Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: pjtn on October 10, 2013, 12:56:41 am
-
I've been struggling with a decision to sell my Phase One P25+ and instead shoot landscapes with a Canon 5D MKIII.
I will be printing to only 36x24" (or 32x24" if using MF). My current camera is the Mamiya AFD and I have the old Mamiya 80mm lens attached. I don't think this lens is getting everything from the sensor.
Upgrading the camera and the lens would obviously improve the image quality, but it's extremely expensive. Plus I would like to have at least one other, wider focal length lens, which costs much more than the standard 80mm.
Stitching is not an option as I like doing long exposures.
What I'm curious about is whether the 5D MKIII might produce prints with a similar quality, using prime lenses, to what my P25+ is currently making?
-
Hi,
I recently looked at 30x40" (actually crops and not a full print) from my Sony Alpha 99 and from my P45+/Hasellblad V. I can see features which are sharper on the Hasselblad image but I cannot reliably tell which is which, if I am not looking for those features. This is a bit misleading due to different aspect ratio and different focal lengths. The Canon should be able to deliver the same resolution as the Sony Alpha. I would presume that Canon has better lenses.
I have posted some images shot with P45+ (39MP MF) respectively Alpha 99 (24 MP FX) here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/
Here are more generic samples:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples2/
The pages above have both processed JPEGs at actual pixels and raw images. Those are real world images and not test shots. Test shots would/should be more exacting.
It is unlikely that your P25+ is limited by the old Mamiya lens, unless it is broken. Most Mamiya lenses are very good.
Image quality wise the Nikon D800/D800E has a few advantages. It has 36MP and better DR at low ISO than the Canon. Both can use Zeiss lenses. I presume that you don't own a Canon 5DIII, else you would just test, that is the reason I mention the Nikon.
Some would say that MF-files are better or more malleable than smaller format files, or have better skin tones. I cannot comment on that.
Best regards
Erik
I've been struggling with a decision to sell my Phase One P25+ and instead shoot landscapes with a Canon 5D MKIII.
I will be printing to only 36x24" (or 32x24" if using MF). My current camera is the Mamiya AFD and I have the old Mamiya 80mm lens attached. I don't think this lens is getting everything from the sensor.
Upgrading the camera and the lens would obviously improve the image quality, but it's extremely expensive. Plus I would like to have at least one other, wider focal length lens, which costs much more than the standard 80mm.
Stitching is not an option as I like doing long exposures.
What I'm curious about is whether the 5D MKIII might produce prints with a similar quality, using prime lenses, to what my P25+ is currently making?
-
The P25+ sensor will produce better files concerning dynamic range, and possibly more pleasing color. The 5D mark III is like all Canon cameras a bit weak when it comes to shadow pushing. On the other hand this can be overcome with shooting technique and bracketing/HDR in difficult situations. Anyway, if you do lots of heavy post-processing the P25+ files will be noticeably better.
Concerning wides the TS-E 24 II is a great lens to have, so great that you might want to combine it with a 1.4x III to get ~35mm. I have a 5D mark II (and an Aptus 75 with tech cam), with the 5D I use the TS-E 24 II with 1.4x III to get 35mm, the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 plus the 70-200/2.8 II. The 70-200 is so good that I can generally leave the 85 at home (hopefully Canon will update the 45 and 90 TS-E to newer designs soon by the way). I think that is a good landscape kit. Quality wise you can do with high end zooms on the long end (ie the 70-200/2.8 II), but prefer primes on normal to wides. The new 24-70 II should be good though, but I have not tested it. Be sure to get version II (or version III if exists) as the most recent versions of lenses are generally considerably sharper than the older revisions.
Nowadays I shoot most of my landscape with the tech cam though, but bring out the Canon when I need a quicker workflow, lighter gear, longer exposures or the environment is real tough. You might want to look into getting a second hand tech cam to your P25+, that could be about the same pricing as new Canon gear.
-
Thanks a lot for all those links Erik! That's really helpful. Finding good samples from a DSLR like the A99 online is extremely hard, the review websites clearly don't use tripods...
The difference is very noticeable on screen between the A99 and P45+. I have to say it makes me reconsider. Are the differences less noticeable in print?
One other huge aspect is Capture One. I really don't like it one bit. My computer slows down, the image processing constantly stops working and I need to delete preference files to make it work, and in general the interface seems completely counter intuitive. Using Lightroom again yesterday was like a breath of fresh air, everything just works.
What kind of tech camera are you thinking Torger?
It's possible the Sony A99 would have more information to play with than the 5D MKIII. I was hoping they had fixed the shadow problems. My main reason for the Canon is the really nice new 24mm and 35mm lenses.
-
I've been struggling with a decision to sell my Phase One P25+ and instead shoot landscapes with a Canon 5D MKIII.
I will be printing to only 36x24" (or 32x24" if using MF). My current camera is the Mamiya AFD and I have the old Mamiya 80mm lens attached. I don't think this lens is getting everything from the sensor.
Upgrading the camera and the lens would obviously improve the image quality, but it's extremely expensive. Plus I would like to have at least one other, wider focal length lens, which costs much more than the standard 80mm.
Stitching is not an option as I like doing long exposures.
What I'm curious about is whether the 5D MKIII might produce prints with a similar quality, using prime lenses, to what my P25+ is currently making?
I suggest you get a D800E. You will love the image quality.
Ideally I would suggest a P45+ or a P65+ and another lens and even a tech camera but since you are on a tight budget it is not an option. 24x36" prints are possible with the Canon but it is at its limit so they can work but not as good as with the Nikon. (given equally good technique and lens)
-
What kind of tech camera are you thinking Torger?
To get an economical solution you need to be patient and creative, and also read a lot about the products and on the forums to make the right choice, as it's a bit of a jungle. Or you get help from a good dealer, but then pricing is rather different than second hand off a forum. You can build a system out of a Sinar X and analog lenses and get something real cheap, but it won't be very practical or good for wides.
The reason you would choose a tech camera with a 22 meg back instead of a Canon or Nikon would mainly be if you like the workflow and style. I use shifting and tilting a lot, and find the tilt-shift availability in the DSLRs a bit limiting. Say if you would have been a large format shooter in the film era, you'd probably like a tech cam. If you would have been a Hasselblad 500 shooter instead back then, I think a DSLR is the natural choice today, and indeed concerning image quality the D800E is the strongest, but if you intend to buy into the lens system and live long with the system you might want Canon anyway as they seem to make a bit better lenses the last few years. The TS-E 24 II and 17 are "killer" lenses. Now with the Zeiss Otus etc you can get good third-party choices as well though, and Nikon does have goodies too.
The problem with Canon is that have still been unable to show to the world that they can compete with Sony Exmor sensors (that's in the D800) in terms of base ISO image quality, so while it's quite safe to assume that a "high MP" Canon will arrive "soonish", there's nothing that indicates that it will have as good DR as the competition. The 5D mark III is only a mild improvement in image quality over the 5D mark II if we look at base ISO. Canon has always been up there with the best when it comes to the higher ISOs, and frankly I think they care a whole lot more about video features and being good at high ISO than competing in the shadow pushing game, which is a bit unfortunate for us that shoot landscapes from a tripod.
Get some 5D mark III raw files and play with in your raw converter and see how they are, the DR issue can easily be exaggerated. However, would I buy a system new from scratch today to get the most quality for the money from start I'd go with a D800 and live with the lens lineup limitations.
-
I've heard the 6D has very good DR, and it's comparatively cheap.
Re. wides for Mamiya, there are a bunch of decent old manual focus Mamiya lenses out there, which might solve your problem *very* cheaply. You could also use a cheap chinese adapter and a Hassy lens.
Edmund
-
You may also want to consider what Sony releases in the coming weeks. It seems as though there will be a relatively inexpensive 36mp full frame mirrorless camera coming on which you would likely be able to use canon wide angles with full aperture and autofocus control through an adapter if I'm not mistaken. Though it wouldn't likely be continuous autofocus as you could find on a 5diii, it would likely use sony's focus peaking for manual focus.
-
It's possible the Sony A99 would have more information to play with than the 5D MKIII. I was hoping they had fixed the shadow problems. My main reason for the Canon is the really nice new 24mm and 35mm lenses.
The current best 35mm f1.4 is the Sigma, followed by the Nikkor/Zeiss and the Canon.
The 24mm f1.4 are very close.
The only lens that some consider significantly superior on Canon side is the 24mm T/S, but the reality is that the Nikkor 24mm T/S is very far from being a poor lens. Another current gap is the lack of 17mm T/S on Nikon side.
Frankly, if you have no existing Canon lenses, there is very little reason to pick the 5DIII. It is an excellent camera overall, but its sensor is 3-4 years behind at base ISO.
Another point of high importance is that Nikon mount lenses can be mounted on Canon bodies but the opposite isn't possible. For landscape applications, it makes therefore more sense to invest in F mount lenses (Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, Leica R converted,...).
If Canon were to wake up and release a superior body I would just need to buy an adapter and start shooting without having to spend a penny on lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've heard the 6D has very good DR, and it's comparatively cheap.
My grand aunt was saying the same thing before reading the following DxO comparison:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/865|0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/836|0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/795|0/(brand3)/Canon
Note that I selected an APS body from another brand to illustrate the point. 2.25 times less sensor area... still 1.5 stop more DR.
But yes, the 6D is slightly less disastrous than the 5DIII. Both are excellent high ISO cameras though, clearly superior to any APS-C contender (but not better than other FF contenders though).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah, Canon has not really improved base iso image quality since basically 2007 when they introduced the 1DS mk3 (which I still own). I have owned and or used the 5D, 5D2, 5D3 and 1DS3 extensively and can vouch for this fact.
-
Hi,
Computer screens are around 100 DPI, so a 24 MP image on screen corresponds to a 100x150 cm print viewed from a close distance. So the difference you see is what you would see in a very large print viewed at close distance. I looked at 2000 pixel high crops in A4, something like 56x85 cm and I could see little difference. I could not say which was which without looking at clues. (Some strains of grass sharper on P45+ and the greens being more yellow).
Tim Parkin had an article with Nikon D800 vs. Hasselblad H3D39, and the two were close. Tim also has a Sony Alpha 900 so they had some images from that camera, too. The differences were like my P45+ vs. my Alpha 99.
The P45+ arrived 2007 in the years passed MFDBs have developed a lot, it seems. The new MFDBs are very expensive. There was a very good article at Lens Rentals on choosing a camera system, I will dig it up when I have some time.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks a lot for all those links Erik! That's really helpful. Finding good samples from a DSLR like the A99 online is extremely hard, the review websites clearly don't use tripods...
The difference is very noticeable on screen between the A99 and P45+. I have to say it makes me reconsider. Are the differences less noticeable in print?
-
Normally people have a dSLR and are considering a digital back. That makes it hard (though definitely not possible) to make their analysis based on their own hands on shooting. In such cases they normally work with a dealer to rent or borrow a back for testing.
But in this case you're considering a camera which is very broadly available. Rental for a 5DIII in NYC is around $75 for a 3-day weekend (plus $30-$50 per lens).
That's assuming you can't borrow one from a friend/colleague.
Go rent one, shoot for a weekend. Do some "direct" comparisons, but also just take and shoot each system the way each system feels best to you. Compare the results based on what you actually do (do you post 100% crops on websites or do you make prints? what kind/size of prints?) and see both the end-result. Also pay attention to how using each camera feels subjectively to you - this is completely personal: one persons "forces me to be slow and contemplative" system is another person's "painfully slow to use" system and some people (usually very loudly) insist the camera has zero influence on how they shoot.
Likewise some photographers find that shooting with a different aspect ratio is not bothersome at all and they can "crop on the fly" if they don't love the 3:2 aspect ratio of the dSLR. Others will find that composing in a long-skinny viewfinder is wonderful, still others will find it horrid.
It will cost you less than $200 (assuming you're renting in a major market) or a few beers (if you're borrowing from a friend) and will gain you a lot more insight than anything you'll get on the forum. Even outside the major markets a Canon rental is pretty easy to arrange via mail. Of course I can only really speak about the US here where there are several major rental houses that work almost exclusively via online-and-ship - not sure where you're located.
-
One other huge aspect is Capture One. I really don't like it one bit. My computer slows down, the image processing constantly stops working and I need to delete preference files to make it work, and in general the interface seems completely counter intuitive.
Few thoughts:
- have you ever taken a class on C1? We're not talking about going back for a 10 week university course - just an hour or two capture one (https://digitaltransitions.com/event/training) class taken online. The most common reaction we have after such a class is the client feels like they are "fighting" the software much less now that they understand some of the underlying philosophies of the interface design.
- have you worked with P1 Support or your dealer to troubleshoot your slow downs and process-halts? These are absolutely not normal and can definitely be fixed. It could be something very simple like not having enough ram, or using OSX 10.6 (which is supported but is known to be horridly buggy with current versions of C1).
- you do not NEED to use Capture One for a P25+. I'd argue you'll get best results using C1 rather than LR with your P25+, but I'd argue the same for your 5DIII. So the choice between C1 and LR has very little to do with your choice between a P25+ and a 5DIII.
-
My current camera is the Mamiya AFD and I have the old Mamiya 80mm lens attached. I don't think this lens is getting everything from the sensor.
Upgrading the camera and the lens would obviously improve the image quality, but it's extremely expensive. Plus I would like to have at least one other, wider focal length lens, which costs much more than the standard 80mm.
Just as a reference point we have a pre-owned DF Body (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/used-digital-backs) for $1700 and a pre-owned Phase One 80mm D (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/used-digital-backs) lens for $1492.
I have a lot of respect for the Phase One 45mm D which we have as a new-but-open-box for $2,290.
Everyone's idea of "extremely expensive" will definitely vary. I used to think $5 was "extremely expensive" for a beer*, before I fell in love with great beer and moved to NYC. So I thought I'd give you some specific numbers so you have a reference.
*I could get 20 beers for that on quarter-beer night at the dive bar in college!
-
As others have said, the 5d3 is like a 5d2/1ds3, with better high ISO performance. It is, to my mind, a small 1ds3 without the 1ds3 finder (which is really nice). Its a steroidal 5d2, a much better camera mechanically than the 5d2, with slightly better IQ. It is great for shooting lifestyle and portraits, and journalism. I think it would be too far a drop from the P25+. The D800e is a huge improvement over the 5d3 in terms of IQ, at least for landscapes, not so much for people.
