Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Jim2 on September 11, 2009, 10:00:28 pm

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 11, 2009, 10:00:28 pm
I'm currently shooting landscape as a hobby, hoping that one day I can sell the ones I consider great. I'm currently using 1ds3 and have been wondering about whether to get an MFDB + view camera. The MFDB would give me a higher res and the view camera would give me better Dof on grand scheme type of shots.

- I'm wondering whether I should wait for 1ds4, hoping it would have a higher resolution + better DR (if that's even possible?) and use either the Canon TS lens or Cambo X2

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology? I'm using a Canon ipf6100 printer at the moment but the future might offer us better printing technology too.

I guess this is all technical and at the end of the day a nicely captured shots with 1ds3 would be quite nice too and I know a few professional landscape photographers who sell their photos for a living use 5d2.

Thanks for your input / comments / advice / suggestions / thoughts.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BobDavid on September 11, 2009, 11:11:05 pm
Unless you've got loads of time and money, keep the Canon 1DS III and take a pass on the view camera/medium format back idea.  If you're really interested in gaining depth-of-field for landscape work, invest in the new Canon 17mm and/or 24mm tilt shift lenses. You can extend dynamic range by blending layers in Photoshop (process one layer for highlights and the other for shadows). If you are under the impression that a medium format back will automatically improve your ability to market and sell fine art prints, think again. Especially if you've got no track record selling fine art photography.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Juanito on September 12, 2009, 12:51:31 am
If you have money to burn, get the digital back. If you don't, concentrate on making great images. Once your great images start bringing in money to the point that you have the money to burn, then get the digital back.

MFDB is great, but it's not going to make you any more money or make your photography any better.

John
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 12, 2009, 06:18:27 am
Quote from: BobDavid
Unless you've got loads of time and money, keep the Canon 1DS III and take a pass on the view camera/medium format back idea.  If you're really interested in gaining depth-of-field for landscape work, invest in the new Canon 17mm and/or 24mm tilt shift lenses. You can extend dynamic range by blending layers in Photoshop (process one layer for highlights and the other for shadows). If you are under the impression that a medium format back will automatically improve your ability to market and sell fine art prints, think again. Especially if you've got no track record selling fine art photography.
Photoshop HDR is not much use... but can be improved with photomatrix.

Have you any experience of producing large quality prints from MDF and failing to sell them? ...do you know what a large, quality print looks like?

I appreciate that a MFB will not turn a 3rd rate photographer into a good photographer, and that you need to use a tripod and lock the mirror up to get the benefit of the res.

MDF is not for everyone, and is not cost effective for everyone, but please bear in mind that this forum is supposedly for helping people who appreciate the benefits of MDF get the best out of their investments.

I do not want to get a track record of trying to sell 3rd rate small format pictures (like the other 10,000 hopefuls) so I am not going to try to sell anything until I have my view camera working, and I can supply stunning 24" * 34" pictures @ 360 original camera pixels per print inch.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: teddillard on September 12, 2009, 07:11:59 am
Interesting question, and one that bugged me for a long time.  Finally, when I was working at EP Levine in Boston, I did a test.  I normally would take a camera and make some test shots and print them as big as I could stand, to show what each camera was capable of, but for this test I took two cameras, a big DSLR and a big digital back, shot the same shot with them, and then printed an 11x14 print- the best quality print I knew how to make.  

I got much the same result as what I got once with 11x14 prints made in the darkroom from different film formats- specifically 120 vs. 4x5.  There was a difference in richness, tonal range and what I can only describe as acutance in the two.  It's almost an emotional response, I'd be hard-pressed to back it up with test data, but there was a difference visible to everybody who saw the prints.  Alone, the prints both looked great.  Side-by-side, there was a difference.

I know it may not be realistic, but because it has so much to do with personal taste and perception I'd really encourage you to see for yourself.  Rent a digital back if you can, and shoot one of your favorite subjects with both- make prints, don't just peep.  Your answer will be undeniable.  At the least, insist on doing a test at the dealer.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 12, 2009, 09:22:29 am
Quote from: teddillard
...for this test I took two cameras, a big DSLR and a big digital back, shot the same shot with them, and then printed an 11x14 print- the best quality print I knew how to make.

I got much the same result as what I got once with 11x14 prints made in the darkroom from different film formats- specifically 120 vs. 4x5.  There was a difference in richness, tonal range and what I can only describe as acutance in the two.  It's almost an emotional response, I'd be hard-pressed to back it up with test data, but there was a difference visible to everybody who saw the prints.  Alone, the prints both looked great.  Side-by-side, there was a difference.
One problem is that it is difficult to get retailers to lend you £30,000 worth of kit if you are not an established professional photographer, and if you are a landscape photographer it is difficult to take any useful test shots at you local camera shop.

Most people are of the opinion that you need to print at least 24" (from single shot) to see the difference in res, and the P65 + and H3D11-60 compare to 10 * 8, not 5*4.

One question one might ask... how does a 24 Mpx DSLR picture (taken with a camera with an Anti-Aliasing filter) compare to one taken with a 22Mpx digital back or an 18 Mpx M9?

MFBs are not better just because the digiback unit is detachable from the mirror unit!

...and photography is like Hi-Fi audio - to get a good end result, with good tonal range, res, etc you need to get everything right, and use good equipment and good technique at every stage.

If fine art prints is your market, then some might suggest that you would not get the best out of a 60 Mpx digiback if you do not spend £5,000 on something like an Epson 7900 and a Colorburst RIP.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 12, 2009, 09:26:20 am
Hi Ted,

Thank's a lot for good info. I still feel that I would ask about sharpening. A DSLR needs more sharpening than an MFDB due to the AA-filter and probably also because of the optics. What is your view on this?

It would be a great service to the community if we had some comparison images to download.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: teddillard
Interesting question, and one that bugged me for a long time.  Finally, when I was working at EP Levine in Boston, I did a test.  I normally would take a camera and make some test shots and print them as big as I could stand, to show what each camera was capable of, but for this test I took two cameras, a big DSLR and a big digital back, shot the same shot with them, and then printed an 11x14 print- the best quality print I knew how to make.  

I got much the same result as what I got once with 11x14 prints made in the darkroom from different film formats- specifically 120 vs. 4x5.  There was a difference in richness, tonal range and what I can only describe as acutance in the two.  It's almost an emotional response, I'd be hard-pressed to back it up with test data, but there was a difference visible to everybody who saw the prints.  Alone, the prints both looked great.  Side-by-side, there was a difference.

I know it may not be realistic, but because it has so much to do with personal taste and perception I'd really encourage you to see for yourself.  Rent a digital back if you can, and shoot one of your favorite subjects with both- make prints, don't just peep.  Your answer will be undeniable.  At the least, insist on doing a test at the dealer.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 12, 2009, 09:54:08 am

Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

Regards.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 12, 2009, 11:00:17 am
Quote from: Jim2
I'm currently shooting landscape as a hobby, hoping that one day I can sell the ones I consider great. I'm currently using 1ds3 and have been wondering about whether to get an MFDB + view camera. The MFDB would give me a higher res and the view camera would give me better Dof on grand scheme type of shots.

- I'm wondering whether I should wait for 1ds4, hoping it would have a higher resolution + better DR (if that's even possible?) and use either the Canon TS lens or Cambo X2

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology? I'm using a Canon ipf6100 printer at the moment but the future might offer us better printing technology too.

I guess this is all technical and at the end of the day a nicely captured shots with 1ds3 would be quite nice too and I know a few professional landscape photographers who sell their photos for a living use 5d2.

Thanks for your input / comments / advice / suggestions / thoughts.


Hi

You can take good photos with any camera, basically. However, if your eye is sensitive... then there is no contest: MFDB over DSLR. Many with latest 24MP dslrs appears to argue themselves blue in these forums over that theirs are the equal to MFDBs, and likewise some folks who jump from latest to latest, no matter format. That is actually a good thing, because it means many used medium format gear can be bought used for plain bargains! Yet there are pros that use 22MP MFDBs for a reason: image quality. There are indeed pros that use DSLRs for a reason: quick and easy, more not required.

I shoot landscapes and travels as a serious hobby, and I am frank tired of the digital upgrade race, that in fact is one reason to go with a MFDB and stay with it. I use Aptus 65 28MP MFDB on Mamiya 645 for serious in digital. It is about as simple as DSLR, but less technology to get in my way, thus more focus on image. I am also experimenting with my Aptus on my Shen-Hao, not for greater DOF but for panoramic. Actually, as compared to maximizing all in focus, I find it more interesting to have ability of a more shallow DOF than 35mm sized sensors because that gives more dimension to an image. MFDB gives you that ability, or when I wish... to step down for large DOF. The clear downside with MFDB is that a true wide such as Mamiya 28mm is $$$, and likewise a technical "digital" camera is $$$ as also digital large format lenses. For my Shen-Hao I use SHARP traditional film lenses, such as Schneider 72XL and Rodenstock Sironar-N 150. Tentative they appear as sharp as my Mamiyas, although I am still experimenting... You can buy such off Ebay for bargains and less than latest Nikkors. I honest do not find much need for tilt for my 44x33mm sensor, except in limited cases. More so, I do not comprehend why one would need it on Canon 17mm and 24mm, except for purpose to minimize DOF.

Per my experience, picking up medium format, one learns more of photography instead of latest auto everything techniques, and that is a good thing. Personally I am happy I made that move the other year.  

Regards
Anders
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 12, 2009, 11:11:21 am
Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

Regards.
So I guess "we" (as in we in general) need to settle this first. Whether the DR in MFDB is actually better. Phaseone claims 12 - 12.5 stops. What's canon's DR does anyone know?

If the DR are the same then the only thing left are resolution and sharpness. Sharpness would highly depend on lens and perhaps the tilting / scheimpflug principle which can be solved with either something like Cambo X2 / Arca M2 or Canon's TS lens. It leaves only resolution which the 35mm camp will eventually catch up perhaps at least to 40 - 50MP level.

Realistically, how many photos does one need to sell to actually use the proceeds to pay for an MFDB? Gosh.... at $1000 a photo you'd need to sell 20+ of them - not an easy task for a starting photographer since they won't have a gallery, won't have the reputation / name, the sales channel is not as established. It might take a year or two to sell that many photos for a no name photographer?

I guess the same consideration goes with images taken using MFDB  Thankfully I am not making my living from photography. I am just thinking whether it's a wise / good use of money in terms of whether it would actually make a difference in the results. Yes I understand that basic techniques such as using a solid tripod, mirror lock up (on a dslr), cable release are all essentials before worrying about what kind of camera / sensor one has.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 12, 2009, 11:22:02 am
Hi Guillermo,

I'll probably agree with you on the DR issue. What I feel is that both you and me have a background in engineering and probably have some sort of preference for things that can be measured and quantified. There is also a lot of mythology surrounding photographic equipment, like the case is with high-end audio.

On the other hand, experienced photographer like Michael Reichman and Ted Dillard say that there is a definitive visual difference even on quite small prints but sort of straggle with describing the differences. Cicrocontrast and tonality is mentioned and those terms are not really well defined to me.

A third factor is that everything we do in digital involves a lot of processing. Demosaicing and color interpretation in "raw"-conversion, followed by capture-sharpening, tonality adjustment and finally sharpening for output. It is not possible to create a level playing field. We would really need to have optimal processing for both images, and what's optimal is in the eyes of the beholder.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

Regards.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 12, 2009, 11:24:18 am
Quote from: Jim2
Realistically, how many photos does one need to sell to actually use the proceeds to pay for an MFDB? Gosh.... at $1000 a photo you'd need to sell 20+ of them - not an easy task for a starting photographer since they won't have a gallery, won't have the reputation / name, the sales channel is not as established. It might take a year or two to sell that many photos for a no name photographer?
In the UK I have never seen a good, big high res picture (MFB or pano), and I think that if I walked into any gallery with a few, they would take me seriously and allocate wall space.

I think that in the USA there are landscape photographers using serious cameras like 10 * 8s and putting quality pictures into galleries - can anyone confirm?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 12, 2009, 11:57:04 am
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
I do not want to get a track record of trying to sell 3rd rate small format pictures (like the other 10,000 hopefuls) so I am not going to try to sell anything until I have my view camera working, and I can supply stunning 24" * 34" pictures @ 360 original camera pixels per print inch.

Somebody getting a bit of P65+ induced vertigo?

Phaseone should inform the owners about the risks...  

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 12, 2009, 12:07:13 pm
Quote from: Anders_HK
You can take good photos with any camera, basically. However, if your eye is sensitive... then there is no contest: MFDB over DSLR. Many with latest 24MP dslrs appears to argue themselves blue in these forums over that theirs are the equal to MFDBs,

Those guys remind me of the Nuforce owners who keep claiming that their Ref9V2 SE at 3,500 US$ are as good as 15,000 US$ Krells.  

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 12, 2009, 02:16:28 pm
Hi,

I would say that there are some discussions about sharpness. There are several approaches:

1) Studies of the resolution of the human eye, which normally give about one minute of arc resolution. This is consistent with the pitch of the rods in the foeva of the human eye.
2) Statements that 400 PPI images are sharper han 200 PPI to the eye

Add to this that we now that aliasing (or false resolution), which actually is an artifact, can enhance prception of sharpness.

By the way, resolution is a very bad measure of sharpness. Edge contrast, sometimes called acutance is much better related to our impression of sharpness.

I would recommend this presentation from Zeiss on the issue: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-and-perception (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/22-a-very-god-article-about-mtf-and-perception)

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Jim2
So I guess "we" (as in we in general) need to settle this first. Whether the DR in MFDB is actually better. Phaseone claims 12 - 12.5 stops. What's canon's DR does anyone know?

If the DR are the same then the only thing left are resolution and sharpness. Sharpness would highly depend on lens and perhaps the tilting / scheimpflug principle which can be solved with either something like Cambo X2 / Arca M2 or Canon's TS lens. It leaves only resolution which the 35mm camp will eventually catch up perhaps at least to 40 - 50MP level.

Realistically, how many photos does one need to sell to actually use the proceeds to pay for an MFDB? Gosh.... at $1000 a photo you'd need to sell 20+ of them - not an easy task for a starting photographer since they won't have a gallery, won't have the reputation / name, the sales channel is not as established. It might take a year or two to sell that many photos for a no name photographer?

I guess the same consideration goes with images taken using MFDB  Thankfully I am not making my living from photography. I am just thinking whether it's a wise / good use of money in terms of whether it would actually make a difference in the results. Yes I understand that basic techniques such as using a solid tripod, mirror lock up (on a dslr), cable release are all essentials before worrying about what kind of camera / sensor one has.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: woof75 on September 12, 2009, 03:38:29 pm
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
In the UK I have never seen a good, big high res picture (MFB or pano), and I think that if I walked into any gallery with a few, they would take me seriously and allocate wall space.

I think that in the USA there are landscape photographers using serious cameras like 10 * 8s and putting quality pictures into galleries - can anyone confirm?

There are hundreds of photographers shooting landscapes quite well with 8 *10 cameras, scanning backs, P65's etc etc, producing perfect prints, good image quality is just the very start of it.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 12, 2009, 04:20:59 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

That's simply not true. You're judging based on dX0s numbers. I've judged it (as well as many many people on this forum) in the real world.

This can be settled in just a few minutes when you shoot both formats. Underexpose or overexpose both systems by 3 stops and then push/pull the image back into place. This test is dead-easy to run and judge, but obviously anyone shooting an expensive system should be expected to expose properly, so alternatively, use each camera for a scene with extraordinary range of lighting and then try to pull in both highlights and shadows.

The difference is obvious and undeniable. We're happy (for free) to open our gear closet for your own hands on testing in Atlanta or Miami, a discounted rental anywhere in the US, or in person at the upcoming Oregon GetDPI.com workshop (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=125059#post125059) (at which they'll be at least one of just about every high-end dSLR as well as Phase and Leaf digital backs).

You are 100% right that much more than just pure sensor size determines the DR (though it is a major component). However, at every step in the image chain a high-end back like a P65+ puts more emphasis on quality and less on speed or price than does a D3X.

To answer your question: is the difference of DR on  MFDB vs 35mm dSLR dicernible in print?
  - IF your scene contains a lot of DR and
  - IF your goal is to show detail deep into the shadows and highlights*
  - THEN yes; absolutely it will

*many many fantastic landscapes have been created with large areas of pure white and detail-less black; this is a style choice. If your style is to model after these high-contrast landscapes with small DR than you don't need the DR of a DB (though you'd still benefit from the better lenses, more flexible usage, body-based tilt/shift, tonal smoothness, and resolution).

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 12, 2009, 04:23:18 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).
...
Regards.

You'd think so from looking at just the numbers, but when you compare the files there's a pretty big visual difference between even my old P20 and my new canon 5DII.    Having really appreciated your work with the zero noise software I believe your technical abilities but in this case you may need to look carefully at side by side prints before making such a statement or stating that differences in DR is a myth.

Besides the sensor differences (CMOS vs CCD) and other file processing, there are differences in magnification factors between DSLR and MF systems that affect the look and feel as well as the differences in lens systems.   You simply cannot compare something esthetic just by looking at numbers and the DXO numbers do not compare well between MFDB and DSLR because the MFDB files are treated differently in post - for example the black frame subtraction happens on the computer instead of the camera.  

I recently shot a job (granite sculptures for an installation) with both the 5DII and my Rollei 6008/p20.   The 5DII actually even has more pixels and I cropped the p20 to a rectangle but the p20 files had more depth and realness to them - which was even clearer in print (8x10) than on screen.  The 5DII allowed me to take some video and shoot some higher ISO images so I was glad to have both systems.

Going back to what others have stated - I wouldn't expect a change in gear to help you sell more prints.   But I do feel there is a difference.


Regards,
Eric
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 12, 2009, 05:14:06 pm
Hi,

That may depend a little bit on how DR is defined. The normal (technical) definition of DR is SNR = 1, and normally the read noise is considered. Read noise seems to be lower on CMOS and the technology Canon is using, so by this definition Canon get high DR-rating because of their low read noise.

Now, noise in normal photography is not dominated by read noise but noise resulting from the poisson distribution of photons. That essentially means that you need to collect about perhaps 100 photons on average to acceptable noise levels. In the first case:

DR = maximum electrons / read noise

and in the other case

DR = maximum electrons / (read noise + 100)

This will be something like 3-5 stops less than the first value. It's quite clear that having larger sensels have two advantages:

1) They collect more photons so they need less exposure to achieve good statistics
2) Bigger sensel can hold more electrons which increases dynamic range

This is a very short explanation and not a scientific one.

For a good explanation check:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail//do...el.size.matter/ (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail//does.pixel.size.matter/)

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...oise/index.html (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html)

Best regards
Erik




Quote from: dougpetersonci
That's simply not true. You're judging based on dX0s numbers. I've judged it (as well as many many people on this forum) in the real world.

This can be settled in just a few minutes when you shoot both formats. Underexpose or overexpose both systems by 3 stops and then push/pull the image back into place. This test is dead-easy to run and judge, but obviously anyone shooting an expensive system should be expected to expose properly, so alternatively, use each camera for a scene with extraordinary range of lighting and then try to pull in both highlights and shadows.

The difference is obvious and undeniable. We're happy (for free) to open our gear closet for your own hands on testing in Atlanta or Miami, a discounted rental anywhere in the US, or in person at the upcoming Oregon GetDPI.com workshop (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=125059#post125059) (at which they'll be at least one of just about every high-end dSLR as well as Phase and Leaf digital backs).

You are 100% right that much more than just pure sensor size determines the DR (though it is a major component). However, at every step in the image chain a high-end back like a P65+ puts more emphasis on quality and less on speed or price than does a D3X.

To answer your question: is the difference of DR on  MFDB vs 35mm dSLR dicernible in print?
  - IF your scene contains a lot of DR and
  - IF your goal is to show detail deep into the shadows and highlights*
  - THEN yes; absolutely it will

*many many fantastic landscapes have been created with large areas of pure white and detail-less black; this is a style choice. If your style is to model after these high-contrast landscapes with small DR than you don't need the DR of a DB (though you'd still benefit from the better lenses, more flexible usage, body-based tilt/shift, tonal smoothness, and resolution).

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: gwhitf on September 12, 2009, 07:11:19 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
This can be settled in just a few minutes when you shoot both formats. Underexpose or overexpose both systems by 3 stops and then push/pull the image back into place. This test is dead-easy to run and judge, but obviously anyone shooting an expensive system should be expected to expose properly, so alternatively, use each camera for a scene with extraordinary range of lighting and then try to pull in both highlights and shadows.

If you have a meter, and an LCD, (even a shitty Phase One LCD), and you can't get any closer than three stops, then you've got some much bigger issues in your life, and maybe you ought not own either system. Maybe you oughta go back to that Minolta 101, take a class, and start from scratch.

So you call this "real world"? Miss your exposure by three stops and then try to save the job in the software?

Put a 5D2 and a Phase back side by side -- the only way you're gonna miss your exposure by three stops is with the horrible-rendering Phase One LCD quality, because maybe everything from 200 to 255 gets rendered pure white with that Phase LCD, or you're looking at it in bright sun, and the whole LCD turns metallic.

Come on, Doug, you gotta do better than this to sell your product. The old "miss it by three stops real world argument"?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 12, 2009, 07:56:40 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
That's simply not true. You're judging based on dX0s numbers. I've judged it (as well as many many people on this forum) in the real world.

This can be settled in just a few minutes when you shoot both formats. Underexpose or overexpose both systems by 3 stops and then push/pull the image back into place. This test is dead-easy to run and judge, but obviously anyone shooting an expensive system should be expected to expose properly, so alternatively, use each camera for a scene with extraordinary range of lighting and then try to pull in both highlights and shadows.

The difference is obvious and undeniable.

Hi Doug,

You could easily cut short on those pointless discussions once for all by putting such examples onlines, along with raw files.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 12, 2009, 08:06:33 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
That's simply not true. You're judging based on dX0s numbers. I've judged it (as well as many many people on this forum) in the real world.
What is not true is that I am judging based on DxO numbers. I have deeply analysed Hasselblad H3D II RAW files and was surprised to find much more noise than I expected according to the myth. DxO measures just confirmed that, and I made a reference to them since the site can be easily checked by anyone.

If you have some evidences or comparisions to share (RAW files preferrable), I would be delighted to start a technical discussion. Until that, your experience is less valuable to me than my own tests, sorry.

Quote from: EricWHiss
You'd think so from looking at just the numbers, but when you compare the files there's a pretty big visual difference between even my old P20 and my new canon 5DII.
The same applies here Eric, if you have RAW fiels proving that, just share them.

Regards.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 12, 2009, 08:12:39 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
What is not true is that I am judging based on DxO Numbers. I have deeply analysed Hasselblad H3D II RAW files and was surprised to find much more noise than expected according to the myth. DxO measures just confirmed that, and I made a reference to them since can be easily checked by anyone.

If you have some evidence or comparisions (RAW file preferrable) I would be delighted to start a technical discussion. Until that, your experience is less valuable to me than my own tests, sorry.

Regards.

When you examined the H3DII files did you use Phocus or Flexcolor or DCRAW or ????      I'm just suggesting that using the proprietary converters for MFDB files will make a bigger difference, especially regarding noise and fine detail than with DSLRs.    How much can you know until you shoot with the cameras and work with the files, push them around and print them?    

I've gone back and forth on noise.  It's one of those things that makes a lot less difference than I thought.  Banding and blotches, yeah they ruin images, but noise?  Nope.  And while noise fits into the technical definition of DR - it certainly is not cut and dry in terms of look and feel and prints.  Some kinds of noise - luminance noise is not a prob at all.


p.s.   I'm not at all interested in having a technical discussion with regard to whether MFDB has more DR than DSLR's with you or anyone else.  I've done my own testing.  I encourage you to stop trying to start a debate and rent a digital back camera and do some real life shooting with it.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 12, 2009, 08:14:40 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
When you examined the H3DII files did you use Phocus or Flexcolor or DCRAW or ????      I'm just suggesting that using the proprietary converters for MFDB files will make a bigger difference, especially regarding noise and fine detail than with DSLRs.
I am sorry Eric, but this discussion was already hold in the forum. If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.

Regards.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: gdwhalen on September 12, 2009, 09:07:10 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
I am sorry Eric, but this discussion was already hold in the forum. If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.

Regards.


These discussions are typically so pointless.  People have eyes.  Use them.


http://www.gdwhalen.com (http://www.gdwhalen.com)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 12, 2009, 09:54:15 pm
Quote from: gdwhalen
These discussions are typically so pointless.  People have eyes.  Use them.


http://www.gdwhalen.com (http://www.gdwhalen.com)
I wish I could compare them myself but I have no access to an MFDB nor to anyone who has one, hence hoping for some opinions / advice from those who have used both (preferably owned both also).
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on September 12, 2009, 09:58:17 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
I am sorry Eric, but this discussion was already hold in the forum. If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.

Regards.


IMO it's pointless what the capabilities of the sensor itself are except only as one component towards the final image quality. What matters is what comes out at the end of the imaging process. And to me, if a proprietary software somehow decreases noise, improves detail, reduces artifacts, etc, then the result of that is all I care about. The sensor characteristics are relevant, but only as a critical part of the final outcome, it is in and of itself not the complete story of the outcome.

I agree with Gary, photographers use what they want to use, they'll see what they want to see, and those who use medium format digital feel it gives them something that 35mm does not. Pinning down what that is sure gets difficult. Nonetheless, the preference exists with many. Recently I took a survey of a number of photographers who all shot with medium format digital (and probably all shot with 35mm dslr as well) and asked what it was about mfd that kept them shooting it. Even though I laid out some multiple choice answers it was difficult to come to a clear conclusion as to why they continued shooting mfd. But none of them were interested in shooting exclusively 35mm. Obviously the majority of the market shoots exclusively 35mm dslr. But there is and will always be that (comparatively) small but stubborn quadrant that requires an alternative.

It's very simple - just do the test, look at the results, and you'll know for whatever it is you do, which direction (sometimes both) to take.


Steve Hendrix
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 12, 2009, 10:32:37 pm
We should be clear that the only 35mm DSLR pixel (or sensel) that appears to exceed the DR of the P65+ sensel, at base ISO, is that of the D3X. It appears to be better in all departments; tonal range, color sensitivity and noise etc, at the pixel level.

However, the situation is different when comparing equal size images or prints. The P65+ image then appears to have better SNR, tonal range and color sensitivity, but oddly enough not better DR. The DR of the D3X, even on 8x12" prints, is still about 2/3rds of a stop better than the downsampled P65+ image, excluding enhanced results from proprietary software.

To make a fair comparison, would one have to process both images using the best software available for each camera.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Voltman on September 12, 2009, 11:48:15 pm
Quote from: Jim2
I'm currently shooting landscape as a hobby, hoping that one day I can sell the ones I consider great. I'm currently using 1ds3 and have been wondering about whether to get an MFDB + view camera. The MFDB would give me a higher res and the view camera would give me better Dof on grand scheme type of shots.

- I'm wondering whether I should wait for 1ds4, hoping it would have a higher resolution + better DR (if that's even possible?) and use either the Canon TS lens or Cambo X2

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology? I'm using a Canon ipf6100 printer at the moment but the future might offer us better printing technology too.

I guess this is all technical and at the end of the day a nicely captured shots with 1ds3 would be quite nice too and I know a few professional landscape photographers who sell their photos for a living use 5d2.

Thanks for your input / comments / advice / suggestions / thoughts.

Just my 2 yen's worth.  

"Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?" In my limited experience yes when you look at very large prints that your ipf6100 is capable of producing.  But you don't mention your actual intended output size - assuming you'll print at native res would DR really matter much to please your seeing at the smaller print size your bound to with a DSLR sensor? Do you ever intend to print something larger?

I've owned and used both an MFDB and Nikons for a number of years, albeit the MFDB until recently was a Kodak DCS and my most recent Nikon a D2x (before that a D1, D1X, D2H etc.).  I now have a P65+.  It was a really hard decision not to get the D3X over the P65+ (which I will do eventually) but for me the real killer in deciding to invest so much money in MFD right now came after quite a few visits to galleries here in Tokyo and more specifically the Epson Salon where I saw a portfolio of very large gallery prints of sunsets and landscapes from a Leaf - they were simply stunning - much more so than many of the images I'd seen there before typically shot with DSLRs.  I think once you've seen prints of high DR subjects in large format output from a large format sensor the result will be compelling enough to just go with your instincts.

For me its simply a decision to emulate the technique used to produce the best results I've seen from my perspective and needs - in this case large prints which contain vast, deep shadows where I want to retain the details mixed with nearly blown out highlights.  The tipover point for me was seeing those objectives realized on paper for the first time and comprehending that all of the Photoshop tricks and plugins would never achieve that on a DSLR. Investing in an MFDB makes sense to me as I now realize that when printer technology finally catches up to the sensor's capabilities I'll likely have more useable image files to work with at a later point.

As for the Cambo X2 I'd pass. I've have the Horseman VCC (similar) and I think you'll find the limited movements from a DSLR body won't be satisfying enough. Its a kludge - and in any case Canon's newer T/S series eliminates most needs for such a contraption given they can rotate and are fully coupled.


Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 12, 2009, 11:53:57 pm
Hi Ray,

DR is nothing you can see in a print or, to be more exact, prints can reproduce about seven seven steps of DR. It would be possible to map a large DR. like 10 steps, to print range but the image would be boring and flat. DR is something we can use in raw-conversion and post processing to achieve attractive results.

D-max on papers is about 2.15 - 2.35. D-min on glossy paper is about 0.05. So DR is about 2.2, to get it in steps you simply divide by 0.3 .

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Ray
We should be clear that the only 35mm DSLR pixel (or sensel) that appears to exceed the DR of the P65+ sensel, at base ISO, is that of the D3X. It appears to be better in all departments; tonal range, color sensitivity and noise etc, at the pixel level.

However, the situation is different when comparing equal size images or prints. The P65+ image then appears to have better SNR, tonal range and color sensitivity, but oddly enough not better DR. The DR of the D3X, even on 8x12" prints, is still about 2/3rds of a stop better than the downsampled P65+ image, excluding enhanced results from proprietary software.

To make a fair comparison, would one have to process both images using the best software available for each camera.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 13, 2009, 12:09:49 am
Quote from: Jim2
I wish I could compare them myself but I have no access to an MFDB nor to anyone who has one, hence hoping for some opinions / advice from those who have used both (preferably owned both also).

Jim,

I hear you. There must be some Leaf and Phase One dealers not too far journey from where you live. That is the way to take a look and well worth while a journey for this level of gear.

In these forums nowadays you find much folks arguing that DSLRs are the equal, but with lack of experience of shooting MFDB, and with way too much pixel peeping, comparing to that flawed DxO comparison etc. Many pros shooting MFDB and that posted here before post much less than the other year or are gone, simply because too many trolls with eyes that cannot and refuse to see a difference... claiming, arguing plain silly that their latest gadget 2-7k usd dslrs are equals of professional imaging machines more capable and costing many times more.

Both Leaf and Phase Ones clear beat the recent 24mp dslrs including beating D3X for anyone that have eyes with which to see.... I roamed tons of photos of D3X and the others, and am unable to see any point in discuss because MFDB is superior.
 
If you are willing to stick a digital back on a Mamiya RZ, the RZs nowadays sells for near free, check Ebay. I just picket up a great condition RZ there for 1,700 usd including five lenses and loads of extras, just out of curiosity to shoot some film with such BIG and bright waist level viewfinder. If I would care to get a adapter my Aptus would fit, but... I might not and sell it off instead - at profit.  And... the claim is that MFDB is more expensive... well, it all depends. Also used backs can be come by for reasonable. There are the 22MP Aptus 22 and P25 with 48x36mm sensors and at low ISO they are superb, but there are the newer generation technology higher MP backs, and of those the 44x33 sensors are a bargain because due to their very slight crop they sell for lower. When I bought my Aptus 65 it was cheaper to buy new than a used Aptus 22! I would recommend checking out refurbished backs from a dealer, due that they provide warranty.

Best of luck. Please send me a private message if in any way I can help more.

Regards
Anders
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 13, 2009, 06:00:30 am
Quote from: Anders_HK
that flawed DxO comparison

Sorry ... but why is it so hard to accept that the biggest difference between a Phase One and D3x is sensor size?

What's flawed about DxO's tests?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 13, 2009, 06:29:27 am
Hi,

Well, probably not much is flawed about the DxO tests except the way they present data, and the folks that read those tests.

The major issues I have is that:
- Boiling down all measurement in a single number is over simplification.
- Most readers don't read the articles, look at the curves but just compare the DxO-marks

By and large I see DxO-mark as something positive and feel that their efforts should be appreciated.

If DxO published their raw files used in the measurements then it would be a great contribution to the community.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Sorry ... but why is it so hard to accept that the biggest difference between a Phase One and D3x is sensor size?

What's flawed about DxO's tests?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: evgeny on September 13, 2009, 06:37:10 am
I shoot MFDB in studio with controlable light.
I use ISO 50.
My strobes limit me to 1 image per 2 seconds, which I found almost enough for photographing children.

If you shoot fast and/or in low light you need a DSLR, I don't. I not tried D3x, cannot compare it to MFDB, I think it can succed your needs, but you will want to upgrade every n-years.
I not look back at DSLR since I started shot with Sinar and Aptus backs mounted to Contax 645. My MF/DB images are superb comparing to anything I did before with my old Nikon D/SLRs.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 13, 2009, 06:50:48 am
Quote from: GLuijk
I am sorry Eric, but this discussion was already hold in the forum. If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.

Regards.
What matters is the end result - the print... and if the lens/sensor/software are made for each other... then it would be illogical not to use them together - compare systems, not sensors.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 13, 2009, 07:06:44 am
Quote from: gwhitf
If you have a meter, and an LCD, (even a shitty Phase One LCD), and you can't get any closer than three stops, then you've got some much bigger issues in your life, and maybe you ought not own either system. Maybe you oughta go back to that Minolta 101, take a class, and start from scratch.

So you call this "real world"? Miss your exposure by three stops and then try to save the job in the software?

...If you read my post I very clearly state two tests
1) which is NOT real world, but is very easy/quick to run: miss by three and correct
2) a REAL WORLD test in which the scene's DR is very large and you simply attempt to bring in both highlights and shadows.

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 13, 2009, 07:09:31 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi Ray,

DR is nothing you can see in a print or, to be more exact, prints can reproduce about seven seven steps of DR. It would be possible to map a large DR. like 10 steps, to print range but the image would be boring and flat. DR is something we can use in raw-conversion and post processing to achieve attractive results.

D-max on papers is about 2.15 - 2.35. D-min on glossy paper is about 0.05. So DR is about 2.2, to get it in step you simply divide by 0.3 .

Best regards
Erik

That's absolutely right. DR is used to CAPTURE detail. It is a separate, but very connected issue, to REPRODUCING detail.

If you capture detail you can rearrange the tone curve to reproduce it in print.
If you don't capture detail it cannot be brought into the print curve.

While you can render the detail into the print by a curve this often leaves the entire scene looking flat. So instead you often bring the detail captured back into the print by selectively dodging and burning.

That is the simple power of Dynamic Range. You cannot reproduce what you do not capture.

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Voltman on September 13, 2009, 08:16:51 am
Quote from: dougpetersonci
That's absolutely right. DR is used to CAPTURE detail. It is a separate, but very connected issue, to REPRODUCING detail.

+1 Doug....

To be honest I'm still struggling to understand all of this coming from film for the most part of my life but Adobe has an excellent (though some may say basic) paper on this which pertains to DR:

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbo...ering_image.pdf (http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbox/karllang/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf)

I found this particularly useful in understanding and defining my imaging needs for the present and future sense.

A bit dated comment - but its kind of like going to a Zone system workshop after having a Peter Gowland initiation to photography in the 70s.... and I still have my Pentax Spotmeter F btw.

In the end its how many prints (and future better prints) you can produce 10 years from now from images you only have a single moment to capture now thus a need to capture the best you can at the moment.  From my learning that was the main emphasis of the zone system and the unique departure from the norm of the subject of Adam's book "The Negative". From what I'm finding that still rings true today though its a digital not chemical realm.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 13, 2009, 09:08:57 am
Quote from: evgeny
I shoot MFDB in studio with controlable light.
I use ISO 50.
My strobes limit me to 1 image per 2 seconds, which I found almost enough for photographing children.

If you shoot fast and/or in low light you need a DSLR, I don't. I not tried D3x, cannot compare it to MFDB, I think it can succed your needs, but you will want to upgrade every n-years.
I not look back at DSLR since I started shot with Sinar and Aptus backs mounted to Contax 645. My MF/DB images are superb comparing to anything I did before with my old Nikon D/SLRs.


Alright, I confess as well!!!! I did not shoot with the D3X, and I do not wish to touch it! I got serious into photography with a Nikon F100, it was a superb camera to do so with, and Fuji Velvia. And! It did not have the multitude of high tech buttons that DSLRs have and that do not make you take quality photos, only a large number of photos.

Around 2005 the forums raved of the exciting Nikon D200, saying it was a blessed device and surpassing slide film with all the details from those pixels... and indeed there were lots of folks pixel peeping same as now is argued for 24mp dslrs being equals to mfdb. Anyways, I was convinced by the forums for the D200 back in 2005, simply I was not clever enough to listen to posts not raving for it. I am sorry, but I really found the D200 horrible tool. Colors were a pain to get pleasing and decent, and although details were rendered with pixels it was of far less value than my Minolta DiMage SE 5400 scans from Velvia 50. Perhaps it is something wrong with my eye... perhaps they are too sensitive or trained???

Albeit, many are photographers who wished of and have guilt of claiming the latest carnations from Canoikon land was beating film ;-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/d30/d30.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30.shtml)
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003)

Yup, those two threads were the 6MP and 3MP days...  Hm, what has changed on LL??? And , if you read the one about the 3MP it also justify the cost for digital. How many of you folks posting here are sure digital has been financially justifiable? As an amateur my reply is that it has been far more expensive than if I would have stayed film. Yet, we have all been caught by the media and internet, to upgrade, upgrade, latest better, latest better...

Anyways, I was near strangled over on dpreview when I posted that I sold my D200 and bought a ZD. Even Thom Hogan posted and suggested I would be better off spending money on Photoshop classes. Regrettably the ZD was designed with problems, as I posted of it early last year. That is when I bought the Aptus, either that or I would have been back to FILM. The Aptus 65 rocks, so does the M8, albeit they are complete different tools. Now, back to subject... and you were arguing that dslr be the equal to MFDB???

All it takes is a trained eye.

Rgds
A
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 13, 2009, 09:51:14 am
Quote from: Anders_HK
All it takes is a trained eye.
I'll take the science and dispassionate common sense over a 'trained eye' any day.  Eyes lie ... people see what they want to see.

What's flawed about DxO's testing?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: evgeny on September 13, 2009, 10:04:35 am
I shot with a Nikon F6/17-35/70-200 until 2007 and was pleased with my images, especially when compared to a friend's Nikon D200/18-200.

Then, my Contax 645 beats my Nikon F6. The 6x4.5 format was a huge step forward.

A half year later I added a digital back to Contax, sold all film gear, including the Nikon 9000 scanner, and stopped to spend long hours and days in film development and scanning.

Regarding money, well, the MFDB is more expensive than film, but I don't know Photoshop enough to create a WOW with a cheaper gear.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 13, 2009, 10:05:15 am
I just had a quick look at www.dxomark.com and it seems that Canon 1ds3 beats Phaseone P65 in all respects (I'm using the camera comparison)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...%29/Phase%20One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/291|0/%28appareil2%29/302|0/%28appareil3%29/318|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Leaf/%28brand3%29/Phase%20One)

I am wondering whether the better printed images from MFDB is due to higher DPI it afforded from having a higher resolution? - Assuming of course that it is 'better' - I am just saying here because I have not compared one myself. Very few people here argued that dslr produces better prints?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 13, 2009, 10:28:04 am
Hi,

Resolution, microcontrast and acutance are not part of DxO mark. DxO mark is about SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) and DR (Dynamic Range). They present all their data on six tabs (in comparison mode) and nine tabs if you look at a single model. There are two sets of plots, one for "actual pixels" and the other for "print". The rationale behind this is here:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insig...s-offsets-noise (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/More-pixels-offsets-noise)!

My suggestion is that Phase One P65+ comes to advantage for the fullowing reasons:

1) Phase One owners probably use Capture One which can utilize Phase One proprietary informition
2) Shear number of pixels
3) Higher MTF of lens at equivalent lp/mm (sorry for engineering speak)
4) No optical low pass filter

So DxO-mark is just about sensor signals, not about what is in front of the sensor or the actual processing on raw data.

Hope this helps...

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Jim2
I just had a quick look at www.dxomark.com and it seems that Canon 1ds3 beats Phaseone P65 in all respects (I'm using the camera comparison)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...%29/Phase%20One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/291|0/%28appareil2%29/302|0/%28appareil3%29/318|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Leaf/%28brand3%29/Phase%20One)

I am wondering whether the better printed images from MFDB is due to higher DPI it afforded from having a higher resolution? - Assuming of course that it is 'better' - I am just saying here because I have not compared one myself. Very few people here argued that dslr produces better prints?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 13, 2009, 10:31:50 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi Ray,

DR is nothing you can see in a print or, to be more exact, prints can reproduce about seven seven steps of DR. It would be possible to map a large DR. like 10 steps, to print range but the image would be boring and flat. DR is something we can use in raw-conversion and post processing to achieve attractive results.

D-max on papers is about 2.15 - 2.35. D-min on glossy paper is about 0.05. So DR is about 2.2, to get it in step you simply divide by 0.3 .

Best regards
Erik


Hi Erik,
Have I been imprecise in my expression? I've amended my statement as follows. Is this better?  

Quote
However, the situation is different when comparing equal size images or prints. The P65+ image then appears to have better SNR, tonal range and color sensitivity, but oddly enough not better DR. The DR of the D3X, as represented even on an 8x12" print, is still about 2/3rds of a stop better than the downsampled P65+ image, excluding enhanced results from proprietary software.

