Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: FredBGG on September 20, 2012, 12:33:06 am
-
Last week I had a discussion with a client about a shoot for a Billboard.
The other photographer that was bidding (and did not get the job)
had told the client that they would shoot 50MP digital for the Billboard shots.
The client brought this up and appeared to be somewhat convinced that
it was necessary.
I assured the client that it was not necessary and that Billboards are actually quite low res
and are viewed at a distance.
A quick call to the billboard company and here are the specs...
Work scale needs to be set to 1:12 at 300 dpi
Delivery file size comes out to 3,600 x 1800 px for a 6'x12' billboard.
D800 at 7,360 x 4,912 is just fine.
Client also brought up 14x48ft digital billboard.
The spec for that is 1408x384 px
I also pointed out that Billboards are very horizontal and that MF sensors have a 4x5 aspect ratio while 35mm cameras have a 3x2 aspect ratio that is closer to the 1x2 aspect ratio
of most billboards.
So even if we wanted to be sticklers the actual difference is....
8176x4088 for the 50mp sensor
7360x3680 for the 36mp sensor
The percentage difference is 11%
So once this is down sampled that 11% becomes totally irrelevant.
But what really sealed the deal is that some electronic billboards permit some animation.
So I told the client that we could shoot uncompressed video with dress waving and wind in the hair
just in case the opportunity of motion came up. Still shooting stills, but moving stills...
This is another reason why this Hasselblad wording did not go down well with me.
A Hasselblad camera is not a reward for having achieved a successful career. A Hasselblad camera is the tool with which you build your successful career to begin with.
There is never any time like the present to start building for the future. And if you think 35mm is good enough for this stage of your career, then you’d better hope that your clients are also willing to settle for “good enough”. The best clients, however, are almost never willing to settle for “good enough”. And why should they, when there are photographers out there who can provide the best? And providing the best is what Hasselblad and the new H5D are all about.
-
For some reason this reminded me of Sunset Boulevard.
-
Fred,
I'm trying to figure out what you are doing on the MF and Large sensor forum really. Are you working for Nikon? ;)
I mean if you are trying to convince the bulk of us that own and shoot with MFDB's to dump our gear all at once, just so you can pick one up on the cheap it isn't going to work. You'll have a lot better luck convincing us all to pick up a Fuji system. :D So far those are the more compelling images you've posted. Actually I don't think you've posted any thing but test images from the nikon but speaking of, I'm still waiting to see your pimped out Nikuji 800 tilt shift camera.
and I'm mostly just joking around with you ... 'K ;)
-
Hi Fred,
Totally agree with your comments, my clients do not give a dame what camera I use.
I had a image I took with a Nikon D3x horizontal cropped into a vertical 14 meter billboard and it was awesome and never a complaint from the client.
I find Hasselbald’s marketing crap to be insulting as I do work for some of the biggest consumer names in the world and none of them or there agencies have ever asked me if I shot with a Hasselblad.
It interesting about the video thing. I was shooting a well know celeb for Unicef and after the stills where done the art director pulled out his iphone and asked if he could do a web video. I laughed and told him that my Nikon D800E also shot video and I would be happy to do it for him so using the modelling lamp on my Bowens flash and a couple of Dedo’s I shot my first video ever. All good fun.
Cheers
Simon
-
Fred,
I'm trying to figure out what you are doing on the MF and Large sensor forum really. Are you working for Nikon? ;)
I mean if you are trying to convince the bulk of us that own and shoot with MFDB's to dump our gear all at once, just so you can pick one up on the cheap it isn't going to work. You'll have a lot better luck convincing us all to pick up a Fuji system. :D So far those are the more compelling images you've posted. Actually I don't think you've posted any thing but test images from the nikon but speaking of, I'm still waiting to see your pimped out Nikuji 800 tilt shift camera.
and I'm mostly just joking around with you ... 'K ;)
I can't finish my pimped out Nikuji tilt shift because Hasselblad's Lunar development team bought all the whales penis skin leather there was on the market. ;) :D
I'm not trying to get people to dump their gear so I can by it cheap... actually when it comes to buying and selling gear I don't look out for my interests before another photographers. Just recently a guy was asking me about buying a Fuji 250mm I had for sale.... I ended up refering him to a better deal and he got it for less money... I still have the one I'm selling.....
Not working for Nikon ...
To me it's about photographers... in particular the new comers... I like to give them my point of view ... that of a photographer ... not a dealer, fan boy or manufacturer ;)
-
Hi Fred,
....
I find Hasselbald’s marketing crap to be insulting as I do work for some of the biggest consumer names in the world and none of them or there agencies have ever asked me if I shot with a Hasselblad.
....
Cheers
Simon
I shoot mainly celebrities now.. A-list actors, Politicians, Rock stars, Comedians etc etc
They and their people don't question what I shoot with either.
-
I can't finish my pimped out Nikuji tilt shift because Hasselblad's Lunar development team bought all the whales penis skin leather there was on the market. ;) :D
This cracked me up sitting here late at night. You summed up the Lunar's essence quite well (phallus enhancer from outer space). Thanks Fred.