The Mamiya 80AF is a very sharp, very contrasty lens. It does well with 33 and 39mpx backs, in my experience. You may want to check out another copy.
I would also suggest that, for less than twohundred USD, you look at the Mamiya 55mm manual focus lens. One of the best lenses I've ever used. The 45mmAF is good too once its stopped down. This lens used is in the fourhundred USD range.
Other than that, look at a D800e. Its sharp and all that.
As to C1, if it bogs its probably due to your video card. Runs like a champ on my 2012 iMac, 2011 MBP, and even my ancient 2006 Mac Pro, although I have a much improved video card.
Good luck!
-
Concerning raw converters, or any other software for that matter, one gets used to what one uses, and dislikes every other software that doesn't work exactly as one is used to. Given some time and patience one can usually start to like the alternatives.
The main weakness I think C1 have compared to Lightroom is the tonemapping features (highlights and shadows pushing), so if one is using those a lot with strong settings in Lightroom it will be hard to achieve the same results with C1. So featurewise I'd say Lightroom is better for landscape work, while C1 is probably better for studio work and portraits where fine-tuned color comes into play, especially with Phase One and Leaf backs. However with a bit more old-school approach to landscape post-processing (ie less tonemapping) C1 will do very good work too.
-
Hi,
Regarding the raw converters I am with Torger. I own C1 but don't really use it. It has probably some benefits for studio work. It also produces less aliasing artifacts as far as I can see. My major issue is the user interface and the handling highlights and shadows. The issue is really that you need to compress a wide range of luminance without making the image low contrast and boring. Lightroom 4 introduced a kind of local adaption that helps to achieve that in a natural looking way.
The article below describes a technique not needed any longer with LR4:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/61-hdr-tone-mapping-on-ordinary-image
I also feel that I want a parametric workflow and DAM facilities. Both C1 and LR offer this, but I don't think they mix well. On my platform I would say (model 2009 MacPro + 16 GByte) that C1 is faster than LR5.
Getting back to your options, I would suggest that you try to check out your technique first. Everything I have published have been shot from a very good tripod using a very good head. I also use mirror lockup and cable release (or self timer on the Alpha 99). I also have checked focusing as well a I could and use a 3X prism with a 3X monocular for exact focusing on the "Blad". Alpha 99 I use live view at 11X magnification.
After that try another lens and consider "downgrading".
Just to mention, a member on these forums (lust4life) has downgraded from Hasselblad HD4D50 to Nikon D800E and a Zeiss 21/4 lens and he seems to be superhappy. The reason he downgraded was need for lower weight.
Best regards
Erik
Concerning raw converters, or any other software for that matter, one gets used to what one uses, and dislikes every other software that doesn't work exactly as one is used to. Given some time and patience one can usually start to like the alternatives.
The main weakness I think C1 have compared to Lightroom is the tonemapping features (highlights and shadows pushing), so if one is using those a lot with strong settings in Lightroom it will be hard to achieve the same results with C1. So featurewise I'd say Lightroom is better for landscape work, while C1 is probably better for studio work and portraits where fine-tuned color comes into play, especially with Phase One and Leaf backs. However with a bit more old-school approach to landscape post-processing (ie less tonemapping) C1 will do very good work too.
-
Just as a reference point we have a pre-owned DF Body (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/used-digital-backs) for $1700 and a pre-owned Phase One 80mm D (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/used-digital-backs) lens for $1492.
I have a lot of respect for the Phase One 45mm D which we have as a new-but-open-box for $2,290.
Everyone's idea of "extremely expensive" will definitely vary. I used to think $5 was "extremely expensive" for a beer*, before I fell in love with great beer and moved to NYC. So I thought I'd give you some specific numbers so you have a reference.
*I could get 20 beers for that on quarter-beer night at the dive bar in college!
Doug,
Who needs to justify the price of a Rolls Royce?
I once had a long-distance trip in one. Guy who owned it took a wheel off on the highway to unclamp the brakes from the wheel.
In all fairness it was a restored job, but still that was a one-off event.
Edmund
-
I have a Canon 5DII, Nikon D800E and a Phase one IQ180/Cambo/Rodenstock Hr's
Go for the Nikon D800E and some first class lenses, I converted Leica R's to Nikkor mount and couldn't be happier!
Basically a MFDB in an SLR package!
Marc
-
Hi,
Marc has been very kind to share his experience. I looked into MFD before buying the P45+ and wrote an article about it: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts
Now, I have been shooting P45+ for three months and I still feel the above article stands correct.
My experience of the P45?
Was it a good investment? No!
Do I like it? Yes!
Do I get better image quality? Hmm...
Do I get better sharpness? Yes!
Do I get better DR? No!
Do I like it? Yes!
Would I do it again? Maybe!
Would I recommend it to a friend? I don't recommend things...
Best regards
Erik
I have a Canon 5DII, Nikon D800E and a Phase one IQ180/Cambo/Rodenstock Hr's
Go for the Nikon D800E and some first class lenses, I converted Leica R's to Nikkor mount and couldn't be happier!
Basically a MFDB in an SLR package!
Marc
-
Well this has given me a lot to think about. It seems the Canon is not the best way to go, but rather a Sony A99 or Nikon D800e if I choose the DSLR. Personally I do really like the look of the Zeiss 24mm and 50mm lenses for Sony. Less sure about the EVF though.
It does also make me consider picking up an older Mamiya 45mm AF lens for the time being. Then I could upgrade the camera and lenses over time.
Or I pick up a Mamiya AFD II which does't seem all that expensive and a Phase One 80mm D lens. Adding the 45mm D later. Are there many improvements on the AFD II? Can mirror lockup be used in conjunction with the self timer? Does it have the same 30 second exposure limit of the AFD or is it upgraded to 60 minutes? I can't seem to find this info anywhere.
In all honesty what I want the most is a Hasselblad. The H3DII-31 is very attractively priced now and the Hasseblad lenses are easier for me to get. I love the H series camera bodies and feel the Hasseblad RAW files work beautifully in Lightroom.
The only thing holding me back on this is the complete lack of long exposure capability. It seems it can't even do a good 30 second exposure.
At the moment I've been shooting a personal seascape project. It's made good use of the long exposure capability of the P25+. (These are only quick drafts from exported JPEGS)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img15/3695/kzm0.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img29/3945/o382.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img513/9357/a3nl.jpg)
-
Computer screens are around 100 DPI, so a 24 MP image on screen corresponds to a 100x150 cm print viewed from a close distance. So the difference you see is what you would see in a very large print viewed at close distance.
So if I wan't to compare a rough approximation to a print between the two cameras, I should resize to 60cm x 80/90cm, at 100ppi, and view at 100%?
If I do that, the difference between the two is extremely minimal when it comes to detail and sharpness. The 'look' and colours are very clearly different of course.
-
So if I wan't to compare a rough approximation to a print between the two cameras, I should resize to 60cm x 80/90cm, at 100ppi, and view at 100%?
If I do that, the difference between the two is extremely minimal when it comes to detail and sharpness. The 'look' and colours are very clearly different of course.
A good way to setup up Photoshop to give you an accurate representation of print size is :
- Determine the the ppi of your screen by dividing the width or height (use a ruler) of the screen by the corresponding resolution.
- Determine the the ppi of your screen by dividing the screen resolution (for example width:1900 pixels) by the physical width of the screen (15 inches), gives 126 ppi.
- In Photoshop enter this value under Preferences => Units & Rulers => screen resolution.
- Set the image size and print resolution under Image => Image Size
- With the zoom tool right click and choose Print Size
Paul
-
Thanks a lot Paul!
The sony looks quite good at 60cm tall. But of course the P45+ looks better. Not just in sharpness and detail, but somehow a bit more vibrant.
Of course I don't have a P45+ though. Looking at these images I can see quite how bad the aliasing is on my camera.
-
I am currently using a Nikon d800. It produces a sharp file. The camera is a monster when it comes to capturing detail in the shadows--it never ceases to impress me. The files hold up well in heavy post. What I don't like about the d800 is the inelegant luminance response from about 200 up to 254. It's not subtle. The Sony a850 did a better job with highlights. As far as color, nothing beat the CF39-MS Hassey back that I've used. Those files are extraordinarily robust. The drawback with any MFDB system is the auto focus is not nearly as sophisticated, live focus is for tethered shooting in the studio (maybe the new Phase offerings manage okay in the field), forget about using an ISO setting two stops over base (the smaller sensor backs with micro lenses might stretch to 2.5 stops), and the lenses are expensive--especially when you head down the tech camera path using electronic shutters. But there is a certain look that a seven or eight-year old MFDB CCD chip offers. The midtones, highlights, rolloff, and color are better. The difference in sharpness between a P45+ and a Nikon d800 is moot. In fact, I've found that my pro Nikon lenses are far better than say the Hasselblad HC35, HC50 I, or either of the Mamiya 35mm AF or MF versions. The old Mamiya 50mm shift lens is pretty cool. The Mamiya 45 AF (non D) version is okay.
Every choice has it's pros and cons. For me, I need the versatility that a 35mm digital SLR offers. I've gone down the MFDB road before and love revisiting some of the files those systems produced--stuff that would not be possible with a 35mm dSLR (especially fine art reproduction). A very nice inexpensive camera that compares favorably to the old Aptus 22 back is the Sony a850. The full frame Sony is a great 24 MP camera, it has better than average dynamic range, terrific IQ, and the Zeiss glass is beautiful. It exhibits a smoother range of gradations in the highlights than the Nikon d800. The problem with the Alpha system is the lack of choices regarding lenses. The Zeiss 24-70 is special, and I've heard good things about the 16-35. I dropped Sony when it introduced the a99. That camera did not appeal to me on any level. I'll bet the image quality is about par with the a850 and a900 without the gorgeous optical finder. One nice thing about the a99 is that it has a very good live view capability whereas the previous FF Alphas didn't have live view.
As for Nikon lenses, the 14-24mm is in a class all of its own, especially in the studio where you are able to control lighting. The 24-70 f/2.8 is comparable to the Zeiss (the Nikon renders better sharpness along the far edges of the frame and the ACR lens profile corrects distortion and CA with a mere click), the Nikon 60mm macro lens is spectacular (far superior to the Sony), and the 70-200 f/4 VR is lightweight, portable, and optically superb; the AF is not zippy. I'd be curious to check out the new Nikon d610. My guess is that the tonal curve in the highlights is more nuanced than the d800.
Doug Peterson offers sound advice: test out a range of systems to see what works best for you. It's worth budgeting up to $1,000 to do that, because once you commit to a system, $1K is trivial.
-
Well this has given me a lot to think about. It seems the Canon is not the best way to go, but rather a Sony A99 or Nikon D800e if I choose the DSLR. Personally I do really like the look of the Zeiss 24mm and 50mm lenses for Sony. Less sure about the EVF though.
It does also make me consider picking up an older Mamiya 45mm AF lens for the time being. Then I could upgrade the camera and lenses over time.
Or I pick up a Mamiya AFD II which does't seem all that expensive and a Phase One 80mm D lens. Adding the 45mm D later. Are there many improvements on the AFD II? Can mirror lockup be used in conjunction with the self timer? Does it have the same 30 second exposure limit of the AFD or is it upgraded to 60 minutes? I can't seem to find this info anywhere.
In all honesty what I want the most is a Hasselblad. The H3DII-31 is very attractively priced now and the Hasseblad lenses are easier for me to get. I love the H series camera bodies and feel the Hasseblad RAW files work beautifully in Lightroom.
The only thing holding me back on this is the complete lack of long exposure capability. It seems it can't even do a good 30 second exposure.
At the moment I've been shooting a personal seascape project. It's made good use of the long exposure capability of the P25+. (These are only quick drafts from exported JPEGS)
The Mamiya AFDII body is a piece of s... , and I don't think the next ones are much better, although the Phase backs are superb at base ISO. The Mamiyas of that generation were doubtless good film bodies, but are not really designed for digital tolerances. My impression is the only decent *body* in current production and general use is the Hassy, although the zombified Contax and life-support Hy6 have a good rep, somehow they are disappearing from view. The good news is that older Hassies are fairly cheap.
As dSLRs go, the sensor structure determines rez, but the CFA is what determines color quality. The Sony Alpha 900 and 850 had a very good reputation in this respect.
Edmund
-
I don't think the issue is any manufacturing tolerences such that a MFDB's sensor is too far from the film plane. That was never a problem with the Mamiya AFd I and II. I had bunches of them over teh years. The issue with that series of cameras is that the digital interface and the hardware that runs it is very, very slow, at least for shooting people. The shutter lag drove me nuts unless I was in a studio using it like a view camera. The Aptus 22/75 and Phase P25/45 were slow backs by todays standards, and they were faster than the Mamiya didgital interface in the AFd1 and 2. And you are spot on in writing that the AFD 1 and 2 were great film cameras. They really are.
The H1 and 2 were much faster but the shutter shock was a bitch. So it was a trade off: a laggy Mamiya system or a faster H system but with shutter shake. Solution: DSLR for available light. I never used, extensively, an H3 or better, and I never used an H with the mirror delay, so I can't comment.
the seascapes are mighty nice.
The Mamiyas of that generation were doubtless good film bodies, but are not really designed for digital tolerances.
-
I don't think the issue is any manufacturing tolerences such that a MFDB's sensor is too far from the film plane. That was never a problem with the Mamiya AFd I and II. I had bunches of them over teh years. The issue with that series of cameras is that the digital interface and the hardware that runs it is very, very slow, at least for shooting people. The shutter lag drove me nuts unless I was in a studio using it like a view camera. The Aptus 22/75 and Phase P25/45 were slow backs by todays standards, and they were faster than the Mamiya didgital interface in the AFd1 and 2. And you are spot on in writing that the AFD 1 and 2 were great film cameras. They really are.
The H1 and 2 were much faster but the shutter shock was a bitch. So it was a trade off: a laggy Mamiya system or a faster H system but with shutter shake. Solution: DSLR for available light. I never used, extensively, an H3 or better, and I never used an H with the mirror delay, so I can't comment.
the seascapes are mighty nice.
I read somewhere that PhaseOne is developing a new camera platform. It will retain compatibility with the mamiya lenses but it will be supposedly a new camera not just a refresh of the Mamiya 645.
-
I read somewhere that PhaseOne is developing a new camera platform. It will retain compatibility with the mamiya lenses but it will be supposedly a new camera not just a refresh of the Mamiya 645.
