hotter WB, but the light was pretty warm late afternoon.
I agree that stitiching DSLR files can generete really nice large images. I do it myself as well. OTOH the same trick can be performed with MF equipment where the Hasselblad has the advantage of correcting the lines before stitching.
Sure, and again, I am not trying to convince anyone that the D3x is the ultimate camera. I just thought that it would be interesting for some people who might never have tried stitching with a recent DSLR to see what could be achieved quickly knowing that a two row pano of the same scene would have taken less than one minute extra to shoot.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No problem, I totally agree with you that DSLR's can deliver much more than most people are aware of. I would love to have a D3x but after the D1x and D2x I promised myself not to get anything bigger than the size of the 00's series (200,300,700, etc..). Besides that I don't have to have it right now so I can wait until a more modestly priced (smaller) alternative is there.
DSLR's are also much handier in some circumstances. I saw someone mentioning he will take an in focus 12MP DSLR shot anytime over a slightly missed MFDB shot. I completely agree with this as well. Sometimes the MFDB simply cannot make the shots you can with DSLR.
Everything has its place and use depending on who you are, what you do and how you like to do it.
-
Thanks Anders, that image does indeed look nice. Do you ever shoot tethered? If so, do you have any connectivity issues? I will contact you off-line.
re:
---------------
>THE LOOK I GET "MY STYLE" IS PARTIALLY A RESULT OF MY CAMERA. I GET HIRED >FOR MY STYLE WHICH IS MADE UP OF MANY THINGS (LIGHT, COMPOSITION ETC) >BUT HOW MY PICTURE JUST LOOKS, VISUALLY, IS AFFECTED BY WHAT TYPE OF >CAMERA/BACK I USE. If there is no point in using these digital backs sometime when >you want a certain look, then why do some of the best photographers in the world >still use them. Are you so arrogant that you think that you know more about the use >of a certain camera/back to achieve Demarchelier's style than Demarchelier himself?
---------------
Woof75, of course the camaras can have different looks (they have different default settings, lenses, chips etc.), and there can be good reason to use one over the other based on the "look" of the camera. (though as you yourself pointed out earlier, any of these cameras can be made to look like the rest depending on RAW conversion, photoshop, etc...) By the way, not that it matters, but last time I saw Demarchelier, he was shooting the cover of Vogue with a Canon.
Bernard, that image of the dappled wall looks very good to me.
Anyway I told myself that I would not buy another back due to all the technical issues I have had with them in the studio over the years, but looks like either a DL28 or a Phase/Mamiya may be in my near future...maybe I'll wait until some of y'all have bought them and they start appearing in the buy/sell area for 1/2 price. There's plenty of "price binning" happening there these days.
*shocking how many people buy new MF digital systems and 6 months later, after a few thoudand shots, they are being sold at a huge loss! I am truly amazed by the volume.
-
-------------
Woof75, of course the camaras can have different looks (they have different default settings, lenses, chips etc.), and there can be good reason to use one over the other based on the "look" of the camera. (though as you yourself pointed out earlier, any of these cameras can be made to look like the rest depending on RAW conversion, photoshop, etc...) By the way, not that it matters, but last time I saw Demarchelier, he was shooting the cover of Vogue with a Canon.
I'm done. Good luck with it.
-
Woof75, of course the camaras can have different looks (they have different default settings, lenses, chips etc.), and there can be good reason to use one over the other based on the "look" of the camera. (though as you yourself pointed out earlier, any of these cameras can be made to look like the rest depending on RAW conversion, photoshop, etc...) By the way, not that it matters, but last time I saw Demarchelier, he was shooting the cover of Vogue with a Canon.
He also shot the last Pirelli calendar with an hasselblad and a DB.
In any case, even if I would love to have Dermachelier accounts over mine (even bank's ones LOL) any time, he is not exactly well know for any compelling imagery or photographs that strike to the eye.
-
Are any of these guys getting fired for lack of micro contrast? Did the art director get scolded for letting a toy camera onto the set? Did inez and vinoodh's images at the fashion photo exhibit I went to look inferior to the other images because they shoot with Canons? Er, no.
Did Paolo Roversi's images look like magic in his show last fall? Yup. It's the lighting, the technique, the medium (film), the printing, models, etc., etc.
99.99999% of the time the only people that care about dxo numbers, the type of camera a photographer uses, the minutte detail of the image are the overly obsessed photographer, or the retoucher that might be called on to rebuild detail, (usually detail that would never exist even if there was a 200mpx camera) and the people that make and sell cameras (on forums that usually means medium format and on forums the "sales" opinions covers a lot of territory).
Once shot for commerce the ad agency, the client, the focus groups only look for the image that compels them to act.
in fact if your client stars talking about megapixels usually they are looking at the wrong thing and as a photographer if your mentioning it, then your selling the wrong thing.
