Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on May 22, 2012, 08:53:09 pm
-
100% Crops
-
Phenomenal - truly phenomenal. Now, when will we ever take delivery of a D800e body?!?
-
Phenomenal - truly phenomenal. Now, when will we ever take delivery of a D800e body?!?
I got mine from Jim at Brightscreen give him a call (800) 235-2451
Marc
-
Hi Marc!
Thanks for posting this!
Can you tell what lenses and what f-stops you used?
Henrik
-
Very interesting!
I assume the first is both with 70mm giving similar resolution pixel-wise but smaller FOV with the D800E, and the other is 45mm to give about the same FOV as the IQ180.
My guess would be that it is the Digaron-W 70mm for the IQ180 and the 24-70/2.8 for the Nikon, am I right? I guess one would probably want to use something else than the zoom for high res work, center is sharp but edges have some visible aberrations.
-
I've had several PM's asking if the D800E is the equal to the IQ180 with the exception of resolution. Some have asked is the D800E as good as a MFDB or is the D800E intruding into the MFDB territory?
So today is a day off and it's not raining so I took a couple of test shots. All liveview focus, base ISO, WB-daylight, f5.6, Capture One, deconvolution Focusfixer .7, no adjustments other than the highlights slider until no clipping, focused on Tokyo Tower 1000m away. IQ180/WRS/Rodenstock 70mm HR, D800E/Leica 28-90 2.8-4.5R @70mm & 45mm, tripod, cable release and 30# bag hanging from the tripod.
The simple answer is yes the D800E is the equal to if not better than the IQ180 pixel for pixel (of course the IQ180 trumps the D800E in resolution)
now 2 crops at F8.0
-
Very interesting!
I assume the first is both with 70mm giving similar resolution pixel-wise but smaller FOV with the D800E, and the other is 45mm to give about the same FOV as the IQ180.
My guess would be that it is the Digaron-W 70mm for the IQ180 and the 24-70/2.8 for the Nikon, am I right? I guess one would probably want to use something else than the zoom for high res work, center is sharp but edges have some visible aberrations.
#1 correct
#2 Digaron-W 70mm & Leica 28-90 f2.8-4.5R
(according to Erwin Puts 1. the "good" Leica R zooms are sharper than the Leica R primes which are the equal of Leica M primes, and 2. the slower zooms that I have are the equal of the 2.8 zooms when stopped down. The reasoning is with more design flexibility in moving the elements in a zoom you can exceed the performance of a prime. Who am I to question the Tao of Puts!) but both at f5.6 and f8.0 the D800E/Leica is sharper than the IQ180/WRS/Rodenstock HR!
Marc
the next step is to verify infinity focus since the WRS does not allow you to shim the back but the lenses were calibrated to the WRS at the Cambo factory.
-
full frame jpegs from the other post
Marc
-
Hi Marc,
Thanks for sharing your images with us. Where I expect the IQ 180 to stand out from the D800 is not in pixel level detail or shadow lifting capability but in color tonality. I'd love to see a comparison with a macro shot of some flowers or fruit or something where the color changes subtly. This is where I see huge differences between my 80mp leaf back and the DSLR's.
Thanks,
Eric
-
I have the D800e on backorder but also have had 4 Phase One backs, beginning with the P25 and now the P65+. With all these backs there is a certain "creamy smoothness" to the files at base iso that I've not seen in 35mm at base iso. How does the 800e compare in the "tonal smoothness" of the files of your IQ180 (pixel for pixel so to speak). Eleanor
-
... With all these backs there is a certain "creamy smoothness" to the files at base iso that I've not seen in 35mm at base iso. How does the 800e compare in the "tonal smoothness" of the files of your IQ180 (pixel for pixel so to speak). Eleanor
How does one test and compare for "creamy smoothness"? What would be the proper test subject? This is an open-ended question, btw.
-
Slobodan,
It's really an area where the forums fall flat - this qualitative nature of images. I know what Eleanor is talking about but hard to describe. I just find the images to have more depth, to feel more real. I feel the same way about the multishot vs single shot images too using the same camera and lenses.
-
Hi Marc,
Thanks for sharing your images with us. Where I expect the IQ 180 to stand out from the D800 is not in pixel level detail or shadow lifting capability but in color tonality. I'd love to see a comparison with a macro shot of some flowers or fruit or something where the color changes subtly. This is where I see huge differences between my 80mp leaf back and the DSLR's.
Thanks,
Eric
I don't have my DF camera or my 120mm macro with me but you are right lots of pixels makes for smoother gradients and you can't always stitch, wind movement etc. But I'm sure this puts pressure on Phase One to up thier game, IQ180+ cmos sensor, rail adc's etc. You've got to admit the D800E sure can hold it's own.
Marc
-
Slobodan,
It's really an area where the forums fall flat - this qualitative nature of images...
Au contrair, mon ami!
If you can't measure it or express in math formulas, it does not exist! ;)
Here is one formula that would compare the "creaminess":
crème de la crème = 10 x crème (in dollars, euros, etc.)
;D
-
I've recently reworked some of my Phase P25 (22 mp files) in lightroom 4 and was reminded of this hard to describe liquid creamy smoothness of the medium format files...and these raw files were from a 22 mg sensor...not near as many pixels as some of the 35mm camera sensors. Go figure.....! eleanor
I don't have my DF camera or my 120mm macro with me but you are right lots of pixels makes for smoother gradients and you can't always stitch, wind movement etc. But I'm sure this puts pressure on Phase One to up thier game, IQ180+ cmos sensor, rail adc's etc. You've got to admit the D800E sure can hold it's own.