That rumor has a long beard. Maybe someone will finally send Seal Team 7 to take out the Mamiya AFD* production line once and for all :)
That camera is giving the otherwise excellent Phase backs lenses and software a bad rep.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Yes, I heard that, too. I think it is pretty official. I also have the impression we may see some new sensors. Unfortunately I think new Phase One MFDBs are beyond my pay grade.
What I have noticed is that good photographers praise vintage sensors like P25. The later generation sensors are better, at least according to DxO who make scientific (that is reproducible) tests. It also seems that owners of D800/D800E are quite happy. I do not have experience with Nikon, just Sony Alpha 900, Alpha 99 and P45+, but according what I have read and seen it should be an interesting alternative.
Best regards
Erik
I read somewhere that PhaseOne is developing a new camera platform. It will retain compatibility with the mamiya lenses but it will be supposedly a new camera not just a refresh of the Mamiya 645.
-
I think a lot of people would benefit from using better software. Phase One's C1 can be really good, and also Canon's free DPP. Freeware RPP is also top-grade if you can live with its user interface.
In my experience, using better software is as good as a camera upgrade. Sadly, Lightroom is more of a one-size fits all with superb workflow than a tool that can really get the best out of every camera.
Edmund
Hi,
Yes, I heard that, too. I think it is pretty official. I also have the impression we may see some new sensors. Unfortunately I think new Phase One MFDBs are beyond my pay grade.
What I have noticed is that good photographers praise vintage sensors like P25. The later generation sensors are better, at least according to DxO who make scientific (that is reproducible) tests. It also seems that owners of D800/D800E are quite happy. I do not have experience with Nikon, just Sony Alpha 900, Alpha 99 and P45+, but according what I have read and seen it should be an interesting alternative.
Best regards
Erik
-
I think a lot of people would benefit from using better software. Phase One's C1 can be really good, and also Canon's free DPP. Freeware RPP is also top-grade if you can live with its user interface.
In my experience, using better software is as good as a camera upgrade. Sadly, Lightroom is more of a one-size fits all with superb workflow than a tool that can really get the best out of every camera.
Edmund
To get the best out of every camera you need something like THIS (http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/baselight/range_bl/index_bl.php) , we have one here where I work with THIS (http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/pdf/datasheets/FL-BL-DS-0539-Blackboard.pdf) and they use it looking at THIS (http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/hardware/video-monitors/prm-4220-professional-reference-monitor.html)
I can take an image of the setup tomorrow.
Every software that process digital camera files needs to do THIS (http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/resources/Articles-&-Reviews/Debayering_API.pdf) every single time and the algorithms vary. I mean you can push and pull sliders and settings in the software all over but deep down the algorithms and the programming is whats in there doing work. Those differ from software to software obviously.
-
If it's possible for anyone to shoot a 30 second exposure on a Hasselblad H3DII-31 and send me the original file I would be very grateful. If the noise was within reason it wouldn't be a problem for me to stack multiple 30 second exposures to achieve an even longer exposure effect. That's how I did the seascapes above.
-
The H1 and 2 were much faster but the shutter shock was a bitch. So it was a trade off: a laggy Mamiya system or a faster H system but with shutter shake. Solution: DSLR for available light. I never used, extensively, an H3 or better, and I never used an H with the mirror delay, so I can't comment.
the seascapes are mighty nice.
You nailed the shortcomings of both the Hasselblad H and the Mamiya AFD-PhaseOne DF.
But there is no shutter shock in the H. There never was one. The effect comes exclusively from the mirror slap.
Setting the mirror delay to 200ms (=0,2sec.) helps, but is very irritating when taking pictures of people. You miss the good moment.
But anyway, imho the H is a much better camera than the Mamiya AFD or the Phase DF. The biggest limit (finally the killing off reason) is the optical quality of the prism finder. It cannot be overcome by any superbright focussing screen, no matter what Phase reps tell you. There is too much information/sharpness lost in the optical path of the prism. There should be a complete redesign, which would make the camera bigger.
But I wished, there was a complete redesign of the Hasselblad H body, too, with the mirror slap eliminated.
Bernd
-
pjtn, what is your name ?
To keep it simple and to keep your money, buy a Mamiya AF 45mm and keep your P25+. You will even have money left for a Mamiya 35mm. When Phase really introduces a completely new body next year, go for one or buy an AF-DIII used for 800,- USD, then.
I have a D800 and a H3D39. Whilst my D800 is fantastic, pictures can never ever match the quality of the Hasselblad.
What is said here one highlight sensitivity of the D800 is also my personal experience. Never overexpose a picture. A digital back is much more robust concerning overexposure.
Just my opinion,
Bernd
-
pjtn, what is your name ?
To keep it simple and to keep your money, buy a Mamiya AF 45mm and keep your P25+. You will even have money left for a Mamiya 35mm. When Phase really introduces a completely new body next year, go for one or buy an AF-DIII used for 800,- USD, then.
I have a D800 and a H3D39. Whilst my D800 is fantastic, pictures can never ever match the quality of the Hasselblad.
What is said here one highlight sensitivity of the D800 is also my personal experience. Never overexpose a picture. A digital back is much more robust concerning overexposure.
Just my opinion
Bernd
The story about a new Phase body just around the corner is a story which keeps getting told to customers, who then in reality get a new body eg DF. with some useful additions and the same base properties - no modern dSLR-like focus system, delay, mediocre finder, body tolerance possibly not matched to back within the few microns etc. I'll believe it when I see it. And by the way, yes I do think there is a reason why Hassy tune each body to each back, and why they have TrueFocus. Just like I do think that Phase's C1 is lightyears better than Lightroom when it comes to processing Phase files.
If you need a wide, just get an old Mamiya manual focus wide, there's a bunch of them out there really cheap. Or mount a Hasselblad V-mount 40 with a cheap chinese adapter. I used a Hassy 110mm F2 portrait lens on my Phamiya and the bokeh was the best I've ever seen.
Frankly, the ideal world would probably be an integrated Hassy body with Phase back and Leica lenses and Phase software - and in fact the Rollei Hy6 was pretty close to that with a modern body, Leaf back and german lenses. Which I guess is why Phase management killed it to keep the cheaper system to sell at a higher profit.
Edmund
-
pjtn, what is your name ?
To keep it simple and to keep your money, buy a Mamiya AF 45mm and keep your P25+. You will even have money left for a Mamiya 35mm. When Phase really introduces a completely new body next year, go for one or buy an AF-DIII used for 800,- USD, then.
I have a D800 and a H3D39. Whilst my D800 is fantastic, pictures can never ever match the quality of the Hasselblad.
What is said here one highlight sensitivity of the D800 is also my personal experience. Never overexpose a picture. A digital back is much more robust concerning overexposure.
The only reason why this is true is because phaseone backs are calibrated to underexpose one stop at base ISO. The CCDs used by backs behave the same way as the CMOS of the D800, they are linear up to saturation. Hightlight headroom does not exist when true ETTR is applied.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The only reason why this is true is because phaseone backs are calibrated to underexpose one stop at base ISO. The CCDs used by backs behave the same way as the CMOS of the D800, they are linear up to saturation. Hightlight headroom does not exist when true ETTR is applied.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
CMOS chips now use antiblooming circuits to create a shoulder.
Edmund
-
I wished, there was a complete redesign of the Hasselblad H body, too, with the mirror slap eliminated.
There again, I don't get what the problem is about. The mirror of H cameras maybe noisy, but it is well damped. By direct comparison with a D800, the slap does not appear to be much stronger, even if the mirror is about twice as large. Then, of course, the camera has more inertia...
-
Well this has given me a lot to think about. It seems .........snip
I get it , but don't get it. Right now your shooting pretty images with your current equipment. It may have limitations, but ask yourself is your equipment keeping you from something? i.e. sales, different images, better (artistic) images?
I dig gear, wish to say I didn't and try to rationalize every purchase, but photography is an emotional excersize and there is nothing logical about the process of buying, shooting and displaying.
I know people that can use the same cameras for decades and never miss a beat, others just have to have to newest thing and they make good use of it.
Personally, if your working successfully in a 4:3 format I'd stick with that and since you have found ways around your current equipment, probably a few lenses would be more fun than a complete overhaul.
Me, I've held on to my Contax and phase backs for years, use them some, love to use them when I can and though I've looked at everything from the latest phase/leaf backs to the H5d and Pentax, nothing was offering me something I couldn't live without.
That's not to imply I'd suggest a contax, though I love working a camera that has a shutter knob and an f stop ring. It's as close to the film experience you can get with digital and even though my backs (p21+_p30+) are eclipsed by modern dslrs when I use them they work for everything I need. Actually I use the p21 more than the larger p30 because it is more responsive and shoots more in the speed of a film back with less delay.
Also phase continual upgrading of their software has made the files much more "modern" and useable.
The only downside is like most medium format cameras, the cameras are from old legacy designs. Phase and Hasselblad have improved their cameras a great deal, but they are still old legacy base designs and nothing short of a clean sheet is going to change that.
But, and take this suggestion with a grain of salt, since your shooting landscapes and can shoot at a slower pace, why not look at a Pentax 645d? It gives you the latest and probably last kodak sensor at 40mpx, you have a good lcd, a huge variety of lenses that can be bought and adapted and the cost is now very low, about 6 grand for a body.
To me that would be a great solution and if I didn't have to tether and the 645d had a larger buffer I'd have bought one.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
One of the vendors has tested medium shutter speeds on H-Series and found no issue with mirror slap. I guess it can vary, and the effect involves everything. Tripod, vibration dampening and so on.
Best regards
Erik
There again, I don't get what the problem is about. The mirror of H cameras maybe noisy, but it is well damped. By direct comparison with a D800, the slap does not appear to be much stronger, even if the mirror is about twice as large. Then, of course, the camera has more inertia...
-
The H1 and 2 were much faster but the shutter shock was a bitch.
There again, I don't get what the problem is about. The mirror of H cameras maybe noisy, but it is well damped.
One of the vendors has tested medium shutter speeds on H-Series and found no issue with mirror slap.
Personally I don't get it either... Would love to be educated...
-
Hi,
According to basic physics, mirror slap would not be a problem because angular momentum is kept. Mirror accelerates and decelerates, those factors should cancel out. If you add dampening by hand and tripod acceleration and deceleration don't cancel out.
Practical tests: https://captureintegration.com/a-look-in-the-mirror-slap-contax-vs-hasselblad-h/
But I don't know if those were proper tests. In a test I made I could see little effect of MLU visually, but when I calculated MTF the difference was dramatic. After seeing MTF I also saw the loss of sharpness in the images. Brain works that way.
Best regards
Erik
Personally I don't get it either... Would love to be educated...
-
Not sure what anyone thinks of the Leica S here.... seems that in terms of sensor size, you are "downgrading". Perhaps not within budgets ( never within budgets with Leica ;D ).
There's some love for it on the getdpi forums, although no concretes for the new system.
I myself am on the reverse path, changing from a D800e to something higher.
-
Upgrade even more by going to film. You can optically print with results surpassing all of the options raised in the OP. The best part is you can avoid the endless upgrade cycles imposed by digital technology (wasn't the original 1Ds or 5D the subject of such posts 8-9 years back). Film cameras are cheap and so is film when compared to the 2-3 year cycle of investment that digital seems to inspire.
-
I myself am on the reverse path, changing from a D800e to something higher.
Out of curiosity, what is it the D800e cannot do relative to your needs and what are you considering upgrading to?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If it's possible for anyone to shoot a 30 second exposure on a Hasselblad H3DII-31 and send me the original file I would be very grateful. If the noise was within reason it wouldn't be a problem for me to stack multiple 30 second exposures to achieve an even longer exposure effect. That's how I did the seascapes above.
I can't do a H3DII-31, but I can do a H3D-31 (without the "II").
I was a bit surprised when I read in this thread that the Hasselblad backs would produce horrible noise when exposed longer than a few fractions of a second. I have little interested for long exposure myself, so I did not know what to think of it, but I found it surprising. The Kodak CCDs used in these backs are used in astronomy for exposure times counted in hours.
So I did a little test. The result of a 64s exposure can be seen here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/10242590136/), on my flickr account. The full resolution is that link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/10242590136//sizes/o/). 64s is the maximum of that particular camera (in auto mode, I have not tried to time the bulb setting), I know that the H3DII-50 can expose for twice as long. You have a week to check it, I don't want to leave that boring picture on my flickr account forever.
It is a quick and dirty test, just showing the view outside my window. I used a cheap Chinese manufactured ND1000 filter from Haida to reduce light. The raw data was treated in Phocus, without noise reduction. The only think I did was to adjust white balance. Phocus will hide hot pixels relatively efficiently and does so automatically. If you want the raw data file, give me a server where I can dump it.
Quite frankly, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. The output looks reasonably good to me. Or did I miss something essential about your question?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7426/10242590136_d8cc2479c3_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/10242590136/)
1 minute shutter time (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/10242590136/)
-
The only reason why this is true is because phaseone backs are calibrated to underexpose one stop at base ISO.
Bernard,
what you mean, I suspect, is that Phase One's raw output is calibrated to give about one more stop of headroom above metered midtones than the roughly three stop minimum headroom used in the ISO standard for measuring the saturation based minimum "safe" exposure index (base ISO speed). I wish people would stop misinterpreting this ISO standard for "highest acceptable mid-tone placement consistent with adequate highlight headroom in all-round usage" as being "the only correct tonal placement in raw files". This confounding makes particularly little sense with the combination of CCD sensors with ADCs that have several stops more DR than the signal going into them, where greater analog gain (higher raw placement) does very little to improve shadow noise because almost all noise enters the signal before gain is applied, but definitely increases the risk of highlight clipping.
To put it another way, with 16-bit ADC applied to a sensor signal with at most 13 stops or DR, there are several stops of latitude in raw placement that will have essentially no adverse effect on IQ, the ISO standard 12232 has no intention or authority to declare one unique choice within that range, no matter how much the DxO folks choose to reinterpret it.
(I now expect comments from people that it is important to be able to use a raw conversion workflow that ignores the camera makers' specifications as to default tonal placements in conversion, so that it is wrong to ever offer more than about three stops of raw headroom in normally metered exposures.)
-
Hi,
According to basic physics, mirror slap would not be a problem because angular momentum is kept. Mirror accelerates and decelerates, those factors should cancel out. If you add dampening by hand and tripod acceleration and deceleration don't cancel out.
