Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: CBarrett on November 17, 2009, 09:13:59 am
-
I did this little test for two reasons:
Shooting on the Arca with the Rodenstock HR 70mm, P65+ vs D3 body. The P65+ is smoother tonally with greater range (as I would expect) and feels sharper. Everything shot to and processed through C1 Pro 5 with base settings. This is purely a sensor test and for most, the issue of LF Glass vs T/S lenses needs to play into the equation as well. The results are the same as always... if you can justify the extra $35k and this is the way you want to work, cool. If not, you'll do pretty good with the alternative.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/sensortest/p65.jpg) P65+ Full Frame
(http://christopherbarrett.net/sensortest/d3.jpg) D3 Full Frame
(http://christopherbarrett.net/sensortest/p65crop.jpg) P65+ 100% Crop
(http://christopherbarrett.net/sensortest/d3crop.jpg) D3 100% Crop
/word.
-
Nice test Chris! I can't see 35,000.00 worth of improved quality in the P65 file, can you? The Nikon, to me, looks a little crisper actually. Jim
-
If not, you'll do pretty good with the alternative.
Christopher:
I did a similar test, comparing my P30+ to my 1Ds3 and came to the exact conclusion: a tiny bit of difference, but nothing that would ever show in CMYK, and nothing that couldn't be corrected for, in a tiny contrast adjustment and USM in DPP. I purposely don't want to do this test with my P45+ and my 5D2, because I want to keep my Hasselblad. I just don't want to see the true reality.
I will say this: these cameras do look more similar at f8 or f13, where you're carrying focus deeper into the frame; but the differences are greater when shooting wide open. Not much difference, but a bit more difference.
And not to mention that, with 35, you have excellent T/S lenses to throw focus even moreso. And the ability to shoot in Available Darkness, and without a tripod.
Surprises me that more and more Dealers don't do these side by side tests, either between MF brands, or between MF vs 35, or maybe, it's better not to show the truth?
I'd love to see this side-by-side test, done with a 5D2 and an S2, where the Cost Factor is, literally, 10-to-1.
Again, I feel it's worth noting: when comparing MF to 35, the Resolution Game is over, unless you're splitting hairs, and if you're splitting hairs, you've already bought a P65+ and you're not interested in testing anything. The BIG DEAL between the two formats is how the lenses render focus and render "space". You've got to own it and test it to know what I mean. I know everyone rolls their eyes at that "3D Effect", but it truly does show up, especially shooting wide open. The rendering thing, is the reason you'd keep the MF, not resolution. I simply find that, with 35, the overall feeling is more squashed, or more flat, even with the 85 1.2, wide open. I'm not an Optician or a Scientist, but I know it when I see it.
I also think, finally, that Rob Haggart touches on something that's here in this equation: Perception. Read this article and tell me that the words "Leica" or "P65+" or "PODAS" or "Red Dot" don't flash to the forefront of your mind. The brain is a powerful thing: If you shoot a sunset with a $35k digital back, you just think, on some level, it's just GOT to be better than the same sunset, shot with a 5D2.
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/11/17/per...-is-everything/ (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/11/17/perception-is-everything/)
-
Thanks for posting.
D3 surprisingly good.
Says a lot about that sensor and also the excellent lens.
-
A lot more dynamic range as expected with the P65.
I agree that I do not think the money difference is worth it... If you want MF you can pick up some great deals on used backs right now.
I shoot MF becasue I like the RZ P30 combo. plus the files hold up to a lot more abuse if needed..
Nice test, but it was expected. I think with the P65 you getting more room to crop etc.. but not "better" quality than a lot of other older backs.
Plus the D3 would blow away any back in the high ISO department...
Snook
-
Thanks for posting.
D3 surprisingly good.
Says a lot about that sensor and also the excellent lens.
Well I am not surprised at all. The main difference or benefit you get, is more resolution, which is only important for larger prints. Perhaps some smaller DR and color advantages, but these are certainly not worth the price.
However there are still more than enough people out there, who will tell you forever that their H50, P45 or 65, Sinar, leaf, DMR, m9 or whatever is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much superior to what a Canon or Nikon can do. ;-)
-
The D3 image is a bit brighter, which might explain the greater tendency to burn out the white curtains. Not saying it will though.