I knew the moment that someone like dxo produces a test that says any dslr is close to or equal in quality to a medium format back that the forums would light up with partisan viewpoints about how right/wrong/insane/laughable/correct/incorrect these tests are.
Medium format has produced a lot of messages to sell their product. File size, then when that evened out, it was dynamic range, now it will be back to file size or sharpness or something other than the obvious areas medium format should address.
Still in the real world of commerce and editorial everybody forgets about the technical and starts looking for that one compelling image that will pass committee and draw attention to the page.
This is obviously just small screen shots of a campaign so your not going to see any real difference in camera make or type, (go ahead guess if you want) and they've been reviewed by ABs. ADss, CDs. AEs production managers, focus groups and clients top to bottom and the words megapixels or camera brand were never once mentioned.
[attachment=11394:1takeyourpick.jpg]
There is absolutely no wrong choice in cameras if what you use produces the results you want.
If someone wants to spend 40k on a 60mpx camera then fire it up because the economy could use the boost, but if anyone really believes that anyone cares or notices (at least the people writing the checks) well it's probably time to reevaluate your message.
A client may notice if you say, hey "look at this from the highest detailed capture device ever made (and then zoomed in on a shirt button), but honestly you could probably do that with almost any professional digital camera and the client would go wow. Once past that moment everyone forgets and and goes back to doing what that should be doing in the first place . . .producing the image.
-
James those images are amazing!
-
Agree with James and some of the other posts here.
If a client is focusing on megapixels, something is indeed wrong.
However, while 35mm dominates, medium format digital shooters as a collective are stubbornly committed to their tools. And few of them only use MFD, most use multiple formats depending on the situation. But those that do use MFD are pretty serious about continuing with the format.
Despite the abundance of 35mm solutions and users, and the appearance of MFD kits in the For Sale section from time to time, as a whole, the body of Medium Format Digita Shooters stays relatively constant. Seen as a journeying entity, it largely maintains it's dimensions and continues on its way.
What skews that factuality are forum posts like some of the ones in here (and that's great, I like the varied opinions, not criticizing anything).
What I take from all of the opinions here is that it's more important to the photographer what they're shooting with, even if the client can notice the difference. At the end of the day what a photographer wants are the right tools to get him where he wants to be from an end result standpoint. For many photographers, that stubbornly remains medium format and I think that is validated by the thousands of photographers worldwide who continue to shoot with the format for reasons that are mostly important to them and completely irrelevant to any argument made here for one format over the other.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
James,
Nice to have you back at the forum! Regarding your writing I guess that it is absolutely true that I client would not at all be interested in the DxO-rating of the camera you use. On the other hand I'm pretty sure you are choosing the adequate camera for the job. As far as I understand you are using different tools for different jobs and you also test and evaluate each piece of new equipment you have. So the client doesn't need to know, because the photographer already made the necessary choices.
I also got the impression that you feel that the new very high res MFDBs have a bad return on investment, so you don't jump on that train right now.
It is my understanding that you were never overly impressed by the Canon 1DsII but you find the 1DsIII to be a much better camera. My guess is that it is not the extra 5 MPixels that do it but something else.
Best regards
Erik
99.99999% of the time the only people that care about dxo numbers, the type of camera a photographer uses, the minutte detail of the image are the overly obsessed photographer, or the retoucher that might be called on to rebuild detail, (usually detail that would never exist even if there was a 200mpx camera) and the people that make and sell cameras (on forums that usually means medium format and on forums the "sales" opinions covers a lot of territory).
Once shot for commerce the ad agency, the client, the focus groups only look for the image that compels them to act.
in fact if your client stars talking about megapixels usually they are looking at the wrong thing and as a photographer if your mentioning it, then your selling the wrong thing.
I knew the moment that someone like dxo produces a test that says any dslr is close to or equal in quality to a medium format back that the forums would light up with partisan viewpoints about how right/wrong/insane/laughable/correct/incorrect these tests are.
Medium format has produced a lot of messages to sell their product. File size, then when that evened out, it was dynamic range, now it will be back to file size or sharpness or something other than the obvious areas medium format should address.
Still in the real world of commerce and editorial everybody forgets about the technical and starts looking for that one compelling image that will pass committee and draw attention to the page.
This is obviously just small screen shots of a campaign so your not going to see any real difference in camera make or type, (go ahead guess if you want) and they've been reviewed by ABs. ADss, CDs. AEs production managers, focus groups and clients top to bottom and the words megapixels or camera brand were never once mentioned.
[attachment=11394:1takeyourpick.jpg]
There is absolutely no wrong choice in cameras if what you use produces the results you want.