Practical tests: https://captureintegration.com/a-look-in-the-mirror-slap-contax-vs-hasselblad-h/
But I don't know if those were proper tests. In a test I made I could see little effect of MLU visually, but when I calculated MTF the difference was dramatic. After seeing MTF I also saw the loss of sharpness in the images. Brain works that way.
Best regards
Erik
You have to factor in the time component which results in torque then the reverse torque, on the rest of the system. The first torque is already dissipating by the time the reverse kicks in which is the problem. He says in the article he can feel the slap vibration in the camera. So then the question is at what time interval are these vibrations present? Is the shutter open over that time interval? Testing at 1/125 and 2 sec is avoiding the problem. You know from the feel in your hand that the mirror slap vibration is over in under a second. How much under? Ballpark 1/8 1/4 1/2 of a second? test that. 1/125th is too fast.
If they have built in a damping system for exactly the speed of the mirror there is no problem. If they have that they need to advertise it.
-
pjtn, what is your name ?
Hi Bernd, my name is Peter.
I can't do a H3DII-31, but I can do a H3D-31 (without the "II").
Thanks heaps for that Jerome, the file looks fantastic! Unfortunately the one I was watching has sold now. The price was very attractive because it was less than I could sell my P25+ for. Since I only have a single lens I feel if I'd rather be shooting another system, now is the time to make the change.
It does seem Capture One processes files better than Lightroom, although the library feature is taking some getting used to. It really gets confusing with catalogs, folders, projects, albums, etc.
My most desired feature is a very simple one, to right click and select 'edit in photoshop'.
Peter
-
My most desired feature is a very simple one, to right click and select 'edit in photoshop'.
This is very easy to do.
Create a process recipe set to "Open With: Photoshop" and "Root Folder: Image Folder".
Then you don't even need to right click, just push the process button or Command-D.
We cover workflow like this in our Capture One classes (https://digitaltransitions.com/event/training).
-
This is very easy to do.
Create a process recipe set to "Open With: Photoshop" and "Root Folder: Image Folder".
Then you don't even need to right click, just push the process button or Command-D.
We cover workflow like this in our Capture One classes (https://digitaltransitions.com/event/training).
Hmm, it sort of worked. My file was processed and opened in Photoshop, it even seems to be in the correct folder. But it doesn't come up in Capture One. It would be even better if came up in Capture One and stacked it with the original.
Also not sure what to set Output Location to. Leaving it without a folder selected wont allow the process to work. If I set just set my desktop to the output folder it doesn't seem to appear there though.
I suppose if want to come back to a file I've worked on in Photoshop I either need to process it again or find the file in the system.
It all seems very clunky.
-
Also, is it normal that leaving the battery in the DB will flatten in very quickly? If I don't take the battery out after each use it's usually flat a couple days later. This was the same on my P30+ too.
-
Hi,
I would suggest that you continue using LR (if that is what you are using). Just keep your files in raw and not DNG. That way you can reprocess any file in C1. For my kind of photography I don't feel I need C1 and prefer LR5. For important images there may be other great alternatives like RawTherapee or DPP. On some images with bad aliasing RawTherapy does a better job than LR5 or C1.
Really wish Capture 1 would support DNG fully.
Best regards
Erik
Hmm, it sort of worked. My file was processed and opened in Photoshop, it even seems to be in the correct folder. But it doesn't come up in Capture One. It would be even better if came up in Capture One and stacked it with the original.
Also not sure what to set Output Location to. Leaving it without a folder selected wont allow the process to work. If I set just set my desktop to the output folder it doesn't seem to appear there though.
I suppose if want to come back to a file I've worked on in Photoshop I either need to process it again or find the file in the system.
It all seems very clunky.
-
Also, is it normal that leaving the battery in the DB will flatten in very quickly? If I don't take the battery out after each use it's usually flat a couple days later. This was the same on my P30+ too.
No, it is not. I usually charge my battery after a shoot and leave it in the P30+ till the next shoot.
-
Thanks heaps for that Jerome, the file looks fantastic!
Why did you think otherwise, if I may ask?
-
Out of curiosity, what is it the D800e cannot do relative to your needs and what are you considering upgrading to?
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
I'm going to get a bit philosophical about this.
I understand that we may be digressing a bit here, but hey, these are forums and who doesn't ? Hopefully, I may also open a can of worms.
Firstly, my needs:
I mainly do landscapes ( with some seriousness ) and family portraiture ( bit of fun and for aiding my memory in the future ).
My issues with D800e.
Great resolution, but poor corner performance on many lenses. I have the 24-70 that I carry mostly on family holidays. Great for portraiture, but try and do some serious landscapes and the corners crumble. I have since resorted to shooting in the 5x4 mode, but even this does not, well, satisfy my aesthetics. The 45pce is another lens I often carry. This is, well very nice at the 45mm focal length. but its kind of a one trick pony.
Another issue is the clipping of highlights. I've found that at values 240-255, I need to be really careful about how the channels behave.
The one thing I never liked about Nikon is the colour signature. I have in the past switched to canon once for this reason.
All this is no obvious reason to quit the entire system ( mind you I am quite invested in the Nikon system at present ).
The other reason I use it for is birding. The 80-400 is a killer. But lately I have gravitated down to contemplative landscapes only.
Why another system ? no idea, perhaps the Leica S will offer me the following:
1. corner resolution. I am already astounded by the "much maligned" Leica X-vario lens. the corner resolution is quite simply astounding even at 18MP, even being a zoom.
2. Better weather sealing
3. the 30-90 should be heaps better than the nikon 24-70.
4. Great lenses ( most of them ) in the lineup.
5. Simpler haptics.
6. Larger sensor ( just enough for my needs ) without having to resort to the next leap of IQ 160. ( I understand I am giving up movements here ).
So what do you think ?
-
Hi Bernard,
I'm going to get a bit philosophical about this.
I understand that we may be digressing a bit here, but hey, these are forums and who doesn't ? Hopefully, I may also open a can of worms.
Firstly, my needs:
I mainly do landscapes ( with some seriousness ) and family portraiture ( bit of fun and for aiding my memory in the future ).
My issues with D800e.
Great resolution, but poor corner performance on many lenses. I have the 24-70 that I carry mostly on family holidays. Great for portraiture, but try and do some serious landscapes and the corners crumble. I have since resorted to shooting in the 5x4 mode, but even this does not, well, satisfy my aesthetics. The 45pce is another lens I often carry. This is, well very nice at the 45mm focal length. but its kind of a one trick pony.
Another issue is the clipping of highlights. I've found that at values 240-255, I need to be really careful about how the channels behave.
The one thing I never liked about Nikon is the colour signature. I have in the past switched to canon once for this reason.
So what do you think ?
I think the perfect system doesn't exist :)
I also think you could go and buy/rent a Zeiss lens for your Nikon.
And you could use Rawdigger to determine the channel position, or simply underexpose by one or more stops, @ISO 200 by daylight with a D800 that should still leave you with more DR than you can use. At this point, 35mm photography is more about misusing the camera creatively than using it properly. Creative misuse might also improve color which is one of the few real weakpoints of Nikons cameras.
Last not least, Doug, who posted earlier, will probably have some suggestions for squeezing more out of you existing MF setup, or advise you clearly about its limitations compared to other solutions.
-
Sorry for the digression indeed. As far as colors on the D800 go, they easily go from ok to great by grey card clicking in C1 Pro.
Although I own a copy of the 24-70f2.8, I hardly ever use it and never use it when I shoot for pleasure (which is 99% of the time). I far prefer using the Nikkor 24mm f1.4, Sigma 35mm f1.4, Zeiss 50mm f2.0 and Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-S. The 24-70f2.8 is a PJ lens and is in fact very good, but it is not meant for landscape shooting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sorry for the digression indeed. As far as colors on the D800 go, they easily go from ok to great by grey card clicking in C1 Pro.
Although I own a copy of the 24-70f2.8, I hardly ever use it and never use it when I shoot for pleasure (which is 99% of the time). I far prefer using the Nikkor 24mm f1.4, Sigma 35mm f1.4, Zeiss 50mm f2.0 and Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-S. The 24-70f2.8 is a PJ lens and is in fact very good, but it is not meant for landscape shooting.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's interesting how much money Zeiss manage to squeeze from the Vanilla 50mm focal length :) Seems to be the place where all the major players dropped the ball.
Edmund
-
The 24-70f2.8 is a PJ lens and is in fact very good, but it is not meant for landscape shooting.
And to add, Capture One Pro offers sharpness fall-off correction to boost the corner sharpness to a more uniform overall level.
Also, sharpening of 35mm DSLR images is still an underdeveloped skill with most users. MFDB sharpening is a bit different due to the risk of aliasing caused by the absence of an OLPF.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And to add, Capture One Pro offers sharpness fall-off correction to boost the corner sharpness to a more uniform overall level.
Adding some more, DxO 8 does a great job with those completely automatically.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernd,
I did mean mirror slap, I should have been more specific. Of course the leaf shutters have no perceived vibration. Its that big mirror.
And yes, the H finder is really great. I never found the the mamiya finder quality terrible unless I compared it directly with an H, or even a Nikon F4.
You nailed the shortcomings of both the Hasselblad H and the Mamiya AFD-PhaseOne DF.
But there is no shutter shock in the H. There never was one. The effect comes exclusively from the mirror slap.
Setting the mirror delay to 200ms (=0,2sec.) helps, but is very irritating when taking pictures of people. You miss the good moment.
But anyway, imho the H is a much better camera than the Mamiya AFD or the Phase DF. The biggest limit (finally the killing off reason) is the optical quality of the prism finder. It cannot be overcome by any superbright focussing screen, no matter what Phase reps tell you. There is too much information/sharpness lost in the optical path of the prism. There should be a complete redesign, which would make the camera bigger.
But I wished, there was a complete redesign of the Hasselblad H body, too, with the mirror slap eliminated.
Bernd
-
And to add, Capture One Pro offers sharpness fall-off correction to boost the corner sharpness to a more uniform overall level.
Also, sharpening of 35mm DSLR images is still an underdeveloped skill with most users. MFDB sharpening is a bit different due to the risk of aliasing caused by the absence of an OLPF.
Cheers,
Bart
Why do 35 mm camera makers have such difficulty delivering good lenses and still argue that their wares are ok for cinematography?
Edmund
-
Why do 35 mm camera makers have such difficulty delivering good lenses
They dont. "Sharp to the corners", "less than 2 Kg" or "less than 6000€". Pick any two out of three.
-
Why do 35 mm camera makers have such difficulty delivering good lenses and still argue that their wares are ok for cinematography?
Hi Edmund,
Well, cinematography only requires limited output resolution, e.g. HDTV format is 1920 x1080 pixels. Good lenses are available, but at a price that many are not willing to pay ...
Good lenses for MF are even harder to produce, and require huge amounts of material, due to the size of the required image circle.
But even images made with good lenses require sharpening.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Of all the motion work I've ever shot, corner to corner sharpness was never a consideration. Sharp wide open and look is what mattered to me. But then again, I filmed human subjects/lifestyle. I also always rented matched Zeiss and Cooke sets.
Why do 35 mm camera makers have such difficulty delivering good lenses and still argue that their wares are ok for cinematography?
Edmund
-
Of all the motion work I've ever shot, corner to corner sharpness was never a consideration. Sharp wide open and look is what mattered to me. But then again, I filmed human subjects/lifestyle. I also always rented matched Zeiss and Cooke sets.
I think digital has brought in the age of oversharpening. Nearly every lens review talks about corner to corner sharpness, rarely about the look and character of a lens.
For the RED's I have Zeiss in Nikon mount and RED primes in PL mounts. The Zeiss are sharper or appear sharper as they have more contrast and crispness, but they're not as pretty.
The RED PL, have a look of sharpness, with soft roll off and just produces a deeper more cinematic image.
Then again, a lot of this is to taste.
When I bought the 4/3's system couldn't wait to put my Leica 90mm M mount lens on the cameras and was really shocked with the CA and softness of the image, where the mft 43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic are sharp and almost CA free, though most of that comes from under the hood processing.
Anyway, the prettiest lens I've ever owned is the Hartblei tilt shift (old Russian sourced). Nothing about this lens is sharp, even in the zero position, but it has a character I've never seen in any lens and it is one of the few lenses that produces a look, I can't replicate with processing by moving the sliders around.
Some lenses are pretty, some are brutally sharp, rarely are both at least in what we shoot.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/thumbs/th_rr_fashion_0028.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
yeah, we have a poster here who wants to do landscape -which he seems to view as the large scale equivalent of dermatology :)
I guess atmospheric would be the equivalent of fashion :)
Edmund
I think digital has brought in the age of oversharpening. Nearly every lens review talks about corner to corner sharpness, rarely about the look and character of a lens.
For the RED's I have Zeiss in Nikon mount and RED primes in PL mounts. The Zeiss are sharper or appear sharper as they have more contrast and crispness, but they're not as pretty.
The RED PL, have a look of sharpness, with soft roll off and just produces a deeper more cinematic image.
Then again, a lot of this is to taste.
When I bought the 4/3's system couldn't wait to put my Leica 90mm M mount lens on the cameras and was really shocked with the CA and softness of the image, where the mft 43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic are sharp and almost CA free, though most of that comes from under the hood processing.
Anyway, the prettiest lens I've ever owned is the Hartblei tilt shift (old Russian sourced). Nothing about this lens is sharp, even in the zero position, but it has a character I've never seen in any lens and it is one of the few lenses that produces a look, I can't replicate with processing by moving the sliders around.
Some lenses are pretty, some are brutally sharp, rarely are both at least in what we shoot.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/thumbs/th_rr_fashion_0028.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
...
My issues with D800e.
Great resolution, but poor corner performance on many lenses. I have the 24-70 that I carry mostly on family holidays. Great for portraiture, but try and do some serious landscapes and the corners crumble. ...
Another issue is the clipping of highlights. I've found that at values 240-255, I need to be really careful about how the channels behave.
On these two points, I have some comments, though I am not disputing your overall case for preferring a MF system.
1) Since MF systems are mostly used with prime lenses, using the Nikon D800 with the 24-70 zoom lens hardly seems a good or fair measure of what the system is capable of. Are you really looking at a high priced medium system [like the Leica S] in pursuit of very high quality landscape images, and then planning to use a zoom lens for those landscapes? You could buy and carry a good selection of good Nikon-mount primes for similar bulk and far lower cost than a Leica S with just that one 30-90 zoom lens.
