Hi,
I got my Hasselblad 555ELD with a P45+ sold by Mr. Rib here on LuLa. I am ver satisfied with what I got.
I started a "blog" describing my experience:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/76-my-medium-format-digital-journey
Fascinating development Erik, I am sure you will enjoy your new camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
I used to have a P25 in V mount it worked fine on an EL body in vertical, there was a sort of hidden or flush fitting alternate release on the other corner to do this. I don't know if they took it off or something. I was alway nervous about doing it in the field. I have been using a P45+ on another camera system now (V was too hard to focus for me) the P45 is so much better as far as moire hardly ever a problem with it.
Also on the V the older lenses sometimes have sync problems at slow shutter speeds, I think the CFE CFi and CFB lenses are all good to go though. Great system have fun.
Hi,cool, have fun!
I got my Hasselblad 555ELD with a P45+ sold by Mr. Rib here on LuLa. I am ver satisfied with what I got.
I started a "blog" describing my experience:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/76-my-medium-format-digital-journey
Best regards
Erik
cool, have fun!
As far as the raw processor goes I'd say the sooner you switch to Capture One (7.1.2) the better.
LR may (or may not) be comparable with C1 in conjunction with more recent P1 backs... but for the old Kodak Sensor backs I feel the Adobe SW is pretty weak with regard to color/look out of the box and also with regard to detail extraction. Especially when you lift the shadows C1 does a better job with your P45+.
When you use C1 do yourself a favour and dial down luminance NR to zero (for ISO50-ISO200) and color NR to around 15-20 (max.) for your P45+ as a camera-preset...
Congratulations, Erik! Great choice of back...as many pixels as you need, and long-exposure favourite.
I read your blog to date...looking forward to seeing more.
Ray
C1 has a lot of good features, but I think it is much less consistent than Lightroom.
For what it is worth, I personally find C1 Pro to consistently deliver a more pleasing rendering with my D800 files.
I would not hesitate a second if I were to use Phaseone H/W.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Erik
I´m glad I could help a bit. And I´m sure with this equipment you will be able to do many phantastic images.
I really like the P45+, I had one (thanks to Phase/Espen Beck) for nearly 3 years, and still I think I will buy one for myself soon. This is the tractor of MF, rocksolid, long exposures and 39 Mpix is definitely enough for about anything.
The old V-Blad is a classic, the haptics alone are a reason to use one and the Zeiss lenses are fun and not that expensive anymore.
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
Hi,
I got my Hasselblad 555ELD with a P45+ sold by Mr. Rib here on LuLa. I am ver satisfied with what I got.
I started a "blog" describing my experience:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/76-my-medium-format-digital-journey
Best regards
Erik
Updates 2013-06-19:
Added a pair of samples clearly showing that my P45+ has less dynamic range (DR) than my Sony Alpha 99, although I don't consider this to be an issue. I seldom find DR limiting.
Are you absolutely, beyond any possible doubt, certain?
Because P45+ users used to claim that the P45+ had several stops more DR than the best DSLR 4 years ago, the D3x, that itself clearly has better DR than your Sony.
Either you or them must be wrong. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I will revisit the issue when I am back from travel. Will retest with Capture One, too.
Hi,
The comparison I made was using Lightroom, also it was at actual pixels. I will revisit the issue when I am back from travel. Will retest with Capture One, too. The Sony I have has the same sensor as the Nikon D600.
The measurement of DR is almost always controversial and the value useful to photographers is not the ISO defined version. I recommend you try shooting a transmission step wedge and using imatest software to get data more reliable than comparing histograms.
I vote for more travel and less testing ;)
More travel and less testing may be good, but trying to understand one's camera capabilities is also a must.
About dynamic range, you published the following curves:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/DynamicRange/RawAnalyzer_P45.png)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/DynamicRange/SonyAlpha_99_raw_analyzer.png)
I'll use the red channel as an example, because it is not clipped. The histogram goes between +2 and -8 for the P45 and between +1.5 and -8 or -5 (depending how one interprets the artifacts) on the A99. I understand that the artifacts (the fact that the histogram lacks values) appear faster on the A99 because it uses less quantization bits. But why are the histograms so different?
I noticed the logarithmic Y axis. It explains why we have "combs" in the lower part of the signal.
Still, it seems reasonable to think that the actual image data is represented by the envelope of the histogram. That envelope goes to lower values on the P45+ than on the Sony.
