Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: MarkoMijailovic on January 30, 2012, 10:33:37 pm
-
Apologies if this has been asked before or if it's a silly question, but it entered my mind and I just have to ask... Please keep in mind I know virtually nothing about the technicalities behind all this stuff.
Lets say there's a DSLR (like the rumored Nikon D800) that boasts a 36 megapixel sensor. Wouldn't said camera rival the medium format digital stuff out there like, for example, a Hasselblad H4D 40 in terms of image quality and retaining detail? I'm not quite sure what the advantages at that point would be to medium format digital. If anything, I'd think the DSLR would have advantages to it, such as: far superior noise performance, faster frame rates, HD video (if you're into that), reduced weight, significantly reduced cost, bigger variety of lenses, weather proofing, much faster AF system, etc. Perhaps the optics of medium format systems are, arguably, the only area in which medium format would have these 35mm based cameras beat? I'm not even sure I understand what I'm asking... perhaps I'm just confusing resolution with sensor size... A camera can still have a 35mm sized sensor and have 36 megapixels on it while another can have a 6x4.5,6x6,6x7, etc. sized one and have say, 21 megapixels...
I'm a lover of medium format and don't intend on having a DSLR replace my Mamiya RZ 67 system, but I just had to ask... Is there something I'm missing?
-
It's an interesting point, but there are significant differences that can make or break a camera for a task.
I've only recently gone to MFD, but my experience has been interesting and enjoyable though fraught with interesting challenges along the way.
There were a few main reasons for my switch.
- Leaf Shutter
- Resolution (though not necessarily key)
- Usability (I have the 645DF and IQ160)
- Modular back (for eventually using with technical camera's).
- The AA filter (or lack of in MFD)
- ISO50
You can nit pick between them a lot.
One can also argue in the case of studio work (My primary focus) good quality flash gear in 90% of the cases will negate the need for a leaf shutter (say the Scoro packs etc).
What I'd like to comment on is the lack of quality review out there for real world use on the camera's... DPReview is okay, but at the end of the day it ends up showing us little in the way of raw use. We see these great high iso numbers (100,000+) these days and while that's fine and dandy, my personal experience has been that while the noise control has been getting better, it's often over inflated by people only testing it in JPG.
When it comes down to it in RAW, we seldom get more then a stop advantage over the previous generation. From my first DSLR the 20D I went to the 5D then the 1DS3 and 5D2. Personally while these camera's may well get to ISO1600, I wouldn't want to shoot at those levels still.
I dont' know... the 5D2 is the newest DSLR I own, so it may have changed more recently, but the words spoken of the new camera's ISO capabilities aren't different to what was spoken when the 5D came out. I'm sure it's better, and yes, it'd probably beat the pants of my 160 at equivalent ISO's (except low down), but it's not my thing, and will have a DSLR on the back burner anyway for that.
That said, 36mp compared to the likes of their previous highest 24 and their night performance camera's at 12 and now 16mp... I just don't see how they can with the current level of advancement make it any better at low ISO. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but it's just getting crazy.
In addition to that, with the processing and transfer power of the D4 and the 1Dx (they're around the same) you won't see more then 5 frames a second, and chances are slower then that.
And lets look at the other thing. Glass. We don't need to go into the old adage of good glass better pictures, but lets be realistic here. At 24mp's we're in many cases pushing the majority of glass to its limit... and if high resolution on the DSLR lenses is what we're after something else must be sacrificed. Personally I think the first thing to go will be the AA filter. I'd imagine a big change to the bayer filter (don't ask me how, I'm not an engineer). and unless they make the entire 'sensel' area edge to edge, I just don't see how else they could improve the light without sacrificing the resolution.
I'm still in the camp the 36mp is either fake, or there's a catch to it (think of the multi layer thing with Sigma).
EDIT:
And just to point out. Pentax have now had their MFDSLR out for over a year, but it really didn't impact as much on either industry as people hoped it would.
-
Hi,
There is always some advantage with larger formats. For one, they collect more photons which is good for keeping down shot noise (which depends on photon statistics). The second great advantage larger formats have is that MTF on a detail of given size will be better all other factors assumed to be comparable.
Unfortunately there are not great many properly made comparisons between MF and DSLRs.
Here are two comparisons I have made from raw files made by other photographers:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/51-a-closer-look-at-pentax-645d-image-quality
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images
You could also check this thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50977.0
More info from Miles Hecker:
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_review_pt1.html
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_review_pt2.html
Regarding 36 MP FF DSLRs, I would make the point that they are comparable to present day 16 MP APS-C. So you can shoot with a cropped frame DSLR to estimate the image quality.
If you print an APS-C image at 20" and a full frame image at 30" the central crop of the larger image would exactly correspond to the small camera crop.
Best regards
Erik
Apologies if this has been asked before or if it's a silly question, but it entered my mind and I just have to ask... Please keep in mind I know virtually nothing about the technicalities behind all this stuff.
Lets say there's a DSLR (like the rumored Nikon D800) that boasts a 36 megapixel sensor. Wouldn't said camera rival the medium format digital stuff out there like, for example, a Hasselblad H4D 40 in terms of image quality and retaining detail? I'm not quite sure what the advantages at that point would be to medium format digital. If anything, I'd think the DSLR would have advantages to it, such as: far superior noise performance, faster frame rates, HD video (if you're into that), reduced weight, significantly reduced cost, bigger variety of lenses, weather proofing, much faster AF system, etc. Perhaps the optics of medium format systems are, arguably, the only area in which medium format would have these 35mm based cameras beat? I'm not even sure I understand what I'm asking... perhaps I'm just confusing resolution with sensor size... A camera can still have a 35mm sized sensor and have 36 megapixels on it while another can have a 6x4.5,6x6,6x7, etc. sized one and have say, 21 megapixels...
I'm a lover of medium format and don't intend on having a DSLR replace my Mamiya RZ 67 system, but I just had to ask... Is there something I'm missing?
-
Hi,
You are probably correct about the high ISO performance. I'd say we are quite close to theoretical limits.
DxO figures certainly indicate a more modest improvement. Obviously, increasing sensor size, like Canon did moving from D1III to D1X helps a lot.
Best regards
Erik
It's an interesting point, but there are significant differences that can make or break a camera for a task.
I've only recently gone to MFD, but my experience has been interesting and enjoyable though fraught with interesting challenges along the way.
There were a few main reasons for my switch.
- Leaf Shutter
- Resolution (though not necessarily key)
- Usability (I have the 645DF and IQ160)
- Modular back (for eventually using with technical camera's).
- The AA filter (or lack of in MFD)
- ISO50
You can nit pick between them a lot.
One can also argue in the case of studio work (My primary focus) good quality flash gear in 90% of the cases will negate the need for a leaf shutter (say the Scoro packs etc).
What I'd like to comment on is the lack of quality review out there for real world use on the camera's... DPReview is okay, but at the end of the day it ends up showing us little in the way of raw use. We see these great high iso numbers (100,000+) these days and while that's fine and dandy, my personal experience has been that while the noise control has been getting better, it's often over inflated by people only testing it in JPG.
When it comes down to it in RAW, we seldom get more then a stop advantage over the previous generation. From my first DSLR the 20D I went to the 5D then the 1DS3 and 5D2. Personally while these camera's may well get to ISO1600, I wouldn't want to shoot at those levels still.
I dont' know... the 5D2 is the newest DSLR I own, so it may have changed more recently, but the words spoken of the new camera's ISO capabilities aren't different to what was spoken when the 5D came out. I'm sure it's better, and yes, it'd probably beat the pants of my 160 at equivalent ISO's (except low down), but it's not my thing, and will have a DSLR on the back burner anyway for that.
That said, 36mp compared to the likes of their previous highest 24 and their night performance camera's at 12 and now 16mp... I just don't see how they can with the current level of advancement make it any better at low ISO. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but it's just getting crazy.
In addition to that, with the processing and transfer power of the D4 and the 1Dx (they're around the same) you won't see more then 5 frames a second, and chances are slower then that.
And lets look at the other thing. Glass. We don't need to go into the old adage of good glass better pictures, but lets be realistic here. At 24mp's we're in many cases pushing the majority of glass to its limit... and if high resolution on the DSLR lenses is what we're after something else must be sacrificed. Personally I think the first thing to go will be the AA filter. I'd imagine a big change to the bayer filter (don't ask me how, I'm not an engineer). and unless they make the entire 'sensel' area edge to edge, I just don't see how else they could improve the light without sacrificing the resolution.
I'm still in the camp the 36mp is either fake, or there's a catch to it (think of the multi layer thing with Sigma).
EDIT:
And just to point out. Pentax have now had their MFDSLR out for over a year, but it really didn't impact as much on either industry as people hoped it would.
-
Marko here is a link for you to get your teeth into and enjoy too, the fine test was made about a month ago.
The testers tackled this gigantic task from a few angles and the results were well documented.
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison-comments/
-
And lets look at the other thing. Glass. We don't need to go into the old adage of good glass better pictures, but lets be realistic here. At 24mp's we're in many cases pushing the majority of glass to its limit
I frequently find moire with a Leica M9, even with the less stellar Leica lenses like the 28/35/50 Tri-Elmar.
I occasionally find moire with a P65+ with Mamiya/Phase One and Rodenstock lenses.
I can't ever remember finding moire with a Canon 5D MkII or Canon 1Ds MkIII, even when using their best resolving lenses.
Doesn't that suggest that Leica and Phase One could offer higher pixel count sensors, where as Canon should concentrate on improving their optics? Or is it all about Canon's AA filters?
-
He He I like the first post here Marko. I have used MFD on a technical camera since 2006 and whereas it was so much easier to use and better than my old Sinar 4/5, I get frustrated by the vulnerability of the sync lead in the whole setup... I curse when the sun goes in half way through a stitcher shot which needs a calibration file for every position of the lens... I yawn as I wait for the image to appear after a 10s exposure.... and I despair when I get ghosting/smearing of bright windows in an interior shot. On the other hand .. the odd time I have used my D3 to do a quick shoot I am struck by how much easier it is to use a dslr in comparison. Better iso performance ... (I can use speedlights in a room if I need to). I have been amazed at how a 12MP camera can do such a good job... seeing the D3's A3 prints side by side with the Aptus 75 in a brochure. (Note not proper prints) With the d800 reportedly having the option of no AA filter and coming in at 36mp I am very interested. One caveat, I have tried some lenses 24-70, 14- 24 on the D3X in the shop and it suffers from CA and fringing against bright areas (as far as I could make out) ... And I wouldn't think that the 24mm TS is good enough to replace my Rodenstock 35 and Schneider 47 ... (especially the 47) I would be very keen to the see how the d800 works though. It would be so nice to have a lighter rig with all of the benefits of a dslr. It's funny how the point and shoots of this world have so many features to make taking photos easier but when you go up the line the intent of the technology is very conservative ... in that vein it's nice to see face recognition in the D4. I hope to do a test in the shop with the D800 with a 24 mm TS and the Aptus 75 with a Rodenstock 35 and see how they fare.
R
-
Hi,
It's all about AA-filters. My Sony Alpha 55 SLT shows moiré frequently although it's resolution corresponds to 36 MP on full frame.