2) Since the D800 has (by the agreement of most but not all) dynamic range that is at least as good as that offered any current DMF camera (due to the vastly better low-light and noise characteristics of its sensor), and DMF systems tend to reduce the risk of highlight clipping by favoring lower exposure levels, one could achieve the same additional margin of highlight safety by systematically lowering exposure level a bit, say -1/2 or -1 stop compensation, while still handling shadows at least as well as DMF systems do. It is easy enough to have a raw batch conversion preset profile to support a default choice such as -1 stop exposure by applying a default of +1 stop push in conversion.
-
Why did you think otherwise, if I may ask?
I have seen a 32 second exposure taken with the H3DII-31 which was really quite terrible. The corners had turned purple and the image was smattered with hot pixels. My assumptions are solely based on this one image. Your photograph completely changes my mind, that image would easily enlarge to a 40x30" print and look terrific.
Part of the DSLR appeal for me is high ISO capability. I've been thinking about shooting some work at night. The ability to set an ISO of say, 1600, then making a few 30 second exposures and stacking is quite appealing.
I'm quite enjoying some experimentation at the moment.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img844/3363/ifrc.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img22/8085/2eku.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img27/5189/r7sn.jpg)
-
On these two points, I have some comments, though I am not disputing your overall case for preferring a MF system.
1) Since MF systems are mostly used with prime lenses, using the Nikon D800 with the 24-70 zoom lens hardly seems a good or fair measure of what the system is capable of. Are you really looking at a high priced medium system [like the Leica S] in pursuit of very high quality landscape images, and then planning to use a zoom lens for those landscapes? You could buy and carry a good selection of good Nikon-mount primes for similar bulk and far lower cost than a Leica S with just that one 30-90 zoom lens.
2) Since the D800 has (by the agreement of most but not all) dynamic range that is at least as good as that offered any current DMF camera (due to the vastly better low-light and noise characteristics of its sensor), and DMF systems tend to reduce the risk of highlight clipping by favoring lower exposure levels, one could achieve the same additional margin of highlight safety by systematically lowering exposure level a bit, say -1/2 or -1 stop compensation, while still handling shadows at least as well as DMF systems do. It is easy enough to have a raw batch conversion preset profile to support a default choice such as -1 stop exposure by applying a default of +1 stop push in conversion.
BJL,
very valid points.
My main issue at this stage is that considering the nature of my photographic endeavors, most "shoots" happen during family holidays where my ability to change lenses is seriously limited. You'll be able to see some of my recent work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/87227412@N04/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87227412@N04/)
I'm happy to go with f8 and tripods ( avoiding diffraction and risking DOF sharpness ) , but that's about it. After 2 or 3 changes of lenses, my wife's patience is stretched like a rubber band. So it becomes a frustrating situation where I know I need to carry primes but am unable to when out and about. The only solution to this is to try and stick to one focal length ( or two ) which many of us might do. In that instance, I would rather use the M9. Not sure of people's experiences here, but I've found that M9 files are actually a bit superior in microcontrast and colour fidelity to the D800e files ( not bashing nikon, not bashing nikon, bear with me ) at my preferred print size ( 24x36 inches ). Hence my thought process goes like this:
If primes are what I would prefer, I would prefer the M9 and Leica primes anyday over Nikon. Anyday.
If the Leica S 30-90 is indeed as good as it is supposed to be, it saves me the hassle of changing lenses in field. If it isn't, then no, I wouldn't bother going the leica S way. Add to that a larger sensor, weather sealing and an amazing handling experience and battery life... it might just be worth putting my nikon stuff on ebay. Mind you, I haven't looked at the other DMF zoom offerings here.
ERonald, not sure what you meant by your comment regarding landscape and dermatology.
Best,
saty
-
Hi BC,
I would agree on oversharpening.
On the other hand I would suggest that a lens should just reproduce the subject, neither add or subtract. A lens the simply transfer all information from subject to sensor would simply be a perfect lens. Near perfect lenses do exist.
I understand that absolute sharpness is not wanted in many kinds of photography, like portraiture. On the other hand, with a very good lens and a high resolution sensor with proper OLP filtering we would perhaps need no sharpening at all. That would give natural sharpness.
Landscape photographers seldom complain about sharpness in the lens. Treetops should not become diffuse blue shades, remote figures on hilltops (which happens to add scale to a landscape) should not turn into bluish haze. I guess that architecture photographers also love sharpness.
Best regards
Erik
I think digital has brought in the age of oversharpening. Nearly every lens review talks about corner to corner sharpness, rarely about the look and character of a lens.
For the RED's I have Zeiss in Nikon mount and RED primes in PL mounts. The Zeiss are sharper or appear sharper as they have more contrast and crispness, but they're not as pretty.
The RED PL, have a look of sharpness, with soft roll off and just produces a deeper more cinematic image.
Then again, a lot of this is to taste.
When I bought the 4/3's system couldn't wait to put my Leica 90mm M mount lens on the cameras and was really shocked with the CA and softness of the image, where the mft 43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic are sharp and almost CA free, though most of that comes from under the hood processing.
Anyway, the prettiest lens I've ever owned is the Hartblei tilt shift (old Russian sourced). Nothing about this lens is sharp, even in the zero position, but it has a character I've never seen in any lens and it is one of the few lenses that produces a look, I can't replicate with processing by moving the sliders around.
Some lenses are pretty, some are brutally sharp, rarely are both at least in what we shoot.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/thumbs/th_rr_fashion_0028.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
I would agree on oversharpening.
Hi Erik,
So do I, and that's why I keep stressing the use of proper Capture sharpening (or combined Capture and Output sharpening). That should only restore the losses, caused by the hardware and output media we use, to the natural state.
We then still have the possibility to be creative with local contrast, and targeted spatial frequencies.
On the other hand I would suggest that a lens should just reproduce the subject, neither add or subtract. A lens the simply transfer all information from subject to sensor would simply be a perfect lens. Near perfect lenses do exist.
The problem with that is that lenses do have a 'signature' by design, due to the shape of the MTF curves and glare resistance. Residual lens aberrations also add to the character of lenses. Since lenses are a mix of compromises, a perfect lens is not possible, although a combination of hardware and software can come a long way.
I understand that absolute sharpness is not wanted in many kinds of photography, like portraiture. On the other hand, with a very good lens and a high resolution sensor with proper OLP filtering we would perhaps need no sharpening at all. That would give natural sharpness.
There is a difference between natural sharpness, and artifacts caused by improper sharpening. It's the latter that cause issues. There is nothing wrong with e.g. a correctly sharpened portrait, it just looks natural. We still have the possibility to reduce the visibility of pore structure, lines, and wrinkles, but that is more Creative tonemapping than sharpening.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I have been shooting a lot hand held with the family recently.
I find the combination of the 85mm f1.4 AF-S and the sigma 35mm f1.4 hard to beat in terms of look and technical qualities on the D800.
Auto ISO and DxO 8 are 2 key aspects of the package.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My thought is i much prefere my old bentley than driving a new toyota, same price, more problems but when it works , i am in love
-
Some people feel the Canon/Nikon files are plenty, or are close enough to medium format. Some - mostly owners of both systems - prefer the medium format file, regardless of the megapixels. More often these days, unless there are real image quality and scale requirements, I'm seeing users who are making choices for what they like to shoot with. Why should you shoot with a P25+ (other than the fact the OP already owns one) when the technically advanced Canon/Nikon cameras deliver a file that is close? And yet many people still do.
What is lost in all the discussion over the great variety of photographic equipment options is the much, much greater variety of people who use the equipment and the many ways that their preferences and desires differ. And thank goodness.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
Roger Ciala, LensRentals, compared 24-70/2.8 zooms from Canon, Nikon and Tamron. As a side not he mentioned that all three were better than the Macro Planar 50/2.8 which is a highly regarded lens.
Comparing Canon 24-70/2.8L IS2 with the Planar 50/2.8 with DxO data seems to indicate that is the case.
I have also compared Zeiss MTF data between Planar 50/2 Macro and the new Apo Distagon 55/1.4. The Distagon 55/1.4 is incredibly sharp at f/1.4 and peaks at f/4 - f/5.6 (center peaks at f/4 corner improve at f/5.6). Not a lot of difference between Distagon 55 and Macro Planar between f/5.6 - f/8 I would guess.
Best regards
Erik
On these two points, I have some comments, though I am not disputing your overall case for preferring a MF system.
1) Since MF systems are mostly used with prime lenses, using the Nikon D800 with the 24-70 zoom lens hardly seems a good or fair measure of what the system is capable of. Are you really looking at a high priced medium system [like the Leica S] in pursuit of very high quality landscape images, and then planning to use a zoom lens for those landscapes? You could buy and carry a good selection of good Nikon-mount primes for similar bulk and far lower cost than a Leica S with just that one 30-90 zoom lens.
2) Since the D800 has (by the agreement of most but not all) dynamic range that is at least as good as that offered any current DMF camera (due to the vastly better low-light and noise characteristics of its sensor), and DMF systems tend to reduce the risk of highlight clipping by favoring lower exposure levels, one could achieve the same additional margin of highlight safety by systematically lowering exposure level a bit, say -1/2 or -1 stop compensation, while still handling shadows at least as well as DMF systems do. It is easy enough to have a raw batch conversion preset profile to support a default choice such as -1 stop exposure by applying a default of +1 stop push in conversion.
-
Steve,
Actually, this is turning into one of the better discussions here, partly because of your contribution :)
Here is an interesting 35mm image by DigiLLoyd which as he says looks very like MF, maybe necause of the Zeiss lens, or maybe just because some parts are out of focus :)
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131007_4-Zeiss-Otus-55f1_4-medium-format-look.html
Edmund
Some people feel the Canon/Nikon files are plenty, or are close enough to medium format. Some - mostly owners of both systems - prefer the medium format file, regardless of the megapixels. More often these days, unless there are real image quality and scale requirements, I'm seeing users who are making choices for what they like to shoot with. Why should you shoot with a P25+ (other than the fact the OP already owns one) when the technically advanced Canon/Nikon cameras deliver a file that is close? And yet many people still do.
What is lost in all the discussion over the great variety of photographic equipment options is the much, much greater variety of people who use the equipment and the many ways that their preferences and desires differ. And thank goodness.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
The new Sony A7R got me pretty excited, and with the latest metabones adapter it seems to be possible to use with my Canon TS-E II. Could be a really good landscape camera. I'll most probably save the money to spend on something like a Schneider Digitar 60mm to my Linhof Techno though :)
-
The new Sony A7R got me pretty excited, and with the latest metabones adapter it seems to be possible to use with my Canon TS-E II. Could be a really good landscape camera. I'll most probably save the money to spend on something like a Schneider Digitar 60mm to my Linhof Techno though :)
The new Sony seems like it will be the best landscape camera made to date. Small, light and can take a wide range of lenses. Pending extensive image quality testing of course but it should prove to be excellent.
Regarding the medium format look check this out: http://maxmax.com/nikon_d700hr.htm and http://maxmax.com/olpf_study.htm
The slightly brown gray tones are eliminated when the OLPF (or AA filter) is removed from the sensor. The D800E still has an OLPF, in fact it has two, one displacing light in one direction and another displacing the light in the opposite direction to counteract the effect of the first one.
Also IIRC most of the MFDB's made do not have micro lenses and none of them have an OLPF.
-
Steve,
Actually, this is turning into one of the better discussions here, partly because of your contribution :)
Here is an interesting 35mm image by DigiLLoyd which as he says looks very like MF, maybe necause of the Zeiss lens, or maybe just because some parts are out of focus :)
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131007_4-Zeiss-Otus-55f1_4-medium-format-look.html
Edmund
The other day someone looking at one of our P65+ Contax units and made the comment to me that they had mounted their Contax lenses on their Nikon D800 system, "but it wasn't the same". I guess that's not surprising, and I didn't have the opportunity to get a lot of detail on what was meant by that. But, this is not unusual. The medium format "look" is elusive to many, I believe. And though I have asked in detail many times, most who feel there is a difference struggle to clarify it in words.
Bernard has glowingly mentioned the Sigma 35/1.4 lens on his Nikon. I shoot both medium format and 35mm (but mostly 35mm due to my spontaneous and low light shooting style). I own the Sigma 35/1.4. That lens is my favorite 35mm lens - it has something. I can compare it to another lens of equal sharpness, but there's something about the way it resolves - it's just right, at least for me. That's not very helpful when describing it to someone else, but it's there, or at least I feel it is and that's what matters.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
The new Sony seems like it will be the best landscape camera made to date. Small, light and can take a wide range of lenses. Pending extensive image quality testing of course but it should prove to be excellent.
I have to admit this little camera has me quite excited. Working with such a small and well integrated camera would be terrific. If it can at least match or get near the D800 it will be an awesome camera.
Strangely though, I find it hard to take it serious too. It's just so small. When I think of a landscape camera, large 8x10" machines come to mind. Of course this is just my conditioned brain but it certainly is a funny thing to think.
I've been testing out Apple's Aperture today and find the interface absolutely fantastic! Shooting something like this little Sony would mean I could use Aperture.
I'm less and less sure about holding onto the P25+. Does it actually have any advantages over these new 36mp sensor cameras at all?
-
Bernard has glowingly mentioned the Sigma 35/1.4 lens on his Nikon. I shoot both medium format and 35mm (but mostly 35mm due to my spontaneous and low light shooting style). I own the Sigma 35/1.4. That lens is my favorite 35mm lens - it has something. I can compare it to another lens of equal sharpness, but there's something about the way it resolves - it's just right, at least for me. That's not very helpful when describing it to someone else, but it's there, or at least I feel it is and that's what matters.
Indeed, that lens has something special to it!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed, that lens has something special to it!
Cheers,
Bernard
It does an excellent job on the transition from sharp to OOF. It's similar to Minolta lenses with the anomalous dispersion glass. The focus dissolves away like mist. Other lenses show hard outlines which I personally don't like.
-
"...though I love working a camera that has a shutter knob and an f stop ring."
+1. Really can't stand the controls on the SF digital slrs I have tried, and I assume that would be the case on MF dslrs as well. An aperture ring on a lens
is perfectly placed for operating with the other hand too. I don't like having to set shutter and aperture with one hand when shooting handheld. On a tripod, not so much of an issue.
-
Hi,
I don't see your point on AD-glass. You mean the lenses have no color fringing (axial chromatic aberration)? Which lenses would that be?
