Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mhecker* on February 04, 2011, 04:06:32 pm
-
I've done some more testing outdoors with my 645D vs Nikon D3x
Daylight landscape, ISO 100 RAW
D3x, 24-70 zoom lens @ f8 live view manual focus
645D, 45-85mm zoom lens @ f11 autofocus
The focus point was the tree on the center of the image.
After capture daylight color balance in LR, no sharpening.
Sharpening in CS5 D3x shot USM 300,0.4,1 645D USM 300,0.4,1
Some adjustment in CS5 to match the color.
ACR does a poor job with D3x color as rumored.
This was shot near Angels Camp, CA in the Sierra foothills and it really was very, very green.
Links.
D3x http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Nikon_D3x_field_test.tif
645D http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_field_test.tif
Warning big files D3x is 44MB, 645D file is 77MB
Comments of course are welcome. ;)
Enjoy....
-
First thing that comes to my attention is the fact that the D3x is cropped, so maybe you should look into that first ? The 2 formats are not identical even with the crop, the d3x is in a 5x4 format (while the 645 appears to be in it's native 4x3 full format) - check the settings on your camera (D3x), you may have shot it like that.
If you want to crop for total similarity , you should do it both ways, just to be fair - crop the 645 to a 3x2 format, then crop the d3x to a 4x3 format if you feel it makes sense for your final output, but anyway show both comparisons, make both pairs.
-
The D3x was shot in 5x4 format as that is standard for the owner.
The 645D was cropped to match the 5x4 format on purpose.
The shots also don't align perfectly, that doesn't void the test for me, YMMV.
-
Confirms how good the D3x is. I see a bit more rez, a touch smoother tones in the 645 file, but that's about it.
-
Nikon killed the D3x by overpricing it. People went for the 5D2 instead, which doesn't deliver the same quality, and then they "know" that fullframe cannot compete with cropped 645.
Edmund
-
The 645D is clearly superior in IQ. Again, the most of subtle foliage areas in 645D look "distinct". In the 3DX they turn to mush as it happened with the 5D2 file. No contest, sorry. I don't think the next versions of Canikon top guns will be able to match the 645D quality and they definitely overpriced now. Didn't they ever?
Eduardo
-
Hi,
Interesting comparison. I would like Miles to elaborate a bit on color rendition. No question that Pentax wins hands down, at least in my humble opinion. The way I analyze pictures is that I enlarge both images to 70x100 cm at 200PPI and look at actual pixels. That is a gargantuan view but it really shows the differences. In print I'd presume the differences would be far less noticeable. Looking at the same images at 50% reduces the differences dramatically.
I'm somewhat surprised that the Pentax 645D has that much better color. The house shot was really similar colors were much better on the Pentax 645D. Would I have a truckload of Pentax 645 lenses I'd be on my way to the bank on monday... Actually I have a bunch of Pentax 67 lenses, but they may not be the best ones ever built for that camera.
Best regards
Erik
I've done some more testing outdoors with my 645D vs Nikon D3x
Daylight landscape, ISO 100 RAW
D3x, 24-70 zoom lens @ f8 live view manual focus
645D, 45-85mm zoom lens @ f11 autofocus
The focus point was the tree on the center of the image.
After capture daylight color balance in LR, no sharpening.
Sharpening in CS5 5D shot USM 300,0.4,1 645D USM 300,0.4,1
Some adjustment in CS5 to match the color.
ACR does a poor job with D3x color as rumored.
This was shot near Angels Camp, CA in the Sierra foothills and it really was very, very green.
Links.
D3x http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Nikon_D3x_field_test.tif
645D http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_field_test.tif
Warning big files D3x is 44MB, 645D file is 77MB
Comments of course are welcome. ;)
Enjoy....
-
I'm not convinced. Better, yes, but to my eye not clearly superior after color was adjusted in the D3x file to something that I found pleasing. I look at files at 50%, and yes I saw some aliasing (mush) in both files. I'm not a landscaper, but in my line of work it would be a toss up between the two. And yes the Nikon is stupidly over priced. I think i'd take an M9 over either of these files!
The 645D is clearly superior in IQ. Again, the most of subtle foliage areas in 645D look "distinct". In the 3DX they turn to mush as it happened with the 5D2 file. No contest, sorry. I don't think the next versions of Canikon top guns will be able to match the 645D quality and they definitely overpriced now. Didn't they ever?
Eduardo
-
Miles,
Thanks for sharing! The images that you posted are very good test images and that also applies to the previous posting. It would be nice if you could also share the raw files.
I just made some prints from 30% crops. Before printing I opened both images and adjusted color on the Nikon to match Pentax. The crops were made on A4 and it was approximately 33% crops corresponding to 53x83 cm. Looking at the prints from close the difference in resolution is astonishing, but looking at arms length they are pretty close. Color is pretty close after matching color. You cannot really look at detail, because the Nikon image would fall apart.
To me it seems that the Pentax is an impressive camera, much preferable to the Nikon. I'm not prepared to jump the wagon, because I don't have the lenses and also because 10 grand is still considerable money.
Best regards
Erik
I've done some more testing outdoors with my 645D vs Nikon D3x
Daylight landscape, ISO 100 RAW
D3x, 24-70 zoom lens @ f8 live view manual focus
645D, 45-85mm zoom lens @ f11 autofocus
The focus point was the tree on the center of the image.
After capture daylight color balance in LR, no sharpening.
Sharpening in CS5 5D shot USM 300,0.4,1 645D USM 300,0.4,1
Some adjustment in CS5 to match the color.
ACR does a poor job with D3x color as rumored.
This was shot near Angels Camp, CA in the Sierra foothills and it really was very, very green.
Links.
D3x http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Nikon_D3x_field_test.tif
645D http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_field_test.tif
Warning big files D3x is 44MB, 645D file is 77MB
Comments of course are welcome. ;)
Enjoy....
-
Hi,
The files that Miles posted have a significant advantage in resolution. I don't think Leica or any smaller format can match that. A Leica M10 with 40 Mpixels may do, but it's not here yet.
Best regards
Erik
So do I. M9 files are so far the ones I like most from digiland.
But I have trouble to get the focus spot-on with the M. Maybe it's just me. With the Nikon no probs. Doubts with the Pentax for subjects in movement if they really improved.
-
Nikon killed the D3x by overpricing it. People went for the 5D2 instead
Edmund
I have never knew why they priced it like that, even today, years after the fact, is still at 7.5K.
Even if they had and issue with sensor yields it should be resolved by know.
Other option was something about the relationship with Sony, but right know, this seems unlikely.
That pricing don't look smart even in terms of making money. As I Nikon shooter I hope that they know something that we don't.
The alternative is terrifying.
Best regards
-
I will be making 24"x30" and 30"x40" prints of these files and using them in a blind test.
The photographers viewing them will not know what camera the files came from. I suspect the difference in printed IQ will be small at 24"x30" and much greater at 30"x40", but we will see.
As I have been told the ACR RAW converter in Lightroom sometimes produces horrible color with the D3x files.
I worked on the image in the test and manually color balanced it to get it close to the 645D file.
If someone has a color profile better than the Adobe one for the D3x I would gladly use it.
My take on things so far is as follows.
The analysis is for landscape use at low ISO only.
The 5Dmk2 is good value for the money. A $3000 camera for $2500.
Good color, very good resolution, mediocre autofocus, a lot of shadow noise when pushed, very little when the exposure is spot on.
The D3x is a the best 35mm digital camera available, but not a good value. A $5500 camera for $7500.
Good color with the proper RAW converter, a tad better than very good resolution, excellent autofocus, very little shadow noise even when pushed.
The 645D is slightly superior to either in image quality.
Very good color, a notch better resolution than any 35mm SLR,excellent autofocus, very little shadow noise when pushed.
It is a good, but not great value. An $8500 camera for $9995. I believe the price has already fallen to $9000 in Japan and will do so in the USA by years end.
-
I have never knew why they priced it like that, even today, years after the fact, is still at 7.5K.
I don't think anyone expected the 5d2. Actually I'm not sure if Canon planned on making it 20 something mpx and a video game changer, it's just Sony came in with 20 something megapixels cheap, is sitting there with all those Ziess lenses and I think kind of put the scare in Canon, so we have the 5d2, which makes almost any camera in the world look way overpriced.
Think about a non 5d2 world and the d3x makes sense. Nikon's competition was Canon though Nikon has better autofocus, better resolution, a sharper file than the 1ds3 and only sells for a grand more. The only glitch of the Nikon is their in-house software is awful and when you tether the lcd on the camera goes blank. If it wasn't for that in a non 5d2 world it would almost be the perfect camera.
IMO
BC
-
The 645D is slightly superior to either in image quality.
Very good color, a notch better resolution than any 35mm SLR,excellent autofocus, very little shadow noise when pushed.
It is a good, but not great value. An $8500 camera for $9995. I believe the price has already fallen to $9000 in Japan and will do so in the USA by years end.
I beg to differ on some of your points, Miles:
- The price in Japan is pretty much equal to what it was last June at launch, and I bet the slight differences are due mostly to competition amongst dealers and the fact that there are a lot of them. In the US the camera is sold by four outfits (BH, Adorama, Ace and the Pentax own site and none of those has any desire to give up one dollar especially if they don't have to at the current level of demand). In Europe you will soon see better prices and much more competition because the dealers that sell currently at list price keep probably over 2000 Euro for themselves for every camera sold.
- I don't know if you can "price up" a camera without many subjective factors. Not many people know that this camera is not a magnesium shell stuffed with electronics it is made around a stiff aluminum chassis for minimal heat/cold induced deformations hence focusing errors. It also has proven cold resistance besides the highest level of weather resistance (any amount of rain for any amount of time). Thirdly it has a plethora of external controls that needs to be wired inside, a second tripod mount of the side that spares you a L plate and two cold and scratch resistant LCDs. Never mind a working anti dust feature that even D3X lacks if I don't make a mistake.
In the end what I am trying to say is that if the D3x's price is most likely determined by Nikon the (at least US) 645D's price is determined by demand and lack of competition amongst dealers.
Radu
-
I basically agree with you Radu. Although I would be surprised if the US price doesn't fall by the end of 2011.
I do think part of the reason the 645D nails focus every time is it's tank like build.
My good friend David Brookover thought it was built a notch above even his 2 D3x's.
It also did just fine in an extended, heavy, wet Yosemite snow storm last Sunday.
I shot alongside David and his D3x as many of the lesser cameras, including a 5dmk2 nearby were fogging up. :)
Also, a dust spot that appeared in the sky early one morning, vanished after the camera was turned on and off a few times the same day.
Having shot a borrowed Hasselblad H3Dii, I found it acquired dust on the sensor and only a cleaning at the end of the day would remove it.
-
The both were oversharpen with the LR's "anti-film" signature "digital flavor".
In the deconvolution discussion thread (currently 13 pages!) people have been into extreme pixel peeping (at 400%) and trying to ignore the fact that better RAW converters, such as Raw Developer, makes much more natural looking results besides "super-resolution" (from iterative R-L deconvolution). Big reason old film landscape masters like Charles Cramer liked them.
At 75mm, the Pentax-FA SMC 45-85mm/f4.5 is little out of its "sweet zone", which is from 45-65mm. But, not as bad as it is at 85mm anyway, and stopping down f/11 seemed to help (see digLloyd's tests and other posts). And, to be fair, the Nikon 24-70mm/f2.8 at 56mm is hardly the best 50-60mm lens at f/8 for the D3x (even my old AIS 55mm/f2.8 Macro does better, f/8 and near infinity).
-
Hi Leping,
From my original post.
>After capture daylight color balance in LR, no sharpening.
>Sharpening in CS5 D3x shot USM 300,0.4,1 645D USM 300,0.4,1
There was no sharpening done in LR.
So, the deconvolution LR sharpening you are seeing is in your mind only.
They were sharpened using USM in CS5 with the settings shown above.
I sharpen for printing, not pixel peeping.
They will look slightly oversharpened at 100% resolution on an LCD.
When printed at 2880x1440 DPI on my Epson 9880 at any normal size say 24"x30" or 30"x40" they will not appear oversharpened.
If I wanted to make them look film like at 100% I would reduce the sharpening and add noise.
But why would anyone want to prepare a 40MP image for perfect film like pixel peeping?
What would be the purpose of this?
If you would like the RAW files to evaluate, I could make them available.
Cheers,
Miles
-
Hi Miles,
Thank you for the quick reply. It's fine, and I understand your point. Even with 40MP for 24x30 and larger prints we still need to upsample to 300 or 360dpi.
Try the following workflow (all numbers approximate and only as guided guess starts):
1. Resampling Photoshop bi-cubic "More Smooth" to size;
2. USM 2/10/0, fade to luminosity;
3. USM 1/20/0, fade to luminosity;
4. USM 0.5/100/0, fade to luminosity;
For printing you are done here. For 100% pixel peeping no LCD screen, add:
5. Smart Sharpening "Lens Blurr" (deconvolution) 0.2/10/0 (heavily depending on noise level). Fade to luminosity (to cope with these crazy 200%, 300%, and 400% peepers, since the difference from the fade step could only be detected barely here in this step).
You can of course put a "clarity" USM, something like 80/12/0, before the step 2. Fade to luminosity immediately always, and very important here since the 80 pixel radius covers a lot of colors.
Thanks and great to see 645D and the 45-85mm zoom is doing so well, and also more and more people realize adding noise is such a great way to "fix" digital captures. I work in medical imaging field and we do add noise to the images. Doctors love it (not the heavily "denoised" ones). 5-7 years ago, when I said this, people just laughed at me.
Leping
-
Now what might be an interesting comparison would be the 645D vs a MaxMax converted D3x without the AA filter & either a 24 PC-E, 45 PC-E or Zeiss ZF prime ... ;) The D3x is brutal on glass & technique and few lenses, including even the 24-70 won't get the best from it.
-
Miles,
Posting the raw images would be very helpful.
I'm somewhat confused by color. It would be interesting to have some raw images with a color checker included, or having a color checker in similar light.
I made some test prints, pretty large. Before printing I "matched colors" using Photoshop CS5, Image->Adjustment->Match Color so the Nikon colors were quite close to Pentax. The prints turned out pretty similar when viewed at some distance (50-80 cm) but the Pentax was at great advantage at short viewing distance, like 25 cm. The way I made this I had 1/3 crops I printed on A4 so I made small prints corresponding to about 53x83 cm for the full image (ca 21x32").
I'd add that it's a really nice test image! Great work and thanks for sharing!
Best regards
Erik
If you would like the RAW files to evaluate, I could make them available.
Cheers,
Miles
-
By popular demand.
Here are links to the RAW images... :)
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_DSC3839.NEF
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_IGP0111.DNG
Enjoy...
-
The 645D is cleanly an amazing performer in absolute terms. It is totally in its own class in terms of value.
We can only hope that Canon/Nikon will be more realistic than Phaseone in assessing the value of their offering when pricing their next generation of high end products. The 1ds4 will be a first test of this and we can expect Nikon to follow suit like they did by pricing the D3x in the same bracket as the 1ds3.
Well done Pentax!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Miles,
Thanks for posting this and generously making the RAWs available. This is indeed a superior performance by the Pentax. hows that life is not all that bad for those of us with *only* 40MP ;)
- N.
-
sorry if this is a dumb question, i haven't been following the pentax 645- but is there a way of tethering this thing?
cheers paul
-
Thanks to Miles for posting , but I must ask if anyone is surprised. I would love to see a comparison to the Leica S2 or the comparable Phase (thanks Nick and Mark) and Hasselblad offerings.
-
sorry if this is a dumb question, i haven't been following the pentax 645- but is there a way of tethering this thing?
cheers paul
It kind of does.
See http://www.echenique.com/index.php/2010/09/25/pentax-645d-news/
You can shoot RAW in SD1 and save jpeg in SD2. The eye-fi card in SD2 transmits the jpeg to Lightroom or an Ipad.
If you use a 6MP jpeg it takes about 2 seconds to transfer it.
-
The Eye-Fi option actually works ok. When I get around to my next update on the 645D I'll describe it in more detail, but if you do a search there's a Japanese photog who put a little video of this on the internet.
The small jpegs are respectably fact in transferring. The problem I was having was that the connection seemed to time-out and have to re-establish itself every once in a while - which took closer to 15 seconds for the first shot. i haven't had time to work out with the company whether that can be changed. With a PRO card you can do that straight to a laptop without a wireless network around.
There are a number of things about this setup that are sufficiently irritating that it would not really be an option on a high dollar-value production where the client or A/D needs to see the images stat. and with high reliability.
tsjanik: I hope to do a little head-to-head with the S2 when I see Mark in May.
- N.
-
The Eye-Fi option actually works ok. When I get around to my next update on the 645D I'll describe it in more detail, but if you do a search there's a Japanese photog who put a little video of this on the internet.
- N.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY6GdxDyP1w
Radu
-
Very interesting to see... Thanks for sharing (especially the RAW files!) Side-by-side in Lightroom, the medium format file has so much more detail and is an easy file to work with (wish Hasselblad files worked with Lightroom and Adobe lens corrections!)
Aside from image quality, do you enjoy shooting the 645D?
~Matt
-
Thank you!
Quite interesting actually. I'm much surprised by the differences in color.
Best regards
Erik
By popular demand.
Here are links to the RAW images... :)
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_DSC3839.NEF
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_IGP0111.DNG
Enjoy...
-
By popular demand.
Here are links to the RAW images... :)
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_DSC3839.NEF
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_IGP0111.DNG
Enjoy...
hello I just made a tif from the d3x NEF with Nikons Capture nx2.5 - the way i like to use it.
NX2 renders softer than lightroom and it has better (other) fine detail. I like it a lot better than the more graphical rendered nef provided.
but see for yourself...
When I downsample the pentax to 24mp i see it is still a lot better than the Nikon when it comes to detail. I would like to see the nikon picture taken with an equal expensive lens as the pentax ( nikkor 45mm PCE) and without the sensor filter glass.
Maybe it would improve ...
http://www.beeld.nu/d3x/_DSC3839kers-NX2.tif
-
Thanks Miles for providing some clear exampless of the resolution differences between these two cameras. It's good to be able to quantify the improvement. But let's face it, it would be very surprising if a 40mp sensor which has about 1.6x the area of a 24mp sensor did not show a clear resolution advantage, just as it would be very surprising if the 21mp 5D Mk2 did not show a resolution advantage over the 12.7mp 5D.
Looking at the DXOMark graphs for these two cameras, I see that the D3x still has a significant DR advantage at equal print sizes, of the order of a full stop, and even more than a full stop at high ISO. However, the test results for the other parameters, SNR, tonal range and color sensitivity, are about the same for both cameras.
This suggests to me that the higher resolution of the 645D is its only advantage, and an advantage which is greatest when the composition requires a 4:3 aspect ratio. If the composition requires a 3:2 aspect ratio, the 645D effectively becomes a 35.5mp camera with a sensor about 1.22x the area of FF 35mm.
-
hello I just made a tif from the d3x NEF with Nikons Capture nx2.5 - the way i like to use it.
NX2 renders softer than lightroom and it has better fine detail. I like it a lot better than the more graphical rendered nef provided.
but see for yourself...
http://www.beeld.nu/d3x/_DSC3839kers-NX2.tif
Thanks for showing this, but I don't see better fine detail compared with my rendition with ACR 6.3. In fact, just the opposite. I still see the slight mushiness of foliage in your Capture NX2.5 version that others have commented on earlier in the thread.
Below are two comparisons at 200% of your version and my attempt using ACR 6.3. However, this is not a default conversion. I retrieved maximum detail with the detail slider set at 0.8 pixels and applied a sharpening of 50% at the same radius.
Of course we're into heavy pixel-peeping at 200% ;D .
Can you see the differences in these compressed jpegs of screen grabs?
-
Left one and Top one have better detail to my eye - really pixel peeping though
-
Aside from image quality, do you enjoy shooting the 645D?
I love shooting the 645D. It's my favourite camera to use in ages. Using it makes me want to shoot.
- N.
-
Oh! My God! What have I done! The last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from buying a 645D, but the truth must prevail. On the other hand, maybe I've become a victim of my own prejudices.
I've now downloaded the two RAW files, and have converted both images using the same sharpening methods in ACR 6.3, ie. detail at maximum, pixel radius at 0.8, sharpening at 50.
The D3X crop is at 200% and the 645D crop at 150%, so that both images appear the same size on screen.
At this extreme level of pixel-peeping there are differences for sure. The finer detail of the 645D is apparent, but is it really significant considering that such a print would be 3 metres wide at this degree of enlargement (on an HD 1920x1080 monitor)?
Is there a flaw in my procedure? Does ACR 6.3 not favour the 645D?
It would be appreciated if someone would attempt to replicate these results. I attempted to get the same color and tonality in both images by using a different WB in ACR, then later used Autocolor in Photoshop, which lightened the sky considerably but produced more realistic greenery, in my view.
-
You can easily see from your crops that the Nikon thicken the tree branch's true sizes, the "low-resolution sensor line-thickening effect".
-
Hi,
A good point. I made smaller prints (crops corresponding to 53x83 cm). These were A4s with a 33% crop of the full image. Colors were adjusted in Photoshop so color and tonality was similar.
When looking at the print at short distance, like 25 cm the difference is very significant. At arms length distance I cannot see a difference.
Deep shadow detail seems quite similar to me, but the Pentax has very different color. I also got the impression that the Pentax lens is a better performer than the Nikon. Astonishing! Leping has tested many Pentax lenses on a Canon with adapters and found them truly excellent so it is perhaps no absolute surprise.
Best regards
Erik
Oh! My God! What have I done! The last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from buying a 645D, but the truth must prevail. On the other hand, maybe I've become a victim of my own prejudices.
I've now downloaded the two RAW files, and have converted both images using the same sharpening methods in ACR 6.3, ie. detail at maximum, pixel radius at 0.8, sharpening at 50.
The D3X crop is at 200% and the 645D crop at 150%, so that both images appear the same size on screen.
At this extreme level of pixel-peeping there are differences for sure. The finer detail of the 645D is apparent, but is it really significant considering that such a print would be 3 metres wide at this degree of enlargement (on an HD 1920x1080 monitor)?
Is there a flaw in my procedure? Does ACR 6.3 not favour the 645D?
It would be appreciated if someone would attempt to replicate these results. I attempted to get the same color and tonality in both images by using a different WB in ACR, then later used Autocolor in Photoshop, which lightened the sky considerably but produced more realistic greenery, in my view.
-
You can easily see from your crops that the Nikon thicken the tree branch's true sizes, the "low-resolution sensor line-thickening effect".
Yes you can. And in order to see the same on a print, the print would be about 3 metres x 2.5 metres, and you'd have to have your nose against it, or to be more precise, view the print from the same distance you view your monitor.
I'm certainly not denying the 645D produces a more detailed result. It would be very strange if it didn't. I'm just trying to get a handle on the circumstances where such an improved resolution might be appreciated.
The initial examples in this thread showed the D3X image as having a slightly mushy appearance, a bit like a P&S jpeg. This now appears to me as a biased presentation. We now have the RAW files, thanks to Miles, and my impression has now changed. I wonder if that the resolution increase, compared with the D3X, is significant in practice.
-
Hi,
A good point. I made smaller prints (crops corresponding to 53x83 cm). These were A4s with a 33% crop of the full image. Colors were adjusted in Photoshop so color and tonality was similar.
When looking at the print at short distance, like 25 cm the difference is very significant. At arms length distance I cannot see a difference.
Deep shadow detail seems quite similar to me, but the Pentax has very different color. I also got the impression that the Pentax lens is a better performer than the Nikon. Astonishing! Leping has tested many Pentax lenses on a Canon with adapters and found them truly excellent so it is perhaps no absolute surprise.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
I agree. Lenses are a very important factor when buying a new system. I switched from the Minolta SLR 35mm film camera to Canon 35mm SLR years ago, before I bought my fist DSLR, basically because Canon had invented the Image Stabilisation system and offered a decent 100-400 IS zoom at an affordable price.
I now have a couple of Nikon DSLRs as a result of the excellent Nikkor 14-24/2.8. Any additional performance of the Nikon sensors, compared with Canon, is a bonus.
I've reconverted these RAW files from Miles using zero settings in ACR, a linear tone curve, same Daylight WB, but adjusted exposure to push both histograms equally far to the right without clipping.
I can see no differences in shadow noise, but these images are not ideal for DR comparisons.
What initially surprised me was the difference in exposure adjustments required to push the histograms to the same position, ie. +1.05 for the 645D, and +0.65 for the D3X. Whlist both images could be considered underexposed with regard to ETTR, the 645D is a good 1/3rd of a stop less exposed than the D3X image, according to ACR 6.3.