If someone wants to spend 40k on a 60mpx camera then fire it up because the economy could use the boost, but if anyone really believes that anyone cares or notices (at least the people writing the checks) well it's probably time to reevaluate your message.
A client may notice if you say, hey "look at this from the highest detailed capture device ever made (and then zoomed in on a shirt button), but honestly you could probably do that with almost any professional digital camera and the client would go wow. Once past that moment everyone forgets and and goes back to doing what that should be doing in the first place . . .producing the image.
-
James,
Nice to have you back at the forum! Regarding your writing I guess that it is absolutely true that I client would not at all be interested in the DxO-rating of the camera you use. On the other hand I'm pretty sure you are choosing the adequate camera for the job. As far as I understand you are using different tools for different jobs and you also test and evaluate each piece of new equipment you have. So the client doesn't need to know, because the photographer already made the necessary choices.
I also got the impression that you feel that the new very high res MFDBs have a bad return on investment, so you don't jump on that train right now.
It is my understanding that you were never overly impressed by the Canon 1DsII but you find the 1DsIII to be a much better camera. My guess is that it is not the extra 5 MPixels that do it but something else.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks.
I think maybe I didn't communicate exactly as I meant. There is nothing "wrong" with a 50 to 60 mpx back if that is what you need or what works for you. For me, it's not what I need in medium format or any format for that matter. I can run the list of what I need, but honestly we've all written it 1,000 times before and I guess medium format is just what it is and what it always will be, so making wish lists is probably a waste of time.
I just find all of this interesting and in a real world sense some of the information I see just doesn't jive. Clients production people may talk file size, (actually few, if any do) but once the project is going that's all forgotten. It is about getting that image they find compelling or on message, has the right expression, etc. etc. etc.
It doesn't mean that if it just so happens that it can be done with a 60mpx back then I'm sure they are fine with that, but even with a 12 mpx nikon nobody says, whoa what is that? It's all about getting the shot.
Yes I use a lot of cameras and probably will continue to. Some get more use than others but if you look at the first dozen images on my website (and I'm not asking anyone to do that), but they run in today's order of Leica, 1ds2, 1ds3, leica, p31+, film, 1ds3, aptus 22, p31+, aptus 22, 1ds3, 1ds3.
This proves nothing, other than I own and used those cameras, got paid, the images were run, life goes on.
There is some post here that says "trust your eyes" and I'm good on that. In fact this weekend I processed and purposed images from the p31+, the Nikon D700 and the Canon 1ds3.
At 200 iso the p31 + is great as long as everything is in focus, up to 400 iso the 1ds is also great (as long as it's in focus) up to 640 to 800 iso the d700 looks more detailed than those other cameras at 640 or 800 iso and since it hits focus better than both the canon and contax, it looks a lot more detailed . . . but that's just trusting my eyes.
Now in regards as to how anyone sells themself, that's their business and if a camera or a file size helps then great, but I've found it takes a lot to secure a decent gig and it's more than cameras, art, production values, costs, reputation or friendship. It's usualy a mixture of all of those things and in my experience if you sell yourself because of a piece of equipment, then you run the risk of becoming a ccommodity and commodities usually work there way down to the lowest costs possible.
But cameras, dxo, pixel pepping is really not that important. What is important is if you use what you believe to be best for your own personal work.
-
I agree and I shot 35mm for more years than I can count. One of my biggest issues with some clients was what they turn your files into. Sometimes that need to go really big is there and i have been burned by this with some corporate clients, no I don't do a lot of fashion when this may not be as important but in the corporate world things are different in many ways. Having something much different than the guy down the street or even the actually worker in the art dept. . Yes there are tons of them shooting this stuff themselves to save money and we all know how this goes. Being able to produce a big file has it's advantages besides your talent and what you can do for them. Yes i get called in when it get's complicated or they really need someone that knows what they are doing and does it right. They do add that fact that I can go big in the decision making. So yes there are certain advantages to MF in the selling part of things and being able to produce that and cover your butt in any situation when they turn something into wall size and EXPECT detail in it. I'm not saying it is the only choice for a shooter or this is all the time but when there is a need than you have to fill it. Of course certain jobs are never in this category either and having both types of systems is great. My issue is i don't want to be caught with my pants down either and whatever I use the system will handle those clients needs and selling your technology to your client is part of your overall package especially when costs are factors and the guy down the street is cheaper. It's not just decided that Guy is the better shooter and we just call him in. Hardly ever the case, the art depts. have to fight the purchasing depts. to bring in the more expensive shooter. Unfortunately this is how it really works out there with many clients , costs come FIRST than the choice of talent. Fortune 500 companies the purchasing dept usually forces the cost decision and you as a shooter and talents are meaningless. People that actually want you have to fight for you to come in. Please believe this is more the norm than the exception. Luckily I have many clients that this is not always the case and your talent is more important but as a commercial generalist than your gear battle is harder to deal with because of the varied types of work. I maybe shooting a annual report shot one day with a huge set and the next shooting a golf tourny of the corporate executives with clients which you have no choice but have to shoot them or you don't get the annual report ones.