Marc
-
I have the D800e on backorder but also have had 4 Phase One backs, beginning with the P25 and now the P65+. With all these backs there is a certain "creamy smoothness" to the files at base iso that I've not seen in 35mm at base iso. How does the 800e compare in the "tonal smoothness" of the files of your IQ180 (pixel for pixel so to speak). Eleanor
Eleanor
If you look at the "creamy smooth" (only kidding :) Eric) clouds in the above frames I think the 14 bit D800E files hold there own against the 16 bit Phase files, I really think this camera is something special a turning point in DSLR's
Marc
-
Thanks Marc...that's great to hear from someone that has both cameras! Just wonder when Nikon will start shipping more of these cameras....Eleanor
Eleanor
If you look at the "creamy smooth" (only kidding :) Eric) clouds in the above frames I think the 14 bit D800E files hold there own against the 16 bit Phase files, I really think this camera is something special a turning point in DSLR's
Marc
-
Eleanor, how impulsive are you prepared to be?
Translation: how many cameras do you really want to collect?
;-)
Rob C
-
Hi,
Thanks for sharing your images and experience. Also, congratulations to your fine set of Leica R lenses.
Regarding the creamyness of images I'm thinking about two effects, which may actually contradict each other.
1) An MF back has a larger sensor area, so it collects more photons. This would reduce shot noise which would dominate in highlights.
2) MF backs seem to be adjusted to underexpose a bit, according to some interpretation of DxO measurements. That would reduce clipping in highlights, but also increase shot noise.
A third factor is that a Phase One back used with C1 as raw converter has access to a lot of proprietary info from the back. (I think that each raw file contains about 1 MByte of calibration data).
Best regards
Erik
Eleanor
If you look at the "creamy smooth" (only kidding :) Eric) clouds in the above frames I think the 14 bit D800E files hold there own against the 16 bit Phase files, I really think this camera is something special a turning point in DSLR's
Marc
-
I've heard that MF backs use better and more expensive color filters which helps with color rendering, but probably some of you will know if that's true or not. Either way, I'm still seeing better color tonality on my MFDB's. Have a look at the flower shots on the post your nikon images section on the GetDpi forums - totally flat. Even my old 2004 vintage phase p20 did better.
-
Could this "creamy smoothness" look be due to the bigger sensor in MF backs compared to 35mm?
I recently sold my P30+ back. I did so because honestly, the difference was to small compared to the price difference. With 35mm I got lighter body, more lenses, speed, video and so on. The difference between MF and 35mm is much smaller now than it was in the past.
With that being said, I completely understand those who stick with MF. The DOF will always be more appealing with the bigger sensor.
-
Hi,
Miles Hecker has posted a comparison image with his Pentax 645D and a friends Nikon D3X. At that time it semt that the Pentax had better color. Question is, was it better or more correct? It's hard to know.
My understanding is that CGA may be more or less orthogonal, essentially meaning that the sensitivities of the sensels of different colors overlap less or more. I would guess that for natural color we need some overlap. The human vision has extensive overlap between M and L sensitivities, and I'd say we need overlap to reproduce some colors.
More orthogonal sensitvities may give better saturated color. I recall seeing characteristick curves for Velvia and those had very little overlap, while other films may have had more.
Best regards
Erik
I've heard that MF backs use better and more expensive color filters which helps with color rendering, but probably some of you will know if that's true or not. Either way, I'm still seeing better color tonality on my MFDB's. Have a look at the flower shots on the post your nikon images section on the GetDpi forums - totally flat. Even my old 2004 vintage phase p20 did better.
-
Dear Marc, congratulations - finally a sensible comparison with no biased bulls**t.
-
Regarding the creamyness of images I'm thinking about two effects, which may actually contradict each other.
1) An MF back has a larger sensor area, so it collects more photons. This would reduce shot noise which would dominate in highlights.
2) MF backs seem to be adjusted to underexpose a bit, according to some interpretation of DxO measurements. That would reduce clipping in highlights, but also increase shot noise.
I agree on (1): dynamic range measurements relate only to parts of the scene getting so little light that sensor dark noise roughly matches or exceeds photo shot noise, and does not inform us about SNR in better lit parts of the scene, where photon counts are what matters.
On (2), be careful: What you and DXO and many others refer to as underexposure is in fact simply a valid choice to position metered midtones in the raw files further down from maximum level, while still placing them at higher numerical levels in the 16-bit format than happens with a DSLR with 14-bit ADC output. For example, where a DSLR with 14-bit output might place the midtones at level 500, about three stops below the maximum level of 4095, a DMF back with 16-bit output might place the same level at 1000, about four stops below its maximum level of 16,383.
So long at the default raw-to-JPEG conversion knows about this, it can map these respective ADC levels to an appropriate gamma scaled level in JPEG, say 118, and is no evidence of underexposure: it is just a different decision about how to use ADC levels to encode the information. And with the DR well under 16 stops, a midtone placement at four of even five stops below that maximum of 2^16-1 = 16,383 is still placing the dark noise floor above the quantization noise level, so this choice of quantization is not adding significantly to the noise in the digital signal.