I have owned and still own a lot of Minolta glass, but I did obviously not have all of them.
Best regards
Erik
It does an excellent job on the transition from sharp to OOF. It's similar to Minolta lenses with the anomalous dispersion glass. The focus dissolves away like mist. Other lenses show hard outlines which I personally don't like.
-
Hi,
I don't see your point on AD-glass. You mean the lenses have no color fringing (axial chromatic aberration)? Which lenses would that be?
I have owned and still own a lot of Minolta glass, but I did obviously not have all of them.
Best regards
Erik
The ones that try to copy the Leica look from their experience making lenses for Leica.
"Some glasses have a peculiar property called anomalous partial dispersion. Their use in long focal length lens assemblies was pioneered by Leitz. Before their availability, calcium fluoride in the form of fluorite crystals were used as material for these lenses; however the low refraction index of calcium fluoride required high curvatures of the lenses, therefore increasing spherical aberration. Fluorite also has poor shape retention and is very fragile. Abnormal dispersion is required for design of apochromat lenses.[5]" - wiki
Your 300 and 400 white Gs are examples. Same with the 600, the 200 macro, the stf, the 85G, the 135 2.8. I personally (maybe wrong) think the 50 macro and 100 macro have the same look.
-
I think digital has brought in the age of oversharpening. Nearly every lens review talks about corner to corner sharpness, rarely about the look and character of a lens.
+1!!!
-
Hi,
According to Hubert Nasse of Zeiss, AD glass is used to correct the secondary spectrum. You can correct for two colors using an adequate combination of flint and crown glass, but there remains what is often called the secondary spectrum. With correctly chosen combination of AD glasses the secondary spectrum can be reduced.
I own both the 300/4G and the 400/4.5G. The 300/4G has a lot of axial chromatic aberration while the 400/4.5 has very little. I also own a 100/2.8 Macro, that lens has significant fringing at apertures larger than f/8, check third column of images on this page: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1
Virtually all modern lenses use some AD-glass.
As far as I know the lenses Minolta made for Leica were the 16/2.8 fisheye, 24/2.8 wide angle and the 75-200/4. Of these I only had the 24/2.8MD, a good lens, but that was in film times.
Best regards
Erik
The ones that try to copy the Leica look from their experience making lenses for Leica.
"Some glasses have a peculiar property called anomalous partial dispersion. Their use in long focal length lens assemblies was pioneered by Leitz. Before their availability, calcium fluoride in the form of fluorite crystals were used as material for these lenses; however the low refraction index of calcium fluoride required high curvatures of the lenses, therefore increasing spherical aberration. Fluorite also has poor shape retention and is very fragile. Abnormal dispersion is required for design of apochromat lenses.[5]" - wiki
Your 300 and 400 white Gs are examples. Same with the 600, the 200 macro, the stf, the 85G, the 135 2.8. I personally (maybe wrong) think the 50 macro and 100 macro have the same look.
-
Hi,
The hard outlines you see with some lenses may come from over corrected spherical aberration. Under corrected SA gives good bokeh on background while overcorrected SA gives good bookeh on foreground.
You have a good discussion of the issue in this paper (on pages 36-40): http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
It does an excellent job on the transition from sharp to OOF. It's similar to Minolta lenses with the anomalous dispersion glass. The focus dissolves away like mist. Other lenses show hard outlines which I personally don't like.
-
Hi,
According to Hubert Nasse of Zeiss, AD glass is used to correct the secondary spectrum. You can correct for two colors using an adequate combination of flint and crown glass, but there remains what is often called the secondary spectrum. With correctly chosen combination of AD glasses the secondary spectrum can be reduced.
I own both the 300/4G and the 400/4.5G. The 300/4G has a lot of axial chromatic aberration while the 400/4.5 has very little. I also own a 100/2.8 Macro, that lens has significant fringing at apertures larger than f/8, check third column of images on this page: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1
Virtually all modern lenses use some AD-glass.
As far as I know the lenses Minolta made for Leica were the 16/2.8 fisheye, 24/2.8 wide angle and the 75-200/4. Of these I only had the 24/2.8MD, a good lens, but that was in film times.
Best regards
Erik
Take the protective filter off your 300 f4. I used to notice chromatic issues on the 300 f4 G and the 100 macro using the A350. I have not seen them since the A55. Maybe that is better micro lenses maybe it is the raw software RT.
The actual lenses minolta made for leica are not really the issue, it is the look they started to emulate that matters.
Edit: Actually I can see some magenta fringing if i look for it on the 300 f4G. Its only on extreme white to very dark edges -rare. Its also wiped out by the RT software.
-
I'm less and less sure about holding onto the P25+. Does it actually have any advantages over these new 36mp sensor cameras at all?
Sensor-wise in all aspects that can be measured -- no I don't think so. Subjective, possibly. Some will surely talk about a more pleasing look coming out from the P25+, or more robust files for heavy post-processing and other subjective things. Some really really dislike the 3:2 format compared to the 4:3 format of the P25+.
The P25+ should be pretty good at long exposures too afaik, don't know how good the Sony sensor is, long exposure performance is rarely tested.
But the P25+ can sit on medium format cameras, and you might like the look out of the lenses you get there, or the workflow and cameras. In general I think one should worry less about the sensor and more about the system as a whole, what lenses you can get and how you like to work with the camera.
-
Sensor-wise in all aspects that can be measured -- no I don't think so. Subjective, possibly.
I all scientific research, when a difference is noted by does not show in the measurements, scientists start to question the measurements, not reality.
-
I all scientific research, when a difference is noted by does not show in the measurements, scientists start to question the measurements, not reality.
Things which relate to personal taste cannot be measured. We measure things that can be objectively described. I have not yet seen any clear description of what the "MF look" really is so that it could be objectively measured. That does not mean that we should disregard from our own personal taste, but we must know that it varies between people so what I see as real may or may not be appreciated by the next.
-
Things which relate to personal taste cannot be measured. We measure things that can be objectively described. I have not yet seen any clear description of what the "MF look" really is so that it could be objectively measured.
Hi,
While those who claim such a 'look' cannot demonstrate or provide a clear description, I'm pretty confident that it's mostly MTF related, which can be measured if they would take the effort to do the proper tests. Another aspect is the reduced DOF due to the longer focal length required for a large enough image circle.
Of course there are also those who think it a good thing to keep a myth alive, as part of a justification for the inflated (also by low volume) price levels.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Things which relate to personal taste cannot be measured.
Sure they can. There are actually complete field of research dealing with personal tastes, visual perception, social dynamics, etc... (just to name a few factors which may -or not- be at play here).
I have not yet seen any clear description of what the "MF look" really is so that it could be objectively measured. That does not mean that we should disregard from our own personal taste, but we must know that it varies between people so what I see as real may or may not be appreciated by the next.
Here you are shifting the argument. We were talking about differences, not of scale of value. It is quite possible that the factors contributing to the elusive "MF look" may be perceived as desirable by some persons and undesirable by others. I would even say that it is likely to be so.
But, quite frankly, I am not interested in discussing the matter further. It has been beaten to death already. I am quite content to know that there must be differences between formats, quite simply because if photography was independent of sensor size, we would all be working with an iPhone. We are not, even if more pictures are taken with an iPhone than with any other camera, therefore people using cameras more expensive / more inconvenient / larger than an iPhone must feel they have a reason. Whether that reason is sufficient to justify the other camera is their choice and their money, not mine.
-
Hi,
While those who claim such a 'look' cannot demonstrate or provide a clear description, I'm pretty confident that it's mostly MTF related, which can be measured if they would take the effort to do the proper tests. Another aspect is the reduced DOF due to the longer focal length required for a large enough image circle.
Of course there are also those who think it a good thing to keep a myth alive, as part of a justification for the inflated (also by low volume) price levels.
I think another important aspect is color rendition as given per default in the manufacturer's raw converter, ie Phocus for Hasseblad and Capture One for Leaf/Phase One. And then we're mostly talking skin color for the professional photographer working in a studio with controlled light.
I often read in these forums about photographers that need to struggle with post-processing to get a D800 skin color "look right" while they thought it was easy with medium format gear. I cannot myself comment on this as I shoot landscape and don't need to worry about skin color, as long as color separation is good I'm fine. But I've heard it often enough to think it's real.
Color is not an exact science, and even if it was there's a difference between watching the real scene and a photograph so the most accurate may not be the most pleasing. While scientific measurements that DxOmark do cover color in a few aspects, they cannot really measure pleasantness of default raw converter output. What we can see with DxOmark is a rough estimate of how good the sensor is at capturing fine color nuances which then the manufacturer can translate into pleasant color.
-
The meaning of sensor size is a bit over-rated I think. We're not talking 8x10" here, an MF sensor has only 1.3-1.6 times larger diagonal than a full-frame 135 camera. The largest medium format sensors just matches the smallest medium format film formats.
With current technology there's a limit to how much photons we can capture per area unit silicon so there must be a certain size to be able to capture a certain quality. Mobile phone sensors are so small that they have issues with noise, ie you cannot reach state of the art image quality with that sensor size. But as you step up in sensor size the photon capture advantage is reduced, and today the difference between a 36x24mm sensor and 54x41mm is negligible in that particular aspect. The difference between 36x24mm and 44x33mm is even smaller. So no, we cannot drop down to mobile phone sensor size (not yet at least), but 36x24mm is up there with as good as it gets.
But you get whole different lens lines with different design targets, different raw conversion etc so you get a different system with a different outcome, which you may or may not prefer. The whole system makes a difference with small contributions here and there, difficult to point out one single aspect as the most important.
As a tech cam user my arguments for using MF is only partly about image quality, it's about having more fun shooting, a camera and workflow that suits my style and personality. An evening out shooting 2-3 hours I get home with 2-4 pictures, but I rarely throw away any of them, I only make the effort to set up the camera if I think it's going to be a good shot. I like that, more time out enjoying photography in the nature and less time in front of the computer. I find the all-mechanical camera to be charming to use, I love having the tools with tilt and shift on all lenses, and use it all the time in my shooting style, which gives that strict upright perspective as we previously saw in large format landscape photography, a style I like. Close to the ground shots, slanting horizons and short depth of fields or other creative effects commonly seen in 135 landscape photography is just not my style.
-
Jerome,
I all scientific research, when a difference is noted by does not show in the measurements, scientists start to question the measurements, not reality.
Only because the influence of human bias on the experiment was removed at an earlier stage.
-
I'll pipe up for a few thoughts. First, I didn't see in this long thread what the OP intends to print for. If it's to sell to consumers, there will not be a single consumer who will view the difference between the P25+ and even a Canon Rebel. I go down the festivals and stop at photographers booths who print HUGE prints from a Rebel with kit lens and they sell prints. To me, all I can see is crappy resolution and massive chromatic aberrations. Again, most people just see what's in the picture. That's not saying you should settle for a Rebel with kit lens, but simply know your intended audience (spending $40K on a camera when your audience wants $40 prints isn't wise). The same goes for portraits. That doesn't stop me from buying gear that does better than the consumer expects just because I like excellent results. However, it has stopped me from buying a 1Dx over my 5D3's.
Also, the 5D3 in my experience is a powerhouse camera through Lightroom 5. I can push shadows quite a bit and the results are to my picky eye better than any consumer will know. We did recently rent a 6D for a job just to try it out and I was surprised by how good that little camera was. Although the files aren't in 5D3 land, there's just something a bit different with them that I haven't figured out yet, but I also think the 5D3 files are the best color rendition of any Canon digital camera I've had.
With the D800, it seems Nikon has a really great sub-par camera (the same can be said for the 5D3). The only reason I say this is because all the hard core Nikon shooters I know won't touch the D800. I know one guy who bought into it and then sold it because he just couldn't warm up to the camera and it has really bad focus compared to the 5D3 and the higher end Nikons. However, if landscape is your thing, AF isn't that big of a deal and you could stick that wonderful 14-24 lens on the front of a D800 for some really good fun.
-
Hi,
I don't think there is an MF look. I have been shooting MFD for a couple of months now. Here is what I see:
1) 39MP MFD has better detail than 24MP 135, fully expected, no surprise
2) Using fixed focals composition is affected. You are more limited than with zooms. Can affect your images and seeing
3) Lots of aliasing artifacts - bad! MFD should have smaller pixels and OLP filter - but you don't see it shooting at f/16 - f/32. Diffraction acts as OLP filter
4) Weakness in DR, darks are much cleaner on Sony Exmoor sensors. Raw processors may matter, tough. There is some development in this area. 2013 generation sensors probably better than 2008 generation sensors.
5) DoF is a problem, Scheimpflug to the rescue!
6) Color rendition? I don't know. Right now I can not tell apart MFD / Sony without looking at EXIF, except P45+ having yellowish greens. I understand DALSA has different color rendition.
7) Prices are far to high! I have bought my P45+ used, for 10k USD. I think around 10k USD is a reasonable price for a back.
I might have a different view in a year! Perhaps I have bought my dream camera, the Hartblei HCam? Or perhaps I sold of all my MFD equipment?! I don't know.
Shooting the classic Hasselblad is a nice experience, BTW.
Best regards
Erik
Things which relate to personal taste cannot be measured. We measure things that can be objectively described. I have not yet seen any clear description of what the "MF look" really is so that it could be objectively measured. That does not mean that we should disregard from our own personal taste, but we must know that it varies between people so what I see as real may or may not be appreciated by the next.
-
6) Color rendition? I don't know. Right now I can not tell apart MFD / Sony without looking at EXIF, except P45+ having yellowish greens. I understand DALSA has different color rendition.
From your published samples, it seems to me that your P45+ has better color separation than your A99. For example, on this picture:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-CF043218_vsmall.jpg)
The front row of plants is not quite the same green as the trees in the back. The small edge is more yellow. While on that picture:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-_DSC2171_vsmall.jpg)
the two are the same green. I see something similar in all the pictures with plants.
On some pictures, the Sony also exhibits a strange effect, which I also know from the D800. The darker parts of the picture are noise-free, but the details are subdued and the colors purity suffers. Compare for example the distant trees between http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-CF043210.jpg (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-CF043210.jpg)
and http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-_DSC2161.jpg (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-_DSC2161.jpg)
(watch out: big download, just use the samples attached to this message). On the samples attached, look at the leaves immediately right of the lamp post. To me, they look more natural on the MF, even if a bit more noisy.
Last but not least, the MF lens corner sharpness is generally better.