Obviously a wide dynamic range capability allows one to capture more detail in the shadows. However it's interesting that DXO tests indicate that the DR of the D3X is so much greater than the P65+ at the pixel level, that even when both images are downsampled to the quite small file size sufficient for an 8x12" print at 300dpi, the D3X would apparently still show more detail in the deepest shadows of a scene of wide brightness range, assuming both images have been correctly exposed to the right.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 13, 2009, 10:42:30 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
My suggestion is that Phase One P65+ comes to advantage for the fullowing reasons:


3) Higher MTF of lens at equivalent lp/mm (sorry for engineering speak)


Erik,
Point #3 doesn't seem right. The pixel density of the D3X is the same as that of the P65+. I doubt whether MF lenses in general would have a higher MTF at equivalent lp/mm than the best Nikon glass, considering the larger image circle required of MF lenses. But the lack of an AA filter might give the impression of greater lp/mm resolution.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 13, 2009, 11:16:55 am
Quote from: Jim2
I just had a quick look at www.dxomark.com and it seems that Canon 1ds3 beats Phaseone P65 in all respects (I'm using the camera comparison)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...%29/Phase%20One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/291|0/%28appareil2%29/302|0/%28appareil3%29/318|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Leaf/%28brand3%29/Phase%20One)

I am wondering whether the better printed images from MFDB is due to higher DPI it afforded from having a higher resolution? - Assuming of course that it is 'better' - I am just saying here because I have not compared one myself. Very few people here argued that dslr produces better prints?

DSLRs tend to have better performance than MFDBs at high ISO. However, at base ISO the Ids3 appears to be about equal to the P65+, at the pixel level only. When both images are downsampled to 8mp, the P65+ is clearly better in all departments. I imagine the P65+ would also be better in all departments when compared to a 1Ds3 image upsampled to 60mp.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: PHOTO ZARA on September 13, 2009, 11:29:10 am
Quote from: Ray
DSLRs tend to have better performance than MFDBs at high ISO. However, at base ISO the Ids3 appears to be about equal to the P65+, at the pixel level only. When both images are downsampled to 8mp, the P65+ is clearly better in all departments. I imagine the P65+ would also be better in all departments when compared to a 1Ds3 image upsampled to 60mp.

are you suggesting then 35mm FF 1ds markXX with native 60mp would be surely equal or better to the current 645 FF P65+ at any size?

(both taken at optimum quality exif.)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 13, 2009, 11:36:58 am
Ray,

A 645 image needs less enlargement than an 24x36 image, so smaller frequency needs to utilized to achieve a similar resolution in print, so if you need 40 lp/mm on sensor for a certain print on 24x36 you would need less, like 30 or 20 lp/mm, on a bigger format. When I wrote equivalent lp/mm i meant just this factor. I'd also suggest that the new lenses designed for digital photography may be quite good.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Ray
Erik,
Point #3 doesn't seem right. The pixel density of the D3X is the same as that of the P65+. I doubt whether MF lenses in general would have a higher MTF at equivalent lp/mm than the best Nikon glass, considering the larger image circle required of MF lenses. But the lack of an AA filter might give the impression of greater lp/mm resolution.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: gwhitf on September 13, 2009, 03:08:45 pm
Quote from: Jim2
I guess this is all technical and at the end of the day a nicely captured shots with 1ds3 would be quite nice too and I know a few professional landscape photographers who sell their photos for a living use 5d2.

To Jim2:

This forum can get very heavy on Theory, but the last time I looked, it was named Photography, not Pixel Theory. (Maybe there should be another forum for that). So before you go drop thirty or forty grand on a MF system, based on Theory Feedback here, I'd advise you to call CaptureIntegration and RENT a system. It might be the cheapest money you ever spent.

Take your 1ds3 and that rental system, and GO SHOOT REAL PHOTOGRAPHS, and then come back and make real Epson prints, and then lay them out on a table, and do not get out a magnifying glass, (unless your potential clients do). Act like a normal human being, and simply look at the prints. Do not put on a Lab Coat. Just stand there and act like a real human being. Do not consult an MTF Chart. Just be a Photographer, and stand there and compare the prints.

Then ask yourself again the original question that you asked here, and then see if you think it's worth writing a check for forty grand.

Many of the so-called science experts here have never purchased a MF system, let alone used one hard, yet they seem quite content advising you on a sizable purchase. Theory is fine, but your potential clients aren't writing you a check for Theory; they're writing you a check for Ink On Paper.

Only if you do this can you truly answer this question for yourself.

And, if you do this test, make sure you bracket, so that you get within three stops.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: asf on September 13, 2009, 03:20:00 pm
I own and use regularly both types of systems you are considering

Take GWHITF's advice and don't buy anything until you compare. Rental units can be shipped to you.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 13, 2009, 05:39:21 pm
Sorry Ray,

My comment was not personally ment, it was more intended as a response to the original posting and I happened to reply to your posting.

On the DR issue, I don't know. There had been several postings indicating very high DR values for the D3X.

I'm not really sure that DR is really higher for MF backs than for DSLRs. Sometimes the eyes don't give the same information as measurements. I'd suggest that the observer says "I prefer the image on the left" but cannot explain in exact terms. So it's perhaps called DR, sometimes Microcontrast or even tonality.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Ray
Hi Erik,
Have I been imprecise in my expression? I've amended my statement as follows. Is this better?  



Obviously a wide dynamic range capability allows one to capture more detail in the shadows. However it's interesting that DXO tests indicate that the DR of the D3X is so much greater than the P65+ at the pixel level, that even when both images are downsampled to the quite small file size sufficient for an 8x12" print at 300dpi, the D3X would apparently still show more detail in the deepest shadows of a scene of wide brightness range, assuming both images have been correctly exposed to the right.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 13, 2009, 06:00:33 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.
so you think there is no noise reduction in Canon and Nikon RAW files? AFAIK CMOS sensors perform NR on chip before a RAW file is produced. How would you compare those files with MFD files that need their respective software to perform a similar "clean" stage of the image (RAW)?
IMHO in this regard DX0 is pointless and for me personally everything that counts is how good is a given image at base ISO after the "best" possible processing (either way if on chip or with the manufacturers software).
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 13, 2009, 07:56:44 pm
Quote from: PHOTO ZARA
are you suggesting then 35mm FF 1ds markXX with native 60mp would be surely equal or better to the current 645 FF P65+ at any size?

(both taken at optimum quality exif.)

Not without a huge leap in technology. If the new 18mp Canon 7D were full frame, it would be only 45mp. The current flagship DSLRs from Canon and Nikon have around the same pixel size as the P65+, so it's not totally surprising that performance at the pixel level is as good (in the case of the 1Ds3) or better (in the case of the D3X).

However, in practice such performance figures can be misleading. What they mean is, if you were to take shots with both cameras using lenses of the same focal length, and then crop the P65+ image to the same FoV as the D3X image, the D3X image would likely be better, on balance, with regard to SNR, DR, tonality and color sensitivity. Whether or not one image is sharper than the other would depend on the quality of lenses used and the effect of the D3X's AA filter.

In practice, you might rarely do this. I certainly wouldn't because I use mostly zoom lenses. However, if I were to rely upon best quality primes outside of a studio setting, I can envisage that I would sometimes want to crop heavily.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 13, 2009, 08:06:23 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
A 645 image needs less enlargement than an 24x36 image, so smaller frequency needs to utilized to achieve a similar resolution in print, so if you need 40 lp/mm on sensor for a certain print on 24x36 you would need less, like 30 or 20 lp/mm, on a bigger format. When I wrote equivalent lp/mm i meant just this factor. I'd also suggest that the new lenses designed for digital photography may be quite good.


I see! In this situation I think it would be better to talk about LW/PH (line widths per picture height) since lp/mm usually refers to the absolute resolution.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 13, 2009, 08:53:05 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Sorry Ray,

My comment was not personally ment, it was more intended as a response to the original posting and I happened to reply to your posting.

On the DR issue, I don't know. There had been several postings indicating very high DR values for the D3X.

I'm not really sure that DR is really higher for MF backs than for DSLRs. Sometimes the eyes don't give the same information as measurements. I'd suggest that the observer says "I prefer the image on the left" but cannot explain in exact terms. So it's perhaps called DR, sometimes Microcontrast or even tonality.

Best regards
Erik


No offense taken, Erik. I've always associated lack of DR of the film or sensor with lack of detail in the shadows. I infer from the DXO test results that an 8x12 print from the D3X would reveal more detail in the shadows, despite the obvious advantage of the larger file size of the P65+. The difference on the DXOMark site is about 2/3rds of a stop. I interpret that as meaning, if you want the P65+ shot to have equal shadow detail on the 8x12" print, you would have to overexpose the P65 shot by 2/3rds of a stop and blow the highlights. It is assumed that DR comparisons are only meaningful when shooting scenes of a high brightness range, such as this one below, taken with the 5D.

It would be interesting if Bernard could do a comparison with his hired P65+ in order to see if there is a noticeable difference at the 8x12" print size and if this is really what DXO mean.

[attachment=16555:Moonlit_night.jpg]

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: marcs on September 13, 2009, 09:32:18 pm
DR is only one small piece of the pie, so to speak.  And is so overrated.

Having printed many, many large prints (20x30 inch and up) from P45+/P65+, D3X and MF film, I "feel" the results are completely relative.  Though I can say, without a doubt, that nicely executed 4x5s (drum scanned, Inkjet printed) look by far the most pleasing from a tonality and texture perspective (to me and many of my cronies).

The many subtle nuances of film capture, all difficult to articulate, preclude many fine artists from going exclusively digital.  Of course, commercial concerns are entirely another thing.

Regards, MS
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Professional on September 13, 2009, 09:37:00 pm
Quote from: Jim2
I just had a quick look at www.dxomark.com and it seems that Canon 1ds3 beats Phaseone P65 in all respects (I'm using the camera comparison)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...%29/Phase%20One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/291|0/%28appareil2%29/302|0/%28appareil3%29/318|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Leaf/%28brand3%29/Phase%20One)

I am wondering whether the better printed images from MFDB is due to higher DPI it afforded from having a higher resolution? - Assuming of course that it is 'better' - I am just saying here because I have not compared one myself. Very few people here argued that dslr produces better prints?

Long time ago i did a quick simple test between my 1Ds3 and H3DII-39, the H3DII-39 was the winner in all aspect until ISO400, so for quality and clarity and sharpness and DR and colors up to ISO400 my H3DII blow away my 1Ds3 so easy, i will not wonder that H3DII will blow away even Nikon D3X, and that i say Phase One is better than H3DII, so i will be very happy to get P65+ and never look back to Canon/Nikon for same type of work i will use MFDB for, even my kids portraits from H3DII was all amazing wonderful over all my old shots taken by 1Ds3/1D3/1Ds2/5D, even my friend 5D2, now i want to see a real D3X shots to see what is there that making it the best [ISO400 and lower].
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 14, 2009, 12:55:56 am
Quote from: GLuijk
I am sorry Eric, but this discussion was already hold in the forum. If the propietary software by Hasselblad performs noise reduction, no fair DR comparision can be done. We are talking about sensor's DR, not about propietary software abilities in noise reduction.

Regards.


As I wrote earlier - you have my respect for your "zero noise" work.  Nothing however that you write in this thread adds to that respect.  If you are not willing to use the proprietary software such as capture one for phase backs or phocus or flexcolor for hasselblad backs in your tests then you will certainly be missing something.  What's unfair about using the software a digital back maker supply's with their own backs?   I don't think there's a fair or unfair since no contest was declared or rules stated by anyone but you.  There certainly is informed and uniformed however, and I consider those that have shot extensively with both cameras for jobs and real image production to be informed and all those that post conjecture and theory but maybe only downloaded a few files that they had no control or knowledge of how they were shot to be uninformed.  I see that every time someone asks a sincere question like the OP did here, a bunch of people jump in and drag this into a needless argument about how DSLR's are just as good or better.  What a waste!  

With regard to the idea that someone needs to prove these differences by supplying you RAW files for the differences to exist - this is simply a flawed argument.    No one owes anything here - its all free.   I did my own tests for my own work.  I know what my cameras and backs will do and in what situations which gear will be most appropriate for my own shooting.   Everyone owes it to themselves to do their own testing.  


Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 14, 2009, 02:09:59 am
Hi Eric,

Many photographers, amateurs or professionals, preferably use one tool over another. There can be many good reasons for that, one is that many of us prefer to have a parametric workflow. The approach taken by Guillermo or DxO-mark is perfectly valid in my view. It's about the the raw data.

I'd also say that this discussion is  bit off topic.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: EricWHiss
As I wrote earlier - you have my respect for your "zero noise" work.  Nothing however that you write in this thread adds to that respect.  If you are not willing to use the proprietary software such as capture one for phase backs or phocus or flexcolor for hasselblad backs in your tests then you will certainly be missing something.  What's unfair about using the software a digital back maker supply's with their own backs?   I don't think there's a fair or unfair since no contest was declared or rules stated by anyone but you.  There certainly is informed and uniformed however, and I consider those that have shot extensively with both cameras for jobs and real image production to be informed and all those that post conjecture and theory but maybe only downloaded a few files that they had no control or knowledge of how they were shot to be uninformed.  I see that every time someone asks a sincere question like the OP did here, a bunch of people jump in and drag this into a needless argument about how DSLR's are just as good or better.  What a waste!  

With regard to the idea that someone needs to prove these differences by supplying you RAW files for the differences to exist - this is simply a flawed argument.    No one owes anything here - its all free.   I did my own tests for my own work.  I know what my cameras and backs will do and in what situations which gear will be most appropriate for my own shooting.   Everyone owes it to themselves to do their own testing.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 14, 2009, 02:20:02 am
Hi!

1) DxO mark is essentially about noise related issues
2) If you really check DxO-mark there is a "screen" and a "print" option, the difference is that "print" option normalizes noise a standard resolution. Screen corresponds to actual pixels whereas "print" corresponds to what would be seen in a print.
3) DxO-mark is based on the "print" option as DxO regards this to be the relevant parameter

DxO mark has nothing to do with sharpness, resolution and so on.


Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Professional
Long time ago i did a quick simple test between my 1Ds3 and H3DII-39, the H3DII-39 was the winner in all aspect until ISO400, so for quality and clarity and sharpness and DR and colors up to ISO400 my H3DII blow away my 1Ds3 so easy, i will not wonder that H3DII will blow away even Nikon D3X, and that i say Phase One is better than H3DII, so i will be very happy to get P65+ and never look back to Canon/Nikon for same type of work i will use MFDB for, even my kids portraits from H3DII was all amazing wonderful over all my old shots taken by 1Ds3/1D3/1Ds2/5D, even my friend 5D2, now i want to see a real D3X shots to see what is there that making it the best [ISO400 and lower].
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Professional on September 14, 2009, 07:25:10 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi!

1) DxO mark is essentially about noise related issues
2) If you really check DxO-mark there is a "screen" and a "print" option, the difference is that "print" option normalizes noise a standard resolution. Screen corresponds to actual pixels whereas "print" corresponds to what would be seen in a print.
3) DxO-mark is based on the "print" option as DxO regards this to be the relevant parameter

DxO mark has nothing to do with sharpness, resolution and so on.


Best regards
Erik

Thanks for that, Erik!

Best Regards,
Tareq
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 14, 2009, 01:44:42 pm
If you search the forums for "DXO" +  "medium format"  you'll find many sage posts explaining why DXO's measurements don't make a valid comparison between DSLR files and MFDB.  The crux is that most MFDB back makers handle noise processing outside the camera in the RAW software while most DSLR makers do noise reduction on the chip - before you even get the RAW file.  This results in an apparently cleaner DSLR file and better DXO numbers than MFDB.  But once the MFDB file is run through the software the same work is done to it.  Hence, without using the recommend software,  its easy for the wrong conclusion to be made.  If one goes to the trouble to develop the RAW files in the proprietary MFDB software then a much better result for MFDB files will be seen and the comparison to DSLR is much more fair (since they already had their noise reduction and file handing done).    Since DXO does not make RAW handling software for MFDB cameras, I would guess they don't care to correct their mistake since this is not important to them and in fact even helps them by falsely showing some DSLR's to be better cameras than they are.  Another way that DXO numbers are not useful is in the DR measurement - they use a standard that's technically correct for signal processing, but not very useful to photographers.  Where they to use a different and perhaps more appropriate threshold the results would be much different.    But again I'm not posting to get into a discussion or prove anything.  If you are curious about this, do your own research.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 14, 2009, 06:11:00 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
If you search the forums for "DXO" +  "medium format"  you'll find many sage posts explaining why DXO's measurements don't make a valid comparison between DSLR files and MFDB.  The crux is that most MFDB back makers handle noise processing outside the camera in the RAW software while most DSLR makers do noise reduction on the chip - before you even get the RAW file.  This results in an apparently cleaner DSLR file and better DXO numbers than MFDB.  But once the MFDB file is run through the software the same work is done to it.  Hence, without using the recommend software,  its easy for the wrong conclusion to be made.  If one goes to the trouble to develop the RAW files in the proprietary MFDB software then a much better result for MFDB files will be seen and the comparison to DSLR is much more fair (since they already had their noise reduction and file handing done).    Since DXO does not make RAW handling software for MFDB cameras, I would guess they don't care to correct their mistake since this is not important to them and in fact even helps them by falsely showing some DSLR's to be better cameras than they are.  Another way that DXO numbers are not useful is in the DR measurement - they use a standard that's technically correct for signal processing, but not very useful to photographers.  Where they to use a different and perhaps more appropriate threshold the results would be much different.

You might be correct, but this has never been demonstrated by anobody in a convincing way using real world sample images (or test images for that matter).

The shadows of these DSLRs measures at 13 stops DR by DxO don't show any sign of smearing and it is difficult to imagine how software based noise removal could do a significantly better job.

But again, no need to speculate, I would prefer to stick to facts and convincing real world images shot in the same conditions, at the same time on the same subject would be good enough for me.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: gdwhalen on September 14, 2009, 06:17:24 pm
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
You might be correct, but this has never been demonstrated by anobody in a convincing way using real world sample images (or test images for that matter).

The shadows of these DSLRs measures at 13 stops DR by DxO don't show any sign of smearing and it is difficult to imagine how software based noise removal could do a significantly better job.

But again, no need to speculate, I would prefer to stick to facts and convincing real world images shot in the same conditions, at the same time on the same subject would be good enough for me.

Cheers,
Bernard


Not to be mean or anything but anyone that would buy a lens based on a DxO report or other lens chart is out of their minds.  Too many resources within the industry to not try a piece of equipment out personally and make a judgment for yourself.  Relying on others to make decisions for you is a recipe for failure.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 14, 2009, 06:42:59 pm
Bernard,

For some reason that never seems to happen. We don't have any P65 owners with access to a D3X or Canon D1sIII or Sony ALpha 900 and a balcony with a view?

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
You might be correct, but this has never been demonstrated by anobody in a convincing way using real world sample images (or test images for that matter).

The shadows of these DSLRs measures at 13 stops DR by DxO don't show any sign of smearing and it is difficult to imagine how software based noise removal could do a significantly better job.

But again, no need to speculate, I would prefer to stick to facts and convincing real world images shot in the same conditions, at the same time on the same subject would be good enough for me.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 14, 2009, 06:44:33 pm
Dunno, MTF charts say a lot, but there are other parameters and also sample variation. Lens choices are not unlimited, probably just a few lenses for your needs.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: gdwhalen
Not to be mean or anything but anyone that would buy a lens based on a DxO report or other lens chart is out of their minds.  Too many resources within the industry to not try a piece of equipment out personally and make a judgment for yourself.  Relying on others to make decisions for you is a recipe for failure.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 14, 2009, 06:45:32 pm
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
The shadows of these DSLRs measures at 13 stops DR by DxO don't show any sign of smearing and it is difficult to imagine how software based noise removal could do a significantly better job.
That's not the point. The point is that MFDB files are measured without an equivalent NR so that the comparision on DXO is pointless.


Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 14, 2009, 06:46:08 pm
Quote from: gdwhalen
Not to be mean or anything but anyone that would buy a lens based on a DxO report or other lens chart is out of their minds.  Too many resources within the industry to not try a piece of equipment out personally and make a judgment for yourself.  Relying on others to make decisions for you is a recipe for failure.

Even if one were to believe that measurements done by others reflect reality, these measurements typically show various weaknesses, and only the user can know which one is impacting for his applications and make a decision based on that.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 14, 2009, 07:29:13 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
That's not the point. The point is that MFDB files are measured without an equivalent NR so that the comparision on DXO is pointless.

Well fine, show me another comparison that prooves your point. Let's end these discussions once for all with facts that don't require a trained eye.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: asf on September 14, 2009, 08:58:46 pm
Or just ask people with sensitive eyes
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 14, 2009, 09:23:55 pm
Quote from: asf
Or just ask people with sensitive eyes

Absolutely, same shooting conditions, P65+ vs D3x, same raw converter (or raw file) and we can all use our trained eyes. What is to be feared?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 14, 2009, 09:26:29 pm
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Absolutely, same shooting conditions, P65+ vs D3x, same raw converter (or raw file) and we can all use our trained eyes. What is to be feared?

Cheers,
Bernard
I fear that I don't have a D3X nor P65+
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 14, 2009, 09:29:54 pm
Quote from: Jim2
I fear that I don't have a D3X nor P65+

Oops...

Doug or somebody from Phaseone, any way you can put me in touch with a P65+ owner in Tokyo?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 14, 2009, 09:38:15 pm
Quote from: asf
Or just ask people with sensitive eyes


Lets give helpful hint; By chance have there been many pros with a 22MP or higher Leaf, Phase One, Hassy or Sinar advocate that image quality of 20+MPs DSLRs have reached the same levels of image quality at low ISO???? E.g. Frank Doorhof still uses his 22MP Aptus 22... + last I read on his site he now uses the Mamiya RZ, which of course is more or less given away on Ebay and other places due silly claims of DSLRs being higher image quality than they actually are...

It is very simple, to spend $$$ one need make certain; thus I advise anyone to make a very detailed demo, to make absolute certain.

If still not see, consider a Leica M9 for much weight savings in bag.  

Regards
A
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: lisa_r on September 14, 2009, 09:45:18 pm
i agree with gwapdf or whatever his name is. Do not listen to the theorists, do the tests yourself. It'll cost you $300 in a weekend of rentals and save you a little more that that ;-)
I recently posted links to some images from a German Vogue shoot where the photographer used a 1Ds3 and a 40mp phase interchangably (Canon for the wide angle shots and the Phase for the longer ones) and there is ZERO difference in IQ between them in print. I have the issue sitting right here. (The photog was Greg Kadel  (http://gregkadelstudios.com/)fyi.) Here is the particular story I am talking about (http://www.gregkadelstudios.com/women/sets/voguegermany08-12-21_toni/middle.html).

I also have an issue of Wallpaper where one story was shot with a 4mp 1D Canon and a 12mp 1Ds Mark 1 used interchangably - and the rest of the magazine was probably shot with RZs and Hassys and such. Again, no difference in the print quality between his 4mp 1D and his 12mp 1Ds images, nor is there a printed difference between those and the rest of the issue with other photographers work. I have that issue sitting right next to me too. They all look like what you'd expect from a high end, well printed magazine.  (Melvin Sokolsky (http://sokolsky.com/).) Look on his site and find the Wallpaper story under the Fashion link, the one with the newspapers and balloons flying everywhere down in SOHO.

I have many other examples where all you can tell is whether the photographer did a good job or not - and you absolutely can not tell from the final image what cameras were used - be it digital, film, etc.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 14, 2009, 09:48:02 pm
Quote from: Jim2
Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology?
I don't really understand how this question comes up. IF camera A has a greater dynamic range than camera B, THEN it is simply the question of the image processing to make the difference perceivable, no matter on what medium.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: asf on September 14, 2009, 10:08:53 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
i agree with gwapdf or whatever his name is. Do not listen to the theorists, do the tests yourself. It'll cost you $300 in a weekend of rentals and save you a little more that that ;-)
I recently posted links to some images from a German Vogue shoot where the photographer used a 1Ds3 and a 40mp phase interchangably (Canon for the wide angle shots and the Phase for the longer ones) and there is ZERO difference in IQ between them in print. I have the issue sitting right here. (The photog was Greg Kadel  (http://gregkadelstudios.com/)fyi.) Here is the particular story I am talking about (http://www.gregkadelstudios.com/women/sets/voguegermany08-12-21_toni/middle.html).

I also have an issue of Wallpaper where one story was shot with a 4mp 1D Canon and a 12mp 1Ds Mark 1 used interchangably - and the rest of the magazine was probably shot with RZs and Hassys and such. Again, no difference in the print quality between his 4mp 1D and his 12mp 1Ds images, nor is there a printed difference between those and the rest of the issue with other photographers work. I have that issue sitting right next to me too. They all look like what you'd expect from a high end, well printed magazine.  (Melvin Sokolsky (http://sokolsky.com/).) Look on his site and find the Wallpaper story under the Fashion link, the one with the newspapers and balloons flying everywhere down in SOHO.

I have many other examples where all you can tell is whether the photographer did a good job or not - and you absolutely can not tell from the final image what cameras were used - be it digital, film, etc.

So don't ask lisa then ...
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 14, 2009, 10:15:18 pm
LOL I am still confused  All I want is to make sure that the images I take will produce the best possible image on print whether it be now or 5 years later when the printing technology gets better. As someone pointed out, you only get one shot for when that moment happens and for when you were there to take the shot. I just want to make sure that my recording is done in the best possible way and captured by the best possible technology available today.

I still have a lot to learn about landscape photography and still have not taken enough images as I would like to. I just went through 40+ images that I 'picked' from 1.5 years of shooting and not many are 'print worthy'. It makes me wonder a lot about whether I am good enough to worry about using an MFDB / view camera anyhow.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 14, 2009, 10:40:07 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
i agree with gwapdf or whatever his name is. Do not listen to the theorists, do the tests yourself. It'll cost you $300 in a weekend of rentals and save you a little more that that ;-)
I recently posted links to some images from a German Vogue shoot where the photographer used a 1Ds3 and a 40mp phase interchangably (Canon for the wide angle shots and the Phase for the longer ones) and there is ZERO difference in IQ between them in print. I have the issue sitting right here. (The photog was Greg Kadel  (http://gregkadelstudios.com/)fyi.) Here is the particular story I am talking about (http://www.gregkadelstudios.com/women/sets/voguegermany08-12-21_toni/middle.html).

I also have an issue of Wallpaper where one story was shot with a 4mp 1D Canon and a 12mp 1Ds Mark 1 used interchangably - and the rest of the magazine was probably shot with RZs and Hassys and such. Again, no difference in the print quality between his 4mp 1D and his 12mp 1Ds images, nor is there a printed difference between those and the rest of the issue with other photographers work. I have that issue sitting right next to me too. They all look like what you'd expect from a high end, well printed magazine.  (Melvin Sokolsky (http://sokolsky.com/).) Look on his site and find the Wallpaper story under the Fashion link, the one with the newspapers and balloons flying everywhere down in SOHO.

I have many other examples where all you can tell is whether the photographer did a good job or not - and you absolutely can not tell from the final image what cameras were used - be it digital, film, etc.

Lisa,
We also have Michael's comparison between the P45+ and the Canon G10 on A3 size prints. The only noticeable difference was the shallower DoF of the P45. I still wonder, if the DoF had been equalised, which would have meant using the lens on the P45 at F22 instead of F11, would the G10 shot have then appeared sharper?

Nevertheless, I appreciate the fact that anyone who's in the business of producing very large art prints in excess of 24"x32", would see an obvious qualitative advantage to the high pixel-count DB image with its smoother tonality and higher resolution at such large print sizes.

I think perhaps the issue is clouded by the fact that some photographers, when trying to get into the commercial game and make a quid, will tend to buy the same equipment used by their professional mentors, or others they aspire to be like.

I vaguely recall some story about one of David Bailey's photographic assignments for a magazine whereby the client, being very impressed with the quality of 4"x5" format, probably because he'd recently been awestruck by a huge print of the Grand Canyon from a 4x5 plate, specified that this format should be used for the shoot.

Realising that 4x5 was totally inappropriate and unnecessary for the job, David Bailey apparently ignored his client's request and shot everything in 35mm. The client apparently never noticed. I imagine, when the client saw the results in his magazine and was pleased with the results, he probably thought to himself, "I'm sure glad I requested that David use 4x5 format. That's made a huge difference."  
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 15, 2009, 12:46:52 am
Quote from: Jim2
LOL I am still confused  All I want is to make sure that the images I take will produce the best possible image on print whether it be now or 5 years later when the printing technology gets better. As someone pointed out, you only get one shot for when that moment happens and for when you were there to take the shot. I just want to make sure that my recording is done in the best possible way and captured by the best possible technology available today.

You can look at this from both additive and substractive standpoints.

On the plus side, the P65+ certainly offers the best single frame image quality in the world right now.

On the negative side:
- Perfect focus in the field is not always easy (depending on what camera you will use the back on),
- The Rugdness of the system, battery life,... make it less usable in the wild (like the real wild at -10C without power plugs for a few days),
- MF has less DoF than 35 mm which is mostly a problem for landscape,
- You are much more limited in terms of focal lenghts,
- The gap of image quality is small compared to the best DSLRs (how small will not be settled unless somebody does a pixel peeping type of comparison),
- There are much cheaper ways to achieve much higher resolutions as soon as stitching is considered a valid technique,
- ...

Finally, and most importantly, what works for me and my applications will probably not work for you so trying out the systems yourself is key.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 15, 2009, 01:39:38 am
Quote from: lisa_r
....
I have many other examples where all you can tell is whether the photographer did a good job or not - and you absolutely can not tell from the final image what cameras were used - be it digital, film, etc.


Definitely some good points Lisa.  I think I remember some nice images you posted recently that were taken with a camera phone?  

My choice is to have several cameras to work with.  Recently I have been re-exploring film too.  Everything has its place.

Actually to the original poster - film might an easy way for you to explore MF cameras.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 15, 2009, 03:24:57 am
Hi,

I agree with all Bernard says. The only issue I'd add that there are sample variations. I'd suggest that you check out these three articles before
spending 30K on MFDB.

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)

What Joseph Holmes has found that many MFDBs and lenses have alignement issues and rental stuff is far worse than new stuff.

This problem is in no way specific to MFDBs, Lloyd Chambers (http://www.diglloyd.com) who does a lot of testing has seen this on several of his cameras.

In a sense this seems to me like a factor in favor of the new Leica S2, having a DSLR-type body with fixed sensor should make tolerances smaller and probably more resistant to wear.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: BernardLanguillier
You can look at this from both additive and substractive standpoints.

On the plus side, the P65+ certainly offers the best single frame image quality in the world right now.

On the negative side:
- Perfect focus in the field is not always easy (depending on what camera you will use the back on),
- The Rugdness of the system, battery life,... make it less usable in the wild (like the real wild at -10C without power plugs for a few days),
- MF has less DoF than 35 mm which is mostly a problem for landscape,
- You are much more limited in terms of focal lenghts,
- The gap of image quality is small compared to the best DSLRs (how small will not be settled unless somebody does a pixel peeping type of comparison),
- There are much cheaper ways to achieve much higher resolutions as soon as stitching is considered a valid technique,
- ...

Finally, and most importantly, what works for me and my applications will probably not work for you so trying out the systems yourself is key.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 15, 2009, 03:43:17 am
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Quote from: tho_mas
That's not the point. The point is that MFDB files are measured without an equivalent NR so that the comparision on DXO is pointless.
Well fine, show me another comparison that prooves your point.
Which point? I am only referring to the DXO thing. But I absolutely don't care which camera has the highest DR.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 15, 2009, 04:09:34 am
Jim,

It seems, after a long not always sane discussion, that answer to your question is a firm and unequivocal maybe.

My 2-cents:

- A view camera employing the "scheimpflug" effect would certainly give an advantage in depth of field in many situations.
- The same effect are possible using TS-lenses
- There are economical "tilt" or "shift" options available from Arax, see this article:
    http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2009/01/09/t...ll-frame-dslrs/ (http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2009/01/09/tilt-shift-with-full-frame-dslrs/)
- Picture processing pipeline plays a large role on the outcome
- Renting equipment to test is a good idea, but be aware of possible alignment issues
- Read this: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)

An additional comment is that it would be a great service to photographers in your position if an experienced tester posted a couple of full size "raw" images from a test shot.

There was a shoot out between different formats on this site a couple of years ago, when the P45 arrived. LL offered those images for download on DVD, I still have it around. I don't think it's on sales any more.

That article is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml)

Update:
I set up a link collection on the issue here: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...vs-mfdb-vs-film (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/25-dslr-vs-mfdb-vs-film)

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: Jim2
I'm currently shooting landscape as a hobby, hoping that one day I can sell the ones I consider great. I'm currently using 1ds3 and have been wondering about whether to get an MFDB + view camera. The MFDB would give me a higher res and the view camera would give me better Dof on grand scheme type of shots.

- I'm wondering whether I should wait for 1ds4, hoping it would have a higher resolution + better DR (if that's even possible?) and use either the Canon TS lens or Cambo X2

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology? I'm using a Canon ipf6100 printer at the moment but the future might offer us better printing technology too.

I guess this is all technical and at the end of the day a nicely captured shots with 1ds3 would be quite nice too and I know a few professional landscape photographers who sell their photos for a living use 5d2.

Thanks for your input / comments / advice / suggestions / thoughts.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 15, 2009, 07:01:29 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
An additional comment is that it would be a great service to photographers in your position if an experienced tester posted a couple of full size "raw" images from a test shot.

There was a shoot out between different formats on this site a couple of years ago, when the P45 arrived. LL offered those images for download on DVD, I still have it around. I don't think it's on sales any more.

Erik
Sometime near Christmas, when I have an H3D11-60, perhaps we can set up a comparison test between the P65+, the H3D11-60, 5*4 and DSLR pano - preferably on the right side of the pond.

Volunteers please.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 15, 2009, 04:46:15 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
If you search the forums for "DXO" +  "medium format"  you'll find many sage posts explaining why DXO's measurements don't make a valid comparison between DSLR files and MFDB.  The crux is that most MFDB back makers handle noise processing outside the camera in the RAW software while most DSLR makers do noise reduction on the chip - before you even get the RAW file.  This results in an apparently cleaner DSLR file and better DXO numbers than MFDB.  But once the MFDB file is run through the software the same work is done to it.  Hence, without using the recommend software,  its easy for the wrong conclusion to be made.  If one goes to the trouble to develop the RAW files in the proprietary MFDB software then a much better result for MFDB files will be seen and the comparison to DSLR is much more fair (since they already had their noise reduction and file handing done).    Since DXO does not make RAW handling software for MFDB cameras, I would guess they don't care to correct their mistake since this is not important to them and in fact even helps them by falsely showing some DSLR's to be better cameras than they are.  Another way that DXO numbers are not useful is in the DR measurement - they use a standard that's technically correct for signal processing, but not very useful to photographers.  Where they to use a different and perhaps more appropriate threshold the results would be much different.    But again I'm not posting to get into a discussion or prove anything.  If you are curious about this, do your own research.
This is not accurate. The CMOS DSLR's are not performing on-chip noise reduction in the sense you imply (except maybe some of the Sony's, although I think they fixed that in firmware after enough people complained). The on-chip "noise reduction" on CMOS is at the photosite level to remove systemic noise such as patten noise. It is not the type of noise reduction that modifies ranges of pixels to reduce random noise, and it doesn't affect detail or resolution the way noise removal of the type you're referring to does, such as what raw converters  or post-processing plugins perform (which most definitely _does_ affect image detail). So you can't use this excuse to explain away the DxO results, sorry.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 15, 2009, 05:12:27 pm
Hi,

To my best knowledge CMOS-sesors use a technique called "correlated double sampling" which essentially measure the cell voltages after reset (that is prior exposure) and after exposure. This eliminates the noise from the reset circuitry. Sony does employ some spatial noise reduction on chip but it can be disabled. There is little evidence of spatial noise reduction with NR off at low ISO AFAIK. This cannot be done CCD because they work differently.

Our friend Panopeeper has pretty good evidence that there is something odd with Sony ARWs, but it's not noise reduction but rather DR-extension in his view. He has written a long article on it. Canon EOS 5DII does seem to have similar phenomena. Panopeeper did not test the Nikon 3DX because no one has been kind enough to send him test raws. (Actually I owe Gábor some test shoots, too, I never seem to get around to it. Sorry Gábor). I can feel that we have a little bit to much talk and to little action on this forum.

I would guess that the advantage of MFDBs over DSLRs is simple related to larger sensor which collects more photons and also some factors related to MTF which I don't want to discuss right now.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

Quote from: JeffKohn
This is not accurate. The CMOS DSLR's are not performing on-chip noise reduction in the sense you imply (except maybe some of the Sony's, although I think they fixed that in firmware after enough people complained). The on-chip "noise reduction" on CMOS is at the photosite level to remove systemic noise such as patten noise. It is not the type of noise reduction that modifies ranges of pixels to reduce random noise, and it doesn't affect detail or resolution the way noise removal of the type you're referring to does, such as what raw converters  or post-processing plugins perform (which most definitely _does_ affect image detail). So you can't use this excuse to explain away the DxO results, sorry.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 15, 2009, 07:24:50 pm
Quote from: JeffKohn
This is not accurate. The CMOS DSLR's are not performing on-chip noise reduction in the sense you imply (except maybe some of the Sony's, although I think they fixed that in firmware after enough people complained). The on-chip "noise reduction" on CMOS is at the photosite level to remove systemic noise such as patten noise. It is not the type of noise reduction that modifies ranges of pixels to reduce random noise, and it doesn't affect detail or resolution the way noise removal of the type you're referring to does, such as what raw converters  or post-processing plugins perform (which most definitely _does_ affect image detail). So you can't use this excuse to explain away the DxO results, sorry.

I wrote "on chip" didn't I? and its happening there in one form or another isn't it?  In any case were DXO to compare S/N of cameras using thresholds practical to photographers and use images converted in the matched software, I don't doubt that the digital backs would triumph handily. This matches my real world tests.   You have your own real world tests right?  D
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: marcs on September 15, 2009, 07:40:32 pm
I've got a P65, balcony, and I'm in NYC until Saturday am.  I'll only participate if the end print is 30x40 or larger.  I abandoned the D3X several months ago.  

Still prefer the look of 4x5 color neg (of course conditions must be controlled so as to minimize all the things that can go wrong...).  Film is better for certain subjects/styles, digital for others.  Let's not forget that.

 

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Bernard,

For some reason that never seems to happen. We don't have any P65 owners with access to a D3X or Canon D1sIII or Sony ALpha 900 and a balcony with a view?

Best regards
Erik
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 15, 2009, 08:14:11 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
I wrote "on chip" didn't I? and its happening there in one form or another isn't it?  In any case were DXO to compare S/N of cameras using thresholds practical to photographers and use images converted in the matched software, I don't doubt that the digital backs would triumph handily.
What Jeff tried to explain you is that the so called NR performed by the CMOS electronics is totally different from the one any software will achieve over the RAW data. The first doesn't mean detail loss at all, the second does. So it's irrelevant how well the MFDB software performs NR, because it will also damage the captured information.

That is why correct comparisions are to be made using the same converter. If after conversion one camera has less noise, it has more DR. If after conversion one camera keeps more detail, then it has more detail. And that's it.

What is crazy is to compare DR (i.e. shadows noise) between cameras, and defend the approach of using different software developers with implicit different NR each. It could happen the MFDB software reduces dramatically noise, but also texture. Would you conclude then that the MDFB has more DR but the same degree of detail as the rival DSLR? No way. The correct conclusion would probably be: the MFDB has more noise, i.e. less DR, while also keeping more detail in the well exposed areas. And this can be achieved by performing the same neutral conversion on the two RAW files, not using the best software on each.

DxO provides the complete SNR response of every sensor, so you can calculate DR according to your preferred criteria (typ. 12dB), and see D3X still wins.

Regards
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 15, 2009, 08:23:59 pm
Marc!

Thank's for your support. Unfortunately I'm in Sweden and Bernard in Japan I think. My suggestion was to make two identical identical photos of the same subject under the same conditions and make available to whoever is interested to print or evaluate. Something like I have on my site here:

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-sony-alpha-900 (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)

Probably with original files more prominently displayed, less analysis and raw files included.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: marcs
I've got a P65, balcony, and I'm in NYC until Saturday am.  I'll only participate if the end print is 30x40 or larger.  I abandoned the D3X several months ago.  

Still prefer the look of 4x5 color neg (of course conditions must be controlled so as to minimize all the things that can go wrong...).  Film is better for certain subjects/styles, digital for others.  Let's not forget that.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 15, 2009, 08:57:02 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Thank's for your support. Unfortunately I'm in Sweden and Bernard in Japan I think. My suggestion was to make two identical identical photos of the same subject under the same conditions and make available to whoever is interested to print or evaluate. Something like I have on my site here:

Yep... Sat AM in NY will be hard to manage for me.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 15, 2009, 08:57:56 pm
Quote from: marcs
I've got a P65, balcony, and I'm in NYC until Saturday am.  I'll only participate if the end print is 30x40 or larger.  I abandoned the D3X several months ago.

Where you trying to do 30x40 prints from a single D3x file?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: douglasf13 on September 15, 2009, 09:26:24 pm
DxO Mark apparently measures from the sensor.  Let us not forget that, due to internal reflections/flare, even the best primes only allow 11 stops or so of DR, which becomes quite a neutralizer.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 15, 2009, 09:44:26 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
What Jeff tried to explain you is that the so called NR performed by the CMOS electronics is totally different from the one any software will achieve over the RAW data. The first doesn't mean detail loss at all, the second does. So it's irrelevant how well the MFDB software performs NR, because it will also damage the captured information.

That is why correct comparisions are to be made using the same converter. If after conversion one camera has less noise, it has more DR. If after conversion one camera keeps more detail, then it has more detail. And that's it.

What is crazy is to compare DR (i.e. shadows noise) between cameras, and defend the approach of using different software developers with implicit different NR each. It could happen the MFDB software reduces dramatically noise, but also texture. Would you conclude then that the MDFB has more DR but the same degree of detail as the rival DSLR? No way. The correct conclusion would probably be: the MFDB has more noise, i.e. less DR, while also keeping more detail in the well exposed areas. And this can be achieved by performing the same neutral conversion on the two RAW files, not using the best software on each.

DxO provides the complete SNR response of every sensor, so you can calculate DR according to your preferred criteria (typ. 12dB), and see D3X still wins.

Regards


It's very frustrating discussing this topic over and over with people who seem intent to win an argument based only on numbers when the answers are easy to see with your own eyes.  If you only had both cameras at your disposal you would clearly see that MFDB have big advantages in "usable" DR at base, while DSLR have advantages at higher ISO settings.    Many are quite misinformed about DR and why many cameras come up with high DR but low usable DR.  
Please read here: http://www.imatest.com/docs/dynamic.html#dr (http://www.imatest.com/docs/dynamic.html#dr)

I used this software to compare DR of my Leica DMR against a canon 1D3.  The canon had 12.7 stops DR according to the standard definition, while the leica had 12.6 stops - so the canon won right?  But using the imatest guidelines for "usable"  DR - see the other values in the charts top right - the Leica won by almost two stops. While the canon 1d3 had 12.7 stops according to definition (and probably close to what DXO is measuring)  it only had a little more than 8.5 usable @ the .25 ratio, and actually in the most stringent measurement only 6.6 stops of DR.  The Leica had not dropped as much from the max and was still showing 10 stops of DR at the .25 ratio measurement.    While I haven't taken the time to test my new Canon 5DmkII or my P20, I can see side by side shots show the P20 has a fair bit more usable.  What I'm saying is that while DXO measurements may be accurate according to definition they are not usable for photographers an only present an idealized case which is not good for photographers.  Better measurements can be made and the cameras do not compare the same!  