Still always nice to see a digital back based on a sensor from 2005 take on a dSLR from late 2012 and hold it's own even in third party software.
All these lab tests really hurt my head.
I'd really encourage you to use more tests like the one you did at the top of the Dynamic Range page. But I'd suggest including Capture One - it's not coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the users on this forum and GetDPI who are asked where to process Phase One files say "Capture One".
And don't be constrained to default settings in the software either. Feel free to tweak noise reduction and sharpening on both images to make each one sing as best as you can for your aesthetic - that's the way you'd use the camera in real life, why do any differently in the tests. There is some ostensible academic value in isolating the variables, but there is little practical value in it.
In particular the color tests you've done don't really correlate to creative image making. Such delta-e color accuracy charting is of great value for art reproduction. But the flash and daylite profiles in Capture One aren't meant for art reproduction. They are meant to balance accuracy and pleasantness of color. If you wanted to minimize delta-e believe me you could hit some insanely tight performance requirements (our Department of Cultural Heritage does it all the time as measured by FADGI and METAMORFOZE compliance (http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report)). But this won't necessarily make your pictures prettier (better than even odds in my experience that it won't). The Colorchecker Passport is a nice consumer-grade profiling system but
1) it's usually brought up in conversation when the default LR profile is pretty awful as it is in this case for the P45+
2) it increases accuracy, but with no human touch to the pursuit of making pleasant color (as is the case when the color gurus at Capture One sit down and tweak profiles for dozens of hours per back to really make the color sing in as broad of situations as is possible)
3) it isn't nearly as accurate as a more professional profiling system (more patches, more constraints on production, more fine tuning steps)
I really think you're limiting yourself using LightRoom. The dark frame data isn't used (important for deep shadow recovery and long exposures), the algorithms aren't as deeply catered for this back, and the overall math is, IMO, behind C1 for image quality.
Same thing with Raw Analyzer. It's not going to use the dark frame data to bring as much life/accuracy to the shadows as C1 will. Academically interesting, but not very relevant to how far into the shadows you can get printable/pleasant shadows.
Still always nice to see a digital back based on a sensor from 2005 take on a dSLR from late 2012 and hold it's own even in third party software.
And all that said, thanks for sharing your results. I know how inherently imperfect, frustrating, and criticism all testing is. Thank you very much for doing the enormous work of doing your tests and sharing the results.
Yep, it can be assumed that the top contenders on both sides are a bit better than that, but DR is pretty much an issue of the past, unless you are invested in Canon lenses. ;)
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/831%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/746%7C0/(brand3)/Phase%20One
Cheers,
Bernard
I vote for more travel and less testing ;)+1000
+1000
In particular the color tests you've done don't really correlate to creative image making. Such delta-e color accuracy charting is of great value for art reproduction. But the flash and daylite profiles in Capture One aren't meant for art reproduction. They are meant to balance accuracy and pleasantness of color. If you wanted to minimize delta-e believe me you could hit some insanely tight performance requirements (our Department of Cultural Heritage does it all the time as measured by FADGI and METAMORFOZE compliance (http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report)). But this won't necessarily make your pictures prettier (better than even odds in my experience that it won't). The Colorchecker Passport is a nice consumer-grade profiling system but
1) it's usually brought up in conversation when the default LR profile is pretty awful as it is in this case for the P45+
2) it increases accuracy, but with no human touch to the pursuit of making pleasant color (as is the case when the color gurus at Capture One sit down and tweak profiles for dozens of hours per back to really make the color sing in as broad of situations as is possible)
3) it isn't nearly as accurate as a more professional profiling system (more patches, more constraints on production, more fine tuning steps)
Erik
Couple quick notes the P45plus is a older back with pretty much a outdated sensor comparing it to the new breeds of the Dalsa lets say and even your new Sony and Nikons. So the DR will probably will not be as wide open lets say as the newer sensors thats a given as I tested this a long time ago with the P65 Plus and P40 Plus. It still is a great sensor and it does have that Kodak color and saturation that it is known for compared to the Dalsa which has more DR and a more neutral color palette. Not that one is better than the other but there is a difference and some folks like one over the other for sure. I had the P25, P30 Plus backs and used the P45plus back pretty often. They are pretty much the same Kodak breeds of sensors but than I moved on to the Dalsa via the P40, IQ 160 and IQ 140 which I liked better but that is my preference in the end was the Dalsa. What the P45 plus is good at is very long exposures good ISO noise levels up to maybe ISO 200 but after that shadow noise will come into play with the higher ISO's. So if you use it within its limitations its a great back. Use it outside of them you may have some disappointment. But I encourage you to use C1 as in the past Lightroom sucked on those backs, not sure about today and there newer versions since I dont even have it on my machine anymore. But if I am bias than C1 is my raw processing machine and I use that on every cam it supports or i wont buy a system it does not support. You will get better results that I can tell you as the Phase engineers specifically work C1 for there backs which makes perfect sense.