-
GREAT another boring topic about d800 vs DMF ....yes he all have to sell all the DMF cameras because 35mm its cheap and have the same quality....
AND IF IN THE FUTURE IF THE IPHONE HAVE THE SAME QUALITY OF THE 35MM CAMERAS...HE HAVE TO SELL ALL 35MM CAMERA GEAR AND JUST SHOOT WITH THE PHONE !!!
MAYBE IN THAT FUTURE FRED TIF HE CLIENT HAVE THE SAME CAMERA THAT YOU HAVE, HE CAN DO THE PHOTO SHOOT FOR YOU...
-
Hm, Pedro, I think you came to strange conclusions after reading Fred. I think his message is the opposite- that the person behind the camera is what is important, rather than equipment distinguishing us.
And when it comes to equipment talk, Fred is always praising a Fuji which is an example of MF camera isn't it :) He's in the right place.
Wait, Fuji.. but Fuji... Hasselblad... hmm. I think Fred has a complex plan of making us buy a Hassy in a long run
;)
-
Fred,
I'm trying to figure out what you are doing on the MF and Large sensor forum really. Are you working for Nikon? ;)
I mean if you are trying to convince the bulk of us that own and shoot with MFDB's to dump our gear all at once, just so you can pick one up on the cheap it isn't going to work. You'll have a lot better luck convincing us all to pick up a Fuji system. :D So far those are the more compelling images you've posted. Actually I don't think you've posted any thing but test images from the nikon but speaking of, I'm still waiting to see your pimped out Nikuji 800 tilt shift camera.
and I'm mostly just joking around with you ... 'K ;)
With all due respect to FredBGG, it does seem that the general thrust of his posts is that DSLR is good enough and that there really isn't enough difference for MFD work. That's a viewpoint, and it even can be supported, although I don't agree with it. I did a shoot of an art install (Leaf back) and compared with those done by a longtime pro using 7D - and those looked like they were shot through some clean but smokey windows compared to the Leaf. Glass matters too.
All to say that FredBGG's thoughts and approach aren't necessarily wrong - but they just seem oddly located here. I'd follow up with Eric's question with "what points are you trying to make, and why here?".
-
... AND IF IN THE FUTURE...
PEDRO, I THINK YOU QUITE CORRECTLY PREDICTED THE FUTURE ;)
-
Absolutely. Billboards, positioned hundreds of feet from the viewer, simply do not require high resolution.
Resolution requirements are much higher for in-store displays, subway ads*, bus station ads*, multi-purposed images (e.g. using one master image for horizontals pano crop, tall vertical crop), and other large prints which will be viewed close by the consumer. This is especially true when typography or other vector art will be placed in close proximity, since those elements are inherently sharp in most print methods regardless of the print size.
I just walked by a subway ad this morning in Herald Square and the images used were of such dreadful resolution that they were fuzzy even from 6 feet away - yet they were placed in a space where people are physically forced to walk within inches. It was the opposite of immersive - the ad caught my eye from across the way and I wanted to see more of the clothing (ok, in reality I wanted to see more of the cute model) and as I got physically closer to the ad my viewing experience got worse, not better.
And of course if asked for a certain resolution on a project that does not seem to require it, if you own that camera then no need to go to great lengths to educate your client that they don't need the resolution. So this is most important to know for those with lower resolution cameras, especially those who used to own a higher res camera and have since down graded and so have to fight to educate their clients that it's really not necessary. :-)
*When printing will be high quality - this varies a LOT by region/city, if it will be crappy newspaper quality printing the resolution requirements are much lower.
-
I've used my H3D2-39 for a billboard knowing full well I could have used a point and shoot and not have seen the difference from the highway. So if you are talking about billboards, no special cameras are needed. But imagine how my client would feel if I used a P&S for the photography. Lol. Perception is very important as is the client's experience with you. Billboards (and web images) have little to do with how a large print will look on a wall.
-
True: Some "clients" don't know nothing about photography. (NOT ALL)
False: The Megapixels and Raw file of the D800 or D800E can be compared to the Megapixels and Raw file of a MFDB.
You see the Bit Depth is a huge difference between the 14-Bits of D800(E) and the 16-Bits of a MFDB
Not to mention Sensor Size, depth of field control, etc etc.
I have shoot with a D800E, and own a little much less megapixels Aptus 22 and although the Nikon image is bigger, the quality is not compared to the Leaf file. Now if your client does not know the difference, good for you.
You could try to shoot now with the phone Nokia 808 that comes out with 41 Megapixels in a sensor that is less than your fingernail big.
I am glad that Nikon and Canon (and Nokia) are getting big MegaPix, it won't be long until everyone realizes how different an image from MF is. (again)
-
way back when a p25 was the biggest back available lots of 48sheets were printed with those files. 20-24mp is fine for posters that size.
the only area where 35mm is pushed is things like adshels where the viewer gets close to the print, i bet joe public has never pondered the file size or quality when looking at the ad. they are probably more concerned with how long they have to wait for a bus.