This could imply a different T/stop rating for the two lenses used, or a different ISO sensitivity for the two sensors.
Having just checked again the DXOMark results for these two cameras, I see that the true sensitivity for the 645D at ISO 100 is actually 104, and that for the D3X, ISO 78.
The difference between ISO 78 and ISO 104 would account very closely for the exposure differences between these two images. This comparison once again confirms the accuracy and relevance of DXOMark testing, and I'm also impressed that ACR 6.3 is able to reflect such accuracy.
What is most puzzling is the significant differences in color hue and saturation between these two images at the same Daylight WB setting in ACR.
One or both of these cameras need calibrating in ACR. I tend to get the impression the most natural result would be about half way betwee the two renditions.
-
Ray,
Thanks for your careful analysis.
I was much astonished by the color difference. I'm not that sure that calibrating color in ACR would help. Miles says that ACR/LR is said to handle Nikon colors badly. But the Nikon has been around a long time, so I'm pretty sure that Adobe has good data on it. The Pentax may be a different thing.
The sensivity curves of the human eye overlap very much for green and red, so I guess that much of the colors in the green/yellow range are reconstructed in the brain. Differences in spectral sensivity may explain some of the differences. I'll probably recheck the raws with a few special raw converters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIE_1931_XYZ_Color_Matching_Functions.svg
Best regards
Erik
What is most puzzling is the significant differences in color hue and saturation between these two images at the same Daylight WB setting in ACR.
One or both of these cameras need calibrating in ACR. I tend to get the impression the most natural result would be about half way betwee the two renditions.
-
The sensivity curves of the human eye overlap very much for green and red, so I guess that much of the colors in the green/yellow range are reconstructed in the brain. Differences in spectral sensivity may explain some of the differences. I'll probably recheck the raws with a few special raw converters.
Erik,
Everything we know about is a construction in the brain. The idea that this is not true is also a construction in the brain.
Sorry! I sometimes can't resist slipping into philosophical mode ;D .
That ACR does not handle Nikon colors well, is a bit of a worry. I have sometimes noticed that colors from my D700 do not seem to be as natural as those from my 5D, but I haven't yet taken the trouble to calibrate either camera. Too busy posting on LL ;D .
Cheers!
-
Ray,
Thanks for your careful analysis.
I was much astonished by the color difference....
Erik
Erik, about the color difference...
maybe this is of importance
When i open the original d3x NEF in Nikon Capture i see the camera is set to -vivid colors- and the color balance is -automatic-
so maybe that makes up for the color difference...?
Pieter Kers
-
Erik, about the color difference...
maybe this is of importance
When i open the original d3x NEF in Nikon Capture i see the camera is set to -vivid colors- and the color balance is -automatic-
so maybe that makes up for the color difference...?
Pieter Kers
Pieter,
Both of the RAW files which I downloaded had a TIFF extension. The 645D RAW/tiff included pre-settings such as Daylight WB, sharpening at 90, 0.5 pixel radius, and lens correction profile enabled. The D3X RAW/tiff file contained no pre-settings as I recall, ie. WB As Shot, no sharpening and no lens correction enabled.
It's quite easy to make the D3X image more vivid using the vibrancy and saturation sliders in ACR, but more difficult to get the hue of the colors the same. The foliage in the D3X image tends to be closer to yellow whereas the foliage in the 645D image is closer to green. I'm sure a calibration of both cameras in ACR would fix the problem.
-
ACR colors are kind of strange, and vary from version to version. I even have the impression that in CS5 the main color engine might have issues, I am seeing hue shifts as I adjust luminosity. ACR is not bad, it is just a world to itself.
Edmund
Ray,
Thanks for your careful analysis.
I was much astonished by the color difference. I'm not that sure that calibrating color in ACR would help. Miles says that ACR/LR is said to handle Nikon colors badly. But the Nikon has been around a long time, so I'm pretty sure that Adobe has good data on it. The Pentax may be a different thing.
The sensivity curves of the human eye overlap very much for green and red, so I guess that much of the colors in the green/yellow range are reconstructed in the brain. Differences in spectral sensivity may explain some of the differences. I'll probably recheck the raws with a few special raw converters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIE_1931_XYZ_Color_Matching_Functions.svg
Best regards
Erik
-
With the announcement of the 25mm for the 645D today .. this puts a whole new perspective on the 645D capability .. the price seems to be 50% of what the 645D costs but maybe it will be worth it to have this level of wide angle on MF .. waiting to read what Llyod Chambers has to say about the new Lens before I take the plunge
-
What initially surprised me was the difference in exposure adjustments required to push the histograms to the same position, ie. +1.05 for the 645D, and +0.65 for the D3X. Whlist both images could be considered underexposed with regard to ETTR, the 645D is a good 1/3rd of a stop less exposed than the D3X image, according to ACR 6.3.
Having just checked again the DXOMark results for these two cameras, I see that the true sensitivity for the 645D at ISO 100 is actually 104, and that for the D3X, ISO 78.
The difference between ISO 78 and ISO 104 would account very closely for the exposure differences between these two images. This comparison once again confirms the accuracy and relevance of DXOMark testing, and I'm also impressed that ACR 6.3 is able to reflect such accuracy.
Except that the D3x should be 1/3 stop less exposed instead of being more exposed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Except that the D3x should be 1/3 stop less exposed instead of being more exposed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
You are absolutely right ;D . Thanks for pointing that out. It must have been that glass of wine that got me confused ;D .
On the basis that the DXOMark ISO measurements are accurate, at least in a relative sense to each camera, I think it's safe to presume the the lenses used in these shots have a significantly different T/stop.
Cheers!
-
With the announcement of the 25mm for the 645D today .. this puts a whole new perspective on the 645D capability .. the price seems to be 50% of what the 645D costs but maybe it will be worth it to have this level of wide angle on MF .. waiting to read what Llyod Chambers has to say about the new Lens before I take the plunge
That's one expensive lens. In 35mm terms, in relation to the 3:2 aspect ratio, it becomes a 20.5mm lens. Not particularly wide. In relation to the 4:3 aspect ratio of the 645D, cropping the 35mm format to the same aspect ratio, it becomes an 18mm lens. Better, but not as wide as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 zoom which, incidentally is about the same weight but much lower cost. The difference between 14mm and 18mm is really quite significant. The flexibility advantage of a high quality zoom is even more significant. I look forward to comparisons.
I think I forgot to mention the wider F/stop advantage of the Nikkor, F2.8. One might be able to get almost the same shallow DoF with the Pentax 25mm/F4 at full aperture, not quite but let's not quibble, but a one stop advantage for a moving subject or a hand-held shot might well negate any resolution advantage of the 645D.
These are considerations that I take on board. For some they may not be significant.
-
Miles,
Thanks for very good images! I also downloaded the raw images and spent some time pixel peeping. Today I also tested Iridient Raw Developer.
What I see is:
1) The colors are very different. The same difference in color is seen in Raw developer.
2) Nikon greens contain much more yellow. It may be that Nikon has better Yellow Green separation. This is not obvious to me from DxO-mark data. I don't know if Pentax or Nikon is better but they are quite different.
3) Resolution on Pentax is significantly better, as expected
4) The Pentax lens seems to be very sharp across the field. Let's not forget that the 645D is a cropped format camera so the sweet spot of the lens may be used for the entire picture. Anyway the combo is very good.
5) I don't see a lot of difference between the two in shadow detail. In my view the DR of both cameras exceeds the DR of the subject.
The conclusion?
I'm impressed by the P645D. Regarding cost it needs to be kept in mind that it's camera and lenses. For someone having a bunch of excellent 645 lenses and demanding the uttermost image quality the P645D is a no brainer.
On the other hand the premium cost over a Canon 5DII or a Sony Alpha 850/900 is quite hefty.
Best regards
Erik
I've done some more testing outdoors with my 645D vs Nikon D3x
Daylight landscape, ISO 100 RAW
D3x, 24-70 zoom lens @ f8 live view manual focus
645D, 45-85mm zoom lens @ f11 autofocus
The focus point was the tree on the center of the image.
After capture daylight color balance in LR, no sharpening.
Sharpening in CS5 D3x shot USM 300,0.4,1 645D USM 300,0.4,1
Some adjustment in CS5 to match the color.
ACR does a poor job with D3x color as rumored.
This was shot near Angels Camp, CA in the Sierra foothills and it really was very, very green.
Links.
D3x http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Nikon_D3x_field_test.tif
645D http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_field_test.tif
Warning big files D3x is 44MB, 645D file is 77MB
Comments of course are welcome. ;)
Enjoy....
-
That's one expensive lens. In 35mm terms, in relation to the 3:2 aspect ratio, it becomes a 20.5mm lens. Not particularly wide. In relation to the 4:3 aspect ratio of the 645D, cropping the 35mm format to the same aspect ratio, it becomes an 18mm lens. Better, but not as wide as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 zoom which, incidentally is about the same weight but much lower cost. The difference between 14mm and 18mm is really quite significant. The flexibility advantage of a high quality zoom is even more significant. I look forward to comparisons.
I think I forgot to mention the wider F/stop advantage of the Nikkor, F2.8. One might be able to get almost the same shallow DoF with the Pentax 25mm/F4 at full aperture, not quite but let's not quibble, but a one stop advantage for a moving subject or a hand-held shot might well negate any resolution advantage of the 645D.
These are considerations that I take on board. For some they may not be significant.
I agree Ray, it is very expensive and I also agree with your comment about the NiKon 14-24 .. but I think Pentax are beginning to move on a whole range of 645D Lenses .. I saw a PDF which outlines their production programme for MF Lens and it looks impressive. I will certainly wait and see what the reviews of the new Pentax 645D Lens tell me .. but thanks for your informed comments as above
-
it is an expensive lens but it has to cover a larger image circle and for MF it is pretty wide.
I dont see much reason to compare the lens to the Nikon lens.
One lens fits the Nikon, the other the Pentax MF camera.
O have used both a D3x and a MF camera (Hy6) for some months and without doing technical comparisons I felt than I got some images with the MF rig which showed micro detail and tonality and clarity which I would not get with the D3x. Now I still have a D700 for the times when I need fast AF but my feeling is that MF backs deliever better IQ.
I also feel that I got some pretty good images handheld at 1/30 and 1/60 too - more difficult with MF but I would not say its impossible.
If you need the flexibility of a zoom, and if you want lenses wider than 18mm FOV then I guess the DSLR should be the better (only possible?) way to go.
I think it is allways a compromise one has to make between IQ/flexibility/price-no matter if one goes DSLR or MF (or something else)
-
I still can't get the enormous success of those endless versus topics that show up regularly.
We all know what are the strenghs and wicknesses of each system (35mm and MF), we know that for ages, it has been discussed a zillion times and it has never changed since.
How can you compare 2 cameras with such a difference in sensor size and philosophy, aimed to different applications and needs (and in the case of the D3x, if needs can be similar the shooting style belongs to different tastes)?
What do you learn with such comparaison? If it was the lastest 80MP backs "Phase vs Leaf" I would understand, but here...
If you'd find silly to open a thread like "Canon G12 vs Canon 5D2", I don't get why don't you find as silly to compare a D3x to a Pentax 645D or any other big sensor's camera.
The days we'll see an Olympus EP1 vs Leica S2 are not far indeed.
Or maybe a Pentax K5 video vs an Arri could be a cool similar thread.
No, I have a good one: Canon S90 vs Arca Swiss RM3D noise comparaison.
-
.........................
........................
.................
No, I have a good one: Canon S90 vs Arca Swiss RM3D noise comparaison.
I would take the Canon S90 any day, It has a sensor and a lens ;D
-
;D ;D
That's why I put the Arca, because it was absurd.
-
Hi,
The reason is that the original poster has recently acquired a P645D and had the opportunity to compare it with a cophotographers D3X on a landscape shoot. The original poster is normally using a Canon 5DII, among others. So the original poster wanted to share his experience with both cameras. In my view a very noble endeavor.
Also, the original poster made very good samples and even supplied raw files. It's really very seldom that we have that good material to investigate.
Best regards
Erik
I still can't get the enormous success of those endless versus topics that show up regularly.
We all know what are the strenghs and wicknesses of each system (35mm and MF), we know that for ages, it has been discussed a zillion times and it has never changed since.
How can you compare 2 cameras with such a difference in sensor size and philosophy, aimed to different applications and needs (and in the case of the D3x, if needs can be similar the shooting style belongs to different tastes)?
What do you learn with such comparaison? If it was the lastest 80MP backs "Phase vs Leaf" I would understand, but here...
If you'd find silly to open a thread like "Canon G12 vs Canon 5D2", I don't get why don't you find as silly to compare a D3x to a Pentax 645D or any other big sensor's camera.
The days we'll see an Olympus EP1 vs Leica S2 are not far indeed.
Or maybe a Pentax K5 video vs an Arri could be a cool similar thread.
No, I have a good one: Canon S90 vs Arca Swiss RM3D noise comparaison.
-
That's one expensive lens. In 35mm terms, in relation to the 3:2 aspect ratio, it becomes a 20.5mm lens. Not particularly wide. In relation to the 4:3 aspect ratio of the 645D, cropping the 35mm format to the same aspect ratio, it becomes an 18mm lens. Better, but not as wide as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 zoom which, incidentally is about the same weight but much lower cost. The difference between 14mm and 18mm is really quite significant. The flexibility advantage of a high quality zoom is even more significant. I look forward to comparisons.
I think I forgot to mention the wider F/stop advantage of the Nikkor, F2.8. One might be able to get almost the same shallow DoF with the Pentax 25mm/F4 at full aperture, not quite but let's not quibble, but a one stop advantage for a moving subject or a hand-held shot might well negate any resolution advantage of the 645D.
These are considerations that I take on board. For some they may not be significant.
I won't get into zoom vs. prime, this millimeters in MF vs. that millimeters in 135 format or the quality of a known lens vs. another one with exactly 3 out of camera jpegs as samples debates but I really don't understand why one would want to equal the pictures to an aspect ratio of 1.5 when virtually all large format print sizes are from 1.25 to 1.41 and if one prints from roll then it is up to one's taste.
My wish is for a sensor of 1.41 ratio that complies with the European A-sizes paper.
Radu
-
about the new 25mm pentax lens..
That's one expensive lens. In 35mm terms....
I have seen Diglloyd testing the 28mm lens from Hasselblad but he found it not up to the 40MP..+... backs.
Leica has not put out any wideangle yet for the S2- I am sure they are capable of making it but the price will be high.
It seems very difficult to make a good wide angle for MP at a reasonable price.. Obviously it will have to cost that 5000$ to produce something good.
As for the new 55mm Pentax it seems the "old" pentax 67 lenses are still better... (when used with an adapter)
The 4x5 inches lenses from Schneider only worked at d16-22 .. but were very good then... and they were more affordable...
-
about the new 25mm pentax lens..
I have seen Diglloyd testing the 28mm lens from Hasselblad but he found it not up to the 40MP..+... backs.
Leica has not put out any wideangle yet for the S2- I am sure they are capable of making it but the price will be high.
It seems very difficult to make a good wide angle for MP at a reasonable price.. Obviously it will have to cost that 5000$ to produce something good.
As for the new 55mm Pentax it seems the "old" pentax 67 lenses are still better... (when used with an adapter)
The 4x5 inches lenses from Schneider only worked at d16-22 .. but were very good then... and they were more affordable...
Just my humble expression: i have seen Diglloyd testing lot of things.... i am sure he makes a lot of money with what he does. IMHO
-
IMO the Nikon looks rough and nasty in comparison to the Pentax image. Color, detail and tonality all superior in the 645.
What are the price differences on these cameras?
-
We all know what are the strenghs and wicknesses of each system (35mm and MF), we know that for ages, it has been discussed a zillion times and it has never changed since.....
How can you compare 2 cameras with such a difference in sensor size and philosophy, aimed to different applications and needs (and in the case of the D3x, if needs can be similar the shooting style belongs to different tastes)?....
If you'd find silly to open a thread like "Canon G12 vs Canon 5D2", I don't get why don't you find as silly to compare a D3x to a Pentax 645D or any other big sensor's camera.....
No we don't all know what the strengths and weakness are, Fred. Some people still seem to think that all MFDBs have a 4 stop DR advantage over all 35mm DSLRs.
Then other people seem to think that differences between an MFDB and the 35mm format is like the difference between a Canon G12 and a Canon 5D2, apparently unaware that the 5D2 sensor is about 20x the area of the G12 sensor, whereas the 645D sensor is only 1.7x the area of full frame 35mm.
Just as it's quite sensible to compare one MFDB with another, and one 35mm DSLR with another, it's also sensible to compare a top-of-the-line DSLR (the D3X) with the next step up in MFDB format (the 645D) at a no-so-outrageous price.
A better analogy than the G12 compared with the 5D2, would be the 10mp Canon 1D3 with the 16.7mp Canon 1Ds2. The difference in pixel count and sensor size is almost exactly the same as the difference between the D3X and the 645D.
-
Just my humble expression: i have seen Diglloyd testing lot of things.... i am sure he makes a lot of money with what he does. IMHO
In that case I guess Hasselblad did not pay enough...
-
In that case I guess Hasselblad did not pay enough...
Digilloyd is pretty honest, the problem is he is good at doing what he usually does.
Digilloyd is a landscape photographer skilled at dSLR work; he doesn't do the stuff which dSLRs do best, and he doesn't really know how to use MFDB at its best.
Edmund
-
Hi!
Prices may vary, but I'd say that Pentax is like 30% more expensive than the Nikon D3X. To that comes lenses.
Best regards
Erik
IMO the Nikon looks rough and nasty in comparison to the Pentax image. Color, detail and tonality all superior in the 645.
What are the price differences on these cameras?
-
Hi!
Prices may vary, but I'd say that Pentax is like 30% more expensive than the Nikon D3X. To that comes lenses.
Best regards
Erik
And as we all know, Erik, a camera without a lens is useless. The cost, quality, range and type of lenses available (or in the pipeline) has to be part of the equation.
-
Hi,
The Pentax 645 was quite popular so there are a lot of Pentax 645 lenses around, some at very attractive prices. Many of those lenses seem to be excellent but not all. So we have at least three scenarios:
- Someone already having 645 lenses of good quality
- Someone moving to 645 for improved quality and trying to find lenses on EBay
- Someone building a 645 system from scratch and buying new lenses
The costs of these alternatives are very much different. Would anyone invest into the D3x a similar situation would apply.
Best regards
Erik
And as we all know, Erik, a camera without a lens is useless. The cost, quality, range and type of lenses available (or in the pipeline) has to be part of the equation.
-
.....
A better analogy than the G12 compared with the 5D2, would be the 10mp Canon 1D3 with the 16.7mp Canon 1Ds2. The difference in pixel count and sensor size is almost exactly the same as the difference between the D3X and the 645D.
The difference between the MF-digitals and DSLRs is not only about sensor size and MP but also about ccd vs cmos, and 16 bit vs 12 or 14, and about AA-filter vs no AA filter.
IMO its just a different look, even if the sensor would be same size and resolution.
-
Hi,
We recently got some good comparison images from Miles Checker (for P645D and D3X) and also from marcmccalmont (for P45+ and Pentax K5) really indicate that the differences between MFD Digital and CMOS based DSLRs is less than suggested by conventional wisdom.
The Pentax 645D images posted by Miles are without doubt sharper at a given print size than the D3X images and very much different in color. That difference in color is disturbing. Marc has posted good comparison images from his P45+ and Pentax K5 and there is no doubt that the APS-C camera delivers better shadow detail than the once mighty P45+.
The P645D has much better resolution, at given print size, but also needs about the same level of sharpening as the Nikon. The result is essentially what I would expect. A size advantage for the bigger sensor.
Comparing color rendition is difficult. They are different but which one is right?! The Nikon image has better separation between yellow-green and yellow. I prefer the color rendition of Pentax but Nikon might be more correct.
Best regards
Erik
In my view this really puts things in perspective
The difference between the MF-digitals and DSLRs is not only about sensor size and MP but also about ccd vs cmos, and 16 bit vs 12 or 14, and about AA-filter vs no AA filter.
IMO its just a different look, even if the sensor would be same size and resolution.
-
Hi,
The Pentax 645 was quite popular so there are a lot of Pentax 645 lenses around, some at very attractive prices. Many of those lenses seem to be excellent but not all. So we have at least three scenarios:
- Someone already having 645 lenses of good quality
- Someone moving to 645 for improved quality and trying to find lenses on EBay
- Someone building a 645 system from scratch and buying new lenses
The costs of these alternatives are very much different. Would anyone invest into the D3x a similar situation would apply.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
These are issues which need further investigation. The Nikon cameras are famous for their older-lens compatibility. However, one tends to lose certain functions with older lenses, such as autofocus maybe, and/or recording of full EXIF data.
In this day and age it is surely a basic requirement that all cameras have full auto-metering and autofocus.
It doesn't seem sensible to me to make a camera-body purchasing decision on the basis that one already owns, or can get, old lenses of mediocre quality when such resolution improvements of the new camera have been demonstrated with a top quality lens.
-
The difference between the MF-digitals and DSLRs is not only about sensor size and MP but also about ccd vs cmos, and 16 bit vs 12 or 14, and about AA-filter vs no AA filter.
IMO its just a different look, even if the sensor would be same size and resolution.
As far as I'm aware, the advantages and disadvantages of no AA filter tend to canel each other, on balance. The initial impetus to produce a camera without an AA filter was probably due to the cost savings for cameras which were already too expensive for many.
16 bit versus 12 bit may be of some significance. However, the current latest cameras that have the best DR, at the pixel level, without doubt and by a wide margin, are the D7000 and Pentax K5, which are both 14 bit.
Interestingly, the other IQ parameters such as SNR at 18% grey, tonal range and color sensitivity are about the same; slightly better than the 645D, but slightly worse than the P65+, at the pixel level. Not an issue for me.
-
As far as I'm aware, the advantages and disadvantages of no AA filter tend to canel each other, on balance.
I wouldn't agree with that statement. Besides mitigating moire and muddying the image even when moire isn't present what advantage is there for the AA filter?
-
"As far as I'm aware, the advantages and disadvantages of no AA filter tend to canel each other, on balance. The initial impetus to produce a camera without an AA filter was probably due to the cost savings for cameras which were already too expensive for many.
16 bit versus 12 bit may be of some significance. However, the current latest cameras that have the best DR, at the pixel level, without doubt and by a wide margin, are the D7000 and Pentax K5, which are both 14 bit."
I have been shooting with a D7000 since november - and while the DR is amazing - it certainly doesnt appear to beat my MFDB by a "wide margin" or at all for that matter. The D7000 files fall apart quickly when recovering detail from shadows, the 16 bit MFDB file holds up much better. The DR seems pretty close between the D7000 and the MFDB.....usable files the edge still goes to the MFDB for me. As far as the AA Filter - I find it a huge advantage when fine detail is involved - branches and grass for example seem mushy even with the D3X. 16 bit and no AA filter are a great advantage to me that is why I own a MFDB. Shooting in low light at ISO6400 and producing a clean file with great DR is also a great advantage, which is why I own the D7000. Horses for courses i guess
Between the D3X and 645D......tough choice....I think I would go D3X for an all around system as I own a ton of nikon glass.
nice to have choices...I love what i have seen of the 645D too.....awwww hell....I need them both !.....oh...and a Phase IQ180 too !
Regards,
Dennis
-
Hi,
This article from Schneider Optics describes the issue pretty well:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/whitepapers/optics_for_digital_photography.pdf (on page 8).
The screendump below is taken from that document. It shows aliasing. A lot of detail, but all fake.
In my view the negative effect of the aliasing filter is exaggerated. From any number of tests it's quite obvious lenses tend to be diffraction limited around f/5.6 - f/8, clearly indicating that the effect of the AA-filter is relatively small. I'd also assume that increasing the fill factor would act a bit like AA-filtering, making the pixel larger increases the probability that a single point affects more than one sensual.
Best regards
Erik
I wouldn't agree with that statement. Besides mitigating moire and muddying the image even when moire isn't present what advantage is there for the AA filter?
-
"In my view the negative effect of the aliasing filter is exaggerated. From any number of tests it's quite obvious lenses tend to be diffraction limited around f/5.6 - f/8, clearly indicating that the effect of the AA-filter is relatively small. I'd also assume that increasing the fill factor would act a bit like AA-filtering, making the pixel larger increases the probability that a single point affects more than one sensual."