Yes, increasing resolution would reduce Moiré. The AA-filter is carefully optimized for the sensor, so increasing resolution would also make the AA-filter thinner.
Best regards
Erik
I frequently find moire with a Leica M9, even with the less stellar Leica lenses like the 28/35/50 Tri-Elmar.
I occasionally find moire with a P65+ with Mamiya/Phase One and Rodenstock lenses.
I can't ever remember finding moire with a Canon 5D MkII or Canon 1Ds MkIII, even when using their best resolving lenses.
Doesn't that suggest that Leica and Phase One could offer higher pixel count sensors, where as Canon should concentrate on improving their optics? Or is it all about Canon's AA filters?
-
Regarding 36 MP FF DSLRs, I would make the point that they are comparable to present day 16 MP APS-C. So you can shoot with a cropped frame DSLR to estimate the image quality.
I did exactly this when the Canon 20d (I think) came out to estimate ther quality of the 1DsII. Same processors, etc. Was that in 2004 maybe?
I printed a number of 20D images at 180dpi native size (no upsizing, etc.) That equated to something like a 27x18 print for a "base" or default large print size on the 1DsII.
I was happy with the results, and I could live with that as a standard print size for 90% of my day-to-day work. So I bought in and sold most of my medium format film equipment at the time (Mamiya 7II and Pentax 645N.)
I kept my 4x5 film equipment for the 10% of work taht required larger prints, that were needed less often, rather than going to a MFDB at that point in time.
And so it goes with each year/generation. Better sensors, well size, different AA filters or strategies, better unloading techniques, better/faster/more powerful processors, more memory, faster writing to card, new software algorithms.
Every generation is better, for both the smaller and larger cameras. The question comes down to:
1) How do you work, what do you shoot,
2) What are your pririoties and goals (final destination, acceptible print size, manipulation requirements, etc.) and
3) Where is the point where the marginal gains do not justify the costs **for you**
I started with analyzing my average spending per year. Then determing what I could "buy" with that, more or less, using an amortized (depreciated) cost per year to use the equipment (buy cost - sell cost at 1 year, 2 years, etc):
* Canon 1DsII with depreciation at, $1,500 a year, plus
* 300 sheets of 4x5 at $5 per sheet = $1,500
* etc.
We are just seeing the next generation of Canon and Nikon now. It will be interesting to see what their full frame releases look like.
Then we go though it all again. Even if you are happy with what you have, it is probably wortgh estimating the cost to hold (current value - predicted future value in 1 year, etc) vs. to upgade (purchase cost of new equip - current value of equipment - sales price of new equip in 1 year, etc)
-
If anything, I'd think the DSLR would have advantages to it, such as: far superior noise performance, faster frame rates, HD video (if you're into that), reduced weight, significantly reduced cost, bigger variety of lenses, weather proofing, much faster AF system, etc.
You may be forgetting some of the most important ones:
- usable live view enabling perfect focus 100% of the time and results in superior real life image quality for landscape work (especially in low light or for infinity focus),
- much longer battery life in cold weather enabling real off the road shooting,
- better long exposure image quality,
- much wider raw converter options, for instance DxO enabling instant removal of most image aberrations,
- wide availability makes repair/rental of a compatible camera much easier/faster,
- reasonable price makes it possible to take the camera to less safe places where you may not want to bring a 40,000 US$ MF system because of the risk of theft (think most of Western Europe to start with),
- more DoF enables shorter exposure times for a given DoF, which makes panoramic shooting possible in low lights,
- reduced cost makes it a reasonable option to own a real back up,
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If the current 16MP chip in the D7000/ D5100 is indeed the same design then I would not expect the next FF camera to present any threat to current MF backs in terms of image quality at low iso
As much as I love my Nikon (and I do think that image quality is very good) it is NOT my weapon of choice when I'm after the best image quality or when I need to carefully control DOF, perspective, distortion etc.
Yair
-
As much as I love my Nikon (and I do think that image quality is very good) it is NOT my weapon of choice when I'm after the best image quality or when I need to carefully control DOF, perspective, distortion etc.
Yair
remind me what the tilt shift options are for medium format again? the way i see it to get the DOF and perspective control available with a 17-24-90mm ts-e lens in medium format (i'll skip the 45 as it's mediocre) you need a view camera setup that's neither as portable or fast to use and poor at high iso needing longer exposures too.
there's no denying the quality is there in medium format but it's limitations are seriously er limiting for a lot of photographers.
-
Without doubt you can read many posts from people using DSLR who keep senseless arguing that DSLR is reaching image quality of MFDB. Is it garbage? In some senses yes. Lets bear in mind that the first MFDB that came to the market had around 6MP, but that was many years ago... (also that point and shoots and mobile phone cameras are catching up on DSLRs...). There is more than pixels of course. A DSLR and its sensor is made for more general use than a MFDB. A DSLR have a wider ISO range with higher ISO capability and a higher base ISO. If that is what you need, then that should be your tool of choice. For ultimate file and image quality at lower ISO, no current DSLR beats current MFDB. The image data from MFDB is amazing in its image quality and how it can be pushed around.
The other part is that the cameras for MFDB are simpler and with much less automation than DSLRs, less buttons to confuse all of which that slows you down in the process of taking an image. Slowing down is good for focusing on how you capture the image and yields in less shots but your keepers are far better. There is the larger format which gives a different rendering and DOF. And a LARGER area of sensor to capture more light.
The latest 80MP MFDB from Leaf and Phase One are impressive. It is not first most the pixels that impress, but the accurate and good colors, there are more colors, a finer gradation of colors, a broad DR, amazing recovery of highlights and low lights details. The more pixels helps of course.
I use latest 80MP Leaf AFi-II 12 digital back on a Rolleiflex Hy6. That camera is of very high preciseness in focus and no more weight than a DSLR, and a 6cm x 6cm LARGE & BRIGHT focus screen in folding waist level viewfinder for seeing large and bright when taking a photo. Same quality go for lenses that are super sharp by Schneider and Carl Zeiss. There is no chance I will switch to any 36MP or higher DSLR and put money in the bank. Though as an amateur I sure could use that money elsewhere I very much value the image quality I get from Leaf. Not only that, you saw the post from "Yaya" Yair above. He is Leaf's product manager worldwide. Leaf has stellar support. None of that from DSLRs... Leaf products are also very durable and built to stand professional and heavy use. They last and do not have problems. Pretty much same should go for the other MFDBs. If at any time a back needs help (or us with it), help is around the corner and FAST.
Best regards,
Anders
-
Hi,
It seems to me that there are plenty of TS options with an MFDB, as you can put it on a technical or optical bench cameras.
With the recently developed high resolution lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock that are optimized for digital capture (high MTF over a small image circle) there are plenty of options for super sharp systems.
It is possible to use MFDBs with Canon TS lenses on the Hartblei H series with MFDBs, but I don't know how much T/S options that gives. Using the central 24x36 crop on a Hartblei with a high resolution back would give the same amount of T/S control with a Canon T/S lens as on the full frame Canon. Of course everything, except the lens having a much higher price.
I guess that DSLR type cameras weather MF or not are faster to use than technical cameras, but with an MFDB the photographer decides what to put in the front of the sensor.
Best regards
Erik
remind me what the tilt shift options are for medium format again? the way i see it to get the DOF and perspective control available with a 17-24-90mm ts-e lens in medium format (i'll skip the 45 as it's mediocre) you need a view camera setup that's neither as portable or fast to use and poor at high iso needing longer exposures too.
there's no denying the quality is there in medium format but it's limitations are seriously er limiting for a lot of photographers.
-
It seems to me that there are plenty of TS options with an MFDB
I think I've tried most of them!
I bought a Phase One/Hartblei 45mm T&S even though my Pahse One dealer advised against it (saying every one he'd sold had subsequently been returned). Well, he was right and I was wrong, it was an appalling lens and I also ended up returning it. I see Phase One has now discontinued it.
I was lucky enough to pick up a Schneider 55mm T&S in a Mamiya/Phase One mount and that's an absolute gem of a lens. The Schneider 55mm were mainly available in a Rollei and a Bronica mount, but a very very few were made in Hasselblad V and Mamiya 645 mounts.
I've tried the Mamiya 50mm shift lens and it's not bad, no tilt of course and it does get soft in the corners even at f11 and f16 when shifted, but at least it doesn't go "smeary" around the edges and the corners like the Hartblei.
I've also spent the last few years struggling with various Phase One backs on a Linhof M679cs with a range of lenses. The inherent problems of focusing with camera tilts on a tiny 645 ground glass means this is currently a compromised solution. In my opinion medium format digital backs on technical cameras won't really come of age until we have true live view, which in turn means CMOS sensors. The Phase One dealers that I talk to say that this is imminent and the next generation of Phase One backs will be CMOS based. We'll see, but if this really is the future then I for one will be delighted.
-
There are many good reasons to use an MF camera, no doubt.
MF makes sense because:
- the high level of competence of the VARs selling and supporting the backs,
- excellent thethered shooting,
- higher resolutions in one shot,
- larger viewfinder,
- the possibility to use the back on different styles of cameras, including large format,
- it delivers a different look thanks mostly to different lenses and a different aspect ratio,
- the ownership of legacy lenses,
- the UI of the cameras is different, not because they are MF, simply because they are different makes,
- the desire to show clients/friends that one uses high end equipment,
- ...
A DSLR and its sensor is made for more general use than a MFDB. A DSLR have a wider ISO range with higher ISO capability and a higher base ISO. If that is what you need, then that should be your tool of choice. For ultimate file and image quality at lower ISO, no current DSLR beats current MFDB. The image data from MFDB is amazing in its image quality and how it can be pushed around.
A few obvious points:
- Not all DSLRs are equal, very far from it,
- Not all MFDB are equal either. Although there was probably less progress compared to DSLRs, you will have to admit that the current generation of backs is in a totally different league compared to the 22 and 39 mp generation of backs. An obvious side effect of this is that even if the very latest backs are clearly superior to all DSLRs, this simply not true when comparing a bit older backs to recent DSLRs.
So in essence, a generic discussion about MDFB vs DSLR makes little sense. We need to speak about concrete examples of each and to measure the objective performance of the devices, which can easily be done. When comparing to DSLRS, the current best offering, the D3x, should be used as a reference point. Not because I used to own one, because it has been the highest performance DSLR out there for more than 3 years... and will remain so for another 5 days.
The other part is that the cameras for MFDB are simpler and with much less automation than DSLRs, less buttons to confuse all of which that slows you down in the process of taking an image. Slowing down is good for focusing on how you capture the image and yields in less shots but your keepers are far better.
As a former Hassy H1 and Mamiya ZD owner, I have never found their UI to be simpler than that of the DSLRs I have used, on the contrary. The ergonomics of the DSLRs is overall superior, and I would argue that DSLRs can be set very easily to a full automated mode included finely tuned Auto-ISO that very much reduces the user operation to framing only.
So yes, clunky UIs force you to be slow... but I find it amusing to quote this as a plus. :D Being slow is a mindset, I'd rather use gear that enables me to be fast when I need to.