-
Yeah the P65+, even with Sensor+ can't touch the D3's high ISO stuff. The extra sensor real estate, though, is a big deal to me for shooting architecture wide and the flexibility of the files, I push mine pretty hard and need all the tonal width I can get. All that and the desire to make big a** prints of my personal work will keep me from parting with the P65+.
-c
-
One thing you can do with an MF file as opposed to a 5DII file is run it through much more aggressive curves and other adjustments without the image falling apart.
-
I'm no test expert, but for me this test doesn't say it all. First, both cameras should be showing the same captured space, the Nikon is closer, making objects larger. Second, the smaller file should be interpolated to the size of the bigger file. Then compare.
My 2 centavos
Eduardo
-
I realize that any response to this question will be theoretical but the comparison (thank you Chris) between the Top Nikon DSLR and the P65+ back has got me thinking -
How would a P45+ back stack up to a DSLR using the latest technology and a full frame (24X36) sensor with about 32MP (the rumored 1Ds Mk IV)?
I'd like to make detailed prints, I realize that the maximum size can't really be known without the files being available to work with, but in this economy I need to consider the cost of my next move.
I should probably say that I'm new to this big time digital after years using film.
Thanks,
John
-
I really would like to have the point of all these tests comparisons between cameras, cameras are there, some can go with expensive and some even can't afford the cheap, i am sure in the future there will be tests between 100mp MF and 60mp Canon/Nikon cameras, and at the end some people will keep saying it is not a big difference there and not worthy that extra doubles prices of MFDB over digital 35mm/APCs, and sure there are people going with 80 and 100mp MFDB, so i really don't know the end of this war.
I have H3DII-39, but i feel i am not happy with all my cameras if people have doubles of MPs of our 35mm and MF and we have old camera or less resolution than they have, we can't afford it but we really REALLY want to print so large, what is the reason for people to go with 40+ up to 60 or more then? too bad we can't afford high top resolution cameras at least to do tests and to do prints.
-
I realize that any response to this question will be theoretical but the comparison (thank you Chris) between the Top Nikon DSLR and the P65+ back has got me thinking -
How would a P45+ back stack up to a DSLR using the latest technology and a full frame (24X36) sensor with about 32MP (the rumored 1Ds Mk IV)?
I'd like to make detailed prints, I realize that the maximum size can't really be known without the files being available to work with, but in this economy I need to consider the cost of my next move.
I should probably say that I'm new to this big time digital after years using film.
Thanks,
John
Perhaps you should rent/buy/borrow/steal a 1Ds II and a 16 megapixel digital back (e.g. P20) or a 1Ds III and a P25+ to see the differences in platforms beyond the "megapixel" number that is used most frequently as an inappropriate proxy for "quality".
Do I know how the 1DsIV will perform? Heck no. All I know is for four generations you have heard "the next Canon will end medium format" and yet here we are with P40+/P65+ selling extremely well.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, 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/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
-
So the next test should be putting the P65+ and D3 files through the same aggressive curves, then print them in a magazine or other CMYK work.
I'm with you here. That the mfdb files hold up better to aggressive post work was most likely true without exception before the D3x/1ds3. Is it really still true?
-
I'm no test expert, but for me this test doesn't say it all. First, both cameras should be showing the same captured space, the Nikon is closer, making objects larger. Second, the smaller file should be interpolated to the size of the bigger file. Then compare.
My 2 centavos
Eduardo
Thought the same thing. The test is meaningless in terms of resolution, since the scene doesn't really lend itself for that purpose and the image was captured in a way so the detail was recorded at a very close pixel ratio ... the 50% crop delivers the same field of view. I would assume the comment "sensor test" by the OP also implies resolution wasn't a factor and those reading this into the test shouldn't. The difference in resolving power of a 60mp back vs a dSLR is substantial and visible. Just try taking a group shot of 30 or 40 people with each and print out a 30x40.
As far as other qualities, pointless trying to draw any conclusions at all from a 8bit jpeg image in a web browser.
This appears to be a test simply about the ability to handle extreme dynamic range. If it is about dynamic range, I think perhaps those not using MF misunderstand what the files can really deliver. It isn't just about the extremes. it's also about the tonalities the back can capture through the entire images tonal range. This is something you just cannot demonstrate with 8bit jpegs and can't even see on a computer monitor. Before drawing any conclusions, you might want to go shoot with one for a while, testing the limits of the camera and and print some nice large prints using a current inkjet printer. You might just discover what many others have ... there is a difference.