-
i bet joe public has never pondered the file size or quality when looking at the ad. they are probably more concerned with how long they have to wait for a bus.
Just because a viewer can't articulate or identify why an ad is compelling does not change the reality that it is.
For many ads the resolution/clarity/detail will be very low on the list of factors that make it successful or not. For instance a generic shot of two people walking hand-in-hand into the sunset, used to sell insurance, likely won't benefit from additional resolution/clarity/detail. In fact a lower level of detail may further the viewers ability to mentally interject themselves as the individual portrayed ("hey that could be me walking happily into the sunset of my life").
In other ads the resolution/clarity/detail will play a big role in the viewing experience - regardless of whether the viewer can articulate or identify that as a factor in their viewing experience. An ad for a spa resort hotel in Cancun will be more effective if - in addition to excellent composition/color/lighting/scene-choice/perspective-choice - the scene portrayed is vibrant with immersive details and makes the viewer feel as if they are already at the place portrayed. An ad for a designer hand bag which, in part, sells it's brand by asserting that it's attention to detail ("hand stitching", "xyz luxery materials", "meticulously designed") - additional detail on those components will further the argument of the ad.
When detail is important to the message of an image, and print quality of the advertisement allows for it's exhibition, a camera that provides that detail, is an important part of the process of that ad.
-
way back when a p25 was the biggest back available lots of 48sheets were printed with those files.
And back in the H5 days many were printed from those 6mp files. But I wouldn't use that as an argument regarding what is and is not enough in today's world for any given application.
I also don't think that the stated/spec'd resolution of any given camera is - by itself - a very strong indication of what level/look of detail the final image will provide. Lens, sensor type, lens, aliasing filter, lens, technique, lens, and software all matter quite a bit - all 22mp files are NOT the same.
-
"When detail is important to the message of an image, and print quality of the advertisement allows for it's exhibition, a camera that provides that detail, is an important part of the process of that ad."
absolutely. but as has been stated above the thumbnail splodges that make up a 48sheet and it's splodge dimensions only require a file of the same dimensions.
-
You see the Bit Depth is a huge difference between the 14-Bits of D800(E) and the 16-Bits of a MFDB
All the backs are 14 bit. The last two bits are empty, so its not bit depth.
-
For many ads the resolution/clarity/detail will be very low on the list of factors that make it successful or not. For instance a generic shot of two people walking hand-in-hand into the sunset, used to sell insurance, likely won't benefit from additional resolution/clarity/detail. In fact a lower level of detail may further the viewers ability to mentally interject themselves as the individual portrayed ("hey that could be me walking happily into the sunset of my life").
Damn! Just when I thought you'd articulated a winning a argument you blew it!
Nobody walks happily into the sunset of their life; they fight like hell to avoid getting anywhere near setting suns!
Worst bit of psychology I've bumped into in a long time.
;-)
Rob C
-
All the backs are 14 bit. The last two bits are empty, so its not bit depth.
There is a huge difference, I shoot with a D800E and several lenses like 24-70, prime 85, among others.
And I shoot a 22 Mpx Aptus with an RZ with the 110 & 180.
The amount of information that can be pulled out of the raw files is completely different.
And to retouch I prefeer the Leaf Raw file any day.
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/
-
There is a huge difference...
The amount of information that can be pulled out of the raw files is completely different.
And to retouch I prefeer the Leaf Raw file any day...
When it comes to opinions, preferences and impressions, everybody is entitled to them, and so are you. But that does not hide the fact that you have no clue whatsoever when it comes to 14-bit vs. 16-bit debate. Linking to an article about working in 16-bit vs. 8-bit in Photoshop only proves your ignorance in that respect (hint: these are two entirely different matters). But that is not entirely your fault. MFDB industry depends on peddling myths like that.
-
Nobody walks happily into the sunset of their life; they fight like hell to avoid getting anywhere near setting suns!
Worst bit of psychology I've bumped into in a long time.
Lots of famous people have spent their last words commenting on how lovely it is to walk into the sunset of their life.
This is the last sunset! I am content.
~~ John Quincy Adams, US President, d. February 21, 1848
Is everybody wearing their sandals? I want everybody to be wearing their sandals. I know I'm wearing mine.
~~ Ethel Barrymore, actress, d. June 18, 1959
Friends get your swimtrunks, the comedy is finished.
~~ Ludwig van Beethoven, composer, d. March 26, 1827
Beautiful colors.
~~ Elizabeth Barrett Browning, writer, d. June 28, 1861
I am not the least afraid of the sunset.
~~ Charles Darwin, d. April 19, 1882
Why not? Yeah. I've got my sunglasses on.
~~ Timothy Leary, d. May 31, 1996
But I take it you agreed with my general point, philosophical differences aside?
-
Why don't you put an informative link instead of slamming harsh words. Too much splashing for a little cannon shooter. Calling people ignorant really make you no much better. Anyone knows files from MFDB are much better than little cannons or nikons. Therefor industry professional legends use them. Because they are simply the best. I used 35mm for long time and even an ignorant like me can see the difference.