The effect of the AA Filter is quite noticeable see here:
http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm
these guys do AA Filter removal on DSLR'S
May not like the look but it is a noticeably sharper image - granted moire can be an issue ;D
-
The effect of the AA Filter is quite noticeable see here:
http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm
these guys do AA Filter removal on DSLR'S
May not like the look but it is a noticeably sharper image - granted moire can be an issue ;D
This has been discussed before, but moire is not the only problem. From a theoretical standpoint, it has been discussed several times on this forum that perfect sharpness with a discrete sampling system is a myth.
What this means is that most of the micro detail you can feel in AA less images cannot be guaranteed to be real. They might be more pleasing to the eyes of some people, but the "sharpness" of AA filter less images is in fact a bigger departure from the reality of the scene than the "softness" of AA filter images. Increasing the resolution reduces the relative scale of these artifacts but the problem remains the same. These images are built on a foundation of false data.
This is a well accepted fact in most domains like high end audio where companies typically boast about their dithering algos (the equivalent of AA filters), the difference being that you cannot do a 100% pixel zoom on an audio file. Perhaps pixelpeepers need to invent the concept of "decibelpeeper" to generate (artificially again) support from their audiophile friends?
I don't really get why we still need AA filter less imaging sensors with 80 megapixel class sensors. The only reason is to please pixel peeping photographers who have been used to the artificially sharp looking images of their 40 megapixel sensors, but all things considered it would be better to move back to AA filters for the higher resolution backs.
Why do I somehow I feel that this post will not be received well... :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"What this means is that most of the micro detail you can feel in AA less images cannot be guaranteed to be real. They might be more pleasing to the eyes of some people, but the "sharpness" of AA filter less images is in fact a bigger departure from the reality of the scene than the "softness" of AA filter images. Increasing the resolution reduces the relative scale of these artifacts but the problem remains the same. These images are built on a foundation of false data."
Ok - I will admit, I dont understand this...the "micro detail" seems real to me ..I certainly find the AA Filtered, mushy look of fine branches and twigs a "bigger departure from reality" than the crisp version from a Non AA Filtered sensor. Are you saying the AA filtered image is actually more accurate ?
No disrespect Bernard...just trying to understand ;D
I know it is a bit off topic for the thread but....Does a Microstep Multi-shot back only address the moire issue or do they also "build the images on false date" as you stated because they use no AA filter ?
-
"As far as I'm aware, the advantages and disadvantages of no AA filter tend to canel each other, on balance. The initial impetus to produce a camera without an AA filter was probably due to the cost savings for cameras which were already too expensive for many.
16 bit versus 12 bit may be of some significance. However, the current latest cameras that have the best DR, at the pixel level, without doubt and by a wide margin, are the D7000 and Pentax K5, which are both 14 bit."
I have been shooting with a D7000 since november - and while the DR is amazing - it certainly doesnt appear to beat my MFDB by a "wide margin" or at all for that matter. The D7000 files fall apart quickly when recovering detail from shadows, the 16 bit MFDB file holds up much better. The DR seems pretty close between the D7000 and the MFDB.....usable files the edge still goes to the MFDB for me. As far as the AA Filter - I find it a huge advantage when fine detail is involved - branches and grass for example seem mushy even with the D3X. 16 bit and no AA filter are a great advantage to me that is why I own a MFDB. Shooting in low light at ISO6400 and producing a clean file with great DR is also a great advantage, which is why I own the D7000. Horses for courses i guess
Between the D3X and 645D......tough choice....I think I would go D3X for an all around system as I own a ton of nikon glass.
nice to have choices...I love what i have seen of the 645D too.....awwww hell....I need them both !.....oh...and a Phase IQ180 too !
Regards,
Dennis
Dennis,
I really think you are confusing issues here and attributing certain obvious advantages of the larger sensor, with its higher pixel count, to the 16 bit pipeline.
My claim is that the D7000 has a far better DR at the pixel level, than any MFDB that DXO have tested, whilst also maintaining similar tonal range and color sensitivity etc. This augurs well for the future of FF 35mm. There is no reason to suppose that Nikon (or Sony) will not produce a 40mp FF 35mm sensor in the near future, comprised of D7000 pixels. I would consider such a camera an irresistable upgrade, if the price were right.
Nevertheless, I don't wish to appear arrogant after your claim you are using both a D7000 and an MFDB, because clearly you have the opportunity to make comparisons that I don't.
I would be very interested to see a comparison at the pixel level, between your D7000 and whatever MFDB you use.
In order to exclude influences such as the DB's larger sensor and greater pixel count, so we can see just what effect might be attributable to the 16 bit pipeline, (but including also any advantages of the lack of an AA filter and the differences of the CCD design in general, which are impossible to exclude), I think it would be necessary to shoot the same high-DR scene choosing appropriately different focal lengths so that same FoV crops are the same file size.
On the basis that the D7000 has greater pixel density than your DB, this would entail using a slightly longer focal length with your D7000 than you would use with the MFDB, instead of the usually shorter FL to equalize the FoVs of the entire frame. (I think I got that right. Too early for a glass of wine ;D ).
-
Hi,
This article from Schneider Optics describes the issue pretty well:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/whitepapers/optics_for_digital_photography.pdf (on page 8).
The screendump below is taken from that document. It shows aliasing. A lot of detail, but all fake.
In my view the negative effect of the aliasing filter is exaggerated. From any number of tests it's quite obvious lenses tend to be diffraction limited around f/5.6 - f/8, clearly indicating that the effect of the AA-filter is relatively small. I'd also assume that increasing the fill factor would act a bit like AA-filtering, making the pixel larger increases the probability that a single point affects more than one sensual.
Best regards
Erik
I've seen that article, but that doesn't mean that Canon Nikon et all are using the ideal AA filters tuned as describe in it. Anecdotally, my old leica DMR without AA filter could get as much fine detail - real detail - as my canon 5d2 could using the exact same lens fit with an adapter. Taking the lens out of the equation how could the DMR get the same detail with half the pixels? Explain that then - if it isn't the AA filter, what then is robbing the DSLR's of fine detail?
-
..I certainly find the AA Filtered, mushy look of fine branches and twigs a "bigger departure from reality" than the crisp version from a Non AA Filtered sensor. Are you saying the AA filtered image is actually more accurate ?
There can be a slightly mushy appearance to AA filtered images, depending on the RAW converter used, the adjustments mades, and the degree and type of sharpening applied.
The detail slider in ACR is very good at removing mushiness.
Below are conversions I've made of the 645D and D3x examples from Miles, using ACR 6.3. I used the same sharpening for both images; detail at 100%, pixel radius 0.8, and sharpening amount 50.
I downsampled the 645D image to the same file size as the D3X image using 'Bicubic Sharper' to give the 645D image the full sharpness benefit that might flow from downsampling.
I also made an attempt to equalize tonality and color hue in both images, but haven't quite succeeded. The 645D image still retains a more pervasive green.
Comparing 100% crops from the central area of both images, I see no mushiness in the D3X image. But you be the judge.
-
Hi,
Did you focus bracket or used live view for focusing on the 5D? I checked Photozone tests on the Canon 5DII using the Carl Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2 and the Canon 135/2.
The Zeiss is clearly diffraction limited at f/4 and it achieves higher MTF 50 than the Canon 135. So it seems less likely that AA-filtering is a major culprit. Would AA filtering dominate over diffraction there would be no difference between the Canon and the Zeiss.
Another issue is that the microlenses also act against against aliasing. Reducing fill factor results in higher apparent resolution but it's still fake.
I don't argue with you, but it is obvious that the effect of diffraction is clearly significant at relatively large apertures on the 5DII, clearly indicating that resolution is not significantly reduced. Fine detail contrast may be reduced, however. It is generally seen that AA-filtered images need sharpening with a small radius but high amount.
Could you post some raw example images? Using the same lens but different sensors?
When I was looking at the Pentax 645D images I essentially found that they needed exactly the same amount of sharpening as the Nikon D3X images. That may depend on sensor, lens and microlenses. And yes, also on focus. The Pentax has an advantage of more pixels but the pixel size on both cameras is similar. So everything else being equal the Pentax would deliver better resolution and it does indeed.
It may be very hard to tell true and false resolution apart. The best example of false resolution I have seen is on the Sigma DP2 in DPreview,
It's quite obvious that the all resolution beyond Nyquist is fake, the white and dark lines switch place. Sigma is top left quadrant. Sigma seems to have superior resolution but actually all the others resolve better.
Best regards
Erik
I've seen that article, but that doesn't mean that Canon Nikon et all are using the ideal AA filters tuned as describe in it. Anecdotally, my old leica DMR without AA filter could get as much fine detail - real detail - as my canon 5d2 could using the exact same lens fit with an adapter. Taking the lens out of the equation how could the DMR get the same detail with half the pixels? Explain that then - if it isn't the AA filter, what then is robbing the DSLR's of fine detail?
-
Erik,
Yes of course I did use the live view for focusing the 5D2 in the comparison I did. I shot both cameras with the Leica 100 apo macro lens. Frankly I was surprised to see how good the DMR camera was. I don't have the RAWs to share anymore but I did post crops to one of the forums - its been a while though.... maybe Fred Miranda? Since the lens was the same, I could only conclude it had to do with sensor or processing. I used C1 Pro for both images. I think the kodak chip for the DMR has microlenses but you'd have to double check that. My feeling still is that it was the AA filter that made the difference and I am talking about very fine detail.
In any case this is a long ways from the OT - sorry for the side track. I do conclude that the 645D was better than the D3x but not sure that difference has so much to do with AA filters or lack thereof.
-
I do conclude that the 645D was better than the D3x but not sure that difference has so much to do with AA filters or lack thereof.
At F11 the difference between an AA filter and lack of, is not significant.
-
Ray ,
I looked at your samples - nice job processing. I see very little of the "mushiness" i usually see from a dslr, files are actually very, very close. I am not shooting with a D3X either, so perhaps some of my perception of "Mushiness" is due to resolution ?(16mp dslr vs 22mp mfdb). So ...I have come to this conclusion....I may be biased ! ;D I am comparing shots done with a Sinar 54M and Schnieder Super Angulon 40/3.5 to a D7000 and NIKON 12-24. It probably comes down to the glass more than anything in my case - The Schnieder lens is in amazing, the nikon is fair at best IMO. I have rented a D3X in the past but probably didnt spend as much time as I should have with it. I do think the 645D files were better than the D3X but it is closer than I would have thought.
Regards,
Dennis
-
Ray ,
I looked at your samples - nice job processing. I see very little of the "mushiness" i usually see from a dslr, files are actually very, very close.
There really is nothing mushy about the d3x when correct sharpening is applied.
The full size sample below is shot handheld with a 300 f2.8 VR... the helicopter is moving.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3900647680/sizes/o/in/set-72157622461555672/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard, the helicopter image to me is the exact reason why to use MF digital back, no mather if its a 16, a 22 or a 50Mp back. I am sure you will disagree with me but then i would symply ask you to shoot these things with a digital back and with a Conon/Nikon. Oh yes, i do not mean you have to use such a long telephoto lens as this oes not exist on MF but just the rendering of different tones and shades is so uggly, 35mm filmlike. With all respect, its a great shot and i really like your photography but i think there are to many things said over here abouth MF that simply aren't true or at least biased towards Nikon/Canon. I shoot with Nikon/Canon and sony 850 and none of them has the smoothness of any of my MF gear. Just my 2cents.
-
... the helicopter image to me is the exact reason why to use MF digital back, no mather if its a 16, a 22 or a 50Mp back. I am sure you will disagree with me but then i would symply ask you to shoot these things with a digital back and with a Conon/Nikon. Oh yes, i do not mean you have to use such a long telephoto lens as this oes not exist on MF but just the rendering of different tones and shades is so uggly, 35mm filmlike.
I agree, the tonal rendition in this photo is quite poor compared with what I'd expect from MF digital.
-
Hi Bernard,
The mushiness I was referring to is what I usually see on branches/foliage and fine detail areas like grasses. it is similar to what u see if you get heavy handed with noise reduction. You dont see much it until you compare it to a MFDB file - as I said though I may be biased as my MF rig is of far better quality glass wise than my Nikon rig
I do quite a few Aerials as well and find the D7000 fast and easy to handle with a 80-200 / 2.8 it does a great job, and is better suited for rough use inside a C-172 than my MF rig !
Nice copter shot
D
-
Yes, agree with the above posters. MF has a smoother, deeper, richer look not just better detail. I didn't think so myself until I made the switch. I find a lot of the discussion in these threads interesting but as Peter Devos suggests, there is no substitute for just working with the different platforms and seeing for yourself.
-
I still have a leaf Cantare XY camera back and i dare any D3x/5dMk2/1ds3/A900/A850 to shoot a setup against the Cantare( or Imacon 3020/Phase lightphase). They are only 6Mp, but man... what a great 6 Mp. When not using both systems it is futile to express an opinion abouth MF. These people only misinform possible users because of their " extremely limited internet exerience ( mostly from analising someone elses shot). Just get a MF set for a weekend and really try and use it as it is suppose d to... then you will see why so much pro's are using MF.
-
Hi Eric,
What I have seen from Miles pictures the Pentax has a definitive advantage in absolute resolution. I made prints from 1/3 crops corresponding to 53x83 cm and the sharpness advantage of the Pentax is quite obvious when pixel peeping, but seeing the prints at say 80 cm the difference is not obvious to me, with my eyesight. I tried to match colors and tonality.
The colors are quite different but I´d suggest that may be a white balance issue. I rebalanced on a hopefully white door on a distant building and the color were much closer. The difference is still a bit to much for my taste.
Looking at shadow detail I'd say the Pentax image has a tiny advantage.
The Pentax having better resolution comes as no surprise as it has a bigger sensor with more pixels. This is also obvious from testing I have done using Imatest, see enclosed figure. The Imatest calculation also shows that the Pentax 645D transmits an unhealthy amount of contrast at Nyquist. Another image from the same test also shows a healthy amount of Moiré.
Regarding your finding on the DMR vs. the Canon 5DII it really seems that you have eliminated the obvious problem areas. What is pretty certain that the lens you have would produce a significant amount of false detail on a sensor with 6.8 micron pitch (like the DMR) unless stopped down to at least f/8 (Airy ring diameter is around 8 microns at f/8). So I have no good explanation. Thanks for sharing your experience! That's not sidetracking, BTW.
There was a posting recently by Marc McCalmont comparing his P45+ to his K5. The K5 seems to have better shadow detail than the P45+. The impression I have is that MFDBs are said to have magic properties. Both the Pentax tests and the Marc's image contradict this.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50895.0
There are several posters on the forum who have both MFDBs and DSLRs and don't really see the magic, like Jeff Schewe, Marc and Eronald. They acknowledge the quality but not the magic.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Yes of course I did use the live view for focusing the 5D2 in the comparison I did. I shot both cameras with the Leica 100 apo macro lens. Frankly I was surprised to see how good the DMR camera was. I don't have the RAWs to share anymore but I did post crops to one of the forums - its been a while though.... maybe Fred Miranda? Since the lens was the same, I could only conclude it had to do with sensor or processing. I used C1 Pro for both images. I think the kodak chip for the DMR has microlenses but you'd have to double check that. My feeling still is that it was the AA filter that made the difference and I am talking about very fine detail.
In any case this is a long ways from the OT - sorry for the side track. I do conclude that the 645D was better than the D3x but not sure that difference has so much to do with AA filters or lack thereof.
-
There was a posting recently by Marc McCalmont comparing his P45+ to his K5. The K5 seems to have better shadow detail than the P45+. The impression I have is that MFDBs are said to have magic properties. Both the Pentax tests and the Marc's image contradict this. There are several posters on the forum who have both MFDBs and DSLRs and don't really see the magic, like Jeff Schewe, Marc and Eronald. They acknowledge the quality but not the magic.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Well what can I say except have you shot any of your own work on a MF camera with a digital back? If you have to rely on what others post and think, you can't be sure yourself.
Look, every piece of gear will have its strengths and it might well be that a person could find a test shot scenario where one camera will come out on top. For example if I wanted to show that then canon 5D2 was better than a MF camera, I'd simple take a shot at ISO 3200 or one requiring auto focus. In those limited aspects one could say the DSLR was better. And in the p45+ v K5 image - sure the shadows could be lifted, but that's an exercise only for peepers. Which image looked better as posted by the OP? I'm sure that in most other examples and criteria the p45 would win easily. The point of the OP was to show the strength of the K5 and he did so. What would it look like if he wanted to show the strength of the p45?
Eric
-
Hi,
I would like to test an MFDB, but there are a couple of issues.
1) Cost, renting a top MFDB for a couple of days like buying a Sony Alpha 850
2) Making good test shots is in no way easy, so even if I rented an MFDB a couple of days I would not know if I utilized it optimally
Also, I cannot see what is wrong with using other peoples tests. Diglloyd essentially has testing as his business, it is very probable he makes better test images than I would. Miles Hecker's images are made with considerable care. Why would I think that I would devise better tests?
Regarding Marc's image, it's clear that he makes a statement. But it is routinely said that DR on MFDBs is several stops wider than on DSLRs, Marc's image clearly contradicts this, at least for shadow detail. I don't have any issue with MFDBs, I sort of considered buying both the Mamya ZD and the Pentax 645D and I never considered buying a Nikon D3X.
What I'm doubtful about are statements that don't match physics, like MFDBs having better color, better tonality, significantly more DR.
I have seen samples from Phase One clearly indicating better DR than Canon 1DsIII and Miles's sample here really indicate quite different color between P645D and D3X. Nevertheless, I don't believe in magic. If there is a difference there must be some logical explanation to it.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Well what can I say except have you shot any of your own work on a MF camera with a digital back? If you have to rely on what others post and think, you can't be sure yourself.
Look, every piece of gear will have its strengths and it might well be that a person could find a test shot scenario where one camera will come out on top. For example if I wanted to show that then canon 5D2 was better than a MF camera, I'd simple take a shot at ISO 3200 or one requiring auto focus. In those limited aspects one could say the DSLR was better. And in the p45+ v K5 image - sure the shadows could be lifted, but that's an exercise only for peepers. Which image looked better as posted by the OP? I'm sure that in most other examples and criteria the p45 would win easily. The point of the OP was to show the strength of the K5 and he did so. What would it look like if he wanted to show the strength of the p45?
Eric
-
Erik,
If you aren't going to ever use a MF camera why do you waste so much time on the forums about it? I really mean it that you won't know what some of us are talking about until you use one yourself.
Eric
-
What I'm doubtful about are statements that don't match physics, like MFDBs having better color, better tonality, significantly more DR.
I have seen samples from Phase One clearly indicating better DR than Canon 1DsIII and Miles's sample here really indicate quite different color between P645D and D3X. Nevertheless, I don't believe in magic. If there is a difference there must be some logical explanation to it.
I don't believe in magic either. If the logic available to us doesn't explain observed differences then perhaps it's best to re-examine the logic. In my day job I'm creating mathematical models of physical systems. Where differences are observed between empirical data and mathematical models and in the empirical tests the variables have been adequately controlled, the differences are most likely caused by a weakness in the mathematical model, simplifying assumptions or inadequate understanding of the physics being the most likely culprits. A logical explanation will always exist, but we might not have enough knowledge or have included enough parameters in our equations to explain it.
-
No worries, this image was for sure tuned for detail, tones are OK in print.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Erik,
Well what can I say except have you shot any of your own work on a MF camera with a digital back? If you have to rely on what others post and think, you can't be sure yourself... [snip] And in the p45+ v K5 image - sure the shadows could be lifted, but that's an exercise only for peepers. Which image looked better as posted by the OP? I'm sure that in most other examples and criteria the p45 would win easily.
Ah now, the same advice might be taken in regards to the K-5. We do know that the K-5 dynamic range at low ISO exceeds all current MF and FF cameras, though that is unlikely to remain true for very long. So, in terms of shadow detail, I would expect the K-5 to fair very well in comparison. Mind you, as you note, this isn't the whole picture. It is important, though, to note that the technology around digital photography is not standing still and is moving far faster in the 35mm format than it is in the medium format market, that's simple economics, just as P&S is moving faster than the 35mm market. I think a lot of old opinions on this topic are either going to change or simply be shown to be incorrect in the face of stubborn reality. So, at the current rate, the 35mm form factor will surpass MF in IQ, the MF sensor technology is simply not keeping up, so the question is when.
-
Hi
I agree. Except that there is the definite possibility of the observation being wrong. Do you have any good explanation that we don't see fake detail in images with very high resolving lenses, large pixels and no AA-filtering? I have a few theories, please add yours:
1) Fake detail can be mistaken for real one
2) Stopping down reduces aliasing. Diglloyd indicated that stopping down to f/11 eliminate Moiré on Leica S2 images. The Airy circle diameter will be around 11 microns (depending on wavelength of light) at f/11 so it pretty much corresponds to twice the pixel pitch (6 microns on the S2).
3) Less than perfect focus would also reduce fake detail
My guess is that the first point is most important. We see fake detail and perceive it as real detail.
How detrimental is AA-filtering? That is another question, very well possible that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. I see smaller pixels as the solution. That also unfortunately decreases DR both on the pixel level and when averaged over area. Binning will not reduce aliasing either, if done before demosaic. (As far as I understand)
A third question is how much of the edge contrast lost to AA-filtering can be regained with sharpening. Excessive sharpening will induce fake detail and enhance noise.
Best regards
Erik
I don't believe in magic either. If the logic available to us doesn't explain observed differences then perhaps it's best to re-examine the logic. In my day job I'm creating mathematical models of physical systems. Where differences are observed between empirical data and mathematical models and in the empirical tests the variables have been adequately controlled, the differences are most likely caused by a weakness in the mathematical model, simplifying assumptions or inadequate understanding of the physics being the most likely culprits. A logical explanation will always exist, but we might not have enough knowledge or have included enough parameters in our equations to explain it.
-
1) Fake detail can be mistaken for real one
Yes, I believe that this is very true.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
This is a very good example of fake detail. It's from the Sigma DP2 having a Foevon sensor with relatively large pixels (7.8 micron pitch)
Note that no lines are resolved at the 18 mark but the lines reemerge below. They look very real but they are absolutely fake.
I have not seen it on DPReviews test of the Leica M8, but the image there was JPEG so it was preprocessed in camera.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, I believe that this is very true.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard, the helicopter image to me is the exact reason why to use MF digital back, no mather if its a 16, a 22 or a 50Mp back. I am sure you will disagree with me but then i would symply ask you to shoot these things with a digital back and with a Conon/Nikon. Oh yes, i do not mean you have to use such a long telephoto lens as this oes not exist on MF but just the rendering of different tones and shades is so uggly, 35mm filmlike. With all respect, its a great shot and i really like your photography but i think there are to many things said over here abouth MF that simply aren't true or at least biased towards Nikon/Canon. I shoot with Nikon/Canon and sony 850 and none of them has the smoothness of any of my MF gear. Just my 2cents.
I disagree about 35mm not being able to be smooth.
I think it has a lot to do with the sensor but also with lenses and digital treatment.
Most 35mm images we usually see have other goals than smoothness - especially when used for press purposes.
Smoothness is clearly not the goal in the helicopter image.
It is only since recent that 35mm are being able to be 14 bit and that 24MP is possible. We will see that it will be able to be 16 bit and 40MP in the near future.
Here an image made with my 35mm Nikon d3x were smoothness is vital and achieved...
-
... It is only since recent that 35mm are being able to be 14 bit ...
My 5-year-old Leica DMR is 16-bit and the tonal rendition is gorgeous. I have no idea why CaNikon et al have been dragging their feet.
-
You need to set the Nikon to 14 bit before comparing it to something else.
However, the Kodak chips have more orthogonal color filters, while the others go for more ISO. This translates to faster dSLRs with worse color discrimination.
Edmund
-
... the Kodak chips have more orthogonal color filters, while the others go for more ISO. This translates to faster dSLRs with worse color discrimination....
This is something I've suspected. Do you have links or other references that would explain this further?
-
My 5-year-old Leica DMR is 16-bit and the tonal rendition is gorgeous. I have no idea why CaNikon et al have been dragging their feet.
Because 16-bit recording of a <12 bit dynamic range is rather pointless. Nikon has finally gotten their pixel DR above 12 bits; Canon not yet (the data indicates a photosite DR of around 14 bits, but they aren't able to get it cleanly off the sensor).
-
Because 16-bit recording of a <12 bit dynamic range is rather pointless. Nikon has finally gotten their pixel DR above 12 bits; Canon not yet (the data indicates a photosite DR of around 14 bits, but they aren't able to get it cleanly off the sensor).