Whether the additional price is justified, that is a question that applies only to oneself. Just because you can't justify it financially or because you just don't need it for what you do doesn't mean everyone else is like you. There are some who cannot get the quality they want out of a dSLR and in fact many MF shooters frequently stitch because single captures still aren't delivering the quality they want for the size they want to print.
-
You might have missed that both cameras are shooting through the same lens, from the same place. The D3 is only showing a "crop" of the P65 sensor area.
Thanks Alan. The point was not to really compare the same shot produced different ways, but to remove all variables except the sensors themselves. The point may be moot when you consider that I am giving the Nikon an advantage of the Rodenstock HR that it's not going to be married to in everyone else's dslr kits.
I'm curious too, I'll try to pull detail into the curtains and see how the files respond. How far you can push the raw is a big deal to me, since I often shoot with people which you can't bracket, I'll take one raw, process +1.5, 0, -1.5 and then HDR it (which provides greater range than CO HDR sliders).
-C
-
Thanks for posting these images - it takes a lot of courage to do this now as shortly the 35mm HDR armchair hypothetical stitch piranhas will swarm in to geek everything up.
There are regions in the image where the P65+ seems to have a noticeable advantage in dynamic range and tonality (and obviously resolution) and I think that will come through in even small prints as a more life like feel. At least I might notice it. That said the D3 is not too shabby! Wonderful times to have these choices available.
-
Thought the same thing. The test is meaningless in terms of resolution, since the scene doesn't really lend itself for that purpose and the image was captured in a way so the detail was recorded at a very close pixel ratio ... the 50% crop delivers the same field of view. I would assume the comment "sensor test" by the OP also implies resolution wasn't a factor and those reading this into the test shouldn't. The difference in resolving power of a 60mp back vs a dSLR is substantial and visible. Just try taking a group shot of 30 or 40 people with each and print out a 30x40.
As far as other qualities, pointless trying to draw any conclusions at all from a 8bit jpeg image in a web browser.
This appears to be a test simply about the ability to handle extreme dynamic range. If it is about dynamic range, I think perhaps those not using MF misunderstand what the files can really deliver. It isn't just about the extremes. it's also about the tonalities the back can capture through the entire images tonal range. This is something you just cannot demonstrate with 8bit jpegs and can't even see on a computer monitor. Before drawing any conclusions, you might want to go shoot with one for a while, testing the limits of the camera and and print some nice large prints using a current inkjet printer. You might just discover what many others have ... there is a difference.
Whether the additional price is justified, that is a question that applies only to oneself. Just because you can't justify it financially or because you just don't need it for what you do doesn't mean everyone else is like you. There are some who cannot get the quality they want out of a dSLR and in fact many MF shooters frequently stitch because single captures still aren't delivering the quality they want for the size they want to print.
When to make a LFDB? In fact i am also not that guy who check all factors in one shot like tonality, DR, color rendition,..... i just look at many photos at 100% on different monitor [i have 30" monitor calibrated], also i print some print at 17x22, when i want to see larger prints easily i go to the lab to print something between 24x36 and 40x60 [even billboard if necessary], here i can see the real comparison, those tests don't give me anything i really want or worthy to read or see, but at the end as you said, if i want something bigger for prints than i should go with larger sensors which you said even they are not sufficient sometimes as well, so what to do if we can't afford cameras that cost about $50k up to $100k for a certain job?
-
This test makes no sense to me at all. The image areas are completely different. It's like comparing a telephoto to a wide angle. The balls of yarn are from two entirely different proportions of the image area. What is the point of this?
-
This test makes no sense to me at all. The image areas are completely different. It's like comparing a telephoto to a wide angle. The balls of yarn are from two entirely different proportions of the image area. What is the point of this?
Maybe this will clarify it a bit. The subject to lens relationship is unaltered between the two shots. The Nikon is mounted on the back of the Arca (just like the P65+) shooting through the same lens at the same position at the same aperture. It's sort of like shooting something on 4x5 film, then putting a roll film back on and shooting another film. Nothing changes but the film.. or in this case the sensor. It's a pixel to pixel comparison of how the two sensors handle detail, tonality and color with all variables removed.