Now when I said I did my own testing, I hope you believe I was really testing!  It's a lot of work to do this right and the results only confirm what I was seeing.  Now I just trust my eyes.

[attachment=16575:Stouffer...7_Step_2.jpg]
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 15, 2009, 09:58:57 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
I used this software to compare DR of my Leica DMR against my canon 1D3.  The canon had 12.7 stops DR according to the standard definition, while the leica had 12.6 stops. But using the imatest guidelines for "usable"  DR - see the high value in the charts - the Leica won by almost two stops.

How is "usable DR" defined?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 15, 2009, 11:20:26 pm
Quote
It's very frustrating discussing this topic over and over with people who seem intent to win an argument based only on numbers when the answers are easy to see with your own eyes.
I never made any assertions about the "usable" DR of prints. I simply pointed out that your excuse for why the D3x comes out on top in the DxO test was inaccurate.

Setting aside for a moment the definition of usable DR, I can actually find it quite believable that the MFDB have some advantage in DR. However, I think the difference is much smaller than many MFDB owners claim. The conventional wisdom that MFDB's have a huge advantage in DR may have been true a few years ago; but the CMOS sensors in DSLR's have been improving at a faster pace than the MF CCD's.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 16, 2009, 12:27:14 am
Yes, that's a good point.

There are many factors involved in perception of image quality.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: douglasf13
DxO Mark apparently measures from the sensor.  Let us not forget that, due to internal reflections/flare, even the best primes only allow 11 stops or so of DR, which becomes quite a neutralizer.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Anders_HK on September 16, 2009, 12:34:26 am
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
How is "usable DR" defined?

Cheers,
Bernard

Simple; one make appointment with a Leaf, Phase-One or other MFDB dealer in ones area and run own tests and test in actual shooting. If tests are run on basis of testing/proving within capabilities of a DSLR, then one might go blind to the difference.    However, if running tests to see the actual capabilities of high image quality of the back in normal through extreme photographic conditions - at low iso, then... it is likely similar to driving little circles with a Ferrari around a Toyota. On other hand, for high ISO, obvious a DSLR prevails.

Anyone with 20+MP DSLR that will make such test?  

Rgds
A
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 16, 2009, 01:01:53 am
Quote from: JeffKohn
I never made any assertions about the "usable" DR of prints. I simply pointed out that your excuse for why the D3x comes out on top in the DxO test was inaccurate.

Setting aside for a moment the definition of usable DR, I can actually find it quite believable that the MFDB have some advantage in DR. However, I think the difference is much smaller than many MFDB owners claim. The conventional wisdom that MFDB's have a huge advantage in DR may have been true a few years ago; but the CMOS sensors in DSLR's have been improving at a faster pace than the MF CCD's.

DR of prints? That's a whole different topic!   No I never suggested the DX3 would come out on top, only that if it did on DXO or other site, but I do feel that the information would be not very useful information.


Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 16, 2009, 01:04:08 am
Quote from: douglasf13
DxO Mark apparently measures from the sensor.  Let us not forget that, due to internal reflections/flare, even the best primes only allow 11 stops or so of DR, which becomes quite a neutralizer.


That's weird, never heard that before.  And all my Imatest test were done by taking pictures through the lens and some were higher than 11 stops.  Can you point me to any reference where this is detailed.  
Thanks,
Eric
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 16, 2009, 01:07:36 am
I love it. It's fun to read.

Ok back to the topic.

I will be in Sydney from the 19th if Sep till the 5th of October. I will get a Nikon d3x and do the following: Nikon d3x, Canon 5DII, Leica M8 and M9 and P65, I will only look for DR and yes once done you can have the raw files and go out and play.

Now the question for you. What is the best place to get a Nikon d3x in Sydney ?

thx to all and plz keep talking, it's better than a movie ;-)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 16, 2009, 01:33:09 am
Quote from: tho_mas
Well fine, show me another comparison that prooves your point.  Which point? I am only referring to the DXO thing. But I absolutely don't care which camera has the highest DR.

OK, my misunderstanding then.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 16, 2009, 02:43:18 am
Quote from: Anders_HK
Simple; one make appointment with a Leaf, Phase-One or other MFDB dealer in ones area and run own tests and test in actual shooting. If tests are run on basis of testing/proving within capabilities of a DSLR, then one might go blind to the difference.    However, if running tests to see the actual capabilities of high image quality of the back in normal through extreme photographic conditions - at low iso, then... it is likely similar to driving little circles with a Ferrari around a Toyota. On other hand, for high ISO, obvious a DSLR prevails.

The question was about the test mentioned by Eric, we all know your Leaf keeps you warm at night Anders.  

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 16, 2009, 02:46:23 am
Quote from: Christopher
I will be in Sydney from the 19th if Sep till the 5th of October. I will get a Nikon d3x and do the following: Nikon d3x, Canon 5DII, Leica M8 and M9 and P65, I will only look for DR and yes once done you can have the raw files and go out and play.

You're the man Christopher! If you can make the resulting raw files available that will be best, if you cannot then please convert these files with a decent converter like C1 Pro 4.8 or Raw developper.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 16, 2009, 05:23:51 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Marc!

Thank's for your support. Unfortunately I'm in Sweden and Bernard in Japan I think. My suggestion was to make two identical identical photos of the same subject under the same conditions and make available to whoever is interested to print or evaluate. Something like I have on my site here:
Erik
Sweden is not a million miles from the UK... I think that real 3d subjects are a better test than test charts, (especially for DR) and lighting is a variable even if we sent the same objects to make up a scene.

Who has a P65 + in the UK?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JSK on September 16, 2009, 10:37:05 am
Quote from: Christopher
I love it. It's fun to read.

Ok back to the topic.

I will be in Sydney from the 19th if Sep till the 5th of October. I will get a Nikon d3x and do the following: Nikon d3x, Canon 5DII, Leica M8 and M9 and P65, I will only look for DR and yes once done you can have the raw files and go out and play.

Now the question for you. What is the best place to get a Nikon d3x in Sydney ?

thx to all and plz keep talking, it's better than a movie ;-)

Can't wait to see the results..
Thanks for the effort!




Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 16, 2009, 12:49:34 pm
Thanks a lot Christopher!

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Christopher
I love it. It's fun to read.

Ok back to the topic.

I will be in Sydney from the 19th if Sep till the 5th of October. I will get a Nikon d3x and do the following: Nikon d3x, Canon 5DII, Leica M8 and M9 and P65, I will only look for DR and yes once done you can have the raw files and go out and play.

Now the question for you. What is the best place to get a Nikon d3x in Sydney ?

thx to all and plz keep talking, it's better than a movie ;-)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 16, 2009, 02:11:36 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Thanks a lot Christopher!

Best regards
Erik

Still waiting for ideas where to get the Nikon in Sydney ? Any rental house or other options ?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 16, 2009, 02:43:14 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
It's very frustrating discussing this topic over and over with people who seem intent to win an argument based only on numbers when the answers are easy to see with your own eyes.  If you only had both cameras at your disposal you would clearly see that MFDB have big advantages in "usable" DR at base, while DSLR have advantages at higher ISO settings.
If you find frustrating to discuss this topic, don't be silly and don't discuss it. I already told you that I did not realize about how much noise the Hasselblad MFDB had looking at any numbers, but looking with my (trained) eye to the amount of noise it showed, which was close, and even more than a D3X RAW file at the same RAW exposure level. DxO numbers just confirmed what I _saw_ (is that word clear enough?).

As Panopeeper cleverly said, once the noise is or is not there in the RAW data, it's just a matter of proper postprocessing to take advantage of the absence of noise when printing all the captured DR.

It seems very easy for you to have both a D3X and some MFDB for testing. I am sorry to tell you none of them are available to me, so if you have access to both machines many here would be pleased to see your evidences.

Quote from: Christopher
I will be in Sydney from the 19th if Sep till the 5th of October. I will get a Nikon d3x and do the following: Nikon d3x, Canon 5DII, Leica M8 and M9 and P65, I will only look for DR and yes once done you can have the raw files and go out and play.
Christopher, please make sure you shoot at several exposure levels for each machine, so that we can end with RAW files at base ISO with exactly the same RAW exposure on all sensors under test.

Regards.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 16, 2009, 03:02:58 pm
Thank's, that was very interesting!

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: EricWHiss
It's very frustrating discussing this topic over and over with people who seem intent to win an argument based only on numbers when the answers are easy to see with your own eyes.  If you only had both cameras at your disposal you would clearly see that MFDB have big advantages in "usable" DR at base, while DSLR have advantages at higher ISO settings.    Many are quite misinformed about DR and why many cameras come up with high DR but low usable DR.  
Please read here: http://www.imatest.com/docs/dynamic.html#dr (http://www.imatest.com/docs/dynamic.html#dr)

I used this software to compare DR of my Leica DMR against a canon 1D3.  The canon had 12.7 stops DR according to the standard definition, while the leica had 12.6 stops - so the canon won right?  But using the imatest guidelines for "usable"  DR - see the other values in the charts top right - the Leica won by almost two stops. While the canon 1d3 had 12.7 stops according to definition (and probably close to what DXO is measuring)  it only had a little more than 8.5 usable @ the .25 ratio, and actually in the most stringent measurement only 6.6 stops of DR.  The Leica had not dropped as much from the max and was still showing 10 stops of DR at the .25 ratio measurement.    While I haven't taken the time to test my new Canon 5DmkII or my P20, I can see side by side shots show the P20 has a fair bit more usable.  What I'm saying is that while DXO measurements may be accurate according to definition they are not usable for photographers an only present an idealized case which is not good for photographers.  Better measurements can be made and the cameras do not compare the same!  

Now when I said I did my own testing, I hope you believe I was really testing!  It's a lot of work to do this right and the results only confirm what I was seeing.  Now I just trust my eyes.

[attachment=16575:Stouffer...7_Step_2.jpg]
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 16, 2009, 05:06:21 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
If you find frustrating to discuss this topic, don't be silly and don't discuss it. I already told you that I did not realize about how much noise the Hasselblad MFDB had looking at any numbers, but looking with my (trained) eye to the amount of noise it showed, which was close, and even more than a D3X RAW file at the same RAW exposure level. DxO numbers just confirmed what I _saw_ (is that word clear enough?).

As Panopeeper cleverly said, once the noise is or is not there in the RAW data, it's just a matter of proper postprocessing to take advantage of the absence of noise when printing all the captured DR.

It seems very easy for you to have both a D3X and some MFDB for testing. I am sorry to tell you none of them are available to me, so if you have access to both machines many here would be pleased to see your evidences.


Christopher, please make sure you shoot at several exposure levels for each machine, so that we can end with RAW files at base ISO with exactly the same RAW exposure on all sensors under test.

Regards.

It's really too bad that none of the cameras you want to theorize and study are not available to you. A small violin plays sad music in the background.   Have you considered holding back on your posts until you get a chance to really investigate what you write about?  

Is it fair to assume that if you can't gain access to cameras that you won't have access to printers capable of making large prints too?  How far are you willing to go beyond your keyboard to test out these cameras and theories?

As you may have seen, I did my own testing some of which was fairly rigorous and quantitative.  I've come to what I believe is fair and accurate conclusion - so I have absolutely nothing more to find out at the moment. I'm satisfied and have reported what I found here in this and other threads.  Nice to be able to share real information and not just conjecture and I hope that readers can sort the differences.

Had you looked at the Hasselblad files using Flexcolor or Phocus before coming to your incorrect conclusion about how much noise it has at least in practical terms ( meaning the way most photographers will use it ) then I might have been willing to provide you RAW files just to be nice and give you a chance - though I'm pretty certain you could do a demo for free of any of the MFDB systems (have you even tried or do you really just want to play with numbers in the computer?).   Providing you with files definitely seems fruitless to me as I have already done my homework and posted it here but especially feel it would be not a good idea to give you RAWs because your approach is flawed in my opinion.

If you bothered to read on the Imatest page about how to test DR - the best way is with a transmission step wedge which I have purchased specifically for that purpose. Put the step wedge on a light table and shoot that so that the lighting and environment can be controlled and eliminated as a variable.      It's better to test after RAW conversion than before because that yields the most accurate results for real shooting - one isn't going to just look at the RAW numbers and stop.  If you intend to to make real images they will have to be converted.   Very few people are going to buy these cameras and just sit around and examine the data mid-point and then go have a smoke and revel in the bits and bytes.  

I continue to post to this thread to provide real camera experience to counter the plethora inexperienced information and conjecture.  As I wrote earlier, its a lot of work to do this kind of testing right and you have to have the right tools.  You can't just go out and shoot from a balcony and expect to get meaningful data.  

I hope that everyone interested in this subject will inform themselves and hopefully test shoot with a variety of systems and process the files through a number of different RAW converters including the manufacturers own.  Even if you don't have the interest or time to do more scientific testing, you'll have some qualitative tests to go by. Trust your self, not the internet.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 16, 2009, 05:25:36 pm
Why is it such a surprising and controversial point that on per-pixel basis the top-of-class CMOS sensors produce comparable results to the top-of-class CCD with similarly sized sensels?

It would seem (as has been mentioned previously) that much, if not all, of the differences between the final output of MFDBs and the best DSLRs would be attributable to:

1) MFDBs have bigger sensors

2) MFDBs don't have AA filters

3) They use different lenses

I seriously doubt the extra money has anything to do with it ... but I can see how spending as much money on a camera as I spent on my BMW would make you want to believe it is magic ... 'cause my BMW is magic ...

    .... but let's keep talking about it!
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 16, 2009, 05:36:24 pm
Chris,
I'm in Sydney and I have a D3x.
Cheers,
Willem.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: David Grover / Capture One on September 16, 2009, 06:03:16 pm
Most likely this argument will never be won on either sides.

Lisa aptly demonstrated and explained earlier that any camera of any description can be used to take great photographs.

I believe the photographers who have bought into MFDB didn't do so because it made them feel warm and squishy inside, but they did it for sound technical, creative or other reasons.

The majority of our sales this year have been 'New Business'.  ie sales to those who previously were using 35mm cameras, found something 'missing' in either the workflow or image quality and decided to additionally make use of a medium format camera alongside their other equally useful cameras.

I don't expect that any of these new customers, who spent a not small amount of money, did so just on a whim, but after careful consideration.

My advice to anyone who is unhappy with their current equipment, whatever size shape or form, is to test an alternative and see for themselves if it works.

Only you are the judge.  

Wether DR, resolution, [insert long list] is discernible, is probably less of an issue.  If the tool at hand (35mm, MF, pinhole, holga, Range....) allows them to fulfill a creative target above another tool, then it should be worthy of purchase regardless of any technical differences.

Best,



David
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 16, 2009, 06:53:50 pm
Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
I don't expect that any of these new customers, who spent a not small amount of money, did so just on a whim, but after careful consideration.

I don't either.  

But I do get the sense that many want that extra 'oomph' to have a linear relationship to $$$ spent.

The same paradigm exists with top of class DSLRs vs the best point and shoots.  Some D3 owners desperately want their camera to be "10x" better than a G10 'cause it costs 10x more ... and the D3 is better ... just not linearly better per dollar spent.

The first $500 buys you A LOT.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 16, 2009, 07:03:01 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
To my best knowledge CMOS-sesors use a technique called "correlated double sampling" which essentially measure the cell voltages after reset (that is prior exposure) and after exposure. This eliminates the noise from the reset circuitry. Sony does employ some spatial noise reduction on chip but it can be disabled. There is little evidence of spatial noise reduction with NR off at low ISO AFAIK. This cannot be done CCD because they work differently.

I would guess that the advantage of MFDBs over DSLRs is simple related to larger sensor which collects more photons and also some factors related to MTF which I don't want to discuss right now.

Correlated double sampling is widely performed in CCD as well, as explained here (http://www.ccd.com/ccd107.html). The break trough in reducing noise with CMOS sensors introduced by Canon and now by Nikon (apparently with a Sony chip) may involve an imporved correlated double sampling process or something else. However, as Eric points out, the process does not cause a loss of detail, unlike the filtering used by most NR in post processing. The larger MFDB does collect more photons since it has a larger total area, but dynamic range is on a per pixel basis. None of the boosters of MFDBs have demonstrated improved dynamic range on this basis and more is required than merely looking at pictures.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricV on September 16, 2009, 07:57:56 pm
Quote from: bjanes
The larger MFDB does collect more photons since it has a larger total area, but dynamic range is on a per pixel basis. None of the boosters of MFDBs have demonstrated improved dynamic range on this basis ...
Dynamic range should most definitely not be measured on a per pixel basis.  One perfectly valid way of increasing DR is to build a sensor with a great many noisy pixels, which then get averaged when making a print.  DXO properly corrects for pixel count in their DR measurements.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on September 16, 2009, 08:36:26 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi Ted,

Thank's a lot for good info. I still feel that I would ask about sharpening. A DSLR needs more sharpening than an MFDB due to the AA-filter and probably also because of the optics. What is your view on this?

It would be a great service to the community if we had some comparison images to download.

Best regards
Erik


Michael the websites "master" ;-) has done this very test. When you receive the cd it will be full of info and great raw files to compare... Enjoy!
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on September 16, 2009, 08:37:41 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

Regards.


That is at a scale that considers ISO and is a overall score
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 16, 2009, 09:07:46 pm
Quote from: EricV
Dynamic range should most definitely not be measured on a per pixel basis.  One perfectly valid way of increasing DR is to build a sensor with a great many noisy pixels, which then get averaged when making a print.  DXO properly corrects for pixel count in their DR measurements.

I guess that you mean that DR is affected by both pixel quality and enlargement ratio.

When performing a 12 images stitch with a d3x (3 rows of 4 images in vertical orientation), I am de facto simulating a sensor that is approximately 85x65 mm, and the enlargement ratio for a given print size will therefore be about 1.5 times smaller than that of - say - a P65+.

For a given print size, the per pixel DR of the P65+ would have to have to be 0.3 stop better to be able to deliver the same print DR achievable with a quick stitch. Spend a bit more time, do a 4 row of 5 images stitch and we are at 0.5 DR gap.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 16, 2009, 10:10:58 pm
Hi,

I have that CD but I think it's not any longer available. It's also a couple of years P45 and D1s2, but I'm considering to make a couple of A2-s and have a look.

The "great shootout" is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml)

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Phil Indeblanc
Michael the websites "master" ;-) has done this very test. When you receive the cd it will be full of info and great raw files to compare... Enjoy!
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 16, 2009, 10:28:49 pm
Quote from: EricV
Dynamic range should most definitely not be measured on a per pixel basis.  One perfectly valid way of increasing DR is to build a sensor with a great many noisy pixels, which then get averaged when making a print.  DXO properly corrects for pixel count in their DR measurements.

I beg to differ. In the case you describe, you are trading dynamic range for resolution. Of course, the main rationale for an increased pixel count is to enable printing at a larger size and this is defeated by the lower resolution. No one buys a $30,000 MFDB to produce 8 x 10 inch prints--for 16 x 20 inch prints, you have to maintain per pixel performance. The standard definition of dynamic range is the full well capacity of the sensel divided by the read noise as shown here (http://www.photomet.com/resources/encyclopedia/dynamicrange.php). This is on a per pixel basis. For a tradeoff between DR and resolution you should read about pixel binning (http://www.photomet.com/resources/encyclopedia/binning.php). With 2 x 2 pixel binning in hardware 4 pixels can be combined into a superpixel and read with one read noise rather than 4. Thus far, such binning can be done only with CCDs and is usually restricted to monochrome images because of the complexity of the Bayer array with color. The latest Phase one backs have Sensor + (http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/Pplusseries/SensorPlus.aspx) technology, which enables such binning.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 16, 2009, 11:16:31 pm
Quote from: EricV
Dynamic range should most definitely not be measured on a per pixel basis.  One perfectly valid way of increasing DR is to build a sensor with a great many noisy pixels, which then get averaged when making a print.  DXO properly corrects for pixel count in their DR measurements.

DXOMark does both, and that's very informative. Pixel size is a significant factor in DR capability. It's interesting that the pixel size of the Canon 5D2 is about the same as that of the old 20D and 30D cropped formats, and consequently noise and DR is about the same, at the pixel level. (They are in fact very slightly better in the 5D2 because the 5D2 is newer technology, but nothing to shout about at the pixel level.)

Why do we need to know that? Because, for owners of a 5D2, the cropped format 20D and 30D have no advantage with respect to increased equivalent focal length. A 400mm lens on a 30D becomes effectively a 640mm lens in 35mm terms. An image from a 5D2 with 400mm lens, which is cropped to the same FoV as the 30D shot, also becomes effectively 640mm, and will be qualitatively the same in all respects as the 30D shot. Probably marginally better by a degree one would never notice on a print.

If you didn't already know this fact, and wondered about it, then DXO provide the answer. If you are an owner of a 5D2, you would have very good reasons to sell your old 20D or 30D.

Cropping images is a wide practice, isn't it? I frequently crop images. Don't you?

I believe the reason why this 35mm DSLR versus MFDB debate is so interesting is because of the huge price increase of the MFDB for what seems to be a relatively small image quality increase, in tandem with clearly worse performance in other areas such as frame rate, high ISO performance and general flexibility of use.

Futhermore, that image quality increase appears to be only applicable at base ISO on really large prints, which leads me to deduce that the only reasons anyone could justify the purchase of an MFDB system is for prodution of 30"x40" prints or larger.

Correct me if I'm, wrong. I once thought I was wrong, but then found I was mistaken.  
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Nick_T on September 16, 2009, 11:45:20 pm
Quote from: Ray
Futhermore, that image quality increase appears to be only applicable at base ISO on really large prints, which leads me to deduce that the only reasons anyone could justify the purchase of an MFDB system is for prodution of 30"x40" prints or larger.

I don't do big prints for a living. I take photos for a living.

I currently use an Ixpress 384 (multi-shot 16MP), a Nikon D3, an H3D31, and a 5D2.

In a typical week of shooting I'll use all four.

Nick-T
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 17, 2009, 12:28:07 am
Quote from: Nick_T
I don't do big prints for a living. I take photos for a living.

I currently use an Ixpress 384 (multi-shot 16MP), a Nikon D3, an H3D31, and a 5D2.

In a typical week of shooting I'll use all four.

Nick-T


Then please tell us in what circumstances you find the H3D 31 an advantage. I understand that 31mp on a larger sensor is likely to be better than 21mp on a smaller sensor, for large prints.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BJL on September 17, 2009, 12:44:33 pm
Quote from: bjanes
In the case you describe, you are trading dynamic range for resolution. Of course, the main rationale for an increased pixel count is to enable printing at a larger size and this is defeated by the lower resolution.
As has been said a number of times before:

The same photographer with the same camera might on different occasions prefer different trade-offs between resolution, shutter speed, noise levels, DR and such. So it can make perfect sense to get a higher pixel count camera because you sometimes want the extra resolution, but also on other occasions to trade away the extra resolution for the sake of better low light handling, increased DR or whatever.

We did that a lot with film cameras, by choosing different film types for different situations, or with push or pull processing.

So it makes sense to compare what, for example, a camera with 24MP sensor can do with images processed down to "12MP worth of resolution" against what a camera with 12MP sensor can do ... if 12MP is sometimes enough, but sometimes not.

And to repeat another point: film has billions of photosites each with pathetically low "per pixel DR" ... but no-one measure the DR or S/N ratio of film at the "per pixel" level

Also, no-one compares film cameras in different formats exclusively at equal degree of enlargement: larger formats often give better DR (fine tonal gradations etc.) by allowing the use of a lower degree of enlargement.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 17, 2009, 01:29:35 pm
I shoot both a P45+ and a Canon 1Ds3 with regularity.  The easiest area where you can see the MF DR advantage is in any image with clouds.  With a typical exposure balanced for a subject lit by the outdoor light, on the Canon file the best you can do is get clouds that have mostly blown white areas except for the more obviously darker gray patches; IOW Canon clouds usually appear kind of DR posterized.  However with a similar shot taken with the P45+, you get clouds that look a lot more like real clouds, with smoother and broader transitions from the darker grays into the full whites -- and very often,even  the full whites are not clipped in all three channels as they are in the Canon file. And yes, it DOES show up in the final print regardless of size.  Not scientific, but empirical and I think you'll find most MF shooters share that experience...

Cheers,
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 17, 2009, 10:38:51 pm
Quote from: BJL
And to repeat another point: film has billions of photosites each with pathetically low "per pixel DR" ... but no-one measure the DR or S/N ratio of film at the "per pixel" level


That would be very difficult and not at all useful, BJL. Those film 'pixels' vary in size and uniformity and tend to form in clusters and clumps, or dye clouds in the case of color film. However, the characteristics of film types per unit area were well defined using other terminology such as absolute resolution at a specific MTF, independent of any particular lens. For example T-max 100 B&W film would have a specification of 50 lp/mm at 100% MTF and 100 lp/mm at a still impressive 65% MTF.

One might deduce broadly from the DXO sensor tests that using a Canon 1Ds3, compared with a P65+, would be like using 35mm film compared with a similar but slightly slower film type on 645 format. However, that slower film type on the 645 format would also have the characteristics of rather poor 'push-processing' potential, whereas the slightly higher ISO film for the the 35mm format would have excellent push processing potential.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 17, 2009, 11:42:12 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
I shoot both a P45+ and a Canon 1Ds3 with regularity.  The easiest area where you can see the MF DR advantage is in any image with clouds.  With a typical exposure balanced for a subject lit by the outdoor light, on the Canon file the best you can do is get clouds that have mostly blown white areas except for the more obviously darker gray patches; IOW Canon clouds usually appear kind of DR posterized.  However with a similar shot taken with the P45+, you get clouds that look a lot more like real clouds, with smoother and broader transitions from the darker grays into the full whites -- and very often,even  the full whites are not clipped in all three channels as they are in the Canon file. And yes, it DOES show up in the final print regardless of size.  Not scientific, but empirical and I think you'll find most MF shooters share that experience...

Jack,

What happens when you expose with your 1ds3 so as to avoid blown clouds?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rainer_v on September 18, 2009, 12:13:36 am
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Jack,

What happens when you expose with your 1ds3 so as to avoid blown clouds?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 18, 2009, 12:25:02 am
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Jack,

What happens when you expose with your 1ds3 so as to avoid blown clouds?

Cheers,
Bernard
I would assume he meant that all things being equal, the MF can still have enough DR to capture the details in the clouds while still having proper exposure for the shades. If the Canon was exposed to avoid the blown clouds, perhaps the details in the darker areas will get lost because he'd have to underexpose the whole scene?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 18, 2009, 12:49:38 am
Quote from: Jim2
I would assume he meant that all things being equal, the MF can still have enough DR to capture the details in the clouds while still having proper exposure for the shades. If the Canon was exposed to avoid the blown clouds, perhaps the details in the darker areas will get lost because he'd have to underexpose the whole scene?

Maybe, but I haven't had such problems with my DSLRs since the d2x days, so I am surprised. I didn't mean the question to be cynical, I understand the value of shooting a camera without having to think about the highlights, but in the end it is just a matter of how the histogram is displayed and of real ISO value. Highlight headroom simply doesn't exist with digital, but some cameras are calibrated in such a way as to make you think that there is headroom. I would personnally prefer to know exactly when highlight blow.

Assuming that ETTR is a given, the shadows of my files are extremely clean and C1 Pro does a perfect job at filling them when needed. The difficult part can be to map this amazing DR in a pleasing way, but that is a different matter all together.

One recent photograph shot in these conditions (for what it is worth, I don't really like this image):

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3530/3888309079_ce29d5c4ea_b.jpg)

This was in fact a bit under-exposed (about 1/2 stop), but the shadows are still totally clean and full of details.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 18, 2009, 01:19:36 am
Quote from: Jim2
I would assume he meant that all things being equal, the MF can still have enough DR to capture the details in the clouds while still having proper exposure for the shades. If the Canon was exposed to avoid the blown clouds, perhaps the details in the darker areas will get lost because he'd have to underexpose the whole scene?

I assume that also, but the D3X is a different kettle of fish   .  At any print size it's got about 2/3rds of a stop greater DR than the P65+. But that is not to say greater resolution in the midtones. (In fact, less resolution in the mid-tones, obviously).  Without the evidence of test results in front of my eyes, I would say that at any print size the D3X image would show greater detail in the deepest shadows with equal detail in the highlights. Or greater detail in the highlights with equal detail in the shadows, depending on ETTR accuracy.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 18, 2009, 01:24:19 am
[deleted - probably irrelevant]
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 18, 2009, 01:43:07 am
Hi,

Thanks for info! From a technical viewpoint I cannot understand this but there are many hidden parameters in the process. Exposure bias in raw converters, different kind of histograms (like JPEG based histograms).

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Jack Flesher
I shoot both a P45+ and a Canon 1Ds3 with regularity.  The easiest area where you can see the MF DR advantage is in any image with clouds.  With a typical exposure balanced for a subject lit by the outdoor light, on the Canon file the best you can do is get clouds that have mostly blown white areas except for the more obviously darker gray patches; IOW Canon clouds usually appear kind of DR posterized.  However with a similar shot taken with the P45+, you get clouds that look a lot more like real clouds, with smoother and broader transitions from the darker grays into the full whites -- and very often,even  the full whites are not clipped in all three channels as they are in the Canon file. And yes, it DOES show up in the final print regardless of size.  Not scientific, but empirical and I think you'll find most MF shooters share that experience...

Cheers,
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 18, 2009, 09:23:24 am
Quote from: Ray
I assume that also, but the D3X is a different kettle of fish   .  At any print size it's got about 2/3rds of a stop greater DR than the P65+. But that is not to say greater resolution in the midtones. (In fact, less resolution in the mid-tones, obviously).  Without the evidence of test results in front of my eyes, I would say that at any print size the D3X image would show greater detail in the deepest shadows with equal detail in the highlights. Or greater detail in the highlights with equal detail in the shadows, depending on ETTR accuracy.

Can't imagine where you get that from, but it sounds like you need to shoot a P65+ and a D3X for a weekend so you can see how things come out when the rubber hits the road.

Doug

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 09:37:28 am
Quote from: Jack Flesher
I shoot both a P45+ and a Canon 1Ds3 with regularity.  The easiest area where you can see the MF DR advantage is in any image with clouds.  With a typical exposure balanced for a subject lit by the outdoor light, on the Canon file the best you can do is get clouds that have mostly blown white areas except for the more obviously darker gray patches; IOW Canon clouds usually appear kind of DR posterized.  However with a similar shot taken with the P45+, you get clouds that look a lot more like real clouds, with smoother and broader transitions from the darker grays into the full whites -- and very often,even  the full whites are not clipped in all three channels as they are in the Canon file. And yes, it DOES show up in the final print regardless of size.

I doubt very much that the problem you are seeing in your cloud images with your Canon has to do with dynamic range problems. What are the raw pixel values in the brightest and darkest areas of these clouds?

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Not scientific, but empirical and I think you'll find most MF shooters share that experience...
Cheers,

As long as this discussion remains in the realm of subjective impressions with not even photographic examples demonstrating the alleged differences, much less any quantitative evaluation, this discussion is going nowhere.

This statement is just as valid today as it was over a hundred years ago:

"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."  Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson) [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]

According to Sir William, your knowledge is meagre and unsatisfactory. Why don't you post examples or much better, raw files? Then we could do some proper scientific analysis.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 18, 2009, 09:54:10 am
Quote from: bjanes
According to Sir William, your knowledge is meagre and unsatisfactory. Why don't you post examples or much better, raw files? Then we could do some proper scientific analysis.

Just out of curiosity, have you shot both a modern digital back and a modern dSLR?

I see so little argument on this topic out of anyone who has.

Doug

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 18, 2009, 10:06:54 am
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Maybe, but I haven't had such problems with my DSLRs since the d2x days, so I am surprised. I didn't mean the question to be cynical, I understand the value of shooting a camera without having to think about the highlights, but in the end it is just a matter of how the histogram is displayed and of real ISO value. Highlight headroom simply doesn't exist with digital, but some cameras are calibrated in such a way as to make you think that there is headroom. I would personnally prefer to know exactly when highlight blow.

Assuming that ETTR is a given, the shadows of my files are extremely clean and C1 Pro does a perfect job at filling them when needed. The difficult part can be to map this amazing DR in a pleasing way, but that is a different matter all together.

One recent photograph shot in these conditions (for what it is worth, I don't really like this image):

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3530/3888309079_ce29d5c4ea_b.jpg)

This was in fact a bit under-exposed (about 1/2 stop), but the shadows are still totally clean and full of details.

Cheers,
Bernard

Here you go Bernard.  In your image above, clouds in bright sunlight, it is my opinion that your clouds are seriously clipped -- sorry, but they do not look like real clouds the way the grays so abruptly transition to your blown whites. Maybe if you had underexposed another full stop, you'd have captured the clouds better, but then your shadows would suck -- and that tradeoff is the entire point of this discussion.  (As an aside, your sky has the typical crappy Canon cyan-blue too. Granted, thats a different argument, but one I thought I'd mention.  By contrast, most MF backs get clear skies the correct color blue.)

Here is a shot with in similar bright sunlight I took earlier this year in Moab (actualy this is a stretch of the Petrified Forest) with my P45+.  Again, in my humble opinion only, these clouds look a lot more like real clouds with similar exposure values for our main foreground subjects and nice, clean detailed shadows. (And the sky is the proper blue.):

(http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/pf033.jpg)

As to what happens if I underexpose the scene with my 1Ds3 to keep the clouds from clipping, that is a stupid question. The answer is the shadows block up to the point they look like crap and are unrecoverable.

Doug is right -- there is an awful lot of sanctimonious argument on this question from armchair "experts" that have NEVER even picked up an MF camera...  So buddyjanes, here is my post, now let's see yours from your DSLR that proves me so "wrong" -- or is this another one of YOUR typical meager and unsatisfactory armchair arguments?

Cheers,
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 18, 2009, 10:34:54 am
Jack,

that is not exactly an image to be compared to the one posted by Bernard: a much different light situation and most over very different type of clouds: I have had my fair amount of "clouds shooting" as well, and I can tell that there can be a few EVs difference between the 2 types.

If somebody wants to compare clouds, than shoot it under the same conditions and side-by-side, otherwise it is only words.

Best regards,
Thierry

PS: I found your last sentences uncalled for and a "bit" aggressive, if I can allow myself to say it.

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Here you go Bernard.  In your image above, clouds in bright sunlight, it is my opinion that your clouds are seriously clipped -- sorry, but they do not look like real clouds the way the grays so abruptly transition to your blown whites. (As an aside, your sky has the typical crappy Canon cyan-blue too -- different argument, but one I thought I'd mention.  By contrast, most MF backs get clear skies the correct color blue.)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 18, 2009, 10:36:39 am
Quote from: dougpetersonci
Can't imagine where you get that from, but it sounds like you need to shoot a P65+ and a D3X for a weekend so you can see how things come out when the rubber hits the road.

Doug

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)

Doug,
A mere deduction from the DXOMark comparison which shows the D3X as having 2/3rds of a stop greater DR than the P65+ when the data from both sensors are downsampled to 8mp.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 18, 2009, 10:45:05 am
Quote from: dougpetersonci
Just out of curiosity, have you shot both a modern digital back and a modern dSLR?
I see so little argument on this topic out of anyone who has.
I see so little image comparisions on this thread.
I'd love to share one. But I have not the appropriate DSLR...

Quote from: Ray
A mere deduction from the DXOMark comparison
 
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 18, 2009, 11:02:49 am
Quote from: Ray
Doug,
A mere deduction from the DXOMark comparison which shows the D3X as having 2/3rds of a stop greater DR than the P65+ when the data from both sensors are downsampled to 8mp.

Also if they are down-sampled to 0 megapixels they will have identical dynamic range. At this reproduction size they also benefit from a absolute zero level of artifacts.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 11:16:18 am
Quote from: Jack Flesher
Here you go Bernard.  In your image above, clouds in bright sunlight, it is my opinion that your clouds are seriously clipped -- sorry, but they do not look like real clouds the way the grays so abruptly transition to your blown whites. Maybe if you had underexposed another full stop, you'd have captured the clouds better, but then your shadows would suck -- and that tradeoff is the entire point of this discussion.  (As an aside, your sky has the typical crappy Canon cyan-blue too. Granted, thats a different argument, but one I thought I'd mention.  By contrast, most MF backs get clear skies the correct color blue.)

Here is a shot with in similar bright sunlight I took earlier this year in Moab (actualy this is a stretch of the Petrified Forest) with my P45+.  Again, in my humble opinion only, these clouds look a lot more like real clouds with similar exposure values for our main foreground subjects and nice, clean detailed shadows. (And the sky is the proper blue.):

As to what happens if I underexpose the scene with my 1Ds3 to keep the clouds from clipping, that is a stupid question. The answer is the shadows block up to the point they look like crap and are unrecoverable.

Doug is right -- there is an awful lot of sanctimonious argument on this question from armchair "experts" that have NEVER even picked up an MF camera...  So buddyjanes, here is my post, now let's see yours from your DSLR that proves me so "wrong" -- or is this another one of YOUR typical meager and unsatisfactory armchair arguments?

Cheers,

I downloaded the cloud image and used the threshold in Photoshop to see where the lowest cloud luminance was located. No clouds had a pixel value below 93. Clipping of these clouds would not occur even with a P&S camera! A pixel value of 93 in a gamma 2.2 space corresponds to a pixel value of 28 (in 8 bit notation) in the raw file. The corresponding value in a 14 bit raw file from the Canon would be 1781. This is very far above clipping. If you really see a difference, you should look elsewhere for the explanation.

[attachment=16663:FlesherImage.png]
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 11:22:28 am
Quote from: dougpetersonci
Just out of curiosity, have you shot both a modern digital back and a modern dSLR?

I see so little argument on this topic out of anyone who has.

Doug

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)

Doug, no I have not shot with a modern digital back, and am not likely to do so because I can't afford $30,000 for small increment in image quality in the type of photography that I do. Had I done so, I really wouldn't need to seek information on the net. If you have quantitative information why don't you share it?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 18, 2009, 11:29:38 am
Quote from: bjanes
No clouds had a pixel value below 93.

You sir, are an idiot. I do not shoot jpeg originals, this is a conversion from a tiff that was converted out of the raw. The reason my clouds do not appear posterized is simple: THE CAMERA I USED CAPTURED THEM INSIDE IT'S DR CAPABILITY IN THE FIRST PLACE, and so I was able to in turn render them inside the sRGB colorspace and maintain the smoother tonal transition and detail in the high grays.  The reason no bright whites are clipped is because I process them with a protective curve that keeps the blown channels under 255.

Here's a Canon shot with similar clouds to my above shot -- an Image I have sold, but the clouds are clipped in the original. I process them to below clip point by adding a protective curve as is usual with my Canons, but the harsh, posterized transitions are obvious with no detail in broad areas of the high grays:
(http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/fred_and_ginger.jpg)


Sheesh,
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 11:38:24 am
Quote from: Jack Flesher
Here you go Bernard.  In your image above, clouds in bright sunlight, it is my opinion that your clouds are seriously clipped -- sorry, but they do not look like real clouds the way the grays so abruptly transition to your blown whites.

Doug is right -- there is an awful lot of sanctimonious argument on this question from armchair "experts" that have NEVER even picked up an MF camera...  So buddyjanes, here is my post, now let's see yours from your DSLR that proves me so "wrong" -- or is this another one of YOUR typical meager and unsatisfactory armchair arguments?

Cheers,

Bernard's clouds look fine to me. Repeating the measurements on his images, there is no clipping. Just because you have a $30,000 camera does not make you an expert in the theory of digital imaging. However, after spending that amount of money, you are likely to believe that the expenditure is justified. It may be for many purposes, but I doubt very much that imaging of clouds is one of them. I invite you to refute my armchair argument with logic rather than with your subjective opinion which is likely biased.

[attachment=16664:bernard.png]
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 18, 2009, 11:43:51 am
Quote from: bjanes
Bernard's clouds look fine to me.

They look clipped and posterized to me.  So we disagree, which is fine.  Still have not seen one of YOUR examples...  

In fact, I don't ever recall seeing ANY images you have posted other than screenshots of other people's work.  Do you even own a camera?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BlasR on September 18, 2009, 11:46:21 am

You sir, are an idiot.


     

I love it.

Have a nice weekend

Blas



Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 11:52:08 am
Quote from: Jack Flesher
You sir, are an idiot. I do not shoot jpeg originals, this is a conversion from a tiff that was converted out of the raw. The reason my clouds are not clipped is simple: THE CAMERA I USED CAPTURED THEM ALL INSIDE IT'S DR CAPABILITY IN THE FIRST PLACE, and so was able to in turn render them inside the sRGB colorspace without clipping them.

Sheesh,

Jack, my original question was what were the values of the clouds in the raw image, but you failed to respond. To prove your point, what were they? I doubt very much that your explanation holds water. As to the clipping you allege in Bernard's files, he did tell us that the image was slightly underexposed, so there would be no highlight clipping in the raw file, and there is none in the JPEG. You would have us believe that he mapped clipped raw cloud values to a pixel value of 83? Your assertions are nonsense, but I will not attempt to judge your intelligence.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BJL on September 18, 2009, 11:54:29 am
Quote from: Ray
That would be very difficult and not at all useful, BJL.
Yes Ray, "not at all useful" was exactly my point, about both chemical and electronic pixels.

If our ultimate concern is the quality of images, not the various choices of ingredients (sensor photosites, silver halide grains) that can be used to record and produce them, then we should not be bothering much about measuring the characteristics of the individual pixels ... especially if one then ignores the effect that the number of pixels has on the quality of the images that can be produced with pixels of given characteristics.

In case you missed it: per pixel DR has nothing to do with the ability of a film emulsion to handle scenes of high subject brightness range, or the visible noise levels in displayed images, so why should it do so when comparing electronic sensors of differing pixel counts?

Note my deliberate avoidance of the words "dynamic range", an engineering term that is so often misused, misunderstood and misapplied in discussions of image quality.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 18, 2009, 11:58:38 am
Quote from: bjanes
Jack, my original question was what were the values of the clouds in the raw image, but you failed to respond. To prove your point, what were they? I doubt very much that your explanation holds water.

Note: I had the wrong file and edited this post for the actual values in 8-bit parlance: I just went back and checked. The very brightest pixels in the center of the brightest, directly sunlit cloud in the P45+ image above are 235/234/237; the deepest black shadow I can find is 19/18/22.  this would indicate I am close to the ideal exposure and still have about 2/3rd stop leeway on either end...