BTW I was passing by and glad to see you finally jumped in. MF is fun and the results are worth it IMHO. Also go have some fun, testing gets pretty damn boring even for a engineer. Be well
In particular the color tests you've done don't really correlate to creative image making. Such delta-e color accuracy charting is of great value for art reproduction. But the flash and daylite profiles in Capture One aren't meant for art reproduction. They are meant to balance accuracy and pleasantness of color. If you wanted to minimize delta-e believe me you could hit some insanely tight performance requirements (our Department of Cultural Heritage does it all the time as measured by FADGI and METAMORFOZE compliance). But this won't necessarily make your pictures prettier (better than even odds in my experience that it won't). The Colorchecker Passport is a nice consumer-grade profiling system but
1) it's usually brought up in conversation when the default LR profile is pretty awful as it is in this case for the P45+
2) it increases accuracy, but with no human touch to the pursuit of making pleasant color (as is the case when the color gurus at Capture One sit down and tweak profiles for dozens of hours per back to really make the color sing in as broad of situations as is possible)
3) it isn't nearly as accurate as a more professional profiling system (more patches, more constraints on production, more fine tuning steps)
I am citing this post because it should not go unnoticed.
Hi,
I think those are valid points. I know that Doug works with color reproduction at DT, or at least DT has a division working in that area.
Doug is probably right in some aspects. On the other hand I would guess that some other experts, like Jeff Schewe may have other opinions, but Jeff is working with an other company making imaging software. Jeff suggests that noise reduction and tone mapping functions in Lightroom are superior to Capture 1: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79446.msg640785#msg640785
I would still suggest that reproducing a color checker is a good thing. It is the closest thing to a reference available to everyone. It is an old stalwart of the industry.
I also think that color profiling in LR is working differently than the impression Doug has. As far as I know, each new sensor is measured with a monochromator at some lab working for Adobe. When you build a DNG profile you are tweaking the original profile. So it still based on monochromator data but individually tuned.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
I think those are valid points. I know that Doug works with color reproduction at DT, or at least DT has a division working in that area.
Doug is probably right in some aspects. On the other hand I would guess that some other experts, like Jeff Schewe may have other opinions, but Jeff is working with an other company making imaging software. Jeff suggests that noise reduction and tone mapping functions in Lightroom are superior to Capture 1: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79446.msg640785#msg640785
I would still suggest that reproducing a color checker is a good thing. It is the closest thing to a reference available to everyone. It is an old stalwart of the industry.
I also think that color profiling in LR is working differently than the impression Doug has. As far as I know, each new sensor is measured with a monochromator at some lab working for Adobe. When you build a DNG profile you are tweaking the original profile. So it still based on monochromator data but individually tuned.
Measuring a sensor with a monochromator is not difficult and would give direct information about the primary filters. It should be the preferred method.
But this is not what Doug said. Doug believes that accurate color reproduction is not what the manufacturers are aiming to. This is also my opinion. And if the manufacturers are not designing their back for accurate color reproduction, measuring the accuracy of color reproduction is futile.
Measuring a sensor with a monochromator is not difficult and would give direct information about the primary filters. It should be the preferred method.
But this is not what Doug said. Doug believes that accurate color reproduction is not what the manufacturers are aiming to. This is also my opinion. And if the manufacturers are not designing their back for accurate color reproduction, measuring the accuracy of color reproduction is futile.
Hi,
Interestingly DT (the company Doug works for) also refers to this document: http://www.dtdch.com/page/fadgi-image-performance-report
As I recall they have a DeltaE avg of 2.0 (or so)
Erik
Best regards
According to Tim Parkin, there is a good correlation between the SMI and his color preferens, that is high SMI -> good colors.
Doug believes that accurate color reproduction is not what the manufacturers are aiming to. This is also my opinion. And if the manufacturers are not designing their back for accurate color reproduction, measuring the accuracy of color reproduction is futile.
This is in fact not what I said.