Those 16 bits specs are close to false advertising.
They remind me of the DPI claims of Epson scanners. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Those 16 bits specs are close to false advertising.
Is this opinion based on a mathematical model or on empirical observation?
-
Physics and mathematics...
Try to put lenscap on and make an exposure at medium time, so you get no noise. Increase exposure in raw developing like four stops if you see any noise you don't have true sixteen bits. Reason: 16 bits is a ratio of 1:64000. Sensor probably holds around 60000 electrons, by and large corresponding to photons. So with true 16 bits there would be no noise. In practice there is something usually called readout noise, and that would typically be around 15 electrons or so. It takes 4 bits to count 15 electrons. So the range for meaningful signal would be around 12 bits.
Another simple test. Underexpose four steps, adjust exposure in raw development to compensate, the image would still be free of readout noise. And yes, the camera would excel at high ISOs.
I have no DMR so I cannot make these simple tests. Kodak has published readout noise for many of their sensors, so it may be possible to find out the exact data. DR (what the bits are needed for) is defined by Full Well Capacity and readout noise. DR is log2(FWC/readout noise). It happens also be the number of useful bits in the processing pipeline.
Best regards
Erik
Is this opinion based on a mathematical model or on empirical observation?
-
Hi,
Or my Dimage Scan Multi Pro having 16 bits corresponding to a density range of 4.8, in reality perhaps 3.2. With a DR of 4.8 scanning Velvia would be peace of cake, but it was not. Velvia has a density range just below 4.
Best regards
Erik
Those 16 bits specs are close to false advertising.
They remind me of the DPI claims of Epson scanners. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Something similar is discussed in this article:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/Canon-500D-T1i-vs.-Nikon-D5000/Color-blindness-sensor-quality
Which also gives detailed spectral data for the two sensors.
DxO Mark also has "Sensitivity metamerism index", It would have been 100 if sensor spectral sensivities matched human eye. So higher figure is better. This figure is based on the standard Xrite Color Checker patches. It may not be a perfect standard but developed by professionals in the color reproduction business.
It is:
75 for the Pentax 645D
79 for the Nikon D3X
80 for the Canon EOS 5DII
87 for the Sony Alpha 900
76 for the Leica M9
76 for the Phase One P65
The DMR is not listed, sorry.
The sensivity curves for the eye have much overlap for red and green (see below):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Cone-fundamentals-with-srgb-spectrum.png/287px-Cone-fundamentals-with-srgb-spectrum.png
So sensors need some overlap on green and red, too.
Pleasant color is not the same as true color, would true color exist. So it is quite possible that one set of colors would be preferred for subjective photography, while another set of colors would be preferred for reproduction. In film days I used Velvia for landscapes, but it was really awful for portraits. The sensor just delivers three channel monochrome data, the color interpretation is done in raw development.
Comparing Miles's image i color balanced each for same subject area (White door on distant building) and got a much better color match. The Nikon image still has a lot more yellow in the greens. I'd consider it possible that it may depend on more overlap between red and green sensors, and also that it may be more truthful representation of the scene than the image from the Pentax.
Nikon shows color that is not very present in the Pentax, is Pentax missing colors or does Nikon exaggerate, I don't know. This illustrates a part of the problem. It is almost impossible to put the scene in a spectrometer and actually measure!
I also converted the images with the well regarded Iridient Raw Developer and the results were quite similar to ACR.
Best regards
Erik
This is something I've suspected. Do you have links or other references that would explain this further?
-
Is this opinion based on a mathematical model or on empirical observation?
It is based on the result of actual raw file analysis performed by some researchers in imaging active on this very forum.
There appears to be no usable information in the last 2 bits.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is this opinion based on a mathematical model or on empirical observation?
I measured the DR of the DMR and the 5D with Imatest years back now and while the 5D had more DR under the technical definition of ISO something close to 12 stops and the DMR had only 11.5 stops, once the threshold is changed to something more useful to photographers (Imatest draws several curves) the 5D's DR had dropped to 8 stops or under while the DMR didn't drop much at all - in summary handily out performing the 5D in real world testing not pie in the sky arm chair mathematical talk. This is the really important thing to keep in mind. A lot of discussion on this forum still quote DXO figures rather than actually measuring things and deal with idealized case rather than real world performance. It's just too bad that those folks so interested in this stuff can't get their hands on the different cameras and make real life tests because then maybe they'd see what the people who use the cameras daily are talking about.
-
"A lot of discussion on this forum still quote DXO figures rather than actually measuring things and deal with idealized case rather than real world performance. It's just too bad that those folks so interested in this stuff can't get their hands on the different cameras and make real life tests because then maybe they'd see what the people who use the cameras daily are talking about."
+ 1
-
On one hand, the claim that 16 bits has nor real advantage over 14 bits is not only supported by the experiments that Bernard quotes, but by the experimental data reported by the sensor makers themselves: both Kodak and Dalsa consistently report S:N ratios (engineering DR) values less than 8000:1, or about what 13 bits can encode, and both report dark noise levels of around 10 electrons or more, so that in 16 bit output, where there are about enough levels to count each electron, the last three bits or so are counting dark noise electrons.
On the other hand, what EricWHiss says is plausible:
"I measured the DR of the DMR and the 5D with Imatest years back now and while the 5D had more DR under the technical definition of ISO something close to 12 stops and the DMR had only 11.5 stops, once the threshold is changed to something more useful to photographers (Imatest draws several curves) the 5D's DR had dropped to 8 stops or under while the DMR didn't drop much at all..."
DXO has a measure of something like "stops of tonal range" which is significantly lower than its reported DR, and seems to be of more practical relevance.
Raising the minimum "useful" S:N level used to judge useful DR makes the dark noise floor less relevant at full exposure (low ISO speed) so that larger well capacity and thus better ratio of signal to shot noise can shift the results in favor of sensor with larger well capacity. As I have argued before, lowering dark noise below about 5 electrons will improve some engineering specs (and is vital for astronomy and useful for surveillance cameras and cameras with tiny photosites) but it contributes little or nothing to aspects of observed image quality relevant to high end MF or 35mm DSLR usage: controlling shot noise by detecting enough photons becomes the main way forward.
-
My 5-year-old Leica DMR is 16-bit and the tonal rendition is gorgeous. I have no idea why CaNikon et al have been dragging their feet.
Doug, only people who have actually owned the DMR know what it is capable of. For everyone else, it is like trying to describe a rainbow to a colorblind dog.
Back to the original subject, after downloading and working with the raw files I have to say I am both surprised how at how good the D3x file is, and at the same time how much better the Pentax file it.
-
It seems many of the forum discussions about 12 bit vs. 14 bit vs. 16 bit sensors yell and scream about DR. ......Correct me if I am wrong but a 16 bit sensor records a greater range of colors / tones right ? Seems like a newbie question but I am starting to doubt what I thought to be the case ! I always thought the smoother tones of a MFDB were largely due to them being 16 bit......is that correct or not ?
-
Hi,
My experience is that DR is very seldom a major factor in the kind of photography I normally do, landscape mostly. Would I need extreme DR the resort would be HDR photography. I did experiment with HDR but I could more often than not achieve similar results from correct ETR exposures. I do sometime church interiors and the experience still applies.
I essentially agree with Bill on well capacity and photo shot noise being the most important factor.
On the other hand I have seen a lot of real images demonstrating superior DR in the Pentax K5. Guiilermo Luik has developed some quite advanced tools for extending dynamic range and he really demonstrated how well the K5 handles deep underexposures.
Marc McCalmont demonstrated the K5 having excellent shadow detail compared with his P45+. I´d say that is real evidence, in the P45+ vs. K5 case raw images I evaluated myself. That's a bit hard to ignore. In theory shot noise is more important than readout noise but the K5 images by Marc McCalmont and Guillermo Gluik really indicate that the advantages are for real.
I have quite a lot of respect for Imatest, which I'm using myself, but so do I have for DxO data. The measurements are probably correct, but the interpretation may be misleading. I had some discussion with Mark Dubovoy on the issue and I got the impression that lenses and MTF play a significant role in perceived dynamic range. A god lens can simply produce more contrast on small detail than a bad lens. Similarly, larger pixels will have higher contrast because MTF is higher for lower frequencies. But this has nothing to do with CCD vs. CMOS or bit depth.
But, I see a real problem. People like Miles, Lloyd Chambers, Mark Dubovoy, Marc Mccalmont and Guillermo Luik present a lot of evidence in form or real images, some even in "raw". Some of the folks who are most knowledgeable like Emil Martinez don't use MFDB but humble DSLRs.
It is very hard to find any good raw images usable for evaluation on MFDBs, but pretty much on DSLRs.
I'd also add that it is not particularly easy to make good tests. To many variables around. I don't see anything wrong with evaluating test images made by others, especially not with images made by people knowing what they do. Of course the images must be raw. I have done such evaluations:
On Pentax 645D vs. Pentax D3X: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/51-a-closer-look-at-pentax-645d-image-quality
On Leica S2 vs. Nikon D3X: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images
On Phase One P65+ vs. Canon 1dSIII http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/41-phase-one-images-for-download
I'm not a Nikon fanboy, but it seems that Nikon D3X used to be the champ in AA-filtered CMOS technology. So for me the issue was more about the effect of AA-filtering and how much can be gained by moving to larger formats.
My finding was that:
- Regarding sharpness the bigger format wins.
- Regarding noise and DR Phase One P65+ is much better than Canon 1DsIII. Pentax 645D is about on par with Nikon D3X and Nikon D3X is better than Leica S2.
This observations are based on the images I had access to. The observations are pretty much consistent with DxO data. As a side note the Canon 1DsIII has issues with noise in shadow detail at low ISO, it has definitively been passed by D3X and Pentax K5. That said Canon keeps noise down at high ISO due to preamp implementation (probable explanation).
It would be very nice if MFDB and DMR owners would post comparison raw images from their CCD-based cameras and modern top of the line CMOS based DSLRs like Nikon D3X and Pentax K5. The only comparisons I have seen not that is the original posting here by Miles Hecker and the P45+ vs. K5 comparison posted by Marc McCalmont. Please feel free to contribute images!
Best regards
Erik
On one hand, the claim that 16 bits has nor real advantage over 14 bits is not only supported by the experiments that Bernard quotes, but by the experimental data reported by the sensor makers themselves: both Kodak and Dalsa consistently report S:N ratios (engineering DR) values less than 8000:1, or about what 13 bits can encode, and both report dark noise levels of around 10 electrons or more, so that in 16 bit output, where there are about enough levels to count each electron, the last three bits or so are counting dark noise electrons.
On the other hand, what EricWHiss says is plausible:
"I measured the DR of the DMR and the 5D with Imatest years back now and while the 5D had more DR under the technical definition of ISO something close to 12 stops and the DMR had only 11.5 stops, once the threshold is changed to something more useful to photographers (Imatest draws several curves) the 5D's DR had dropped to 8 stops or under while the DMR didn't drop much at all..."
DXO has a measure of something like "stops of tonal range" which is significantly lower than its reported DR, and seems to be of more practical relevance.
Raising the minimum "useful" S:N level used to judge useful DR makes the dark noise floor less relevant at full exposure (low ISO speed) so that larger well capacity and thus better ratio of signal to shot noise can shift the results in favor of sensor with larger well capacity. As I have argued before, lowering dark noise below about 5 electrons will improve some engineering specs (and is vital for astronomy and useful for surveillance cameras and cameras with tiny photosites) but it contributes little or nothing to aspects of observed image quality relevant to high end MF or 35mm DSLR usage: controlling shot noise by detecting enough photons becomes the main way forward.
-
It seems many of the forum discussions about 12 bit vs. 14 bit vs. 16 bit sensors yell and scream about DR. ......Correct me if I am wrong but a 16 bit sensor records a greater range of colors / tones right ? Seems like a newbie question but I am starting to doubt what I thought to be the case ! I always thought the smoother tones of a MFDB were largely due to them being 16 bit......is that correct or not ?
There is no camera made today capable of capturing more than 14 "good" bits of signal, and the 14th bit is usually no more than a dither bit. The D3x and the Phase P65+ are about on a par with 13.7 stops of dynamic range, both a good bit better than the 5DII. Cameras introduced this year from Nikon and/or Canon may push a little higher.
-
Hi,
+1
The advantage of MFDBs may not be 16 bits but larger sensor area thus collecting more photons.
These two posting may indicate how good todays DSLRs are:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50895.msg420348#msg420348
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50895.msg421886#msg421886
Same images but different aspects. The K5 is an APS-C camera from Pentax and the P45+ e pretty up to date Phase One with CCD sensor.
And yes, I cannot explain why the K5 sensor is so good as it seems but have seen a lot of convincing evidence in it's favor.
Best regards
Erik
There is no camera made today capable of capturing more than 14 "good" bits of signal, and the 14th bit is usually no more than a dither bit. The D3x and the Phase P65+ are about on a par with 13.7 stops of dynamic range, both a good bit better than the 5DII. Cameras introduced this year from Nikon and/or Canon may push a little higher.
-
Ok...so just to clarify....a 16 Bit capture from a MFDB has the same amount of color information as a 14 bit capture from a DSLR ?
-
One of the things that DxO does not measure that can visibly affect usable DR and image quality is pattern noise; it is the main reason why low ISO shadows on a D3x are dramatically better than a 1Ds3 which is dramatically better than a 5D2. Even though the 5D2 and 1Ds3 measure for all practical purposes to have the same DR on DxO.
-
I always suggest the same thing. Go test one yourself. A LOT of factors influence DR, color, and noise. dXo does a good job of measuring some of them, sensor testing/spec-sheets measure some of them, but nothing measures all of them other than real world shooting...
Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both bit depth and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening
Testing a camera/back in real world shooting takes all this into account and shows you what matters: what the picture looks like and how it can be used. Talking about dithering bits is kind of fun, but serves very little real world purpose. The components of high-end backs are selected to create the best possible image and that includes far more than the evaluation of the number of bits of the convertor.
Also remember that the type of noise is in many ways far more important than the absolute mathematical quantity of it. I'll take a fine gaussian filmlike grain over a chunky inorganic digital looking blobbular mess any day of the week regardless of how they compare to each other mathematically.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
There is another factor that will typically make DSLRs fare a bit better than Phaseone backs in terms of shadow noise.
That is the fact that most back images are typically underexposed due to the fact that phase is over-rating most of their ISOs one full stop (this can be seen when looking at DxO data). The intend, I believe, is to give the illusion of highlight recovery, which is more a concern than shadow recovery for most photographers, especially those working with light modifiers.
This trick used to be OK when backs had a clear DR advantage, but it is starting to show a bit now that DSLR have reached a similar level. Comparing the shadows typically shows clearer data on the DSLR since they are typically less "under-exposed".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard I appreciate your insights in this forum, you are engaging and speak with obvious intelligence, but you are completely wrong in your views on shadow noise in the comparison, categorically wrong.
Doug is spot-on regarding the importance of real world testing and as example, two days ago I did a studio shoot where we had completely controlled conditions, as is my workflow I shot D3X and P65+ side by side for the whole day, every shot was done moving back and forth between both systems.
We took quite a bit of time to establish the same file-result between the platforms, this included my capture tech taking measurements of RGB between the Nikon and Phase files, in order to match we were obliged to open the exposure on the D3X by .3-.5 stops AND do a bit of shadow recovery to replicate the P65+.
The reason we fret over it is because we have a Creative Director on set and we want a seamless experience for them, but also we want to be certain whatever we shoot will be capable of being integrated with one another as closely as possible.
This has been a standard practice for me on every shoot where I use both platforms.
I don't care what DXO may say or not say, though I love my Nikon D3X, it does not match the shadow noise or detail of the Phase at the same exposure/iso, in my real-world experience.
There's a lot of misinformation in this forum which is hard for me to read at times, this is one of those times.
D
www.dermotcleary.com
-
I don't care what DXO may say or not say, though I love my Nikon D3X, it does not match the shadow noise or detail of the Phase at the same exposure/iso, in my real-world experience.
I was not specifically referring to the P65+ vs D3x. The fact that the ISO value of Phaseone backs (including the P65+) is one stop off is easy to confirm (see below). Unless I am mistaken, I have never seen claims anywhere that the DxO ISO meaurement was off compared to real world behaviors.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/579|0/%28appareil2%29/485|0/%28appareil3%29/676|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Phase%20One/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Pentax
Would you agree with me that this will typically result in an under-exposure of images that results in less clean shadows when brought back to the expected level of brightness?
On your D3x/P65+ comment. I can accept the fact that there is a gap between the DR measured value of DxO and the perceived cleaness of shadows. I have commented several times that I had no problem with the proposition that the P65+ had more real world DR than the D3x.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
It depends on which MFDB you compare with which DSLR but 14 bits is more than what any sensor used in any DSLR or MFDB can deliver. Also the bits do not hold any color information. They represent three black and white images which are converted to color by in camera processing or raw conversion. The color depends on the filter array and on the tables describing the color filter array. So bits have nothing to do with color.
The Phase One raw files are said to contain a lot of calibration data for each individual back that Capture One can utilize. That can result in superior color but has nothing to do with the number of bits.
DxO data is based on raw data coming from sensor, so it is looking at signal quality before raw conversion.
Best regards
Erik
Ok...so just to clarify....a 16 Bit capture from a MFDB has the same amount of color information as a 14 bit capture from a DSLR ?
-
Hi,
DR has nothing to do with shadow recovery. It's about noise in the recovered shadow detail. I have only seen one really good RAW image from the P65+ downloaded from Phase One, but that image was quite impressive. The original posting here was about the Pentax 645D which is at a price point similar to the Nikon D3X, one of the reasons for making that kind of comparisons.
The P65+ has significantly larger physical size than the Pentax 645D which is a "crop sensor".
A Nikon image will take more sharpening, due to AA-filtering and possibly also because of lens quality. Phase is said to have some very good lenses. Sharpening normally also picks up noise.
Have you seen these?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50895.msg420348#msg420348
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50895.msg421886#msg421886
Best regards
Erik
Bernard I appreciate your insights in this forum, you are engaging and speak with obvious intelligence, but you are completely wrong in your views on shadow noise in the comparison, categorically wrong.
Doug is spot-on regarding the importance of real world testing and as example, two days ago I did a studio shoot where we had completely controlled conditions, as is my workflow I shot D3X and P65+ side by side for the whole day, every shot was done moving back and forth between both systems.
We took quite a bit of time to establish the same file-result between the platforms, this included my capture tech taking measurements of RGB between the Nikon and Phase files, in order to match we were obliged to open the exposure on the D3X by .3-.5 stops AND do a bit of shadow recovery to replicate the P65+.
The reason we fret over it is because we have a Creative Director on set and we want a seamless experience for them, but also we want to be certain whatever we shoot will be capable of being integrated with one another as closely as possible.
This has been a standard practice for me on every shoot where I use both platforms.
I don't care what DXO may say or not say, though I love my Nikon D3X, it does not match the shadow noise or detail of the Phase at the same exposure/iso, in my real-world experience.
There's a lot of misinformation in this forum which is hard for me to read at times, this is one of those times.
D
www.dermotcleary.com
-
Hi
That is absolutely true.
Regarding testing I see little benefit in doing own test shots when there are well made test images around. Setting up a good test is not easy. Unfortunately very few high quality raw images from MFDBs are around.
By the way the old ACR/Ligtroom was quite horrible in noise reduction at least for high ISO images, but the new version ACR6/LR3 produces much nicer noise pattern. See here (and click on images for full size):
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/32-new-raw-processing-pipeline-in-lightroom-3-beta-2
Best regards
Erik
Also remember that the type of noise is in many ways far more important than the absolute mathematical quantity of it. I'll take a fine gaussian filmlike grain over a chunky inorganic digital looking blobbular mess any day of the week regardless of how they compare to each other mathematically.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Yes, that is an important point.
I try mostly comparing "raw" images and look at shadow detail visually. Very few raw images around from NFDBs but Miles has posted a very good comparison in this discussion and Diglloyd has released some. We have also a couple from Marc McCalmont posted on another discussion, comparing his P45+ with his newly acquired Pentax K5 APS-C camera. Marc is impressed by the K5 and so am I with his K5 image.
Best regards
Erik
One of the things that DxO does not measure that can visibly affect usable DR and image quality is pattern noise; it is the main reason why low ISO shadows on a D3x are dramatically better than a 1Ds3 which is dramatically better than a 5D2. Even though the 5D2 and 1Ds3 measure for all practical purposes to have the same DR on DxO.
-
Enough already.
- Under perfect outdoors conditions, or studio, an MFDB will gain one class on the D3x. Two classes, maybe if you have one of the new 60 or 80 MP backs.
- Under real world, handheld conditions, the Nikon will win because of fast focus and high ISO. Which doesn't mean that the MFDB couldn't deliver some pictures with a unique look.
- The Canon 5DII is simply not in the class of the Nikon. People who one a 5DII and extrapolate from there are making a serious mistake.
Edmund
-
This has been a standard practice for me on every shoot where I use both platforms.
I don't care what DXO may say or not say, though I love my Nikon D3X, it does not match the shadow noise or detail of the Phase at the same exposure/iso, in my real-world experience.
There's a lot of misinformation in this forum which is hard for me to read at times, this is one of those times.
You could clear up some if this misinformation by posting some raw files from your test shots. There are very few parallel test shots taken with the D3x and Phase One P65+ under identical conditions.
Regards,
Bill
-
Hi,
Could you explain the uniqueness?
Best regards
Erik
Enough already.
- Under perfect outdoors conditions, or studio, an MFDB will gain one class on the D3x. Two classes, maybe if you have one of the new 60 or 80 MP backs.
- Under real world, handheld conditions, the Nikon will win because of fast focus and high ISO. Which doesn't mean that the MFDB couldn't deliver some pictures with a unique look.
- The Canon 5DII is simply not in the class of the Nikon. People who one a 5DII and extrapolate from there are making a serious mistake.
Edmund
-
A fair test of a Nikon D3X versus a MFDB would involve eliminating resolution as a factor. I own both a D3X and Phase One 40+ and have tested the two sensors against each other using a target with a lot of fine detail (a large set of bookshelves filled with books with lots of print on their spines in natural light). The methodology involved shooting the target with a 40mm lens on a technical camera (Rodenstock HR on an Arca Swiss M-Line Two) and then shooting the same target at a reduced width (83%) with the Nikon (28-70mm zoom lens at 40mm) so that one was getting the 6000 pixel width of the Nikon covering the same width of the target as 5/6ths of the 7200 pixel width of the Phase One back. Both cameras were carefully aligned on tripod, with the Nikon being exposed with mirror up. All raw images were opened in Capture One Pro 6.1.1 with default settings.
Under such conditions the Nikon D3X appears to be very nearly the equal of the Phase One back. At the centre of the images at the lenses respective optimum f stops, there is a very slight difference which has to be due to the anti-aliasing filter of the Nikon. The difference is a small degree of texture "bite" (visible in book binding cloths) which virtually disappears with some extra sharpening. The difference is only easily visible at 100 to 200% viewing and I do not believe would show up in a print. At the corners of the images, the Rodenstock HR lens exhibits a resolution advantage over the Nikon zoom lens but the difference, again, is very small.
As for dynamic range, there were some exposure differences (not sure if due to carelessness on my part or the metering system of the
Nikon) of less than a stop. When highlights were matched, there was no apparent difference in deep shadow detail or noise. Both images, exposed at ISO 100, were very clean, with some slight upper midrange noise in areas of smooth tone, rather than shadow noise.
Admittedly, this is not a scientific test. But I would consider the Nikon D3X to be virtually as good as my Phase One 40+ if one eliminates resolution as a factor. Of course, they are used under very different circumstances most of the time. And the Pentax appears to represent excellent value.
-
Hi,
Thanks for info. Seems to be a very decent test to me. Thanks for sharing!
Best regards
Erik
A fair test of a Nikon D3X versus a MFDB would involve eliminating resolution as a factor. I own both a D3X and Phase One 40+ and have tested the two sensors against each other using a target with a lot of fine detail (a large set of bookshelves filled with books with lots of print on their spines in natural light). The methodology involved shooting the target with a 40mm lens on a technical camera (Rodenstock HR on an Arca Swiss M-Line Two) and then shooting the same target at a reduced width (83%) with the Nikon (28-70mm zoom lens at 40mm) so that one was getting the 6000 pixel width of the Nikon covering the same width of the target as 5/6ths of the 7200 pixel width of the Phase One back. Both cameras were carefully aligned on tripod, with the Nikon being exposed with mirror up. All raw images were opened in Capture One Pro 6.1.1 with default settings.