Now, SHOW US AN(Y) ORIGINAL IMAGE TAKEN BY YOU.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 18, 2009, 11:59:01 am
Quote from: bjanes
Jack, my original question was what were the values of the clouds in the raw image, but you failed to respond. To prove your point, what were they? I doubt very much that your explanation holds water. As to the clipping you allege in Bernard's files, he did tell us that the image was slightly underexposed, so there would be no highlight clipping in the raw file, and there is none in the JPEG. You would have us believe that he mapped clipped raw cloud values to a pixel value of 83? Your assertions are nonsense, but I will not attempt to judge your intelligence.
In Bernards image the clouds are clearly clipped - he was just smart enough to bring the brightest levels under 255-255-255 in post:
[attachment=16665:histo_sky.jpg]

But that tells nothing. Only that in this particular images the clouds are clipped...
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 18, 2009, 01:13:25 pm
I took a RAW file from Camera: Hasselblad H3D II-31 doing a neutral RAW development (no NR, no sharpening). This was the complete scene:

(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3807/hassel1.jpg)


This is the per-pixel SNR seen in a 100% crop in the deep shadows. Like on any high end DSLR, noise appears at -7EV (i.e. in the 8th stop from saturation), and is very visible at -8EV (the 9th stop from RAW saturation). That provides about 9 f-stops of usable DR for photographic applications.

The EV zones were determined by assuming a linear behaviour of the sensor and calculating a weighted average of the RGB RAW values with respect to RAW saturation in stops.

(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/108/hassel2j.jpg)


This is the log histogram of the RAW file:

(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8/hasselhis.gif)


The DR in that file is nothing than a D3X cannot match and probably improve. Unfortunately those who could have easy access to both machines in this thread prefer to speak about trained eyes and clipped clouds on JPEG files that demonstrate nothing, instead of taking some time in shooting both systems against exactly the same scene and share the RAW files.

BR

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 01:16:42 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
The very brightest pixels in the center of the brightest cloud of my P45+ image above are clipped in the blue channel and green is close at 254.  

Now, SHOW US AN(Y) ORIGINAL IMAGE TAKEN BY YOU.

Again what are the raw values in the brightest and darkest parts of the clouds (in 16 bit notation or whatever your camera uses)?

Here is an image taken with the Nikon D3. The image is slightly underexposed and there is slight clipping in the deepest shadows but none in the highlights. Of course, you will say my clouds are clipped and posterized.

[attachment=16666:bj_clouds.jpg]

Here is the histogram demonstrating slight clipping in the deep shadows. This is an Iris conversion showing no white balance in a 14 bit raw file after demosaicing but with no further image manipulation.

[attachment=16667:ShadowRawHisto.png]

And here is the Rawanize histogram showing the entire image. The green is well below clipping.

[attachment=16669:027_rawnalze_histo.png]

This is a histogram showing the luminances of the brightest and darkest portions of the clouds. The image is dark and green since it is gamma 1 with no white balance and the pixel values are in the range of 0..16383 although dumped into a 16 bit space by iris. We are viewing the actual raw values. There is nothing near clipping. The entire dynamic range of the clouds has been captured. The lowest cloud luminance is 41 and the highest luminance is 117 (in 8 bit notation as shown by Photoshop). 14 bit values would be 2634 and 7517 respectively, a luminance range of 2.85 or 1.5 f/stops. According to the Weber-Fechner law, 70 levels per f/stop is sufficient to prevent posterization (but I would image your super human vision could detect some).

[attachment=16668:CloudsHisto.png]

After I view a similar analysis on your part, I might take you seriously, but as of now I consider your assertions as unfounded and biased.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: snickgrr on September 18, 2009, 01:38:23 pm
bjanes, GLuijk, Ray, et al

"There's an ancient river bending
Through the timeless gorge of changes, where sleeplessness awaits
I searched out my companions
Who were lost in crystal canyons
When the aimless blade of science, slashed the Pearly Gates
It was then that I knew I'd had enough
Burned my credit card for fuel
Headed out to where the pavement turns to sand
With a one-way ticket to the land of truth."

What you all have written is very pretty and all but the original question the OP asked was..
Is the difference discernible on print?

So it's at this point you need to put away your pretty scientific tools and measurements and just look.
Tell us what you see.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 01:39:15 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
In Bernards image the clouds are clearly clipped - he was just smart enough to bring the brightest levels under 255-255-255 in post:
[attachment=16665:histo_sky.jpg]

But that tells nothing. Only that in this particular images the clouds are clipped...


Your histograms show no shoulder on the right and I think that the highlights are not clipped. Bernard said the image was underexposed. More likely, he brought them up to near 255 in post. Only he knows for sure.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 18, 2009, 01:49:57 pm
Quote from: snickgrr
What you all have written is very pretty and all but the original question the OP asked was..
Is the difference discernible on print?

So it's at this point you need to put away your pretty scientific tools and measurements and just look.
Tell us what you see.
Beautiful poem!
As Panopeeper already said in the thread, what you are able to see in the print is what you can see in the screen when a proper postprocessing is done. Being that true, the scientific tools give the answer to the OP.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: snickgrr on September 18, 2009, 01:57:15 pm


I ain't no scientist but I think these sentences are just bad science.
 
Quote from: GLuijk
As Panopeeper already said in the thread, what you are able to see in the print is what you can see in the screen when a proper postprocessing is done. Being that true, the scientific tools give the answer to the OP.




There are others on this thread who have done exactly what the OP asked and have come to a different conclusion.  They looked at prints with their own eyes and formed an opinion.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 01:58:40 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
Note: I had the wrong file and edited this post for the actual values in 8-bit parlance: I just went back and checked. The very brightest pixels in the center of the brightest, directly sunlit cloud in the P45+ image above are 235/234/237; the deepest black shadow I can find is 19/18/22.  this would indicate I am close to the ideal exposure and still have about 2/3rd stop leeway on either end...

Those don't sound like raw values in only the clouds. What I would like to know is the luminance ratio in your clouds not in the total image. Likely that range could be captured by a P&S, albeit perhaps some clipping in the non-cloud shadows of the image. It is time to put up or shut up.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 18, 2009, 02:07:48 pm
Quote from: snickgrr
I ain't no scientist but I think these sentences are just bad science.
I would be glad to hear from you why is that bad science.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 02:22:11 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
I took a RAW file from Camera: Hasselblad H3D II-31 doing a neutral RAW development (no NR, no sharpening). This was the complete scene:

The DR in that file is nothing than a D3X cannot match and probably improve. Unfortunately those who could have easy access to both machines in this thread prefer to speak about trained eyes and clipped clouds on JPEG files that demonstrate nothing, instead of taking some time in shooting both systems against exactly the same scene and share the RAW files.

BR

Bravo, Guillermo! If these "artists" who lack technical credentials would share their raw files we might get somewhere with scientific analysis. Certainly the Hasselblad DR is not that exceptional and the DR and tonality of Jacks camera are yet to be analyzed.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 18, 2009, 02:22:51 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Those don't sound like raw values in only the clouds. What I would like to know is the luminance ratio in your clouds not in the total image. Likely that range could be captured by a P&S, albeit perhaps some clipping in the non-cloud shadows of the image. It is time to put up or shut up.

Uh, I don't CARE what the linear RAW sensor values are, I only care what the converted *usable* file values are!  And in this case, my MF back blows away my Canon, end of story.    

Now, speaking of putting up, how about showing us an original image of yours?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 02:41:39 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
Uh, I don't CARE what the linear RAW sensor values are, I only care what the converted *usable* file values are!  And in this case, my MF back blows away my Canon, end of story.

And my *enis is bigger than yours. Just ask me!


Quote from: Jack Flesher
Now, speaking of putting up, how about showing us an original image of yours?


Look here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=37594&view=findpost&p=311445)

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: phmg on September 18, 2009, 02:42:06 pm

Jack,
         you might well be right on this issue. But the examples you have shown almost look like they have been cherry picked to prove a point.
Your mfdb example  has a heavily lit foreground ,so has put no stress on the dyanmic range of the camera to capture the clouds as well.It has
 already been  pointed out by others a P+S camera could handle the dynamic range of that,I'd have to agree with that.
                Yet your canon comparison is in a much more difficult lighting situation , overcast in places and backlit in others. The most grating
part for me is your comment about canon cyans. I do wonder if  you personally own one? . I do and I'm aware that even using  dpp and there
picture styles I can have 4 or 5 different versions of the color of a blue sky, and again its different in raw developer and different again in acr or
capture one . So it seems to me you are having problems with your choice of workflow rather than an inherent deficiency of the camera per se.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 18, 2009, 02:45:33 pm
Quote from: snickgrr
I ain't no scientist but I think these sentences are just bad science.
There are others on this thread who have done exactly what the OP asked and have come to a different conclusion.  They looked at prints with their own eyes and formed an opinion.
You don't need to be a scientist to see the reason of contradiction.

I posted, that if there are differences in the two images, then those differences can be made visible. The fact, that someneone renders a raw image in a way, which eliminates the differences, reflects on the intention, and/or on the (lack of) skill of the user.

If one camera captures cleaner shadows than the other, then those shadows can be lifted and printed cleaner than the other. If you choose not to, then you don't need the better camera. It is typical, that the photographer submerges the very shadows in blackness by "black point" and shows the image as a demonstration of the lack of noise. Change "black point" (if you are using LR/ACR) to zero, increase the intensity ("exposure" or "brightness" in LR/ACR) and you see the difference; that difference is printable as well.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: jimgolden on September 18, 2009, 02:46:56 pm
YES there is - now can we move on...
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 18, 2009, 02:54:06 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
I took a RAW file from Camera: Hasselblad H3D II-31 doing a neutral RAW development (no NR, no sharpening). This was the complete scene:
I have a problem with your method; averaging the intensity in the channels does not yield anything useful regarding the camera. I don't know with which ISO the image was created and how it was processed, but this blotchiness is not characteristic to any mid-range DSLR at -8 to -9 EV with lower ISOs, except perhaps the A900 with the built-in noise reduction.

Can you make this raw file available to me, or is it too private?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bcooter on September 18, 2009, 03:07:42 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
Uh, I don't CARE what the linear RAW sensor values are,

I' don't understand this discussion.

What's the point, to prove a digital back gets 1/3 more stop detail than a Nikon, or a $7,000 Nikon is better than a $21,000 back?

There is a lot more to photography than that, but the thing that puzzles me most, especially from some of the people here that give seminars is the amount of fixation on equipment.

If I was even remotely in the seminar giving business, I wouldn't try to locate an audience that just wanted to touch or hold a $40,000 camera, I'd want to teach them how to take their $900 nikon, Sony or Canon and shoot like Steven Miesel, or Weston . . .  somebody that shoots pretty photographs.   I'd never stick up a bunch of semi grey clouds and say see, see, those babies are rock solid with detail.

It's funny because on a professional level, DR or whatever the term is just doesn't come up that much, if ever.  

We either use tools to balance the light, or fix it in post (usually both).

We don't just stand in the middle of a rock pile and shoot hoping the camera can cover 20 stops.  Actually the last thing I'd want is a flat 20 stop file that has to be manipulated for hours to look like any kind of film and if I did need twenty stops it takes like 2 seconds to change the exposure and then 20 minutes more to  blend them in post.

This morning I sent my retoucher three images to rework a section the client requested a product change on and the cg sample they sent and  wanted inserted had about as much DR as a sharpie on a white piece of paper.

2 hours later the retouching was finished, the inserted product had detail and shadowing and it was on the server to the client who is probably dropping it into the layout as I write this.

From the film days to today I can't count the number of times we've balanced light in a room set, or picked a location specifically for the view out of a window, only to go up on a different roof two days later and shoot background plates to be placed in.

I'm not saying it should be this way, but in commerce it usually is, so this extra 1/3 a stop or whatever keeps being preached just doesn't make sense to me.

Getting pissed off about it makes even less sense.

Just use what you use and make beautiful photographs.

That's all that really matters.

BC
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ixpressraf on September 18, 2009, 03:25:19 pm
... welcome to the never ending story........
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: TMARK on September 18, 2009, 03:27:08 pm
Irving Penn and Paolo Roversi don't give a shit about any of this.  

This thread is not about photography, its about computers.  Its a nerdier version of Ford vs. Chevy, Jeep vs. Toyota.  I'm not trying to be insulting, and I'm not saying this debate is meaningless, I just think it is meaningless to photographers.  

I see lots of agendas.  They include putting people who have mfdb in "their place" for not being technical/and having the means to buy an mfdb; people who justify the cost or their investment in MFDB; people who work with a dslr and need to afirm their choice. etc etc.  Its just a K-Hole of a thread and a waste of time, for photographers.  Perhaps it is better moved to the image processing area?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 18, 2009, 03:49:17 pm
Quote from: TMARK
Irving Penn and Paolo Roversi don't give a shit about any of this
Honestly, who cares if Irving Penn and Paolo Roversi and who ever gives a shit or not about this subject? This is meant for those, who actually understand what it is about; for those, it is about ohotography. For the digitally illiterate, it is nerd talk. I see no problem with that.

If you don't understand it, get over it. There are many threads I don't understand much of, but I don't post in each and every thread, that the others are nerds, because they know something I don't.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 18, 2009, 04:11:05 pm
Quote from: bjanes
And my *enis is bigger than yours. Just ask me!