The key is really to have a user experience that makes it possible to focus on image creation. There is a personal preference coming at play here and this really isn't about MF vs 35mm. You seem to prefer the UI of your MF camera, from general comments on this forum you probably belong to a small minority.
There is the larger format which gives a different rendering and DOF. And a LARGER area of sensor to capture more light.
The latest 80MP MFDB from Leaf and Phase One are impressive. It is not first most the pixels that impress, but the accurate and good colors, there are more colors, a finer gradation of colors, a broad DR, amazing recovery of highlights and low lights details. The more pixels helps of course.
Knowing that highlight recovery is in fact only systematic under-exposure by more than one stop, I would actually look at this as a downside since it makes ETTR more difficult to achieve.
Regarding colors, this is a topic worth discussing in depth. It seems obvious that more spatial information (higher resolution) will result in more color information being present at a given print size. But this is just a re-phrasing of higher resolution, the very same phenomenon is at play when stitching for example.
The question is whether there is something else at play. All DSLRs can be measured to be totally color accurate relative to standard charts, so there should be little difference there.
Still, there could be 2 things happening:
- the ability of the sensor to differentiate real life colors, meaning to associate more or less different RGB values for 2 different colors/illuminations,
- the gammut it can handle.
Do we have factual data showing that the CCD of a given back behaves differently than the CMOS of a given DSLR?
I use latest 80MP Leaf AFi-II 12 digital back on a Rolleiflex Hy6. That camera is of very high preciseness in focus and no more weight than a DSLR, and a 6cm x 6cm LARGE & BRIGHT focus screen in folding waist level viewfinder for seeing large and bright when taking a photo. Same quality go for lenses that are super sharp by Schneider and Carl Zeiss. There is no chance I will switch to any 36MP or higher DSLR and put money in the bank. Though as an amateur I sure could use that money elsewhere I very much value the image quality I get from Leaf. Not only that, you saw the post from "Yaya" Yair above. He is Leaf's product manager worldwide. Leaf has stellar support. None of that from DSLRs... Leaf products are also very durable and built to stand professional and heavy use. They last and do not have problems. Pretty much same should go for the other MFDBs. If at any time a back needs help (or us with it), help is around the corner and FAST.
Some good points here: viewfinder, good lenses, the VAR system is probably the highest value proposal of the MF systems. Now, this only works for city shooting in a small number of places and... you pay for that right? Have you ever tried asking a leading VAR whether they would be willing to support your DSLR usage against a fee. I bet they would be more than happy to help you.
As far as durability goes, I find your comment surprising. The MF platforms are a lot less reliable and durable than pro grade DSLRs. They are not even in the same league. I am sure it has improved, but I can't remember how many times my H1 froze on me... I have never had a single software bug or freeze with any of my nikons over probably in excess of one million frames over the years.
As far as support/availability goes... The best support is not needing support, right? For landscape applications across the globe, the DSLRs have a huge advantage in terms of:
- possibility to buy and use a real back up camera with specs identical to your main one. That is again critical if you engage at all in once in a life time photographic activities where you just cannot afford to stop shooting because your main camera has a problem,
- local support in the unlikely event something breaks down (that has never happened to me in 20 years of using my Nikons in super though outdoor environments with zero pro-active care from me),
- purchase of a replacement in the unlikely event that both your cameras dies. Who will always be able to buy an EOS digital anywhere and still be able to use your lenses and bring images back home,
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Phase One dealers that I talk to say that this is imminent and the next generation of Phase One backs will be CMOS based. We'll see, but if this really is the future then I for one will be delighted.
I wonder just how "imminent" this is. If or when it does happen, it will be the biggest leap forward in MFD in a decade!
Catching up to the same per-pixel level of sensor performance as in DSLRs, will enable MFD to re-establish the lead over smaller formats that characterised it in the film era.
A roll of Velvia 50 or Delta 3200 in a Mamiya 645 gave 2.7 times the image quality of a roll of Velvia 50 or Delta 3200 in a Nikon or Canon - in all shooting circumstances.
Nowadays, a 60MP medium format back gives 2.5 - 2.8 times the image quality of a D3X or 5DII - but only in good light. Low light, higher ISO, long exposures, live view focusing, time-limited sensitivity (how much shadow detail can you capture in a limited amount of time - which is the essence of most astrophotography) - forget it!
But with a good CMOS implementation, that universality of Medium Format will be restored: "it works just the same as what you have, but the image is much bigger and hence better", as we used to say when snappers enquired about those curious big old cameras we toted around.
Ray
-
But with a good CMOS implementation, that universality of Medium Format will be restored: "it works just the same as what you have, but the image is much bigger and hence better", as we used to say when snappers enquired about those curious big old cameras we toted around.
Boy, that Pentax 645D MKII is going to be an appealing camera! ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not sure about other MFDB but the consistent and sensible upgrade path from Leaf is a huge help running a business. Every 3 years or so I upgrade my back, get a decent trade in and simply plug the back into my existing 2 systems that support it and I am good to go.
DSLR has been difficult in this regard.
In fairness when making comparisons, which are anyway odious, current generation DSLR should only be compared to current generation MFDB.
Is it also not about time we saw a few threads on how current generation cell phone cameras are almost as good as DSLR? After all if you do a stitch off your iPhone you can match the resolution of the D3 whatever and then once you make a print who will know?
-
In fairness when making comparisons, which are anyway odious, current generation DSLR should only be compared to current generation MFDB.
If the claim is that "MFDB will give you better pictures than DSLR", I think it is fair to compare different generations of DSLR vs MF to see if it is true (I believe that such a claim is too broad).
If anyone wants to spend $4000 on a camera, I think it makes sense to compare whatever camera-generations fits within that budget?
Is it also not about time we saw a few threads on how current generation cell phone cameras are almost as good as DSLR? After all if you do a stitch off your iPhone you can match the resolution of the D3 whatever and then once you make a print who will know?
Under the right circumstances, perhaps that is true.
Stitching iPhone images to compete with a DSLR, or stitching DSLR images to compete with MF does present its own issues, though.
-h
-
Boy, that Pentax 645D MKII is going to be an appealing camera! ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Is that what you use now, Bernard - a 645D? I knew you had gone ZD -> D3X some time back, but I noticed above that you said you "used to own" a D3X.
Are there any concrete details of a 645D MkII?
Ray
-
Stitching iPhone images to compete with a DSLR, or stitching DSLR images to compete with MF does present its own issues, though.
Stitching of camera phone images will give more resolution. However, the per pixel performance of the camera phone cameras is far inferior to that of dSLRs. To overcome that limitation of camera phones, one would have to collect more photons per individual image (one field of view) by stacking. This is not a pleasant situation to contemplate.
However, the per pixel performance of the better dSLRs is comparable or better to that of MFDBs (notwithstanding unsubstantiated claims by some), so stacking would not be necessary.
Regards,
Bill
-
But with a good CMOS implementation, that universality of Medium Format will be restored: "it works just the same as what you have, but the image is much bigger and hence better", as we used to say when snappers enquired about those curious big old cameras we toted around.
The Pentax 645D already seem interesting in that respect, because it has a CCD sensor that is made with a higher base ISO than other MFDB offerings and unless I am mistaking also a higher ISO capability than other MFDBs. Thus the Pentax differs and seem tuned more as DSLR, while other MFDBs are made for optimum image quality and file quality which is achieved at lower ISO and quality is higher than DSLRs.
It seems simple, different tools are made for different purposes. For high image quality, light is needed (low ISO). DSLRs and the Pentax are made to cover also opposing purposes.
-
I frequently find moire with a Leica M9, even with the less stellar Leica lenses like the 28/35/50 Tri-Elmar.
I occasionally find moire with a P65+ with Mamiya/Phase One and Rodenstock lenses.
I can't ever remember finding moire with a Canon 5D MkII or Canon 1Ds MkIII, even when using their best resolving lenses.
Doesn't that suggest that Leica and Phase One could offer higher pixel count sensors, where as Canon should concentrate on improving their optics? Or is it all about Canon's AA filters?
I often get moire with my 35 f1.4 and other Canon lenses, not as bad as a non AA filtered system, but it happens all the same.
Kevin.
-
Is that what you use now, Bernard - a 645D? I knew you had gone ZD -> D3X some time back, but I noticed above that you said you "used to own" a D3X.
Are there any concrete details of a 645D MkII?
Nope, I have been using a D7000 for a few months. Excellent camera, great DR, clean files, a bit less sharp than the D3x at pixel level but very good still.
My intend is to get a d800 if the performance is at the level we can expect.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
My guess is that the Pentax is using microlenses. As it is an MF DSLR where the back cannot be removed it makes a lot of sense. That may give one stop advantage.
Best regards
Erik
The Pentax 645D already seem interesting in that respect, because it has a CCD sensor that is made with a higher base ISO than other MFDB offerings and unless I am mistaking also a higher ISO capability than other MFDBs. Thus the Pentax differs and seem tuned more as DSLR, while other MFDBs are made for optimum image quality and file quality which is achieved at lower ISO and quality is higher than DSLRs.
It seems simple, different tools are made for different purposes. For high image quality, light is needed (low ISO). DSLRs and the Pentax are made to cover also opposing purposes.
-
My guess is that the Pentax is using microlenses.
Indeed Pentax is, along with the Leica S2 and a number of other DMF backs using 44x33mm sensors from Kodak. This is indeed good for about a doubling of QE, so a one stop shift up of the ISO speed range. Compare the QE on the spec. sheets for the 40MP 44x33mm KAF-40000 of the Pentax to its big brother, the 50MP 49x37mm KAF-51000, which shares the same "Kodak Truesense 6 micron pixel" design:
KAF-40000, 40MP 44x33mm (http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Small_Business/Images_Sensor_Solutions/Datasheets(pdfs)/KAF-40000ProductSummary.pdf)
KAF-50100 50MP 49x37mm (http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Small_Business/Images_Sensor_Solutions/Datasheets(pdfs)/KAF-50100ProductSummary.pdf)
The only reason not to use micro-lenses is problems with highly off-perpendicular incoming light, and this is only a problem near the corners of the full "645" frame, not within the smaller 44x33mm image rectangle.
-
With CPS in the UK I get 3 day repair turnaround on my equipment, cheap prices for repairs in any case and it's free for pros. The equipment although far more complicated and sophisticated (compare a 1Ds3/D3x to a P1 DF) seems to not need the kind of dealer hand holding that MF equipment seems to need. Oh and you can afford to own backup, not just dealer loans or rental when your expensive back goes down. To champion dealer support as a MF plus is to ignore the inherent cost of that support and the need for that support in comparison to the 'lesser' systems.
MFD has many incredible advantages, I just ordered a DF system with an Aptus II-8, but we have accept the realities that superior IQ brings. The dealer argument is IMO a weak one which can backfire nastily the moment someone says 'but why should we need a dealer for all the reasons so often pushed hard by the vendors here, I never thought to need that kind of support for my Canon's that I could buy off ebay, just worked and when I knocked them the repair turnaround was faster and cheaper anyway'.
Reminds me of the arguments made so often to push the cheap Alien Bee lights. 'The customer service is just so incredible'. I have no doubt that it is but did no one stop and say 'I wonder why so many people needed customer service in the first place?'. I own 4 of their lights and know exactly why their customer service is good, it's cause you are going to need them...