Under such conditions the Nikon D3X appears to be very nearly the equal of the Phase One back. At the centre of the images at the lenses respective optimum f stops, there is a very slight difference which has to be due to the anti-aliasing filter of the Nikon. The difference is a small degree of texture "bite" (visible in book binding cloths) which virtually disappears with some extra sharpening. The difference is only easily visible at 100 to 200% viewing and I do not believe would show up in a print. At the corners of the images, the Rodenstock HR lens exhibits a resolution advantage over the Nikon zoom lens but the difference, again, is very small.
As for dynamic range, there were some exposure differences (not sure if due to carelessness on my part or the metering system of the
Nikon) of less than a stop. When highlights were matched, there was no apparent difference in deep shadow detail or noise. Both images, exposed at ISO 100, were very clean, with some slight upper midrange noise in areas of smooth tone, rather than shadow noise.
Admittedly, this is not a scientific test. But I would consider the Nikon D3X to be virtually as good as my Phase One 40+ if one eliminates resolution as a factor. Of course, they are used under very different circumstances most of the time. And the Pentax appears to represent excellent value.
-
Hi,
Could you explain the uniqueness?
Best regards
Erik
I wish I could :)
In the end, who cares? Whatever floats one's boat. I know the D3x will get me the shot. Just wish there was a D3xs - more pixels I don't need, but shot an (un)available light wedding yesterday for a friend, and it was a real pain. Ended up at something like 1/30 F2 handheld with 1600 ISO.
Edmund
-
so, which is better ... the 645D or the D3x?
-
so, which is better ... the 645D or the D3x?
As always, the question is, which is better for which purpose and with which lens?
-
so, which is better ... the 645D or the D3x?
The 645D. It would be perfect if it had live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 645D. It would be perfect if it had live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
Nothing's perfect, Bernard. Does image stabilisation count for nothing, or weight, and camera frame rate? The focal lengths of available lenses, whether zooms or primes, their maximum aperture, quality, and the longest and shortest lenses available are also considerations.
However, I agree in general terms, that the larger sensor with the greater pixel count will tend to produce the best image quality under ideal circumstances.
-
Hi!
I guess that Bernard and I put our cameras on tripod, so image stabilisation needs to shut off anyway. I use two second self timer with MLU so frame rate is limited to 0.5 frames/s.
Horses for the courses...
Best regards
Erik
Nothing's perfect, Bernard. Does image stabilisation count for nothing, or weight, and camera frame rate? The focal lengths of available lenses, whether zooms or primes, their maximum aperture, quality, and the longest and shortest lenses available are also considerations.
However, I agree in general terms, that the larger sensor with the greater pixel count will tend to produce the best image quality under ideal circumstances.
-
True, nothing is perfect and that's why Live View is a must. All auto functions are far from perfect. Camera construction tolerances are in most cases too laxed for exact accurate focusing. So, the only feature provided this year for deadly accurate focus is Live View.
Eduardo
Nothing's perfect, Bernard. Does image stabilisation count for nothing, or weight, and camera frame rate? The focal lengths of available lenses, whether zooms or primes, their maximum aperture, quality, and the longest and shortest lenses available are also considerations.
However, I agree in general terms, that the larger sensor with the greater pixel count will tend to produce the best image quality under ideal circumstances.
-
True, nothing is perfect and that's why Live View is a must. All auto functions are far from perfect. Camera construction tolerances are in most cases too laxed for exact accurate focusing. So, the only feature provided this year for deadly accurate focus is Live View.
Eduardo
I'm going to chime in here.
I've used my 645D for a month now.
At the f-stops I shoot between f8 and f11, at distances from 2 feet to infinity, low light to sunlight, the 645D has nailed every single shot.
It has been as accurate at focus as live view on my 5Dmk2 or borrowed D3x, every time.
If I shot at f2.8 things might be different.
Maybe the massively solid body and AF just works with my 10 year old glass or maybe I'm damn lucky.
The finder is also for me at least, good enough to nail MF 95% of the time.
I am lucky enough to still have better than 20/15 vision with my glasses on at least. ;)
IMO I don't miss live view a bit... ;D
YMMV
-
Let me guess, you don't believe in Fate, you believe in F8?
Edmund
I'm going to chime in here.
I've used my 645D for a month now.
At the f-stops I shoot between f8 and f11, at distances from 2 feet to infinity, low light to sunlight, the 645D has nailed every single shot.
It has been as accurate at focus as live view on my 5Dmk2 or borrowed D3x, every time.
If I shot at f2.8 things might be different.
Maybe the massively solid body and AF just works with my 10 year old glass or maybe I'm damn lucky.
The finder is also for me at least, good enough to nail MF 95% of the time.
I am lucky enough to still have better than 20/15 vision with my glasses on at least. ;)
IMO I don't miss live view a bit... ;D
YMMV
-
Miles,
So, what's your take?
Best regards
Erik
I'm going to chime in here.
I've used my 645D for a month now.
At the f-stops I shoot between f8 and f11, at distances from 2 feet to infinity, low light to sunlight, the 645D has nailed every single shot.
It has been as accurate at focus as live view on my 5Dmk2 or borrowed D3x, every time.
If I shot at f2.8 things might be different.
Maybe the massively solid body and AF just works with my 10 year old glass or maybe I'm damn lucky.
The finder is also for me at least, good enough to nail MF 95% of the time.
I am lucky enough to still have better than 20/15 vision with my glasses on at least. ;)
IMO I don't miss live view a bit... ;D
YMMV
-
I concur with Miles. I’ve had the 645D since mid-December and have little difficulty achieving focus (also at f/8 to f/11). I miss sometimes with MF lenses when wide open at f/2.8 or f/4 but I rarely shoot at those apertures; the AF, on the other hand, is very reliable. Most of my tests have been on real world subjects, but I did an impromptu test using a ruler next to a pile of laundry. A typical example below used the 120mm FA at f/4. Focus was the 6.
Diglloyd has reported focus difficulty, but I haven’t had the same experience. A real advantage of live view is the absence of two optical paths to the finder and the sensor; Pentax has done a heck of job ensuring that those two paths are the same in the 645D, at least the one I have. The clothes are clean by the way.
-
Can I suggest that autofocus accuracy may not just be dependent upon the accurate quality control and calibration of the camera body, but the behaviour of specific models of lenses attached to the camera.
A camera may have precise autofocus with one particular lens, but not with another.
I get the impression that part of the attraction of the 645D is the fact that many legacy Pentax lenses, including some 6x7 format lenses can be used with this camera. I doubt that all of them will be capable of accurate autofocussing, and some will probably not autofocus at all.
The lack of a LiveView facility does seem a disadvantage to me, especially considering the tendency to always use these heavier, larger formats on a tripod, which is almost a precondition for using LiveView for accurate focussing.
In other words, if I don't use LiveView frequently myself, with my DSLRs that have it, it's because I don't frequently use a tripod. If I did use a tripod most of the time, I would certainly appreciate Live View. At 10x magnification the degree of detail is amazing. You can focus accurately on a single strand of hair.
-
Hi,
Diglloyd also had problems focusing the Leica S2 and he tested two samples. Mark Dubovoy says that camera has very exact AF both in theory and in his experience. Surprising. I also mostly use f/8 on my Sony Alpha 900, in part because I don't really trust AF, but also because lenses tend to perform optimally around f/8 and a bit depth of field is nice to have in my normal picture taking.
To me it seems that the Pentax is a very good camera with a reasonable price tag.
Best regards
Erik
I concur with Miles. I’ve had the 645D since mid-December and have little difficulty achieving focus (also at f/8 to f/11). I miss sometimes with MF lenses when wide open at f/2.8 or f/4 but I rarely shoot at those apertures; the AF, on the other hand, is very reliable. Most of my tests have been on real world subjects, but I did an impromptu test using a ruler next to a pile of laundry. A typical example below used the 120mm FA at f/4. Focus was the 6.
Diglloyd has reported focus difficulty, but I haven’t had the same experience. A real advantage of live view is the absence of two optical paths to the finder and the sensor; Pentax has done a heck of job ensuring that those two paths are the same in the 645D, at least the one I have. The clothes are clean by the way.
-
I think Canon is doing a lousy job on getting the in-camera paths of light right on. I don't know Nikon. Maybe they relaxed quite some since live-view and micro-adjustments arrived, don't know. I believe that Pentax is doing a great job assembling the 645D and I applaud them for such feat, nevertheless live view focusing is perfection in the flesh.
Eduardo
-
:-) My Faith is also in F8. :-)
BR
Erik
Let me guess, you don't believe in Fate, you believe in F8?
Edmund
-
And be there! :D
:-) My Faith is also in F8. :-)
BR
Erik
-
Let me guess, you don't believe in Fate, you believe in F8?
Edmund
LOL - I hope you dont mind but I am going to use that quote one day ;D
-
LOL - I hope you dont mind but I am going to use that quote one day ;D
You're welcome. I didn't make it up, it's one of those memes that pops up periodically on the Internet, and probably was invented by some press photographer in the gooden olden manual focus days :)
Shows how little things change.
Edmund
-
Let me guess, you don't believe in Fate, you believe in F8?
I must be spending too much time in front of my computer these days... I have been trying to understand for 2 days why the F8 key of my keyboard should be helping my photography!... :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Anyway, Fate and F8 are easier to pronounce than, say, Fsixtyfour and F64. ;)
If you were Ed Weston, you would definitely want an F64 key on your computer.
Eric
-
F8 and be there Wee Gee
With a Speed Graphic 4X5 and a grafmatic back.
One of the first New York Street photographers!
Dave
-
Time to chime in,
Having owned a D3x, all three of the Nikon TS lenses, 24,45, and 85mm, plus the 14-24mm
Then selling my D3x system for a used Hasselblad H3D39 and buying used HCD lenses, 28, 50, 80, and 150mm
The reason I sold my D3x was I figured the Nikon needs to be shot like a MF camera, tripod, MLU, cable release etc, and the fact that I paid 6400 for the H3D39 plus I like 4:3 over 3:2
Then selling that system because when I moved to Park City Utah last summer and earlier this winter I took my H3D out in 15 degree weather, the H3D body came on, but the H3D39 back would not turn on, I called Hasselblad and they told me that there backs are only rated to go down to 32 degrees. So.....
I sold my Hassy system and waited for the Pentax 645D to come out in the USA.
I finally purchased my USA 645d from Ace photo and also purchased a bunch of used 645 FA lenses and one "A" lens the 120mm macro.
I ended up with the 35mm FA, 45-85 FA, 75mm FA, 150mm FA and 300mm FA 5.6 lenses.
I tried the 645 45mm FA, garbage, I also tried the 67 45mm with adaptor no good either.
Here is my take so far, I just shot the 645D camera this past weekend in Yosemite.
The 35mm FA is good to me but for from great. Edges are not great. I shoot all of these lenses at f11-F13 all landscape, mostly at infinity or close to it.
The 45-85mm from 45-65mm is quite good sharp across the image area.
The 75mm FA no problems.
The 120mm A lens to me or I am sure the same with the FA version to me is there sharpest lens that pentad has for the 645D.
The 150mm is good not not as sharp as the 120mm
The 300mm same as the 150, sharp but not as sharp as the 120mm
Oh yeah all of the FA lenses I have needed Micro Focus adjustment.
Once I did that AF overall is very good.
The 645D body is built great, and rated to 0 degrees. Weather sealed etc.
My gripes are with lenses. I am not interested in a 25mm lens, to wide for my taste, I would have been happy with a updated 35mm FA, well in that case an update to all of there FA lenses.
So im on the fence now, Pentax will be very slow to introduce new lenses, all of the FA lenses are no longer being manufactured, all there is available is either old new stock or used.
This to me is a MAJOR issue for me. It's really to bad, Pentax has a great body in there 645D. There new 55mm SWD lens that shipped when the 645D came out according to Digilloys is not a good performer at infinity, yeah I know I can get the 55mm 67 lens, but unfortunately for me my vision is not very good 20/30 in my leafy eye and 20/45 in my right, thats as good as it gets for me, and since there is no split prism focusing screen, I am screwed with Manual focusing and as Digilloyd mentioned in his lengthy review on the 645D, Focus confirmation light is not accurate when using manual focus lens, and I did confirm this myself with my 120mm A lens.
Getting back to the D3x having owned one, the only TS lens that was sharp enough was the 85mm, the 24 and 45mm did not cut it. The 14-24 zoom worked well on the D3x,
I discovered what Digilloyd has been saying a along about the D3x, Zeiss mf lenses are the only way to go for the D3x, and yes when I had the D3x I had the AA filter removed from maxmax, not that big of a difference, I would NOT recommend this modification for the D3x, waste of money. I would have been better off sell my 24 and 45mm ts lenses for zees glass and perfect my capture sharpening, which brings me back to the 645D, I think the files need capture sharpening which to me tells me that the pentax lenses are just not quite "there"
Files off my H3d needed very little capture sharpening and as other posters have mentioned in this thread, to me my M9 in terms of overall sharpness can not be beat. Leica did an amazing job with this camera, I love using my M9, but I can only focus up to 75mm, I just could not focus the 90mm elmarit.
So as I go through my 645D files from this weekend I am scratching my head.... If only pentad would come out with a split prism focusing screen, for me I would be in heaven, I would go out and buy the 645 to Hasselblad adaptor and use zees glass mf.
Steven
-
Hi Steven,
Permit me to chime in here. I've been putting a 645D body through its paces recently with many of the same focal length FA lenses you have and your findings and observations are quite precise. I won't post my results till I finish additional testing but one thing is for sure....the FA 120 macro (and I assume the MF version of the same lens) is head and shoulders above all other FA 645 lenses in terms of resolution across the entire frame at all distances and f-stops. It's the lens which all other pentax 645 lenses should be measured by, in terms of performance and is a true indicator what the 645D body is capable of. It's not to say some other FA lenses aren't good, they are, but nothing comes close to the the Pentax 120 f4 macro..especially that it can be used even wide open for exceptional results.
Once stopped down somewhat, the little 75mm is also very good. Some of the others are decent "to" good too...but have to be stopped down to at least f9 (beyond f8) or more to even come somehwat close to the 120 macro. Again this is looking at 100% crops in anticipation to printing quite large. The longer faster telephoto's (beyond 200mm) are very good too but don't expect Nikon 300 f2.8 VR acuity..its not quite the same thing. I too shoot Nikon and some of their long pro glass. I believe down the road, little by little, Pentax will release more lenses (or update old ones)..but of course "at a price"...and they will no longer be the often seen bargins they currently are. Once they have lenses that truly do justice to the 645D body, one can say they truly have a competitive system....at least if they keep prices in a range that give the competition a run for its money...which currently, when price is considered (at the moment), it does.
Dave (DandA)
-
Try to test a phase one DF body with a leaf or phase back.
I've used my leaf in weather far below zero and high above 35 degrees and it never ever failed due to the weather.
Lenses has to be picked carefully of you're wanting top quality.
I love the schneider 80mm f2.8 LS and the Mamiya 105-210 AF,also the 75-150 is very nice.
I thinknthe system is very durable and the image quality will beat most put there.
I never tried the pentax to be be honest but I see no reason to do so at the moment, and that means a lot because I was always looking to improve the quality ;)
-
Where there seems to be the greatest weakness and variability in the Pentax 645D system, especially for edge to edge shapness in landscape use is more so on the wider end of things. It seems some of the other fine MFD systems out there also have some variablity in their performance on the wider end too. In the mid telephoto range such as 100-150mm or so, the Pentax does alright (even spectaculary with the 120 f4 macro lens) and although some other systems, lens wise, might outperform it...thats not where the majority of improvement is needed (in my opinion). I guess its not much diffferent than the early days of full frame 35mm DSRL's...where on the wider end, performance often "lacked" (especially on the sides and corners), and needed the most attention. It will get there for the 645D system, but will probably take both time and eventually a fair amount of $$.
Dave (DandA)
-
In general more pixels and the lenses to feed them seems to be the whole story; and I guess for some photography it is.
For me what is important is not only that quality but also to do whatever comes in my head.
So I will be shooting 35mm now and in the future for it is the most flexible system ever made.
I can make prints of a meter wide that look very good even close. Can shoot in conditions that my eyes are less sensitive than my camera. Can use d1,4 and pinpoint my sharpness with pixel accuracy as the same way i can make photographs with my PCE-lenses at d2,8 tilted with complete control of the field of sharpness - attach special lenses like fisheye lenses and heavy tele lenses; use my interval timer, shoot 5 fps, use VR-lenses etc...
The billboards on the streets are about the only big outlets for photographs and are well feeded with only 12MP...
-
In general more pixels and the lenses to feed them seems to be the whole story; and I guess for some photography it is.
For me what is important is not only that quality but also to do whatever comes in my head.
So I will be shooting 35mm now and in the future for it is the most flexible system ever made.
I can make prints of a meter wide that look very good even close. Can shoot in conditions that my eyes are less sensitive than my camera. Can use d1,4 and pinpoint my sharpness with pixel accuracy as the same way i can make photographs with my PCE-lenses at d2,8 tilted with complete control of the field of sharpness - attach special lenses like fisheye lenses and heavy tele lenses; use my interval timer, shoot 5 fps, use VR-lenses etc...
The billboards on the streets are about the only big outlets for photographs and are well feeded with only 12MP...
Good points! It has always seemed to me, with my limited experience, that the MF format, whether film or digital, is a more cumbersome and less flexible system than 35mm.
To pay huge sums of money for a tool which is more awkward to use, is significantly heavier (with lenses), and requires the use of a tripod most of the time, doesn't make much sense to me when the results are only marginally better at print sizes that most of us make.
However, if I were in the business, or even if it were my hobby, of making prints from a 4ft wide printer (or wider), then these latest MFDBs, with sensors up to 80mp, might make some sense, if money were not an issue.
I recall from the days of MF film that the additional resolution and detail of the larger format was often not as significant as factors such as 'less obvious grain', smoother tonality and better DR.
Comparisons were uncomplicated because one could get the same film type for different formats, which would be equivalent to comparing different digital formats employing the same sensor design, which is not possible with most modern digital cameras, although the Canon 20D and 5D2 come pretty close in that respect.
I'm looking forward to the upgrade of the D700 employing D7000 pixels. I think I mentioned before, that would be a 40mp sensor. After a recalculation, I think that was a slight exaggeration. It would be closer to 36mp, but sufficient for my purposes at that degree of pixel quality. ;D
-
Having shot the D3x for years, seen files from several backs printed well (although nothing both modern and really high end - my experience is looking at prints from 39 mp class backs, NOT the 60s and I've never even seen an 80 mp back), and played with and seen output from the Sony and Canon 20+ mp DSLRs, here's what it looks like in my (admittedly subjective) view.
1.) The D3x is significantly better than any other "35mm" type DSLR. There is extra sharpness and DR in its images that just isn't there in other FF cameras. This may be the AA filter, the (slow) 14-bit implementation, or something else, but I can reliably pick a D3x print from a 5D II or an Alpha every time (assuming the D3x is handled right - ISO 100, 14 bit, tripod, really good glass). Of course, a D3x handled like this is a 1.5 fps camera, just like a fast MF back (it is a little lighter, weatherproof (perhaps indestructible), and has a broader range of lenses, but it is not really any faster than a P40+).
2.) The D3x is roughly equivalent to well-handled medium-format film, shot at 6x9 cm. I've compared prints extensively between the D3x and Hasselblad V-series gear shooting Velvia, and the D3x has a clear and significant edge. 6x9 becomes very close.
3.) The D3x is edged out in ultimate detail, in a very large print, by a 39 mp back (even one from 2 years ago, when I made this comparison and bought the D3x), and is roughly equivalent in other ways. Dynamic range is very similar, unlike other small-format DSLRs, and color rendition is different, but equally high quality. I actually put the D3x midway between other 20+ MP DSLRs and the backs.
4.) If Phase One's claims and Michael's and Mark Dubovoy's testing are true (I have no reason to believe they aren't), the newest generation of backs should very easily beat the D3x in resolution (not an edge-out situation, but an immediately obvious advantage), and should have slight advantages in most other areas. It seems as if the per-pixel quality of the latest backs is at least at D3x levels, and some of them have more than triple the pixels. The 80mp backs should be roughly equivalent to 5x7 inch film (a bit more than triple the area of 6x9 cm).
5.) The ultimate in image quality is still probably 8x10 sheet film, but an IQ180 beats any film short of 8x10!
-
Hi,
Interesting observations. I have no D3X but my testing with Velvia 67 vs. Sony Alpha 900 gave similar results to yours. Except that I found the image quality significantly better on the Sony Alpha 900, not just the resolution. In addition there is the convenience factor and fast feedback.
The images that Miles posted seem to agree pretty well with your observations. The Pentax 645D edges out the Nikon D3X in resolution. DR is hard to say, the subject is not demanding enough in my view. Both cameras do a very good job. Color is different (I tried both Iridient Raw developer and Lightroom 3). In my view Pentax is more present but Nikon seems to handle some colors better. Some of the differences between the two depend on white balancing in my humble opinion.
I'd suggest that Miles has done the community a great service by posting raw files from well executed comparison shooting.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Why did I find image quality better on the Sony Alpha than on Pentax 67?
- Resolution may have been similar on the two but Imatest results were much better on the Alpha. Imatest measures resolution for 50% MTF.
- Color was much better on the Alpha, especially detail separation in the reds.
- Significant chromatic aberration in the Pentax lens used in the comparison
- Some of the problems I saw with Velvia in reds may have depended on saturation.
- The film image needed much more effort in postprocessing.
But the major factor may be that with digital and in camera histogram I can nail both exposure and check focus. With slides I need to expose roll, send it to lab, wait for development, scan the images. So it can be a couple of weeks until I can see the images.
As a side note, if I sent the slides to a very good drum scanning service I would have better results with less work. But, that would essentially mean that the initial postprocessing would be done by the drum scanner operator.
2.) The D3x is roughly equivalent to well-handled medium-format film, shot at 6x9 cm. I've compared prints extensively between the D3x and Hasselblad V-series gear shooting Velvia, and the D3x has a clear and significant edge. 6x9 becomes very close.
3.) The D3x is edged out in ultimate detail, in a very large print, by a 39 mp back (even one from 2 years ago, when I made this comparison and bought the D3x), and is roughly equivalent in other ways. Dynamic range is very similar, unlike other small-format DSLRs, and color rendition is different, but equally high quality. I actually put the D3x midway between other 20+ MP DSLRs and the backs.
5.) The ultimate in image quality is still probably 8x10 sheet film, but an IQ180 beats any film short of 8x10!
-
Now what might be an interesting comparison would be the 645D vs a MaxMax converted D3x without the AA filter & either a 24 PC-E, 45 PC-E or Zeiss ZF prime ... ;) The D3x is brutal on glass & technique and few lenses, including even the 24-70 won't get the best from it.
Had to jump in here.
I had a D3x did the maxmax conversion, I owned the 24, 45, and 85mm nikkor pce lenses.
Bottom line with the D3x, only the 85mm pce could produce high IQ, the 24, and 45 were not up to the task. The maxmax conversion IMHO not necessay on the D3x, The aa filter in the D3x is not that strong and can. E dealt with in capture sharpeing. D3x needs zeiss mf glass to ge the most out of the camera.
If i could have only one camera for lanscape shooting and only went up to 20x30 print size, M9 is the way to go, IMHO smokes the nikon D3x
Steven
Now that I have a 645d, and a M9, I think the M9 for a light weight landscape kit is untouchable print size up to 20x30, if I want to go large or doing road kill landscape like tunel view at yosemite, 645d + 45-85mm fa zoom is pretty hard to beat.
-
One more thing I have not read this whole thread but D3x files need to be processed in Capture NX for best quality. Forget about LR3 or ACR, or at least capture one or raw developer.
Steven
-
One more thing I have not read this whole thread but D3x files need to be processed in Capture NX for best quality. Forget about LR3 or ACR, or at least capture one or raw developer.
Steven
I would definitely agree with this based on my experience also. Capture One Pro does a pretty decent job but doesn't have quite the same exposure latitude as I can get from NX 2.
-
OP, thank you for posting the RAW files.
I considered the 645D purchase last year but price was an important factor and was able to pick up a demo D3X for $4995 so went that route and have been quite pleased with the files for my landscape photography. I tested a half dozen converters and found Raw Developer to have the highest detail extraction and most natural film-like results, using its deconvolution sharpening method.