-
when i was shooting with the 5D 'classic' i had this hapen to me a few times: the AD or the client told me they had the same Camera or once that they had given it as a christmas present to their wife. first i thought HORROR, i have to get a Medium Format camera to look professional, then i realised that they were flattered that they made the right decision for their purchase, as it semed to be the professional camera they were sold to. and when the guy with the expensive wife told me that somehow her pictures never looked close to what we were producing in this project, i was a happy camper again.
If you think only a MF camera is the right tool for you, fine! don't come running back and open a new thread in this forum complaining, that your investment melted much quicker than expected. If you didn't get your investment back within one year you made a wrong business decision. if you're able to charge triple just because you own a MF camera, I am envious. I can't.
But don't claim that it is not possible to create absolutely top notch work with a Nikon/Canon/Sony/whatever.
-
It paid for itself in 3 months and than some. BTW I NEVER said in all these post 35mm will not work. I've been doing this for 35 years and yes 35mm will work but I prefer to have this ability in MF and it works for me. Honestly I don't care what anyone shoots, we are all different and have different needs. I don't need to justify my purchases to anyone except my wife and my business so i really don't care what anyone thinks. I'm a working Pro and my needs are completely different than anyone else's , my point which you missed I know what works in my case and been around the block long enough to know what they are.
-
It paid for itself in 3 months and than some. BTW I NEVER said in all these post 35mm will not work. I've been doing this for 35 years and yes 35mm will work but I prefer to have this ability in MF and it works for me. Honestly I don't care what anyone shoots, we are all different and have different needs. I don't need to justify my purchases to anyone except my wife and my business so i really don't care what anyone thinks. I'm a working Pro and my needs are completely different than anyone else's , my point which you missed I know what works in my case and been around the block long enough to know what they are.
well I will say that 35mm dslr won't work on some jobs.. I just rec'd neiman-marcus's "the book". and I would bet real money that is was shot in total with a mfdb..
and I would also bet that the folks incharge of this chunk of production knew what they were doing..it was by choice to have it look this way..not what the photographer pulled out of his ___ that day.
Some clients care some don't, some hire for name, some hire for talent and some for budget, and everything in between..it is not a fixed thing.
I do find it really interesting that those anointed, who get 50+grand a day can use a holga or canon when the nuts and bolts of the industry, billing if lucky 2.5 grand a day have to pop for the 60 grand system..to compete with the other nuts and bolts.. but that is the world of fashion, in itself not a logical thing to wrap your head around..though for some reason it commands the pinnacle level of our profession.. and if you shoot celebs.. omg, your pixels are indeed golden, period
-
well I will say that 35mm dslr won't work on some jobs.. I just rec'd neiman-marcus's "the book". and I would bet real money that is was shot in total with a mfdb..
and I would also bet that the folks incharge of this chunk of production knew what they were doing..it was by choice to have it look this way..not what the photographer pulled out of his ___ that day.
Some clients care some don't, some hire for name, some hire for talent and some for budget, and everything in between..it is not a fixed thing.
I do find it really interesting that those anointed, who get 50+grand a day can use a holga or canon when the nuts and bolts of the industry, billing if lucky 2.5 grand a day have to pop for the 60 grand system..to compete with the other nuts and bolts.. but that is the world of fashion, in itself not a logical thing to wrap your head around..though for some reason it commands the pinnacle level of our profession.. and if you shoot celebs.. omg, your pixels are indeed golden, period
I don't know about the big book, but historically it usually is up to the artists discretion to use whatever platform and media they chose, film to digital. This may have changed recently.
I do know that the internet imagery used by NM, along with some other print imagery, is sourced in majority through one single digital company so the choice of camera, platform and medium is decided by the client not the artist and all the web imagery is shot with a phase back, first a p25 and I believe now a p30 or p30+, all for 72 ppi images at about 2" in length. This has less to do with quality or look but is based on a business arrangement.
-
I thumbed through the book the other day and it did look very well done both photographically and the printing. Certainly better than most rags out there.
-
[attachment=11394:1takeyourpick.jpg]
Errr, let me guess: Leica M8?
-
Odd that your 1Ds3 gives you focus issues James. My two bodies from the start have given me just about 100% in focus images - even at 1.2. (though I did have a rental which was rubbish in terms of AF.)
-
Hey TMARK, do you care to mention which issues you are referring to (bergdorf goodman.) I have about 8 years worth of issues sitting right here.
Lisa,
Not the main catalouge but other print collateral, mainly seasonal.