-
12MP, 24MP, or 36MP that 24mm x 36mm FF DSLR sensor still delivers a 2 x 3 file and that is the ball game right there.
I may be the only person who even makes that particular distinction, or cares, so be it.
Cropping to 6 x 7, 4 x 5 or square is brutal so unless you regularly see and frame in 2x3 that 36MP file could lose up to 33% to cropping.
-
12MP, 24MP, or 36MP that 24mm x 36mm FF DSLR sensor still delivers a 2 x 3 file and that is the ball game right there.
I may be the only person who even makes that particular distinction, or cares, so be it.
Cropping to 6 x 7, 4 x 5 or square is brutal so unless you regularly see and frame in 2x3 that 36MP file could lose up to 33% to cropping.
You weren't the only one.
I still see it as an unusual move on Nikons part to go there with their D800 (if they do, I still can't believe this rumor... something tells me there's a catch), especially on the heals of their D4 announcement. D4x I could understand, but even then.
There was a few 'things' in the image after looking at it, but will hold out. I'm not entirely convinced it's everything it's cracked up to be.
-
Gary
you should try our Hartblei Zeiss lenses on the HCam with 80 Mpix.
Here is a sample shot taken with a Leaf Aptus II12 R and our 2,8/80mm "T* Planar" with 4 degrees of tilt on HCam-B1:
http://www.hcam.de/downloads/Hartblei80mm_HCamB1_4degr_tilt_LeafA12.jpg
I did not perfectly get the angle (the right side was a bit out of focus compared to the left), it was only a fast test on my livingroom table, but you will see what you need to see.
And that´s not even our Macro.
regards
Stefan
-
12MP, 24MP, or 36MP that 24mm x 36mm FF DSLR sensor still delivers a 2 x 3 file and that is the ball game right there.
I may be the only person who even makes that particular distinction, or cares, so be it.
Cropping to 6 x 7, 4 x 5 or square is brutal so unless you regularly see and frame in 2x3 that 36MP file could lose up to 33% to cropping.
Quite true. But if you turn the camera 90 degrees and stitch 3 or 4 frames, the 2x3 format works out quite well.
Regards,
Bill
-
Quite true. But if you turn the camera 90 degrees and stitch 3 or 4 frames, the 2x3 format works out quite well.
Indeed, and with better optics. But one could also ask, why be such a square ...? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
I find it interesting that we "learn to see" in a specific ratio. After literally decades
of 35mm photography, essentially all the 2x3 ratio, I "see" images in that format
and almost never find the need to crop to square or other format. (Granted, I am NOT
doing fashion or portrait photography, and I suspect that this is a major factor. ) In fact,
most square images or other ratios "look strange" to me. I suspect that a year
with a different format would change this "attitude", but it is interesting to contemplate
how our brains "adapt and expect" to see in specific ratios.
-
I use both: Canon 1Ds III & IV, and Hasselblad H4D-40. The two most significant features of the H4D-40 compared to the Canon are 1) dynamic range -- the first images out of that camera just floored me with the range of light they could accommodate; 2) complete integration with the Hasselblad Phocus software, something that just doesn't exist with the Canons; Phocus has been a slow learning process, but clearly it's a very important component of the system. Each of my three cameras does something very well that the other two aren't nearly as good at. Someday, hopefully, it will show up more frequently in my photographs (i.e., I'm the limiting factor).
-
Just want to follow up on my last post which was a bit tongue in cheek. There are some very interesting points here.. but what makes this discussion interesting is that .. this has been talked and talked over so many times... but now there is a slightly different flavor to it. DSLRs have come so far in recent years they replicate many of the specs of digital backs that would have been produced 5 years ago. What is more is that they offer much more functionality and versatility. I won't re-hash all of the points that have been made except to mention one that Bernard made. It's all very well slowing down and taking time to make your images... but it's nice to have the option of working fast if you need to.
It boils down to money really... In the architecture photography market in this country you are looking at fees that are a fraction of what you would have been paid 4 years ago. I'm not going to go into details but it's pretty bad. There is no way you could invest in a MFDB system from scratch and hope to make it pay in the current climate.
Also .. when on a job, I'm having to do it in half the time I would have spent on it before, just to make it viable as an earner. I was doing a job at a house yesterday.. take a wide shot for example of a stairwell.. Set up lights... take maybe 10 shots and review each one to get camera in right position and angle. Wait for an even bit of sun... Take four shots at different lens positions to make a stitcher shot.... (Each shot 10 seconds which means 30 sec interval between each shot) Take four lens calibration shots (each one may take two goes to get the right exposure) You have all your post production after that. The files when combined with the calibration shots are great .. they are just perfect to work from.... But on site this will have taken 20 minutes if you are running smoothly.
If you are using a dslr with the right lens it will take you perhaps 5 minutes as you have much quicker feedback from your camera and it is easier to set it up with the viewfinder. Add all of the shots you will need to take in a day and those extra 15 minutes per shot will come in very handy. You might even have time for lunch!
I love working slowly .. taking my time... And I don't really feel I've done a building justice if I used a DSLR as I would always imagine how much better the shot would have been had I used the MFDB. BUT I'm not really sure my clients care that much .. maybe they can't afford to care that much considering the climate. (economic climate!)
I have two bags in the studio .. one has MFDB gear and one has DSLR gear... I find the DSLR bag is getting heavier with backups, lenses, speedlight controllers and speedlights (Thank you pocket wizard for making my life easier) ... it is a better all rounder system especially taking the more recent video advances. (wifi control ... how good is that? I can stick a dsr on the end of a 7m tripod and review the shots on the ground .. when it's not windy!)
Ok going off point ... over and out.
-
I posted on another forum a comparision between the RAW files produced by another user shooting the same scene with:
- Nikon D7000
Iso: 100
nºf: 11
obturación: 1''
Objetivo: Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 36mm
- Phase One P25+
Cuerpo: Mamiya 645DF
Iso: 50
nºf: 22
obturación: 10''
Objetivo: Phase One 80mm f/2.8
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6323/bodegon.jpg)
I was only interested in the Dynamic Range test (i.e. noise test). As a side effect the level of detail could also be compared.
But don't look here for any conclusions about colour accuracy, or any other typical subjective perception ('my MFDB provides fantastic tonal gradation' and etc...).
To find out which sensor had more DR I obtained images representative of the RAW files so that no trick under the hood performed by the RAW developer could fool the results. This was achieved by a RAW development using DCRAW without any white balance (that's why the images look greenish), and no output colour profile conversion (that is way individual RGB clipping becomes representative of the individual RAW channels clipping):
(http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/9954/87794292.jpg)
Another highlight area, the MFDB was clipped in the G channel while the Nikon RAW data was intact in all three channels:
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6613/papelp.jpg)
The conclusions are:
- The Nikon shows less noise in the darkest areas and has no clipped information, while the MFDB is a bit noisier in the shadows and got its highlights clipped in the G channel. The verdict is that the Nikon D7000 has more dynamic range. Note the difference in resolution would play in favour of the MDFB when comparing the same output resolution, because noise would reduce statistically (not much however, 16Mpx vs 22Mpx).
- Despite the noise, the level of detail achieved by the MFDB is higher. Note this depends not only on the sensor, but also on the lens used, aperture and manual focusing performed.
Regards
-
... what makes this discussion interesting is that .. this has been talked and talked over so many times... but now there is a slightly different flavor to it. DSLRs have come so far in recent years they replicate many of the specs of digital backs that would have been produced 5 years ago. What is more is that they offer much more functionality and versatility.
Hmpf... right?... wrong? Lets touch on the last one first, yes DSLRs offer more versatility because they are more general photographic tools, as compared to MFDB who are for LOW ISO or LOWER ISO and OPTIMUM IMAGE QUALITY at decent light. DSLR and MFDB are different TOOLS for different PURPOSES.
Now to touch on the first.... namely "specs of digital backs that would have been produced 5 years ago", we have a very good example test referenced here;
- Nikon D7000
Iso: 100
nºf: 11
obturación: 1''
Objetivo: Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 36mm
- Phase One P25+
Cuerpo: Mamiya 645DF
Iso: 50
nºf: 22
obturación: 10''
Objetivo: Phase One 80mm f/2.8
But uhh... is it not that P25+ has same Kodak sensor that the old P25 had, thus that (although it is a + back) it has a sensor that is around TEN YEARS OLD ????
To comment more about that comparison, was the DSLR using f/11 and P25+ f/22 ???? Hmpf.
Come on gents, if you are really content and happy with latest DSLRs give it rest and enjoy them and please keep posting your great images instead. Yet for those few who are really looking for a higher image quality for lower ISOs it is worth to check out the 20, 28 and 33MP digital backs or even the newer higher spec backs. Postings of false information is misleading.
;)
-
But uhh... is it not that P25+ has same Kodak sensor that the old P25 had, thus that (although it is a + back) it has a sensor that is around TEN YEARS OLD ????
Calm down Anders, I don't own a MFDB, and I don't own a D7000. This is just a test another user did and I borrowed his RAW files.
I have asked in this forum for MDFB files vs DSLR files to MFDB users and I never had a response, this was the first time I saw someone doing such a test. I got a lot of bla bla bla my MFDB gives fantastic tonal gradations and it cannot have less DR than a DSLR though, but no files.
On the other hand if that sensor is 10 years old or not is irrelevant, since that back is still on the market. Isn't it?.
Postings of false information is misleading.
False information? you'd better think a bit before typing wildly.
Regards
-
Calm down Anders, I don't own a MFDB, and I don't own a D7000. This is just a test another user did and I took his RAW files.
I have asked in this forum for MDFB files vs DSLR files to MFDB users and I never had a response. I got a lot of bla bla bla my MFDB gives fantastic tonal gradations and it cannot have less DR than a DSLR though.
Regards
Dont worry, all calm here :). Did not mean to pick on your test, but this constant DSLR vs. MFDB debate tend to evolve into constant argue DLSR reached MFDB which is BS if we consider first digital backs were around 6MP... not to mention current camera phones... Albeit MFDB of 20MP and up do tend to have image quality exceeding DLSRs, though both are improving in technologies which is interesting. Indeed there are happy users of both camps! ;D
-
No one says that MFDB don't provide superior IQ. If they didn't, all people spending thousands of euros on them would be stupid. As I said this was a DR test.
-
Hi Anders,
I suspect that Guillermo would gladly analyze any raw image from any MFDB. The problem is that adequate comparison images from DSLRs and MFDBs are very hard to come by.
To begin with we need raw images and we also need some comparison images shot under identical conditions to be able to do any comparison. Also we would preferably have a sample from a modern sensor, like Nikon D3X or Pentax K5 and not from Canon EOS D which has high readout noise.
Getting that kind of comparison images is not easy.
I have checked out four pairs of images (where I found equivalent raw images from MFDB and DSLR)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50977.0
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/51-a-closer-look-at-pentax-645d-image-quality
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50895.msg421886#msg421886
In addition I have also looked at some sample images by Peter Eastway from the Phase One site and two images from Capture Integration.
