Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: chrismuc on December 29, 2012, 03:15:56 pm

Title: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: chrismuc on December 29, 2012, 03:15:56 pm
Xmas was generous and brought me a wonderful IQ180 back for my Contax 645. And like mostly between Xmas and New Year there is some time for "meaningless" things, so I did a little comparison test between four digital cameras of the last decade to see if there is any progress in image quality :-)

The contenders:

2002: Contax N Digital (6 MP Philips CCD sensor w/ AA-filter, @ ISO25) + Contax N 100f2.8 Macro @ f8
2006: Leica R8 DMR (10 MP Kodak CCD sensor w/o AA-filter, @ ISO100) + Leica R 60f2.8 Macro @ f5.6
2009: Canon 5DII (21 MP Canon CMOS sensor w/ AA-filter, @ ISO 100) + Zeiss ZE 100f2 Macro @ f8
2011: Contax 645 IQ180 (80 MP Dalsa CCD sensor w/o AA-filter, @ ISO 50) + Zeiss Contax 645 140f2.8 @ f11

I tried to match the view angle and frame by choosing appropriate focal length lenses according the sensor sizes and f stops to roughly match the depth of field. All pictures from same tripod location but the height (respectively elevation) slightly different due to the different camera height.

I opened all raw files in ACR applied same sharpening 70/0.5 and automatic CA correction and cropped all images to the equivalent frame and to resampled to the resolution of the Contax N Digital.

So here is the 1 Million $ question: Which image is by which camera/sensor/lens combination?

Enjoy, Christoph

(first the cameras, next post the images)
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: chrismuc on December 29, 2012, 03:18:25 pm
now the images

(all in ProPhoto RGB, I hope the colors are shown correct in the browser)
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: HarperPhotos on December 29, 2012, 04:09:51 pm
Hello,

My what lovely toys you have.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: henrikfoto on December 29, 2012, 05:12:55 pm
Interesting and very difficult in web res.
But I like to compete :). Here is my guesses:

A=Leica
B=IQ180
C=Contax N
D=5DIII

How many do I have correct?


Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on December 29, 2012, 05:19:32 pm
Henrik,
Did you peek?
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: henrikfoto on December 29, 2012, 05:35:30 pm
Henrik,
Did you peek?

Joking? How could I peek?
Do you know the answers?
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: MarkoRepse on December 29, 2012, 05:48:13 pm
These are fun! My analysis is the same as Henriks.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: Go Go on December 29, 2012, 06:09:14 pm
Joking? How could I peek?
Do you know the answers?

EXIF viewer,
confirms it.

Great test by the way, well done.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: henrikfoto on December 29, 2012, 06:10:53 pm
EXIF viewer,
confirms it.

Great test by the way, well done.

So my guess is correct?
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on December 29, 2012, 06:28:03 pm
So my guess is correct?
If the EXIF data is correct, your answers are correct. I sure could not tell without peeking, so you must have a really good eye, Henrik - way to go.
It was kind of a fun diversion - thanks Chris!

Ed
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: henrikfoto on December 29, 2012, 07:46:41 pm
I don't know how to find out this and I am just on my iPad. Just guessing from the look of the files.

Henrik
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 29, 2012, 08:03:03 pm
Apart from a magenta cast in B, they are all practically the same (no wonder, given they've all been reduced to 6 MPx). Would love if someone (Henrik?) would be so kind to point out the differences.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: woos on December 29, 2012, 09:14:58 pm
Hah, I guessed right.

You can tell because A is nosier than the other files, for one.  Then C also has some grain but not nearly like A.  B and D look noiseless, but I thought D was the Canon file due to the red patch being more like a Canon-looking red, lol.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: FredBGG on December 29, 2012, 10:12:36 pm
First choice is easy.

A is the Leica due to the deeper depth of field due to the smallest sensor and the 60mm lens.
Also less Bokeh "chatter" in the Leica lens.

IF you look at the other three images under the elbow area of the out of focus sleeve you can see the ring like chatter in the bokeh
that is more typical of the Contax 140 and the Zeiss Macro 100mm designs.

Second choice
C is the Contax due to more dead pixels/dust. Same depth of field as the Canon.

Last choice was relatively clear.

Smoother diagonal lines for the Canon thanks to the AA filter. Slightly more recoverable highlight detail.

D is Canon

B is IQ180 due to more aliasing on diagonal lines (mostly due to down sampling) and a bit more color artifacting in the black plastic texture
of the color checker case (mild color moire). Slightly more recoverable highlight detail.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: FredBGG on December 29, 2012, 10:18:08 pm
Hah, I guessed right.

You can tell because A is nosier than the other files, for one.  Then C also has some grain but not nearly like A.  B and D look noiseless, but I thought D was the Canon file due to the red patch being more like a Canon-looking red, lol.

How do you know you guessed right?
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: FredBGG on December 30, 2012, 12:28:39 am
Duhhh EXIF.... that would have saved me a lot of time... but less interesting
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: chrismuc on December 30, 2012, 02:57:58 am
@ Simon
Thx, yes these are lovely toys & tools :-)

@ Henrik and Marko
Cool, you nailed it (w/o peeking at the Exif).