Indeed it isn't and you did talk about specific profiles. My apologies.
Now, allow me a question. ISO 17321 specifies a way to measure a metameric index. Some MF backs are relatively low on that metric, compared to other cameras with a smaller sensor. Wouldn't that mean that their sensor will be less capable of accurate color than these other cameras, even with a perfectly tuned profile?
I'd be glad for references (feel free to email me) regarding this information (who did the testing, under what conditions, which backs are being described etc).
But in general I prefer to examine real world testing. In nearly every image quality category a numerical representation of performance fails to fully describe the strengths/weaknesses of a given system. For instance dynamic range can ostensibly reduced to a single number for direct comparison between two systems, but in reality I've found you must consider a variety of factors like what kind of noise is created (is it pretty or ugly, uniform or clumpy) and whether color is consistent along quarter tone transitions and highlights (especially important for portraits in high contrast light among other things). The result is that two cameras which are (carefully and honestly) measured as having the same numerical dynamic range have very different abilities to reach into highlights/shadows and pull out photographically useful and aesthetically pleasant image content. So it's just so much more meaningful to take and compare actual pictures.
In my real world experience with profiling many kinds of cameras and working with those profiled cameras with some very demanding clients (http://www.dtdch.com/page/clients) to capture real world objects I can say quite confidently the modern Phase One backs are exceptional at this work.
I would be glad to explore with you the underlying mechanics of this real world performance vis a vis metameric index measurement. But it would be purely an academic conversation. Feel free to email me.
f/8 | f/22 |
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Diffraction/20130629-CF043302-2.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Diffraction/20130629-CF043305-2.jpg) |
The measurement of DR is almost always controversial and the value useful to photographers is not the ISO defined version. I recommend you try shooting a transmission step wedge and using imatest software to get data more reliable than comparing histograms.
A wasted test shot is much better than a missed opportunity.
Stouffer wedge shots in a week or so. Shooting the wedge is quite demanding as you need to eliminate all light leaks.
Question is how much is fake and how much is real. What I can see is that I tried to lift some shadow detail, and that detail is smooth in the Alpha 99 image but has a lot of noise in the P45+ image. Now, it could be that the lens on the Sony has more vailing flare, making shadow smoother, or something else. As exposure is pretty much ETTR I would expect that the image having better DR would have cleaner shadows.
Just to make clear, noise would distribute the signal over many values. Say that lowest real signal would correspond to the data number of 16 and we have a readout noise of 16 electrons, that would spread the signal down to perhaps 5. My guess is is that readout noise on the P45 sensor is about 16. Phase One gives a DR of 12 EV in the spec sheet. So their data says that dynamic range goes from +3EV to -9EV as +3EV represents saturation.
Hi Eric,
The DxO Mark evaluations seem to be pretty accurate though.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi,
I just shot a diffraction series:
Hi Erik
The Makro planar is a pretty decent performer at infinity. We use the lenskits for the 120mm Hartblei superrotators and
I have compared it to a lot of other lenses.
The point is, you need to focus "exactly" on target. it is not forgiving the slightest mis/front/backfocus .
Same as the 4/40 IF Distagon. It´s a beast and with my Canon´s I normally use LV to get the full resolving power from it.
But that is valid for all VERY SHARP lenses. I would even state that the lesser ones are more forgiving.
Regards
Stefan
Hi Erik
The Makro planar is a pretty decent performer at infinity. We use the lenskits for the 120mm Hartblei superrotators and
I have compared it to a lot of other lenses.
The point is, you need to focus "exactly" on target. it is not forgiving the slightest mis/front/backfocus .
Same as the 4/40 IF Distagon. It´s a beast and with my Canon´s I normally use LV to get the full resolving power from it.
But that is valid for all VERY SHARP lenses. I would even state that the lesser ones are more forgiving.
Regards
Stefan
Hi Eric
yes you need to stop down the 120 Macro, but at best aperture (f11) it is pretty good.
See here: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/hartblei_120_4_pc_n10/4
The good part of being a bit soft wide open is: it´s perfect for portraits too.
These older lenses were never designed to be used wide open. Totally different philosophy than todays digital lenses.
Regards
Stefan
I will probably also get a Zeiss Tripler as recommended by Joseph Holmes and Lloyd Chambers. I like the Hartblei loupe, but waist level viewing does not work for me for different reasons.