-
Lots of famous people have spent their last words commenting on how lovely it is to walk into the sunset of their life.
This is the last sunset! I am content.
~~ John Quincy Adams, US President, d. February 21, 1848
Is everybody wearing their sandals? I want everybody to be wearing their sandals. I know I'm wearing mine.
~~ Ethel Barrymore, actress, d. June 18, 1959
Friends get your swimtrunks, the comedy is finished.
~~ Ludwig van Beethoven, composer, d. March 26, 1827
Beautiful colors.
~~ Elizabeth Barrett Browning, writer, d. June 28, 1861
I am not the least afraid of the sunset.
~~ Charles Darwin, d. April 19, 1882
Why not? Yeah. I've got my sunglasses on.
~~ Timothy Leary, d. May 31, 1996
But I take it you agreed with my general point, philosophical differences aside?
Ageed with your photographic point, but have no faith in those claiming to welcome the end as in finis!
But then, if you're famous, it's incumbent upon you to go out with (or pretend to go out with) a memorable quip. I've been thinking of mine, but can't quite get it together, possibly because I suspect that once I do, there will be little reason to hang around longer. After all, it's the apogee for all of us - once written, what's left to do?
Best just to keep working on it.
Rob C
-
Julio,
Nice work on your website. It's been a bit rough on the forums lately ( and I'm as guilty as anyone). Don't take it personally. I'm in agreement with you on the MFDB files being superior but the bit depth issue is tricky. MFDB makers may use 16 bit electronics to digitize the electron count but its likely that not all bits are used. That doesn't mean 14 bit or 12 bit analog to digital converters are just the same as 16 bit - its a good bet that the 16 bit electronics are better but its hard to say. There are a few people that probably know all the differences really well, but without their input its just safer to say that the MF files are superior. Mostly its people that don't use MFDB that want to continue to argue these points. Even for billboards, the look of the image will be different so not counting pixels, there still is a different look and of course the color differences.
Eric
-
Eric:
That makes more sense. Thank you so much for taking time to look at my humble work. I have really just started working professionally 2 years ago, and I know there is still much to learn and practice. Perhaps I went off repeating nonsense I probably read on some reviews. There are video comparations about the bit depth comparations between a MFDB (hasselblad) and a D800E, and they show how much more information a MFDB captures on their raw files compared to any 35mm dslr. I have seen the difference on my own work experience with 35mm digital, MF film and MF digital. And maybe there is many factors that influence on the quality of the image, but after many tests I have done, I keep seeing a notable difference. Maybe I don't know all the bells and whisels, numbers and technicalities, but the difference is there.
I agree that a good image can be done with any camera and it's much more about a keen eye for detail and a complex mind that calculates many factors to compose a great image. But after so much work done to present a good setup, I feel much more comfortable obtaining an image with the most detail possible; not necessarily on size since I rarely see my work in billboards and most printers for that won't even use the full advantages of a huge image. But more details on the realistic color tones and smooth gradients that ease my retouching work by hours. Again I appreciate deeply your nice comment in my work and apologize for my lack of expertise in technical information.
Ryu
-
Why don't you put an informative link instead of slamming harsh words. Too much splashing for a little cannon shooter. Calling people ignorant really make you no much better. Anyone knows files from MFDB are much better than little cannons or nikons. Therefor industry professional legends use them. Because they are simply the best. I used 35mm for long time and even an ignorant like me can see the difference.
First, the link: 16 Bit Myth (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60672.0), a thread on this very forum.
No, I did not called you ignorant. I specifically limited my "harsh" words to one area of your knowledge: 16-bit vs. 14-bit.
I said absolutely nothing about general superiority of MFDB vs. 35mm format, for a simple reason that this has been debated ad nauseum on this and every other forum under the sun, since, it seems, the dawn of the mankind. Trying to argue it is like a debate between believers and atheists, i.e., futile. What still does make sense to argue are cases like 16-bit vs. 14-bit, which are simply technical, factual and provable.
As for me, "the little cannon [sic] shooter," I do shoot Canon today, but in my film days, I was shooting Hasselbad as well (and still have it).
As for "industry legends"... they tend to shoot with many other cameras, in addition to MFDB, as well... just check this very forum. Horses for courses, as the saying goes. However, choosing MFDB is not going to make you (or me, or anyone else) an industry legend by itself, just like shooting Leica is not going to make you Henri Cartier-Bresson. Your style will. And then you will choose the tool most appropriate for the task, which might happen to be an MFDB.
-
... There are video comparations about the bit depth comparations between a MFDB (hasselblad) and a D800E, and they show how much more information a MFDB captures on their raw files compared to any 35mm dslr...
May we see that video (the link, that is)?
-
However is it not strange that MFDB companies do not post real comparisons that
clearly demonstrate significant inage quality differences.
You would think that due to the decline in sales of MFD that this kind of comparison
would help sales IF THE CLAIMS were true and did result in a significant difference.
The reason why this is not done is that the difference has become so small even with the very
best MFDB that it would hurt sales more than help.
One can clearly see it in the marketing strategies.
The truth of the matter is that other formats are developing much faster.