I did not publish crops from the Phase One images but here is a short description what I saw: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/41-phase-one-images-for-download
By the way, I don't have any bias against MFDBs. I may have some bias against film, based on the testing I have done (involving 6000 PPI drum scans).
On the other hand I have objections to statements that lack physically feasible explanation, unless proper evidence is presented. In light of proper evidence the search feasible explanation starts.
Best regards
Erik
Hmpf... right?... wrong? Lets touch on the last one first, yes DSLRs offer more versatility because they are more general photographic tools, as compared to MFDB who are for LOW ISO or LOWER ISO and OPTIMUM IMAGE QUALITY at decent light. DSLR and MFDB are different TOOLS for different PURPOSES.
Now to touch on the first.... namely "specs of digital backs that would have been produced 5 years ago", we have a very good example test referenced here;
But uhh... is it not that P25+ has same Kodak sensor that the old P25 had, thus that (although it is a + back) it has a sensor that is around TEN YEARS OLD ????
To comment more about that comparison, was the DSLR using f/11 and P25+ f/22 ???? Hmpf.
Come on gents, if you are really content and happy with latest DSLRs give it rest and enjoy them and please keep posting your great images instead. Yet for those few who are really looking for a higher image quality for lower ISOs it is worth to check out the 20, 28 and 33MP digital backs or even the newer higher spec backs. Postings of false information is misleading.
;)
-
I posted on another forum a comparision between the RAW files produced by another user shooting the same scene with:
- Nikon D7000
Iso: 100
nºf: 11
obturación: 1''
Objetivo: Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 36mm
- Phase One P25+
Cuerpo: Mamiya 645DF
Iso: 50
nºf: 22
obturación: 10''
Objetivo: Phase One 80mm f/2.8
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6323/bodegon.jpg)
I was only interested in the Dynamic Range test (i.e. noise test). As a side effect the level of detail could also be compared.
But don't look here for any conclusions about colour accuracy, or any other typical subjective perception ('my MFDB provides fantastic tonal gradation' and etc...).
To find out which sensor had more DR I obtained images representative of the RAW files so that no trick under the hood performed by the RAW developer could fool the results. This was achieved by a RAW development using DCRAW without any white balance (that's why the images look greenish), and no output colour profile conversion (that is way individual RGB clipping becomes representative of the individual RAW channels clipping):
(http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/9954/87794292.jpg)
Another highlight area, the MFDB was clipped in the G channel while the Nikon RAW data was intact in all three channels:
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6613/papelp.jpg)
The conclusions are:
- The Nikon shows less noise in the darkest areas and has no clipped information, while the MFDB is a bit noisier in the shadows and got its highlights clipped in the G channel. The verdict is that the Nikon D7000 has more dynamic range. Note the difference in resolution would play in favour of the MDFB when comparing the same output resolution, because noise would reduce statistically (not much however, 16Mpx vs 22Mpx).
- Despite the noise, the level of detail achieved by the MFDB is higher. Note this depends not only on the sensor, but also on the lens used, aperture and manual focusing performed.
Regards
It's not higher, it's in a different level for Christ sake! When will some people understand that DSLRs ARE "TWEAKED" even at their "Raw" files? Some people are so busy with theory that can't see anymore... THE DSLR IMAGE IS THERE TO SERVE THE "AVERAGE" OBSERVER and that includes Pentax! Regards, Theodoros.
-
Hi Theodoros,
Do you have any proof for that?
BTW, I'm aware of some tweaking in some cases, as this shows up in autocorrelation. My understanding is that Nikon has no bias on their digital data which is hiding half of the noise (as far as I understand). All CMOS cameras probably use correlated double sampling, but I wouldn't exactly call that tweaking.
I would presume that MFDBs also do some things that could be called tweaking, but it may possibly be done in raw conversion and to a lesser extent in the ASIC.
Can you be a bit more specific on the issue?
Best regards
Erik
It's not higher, it's in a different level for Christ sake! When will some people understand that DSLRs ARE "TWEAKED" even at their "Raw" files? Some people are so busy with theory that can't see anymore... THE DSLR IMAGE IS THERE TO SERVE THE "AVERAGE" OBSERVER and that includes Pentax! Regards, Theodoros.
-
I don't stand a chance against you guys...! My main point was about usability and speed etc... It's easy to get distracted into the finer points of image quality. So I'm happy to be corrected about the equivalent dates of sensor designs. We all tend to look at image quality on calibrated monitors and fine art prints.... but the main way that my work is experienced is via websites and magazines... and I'm just saying that perhaps we care more about image quality than some of our clients do.. and if we are trying to make money at this game then perhaps we should be open minded about how we capture our images.
R
-
It's not higher, it's in a different level for Christ sake! When will some people understand that DSLRs ARE "TWEAKED" even at their "Raw" files?
Rather than swearing and insulting people ... offer some evidence for once.
Other posters have offered plenty of evidence showing a simple, linear relationship between 'photonic' input and the resulting RAW data from a variety of different digital cameras. You have yet to show a single piece of evidence supporting your extraordinary claims.
Time to put up or shut up.
-
Hi Theodoros,
Do you have any proof for that?
BTW, I'm aware of some tweaking in some cases, as this shows up in autocorrelation. My understanding is that Nikon has no bias on their digital data which is hiding half of the noise (as far as I understand). All CMOS cameras probably use correlated double sampling, but I wouldn't exactly call that tweaking.
I would presume that MFDBs also do some things that could be called tweaking, but it may possibly be done in raw conversion and to a lesser extent in the ASIC.
Can you be a bit more specific on the issue?
Best regards
Erik
No Erik, I can't be more specific than I have been last time we were on a conversation for the same matter, just do the test I proposed then..., take your wedge, scan it, print it on transparency, tune the profile so that it agrees with your monitor at more than 95%, reprint it, put it in front of a backlit (use a fluorescent studio light) light, reshoot it, reprint it, re-do the calibration, put the final one in front of the light and do the test I suggested for linearity! (I don't have to repeat the procedure, do I?) Is that good enough? If it's not "what the hey"! And of course you are right that MF makers have started doing the same...
Who is the one who can't see that on the images that "Guillermo" posted, the DSLR has its noise reduction active even on the RAWs? Can't you see the softness? JESUS! Regards, Theodoros.
P.S. That is EXACTLY why DXO DR measures are "wrong for photography" since they have to do with "test noise acceptance" and it's also the reason why ALL BACKS (even the oldest) will beat any DSLR in highlight DR by at least a stop.
-
I don't stand a chance against you guys...! My main point was about usability and speed etc... It's easy to get distracted into the finer points of image quality. So I'm happy to be corrected about the equivalent dates of sensor designs. We all tend to look at image quality on calibrated monitors and fine art prints.... but the main way that my work is experienced is via websites and magazines... and I'm just saying that perhaps we care more about image quality than some of our clients do.. and if we are trying to make money at this game then perhaps we should be open minded about how we capture our images.
R
+1. Plus better photographers if I should add... Regards, Theodoros.
-
just do the test I proposed then
Your test involves examining a rendered and printed image. That is not a testing method for determining the characteristics of a raw file.
Try again.
-
Since i find this topic interesting I did a test yesterday between my 60 megapixel P65+ and Leica M9 at 18 megapixels. The shot was done in my garage of one wall..P65 on a Hassy H2 with hassy prime 80mm at f8 (iso 100) on tripod with timer set. Leica with 50/ 1.4 mm prime at f8 (iso 160) also on tripod using timer. Raw processed in LR4 beta and both printed with short side at 16" to make 16X20 prints. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST...just my personal test to satisfy my curiosity but though I would share. Phase file printed at 720 dpi and Leica file at 360 dpi on Canson Baryta paper on Epson 7900 printer. Forget about looking at "viewing distance". I view at reading distance and my eyesight is corrected through contacts for 20/20. On first very careful study the prints look very very equal...really. it is only when I study in bright light that I can begin to see some advantage in the Phase One print but only in a few specific areas like the weave in the blue dog leash...or the edge detail in the far right pair of skis. Really..this is incredibly close match even at 16X20. In this print size the Phase One file has a tiny advantage but you have to know what you are looking for and study it close at reading distance. Both files have deep shadows and the only area where detail is totally blocked (on both files) is inside the boot in the lower left corner. Highlights are held on all metal surfaces. Let me be clear: These are MY visual impressions only, and others looking at the same files and prints may certainly have different views.
Eleanor
-
Rather than swearing and insulting people ... offer some evidence for once.
Time to put up or shut up.
Is that up there a "shut up" that refers to me? :D By who? A self declared "accidental artist"?
P.S.Promise I will never answer back your stupidity (as I have always done during your last provocations), mind you that its about the 20th quote that you are politely asked not to refer to me again.
-
that its about the 20th quote that you are politely asked not to refer to me again.
It does not work that way. You don't get to say whatever you want on a place like this and request that no-one critizise your unique opinions.
-h
-
[more off-topic nonsense]
Personal insults don't win arguments. Neither does running away.
If you assertions are grounded in fact, you should have no trouble citing references or providing real evidence. At a minimum, you should at least propose a test that is relevant.
So far all you have done is make outlandish claims, insult people, invoke the christian savior, propose inappropriate tests and then try and change the subject.
Try again.
-
No Erik, I can't be more specific than I have been last time we were on a conversation for the same matter, just do the test I proposed then..., take your wedge, scan it, print it on transparency, tune the profile so that it agrees with your monitor at more than 95%, reprint it, put it in front of a backlit (use a fluorescent studio light) light, reshoot it, reprint it, re-do the calibration, put the final one in front of the light and do the test I suggested for linearity! (I don't have to repeat the procedure, do I?) Is that good enough? If it's not "what the hey"! And of course you are right that MF makers have started doing the same...
Who is the one who can't see that on the images that "Guillermo" posted, the DSLR has its noise reduction active even on the RAWs? Can't you see the softness? JESUS! Regards, Theodoros.
P.S. That is EXACTLY why DXO DR measures are "wrong for photography" since they have to do with "test noise acceptance" and it's also the reason why ALL BACKS (even the oldest) will beat any DSLR in highlight DR by at least a stop.
Erik, "reshoot" and "reprint" is for making sure that the result is relevant with what you see on your screen... ie: to make sure that the profile is as close as possible to the wedge (just to add, its got to be done in "color" although the wedge is B&W). Regards, Theodoros.
P.S. If you are not sure (or if I am not understood), send me a PM.
-
It seems to me that a "test that is relevant" has just been made by Eleanor, but nobody seems to be taking any notice of it. A nice bit of work, Eleanor, and what strikes me as relevant here is that the quality of the lenses used was probably more of an influence than the sensor, at least at 16x20 ins. Two cracking lenses, and that's why the prints look so good and why they are very hard to tell apart.
So will you be selling the Hassy and the P65 now then, Eleanour? ;)
John
-
Thanks John......Ha! nooo, won't be setting the Hassy and P65 any time soon :-)... and yes you're right about the lenses...I like high quality lenses...I get spoiled with primes. Eleanor
It seems to me that a "test that is relevant" has just been made by Eleanor, but nobody seems to be taking any notice of it. A nice bit of work, Eleanor, and what strikes me as relevant here is that the quality of the lenses used was probably more of an influence than the sensor, at least at 16x20 ins. Two cracking lenses, and that's why the prints look so good and why they are very hard to tell apart.