As pointed out in other threads, some "ISO-less sensors" could always use the same analog gain, so that each stop increase in exposure index setting would half exposure level and so half the ADC level of the midtones, and then the "DXO sensitivity" would be the same for all settings! And that would be right in the sense that these would simply be measurements of the base sensitivity of the senosr itself: the minimum safely usable exposure index to avoid blown highlights due to overful photosites. The DXO calibration of the exposure index settings on cameras ("ISO settings") is misusing an ISO12232 definition that is intended to measure that base sensitivity of a sensor ("base ISO speed"), which refers to exposure levels that saturate the photosites.
-
To my eye and in these images, the Phase is far better than the Nikon. So hard to know because the exposures, lighting at the moment etc. are not well controlled, but the look is very different. I wonder if part of that is the elusive CCD vs CMOS difference.
I would love to love the Nikon, but I just can't given what I have seen to date. That said, I fully agree that the Nikon sets a new standard at its price level.
-
Marc,
Thanks for the nice work in reviewing the Nikon. I was wondering what mount adapter you are using with the Leica R's? I know you can't just put an adapter on them like we can for Canon mounts.
Thanks.
-
With he IQ180, should the image of the 1:1 be twice the size as the nikon sample ? If you are changing lenses to match the FOV it's hard to see the resolving power differences between the two systems on the same scene. Could you shoot a test where each camera has the same field of view but only the image resolution is different and post 100% crops of each ?
-
Marc,
Thanks for the nice work in reviewing the Nikon. I was wondering what mount adapter you are using with the Leica R's? I know you can't just put an adapter on them like we can for Canon mounts.
Thanks.
I sent the zooms to Leitax to have the Nikon adapters installed very high quality
Marc
-
With he IQ180, should the image of the 1:1 be twice the size as the nikon sample ? If you are changing lenses to match the FOV it's hard to see the resolving power differences between the two systems on the same scene. Could you shoot a test where each camera has the same field of view but only the image resolution is different and post 100% crops of each ?
I did both, one shot at 70mm and a nother Nikon shot at approx 45mm the 3 crops were approx a crop of my screen at 100% one to see pixel for pixel what the Nikon could do and one to see for a given fov what it could do.
Marc
-
The D800E resolution looks great, but I have to admit that the IQ180 still has that subtle indication of depth that you only see in MF and larger formats. Maybe good processing can equalize the two, but if you compare the shots while looking at the building with the "P" on it and the ones on either side of it, you get a clear sense of which building is in front or in back of the others.
-
I sent the zooms to Leitax to have the Nikon adapters installed very high quality
Marc
They can also ship the parts for those willing to change the mount themselves. I did it recently with the Leica 180 f2.8 APO and will do another round next week with the 280 f4 APO.
Fairly easy to do in fact if you have basic screw driver skills and don't mind manipulating delicate parts. ;)
The better Leica R lenses will all become collector items, so it may be better not to throw away the original mount even if their value should end up being higher with a Nikon mount unless Leica decides to revive the R line up. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The D800E resolution looks great, but I have to admit that the IQ180 still has that subtle indication of depth that you only see in MF and larger formats. Maybe good processing can equalize the two, but if you compare the shots while looking at the building with the "P" on it and the ones on either side of it, you get a clear sense of which building is in front or in back of the others.
Are you sure that what you are seeing isn't just the effect of needing a longer focal length lens for the medium format format size) for the same angle of view ( if photos were shot from the same position?
-
Are you sure that what you are seeing isn't just the effect of needing a longer focal length lens for the medium format format size) for the same angle of view ( if photos were shot from the same position?
I don't know what the reason is, but I'd agree with Mike Yamin. No question the IQ 180 is the better image here. The d800 image looks flat compared to the one by the IQ 180. And it appears there are some big color differences too.
-
I don't know what the reason is, but I'd agree with Mike Yamin. No question the IQ 180 is the better image here. The d800 image looks flat compared to the one by the IQ 180. And it appears there are some big color differences too.
For the approx $39,000 difference bulge in my wallet difference I can live with the "flatness".
-
Hi,
On the smaller scale I do the same. With digital we have fast development and there is often development that improves our picture making technique. I have in 8 yars had a Konica Minolta Dimage 7, and a Sony Alpha 100, followed by the Alpha 700, Alpha 900, Alpha 55 SLT and now Alpha 77SLT.
The cameras were not always bought for image quality alone. I bought the Alpha 55SLT because it had live view, which I needed for focusing. The reason I got the Alpha 77 SLT was better user interface (read more buttons).
That said, I guess that the Alpha 700 is the camera I made my best pictures with.
Best regards
Erik
Eleanor, how impulsive are you prepared to be?
Translation: how many cameras do you really want to collect?
;-)
Rob C
-
Hi,
Thanks for publishing these images. To me it seems that the 70 mm lens is much better than the 45 mm. I also tried upscaling the 45 mm image to correspond to 70 mm (and resharpened). Se enclosed images.
Best regards
Erik
-
Are you sure that what you are seeing isn't just the effect of needing a longer focal length lens for the medium format format size) for the same angle of view ( if photos were shot from the same position?
I definitely think that adds to the look in a big way (maybe the only way?). Since MF inherently uses longer focal lengths to achieve the same angle of view from the same position, it will always be one step ahead in that respect. Another way of wording it that helps my understanding is that MF always allows you to be closer with a longer lens. Aside from stitching, there's no way to equalize that, and something like 4x5 takes the concept further still.
