Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: torger on May 08, 2012, 07:26:53 am
-
I'm a happy new owner of a good old Aptus 75 and a tech camera, and curious engineer as I am I've made some testing. I don't have particular high expectations of MF sensors, it was more the camera and lenses I wanted so I have no prestige in the results.
The resolution aspect is obvious, 33 megapixels is 33 megapixels. Not having the AA filter has effect too (good and bad). I've also looked at noise performance and it is perfectly ok, better than my Canon 5D mark 2 of course, but worse than an APS-C Nikon D7000 in the shadows, and on par or a little better than it in brighter areas (when the lower photon shot noise of the aptus comes into play), all expected from measurement data others have provided.
What I'm still curious about is the "hyper-reality" aspect of MF that some claim to see, more or less vague description of properties that makes the MF picture inherently better than smaller formats. Better color rendition, better tonal range in midtones, more "3D look" (DOF/bokeh rendering from the lenses rather than the sensor I presume?) is things I often hear and all of it may be true but I have never been able to find any pictures to support these claims. Well, until I read
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/understanding-series/everything_matters__it_is_all_about_the_small_details.shtml
under the "hyper-reality" and "first myth" section. Doesn't look like a well-controlled test though, you don't need to blow out highlights like that, that's poor technique. Maybe he is comparing in-camera JPEG with MF raw, I don't know.
So I kind of still wonder if these differences are real or if they fall flat when actually compared with the best DSLRs (D800/D800E on top today I guess), as I would say the more easily verifiable DR claim does.
Is there any examples out there to show us MF dummies, preferably seriously made side-by-side shots by someone who knows how to use both systems. Or maybe this is just a too controversial subject? Or even beating a dead horse, it feels like this small format vs MF is discussed in hundreds of threads, but the picture comparisons is extremely rare still...
-
You need more?
Yes! :-)
I'm truly interested in finding out what the secret sauce of medium format is, if it is more to it than resolution and lenses that support it. This has nothing to do with my attempts to do photography art with my new fine camera system, this is about my interest in camera technology and some sort of problem with my personality which is I can't sleep if there's a thing I haven't figured out.
It is quite often I read claims that even in web-sized pictures the superiority of MF is obivous (and the lower DSLR image quality is equally obvious), and well I have a hard time seeing those "obvious" things. Sure thing I get curious what it is all about.
Am I totally clueless, or does it require some special fine skill to see this, like distinguishing a fine wine from another? I do find color rendition superiority as likely though, also midtone tonal range but I have not seen any side-by-side examples which you really need to see if it is significant.
In the end I want to find out if this is a "loudspeaker cable thing" or not. In the hifi audio world loudspeaker cables is one of those things that some claim to detect huge differences between them, while the majority of people don't hear any difference at all. As it is now I don't know if I'm missing something obvious (and being me that is not a nice feeling!) or if it is a loudspeaker cable thing. I would sleep better if I knew :-)
-
It is a religion thing... you got to believe there are differences in order to "see" (or "hear") them.
-
Go make pictures.
Are you sure that won't deprive him of more sleep?
I sleep perfectly well having figured out very few things in life. When I don't sleep at all is when I get those 'racing heads' and the same old things go on and on and round and around without stopping until dawn comes knocking. Those same old things were all figured out years ago, but that doesn't stop them playing waking nightmare with me. Irony? Yes, it should all be controllable by the self, just like suicide.
Rob C
-
This might be the case of I don't know what it is however I'll know it when I see it.
I've seen stunning files taken with both 35mm and medium format; some I can tell the difference some I can't. All I know is that when comparing files from my P65 versus my 1DsIII the P65 normally wins. Then again I need to be on the top of my game in order to make it work.
So I kind of still wonder if these differences are real or if they fall flat when actually compared with the best DSLRs (D800/D800E on top today I guess), as I would say the more easily verifiable DR claim does.
Is there any examples out there to show us MF dummies, preferably seriously made side-by-side shots by someone who knows how to use both systems. Or maybe this is just a too controversial subject? Or even beating a dead horse, it feels like this small format vs MF is discussed in hundreds of threads, but the picture comparisons is extremely rare still...