I assumed the 645D would produce great files and knew it was a better choice for extreme print sizes, but was curious to see how close the D3X would come at the file sizes I am used to working with. So I ran the Pentax and Nikon RAW files through Raw Developer and gave them equal treatment, deconvolution sharpening set to 0.6 and 20 iterations (no other adjustments), saved out to TIFF and opened in Photoshop, 645D file downsized to match D3X height of 4032 pixels, cropped a 100% pixel view from a section of the background (right side) since distant detail reproduction is a demanding test, and applied USM of 0.5/80/0 to each image:
-
Which file belongs to which camera?
Thanks
Eduardo
OP, thank you for posting the RAW files.
I considered the 645D purchase last year but price was an important factor and was able to pick up a demo D3X for $4995 so went that route and have been quite pleased with the files for my landscape photography. I tested a half dozen converters and found Raw Developer to have the highest detail extraction and most natural film-like results, using its deconvolution sharpening method.
I assumed the 645D would produce great files and knew it was a better choice for extreme print sizes, but was curious to see how close the D3X would come at the file sizes I am used to working with. So I ran the Pentax and Nikon RAW files through Raw Developer and gave them equal treatment, deconvolution sharpening set to 0.6 and 20 iterations (no other adjustments), saved out to TIFF and opened in Photoshop, 645D file downsized to match D3X height of 4032 pixels, cropped a 100% pixel view from a section of the background (right side) since distant detail reproduction is a demanding test, and applied USM of 0.5/80/0 to each image:
-
Which file belongs to which camera?
Thanks
Eduardo
Top image is from 645D.
-
This is clearly the best representation so far Thanks for the great work. I am in a continual battle to move to Medium format as per other posts elsewhere however the D3X and M9 keep coming up as better solutions for an already Nikon D3s shooter.
For landscape however this for me is clear proof that pushed to a pixel peeping 100/200 or 300 % zoom the Pentax files just hold together and look less digital.
My biggest concern with Pentax as with the Leica S2 is do they make enough money for the companies to carry on and will suddenly they just pull development and I am left sitting with a brick and couple of half baked lenses.
Interestingly the wide angle just launched is serious money in comparison to the body so I am guessing the body is a loss leader in the hope people move to buy new lenses. Pentax need a bigger roadmap deliver faster if that is the case. Tsunami probably not helped the cause sadly.
Would love other peoples views and thoughts on the longer term support and development of Pentax and clearly their ability to survive or get acquired by Samsung.
The Leica S2 is in cuckoo land with its pricing, so leaves us cheap MF boys with the pentax or second hand Phase/ Hassey. But in the UK Pentax is £10k, buy in the US it about £6.5 with exchange rates. Now that seems crazy but suddenly makes you think Nikon might just be pushing the price of the D3X a little high but this has been said before
If you have any further examples of comparisons would appreciate and love to see them. Certainly in green countryside I know where the Pentax will win over the Nikon now :-)
thanks again, lovely articles in this post hence 168 comments i guess
-
Pricing for the D3x clearly killed it, when it came out it was peerless, it still is peerless, but everyone gets a 5DII and thinks 35mm digital is mushy and way inferior to MF (I've used both). I guess Nikon wanted to bring out a D800, and overpriced the D3x, then didn't make the cut price version.
By the way, the D3x is quite a bit lighter than the D3s, I guess the body material is different, it is not just a clone of the D3, in spite of the look.
Edmund
The Leica S2 is in cuckoo land with its pricing, so leaves us cheap MF boys with the pentax or second hand Phase/ Hassey. But in the UK Pentax is £10k, buy in the US it about £6.5 with exchange rates. Now that seems crazy but suddenly makes you think Nikon might just be pushing the price of the D3X a little high but this has been said before
-
Pricing for the D3x clearly killed it, when it came out it was peerless, it still is peerless, but everyone gets a 5DII and thinks 35mm digital is mushy and way inferior to MF (I've used both). I guess Nikon wanted to bring out a D800, and overpriced the D3x, then didn't make the cut price version.
By the way, the D3x is quite a bit lighter than the D3s, I guess the body material is different, it is not just a clone of the D3, in spite of the look.
Edmund
Edmund, have you tried out the D700? Do you have an opinion on how its files compare with those from the more expensive Nikons? Not a hijack - just looking for a brief repy to whether it's really worth spending more on Nikon FF bodies for A3+ max (so far!) printing.
Rob C
-
Is anyone actually doing any formal resolution tests of medium format systems? I haven't been able to find any. Dxomark haven't tested a single medium format lens. It seems to me that the resolution edge medium format have is that you can make higher megapixel count with larger (or equally-sized) pixels such that lens resolving power becomes less limiting.
With current lenses it seems like when the pixel size goes below ~5 microns the lens resolving power starts to be rather limiting. If you compare APS-C with fullframe 35mm (where there is a lot of formal mesaurements made), you can see that with a 12-13 megapixel fullframe sensor you get as sharp or sharper images than an 18 megapixel APS-C sensor, due to the fact that pixel sizes are so small that lens resolving power is a limit. In practice you could print the fullframe 13-megapixel picture at say ~300 ppi while you would need ~360 ppi for APS-C to get the same sharpness in the print.
D3x and Pentax 645D have both 5.9 um pixel pitch. P65+ has 6.0 um. IQ180 has 5.2 um.
A guess is that you would not gain much in end result (print sharpness) if going below 5 um, which sets the resolution limit of 35mm to ~34 megapixels. Seems like IQ180 could be close to the useful limit of medium format, unless medium format lenses are sharper than 35mm. New developments in lens manufacturing and deconvolution software could increase resolution further though.
For some focal lengths medium format lenses are surely sharper, say the Rodenstock 23mm is probably a lot better than retrofocus designs on 35mm, although I haven't seen any formal measurements. The 5 um limit suggested above refers to the sharpest lenses which is not wide angle lenses for 35mm, so for wide angle landscape photography D3x may already have reached the useful megapixel limit.
-
Edmund, have you tried out the D700? Do you have an opinion on how its files compare with those from the more expensive Nikons? Not a hijack - just looking for a brief repy to whether it's really worth spending more on Nikon FF bodies for A3+ max (so far!) printing.
Rob C
It depends on shooting style. At D3x resolution you need all tricks to maximize the sensor's resolution, very stable tripod, mirror lockup, sharp lenses etc. If you are a landscape photographer you probably will gain significantly with D3x. D700 is only 12 megapixels, which means ~240 ppi for A3+, but sharp pixels since lens resolving power is not so limiting. 240 ppi is "good enough" for many, especially when framed on the wall behind glass. The D3x will make a distinguishable resolution improvement on A3+ (with a good inkjet printer on good paper), however perhaps only up to 2 - 3 feet viewing distance. Is that worth it? It is up to you to decide.
You may also find it valuable to have the extra resolution for future use. Perhaps you want to print larger in the future. For book printing the extra resolution will surely be worth it, the viewing distance is then so close that 12 megapixel would only do for A4.
The D3x also have a little bit better dynamic range and color etc but those differences are probably harder to detect than resolution increase.
-
I have read diglloyd review on the 645D. Plenty of pixel peeping stuff there!
The biggest issue as I see it, is that the lenses aren't up to scratch. Great camera/sensor, very average glass especially when you start to move away from centre frame.
Dave
-
I've done some more testing outdoors with my 645D vs Nikon D3x
Daylight landscape, ISO 100 RAW
D3x, 24-70 zoom lens @ f8 live view manual focus
645D, 45-85mm zoom lens @ f11 autofocus
This was shot near Angels Camp, CA in the Sierra foothills and it really was very, very green.
Links.
D3x http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Nikon_D3x_field_test.tif
645D http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_field_test.tif
Thanks a lot. I have a question: Why the different aperture? to preserve DOF? the problem is that by closing the aperture the 645D becomes even more sharp than the D3x. We know the anti alias filter on the D3x hurt base sharpness.
Again thanks
-
Thanks a lot. I have a question: Why the different aperture? to preserve DOF? the problem is that by closing the aperture the 645D becomes even more sharp than the D3x. We know the anti alias filter on the D3x hurt base sharpness.
Again thanks
I would disagree, when correctly focused the images will be sharper at f8 than at f11 on most lenses on the D3x.
Regarding the DR difference between the D3x and the D3/D700, it is significant.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have read diglloyd review on the 645D. Plenty of pixel peeping stuff there!
The biggest issue as I see it, is that the lenses aren't up to scratch. Great camera/sensor, very average glass especially when you start to move away from centre frame.
Dave
Having followed Lloyd's tests closely, I'll have to disagree somewhat. Lenses for the 645D must be chosen carefully, but some are superb, e.g. 120mm macro.
-
Hi,
Most good lenses peak about f/8 or at larger apertures, so stopping down to f/11 doesn't necessarily give an advantage. In my view that advantage of the 645D is that ist has more pixels but also that the sensor collects more photons, thus reducing noise. Design choice may benefit either system under different conditions. I'd suggest that the major advantage of the 645D is that it has a physically larger sensor. There is no substitute for square inches.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks a lot. I have a question: Why the different aperture? to preserve DOF? the problem is that by closing the aperture the 645D becomes even more sharp than the D3x. We know the anti alias filter on the D3x hurt base sharpness.
Again thanks
-
If i could have only one camera for lanscape shooting and only went up to 20x30 print size, M9 is the way to go, IMHO smokes the nikon D3x
I guess we all have different definitions of "smokes". The M9 might be a few pourcent better than the D3x when everything is done perfect, but the lack of live view alone does IMHO disqualify it for many landscape applications, like those low light early shots where you need perfect infinite focus,...
Besides, landscape work does IMHO require a very wide set of focals, including very wide glas, long glass, T/S,... that the M9 doesn't really offer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess we all have different definitions of "smokes". The M9 might be a few pourcent better than the D3x when everything is done perfect, but the lack of live view alone does IMHO disqualify it for many landscape applications, like those low light early shots where you need perfect infinite focus,...
Besides, landscape work does IMHO require a very wide set of focals, including very wide glas, long glass, T/S,... that the M9 doesn't really offer.
Cheers,
Bernard
Im with Bernard on this. The M9 is an awesome street camera, but 'smokes a d3X' is hardly accurate when it comes to landscape photography.
-
Edmund, have you tried out the D700? Do you have an opinion on how its files compare with those from the more expensive Nikons? Not a hijack - just looking for a brief repy to whether it's really worth spending more on Nikon FF bodies for A3+ max (so far!) printing.
Rob C
Haven't tried the D700. Did have a look at the D3s which has at least 2 stops of better ISO than the D3x. Much better for available light.
The problem with the D3x and Nikon lenses is that it is always very very good and never excellent. The 5DII in my experience varies between very bad and excellent, why I don't know.
MF and the M8 (don't know about 9) have extraordinary enlargeability (making more pixels from what is there) , the D3x it seems, less, the Canon I dunno.
In my opinion, the D3x will flatly render very accurately what is placed in front of it; in a way it is a technical object rather than an artistic instrument. The same seems to go for the lenses, the Canon lenses which I used eg. 85/1.2 have a sparkle or the 50 1.8 a gritty quality, while the Nikon lenses are simply high quality but characterless. The Leica lenses too have some additional "flavor". This doesn't mean the Nikon lenses are bad, my 85/1.4 clearly outresolves even the D3x sensor, it blew the gates off Imatest which uses the sensor to test the lens.
If you have a D3x you do the artistic stuff by changing the light and putting something appropriate in front of the lens, the camera itself is excessively neutral in my book, which may be one of the reasons it hasn't caught on in fashion where people may expect to buy a look.
Re. Leica comparison, I took my D3x up into those places in Utah, and threw all my ability at postprocessing the shots and they were still pretty boring and in some way lack crispness; maybe the guy with the Leica comment is right.
Of course, all the above are just personal opinions. I've worked the D3x into the ground over the past two years, with personal interest stuff, and found that it invariably gets a usable shot whenever I press the shutter button.
Edmund
-
The 5DII in my experience varies between very bad and excellent, why I don't know.
[/quote]
Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean depending on subject/lighting or exposure or choice of lens, or something to do with getting post processing right?
-
Thanks for your reply, Edmund, I suppose I should have expected a similar sort of analysis, really. So much depends on what you put in front of the lens, as you say, that generalisations can't really do anything justice.
I've been doing some rush production of some old shots I did when I first got the D200. Now that I haven't used it for a while, having got myself a D700, returning to the D200 files feels odd: they strike me as very crisp (mainly because I was always using a tripod) but lacking in character of any real, discernable sort. They are being pushed into rather extreme corners of exaggeration because they are now being shown for an architect who, in turn, wants some local 'atmospherics' stuff for his own purposes. The D700 files feel different. This might be because I've been using the thing a lot recently at the highest ISO available in order to get available light stuff of musicians, and unless it has been with lenses longer than the 50mm, hand-held. (The longer lenses are used with a light tripod with only two legs extended: it works beautifully as a much more stable monopod! Just don't forget the third leg isn't out, and let the thing go.)
However, to give the D200 its due: I was very fresh to digital at that time - it was my first digital capture device apart from a scanner! I've picked up a bit more understanding of how things work since then, particularly regarding the danger of blowing highlights which I managed to avoid with trannies.
M9 sounds great, on paper, but I think that however desirable it is, the lack of wysiwyg would kill it for me; even the music stuff has benefitted from the ability to have oof stuff right in front of the lens, and framing the performer. Can't realistically/accurately do that with an RF! (That sort of thinking keeps me safe from spending!)
Thanks for your time, maybe you'll be in Mallorca one day? Nice to meet up.
Rob C
-
I did a post on my blog a few months ago that has some non-controlled environment-non-scientific examples of the D3x's ability to pull detail out of underexposed shadows. The D700 doesn't even come close in my opinion.
http://www.aaronleitz.com/blog/2011/02/26/exploring-dynamic-range-part-1/
-
If we compare the Pentax 645D and Phase One p40+ (portrait, landscape and still life) - it's very interesting!
I am sure - it's real competitors today, but not Nikon D3x ;)
-
\The 5DII in my experience varies between very bad and excellent, why I don't know.
Edmund
I've never seen a single camera loved and hated as much as the 5d2, in still and motion.
The people that love it, truly adore the camera, the ones that don't (usually people that have spend a lot more money on other cameras) just loathe it.
Personally, for me it's just a tool.
For motion and stills, I find some instances where color, especially skintones are an issue. The RED has way superior skintones or at least adjustable skintones, our 1ds3, which I consider the skin tone king is also better, but not really a better camera and not as sharp in stills as the 5d2.
Though skintones can be adjusted and it doesn't have the strange pallet I see on the Nikon D3 and D700 so I've yet to use it where I didn't think a quick fix in photoshop wouldn't get me to any desired look.
Now, I have to add a footnote that I've only used the 5d2 on one still shoot and thought I would use it for a brief moment while we switched out cameras and shot the whole week with it.
I think it's much sharper and has less noise than the 1ds3, if set correctly, but that's just my opinion.
The thing is it's so ground breaking when it comes to really working for a living.
What's it cost? . . . like 2 grand or something. Jeez, that's half the price of a lot of lenses and it does so much I almost feel silly buying something that costs more.
I can go over virtually every still shoot I've done and know that had I shot the 5d vs. anything, (except the RED) nobody would have noticed a difference.
When Canon made this camera I bought one on the spot but left it in the box for a few months, waiting for 24p video.
I really thought it would never come and actually, once it did I kind of thought Canon must be smoking something. Why come out with a camera for $2,500 that does more than their $7,000 camera?
I guess it works because they seem to sell everyone they make and with the recent issues in Japan I think there is still a waiting list.
We have a gig coming up that takes us to a lot of countries, shooting both motion and stills. In some places I just don't want to take the RED due to security issues and I'm seriously thinking about buying 4 more 5d's sticking a lens on each one and handing a camera to every crew member to wear around their neck to get them in each country safely. Seems silly, but the way things are going I could probably re sell them later for the same price.
IMO
BC
-
Good luck finding any to buy at the moment...
-
The 5DII in my experience varies between very bad and excellent, why I don't know.
Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean depending on subject/lighting or exposure or choice of lens, or something to do with getting post processing right?
5DII crispness seems to be something to do with the light. The other problem is that focus appears off by a random amount, on a per image basis. I often use my 5DII with a 50mm as a snapshot camera on business trips and short vacations (light, looks plasticky and cheap), and have come back with *batches* of images ranging from sublimely crisp, fashion magazine tone and quality, to total mush. And I don't know why, but it seems something to do with the local light rather than a precise technical fault.
The D3x doesn't display this variation, it is pretty much focused on almost every shot, stays in focus from image to image, and seems to be boringly oblivious of the quality of light - be it color or quantity, within reason. The image below is what you get (a small crop) with the D3x. You just find a decent subject, point it and press the shutter, it does the rest, no surprises.
Edmund
PS. I told my opinion of the 5DII to my friend Norman Koren who wrote Imatest, when he came to Paris with a borrowed 5DII in his bag. He predictably found this very funny. He found it rather less funny when he got home and viewed the images he was hoping to have brought back.
-
Having done a great deal of shooting with the D3x for the last two years I mostly agree with Edmund and Bernard. This has often been alongside MF (P65+ and Leaf AFi10) and has encompassed commercial fashion, travel and architecture photography (as well as a fair few snaps of my kids!). I have been interested to see reports on the 645D but will not be buying one because overall there is really no comparison with the D3x.
1) The dynamic range advantage over pretty much any other digital camera or back is very significant (I'm assuming this holds for the 645D). I have a lot of side by side architectural shots taken recently in Japan with the D3x and the Leaf AFi10 on an M-Line with best Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. Of course there is a resolution (and colour) advantage to the AFi10 but in actual use (magazine DPSs) these advantages are not always apparent while the dynamic range superiority of the D3x certainly is. I wanted to use all Leaf shots but ended up using quite a few Nikon ones because I could pull more out in difficult lighting conditions.
2) As an aside, the quality advantage over 12Mb images is noticeable and significant even in images below A3. Only above 800 or maybe 1000 ISO is there a potential quality gain to going with the 12Mb Nikon cameras.
3) As an additional aside, the 5dmkii has way inferior AF and dynamic range to the D3x. I tested them alongside each other thoroughly in January 2008 and it was enough to make me go through the painful and expensive process of switching over from Canon to Nikon (I had a 5d mk1 with many lenses and regularly rented the 1Ds mk11 and mk111). The D3x AF in low-light and tracking motion is remarkable, the 5Dmkii barely useable.
4) There are many nice extra things on the D3x for professional use including:
i) Dual cards for back-up, which has saved my bacon when I had a duff (counterfeit) card and which I totally rely on on all my jobs. I work like I did with film: download 'Polaroids' to a laptop periodically but otherwise just shoot to 16Gb or 32Gb cards in slot 1, 64Gb back-up in slot 2. If I want to download as I go along, the assistant keeps swapping out the card in slot 1 and I make sure I have the entire shoot as back-up on slot 2. I have much greater trust in (genuine!) CF card reliability than I do in hard drives and I don't even bother making a hard drive back-up on set anymore.
ii) 5x4 format crop mode. Great for portraits. I much prefer framing close to my eventual format in camera. I only wish Nikon would make this infinitely variable by the user.
iii) Toughness and indestructability.
iv) The AF, as already mentioned.
etc. etc.
5) Regarding lenses, the difference between Nikon and MF Pentax (and even Canon in some key respects) is marked. The core professional Nikon zooms are really exceptional (24-70mm, 70-200mm). The 24-70mm in particular is very significantly better than the Canon and, in my opinion, on its own worth getting the D3x for over a Canon. There is nothing relevant in Pentax worth talking about. The Canon 70-200mm is also very good but the Nikon is slightly better. The 300mm F2.8 is terrific but I haven't tested it alongside the Canon. Unfortunately, many of the primes in the wide to normal range are slightly disappointing, particularly in relation to their cost. The problem is partly that the bar has been set so high by that 24-70mm. I recently bought the 35mm F1.4 but returned it because whilst it was sharper in the very far corners at F2.8, it was no sharper in the centre than the 24-70mm. At F4-F5.6 it was no better than the zoom. F1.4 was not really useable which left F2, where it was decent but not exceptional. I just couldn't really justify owning it at its very high cost. Similar story with the 24mm F1.4 and the 50mm F1.4 (I have the Sigma which is markedly superior to the Nikon at F1.4 and F2). I am not interested in the Zeiss lenses because I think AF is essential for sharp pictures unless you use live-view and if I'm using a shortish lens on a tripod it will be because I'm shooting buildings/landscape or in the studio, in which case I want a shift lens.
Annoyingly, the shift lenses are decent but perhaps not quite as good as the Canon equivalents (24mm and 45mm anyway, I haven't done a side by side comparison with the Canon 85mm). It's also irritating that you have to choose between tilt and swing and send the lens to Nikon to make the change. I will be interested to see the new Schneider PC lenses, particularly if they decide to make a wide.
6) I think the colour on the D3x is decent and certainly in no way inferior to the Canon, it's just different and has different flaws. However, the P65+ and to a lesser extent other digital backs really do win significantly here. At ISO 100 and below, the P65+ colour is just clearly, objectively superior. In normal conditions this is noticeable but in difficult mixed lighting situations it is very apparent. I hope Nikon work on this in the next generation body. Maybe the Pentax might win here.
7) Tethering is unreliable and slow. Nikon need to improve this. I mostly don't want to shoot tethered anyway so it hasn't been a decisive problem. Annoying when I need it though, particularly with still-life.
As has been noted, the D3x is a camera that you buy to just get on with your photography. It delivers to a very high standard, under almost any conditions, day in day out. The Pentax seems by all accounts to be decent but is of far more limited appeal.
-
I've never seen a single camera loved and hated as much as the 5d2, in still and motion.
You've got to see the Leica M9, then ;)
-
D3x: Killed by exaggerated pricing. Or maybe that was the intention all along. I have never personally met anybody else who owned one.
Edmund
As has been noted, the D3x is a camera that you buy to just get on with your photography. It delivers to a very high standard, under almost any conditions, day in day out. The Pentax seems by all accounts to be decent but is of far more limited appeal.
-
D3x: Killed by exaggerated pricing. Or maybe that was the intention all along. I have never personally met anybody else who owned one.
Hence I've bought a Sony A850 recently. It has not the sophisticated AF as the D3X and lacks the live view function, but I don't need it. The A850 is about 4 times cheaper. Image quality should be pretty much the same. :)
-
D3x: Killed by exaggerated pricing. Or maybe that was the intention all along. I have never personally met anybody else who owned one.
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
Yes you have. You've met me! You came along and kindly brought your D3x and P45+ when I was running large-format film versus digital tests in Paris a couple of years ago.
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
Or maybe that was the intention all along. I have never personally met anybody else who owned one.
I know a handful of people that moved to the Nikon, I would have if tethering was better, but really I just didn't see a need.
The Nikons do focus better than the canon and it's a good camera, even at the price. The deal breaker is the 5d2 is a good camera at a ridiculous price.
Even now that the economy has picked up, I'm still in the "need to buy" mindset. I'll buy a jib arm, HMIs or some LED lights way before I'll buy any camera that gives me 15% better quality, at least with stills where it's all washed away or added to in retouching.
Heck, we're even effecting and retouching motion images on desktops, . . . even I-macs.
Everybody has their own views and I can really understand buying equipment if it will rock my world, but I'm off the buy it cause it's new thing.
I've shown these before, but they we're all shot with a 5d2 and the top three with a small handheld led lightpanel, the bottom two with one HMI.
I didn't see any issues with the 5d2 in focus or noise or anything. It just worked and that's all that mattered.
The images shot with the LEDs just break my head because to shoot with a light no larger than a flashlight and hand hold it just well, I can't even describe how crazy that thought would have been a few years ago.
Jeez, the garments the model is wearing cost more than the camera.
(http://ishotit.com/PARIS_5D2.jpg)
You can't see the detail from these little jpegs but there is not much more I'd want.
Actually this link is a little larger.
http://ishotit.com/PARIS_5D2.jpg
IMO
BC
-
J,
All you managed to prove with these creatively excellent pictures is that *you* could shoot fashion with an iphone, what you put in front of the lens trumps the camera.
And actually, I myself am finding that what I do with the Iphone is increasingly better than what I do with the big cam, the problem is the enlargeability is not yet there. Actually, it might be there, but there is no way to get an uncompressed image off the phone. Also, permanent wideangle gets old fast.
And you have confirmed that the deal-breaker on the Nikon is the price.
Edmund
I know a handful of people that moved to the Nikon, I would have if tethering was better, but really I just didn't see a need.
The Nikons do focus better than the canon and it's a good camera, even at the price. The deal breaker is the 5d2 is a good camera at a ridiculous price.