Even though it's a portrait and can't be directly compared to the images in this thread, here's a shot that really says "MF" to me: http://www.davideustace.com/photography/characterproject/files/page5-1008-full.html
The subject is clearly isolated and stands out from the background, but I can still count the boards on the broad side of the far building. Those subtle depth cues are something I only tend to see in MF shots.
For the approx $39,000 difference bulge in my wallet difference I can live with the "flatness".
Agreed! I'm just pointing out what I see.
-
For the approx $39,000 difference bulge in my wallet difference I can live with the "flatness".
Yeah but that's not what you'd actually pay if you were a smart shopper ;D Plus if you're working with it, you can deduct this from your taxes etc. so the price isn't exactly sunk. The IQ 180 used for your comparisons - was it yours? Will you sell it now?
Anyhow I don't mean to say the D800 isn't a fine camera, but I do believe there are areas like color and depth that the MFDB's still are superior.
-
They can also ship the parts for those willing to change the mount themselves. I did it recently with the Leica 180 f2.8 APO and will do another round next week with the 280 f4 APO.
Fairly easy to do in fact if you have basic screw driver skills and don't mind manipulating delicate parts. ;)
The better Leica R lenses will all become collector items, so it may be better not to throw away the original mount even if their value should end up being higher with a Nikon mount unless Leica decides to revive the R line up. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Just so no one is lead astray!....
1. The Leitax Leica R to Canon adapters are easily installed because they install over the existing Leica mount. It took less than 5 minutes to convert my 35-70 4.0
2. The Leitax Leica R to Nikon adapters can be installed at home ONLY on Leica R Primes. Not too difficult but you have to remove the Leica mount, on some lenses remove the baffle and be careful not to displace the small ball bearing by adding a dab of silicon grease. The only cautions are to mark the Leica adapter and the Nikon adapter for proper registration and some baffles need a bit of work getting the cams trough the slots on the baffle. I modified the 100mm Macro and the 280mm 4.0 about 30 minutes of work for each.
3. The Leica R zooms must be sent back to Leitax for David to install the Nikon adapters (not the Canon adapters) because the disassemble/reassembly is a bit more complicated, I had him modify the 21-35, 28-90 and 80-200 4.0
I hope you are now thoroughly confused!
Marc
-
Hi,
Thanks for publishing these images. To me it seems that the 70 mm lens is much better than the 45 mm. I also tried upscaling the 45 mm image to correspond to 70 mm (and resharpened). Se enclosed images.
Best regards
Erik
Same lens 28-90 R
Marc
-
I definitely think that adds to the look in a big way (maybe the only way?). Since MF inherently uses longer focal lengths to achieve the same angle of view from the same position, it will always be one step ahead in that respect. Another way of wording it that helps my understanding is that MF always allows you to be closer with a longer lens. Aside from stitching, there's no way to equalize that, and something like 4x5 takes the concept further still.
???
What does the focal length matter, we just adjust the picture angle to the sensor size by choosing the lens. If the pictures are taken from the same spot and framed identically the perspective is identical no matter what focal length is used in each case. Basic descriptive geometry. Physical impossibility to get different projections, the only difference is the quality of the lens.
-
Yeah but that's not what you'd actually pay if you were a smart shopper ;D Plus if you're working with it, you can deduct this from your taxes etc. so the price isn't exactly sunk. The IQ 180 used for your comparisons - was it yours? Will you sell it now?
Anyhow I don't mean to say the D800 isn't a fine camera, but I do believe there are areas like color and depth that the MFDB's still are superior.
Yes it is my IQ180 and the cost really is a bit more than $39k, the back I acquired by trading in my P45+ that I had bought privately at a good price (trade in value was 2X my initial cost} but the WRS plus 3 Rodenstock lenses (2 T/S) aren't cheap, plus an upgraded tripod/head etc etc. But that's the way technology is, it costs 10X for a 10% improvement at the high end it's not linear. Oh and no you can't pry my IQ180 or my D800E out of my hands!
The processing was just straight out of C1 with basic settings so color etc are very different nothing optimized, I was trying to post a comparison of resolution on both a pixel level (the D800E wins) and on a FOV level (the IQ180 wins).
Marc
PS I drive a 1995 Ford Explorer with 200k miles on it, nice car/cheap camera or nice camera/old car, everyone has their priorities.
-
Even though it's a portrait and can't be directly compared to the images in this thread, here's a shot that really says "MF" to me: http://www.davideustace.com/photography/characterproject/files/page5-1008-full.html
The subject is clearly isolated and stands out from the background, but I can still count the boards on the broad side of the far building. Those subtle depth cues are something I only tend to see in MF shots.
This is an interesting aspect. 135 digital with f/1.2 lenses can actually do shorter DOF than typical MF lenses, but I have realized that it is not ultra-short DOF that the MF look is about, it seems rather to be about a softer transition from in focus to out of focus in quite deep but not all-sharp DOFs, which provides a subtle layered 3D look. Possibly also better bokeh quality, due to that shorter DOF can be achieved with smaller apertures and thus less optical correction.
I don't know if it is true though, but now when D800 is up there resolution-wise it is something to investigate.
It can also be noted that the difference in size between 44x33 (IQ140) and 54x41 (IQ180) is similar to the difference between 36x24 (D800) and 44x33, that is a similar difference in this aspect would be noted between entry level MF and high end MF.