I've never got the idea of comparing two-completely different types of image capture. While both capture a file using similar methods the main difference is the sensors and until they are the same there will always be a difference. Besides that sizes does (occasionally) matter and MF is the bigger dog.
Be happy with your setup and go out and capture what made you buy it in the first place and stop over thinking the smaller stuff.
Now start worrying you need. :D
Don
-
Thanks for the kind replies. I think I can both sleep and make pictures in peace now :-). From your replies it seems to me that it is one of those things that some see and some don't, and you don't really need to be blind to not see it. So to me, the secret sauce of MF continues to be high resolution (and beautiful tech cameras).
-
Torger
An awful lot of the difference between small and medium format photography these days centres not on image quality (which is now pretty similar, it seems) but on whether you enjoy the process of photography as well as the end result. There is a great deal of difference in the feel and heft of MF kit which makes using a Hasselblad (V or H) or Mamiya RZ or whatever very different from picking up a Nikon. For those who enjoy a slower, more contemplative way of working MF still has powerful attractions.
John
-
For those who enjoy a slower, more contemplative way of working MF still has powerful attractions.
Like slow and contemplative? Stitch with DoF stacking!
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7084/7157819716_f3ac176354_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Torger for what it is worth I was involved a little in complaints to software engineers that the images coming out of an early version on some back (prefer to remain mum here) were flat and without dimension to the image compared with "X". For the hell of me I could not understand what the complaint was about I just could not see what they were trying to convey to me.
The only thing I could think of was to take an old 6mpx three shot back and start with that. I photographed a still life that contained wooden fruit with transparent lacquered colours in them where the grain of the wood was still very obvious and these were in a tarnished brass dish alongside some other bits and pieces.
The shots were made on both systems and the results proofed on screen and on a mechanical proof. I finally understood what the complaint was all about.
The 3 shot showed transitions and details that followed the curvature of the fruit and bowl giving a continuous rendering and which on the single shot seemed to have been sliced like butter through the curvatures rendering them flat and missing details that in comparison also lacked the 3 dimensional like quality some called it "shape" and can very quickly be seen and understood.
I would say that the results were more software related than format related but when the engineers got their heads around it they conjured results that were as good if not pretty near the 3 shot result.
I reckon you can conduct your own tests to try and see what the difference is with small vs med. format maybe you might find there is a dramatic difference that is more obvious in some images maybe not.... Maybe then you can post us some images if you succeed.
BL's fine landscape of the bouldered river looks like it has lots of dimension to it regardless of what equipment he used (Well done Bernard!)
-
I got a tip about this blogpost which perhaps indicates what differences it is about:
http://www.buschphoto.com/blog/2012/4/23/hasselblad-h4d-40-nikon-d800-blind-review.html
There are many more comparisons on that blog http://www.buschphoto.com/blog/
-
Torger nice article and interesting the guy choosing the images like wine tasting found the type of details I was trying to convey in my last post, the transitions and tonalities are what make the choice easier.
In the baking image one sees that all the 1/4 tones are washed out right up and into the midtones giving the other picture that dimensional quality.
I don't think this can be corrected by exposure or gradation. This then I believe is the magic pill you were trying to find that shows the difference between the 2 systems.
Good hunting down this info, Well Done!
-
I dunno, it seems to me that in the baking image, the D800 image is simply systematically lighter (maybe 1/3 stop more exposed). Some exposure backeting might give a much closer comparison.
Ray
-
Yes how the exposures have been done is a question, if he has used the in-camera auto-exposure it could be a problem with that rather than with the camera sensor. When looking into more detail I agree that in the food shot the D800 picture is exposed brighter, there's more visible details in dark shadows because of the brighter exposure. These kind of tests are tough to do right.
-
Yes how the exposures have been done is a question, if he has used the in-camera auto-exposure it could be a problem with that rather than with the camera sensor. When looking into more detail I agree that in the food shot the D800 picture is exposed brighter, there's more visible details in dark shadows because of the brighter exposure. These kind of tests are tough to do right.
Torger if you have an MF and a DSLR then you can try to take some side-by-side shots of similar subjects and scenes
Bring them into your raw converter (or three) of choice and see what they look like "out of the box" (there is no such thing but anyway) and then try to find out what it takes (and how long it takes) to make them into something that you can be satisfied with, in terms of "dimentionality", tones, sharpness etc.