I admit a more real world test would be trying to recreate the shot using the dslr with a T/S lens, but that's something else altogether... and it's been done before and I doubt the D3 would perform as well.
-
IMHO, this kind of comparison is totally useless. The angle of view, focusing distance, JPEG compression, judging IQ on a 8-bit LCD monitor and other factors have filtered out all of the advantages of MFDB (actually even some of Nikon D3). My 6MP Nikon D40 can do better than my Sinar 75LV on my screen, and I have files to prove it. But that's up to how I manipulated those files.
-
Also a D3x would have been better as well.
Same pixel size as the P65+(I think)
-
Of course we only see a small portion of the real data but some things are still interesting:
- the D3 has theoretically twice as large photosites but doesn't seem to offer additional highlight-range (quite the opposite)
- the Rodenstock has to "work harder" to deliver the same "pixel-performance" because the tighter pixel-pitch results in lower contrast for nyqist but still offers similar final pixel-sharpness (AA-filter?).
The D3x might have been an even more interesting comparison partner due to the similar pixel-pitch, also some playing with additional post-processing (recovering detail, over/underexposure etc.) would be cool.
But thanks for this comparison anyway and by the way: nice lounge chair
-
Thanks for posting these images - it takes a lot of courage to do this now as shortly the 35mm HDR armchair hypothetical stitch piranhas will swarm in to geek everything up.
There are regions in the image where the P65+ seems to have a noticeable advantage in dynamic range and tonality (and obviously resolution) and I think that will come through in even small prints as a more life like feel. At least I might notice it. That said the D3 is not too shabby! Wonderful times to have these choices available.
It would be interesting if you would expose a bit more for the curtains, and then pull up the shadows. I would guess that the P65+ might start to pull ahead visibly then. Still, $35k difference is a lot of dough.
Do you have any experience of the A900 vs. the D3? The A900 at low ISOs is meant to have really good colours and detail.
-
Thanks for posting this Christopher.
Love the decor of that place... and I've got to say that P65 image really does look amazing.
Stunning quality.
There is no question about it, if I were going to spend 30 or 40 minutes working on creating an image - that's the camera system I'd want to be using, to record it in the end.
Cheers,
Ashley
Thanks, it's actually my living room. The lounge chair was a gift from HB for orchestrating the conversion from film to digital shooting.
And again, perhaps I wasn't clear enough... the angle of view, focusing distance and all optical factors are identical between the two shots.
When I was considering purchasing the P65+, I setup a shot with the P45+, then I removed the back from my camera and replaced it with a demo P65+ and shot again. This comparison is no different. The D3, in essence, becomes a digital back attached to the Arca.
Nikon and Canon are always going to be nipping at the heels of the high end game and they're not too far behind. This, however, in no way diminishes my satisfaction in purchasing a $45k system. I want to start with the best files achievable and I'm willing to pay exponentially more to do it. The stuff has almost paid for itself anyway.
-
Thank you Alan, I indeed missed that. If the purpose of the test was to show resolution of pixel/area that's fine. Sensor to sensor. That's it, no more. I doesn't prove that the Nikon D3 is "close" to the P65+. So, what is going on here? Some reply posts before mine seemed to affirm otherwise, or to say: "The D3 is a just a hair from the P65+"
"Nice test Chris! I can't see 35,000.00 worth of improved quality in the P65 file, can you? The Nikon, to me, looks a little crisper actually" Jim
Christopher:
"I did a similar test, comparing my P30+ to my 1Ds3 and came to the exact conclusion: a tiny bit of difference, but nothing that would ever show in CMYK, and nothing that couldn't be corrected for, in a tiny contrast adjustment and USM in DPP. I purposely don't want to do this test with my P45+ and my 5D2, because I want to keep my Hasselblad. I just don't want to see the true reality."
"Well I am not surprised at all. The main difference or benefit you get, is more resolution, which is only important for larger prints. Perhaps some smaller DR and color advantages, but these are certainly not worth the price. "
Christopher Hauser
Or maybe is a translation thing. English is not my native language.
Eduardo
You might have missed that both cameras are shooting through the same lens, from the same place. The D3 is only showing a "crop" of the P65 sensor area.