Even now that the economy has picked up, I'm still in the "need to buy" mindset. I'll buy a jib arm, HMIs or some LED lights way before I'll buy any camera that gives me 15% better quality, at least with stills where it's all washed away or added to in retouching.
Heck, we're even effecting and retouching motion images on desktops, . . . even I-macs.
Everybody has their own views and I can really understand buying equipment if it will rock my world, but I'm off the buy it cause it's new thing.
I've shown these before, but they we're all shot with a 5d2 and the top three with a small handheld led lightpanel, the bottom two with one HMI.
I didn't see any issues with the 5d2 in focus or noise or anything. It just worked and that's all that mattered.
The images shot with the LEDs just break my head because to shoot with a light no larger than a flashlight and hand hold it just well, I can't even describe how crazy that thought would have been a few years ago.
Jeez, the garments the model is wearing cost more than the camera.
(http://ishotit.com/PARIS_5D2.jpg)
You can't see the detail from these little jpegs but there is not much more I'd want.
Actually this link is a little larger.
http://ishotit.com/PARIS_5D2.jpg
IMO
BC
-
the problem is the enlargeability is not yet there. Actually, it might be there, but there is no way to get an uncompressed image off the phone.
Edmund,
I have no dog in this fight so I'm not trying to prove anything.
Everybody should use what's right for them.
I've just noticed in the last few years, nobody talks about still cameras . . . at least in my world.
You know it's funny . . . I try and usually do shoot every image in one piece. In other words I don't add a lot of background plates, or different exposures to make up for lack of dr or any problem with the camera.
If it is a problem, with stills, adding a sky a little darker (or lighter), or pulling out a separate exposure for shadow smoothness is just a no brainer. We can combine something like that in less time than it takes to put the cameras back in the cases.
The images I showed obviously have retouching, hell everything has retouching that goes into publication . . . everything including a lot of real journalism that's not suppose to have any changes and I'm not advocating turning the world into a drawing, but photoshop has changed how all of us work and what I worry about.
Since we now shoot a lot of motion on each project, or the project is even motion based we try to keep the set as clean as possible, without going into the thought of don't worry we'll fix it later. Fixing motion images later is a lot of work.
Anyway, I just wanted to show that this (and many more images) was an editorial we squeezed into a movie we're working on and we shot about 15 set ups in 10 hours. Day, night, rain with a 800 watt hmi, or with a small handheld light panel all I really cared about was the result.
These stills ran in an Asian Magazine that prints very high quality. No problems, no issues. The previous project we shot for this publisher we used mostly a p21+ and a P30+ (of course with a lot more light quantity) and once again no problems, no issues.
I guess if anything, in the world of images for money, the very FIRST thing the client looks at did we get the shot, the look, the emotion (or lack of emotion depending on the creative brief) and nobody ever talks to me about image quality, unless they just don't like the photograph.
But what do I worry about. Usually it's just capturing the moment I and the clients want to see and nowdays getting the same look in still and video.
That's what matters, not the camera, 2% more dr. 35% more or less pixel count.
Right now we're in a whirlwind of change. Could Pandora become the world's radio station, will every magazine in the world be on an ipad and will it have Justin Bieber moving or standing still or both? Will we have real time wireless where you shoot it, effect it, cut it and deliver from a laptop device and above all once this all fleshes out, will content and creativity become more important than the process?
The last one I want to believe it, the rest I have no control over, so it's none of my business.
What is my business is if a client wants footage that can be changed, cropped or effected to tell the "story" and in advertising, journalism and entertainment the creative story wins. . . it wins everytime.
So as I look at my balance sheet of things I need to spend on, schedules that must be met, new business that should be acquired, the camera is way down on the list.
It's important but not as important as I used to think it is.
Thanks.
BC
P.S. To tell you how the world has changed, yesterday a client went through the dailies web galleries from a still/motion project. The main still images were selected and retouched weeks ago, but they want more, (everybody wants more) so they went through the dailies from the RED and pulled out 16 screen shots they'd like to put into still images. We processed them out at 16 bits, did our color and clean up, shipped them to the retoucher and on Monday or Tuesday they will be ready for print.
Are they as technically good as a d3x, or even a 5d2 . . . ummmm maybe not, but they're pretty damn close and since they embody the real non staged look the client wants to see, they will work and work so well, we've acquired more projects from this client.
But no, I can't shoot with an Iphone, or would rather not, but I can shoot with a whole bunch of cameras that do a lot of different things.
The world is changing and changing damn fast.
-
Edmund,
The world is changing and changing damn fast.
J,
Remember how when the iphone came out some guy stuck one on a toy train and shot a short film, edited on the phone to make the point even more forcefully?
(http://iphone.appstorm.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/iphone-pro-2.jpg)
The movie is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6amrKRmI1bI).
My friend Andreas went the other way, and shot a stop motion short with his Hasselblad H3D60
You are right, photography is changing fast and one of the changes is that *any* image quality is now acceptable for the right high-budget client.
Edmund
-
Image quality has never been what makes a quality image IMO.
Not to be a Cooter addict, although I'm quite addict to his imagery and learn a lot from him, I must admit that almost each time he writes something in this forum,
it matches with my experience at one point or another. Even, I sometimes was in disagreement to end later, with more working experiences, realised that his comments where
right-on-the-money (I think you use that in english).
Again here, I see exactly the same. Over and over again.
I'm thankfull to have those artists and professionals here. Probably the photographers who
have a strong influence in teaching me all the time are James Russell and Mark Tucker wich blog I follow, but I also think
about Chris Barrett, James Haefner, Schewe, Keith Laban and I forgot many more.
Each time one of these forum members write something, I generally read twice or more because I know that the content will be worth.
I may disagree, but I always try to forget about my view, take distance and think what does he trying to say here because there is
an enormous amont of talent and professional experience behind their words.
And I think Cooter in those latest posts is saying again a lot of truth.
Listen who wants to listen of course.
But let me tell you this: In my assistance experience, I have never -not just one time- had a conversation about DR,
magic IQ, brands comparaisons, etc...and it's been quite a while since I haven't heard about still cameras too.
And the less who talk about gear are the ones actually who use them most: my boss, the photographers or cineasts.
The only time I heard pros talking about IQ is for vintage stuff. Constantly talking about the story, the goal, the models, the cast, the artistic goal, the numbers etc...
very very rarely if never, talking about image quality and specially cameras's because the pp is probably the most important.
Those are just tools, not a goal in itself. The problem is that when the goal is not defined enough, when talent is not matured enough, the tool becomes the center
of the preocupation and reaching ultimate IQ the motivation.
Artist generally tend to move a lot their location, or their work direction for a good reason IMO.
Last week I had to do (they told me to do) 4 cmyk at 150dpi 5mx4m enlargements and the pic was a Canon.
It could have been a P65++++ or a Red, whatever. But it would not have been an I.phone either.
(now actually 4K and 5K are the words I hear most)
-
We've been having these running threads for years now, starting on RG.
90% of SLR photo equipment is now sold to amateurs, how many of these are going to buy 4K video?
Edmund
Image quality has never been what makes a quality image IMO.
Not to be a Cooter addict, although I'm quite addict to his imagery and learn a lot from him, I must admit that almost each time he writes something in this forum,
it matches with my experience at one point or another. Even, I sometimes was in disagreement to end later, with more working experiences, realised that his comments where
right-on-the-money (I think you use that in english).
Again here, I see exactly the same. Over and over again.
I'm thankfull to have those artists and professionals here. Probably the photographers who
have a strong influence in teaching me all the time are James Russell and Mark Tucker wich blog I follow, but I also think
about Chris Barrett, James Haefner, Schewe, Keith Laban and I forgot many more.
Each time one of these forum members write something, I generally read twice or more because I know that the content will be worth.
I may disagree, but I always try to forget about my view, take distance and think what does he trying to say here because there is
an enormous amont of talent and professional experience behind their words.
And I think Cooter in those latest posts is saying again a lot of truth.
Listen who wants to listen of course.
But let me tell you this: In my assistance experience, I have never -not just one time- had a conversation about DR,
magic IQ, brands comparaisons, etc...and it's been quite a while since I haven't heard about still cameras too.
And the less who talk about gear are the ones actually who use them most: my boss, the photographers or cineasts.
The only time I heard pros talking about IQ is for vintage stuff. Constantly talking about the story, the goal, the models, the cast etc...
Last week I had to do (they told me to do) 4 cmyk at 150dpi 5mx4m enlargements and the pic was a Canon.
It could have been a P65++++ or a Red, whatever. But it would not have been an I.phone either.
(now actually 4K and 5K are the words I hear most)
-
We've been having these running threads for years now, starting on RG.
I've given up on selling my work, I do it strictly for fun. And this raises an interesting question:
90% of SLR photo equipment is now sold to amateurs, how many of these are going to buy 4K video?
Edmund
mmm...I'm almost sure that Canon will do a 4K bomb at 3000 bucks soon or later.
edit: or Panasonic, I forgot.
-
BC,
Could you please mail me some info on the led lights ?
Handheld like a flashlight especially got my attention, we're moving more and more into motion and light on location is something I would love to have that portable.
info@frankdoorhof.com
-
BC,
Could you please mail me some info on the led lights ?
Handheld like a flashlight especially got my attention, we're moving more and more into motion and light on location is something I would love to have that portable.
info@frankdoorhof.com
No secrets.
It's all here.
http://www.filmtools.com/liledliandli.html
though call Karen at Samy's on Fairfax for the best deal and service.
Ask for her in the pro dept.
Los Angeles
431 S. Fairfax Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel: 323-938-2420
Fax: 323-937-2919
-
I've seen those panels. What I didn't like about the panels I saw was the bluish color; however I expect sooner or later we will see panels with an adjustable color temperature like the Just Normlicht LED color booth.
The moving picture crowd really like bluish ambiences and blue backgrounds etc because it plays well with LCDs and projectors. I find they're not so good with rendering red, and thus pleasing flesh tones, but I guess that depends on whether you prefer showing your vics asphyxiated or bleeding :)
I have used the model light of my Octa for years now with no flash; it's not a camera-mounted-lamp :) but it is very smooth.
Edmund
No secrets.
It's all here.
http://www.filmtools.com/liledliandli.html
though call Karen at Samy's on Fairfax for the best deal and service.
Ask for her in the pro dept.
Los Angeles
431 S. Fairfax Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel: 323-938-2420
Fax: 323-937-2919
-
No secrets.
It's all here.
Does anyone know if there is info about the spectral quality of light? I'm concerned about metamerism effects, e.g. on makeup and clothing, and not to mention skin color.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I've seen those panels. What I didn't like about the panels I saw was the bluish color; however I expect sooner or later we will see panels with an adjustable color temperature . . .
They do make the lightpanels with adjustable color temp or tint or something that mimicks that but I don't see motion imagery dedicated to any one color pallet. I see warm, cool, everywhere in between and every gaffer has their own way to get there.
Anyway,
I find color in digital to be as much subject dependent as camera and light dependent.
This is a screen grab from a RED daily, shot with light panels and it's a warm scene, because it's a warm scene and I wanted a warm scene and the RED seems to like yellow doesn't seem to like blue, at least at high isos.
(http://ishotit.com/musician_lite_panel.jpg)
Now the lightpanels are amazing but they are not hmi replacements, though hmi's are not led replacements. They all have there place and all continuous daylight is expensive, unless your buying Chinese HMI's (not that there is anything wrong with Chinese HMI's).
I've always found digital to be very sensitive to ambient color and subject color and the digital backs, though very, very sensitive to picking up most colors sometimes are a little too smart and see too much.
This was shot with daylight, bron_kobald and a p21+ and the back saw everything, every bounce color, everything, so it was hell to work the colors.
(http://ishotit.com/p21_bron_.jpg)
Just like the RED seems to want to default to warmer colors, (actually it defaults to a green tint that can be adjusted in camera), and my 1ds3's seem to default to warmer smoother faces, my digital backs to more exact faces (which can be good or bad depending on subject).
Personally I'd rather shoot the whole world in tungsten but that's just not possible in most commercial settings, but I wouldn't think that LED lights are any more or less warm or cool than anything else. With digital there is just too many variables.
Regardless, a few bags of those light panels and a camera that will default to 1000 iso and you can pull off a lot of crazy s*&t.
IMO
BC
-
Thanks BC will dive into that.
-
This was shot with daylight, bron_kobald and a p21+ and the back saw everything, every bounce color, everything, so it was hell to work the colors.
Finally, a shot in which the clothes cost less than the camera ;D Great image!
-
Personally I'd rather shoot the whole world in tungsten but that's just not possible in most commercial settings, but I wouldn't think that LED lights are any more or less warm or cool than anything else. With digital there is just too many variables.
Regardless, a few bags of those light panels and a camera that will default to 1000 iso and you can pull off a lot of crazy s*&t.
IMO
BC
Actually, with the hi-end SLRs eg. D3s one could already shoot the whole world (in stills) with Tungsten or even available light if one had to. I wonder when that sensor will be converted to moving images? It does *very* good 1600, and goes up somewhere into the stratosphere.
Edmund
-
Actually, with the hi-end SLRs eg. D3s one could already shoot the whole world (in stills) with Tungsten or even available light if one had to. I wonder when that sensor will be converted to moving images? It does *very* good 1600, and goes up somewhere into the stratosphere.
Edmund
Edmund,
I agree with you to some extent.
When it comes to thinking about the dream camera for motion and stills, Nikon seems to be the one that could do anything they want.
After all, they have no legacy video camera market to protect, they seem (as you mentioned) to have the high iso market covered (and high iso is amazing in motion imagery because of the wattage involved.)
There is also all this talk about Nikon's EVIL system and the ability to track focus on colors so it seems all the pieces are in place, not to mention that Nikon lenses are used in a lot of motion production so they're familiar with the process.
But, Nikon seems like a strange company. It took them forever to offer a full frame 35mm digital camera, there software is at best challenged when it comes to speed and how long did it take Nikon to finally enter the 20 something pixel race?
From the start of the EOS system, it seems like Nikon would have moments of falling asleep. They let Canon in, then cranked up the F5 that was probably the very best 35mm camera of all time, then digital hit and though they opened up the lower cost area with the D-1, they then kind of went to sleep for another few years while Canon took the market.
Then the D3 and here comes the best high iso camera ever, the D3x which moved a lot of hard core mfd fans over Nikon, then kind of back to sleep when it comes to video, though they do have combo cams.
Anyway, I kind of think Nikon could slip in under the radar, build a raw file shooting combination camera, or they could go back to sleep.
Time will tell, but the company that gives you some form of full frame raw video with touch pad type of autofocus (real high speed autofocus), real 4k/5k that can be purposed to stills and real high iso, is gonna mop up the floor.
IMO
BC
BTW: I did use the D3 pre production camera in Osaka and it was the only camera I have ever used without really testing it.
This series was not only used for print, but the complete sequence was purposed over to motion and used in a series of videos.
it's an amazing camera in low light and focus.
(http://ishotit.com/sany_osaka_grab.jpg)
-
LEDs have poor CRI.
They give you nasty spikes at certain colour points on the visible spectrum.
You can get round that with combinations of different coloured emitters but even then it's hard to get them to match HMI or tungsten for smooth spectral response. This is very manifest with skin-tone.
-
J,
We live in interesting times.
Some insiders tell me the pro still camera market in 35mm has just about disappeared and while mostly amateurs are still buying for stills, the sellers hate this situation because the profits on the hi-end are seen by corporate as losses from the low-end cash flow.
As regards AF, I wonder whether pro cameras eg. RED shouldn't do it by using a laser tracking dot synched between frames, with a pointer held by the focus puller. Kind of like the missile aiming technique used by special forces :)
Edmund
Edmund,
I agree with you to some extent.
When it comes to thinking about the dream camera for motion and stills, Nikon seems to be the one that could do anything they want.
After all, they have no legacy video camera market to protect, they seem (as you mentioned) to have the high iso market covered (and high iso is amazing in motion imagery because of the wattage involved.)
There is also all this talk about Nikon's EVIL system and the ability to track focus on colors so it seems all the pieces are in place, not to mention that Nikon lenses are used in a lot of motion production so they're familiar with the process.
But, Nikon seems like a strange company. It took them forever to offer a full frame 35mm digital camera, there software is at best challenged when it comes to speed and how long did it take Nikon to finally enter the 20 something pixel race?
From the start of the EOS system, it seems like Nikon would have moments of falling asleep. They let Canon in, then cranked up the F5 that was probably the very best 35mm camera of all time, then digital hit and though they opened up the lower cost area with the D-1, they then kind of went to sleep for another few years while Canon took the market.
Then the D3 and here comes the best high iso camera ever, the D3x which moved a lot of hard core mfd fans over Nikon, then kind of back to sleep when it comes to video, though they do have combo cams.
Anyway, I kind of think Nikon could slip in under the radar, build a raw file shooting combination camera, or they could go back to sleep.
Time will tell, but the company that gives you some form of full frame raw video with touch pad type of autofocus (real high speed autofocus), real 4k/5k that can be purposed to stills and real high iso, is gonna mop up the floor.
IMO
BC
BTW: I did use the D3 pre production camera in Osaka and it was the only camera I have ever used without really testing it.
This series was not only used for print, but the complete sequence was purposed over to motion and used in a series of videos.
it's an amazing camera in low light and focus.
(http://ishotit.com/sany_osaka_grab.jpg)
-
I was waiting for someone else to say this, as I lack credibility :)
So called "white" Leds are not really spiky, just ugly, they are actually blue LEDs coated with phosphor, reemitting in various bands, a bit like a Neon tube. I put up an explanation on my color blog (http://photofeedback.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-white-led-display-backlights-work.html) .
Repeat after me: Tungsten is best, Tungsten is best :)
Edmund
LEDs have poor CRI.
They give you nasty spikes at certain colour points on the visible spectrum.
You can get round that with combinations of different coloured emitters but even then it's hard to get them to match HMI or tungsten for smooth spectral response. This is very manifest with skin-tone.
-
Repeat after me: Tungsten is best, Tungsten is best :)
Edmund
I do agree 200% !
-
I have tried white LED floods for gallery lighting.
The power bill is a big consideration when you have 80 flood lights running 10/7 .
The bottom line is they suck! :(
Even a 3500K flood with a CRI of 85 had very blue looking light.
I measured the spectra with my spectrometer and it was very spikey in the blue range.
I will post it online here tomorrow when I get home.
The 11 watt power consumption to replace 75 watt tungsten floods is very attractive, but we found the bulbs only
suitable for B&W photo display.
IMO it would take an array of seperate Red, Green and Blue LEDS to get a good spectrum.
The higher end IPS LCD screens use this trick rather than "white" LED's to get a high quality color gamut.
If you shot RAW it would be possible to do a custom camera profile to patch the spectral holes, but no common Kelvin color temp setting will work.
-
J,
We live in interesting times.
Some insiders tell me the pro still camera market in 35mm has just about disappeared and while mostly amateurs are still buying for stills, the sellers hate this situation because the profits on the hi-end are seen by corporate as losses from the low-end cash flow.
As regards AF, I wonder whether pro cameras eg. RED shouldn't do it by using a laser tracking dot synched between frames, with a pointer held by the focus puller. Kind of like the missile aiming technique used by special forces :)
Edmund
The problem with counting on RED for anything is they're slow to get stuff out. Real slow so as much as I think they could do about anything, it may be a long time before you see it on a shelf.
I can't imagine how many cameras they'd sell if you could just walk in and buy one, considering they've already sold about a billion dollars worth of product.
In regards to lighting . . .
I respect that everyone works differently.
I ain't no Pablo, but this was done with a RED and one tiny LED.
(http://ishotit.com/RED_PORTRAIT.jpg)
(and yes it's suppose to have this look which I worked in RED cinex and photoshop, so don't pixel stare.
Anway . . .
I don't know what CRI is. Don't care, but I hold to the theory that most digital is very subject and ambient light dependent, but honestly I don't care as long as I can make it work for the situation.
(http://ishotit.com/carl_tungsten.jpg)
This is the same model in three obviously different settings and what works for one doesn't necessarily work for another.
I'd hate to see a color meter on these images because I'm sure something would spike (i guess, cause once again I don't know what CRI is).
I'll second the thought about tungsten and digital, I love tungsten but only in a blacked out studio or at night.
Still, you had better get used to LED's. They don't burn a lot of power, a camera like the RED has a native 800 to 1000 iso and you can throw 4 or 5 of those square light panels in a suitcase and hit the road.
The world's changed, even clients mention power draw, they drive prius', they actually ask where the recycling bin is and LED's draw nothing in comparison to any other conventional light.
Also they're cool, instant strike, can battery power and are fast to set up.
We still run large crews, but not like three years ago. Then we ran large crews because . . . well we just did. Now we run large crews only if we're shooting 2 hard days into 1 so a crew is always setting up ahead of us, one tearing down behind.
Even adding the RED hasn't increased the crew size past one or two people, (depending on sound).
So as far as lighting goes, whatever works and I don't have any one preference, though we just finished an ad series where two shots just could not have been done without leds. Well, they could have, but the set up would have been another 2 hours instead of 45 minutes as it was a very difficult image with white lab coats, a lot of background light and we needed small face fills and cross light in the foreground for effect. The shooting area was very tight, so those battery powered led's were like magic. (I'd show the image but it's not released yet).
But with this image in still and RED I didn't see any blue, just warm nice skintones, clean bright whites.
So, after a 12 hour on set day, an hour or so savings is a big deal.
IMO
BC
-
J,
Ok, so we now know that the LED panels *you* use work well with the RED sensor. Those I tested some years ago with a Canon 1Ds2 gave me really cr*ppy files.
I still think Tungsten with standard lightboxes is a good choice when shooting @ ISO 1600, but the flash guys don't want people to know that those huge generators can be replaced by a $30 lightbulb in a 6 ounce ventilated holder.
It's interesting that people like you are using lighter and lighter rigs, maybe controlled light will go out of fashion and be replaced with assisted available light, even in movies.
Edmund
But with this image in still and RED I didn't see any blue, just warm nice skintones, clean bright whites.
So, after a 12 hour on set day, an hour or so savings is a big deal.
IMO
BC
-
Edmund, I moved in another district last month. Before I used to live near a square where they contantly shoot movies. Each time it is 2 or 3 trucks at least, 2 tents and 20 people minimum on set, and I'm not talking about Bo/Holliwood. No, just low-end cine mostly produced by TV channels to keep asleep the middle class when there is no football on tv or disasters on the news.
Then comes Canon video with the FF low light saga etc etc...
and with zero light at higher isos, more or less 3 people on set, you do this (aps sensor, and FF): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ig59zgQkM
the behind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmjmqXyMV3Q
All in available light.
And now Red with 4 and 5K for less money than the super MF backs...
-
As to the lite panel LED: I know they spike in the blues, some in the greens, which is hard to balance out. They are sometimes hard to balance with different sources. This is very important if you are documenting or recording information to be as close to the actual measured color as possible, such as cosmetics or products. If you take photographs or film people you use the panels to do things that would have been almost impossible a few years ago. You go with what you have, creating mood, not accuracy in depiction. If you photograph or film people you should be creating a fantasy, so who cares if the CRI is shitty. Clients don't care, tehy want the mood. I lit scenes on the subway with a 1dIV and super 16 Fuji stock rated at 1600. Handheld. Two lite panels and the subway car's practicals replaced with Kino tubes. The panels were handheld to provide modeling for the actress' face. I used to do this with a Kino tube in a fixture on a boom, with the ballast and battery on a grip's belt. The panels provide more controllable, unbreakable light that fit into small places and don't require much power. It looks beautiful, haunting and mysterious, which is what we wanted. It moves people, which is the goal. Had it been acurate, sterile, a mere recordation of actual color, it would have been a complete failure.
IMHO
-
As to the lite panel LED: I know they spike in the blues, some in the greens, which is hard to balance out. They are sometimes hard to balance with different sources. This is very important if you are documenting or recording information to be as close to the actual measured color as possible, such as cosmetics or products. If you take photographs or film people you use the panels to do things that would have been almost impossible a few years ago. You go with what you have, creating mood, not accuracy in depiction. If you photograph or film people you should be creating a fantasy, so who cares if the CRI is shitty. Clients don't care, tehy want the mood. I lit scenes on the subway with a 1dIV and super 16 Fuji stock rated at 1600. Handheld. Two lite panels and the subway car's practicals replaced with Kino tubes. The panels were handheld to provide modeling for the actress' face. I used to do this with a Kino tube in a fixture on a boom, with the ballast and battery on a grip's belt. The panels provide more controllable, unbreakable light that fit into small places and don't require much power. It looks beautiful, haunting and mysterious, which is what we wanted. It moves people, which is the goal. Had it been acurate, sterile, a mere recordation of actual color, it would have been a complete failure.