The pictures are taken from your page: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples/ (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples/)
-
Jerome,
What I say is that I have shot a couple thousand images with the Hassy and the Sony in similar situations When looking at the images I Lightroom I cannot say if an image was taken with the P45+ or the Sony. This is not comparison shooting but shooting with two systems in same conditions. Not same subject.
Thanks for explanation. What I don't know is what is my preference. For me, the colors I am getting out of the P45+ were oversaturated, and I do object to yellowish green. I have made some own profiles using Adobe DNG Profile Editor where I tweaked down oversaturated colors. What is oversaturated is a bit objective, as I can compare rendition of ColorChecker colors. So I am using those profiles now.
I also have noted that corner sharpness is better on the MF images, but the lenses are calculated for 56x56 mm image circle and the P45+ is only 49x37 mm. The lens on the Alpha 99 is a Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA lens. Most Zeiss lenses have a large sweet spot but weak corners. That is very obvious from the MTF curves. This is the case for instance on the Distagon 24/2, but also on the Distagon 25/2. I own neither lens, but I have studied the MTF curves and checked out Kurt Munger's tests. So I decided against it.
I am in general very satisfied with my P45+/Hasselblad V.
Getting back to color:
I will reprocess that image with my present settings.
It is not a question of separating colors but giving correct colors. Being able to reproduce a color checker is not a bad start.
The image below was an example where P45+ and Adobe Standard profile failed to reproduce a red color (Adobe STD on left side):
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Screenshots/P45+_AdobeSTD_vs_DNGProfiler_small.png)
This links shows five processing versions of the same raw file, which one is best? http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/Samples/3750_FULL/
Best regards
Erik
From your published samples, it seems to me that your P45+ has better color separation than your A99. For example, on this picture:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-CF043218_vsmall.jpg)
The front row of plants is not quite the same green as the trees in the back. The small edge is more yellow. While on that picture:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-_DSC2171_vsmall.jpg)
the two are the same green. I see something similar in all the pictures with plants.
On some pictures, the Sony also exhibits a strange effect, which I also know from the D800. The darker parts of the picture are noise-free, but the details are subdued and the colors purity suffers. Compare for example the distant trees between http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-CF043210.jpg (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-CF043210.jpg)
and http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-_DSC2161.jpg (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples//20130626-_DSC2161.jpg)
(watch out: big download, just use the samples attached to this message). On the samples attached, look at the leaves immediately right of the lamp post. To me, they look more natural on the MF, even if a bit more noisy.
Last but not least, the MF lens corner sharpness is generally better.
The pictures are taken from your page: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples/ (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples/)
-
The attached images show a lot of what I would call color aliasing. Of the raw converters I have tested it is Rawtherapee that handles it best. Two different exposures with different lenses.
Stopping down to f/16 or f/22 solves the problem.
Best regards
Erik
-
It is not a question of separating colors but giving correct colors. Being able to reproduce a color checker is not a bad start.
Maybe, but this is not what I saw in your posted examples. What I saw is that, for plants, one camera assigns different colors to different plants and the other assigns roughly the same color to all of them. I prefer to see different plants with different hues of green, because this is what I usually observe in nature.
Other people may prefer less differentiated colors, which usually comes with higher saturation. I remember that, 30 years ago, Velvia was very popular while, to my eyes, it turned all nature to spinach green.
This being said, I am not looking for accurate color reproduction in my photographs (I would be if I were reproducing paintings), so I do not use color checker charts. I am looking for colors that please me.
-
Hi,
It is the same for me. Could be that different colors are pleasing to me. Anyway, those images are there for download, the colors are for anyone interested to judge.
I would guess that the samples I have illustrate that it is not ColorCheckers I shoot.
Here are some images: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Best regards
Erik
I am looking for colors that please me.
-
I once wrote a camera profiler for my P45+. From a profile computed on 4 patches, I had no difficulty in reproducing a colorchecker, color rendering was -mathematically- superb :)
The digital back guys claim that the low native ISO of their backs is partly due to very orthogonal color filters that lower the amount of light passed through to each pixel - conversely, a monochrome back gets all the light on every pixel and cannot discriminate colors. The dSLR guys are thought to often have made a compromise which improves ISO at the detriment of color discrimination. Of course, mathematically you could recover the information from less orthogonal filters but obviously the less the orthogonality, the less color discrimination you will have given that you only have a finite precision to work with.
The only practical color issues I have seen with Kodak CCD's (Phase, Leica) are the "magenta face" issue where skin on some very white eg. red-haired people takes on a magenta cast. I was never able to nail this down precisely, but I think it has something to do with out of visible roll-off with the camera seeing "under" the skin, and the only solution is to edit the profile by hand, or the image. My Nikon D4 also suffers form this to an extreme degree.
The MF guys have really done a lot of work to bring us good color; this is not only the chip suppliers eg. Kodak and Dalsa,, as the software, C1 especially has much better color editing controls than Lightroom, and very good rendering.
Incidentally, I have a suspicion that the reason color editing is so kludgy is because of software patents - namely all the "good" interfaces that operate in intuitive color spaces have been patented. An interesting consequence of the US patent system is that most simple and effective solutions are visited by the first parties to explore a market, get patented, and as a consequence are never widely deployed. A good example are the Kodak patents on profile editing which have essentially made it a certainty that there will be no good profile editors on the market. There is a similar situation with display calibration, I believe, with patents essentially blocking all the cheap and cheerful solutions which anyone here could "invent" in a few minutes. A consequence is that display calibration has remained a luxury, and as a result most internet users see color that has no relationship to the original imagery. I once designed and fabricated a calibrator with a component BOM of $2 and I could easily do $1, but I couldn't sell it in the US.
Edmund
-
The only practical color issues I have seen with Kodak CCD's (Phase, Leica) are the "magenta face" issue where skin on some very white eg. red-haired people takes on a magenta cast. I was never able to nail this down precisely, but I think it has something to do with out of visible roll-off with the camera seeing "under" the skin, and the only solution is to edit the profile by hand, or the image. My Nikon D4 also suffers form this to an extreme degree.
The MF guys have really done a lot of work to bring us good color; this is not only the chip suppliers eg. Kodak and Dalsa,, as the software, C1 especially has much better color editing controls than Lightroom, and very good rendering.
Edmund,
You know more of the science than I, but your right, white translucent skin types are very hard to photograph in the standard sense. My MFD backs pick up a slight red/magenta, or with Nikon's and the Canon 1dx tend to go orange.
C-1 is probably the best raw processor for this, but other ways work, like always using a quality uv filter. Soft 3/4 lighting works better, Harsh full frontal light is the worst. Tungsten seems the best solution, though rarely can you change a complete lighting style for one subject, if your shooting multiple subjects.
Other options are black net filters, though used minimally and with care.
We sometimes have forgotten about filters in the digital age, thinking we can do any look in post, though a well balanced camera and the appropriate filters, combined with testing will produce a easier to work image.
The upside of mfd, is how specific the colors are reproduced. Not always pretty, but if the data is there and the color is less global then getting to a final result is usually better, though I agree, the only real downside to mfd is the cameras. They are really getting long in the tooth compared to modern smaller formats, especially all the innovation we see in mirrorless.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
My guess is that skin rendition, especially in connection with studio flash may depend a lot on IR-sensivity. Just a guess.
Best regards
Erik
Edmund,
You know more of the science than I, but your right, white translucent skin types are very hard to photograph in the standard sense. My MFD backs pick up a slight red/magenta, or with Nikon's and the Canon 1dx tend to go orange.
C-1 is probably the best raw processor for this, but other ways work, like always using a quality uv filter. Soft 3/4 lighting works better, Harsh full frontal light is the worst. Tungsten seems the best solution, though rarely can you change a complete lighting style for one subject, if your shooting multiple subjects.
Other options are black net filters, though used minimally and with care.
We sometimes have forgotten about filters in the digital age, thinking we can do any look in post, though a well balanced camera and the appropriate filters, combined with testing will produce a easier to work image.
The upside of mfd, is how specific the colors are reproduced. Not always pretty, but if the data is there and the color is less global then getting to a final result is usually better, though I agree, the only real downside to mfd is the cameras. They are really getting long in the tooth compared to modern smaller formats, especially all the innovation we see in mirrorless.
IMO
BC
-
...though I agree, the only real downside to mfd is the cameras. They are really getting long in the tooth compared to modern smaller formats, especially all the innovation we see in mirrorless.
Not only that. The lack of an AA filter also means that the image quality of these cameras has significantly improved.
Cameras like the Fuji X-E2, the Olympus E-M1 and the Sony A7r pretty much offer all you need.
I still see a case for shooting MF Film for personal or art work, MF Digital less so, especially if the prices stay what they are.
$8-10K for the Hasselblad H5D-40 would be a no-brainer, $18K is a much harder sell in my opinion.
-
My guess is that skin rendition, especially in connection with studio flash may depend a lot on IR-sensivity. Just a guess.
Is the IR sensitivity of MF cameras markedly different to the one of smaller formats?
-
Hi,
Personally, I find the loss of OLP (AA) filtering to be a disadvantage. I have quite a few images spoiled by aliasing artifacts on my P45+. If you shoot at f/16 or so, diffraction will act as sort of an OLP filter. OLP-filtering or not matters only at medium apertures.
This link demonstrates the effect of aliasing: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/FakeDetail/comparison1.html
Left: P45+. 6.9 micron pitch,no OLP filter
Mid: Sony Alpha 99, 6 micron pitch. OLP-filter
Right: Sony Alpha 77, 3.9 micron pitch, OLP filter
Note that small pitch in combination with OLP-filter produces the least artefacts.
The image below indicates some areas with many aliasing artefacts.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/FakeDetail/20130716-CF043522PhaseOne_A_SP45+_marked.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
Not only that. The lack of an AA filter also means that the image quality of these cameras has significantly improved.
Cameras like the Fuji X-E2, the Olympus E-M1 and the Sony A7r pretty much offer all you need.
I still see a case for shooting MF Film for personal or art work, MF Digital less so, especially if the prices stay what they are.
$8-10K for the Hasselblad H5D-40 would be a no-brainer, $18K is a much harder sell in my opinion.
-
Hi,
Infrared penetrates skin differently than visible light. My guess is that you see larger effects of under skin blood vessels and so on in an infra red rich environment. I don't think there is a basic difference between MF and smaller formats and I know that vendors sometimes opted for weak IR filters, Leica M8 and Nikon D200 come to mind.
There may be reasons for choosing a kind of IR filter. Both cost and thickness matters. Strong filters can be directionally sensitive and contribute to lens cast. It is also known that thick filters can affect at least some lens designs. Check this: http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf (page 12).
Leica opted for a very thin filter on the M8, but choose a much stronger one for the M9. Studio flash is regarded to be very rich in IR (AFAIK) so it may make issues with IR stronger.
I don't know about IR characteristics of digital backs. I would assume that modern lens designs take the thickness of the IR-filter and the OLP filter into account. It is also reasonable to assume that a back designed to be used in studio with electronic flash may have different IR characteristics than a sensor that is intended for general use.
All this is just a guess, of course.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Tim Parkin started looking into colour rendition in this article:
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/02/the-myth-of-universal-colour/
It is a pay article, but I think the first part is free. He finds good correlation between SMI (Sensitivity Metamerism Index) as defined by ISO standard 17321 and his perception of good color. In my humble opinion SMI may be a somewhat simple standard based on the 18 colored patches of the ColorChecker, so I would not put much emphasis on it.
We need to keep in mind that color rendition is the results of color filters, Quantum Efficiency as a function of wavelength, white balance and a lot of simple math. The colors we see only exist in our brain.
Which of the two images below has the best color? There is only one difference. The left image has white balance on right side of the flagpole while the right image has WB on the left side of the flagpole. One side is illuminate by sunlight and the other by skylight. White balance matters a lot!
Best regards
Erik
-
Not only that. The lack of an AA filter also means that the image quality of these cameras has significantly improved.
Cameras like the Fuji X-E2, the Olympus E-M1 and the Sony A7r pretty much offer all you need.
I still see a case for shooting MF Film for personal or art work, MF Digital less so, especially if the prices stay what they are.
$8-10K for the Hasselblad H5D-40 would be a no-brainer, $18K is a much harder sell in my opinion.
I agree. Medium format has priced a lot of people out of the market.
I've been browsing around Flickr and a few other sites looking at all different kinds of photographs. Something which surprised me was when I liked the 'look' a photo has, it was quite often shot with a Fuji. They have lovely subtle colours, smooth tonal gradations and quite a nice '3d look'.
Of course they are only an APS camera with 16mp, so there's a limit to the size you can print from them.
Sigma cameras were often coming up too, there really is something special to that 'Fovean look'.
What would get me really exited is a Fuji X Pro style camera with a 30+mp 35mm sensor. It would almost be like the modern equivalent of a Mamiya 7 (sort of...).
Unfortunately there aren't a lot of images to look at from the Sony a7R yet. It does look very promising though.
I think the P25+ will be going up for sale soon.
-
It's pretty clear that Pentax, Hassy and Phase will soon be competing with dSLRs with Zeiss optics - we'll see how they like it
Edmund
-
Yes definitely! Having seen some samples from the Zeiss Otus that lens is fantastic, totally changes what seems possible from a DSLR.
-
Hi,
Low end MFD is 25-50 MP but the top ones is more like 80MP. Add to that precision designed technical cameras and high resolution lenses from Rodenstock. I guess the resolution advantage will be there, albeit at a very high cost.
Zeiss is developing a series of new lenses, and so does Sigma at a much more affordable price. It has been said that Nikon has quite a few QC issues. With high resolution sensors things like alignment, tolerances and play have a more important role than in cameras of yore.
Best regards
Erik
It's pretty clear that Pentax, Hassy and Phase will soon be competing with dSLRs with Zeiss optics - we'll see how they like it
Edmund
-
All you say is true; but most Phase and Hassy shooters will be using the dSLR - style solutions and lenses, which are going to be around for some time, it seems because any change would require complete retooling.
On the other side, Zeiss and even Nikon can push out high-rez lenses in a matter of months if they choose to, in fact I would bet the prototypes are already sitting in a drawer waiting for next year's Photokina and the 40MP+ hi-rez Canon and Nikon updates.
Incidentally, I would bet that Zeiss, and even Nikon and Canon are salivating at the idea of selling large numbers of $4K lenses to complement $4K bodies. This will happen, the economics are there.