-
What does the focal length matter, we just adjust the picture angle to the sensor size by choosing the lens. If the pictures are taken from the same spot and framed identically the perspective is identical no matter what focal length is used in each case. Basic descriptive geometry. Physical impossibility to get different projections, the only difference is the quality of the lens.
It is not about perspective, it is about subtle differences in how depth of field behaves. I am myself not sure if it is so subtle that it is imagination rather than a real difference though, but something that I would like to find out eventually.
-
Hi Marc,
That's an interesting comparison. The results tend to confirm the accuracy and relevance of DXOMark tests. If one compares the graphs for the D800 with the IQ180, in screen mode, one is comparing pixel quality, as you are attempting to do with the two crops of images taken with the same lens at the same focal length.
Despite the IQ180 pixel being marginally larger than the D800 pixel (5.17 microns as opposed to 4.7 microns), the quality of the D800 pixel is as 'close as matters' in respect of SNR at 18%, Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity.
For example, the Color Sensitivity of the D800 pixel is described as being 22 bits. That of the IQ180 is 21.5 bits. In other words, the Color Sensitivity of the D800 is actually better by 0.5 bits. However, DXO state that a difference of less than 1 bit would likely not be noticeable. The values for Tonal Range and SNR at 18% are even closer.
But there's one glaring difference, and that's DR. The DR of the D800 pixel is claimed by DXO to be 1.34 EV better than the IQ180 pixel. That is a difference that should be clearly noticeable in a very high contrast scene.
If I have one criticism of your comparison, it would be that you haven't chosen a scene with some significant areas of deep shadow containing detail, so we could see if the D800 pixel really does have noticeably better DR. ;D
Cheers!
PS. The EXIF data is a bit puzzling. The IQ180 appears to have been shot at ISO 35 and 1/8th sec exposure. No mention of F stop. The D800E shot is at ISO 100, F2.8 and 1/500th sec exposure. What's going on here? Why the huge difference in exposure?
-
Hi Marc,
That's an interesting comparison. The results tend to confirm the accuracy and relevance of DXOMark tests. If one compares the graphs for the D800 with the IQ180, in screen mode, one is comparing pixel quality, as you are attempting to do with the two crops of images taken with the same lens at the same focal length.
Despite the IQ180 pixel being marginally larger than the D800 pixel (5.17 microns as opposed to 4.7 microns), the quality of the D800 pixel is as 'close as matters' in respect of SNR at 18%, Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity.
For example, the Color Sensitivity of the D800 pixel is described as being 22 bits. That of the IQ180 is 21.5 bits. In other words, the Color Sensitivity of the D800 is actually better by 0.5 bits. However, DXO state that a difference of less than 1 bit would likely not be noticeable. The values for Tonal Range and SNR at 18% are even closer.
But there's one glaring difference, and that's DR. The DR of the D800 pixel is claimed by DXO to be 1.34 EV better than the IQ180 pixel. That is a difference that should be clearly noticeable in a very high contrast scene.
If I have one criticism of your comparison, it would be that you haven't chosen a scene with some significant areas of deep shadow containing detail, so we could see if the D800 pixel really does have noticeably better DR. ;D
Cheers!
PS. The EXIF data is a bit puzzling. The IQ180 appears to have been shot at ISO 35 and 1/8th sec exposure. No mention of F stop. The D800E shot is at ISO 100, F2.8 and 1/500th sec exposure. What's going on here? Why the huge difference in exposure?
None of the exif data is valid The 70mm Rodenstock HR is a "technical Lens" no electronic connection to the camera, I set the IQ180 to its base ISO 35. For the D800E I set it at base ISO 100 and used a Leica R lens that is not "chipped" again no valid exif data transferred to the camera. The only accurate data would be ISO and shutter speed on the Nikon. I manually set f5.6 on both lenses and ETTR'd
Marc
-
None of the exif data is valid The 70mm Rodenstock HR is a "technical Lens" no electronic connection to the camera, I set the IQ180 to its base ISO 35. For the D800E I set it at base ISO 100 and used a Leica R lens that is not "chipped" again no valid exif data transferred to the camera. The only accurate data would be ISO and shutter speed on the Nikon. I manually set f5.6 on both lenses and ETTR'd
Marc
Okay! I understand. I experienced a similar situation using a Nikon/Canon adapter on my 5D. Now, to complete the comparison, all you need to do is reshoot a very high contrast scene with lots of deep shadow detail. ;D
-
As stated by the OP, this is comparing apples to Grapefruit! I am much more interested in seeing what the best can be obtained from each captured file. Using some type of minimal default to compare the two captures is at best a waste of time.
The perspective is also a bit off and does affect the comparison photos. After all the color corrections, lens corrections and post processing can we really begin to compare what can be achieved with these files. These are only data that have been collected. What happens after the data collection is much more important than this simple comparison.
-
It is not about perspective, it is about subtle differences in how depth of field behaves. I am myself not sure if it is so subtle that it is imagination rather than a real difference though, but something that I would like to find out eventually.
Making the assumption that a "normal" angle of view focal length lens for the IQ 180 is a 100mm lens and for the D800 is a 50mm, and we are photographing a subject subject with depth at somewhat less than "infinite" distance for either lens, and using the same ISO, shutter speed, and f-stop, the depth of field with the 100mm will be shallower at all f-stops than with the 50mm. You could also see this if you use both a 50mm and the 100mm lens on the IQ180 camera and crop the photo shot with the 50 down to the same angle of view the full frame 100mm lens records.