So will you be selling the Hassy and the P65 now then, Eleanour? ;)
John
-
On first very careful study the prints look very very equal...really.
I was struck by the similarity in the attached jpegs. Even color match seems excellent.
it is only when I study in bright light that I can begin to see some advantage in the Phase One print but only in a few specific areas like the weave in the blue dog leash...or the edge detail in the far right pair of skis.
Do you think that you could crop out those section and attach them in full resolution?
Thank you for your contribution
-h
-
It seems to me that a "test that is relevant" has just been made by Eleanor, but nobody seems to be taking any notice of it. A nice bit of work, Eleanor, and what strikes me as relevant here is that the quality of the lenses used was probably more of an influence than the sensor, at least at 16x20 ins. Two cracking lenses, and that's why the prints look so good and why they are very hard to tell apart.
So will you be selling the Hassy and the P65 now then, Eleanour? ;)
John
Eleanors, test is a trusted and well done one because its based on "photographer trust your eyes and sense", which is the only trusted method for a photographer, ...yet, the problem is that it is a MFDB against "MFDB not DSLR" testing, this is because M9's sensor is really a MFDB cropped... Regards, Theodoros.
P.S. DSLRs (in the way that market considers them), have a ...long way before they can even "face" the M9, ...not to mention "compete" with it and its not only because of the lenses..., lenses is the least part of the fact (rather mysticism).
-
Tell me if I'm wrong, but the Phase is the left one no?
Because I'm watching those images in my computer at about 1,20m distance in this small size and differences are there clearly.
And according to what I see, the Phase for me is the left image. If I'm wrong no prob, my eyes have been fooled then.
-
Yes Phase is on the left, but I had to go back into Lightroom to check as I couldn't tell the difference. Here are screen shots from Lightroom: left Phase at 100 percent, Phase at 50 percent and Leica at 100 percent. Really, this is not done scientifically...certainly there are people who could process better than me too but after all the talk on this topic I wanted to see what differences, if any I could see for myself. I could have probably spent more time in Lightroom to get the images to match more carefully so please keep that in mind. eleanor
-
Yes Phase is on the left, but I had to go back into Lightroom to check as I couldn't tell the difference. Here are screen shots from Lightroom: left Phase at 100 percent, Phase at 50 percent and Leica at 100 percent. Really, this is not done scientifically...certainly there are people who could process better than me too but after all the talk on this topic I wanted to see what differences, if any I could see for myself. I could have probably spent more time in Lightroom to get the images to match more carefully so please keep that in mind. eleanor
Eleanor,
I think you did a pretty good work. I spent long time in post production shade, could recognise the phase simply by the way it displays transitions smoother, and DR. (boots and containers are the most visible). The Leica does a pretty amazing job, but still it's visible even on the web. You could have matched even closer with more post, but it's very difficult in the end to ecual totally. The phase contains more info and contrasts later.
The Leica is amazingly good though. But the Phase IMO still has better render on this side even at the same reduced magnification.
Best regards.
-
Always a good point! ;-)
BR
Erik
+1. Plus better photographers if I should add... Regards, Theodoros.
-
Yes Phase is on the left, but I had to go back into Lightroom to check as I couldn't tell the difference. Here are screen shots from Lightroom: left Phase at 100 percent, Phase at 50 percent and Leica at 100 percent. Really, this is not done scientifically...certainly there are people who could process better than me too but after all the talk on this topic I wanted to see what differences, if any I could see for myself. I could have probably spent more time in Lightroom to get the images to match more carefully so please keep that in mind. eleanor
Do you turn your Raws to DNGs and work on Lightroom Eleanor?
-
I recently converted all my RAW files to DNG (without the original RAW file embedded as takes up too much hard drive space.) I have also recently been working in Lightroom 4 beta (from LR3) but on certain files Capture One does an incredible job. However LR4 beta now offers so many advantages that I seldom work in C1. Occasionally my M9 DNGs have a very slight magenta tint in LR and if I take that file over to C1 it does a better job removing the tint. In the files I sent of the wall in my garage, the M9 file has a very very slight magenta tint on the fishing wader boots that C1 did a better job with eliminating. Eleanor
Do you turn your Raws to DNGs and work on Lightroom Eleanor?
-
Hi Eleanor,
Thanks for sharing. Your results is what I would expect. Would be interesting to hear your experience once you get your NEX-7 for the four lenses of yours waiting for it!
Best regards
Erik
Ps. You wouldn't consider sharing the raw images?
Since i find this topic interesting I did a test yesterday between my 60 megapixel P65+ and Leica M9 at 18 megapixels. The shot was done in my garage of one wall..P65 on a Hassy H2 with hassy prime 80mm at f8 (iso 100) on tripod with timer set. Leica with 50/ 1.4 mm prime at f8 (iso 160) also on tripod using timer. Raw processed in LR4 beta and both printed with short side at 16" to make 16X20 prints. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST...just my personal test to satisfy my curiosity but though I would share. Phase file printed at 720 dpi and Leica file at 360 dpi on Canson Baryta paper on Epson 7900 printer. Forget about looking at "viewing distance". I view at reading distance and my eyesight is corrected through contacts for 20/20. On first very careful study the prints look very very equal...really. it is only when I study in bright light that I can begin to see some advantage in the Phase One print but only in a few specific areas like the weave in the blue dog leash...or the edge detail in the far right pair of skis. Really..this is incredibly close match even at 16X20. In this print size the Phase One file has a tiny advantage but you have to know what you are looking for and study it close at reading distance. Both files have deep shadows and the only area where detail is totally blocked (on both files) is inside the boot in the lower left corner. Highlights are held on all metal surfaces. Let me be clear: These are MY visual impressions only, and others looking at the same files and prints may certainly have different views.
Eleanor
-
Ups...C1 is now teating properly DNGs ?
I ignored it. (been time away from it)
This is a big news.
It will snow in Timbuktu, palmtrees will flowrish in lake Michigan.
-
Hi,
Is that a Finnish version of "pigs will fly when..."?
Best regards
Erik
It will snow in Timbuktu, palmtrees will flowrish in lake Michigan.
-
Hi,
Is that a Finnish version of "pigs will fly when..."?
Best regards
Erik
Yeah, sort of. I remember one Phase dealer (Doug?) explaining some time ago why they weren't very DNG friendly. I remember the strong magenta tint in DNG files.
Maybe this is over and Phase has embrassed a reliable interpretation of the format.
I have the latest C1 but can't remember the last time I edited DNG files. So pretty much disconnected from stills ultimatly.
-
Hi Eric, yes when I get the NEX7 I will share my observations tho I did look at the digilloyd site and he had some shots of some small areas of nex7 files at 100 percent at 100 iso and there was a little more noise than I had expected in midtone (ripply water) areas..or at least this is what he was showing with his files. I will be curious to see what I can get from this new "pocket" sized camera with really good lenses (I also have the new Sony E mount Zeiss 24 1.8 to use). About sharing my RAW files...my common sense tells me that would not be a good idea because, while there are many sensible people reading these forums, there are those who will pixel pick at anything and everything (to horrendously obsessive degrees) and can really get brutal (...ie: was I off a few pixels on my manual focusing in the Leica file??...etc). Soooo, I'm not going to set myself up for that. Eleanor
Hi Eleanor,
Thanks for sharing. Your results is what I would expect. Would be interesting to hear your experience once you get your NEX-7 for the four lenses of yours waiting for it!
Best regards
Erik
Ps. You wouldn't consider sharing the raw images?
-
It's not higher, it's in a different level for Christ sake! When will some people understand that DSLRs ARE "TWEAKED" even at their "Raw" files? Some people are so busy with theory that can't see anymore... THE DSLR IMAGE IS THERE TO SERVE THE "AVERAGE" OBSERVER and that includes Pentax! Regards, Theodoros.
True, the D7000 image is softer, but I don't see a larger gap in softness in the shadows compared to the the highlights.
The gap is about the expected one considering the difference in resolution (16 vs 25mp) and the lack of AA filter on the back, it could also be the result of the upsampling of the 16mp image to get the same size of image when comparing the 100% views.
As far as raw being processed in camera to reduce noise, this is very possible, but I believe that all cameras are applying some processing. This is obvious for the backs since they have to get rid of moire through processing which ends up being a process similar to noise reduction.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I really should have posted following yesterday and perhaps many of posts above would not have been.
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/issues/lgb-0028/
That test was posted here on LuLa by Tim Parkin recent. It is per my knowledge the only fair test that so far has been published and that involves "Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR" but also film.
There are obvious clear differences that per my impression puts an end to arguments.
We all tend to look at image quality on calibrated monitors and fine art prints.... but the main way that my work is experienced is via websites and magazines... and I'm just saying that perhaps we care more about image quality than some of our clients do.. and if we are trying to make money at this game then perhaps we should be open minded about how we capture our images.
Very interesting point. If I was a professional photographer I may well be using a DSLR as my main tool, simply to get the job done quick, done, money, higher ISO, and since suffice image quality for the publishing requirements. However for times when I saw need to push for a competitive edge or simply saw desire or need to provide better image quality, I would grab MFDB. Money wise, indeed MFDB is expensive, but so are constant upgrades of DSLRs.
Best regards,
Anders
-
As far as raw being processed in camera to reduce noise, this is very possible, but I believe that all cameras are applying some processing. This is obvious for the backs since they have to get rid of moire through processing which ends up being a process similar to noise reduction.
@ Bernard,
For digital backs any such processing occurs at RAW processor level as per my understanding. The exception must be the mapping for discrepancies of the sensor. Else one can clearly see when loading large files that e.g. Capture One applies processing to optimize image quality when reading a file at defaults.
There is also no need to have such processing in the backs, since they do not produce JPGs and histograms are produced from RAW data.
Best regards,
Anders
-
Thanks for the comparison,Eleanor.
Definitely highlights the resolution potential of the M9.
Are you finding any issues with green or magenta color casts of the sort typically seen with
some wides on a MFDB platform?
I bought into the M9 system a few months ago and have been constantly disappointed with the
results as far as color balance and color cast are concerned with asph 24 and asph 28.
Even a current 50 2.0 exhibits a red tendency on one side.
Most can be dealt with in Cap One but,like you've mentioned, Lightroom just has so many useful
tools that I don't really want to leave the Adobe workflow.
Your series from the high arctic using the M9 was extremely neutral and wondered how you handled
this issue
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
Hi Anders,
We had a lengthy discussion on this forum about the Tim Parkin test and I was the person starting that thread.
I am most impressed by Tim's test. That said it was not really an MFDB vs. DSLR test. DSLRs were included in the test but played a marginal role. The test was essentially a resolution test and didn't look into DR.
I had no issue with the test itself. But at the resolution tested the small sensor devices fall apart.
What I have seen in Tim's test mainly was that large format film could outperform even the IQ180.
On the other hand, Tim has his own high end drum scanner and he scanned at 8000 PPI. I guess that it takes some time. Tim has bought his scanner at very reasonable price.