Okay, that's mature.  At least now we know where all your feelings of inadequacy originate...
~~~

Back to the topic at hand and this is my last comment in this rapidly deteriorating thread. IIRC, the OP asked if the DR differences could be seen in a print.  All I am saying is that based on my experience as a photographer having owned a plethora of equipment over the years and currently owning both a high-end DSLR and an MF DB, and having looked at and processed thousands of comparable images from each system, my answer is a definite yes.  

Oh, and for those of you who seriously believe I don't really own the systems, here is a quick snapshot of my working bags -- unfortunately taken with a P&S in bright sunlight, so you'll have to excuse the blocked up shadows and excessive noise:

(http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/jacksgear.jpg)

Cheers,
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 18, 2009, 04:28:26 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
I took a RAW file from Camera: Hasselblad H3D II-31 doing a neutral RAW development (no NR, no sharpening). This was the complete scene:

Would you be able to tell us what software you used to process the RAW file and where it came from?   I still contend that any fair analysis will include the manufacturers supplied software and files will be evaluated post processing not prior.  

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 05:01:07 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
Okay, that's mature.  At least now we know where all your feelings of inadequacy originate...

Mine is better than yours--that is your reasoning, not mine. I've tried to use reason and analysis to explain what we might or might not be seeing. Thus far to no avail and answered only with ad hominem attacks, which are the resort of those who are losing their side of the argument. Whether or not I have taken any pictures is irrelevant, but I expect my analysis to be answered with reason, not invective. Instead, you ignore my findings and I suspect that you can not rebut them. Thus far, no analysis from you but only unsubstantiated assertions that you think we should believe since you have high end equipment.

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Back to the topic at hand and this is my last comment in this rapidly deteriorating thread. IIRC, the OP asked if the DR differences could be seen in a print.  All I am saying is that based on my experience a a photographer having owned a plethora of equipment over the years and currently owning both a high-end DSLR and an MF DB, and having looked at and processed thousands of comparable images from each system, my answer is a definite yes.  

Oh, and for those of you who seriously believe I don't really own the systems, here is a quick snapshot of my working bags -- unfortunately taken with a P&S in bright sunlight, so you'll have to excuse the blocked up shadows and excessive noise:

I don't doubt that you have the equipment that you claim, but if the results are really so much better why don't you demonstrate that? Thus, far your shot of clouds is uninspired and proves nothing. Personally, I prefer Bernard's images, whose quality has been demonstrated in multiple posts and is widely admired and your denigration of his work is out of place on this forum as are your ad hominem attacks. The quality difference you may be seeing in your clouds is likely explained by considerations other than dynamic range or perhaps your inability to process images from your Canon, which I am sure is capable of capturing the limited dynamic range in your cloud shots. Instead you show an image of your impressive gear as if to establish your authority.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BlasR on September 18, 2009, 05:19:48 pm
Please do the analysis with the 3 photos 1ds,p45+ and Hasselblad 50

I like to know if one is better then the other.  

I like the h 50 more.

Blas
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 18, 2009, 05:31:19 pm
Quote from: BlasR
Please do the analysis with the 3 photos 1ds,p45+ and Hasselblad 50

I like to know if one is better then the other.  

I like the h 50 more.

Blas

Another completely irrelevant post. Different scenes, taken under different conditions and processed under unspecified conditions. I like the H50 shot better also, but that does not mean that the Hasselblad is the best camera.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 18, 2009, 05:36:33 pm
Quote from: bcooter
Just use what you use and make beautiful photographs.
That's all that really matters.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 18, 2009, 05:40:26 pm
Quote from: BlasR
I like the h 50 more.
I reduced them to 1/10 and I like the P45+ more :-)

Or how do you imagine an "image analysis"? It is understandable that you don't post the raw files, but the only image analysis regarding the cameras' characteristics can be conducted on the raw images.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 18, 2009, 05:55:59 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Mine is better than yours--that is your reasoning, not mine. I've tried to use reason and analysis to explain what we might or might not be seeing. Thus far to no avail and answered only with ad hominem attacks, which are the resort of those who are losing their side of the argument. Whether or not I have taken any pictures is irrelevant, but I expect my analysis to be answered with reason, not invective. Instead, you ignore my findings and I suspect that you can not rebut them. Thus far, no analysis from you but only unsubstantiated assertions that you think we should believe since you have high end equipment.



I don't doubt that you have the equipment that you claim, but if the results are really so much better why don't you demonstrate that? Thus, far your shot of clouds is uninspired and proves nothing. Personally, I prefer Bernard's images, whose quality has been demonstrated in multiple posts and is widely admired and your denigration of his work is out of place on this forum as are your ad hominem attacks. The quality difference you may be seeing in your clouds is likely explained by considerations other than dynamic range or perhaps your inability to process images from your Canon, which I am sure of capturing the limited dynamic range in your cloud shots.

Assuming Jack Flesher is right it would not be his problem to prove it. I mean this is no rocket science. Anyone who shoots regulary with P65 and D3X/1ds3 could tell easily. Frankly I trust more in the experience of a pro who knows what these systems do rather than theoreticans with raw graphs and no access to these cameras. Nothing against technical analysis! But it has to relate to the experience of a working photographer and not to an engineering standpoint. In practice the final image is relevant nothing else.

And after all, a proper explanation has to stand on it's own and be graspable by common means. But what I see here is different. Only technical rebuttals of single sentences, not really own standpoints. I mean IF there is no difference between DR of MFBD and 35mm I expect an explanation wich makes sense of the issue as a whole in understandable words. I want it explained fully then, not these silly raw graph snippets with partial explanations. This are not serious explanations or proofs. A proper explanations has to make sense of all the facts from all sides.

At the other hand as an outsider the fact that this thread goes for so long makes me wonder if there is really such a significant difference. I mean after all if the difference is big it should be really obvious it should be confirmable by a plethora of shooters here, no? Or maybe just nobody views threads with too many pages and certain topic titles?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 18, 2009, 06:14:34 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
I have a problem with your method; averaging the intensity in the channels does not yield anything useful regarding the camera. I don't know with which ISO the image was created and how it was processed, but this blotchiness is not characteristic to any mid-range DSLR at -8 to -9 EV with lower ISOs, except perhaps the A900 with the built-in noise reduction.

Can you make this raw file available to me, or is it too private?
I agree the method is flawed; I averaged just to get a quick 'luminance' to locate each zone someway. The correct way to do it is consider each undemosaiced RAW channel separately, but I understood this would have been too heavy for a thread where trained eyes account. I consider my approach valid enough for the purpose.

It was ISO100. Luckily the original file is still in the download server: HASSELBLAD DNG DOWNLOAD (http://www.mediafire.com/?dzmj1zamn5t).


Quote from: Jack Flesher



Quote from: EricWHiss
Would you be able to tell us what software you used to process the RAW file and where it came from?   I still contend that any fair analysis will include the manufacturers supplied software and files will be evaluated post processing not prior.
I used DCRAW with the standard AHD demosaic algorithm, because is the software I always use so it's the more adequate for me to compare. However if you wait for a while, surely Gabor (Panopeeper) will do his analyse on the undemosaiced RAW data.


Quote from: Christian Miersch
I trust more in the experience of a pro who knows what these systems do rather than theoreticans with raw graphs and no access to these cameras.
You are free to think that way, but assuming that being a professional photographer means knowing how to take gear to its best, is not only not necessarily true, it is in fact usually false. Quality is rarely aligned with efficiency.

BR
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on September 18, 2009, 07:28:06 pm
Are you unable to get the results you are striving for?

If that is the case, rent one, and end your uncertainty.

If you don't know and are grasping at straws of a question, then take the mind set of a perfectionist and see the areas where your quality is lacking. Try different lens'. Try different apertures, try different times of the day.  Spend the money on great glass. Use a adapter and try a different make glass if you are not sure. Try a SLR without a AA. all these will be around $1k-1500 in price.  They are the expense of a learning shooter that is striving to be pro or perfect his/her craft/art.
When you see something missing, as you mix print into the thing. Try and see what another shooter that execeeds your abilities is doing.  you might be surprised to learn how much time and effort goes into a fine art print. Maybe you are already making them, and just have run out of work or are so well off that you want to find that silver bullet.  

When you have a reference target of a certain quality, you know what you are after. If your own quality is not in question, who's stomach is empty?

If you have used film on LF, then you will know what meat you want to eat. Then you will know what quality you are after.  science can only measure what definitions and laws that are already in place. Some things are not defined, yet. A lot of what we do is based on calculations. But when you see beauty, and you have a vision in your head, you will use calculations, but if you dont have vision in your head, the calculations will limit you.

if you want to do a scientific test to see the difference, that is great, but that is a little different from your OG post.

I also think the subject matter that you shoot is somewhat of the utmost important, and I highly doubt everyone here is shooting the same subject.  I am sure there are event shooters here that have no need to discuss this, and even in landscape the very demanding landscape shooters...the subject is so organic, it is harder to make such apple to apple tests.

The answer will also get plugged up sometimes as so many have poured so much time and money to discover the "sweet spot", that people dont feel like sharing it, and I dont blame them. You go spend years of your time and hard earned money to strive for the best that you seek, and then dump it online.  Well when you have people fueling and flaming each other like this, perhaps the water will boil sooner :-)  Michael's LL testing should be updated and he should supply a new CD/DVD perhaps, with the latest canon nikon and PhaseOne sensors, as he would be the person to correctly execute with the apples to apples gear in the apples to apple situation and raw data.  How about it Michael ?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on September 18, 2009, 07:30:08 pm
Quote from: JeffKohn
I never made any assertions about the "usable" DR of prints. I simply pointed out that your excuse for why the D3x comes out on top in the DxO test was inaccurate.

Setting aside for a moment the definition of usable DR, I can actually find it quite believable that the MFDB have some advantage in DR. However, I think the difference is much smaller than many MFDB owners claim. The conventional wisdom that MFDB's have a huge advantage in DR may have been true a few years ago; but the CMOS sensors in DSLR's have been improving at a faster pace than the MF CCD's.


14bit vs 16bit. each bit is acounted for about 1000 levels in each color?  I dont know the exact #s, but I know this to make a difference
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 18, 2009, 07:49:24 pm
Quote from: Phil Indeblanc
14bit vs 16bit. each bit is acounted for about 1000 levels in each color?  I dont know the exact #s, but I know this to make a difference
The 16bit is a myth. Although the actual raw data is 16bit wide, no more than 14bits carry useful information. In fact, in some cases (for example P45+) using the least significant two bits results in awful image; for example the "centerfold line" becomes visible.

However, this does not take away anything from the high quality of some DBs.

(Note: the bits are not accounted for 1000 levels per bit. One bit accounts for only two values; the combination of the bits yields the high possible number of levels.)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: TMARK on September 18, 2009, 07:56:13 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
Honestly, who cares if Irving Penn and Paolo Roversi and who ever gives a shit or not about this subject? This is meant for those, who actually understand what it is about; for those, it is about ohotography. For the digitally illiterate, it is nerd talk. I see no problem with that.

If you don't understand it, get over it. There are many threads I don't understand much of, but I don't post in each and every thread, that the others are nerds, because they know something I don't.

Because, "Gabor", this is Digital backs and Large Sensor Photography.  This inane line of name calling may involve digital backs and large sensors, it has nothing to do with photography.  Isn't there another section for this type of "discussion"?  That's my question, can you take it somewhere else, perhaps away from the digitally illiterate? Or at least stop condescending to people?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 18, 2009, 08:32:51 pm
Don't know what all the fuss is about. Jack claims his P65+ has better DR than his 1Ds3, which enables him to get smoother gradations in the bright area of clouds without introducing unwanted noise in the darker parts of the image, and DXOMark test results indicate he has good reason to hold such a view.

At a normalised image size of 8mp, the P65+ has a whole stop better DR than the 1Ds3, according to DXO. In my experience, a whole stop of DR difference is significant.

At the same normalised size of 8x12", the Nikon D700 has about the same DR as the 1Ds3, according to DXOMark. Here's a shot I took a few months ago with my D700 demonstrating some cloud effects. The camera's pointing directly at the sun which is behind the clouds but almost peeking through, causing a few very small patches of blown highlights.

The foreground in this image was quite dark and needed lifting during processing. It's interesting to note, if I'd used a D3X for this scene I would have had an additional 1.67 stops of DR available. Instead of the exposure of 1,000th that I used for this shot, I could have used a 3,200th of a sec on a D3X, at the same aperture and ISO, without compromising the quality of the foreground.

[attachment=16687:0251_crop.jpg]

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 18, 2009, 08:38:12 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
This is the per-pixel SNR seen in a 100% crop in the deep shadows. Like on any high end DSLR, noise appears at -7EV (i.e. in the 8th stop from saturation), and is very visible at -8EV (the 9th stop from RAW saturation). That provides about 9 f-stops of usable DR for photographic applications.
Guillermo,

I took a look at the raw image. The noise in the crop you posted comes exclusively from the red channel, which is at -9.65 EV, i.e. more than 10.5 stops.

Btw, the noise of the Hasselblad H3D II-31 is between 1/3 EV and 1/2 EV less than that of the 5D2, with ISO 100 (i.e. its dynamic range is so much higher).
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 18, 2009, 09:32:43 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
Guillermo,

I took a look at the raw image. The noise in the crop you posted comes exclusively from the red channel, which is at -9.65 EV, i.e. more than 10.5 stops.

Btw, the noise of the Hasselblad H3D II-31 is between 1/3 EV and 1/2 EV less than that of the 5D2, with ISO 100 (i.e. its dynamic range is so much higher).


Great so is this the end then? We all finally agree that MFDB has more DR than DSLR's?  Right?  
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 18, 2009, 09:36:12 pm
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
When performing a 12 images stitch with a d3x (3 rows of 4 images in vertical orientation), I am de facto simulating a sensor that is approximately 85x65 mm, and the enlargement ratio for a given print size will therefore be about 1.5 times smaller than that of - say - a P65+.

Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard, what gear do you use to do 3x4 stitching? Special tripod heads, etc? How long does it take to execute it, and in the case of taking photos of quickly changing scene (sunset) will that be practical? I have always been a single frame shooter and have only tried stitching once or twice with a very basic tripod head. Perhaps with the right gear, stitching would be easy and quick to do.

The technical camera's ability to shift the back sensor to allow stitching seems appealing to me as it seems very easy and very quick to do. This can be achieved with either MFDB or 35mm DSLR.

I guess ideally for me is to just get an MFDB + tilt / shift body and try it myself to see which is more practical, but nobody rents it out here where I live. I guess I need to go to Sydney to rent the gear, and the rent is expensive last I looked the MFDB itself costs $600/day + I need to rent the body and lens.. and probably tripod head and a bigger tripod lol. Add that to the expense of flying there + car rental + hotel etc it would add up to about 2K-ish.

Furthermore it will be hard for me to do a fair comparison since I am used to using my 1ds3 but I have totally no idea how to use the MFDB + its lens + the technical camera. It would take me some time to get used to working with it and probably a lifetime 'mastering' it. Furthermore, there's that article that says that there are big variations amongst the copies of the same product, and usually the rental gear is even worse presumably due to abuse or lack of TLC?

I guess at the end of the day, ideally I'd like to know from several people who are used to using both P65+ with a technical camera and 35mm dslr (1ds3 or d3x) to come out and comment about the comparison of equal size prints (e.g. 30" x 40" or bigger) of the same scene taken at the same time - using P65+ (or other kinds of MFDB) vs 35mm (perhaps being stitched to make it 'fair' on resolution).

I know that several people have voiced their impressions although they cannot explain in technical speak (which is probably not necessary?) and I thank them for that.

So far I haven't seen any opinion to say that a 35mm dslr (stitched or otherwise) print looks better or even of the same quality / beauty (for the lack of a better term) than MFDB on large prints - in case if I missed it, please kindly correct me.

Thanks for all the posts so far. It has been very educational to me.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 18, 2009, 09:43:21 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
Can't imagine where you get that from, but it sounds like you need to shoot a P65+ and a D3X for a weekend so you can see how things come out when the rubber hits the road.

Doug

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Doug, Has anyone at Capture Integration ever done such comparison (perhaps with 1ds3 if you guys don't have D3X)? You guys would be the ideal people to do this having familiarity with both systems. The end result to compare is on a large print, viewed from a decent distance (not pixel peeping) as one would enjoy a beautiful photograph on the wall.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 18, 2009, 09:44:08 pm
Quote from: TMARK
Because, "Gabor", this is Digital backs and Large Sensor Photography.  This inane line of name calling may involve digital backs and large sensors, it has nothing to do with photography.  Isn't there another section for this type of "discussion"?  That's my question, can you take it somewhere else, perhaps away from the digitally illiterate? Or at least stop condescending to people?
Tim, apart from the fact that I have not started this thread, it is about MFDBs as well, so I don't see why the OP should not have posted it here. Anyway, I don't understand your problem. I don't even look into the vast majority of the threads. I have no problem with ignoring such threads, which either I don't know enough of, or I don't find interesting or I dislike for any reason; I wonder why you and some others can't do the same.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 18, 2009, 09:48:00 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
Here is a shot with in similar bright sunlight I took earlier this year in Moab (actualy this is a stretch of the Petrified Forest) with my P45+.  Again, in my humble opinion only, these clouds look a lot more like real clouds with similar exposure values for our main foreground subjects and nice, clean detailed shadows. (And the sky is the proper blue.):

(http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/pf033.jpg)
Jack, what (kind) of camera did you use for the P45+?

Edit: Never mind I have finally caught up with this thread and saw your camera bag. You use the Phaseone 645 / mamiya body
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 18, 2009, 09:50:56 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
Great so is this the end then? We all finally agree that MFDB has more DR than DSLR's?
I don't know of any make or model called MFDB, nor DSLR. Do you?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 18, 2009, 10:05:22 pm
Quote from: bjanes
I downloaded the cloud image and used the threshold in Photoshop to see where the lowest cloud luminance was located. No clouds had a pixel value below 93. Clipping of these clouds would not occur even with a P&S camera! A pixel value of 93 in a gamma 2.2 space corresponds to a pixel value of 28 (in 8 bit notation) in the raw file. The corresponding value in a 14 bit raw file from the Canon would be 1781. This is very far above clipping. If you really see a difference, you should look elsewhere for the explanation.

[attachment=16663:FlesherImage.png]
bjanes, would you care to explain to me a bit more on this please?

The part that I don't understand is how does the 93 in gamma 2.2 becomes a pixel value of 28 in 8 bit?

I would assume that to convert 28 in 8 bit into the equivalent value in 14 bit would be: 28 / 2^8 * 2^14 =  1792... how did you get 1781?

I'm probably going to sound very dumb here: "very far above clipping" sounds weird to me because I thought clipping means values (i.e. luminance?) above certain points would be 'clipped' i.e. assigned the maximum value be it 255 for 8 bit, or 2^14-1 for 14 bit data. Don't you mean "very far below clipping" ?

I think I need to really sit and think about all this to understand the whole situation about clipping / raw processing etc...

blah all I want is to take beautiful photos to print and hang on the wall! My maths (discrete or calculus or whatever) have all evaporated off my brain many many years ago and I'm not even that old lol

Is there a page that explain this whole clipping thing that you demonstrated with photoshop? I'd like to read it to learn more.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: TMARK on September 18, 2009, 10:55:02 pm
Because every thread you are a part of degenerates into some bullshit name calling.  Why?  Because you are obnoxious.  Get it?  Its not civil.  I look at this thread because I want to know what photographers who routinely shoot with a d3x/ds3 and/or a MFDB think about how their chosen tool and how it affects their Photography.  Instead we have acrimony and graphs.  Again, partially because you present yourself as an obnoxious, acrimonious prick.  That's all.

Quote from: Panopeeper
Tim, apart from the fact that I have not started this thread, it is about MFDBs as well, so I don't see why the OP should not have posted it here. Anyway, I don't understand your problem. I don't even look into the vast majority of the threads. I have no problem with ignoring such threads, which either I don't know enough of, or I don't find interesting or I dislike for any reason; I wonder why you and some others can't do the same.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Luis Argerich on September 18, 2009, 11:11:07 pm
If the truth is not civil then I will happyly abandon civilization...

Quote from: TMARK
Because every thread you are a part of degenerates into some bullshit name calling.  Why?  Because you are obnoxious.  Get it?  Its not civil.  I look at this thread because I want to know what photographers who routinely shoot with a d3x/ds3 and/or a MFDB think about how their chosen tool and how it affects their Photography.  Instead we have acrimony and graphs.  Again, partially because you present yourself as an obnoxious, acrimonious prick.  That's all.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 18, 2009, 11:23:55 pm
Hi Jim2,

I really appreciate your attitude. To my understanding Christopher Hauser may be kind enough to help us with some comparison shots in a few weeks. Regarding the technique proposed by Bernard it's really practical. I normally don't shoot multirow panoramas, but single row is fast and easy. I have two small write ups on panos:

The first one is here:

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...a-and-stitching (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/panorama-and-stitching)

the other one is here:

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...s-quick-a-dirty (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/21-panoramas-quick-a-dirty)

The second article is intended to demonstrate that it's possible to get decent panos "quick and dirty". It was shot with 12mm lens on full frame DSLR.  Both generated quite a few comments on this forums. Some additional hints:

1) It's my guess that it's better to use specialised tools like Autopano Pro or PtGui instead of Photoshop, but I may be wrong.
2) At lest Autopano Pro doesn't transfer color profile from originals

I would essentially try the technique and invest if it's found usable.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Jim2
Hi Bernard, what gear do you use to do 3x4 stitching? Special tripod heads, etc? How long does it take to execute it, and in the case of taking photos of quickly changing scene (sunset) will that be practical? I have always been a single frame shooter and have only tried stitching once or twice with a very basic tripod head. Perhaps with the right gear, stitching would be easy and quick to do.

The technical camera's ability to shift the back sensor to allow stitching seems appealing to me as it seems very easy and very quick to do. This can be achieved with either MFDB or 35mm DSLR.

I guess ideally for me is to just get an MFDB + tilt / shift body and try it myself to see which is more practical, but nobody rents it out here where I live. I guess I need to go to Sydney to rent the gear, and the rent is expensive last I looked the MFDB itself costs $600/day + I need to rent the body and lens.. and probably tripod head and a bigger tripod lol. Add that to the expense of flying there + car rental + hotel etc it would add up to about 2K-ish.

Furthermore it will be hard for me to do a fair comparison since I am used to using my 1ds3 but I have totally no idea how to use the MFDB + its lens + the technical camera. It would take me some time to get used to working with it and probably a lifetime 'mastering' it. Furthermore, there's that article that says that there are big variations amongst the copies of the same product, and usually the rental gear is even worse presumably due to abuse or lack of TLC?

I guess at the end of the day, ideally I'd like to know from several people who are used to using both P65+ with a technical camera and 35mm dslr (1ds3 or d3x) to come out and comment about the comparison of equal size prints (e.g. 30" x 40" or bigger) of the same scene taken at the same time - using P65+ (or other kinds of MFDB) vs 35mm (perhaps being stitched to make it 'fair' on resolution).

I know that several people have voiced their impressions although they cannot explain in technical speak (which is probably not necessary?) and I thank them for that.

So far I haven't seen any opinion to say that a 35mm dslr (stitched or otherwise) print looks better or even of the same quality / beauty (for the lack of a better term) than MFDB on large prints - in case if I missed it, please kindly correct me.

Thanks for all the posts so far. It has been very educational to me.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 18, 2009, 11:35:20 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
Also if they are down-sampled to 0 megapixels they will have identical dynamic range. At this reproduction size they also benefit from a absolute zero level of artifacts.


Yes. Very amusing. But what amount is zero millons? Is 999, 999 pixels zero megapixels? I presume you mean zero pixels. If that's what you mean then at zero pixels, dynamic range can be both equal and unequal, or anything you like, because it doesn't enter into the picture   . Just being pedantic.

However, I agree you have a valid point. It's a bit slack of me to presume that a D3X image will have 2/3rds of a stop DR advantage over the P65+ whatever the print size, just because at the normalised size of 8x12 it has a 2/3rds stop advantage.

A more correct deduction would be that the D3X image, whatever the print size, will have at least marginally better DR, even if it's only 0.25EV better. It will at least be no worse, according to the test data presented by DXOMark.

For example, the P65+ sensor has 2.5x more pixels than the D3X sensor. The D3X pixel is the same size as the P65+ pixel and has 1.67EV greater DR, according to DXO. 1.67EV greater DR translates to over 3x the amount of light, all else being equal. The P65+ gathers only 2.5x the amount of light for any scene of equal FOV at equal exposure.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning. There could be. I'm not as technical as some of the posters on this site.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 18, 2009, 11:52:41 pm
Quote from: Ray
Yes. Very amusing. But what amount is zero millons? Is 999, 999 pixels zero megapixels? I presume you mean zero pixels. If that's what you mean then at zero pixels, dynamic range can be both equal and unequal, or anything you like, because it doesn't enter into the picture   . Just being pedantic.

However, I agree you have a valid point. It's a bit slack of me to presume that a D3X image will have 2/3rds of a stop DR advantage over the P65+ whatever the print size, just because at the normalised size of 8x12 it has a 2/3rds stop advantage.

A more correct deduction would be that the D3X image, whatever the print size, will have at least marginally better DR, even if it's only 0.25EV better. It will at least be no worse, according to the test data presented by DXOMark.

For example, the P65+ sensor has 2.5x more pixels than the D3X sensor. The D3X pixel is the same size as the P65+ pixel and has 1.67EV greater DR, according to DXO. 1.67EV greater DR translates to over 3x the amount of light, all else being equal. The P65+ gathers only 2.5x the amount of light for any scene of equal FOV at equal exposure.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning. There could be. I'm not as technical as some of the posters on this site.
Interesting. If D3X is better than P65+ in DR, in your opinion is there any reason that you can think of, to use P65+ at all?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 18, 2009, 11:53:43 pm
Hi,

Just to add to the confusion I include another sunlit picture with clouds and shadows.

Here is original image (as DNG) and full size JPEG:

http://83.177.178.241/images/Jim2/index.html (http://83.177.178.241/images/Jim2/index.html)

[attachment=16693:20090604...32_small.jpg]

The reason I added the picture that this is a typical and not very demanding scene. It's not for artistic value. I made small fairly routine adjustments for the JPEG.

The picture is taken with a Sony Alpha 900

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: Jim2
I'm currently shooting landscape as a hobby, hoping that one day I can sell the ones I consider great. I'm currently using 1ds3 and have been wondering about whether to get an MFDB + view camera. The MFDB would give me a higher res and the view camera would give me better Dof on grand scheme type of shots.

- I'm wondering whether I should wait for 1ds4, hoping it would have a higher resolution + better DR (if that's even possible?) and use either the Canon TS lens or Cambo X2

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology? I'm using a Canon ipf6100 printer at the moment but the future might offer us better printing technology too.

I guess this is all technical and at the end of the day a nicely captured shots with 1ds3 would be quite nice too and I know a few professional landscape photographers who sell their photos for a living use 5d2.

Thanks for your input / comments / advice / suggestions / thoughts.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 19, 2009, 12:13:46 am
Quote from: Jim2
Interesting. If D3X is better than P65+ in DR, in your opinion is there any reason that you can think of, to use P65+ at all?

Of course there is. Having lots of pixels is wonderful when you want large prints. No-one can deny the resolution advantages of the larger and higher pixel-count sensor. You can downsample a large image to create a perception of reduced noise and even a slight increase in accutance, but you cannot create additional resolution by upsampling a smaller file.

I also like the idea of no AA filter, but I understand that many users of DSLRs shoot in jpeg mode and that aliasing artifacts, which the average user might not have either the skill or the inclination to remove, might be disturbing.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 19, 2009, 12:36:48 am
Jim,

I'd suggest that DR is not really the issue that matters. On the other hand, it seem that observers can tell apart MFDB prints from DSLR prints even at reasonable sizes.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=310104 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37594&view=findpost&p=310104)

There are some questions tough, are we doing a apples to apples comparison? We normally use DSLRs and MFDBs differently. To begin width DSLRs are often used for free hand shooting and MFDBs are often used on tripod. DSLRs are often used with zooms and MFDBs are often used with fixed focals. Putting first class primes (like the Zeiss lenses) on your existing DSLR may improve your pictures? I'd say this is a consideration because the price of an MF-body pays for 2-3 Zeiss lenses not to mention the MFDB.

Check also this (especially that you go need to Sydney to find a dealer)
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Jim2
Interesting. If D3X is better than P65+ in DR, in your opinion is there any reason that you can think of, to use P65+ at all?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 19, 2009, 01:41:57 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
I'd suggest that DR is not really the issue that matters. On the other hand, it seem that observers can tell apart MFDB prints from DSLR prints even at reasonable sizes.

Now Erik, you know about Michael's famous G10/P45+ comparison. At a reasonable size of A3+, the prints from both cameras were indistinguishable, apart from the shallower DoF of the P45 image.

With a different subject, the DR differences would have been apparent, but not necessarily if the D3X had been substituted for the G10 in the comparison.

DR is often an issue for landscape photographers who are trying to capture natural scenes with a very high SBR. It's the reason why we have HDR programs.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 19, 2009, 02:23:51 am
Ray,

I agree with what you say, the idea I'd like to conceive is like this:

1. DR is a resource for raw-processing, nothing that readily shows up in prints.
2. Reichmann and Doug Peterson et. al. clearly say that differences are visible even in small prints.
3. No one has really explained what the difference is
4. The difference is described in terms like "microcontrast" and "tonality" which I'd not consider well defined

I'm aware of MR's G10/P45+ comparison it's interesting but MR has since that upgraded to P65+ and M9, so I'd suggest that Michael doesn't think that G10 is good enough for all his photography but found that it's surprisingly good.

Going back to DR it is my opinion that DR is seldom a real problem with DSLRs. Any image really utilizing the full DR of anything more than a phone-cam will be flat in print (if no S-kurve is applied), because prints have small dynamic range, like 1:200 or about 7.2 stops (and I'd say that's optimistic). Making the print attractive takes some curve adjustment to get a steep gradient on midtones and have good separation in highlights and shadows. Now days some photographers do "virtual HDR", different developments from the same raw image, and combine in PS or some HDR tool.

All this processing  plays probably a larger role than small differences in DR.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Ray
Now Erik, you know about Michael's famous G10/P45+ comparison. At a reasonable size of A3+, the prints from both cameras were indistinguishable, apart from the shallower DoF of the P45 image.

With a different subject, the DR differences would have been apparent, but not necessarily if the D3X had been substituted for the G10 in the comparison.

DR is often an issue for landscape photographers who are trying to capture natural scenes with a very high SBR. It's the reason why we have HDR programs.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 19, 2009, 04:06:06 am
I think my conclusion is to get an MFDB if I can justify the spending from monetary point of view. I'm looking at getting the P40+ if not P65+. Thanks for all the info it has been an interesting thread to follow. I managed to learn a bit more on other topics also.

I have another question but probably best for dpreview - it is in regards to price
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 19, 2009, 04:30:20 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Any image really utilizing the full DR of anything more than a phone-cam will be flat in print, because prints have small dynamic range, like 1:200 or about 7.2 stops ...

Not at all, Erik. I think this is a grave misconception.

All you have to do to falsify this argument is take a series of shots of your living room, exposing for the view out of the window, using a P&S camera, an average DSLR, a D3X and a P65+. Process and print each image so both the scene out of the window and the scene inside your living room is as natural as possible.

You'll find it's not possible with the P&S. Your lounge room will look like crap. With a DSLR it will look better. With a D3X or P65+, both the view out of the window and your lounge room will likely look fairly natural on the print, with no blown highlights in the scene out of the window and no serious noise in your lounge room. This is because both the P65+ and the D3X have a high DR capability.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 19, 2009, 05:04:59 am
Ray,

I'm not really sure. One issue with P&S cameras is that they shoot JPEGs. I'm quite certain that inherent DR of any PS is in excess of what can be reproduced on paper. Simple P&S cameras seldom have RAW format, so gamma correction and S-curve are already done on the JPEG. I certainly would expect any digital camera to have a sensor side DR in excess of 7.2 stops.

My statement "Any image really utilizing the full DR of anything more than a phone-cam will be flat in print" is a bit taken out of context and should have expressed it more clear. The issue is that an image containing the full dynamic range of a picture cannot be reproduced in print. To get a decent print we need to apply a compression on the shadows and highlights so we can have a steep gradient on the mid tones. In camera JPEGs do this automatically and so do raw converters.

Check this link: http://www.normankoren.com/Canon_PWPro_toneadj.jpg (http://www.normankoren.com/Canon_PWPro_toneadj.jpg)

The whole article is below: http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html)


I won't really argue on this issue, I wanted to make a point clear, and certainly did exaggerate.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Ray
Not at all, Erik. I think this is a grave misconception.

All you have to do to falsify this argument is take a series of shots of your living room, exposing for the view out of the window, using a P&S camera, an average DSLR, a D3X and a P65+. Process and print each image so both the scene out of the window and the scene inside your living room is as natural as possible.

You'll find it's not possible with the P&S. Your lounge room will look like crap. With a DSLR it will look better. With a D3X or P65+, both the view out of the window and your lounge room will likely look fairly natural on the print, with no blown highlights in the scene out of the window and no serious noise in your lounge room. This is because both the P65+ and the D3X have a high DR capability.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 19, 2009, 06:49:33 am
Quote from: Jim2
bjanes, would you care to explain to me a bit more on this please?

The part that I don't understand is how does the 93 in gamma 2.2 becomes a pixel value of 28 in 8 bit?

I would assume that to convert 28 in 8 bit into the equivalent value in 14 bit would be: 28 / 2^8 * 2^14 =  1792... how did you get 1781?

I'm probably going to sound very dumb here: "very far above clipping" sounds weird to me because I thought clipping means values (i.e. luminance?) above certain points would be 'clipped' i.e. assigned the maximum value be it 255 for 8 bit, or 2^14-1 for 14 bit data. Don't you mean "very far below clipping" ?

I think I need to really sit and think about all this to understand the whole situation about clipping / raw processing etc...

blah all I want is to take beautiful photos to print and hang on the wall! My maths (discrete or calculus or whatever) have all evaporated off my brain many many years ago and I'm not even that old lol

Is there a page that explain this whole clipping thing that you demonstrated with photoshop? I'd like to read it to learn more.

Jim,

You have the right idea, but when doing gamma calculations, one first normalizes the pixel value. The 8 bit gamma 2.2 value is 93. Normalized, this becomes 93/255 = 0.364706. To convert between gamma of 1.0 to 2.2 you do the power calculation, 0.364706 ^ 2.2 = 0.108711. Then you convert back to a bit depth of 8: 0.108711 * 255 = 28. Clipping can be at either end of the spectrum--highlights or shadows. In the case under discussion, the highlights appeared OK, but Jack thoughts the darker portions appeared bad, so the shadows would be clipped in this case, but obviously they were not. If here were more analytical, he would look for another explanation.

The Threshold command in Photoshop is reached via the menu command Image, Adjustments, Threshold or from the new Adjustments panel is described briefly in the Photoshop help, "Create a two-valued black and white image".
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 19, 2009, 06:54:38 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Ray,
My statement "Any image really utilizing the full DR of anything more than a phone-cam will be flat in print" is a bit taken out of context and should have expressed it more clear. The issue is that an image containing the full dynamic range of a picture cannot be reproduced in print. To get a decent print we need to apply a compression on the shadows and highlights so we can have a steep gradient on the mid tones. In camera JPEGs do this automatically and so do raw converters.

Erik,
Your statement is very misleading and seems to ignore the entire 'raison d'etre' of editing programs like Photoshop. Any scene, however great the dynamic range captured in the image, whether in a single shot from a camera with a high DR capability, or in a series of bracketed exposures merged to HDR, can be represented on print in a realistic and convincing manner with appropriate processing.
 
But don't take offense   .
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 19, 2009, 07:18:53 am
Quote from: Jim2
I think my conclusion is to get an MFDB if I can justify the spending from monetary point of view. I'm looking at getting the P40+ if not P65+. Thanks for all the info it has been an interesting thread to follow. I managed to learn a bit more on other topics also.

I have another question but probably best for dpreview - it is in regards to price
Have you considered the Hasselblad H3D11-60 (or 50)?

The 60 will be available "in September" (which might mean Christmas), and "should" have all the advantages of a Hasselblad, and none of what I would expect from a Mamiya/Phase.

To someone who graduated from Mamiya (C330) to Hasselblad almost exactly 30 years ago, it seems incredible that anyone could consider them comparable... but Hasselblad is not Swedish anymore, and they do not use European lenses...

Apparently the DCU (digiback) is made in Europe, and I use my DCU on European (Sinar) cameras with European Lenses (Schneider).

One major factor you will need to consider is local dealer support for the two brands.

Here I have about half a dozen MFD retailers within two or three hours drive, but I gather that you do not.

DR depends on how many photons your pixels can gather... and from how many photons the associated analog components can store the signal (as a ratio to noise) so, for DR, larger pixels are better, so, ¿if DR is what you want, perhaps the Leica M9 might be the best choice? ... but I would not recomend it for landscapes!
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 19, 2009, 07:34:25 am
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
Have you considered the Hasselblad H3D11-60 (or 50)?

The 60 will be available "in September" (which might mean Christmas), and "should" have all the advantages of a Hasselblad, and none of what I would expect from a Mamiya/Phase.

To someone who graduated from Mamiya (C330) to Hasselblad almost exactly 30 years ago, it seems incredible that anyone could consider them comparable... but Hasselblad is not Swedish anymore, and they do not use European lenses...

Apparently the DCU (digiback) is made in Europe, and I use my DCU on European (Sinar) cameras with European Lenses (Schneider).

One major factor you will need to consider is local dealer support for the two brands.

Here I have about half a dozen MFD retailers within two or three hours drive, but I gather that you do not.

DR depends on how many photons your pixels can gather... and from how many photons the associated analog components can store the signal (as a ratio to noise) so, for DR, larger pixels are better, so, ¿if DR is what you want, perhaps the Leica M9 might be the best choice? ... but I would not recomend it for landscapes!
Thanks for the tip. I will also look into Hasselblad back. As for the 'body' I'm considering one of these three: arca swiss m-line 2, cambo wrs 1000, horseman ld pro. I have also seen that sinar has a technical body but I read that they're going out of business?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 19, 2009, 07:57:59 am
Very wrong reading and understanding: they (Sinar) are still there and very much alive.

If I would be you I would really have a look to the Sinar arTec camera and TRY it in real.

Here a link:

http://www.sinarcameras.com/site/index__ga...s-rand-846.html (http://www.sinarcameras.com/site/index__gast-e-1321-23-1408-urlvars-rand-846.html)

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: Jim2
I have also seen that sinar has a technical body but I read that they're going out of business?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 19, 2009, 08:01:26 am
Ray,

No offense, I actually mean it the other way round. To reformulate it:

- DR is helpful in capturing all brightness levels in a scene
- If the dynamic range of the scene does not fit print it must be compressed in a way which is pleasant to the eye/brain combination, otherwise the image will be flat

The important message is that the visual impact of the image will probably more effected by processing than by DR alone. But any way we don't need to waste bandwidth on this issue.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: Ray
Erik,
Your statement is very misleading and seems to ignore the entire 'raison d'etre' of editing programs like Photoshop. Any scene, however great the dynamic range captured in the image, whether in a single shot from a camera with a high DR capability, or in a series of bracketed exposures merged to HDR, can be represented on print in a realistic and convincing manner with appropriate processing.
 
But don't take offense   .
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 19, 2009, 09:19:56 am
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
DR depends on how many photons your pixels can gather... and from how many photons the associated analog components can store the signal (as a ratio to noise) so, for DR, larger pixels are better, so, ¿if DR is what you want, perhaps the Leica M9 might be the best choice? ... but I would not recomend it for landscapes!

The full well (number of photo electrons captured) is only part of the DR equation, since it determines the noise in the highlights. For the shadow noise, read noise (depending on where the noise floor is placed) is the most important factor. The engineering definition of DR is full well/read nose, both expressed in electrons. Read noise with big pixels with current cameras is relatively high at low ISO but decreases as the ISO increases. A consequence of this relationship is that a small pixel camera can have a good dynamic range as compared to a larger pixel camera when both operate at base ISO. However, at higher ISO, the large pixel camera will have a distinct advantage. See Figure 5a (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html#dynamic_range) and the accompanying text in Roger Clark's article. Roger is using the engineering definition of DR, which is on a per pixel basis. The useful photographic dynamic range would place the noise floor higher, but the same principles apply.

For a more complete analysis, see Big Pixels vs Small Pixels (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#pixelsize) by Emil Martinec, a photographer and professor of physics at the University of Chicago. To fully understand these principles, it helps to have a PhD in physics, but the rest of us can at least have an intuitive grasp of them. BTW, Roger Clark has a PhD from MIT in astrophysics and works with NASA digital imaging projects.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 19, 2009, 09:30:19 am
Quote from: Ray
DR is often an issue for landscape photographers who are trying to capture natural scenes with a very high SBR. It's the reason why we have HDR programs.
I wouldn't forget that DR is more an issue on some synthetic scenes, such as interiors with artificial lighting or windows open to outdoor luminous areas. Both cases generate large luminance gaps.

In fact, unless the sun participates or is close to participate in the frame, landscapes aren't usually very demanding scenes in terms of DR.

BTW what is SBR?

Regards.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 19, 2009, 09:31:21 am
Quote from: Jim2
Thanks for the tip. I will also look into Hasselblad back. As for the 'body' I'm considering one of these three: arca swiss m-line 2, cambo wrs 1000, horseman ld pro. I have also seen that sinar has a technical body but I read that they're going out of business?
Hasselblad more-or-less give away the "point-and shoot adaptors" with the MFD backs, (and they threw in the 50-110mm zoom in addition to a discount).

The "point-and shoot adaptors" have their uses for studio flash with models... you can even use them for some landscapes, on a tripod, with the mirror locked up!
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 19, 2009, 09:53:05 am
Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisons in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

Regards.

Many have criticized the DXO results, since they don't want to believe the results that contradict their own beliefs. Whether in politics or photography, this seems to be part of the human psyche. However, the DXO engineers have a thorough theoretical knowledge and use validated methods. They express dynamic range on a per pixel basis as would be seen when examining the image at 100% on the screen and on a normalized basis when the image would be viewed at a given overall size. They normalize to 8 MP, so when a 32 MP camera image is downsized to 8 MP, noise decreased when 4 pixels are averaged into 1.

Another statistic is tonal range, which has to do with the number of distinct levels that are present over the dynamic range of the camera. It is measured in the number of bits necessary to express that number of levels and good tonality will enable one to distinguish subtle differences in tonality. Jack Flesher mistakes dynamic range for tonality in his analysis of clouds.

Out of interest, I prepared a table showing some of these results:

[attachment=16704:DXO.GIF]

The DR of the Nikon D3x is better than that of the Phase 1, but the Phase 1 has a better tonal range. A better tonal range could be important in situations where fine gradations in luminance are important. The Nikon D3x and D3 have the same sensor size and the same number of photons would be falling on both sensors, but improvements in sensor design allow the D3x to best the D3 on both a per pixel and normalized (print) metric. The D3x could collect more photons via improved quantum efficiency or it could have better read noise or possibly both. The medium format backs have a much larger sensor area and should be able to collect many more photons, but this does not fully translate into the observed results.

How these differences in measurements correspond to subjective quality in the image are not clear to me, but the differences are not as great as the medium format people would like us to believe.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BlasR on September 19, 2009, 10:05:03 am
Quote from: bjanes
Many have criticized the DXO results, since they don't want to believe the results that contradict their own beliefs. Whether in politics or photography, this seems to be part of the human psyche. However, the DXO engineers have a thorough theoretical knowledge and use validated methods. They express dynamic range on a per pixel basis as would be seen when examining the image at 100% on the screen and on a normalized basis when the image would be viewed at a given overall size. They normalize to 8 MP, so when a 32 MP camera image is downsized to 8 MP, noise decreased when 4 pixels are averaged into 1.

Another statistic is tonal range, which has to do with the number of distinct levels that are present over the dynamic range of the camera. It is measured in the number of bits necessary to express that number of levels and good tonality will enable one to distinguish subtle differences in tonality. Jack Flesher mistakes dynamic range for tonality in his analysis of clouds.

Out of interest, I prepared a table showing some of these results:

[attachment=16704:DXO.GIF]

The DR of the Nikon D3x is better than that of the Phase 1, but the Phase 1 has a better tonal range. A better tonal range could be important in situations where fine gradations in luminance are important. The Nikon D3x and D3 have the same sensor size and the same number of photons would be falling on both sensors, but improvements in sensor design allow the D3x to best the D3 on both a per pixel and normalized (print) metric. The D3x could collect more photons via improved quantum efficiency or it could have better read noise or possibly both. The medium format backs have a much larger sensor area and should be able to collect many more photons, but this does not fully translate into the observed results.

How these differences in measurements correspond to subjective quality in the image are not clear to me, but the differences are not as great as the medium format people would like us to believe.
 

Are you a science? wow, you good

I love you

I will sale my h 50 and I will get 300 dollars camera. (I can't wait to do that)

They look much better, they are better.

No only the I love you, I'm in love with you.(are you in San Francisco)?

Now I know why Jack, say it, sir, yes, sir.

Happy saturday

Blas
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 19, 2009, 10:05:29 am
Quote from: GLuijk
I wouldn't forget that DR is more an issue on some synthetic scenes, such as interiors with artificial lighting or windows open to outdoor luminous areas. Both cases generate large luminance gaps.

In fact, unless the sun participates or is close to participate in the frame, landscapes aren't usually very demanding scenes in terms of DR.

BTW what is SBR?

Regards.

Hi Guillermo,

I agree. A typical DR challenge would be to photograph an interior whilst simultaneously capturing a view out of the window without blowing the highlights. We should bear in mind that the eye adjusts its aperture very quickly as we shift our gaze from a bright area of a scene to a darker area, and vice versa, but we expect a camera to capture the whole scene at one aperture and exposure.

SBR stands for Subject Brightness Range which seems to be the terminology used to describe the range of EVs or stops in a scene.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 19, 2009, 10:22:27 am
Quote from: bjanes
The medium format backs have a much larger sensor area and should be able to collect many more photons, but this does not fully translate into the observed results.
As I said above, and as you confirmed, See Figure 5a (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html#dynamic_range) DR tends to increase with pixel size, MFBs have more pixels (= higher res) but the pixels are smaller, (giving less moire), so it is remarkable how good their DR is compared to cameras with larger pixels.  
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 19, 2009, 11:25:27 am
Quote from: BlasR
Are you a science? wow, you good

I love you

I will sale my h 50 and I will get 300 dollars camera. (I can't wait to do that)

They look much better, they are better.

No only the I love you, I'm in love with you.(are you in San Francisco)?

Now I know why Jack, say it, sir, yes, sir.

Happy saturday

Blas

Your humor escapes me, Blas   . Rather than sell your camera, it would be more productive for you to learn how to interpret the data in the context of a given photographic situation  . Do you need resolution? Use your H 50. Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice. You might consider the Nikon D3. If you need the highest DR, you could consider the D3x, but if tonal range is more important, your H 50 is not bad. If you want portability and reasonably good DR at base ISO, the G10 might be a good choice.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 19, 2009, 11:38:58 am
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
As I said above, and as you confirmed, See Figure 5a (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html#dynamic_range) DR tends to increase with pixel size, MFBs have more pixels (= higher res) but the pixels are smaller, (giving less moire), so it is remarkable how good their DR is compared to cameras with larger pixels.

You are not considering the large sensor area of the medium format camera, which can collect many more photons than a dSRL with the same pixel size. The pixel size decreases as the MP for a given sensor size increases, but the number of photons collected may remain about the same, so the SNR and DR may remain the same.  Read noise also enters into the equation, but as mentioned above, small pixels can have good read noise at low ISO.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BlasR on September 19, 2009, 01:17:17 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Your humor escapes me, Blas   . Rather than sell your camera, it would be more productive for you to learn how to interpret the data in the context of a given photographic situation  .  You might consider the Nikon D3. If you need the highest DR, you could consider the D3x, but if tonal range is more important, your H 50 is not bad. If you want portability and reasonably good DR at base ISO, the G10 might be a good choice.
Do you need resolution? Use your H 50. Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice.

Here is 800 with h 50,,I think I like it,,what about you?  even if you don't like it, tell me you do.  

Life is beautiful

Blas
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 19, 2009, 01:53:43 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Many have criticized the DXO results ... the DXO engineers have a thorough theoretical knowledge ...

I'd rather believe my own eyes than third opinion. Make up my own mind with the real thing, plain and simple. Really everybody who is talking here should tell his equipment. These who are arguing with DX0 numbers obviously don't use the systems they are talking about. Laughable, hilarious, for a real discussion. I know how a insightful technical discussion looks like. This here is NOT one. I don't have a clue about DR of these systems. But I don't throw DX0 numbers around pretending I have. Really guys just shut up and listen to these who can make an actual comparisation. I'm open to any result it just has to sound plausible and originate from own working experience. Ok maybe if a sensor engineer has his talk here that would be certainly insightful as well.

Happy DX0'ing

Christian

//ED:

You know guys this whole discussion is strange. I'm new here, I don't understand whats going wrong here. Theoreticians arguing with nothing but DX0 numbers and RAW graphs telling things contradicting common wisdom (Wich would not be bad in itself, but it's also not plausible enough to convince) and telling pros that their experiences are nothing worth because they are biased. And these pros who should KNOW IT BETTER remain mysteriously silent, except for some really pissed off ones. I wonder why this is.