-
As stated by the OP, this is comparing apples to Grapefruit! I am much more interested in seeing what the best can be obtained from each captured file. Using some type of minimal default to compare the two captures is at best a waste of time.
The perspective is also a bit off and does affect the comparison photos. After all the color corrections, lens corrections and post processing can we really begin to compare what can be achieved with these files. These are only data that have been collected. What happens after the data collection is much more important than this simple comparison.
When I have a chance I'll give it a try probably this summer though when I'm back in Hawaii with some good subject material. Problem is if you start optimizing too much where does personal taste take over? But at the least I think C1 favors Phase files better to use Camera raw for comparisons and I should do some color correction. The bottom line here is that the D800E is an excellent DSLR that at the least intrudes into MFDB territory and is the first DSLR who's image quality doesn't leave me wanting.
Marc
-
I was curious as to the difference in image quality between the 12MP APS-C sensor equipped D300 and the 12MP full frame sensor equipped D3. I shot a series of images using the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II lens of an adult sea lion at a distance of roughly 50 feet. Comparing the two images there was more "detail" captured by the D3 and it showed as more tonal variation in the animal's fur. The collapsing in part of the tones by the D300 resulted in lost detail.
Comparing the D800 to a MF or digital back I would want to do a similar test using lenses that provided roughly equal levels of image magnification.
I found Jim Brandenburg's comments regarding the D800 to be very interesting. He stated that he felt that the D800 goes beyond the territory of the MF camera and approaches that of a 4x5 camera and he was referring in part to an extremely large print he had recently made using a file from the D800.
-
Marc, thanks again for taking the time to do these shots. On these two shots, while the 800e shot looks sharper (but with color fringing also), the Phase One file looks much much smoother color wise and tonally to me. In this one I could pick out the Phase file right away. Eleanor
#1 correct
#2 Digaron-W 70mm & Leica 28-90 f2.8-4.5R
(according to Erwin Puts 1. the "good" Leica R zooms are sharper than the Leica R primes which are the equal of Leica M primes, and 2. the slower zooms that I have are the equal of the 2.8 zooms when stopped down. The reasoning is with more design flexibility in moving the elements in a zoom you can exceed the performance of a prime. Who am I to question the Tao of Puts!) but both at f5.6 and f8.0 the D800E/Leica is sharper than the IQ180/WRS/Rodenstock HR!
Marc
the next step is to verify infinity focus since the WRS does not allow you to shim the back but the lenses were calibrated to the WRS at the Cambo factory.
-
Hi Eleanor,
Just a comment...
To me the Phase One shot seems to be sharpest of the three. The 45 mm crop does show fringing, and a healthy amount of Moiré and also shows some fringing, which I don't see in the 70 mm crop.
I'm somewhat confused that the 70 mm crop is so much better than the 45 mm crop, at least IMHO.
I'd suggest that Marc can improve a lot on color rendering from the D800E shots, and I don't presume that his IQ180 will be put to pasture for a long time.
Best regards
Erik
Marc, thanks again for taking the time to do these shots. On these two shots, while the 800e shot looks sharper (but with color fringing also), the Phase One file looks much much smoother color wise and tonally to me. In this one I could pick out the Phase file right away. Eleanor
-
The biggest advantage I see on the IQ180 is the accuracy of the auto WB in C1 relative to the D800E. The price difference is huge.
-
I don't know what the reason is, but I'd agree with Mike Yamin. No question the IQ 180 is the better image here. The d800 image looks flat compared to the one by the IQ 180. And it appears there are some big color differences too.
Yes I think so too, the more you look the bigger the difference. I wonder if this difference is the same with all DMF backs or do you need the 180 big boy to get it. If it's a ccd thing does the Leica M have it? The difference looks so big I just wonder if the lighting change a lot as the clouds have moved on out of sight from one picture to the other. We have no idea what is happening to the lighting out of scene, there could easily be less light bouncing around to light the shadows.
Kevin.
-
Yeah, Kevin, I wondered too if the lighting had changed enough to impact the look. One could probably figure that out by comparing exposure data - for example if a cloud was behind the sun in one of the shots and not the other.
-
shot within 5 minutes of each other but C1 doesn't have the same color settings available for the D800 as they have for the IQ180 (I think they favor their own products)
Marc
-
So what happens on the D800E shot when you move the white balance slider to the same number as the IQ180? Or just pick 5000k as a starting point.
-
I had shot both with WB set to daylight and processed them in C1 with daylight settings. I don't have C1 in front of me but there was no "film standard" selection for the D800 just linear. tomorrow is a day off I'll shoot a few more examples. Perhaps Camera RAW would be a less "prejudiced" converter not favoring the IQ180?
Again not trying to compare apples to apples just amazed at the resolution possible with a DSLR and the Leica lenses.
Marc
-
DR test
labeled them A and B, C1 shadows & Highlight sliders 100%, focus fixer .7
Marc
-
Both same FOV, f5.6
3D effect
Marc
-
Color, C1 daylight, PS color balanced on 18% grey
Marc
-
Flowers @ f8
-
The 180 is better in lots of ways but its closer than the price difference should allow. The background on the 180 has gone stripy, the Nikon shot does not look like it should be like that in the out of focus areas. For that one reason on this subject shot as it is I would pick the Nikon as nicer on the eye. The 180 has more colour depth and a bit more resolution.