@ all
Thx for your attention!

I also examined that the DMR file with the 60mm lens has deeper depth of field.

I could not quickly match the colors/color cast of the leather jacket. I assume this also comes from the slightly different viewing angle  in camera height which I did not compensate.

Today I return to China (with Canon and Contax 645), the Contax ND and DMR stay in Munich, so this was the only moment to have all four systems at one place for such a quick test. The Contax ND file with that very early Philips sensor is stunning noise free at low ISO 25-50.

The detail capability of the IQ180 is nothing but stunning. Enclosed a crop of that file (this time in sRGB).
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: henrikfoto on December 30, 2012, 05:55:41 am
Apart from a magenta cast in B, they are all practically the same (no wonder, given they've all been reduced to 6 MPx). Would love if someone (Henrik?) would be so kind to point out the differences.

I was looking at the differenses in graduation in the colors and the DOF.
Also the B has much better highlights.

Really amazing how well the 6 mp looks against the new cameras.
Would be interesting to see a test like this with 6 mp Phase one compared to 80mp
with the same setup :)

The 140mp Contax is most likely the weaker lens of the 4.

Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: RobertJ on December 30, 2012, 10:31:03 am
The Contax N was such a nice camera and system.  The 645 too.  I had an even older 167MT 35mm with the Contax Zeiss lenses.

Come back Contax! ;D
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 10:40:06 am
Hi,

Latecomer, but I ranked them:

1: D
2: B
3: C
4: A

In my view D was clearly best and A clearly worst.
Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 10:44:15 am
Hi,

A was in my view the harshest, to me it had an grainy, oversharpened look.
D was smoothest and very sharp
So I needed to decide between B and C

I felt B was slightly smoother and still sharper than C

Best regards
Erik


Apart from a magenta cast in B, they are all practically the same (no wonder, given they've all been reduced to 6 MPx). Would love if someone (Henrik?) would be so kind to point out the differences.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: EricWHiss on December 30, 2012, 03:12:47 pm
Erik,
I find your post sort of telling.  Your personal preference is tuned to the DSLR. Did you read in the thread which was which before you made your post?    It was obvious to me by looking at the glass reflections in the viewfinder and bottle and lens which camera had performed the best.  Also I have one of those color passports and could compare the color accuracy.   
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 30, 2012, 04:09:34 pm
I think the test would have been much more interesting had we not been told which cameras participated. Just four images, labeled A-D, and asked to rank them in terms of quality.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 04:25:02 pm
Hi Eric,

You are probably right that I'm tuned to DSLR rendering, that is what I shoot...

The way I compared the images was to open each of them in Photoshop, and looked at them tiled at actual pixels. There were to images that were standing out, one was A which I felt had an oversharpened and grainy look, the other was D which I felt smooth and very sharp.

Next I tried to decide B and C, and I think I preferred B. Finally I compared B against D. I still felt D was the better one.


After sorting the image I looked at the EXIFs. I really assumed that D would be IQ 180. I actually didn't have the slightest idea a Canon was in the test.

I enclose a screen dump. This is not crop I initially checked, BTW. I was a bit surprised after the initial comparison so I choose another crop and reevaluated, the screen dump is from the second evaluation. When doing my evaluation I didn't have the slightest idea what to expect.

It could be that I happen to have a preference for OLP-filtered image while you have a strong preference for unfiltered images?

I did not check color rendition at all. I'll see if I can check out using Imatest for accuracy, but I presume that neither image is very accurate.


Best regards
Erik


Erik,
I find your post sort of telling.  Your personal preference is tuned to the DSLR. Did you read in the thread which was which before you made your post?    It was obvious to me by looking at the glass reflections in the viewfinder and bottle and lens which camera had performed the best.  Also I have one of those color passports and could compare the color accuracy.  
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 04:37:56 pm
Hi Eric,

I did a very quick check. Imported A-D jpegs into Lightroom rotated and cropped the CCS and exported to a folder. Opened each image in Imatest and got the enclosed results

If we check second row of the imatest results Delta C*ab mean error:

A:  10.4

B:  10.1

C:  8.69

D: 8.11

So neither is very accurate, but D is most accurate and A is least accurate. I don't think this comparison is very meaningful, but this is what I got.

Imatest is a well respected program developed by Norman Koren, http://www.imatest.com.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
I find your post sort of telling.  Your personal preference is tuned to the DSLR. Did you read in the thread which was which before you made your post?    It was obvious to me by looking at the glass reflections in the viewfinder and bottle and lens which camera had performed the best.  Also I have one of those color passports and could compare the color accuracy.  
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: EricWHiss on December 30, 2012, 07:14:18 pm
Erik,
You love to push the pixels into all these charts and tests, but that has nothing to do with what I did or the others.  They looked at bokeh, DOF, etc. 
Kind of like not being able to see the forest through the trees.  You can recognize the sound of a piano regardless of whether it is in tune or not. 


Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 30, 2012, 07:27:15 pm
Another question: isn't DOF supposed to be equalized by the different f/stops?
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 07:43:05 pm
Hi Eric,

I did not even try to sort out which one was which. Just compared the four images.

Regarding the color charts it was mostly because you referred to the color checker.

Best regards
Erik

Quote
Erik,
I find your post sort of telling.  Your personal preference is tuned to the DSLR. Did you read in the thread which was which before you made your post?    It was obvious to me by looking at the glass reflections in the viewfinder and bottle and lens which camera had performed the best.  Also I have one of those color passports and could compare the color accuracy.

Best regards
Erik 


Erik,
You love to push the pixels into all these charts and tests, but that has nothing to do with what I did or the others.  They looked at bokeh, DOF, etc. 
Kind of like not being able to see the forest through the trees.  You can recognize the sound of a piano regardless of whether it is in tune or not. 



Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: Gel on December 30, 2012, 07:49:45 pm
A: Contax
B: 5D2
C: Leica
D: IQ180

A nice educational test.

Hah, all completely wrong. But interestingly, I got the 5D2 and the IQ180 the wrong way around.

I totally prefer the Leica DMR look out of all of them.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-) Question...
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 08:22:24 pm
Hi Chris,

Thanks for this small test!

I observed that rim on the Hologon lens shows some Moiré pattern. Is it coming from the original image or is it a result of downsampling? I see only images D and B.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: FredBGG on December 30, 2012, 09:11:40 pm
Hi res here Erik

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73668.0;attach=72157 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73668.0;attach=72157)

Looks nice and clean. Some color moire in the texture of the color checker case, but you need to look quite close.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 30, 2012, 09:28:41 pm
Hi Fred,

Thanks I missed the link!

Yes, I don't see the moiré on the lens mount, so it was a downsizing artifact.

Best regards
Erik



Hi res here Erik

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73668.0;attach=72157 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73668.0;attach=72157)

Looks nice and clean. Some color moire in the texture of the color checker case, but you need to look quite close.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: FredBGG on January 06, 2013, 11:07:37 pm
A: Contax
B: 5D2
C: Leica
D: IQ180

A nice educational test.

Hah, all completely wrong. But interestingly, I got the 5D2 and the IQ180 the wrong way around.

I totally prefer the Leica DMR look out of all of them.

Yup it is interesting how close the 5D2 and the IQ180 are when resolution compared at the same size.
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 07, 2013, 01:16:40 am
Hi,

It would be interesting to see an unsharpened image from the Leica DMR. Obviously, different cameras need different amount of sharpening. My guess is that the DMR image may be better with no sharpening at all. Reason is mainly that the DMR lacks OLP filtering and has relatively large pixels.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: chrismuc on January 07, 2013, 04:08:48 am
... here it is, respectively here they are: 1200 pixel wide 100% crops unsharpened (this means ACR 25 - 1 pixel basis sharpening) of the four test images
so now sharpness is basically a matter of the AA-filter (or lack of), the lens sharpness and the focus point
a bit difficult to compare due to the very different magnifications
Christoph
Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)
Post by: bcooter on January 07, 2013, 07:25:24 am
The dmr from a distance looks so sharp and clean.

Question on the DMR.  Is focusing an issue on the cropped viewfinder easy, hard, in between?

I think it's a very cool device and love the R system, just couldn't get past the crop, though I never tried one outside of a store.

The Contax I find great and though the reviews were awful, how cool would it have been if they had fixed the problems, continued on.

Anyway back to images.  I know that with all the cameras I own I can devise a setting where one will out perform the other.  The 5d2 I think is the best Canon file and works well with HMI's. 

My Leica M-8 is stunning in hard daylight, amazing with profoto standard reflectors in studio which is not what the camera was probably designed for.

(http://www.russellrutherford.com/leica_desert.jpg)

I find all of the cameras I own can be stunning or challanged more depending on lighting and setting than actual numbers.

Anyway I love your test and am equally jealous of your cameras, especially the Contax and the DMR.

I also find it interesting that you have three ccd cameras, one cmos.

I know if time/project/lighting permits I love the look of ccds


IMO

BC


Title: Re: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-) (Take two)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 07, 2013, 01:07:39 pm
Hi,

Thanks for the images. On the first set of images I felt that Leica DMR image was to "gritty". I would presume that it needs much less sharpening than OLP-filtered images.

The first enclosed screen dumps is of the original "A.jpg" file, the new unsharpened file from the DMR and the Canon file downsized to DMR resolution using Bicubic with no sharpening.

The second screen dump is the original "A.jpg" file, and the file from DMR and the downsized Canon file, both sharpened to my taste.

The previous time I compared the files without knowledge of which was which. Now, I'm much aware of which is which, so I don't do any comparisons.

Best regards
Erik



... here it is, respectively here they are: 1200 pixel wide 100% crops unsharpened (this means ACR 25 - 1 pixel basis sharpening) of the four test images
so now sharpness is basically a matter of the AA-filter (or lack of), the lens sharpness and the focus point
a bit difficult to compare due to the very different magnifications
Christoph