Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Brian Hirschfeld on October 21, 2013, 11:28:49 pm
-
Hey guys, Obviously, I will be attending the PDN PhotoPlus 2013 and would like to cover anything and everything that anyone might be interested in from the show.
If you won't be able to make the show then please let me know via a comment (preferably on my website) what it is you would like me to see and if there is something to specifically test on it.
Some of my expectations and a placeholder article can be found here: http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2013/10/21/looking-forward-to-pdn-photoplus-expo-2013/
Best,
BH
-
As much info as possible on the D800 ;D
-
Cute ;)
-
Finished my humble article on PDN this year, not the most exciting year ever, but still managed to find some cool gear to talk about, enjoy
http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2013/10/27/pdn-photoplus-expo-2013-report/
-
Nice write up Brian - thanks!
Kind regards,
Gerald.
-
+1
-
Thanks for the report Brian.
On the new CFast card format, what I have read is that:
1) Canon and Phase One have said they will use it, but not in any stills cameras yet.
2) Nikon and Sony have adopted a rival successor to Compact Flash, QXD, which is a bit smaller than CFast or CF, and it is in the Nikon D4.
3) Both can be far faster than CF can ever get due to CF being tied to the old parallel ATA, whereas CFast uses SATA and QXD uses PCI express.
3) Sandisk is only offering CFast, while Sony and Lexar are offering QXD.
Yes, another format war!
-
@BJL thanks for the thoughts, interesting to know. Since its Sandisk, I suspect they will win. Not really sure Sony has won a format war lately....While at first I found the XQD in my Nikon D4 annoying (and it is since it requires a different reader) its actually nice functioning and well sized. That said I would've preferred two CF's but we know why that couldn't happen...
-
Brian,
Not really sure Sony has won a format war lately...
Blu-Ray.
-
Since its Sandisk, I suspect they will win. Not really sure Sony has won a format war lately....While at first I found the XQD in my Nikon D4 annoying (and it is since it requires a different reader) its actually nice functioning and well sized.
AreBee mentioned Sony's Blue-Ray win, though that is a bit Pyrrhic with its somewhat mediocre adoption rate, and any winner between QXD and CFast might be similar, with SD being preferred for the vast majority of former CF use cases as "smaller, cheaper, and good enough". Do note that CFast also needs a new reader.
My gut feeling is that QXD will do better, because PCIe has a brighter future than SATA (I believe that PCIe is baked into most CPUs, and of course is part of Thunderbolt), and the smaller size of QXD cards will make them a better fit for small cameras that produce high quality, high bit rate video.
-
AreBee mentioned Sony's Blue-Ray win, though that is a bit Pyrrhic with its somewhat mediocre adoption rate, and any winner between QXD and CFast might be similar, with SD being preferred for the vast majority of former CF use cases as "smaller, cheaper, and good enough". Do note that CFast also needs a new reader.
My gut feeling is that QXD will do better, because PCIe has a brighter future than SATA (I believe that PCIe is baked into most CPUs, and of course is part of Thunderbolt), and the smaller size of QXD cards will make them a better fit for small cameras that produce high quality, high bit rate video.
Sony is crazy about trying to establish proprietary formats
When I was in Japan I kept seeing them - their memory sticks, the digital minidisks, miniDV, microDV etc.
Edmund
-
Sony is crazy about trying to establish proprietary formats
When I was in Japan I kept seeing them - their memory sticks, the digital minidisks, miniDV, microDV etc.
Edmund
But QXD is not proprietary, is is supported by the Compact Flash association along-side CFast, and adopted by several other companies as I mentioned above.
Sony did alright with development of the CD format (jointly with Phillips), and both that and Blue Ray might be better analogies than memory stick, which IIRC was always a Sony exclusive.
At least no one has yet pulled out the old chestnut that "the failure of Betamax predicts the failure of any subsequent format proposed by Sony".
-
They did well out of CD, and they keep trying.
How many cameras apart from the D4 support XQD? Why is the physical XQD format different from CF?
Edmund
But QXD is not proprietary, is is supported by the Compact Flash association along-side CFast, and adopted by several other companies as I mentioned above.