Sensors, electronics, ergonomics and lenses.
While MFDB and essentially Pro oriented equipment only companies like Hasselblad and Phase One
have an ever smaller market and RD budgets the 35mm manufacturers are large companies that
have massive resources and investments for example made in materials manufacturing divisions or medical divisions spill over into
their pro and consumer gear.
-
Here is the video for anyone who wants to see a compassion between a Hasselblad 40 Mpx vs a 36 Mpx Nikon D800
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
(And I guess the Genius is going to jump in here, they didn't compare bit-depth)
Look Slobodan Blagojevic,
I find your comments very unhelpful and since your over processed work with your low end cameras does not attract me, and you are not an engineer that develops this 16-bit technologies, and have no real proof to show that this MFDB companies are lying on their websites, I will just go ahead and ignore your comments.
I don't know who in the world are you, or what are your qualifications to make statements like this:
"MFDB industry depends on peddling myths like that."
That is absolutely absurd and even offensive.
-
Julio,
Forget trying to argue with them. If they used MFDB much they would understand, and until they do they want to prove to themselves that they are correct in sticking with DSLR's.
Fred, both MFDB and DSLR's have improved and I'm not sure DSLR's have advanced any faster. Nikon went from 24 to 36mp and have stop more DR and one more stop high ISO. But has the viewfinder or sync speed improved? How about mirror shake? I hear its a problem with the d800. And Canon... hmm... lots of new stuff, but is it a big step? Now if you exclude the phase mamiya DF body, all the other makes have improved and the backs have gone from 56 to 80mp with better screens and another half stop DR and stop ISO. To me its about the same. Phase managed to get 1/1600 sync speed which is an improvement even if there body still is slug.
-
Here is the video for anyone who wants to see a compassion between a Hasselblad 40 Mpx vs a 36 Mpx Nikon D800
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
(And I guess the Genius is going to jump in here, they didn't compare bit-depth)
Look Slobodan Blagojevic,
I find your comments very unhelpful and since your over processed work with your low end cameras does not attract me, and you are not an engineer that develops this 16-bit technologies, and have no real proof to show that this MFDB companies are lying on their websites, I will just go ahead and ignore your comments.
I don't know who in the world are you, or what are your qualifications to make statements like this:
"MFDB industry depends on peddling myths like that."
That is absolutely absurd and even offensive.
I had the same conversation with a 17 year old about motorcycles today. He is a big GSX-R 1000 fanboy, while I like my humble Ducati Monster. In all seriousness, if you are new to the industry, know this: clients often do web searches for photographers and see if they are someone they might want to work with. Seriously.
I agree with you on file quality of MFDB being better. In absolute terms my Aptus 75 is better than my D800e. That being said, 80% of the time that quality is wasted, and even when it is not, you have to weigh the extra production time over using a 35mm DSLR. In my case it was about lighting. I'd light a set for REDs and then face a situation where ISO 100 and 2.8 on an RZ just doesn't cut it. My choice was to a), strike the continuous lights and rig strobes; b. Shoot a Canon 1ds3/5d2/d3x, or c. Shoot Portra 800. Both A and C involve additional time, and time = money, so you shoot with a dslr. Guess what? No one knows or cares what stills camera I use. They know what motion camera we use(d) because there were no line items for film stock, telecine, and they could check out rough cuts at the DIT station.
So what I'm saying is this: if you can make MFDB work for you and your clients in terms of time and money, you will be rewarded with a superior file, at least on your screen. I think the reality is that most COMMERCIAL photographers nowadays are better off with a D800 for just about everything and then renting a back when needed, or whenever a client will pay for it. I have both, and really only use the DSLRs. Its all shit compared to film anyway, except in terms of time.
-
Hi TMark,
Like you I to use the same cameras (Mamiya RZ, Aptus 75, Nikon D800E) set up like your self and I totally agree with your comments.
How ever I prefer the look of digital cause of its greater dynamic range over film.
All the best
Simon
-
Simon,
I do on occasion bond with digital. It really depends on the shoot. LR4 with Leica M files can be a profound experience.
T
-
Here is the video for anyone who wants to see a compassion between a Hasselblad 40 Mpx vs a 36 Mpx Nikon D800
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
I saw that video. I believe what it shows is that the Nikon doesn't look as good with skin right out of the box. Leaf always has looked great for skin, better than Phase, better than Sinar (sometimes).
But the two shooters continue to propagate the marketing message, the FEAR buy, of feeling the necessity to have a better camera than the AD on set. You need to be a better photographer than the AD, not a bigger spender.
-
Loved the website, HarperPhotos. Inspiring. And you just made a sale for Monteith's Beer, which is on special at my local grog shop.
-
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your kind words. Personally I'm not a Monteith's drinker I prefer Lion Red.
Cheers
Simon
-
One thing is sure, we would be living in a very boring world if we were all shooting with the only one party approved type of camera.
MF has many advantages and is clearly the best option for some applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Forget trying to argue with them...