I guess that no one really questions that a 80 MP MFDB has better image detail than a 24 MP DSLR. The questions may be:
- What do I gain for spending 20 kUSD on a low end MF digital (lenses included) over a high end DSLR?
- What do I gain buying an old back (like 16-25 MP backs) over a high end DSLR?
- If the MFDB is superior to a DSLR at which print size will the difference be significant?
Questions like above are not the focus of Tim's article.
Regarding fairness I don't agree that Tim's test is the only fair test published. I'd say that all tests are fair as long as:
- The test is not designed to put a certain device at disadvantage
- The test is properly made
- All parameters are disclosed
For instance, the analogue vs. digital tests I made are fair in my view. I have done everything I could to set up a level playing field. I even had some very high resolution drum scans made with the friendly help of Dominique Ventzke, at 6000 PPI. The only omission is that I have tested the equipment I have. Would I have a higher performing lens the results may have been better, but I have not. You know, I have invested many hours of work in those tests, just choosing an image for involves scanning 4-5 focus bracketed images at highest resolution, a couple of hours of work.
One issue worth mentioning is that we have seen in Tim's that even 4x5" could match the IQ180, at least in some sense. Some earlier tests indicated that P45 performed similar to Velvia scanned at 2000 PPI. This discrepancy came probably from the fact that the authors of those tests used 2000 PPI on their 4x5 scans. So the tests was not really intended to find out how much performance could be eaked from 4x5" but to see if the backs were good enough to replace 4x5" in the authors workflow. This applies to the "Great MFDB shootout of 2006" by Reichmann, Atkinson, Cramer and Sanderson: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
The enclosed image is from my test and shows a small crop at 6000PPI. In this image the Sony Alpha is actually at disadvantage because of camera vibration (due to enabled Antishake).
Best regards
Erik
For anyone interested my test is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2?start=1
I really should have posted following yesterday and perhaps many of posts above would not have been.
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/issues/lgb-0028/
That test was posted here on LuLa by Tim Parkin recent. It is per my knowledge the only fair test that so far has been published and that involves "Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR" but also film.
There are obvious clear differences that per my impression puts an end to arguments.
Very interesting point. If I was a professional photographer I may well be using a DSLR as my main tool, simply to get the job done quick, done, money, higher ISO, and since suffice image quality for the publishing requirements. However for times when I saw need to push for a competitive edge or simply saw desire or need to provide better image quality, I would grab MFDB. Money wise, indeed MFDB is expensive, but so are constant upgrades of DSLRs.
Best regards,
Anders
-
.....
I guess that no one really questions that a 80 MP MFDB has better image detail than a 24 MP DSLR. The questions may be:
- What do I gain for spending 20 kUSD on a low end MF digital (lenses included) over a high end DSLR?
- What do I gain buying an old back (like 16-25 MP backs) over a high end DSLR?
- If the MFDB is superior to a DSLR at which print size will the difference be significant?
...
Best regards
Erik
For anyone interested my test is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2?start=1
I have tried several times direct comparisons between DSLR and digital MF but there is almost allways something which makes a direct comparison difficult.
What I do see as someone shooting both smaller sensors and a Leica S2 is that I get a much higher keeper rate of images with the S2.
What I mean is images which seem to show colors and tones the way I remember to have seen them (color is a big thing for me-specially skin color), images which show a fine graduation of color and tones, and a nice transition between sharp areas and out of focus areas. Also the ability to show very fine microdetail on things like skin, fruits,stones etc.
One other thing I really like is the size and quality of the viewfinder of a MF camera.
Of course there are also many advantages of a dslr over MF (like AF speed, price, size)
Regarding print size - I believe I can see it at nearly every print size, but thats just my impression (and maybe lack of post processing skills)
Tom
-
Yes Mark I am definitely having some issues with the Magenta cast (and some cyan also) on the edges of the M9 files mostly with wide angle shots. Many times the cast doesn't show enough to matter but when I shoot bright snow or sky for example it is definitely a problem. I haven't found a good solution in Lightroom to correct this, tho what I will do is desaturate the purple ad magenta in HSL if that is possible without effecting the rest of the image. On a few of my arctic shots I used this technique and it worked fairly well. On other shots the magenta cast wasn't enough of an issue to worry about, fortunately...but I didn't do many shots with my 24mm lens either. Have you tried cornerfix?? I haven't tried that yet. eleanor
Thanks for the comparison,Eleanor.
Definitely highlights the resolution potential of the M9.
Are you finding any issues with green or magenta color casts of the sort typically seen with
some wides on a MFDB platform?
I bought into the M9 system a few months ago and have been constantly disappointed with the
results as far as color balance and color cast are concerned with asph 24 and asph 28.
Even a current 50 2.0 exhibits a red tendency on one side.
Most can be dealt with in Cap One but,like you've mentioned, Lightroom just has so many useful
tools that I don't really want to leave the Adobe workflow.
Your series from the high arctic using the M9 was extremely neutral and wondered how you handled
this issue
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
Hi,
The NEX-7 is an APS-C camera so the most critical region is cropped of. Most of the color probably comes from the IR-filter. From what I have read elsewhere rangefinder lenses on the wide angle side are problematic on the NEX-7. I guess that the Sony and Zeiss lenses made for the NEX series are more tele-centric designs. That kind of design unfortunately also results in larger lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Eleanor, I have to wonder what chance is there of the Leica wides behaving themselves on the NEX-7 or X-Pro1 when they display these casts on the Leica M9?
-
Do you remember, no?...http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/27729-wide-lens-iq-180-shoot-out-digitar-28xl-versus-digaron-32hr-w.html
I got the sensation, just the sensation ok? that it is somehow admitted nowdays to release on the market Beta products as #1 and let's see if and how react the consumers...
Probably due in part to the incredible competition and the pressure to release cameras on strategical dates every 2 or 3 years, and in other part because there is a very high consummer acceptance. IMHO.
Am I wrong or there is also a cast issue on the Nex 7, reported here in Lu-La no?
-
Eleanor,
If I'm staying out of Cap One and working in Lightroom/Camera Raw I've been using a combination of Brush tool or Gradient and picking a color opposite of the shift
in very low amounts (4-8) Generally does the trick but aggravating nonetheless and creates additional work.
As I'm up in Montreal, snow and ice is a reality for 4-5 months of the year so the M9 is proving to be a disappointment in this regard.
Unfortunately, i drank the 'M' Kool-aid and am having difficulty kicking the habit.
Keith,
Originally, the 28 2.8 asph but has been dumped as it is near impossible to color cast correct in some situations despite being fantastically sharp and small.
The 28 2.0 is twice the price and twice the size but does not perform as well in a landscape application where f11-f16 might be needed for hyperfocal reasons.
Settled on the 24 2,8 asph. Much better colorcast response but still a nuisance. I've even seeing some cast with 35 2.0 and 50 2.0 but modest but, as Eleanor mentioned,
not apparent on many subjects/scenes- except where I live and shoot much of the time :)
Spent the day printing out close to 30 17 x 22's of various tests between my M9 and my 5DMkll with 24 shift and a few Zeiss wide primes.
End of the day using the same sharpening routine and amounts (despite all the claims of sogginess due to anti-aliasing filter with 5D) there is absolutely
no apparent fine detail/sharpness advantage to the M9. Form factor,yes. Portability,yes but no sharpness advantage. Ease of getting a wide file to print is easy advantage to 5D.
Anyhow, apologies to all for steering the thread away from the core Medium Format topic.
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
Thanks for the tip. I'm in Colorado half the year and right now surrounded by snow. I did a lot of snow images last year with the M9 and have the magenta issue on some of them..especially the ones taken with my 35 cron much more so than my 50 lux. eleanor
Eleanor,
If I'm staying out of Cap One and working in Lightroom/Camera Raw I've been using a combination of Brush tool or Gradient and picking a color opposite of the shift
in very low amounts (4-8) Generally does the trick but aggravating nonetheless and creates additional work.
As I'm up in Montreal, snow and ice is a reality for 4-5 months of the year so the M9 is proving to be a disappointment in this regard.
Unfortunately, i drank the 'M' Kool-aid and am having difficulty kicking the habit.
Keith,
Originally, the 28 2.8 asph but has been dumped as it is near impossible to color cast correct in some situations despite being fantastically sharp and small.
The 28 2.0 is twice the price and twice the size but does not perform as well in a landscape application where f11-f16 might be needed for hyperfocal reasons.
Settled on the 24 2,8 asph. Much better colorcast response but still a nuisance. I've even seeing some cast with 35 2.0 and 50 2.0 but modest but, as Eleanor mentioned,
not apparent on many subjects/scenes- except where I live and shoot much of the time :)
Spent the day printing out close to 30 17 x 22's of various tests between my M9 and my 5DMkll with 24 shift and a few Zeiss wide primes.
End of the day using the same sharpening routine and amounts (despite all the claims of sogginess due to anti-aliasing filter with 5D) there is absolutely
no apparent fine detail/sharpness advantage to the M9. Form factor,yes. Portability,yes but no sharpness advantage. Ease of getting a wide file to print is easy advantage to 5D.
Anyhow, apologies to all for steering the thread away from the core Medium Format topic.
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
Keith,
Unfortunately, the 28 2.8asph is pretty well known among discriminating users to be a problem lens with color cast
From what I can gather the rear element is closer to the film plane than some other wides and taxes the system more.
The 28 2.0 asph is a better performer as far as color cast goes.
By circumstantial evidence seen on different forums it does appear there can be variation between individual lenses and bodies.
Some have problems. Others,not. Some people with multiple bodies have seen more evidence of colorcast with one body vs. another using same lens.
Mark
-
The cat is out, or maybe I should say the first cat is out:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Nikon_D800_D800E_launch
Looks like it's not the D7000 sensor scaled up. Resolution is little less than expected at 15.7mp DX mode.
I hope the resolution wars stops at 24MP dx, then MF could have a time to focus on other funcionality.
They promise a version with no AA filter. Let see how it compare.
At 3000 US$ is a formidable competitor.
Best regards,
James
-
Hi,
Increasing MP is not as bad idea as most people believe. One effect that we see is that Nikon for first time removes the AA-filter. I'd say it is a bit premature, but anyway the effects of both aliasing and AA-filtering are much reduced with decreasing pixel size.
Best regards
Erik
The cat is out, or maybe I should say the first cat is out:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Nikon_D800_D800E_launch
Looks like it's not the D7000 sensor scaled up. Resolution is little less than expected at 15.7mp DX mode.
I hope the resolution wars stops at 24MP dx, then MF could have a time to focus on other funcionality.
They promise a version with no AA filter. Let see how it compare.
At 3000 US$ is a formidable competitor.
Best regards,
James
-
Increasing MP is not as bad idea as most people believe. One effect that we see is that Nikon for first time removes the AA-filter. I'd say it is a bit premature, but anyway the effects of both aliasing and AA-filtering are much reduced with decreasing pixel size.
I cannot find any moire with these samples so far: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm
The kimono would be a great candidate to generate some but it was either removed well or was not present in the first place.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd honestly would buy this 36 MP Nikon over any other exotic delicate unfinished product wich cast under x condition with x lens, more or less according to each camera (I like that!), or messy MD menus or whatever sort of serious uncurable issues...