This process is very personal, since some prefer to do everything "in-camera" rather that working the files on the computer. For some it's the other way around. For others it is somewhere in between...
This is also why most published tests/ reviews often bring up debates about their credibility etc.
For example if we think that the D800 baking shot was brighter, it could well be that this is how LR brings it up with a curve or a colour profile, not necessarily how the camera exposed it...and so on and so forth...
The important thing IMO is to be able to create images that you are satisfied with (artistically and technically) and that convey the message you are trying to convey and if you enjoy the process then that's even better!!!
BR
Yair
-
It is a religion thing... you got to believe there are differences in order to "see" (or "hear") them.
:)
-
I got a tip about this blogpost which perhaps indicates what differences it is about:
http://www.buschphoto.com/blog/2012/4/23/hasselblad-h4d-40-nikon-d800-blind-review.html
There are many more comparisons on that blog http://www.buschphoto.com/blog/
Once again, those who believe will say there are many differences and they are huge... the mere mortals would say there are few, if any, and they are at best microscopic. I mean, the guy needs arrows, after all, to point it out at 100%, and I still do not see it (other than being lighter/darker overall). One difference is, however, undeniable: one of them is 10-15x more expensive.
-
if you take the time to know your equipment and given that you have some sense of vision and appreciation for a photograph then I would say as others have.. just go make pictures.. you will then learn what the limits of your equipment are and if they are in sync with your desired results. I did a series of 18 20x30 prints for a client with a less than 3mp camera..is it good for everything..of course not.. but all this talk of pixels is diversion from the art of making photographs. There are museums filled with photographic images made with uncoated lenses.. but would we go and buy one today? I am trying to live by the philosophy "love the one you're with" -crosby,stills nash
-
I am trying to live by the philosophy "love the one you're with" -crosby,stills nash
Well it was easy for Crosby to say that - he loved the many ones he was with! Check out his Byrds song, "Triad".
Ray
-
Well it was easy for Crosby to say that - he loved the many ones he was with! Check out his Byrds song, "Triad".
Ray
Just like photography: all you need is money; love comes along all by itself, as any millionaire with a pretty wench will testify.
Faith, as the man said, Faith! Faith replied: wot?
Rob C
-
it's an engineer thing....
-
it's an engineer thing....
Nancy, please be explicit. I have no idea to what you refer, a position that leaves me at a distinct disadvantage. It's not fair, your knowing and my not knowing.
Rob C
-
The article was almost complete bollocks - yes there is a difference between MF and 35mm DSLR but it's not this 'wine tasting expert sense' thing he's talking about. Here's a list of differences that for me are important
1) Mostly better lenses - however good primes on 35mm SLR can do very well indeed. The simpler the lens design, typically the more rounded the result. Older lenses were designed by trial and error, with designers prioritising 'rendering' as well as resolution. Modern SLR lenses tend to be computer designed. Hence why leica lenses tend to have 'that look'. I have a slight problem with MF wide lenses as the need for strong retrofocus design makes for more complicated lens designs - the results aren't bad but they don't have the relaxed look of longer lenses or LF wide lenses such as the Super Angulons or MF Biogons.
2) Oversampling - not to be ruled out. bayer arrays and the conversion to image data is notorious for making up data. Think of it like the mp3 of the audio world - it works but there is something wierd at low bitrates. However, if you use a really high bitrate it doesn't sound bad at all. This is true of oversampling in terms of resolution in camera sensors
3) Colour rendition - this is the big one for me. In the hunt for better iso performance, manufacturers have been compromising on colour filter arrays. Making them more transparent lets more light in but also lets crossover colour in leading to the debayer having to do more to get the colour back. The Sony A900 is one of the only DSLR's that gets the colours as good as the best MF backs (it beats many, such as the P45)
4) Underexposure - MF backs underexpose by quite a bit by default. This typically helps in the smoothness of tones as you go toward mid-tones to highlights - especially for people who regularly expose to the right.
5) Sensors optimised for low ISO's - possibly this helps when making compromises in chip design?