Eric, where exactly I argued anything else but the 16-bit vs. 14-bit? And so far neither Julio, nor you, nor anybody else for that matter has, in this or any other thread, proved the alleged 16-bit advantage. In other words, whatever advantage there is, it is not because of those 16 bits.
... If they used MFDB much they would understand, and until they do they want to prove to themselves that they are correct in sticking with DSLR's...
Perhaps you are right. But then again, using the same logic, couldn't we say that the other side is just as well trying 'to prove to themselves that they are correct' in investing in MFDB?
-
Just to point it out, a 16-bit ADC in the analog front end (AFE) used in CCD capture is not hard to come by. TI has 14 different models (http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/data-converters/ccd-cmos-products.page) capable of this that are active parts. While I doubt any MFDB manufacturer talks about who they sourced their AFE from, they can easily acquire a 16-bit converter if inclined to do so.
Please note, I am not saying that 16-bit converters are being used. Merely that 16-bit converters are readily available should they want to use them. I don't have a clue if any particular company actually does.
-
Hi,
Just to point it out, the original poster has rich experience of MFD and DSLRs.
There are benefits with larger formats for sure. It has always been the case and will always be the case.
On the other hand, MFD still represents a very significant investment, especially if one starts from scratch.
Best regards
Erik
-
Well, as someone who has recently bought in to MFD, having used Canon 1Ds (all of them), 5DII, Pentax 67, Fotoman 617 professionally for 10 years, I have been stunned by the difference between 35mm and MFD. I really did not expect this. Initially it was for more Mpixels, but the thing that has stood out most is how much more realistic and life-like the COLOURS are. In addition, the excellence of technical cameras and Capture One software (reducing post-processing) makes shooting a different, and for me a much more pleasurable, experience.
I'll still use the Canons for some things - esp. low light, or quick grab shots - but I'm finding I really want those colours from the P45+.
I tried the D800 recently and I can see that there are many advantages to it, including the very useable resolution, dynamic range and high ISO. But the colours were similar to the 5DII - just flat somehow. Perfectly good for most uses, just not what I want to work with.
Canon is coming up with something soon: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/more-big-megapixel-talk-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/canon-eos-3d-at-46-1mp-next-month-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/46-1mp-canon-dslr-previewed-at-photoplus-2012-cr1/
-
The rumors of the new 46mp super high DR Canon are exciting.
I guess that the D800 must be hurting Canon really bad for them to leak stuff that way.
Anyway, I'll order an F mount adapter for EOS in case there would be some truth to this. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My bad. Modded the post.
Although the thought of Bernard with a Canon makes some of us wonder whether the pope will convert to islam next ...
Edmund
-
My bad. Modded the post.
Although the thought of Bernard with a Canon makes some of us wonder whether the pope will convert to islam next ...
Good one! :)
But to set things straight, I am a Canon customer already. I liked their G10 and S90 and used them because they were best in class. No I have replaced them with a Sony that is superior. I also used a Canon camcorder until recently. I have also shot with cameras from Hasselblad (H1 + film), Mamiya (ZD), ricoh and Pentax.
In the DSLR world they have a few appealing lenses like the 17mm T/S, maybe the 24mm T/S, 70-200 f2.8 and f4 but for the rest I believe that Nikon is either ahead (bodies) or at the same level.
I would have given a serious thought to Phaseone and Leaf had the overall performance/cost ratio been more favorable.
See a pattern? I choose my equipment carefully and always go for the best I can afford. I would definitely have bought a Canon 1Ds2 at the time if I had been able to afford one. I really am totally brand agnostic and don't see why sharing my positive experience with the D3x/D800 makes me a fanboy because those cameras simply were/are factually superior.
If Canon were to release a body offering significant value I would definitely consider it. I am not connected with Nikon in any way.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ah Bernard, you and your facts. ;D
Just use truthiness (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/24039/october-17-2005/the-word---truthiness) to guide your decisions. Oh how I love Colbert. It starts getting good about 1 minute in.
-
Just to point it out, the original poster has rich experience of MFD and DSLRs.
Somehow I doubt that , care to elaborate ?
However, I'm glad the uptenth FF vs. MF debate has settled the issue .
-
...I find your comments very unhelpful and since your over processed work with your low end cameras does not attract me, and you are not an engineer that develops this 16-bit technologies, and have no real proof to show that this MFDB companies are lying on their websites, I will just go ahead and ignore your comments.
I don't know who in the world are you, or what are your qualifications to make statements like this:
"MFDB industry depends on peddling myths like that."
That is absolutely absurd and even offensive.
Whether you like the delivery of the message or not, he is correct. And this one is on the "do the math" level. God, how many years has this one been discussed just around here. There are no cameras made today that have 16 bits of data per pixel. None. You will be lucky to get 14 good bits per pixel.
What advantages you can gain from an MFDB are typically more in the mid-tone gradations and only when working at (downsampled) print sizes. This isn't a matter of per-pixel response, but the ability to average an abundance of photons over a print area. But even when you are working at print sizes, you still aren't up to the 16-bit per pixel level of dynamic range.