IMHO
Yes, yes and (2004592489x4666664)x(+∞) ouiiiii
-
Edmund, I moved in another district last month. Before I used to live near a square where they contantly shoot movies. Each time it is 2 or 3 trucks at least, 2 tents and 20 people minimum on set, and I'm not talking about Bo/Holliwood. No, just low-end cine mostly produced by TV channels to keep asleep the middle class when there is no football on tv or disasters on the news.
Then comes Canon video with the FF low light saga etc etc...
and with zero light at higher isos, more or less 3 people on set, you do this (aps sensor, and FF): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ig59zgQkM
the behind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmjmqXyMV3Q
All in available light.
And now Red with 4 and 5K for less money than the super MF backs...
Hi Fred
I can see why you are moving interest away from stills into motion; however, exciting as it appears to be, it must spell the death of the one-man band. Sad, but in a commercial world, I suppose inevitable.
A great time to be young, though, and quite possibly the start of another, different, Golden Age. JR seems to have landed on his feet at exactly the right time!
In a modest way, I experience the very same 'liberation' in my little muso shots: umimaginable ISO, available (mixed) lighting and hand-held except for longer lenses. What a world! And best of all, when it doesn't matter what colour anything is as long as it's not boring, what scope!
Rob C
-
Hi Rob,
Nice to see you.
You know, my training has not been photography but fine arts. It is a good and a bad thing. The bad thing is that I was never trained on the orthodoxy of photography techniques. The good thing is that I was never trained on the orthodoxy of photographic techniques.
If still photography would die tomorrow for motion-only, I won't cry on its thumb. Things are moving, has to move on. That's the excitment IMO to be alive. Dead-living people tend to get hooked on the things they know, and feel desperate when the world is moving forward. Here in the Flamenco scene, the new generation is trying to make the genre evolve but there is an enormous resistance. People always try to keep the things where they are. Thank god human nature is evolution, nothing lasts, nothing is fixed forever. If not we would still be drawing with hands on the cave's rock.
I'm happy that you enjoy digital tools.
I don't know what is a "good" lightning. In my youth, I used exclusively cine lightning that I bought in the "puces" (fee marquet you say?), it's funny to see it coming back later now. Proper photographers wanted always to send me on the strobe side but never accepted. I hated Velvia when everybody was on it and if there is something I really never do (because I don't need to) is to use a "correct" WB. I mix different lightning temps and have almost zero interest in dynamic range, isos settings and "right" exposure.
But the funny thing Rob, is that in my assistance exp, you won't beleive the number of "traditional photographers" wich cameras are completly unsetted. I don't count the number of times I had to reconfigured cameras settings to avoid disasters. And more the photographers are on the high-end, more you had to be carefull about that...
I really think that a new golden age is about to come. Le roi est mort! Vive le roi!
But now it's a mess.
-
Hi Fred
*I bought in the "puces" (fee marquet you say?),* almost: flea market.
Yes, I understand you view about the advantage, in some circumstance, of not having a technical training in a sort of standard 'how' to do things; it can help, but better, if you can manage it, is to have the background and be able to accept it for what it is: good experience in doing some things in some ways.
In my own case, my experience was limited/fashioned by the work I chose to do, and the way in which I wanted to work. I never, ever, wanted to have a team. The most I ever wanted was my wife to help out morally and with a reflector or holding a flash umbrella in the wind. I'm one of these people who has two extremes when working: either as alone as possible or, alternatively, with a crowd watching, but the latter only if I know the model well and we have an instinctual method of working together. Since my model days seem long over, the crowd appeal manifests itself with the music stuff, and it seems to give the players something extra to play to - they must get bored as hell playing the same basic set every time and making the same wisecracks, too. I sometimes wonder at the way that famous groups are reputed to behave regarding photographers at concerts: why, apart from management or promoters making more money off them if they can control photography as well, should they restrict pro shooters to only the first few numbers of gigs? Strange.
Those two links were very interesting; thanks for that.
Rob C
-
Hi Fred
*I bought in the "puces" (fee marquet you say?),* almost: flea market.
Yeah, I would weep if stills went away. Stills are the inheritors of the tradition of painting - itself as old as Lascaux and then portaiture, like this (http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226908&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226638&CURRENT_LLV_CHEMINEMENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226638&bmLocale=en)
The cinema is more an inheritor of the art of theatre. A story, not a moment, or a feeling.
Edmund
-
Yeah, I would weep if stills went away. Stills are the inheritors of the tradition of painting - itself as old as Lascaux and then portaiture, like this (http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226908&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226638&CURRENT_LLV_CHEMINEMENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226638&bmLocale=en)
The cinema is more an inheritor of the art of theatre. A story, not a moment, or a feeling.Edmund
Edmund, I don't think you quite meant what you just wrote! Tell me you were thinking of something else. Please?
I think it's beyond argument that motion can create feeling far more convincingly than stills alone ever can; it's got more dimensions, for a start.
Rob C
-
Rob, I assure you when I wrote that I was thinking of you. :)
I agree that motion (theatre) has more dimensionality - but it robs the viewer of the privilege of slow contemplation. Some like it slow.
Edmund
Edmund, I don't think you quite meant what you just wrote! Tell me you were thinking of something else. Please?
I think it's beyond argument that motion can create feeling far more convincingly than stills alone ever can; it's got more dimensions, for a start.
Rob C
-
Rob, I assure you when I wrote that I was thinking of you. :)
I agree that motion (theatre) has more dimensionality - but it robs the viewer of the privilege of slow contemplation. Some like it slow.
Edmund
Okay, just for you, then:
http://youtu.be/VWZkRNEULi4
;-)
Rob C
PS The opening portrait is what, in my head, real glamour is, not the semi-porn that has stolen its passport today.
-
Yeah, I would weep if stills went away. Stills are the inheritors of the tradition of painting - itself as old as Lascaux and then portaiture, like this (http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226908&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226638&CURRENT_LLV_CHEMINEMENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226638&bmLocale=en)
The cinema is more an inheritor of the art of theatre. A story, not a moment, or a feeling.
Edmund
I don't get it. Stills, motion, motion from stills, stills from motion or a combination . . . who cares?
Rules are so 1980.
If it's good then it's good, if it stinks it stinks.
These are great times because you can be anything you want to be.
Conceptual artist . . . go for it, all you need is some good ideas and a laptop and you can present a concept that would take an ad agency two months to generate.
Photographer, film maker, it's all there even if you have a $400 camera. If the story is compelling, the creativity is good, the effort interesting, someone will take notice and you can be the next Robert Rodriquez, George Lois, or Helmut Newton.
Seriously, the walls are coming down and there are no rules and one twitter and facebook account and you can show it to the world. You don't need NBC, BBC, Warner Bros., or Conde Naste's blessing.
It's artistic and commercial anarchy and i love it, love nearly everything about it, because the barriers for entry get changed every week, so while they're putting up a new gate, sometimes you can slip through the cracks and get into the room.
Once you get into the room, it's damn hard to throw you out.
IMO
BC
-
I don't get it. Stills, motion, motion from stills, stills from motion or a combination . . . who cares?
Rules are so 1980.
BC
maybe 1980 and before.. but I wasn't in the business really till 1983.. maybe I was just young then and the world was my oyster, I could shoot anything, boundaries were
being broken left and right ..
minox, 35recording film, super 8, 16mm, polaroid transfer, cross-processing, agfa1600 pushed.. 8x10, and everything in-between..and I could say the same about choices of how to light.
.. now? seems we still have choices..but we also have created new pigeon holes to bind our collective vision.. remember the ringflash, now HDR, trends the artbuyers and young
creatives latch onto and think so new and hip.
-
Certainly can, but thankfully this doesn't only apply to recent times.
I've never known what to put on those forms that insist on a definitive occupation, painter, illustrator, photographer, curmudgeon...? The point is it's often difficult to know where one begins and another ends.
Therein lay the excitement.
Indeed.
I'm often surprised that the irruption of motion is sometimes seen as a threat to the photographic craft, or that it is the end of the MF world like I read several times. I don't think it is the end of anything. Convergence is something that as been annunced years ago and does not really take anybody by surprise.
I don't understand either those labelised concepts: here the photographer, there the illustrator and over here the film maker. I don't buy that.
Precisely, today we have the tools and structures for really expressing ourselves in almost any support we want to. I honestly feel much more freedom and excitement today than 10 years ago.
-
J,
I agree with you 100%. If you can get them to pay, it deserves to be done :)
There's a well known artist in Paris called Le Peintre Nato who expresses himself with his penis. I'm not joking. His art form is a live performance. He's quite respectable. You can Google him, for obvious reasons I can't link to his images here.
Edmund
I don't get it. Stills, motion, motion from stills, stills from motion or a combination . . . who cares?
Rules are so 1980.
If it's good then it's good, if it stinks it stinks.
These are great times because you can be anything you want to be.
Conceptual artist . . . go for it, all you need is some good ideas and a laptop and you can present a concept that would take an ad agency two months to generate.
Photographer, film maker, it's all there even if you have a $400 camera. If the story is compelling, the creativity is good, the effort interesting, someone will take notice and you can be the next Robert Rodriquez, George Lois, or Helmut Newton.
Seriously, the walls are coming down and there are no rules and one twitter and facebook account and you can show it to the world. You don't need NBC, BBC, Warner Bros., or Conde Naste's blessing.
It's artistic and commercial anarchy and i love it, love nearly everything about it, because the barriers for entry get changed every week, so while they're putting up a new gate, sometimes you can slip through the cracks and get into the room.
Once you get into the room, it's damn hard to throw you out.
IMO
BC
-
Yes, the D3x is amazing so is the Canon 5d!!! They both are narrowing the gap between MF and Digital 35mm...
-
Hi,
They go where MF used to be before, but MF is also on the move. There has never been a substitute for square inches...
Best regards
Erik
Yes, the D3x is amazing so is the Canon 5d!!! They both are narrowing the gap between MF and Digital 35mm...
-
Hi,
They go where MF used to be before, but MF is also on the move. There has never been a substitute for square inches...
Best regards
Erik
Anyone who puts a D3x and a Canon 5DII in the same category doesn't need anything more than a 5DII.
Edmund
-
If you want the quality of the 645, but not the $ 10,000 price, you can always get the film version for a lot less.
DaveO
-
Hi,
The tests I have done indicates that Sony Alpha 900 is at least on par but mostly superior to Velvia on 67. Print film may be another case.
My experience is that your advice is not a good one, but opinions may differ.
My test is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
Best regards
Erik
If you want the quality of the 645, but not the $ 10,000 price, you can always get the film version for a lot less.
DaveO
-
Erik,
In my opinion, on look alone, films beats digital. I saw your test when you did it and thought it was challenged, in many ways. Velvia is the worst chrome film ever made. It has what, maybe 5 stops of range? And those Colecovision colors. Awful. I think you are fair and not intentionaly biased, but it was obvious to me that your set up for the film, inluding scanning and the type of film chosen, the camera chosen, and your criteria for excellence dictated that the digital would come out on top. What this means is that digital is right for you.
For pixel peeping, convenience and sharpness, digital takes it. But remember, sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
That being said, I don't think film is a wrong choice for someone wanting the look of medium format without the absurd hobbyist prices.
Regards,
TMARK
-
Hi,
The reason I compared with Velvia was essentially that it was the film I used for something like 15 years before going to digital. I used also Provia but decided that I preferred Velvia. Anyway 67 and Velvia was what I was doing for a long time, and I did scan several hundred 67 slides.
The main reason for looking into this was threefold:
1) When scanning slides I felt that going beyond 1600 PPI started to show diminishing returns, I wanted to find out what quailty I could extract from a 67 slide.
2) I essentially hoped that I would find advantages with my Pentax 67 and 5 lenses, so I would use them more
3) Finding out how digital fared against Velvia
I have used around a dozen different slide films before arriving at Velvia, mostly because Kodak's handling of Kodachrome was not acceptable to me, and I always had a strong dislike for Ektachrome.
The reason I mentioned my test is that you can buy a very good camera today costing around 2000-3000 € and take pictures with zero cost. For the tests I made I exposed 3-4 rolls of film and had to wait 1-2 weeks for development. Cost for a film including development is perhaps 15 € (including postage). I needed to check focusing and so on. With digital I just made a single exposure.
With film you still need to scan it. I use an advanced CCD scanner from Minolta (no longer made) and it set me back 3000€ when I bought, I also have a projector at a similar price (made by Götschman). So everything about film is expensive. With Digital I essentially made a single exposure, checked the LCD and that's it.
So I feel that saying that MF film is an economical alternative is in my view an incorrect statement.
I have a plan to redo the test with negative film, the film has been in the fridge a long time, but I'm to lazy to get around to doing it.
Michael Reichmann, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer made a shootout with Digital backs and film 2006, and their findings were pretty consistent with mine, but they also used Velvia.
I don't think sharpness is a bourgeois concept, by the way. Neither bourgeois nor concept. For the stuff I'm doing it is essential. Doing landscape mostly, that may be a bourgeois concept!
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
In my opinion, on look alone, films beats digital. I saw your test when you did it and thought it was challenged, in many ways. Velvia is the worst chrome film ever made. It has what, maybe 5 stops of range? And those Colecovision colors. Awful. I think you are fair and not intentionaly biased, but it was obvious to me that your set up for the film, inluding scanning and the type of film chosen, the camera chosen, and your criteria for excellence dictated that the digital would come out on top. What this means is that digital is right for you.
For pixel peeping, convenience and sharpness, digital takes it. But remember, sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
That being said, I don't think film is a wrong choice for someone wanting the look of medium format without the absurd hobbyist prices.
Regards,
TMARK
-
Nor for cubic inches :D
Eduardo
Hi,
They go where MF used to be before, but MF is also on the move. There has never been a substitute for square inches...
Best regards
Erik
-
... Velvia is the worst chrome film ever made.
Indeed
It has what, maybe 5 stops of range?
but it was punchy and that sort of "saturated" look is very popular (that's why you always find it on most cameras default out-of-factory except the pro lines)
But remember, sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
Not only a bourgeois concept but a preocupation I only find in the forums and never in the profesional life. I have to stress that many times the sharpening applied in post prod with the masters I had the chance to work with is much less that what you generally find in the hobbyists works. (in fact, I don't remember any sharpening intervention in PP). It seems that sharpness, resolution and noise are a big concern for a lot of "sunday" photographers while they are completly irrelevant for all the professionals I've been working and learning with.
2 worlds.
I don't think film is a wrong choice for someone wanting the look of medium format without the absurd hobbyist prices
The absurd prices could be bearable not a long time ago, but now in the current context they don't make any sense except in very few niche exceptions. But the second-hand MF market is a great oportunity to go digital unless you really want the film look.
-
It seems that sharpness, resolution and noise are a big concern for a lot of "sunday" photographers while they are completly irrelevant for all the professionals I've been working and learning with.
"Professionals" are of course not a monolith. A fashion photographer with a particular style may not need (or indeed may actively avoid) resolution/sharpness. A high-end architectural photographer, product photographer, or fashion photographer with a different style on the other hand may go to great lengths to achieve it.
This is no different than it was 30 years ago when some professionals shot through pantyhose, or used vaseline on their lens while others used 8x10 film and did manual unsharp masks in the darkroom (which was incredibly time consuming compared to a drop down menu).
I realize you were speaking about the professionals you work with and not all professionals everywhere. But for someone reading the forum that doesn't know you they might take it as a broad statement.
Given that many serious hobbyists are focused on landscape (especially on the luminous landscape forum) it's not surprising their interests would include high image quality including resolution and sharpness; this is true 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and today.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8) (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/06/30/nelandscape/")
-
Okay, just for you, then:
http://youtu.be/VWZkRNEULi4
;-)
Rob C
PS The opening portrait is what, in my head, real glamour is, not the semi-porn that has stolen its passport today.
Good example - the still image contributes, but I'm not sure that any more imagery would actually improve the piece.
Edmund
-
"Professionals" are of course not a monolith. A fashion photographer with a particular style may not need (or indeed may actively avoid) resolution/sharpness. A high-end architectural photographer, product photographer, or fashion photographer with a different style on the other hand may go to great lengths to achieve it.
This is no different than it was 30 years ago when some professionals shot through pantyhose, or used vaseline on their lens while others used 8x10 film and did manual unsharp masks in the darkroom (which was incredibly time consuming compared to a drop down menu).
I realize you were speaking about the professionals you work with and not all professionals everywhere. But for someone reading the forum that doesn't know you they might take it as a broad statement.
Given that many serious hobbyists are focused on landscape (especially on the luminous landscape forum) it's not surprising their interests would include high image quality including resolution and sharpness; this is true 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and today.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8) (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/06/30/nelandscape/")
That's correct Doug, thanks for the precision. I was indeed talking about a part of the profession where I'm activly involved and not a broad statement. As in life, everything is relative.
But, and yes that's the sort of general statement I wanted to express, I also know arquitecture photographers, artists who hang their printings in museums and art galleries and therefore the needs for sharpness-reso are "different", yes. But
neither in those sphere I saw deep concern about it except in the museum repros. People who need sharpness and details just have it ! it's as simple as that. And they have it with the proper equipment.
I mean by that, the criticisms I sometimes do on MF gear just concern the niche where I work. But there is no doubt that if I where doing art gallery big formats (for ex), I'd have my studio full of view cams and MF backs, wether I like tether (wich I do not) or not. I'm not as blind to think that a Pentax K5 will give me what a P65 can. No! People are trying very hard in the forums to demostrate with graphs, bottle wine details comparaisons etc...that the current generation of consumer sensors are on par if not better in DR for ex than the FF or MF equipment. Of course, you and I and many more may look at that (noise?) with an healphy distance. After all, if they want to enjoy with those sort of demonstrations to proove something I still do not get that's fine.
Yesterday I did a part of a fashion shooting with this GH2 because I could loose time on that. It's just ok. Could that go to full page print? No doubt, nobody would notice anything because it's the look of the 16MP 1D Canon of years ago. (very very similar look by the way). In that sense you can see the progress that have been acheived by the industry. I liked the look of the raw files, there is a lot to like about it but the camera buffer is not suitable for such demanding session, at 100% details are lacking, this smaller sensor area demands more light power than usual to extract the full potential, post prod files are not trickable but fall apart very easily because it's a small sensor etc etc so you fall on its limitation in a question of minutes. There is no miracle, but the GH2 is NOT a high-end camera. It's impressive considering the sensor's size and capable of outstanding small prints. The EVF is impressive and I could really rely on it for manual focussing with a high amount of accuracy. Very very impressive EVF that I'd like to see in coming pro gear. But that' s all. No comparaison with any MF image quality, not even the 5D2 for stills.
In the high-end, whatever the high-end is, image quality in 2011 in his vast forms and needs is guarantee. Then it's just a question of personal orientation and personal apreciation on each aspect.
IMO.
2 pics with the gh2 before make-up in avail light (not yet strobes but 2 500w hot lights you can see the yellow on the dress, one on the arm and the other on the bottom), raw files right-out-the box, no color correct, no sharpen, rien que du brut de décoffrage. the crop is a 100% view at 800 isos from the developper.
As you see it's just ok and we can clearly notice the artifacts at 800 and some moiré, but for such a small sensor it's pretty good anyway.
-
Just to add my grain of salt here - I'm not so sure that the move to digital publication will mean a move to really low rez.
I downloaded some magazines to my iPad, and found that one of the biggest advantages is you can then zoom in on the images and view details. Let me clarify beyond the obvious - a gossip page a bunch of small snapshots, BOOM! you are zooming in to check out the dress details.
Edmund
-
I agree. There are some limits in lowering the rez.
That's why I used the GH2 in a situation it's not really made for. I was curious to see how much lower is bearable (and that's all relative). In fact what I found is that it doesn't matter so much the pixel-count but yes the sensor'size bloody matters. Although the GH2 in that aspect defends very well because there are sharper and more detailed images and smoother transitions that the ones I posted above when shooted at 320 isos with strobes and not 800 in availble light like those, I find that this sensor probably reached the pixel density limit. The 800 I posted almost looks like a compactcam kind of texture.
But watching an image at 100% is pointless.
If you'd print that in a full page magazine it will work perfectly, but working with the files it's kind of "...mmmm...yes but..." no, the gh2 wouldn't replace a 1D or a D3x IMO.
Ahhh...if MF could reduce their prices a bit, put some video and live-view with evf and improoved the usability that would be the grail. But no one as ever seen or met the grail so far...
a 100% crop at isos 320 right-out-the-raw, available light, 1/160 sec at 4, no strobes. it's better but the hair still looks horror. It handles 1 stop before falling appart. This is where the limits are.
Anyway, those field testings are boring like hell.
-
Ahhh...if MF could reduce their prices a bit, put some video and live-view with evf and improoved the usability that would be the grail. But no one as ever seen or met the grail so far...
Fred,
It all depends where the fashion money goes.
D'you remember the first days of digital print in some fashion mags? They all used the washed out color look, because they couldn't do natural skin tone. It became a fashion. In the same way, maybe stills from video will become the "look", just because it's available.
I don't think MF will survive outside the specialist arena, and in fact I believe that paradoxically the place with the highest quality still photography will be sports photography, where the guys all have good cameras and superb lenses.
Edmund
-
Fred,
It all depends where the fashion money goes.
D'you remember the first days of digital print in some fashion mags? They all used the washed out color look, because they couldn't do natural skin tone. It became a fashion. In the same way, maybe stills from video will become the "look", just because it's available.
I don't think MF will survive outside the specialist arena, and in fact I believe that paradoxically the place with the highest quality still photography will be sports photography, where the guys all have good cameras and superb lenses. Edmund
Probably right: there's a hell of a lot of moolah in sport! Just look at the footballers and golfers and tennisers (gotta be a Rob C neologism at last!)
Rob C
-
Hi,
I'd guess that MF will be a market for those who can afford best equipment for best image quality and for those needing the ultimate perfection, like architecture and landscape photogrpahers.
On the other, good enough is an awesome competition!
There is also something called return on investment.
Best regards
Erik
Fred,
I don't think MF will survive outside the specialist arena, and in fact I believe that paradoxically the place with the highest quality still photography will be sports photography, where the guys all have good cameras and superb lenses.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I'd guess that MF will be a market for those who can afford best equipment for best image quality and for those needing the ultimate perfection, like architecture and landscape photogrpahers.
On the other, good enough is an awesome competition!
There is also something called return on investment.
Best regards
Erik
There's a tendency for the top guys who get large budgets to say that their equipment is a necessity, and make that EXPENSIVE equipment.
I see it as closing the door of the room after you squeaked in.
E.
-
Rob,
A few weeks ago I played in the Walter Gretsky tournament (an annual event in Brantford, ON for the CNIB (http://www.cnib.ca/en/)). So that means I was golfing with hockeyers.
Dave
Probably right: there's a hell of a lot of moolah in sport! Just look at the footballers and golfers and tennisers (gotta be a Rob C neologism at last!)
Rob C
-
Rob,
A few weeks ago I played in the Walter Gretsky tournament (an annual event in Brantford, ON for the CNIB (http://www.cnib.ca/en/)). So that means I was golfing with hockeyers.
Dave
We're on our way to creating a new language. Ironically, I'm not much into sports!
;-)
Rob C
-
Just to add my grain of salt here - I'm not so sure that the move to digital publication will mean a move to really low rez.
I downloaded some magazines to my iPad, and found that one of the biggest advantages is you can then zoom in on the images and view details. Let me clarify beyond the obvious - a gossip page a bunch of small snapshots, BOOM! you are zooming in to check out the dress details.
Edmund
Yes the "problem" is that we are talking about 6 megapixels or so. Even 16 with a little stretch but we are not talking 80mpixels. So we see a picture of the candidate and her husband or of a scientist and his experiment on a magazine and we want to see the details, that's common.
But most people (and we are talking averages here since companies need and incentive to expend the resources, shocking the device, loading the download servers, eat the device bandwidth etc) will not care to take a look at the candidate's dandruff ;D .
So, as always, hi resolution is relative.
Of course art reproduction, it's one of many examples were hight resolution is mandatory. Some cases like landscapes and cityscapes can be achieved by stitching. The advantage of stitching is that we could have ultra high dynamic range captures, but a single shoot can do stuff that stitching can't like capturing movement.
The next question, then,will be if the niche applications can or can't sustain the research and development. The second alternative, is lowering the prices and sale to the wealthy amateurs that can fall in love with quality.
Best regards,
James