You add these up and you can see how LF results always had a relaxed and rounded look - MF came close, especially with classically designed lenses and on 35mm you really had to use classic lens designs on rangefinders to get the same effect. (even many modern optics are tweaks of classic designs)
Tim
p.s. I did a test recently comparing IQ180 and various other cameras including a Sony A900
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
If you look at the top comparison you can compare the IQ180 with the A900 and you'll see that there is very little difference. I personally prefer the A900 colour rendering but they're very close. We used a Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 lens on the Sony A900 which is a good old lens design.
also I have a feeling that the floating optic used in modern auto focus lenses adds significant extra design constraint to lenses - I haven't tested this though so it's just a thought at the moment.
-
BernardLanguillier. Nice work. How many? X x Y x Z?
-
Wow, I hadn't seen that article on hyper-reality before.
It's hilarious that he starts out with the Audiophile Story and the Wine Story, both of which are completely debunked at this point, and then proceeds to compare a terrible photograph which happens to be shot with one camera to a less terrible photograph shot with another one, and finally draws some sort of conclusions.
This is exactly the sort of nonsense audiophiles and oenophiles use all the time: If the test is blinded, it's rigged, and if it's not rigged, it's not blind.
Tests that are both blind and fair instantly debunk most of what people say about Audiophile Equipment, and Fine Wines (not everything, just most of it). The test of MF versus whatever the other one is, is rigged.
Note that demonstrating a test to be rigged does NOT disprove the result. It merely proves that the test is meaningless. The result may or may not be true.
-
BernardLanguillier. Nice work. How many? X x Y x Z?
I'd have to checked, probably 3 focus points per pano position, 5x3 images, so a total of around 40 images?
This was shot with a Zeiss 50mm f2.0, so DoF was plenty.
There is also a bit of HDR masking for some of the rocks on the upper left.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Tim,
Much appreciate your comment on the issue. I'm of course familiar with your test.
I would expect that a larger sensor always helps, but reducing exposure would loose much of the advantage. Regarding the lenses I assume that they are not always good enough. Regarding the Leica lenses, I got the impression that new Leica lenses are quite aggressively optimized, any comments on that?
Best regards
Erik
The article was almost complete bollocks - yes there is a difference between MF and 35mm DSLR but it's not this 'wine tasting expert sense' thing he's talking about. Here's a list of differences that for me are important
1) Mostly better lenses - however good primes on 35mm SLR can do very well indeed. The simpler the lens design, typically the more rounded the result. Older lenses were designed by trial and error, with designers prioritising 'rendering' as well as resolution. Modern SLR lenses tend to be computer designed. Hence why leica lenses tend to have 'that look'. I have a slight problem with MF wide lenses as the need for strong retrofocus design makes for more complicated lens designs - the results aren't bad but they don't have the relaxed look of longer lenses or LF wide lenses such as the Super Angulons or MF Biogons.
2) Oversampling - not to be ruled out. bayer arrays and the conversion to image data is notorious for making up data. Think of it like the mp3 of the audio world - it works but there is something wierd at low bitrates. However, if you use a really high bitrate it doesn't sound bad at all. This is true of oversampling in terms of resolution in camera sensors
3) Colour rendition - this is the big one for me. In the hunt for better iso performance, manufacturers have been compromising on colour filter arrays. Making them more transparent lets more light in but also lets crossover colour in leading to the debayer having to do more to get the colour back. The Sony A900 is one of the only DSLR's that gets the colours as good as the best MF backs (it beats many, such as the P45)
4) Underexposure - MF backs underexpose by quite a bit by default. This typically helps in the smoothness of tones as you go toward mid-tones to highlights - especially for people who regularly expose to the right.
5) Sensors optimised for low ISO's - possibly this helps when making compromises in chip design?
You add these up and you can see how LF results always had a relaxed and rounded look - MF came close, especially with classically designed lenses and on 35mm you really had to use classic lens designs on rangefinders to get the same effect. (even many modern optics are tweaks of classic designs)
Tim
p.s. I did a test recently comparing IQ180 and various other cameras including a Sony A900
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
If you look at the top comparison you can compare the IQ180 with the A900 and you'll see that there is very little difference. I personally prefer the A900 colour rendering but they're very close. We used a Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 lens on the Sony A900 which is a good old lens design.
also I have a feeling that the floating optic used in modern auto focus lenses adds significant extra design constraint to lenses - I haven't tested this though so it's just a thought at the moment.