One other thing that Slobodan is right about is that MFDB manufacturers have been pushing the 16 bit myth casually for years. They've been called out on it numerous times here, and sides taken to protect commercial interests. Stick around for a few years, and you will see it all play out again.
-
Luke,
Thanks for saying this in plain English.
I would just add that it is quite possible that MFDBs have more orthogonal color filters. That is a design choice by Kodak, Dalsa and possibly MFDB manufacturers. If you need high ISO less orthogonal filters are advantageous. It has been said that Sony sensors may be more oriented to good color than high ISO. On the other hand some overlap is probably needed to reproduce subtle shifts of color.
MFDBs have some advantage related to the larger size of the sensor. They collect more photons (or to be exact electron charges) which reduces noise in lighter parts of the image. The larger sensor is also making less demands on the lens. So no question an MF camera will produce a smoother image with better detail under optimum conditions, like repro using tripod and optimum aperture and best available lens.
What I don't understand is why MFDB vendors don't publish correct unbiased comparison images from MFDB compared to state of the art DSLRs?
Best regards
Erik
Whether you like the delivery of the message or not, he is correct. And this one is on the "do the math" level. God, how many years has this one been discussed just around here. There are no cameras made today that have 16 bits of data per pixel. None. You will be lucky to get 14 good bits per pixel.
What advantages you can gain from an MFDB are typically more in the mid-tone gradations and only when working at (downsampled) print sizes. This isn't a matter of per-pixel response, but the ability to average an abundance of photons over a print area. But even when you are working at print sizes, you still aren't up to the 16-bit per pixel level of dynamic range.
One other thing that Slobodan is right about is that MFDB manufacturers have been pushing the 16 bit myth casually for years. They've been called out on it numerous times here, and sides taken to protect commercial interests. Stick around for a few years, and you will see it all play out again.
-
"What I don't understand is why MFDB vendors don't publish correct unbiased comparison images from MFDB compared to state of the art DSLRs?"
You are starting to sound like Fred... Why should they? MFDB dealers and makers offer their kits on loan to serious potential buyers for free. Is that not enough? Are you another one of the many MFDB antagonists that never used one themselves?
Do DSLR manufacturers publish comparison images? Can you get a free test of a new DSLR? Why do you care? Would knowing the answer to any of the questions in this or the other thread make you choose to buy or shoot differently? is your question only to satisfy some odd curiosity? It seems to matter so little, since there are so many other reasons to consider when choosing a camera.
-
What I don't understand is why MFDB vendors don't publish correct unbiased comparison images from MFDB compared to state of the art DSLRs?
Since we're biased we obviously cannot publish unbiased comparisons...
As Eric suggests, your local MFDB dealer will happily lend you a demo unit for testing if you present yourself as a prospect, then you can test it to your heart's content and publish your unbiased comparisons...
-
...Why should they?...
Because it would be in their own best interest? You know, if the advantage is so obvious, why wouldn't you want to show it to the whole world to see? Wouldn't that be your best selling point? After all, they do use words to that effect (like in the latest Hassselbad pamphlet), but isn't a picture worth thousand words?
Or is it yet another case of "only true believers can see it?"
Like in the old joke: a priest/pastor/rabbi/mullah/ asks the audience if they know the story of, say, Prophet X. The response was "No!" in unison. He then embarked on a lengthy diatribe against their ignorance. Next time, after the same question, they responded with, of course, "Yes!" in unison. To which the guy responded with: "Ok then, no need to tell you the story." The third time they really prepared and decided to outsmart the guy, so they answered: "Some of us know, some don't." To which the guy replied: "Ok then, those who know can tell those who do not."
-
Or is it yet another case of "only true believers can see it?"
And don't forget to use an oxygen free, pure silver USB cable to transfer your images to maximize the dynamic range. ;D
I couldn't resist. ;)
-
Hi Eric,
Let's put it this way. I'm an engineer, so I have some scientific schooling. For that reason I'm quite interested in how things work. I don't think it would be easy for me to arrange an unbiased test. I did consider renting MF equipment for a couple of days but that would set me back something like a full frame DSLR here in Sweden.
Also, I would say that making unbiased comparison images would be quite easy to do for any vendor, as they have most equipment in house.
Yes, you are right that I have no experience with MFD, although I have experience with MF and such being a long time Pentax 67. I did consider buying both Mamya ZD and Pentax 645D, but decided against it. The main reasons?
- Money, obviously, I could afford it, but perhaps not justify it
- Weight (I often travel by air)
- I use zoom, superwides and long teles, so either a big MF kit or DSLR + MF
- I don't print that large, normally A2
Best regards
Erik
"What I don't understand is why MFDB vendors don't publish correct unbiased comparison images from MFDB compared to state of the art DSLRs?"
You are starting to sound like Fred... Why should they? MFDB dealers and makers offer their kits on loan to serious potential buyers for free. Is that not enough? Are you another one of the many MFDB antagonists that never used one themselves?
Do DSLR manufacturers publish comparison images? Can you get a free test of a new DSLR? Why do you care? Would knowing the answer to any of the questions in this or the other thread make you choose to buy or shoot differently? is your question only to satisfy some odd curiosity? It seems to matter so little, since there are so many other reasons to consider when choosing a camera.