Edmund
Hi,
Low end MFD is 25-50 MP but the top ones is more like 80MP. Add to that precision designed technical cameras and high resolution lenses from Rodenstock. I guess the resolution advantage will be there, albeit at a very high cost.
Zeiss is developing a series of new lenses, and so does Sigma at a much more affordable price. It has been said that Nikon has quite a few QC issues. With high resolution sensors things like alignment, tolerances and play have a more important role than in cameras of yore.
Best regards
Erik
-
No doubt bigger sensors will always keep an edge in quality over smaller ones. Zeiss Otus is a game changer for some but not massively like the A7's. Nevertheless, it will be more real and stronger competition to DMF at the time of producing the credit card. Nikon seems to have responded to Zeiss with the new 58mm but we have to wait. If this is true, most likely Canon will follow. Then I and many others will follow too.
At first I was excited about Zeiss Otus in order to get MF quality without breaking my "world order". But then I realized that buying a full set of 3 Otus lenses, WA, Normal and Tele would probably cost $12K (mucho money). Besides for this kind of money I could find a nice used P45+ back for my V camera system. (still holding on to it, lol!)
If Canon (my system) has an answer to Zeiiss Otus, I will most likely get these super L glass. Translation: "I'll never have enough money saved in order to get into digital medium format.
Have a nice week.
Eduardo
Hi,
Low end MFD is 25-50 MP but the top ones is more like 80MP. Add to that precision designed technical cameras and high resolution lenses from Rodenstock. I guess the resolution advantage will be there, albeit at a very high cost.
Zeiss is developing a series of new lenses, and so does Sigma at a much more affordable price. It has been said that Nikon has quite a few QC issues. With high resolution sensors things like alignment, tolerances and play have a more important role than in cameras of yore.
Best regards
Erik
-
If Canon (my system) has an answer to Zeiiss Otus, I will most likely get these super L glass. Translation: "I'll never have enough money saved in order to get into digital medium format.
Have a nice week.
Eduardo
Eduardo, really I don't know which is worse - using 35mm and being frustrated with the images, or using MF and being angry with the camera while using it. :)
Edmund
-
This is why I shoot the M9 now. It just works intuitively and the only disapointment in the images comes from my negligence or trying to push the camera past its limits, which generally means really high iso.
Eduardo, really I don't know which is worse - using 35mm and being frustrated with the images, or using MF and being angry with the camera while using it. :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
I have bought some Hasselblad stuff and a P45+ second hand. Works well, better than I expected. I guess that prices on backs may go down.
Regarding the A7s, I don't know. I have Alpha 900, 77 and 99. I feel the lenses I have are OK, but they are far from perfect. Lenses for the NEX were weak, mostly, I hope Sony makes some good lenses for the Alpha 7. I am no prospective buyer right now, spent a bit to much on MFD.
Honestly, the Sony gives images that are good enough. Why I have three of them? I bought the Alpha 77 because it had live view. Same goes for the Alpha 99. The Alpha 99 has some advantages. It has three presets selectable on the control wheel. Antishake and AF can be part of a preset. I use the Alpha 77 for telephoto and walk around. The Alpha 900 works like a senior adviser, makes not much but is nice to have around.
One lens I have that impresses me is the Samyang 14/2.8. It is actually almost usable at f/2.8 and really good stopped down regarding sharpness. Downside is strong moustache type distortion
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Samples/Samyang/
Best regards
Erik
No doubt bigger sensors will always keep an edge in quality over smaller ones. Zeiss Otus is a game changer for some but not massively like the A7's. Nevertheless, it will be more real and stronger competition to DMF at the time of producing the credit card. Nikon seems to have responded to Zeiss with the new 58mm but we have to wait. If this is true, most likely Canon will follow. Then I and many others will follow too.
At first I was excited about Zeiss Otus in order to get MF quality without breaking my "world order". But then I realized that buying a full set of 3 Otus lenses, WA, Normal and Tele would probably cost $12K (mucho money). Besides for this kind of money I could find a nice used P45+ back for my V camera system. (still holding on to it, lol!)
If Canon (my system) has an answer to Zeiiss Otus, I will most likely get these super L glass. Translation: "I'll never have enough money saved in order to get into digital medium format.
Have a nice week.
Eduardo
-
My feeling is, the deeper I go into photography, the more I want a light and fast camera for quick street-style shooting and a big camera for ultimate image quality.
For the first -fast- style the latest bit of IQ is simply not important, since its not the defining parameter but the situation is.
For the second style -slow and deliberate 4x5" style shooting- I'd not be happy with FF, since I want to have the chance to print this kind of stuff large - really large and retain detail.
Sensor/film real estate can only be replaced by even more real estate.
And the new Zeiss Otus lenses (which have awesome - really even more awesome- IQ - see the Zeiss samples) will cost you a small fortune (Zeiss talking of a price range around 3000 Euro for an Otus lens) you can otherwise spend in sensor real estate and AutoFocus lenses - Otuses (Otusi?) will be manual.
So what I'd do is keep the MF Camera and get an additional smaller one and decide before the shoot whats going to be the appropriate tool.
After all you should be able to love your tools, sleep with them in bed and be happy every day when you see them waiting for the next photographs to take for you ... ;)
Just my € 0.02 ..
Cheers
~Chris
-
Does anyone know of some good Nikon D800e samples to download? What I'm finding doesn't seem to be very representative of what people are saying so far.
I'm considering getting a tilt/shift lens if I get a DSLR but they are quite expensive. How useful are the extra movements on these lenses for landscape photography?
-
Does anyone know of some good Nikon D800e samples to download? What I'm finding doesn't seem to be very representative of what people are saying so far.
I'm considering getting a tilt/shift lens if I get a DSLR but they are quite expensive. How useful are the extra movements on these lenses for landscape photography?
Hi, the tilt is somewhat useful but generally due to the large dof of the 35mm sensors it is not required but it does allow you to control near-far plane focus (dof) while using optimum apertures which in the case of a D800/E might be f5.6 or f8 instead of needing to go to diffraction laden f11/16/22 for adequate dof for some situations.
The shift is great in that it allows you to compose the image in camera without the need for keystone corrections later in software which reduce detail a bit whenever you want to keep vertical lines vertical and parallel but want to shift the horizon up or down the frame for composition purposes. So you maximize the utilization of the pixels of the sensor. Usually tilt/shift lenses also have low distortions further minimizing the need for corrections.
I have used the Nikon 24mm PC-E on a D800E and it works very well. It's a good lens. The Canon 24mm TS-E is a touch better but to get an equal or better result than the 24PC-E/D800E combination you need to mount it on a Sony A7R or use a Digital Back via an ALPA FPS or Hartblei camera. Of course when you use a tech camera with a medium format digital back in the 60/80mp range you will get a much better result. It is not close.
-
Hi, the tilt is somewhat useful but generally due to the large dof of the 35mm sensors it is not required but it does allow you to control near-far plane focus (dof) while using optimum apertures which in the case of a D800/E might be f5.6 or f8 instead of needing to go to diffraction laden f11/16/22 for adequate dof for some situations.
That's a good point actually. I'm used to the DOF of the P25+ and wasn't really considering the smaller sensor as much as I should.
The shift is great in that it allows you to compose the image in camera without the need for keystone corrections later in software which reduce detail a bit whenever you want to keep vertical lines vertical and parallel but want to shift the horizon up or down the frame for composition purposes. So you maximize the utilization of the pixels of the sensor. Usually tilt/shift lenses also have low distortions further minimizing the need for corrections.
This is where I would find it more useful. I quite like the very exact look in a landscape when all the verticals run straight.
I have used the Nikon 24mm PC-E on a D800E and it works very well. It's a good lens. The Canon 24mm TS-E is a touch better but to get an equal or better result than the 24PC-E/D800E combination you need to mount it on a Sony A7R or use a Digital Back via an ALPA FPS or Hartblei camera. Of course when you use a tech camera with a medium format digital back in the 60/80mp range you will get a much better result. It is not close.
Actually I made the horrible mistake of looking at some shots taken with an Alpa SWA. They really are something else! It put's expensive thoughts in my head.
-
Having seen some sample images from the Sony a7R now, they look quite incredible. A 150x100cm (60x40") print looks entirely possible. There is no way my P25+ would print this large, it runs out at around a 100x75cm (40x30") print.
Is there any good reason not to get the a7R for landscape? Having the 35mm, 55mm and 70-200mm lenses seems like a nice setup.
I'm not sure what to think of the medium format 'look'. It's the one thing that holds me back on moving to a smaller system. The Mamiya is a kludgy camera and Capture One has awful usability in my opinion.
-
Hi,
I am just in the process of posting some images I shot previous weekend. The images are processed, pretty much to my liking. They are shown as high quality JPEGs, downscaled to fit 4000x4000. Some are Sony Alpha 99 and some are Hasselblad V + P45+. These images are comparison images, I was just shooting with both cameras. White balance may differ.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/index.html
Questions:
Do you see the MFD look?
Can you say which is which?
Answers: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html
Regarding the A7r, it needs good lenses. I guess that with lenses good enough it can match a P45+, I don't know if the lenses available are good enough for that. A technical camera with the best lenses available and a high resolution MF sensor is something else. I may be a potential A7r buyer, but I wait for the lenses. Or possibly an 36 MP A-mount camera.
Best regards
Erik
Having seen some sample images from the Sony a7R now, they look quite incredible. A 150x100cm (60x40") print looks entirely possible. There is no way my P25+ would print this large, it runs out at around a 100x75cm (40x30") print.
Is there any good reason not to get the a7R for landscape? Having the 35mm, 55mm and 70-200mm lenses seems like a nice setup.
I'm not sure what to think of the medium format 'look'. It's the one thing that holds me back on moving to a smaller system. The Mamiya is a kludgy camera and Capture One has awful usability in my opinion.
-
Well that was some fun! Thanks for putting it up Erik.
Out of this completely blind test I managed 5/9 correctly. Not any better than chance really. What's funny though is after looking at the answers, then going back and inspecting, I noticed the differences more. Talk about Placebo???
However when writing down my answers I noted that a particular image has a nice look. Which turned out to be the MF.
-
I am just in the process of posting some images I shot previous weekend. The images are processed, pretty much to my liking. They are shown as high quality JPEGs, downscaled to fit 4000x4000. Some are Sony Alpha 99 and some are Hasselblad V + P45+. These images are comparison images, I was just shooting with both cameras. White balance may differ.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/index.html
Questions:
Do you see the MFD look?
Can you say which is which?
Very nice exercise, we should do it more often. I was wrong about 2, 3 and 7. I don't count 5, since I read what it was in pjtn post before doing the test, so I managed 5 out of 8, which is not statistically significant.
I would like to know what lens was used for 2 and what iso was used for 7.
-
Oops, sorry about that. I will remove the spoiler from my post.
-
Hi,
Nice to hear you liked the posting:-)
Image 2: Sony 70-400/4-5.6G at f/16, ISO : 50, 3.2 s
Image 7: No EXIF recorded info recorded from lens, ISO was 50.
Best regards
Erik
Very nice exercise, we should do it more often. I was wrong about 2, 3 and 7. I don't count 5, since I read what it was in pjtn post before doing the test, so I managed 5 out of 8, which is not statistically significant.
I would like to know what lens was used for 2 and what iso was used for 7.
-
3/9 wrong, whose maths is up to saying at what point it is significant???
I called 3,4,5 wrong FYI
I did view all at enlarged size, interesting exercise.
Thanks for the post.
-
Regarding the A7r, it needs good lenses. I guess that with lenses good enough it can match a P45+, I don't know if the lenses available are good enough for that. A technical camera with the best lenses available and a high resolution MF sensor is something else. I may be a potential A7r buyer, but I wait for the lenses. Or possibly an 36 MP A-mount camera.
Best regards
Erik
What about the Zeiss-Hartblei lenses, the Canon 24TS and 17TS? With the A7r you got your technical camera. Which technical camera will be better? A MF back with no real live view and lesser DR? With the A-Mount you will have to sacrifice anything wider than 40mm.
-
Hi,
Regarding the Zeiss-Hartblei lenses I would say that the 120/4 and the 80/2.8 is using the same lens groups my 120/4 and 80/2.8 have, with some improvements like better control of flare and circular aperture.
The Hartblei 40/40 is based on FLE IF, that is a new construction much better than my 40/4 FLE.
The points you mention on technical cameras is interesting. The best option on technical cameras is calibrated focusing scale and lenses like Rodenstock HR, calculated for a large image circle. Precision focusing ring and a laser distance meter can handle focusing and the lenses are really good.
Regarding focusing on MF DSLR, this image shows three options:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Focusing/USAF.jpg)
It shows what I can resolve visually, red frame is waist level viewfinder with loupe, blue frame is Hartblei 4X focusing hood, yellow frame is PM5 with the Zeiss 3X monocular I normally use for focusing (9X in total). You can see that the sensor resolves at least four groups more than the best I can do on the focusing screen.
Using a 15X peak loupe is still not good enough to match focusing by actual pixels in live view, what I have seen.
Best regards
Erik
What about the Zeiss-Hartblei lenses, the Canon 24TS and 17TS? With the A7r you got your technical camera. Which technical camera will be better? A MF back with no real live view and lesser DR? With the A-Mount you will have to sacrifice anything wider than 40mm.
-
Hi,
Don't forget, the enlarged size is still downscaled. Some differences would be more obvious in full size. 3/9 wrong means 6/9 right, correct?
Thanks for responding.
Best regards
Erik
3/9 wrong, whose maths is up to saying at what point it is significant???
I called 3,4,5 wrong FYI
I did view all at enlarged size, interesting exercise.
Thanks for the post.
-
Does the sony tether?
Only I'm thinking a small view camera like the horesman or the home workshop one in the other thread would mean you gained at the wide end becuase the lens flange to sensor distance is shorter and you also gain some shift if the image circle is big enough.
If it does that could be all the studio camera with movements I would ever need for less than the cost of just a digital back.
-
Hi,
I guess weather the camera tether or not may depend on your needs. Ala Sony I had did have some tethering capability over USB, but it may be limited.
Best regards
Erik
Does the sony tether?
Only I'm thinking a small view camera like the horesman or the home workshop one in the other thread would mean you gained at the wide end becuase the lens flange to sensor distance is shorter and you also gain some shift if the image circle is big enough.
If it does that could be all the studio camera with movements I would ever need for less than the cost of just a digital back.
-
Well for me it has to tether and be reliable.
Not nessercary for a lot of people but essential for a studio camera.