I mean why could not just someone who has working experience with smaller and bigger sensor systems just describe the difference so it gets comprehensible? Is the DR difference big, is it subtle, which are the typical working situations where it really makes a difference, etc. etc.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 19, 2009, 02:27:03 pm
Quote from: BlasR
Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice.

Here is 800 with h 50
Do you call ISO800 a 'high ISO'? don't make us laugh. When one talks about high ISO is when very low light is available for handheld shooting, and ISO needs to be raised to over 3200 to get a decent exposure and shutter. This is the application when a camera like a Nikon D3X will beat your H50.

But this doesn't mean the H 50 isn't a great machine, it was simply not designed for that situation. Please leave the penis contest and enter a serious discusion about DR.

PS: I like this 350D's shot at ISO800 (no NR needed nor applied) more than the corny Boston view  

(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/ettr2/museo2.jpg)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 19, 2009, 02:37:19 pm
Quote from: GLuijk
Do you call ISO800 a 'high ISO'? don't make us laugh. When one talks about high ISO is when very low light is available for shooting at high speeds, and ISO needs to be raised to over 3200 to get a decent exposure (not only in the camera but also in pp when lifting the shadows). This is the application when a camera like a Nikon D3X will beat your H50.

But this doesn't mean the H 50 isn't a great machine, it was simply not designed for that situation. Please leave the penis contest and enter a serious discusion about DR.

PS: I like this 350D's shot at ISO800 (no NR needed nor applied) more than the corny Boston view  

(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/ettr2/museo2.jpg)


Is that at the Sophia Reina museum?  Was there once 10 years ago, remember it was quite nice.   Anyhow to me this image has a nice composition but looks flat and actually noisy at least in the sweater and hair.  Just in case you all are running out of things to discuss perhaps you should meld your DR topics into which format gives you better tonality and visual depth.  Medium format of course, but you won't know until you've debated that for hundreds of posts. What? Oh yeah, maybe no one will agree even then.   But its another component of the whole.   Tonality, 3D effect or visual depth and DR - a trio of related components that contribute to visual richness and palpability.  

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 19, 2009, 02:43:57 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
Is that at the Sophia Reina museum?  Was there once 10 years ago, remember it was quite nice.   Anyhow to me this image has a nice composition but looks flat and actually noisy at least in the sweater and hair.  Just in case you all are running out of things to discuss perhaps you should meld your DR topics into which format gives you better tonality and visual depth.
This is the MOMA museum in NY, and the image is not noisier than Blas' corny night view. Not to mention this camera started to sell in Feb 2005 costing some 40 times less than Blas' H 50. I could pp it mode adequatelly to make it look better, but had no interest at all in doing it since I consider it just a test image.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 19, 2009, 02:59:54 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
this image has a nice composition but looks flat
...
Tonality, 3D effect or visual depth and DR - a trio of related components that contribute to visual richness and palpability.
Eric, the so-called 3D effect is the result of the wider angle of view, where the MFDBs are in great advantage, particularly compared to APS-C cameras. However, if you used a wider angle of view, the composition would be very different. If you like this composition, then you would have to make the shot with a correspondingly longer lens, otherwise the woman's head would cover the entire lower back of the man. So, either the same composition or the 3D effect.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 19, 2009, 03:01:30 pm
Quote from: BlasR
Do you need resolution? Use your H 50. Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice.

Here is 800 with h 50,,I think I like it,,what about you?  even if you don't like it, tell me you do.  

Life is beautiful

Blas

Blas,

An excellent shot. Since you could have used a tripod at base ISO, I don't know why you used ISO 800.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 19, 2009, 04:22:27 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
Eric, the so-called 3D effect is the result of the wider angle of view, where the MFDBs are in great advantage, particularly compared to APS-C cameras. However, if you used a wider angle of view, the composition would be very different. If you like this composition, then you would have to make the shot with a correspondingly longer lens, otherwise the woman's head would cover the entire lower back of the man. So, either the same composition or the 3D effect.


I was hoping you'd all get my joke!  

Thanks but your explanation isn't necessary and you'll note I did not ask for an answer or pose a question.

Rather I think its quite funny how you all can debate endlessly about the bits and bytes and what is better.  I was merely stirring the mud for you all since it seemed like you were running out of steam.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: skid00skid00 on September 19, 2009, 05:57:54 pm
Quote from: Christian Miersch
You know guys this whole discussion is strange. I'm new here, I don't understand whats going wrong here. Theoreticians arguing with nothing but DX0 numbers and RAW graphs telling things contradicting common wisdom (Wich would not be bad in itself, but it's also not plausible enough to convince) and telling pros that their experiences are nothing worth because they are biased. And these pros who should KNOW IT BETTER remain mysteriously silent, except for some really pissed off ones. I wonder why this is.

I mean why could not just someone who has working experience with smaller and bigger sensor systems just describe the difference so it gets comprehensible? Is the DR difference big, is it subtle, which are the typical working situations where it really makes a difference, etc. etc.


Christian, let me explain.

There's a few -very- smart people posting in this thread.  They understand the physics behind digital imaging, and the physics doesn't allow for the percieved results of the MFDB owners.

A pixel can only do a very few things.  It can generate noise electrons, it can attempt to remove them, it can filter light, and it can count photons.  Then there's a few modifiers that work over larger areas-the AA filter (if it exists) blurs, and the lens reduces contrast, and focuses.

At this stage of the game, we expect most pixels to perform fairly equally.  And we expect the big, rich, engineer-laden manufacturers to lead by a small amount.

We also expect internet posters to love their own equipement, and to believe it's better than -our- equipement.  They are wrong, of course...  

As to my contribution to this thread, I'd like to restate what I've posted here in the past:  that -I- think the primary image quality enhancers in MFDB's are the closely-mimiced film tone curve (exemplified in those wonderful skin and cloud tones), and Bayer filter colors that IMHO let thru less light, but result in RAW data that's closer to color-correct / human eyes' response curves.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 19, 2009, 06:38:56 pm
Thanks Skid,

I get what you say! Also your posts pointed me to one or two most interesting threads.

Christian
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BJL on September 19, 2009, 07:00:40 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
... wider angle of view, where the MFDBs are in great advantage, particularly compared to APS-C cameras.
Actually, I believe that APS-C, 35mm and even 4/3 all offer (non-fish-eye) lenses of wider FOV than is available in any current DMF or 645 SLR system. The shortest rectilinear lens focal lengths I know of are 7mm in 4/3, 10mm in EF-S and DX, 14mm in 35mm, 28mm in MF.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 19, 2009, 07:03:35 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
I was hoping you'd all get my joke!

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 19, 2009, 07:22:09 pm
Quote from: BJL
Actually, I believe that APS-C, 35mm and even 4/3 all offer (non-fish-eye) lenses of wider FOV than is available in any current DMF or 645 SLR system. The shortest rectilinear lens focal lengths I know of are 7mm in 4/3, 10mm in EF-S and DX, 14mm in 35mm, 28mm in MF.
I accept this if you say so; I don't know what the widest is on MFDBs, and I don't know the cropping factors either. However, this is not relevant from the 3D aspect. My claim is, that the so-called 3D effect is nothing else but the wide angle view of certain sceneries. Of course, the consequence is, that not only MFDBs can achieve that 3D-look, although the widest DSLR lenses have strong geometric distortions at their wide end, and that changes the perception of the effect.

Btw, the EF-S 10-22mm is 16mm in comparisons.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 19, 2009, 07:49:00 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
I accept this if you say so; I don't know what the widest is on MFDBs, and I don't know the cropping factors either. However, this is not relevant from the 3D aspect. My claim is, that the so-called 3D effect is nothing else but the wide angle view of certain sceneries. Of course, the consequence is, that not only MFDBs can achieve that 3D-look, although the widest DSLR lenses have strong geometric distortions at their wide end, and that changes the perception of the effect.

Btw, the EF-S 10-22mm is 16mm in comparisons.

The shortest lens for MFDB is the 23 from Rodenstock. Which should be around 14mm on a P65 in 35mm.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 19, 2009, 08:02:39 pm
Quote from: BlasR
Do you need resolution? Use your H 50. Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice.

Here is 800 with h 50,,I think I like it,,what about you?  even if you don't like it, tell me you do.  

Life is beautiful

Blas

Blas,
I'm disappointed you have not shown us a 100% crop so we can really appreciate the noisy water. There's a hint of noise there at the much reduced size. However, if you were to show us the full size image, I'm sure the noise would be so great it could substitute for a Punk RocK soundtrack    .
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BlasR on September 19, 2009, 09:09:49 pm
3200 iso?  I do not want it free.

100% it's beautiful, I think to beautiful here you got 200%   so what do you think about the noise now Ray( please tell me is the best you ever seeing)

I think the hassy is the best.

Money I spend in the H 50 ?  Bank have money so is good to spend it, anyway if I die today my wife(she is to beautiful) will get marry again, in the next men will spend my money so I will spend all now.

The day I die, I will ask for a dollar to get some water, even so, I have to much to do so I can't die now.

Back to camera, anyone like to get the h 50?  ISO 800 is the best of the best, better then any other camera  So go for the hassy forger about 35mm.( I hope hassy pay me for that)  

Blas wow
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 19, 2009, 09:16:11 pm
Quote from: Christopher
The shortest lens for MFDB is the 23 from Rodenstock. Which should be around 14mm on a P65 in 35mm.


On the slightly smaller backs, such as the P25 at 48x36mm, comparing FOV along the horizontal axis, the Digaron-S 23mm would be equivalent to 17mm.

It would be interesting to see what quality advantages a P25 system with the Digaron_S 23 F5.6 would have compared with the Canon 5D2 with TS-E 17mm F4. Everything is matched for easy comparison; same pixel count, same equivalent FL of lens, and same DoF using F5.6 with the Digaron and F4 with the TS-E. All that would differ would be the amazing 3-dimensional quality of the P25 shot and that extra crispness due to its lack of an AA filter.

Would those qualities be worth the additional cost? In USD, I think the 5D2 + TS-E 17mm would cost around $6,000. A second hand P25 around $10,000? The Digaron-S 23mm around $6,500? A 645 body to hold it all, around $4,000? So one system costs $6,000 and the other $20,000.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 19, 2009, 09:55:21 pm
Quote from: BlasR
3200 iso?  I do not want it free.

100% it's beautiful, I think to beautiful here you got 200%   so what do you think about the noise now Ray( please tell me is the best you ever seeing)

I think the hassy is the best.

Money I spend in the H 50 ?  Bank have money so is good to spend it, anyway if I die today my wife(she is to beautiful) will get marry again, in the next men will spend my money so I will spend all now.

The day I die, I will ask for a dollar to get some water, even so, I have to much to do so I can't die now.

Back to camera, anyone like to get the h 50?  ISO 800 is the best of the best, better then any other camera  So go for the hassy forger about 35mm.( I hope hassy pay me for that)  

Blas wow


Blas,
The noise doesn't look too bad. As long as you're happy with your camera. 50mp is a lot. You should get some stunning photos with that camera.

However, it's a bit too heavy for me. 2.3Kg with standard lens? That's almost as heavy as my Canon 50D with 160-640mm zoom (35mm equivalent)!! And that frame rate of one per second. I don't think I could live with that. I guess I'm now totally spoiled by all the wonderful features of 35mm and APS-C DSLRs   .

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 19, 2009, 10:10:24 pm
Quote from: Ray
Blas,
The noise doesn't look too bad. As long as you're happy with your camera. 50mp is a lot. You should get some stunning photos with that camera.

However, it's a bit too heavy for me. 2.3Kg with standard lens? That's almost as heavy as my Canon 50D with 160-640mm zoom (35mm equivalent)!! And that frame rate of one per second. I don't think I could live with that. I guess I'm now totally spoiled by all the wonderful features of 35mm and APS-C DSLRs   .


Well if I use Rodenstock and Schneider lenses I won't use a 20Mp back .... at least it would be a 30Mp back. Plz what are 2.3Kg ? I often go hiking for hours witha complete weigth of 12 to 15 kg, well Ok I am probably a little fitter and younger than you are ;-)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 20, 2009, 04:02:16 am
Quote from: BlasR
3200 iso?  I do not want it free.

100% it's beautiful, I think to beautiful here you got 200%   so what do you think about the noise now Ray( please tell me is the best you ever seeing)

I think the hassy is the best.

Money I spend in the H 50 ?  Bank have money so is good to spend it, anyway if I die today my wife(she is to beautiful) will get marry again, in the next men will spend my money so I will spend all now.

The day I die, I will ask for a dollar to get some water, even so, I have to much to do so I can't die now.

Back to camera, anyone like to get the h 50?  ISO 800 is the best of the best, better then any other camera  So go for the hassy forger about 35mm.( I hope hassy pay me for that)  

Blas wow
I actually like the noise pattern on this image!
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jim2 on September 20, 2009, 04:34:39 am
Quote from: Ray
Blas,
The noise doesn't look too bad. As long as you're happy with your camera. 50mp is a lot. You should get some stunning photos with that camera.

However, it's a bit too heavy for me. 2.3Kg with standard lens? That's almost as heavy as my Canon 50D with 160-640mm zoom (35mm equivalent)!! And that frame rate of one per second. I don't think I could live with that. I guess I'm now totally spoiled by all the wonderful features of 35mm and APS-C DSLRs   .
2.3kg is LIGHT!! Is this including the lens and camera body?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 20, 2009, 07:34:57 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
I accept this if you say so; I don't know what the widest is on MFDBs, and I don't know the cropping factors either. However, this is not relevant from the 3D aspect. My claim is, that the so-called 3D effect is nothing else but the wide angle view of certain sceneries.
I've once compared the A900 of a friend with my DBs. Including a comparision of a 35mm crop of the P45 - i.e. both cameras with the same focal length but the P45 cropped to the format of the A900. The P45 crop still showed that "3D-look". My guess is that this is one of the things were the lack of an AA filter makes a difference but also the clean blacks and very fine transitions in dark tonal values of the DB files. Maybe the effect is also visible with a M9 compared to any other FF camera?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 20, 2009, 07:53:56 am
Quote from: EricWHiss
It's very frustrating discussing this topic over and over with people who seem intent to win an argument based only on numbers when the answers are easy to see with your own eyes.  If you only had both cameras at your disposal you would clearly see that MFDB have big advantages in "usable" DR at base, while DSLR have advantages at higher ISO settings.    Many are quite misinformed about DR and why many cameras come up with high DR but low usable DR.  
Please read here: http://www.imatest.com/docs/dynamic.html#dr (http://www.imatest.com/docs/dynamic.html#dr)

I used this software to compare DR of my Leica DMR against a canon 1D3.  The canon had 12.7 stops DR according to the standard definition, while the leica had 12.6 stops - so the canon won right?  But using the imatest guidelines for "usable"  DR - see the other values in the charts top right - the Leica won by almost two stops. While the canon 1d3 had 12.7 stops according to definition (and probably close to what DXO is measuring)  it only had a little more than 8.5 usable @ the .25 ratio, and actually in the most stringent measurement only 6.6 stops of DR.  The Leica had not dropped as much from the max and was still showing 10 stops of DR at the .25 ratio measurement.    While I haven't taken the time to test my new Canon 5DmkII or my P20, I can see side by side shots show the P20 has a fair bit more usable.  What I'm saying is that while DXO measurements may be accurate according to definition they are not usable for photographers an only present an idealized case which is not good for photographers.  Better measurements can be made and the cameras do not compare the same!  

Now when I said I did my own testing, I hope you believe I was really testing!  It's a lot of work to do this right and the results only confirm what I was seeing.  Now I just trust my eyes.

[attachment=16575:Stouffer...7_Step_2.jpg]

Your Imatest DR results are not as definitive as you would like us to believe. I note that you did your tests on JPEGs, which means the original raw file must have been rendered to a JPEG by some conversion software, and the settings in this software (black point, tone curve, possible NR, etc) may affect the results. Here are Imatest plots for my Nikon D3 rendered into a 16 bit TIFF by ACR with default settings, ACR with a linear tone curve, ACR with a linear tone curve and with NR by Noiseware, Nikon NX with the Standard Picture Control, and by Imatest's own raw conversion. Which is the correct result?

ACR Default:
[attachment=16724:ACR_def.png]

ACR linear tone curve:
[attachment=16725:ACR_Lin.png]

ACR linear tone curve & Noiseware:
[attachment=16726:ACR_Lin_Noiseware.png]

Nikon NX with Standard Picture Control:
[attachment=16727:NX_Std.png]

Imatest conversion:
[attachment=16728:Imatest.png]

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 20, 2009, 11:24:30 am
Quote from: Ray
It would be interesting to see what quality advantages a P25 system with the Digaron_S 23 F5.6 would have compared with the Canon 5D2 with TS-E 17mm F4. Everything is matched for easy comparison; same pixel count, same equivalent FL of lens, and same DoF using F5.6 with the Digaron and F4 with the TS-E. All that would differ would be the amazing 3-dimensional quality of the P25 shot and that extra crispness due to its lack of an AA filter.

Ray: I can't tell with you; are you just trying to create fun arguments?

P25/Rodenstock-23mm-HR compared ot a 5D2/17mm-TS is not a fair comparison. It wouldn't even be close.

Don't get me wrong the 17mm TS is a great dSLR TS lens (and I'll be the first to point out that the 5DII with TS lens would be easier/faster to use). But a Canon 17mm TS is not even close to a digital series large format lens.

As an indirect example please see the comparison we ran of the Schneider 35mm and HC35mm (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/lens/). The HC35mm is 1) not as wide (easier lens design) as the Canon 17mm  2) is a great 35mm MF SLR lens  3) isn't built to shift (easier lens design). Even using the same sensor (P45+ with both) the comparison is night and day.

Now imagine that test with the lower DR, less crisp (AA filter) 5DII, and the much harder optical design of a wider, tilt-shift lens. Then add a bit of shift (otherwise why use a TS lens?). Posting such a test would be a cheap shot. These two solutions are in entirely different classes.

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 20, 2009, 11:32:43 am
Quote from: bjanes
Your Imatest DR results are not as definitive as you would like us to believe. I note that you did your tests on JPEGs, which means the original raw file must have been rendered to a JPEG by some conversion software, and the settings in this software (black point, tone curve, possible NR, etc) may affect the results. Here are Imatest plots for my Nikon D3 rendered into a 16 bit TIFF by ACR with default settings, ACR with a linear tone curve, ACR with a linear tone curve and with NR by Noiseware, Nikon NX with the Standard Picture Control, and by Imatest's own raw conversion. Which is the correct result?

ACR Default:
[attachment=16724:ACR_def.png]

ACR linear tone curve:
[attachment=16725:ACR_Lin.png]

ACR linear tone curve & Noiseware:
[attachment=16726:ACR_Lin_Noiseware.png]

Nikon NX with Standard Picture Control:
[attachment=16727:NX_Std.png]

Imatest conversion:
[attachment=16728:Imatest.png]

One thing you have clearly shown us is that there are measurable differences in output depending on what RAW conversion software is used.  This is one of my strongest points and I've been stating that the people not including that (especially the proprietary software like C1 for Phase or Phocus for Hasselblad) are not getting complete results useful in comparing different cameras. Thank you for illustrating that point with data.  

You'll note that my tests were done long ago even prior to the D3's release or Imatest adding function to convert RAW's.   1st  thing is I did a real test, not just shoot pics of a balcony. 2nd I did the test post processing because this is how the images will end up in most cases.    This satisfied me.  You're free to design whatever test you feel is important for yourself and if using ACR and/or noiseware in your workflow then it would make sense to include that in the tests.    

Actually you probably could use this same method to uncover how much better the different RAW software programs are at conversion.  Imatest could evaluate DR, color accuracy, detail from the same RAW file run through different converters.   That could help uncover how much better a Phase digital back gets by using their software instead of using dcraw or ACR or whatever, which is another point of mine.  MFDB makers mostly rely on final processing in computer instead of in camera like DSLR's.  Would be great to know just how much measurable differences there are....    

If you have time that would be great to find out.....



Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BJL on September 20, 2009, 11:41:48 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
I don't know what the widest is on MFDBs, and I don't know the cropping factors either.

Btw, the EF-S 10-22mm is 16mm in comparisons.
SO why did you both to make th clam of superiority over APS-C in particular?

Quote from: Panopeeper
Btw, the EF-S 10-22mm is 16mm in comparisons.
Yes, I was assuming that you know how to make FOV comparisons between the formats whose WA options you were comparing.
Here are all the conversions of diagonal FOV for the widest SLR lenses I know of for the various formats.
4/3 7mm -> 14mm
EF-S 10mm -> 16mm
DX 10mm -> 15mm
35mm 14mm -> 14mm
Mamiya 28mm with 645 film or full 645 sensor (some day), 17mm
Hasselblad 28mm, limited to 39x49m format, 19mm

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 20, 2009, 12:10:44 pm
Quote from: BJL
Mamiya 28mm with 645 film or full 645 sensor (some day), 17mm

A P65+ w/ 28mm = 18.0mm w/ FF dSLR
Film w/ 28mm with film = 17.4mm w/ FF dSLR

Moreover the Mamiya viewfinder has 100% coverage with the P65+; so what you see is what you get.

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: snickgrr on September 20, 2009, 12:52:50 pm
Quote from: John-S
I mean for heaven's sake, if a photographer does not connect to images with his/her soul regardless of capture, pixels, processing, bits, DR, then go do something else, go argue which table saw cuts bubinga wood better in the south during 60% humidity inside a workshop with a freud 80 tooth fine laser cut blade.


To highjack this thread because it needs it.

I have Forrest blades on my saws.  Funny though you should bring this up as I'm contemplating a switch back to custom furniture making...something I did for living a long long time ago.  I've always said that from a creative satisfaction standpoint I could do either photography or woodworking and be happy.  

The switch thinking is coming from a couple different directions.  The state of the professional photography tells me I'm in a dying profession.  What I do, slow contemplative studio still life, is on it's way out...soon.  And secondly there might be an opportunity for probably a year long job of doing furniture for a local dude with lots of money.  So I'm trying to decide...push the two studio camera stands, the NorthLights, the C-stands, etc, etc to the side and cover them up and pull out the entire furniture shop I have tucked away and let the dust fly.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 20, 2009, 01:55:15 pm
Quote from: BJL
SO why did you both to make th clam of superiority over APS-C in particular?
1. The "proofs" of the 3D effect I have seen demonstrated, that it is mainly the question of the perspective, which can be achieved with wide FoV (pls same me from explaining, that the perspective does not depend on the focal length; I am the one, who is explaining that to others).

2. Look around related forums, like DPReview to find out, how widely the EF-S 10-22mm and the Nikon 10-24mm DX are used. Not much, because:
a. f/3.5-f/4.5,
b. expensive,
c. too wide at their long end for a general walk-around lens,
d. not useful with FF (many APS-C owners are dreaming about upgrading to FF at some time).

Beside, they don't offer the quality at their wide end, which could be compared to MFDB samples.

Notwithstanding all the above, this is not an important aspect. My claim stays, that the angle of view is decisive; of course, if that is not coupled with high quality image, then there is no point to compare them. On the other hand, panoramas, mosaics do demonstrate, that the same "3D effect" can be achieved with DSLRs.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 20, 2009, 02:07:15 pm
Quote from: snickgrr
To highjack this thread because it needs it.

I have Forrest blades on my saws.  Funny though you should bring this up as I'm contemplating a switch back to custom furniture making...something I did for living a long long time ago.  I've always said that from a creative satisfaction standpoint I could do either photography or woodworking and be happy.  

The switch thinking is coming from a couple different directions.  The state of the professional photography tells me I'm in a dying profession.  What I do, slow contemplative studio still life, is on it's way out...soon.  And secondly there might be an opportunity for probably a year long job of doing furniture for a local dude with lots of money.  So I'm trying to decide...push the two studio stands, the NorthLights, the C-stands, etc, etc to the side and cover them up and pull out the entire furniture shop I have tucked away and let the dust fly.

Thanks for the diversion and I think you've touched on a point there.  Good luck with either direction you choose.
btw -  I've got all my stone carving stuff covered up in my studio.... but its no where near as commercially viable as furniture making.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: snickgrr on September 20, 2009, 02:39:08 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
Thanks for the diversion and I think you've touched on a point there.  Good luck with either direction you choose.
btw -  I've got all my stone carving stuff covered up in my studio.... but its no where near as commercially viable as furniture making.


Thanks.

On the other hand....Having been a commercial photographer since 1982 my mind thinks in those realities.  Never gave much thought to the Art side of things.  A few years ago one of my wine clients who also happens to be on the board of a fairly prestigious art foundation urged/pushed/cajoled me to apply for an artist in residence there.  I spent nearly two years shooting and developing a new language for me for the application.  To counterpoint the rigidity of the commercial side my proposal was rooted in the Taoist thought of Wu Wei.  My application went in April this spring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei)

I don't have a chance in hell of getting it as there are literally thousands of applications that come in from around the world for approx 40 artist in residences per year.  It would be nice though to be sequestered away living within a community of like minded people whose talents are in painting or music or dance......or stone sculpture.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: pcunite on September 20, 2009, 03:00:23 pm
All this debating by people without a PHD in physics. Read this report.

Quote:
The factor that limits the low ISO performance of DSLR's turns out to be the limited dynamic range of the ISO amplifier and ADC components downstream from the sensor, and not the sensor itself; the analysis leading to this conclusion also leads to a simple proposal for recovering an extra two stops of dynamic range from current DSLR's.

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te....html#pixelsize (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#pixelsize)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 20, 2009, 03:10:59 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
1. The "proofs" of the 3D effect I have seen demonstrated, that it is mainly the question of the perspective, which can be achieved with wide FoV (pls same me from explaining, that the perspective does not depend on the focal length; I am the one, who is explaining that to others).
I don't think it's the wide angle FOV/perspective that causes the supposed 3D look. Up until recently the widest MF lens was 28mm wasn't it? Even the Rodenstock 23mm is not that wide compared to some of the options available for 35mm (14mm for instance).

I think this 3D-ness is a combination of no AA filter and more-easily attained shallow DOF (due to using longer lenses for a given FOV). It's a valid point if you like shallow DOF, but not so much if you tend to shoot with lots of DOF.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Chris Livsey on September 20, 2009, 05:08:59 pm
Quote from: John-S
I want everyone to go look at these images:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=311707 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=35178&view=findpost&p=311707)
because these are gorgeous architectural photos ON FILM with a 6x6 camera. That is architectural photography that is emotionally moving to view. I would buy a huge print of the second one to hang on my wall.

I have to thank you for that pointer, that is what it is all about.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2009, 05:14:37 pm
Quote from: Christopher
Well if I use Rodenstock and Schneider lenses I won't use a 20Mp back .... at least it would be a 30Mp back. Plz what are 2.3Kg ? I often go hiking for hours witha complete weigth of 12 to 15 kg, well Ok I am probably a little fitter and younger than you are ;-)

True. 2.3Kg is easily managed, even by an old codger like me. But that's the Hassy with just a lightweight, standard, fixed-focaL-length lens. I never go travelling with just a single prime lens.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 20, 2009, 05:27:59 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
Ray: I can't tell with you; are you just trying to create fun arguments?

P25/Rodenstock-23mm-HR compared ot a 5D2/17mm-TS is not a fair comparison. It wouldn't even be close.

Don't get me wrong the 17mm TS is a great dSLR TS lens (and I'll be the first to point out that the 5DII with TS lens would be easier/faster to use). But a Canon 17mm TS is not even close to a digital series large format lens.


__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)[/font]


In that case, the comparison would be excellent for you. The new Canon TS-E 17mm, from all accounts I've seen is sharp at full aperture, has very low chromatic aberration, has excellent edge and corner resolution when not shifted to extremes, and appears to be one of the best wide-angle lenses that Canon have made to date.

If the Rodenstock is so much better, let's see the comparison. It would be illuminating.

But please don't make the comparison using a P45+ or P65+. We all know that sensors with a higher pixel count produce higher resolution images. Even a Canon G10 can produce a sharper, more detailed image than a 6mp or 8mp DSLR. The P25 would be a good choice for a fair comparison. I know it's now fairly old technology, but that magical DB quality always existed, didn't it   .
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 20, 2009, 05:34:36 pm
Quote from: John-S
I read the ASMP architectural user group daily and so few even own a digital back. Most own DSLRs, most use tilt/shifts. Some are now using the new Canon T/S lenses and the images their clients are getting will be very high quality and more than enough.
The same applies to a little arquitectural photography forum in which I participate (I think I'm the only amateur there). There are 2 guys using MFDB's, and the rest (with the most reputated publishers among them), mostly use Canon 5D2 or 1Ds MKIII and Nikon D3X with TS lenses.

BTW this afternoon I tried my 24mm TS-E II for the first time. First impression is that not being able to focus with a Live View I'm probably losing the perfect focus this lens deserves.

Sample image at max shift (Canon 5D + Canon 24mm TS-E II @f/11):

(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3504/oiza.jpg)
Torres Blancas by Sáenz de Oiza, Madrid

Funny how PS aliased the top of the building after rescaling.

And 100% crops (left in max shift area with detail, and right is centre-left detail):

(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5562/descent2bis.jpg) . (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9117/descent1bis.jpg)

Light equipment, great detail, zero CA, nearly zero distortion (it was not worth to correct it). Few people needs today a MFDB IMO.
DR was no problem either since I systematically bracket to get 100% noise free images even in deep shadows, better than any one-shot MFDB can achieve.

Regards
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: archivue on September 20, 2009, 05:34:44 pm
for me, the main reason to go with a MfDB was the distortion with TS-E lens... so i went with a 35 xl digitar, a 55 apo sironar digital, a 90 apo sironar digital... and i've just bought a 45 apo sironar digital... my 5DII is sleeping... night and day for my purpose, and i only use an aptus 22 on my beloved arca 69 for now !
so it mainly depends on your type of shooting than pure pixel comparison !

i will go for a DX3 if i was in need of hand held shooting, af, and hight iso... just different tools as were M6, hasselblad, rolleiflex tlr, 8x10...
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: TMARK on September 20, 2009, 06:42:27 pm
Amen brother.  

Quote from: John-S
I love photography as my profession but at the same time could drop it like a ton of bricks and go do something else creative of which I am passionate, and I would have no regrets and probably never look back. My ability to leave it has nothing to do with actual photography or creativity but the down spiral of the industry. But I stay in it, am an ASMP chapter president looking to help the industry and others however possible regardless of times I think it doesn't matter.

I see it like this, a client calls photographer A and says what kind of images they need and photog A says great, I have this 60MP digital back I sleep with every night that makes 1's and 0's and I can give you the biggest cleanest file you've ever layed your eyes on, it's dynamic range is xyz, it's bit rate is 16 and that's the real bit rate not fake like other brands, cough-cough DLSRs are only 14bits.

Then a clients calls Terry Richardson and says what kind of images they want and he says, sure I'll bring my point and shoot and some Kodak Gold 200 that we can process at Walgreens.

Find a happy medium. Learn the craft, learn the art, give clients value, no attitude. Make them want to hire you again. I'd garner to say 80% of my clients are repeat. That's the biggest confirmation to myself of my work and it never had a thing to do with what camera, file size, sharpness of this lens or AA filter of that camera.

If people want to constantly debate 1's and 0's then go work for Phase, Leaf, Sinar, Adobe. Add to the discussion by making some new wiz-bang thing.

And my advice to medium format companies is to promote their product by what it will actually do to help, and that's all that is needed. How will a 60MP camera help a photographer. Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't regardless of price and affordability for the photographer. Competing on numbers, bits, sensor will lose in the end because users do see the hassle, they do see less frustration with a 5DII or D3x. All medium format companies should have 5-10 years ago grouped together and pushed Dalsa and Kodak to make 6x6, 6x7 sensors (and even larger) a reality in 2009, so cameras that have worked fine can continue working fine. Cropped sensors on 6x6, 6x7 cameras are lame. Most 645 cameras feel lame. Once frame size is fulfilled, we may not care by then, I don't know. The intent of all the formats in their intrinsic qualities other than detail on film may be lost to the newer generation.

We went from Minox cameras to 11x14 film and larger in zee ol' days (a broad format base which has use), now we're only arguing on which is better, 35mm sensors or 645 sensors (we've squashed it in the middle to nothing). The purpose of photography has been lost at this point.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: gwhitf on September 20, 2009, 08:14:15 pm
Quote from: TMARK
Amen brother.

Several of the Lab Coat Experts here actually drive out to the countryside, find their scene, measure the contrast and dynamic range of the scene that they may someday want to actually photograph, and then they drive back to town to choose the camera on their shelves that matches the dynamic range of the scene. The camera that they'd choose has nothing to do with what they enjoy photographing with; it's solely driven by the capturing capability numbers.

But by the time that they drive back to town to fetch their 12-Stop Capturing Device (12-SCD), the light has changed to eleven stops, thus, they consider it a failed trip and drive back to town, without ever having shot a frame.

Day after day they do this.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bcooter on September 20, 2009, 08:47:37 pm
Quote from: gwhitf
Day after day they do this.

Day after day, try year after year, because this conversation will go on forever.  Usually somebody gets really crazy rude and Michael shuts it down, then 4 months later somebody makes the mistake of saying, "uh should I buy a 400megapixel back or keep shooting trees with my 5d2? . . . then the floodgates open, the dealers line up, we see 110 not so pretty jpegs of clouds, charts, alleys, brick walls, more charts and then of course histograms.

The weird thing is somebody that knows their stuff and actually designs this cameras will explain it, like that Grame Nattress guy and everybody just passes that by and keeps arguing about their medium format back of their dslr stitched into 400 frames, or their medium format back stitched into 24 frames.

It's a shame that this section ever was named medium format, or now large sensor photography, rather than the Professional Photography Section, or something that would actually provoke talk and thought about what it takes to make a beautiful photograph, or make a living at photography (past giving seminars), or anything other than a clipped highlight, an oversharpened image, or histogram.

I hate to spring this news to everyone, but there is no format anymore in digital photography, other than the lcd screen, whether it's 3inches on the camera , or 30 inches on a monitor.  

Shoot a big gig, switch cameras, from canons to nikons to any medium format back and sit down to edit with a client and they will absolutley never look at what "format" camera was used.

They will look for that one photograph that captures the essence of what they are paying for.  Period.

The photography industry is going through the most abrupt and overwhelming changes since Matthew Brady and you'd think that would bring up one or two conversations, but instead we get this.

This conversation goes nowhere and I'll admit by writing this I'm just as nuts as everyone else because I'm adding fuel to the fire, so please forgive me.

Now back to work.

BC


Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: asf on September 20, 2009, 10:18:16 pm
While I agree with Cooter, almost no one save perhaps 2 of 3 of the people contributing and reading this will "shoot a big gig, switch cameras, from canons to nikons to any medium format back and sit down to edit with a client", and that's why this goes on. No one listens to the couple actual pros here, and maybe they shouldn't. It's way too depressing. Pros haven't gotten it into their heads they no longer matter in the whole equation.



Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 21, 2009, 07:18:11 am
Quote from: gwhitf
Several of the Lab Coat Experts here actually drive out to the countryside, find their scene, measure the contrast and dynamic range of the scene that they may someday want to actually photograph, and then they drive back to town to choose the camera on their shelves that matches the dynamic range of the scene.
I am glad that there are people who actually choose cameras based on their requirements... and do not just use the same DSLR (that they have used for half a decade) for everything.

How often do how many on this forum use mirror free cameras?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 21, 2009, 07:34:57 am
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
How often do how many on this forum use mirror free cameras?

Probably quite frequently. All modern Canon DSLRs have a Live View mode which is mirror free. You can even bracket exposure at a rate of 6 fps on some models, up to 8 fps on the new 7D, without the mirror flipping up and down.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dustbak on September 21, 2009, 08:20:49 am
Quote from: Ray
Probably quite frequently. All modern Canon DSLRs have a Live View mode which is mirror free. You can even bracket exposure at a rate of 6 fps on some models, up to 8 fps on the new 7D, without the mirror flipping up and down.

Try using one of the lenses that is supposed to go on a body that is not hindered by a mirror box (eg. Schneider Digitars or Rodenstock HR). I was stunned by how much better my Digitars were compared to my HC lenses. Huge difference, in my opinion. Using mirror up doesn't make up for a lens design taking into calculation it has a mirror box in between the lens and the capture surface.  

I am pretty sure this is what Dick meant, somehow I believe you know this too but are simply trying to argue for argue's sake.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 21, 2009, 09:56:40 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

That may depend a little bit on how DR is defined. The normal (technical) definition of DR is SNR = 1, and normally the read noise is considered. Read noise seems to be lower on CMOS and the technology Canon is using, so by this definition Canon get high DR-rating because of their low read noise.

Now, noise in normal photography is not dominated by read noise but noise resulting from the poisson distribution of photons. That essentially means that you need to collect about perhaps 100 photons on average to acceptable noise levels. In the first case:

DR = maximum electrons / read noise

and in the other case

DR = maximum electrons / (read noise + 100)

This will be something like 3-5 stops less than the first value. It's quite clear that having larger sensels have two advantages:

1) They collect more photons so they need less exposure to achieve good statistics
2) Bigger sensel can hold more electrons which increases dynamic range

This is a very short explanation and not a scientific one.

For a good explanation check:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail//do...el.size.matter/ (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail//does.pixel.size.matter/)

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...oise/index.html (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html)

Best regards
Erik


Eric, you are misquoting Emil Martinec in reference 2. See his section Big pixels vs Small Pixels (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#pixelsize). Big pixels do collect more light, so that the signal:noise improves. However, if you keep the overall sensor size constant (say full frame 35 mm), the total amount of light falling on the sensor stays the same so the total poison noise (shot noise) will be the same if other factors are held constant. For example, consider full frame 35 mm sensors with 6 MP and 24 MP respectively. The ratio of the pixel spacing is 2:1. The large pixel sensor will collect 4 times as much light per pixel, but there are only 1/4 of them. Overall, the amount of light will be the same. If you downsize the small pixel camera to the same resolution as the large pixel camera, 4 pixels will be combined into one and total shot noise will be the same. There is a trade off between dynamic range and resolution. Since noise adds in quadrature, the 4:1 downsampling will improve the N:R by a factor of 2.

Contrary to what you say, read noise is usually relevant in the deepest shadows where the noise floor used to determine DR is set. In the above down sampling where 4 pixels are combined into 1 outside of the sensor, the superpixel formed by combining 4 pixels into 1 still has 4 read noise components, so down sampling in the shadows will be less effective than in the highlights. However, as Emil explains, large pixels have a relatively high read noise at low ISO, so the actual difference in total read noise will be less than 1:4. At high ISO, the large pixel will have a relative advantage to the small pixel. These considerations help to explain why the DR of the Nikon D3x is better than that of the D3 at base ISO, while the D3 is still better at high ISO.

In Roger Clark's example comparing a dSLR with a P&S, the pixel size is much larger in the dSLR but so is the overall sensor area. Emil has criticized that study, since it did not control all the variables. Roger's conclusion is based on a per pixel analysis.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 21, 2009, 01:06:15 pm
Hi,

I wasn't exactly quoting Emil Martinec. Regarding the noise issue I stand corrected.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: bjanes
Eric, you are misquoting Emil Martinec in reference 2. See his section Big pixels vs Small Pixels (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#pixelsize). Big pixels do collect more light, so that the signal:noise improves. However, if you keep the overall sensor size constant (say full frame 35 mm), the total amount of light falling on the sensor stays the same so the total poison noise (shot noise) will be the same if other factors are held constant. For example, consider full frame 35 mm sensors with 6 MP and 24 MP respectively. The ratio of the pixel spacing is 2:1. The large pixel sensor will collect 4 times as much light per pixel, but there are only 1/4 of them. Overall, the amount of light will be the same. If you downsize the small pixel camera to the same resolution as the large pixel camera, 4 pixels will be combined into one and total shot noise will be the same. There is a trade off between dynamic range and resolution. Since noise adds in quadrature, the 4:1 downsampling will improve the N:R by a factor of 2.

Contrary to what you say, read noise is usually relevant in the deepest shadows where the noise floor used to determine DR is set. In the above down sampling where 4 pixels are combined into 1 outside of the sensor, the superpixel formed by combining 4 pixels into 1 still has 4 read noise components, so down sampling in the shadows will be less effective than in the highlights. However, as Emil explains, large pixels have a relatively high read noise at low ISO, so the actual difference in total read noise will be less than 1:4. At high ISO, the large pixel will have a relative advantage to the small pixel. These considerations help to explain why the DR of the Nikon D3x is better than that of the D3 at base ISO, while the D3 is still better at high ISO.

In Roger Clark's example comparing a dSLR with a P&S, the pixel size is much larger in the dSLR but so is the overall sensor area. Emil has criticized that study, since it did not control all the variables. Roger's conclusion is based on a per pixel analysis.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 21, 2009, 01:20:47 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I wasn't exactly quoting Emil Martinec. Regarding the noise issue I stand corrected.

Best regards
Erik

In any case, the reference to Emil's article is most valuable. I see that he has visited this thread a number of times, but has not yet commented. Perhaps he lacks data on MFDBs, but his theoretical insights would be welcome. Aside from the DXO measurements and a brief post by Guillermo with a comment by Gabor, no one has presented actual data from MFDBs, but some photographers with these backs make claims which seem doubtful and it would be nice to have some data, not merely pontifications. As Guillermo has stated, anything visible on a print should also be visible on screen.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cjmonty on September 21, 2009, 01:48:44 pm
If you look at the finest detail in your landscape shots (leaves, distant architecture, distant figures, cement gravel...), the MFDBs resolve it noticeably finer than the Canon (and I suppose Nikon & Sony) sensors do.  This is constant over all types of lenses I have tested in front of both types of sensors.

To me, it is reminiscent of the difference between a fine grained 4x5 film and a fast 120 film.  Both have lots of detail, but one is a wee bit clumpy on closer inspection.

The catch is that you only notice this noticeable difference in huge prints or 100% pixel peeping.  

So, the MFDB pays if you are going for Gursky-esque detail, or are showing off on your laptop.

For most people, its not necessary.  But the difference is there.  Just like in the old days of film- there are always trade-offs for stepping up your format.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 21, 2009, 04:04:45 pm
Hi,

Michael Reichmann, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer did a shootout with Canons, MFDBs, Film and Better Light Scanning Back in 2006. The results of this shootout was available on DVD which I happen to have. I'm looking at it right now.

Bill Atkinson made a "scientific" comparison, but that was i now way easy partly because tonality adjustments and sharpening are much depending on personal taste. I try to reproduce the setup with what I have, it contains a $1 bill and a "Mini Color Checker". In Bill Atkinson's comparison the difference in sharpness between the Canon 1DsII and the Phase 1 backs is obvious. Regarding DR and so I don't think that differences are obvious. My main interest right now is comparing with scanned 67 film, but that is another issue.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: bjanes
In any case, the reference to Emil's article is most valuable. I see that he has visited this thread a number of times, but has not yet commented. Perhaps he lacks data on MFDBs, but his theoretical insights would be welcome. Aside from the DXO measurements and a brief post by Guillermo with a comment by Gabor, no one has presented actual data from MFDBs, but some photographers with these backs make claims which seem doubtful and it would be nice to have some data, not merely pontifications. As Guillermo has stated, anything visible on a print should also be visible on screen.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 21, 2009, 09:24:55 pm
Quote from: Dustbak
Try using one of the lenses that is supposed to go on a body that is not hindered by a mirror box (eg. Schneider Digitars or Rodenstock HR). I was stunned by how much better my Digitars were compared to my HC lenses. Huge difference, in my opinion. Using mirror up doesn't make up for a lens design taking into calculation it has a mirror box in between the lens and the capture surface.  

I am pretty sure this is what Dick meant, somehow I believe you know this too but are simply trying to argue for argue's sake.


I may appear to be arguing for argument's sake, but I'm really just trying to get some reliable information. The original question from Jim2 was about differences between a 1Ds3 and MFDBs on print.

The only reliable information in this long thread, specific to the original question, is from DXOMark. It can be seen there that the 1Ds3 has lower performance than any of the 3 Phase DBs reviewed so far. The DR and tonal range of the 1Ds3 is noticeably less than the P40+, p45+ or P65+ at the smaller print size, and by extrapolation, presumably at any print size.

The noticeable exception is the D3X which at the smaller print size remarkably still has more DR than any of the 3 DBs featuring on the DXOMark website. In other areas such as color sensitivity, total range and SNR, the DBs still marginally outperform even the wonderful D3X, but only at the DB's base ISO which is almost a stop slower than the D3X base ISO. Increase the DBs' ISO by just one stop so it's closer to that of the D3X, (ISO 96 v ISO 78) then remarkably in all parameters tested the D3X is either equal to or better than all of the DBs tested at DXOMark..

However, when discussing lens performance, it's a different ball game. I'm very receptive to the idea of choosing a camera system because of the exceptionally fine lenses that may be available. The main reason I now own a Nikon D700 is because of the very fine Nikkor 14-24 zoom lens. I bought the lens first, tested it on my Canon 5D using an adapter, compared it with my existing Canon-mount wide-angle lenses, and found it to be so clearly better I decided to buy a camera body designed to fit the lens and allow full functionality.

For the benefit of everyone else, I showed my comparisons on this forum. I'm naturally skeptical of generalised claims people make without a comparison. Photography is a visual medium. Seeing is believing.

It may well be the case that some of the Schneider Digitar lenses and the new HR Digaron_S 23mm ultra-wideangle are far superior to any Canon equivalent lens. If that's the case, then let's see how much better they are. I promise I won't be upset if any of them knock the socks off the new TS-E lenses from Canon.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 21, 2009, 10:04:27 pm
Well ray, from what I have seen so far. The 17TSE is quite good, I would probably set it equal, perhaps a little better than the 14-24. Now the zeiss 21mm is already a lot better than both. I can say from personal experience that nearly any modern large format lens is as good or better than the Zeiss 21mm. I don't need to make a 1:1 test for that. It is just how it is. (Note, I'm talking about the orginal zeiss 21mm, I have no clue how the new one is)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 21, 2009, 11:21:44 pm
Quote from: Christopher
Well ray, from what I have seen so far. The 17TSE is quite good, I would probably set it equal, perhaps a little better than the 14-24. Now the zeiss 21mm is already a lot better than both. I can say from personal experience that nearly any modern large format lens is as good or better than the Zeiss 21mm. I don't need to make a 1:1 test for that. It is just how it is. (Note, I'm talking about the orginal zeiss 21mm, I have no clue how the new one is)


Christopher,
It's not possible to determine that's 'just how it is' without at least someone doing a comparison. One of the advantages of 1:1 comparisons is to provide an example of how significant a performance advantage is, and at what apertures.

No-one expects a zoom, even the Nikkor 14-24, to match the performance of a first rate prime. However, if the performance advantage of the prime is relatively small, the adjustable focal length of the zoom may be of greater benefit in practice.

A useful comparison would be between the the HR Digaron-S 23mm with the P45+, and the new Canon TS-E 24mm with 5D2, using full shift with 5D2 vertical to create an effective 5D2 sensor area of 48x36mm, which would match the both the sensor size of the P45+ and its pixel count fairly closely.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 22, 2009, 12:59:08 am
The original Zeiss was useless for straight lines,because of the extremely hard to correct waveform(moustache) distortion.
The new ZF 18 has similar problems,so I expect the new ZF 21 to be the same.
The Nikkor 14-24 @ 21 is pretty much perfect.

Regarding the Rodenstock 23HR that cost $11.000 in Australia, I doubt that is 4x better than the 14-24 @$2400

A P65+ will set you back $55.000 here in Sydney.

Is that P65+  8x times better than a D3x?



Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dustbak on September 22, 2009, 02:31:11 am
Quote from: Ray
I may appear to be arguing for argument's sake, but I'm really just trying to get some reliable information. The original question from Jim2 was about differences between a 1Ds3 and MFDBs on print.

The only reliable information in this long thread, specific to the original question, is from DXOMark. It can be seen there that the 1Ds3 has lower performance than any of the 3 Phase DBs reviewed so far. The DR and tonal range of the 1Ds3 is noticeably less than the P40+, p45+ or P65+ at the smaller print size, and by extrapolation, presumably at any print size.

The noticeable exception is the D3X which at the smaller print size remarkably still has more DR than any of the 3 DBs featuring on the DXOMark website. In other areas such as color sensitivity, total range and SNR, the DBs still marginally outperform even the wonderful D3X, but only at the DB's base ISO which is almost a stop slower than the D3X base ISO. Increase the DBs' ISO by just one stop so it's closer to that of the D3X, (ISO 96 v ISO 78) then remarkably in all parameters tested the D3X is either equal to or better than all of the DBs tested at DXOMark..

However, when discussing lens performance, it's a different ball game. I'm very receptive to the idea of choosing a camera system because of the exceptionally fine lenses that may be available. The main reason I now own a Nikon D700 is because of the very fine Nikkor 14-24 zoom lens. I bought the lens first, tested it on my Canon 5D using an adapter, compared it with my existing Canon-mount wide-angle lenses, and found it to be so clearly better I decided to buy a camera body designed to fit the lens and allow full functionality.

For the benefit of everyone else, I showed my comparisons on this forum. I'm naturally skeptical of generalised claims people make without a comparison. Photography is a visual medium. Seeing is believing.

It may well be the case that some of the Schneider Digitar lenses and the new HR Digaron_S 23mm ultra-wideangle are far superior to any Canon equivalent lens. If that's the case, then let's see how much better they are. I promise I won't be upset if any of them knock the socks off the new TS-E lenses from Canon.

I would not really mind showing you images that have been captured with either one these lenses, 120 & 90 mm Schneider or any of the HC lenses since I own all of these. However since most of my 'testing' is done on work I have I tend to use only one system and the lens I need. I rarely repeat the same setup with another set because for me that would mean a waste of time. This means I can show you images of all lenses but I don't do tests. I don't have 2 of the same images made with different lenses.

I totally understand that you are sceptical about claims people make about performance. I have the same which means that I try the things I am interested in myself. I don't want to rely upon anyone's claims this includes DxO. My testing parameters are my eyes, my time and the perception of the people I make my images for. Yes, these things are no scientific parameters (mostly) but they do count for me

It is not that I don't want to do the tests people like you ask about but I don't see the point in doing so. They don't mean anything to me. I don't feel the need to proof anything. Whatever I say is the way I think I have experienced something whether someone chooses to believe me or not is up to them. I couldn't care less.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dustbak on September 22, 2009, 02:33:49 am
Quote from: rethmeier
The original Zeiss was useless for straight lines,because of the extremely hard to correct waveform(moustache) distortion.
The new ZF 18 has similar problems,so I expect the new ZF 21 to be the same.
The Nikkor 14-24 @ 21 is pretty much perfect.

Regarding the Rodenstock 23HR that cost $11.000 in Australia, I doubt that is 4x better than the 14-24 @$2400

A P65+ will set you back $55.000 here in Sydney.

Is that P65+  8x times better than a D3x?

Grappenmaker

No naturally it is not. It probably will be a bit better depending on many other things besides the equipment. Handled improperly it can even be worse. Anyway I don't think that needs to be expained to you.

My god is that 23HR that expensive?!!?? No wonder I instinctively never dared to look at its pricing
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 22, 2009, 02:48:52 am
Quote from: Dustbak
Grappenmaker

No naturally it is not. It probably will be a bit better depending on many other things besides the equipment. Handled improperly it can even be worse. Anyway I don't think that needs to be expained to you.