Sony did alright with development of the CD format (jointly with Phillips), and both that and Blue Ray might be better analogies than memory stick, which IIRC was always a Sony exclusive.
At least no one has yet pulled out the old chestnut that "the failure of Betamax predicts the failure of any subsequent format proposed by Sony".
-
Hi,
XQD has PCI-X interface while CF has ATA. Why should the physical format be similar when interface is different?
Broken CF contacts seem to be one of the most common problems with DSLR, by the way.
The computer industry is moving away from parallell data interfaces to serial interfaces.
"XQD version 2.0 has been announced in June 2012, featuring support for PCI Express 3.0 with transfer rates up to 8 Gbit/s (1000 Mbyte/s)", according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XQD_card.
I would suggest that a new standard is needed but XQD may not be the solution.
Best regards
Erik
They did well out of CD, and they keep trying.
How many cameras apart from the D4 support XQD? Why is the physical XQD format different from CF?
Edmund
-
Hi,
XQD has PCI-X interface while CF has ATA. Why should the physical format be similar when interface is different?
Broken CF contacts seem to be one of the most common problems with DSLR, by the way.
Best regards
Erik
Why? So that you have functional redundancy precisely by having 2 slots - doesn't mean the "XQD" would be using teh same pins or even going in all the way.
A very good way to wreck your CF slot in the D4 is to insert the XQD card into it; this can easily happen if you are in the dark at an event.
Usually connectors are designed precisely to avoid accidents caused by muscle memory.
Edmund
PS - I AGREE WITH MICHAEL
Cameras as we know them are in for a dinosaur extinction event.
Edmund
-
Of course, all sorts of people are (and should be) excited about this camera because it means that they will be able to use all sorts of new (old) lenses on the D800′s 36mp sensor which is housed in the Sony A7r’s petit body
http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2013/10/27/pdn-photoplus-expo-2013-report/
I spoke with several people about the sensor in the a7r and it is not the same as the one used in the D800. It is a gapless design with microlenses that should significantly improve the performance with wide angle lenses. I spoke to one photographer in particular who had used it with an Elmarit-M 24mm and despite some slight magenta casts on the very edge of the frame there was no loss of sharpness or 'smearing' into the corners. We won't know for sure until DxO runs some tests but Sony is claiming a full stop more dynamic range than the D800...
Considering the infinite selection of lenses you can mount and being able to focus peak with older manual lenses makes this a VERY interesting and exciting camera.
-
Hi,
I may think DR is overrated, I have found very little problems with DR and had to go to extremes to find the DR advantage with my Sony Alpha 99 over my Sony Alpha 900. The difference is there, but finding it is very hard.
Regarding wide angle lenses, I would say that with retrofocus designs it is no problems, but I think it would not work with 'Biogon' type designs. Almost all modern wide angle are retrofocus or telecentric.
I would see it this way, theA7/A7r is a modern camera designed for modern lenses that may work with some old designs as long chief ray angle is not to large.
What I say is, that the A7/A7r are probably OK on their own, but if you use them on lenses they were not intended for, you mileage may vary.
Best regards
Erik
I spoke with several people about the sensor in the a7r and it is not the same as the one used in the D800. It is a gapless design with microlenses that should significantly improve the performance with wide angle lenses. I spoke to one photographer in particular who had used it with an Elmarit-M 24mm and despite some slight magenta casts on the very edge of the frame there was no loss of sharpness or 'smearing' into the corners. We won't know for sure until DxO runs some tests but Sony is claiming a full stop more dynamic range than the D800...
Considering the infinite selection of lenses you can mount and being able to focus peak with older manual lenses makes this a VERY interesting and exciting camera.
-
Hi,
I may think DR is overrated, I have found very little problems with DR and had to go to extremes to find the DR advantage with my Sony Alpha 99 over my Sony Alpha 900. The difference is there, but finding it is very hard.
Regarding wide angle lenses, I would say that with retrofocus designs it is no problems, but I think it would not work with 'Biogon' type designs. Almost all modern wide angle are retrofocus or telecentric.