-
Hi,
If you make a test shot under identical conditions it will be unbiased unless you "tilt" the conditions thereby introducing bias. Example:
Shooting both cameras at f/8 or optimum aperture doesn't include bias. You get the best result achievable with that system. Using f/16 on both makes both systems to perform sub par, but a DSLR would probably used at f/8 or f/11 under same conditions so a bias is introduced.
Imaging Resource has what I call unbiased tests shots of Pentax 645D and Diglloyd has published some on Pentax 645D, Leica S2, Hasselblad H4D50 and Mamya DL28.
Best regards
Erik
Since we're biased we obviously cannot publish unbiased comparisons...
As Eric suggests, your local MFDB dealer will happily lend you a demo unit for testing if you present yourself as a prospect, then you can test it to your heart's content and publish your unbiased comparisons...
-
Erik and Slobodan,
I've posted quite extensive tests here between Canon 5D2 and two MFDB cameras please search for them here on LuLa. There you will see what I have seen for a long while if you would like your curiosity satisfied I will also be posting sometime in the next days my imatest DR tests for D800E vs Aptus 12. You will also have another number to put with the DXO figures that you can play with so then you can spend your time wondering how these tests could be different.
Since it seems clear you will not shoot with one, it hardly matters in actual fact since knowing the truth will not change your shooting or your career. This question will become new again every time a new Canon or Nikon will be introduced and you and many others who never think to purchase a MFDB will once again be curious. It's like Sisyphus trying to satisfy this curiosity . I am really happy to help people by sharing my tests and equipment but mostly I want to help people to achieve their best images for their work or their art, and I am not caring much to just satisfy "curiosity".
-
Eric,
I really look forward to your evaluation of the D800 using a Stouffer Wedge and Imatest. The Canon you tested before is said to be a poor performer in noise characteristics.
I have shot some tests with my Sony Alpha 900 and Sony Alpha 77SLT. They are published here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/56-an-lr-view-of-the-stouffer-wedge?showall=1
What I think I saw was that I got much better results when converting to TIFF in LR than using DCRAW built in Imatest.
Best regards
Erik
Erik and Slobodan,
I've posted quite extensive tests here between Canon 5D2 and two MFDB cameras please search for them here on LuLa. There you will see what I have seen for a long while if you would like your curiosity satisfied I will also be posting sometime in the next days my imatest DR tests for D800E vs Aptus 12. You will also have another number to put with the DXO figures that you can play with so then you can spend your time wondering how these tests could be different.
Since it seems clear you will not shoot with one, it hardly matters in actual fact since knowing the truth will not change your shooting or your career. This question will become new again every time a new Canon or Nikon will be introduced and you and many others who never think to purchase a MFDB will once again be curious. It's like Sisyphus trying to satisfy this curiosity . I am really happy to help people by sharing my tests and equipment but mostly I want to help people to achieve their best images for their work or their art, and I am not caring much to just satisfy "curiosity".
-
Hi,
If you make a test shot under identical conditions it will be unbiased unless you "tilt" the conditions thereby introducing bias. Example:
Shooting both cameras at f/8 or optimum aperture doesn't include bias. You get the best result achievable with that system. Using f/16 on both makes both systems to perform sub par, but a DSLR would probably used at f/8 or f/11 under same conditions so a bias is introduced.
Imaging Resource has what I call unbiased tests shots of Pentax 645D and Diglloyd has published some on Pentax 645D, Leica S2, Hasselblad H4D50 and Mamya DL28.
Best regards
Erik
So we've got one variable covered...
What about shutter speed? iso? Lens? Lighting? Scene/ subject?
The naysayers (from both sides) will always dismiss such a test for one reason or another. Hence why I do MY own tests and always encourage others to do THEIR own...
-
Hence why I do MY own tests and always encourage others to do THEIR own...
That's the best advice!
-
Hi,
Unbiased test: everything the same. Comments:
Shutter speed doesn't matter unless there is motion. With motion there will some unsharpness.
Lens: Almost any lens is best at f/8 so f/8 or best aperture should be used. Preferably an excellent lens.
Lighting: The important is that is the same for all lenses. To illustrate tonal range and DR it should be contrasty.
Subject: Should be the same. Some type of synthetic subject is best.
DPreview and Imaging Resource have good synthetic test targets. AFAIK the only MF system they have tested was the Pentax 645D.
OK, I know there are other factors like camera vibration, from mirror and shutter, leaf shutter that can sync at 1/800 etc.
DR can probably illustrated best by publishing a raw exposure of a Stouffer wedge.
Here is what I made of the Pentax 645D test at Imaging Resourse: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/51-a-closer-look-at-pentax-645d-image-quality
Best regards
Erik
So we've got one variable covered...
What about shutter speed? iso? Lens? Lighting? Scene/ subject?
The naysayers (from both sides) will always dismiss such a test for one reason or another. Hence why I do MY own tests and always encourage others to do THEIR own...