My god is that 23HR that expensive?!!?? No wonder I instinctively never dared to look at its pricing


Well that is Australia, which is a freaking expensive country. (only saying M9... around 8700 before tax, where i can get it in Germany for under 7k before tax) In Germany or the UK you can get the 23HR for a more normal price.

Is the P65 8 times better ? Well no, if you don't need to print large or have time to stitch. (Side note I would say a P65 is only around 5 times more than a d3x, but that once again depends.)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 22, 2009, 02:58:09 am
I agree that Australia is very pricey with gear,dat is de reden warom ik mijn spulletje koop in the US.( Note voor Dustbak)

However Sun Studios has a Sinar eMotion 75LV for $8000 and a Hy6 body for $2500 AUD

Two years ago that same eMotion was $47.000 AUD

The P65+ does really cost $55.000 AUD, I just called the dealer.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: douglasf13 on September 22, 2009, 05:37:41 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
That's weird, never heard that before.  And all my Imatest test were done by taking pictures through the lens and some were higher than 11 stops.  Can you point me to any reference where this is detailed.  
Thanks,
Eric

  Here is a post from Iliah just from today:  link (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=33117520&changemode=1)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 22, 2009, 07:24:18 pm
Quote from: douglasf13
Here is a post from Iliah just from today:  link (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=33117520&changemode=1)


Not sure who Iliah Borg is but he's not exactly definite in his statement where he writes "usually" the scene is compressed.  I'd like to see some real science showing that to be true.     Anyhow were this true that lenses can only reproduce 11 stops DR then how come so many tests including my own show higher?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 23, 2009, 08:28:09 am
Quote from: Dustbak
I would not really mind showing you images that have been captured with either one these lenses, 120 & 90 mm Schneider or any of the HC lenses since I own all of these. However since most of my 'testing' is done on work I have I tend to use only one system and the lens I need. I rarely repeat the same setup with another set because for me that would mean a waste of time. This means I can show you images of all lenses but I don't do tests. I don't have 2 of the same images made with different lenses.

I totally understand that you are sceptical about claims people make about performance. I have the same which means that I try the things I am interested in myself. I don't want to rely upon anyone's claims this includes DxO. My testing parameters are my eyes, my time and the perception of the people I make my images for. Yes, these things are no scientific parameters (mostly) but they do count for me

It is not that I don't want to do the tests people like you ask about but I don't see the point in doing so. They don't mean anything to me. I don't feel the need to proof anything. Whatever I say is the way I think I have experienced something whether someone chooses to believe me or not is up to them. I couldn't care less.


Dustback,
I generally find when I do my own comparisons of equipment, that I'm so thorough and meticulous that my results are already in a form that is close to being suitable for posting on LL. However, I understand there are situations where the differences between lenses or cameras are so obvious that it seems pointless taking the trouble to do a proper comparison.

That's how I feel about my Canon 10-22 with 50D, compared with my D700 with Nikkor 14-24. The 50D has a higher pixel count than the D700. Maybe that factor, I have surmised, will raise the system resolution to an extent that the 50D/10-22 will be very close to that of the D700/14-24 combination. But general shooting indicates the D700 with 14-24 is in a different league. I don't have the time at the moment or the inclination to confirm with meticulous tests what my eyes are revealing through general use of both systems, but perhaps I'll eventually get around to this. Perhaps I'll find that at some apertures the differences are minimal, which would be useful to know.

However, having seen tests of the Canon 10-22 on other websites, such as Photozone, it seems possible I have a rather poor copy of this lens, which leads on to another issue about professional equipment. One expects professional equipment to conform to a more rigorous standard than prosumer or consumer equipment, whether it's lenses, camera bodies or DBs.

But is this the case? Phase One rates the base ISO of the P65+ as 100. This is an international standard with precise specifications. Now I understand that for the sake of simplicity the manufacturer needs to round up, or round down, these ISO figures. The D3X claimed base ISO of 100 is actually ISO 78, according to DXO. Perhaps they should have described it as ISO 80. However, ISO 78 is closer to ISO 100 than ISO 50. But Phase One claims the base ISO of the P65+ is also ISO 100. One has to give DXO credit for consistency of testing procedure, even if you don't agree with their results. According to DXO, the base ISO of the P65+ is only ISO 43.

What the heck's going on here? Describing ISO 43 as ISO 100 is more than mere 'rounding up', wouldn't you say? Would plain lying describe it?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 23, 2009, 09:11:12 am
Quote from: Ray
But is this the case? Phase One rates the base ISO of the P65+ as 100. This is an international standard with precise specifications. Now I understand that for the sake of simplicity the manufacturer needs to round up, or round down, these ISO figures. The D3X claimed base ISO of 100 is actually ISO 78, according to DXO. Perhaps they should have described it as ISO 80. However, ISO 78 is closer to ISO 100 than ISO 50. But Phase One claims the base ISO of the P65+ is also ISO 100. One has to give DXO credit for consistency of testing procedure, even if you don't agree with their results. According to DXO, the base ISO of the P65+ is only ISO 43.

What the heck's going on here? Describing ISO 43 as ISO 100 is more than mere 'rounding up', wouldn't you say? Would plain lying describe it?

The ISO 12232:2006 standard is anything but precise, as explained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed) (see the digital section). The REI (recommended exposure index) specification allows the manufacturer to use any speed rating that they desire, but the rated speed usually is chosen to allow headroom for the highlights. The Saturation and SOS (Standard Output Specification) are more precise, but strictly are applicable only to images rendered into sRGB, but they can be used in a non-standard way with raw images. The Nikon speed rating allows 0.5 EV headroom for the highlights (100/sqrt(4) = 70.71).
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Doug Peterson on September 23, 2009, 09:16:56 am
Quote from: Ray
But is this the case? Phase One rates the base ISO of the P65+ as 100. This is an international standard with precise specifications. Now I understand that for the sake of simplicity the manufacturer needs to round up, or round down, these ISO figures. The D3X claimed base ISO of 100 is actually ISO 78, according to DXO. Perhaps they should have described it as ISO 80. However, ISO 78 is closer to ISO 100 than ISO 50. But Phase One claims the base ISO of the P65+ is also ISO 100. One has to give DXO credit for consistency of testing procedure, even if you don't agree with their results. According to DXO, the base ISO of the P65+ is only ISO 43.

What the heck's going on here? Describing ISO 43 as ISO 100 is more than mere 'rounding up', wouldn't you say? Would plain lying describe it?

The P65+ is and has always been marketed as ISO50 for base ISO (base ISO200 with Sensor+ on). If you have a link that shows otherwise please share it so it can be corrected.

The P65+ is ISO 50-800 in full resolution and ISO 200-3200 at 15 megapixels (the files of which compare very well with a 22 megapixel dSLR).

http://phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks...ries/Pplus.aspx (http://phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/Pplusseries/Pplus.aspx)
http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-on...one-tech-specs/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/phase-one-tech-specs/)

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 23, 2009, 06:33:55 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
Not sure who Iliah Borg is but he's not exactly definite in his statement where he writes "usually" the scene is compressed.  I'd like to see some real science showing that to be true.     Anyhow were this true that lenses can only reproduce 11 stops DR then how come so many tests including my own show higher?

Iliah is a respected digital imaging guru who often posts on DPReview nikon forums. Flare does limit DR in many situations, not by its effect on the noise floor, but by limiting darkest values in the shadows with veiling glare. With Imatest and a Stouffer step wedge, it is important to mask off the target so that none of the light table shows around the edges of the target. Likewise, you should use a lens hood to reduce flare.

For an authoritative statement on flare's effect on DR see this post by David Cardinal here (http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/dynamic_range.htm). David has an impressive resume and has published work with the imaging group at Stanford University and appeared in their recent Symposium on HDR Imaging (http://scien.stanford.edu/HDR/). For more information on lens flare see this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALfiTDYLtAQ) lecture on HDR by John McCann--it's an hour long, but well worth the viewing.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 23, 2009, 08:15:35 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Iliah is a respected digital imaging guru who often posts on DPReview nikon forums. Flare does limit DR in many situations, not by its effect on the noise floor, but by limiting darkest values in the shadows with veiling glare. With Imatest and a Stouffer step wedge, it is important to mask off the target so that none of the light table shows around the edges of the target. Likewise, you should use a lens hood to reduce flare.

For an authoritative statement on flare's effect on DR see this post by David Cardinal here (http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/dynamic_range.htm). David has an impressive resume and has published work with the imaging group at Stanford University and appeared in their recent Symposium on HDR Imaging (http://scien.stanford.edu/HDR/). For more information on lens flare see this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALfiTDYLtAQ) lecture on HDR by John McCann--it's an hour long, but well worth the viewing.


Well thanks for the extra information. I took a look at the David Cardinal page you linked and its very similar to the DPreview thread.... in that its another voice but neither is substantiated.  Just because its out there on the forums doesn't make it true - I'll wait until I see some real supporting data though your explanation seems entirely plausible.   I don't have an hour to spare watching the symposium, but if I get a chance to watch it I will as it sounds interesting.    In my imatest tests which I posted, I used black matte board around the stouffer step wedge to cover the unused portions of the light table.  It seems clear that more than 11 stops can be had with modern coated lenses if the photographer is careful to use a hood, matte box or flag.

It's probably a waste of time but I want to repeat that the biggest differences you'll find when testing the different cameras will be in 'usable' DR, not the ISO definition of DR.  This usable DR is going to probably be lower or close to 11 stops for the best cameras.  In a way that makes the question of whether the DR of the lenses is a limiting factor or not sort of moot.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 23, 2009, 08:46:09 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
The P65+ is and has always been marketed as ISO50 for base ISO (base ISO200 with Sensor+ on). If you have a link that shows otherwise please share it so it can be corrected.

The P65+ is ISO 50-800 in full resolution and ISO 200-3200 at 15 megapixels (the files of which compare very well with a 22 megapixel dSLR).

Doug,
The Canon 5D and Nikon D3x also have an ISO 50 option, but the sensitivity at ISO 50 is exacly the same as it is at ISO 100 which appears to be the manufacturers' base ISO for all three cameras. In fact, according to DXOMark, the P65+ at ISO 50 is actually ISO 45 whereas at ISO 100 it's actually ISO 44. Here's a link to the DXO sensitivity tests.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image.../(brand3)/Canon (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/318%7C0/(appareil2)/287%7C0/(appareil3)/305%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Phase%20One/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Canon)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 23, 2009, 09:43:50 pm
Quote from: bjanes
The ISO 12232:2006 standard is anything but precise, as explained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed) (see the digital section). The REI (recommended exposure index) specification allows the manufacturer to use any speed rating that they desire, but the rated speed usually is chosen to allow headroom for the highlights. The Saturation and SOS (Standard Output Specification) are more precise, but strictly are applicable only to images rendered into sRGB, but they can be used in a non-standard way with raw images. The Nikon speed rating allows 0.5 EV headroom for the highlights (100/sqrt(4) = 70.71).


I see. I didn't realise there was so much flexibility in the standard. It certainly explains the frequent discrepancy between the manufacturer's claimed sensitivity and the tested sensitivity.

I suppose the point here is that, whatever methodology DXO has used to measure sensitivity, it's a standard procedure they apply to all cameras they test, which makes their results valid for comparison purposes.

Considering that the D3X has at least equal DR to the P65+ at equal image size, and greater DR at some image sizes (such as 8"x12"), the fact it can achieve such a DR rating with a good 2/3rds of a stop less exposure is even more remarkable.

In other words, if the SBR of the subject being photographed is very high and I need a full ETTR exposure to capture as much detail as possible in the shadows without blowing the highlights, then in circumstances where I would use a 1/160th sec exposure with the D3X at ISO 100, I would need to use 1/100th sec with the P65+ at the manufacturer's rating of ISO 100. If in addition we then adjust F stop for equal DoF, the shutter speed for the P65+ decreases to 1/40th sec. This seems quite a big disadvantage to me. If one needs to use a slow shutter speed with the D3X one can always fix a neutral density filter to the lens.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BJL on September 23, 2009, 10:57:09 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
A P65+ w/ 28mm = 18.0mm w/ FF dSLR
Film w/ 28mm with film = 17.4mm w/ FF dSLR
Both still less wide than the 14-16mm examples I offered for 4/3, EF-S, DX and 35mm DSLRs, confirming the refutation of the comment about MF offering greater wide angle coverage than smaller formats like "APS-C". (100% coverage VF's are available in certain 4/3, EF-S, DX and 35mm models too, so I do not understand your other comment.)

[Edited to add EF-S to the list of DSLR formats offering 100% coverage VF's, after reading Michael's 7D first look!]
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 23, 2009, 10:59:32 pm
Quote from: EricWHiss
Well thanks for the extra information. I took a look at the David Cardinal page you linked and its very similar to the DPreview thread.... in that its another voice but neither is substantiated.  Just because its out there on the forums doesn't make it true - I'll wait until I see some real supporting data though your explanation seems entirely plausible.   I don't have an hour to spare watching the symposium, but if I get a chance to watch it I will as it sounds interesting.    In my imatest tests which I posted, I used black matte board around the stouffer step wedge to cover the unused portions of the light table.  It seems clear that more than 11 stops can be had with modern coated lenses if the photographer is careful to use a hood, matte box or flag.

It's probably a waste of time but I want to repeat that the biggest differences you'll find when testing the different cameras will be in 'usable' DR, not the ISO definition of DR.  This usable DR is going to probably be lower or close to 11 stops for the best cameras.  In a way that makes the question of whether the DR of the lenses is a limiting factor or not sort of moot.

Those sources are not the average Joe Blow forum member, but highly regarded experts. David Cardinal works with the Stanford imaging group, which is about as high powered as you can get in this area. Perhaps MIT or Harvard would be comparable.

Since you work with Imatest, why don't you repeat the DR measurement without masking off the light table, allowing a large amount of flare? Your DR would be considerably less. Or you could look at the veiling glare measurement method used by Imatest. Look at the test target (http://www.imatest.com/docs/veilingglare.html) just below the snow scene. Assume the luminance of the white is 1000 and that of the black is 1, giving a range of 10 stops. If your lens has 0.25% veiling glare (which would be very good), that black target area will have a luminance of 0.25% of 1000, or 2.5 plus the original 1 for a total luminance of 3.5. The contrast ratio is now 286:1 or 8.2 stops.

Assuming a perfect capture device, the brightest area of the image will be 1000 and the darkest 3.5, giving a DR of 286:1 or 8.2 stops. In this case the DR is limited by flare rather than noise.

(revised 13:15 GMT 24 Sept to include original luminance of 1)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 23, 2009, 11:10:42 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Those sources are not the average Joe Blow forum member, but highly regarded experts. David Cardinal works with the Stanford imaging group, which is about as high powered as you can get in this area. Perhaps MIT or Harvard would be comparable.

Since you work with Imatest, why don't you repeat the DR measurement without masking off the light table, allowing a large amount of flare? Your DR would be considerably less. Or you could look at the veiling glare measurement method used by Imatest. Look at the test target (http://www.imatest.com/docs/veilingglare.html) just below the snow scene. Assume the luminance of the white is 1000 and that of the black is 1, giving a range of 10 stops. If your lens has 0.25% veiling glare (which would be very good), that black target area will have a luminance of 0.25% of 1000, or 2.5. The contrast ratio is now 400:1 or 8.6 stops.

Assuming a perfect capture device, the brightest area of the image will be 1000 and the darkest 2.5, giving a DR of 400:1 or 8.6 stops. In this case the DR is limited by flare rather than noise.

Sorry i don't have a current Imatest license.  But that would be a good test.   No doubt shooting into backlight will reduce the contrast but what experienced photographer would do that (unless intended for purpose)?.  
Regarding the posts - I'm not trying to knock these guys but understand I'm not interested in taking that or anything on faith.  No guy from Berkeley, Harvard would make a post with conviction without referencing a study or linking to data.



Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 23, 2009, 11:50:13 pm
Quote from: BJL
Both still less wide than the 14-16mm examples I offered for 4/3, EF-S, DX and 35mm DSLRs, confirming the refutation of the comment about MF offering greater wide angle coverage than smaller formats like "APS-C". (100% coverage VF's are available in certain 4/3, DX and 35mm models too, so I do not understand your other comment.)

However, it does seem BJL, that the new Rodenstock 23mm (HR Digaron-S) when used with the slightly larger sensor of the P65+, almost matches the wide-angle capability of the smaller formats.

Depending on whether one crops the 35mm format to a 4:3 aspect ratio, or crops the P65 to a 3:2 aspect ratio, the 23mm Rodenstock produces an equivalent FL of 13.8mm or 15.3mm, which is slightly wider than the Canon EF-S 10-22 on cropped format, but not quite as wide as the Sigma 12-24 on full frame and not quite as wide as the Zuiko 7-14 on the 4/3rds format, but pretty close.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: evgeny on September 23, 2009, 11:52:12 pm
Is anyone has D3x and MFDB? Where are the images?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 23, 2009, 11:56:08 pm
Quote from: evgeny
Is anyone has D3x and MFDB? Where are the images?

Looks like those who own a D3X either have no need of an MFDB or have sold their MF equipment to buy their D3X plus a few Nikkor lenses and a new car   .
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: billthecat on September 24, 2009, 12:02:26 am
This person on Flickr seems to have a decent comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...6120567/detail/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/detail/)

Bill
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 24, 2009, 12:05:49 am
Quote from: Ray
Looks like those who own a D3X either have no need of an MFDB or have sold their MF equipment to buy their D3X plus a few Nikkor lenses and a new car   .

And those using a P65 don't need a toy like a d3x :-P.

Ok back to reality. I will have some time next week for some testing. However so far I probably will only have a 5dII and Leicas. Still missing a cheap rental option or owner of a d3x in Sydney.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: TMARK on September 24, 2009, 12:52:02 am
Quote from: billthecat
This person on Flickr seems to have a decent comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...6120567/detail/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/detail/)

Bill

S5 Pro holds its own.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: douglasf13 on September 24, 2009, 02:07:14 am
Quote from: EricWHiss
Sorry i don't have a current Imatest license.  But that would be a good test.   No doubt shooting into backlight will reduce the contrast but what experienced photographer would do that (unless intended for purpose)?.  
Regarding the posts - I'm not trying to knock these guys but understand I'm not interested in taking that or anything on faith.  No guy from Berkeley, Harvard would make a post with conviction without referencing a study or linking to data.

Iliah is the co-developer of RPP and Libraw. You can email him directly from his dpreview account, and I'm sure he'd be willing to walk you through it.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 24, 2009, 03:23:42 am
I was going to do the test with Chris,however I've decided to have a beer with him instead.
The only way a test would be valid in my eyes,is with the same lens and in a studio.
I can't see a Rodenstock 23HR or similar mounted on a D3x,5DmkII or a Leica.

The lens and the Raw processor have to be the same as well.

As we all know,that Phase,Nikon ,Canon and Leica play with their Raw capture,it's still hard.

So far I'm happy with my D3x and the files certainly wipe the floor of my 6x8 trannies.

Regards,
Willem.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dustbak on September 24, 2009, 04:23:53 am
You could send us images taken with the various setups of the beer drinking  Naturally you are right having a beer and meeting pleasant company is much more important. Quite frankly who cares how which system performs. By now most of them are adequate for virtually everyone. So why bother  ? Thank god there is more to images than pixel quality.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 24, 2009, 04:51:09 am
Quote from: Christopher
And those using a P65 don't need a toy like a d3x :-P.
Those using a P65+ (or the H3D11-60 I will have soon) may well have a requirement for a D3, M9, or something else superior to the P65+ in low ambient light situations if hi-res is not a requirement.

...do you have a spare P65+ system?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 24, 2009, 05:20:37 am
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
Those using a P65+ (or the H3D11-60 I will have soon) may well have a requirement for a D3, M9, or something else superior to the P65+ in low ambient light situations if hi-res is not a requirement.

...do you have a spare P65+ system?

Nope one and a M9 is more than enough.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 24, 2009, 06:10:29 am
Some sensed words and acts, finally.

It leaves much better memories than doing those boring tests. Isn't it Willem?

Cheers,
Thierry

Quote from: rethmeier
I was going to do the test with Chris,however I've decided to have a beer with him instead.
Willem.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 24, 2009, 07:31:46 am
Quote from: ThierryH
Some sensed words and acts, finally.

It leaves much better memories than doing those boring tests. Isn't it Willem?

Cheers,
Thierry


Well I'm still thinking about the test. I know for a fact that my P65 or even a P45 holds more DR than a M8, m9 or 5dii and even than a d3x. At all iso till 400. However, I wouldn't want to make a fast sloppy test. i don't have a studio access and so I am not sure if I really gonna waste my time to make a test for some people who prefer to stick to strict numbers as facts.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 24, 2009, 07:43:27 am
At Thierry,
I'll never forgot our first meeting in Bangkok.
What was it called again?
Vertigo or Moon Bar?
Imagine a bar with no railings on the top floor?
Anyway,I was (we) my future wife and I were off to Italy to get married in Puglia.
Great memories,
Best,
Willem.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 24, 2009, 07:44:58 am
Vertigo

Thierry

Quote from: rethmeier
Vertigo or Moon Bar?

Willem.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 24, 2009, 07:46:06 am
@ Dustbak!
Volgende keer dat je in Sydney bent,geef even een belletje?
Groetjes,
Willem
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 24, 2009, 07:50:18 am
Thanks Thierry,
I think the Moon bar was the "bar" and the restaurant was Vertigo,hence I purchased a bottle of Chateau Neuf du Pape, as I couldn't read the price list.Still one of those nights never to forget.
Regards,
Willem.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 24, 2009, 07:50:55 am
Christopher,

my guess is that it will be a waist of time, if your intention is to do it for others, respectively I am sure that all factors and conditions will never be met for others, thus your test "judged" as flawed. IMO everybody has to do his own tests.

Have a nice time in this wonderful city of Sydney,
Thierry

Quote from: Christopher
I am not sure if I really gonna waste my time to make a test for some people who prefer to stick to strict numbers as facts.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 24, 2009, 07:55:58 am
I couldn't agree more! with Thierry
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 24, 2009, 08:19:56 am
Off topic!
2 views from my balcony.
Remember our dust storm in Sydney?
Taken with my Panasonic LX3 ,not my D3x.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 24, 2009, 08:24:49 am
you must be right, I had Vertigo in my mind, because it was "vertigo" in my head!
Always in my memories.

Bad thing not being able to read the price list in such a place!



Thierry

Quote from: rethmeier
Thanks Thierry,
I think the Moon bar was the "bar" and the restaurant was Vertigo,hence I purchased a bottle of Chateau Neuf du Pape, as I couldn't read the price list.Still one of those nights never to forget.
Regards,
Willem.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: douglasf13 on September 24, 2009, 09:32:51 am
You'll need to make sure you use the same lens on whichever cameras you're using for your DR comparison.  The following post has a link with a treasure trove of info about veiling glare and DR.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 24, 2009, 09:34:04 am
Cristoph,

In my view a test would be helpful for those considering MFDBs but not sure about spending their money. Jsut putting some well exposed RAW images on the net that those with genuine interest can download, develop and print. No doubts, there will be a lot of comments.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr


Quote from: Christopher
Well I'm still thinking about the test. I know for a fact that my P65 or even a P45 holds more DR than a M8, m9 or 5dii and even than a d3x. At all iso till 400. However, I wouldn't want to make a fast sloppy test. i don't have a studio access and so I am not sure if I really gonna waste my time to make a test for some people who prefer to stick to strict numbers as facts.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 24, 2009, 09:38:08 am
Quote from: EricWHiss
Sorry i don't have a current Imatest license.  But that would be a good test.   No doubt shooting into backlight will reduce the contrast but what experienced photographer would do that (unless intended for purpose)?.  
Regarding the posts - I'm not trying to knock these guys but understand I'm not interested in taking that or anything on faith.  No guy from Berkeley, Harvard would make a post with conviction without referencing a study or linking to data.

An experienced photographer would avoid shooting into a back light if possible, but high contrast scenes are frequent and reduce the DR of the system. In fact, lens flare is a major impediment to HDR as demonstrated by John McCann in his lecture in which he presents ample data. (You do not need to view the entire document, but start at about 6 minutes in the timeline to see the pertinent section.) David Cardinal does have data from his collaboration that was published with the Stanford group. Your request for data is most appropriate. We have plenty of unsubstantiated assertions in this thread and there is a real need for data, which thus far is lacking.

For these high contrast situations, one should not have a filter over the lens, which should be multicoated and with as few air to glass surfaces as possible. The camera chamber should be well blackened. As John points out, one problem with digital cameras is the shiny surface of the sensor.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 24, 2009, 09:41:41 am
Quote from: billthecat
This person on Flickr seems to have a decent comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...6120567/detail/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/detail/)

Bill

       An excellent example of what not to do. For the benefit of anyone contemplating doing a serious comparison between the P65+ and the D3X, one should (1) pay particular attention to equalizing the FoV in one of the dimensions, through choice of lens focal length, and (2) one should equalize DoF by changing the F stop by the same multiplier that has been applied to the focal length.

The photographer on Flickr has completely ignored point (2) and got point (1) slightly wrong. The P65+ shot uses a 150mm lens at F11.  For a portrait aspect ratio, the equivalent FL for the D3X should be 90 mm, and the equivalent F stop either F6.3 or F7.1. The Flickr guy has used F13 with the D3X.

I think everyone except a complete beginner would appreciate that any good lens will be noticeably sharper at F6.3 than at F13 on a high-pixel-density camera such as the D3X.

In the following 100% crops, I downsampled the P65 image to the same file size as the D3X. If your monitor has a resolution of 120dpi, the 100% crops represent a print size of 33"x50". At larger sizes than this, the P65 would have a resolution advantage. In the crops below, the P65 actually does show a resolution advantage, but only as a result of an inappropriate choice of F stop.

[attachment=16795:P65_v_D3X.jpg]
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 24, 2009, 11:37:07 am
Ray,

In my humble opinion we may be happy that we have a good comparison. The person who published these pictures made a real effort to help.

Regarding your view on equalizing parameters I don't agree. Reason is that whatever DOF we need is dependent on setting. Landscape shooters normally focus on far away objects and may very well choose optimum aperture. In portrait we may strive for short depth of field.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Ray
     An excellent example of what not to do. For the benefit of anyone contemplating doing a serious comparison between the P65+ and the D3X, one should (1) pay particular attention to equalizing the FoV in one of the dimensions, through choice of lens focal length, and (2) one should equalize DoF by changing the F stop by the same multiplier that has been applied to the focal length.

The photographer on Flickr has completely ignored point (2) and got point (1) slightly wrong. The P65+ shot uses a 150mm lens at F11.  For a portrait aspect ratio, the equivalent FL for the D3X should be 90 mm, and the equivalent F stop either F6.3 or F7.1. The Flickr guy has used F13 with the D3X.

I think everyone except a complete beginner would appreciate that any good lens will be noticeably sharper at F6.3 than at F13 on a high-pixel-density camera such as the D3X.

In the following 100% crops, I downsampled the P65 image to the same file size as the D3X. If your monitor has a resolution of 120dpi, the 100% crops represent a print size of 33"x50". At larger sizes than this, the P65 would have a resolution advantage. In the crops below, the P65 actually does show a resolution advantage, but only as a result of an inappropriate choice of F stop.

[attachment=16795:P65_v_D3X.jpg]
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dustbak on September 24, 2009, 12:21:58 pm
Quote from: rethmeier
@ Dustbak!
Volgende keer dat je in Sydney bent,geef even een belletje?
Groetjes,
Willem

Doe ik zeker
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 24, 2009, 12:58:37 pm
Quote from: Ray
     An excellent example of what not to do. For the benefit of anyone contemplating doing a serious comparison between the P65+ and the D3X, one should (1) pay particular attention to equalizing the FoV in one of the dimensions, through choice of lens focal length, and (2) one should equalize DoF by changing the F stop by the same multiplier that has been applied to the focal length.

The photographer on Flickr has completely ignored point (2) and got point (1) slightly wrong. The P65+ shot uses a 150mm lens at F11.  For a portrait aspect ratio, the equivalent FL for the D3X should be 90 mm, and the equivalent F stop either F6.3 or F7.1. The Flickr guy has used F13 with the D3X.

I think everyone except a complete beginner would appreciate that any good lens will be noticeably sharper at F6.3 than at F13 on a high-pixel-density camera such as the D3X.

In the following 100% crops, I downsampled the P65 image to the same file size as the D3X. If your monitor has a resolution of 120dpi, the 100% crops represent a print size of 33"x50". At larger sizes than this, the P65 would have a resolution advantage. In the crops below, the P65 actually does show a resolution advantage, but only as a result of an inappropriate choice of F stop.

[attachment=16795:P65_v_D3X.jpg]

Ray's comments confirm what Michael stated when he published his megapixel shootout: Whatever you do, there will always be those who will nitpik--this or that should have been done. There are so many variables it is difficult to control them all. I downloaded the P65 and D700 shots. Both look very good and noise is not a problem with either. The photographer used the base ISOs, 50 and 200, respectively. Should he have used the same ISO for both? I would say no, since in a studio situation, one could shoot at the optimum ISO. Resolution is less critical with a portrait, which is basically a low frequency image, than it would be with a landscape. Also, the scene appears to fit into the DR of both cameras, so we really are not looking at a dynamic range comparison, which is the goal of this thread. For making an A4 print, I doubt that the D65 would show a definite advantage. The P65 would allow printing at larger sizes with no loss of quality.

These shots do not really demonstrate the advantages of the P65: resolution and purported high DR. A high contrast landscape would show the P65 to best advantage, and a low light street scene would show the D700 to better advantage. Something not mentioned thus far in this thread (AFAIK) is that vibration reduction technology is available for dSRLs and not for MFDBs. As Michael likes to quote the British: "Horses for courses".
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on September 24, 2009, 03:01:13 pm
Quote from: bjanes
The P65 would allow printing at larger sizes with no loss of quality.

These shots do not really demonstrate the advantages of the P65: resolution and purported high DR... "Horses for courses".
A half length portrait of a lady with waist-length hair, printed 24" * (18" or 34"), (like you see in hairdresser's windows) showing every hair, would be a good test to see the difference between serious cameras!
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 24, 2009, 03:16:14 pm
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
A half length portrait of a lady with waist-length hair, printed 24" * (18" or 34"), (like you see in hairdresser's windows) showing every hair, would be a good test to see the difference between serious cameras!

Yes, it would show resolution, which was my point. Retouching of skin pores, facial hair, and blemishes might be necessary! No one doubts that 65MP can have better resolution than 12 MP. If you need large prints, you should use a high MP camera or perhaps stitch with a lower resolution camera. Stitching works well for landscapes, but for a portrait, the subject might move. You would be back to the 19th century, when the models had to remain motionless for several seconds or longer. No wonder they had a stiff countenance  . To increase DR, you could stack the images and perform HDR, but the same limitations would apply.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 24, 2009, 04:30:01 pm
Quote from: Ray
In the crops below, the P65 actually does show a resolution advantage, but only as a result of an inappropriate choice of F stop.
you don't have to take the P65 capture to show that MFDBs have an advantage in resolution/sharpness. Take the CF22 shot which is still much more detailed than the D3x. All the MFDBs in the comparision are much sharper than the DSLRs.
IMO the kind of comparision posted at Flickr is the only one that counts: the photographer shoots a motif he/she regularly shoots and compares what he/she likes better. For this kind of motif - given the examples - me personally I'd prefer the CF22, the H3D50 or the S2... simply for the look of the images. The DSLRs show some clumpy noise in the grey background and the skintones are ... unsatisfying. Matter of taste...

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 24, 2009, 04:42:03 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
IMO the kind of comparision posted at Flickr is the only one that counts: the photographer shoots a motif he/she regularly shoots and compares what he/she likes better. For this kind of motif - given the examples - me personally I'd prefer the CF22, the H3D50 or the S2... simply for the look of the images. The DSLRs show some clumpy noise in the grey background and the skintones are ... unsatisfying. Matter of taste...
I would like to know, where exactly you see the "clumpy noise"? (I have not looked at the Finepix S5, nor at the Nikon D90.)

The skintones are not produced by the camera but by the raw rendering; I wonder, why this has to be posted again and again.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 24, 2009, 05:04:59 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
I would like to know, where exactly you see the "clumpy noise"?
[attachment=16796:bgs.jpg]

of course printed at camera resolution and at 300dpi you won't see it. But you clearly see it when you do some blow up... especially in the sky or similar parts of the motif.

Quote from: Panopeeper
The skintones are not produced by the camera but by the raw rendering; I wonder, why this has to be posted again and again.
yes, of course. But... why do all the MFDB files (in the comparision) look okay and all the DSLR do not? Why do the MFD files (all together) look so different to the DSLR files (all together)?
Don't get me wrong - I find all that captures quite good and if I'd do portraits at moderate print sizes I can't see any reason not to choose one of the DSLRs (other than a waist level finder and the super shallow DOF of MF... if this is the style you might prefer for portraits). But there clearly is a difference - whether you value the difference high or low is up to you.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BJL on September 24, 2009, 05:05:53 pm
Quote from: Ray
The P65+ shot uses a 150mm lens at F11. ... The Flickr guy has used F13 with the D3X.
The rest might be nit-picking, but this is a valid point in sharpness/resolution comparisons if those are the apertures used. Using the smaller sensor and smaller photosites of the D3X at this higher f-stop introduces significant potential for diffraction effects that could be easily avoided. Opening the D3X up to about f/8 would still give about as much DOF as the P65+ shot and significantly less diffraction.

Do not mark a camera down on the basis of a poorly executed sample photo!
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 24, 2009, 05:37:41 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
But you clearly see it when you do some blow up... especially in the sky or similar parts of the motif
I see it clearly in the S5 Pro (not S2) shot, a three years old DSLR, far from the state of the art, and in the D90 shot, an entry level DSLR. I can't fathom why the photographer included these with professional cameras.

Quote
why do all the MFDB files (in the comparision) look okay and all the DSLR do not? Why do the MFD files (all together) look so different to the DSLR files (all together)?
Let's separate the issues. The color is only rendering. ACR supports camera color profiles; there is no need to use the defaults. Btw, I like the 5D2's skin rendering; I think the D3X is too reddish.

The "look" is another issue. I am not saying, that the other cameras are real competitors of these MFDBs in every situation; I am trying to understand, what exactly causes the different perception (the lack of AA on the MFDBs should not make a difference when viewing so huge images for example in monitor size).

Btw, the 5D2 and the D3X shots were made with 70mm, f/13, the CF22 with 135mm, f/11. Though I don't think the possible diffraction because of the smaller pixels and the smaller aperture with the DSLRs is visible on monitor size.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 24, 2009, 06:05:18 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
I can't fathom why the photographer included these with professional cameras.
Just to know how they look like in the comparision? He didn't make the comparision with regard to the "topic" in this thread.

Quote
ACR supports camera color profiles
:-)

Quote
I am trying to understand, what exactly causes the different perception (the lack of AA on the MFDBs should not make a difference when viewing so huge images for example in monitor size)
I think the lack of an AA filter makes a huge difference - at 100%, downsized or upsized. A friend of mine is a (very) high volume shooter of portraits (magazines, editorials): Whenever it's possible he uses the M8 (actually he uses 2 at the same time to get the relatively slow buffer managed) only because he likes the crisp look (without applying agessive sharpening). Me I thought about an A900 but decided for the P21+ in addition to my P45. Of course not only because of the lack of the AA-filter... but because of the whole look and because - for me (!) - ISO400 and ISO800 are high ISO. I never used any higher ISO in 25 years... I don't say the P21+ is "better" (regarding what?) than the A900... I don't know. I just prefer the crisp and somehow "bold" look of the files. And I appreciate that I can use it on my Contax (all those knobs on current DSLRs, especially the Nikons, drive me crazy).
So... I'm the fanclub of "there is something different in MFD files". At the same time I'm quite impressed of A900 or D3X images and I fully understand that people say it's "enough". Yes, it's much more than enough unless you print very large.
Finally... I don't understand the topic here. "Jim2" didn't mention how he is printing... size, motfis and so on. I find it totally pointless to ask for the "best" solution for "landscape", "architecture" or "people". All these genres appear in very different modes. DR? IMHO totally overestimated :-)


Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 24, 2009, 06:44:48 pm
Quote from: BJL
The rest might be nit-picking, but this is a valid point in sharpness/resolution comparisons if those are the apertures used. Using the smaller sensor and smaller photosites of the D3X at this higher f-stop introduces significant potential for diffraction effects that could be easily avoided. Opening the D3X up to about f/8 would still give about as much DOF as the P65+ shot and significantly less diffraction.

Do not mark a camera down on the basis of a poorly executed sample photo!

Not only that, but it is ridiculous to talk about sharpness/resolution without specifying the lens!! 70 mm is not usual for a prime Nikkor, suggesting that a zoom may have been used. Of course, sharpening applied to the image is another important parameter, and is especially important with a camera such as the D3x with a blur filter. Sharpening also affects noise. Unfortunately, no information regarding sharpening of these images is available. These tests provide useful information, but are far from definitive.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 24, 2009, 06:59:56 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Not only that, but it is ridiculous to talk about sharpness/resolution without specifying the lens!!
That's the typical small-minded shit… sorry :-)

Compare all the DSLR files as a whole to all the MFD files as a whole at the Flickr page…
There are forums where you can compare tons of DSLR files and tons of MFD files (downsized for web use) side by side… as a whole...
Compare 10 DSLR prints to 10 MFD prints (at native resolution) as a whole...
they always look different. Even A900/ZA 1.8/135 @ f4 files look different to MFD files.
Maybe you find an explanation for the difference in clever articles or not… just look at the difference by yourself.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 24, 2009, 07:24:55 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Ray,

In my humble opinion we may be happy that we have a good comparison. The person who published these pictures made a real effort to help.

Regarding your view on equalizing parameters I don't agree. Reason is that whatever DOF we need is dependent on setting. Landscape shooters normally focus on far away objects and may very well choose optimum aperture. In portrait we may strive for short depth of field.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,
Fair enough! Shall we say, good marks for trying. However, it simply isn't helpful to create wrong impressions by ignoring fundamental requirements when doing a comparison. Those requirements are; same subject; same lighting; same FoV; same DoF; same point of focus, and of course a shutter speed sufficient to freeze any movement of subject or camera.

The fact that landscape shooters often desire a more extensive DoF is totally irrelevant in this context. The subject in these comparisons is not a landscape. I can't think why you mentioned it.

I haven't studied the other comparisons at Flickr because I see the D3X as being the closest competitor to the MFDB format.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 24, 2009, 07:32:49 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
... But you clearly see it when you do some blow up... especially in the sky or similar parts of the motif ... But... why do all the MFDB files (in the comparision) look okay and all the DSLR do not?

I think you are seeing what you want to see ... I don't see this clumpy noise and don't agree that the MFDBs look okay and the SLRs do not.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: douglasf13 on September 24, 2009, 07:42:24 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
That's the typical small-minded shit… sorry :-)

Compare all the DSLR files as a whole to all the MFD files as a whole at the Flickr page…
There are forums where you can compare tons of DSLR files and tons of MFD files (downsized for web use) side by side… as a whole...
Compare 10 DSLR prints to 10 MFD prints (at native resolution) as a whole...
they always look different. Even A900/ZA 1.8/135 @ f4 files look different to MFD files.
Maybe you find an explanation for the difference in clever articles or not… just look at the difference by yourself.

  I don't agree.  If we are trying to isolate what gives MFDB it's "look," lenses are as much or more of the equation than the sensor.  It is very, very easy to buy medium format lens adapters for 35mm DSLRs, and I think comparing a MFDB with an D3x/A900 would be interesting if the same medium format lens was used on all of the cameras.  I used to have a MFDB, and now I have the A900.  I've begun using my Hasselblad lenses on the A900, but I don't have a direct reference for comparison anymore.  Maybe I need to get that new CFV back so I can do some testing
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 24, 2009, 07:45:01 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Ray's comments confirm what Michael stated when he published his megapixel shootout: Whatever you do, there will always be those who will nitpik--this or that should have been done. There are so many variables it is difficult to control them all. I downloaded the P65 and D700 shots. Both look very good and noise is not a problem with either. The photographer used the base ISOs, 50 and 200, respectively. Should he have used the same ISO for both? I would say no, since in a studio situation, one could shoot at the optimum ISO. Resolution is less critical with a portrait, which is basically a low frequency image, than it would be with a landscape. Also, the scene appears to fit into the DR of both cameras, so we really are not looking at a dynamic range comparison, which is the goal of this thread. For making an A4 print, I doubt that the D65 would show a definite advantage. The P65 would allow printing at larger sizes with no loss of quality.

These shots do not really demonstrate the advantages of the P65: resolution and purported high DR. A high contrast landscape would show the P65 to best advantage, and a low light street scene would show the D700 to better advantage. Something not mentioned thus far in this thread (AFAIK) is that vibration reduction technology is available for dSRLs and not for MFDBs. As Michael likes to quote the British: "Horses for courses".

Excuse me! Bill. Failing to get the DoF similar in two shots taken for comparison purposes is 'nit-picking'? What would you say is 'not nit-picking'? Failing to take off the lens cap?

Shallow DoF is one of the characteristic advantages claimed for the larger format MFDB. At any given F stop the MFDB will produce a shallower DoF. The difference in sensor size between full frame 35mm and APS-C is of the same order of magnitude as the difference between the P65 and the D3X sensors. What would you say if I were to compare my Canon 50D with a 5D2 using F11 with the 5D2 and F13 with the 50D, shooting the same subject?

Each format has its advantages and disadvantages. Understanding what those are allows one to choose the best tool for the job. Choosing a specific DoF, whether it be shallow for portraits or extensive for landscapes, is surely a very basic requirement. There may be situations when one of the camera formats in the comparison is so small that it's not possible to select an F stop to match the shallow DoF of the larger format. In such a situation one then understands that this fact points to an inherent weakness of the smaller format.

However, in the Flickr comparison between the D3X and P65+, it makes no sense at all to move in the opposite direction and make a DoF mismatch even worse by stopping down in the D3X shot.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 24, 2009, 08:08:41 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
That's the typical small-minded shit… sorry :-)

Compare all the DSLR files as a whole to all the MFD files as a whole at the Flickr page…
There are forums where you can compare tons of DSLR files and tons of MFD files (downsized for web use) side by side… as a whole...
Compare 10 DSLR prints to 10 MFD prints (at native resolution) as a whole...
they always look different. Even A900/ZA 1.8/135 @ f4 files look different to MFD files.
Maybe you find an explanation for the difference in clever articles or not… just look at the difference by yourself.

I see no need for profanity and my suggestion is hardly small minded. Your post is incoherent. The first step of any experiment is to control the variables and the quality of the lens is a most important variable. As you can see from the MFD backs on the Flickr page, the quality is high and the differences are small. Also, they likely were used with high quality primes. Comparing the dSLRs as a whole is not useful, since there is so much variation between them. Before drawing any conclusions, it would be proper to look at a range of image types or at least an image that has a range of contrasts and image details (as in Micheal's previous shootout). I suspect that naive types such as yourself have already made your judgment before even looking at the pictures. In that case there is no need to control variables and perform a scientific test.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 24, 2009, 08:15:44 pm
Quote from: Ray
Each format has its advantages and disadvantages. Understanding what those are allows one to choose the best tool for the job. Choosing a specific DoF, whether it be shallow for portraits or extensive for landscapes, is surely a very basic requirement. There may be situations when one of the camera formats in the comparison is so small that it's not possible to select an F stop to match the shallow DoF of the larger format. In such a situation one then understands that this fact points to an inherent weakness of the smaller format.

However, in the Flickr comparison between the D3X and P65+, it makes no sense at all to move in the opposite direction and make a DoF mismatch even worse by stopping down in the D3X shot.

I'm not sure that equalizing the depth of field among the cameras would be a good idea, but you reasoning concerning the DoF mismatch is good. That is definitely a flaw in the tests.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 24, 2009, 08:35:26 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
I think the lack of an AA filter makes a huge difference - at 100%, downsized or upsized. A friend of mine is a (very) high volume shooter of portraits (magazines, editorials): Whenever it's possible he uses the M8 (actually he uses 2 at the same time to get the relatively slow buffer managed) only because he likes the crisp look (without applying agessive sharpening).

Again, you are not controlling the variables. No MFDB has a blur filter and I know of no dSLR (out of the box) except for the ill fated Kodak full frame which had severe aliasing problems. There are companies who would be happy to remove the blur filter from your friend's dSLR if he doesn't like to have one and does not mind Moire. Perhaps then he would find that his Leica has qualities other than the lack of a blur filter that endear its images to him. Perhaps the legendary Leitz lenses?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Khun_K on September 24, 2009, 10:35:38 pm
Quote from: John-S
ALERT: All the pros have left the building and what's left is Nerdsville. People who want to endlessly debate nothingness. (Oh crap, a split infinitive. It just doesn't sound right any other way.)

Profanity is fun. Profanity is the result from frustration of tolerating social ineptitude, artistic ineptitude and what-an-effin'-camera-is-for-in-the-first-place ineptitude.

Be sure to clean up and turn off the lights if you're the last one out.
I wonder how much sense the test of such kind did make?  Quality of a camera, or for that metter, quality of a system, is like a relationship, the photographer needs to develop it, with his tools.  There is no perfect system, with time, you learn how to use the camera/system, knowing what is best and use its best, knowing what is weaker, and work around it, and 5-10 years later, you tell yourself you have a system really satisfy you.  There are debates made over one to another, brand, type, and etc, but all systems have long list of established masters using them day to day with great images, far above the average photographers spend time doing this and that test and spend hours bashing one another.  

Regards, K
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 24, 2009, 10:58:19 pm
Quote from: John-S
ALERT: All the pros have left the building and what's left is Nerdsville. People who want to endlessly debate nothingness. (Oh crap, a split infinitive. It just doesn't sound right any other way.)

I don't want to knock pro photographers--some are artists and take an intellectual interest in their craft. I admire them. Others merely want to turn our a workmanlike product with a minimum expenditure of time and effort and take another picture of a baby posed on a rug or of a hackneyed wedding pose. Some like to delude themselves that us mere amateurs behold them with awe. However, many of us have our own professions demanding equal or more skill and learning and are interested in photography because it combines art and science and we find it fascinating rather than a means to put meat on the table. We can allow ourselves to indulge our intellectual curiosities. I like this quote: It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby. - Elliott Erwitt.

I think we can continue this thread in the absence of John-S.  
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 24, 2009, 11:48:23 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
I think the lack of an AA filter makes a huge difference - at 100%, downsized or upsized.
 

Got any evidence to support that thought? There's a company called Maxmax that specialises in removing AA filters. You can find some 'before and after' comparison crops at 100% on their website at http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm (http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm)

The impression I get is the improvement, although clearly visible in certain areas, is on balance fairly marginal. There are far greater improvements to be found when using an excellent lens as opposed to a merely good lens, or using any good lens at it's sharpest aperture as opposed to F8 or F11.

I suppose the argument could be, if you already have the finest lens that money can buy, then removing the AA filter will give that slight edge of extra crispness, at the expense sometimes of unwanted moire problems.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jack Flesher on September 25, 2009, 01:05:39 pm
Quote from: John-S
ALERT: All the pros have left the building and what's left is Nerdsville. People who want to endlessly debate nothingness. (Oh crap, a split infinitive. It just doesn't sound right any other way.)

Profanity is fun. Profanity is the result from frustration of tolerating social ineptitude, artistic ineptitude and what-an-effin'-camera-is-for-in-the-first-place ineptitude.

Be sure to clean up and turn off the lights if you're the last one out.

Well said John...

And isn't it curious how all the arm-chair "experts" left posting here agree with the "Pros" who still offer no "proof" yet shoot with the same brand of DSLR they do?  Talk about biases  

It seems clear the inmates are now running this asylum.  
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 25, 2009, 01:44:41 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
...

um ... this from the guy who, as I recall, felt the need to buy a MFDB so he could accurately expose clouds and get "nice" blue skies ...

That was the funniest thing said by a "pro" on this whole thread.

..................

To make real big prints - $30,000.

To impress the models on set - $50,000.

To get blue skies and clouds 'right' - priceless.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 25, 2009, 02:59:11 pm
Now that was the funniest, without doubt.

 

Thierry


Quote from: Jeremy Payne
um ... this from the guy who, as I recall, felt the need to buy a MFDB so he could accurately expose clouds and get "nice" blue skies ...

To make real big prints - $30,000.

To impress the models on set - $50,000.

To get blue skies and clouds 'right' - priceless.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 25, 2009, 03:02:10 pm
Reminder: Ray is "here"!

Be sure that he won't turn off the light that soon.

Thierry

@ Ray: no harm or disrespect meant, I just couldn't resist

Quote from: John-S
ALERT: All the pros have left the building and what's left is Nerdsville. People who want to endlessly debate nothingness. (Oh crap, a split infinitive. It just doesn't sound right any other way.)

Profanity is fun. Profanity is the result from frustration of tolerating social ineptitude, artistic ineptitude and what-an-effin'-camera-is-for-in-the-first-place ineptitude.

Be sure to clean up and turn off the lights if you're the last one out.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 25, 2009, 03:24:02 pm
Quote
The DSLRs show some clumpy noise in the grey background and the skintones are ... unsatisfying. Matter of taste...

Phase P65+ color calibration - anyone getting really correct colors ? (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37919&hl=)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 25, 2009, 07:10:28 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
And isn't it curious how all the arm-chair "experts" left posting here agree with the "Pros" who still offer no "proof" yet shoot with the same brand of DSLR they do?  Talk about biases  

It seems clear the inmates are now running this asylum.  

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
um ... this from the guy who, as I recall, felt the need to buy a MFDB so he could accurately expose clouds and get "nice" blue skies ...

That was the funniest thing said by a "pro" on this whole thread.
..................

To make real big prints - $30,000.
To impress the models on set - $50,000.
To get blue skies and clouds 'right' - priceless.

Jeremy, I love it. The haughty and condescending Mr. Flesher is impervious to reason and data, but humor has knocked him from his perch high in the clouds.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on September 25, 2009, 07:56:29 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Jeremy, I love it. The haughty and condescending Mr. Flesher is impervious to reason and data, but humor has knocked him from his perch high in the clouds.