I would see it this way, theA7/A7r is a modern camera designed for modern lenses that may work with some old designs as long chief ray angle is not to large.
What I say is, that the A7/A7r are probably OK on their own, but if you use them on lenses they were not intended for, you mileage may vary.
Best regards
Erik
Overrated ? Dynamic range is one of the D800's hallmarks and the Sony is supposed to improve on that (though I doubt it will be by a full stop). Considering the only alternative for shooting wide angle retrofocus leica lenses is with a 13.3 Evs $7000 Leica 240, the a7r is a pretty big deal. Stitching 36MP images from Canon TS lenses, holding the camera vertically and doing full resolution 70MP+ panorama sweeps with leica glass... Probably ok ? You've shot one dollar bill too many ;)
-
Something of interest perhaps with regards to the use of Sony sensors by other companies. The source is Fuji Rumors:
"You may already know that Sony produces the APS-C sensors for the Fuji cameras (and other brands). I’ve dropped an email to Andrea from sonyalpharumors and he told me some interesting things. Here is how it goes: once Sony implemented a new sensor in one of their cameras, other companies have to wait at least 6 months before they have the permission to use it in their own cameras. This means that if Fuji wants to use the brand new FF sensor of the the A7r or A7 they’d have to wait at least until mid April (maybe right in time for my birthday ). On the other hand they could already use the “older” FF sensor of the RX1 and launch an X200 earlier. But it seems that Fuji decided to wait and launch the FF Fuji by the end of 2014, ealry 2015."
Reading this I would be very surprised if the D800 and the A7r share the same sensor.
-
Thanks for the report Brian.
On the new CFast card format, what I have read is that:
1) Canon and Phase One have said they will use it, but not in any stills cameras yet.
2) Nikon and Sony have adopted a rival successor to Compact Flash, QXD, which is a bit smaller than CFast or CF, and it is in the Nikon D4.
3) Both can be far faster than CF can ever get due to CF being tied to the old parallel ATA, whereas CFast uses SATA and QXD uses PCI express.
3) Sandisk is only offering CFast, while Sony and Lexar are offering QXD.
Yes, another format war!
Hasselblad was showcase on Sandisk's CFast videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIgUpif2vtQ
But now since they are linked to Sony we need to wait and see.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
Hi,
Well, it has been very hard to find any difference between shots with Sony Alpha 900 and Sony Alpha 99 although one has a DR of 12.3EV and the other is around 14EV (according to DxO). I have shot digital since 2005 and had early Minolta, most Sony's and also a Phase One. Also I love high contrast.
Still I have not found a lot of images that were exceeding the dynamic range of my cameras, and I found very few cases where HDR shots came out better than well processed raw images. It took me a few of months of testing to find an image where the DR advantage of the Alpha 99 was clearly seen, that was a dupe of a very contrasty Velvia slide in a totally dark room. If the room was light enough so I could see the camera the difference disappeared. [because surround light is reflected on surface of the slide].
Another factor is that in most situation there is some lens flare, that limits contrast at the image plane.
That said, I feel the P45+ is a bit problematic with noisy shadows.
Leica M lenses are not retrofocus designs and they will probably have issues with lens cast, and will also loose sharpness as the optical package in fron of the sensor is optimized for lenses with lower ray angle. Theory says that and also most test reports.
This is an image from the Alpha 900 (12.3 EV DR)
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/HDR/HDR/i-KZ5FXMb/0/L/20100805-DSC07994-L.jpg)
Raw histogram: see below.
I would think the A7/A7r is an excellent camera, I may even consider it myself. It works probably very well with a lot of lenses, but many folks want to put Leica glass on it, and many of those lenses don't work that well with modern sensors. Sony cameras are built for Sony lenses. Offset microlenses are optimized for Sony lenses, IR-filter is probably thick. The OLP-filter on the A7r is replaced with optical glass of equivalent thickness. That gives astigmatism on "Biogon" type designs.
All Leica glass is not created equal, by the way. Todays optics are quite good actually, at least the better ones and a high resolution lens shows all weaknesses a lens may have. Check this article: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/leica-m-240-with-35mm-f1-4-fle---some-observations
I think that all those things are worth consideration before spending your money.