-
Thanks for the very interesting replies.
One aspect which may be important is in short depth of field photography. With bokeh it seems like to get the most pleasing you should not have a lens that is too much corrected to get optimal sharpness.
MF lenses at least traditionally like RZ system had simpler designs and not very large max apertures, but due to the larger film area the DOF could be very short anyway. In other words you can get short DOF with less corrected lenses and thus more pleasing bokeh.
The larger magnification factor maybe also have some effect on in-focus to out-of-focus transitions.
However, perhaps much of that aspect has been lost with the smaller 645 format and more modern digital lenses?
Concerning color rendition I am a bit skeptical, but also curious about it. The difference in light loss between different color filters are afaik quite small, like 1/3 stop or so, if correct it seems unlikely that one would sacrifice color just to gain 1/3 stop. Also, to get accurate color you may actually need quite much color overlap since the eye works like that, not sure though. Dxomark that actually does some sort of measurement on color accuracy show very small differences between cameras, but it is hard for me as a non-expert to interpret that.
I see it likely though that the MFDB manufacturers put quite some effort into color profiling in their raw converters (capture one, phocus) to get natural color like professionals need, while Nikon/Canon etc may be more focused on getting some sort of pleasing look that might not be as natural.
What makes me most skeptical about the color rendition issue is that all the talk about it seem very similar to the "MF has better dynamic range" talk, which people took for granted and saw huge difference (some said six stops!) but now when we actually compare side-by-side with a modern sony exmor sensor the MF DR is actually a bit inferior.
Concerning the oversampling aspect, I've noted that demosaicing false color artifacts is (unsurprisingly) more of a problem if the sensor don't have an AA-filter, and well MF sensors don't have that...
-
Concerning color rendition I am a bit skeptical, but also curious about it. The difference in light loss between different color filters are afaik quite small, like 1/3 stop or so, if correct it seems unlikely that one would sacrifice color just to gain 1/3 stop. Also, to get accurate color you may actually need quite much color overlap since the eye works like that, not sure though. Dxomark that actually does some sort of measurement on color accuracy show very small differences between cameras, but it is hard for me as a non-expert to interpret that.
I see it likely though that the MFDB manufacturers put quite some effort into color profiling in their raw converters (capture one, phocus) to get natural color like professionals need, while Nikon/Canon etc may be more focused on getting some sort of pleasing look that might not be as natural.
What makes me most skeptical about the color rendition issue is that all the talk about it seem very similar to the "MF has better dynamic range" talk, which people took for granted and saw huge difference (some said six stops!) but now when we actually compare side-by-side with a modern sony exmor sensor the MF DR is actually a bit inferior.
The best example of the colour differences is in the test shown. The biggest difference is between the Phase P45 and the A900 - try opening these in photoshop and making one look like the other.
The differences seem to be to do with metameric effects of the combination of light source, colour filter and sensor response.
Also I may be wrong but a very strong red colour filter has a filter factor of about 8 or 3 stops of light. Supposedly you can get away with a lot less and so gain about a stop or more of light advantage.
Tim
-
The best example of the colour differences is in the test shown. The biggest difference is between the Phase P45 and the A900 - try opening these in photoshop and making one look like the other.
The differences seem to be to do with metameric effects of the combination of light source, colour filter and sensor response.
Also I may be wrong but a very strong red colour filter has a filter factor of about 8 or 3 stops of light. Supposedly you can get away with a lot less and so gain about a stop or more of light advantage.
Thanks for the reply. Actually looking at dxomark again, the A900 is one that have significantly higher metamerism index than the other cameras, also the IQ180. I guess it has the same sensor as the D3x, which indeed has a lower metamerism index but better dynamic range, so there's definitely something to the color filters. Dxomark cannot present any indications that MF sensors would be better than the best DSLR sensors though, rather that they have nothing special concerning color response. So maybe it is about color profiling too, or some factor that doesn't show up in measurements.
Looking at the P45 test image of yours, it is quite easy to get about the same look for everything except the grass plains in the middle of the image, so there's definitely non-linearity going on. Colors that haven't been registered cannot be tweaked. Not having seen the scene with my own eyes I cannot know which one is more correct though, but the A900 rendering look more believable.