you shut up, armchair sky clipper  
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: tho_mas on September 25, 2009, 08:39:49 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
Phase P65+ color calibration - anyone getting really correct colors ? (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37919&hl=)
correct (accurate scene referred) colors and pleasing colors are totally different. Nice skin tones are never "correct".
whatever...
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 25, 2009, 09:45:15 pm
Quote from: tho_mas
correct (accurate scene referred) colors and pleasing colors are totally different. Nice skin tones are never "correct".
whatever...

Also, accurate colors are not achievable in a Bayer array sensor as indicated by this quote from DXO on their website:

DXO Color Measurements (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Technologies/Measurement-definitions/Color-measurements)

"The underlying physics is that a sensor can distinguish exactly the same colors as the average human eye, if and only if the spectral responses of the sensor can be obtained by a linear combination of the eye cone responses. These conditions are called Luther-Ives conditions, and in practice, these never occur. There are objects that a sensor sees as having certain colors, while the eye sees the same objects differently, and the reverse is also true."

This matter was discussed previously by Thomas Knoll on the Adobe Camera Raw Forum. I had theorized that if the CFA filters on the Bayer sensor had the same spectral characteristics as the human eye, color rendering would improve. He stated that such a match was not necessary for perfect color rendering but in so many words that only the Luther-Ives conditions be met. Since the filters are never linear, he concluded that some colors would be accurately represented and others would not. He passed no judgement on the merits of individual sensors. However, it is reasonable to assume that non-linearity differences in the CFA filters could result in differences in color rendering.

DXO on Colorblindness in sensors (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/Canon-500D-T1i-vs.-Nikon-D5000/Color-blindness-sensor-quality) compares a Nikon camera to a Canon camera and notes a rather marked difference in color processing quality. Interested readers are referred to the link. Besides DR, some photographers may also be interested in color rendering differences among various dSRLs and MFDBs. These can be measured, but are infrequently discussed. DXO gives a metamerism index for each camera. It is 75.83 for the Phase One P65+ and 78.68 for the Nikon D3x. Another topic for us arm chair photographers to discuss.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 26, 2009, 12:26:30 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
Phase P65+ color calibration - anyone getting really correct colors ? (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37919&hl=)
Gabor,
What you've done here is build a straw argument....easily knocked down.  A single post - unqualified in any way does not make fact. I'm sure if you looked you could also find many posts where people state that the P65+ give you more accurate color than anything else they've used.    Neither would be verified or qualified and to try and build an argument based on that is just plain weak - convincing few if any and making yourself look too quick to come to a conclusion.   The internet what you mostly find is posts from people that are dissatisfied with a product and often not due to any fault of the product itself.

Color accuracy is something easily tested.  Imatest does this too, and no I'm not doing it for you so please don't ask.   Of course if you won't test using the manufacturer's recommended software such a test would be meaningless considering the camera profiles and such. No doubt if you tried to compare my Phase P20 or Leica DMR for color accuracy against whatever camera you like using ACR or CameraRAW you'd probably come to a false conclusion. ACR really sticks for both those cameras.     You might enjoy testing the color accuracy of different RAW conversion programs for a particular camera and this could be done too
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 26, 2009, 05:10:34 am
Quote from: EricWHiss
...Imatest does this too, and no I'm not doing it for you so please don't ask.  ...

Yeah he is just pissed off, as are most in this thread now. This back and forth bickering taking place the last days throws a bad light on some of the participants.

Gabor: Why don't you summarize your general position regarding the topic along with some explanation? No graphs, don't try to prove at all, just state. Make it simple and commonly understandable. This would be most helpful.

And this is what everybody should do imho. Don't argue *against* anyone. Just state what *you* believe is true, and make it commonly understandable, whatever the point is.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: douglasf13 on September 26, 2009, 05:39:54 am
Quote from: bjanes
Also, accurate colors are not achievable in a Bayer array sensor as indicated by this quote from DXO on their website:

DXO Color Measurements (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Technologies/Measurement-definitions/Color-measurements)

"The underlying physics is that a sensor can distinguish exactly the same colors as the average human eye, if and only if the spectral responses of the sensor can be obtained by a linear combination of the eye cone responses. These conditions are called Luther-Ives conditions, and in practice, these never occur. There are objects that a sensor sees as having certain colors, while the eye sees the same objects differently, and the reverse is also true."

This matter was discussed previously by Thomas Knoll on the Adobe Camera Raw Forum. I had theorized that if the CFA filters on the Bayer sensor had the same spectral characteristics as the human eye, color rendering would improve. He stated that such a match was not necessary for perfect color rendering but in so many words that only the Luther-Ives conditions be met. Since the filters are never linear, he concluded that some colors would be accurately represented and others would not. He passed no judgement on the merits of individual sensors. However, it is reasonable to assume that non-linearity differences in the CFA filters could result in differences in color rendering.

DXO on Colorblindness in sensors (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/Canon-500D-T1i-vs.-Nikon-D5000/Color-blindness-sensor-quality) compares a Nikon camera to a Canon camera and notes a rather marked difference in color processing quality. Interested readers are referred to the link. Besides DR, some photographers may also be interested in color rendering differences among various dSRLs and MFDBs. These can be measured, but are infrequently discussed. DXO gives a metamerism index for each camera. It is 75.83 for the Phase One P65+ and 78.68 for the Nikon D3x. Another topic for us arm chair photographers to discuss.

Great topic that probably deserves its own thread. Interestingly, Iliah Borg is always going on about the color seperation of the A900 over the D3x, and the a900 tested a metemarism score on DxO of 87.22, which I believe is the highest score of any camera.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 26, 2009, 07:42:03 am
Quote from: Christian Miersch
Yeah he is just pissed off, as are most in this thread now. This back and forth bickering taking place the last days throws a bad light on some of the participants.

Dude ... you really gotta stop layering all this interpreted drama on this stuff ...

Quote from: Christian Miersch
Gabor: Why don't you summarize your general position regarding the topic along with some explanation? No graphs, don't try to prove at all, just state. Make it simple and commonly understandable. This would be most helpful.
And this is what everybody should do imho. Don't argue *against* anyone. Just state what *you* believe is true, and make it commonly understandable, whatever the point is.
Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing or feeling.  If you don't like the thread, stop reading it.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: bjanes on September 26, 2009, 08:09:08 am
I just came across this quote from Michael (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml) in his review of the Sony A900 and Canon 5D MII. Here is one pro who trusts measurements more than his eye for assessment of DR. Some pros (Jack Flesher) judge DR from looking at clouds, but the only problem with their assessment is that they are not even looking at DR but are misinterpreting the findings.

"Dynamic range is something that really isn't measurable by eye, so I'm going to reply on DxOMark's numbers. What they show is that at ISO 100 and 200 the Sony has a slight advantage over the Canon but once we get to ISO 400 and above the Canon shows significantly more DR – a full stop at ISO 800, for example."
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 26, 2009, 08:44:39 am
Hi,

I downloaded the Canon 5DII image and the Hasselblad H3DII-50 image and printed both from Lightroom in A2 format on my Epson 3800. Settings: 480 PPI/Standard sharpening/Glossy. Paper: Ilford Smooth Pearl.

Observations:

- Not a lot of difference
- At short viewing distance (25 cm) the Hassy image has better detail
- At longer distance (80 cm) Canon looks better to me, probably because of better DOF and more snap
- It's quite obvious that digital processing plays a big role

I have corrective glasses and that plays a role.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: billthecat
This person on Flickr seems to have a decent comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...6120567/detail/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/detail/)

Bill
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: shelby_lewis on September 26, 2009, 11:52:03 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
At longer distance (80 cm) Canon looks better to me, probably because of better DOF and more snap

"Better" DoF.... says a lot to me.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BlasR on September 26, 2009, 12:28:06 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I downloaded the Canon 5DII image and the Hasselblad H3DII-50 image and printed both from Lightroom in A2 format on my Epson 3800. Settings: 480 PPI/Standard sharpening/Glossy. Paper: Ilford Smooth Pearl.

Observations:

- Not a lot of difference
- At short viewing distance (25 cm) the Hassy image has better detail
- At longer distance (80 cm) Canon looks better to me, probably because of better DOF and more snap
- It's quite obvious that digital processing plays a big role

I have corrective glasses and that plays a role.

Best regards
Erik


oh ya,,canon will be much better if you look it a mile away.

I think people need better glasses.

Here is a monster.

look the eyes,nose and mouth, at the left top

but you can't look it from a mile away.

here is with the h 50

I think the monster coming after me.

I need to go and say a prayer to be safe

BlasR
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 26, 2009, 02:03:27 pm
Hi,

Sorry, your contribution is not very meaningful. The images are there, free to test, just print them at any size you wish and draw your conclusions.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: BlasR
oh ya,,canon will be much better if you look it a mile away.

I think people need better glasses.

Here is a monster.

look the eyes,nose and mouth, at the left top

but you can't look it from a mile away.

here is with the h 50

I think the monster coming after me.

I need to go and say a prayer to be safe

BlasR
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 26, 2009, 02:11:01 pm
Hi!

I don't find your contribution constructive. What do you mean?

I have made this test, and anyone can do it. Have you tried and if so can you explain what you see?!

Now, if you pixel peep, you are looking at very fine detail at close range, so you can see that the area of maximal focus has more detail or more acutance. Move out a bit and the eyes cannot resolve the fine details and your visual impression is dominated DOF and "snap".

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: shelby_lewis
"Better" DoF.... says a lot to me.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Professional on September 26, 2009, 02:24:46 pm
Maybe my post is worthless or meaningful for many of you, but i look at Canon/Nikon DSLR shots at 100% on computer and also my Hasselblad H3DII-39 and i got blown away easily with my H3D and not with any of Canon/Nikon, i don't have Nikon D3X [just downloaded samples from the net] or 5D mkII, but i have 1Ds3 and 1Ds2 and 5D classic, and none of them wowing me against my H3DII, even i did a simple test [not sure if i said that here before] with my H3DII against my 1DsIII, the H3DII was the winner in term of sharpness, color, and contrast, so i dunno if i print how come that those 35mm DSLR can be amazing and maybe same as MFDB when in real tests the MFDB are the winner in most cases? I cropped many shots from Canon and Hasselblad, the hasselblad crops were the winners always over the Canon crops no doubt whatever i do, i know that may not get you any help or interested, but from what i see i love MF very much and i will always use it for what i can shoot with them and print at any size, i have also Epson 3800 and i print A2 [17x22/17x25] and planning to go larger [44" printer], so i think i should make whistles for how good those new current and upcoming 35mm DSLR, then tell me honestly what is the benefit and worth to get those MFDB if you prints large say up to 40" and all can be great good enough, what will make those MFDB an advantage over DSLRs then? and why they are so expensive in this case? i really couldn't get any honest truth answers anywhere because many trying to make those DSLRs as good as MFDB even in prints, and even some saying that DSLRs quality is better than MFDB like what they are doing with Nikon D3X against Hasselblad/Phase One DBs.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 26, 2009, 03:15:45 pm
Quote from: Christian Miersch
Gabor: Why don't you summarize your general position regarding the topic along with some explanation? No graphs, don't try to prove at all, just state. Make it simple and commonly understandable. This would be most
LOL, you, tho_mas and Erik have thoroughly misunderstood my post. I have no interest in discussing the color reproduction by different cameras and raw converters, I don't even have the necessary knowledge either; for example I have not ever used the DNG Profile Editor yet.

I replied tho_mas in an earlier post, that the final colors depend too much on the raw conversion software and on individual profiling and it is nonsensical to judge a camera based on liking or disliking certain renderings. The other thread I linked to proves just that.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 26, 2009, 03:21:12 pm
Quote from: Professional
...
I heard somewhere, that the Hasselblad H2763-XIV will feature capital letters, and the -XVIII even a new line key. Though such high-end professional equipment will certainly cost much more than a H3DII-39.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Slough on September 26, 2009, 03:59:30 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
I heard somewhere, that the Hasselblad H2763-XIV will feature capital letters, and the -XVIII even a new line key. Though such high-end professional equipment will certainly cost much more than a H3DII-39.

   Something tells me you will be getting death threats from the Anti-Full-Stop Society. It always amazes me that someone can claim to be a skilled professional using very expensive equipment (so presumably well paid) and yet they express themselves in a semi-literate manner.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Professional on September 26, 2009, 04:05:11 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
I heard somewhere, that the Hasselblad H2763-XIV will feature capital letters, and the -XVIII even a new line key. Though such high-end professional equipment will certainly cost much more than a H3DII-39.

I am looking for Phase one DB or large format, i got enough of DSLRs.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 26, 2009, 04:48:44 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
...and it is nonsensical to judge a camera based on liking or disliking certain renderings.

Fair, and thanks for the clarification! I was merely making my statement in comment to the post I cited, I was not following your earlier responses.

I would like to know your position regarding the whole thread, regarding the difference between 35mm and mfdb, and how do you arrive at your conclusion. Don't want to downtalk you! Just want to understand.

Christian





And Jeremy, I will have to live with that you or other people don't like what I post. Nevertheless, I have to say what I feel I have to say. The same goes for you, for everybody here.




Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 26, 2009, 05:19:58 pm
Quote from: Christian Miersch
I would like to know your position regarding the whole thread, regarding the difference between 35mm and mfdb, and how do you arrive at your conclusion
Well, at the risk of sounding very strange: I don't have much opinion. I base my opinions on specific raw images, which are suitable for certain measurements, and I don't have many from MFDBs.

However, I do have a firm opinion regarding the OP's original question:

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology?

If one camera can capture a scenery with greater dynamic range than another camera, then the difference can be made visible on print as well; this is only the question of raw processing.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 26, 2009, 05:48:58 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
Well, at the risk of sounding very strange: I don't have much opinion. I base my opinions on specific raw images, which are suitable for certain measurements, and I don't have many from MFDBs.

However, I do have a firm opinion regarding the OP's original question:

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology?

If one camera can capture a scenery with greater dynamic range than another camera, then the difference can be made visible on print as well; this is only the question of raw processing.

Thanks Gabor, now I know your position. Thats completely fair and understandable.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 26, 2009, 06:37:15 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I downloaded the Canon 5DII image and the Hasselblad H3DII-50 image and printed both from Lightroom in A2 format on my Epson 3800. Settings: 480 PPI/Standard sharpening/Glossy. Paper: Ilford Smooth Pearl.

Observations:

- Not a lot of difference
- At short viewing distance (25 cm) the Hassy image has better detail
- At longer distance (80 cm) Canon looks better to me, probably because of better DOF and more snap
- It's quite obvious that digital processing plays a big role

I have corrective glasses and that plays a role.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,
I presume you made an A2 print. At this size one would expect any print from a 50mp image to be noticeably sharper than one from a 21mp image, but again, the extra detail will have been exaggerated in this case due to an inappropriate F stop used for the 5D2 shot. Even with the 12mp 5D1, which has wider pixel spacing than either the H3D or 5D2, I would use F5.6 for a portrait if I wanted to capture sharp eyelashes. Why would anyone use F13 for a portrait with a DSLR?

Two major disinguishing features of an MFDB compared with a 35mm format DSLR are (1) shallower DoF, (2) sharper and more detailed images due to a higher pixel count. The choice of F13 for the 5D2 has merely exaggerated these differences and demonstrated that the photographer who took these shots is either being deliberately deceptive or just doesn't know what he's doing. He should have used F7.1.

There's another difference in the lighting which might explain why the 5D2 print has more pop. Both images were shot using the same shutter speed of 1/60th, yet the ISO chosen for the H3D was ISO 50 and for the 5D2 ISO 200. The difference between F11 and F13 is only 1/3rd of a stop. The highlights on the model's face are much brighter in the 5D2 shot.

This comparison is seriously flawed.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Professional on September 26, 2009, 06:57:05 pm
Quote from: Ray
Erik,
I presume you made an A2 print. At this size one would expect any print from a 50mp image to be noticeably sharper than one from a 21mp image, but again, the extra detail will have been exaggerated in this case due to an inappropriate F stop used for the 5D2 shot. Even with the 12mp 5D1, which has wider pixel spacing than either the H3D or 5D2, I would use F5.6 for a portrait if I wanted to capture sharp eyelashes. Why would anyone use F13 for a portrait with a DSLR?

Two major disinguishing features of an MFDB compared with a 35mm format DSLR are (1) shallower DoF, (2) sharper and more detailed images due to a higher pixel count. The choice of F13 for the 5D2 has merely exaggerated these differences and demonstrated that the photographer who took these shots is either being deliberately deceptive or just doesn't know what he's doing. He should have used F7.1.

There's another difference in the lighting which might explain why the 5D2 print has more pop. Both images were shot using the same shutter speed of 1/60th, yet the ISO chosen for the H3D was ISO 50 and for the 5D2 ISO 200. The difference between F11 and F13 is only 1/3rd of a stop. The highlights on the model's face are much brighter in the 5D2 shot.

This comparison is seriously flawed.

Let's say we choose f5.6-f8, 1/125, ISO100 for both Hasselblad or any MFDB larger than 30mp and say Nikon D3X or Canon 5D2 or 1Ds3 and then print the results from both systems to A2 size or say A1, will be there a difference? which will be a winner?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 26, 2009, 07:23:32 pm
Quote from: Professional
Let's say we choose f5.6-f8, 1/125, ISO100 for both Hasselblad or any MFDB larger than 30mp and say Nikon D3X or Canon 5D2 or 1Ds3 and then print the results from both systems to A2 size or say A1, will be there a difference? which will be a winner?

Yes. The MFDB image/print will have a shallower DoF and will be more detailed at a sufficiently large print size. My point is, it's being deceptive to exaggerate such differences.

There are certain 35mm format primes that are sharpest at F4 and still very sharp at F2.8. If one uses F5.6 to F8 with the MFDB, one should use F3.5 to F5 with the full frame 35mm. The MFDB image should still be more detailed but at least the over all appearance of the shot will be very similar as a result of equal DoF and will therefore be more suitable for comparison purposes.

When comparing qualities in images, it's always sensible to remove as far as possible unwanted distractions such as differences in DoF, instead of exaggerating them. If one were to use the MF lens at F2.8 because the shallowest of DoFs was required for esthetic reasons, and the equivalent 35mm lens had a maximum aperture of only F2.8, then clearly there's a legitimate point to be made that the MFDB has a DoF advantage in such circumstances with such choice of lenses. However, I think it's probably generally the case that 35mm lenses tend to have wider maximum apertures than MF lenses. I don't believe there's any MF lens for portraiture which is as fast as the Canon EF 85/F1.2.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Professional on September 26, 2009, 07:28:51 pm
Quote from: Ray
Yes. The MFDB image/print will have a shallower DoF and will be more detailed at a sufficiently large print size. My point is, it's being deceptive to exaggerate such differences.

There are certain 35mm format primes that are sharpest at F4 and still very sharp at F2.8. If one uses F5.6 to F8 with the MFDB, one should use F3.5 to F5 with the full frame 35mm. The MFDB image should still be more detailed but at least the over all appearance of the shot will be very similar as a result of equal DoF and will therefore be more suitable for comparison purposes.

When comparing qualities in images, it's always sensible to remove as far as possible unwanted distractions such as differences in DoF, instead of exaggerating them. If one were to use the MF lens at F2.8 because the shallowest of DoFs was required for esthetic reasons, and the equivalent 35mm lens had a maximum aperture of only F2.8, then clearly there's a legitimate point to be made that the MFDB has a DoF advantage in such circumstances with such choice of lenses. However, I think it's probably generally the case that 35mm lenses tend to have wider maximum apertures than MF lenses. I don't believe there's any MF lens for portraiture which is as fast as the Canon EF 85/F1.2.

Canon EF 85mm f1.2 is not a fast lens, but it is one widest aperture lens alongside with 50mm 1.2 [there was 50 1.0], but let's say you are shooting landscapes at almost f11 up to f22, both systems, ignore portraits, now which one will be better on print up to A0 this time or 40" wide?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 26, 2009, 09:30:37 pm
Hi,

My comparison was in A2 size. To put it simple:

When viewed at 25 cm the MFDB was the winner
When viewed at 80 cm the DSLR was the winner

Ray is right about this beeing a flawed comparison, but it's one of the few we have.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Professional
Let's say we choose f5.6-f8, 1/125, ISO100 for both Hasselblad or any MFDB larger than 30mp and say Nikon D3X or Canon 5D2 or 1Ds3 and then print the results from both systems to A2 size or say A1, will be there a difference? which will be a winner?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 26, 2009, 09:38:46 pm
Hi,

I'm pretty sure that MFDB wins at 40" wide. If you shot f/22 on MFDB and f/8 on the DSLR it may be possible that the DSLR will win.

My article below discusses 60x90 cm prints, based on studio shots of flat target. Seems MFDB (2006 model) wins independent of viewing distance.

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...SomeExperiments (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need#SomeExperiments)

Erik



Quote from: Professional
Canon EF 85mm f1.2 is not a fast lens, but it is one widest aperture lens alongside with 50mm 1.2 [there was 50 1.0], but let's say you are shooting landscapes at almost f11 up to f22, both systems, ignore portraits, now which one will be better on print up to A0 this time or 40" wide?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 26, 2009, 10:01:41 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

My comparison was in A2 size. To put it simple:

When viewed at 25 cm the MFDB was the winner
When viewed at 80 cm the DSLR was the winner

Ray is right about this being a flawed comparison, but it's one of the few we have.

The major difference I see in the A2 print at close range is that skin structure is more crisp. At longer distance the skin structure is less visible. The DSLR was probably at some disadvantage because of being stopped down beyond optimal aperture.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 26, 2009, 10:18:25 pm
Hi,

It seems that image quality of the Canon 5DII and the 1DsIII is quite similar and I would suggest that the Nikon 3DX is also similar. If you feel that the MFDB images are crisper on screen at actual pixels that's just fine. An explanation may be that the MFDB doesn't have AA-filter, but also that the pixel pitch of your MFDB makes lesser demands on the lens than your DSLR.

What I have seen is that we can have large differences in image files but much smaller ones in actual print. One reason is that the back end of the process may rescale the image and sharpen for output. This process reduce differences.

In larger formats MFDB always wins, at least with optimal parameters.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Professional
Maybe my post is worthless or meaningful for many of you, but i look at Canon/Nikon DSLR shots at 100% on computer and also my Hasselblad H3DII-39 and i got blown away easily with my H3D and not with any of Canon/Nikon, i don't have Nikon D3X [just downloaded samples from the net] or 5D mkII, but i have 1Ds3 and 1Ds2 and 5D classic, and none of them wowing me against my H3DII, even i did a simple test [not sure if i said that here before] with my H3DII against my 1DsIII, the H3DII was the winner in term of sharpness, color, and contrast, so i dunno if i print how come that those 35mm DSLR can be amazing and maybe same as MFDB when in real tests the MFDB are the winner in most cases? I cropped many shots from Canon and Hasselblad, the hasselblad crops were the winners always over the Canon crops no doubt whatever i do, i know that may not get you any help or interested, but from what i see i love MF very much and i will always use it for what i can shoot with them and print at any size, i have also Epson 3800 and i print A2 [17x22/17x25] and planning to go larger [44" printer], so i think i should make whistles for how good those new current and upcoming 35mm DSLR, then tell me honestly what is the benefit and worth to get those MFDB if you prints large say up to 40" and all can be great good enough, what will make those MFDB an advantage over DSLRs then? and why they are so expensive in this case? i really couldn't get any honest truth answers anywhere because many trying to make those DSLRs as good as MFDB even in prints, and even some saying that DSLRs quality is better than MFDB like what they are doing with Nikon D3X against Hasselblad/Phase One DBs.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Professional on September 27, 2009, 03:58:10 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I'm pretty sure that MFDB wins at 40" wide. If you shot f/22 on MFDB and f/8 on the DSLR it may be possible that the DSLR will win.

My article below discusses 60x90 cm prints, based on studio shots of flat target. Seems MFDB (2006 model) wins independent of viewing distance.

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...SomeExperiments (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need#SomeExperiments)

Erik


Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

It seems that image quality of the Canon 5DII and the 1DsIII is quite similar and I would suggest that the Nikon 3DX is also similar. If you feel that the MFDB images are crisper on screen at actual pixels that's just fine. An explanation may be that the MFDB doesn't have AA-filter, but also that the pixel pitch of your MFDB makes lesser demands on the lens than your DSLR.

What I have seen is that we can have large differences in image files but much smaller ones in actual print. One reason is that the back end of the process may rescale the image and sharpen for output. This process reduce differences.

In larger formats MFDB always wins, at least with optimal parameters.

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

Thank you very much!
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 27, 2009, 05:51:26 am
Hi

I actually tried to print the P45 image at f/22 from the LL shootout with the same settings and crop I used before. It is definitively less sharp than the f/8 version and it's pretty close to my Sony Alpha 900 image. I'd rate them

1) P45 f/8
2) P45 f/22
3) Sony Alpha 900 f/8

2) and 3) is pretty close.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I'm pretty sure that MFDB wins at 40" wide. If you shot f/22 on MFDB and f/8 on the DSLR it may be possible that the DSLR will win.

My article below discusses 60x90 cm prints, based on studio shots of flat target. Seems MFDB (2006 model) wins independent of viewing distance.

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...SomeExperiments (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need#SomeExperiments)

Erik
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 27, 2009, 07:46:29 am
Quote from: Professional
Canon EF 85mm f1.2 is not a fast lens, but it is one widest aperture lens alongside with 50mm 1.2........

What are you talking about? Fast means wide aperture because you can use a fast shutter speed. Did you think it meant fast autofocussing?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Professional on September 27, 2009, 09:01:09 am
Quote from: Ray
What are you talking about? Fast means wide aperture because you can use a fast shutter speed. Did you think it meant fast autofocussing?

Thank you very much, now you explained it better, but saying fast in general can't explain much, i am a noob and don't understand quickly.  
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 27, 2009, 09:12:44 am
Dear "Professional",

The term "FAST" lens is commonly understood by photographers as describing a lens allowing for large/wide maximal aperture, respectively opening of the diaphragm. The larger the maximal opening the faster the lens in terms of exposure time in relation to the maximal aperture, which are always interdependent factors.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: Professional
Thank you very much, now you explained it better, but saying fast in general can't explain much, i am a noob and don't understand quickly.  
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 27, 2009, 11:46:20 am
Quote
It seems that image quality of the Canon 5DII and the 1DsIII is quite similar and I would suggest that the Nikon 3DX is also similar.
I think a fair number of people might disagree with that suggestion, especially if the topic is dynamic range.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher on September 27, 2009, 03:31:06 pm
Quote from: JeffKohn
I think a fair number of people might disagree with that suggestion, especially if the topic is dynamic range.

The same fair amount of people who, as far as I know, have never shown any REAL raw prove for that, just rambling on with DOx numbers. (Could be that I missed it)
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 27, 2009, 04:43:51 pm
Quote from: Christopher
The same fair amount of people who, as far as I know, have never shown any REAL raw prove for that, just rambling on with DOx numbers. (Could be that I missed it)
I take the DxO results for what they are, so I'm not sure what exactly you want me to prove. I'm pretty sure the guys at DxO know more about camera measurement  and dynamic range than myself or most others participating in this thread. Just because somebody doesn't like what the DxO results say doesn't mean they can be dismissed as irrelevant. Can you explain why you feel the DxO tests are wrong? Do you know of credible tests showing that the 5DII has as much or more dynamic range as the D3x at low ISO?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 27, 2009, 04:54:04 pm
Jeff, it's about blind trust. I regard someones practical experience higher than numbers, even if this numbers come from a undoubtely very qualified team. In what position do I put me if I trust someone blindly? Even if the one I trust is RIGHT, it puts me in a very uncomfortable position. I do not KNOW anylonger from my own experience, so that degrades me. And if we trust in this discussion blindly in dx0 numbers, then that degrades the discussion.

My opinion.

Christian

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 27, 2009, 04:58:36 pm
Quote from: Christian Miersch
Jeff, it's about blind trust. I regard someones practical experience higher than numbers, even if this numbers come from a undoubtely very qualified team. In what position do I put me if I trust someone blindly? Even if the one I trust is RIGHT, it puts me in a very uncomfortable position. I do not KNOW anylonger from my own experience, so that degrades me. And if we trust in this discussion blindly in dx0 numbers, then that degrades the discussion.
It's not about 'blind' trust. But you do have to decide who has credibility and who does not. You can't test everything for yourself; even if you think you have the knowledge and expertise (doubtful), who has the time? The DxO guys have more credibility in camera testing than random folks on the web who happen to not like what the DxO tests say about their brand of choice. So I think the burden of proof is on the folks who want to discount the DxO tests, not the other way around. Besides, it's not like DxO are the only ones to report that the D3x has very dynamic range.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 27, 2009, 05:12:12 pm
Of course there is the question what DR means to us? It's defined as "well capacity" / "read noise" both measured in electron charges. Is it something we see in print? Well, maybe...

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: JeffKohn
It's not about 'blind' trust. But you do have to decide who has credibility and who does not. You can't test everything for yourself; even if you think you have the knowledge and expertise (doubtful), who has the time? The DxO guys have more credibility in camera testing than random folks on the web who happen to not like what the DxO tests say about their brand of choice. So I think the burden of proof is on the folks who want to discount the DxO tests, not the other way around. Besides, it's not like DxO are the only ones to report that the D3x has very dynamic range.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Professional on September 27, 2009, 05:49:42 pm
Quote from: ThierryH
Dear "Professional",

The term "FAST" lens is commonly understood by photographers as describing a lens allowing for large/wide maximal aperture, respectively opening of the diaphragm. The larger the maximal opening the faster the lens in terms of exposure time in relation to the maximal aperture, which are always interdependent factors.

Best regards,
Thierry

Thank you very much!

Just i am not a photographer, let's say i am a camera shooter maybe, a hobbyist or whatever but not an true real photographer so simple as that, so for that reason i can understand fast in term of focus or in term of aperture or something else, but i always make it as in term of focus before i make it as a term of aperture value, so apologize my ignorant.

Best Regards,
Tareq
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 27, 2009, 05:56:36 pm
Quote from: JeffKohn
It's not about 'blind' trust. But you do have to decide who has credibility and who does not. You can't test everything for yourself; even if you think you have the knowledge and expertise (doubtful), who has the time? The DxO guys have more credibility in camera testing than random folks on the web who happen to not like what the DxO tests say about their brand of choice. So I think the burden of proof is on the folks who want to discount the DxO tests, not the other way around. Besides, it's not like DxO are the only ones to report that the D3x has very dynamic range.

I dont know anything about high end cameras, but I talk about a general position, about the way I think.

And so I say: I rather trust my own thinking than someone others. I consider it, I try to incooperate it, but I don't take it blindly. And I mistrust opinions wich take it "blindly".


Cheers

Christian
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ThierryH on September 27, 2009, 06:02:53 pm
Nothing to apologize, Tarek, you are welcome.

Thierry

Quote from: Professional
Thank you very much!

... so apologize my ignorant.

Tareq
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 27, 2009, 08:03:42 pm
Quote from: Jack Flesher
Doug is right -- there is an awful lot of sanctimonious argument on this question from armchair "experts" that have NEVER even picked up an MF camera...  So buddyjanes, here is my post, now let's see yours from your DSLR that proves me so "wrong" -- or is this another one of YOUR typical meager and unsatisfactory armchair arguments?

Hello Jack,

Regarding the armchair comment, you might want to give a look at this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157622461345786/). Whether you like the pictures or nor, whether you appreciate the technical value of the images or not... I hope that you will at least acknowledge the fact that 20,000 feet vertical in one week is hard to do from an armchair...

Regarding your 1ds3 clipping issue, have you at all considered the possibility that not all DSLR might be equal?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: rethmeier on September 27, 2009, 09:07:54 pm
Having used the Canon 1DsMkIII and now the D3x,I know which has the better sensor,it is the so called overpriced D3x.
I also can't wait for Nikon to start using the new kid on the block,the new Sony  CCD SuperHAD II sensor with 34.8 MP.
No AA filter etc.

Cheers,
Willem.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 27, 2009, 10:41:26 pm
Quote from: Christian Miersch
And so I say: I rather trust my own thinking than someone others. I consider it, I try to incooperate it, but I don't take it blindly. And I mistrust opinions wich take it "blindly".
I'm sorry, but you're building a straw-man argument. I never said anything about taking anything blindly. DxO Labs has a wealth of information available about what they test, how they test it, and how to interpret the results. Start here (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Technologies), here (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Questions-Answers), or here (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights).
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 27, 2009, 10:49:53 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Of course there is the question what DR means to us? It's defined as "well capacity" / "read noise" both measured in electron charges. Is it something we see in print? Well, maybe...
I don't disagree with you. No single test can tell you everything. I said as much in one of my first posts in this thread. More recently I just took exception to Christopher's assertion that the D3x's image quality is the same as the 5D2/1Ds3, which he offered no proof of despite criticizing others who supposedly "have never shown any REAL raw prove for that..."
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 27, 2009, 10:58:38 pm
Quote from: Christian Miersch
I dont know anything about high end cameras, but I talk about a general position, about the way I think.

And so I say: I rather trust my own thinking than someone others. I consider it, I try to incooperate it, but I don't take it blindly. And I mistrust opinions wich take it "blindly".

Christian,
Whilst I agree with the principle in general that one should attempt to think for oneself as far as possible and not blindly trust the opinions of others simply because they may present themselves as being qualified in a particular area, I have to agree with Jeff that it doesn't really make much sense to mistrust the highly qualified opinions from an organisation like DXO which present the results of their rigorous, scientific testing in a clear, precise and consistent manner..... unless you have some justified suspicion that DXO have got it wrong. Since you claim to know nothing about high-end cameras, one wonders where your suspicion that DXO might be wrong comes from.

You should bear in mind that DXO do not do such testing for a bit of fun, or merely for academic interest. They are in the business of producing a very sophisticated RAW converter which not only attempts to get the very best from each proprietary RAW file, in terms of DR, SNR, tonal range etc, but also attempts to correct a variety of lens defects through add-on modules. If their testing methodology were not sound, consistent and reliable, it's difficult to imagine how the results of their testing could be useful for their product.

It seems clear to me that certain owners of very expensive MFDB equipment see red at the mere hint that a DSLR might produce at some fundamental level, at base ISO, some property of image quality which is actually superior to their DB. Such photographers might subsequently dismiss the DXOMark results as being out of touch with reality before they've taken the trouble to work out for themselves what the DXO results are actually saying.

Having referred to the DXOMark charts quite frequently since they were made available to the public, I see only one instance of a DSLR outperforming a DB in some aspect of image quality at base ISO, and that's the Nikon D3X with regard to Dynamic Range. In all other aspects of image quality, that DXOMark test (SNR, tonal range, color sensitivity), the DB has superior performance at equal image/print size, at base ISO.

At higher than base ISO, it's a different story. Even the most ardent DB fan boys would have to admit that the DSLR is either as good or better at high ISO in every parameter except perhaps resolution.

I quote from the DXO website:

"This website presents a large set of measurement data built over time in the testing laboratories at DxO Labs. Our imaging experts have developed a thorough understanding of the technologies and methods involved in measuring the parameters of digital camera image quality. Indeed, the strength of DxO Labs’ industry-leading image quality evaluation solution, DxO Analyzer, lies in its precisely-described test protocols in tandem with strict control of all physical parameters that might influence measurements.

In keeping with accepted scientific protocols, all measurements can be repeated independently under the same bias-free conditions. This ensures that DxO Labs' measurements and its DxOMark scale are objective and reliable metrics to help photographers evaluate digital camera image quality performance."
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Ray on September 27, 2009, 11:07:41 pm
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Of course there is the question what DR means to us? It's defined as "well capacity" / "read noise" both measured in electron charges. Is it something we see in print? Well, maybe...

Erik,
I thought we'd already established earlier that DR defines the range of brightness levels that the camera can record with a single exposure. Of course one doesn't 'see' that full DR if the scene being photographed has a brightness range which is less than the DR capability of the camera, just as we do not see the full resolution capability of the camera if the scene being photographed is devoid of  fine detail or texture.

What's interesting about the DXO tests comparing the D3X with the P65+ is that, at probably any print size, the D3X will record as much (or more) detail in the deepest shadows as the P65 can, but not if the deepest shadows are at a brightness level equivalent to 18% gray, which is the level DXO uses to measure SNR. The P65+ still retains a noise advantage over the D3X in the mid-tones and lower mid-tones.

Owners of DBs who have made their own comparisons with a D3X, are probably seeing these slightly higher noise levels in the mid-tones and lower mid-tones of the D3X shot (at equal image/print size) and are therefore concluding that the DXO results must be wrong. In fact, the DXO results show that at an average scene reflectance of 18% gray, the P65+ has 4dB better SNR than the D3X. That's more than a whole stop better.

The fact that the D3X can have as much as 2/3rds of a stop lower noise in the deepest shadows, which may often be clipped to black for esthetic reasons when processing the image, is probably of little concern to the user of an MFDB system in the studio, but could be of concern, for example, to a landscape photographer shooting a waterfall in a dense rainforest, who wants to retain some detail in the surrounding, dense undergrowth of the forest.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Panopeeper on September 28, 2009, 12:37:10 am
Quote from: Ray
What's interesting about the DXO tests comparing the D3X with the P65+ is that
Ray,

for the case that you want to know what is interesting in that comparison:

Quote
not if the deepest shadows are at a brightness level equivalent to 18% gray
18% grey has the intensity 18%. This is about 2.5 stops from clipping, i.e. in the middle of the third stop of the DR. Do you know a DSLR, which captures the third stop of the DR as "the deepest shadow"?

Quote
The P65+ still retains a noise advantage over the D3X in the mid-tones and lower mid-tones
From what did you infer this?

1. The noise of the D3X is shown as lower at mid-level (18%), except in print, i.e. if the P65+ image is downresed.

2. DXO indicates, that the best DR of the D3X (with ISO 75) is 0.5 EV greater than that of the P65+ (with ISO 44). This relates to the deepest shadows, where SNR=1 is.

Quote
In fact, the DXO results show that at an average scene reflectance of 18% gray, the P65+ has 4dB better SNR than the D3X. That's more than a whole stop better.
1. Again, this is the printed (downresed) version. Of course, the P65+ is better.

2. This decibel has nothing to do with stop. The noise of the D3X with ISO 100, measured on an 18% intensive patch is 1.1%, which corresponds to SNR=90.  The printed P65+ image would show SNR=226 or about 0.44% noise.

This noise level is totally irrelevant. DXO's 18% SNR is an absolutely useless measurement, it is for those, who don't know its meaning.

Quote
The fact that the D3X can have as much as 2/3rds of a stop lower noise in the deepest shadows, which may often be clipped to black for esthetic reasons when processing the image, is probably of little concern to the user of an MFDB system in the studio, but could be of concern, for example, to a landscape photographer shooting a waterfall in a dense rainforest, who wants to retain some detail in the surrounding, dense undergrowth of the forest.
1. Again, the noise is not 2/3 of a stop lower or higher or whatever. "Stop" is not the measurement of the noise.

There is one sense to qualify noise with stop: compared two not equal cameras, with the same ISO, the exposure of one must be a certain amount higher/lower than that of the other to achieve the same level of noise. This is just what DXO's DR tab shows: the same noise, namely SNR=1, will be observable with the D3X on 2/3 EV darker patches than with the P65+. Not the noise is 2/3 EV lower but the intensity can be 2/3 EV lower to get the same noise.

2. If someone cuts off the deepest shadows by black point, then one does not have any reason to talk about dynamic range.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the others: the above should not be interpreted as any position for or against any camera in the comparison. I do not advocate any measurement accept my own ones (and I don't have any usable raw images from the P65+ and not enough from the D3X).
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 28, 2009, 12:51:51 am
Ray,

I like your explanation. What I really wanted to say was that some photographers find that their MFDBs have better DR than their D3X and blame DxO. In my view the DxO measurement is based on standards and is probable correct. It could well be that the DR in the standards is something different from that MFDB owners see.

We need to do some excessive image manipulation to really utilize the DR of modern cameras, having both highlight and shadow detail with making the image flat, so a significant amount of processing is involved in making a printable image.

My impression is that MFDB owners see a difference but cannot define, many times they are more of artists than scientists, but call it DR or microcontrast. That said it seems that there are many MFDB photographers around who are both, some of them write articles on Luminous Landscape.

A related issue is that there are many photographers who like film, although it seems to be special cases where film resolves better than digital I think that it's proven beyond doubt that in the majority of cases digital outperforms film on technical grounds. Aesthetics may be different.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Ray
Erik,
I thought we'd already established earlier that DR defines the range of brightness levels that the camera can record with a single exposure. Of course one doesn't 'see' that full DR if the scene being photographed has a brightness range which is less than the DR capability of the camera, just as we do not see the full resolution capability of the camera if the scene being photographed is devoid of  fine detail or texture.

What's interesting about the DXO tests comparing the D3X with the P65+ is that, at probably any print size, the D3X will record as much (or more) detail in the deepest shadows as the P65 can, but not if the deepest shadows are at a brightness level equivalent to 18% gray, which is the level DXO uses to measure SNR. The P65+ still retains a noise advantage over the D3X in the mid-tones and lower mid-tones.

Owners of DBs who have made their own comparisons with a D3X, are probably seeing these slightly higher noise levels in the mid-tones and lower mid-tones of the D3X shot (at equal image/print size) and are therefore concluding that the DXO results must be wrong. In fact, the DXO results show that at an average scene reflectance of 18% gray, the P65+ has 4dB better SNR than the D3X. That's more than a whole stop better.

The fact that the D3X can have as much as 2/3rds of a stop lower noise in the deepest shadows, which may often be clipped to black for esthetic reasons when processing the image, is probably of little concern to the user of an MFDB system in the studio, but could be of concern, for example, to a landscape photographer shooting a waterfall in a dense rainforest, who wants to retain some detail in the surrounding, dense undergrowth of the forest.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 28, 2009, 07:31:03 am
Quote from: JeffKohn
I'm sorry, but you're building a straw-man argument. I never said anything about taking anything blindly. DxO Labs has a wealth of information available about what they test, how they test it, and how to interpret the results. Start here (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Technologies), here (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Questions-Answers), or here (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights).


Jeff, I can completely understand your position. Let me just say you are misunderstanding me. I have to make an important distinction: For your situation in judging cameras it is completely valid to trust on dx0, and you have all reason to do that, and for judging DSLRs (wich I wanna maybe buy, etc) I do exactly the same and use dxo. But this trust is no longer useful in a discussion which is about the actual FINDINGS of dx0! And correct me, but exactly the dx0 results are implicitely in question, because would we all trust in dx0 results, we would not need to make a discussion, it would be clear from the start! Right?

And since you cannot expect real working photographers to obey to the lab standarts of dx0, the relevant method here is own experience with two systems. No, I do not expect you to have this experience, but it does just mean, you, and also me, cannot take part in a meaningful discussion. Thats all.

Basically, every argument wich does rely on knowledge instead of trust and stand completely on own feets is valid.

Practical, result centered comparisations of any two cameras in production scenarios are valid.

If Gabor would argue why his experiences in checking out raw files are relevant in comparing real world scenarios with different cameras, if he would explain his method and how he arrive at conclusions, then fine, that is also valid. It just has to be relevant for real production.

But just citing dx0 with nothing but trust is not valid for a serious discussion. On the other hand, citing dxo along with explanations of WHY it is valid (other than trust) are ok again.

Maybe thats more clear.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 28, 2009, 07:54:07 am
Quote from: Christian Miersch
Maybe thats more clear.

Not at all.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 28, 2009, 08:04:10 am
- Trusting in dxo is fine as long as everybody agrees in its results.

- Trust into dx0 isn't relevant to a discussion questioning the very results of this benchmark. That is the case here. Only arguments count.

- Dx0 lab results are only partial relevant for real images because they do not resemble real production.

- Only real self contained, self understood arguments count, or practical experience, nothing else.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 28, 2009, 08:05:58 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Not at all.


Pure opinion will not do.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 28, 2009, 10:06:34 am
Oh! I oversaw your answer Ray.


>>Since you claim to know nothing about high-end cameras, one wonders where your suspicion that DXO might be wrong comes from.

Good question, thanks for that! Some issues I think I have partially answered with my last posts.

Regarding mistrust of dx0 data. I am sceptic of the data because from the first day dx0 lab published the mfdbs there was a gap between results and perception from the mfdb shooters. I come from the 3d world and what we did there was no lab tests, we speak just from practical experience and we only listened to technical explanations wich where able to break down complex issues down to a simple, practical level. So, I generally regard practical experience much much more than pure numbers and therefore Im by default much more willing to listen to the practical guys. However, and that makes me really wonder, and partly sad, I have not seen these kind of really qualified technical explanations or even good comparisations here. There where example images in the threads, but no mfdb shooter so far made their points really plausible. So the lack of practical demonstration from the mfdb side could mean there is indeed not much of a difference to demonstrate. Also the lenght of the discussion is sucpicious: If the difference was huge, the discussion likely would be over already. But these two points do say nothing about the real facts, they are secondary guesses.

What I'm criticising is not the validity of the dx0 data. I make no statement regarding validity of the data. But, I take nothing for granted. In what position would I put myself? If I wanted to make sense of that dx0 data, I would grab a p65 a d3x go on, shoot for two months, and compare my findings to dx0, and ask of differences if there where any. Then I would be in the position to use the dx0 data of these two cameras in my discussions. I would be able to back my own findings with the findings of the dx0 engineers. I have other things to do, but thats the way I would do it.

If there is only little difference regarding IQ, you cannot expect that mfdb shooters will acknowledge this because of the way the discussion is held. If I where a mfdb guy looking at THIS discussion, I would not want to make such comparisation only to be shouted down with an almost gloating attitude. So if the dslr crowd really wants to make a strong point wich appeals to the practical thinging photogs here, they would need to make it with practical explanations and not with numbers from 3rd party. And many would need to accept that they since they don't have access to mfdb gear simply can't make a statement regarding the issue. We simplay have a thread filled with assumtions and little own experience, little knowledge. The Raw analysis examples Gabor provided might also be ok, but until now he left out (or is incapable to do) really convincing interpretations. I don't take some pictures along with some short sentences serious. Gabor might be perfectly valid but then he is just bad at explaining himself. (Nothing against Gabor or other people here, I'm sure you are all fine guys!) Also you have to consider the practical workflow of photographers. Sure comparisations of different raw files must be done with same workflow to be able to compare, but when in real world the different workflows differ. You just have to compare these differing results in order to be able to make a relevant statement for working pros. No photog in the traditional sense will be convinced by lab tests. But He will be conviced with real world results. So this discussion needs to focus much much more on practical results and practical experience in order to become meaningful. Lab results and raw analysis are fine too, but it just has to relate to real world working experience and support practical findings. The practical findings are the ultimate benchmark. And I wrote this before: Every argument is fine as long as it is self contained and properly self understood. Im not questioning dx0, Im questioning the whole way the discussion is held.

But this was all way too long. I think my conclusion in my last post before this is much better.

In science (and also in my commonsense), one does not blindly believe a new claim or new paper. Other people have to support new findings from own experience no matter how credible the researchers are in order to establish new insights. The same should go here!

Christian
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 28, 2009, 10:41:23 am
Quote from: Christian Miersch
...
How old are you?
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: cmi on September 28, 2009, 12:02:10 pm
To make it short: I think you don't have any real arguments against what I just said and are now trying to suggest that Im some kind of child or idiot. Think what you want. If you have any OT questions, ask via PM. I wont respond to this kind of personal bickering anymore.

And because I feel that was incomplete: I have just stated my opinion with my last posts. Maybe they are incorrect, maybe Im completely wrong. No problem, I enjoy learning, just point out the things that are wrong. But starting such silly rants tells in my opinion more about you than about me.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 28, 2009, 12:18:48 pm
Quote
Regarding mistrust of dx0 data. I am sceptic of the data because from the first day dx0 lab published the mfdbs there was a gap between results and perception from the mfdb shooters.
Actually the results weren't so surprising when one took the time to actually understand them. But people looked at the overall sensor-mark score and screamed foul. The reason the overall scores were low, is because a substantial weighting is given to high-ISO performance, and MFDB backs suck at high-ISO. But if you looked at the individual test data, when it came to things like color depth, SNR and DR at low ISO, the MFDB's were back on top. The D3x is the first DSLR to come close to the MFDB's in these tests at low ISO.

Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: BlasR on September 28, 2009, 12:24:09 pm
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
How old are you?


If you really, really want to know, he is 63, but he look like 78.

Now the you know

I hope photography continue on

BlasR
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: douglasf13 on September 28, 2009, 12:42:50 pm
I think Gabor's post points to the real issue of DxO Mark's measurements.  Surely DxO's measurements are well done, but the issue is in how people interpret/misinterpret their measurements.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on September 28, 2009, 12:50:59 pm
Quote from: Christian Miersch
are now trying to suggest that Im some kind of child

So you are 20.  Ok.  Cool.

Got it.
Title: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on September 28, 2009, 02:38:01 pm
At 21 pages of people's time and knowledge given for the benefit of all, you should be ashamed to have let this devolve to childishness. Topic Closed