I would also suggest that this article is offering some insight: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/63-lot-of-info-in-a-digital-image
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Main reason I shoot the 1$ bill is that it's available to most people, so anyone can reproduce that part of my testimage. Some folks survive on something like five $US a day, but I guess those folks have other concerns the DR on the A7r.
Overrated ? Dynamic range is one of the D800's hallmarks and the Sony is supposed to improve on that (though I doubt it will be by a full stop). Considering the only alternative for shooting wide angle retrofocus leica lenses is with a 13.3 Evs $7000 Leica 240, the a7r is a pretty big deal. Stitching 36MP images from Canon TS lenses, holding the camera vertically and doing full resolution 70MP+ panorama sweeps with leica glass... Probably ok ? You've shot one dollar bill too many ;)
-
Overrated ? Dynamic range is one of the D800's hallmarks and the Sony is supposed to improve on that (though I doubt it will be by a full stop). Considering the only alternative for shooting wide angle retrofocus leica lenses is with a 13.3 Evs $7000 Leica 240, the a7r is a pretty big deal. Stitching 36MP images from Canon TS lenses, holding the camera vertically and doing full resolution 70MP+ panorama sweeps with leica glass... Probably ok ? You've shot one dollar bill too many ;)
Yes, the Sony is a very big deal indeed! :) It is like a mini Digital back and FPS unit. It obviously does not substitute a technical camera, specially the ones that allow a lot of movements but still, it is a much more light, compact and affordable alternative. I saw big prints from the A7R and it does not beat the 60 and 80mp digital backs obviously but image quality is at least equivalent to the D800E.
-
Erik,
Thanks for your post.
The Ted Ashley article is very interesting; in the end one wonders whether a tricky (Leica) or clean (Sony/Zeiss) lens is more fun to shoot with - I guess it depends on whether one likes surprises.
I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the box these days, but I'm a bit puzzled - these sensors all have huge DR, and then in practice I have noisy shadows all over my shots. Oh, wait, they have huge DR but in practice miscalibration deprives you of the bottom bits of DR, as different readouts read hotter, and of course only guys with tripods shoot at base ISO these days.
By the way, I do wonder why these cameras with stabilisers don't use the stabiliser to do multi-rez shots with Bayer offset pixels, like the hassies.
Edmund
Hi,
Well, it has been very hard to find any difference between shots with Sony Alpha 900 and Sony Alpha 99 although one has a DR of 12.3EV and the other is around 14EV (according to DxO). I have shot digital since 2005 and had early Minolta, most Sony's and also a Phase One. Also I love high contrast.
Still I have not found a lot of images that were exceeding the dynamic range of my cameras, and I found very few cases where HDR shots came out better than well processed raw images. It took me a few of months of testing to find an image where the DR advantage of the Alpha 99 was clearly seen, that was a dupe of a very contrasty Velvia slide in a totally dark room. If the room was light enough so I could see the camera the difference disappeared. [because surround light is reflected on surface of the slide].
Another factor is that in most situation there is some lens flare, that limits contrast at the image plane.
That said, I feel the P45+ is a bit problematic with noisy shadows.
Leica M lenses are not retrofocus designs and they will probably have issues with lens cast, and will also loose sharpness as the optical package in fron of the sensor is optimized for lenses with lower ray angle. Theory says that and also most test reports.
This is an image from the Alpha 900 (12.3 EV DR)
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/HDR/HDR/i-KZ5FXMb/0/L/20100805-DSC07994-L.jpg)
Raw histogram: see below.
I would think the A7/A7r is an excellent camera, I may even consider it myself. It works probably very well with a lot of lenses, but many folks want to put Leica glass on it, and many of those lenses don't work that well with modern sensors. Sony cameras are built for Sony lenses. Offset microlenses are optimized for Sony lenses, IR-filter is probably thick. The OLP-filter on the A7r is replaced with optical glass of equivalent thickness. That gives astigmatism on "Biogon" type designs.
All Leica glass is not created equal, by the way. Todays optics are quite good actually, at least the better ones and a high resolution lens shows all weaknesses a lens may have. Check this article: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/leica-m-240-with-35mm-f1-4-fle---some-observations
I think that all those things are worth consideration before spending your money.