-
Thank you Alan, I indeed missed that. If the purpose of the test was to show resolution of pixel/area that's fine. Sensor to sensor. That's it, no more. I doesn't prove that the Nikon D3 is "close" to the P65+. So, what is going on here? Some reply posts before mine seemed to affirm otherwise, or to say: "The D3 is a just a hair from the P65+"
"Nice test Chris! I can't see 35,000.00 worth of improved quality in the P65 file, can you? The Nikon, to me, looks a little crisper actually" Jim
Christopher:
"I did a similar test, comparing my P30+ to my 1Ds3 and came to the exact conclusion: a tiny bit of difference, but nothing that would ever show in CMYK, and nothing that couldn't be corrected for, in a tiny contrast adjustment and USM in DPP. I purposely don't want to do this test with my P45+ and my 5D2, because I want to keep my Hasselblad. I just don't want to see the true reality."
"Well I am not surprised at all. The main difference or benefit you get, is more resolution, which is only important for larger prints. Perhaps some smaller DR and color advantages, but these are certainly not worth the price. "
Christopher Hauser
Or maybe is a translation thing. English is not my native language.
Eduardo
I think the implication here is that for architecture, stitching can give quite good results, and for $35000, one might be willing to do a bit of extra stitching
-
i can only see approximately $27,538 worth of improvement.
but certainly NOT $35k ...
-
Oh, oh! I missed that too.
Eduardo
I think the implication here is that for architecture, stitching can give quite good results, and for $35000, one might be willing to do a bit of extra stitching
-
i can only see approximately $27,538 worth of improvement.
but certainly NOT $35k ...
I don't care who you are...that was funny!
-
I don't care who you are...that was funny!
Agreed!
But I thought it was obvious... the remaining $7462.00 is the cost of bragging rights (with value added warranty!)
-
Who cares about the camera stuff.
What I want to know is:
1) Is that your living room?
2) If so, do you get some sort of discount with Herman Miller?
3) If so, can you get me a discount too? ;-)
I want that Eames lounger!
-
Who cares about the camera stuff.
What I want to know is:
1) Is that your living room?
2) If so, do you get some sort of discount with Herman Miller?
3) If so, can you get me a discount too? ;-)
I want that Eames lounger!
LoL. Well, yes. And I shoot for Herman Miller... I traded a day of photography for that red plywood chair and 3 Eames Storage Units.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/product/gallery/album/large/Product_015.jpg)
-
Check the Blue channel in both jpegs. The Nikon one is totally blocked which will, if not carefully separated, to a heavily blocked black separation in print, showing no detail in the shadow areas or in the sofa's fabric.
Look at both images' blue channel and see just how much more detail there's in the P65+ file...there's a BIG difference there.
-
Differences are a lot easier to see if you lay the two files over each other in photoshop and scale the Nikon image to same size - I think it was 141.6% or something. Just line them up over each other and toggle on and off the top layer. It's really easy to see the increase in DR both in highlights and shadows, tonality and detail. Thanks to Christopher for the test and smartly using the same lens in the same position so this comparison is so easy.
-
I did this little test for two reasons:
Shooting on the Arca with the Rodenstock HR 70mm, P65+ vs D3 body. The P65+ is smoother tonally with greater range (as I would expect) and feels sharper. Everything shot to and processed through C1 Pro 5 with base settings. This is purely a sensor test and for most, the issue of LF Glass vs T/S lenses needs to play into the equation as well. The results are the same as always... if you can justify the extra $35k and this is the way you want to work, cool. If not, you'll do pretty good with the alternative.
/word.
Interesting and just goes to prove a rather basic point. Medium format sensors offer more resolution but in itself why should this confer any other special magic? Because they are crazy expensive? Micro-tonality, more capacity to push the curves etc. etc. ...all bollocks.
Of course a sensor for any format can have strengths and weaknesses but there is nothing intrinsically special about the medium format ones. In fact most of them are old and a bit duff. (The 39Meg sensor in the P45+ and the H3D39 etc. and the 33 Meg Dalsa sensors were launched four years, or two generations of 35mm camera, ago. The 50 Meg sensor in the Hasselblad seems very similar in quality with just a bit more resolution. Resolution aside, at the moment only the P65+ is actually on a par with current 35mm technology...at base ISO).
However, if one is comparing sensors one needs to use appropriate software. The Nikon file would likely give you more dynamic range and sharpness if you put it through NX2. (Recent DPreview tests confirm this difference with the D300s processed in Camera Raw versus NX2). It's a bit unfair to use Phase software for both. A D3x file would offer more still than the D3.