Kevin.
-
Te difference looks quite big on the colour charts, "B" (I presume the 180) looks a lot nicer, "A" looks washed out in comparison.
Kevin.
-
Hi,
I spent some time looking at the flower crops. The two crops are very close, and I would have difficulty to say which I prefer. The IQ180 seems to be a bit crisper on the yellow petals (?). Anyway very close indeed!
Regardig the DR it is quite obvious that Marc has extracted quite a bit more shadow detail in the D800E image. The IQ seems to have some clipping in the sky, so I assume that exposure was quite optimal.
I would also suggest that the test images are very well chosen and executed. A great lot of thanks to Marc for sharing his experience, and supporting it with substantial images.
Best regards
Erik
Flowers @ f8
-
Any chance you could make the RAW files available?
There is a slight but obvious focus difference between the shots. In the IQ shot, the red flower petals sticking forward turn soft. However, the amount of detail difference in the flower center is quite apparent, and the IQ shots seems to render a deeper colorsaturation curve and better separation of color. I wonder whether the latter is merely attributable to a different color profile, or whether it is a bitdepth issue.
Oddly enough, it looks as if the D800 reproduces better texture, but that may be due to the focus difference.
-
It's really hard to focus the technical lenses up close focusing differences are due to the D800's good live view and the IQ180's poor liveview
Marc
-
Last time I tried to make raws available through yousendit it didn't work maybe file size? But if you have a way for me to share the raws sure
Marc
-
Last time I tried to make raws available through yousendit it didn't work maybe file size? But if you have a way for me to share the raws sure
Marc
Have you tried DropBox (https://www.dropbox.com/)?
You don't have to install anything, they also allow uploading via your browser.
-
It's really hard to focus the technical lenses up close focusing differences are due to the D800's good live view and the IQ180's poor liveview
Marc
Okay, got that.
It's interesting because where the IQ image is sharp, it is significantly sharper than the D800 image, but that is probably a lens issue. (Combined with larger sensels vs D800 etc). I do seem to detect some colorfringing in the IQ image. Don't know whether this is lens or sensor.
Purely on the tonal rendition in these images alone, it is clear that these are not in the same league. Perhaps not a 10x price difference league, but certainly, and quite visibly also not in the "massage the D800 image into IQ image in post" difference.
(I believe it was mentioned before, but the price difference may also include on-site dealer support, replacement backs etc, in which case it is obviously not relevant for iq comparison).
-
Looking at the color checkers it seems like at least one of the cameras is producing not-so-accurate colors, color rendering is quite different for many of the colors. The more saturated look of the D800 makes me believe it is less accurate, but it is hard to know without having the reference color checker.
-
Have you tried DropBox (https://www.dropbox.com/)?
You don't have to install anything, they also allow uploading via your browser.
Great dropbox public links to a few raw files!
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/CF000678.IIQ
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/CF000690.IIQ
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/DSC_0557.NEF
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/DSC_0579.NEF
Marc
-
Converted these with Camera Raw
-
That's better, Marc. Your previous crops both had severely clipped shadows. One can now see more clearly that the D800E shot is cleaner in the darkest parts of the foliage, although the differences could be more dramatic if one were to choose a different scene with a larger area of dark shade containing more detail.
Thanks for taking the trouble to post these.
-
Hi,
Just tested with LR4.1. DR image just pressing "auto". Shadows on D800E image much cleaner at the pixel level.
Would you also be kind to post the "color checker images"?
Best regards
Erik
Great dropbox public links to a few raw files!
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/CF000678.IIQ
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/CF000690.IIQ
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/DSC_0557.NEF
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/DSC_0579.NEF
Marc
-
Hi,
Just tested with LR4.1. DR image just pressing "auto". Shadows on D800E image much cleaner at the pixel level.
Would you also be kind to post the "color checker images"?
Best regards
Erik
I just started a 5 day trip when I return I'll post them
Marc
-
Thank you so much for your hard work on this. Amazing how close they are to each other overall, considering price.
-
Thank you so much for your hard work on this. Amazing how close they are to each other overall, considering price.
Your welcome it's a nice way to get familiar with a new camera and figure out how to get the most out of it.
Marc
-
it is time to adjust the gravitational coefficient
-
More RAWs
Marc
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/CF000681.IIQ
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/CF000685.IIQ
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/DSC_0565.NEF
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82427039/DSC_0575.NEF
-
Hi Marc,
Thanks for posting the "Color Checker" images. I tried to build a DNG profile for both the IQ180 and the D800 using the Xrite Passport software. The Color Checker DC you used contains also the normal color checker patches. I checked out the flower image with both the Adobe Standard profile and the one I generated, they were very similar, except in the yellows. (Before/After sample)
I also tried to generate a corresponding profile for the IQ180, but the X-rite software blow up, out of memory. Will look a bit more when back from vacation.
My impression from what I have seen this far is that the D800E seems to be an excellent value for the price if the owner strives for image quality. The IQ180 has more pixels and it shows. I assume that both equipments need excellent technique to extract maximum performance.
Nikon owners are now lucky enough to have a very affordable high resolution camera.
Thanks a lot for sharing experience and images, I just wish more MFDB owners would do that!
I hope that enjoy your flight with the D800E!