I would also suggest that this article is offering some insight: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/63-lot-of-info-in-a-digital-image
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Main reason I shoot the 1$ bill is that it's available to most people, so anyone can reproduce that part of my testimage. Some folks survive on something like five $US a day, but I guess those folks have other concerns the DR on the A7r.
-
Erik,
Thanks for your post.
The Ted Ashley article is very interesting; in the end one wonders whether a tricky (Leica) or clean (Sony/Zeiss) lens is more fun to shoot with - I guess it depends on whether one likes surprises.
I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the box these days, but I'm a bit puzzled - these sensors all have huge DR, and then in practice I have noisy shadows all over my shots. Oh, wait, they have huge DR but in practice miscalibration deprives you of the bottom bits of DR, as different readouts read hotter, and of course only guys with tripods shoot at base ISO these days.
By the way, I do wonder why these cameras with stabilisers don't use the stabiliser to do multi-rez shots with Bayer offset pixels, like the hassies.
Edmund
Interesting concept. I am sure the mfgs. can make it work.
The huge DR advantage of the Sony/Nikon sensors is basically gone by iso 800 and beyond. At base iso it is highest obviously. I think that those sensors might be taking a readout at iso 800 even when at base iso so that way it is like a built in zero noise technique. That would explain how clean the deep shadow recovery is. Who knows, but it is somewhat odd that the high dr advantage does not extend all the way throughout the iso range.
-
The huge DR advantage of the Sony/Nikon sensors is basically gone by iso 800 and beyond.
Hi Ken,
That's correct. ISO 800 or 1600, and then underexpose with a push in Raw conversion post-processing. That will retain specular highlights and their color as a bonus, and it's usually in these situations where higher ISOs are warranted that the highlights can be important for capturing the atmosphere of the scene.
Since (photon shot) noise (especially at low light levels) is also a given, it's important for color demosaicing to not add more noise than useful.
Multishot techniques also stress the requirement for stable lightsources, and calibrated sensor-arrays, potentially adding another source of 'noise'.
Cheers,
Bart
-
How many cameras apart from the D4 support XQD?
AFAIK, the score is 1 still camera using XQD, none using CFast, so it is clearly too early to conclude anything from that data.
Does anyone know about adoption in video cameras, which might be the main target for anything beyond SD?
Why is the physical XQD format different from CF?
Why should it not be? Neither CFast nor XQD offer any backward compatibility with CF, so if anything, having the same form factor might increase the risk of someone pushing the wrong type of card into a slot.
The trade-offs I see are:
QXD: smaller than CF or CFast, so better suited to small cameras (in particular small cameras that offer high quality, high bit-rate video) or fitting dual card slots in
CFast: same size as CF, so with the potential for higher maximum storage capacity than QXD.
-
Hi,
It depends on what you compare with. Canons and D4 amplify the signal when going to high ISO, so readout noise goes down when ISO is increased. At base ISO readout noise is pretty high.
Sony sensors and others use on chip converters that have low readout noise. Those sensors are essentially "ISO-less", increasing ISO is essentially just underexposure. So the DR curves for most cameras merge at high ISOs.
Best regards
Erik
Interesting concept. I am sure the mfgs. can make it work.
The huge DR advantage of the Sony/Nikon sensors is basically gone by iso 800 and beyond. At base iso it is highest obviously. I think that those sensors might be taking a readout at iso 800 even when at base iso so that way it is like a built in zero noise technique. That would explain how clean the deep shadow recovery is. Who knows, but it is somewhat odd that the high dr advantage does not extend all the way throughout the iso range.
-
When are we going to see medium format with image stabilization? Now that would be something!
Mike
-
Leica M lenses are not retrofocus designs and they will probably have issues with lens cast, and will also loose sharpness as the optical package in fron of the sensor is optimized for lenses with lower ray angle. Theory says that and also most test reports.
Aren't most wide-angle Leica-M lenses since the late 80s retrofocus designs ? They certainly aren't symmetrical like the older super angulons or biogons.