If DXO Mark is to be believed the P65+ has a small edge over the D3x for colour and is inferior for dynamic range. Personally I have found that the P65+ can handle difficult mixed lighting better than the D3x, though in general the colour is just different rather than better. However, the D3x definitely has the edge for dynamic range. Also, even using Capture One 5 the P65+ is way more prone to black spots, inverted highlights, weird digital 'dust' artefacts etc. with night shots, even at 50 ISO. Of course it is crap for noise/shadow detail above 100 ISO even if it is marginally less crap than previous medium format sensors.
Finally, this is not to deride resolution. For the appropriate subject with relevant fine detail it's a marvelous thing. Which is why I will continue to rent but not buy the P65+.
-
And here we go again, anyone want's to guess how this topic stays open ^^ ?
-
However, the D3x definitely has the edge for dynamic range.
Hmm.... I'll believe that when I see it on my own machine. Mind you, I'm so happy with the D3 that I'll be first in line to buy a D4x, but still don't expect to be putting the P65+ on eBay anytime soon.
Hell, even if the D4x is better than the P65+, I don't know that I could give up the view camera!
LoL
-
And here we go again, anyone want's to guess how this topic stays open ^^ ?
LoL...ok.... ok.... I'll stop.
-
Hmm.... I'll believe that when I see it on my own machine. Mind you, I'm so happy with the D3 that I'll be first in line to buy a D4x, but still don't expect to be putting the P65+ on eBay anytime soon.
Hell, even if the D4x is better than the P65+, I don't know that I could give up the view camera!
LoL
View cameras are way better than slrs for many things. That's a different matter from sensor comparisons.
-
so what to do if we can't afford cameras that cost about $50k up to $100k for a certain job?
As I said, not everyone needs them. Not everyone values the difference. And not everyone can afford them. You make do with what you have, because it is either good enough for you, good enough for your client, or just as good as you can get.
But that doesn't mean it's equal.
My point is more about making generalizations about others based on oneself. So these questions and conclusions are for each individual person and can't be extrapolated out to apply to anyone except oneself.
-
Chris,
thanks for this insightful comparison. I am still really struggling with my love of 4x5 and rollfilm use on a 4x5 sinar p2, but at the expense of time lost for processing/scanning and film expense, not to mention polaroid....
I would love to get a back, right now I'm looking at the Aptus II 5 EVERYDAY. EVERY DAMN DAY. boy I'd like to get my hands on one of those. 4x5 Provia, E100G and astia get me where I need to go most of the time. Sometimes some 160VC thrown in when I can't control the ambient contrast and need the latitude. But no bother.... I won't bore you.
but to be quite frank, every time I look at YOUR photographs, I'm moved. There are lots of great photographers out there, who get lots of work. However, there are a very small percentage of them who are creating beautiful work. You can generally tell when they put feeling, heart and soul into their photography. I can tell that YOU do this on every shot you post, or ones I see on your site. Even the 'product' shots on your blog post for the M-Line 2. better than Arca Swiss' on their site!
if only I were in the chicago area, I'd love to find out if you offer internships to students to work for you. maybe someday after I'm out of school. architecture isn't my end goal for photography. Comm. advertising is where I want to go. But if I had a 'minor' in something, it would be architecture. I can't get it out of my blood .
thanks for this post. maybe I should be looking at the D3x and 5DII's instead of a back. but the 16bit starting option gives one more options when 'pushing' files to the break/"please don't blow-out" point. every little bit helps IMO.
-Dan
-
That's very kind of you Daniel. And, yes, I friggin love my job! I still can't quite believe I get to make pictures for a living and can't imagine how people go to the same place everyday working 60-70 hour weeks. I'm very fortunate.
If you're ever in Chicago you're welcome to come out to some shoots.
-
That's very kind of you Daniel. And, yes, I friggin love my job! I still can't quite believe I get to make pictures for a living and can't imagine how people go to the same place everyday working 60-70 hour weeks. I'm very fortunate.
If you're ever in Chicago you're welcome to come out to some shoots.
In addition to a shot exposed for the highlights and shadows pulled up, it might also be interesting to do a shot in tungsten lighting, and compare after white balance.
-
In addition to a shot exposed for the highlights and shadows pulled up, it might also be interesting to do a shot in tungsten lighting, and compare after white balance.