Best regards
Erik
I just started a 5 day trip when I return I'll post them
Marc
-
I hope that enjoy your flight with the D800E!
Erik
I will! if you have any other shots in mind let me know
I think the D800E is having fun too!
Marc
-
Hi,
That's what I call a viewfinder! have you seen any nice subjects lately?
Best regards
Erik
Erik
I will! if you have any other shots in mind let me know
I think the D800E is having fun too!
Marc
-
Hi,
Marc posted the original raw files for the CC DC shots. The DC version of Color Checker contains the original CC-patches, too, so I could make a camera calibration. Unfortunately Adobe's DNG Profile Editor would not accept the Nikon image (because of slight overexposure) and the Color Checker Passport software failed on the IQ180 file, because of size. So I made calibration with two different tools.
After calibration I adjusted the white patch to 95% and the black patch to about 20% which I think is about the normal values.
The screen dumps shows the standard CC patches. I also added a calculated color checker image from the Bruce Lindblom site. That is the correct colors. Lightroom will normally render all colors to "vivid" and add some "S-curve". I don't know how to do scene referred rendering in LR PV 2012, unfortunately. I will be back with some more analysis, using Imatest.
Best regards
Erik
-
Update: figures remade with correct RGB
Hi!
My first try of scene referred rendition using Imatest. I'm not very experienced on this so I may have made some mistakes.
Best regards
Erik
-
The color errors in deltaE indeed seem very large, much larger than the deltaE one sees when calibrating a screen for example. Perhaps some problem somewhere in the process? Or maybe cameras really are this bad?
-
Hi!
I just updated with new figures (wrong color space was used), sorry.
Will look more into the issues in the coming days...
Update: Cameras are pretty bad. This depends on striving for pleasant color, thus increasing saturation. I tried to achive scene referred rendition, but may have failed.
Best regards
Erik
-
Update: Cameras are pretty bad. This depends on striving for pleasant color, thus increasing saturation. I tried to achive scene referred rendition, but may have failed.
Dxomark too makes some check of color accuracy, and your differences between the cameras seem larger than what they come up with.
What's interesting to know is what the difference between these cameras are after profiling. Does the IQ180 actually have better color rendition or not? So far it seems the answer is yes. If a camera has issues with the color filters there can be lots of metamerism and be impossible to correct color with a profile.
It may also be the case that manufacturers have optimized the filters to be good for "important" colors, say skin tones, and let them be less accurate in other colors. It would be interesting to investigate such differences too, i e which colors are accurate and which are not.
I don't think Lightroom is a very good tool to make evaluations though. I have got the sense that Capture One cares more about accuracy and Lightroom more about a "pleasing look". If you use RawTherapee you can get truly neutral renditions if you want, even without gamma curve.
-
Thanks for suggesting RawTherapy!
Best regards
Erik
-
I don't quite understand the importance of 'colour accuracy' - at least for landscape photography.
I mean, every time I put a polariser in front of my lens, or do almost any sort of postprocessing, or select a different white balance point, the colour changes anyway.
I can see how it would matter if you were designing a scanner or reproducing artwork, but for photography?
-
I don't quite understand the importance of 'colour accuracy' - at least for landscape photography.
I mean, every time I put a polariser in front of my lens, or do almost any sort of postprocessing, or select a different white balance point, the colour changes anyway.
I can see how it would matter if you were designing a scanner or reproducing artwork, but for photography?
That's my situation re. my 'mountain' pics that are showing their noses on 'Prejudice' at the moment: they were all shot through a Nikon Polariser which I didn't remove even when shooting almost into the light for the simple reason that there was nowhere scratch-proof to stick it had it been removed. Unfortunately, some of the effects of using it appear to be different on digital to what I'd have expected with Kodachrome or Velvia, especially in skies, which don't seem to get just darker, but with an odd tone of colour - greyish - that's difficult to change and not make worse. Maybe another time - should there be one - I'll stick with the Skylight filter.
Rob C
-
I don't quite understand the importance of 'colour accuracy' - at least for landscape photography.
I mean, every time I put a polariser in front of my lens, or do almost any sort of postprocessing, or select a different white balance point, the colour changes anyway.
I can see how it would matter if you were designing a scanner or reproducing artwork, but for photography?
I tend to agree. I have never worried much about color accuracy. However, if you are a portrait photographer you probably want nice skin tones, and accurate colors is a good start, I guess. It is also about how many colors that can be registered. If two slightly different colors are registered by the sensor as the same color (metamerism), then no color profiling can restore them accurately.
It is also think it is interesting to investigate this property since it may be one area that MF still has a lead. And if it can be shown that D800 is as good as the IQ180 also in color, then it is also an interesting result.
-
I tend to agree. I have never worried much about color accuracy. However, if you are a portrait photographer you probably want nice skin tones, and accurate colors is a good start, I guess. It is also about how many colors that can be registered. If two slightly different colors are registered by the sensor as the same color (metamerism), then no color profiling can restore them accurately.
It is also think it is interesting to investigate this property since it may be one area that MF still has a lead. And if it can be shown that D800 is as good as the IQ180 also in color, then it is also an interesting result.
When I first got my P30 and converted files using C1 the foliage was a bit pea green compared to my 5D/DxO so I took a day shooting my front yard with both and ended up with 2 curves the 5D green channel reduced a bit and the P30 green channel increased a bit both looked more accurate and pleasing afterwards.
Marc