Infinity | Macro | |
Zeiss 120/4 Macro Planar | 30% | 55% |
HC 120/4 MacroII | 65% | 65% |
Erik, I have a Hartblei loupe (500c/m P20 back) and find it makes a huge difference to my focus ability. I was brought up on the reverse view so it is second nature but I can see why it would trouble others. I am curious as to why you would go from the 4x down to 3x? You will gain the comfort of 'correct" viewing but loose the extra magnification an interesting compromise the outcome is awaited with interest.
I'm a Makro Planar fan as well and would be interested in how the highly praised H series 100mm and the 120 H Macro, of which I hear less, measure up in comparison.
Thanks for the continuing story.
Hi Eric
Comparing a fully mechanical to an electronical controlled camera is tricky nowadays.
You need to push up sharpening until it matches the Sony , even if you don´t do anything the firmware in the modern DSLRs is already sharpening images,
not only linear but also according to their specific lens data, these lenses are all chipped.
The DPReview data were measured also on the full available shift amount means 44x56mm format.
at f11 the field curvature at infinity will not be visible anymore.
BTW - the flare that you mentioned with the Zeiss standard Hasselblad lenses I can confirm, we did 2! additional lightraps for our Superrotators as well as a complete
capsuling for the TS mechanism to improve that, and - gues what, there is none left. May also have a connection to our nearly round 12 blade aperture, the effects of the 5 shutter blades
of the Blads lenses are definitely well known and sometimes upright ugly especially in defocused areas.
The Hartblei loupe works best on the HCam, you look into the sliders direction straight to the motive. Works pretty good.
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
Hi Eric
Comparing a fully mechanical to an electronical controlled camera is tricky nowadays.
You need to push up sharpening until it matches the Sony , even if you don´t do anything the firmware in the modern DSLRs is already sharpening images,
not only linear but also according to their specific lens data, these lenses are all chipped.
The DPReview data were measured also on the full available shift amount means 44x56mm format.
at f11 the field curvature at infinity will not be visible anymore.
BTW - the flare that you mentioned with the Zeiss standard Hasselblad lenses I can confirm, we did 2! additional lightraps for our Superrotators as well as a complete
capsuling for the TS mechanism to improve that, and - gues what, there is none left. May also have a connection to our nearly round 12 blade aperture, the effects of the 5 shutter blades
of the Blads lenses are definitely well known and sometimes upright ugly especially in defocused areas.
The Hartblei loupe works best on the HCam, you look into the sliders direction straight to the motive. Works pretty good.
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
Hi Eric,
Sorry, but shooting a step-wedge is not more accurate, although may be closer to variable conditions real live shooting situations (partly due to veiling glare), depending on the lens and lighting situation used. For a fair, unbiased review one usually tries to avoid as many variables (such as lens / lighting conditions used) as possible. Ignoring things like these variables is exactly what makes comparisons controversial.
The DxO Mark evaluations seem to be pretty accurate though.
Cheers,
Bart
I have a Stouffer wedge 41 steps, but I didn't get around to shooting it. You need to eliminate all surrounding light and flare. It is not easy.
Hi,
I have a Stouffer wedge 41 steps, but I didn't get around to shooting it. You need to eliminate all surrounding light and flare. It is not easy.
Best regards
Erik
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Stouffer/Results/20130714-CF043507_Step_2.png) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Stouffer/Results/20130714-_DSC2289_Step_2.png) |
Your imatest numbers are definitely less than mine for testing similar backs (p20, CF 22, CF 528, CF 39, etc) however I can't say why yours are lower and I haven't run your files through imatest myself. In my own testing, the imatest low values come closer to DXO's values and also fit with the sensor manufacturers stated DR. But does DXO test camera and lenses or just the sensor? Lenses may limit contrast and therefore DR - so they may have some effect. In fact as a side discussion, I wonder what the DR limits of lenses are? I've read somewhere that the most we can expect through good real life lenses is about 13-14 stops. Anyone have any info on that? Certainly we are at the point where the lenses can make the difference.
Since I have tested many cameras, the thing I find most useful is the ratio of drop from low to high values in imatest. DSLR's of past used to drop quite a lot from low to high - ie about 4-5 stops. Current generation DSLR's like the Nikon d800 don't drop as much between the ratios. I find the Imatest High value of most use to evaluate how an image will hold up through the editing process.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/DynamicRange/Results/20130714-_DSC2288_C1_1_Step_2.png) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/DynamicRange/Results/20130714-CF043506_C1_Step_2.png) |