As Keith pointed, the more you look into those configs, the more problem-dilemas you find. I've walked that path too and saw the same, specially when wide is required and ultimately abandoned the exoticness-size factor. We may not be young any more but you won't tell me that we can't carry 2 or 3 kg on field...
The current wave of the vintage-digital-remake is cool, marketingly clever, fun and distracting.
I don't think we precisely need the cool factor of shooting with something that looks like the same cam Bresson shooted the Paris's street lovers if it's not ready and reliable but only romantic unless we are retiree and have time for hassles.
Nikon so far has been released very stable hassle-free high performance cameras, (and free of major bugs) and those should work really well with absolute reliability, and oh yeah, with probably again the best low-light performance available.
Nota: sell well your M lenses to wealphy dentists, do yourself a favor: go on tour worldwide with the money of the sold M lenses and bring with you a real 2012 digital serious tool, like this Nikon for ex at 3000 euros...and forget about the AAAAAA filters and all the mystic. This Nikon doesn't have AA and doesn't look it moirés.
And I'm sure that we won't wait long before the MF vendors and gurus of the all solar system will jump and bark on the camera, because it's 36 MP, hey starts to smell a little burn doesn't it?, and has no AA: "this is crap, nothing to do with the MF equivalent" etc... you'll see.
-
I'm glad to see that this thread has gotten so many replies and caused debate on the subject.
Now that the D800 has officially been announced/released, I've gotta' say... I think this is the perfect camera for me and will definitely be calling my local dealer in the morning to reserve a spot.
For someone like myself who can't yet afford to go the medium format digital route, but still requires a very high quality image under controlled lighting situations and wishes to dabble in video, this is just perfect. If the noise performance is similar to that of the D700, which it's rumored to be, I really couldn't be happier- this would in fact be perfection defined. I hate reading all those posts on various forums bitching about it's lack of ISO expansion to 102,400 or 204k, etc, though I do understand some peoples need for that. I'm a relatively young guy (at 22) and have only recently started getting paid work so this comes in at a price point that's just right.
I was just about to cross to the Canon 5D MK II (literally tomorrow) as I've never been one to keep up with the latest technologies (heck, I've been shooting with a Nikon D90 up until this point, believe it or not!- check out my site) and thought it had everything I could ever want in a DSLR- 21mp, 1080 video, good noise performance, full frame, etc.. Now with this D800 I won't have to sell the great Nikon glass I've got, which I'll no doubt need and I'll only be spending a few hundred more dollars for it- seems like a decent deal and I won't be getting the 'itch' to upgrade for years to come. For studio, portrait and landscape photographers this is a godsend.
Couldn't be more thrilled about the time I chose to upgrade... Stars aligned perfectly, so to speak!
-
Increasing MP is not as bad idea as most people believe. One effect that we see is that Nikon for first time removes the AA-filter. I'd say it is a bit premature, but anyway the effects of both aliasing and AA-filtering are much reduced with decreasing pixel size.
As long as motion-blur and lense sharpness is held constant (and the scene really contains high-frequency detail to begin with).
If the lense is really sharp, there is no scene/camera movement at all, and what you are shooting can take advantage of many megapixels, then having no AA can cause aliasing no matter how many megapixels you have, and this aliasing can manifest itself at low frequencies (where it is more likely to be visible).
I still think it is really interesting to see a "mainstream" camera without AA. If customers are more happy without AA than with, I predict that other manufacturers will follow.
Looks like a really nice camera!
-h
-
Hi,
The Sony A55 SLT I have seems to have very weak OLP filter. I have seen a lot of aliasing artifacts, both color and monochrome. The SLT is 16 MP APS-C, the same senor in full rame would yield 36 MP. There are other factors affecting aliasing/Moiré. If the fill factor is improved less aliasing will occour.
Hopefully we get som sample images in raw from both versions of the D800 soon.
Best regards
Erik
As long as motion-blur and lense sharpness is held constant (and the scene really contains high-frequency detail to begin with).
If the lense is really sharp, there is no scene/camera movement at all, and what you are shooting can take advantage of many megapixels, then having no AA can cause aliasing no matter how many megapixels you have, and this aliasing can manifest itself at low frequencies (where it is more likely to be visible).
I still think it is really interesting to see a "mainstream" camera without AA. If customers are more happy without AA than with, I predict that other manufacturers will follow.
Looks like a really nice camera!
-h
-
Not bad image quality per the posted JPGs. For thos preferring DSLRs and/or planning to get it, ENJOY. ;)
I cannot find any moire with these samples so far: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm
The kimono would be a great candidate to generate some but it was either removed well or was not present in the first place.
Cheers,
Bernard
@ Bernard,
FWIW when I stepped from 20MP ZD to 28MP Aptus 65 the worry of moire disappeared quick, and more so now with 80MP. With more pixels moire is less of a problem due to the finer resolution used to capture the fine patterns that may otherwise cause moire. It may well be that with D800E you would experience very rare moire problems or basically none at all depending on your subjects.
Best regards,
Anders
-
@ Bernard,
FWIW when I stepped from 20MP ZD to 28MP Aptus 65 the worry of moire disappeared quick, and more so now with 80MP. With more pixels moire is less of a problem due to the finer resolution used to capture the fine patterns that may otherwise cause moire. It may well be that with D800E you would experience very rare moire problems or basically none at all depending on your subjects.
Thks for the feedback.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I pre-ordered the 800E yesterday.
I have wanted to go higher quality since my 1DsII days. But I had to quit serious work due to disability and closed my studio 5 years ago, so I could not justify a MFDB. It hurts just to take photos of equipment I am selling for eBay! >:( (4 bad disks in my neck, 3 bad disks in my lower back, tear in my shoulder ...)
I was waiting for the 5D3. I have a ton of great Canon glass, but I will do the switch if Canon doesn't announce the 5D3 before the 800 ships.
I used to print at 180 dpi at 18x27 non-rezzed on the 1DsII. I was happy with that for 75% of my work. For anything larger I have been using 4x5 film and scanning.
The 800 can print at 27"x40" at around 200-210 dpi. I can live with that as a maximum print size if quality holds up as expected. I hope the absence of the AA helps me tweak a little extra quality out of the system. 90% of what I shoot is ISO 100.
My plan is to find a younger photographer to collaborate with. I have a full Broncolor studio kit and 30 years of experience. But I can't do the physical work any more.
I had been looking at 22MP MF cameras and/or backs. But it is nice to have the 35mm contained form factor and not have to struggle with some of the complexities of MF. I am selling off all of my 4x5 (6 camera kits) and MF film cameras now. (Mostly because I can't handle it physically any more, not because of the 800E.)
I still have 2 Epson 24" and a 44" printer. I like to proof at 24x36, I love big prints.
Still hoping Canon replies soon to save me from swapping out systems. The 5DII is still a pretty decent camera after 3 years, so I expect the 800E or equivalent will suffice for most general purposes for 5 years.
Good times! I am very happy.
Michael
-
I pre-ordered the 800E yesterday.
I have wanted to go higher quality since my 1DsII days. But I had to quit serious work due to disability and closed my studio 5 years ago, so I could not justify a MFDB. It hurts just to take photos of equipment I am selling for eBay! >:( (4 bad disks in my neck, 3 bad disks in my lower back, tear in my shoulder ...)
I was waiting for the 5D3. I have a ton of great Canon glass, but I will do the switch if Canon doesn't announce the 5D3 before the 800 ships.
I used to print at 180 dpi at 18x27 non-rezzed on the 1DsII. I was happy with that for 75% of my work. For anything larger I have been using 4x5 film and scanning.
The 800 can print at 27"x40" at around 200-210 dpi. I can live with that as a maximum print size if quality holds up as expected. I hope the absence of the AA helps me tweak a little extra quality out of the system. 90% of what I shoot is ISO 100.
My plan is to find a younger photographer to collaborate with. I have a full Broncolor studio kit and 30 years of experience. But I can't do the physical work any more.
I had been looking at 22MP MF cameras and/or backs. But it is nice to have the 35mm contained form factor and not have to struggle with some of the complexities of MF. I am selling off all of my 4x5 (6 camera kits) and MF film cameras now. (Mostly because I can't handle it physically any more, not because of the 800E.)
I still have 2 Epson 24" and a 44" printer. I like to proof at 24x36, I love big prints.
Still hoping Canon replies soon to save me from swapping out systems. The 5DII is still a pretty decent camera after 3 years, so I expect the 800E or equivalent will suffice for most general purposes for 5 years.
Good times! I am very happy.
Michael
Good to see you animated and in this spirit Michael because I know from some of your post that you had hard times, like some other members here. That's the path.
You got the brain, if you add to it, enthousiasm-passion, the rest will follow.
Best.
-
Quote from Nikon regards the D800
"Compatible with AF NIKKOR lenses, including type G and D lenses (some restrictions apply to PC-NIKKOR lenses)"
That would be a major problem for a lot of people !
-
Yes PC lenses cannot be used with shifting and tilting with the D800.
The reason i originally got the Leaf was that i could use tilt and shift
versus the Phase One back i was looking at.
Surely this is going to stop a lot people from going this route and keep
going with MFD.
-
Yes PC lenses cannot be used with shifting and tilting with the D800.
The reason i originally got the Leaf was that i could use tilt and shift
versus the Phase One back i was looking at.
Surely this is going to stop a lot people from going this route and keep
going with MFD.
This is incorrect.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/compatibility02.htm
Shows only that focus confirmation and metering do not work while shifting & tilting. The same limits are described for D3 & D3x.
-
Thank you Fred, I appreciate the kind words.
I don't mean to " whine" here, just to offer my experience and to put my equipment choices and constraints in context.
I have been incredibly bored, so I am very much looking forward to doing some real work again. I hope to find someone to work with and get going by April after taxes. ;D
Good news on the PC lenses! That is a necessity.
-
Yes looks like i misread those tech specs.
-
Hi,
I never said the lenses are good just that they are more telecentric. There are a lot of lenses that can be put on the NEX with adapters, but the ones that will not have lens cast issues are telecentric lenses and they are usually large. So the problem is finding small wide angles.
DSLR lenses would work fine and so would Leica R-lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, the NEX native lenses are limited and not particularly exciting. The Zeiss E24mm f/1.8 ZA is interesting but simply isn't wide enough.
-
Hi,
I never said the lenses are good just that they are more telecentric. There are a lot of lenses that can be put on the NEX with adapters, but the ones that will not have lens cast issues are telecentric lenses and they are usually large. So the problem is finding small wide angles.
DSLR lenses would work fine and so would Leica R-lenses.
Best regards
Erik
What pleases me is that cameras like the NEX line give a sudden new lease of life to the likes of Minolta MC/MD and Canon FD lenses, whose flange distances were too short for adapting onto the likes Canon EOS, Nikon, Pentax, and Sony/Minolta-Alpha [D]SLRs. I loved my Minolta MC/MD system, carefully built up from used pieces, but I traded it in 20 years ago to upgrade to M645 medium format! Now I expect that exceptional lenses like the 85/1.7 MC I had go for multiples of what I originally paid for them.
Ray