I'm not going to debate with you the merit of additional dynamic range when you barely notice a 1 Evs difference between two sensors when you compare them using a scene with 20+ Evs.
I am simply pointing out that the Sony a7r sensor is different than the d800 with a supposed increase in dynamic range and microlenses to improve corner performance of wide-angle lenses (many articles on the internet incorrectly state the cameras are sharing the same sensor). Contrary to what many people are assuming, the two photographers I have spoken with 'claim' wide angle lens performance on the A7R to be at least on par with the Leica 240, and Brian Smith (with a Sony bias) is saying on his blog he's never seen more life like colors from any other digital camera. For now it's mostly hearsay but it's a lot to get excited about and I doubt the camera will be a dud.
-
When are we going to see medium format with image stabilization? Now that would be something!
Pentax has a stabilized lens for the 645D.
-
Using Leica M and Nikon Lenses
For some photographers (myself included) putting Leica M mount lenses on the Sony A7R may be reason enough to break out a bottle of Veuve Cliquot champagne and celebrate. Using an M to E adapter (I have a Metabones), virtually every Leica M lenses that I own works well on the A7R. Some of the ultra-wide and very wides do vignette, so be aware of this. There is no software correction for this, because we're mixing and matching. With other systems where the lens and camera are from the same company there's a lot of magic that can be done in firmware.
I had neither the time nor the full selection of lenses to test in detail what works and what doesn't, but I think it fair to say that most retrofocus design Leica M lenses will work on the A7R. When you consider that this camera has a high resolution EVF, focus peaking, intelligent Auto-ISO – so manual aperture lenses can be used in a semi-automated manner, and of course a 36 Megapixel sensor, this is hot stuff indeed.
In my opinion, anyone who owns a set of (or even a few) high quality M series Leica optics should seriously look at the Sony A7R. They make for a killer combination, and the Sony costs less then a third of an M240 camera. Just test that the lenses that you plan on using work as you expect before taking the plunge.
I also tried several of my Nikon lenses using a Novoflex adaptor (with aperture control ring) and they too worked just fine, including the superb 14-24mm Nikkor. There is some chromatic aberration visible on some lenses at some apertures, but a trip to the Lens Correction tab in Lightroom or Camera Raw / Photoshop makes short work of this.
Overall, I can not recommend the A7R highly enough for anyone looking to find a new body for their Leica lenses, and who find the price of an M240 a bridge too far, as I did last year. And for those of you with M8, M9 or M240 bodies, the A7R makes a relatively inexpensive second body as well
Sounds better than 'iffy' :)
Apparently shooting an LLC does a good job for some of the ultra wides with magenta cast - and there's Cornerfix (https://sites.google.com/site/cornerfix/).
Doesn't the M 240 also have a problem with some of the ultra wides and biogon types ?
-
Hi,
Just be happy if Leica lenses work on the Alpha 7r, but I would wait for more testing done.
Regarding the image I posted, it has a DR of about 12 EV (excluding the sun), nowhere like 20 EV. That is the reason I included the raw data.
I don't argue that DR is not important, I just say it is overrated. I have been fortunate enough to have cameras at the top of the DR league, but I have seen lots of great images taken with humble Canons and Hasselblads ;-)
I have nothing against the Alpha 7r and I figure it is somewhat better than the Alpha 99 I have regarding DR and obviously much better in resolution.
Best regards
Erik
Aren't most wide-angle Leica-M lenses since the late 80s retrofocus designs ? They certainly aren't symmetrical like the older super angulons or biogons.
I'm not going to debate with you the merit of additional dynamic range when you barely notice a 1 Evs difference between two sensors when you compare them using a scene with 20+ Evs.
-
Life is too short.
Can't argue with that :)
-
Man I didn`t know that so thanks for the heads up! I just looked at the specs for the 90 macro-any other lenses with IS yet?
Mike
-
Man I didn`t know that so thanks for the heads up! I just looked at the specs for the 90 macro-any other lenses with IS yet?
Mike
I would love to see them come out with more lenses (and more bodies) but as of right now it really doesn't seem very clear what Pentax (Ricoh) will be doing with the 645D system...