Actually I've been thinking about setting up a shot with my monoblocks, shooting it strobe and then using just the modeling lights, and shooting it tungsten then comparing the blue noise. I've put the test off because I'm sure it will annoy me given I shoot primarily hotlight.
OMG.... can you imagine if digi-backs could be manufactured to specific color balances other than daylight? Then I'd need 3 P65+'s! Day, Tung and Flor! Just like the old days of carrying multiple film stocks and a stack of filters!
All Florescent Space = EPN with 80D + 10M
Daylight and Florescent mix = EPN with 82A + 5M
Mostly Daylight (coming through glass) and some Florescent = EPN with 10M and 1/4 Green on the strobes
EPN... that stock had no saturation which made it excellent for mixed lighting situations but it always just looked like crap to me....Magenta highlights, Green shadows and like 6 stops of latitude
You guys really miss film? I know a studio that has a palette of EPN Readyload I'm sure they'd be happy to sell you!
-C
-
and shooting it tungsten then comparing the blue noise. I've put the test off because I'm sure it will annoy me given I shoot primarily hotlight.
Your testing inspired me to do testing yesterday, with my 5D2 and my P45+. Last night, I did a Tungsten Test, using Profoto Tungstens, and comparing the Blue Channel of P45+ to the 5D2, the P45+ looked like a Clunky Snowstorm of Funk, whereas the 5d2 was pretty smooth. Same scene, same ASA (400). Obviously it was the ASA that killed it, but still, in the real world, every shot ain't Bright Light California.
And for the record, I have no dog in this fight. I'm just looking to learn. Ideally, I'd love to arrive at ONE camera system and sell the rest. I'm not looking to be Jack of All Trades. But I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may. But for me, Usability in general, in the real world, is my main driving force. And if I was really truthful, I'd rather use MF, because I grew up on it. But again, the chips can fall where they may.
But I was surprised when I toggled on the Blue Channel. Again, advantage Canon.
For you, Christopher, being a Tripod Guy, why are you even testing this stuff? Just throw on the P65+ and get on with your life. If you're a Tripod Guy, the P65+ is the only choice, to me. The tripod makes everything MF possible.
-
Actually I've been thinking about setting up a shot with my monoblocks, shooting it strobe and then using just the modeling lights, and shooting it tungsten then comparing the blue noise. I've put the test off because I'm sure it will annoy me given I shoot primarily hotlight.
OMG.... can you imagine if digi-backs could be manufactured to specific color balances other than daylight? Then I'd need 3 P65+'s! Day, Tung and Flor! Just like the old days of carrying multiple film stocks and a stack of filters!
All Florescent Space = EPN with 80D + 10M
Daylight and Florescent mix = EPN with 82A + 5M
Mostly Daylight (coming through glass) and some Florescent = EPN with 10M and 1/4 Green on the strobes
EPN... that stock had no saturation which made it excellent for mixed lighting situations but it always just looked like crap to me....Magenta highlights, Green shadows and like 6 stops of latitude
You guys really miss film? I know a studio that has a palette of EPN Readyload I'm sure they'd be happy to sell you!
-C
I used to by Fuji sheet RTP by 5 case lots. I liked the green boxes. I don't use strobe that much, I do love my old Moles. I can't imagine going backwards at this point. I don't even own a film camera anymore. I do miss the feeling of working with the Sinars and Horseman's, I don't miss the film....
-
I do not miss color film so much, although it did work well in nice sunlight, but the B/W film. If you know of anyone needing to unload 4x5 sheets of Tri-X 320, I might be interested, and if you have a friend with too much potassium chloroplatinite powder or palladium chloride powder on his hands.
-
For you, Christopher, being a Tripod Guy, why are you even testing this stuff? Just throw on the P65+ and get on with your life. If you're a Tripod Guy, the P65+ is the only choice, to me. The tripod makes everything MF possible.
You know, I have no Idea! In the end I will most certainly put the P65+ back on the tripod and put the D3 back in the shoulder bag where it spends most of it's time. This was a comparison that I think couldn't be done without the Arca and it's dslr mounting kit. I was equipped to setup a scenario that I haven't seen anyone else do and the pure science of it drew me in.
I don't think there is any magic bullet out there. I shot this new restaurant last month and needed every bit (pun) of information I could eek out of those files and am thankful those images were recorded through the Rodenstock's and onto the P65+. I have to go back to the same restaurant and grab some candids of the space now that it's crazy busy and I will definitely be reaching for the Nikon. Tools. Know your tools.
/rant
-
I did an experiment a while back with a blue filter and tungsten lighting, to see if you could get better images. I used my M8, but it could have been anything. The theory is that correcting the light before the sensor gets a cleaner file with no extra pressure on the blue channel to correct the yellow lighting.
Anyway, it worked, the file was cleaner, but in the end, the filter had a +1 factor and the improvement was just less than a stop, so for hand-held photography, it gained a stop of cleanliness at the cost of going to the next ISO level. Not worth it.
On the tripod though, it should work. I am considering stocking up on filters again, to get cleaner files in all lighting.
-
I have to go back to the same restaurant and grab some candids of the space now that it's crazy busy and I will definitely be reaching for the Nikon. Tools. Know your tools.
/rant
"I no do Candeeds! Do you know who I amz? You want Candeeds, call zee 35mm guy with heez snap-snap-snapper! I am a Specialist, and I amz paid well for my veezhun! Hmph!"
-
"I no do Candeeds! Do you know who I amz? You want Candeeds, call zee 35mm guy with heez snap-snap-snapper! I am a Specialist, and I amz paid well for my veezhun! Hmph!"
gw, actually I don't really do candeeds, these might totally suck. I applaud the guys that can do that well, like wedding shooters.
Carsten.... I dunno, man... this vision scares me a little...
Subject ---> $20 Filter ---> $3k Lens ---> $40k Digi Back
Still worth a test though, I think I still have my cc filters.
-
LoL. Well, yes. And I shoot for Herman Miller... I traded a day of photography for that red plywood chair and 3 Eames Storage Units.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/product/gallery/album/large/Product_015.jpg)
Oh Oh, Let's hope the Minister of Finance isn't reading this, he will want half that chair.
Thanks for the test , I often contemplate acquiring a MF system. I can't make a business case for it based solely on numbers ( my clients probably won't notice the difference and certainly won't want to pay extra ). But there is a real pleasure in using the best tools that goes beyond dollars & cents. A BMW, Audi, Jaguar etc, or a basic Hyundai will get you from point A to B, but which would you rather drive.
If the new Canon is 30MP+ and scraps the AA filter, it will further weaken the case for MF, especially with the new stellar shift lenses. In the meantime I get my resolution fix by dragging out the 5x7 or 8x10 for personal work.
-
gw, actually I don't really do candeeds, these might totally suck. I applaud the guys that can do that well, like wedding shooters.
Carsten.... I dunno, man... this vision scares me a little...
Subject ---> $20 Filter ---> $3k Lens ---> $40k Digi Back
Still worth a test though, I think I still have my cc filters.
I am sure you can find more expensive filters than that. Just look at Leica filters, for example Of course, they don't make many. I guess Schneider (B+W) filters would be good enough even for $5k lenses.
This does raise an interesting question though: what is the native white balance of the MFDB? It may not be a relevant question though, since all filters correct w.r.t. daylighth, to my knowledge, except for specialty daylight filters for tungsten films and the like. This means we would always set WB to daylight and add the correct filter, to get the cleanest channels. This would work for a 35mm DSLR too, of course, so it wouldn't change the balance between the two.
-
I know a studio that has a palette of EPN Readyload I'm sure they'd be happy to sell you!
-C
I'd be interested in some. have em post it on ebay . they'll get some takers there. let us know if they do please .
-Dan
-
I'd be interested in some. have em post it on ebay . they'll get some takers there. let us know if they do please .
-Dan
EPN Readyload. They have about 4000 sheets, the PPB is $35 ea. Expired 0/4 0/9
emails to jon at hedrichblessing (dot) com
-
EPN Readyload. They have about 4000 sheets, the PPB is $35 ea. Expired 0/4 0/9
emails to jon at hedrichblessing (dot) com
thanks Chris, I'll see about emailing them.
blessings
Dan
-
Chris,
when you shot film, and with digital today I would imagine theres no need to,
did you use a color meter? I'd think that after shooting EPN for so long, you'd have what it does in what light quite pat...
the reason being I've been watching them go on ebay, ones such as the Minolta IIIF. heard they're very good.
-Dan