Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Theodoros on February 16, 2014, 01:52:53 pm
-
Are those 22mp "fat pixel" backs that people used to buy (at those days) at prices similar to a good quality family car still worth buying? Your experiences with them and how they compare with modern high resolution backs as well as with modern DSLRs, is most welcome… Those backs, (Imacon 132c/528c, P1-P25/H25, Sinar Emotion 22, Leaf 22, Sinar 54S/H/M) are now sold for 1000-3000 Euros which is less of 1/10th of what their cost was to buy new…
-How do they compare with equal price (new) DSLRs?
-Have they benefit from modern processing programs?
-Are they good to use with View and Tech cameras?
-Can they give "breath" to an old MF system?
-How do they compare with film?
-What is the "fat pixel" magic that some where so enthusiastic about?
-What is the difference between Kodak and Dalsa sensors?
-How good are their MS versions for stills?
Lets have some (nostalgic ?) fun… ;)
-
Recently heard an architectural photographer field a question about the breathtaking price of MFDB's. He says that when he switched from 4x5 film to a Phase back many years ago (P65+ or a P45+ I believe) his lease payment on the Phase One MFDB was less than his monthly film and processing bill had been. He was saving money... And when he upgraded to an IQ260 he freed up a completely serviceable MFDB to someone more price sensitive.
Also, as the owner of a "legacy" MFDB, (P40+) I can also say that the lenses for tech cams (even my "legacy" Schneiders) are in a completely different league than just about anything for a DSLR. The difference is easy to see. Plus with tech cams, you can flat stitch which is far easier than a pano stitch.
My Hasselblad 503 cw has also found new life with the MFDB. (I sought a V mount for that reason)
It seems a good reason to buy a 22-25 mp MFDB would be to use on a tech cam system. I found an affordable tech cam and lenses used. The newest 80mp backs don't work very well with many of the wide Schneiders which help when you are buying used, but someday there will be no buyers for MY used tech cam lenses, so maybe I have a bit of a dead end system, but I have many years of great use of high IQ equipment ahead of me.
-
Recently heard an architectural photographer field a question about the breathtaking price of MFDB's. He says that when he switched from 4x5 film to a Phase back many years ago (P65+ or a P45+ I believe) his lease payment on the Phase One MFDB was less than his monthly film and processing bill had been. He was saving money... And when he upgraded to an IQ260 he freed up a completely serviceable MFDB to someone more price sensitive.
Also, as the owner of a "legacy" MFDB, (P40+) I can also say that the lenses for tech cams (even my "legacy" Schneiders) are in a completely different league than just about anything for a DSLR. The difference is easy to see. Plus with tech cams, you can flat stitch which is far easier than a pano stitch.
My Hasselblad 503 cw has also found new life with the MFDB. (I sought a V mount for that reason)
It seems a good reason to buy a 22-25 mp MFDB would be to use on a tech cam system. I found an affordable tech cam and lenses used. The newest 80mp backs don't work very well with many of the wide Schneiders which help when you are buying used, but someday there will be no buyers for MY used tech cam lenses, so maybe I have a bit of a dead end system, but I have many years of great use of high IQ equipment ahead of me.
Many pros or serious artists do use 22mp backs on their tech and/or view cameras… Obviously the reason is that larger pixels benefit (since "entrance" of photons into the pixel is much easier) with movements and they benefit even more the larger the movements are. Another thing to consider, is that they are "easier" with older lenses, where the lens analysis is less due to the huge image circle they provide. Interesting thing is, that there are no complains either for their resolution or DR…. I know people that love the "out of the box" curve (they call it the "fat pixel magic") that these backs provide, to the extend where some prefer their "look" from larger resolution backs and this doesn't only happen with view/tech cameras, but among MF users too, in fact the only serious complain about these backs, is that they are more prone to moire presence than the higher resolution backs, but again, they are not more prone than a Nikon D700 or D3/S to be honest… Interesting thing is, that D700/D3/D3S owners, don't complain on moire issues about their cameras, although they are the most "sensitive" ones for the effect to appear compared to anything else in the market…. maybe it's because the issue is much exaggerated as of its chance to happen? ….Besides, with todays "anti-moire" filters on modern developers, the issue can be treated well when ever it appears.
-
This does not match my experience. I have done both and I am consistently faster with cylindrical stitching with far less constraints in terms of the accuracy of the movement since I am not affecting the lens/sensor relative positioning. Cylindrical stitching with the right equipment requires zero mental effort and the overhead between images is max 1 second at capture. The post-processing also requires zero manual operation in most cases.
But the key value is of course that you get a much more uniform image quality across the image field with spherical stitching. The image quality of the very best tech cam lens in the corner when shifted is a average to poor compared their center or to the image quality delivered by an Otus over 2/3 of a 35mm sensor.
Note that my comment applies to stitching with either a tech cameras or a DSLR.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, if one stitches on the camera (without moving the lens at all) as it happens when one is stitching on a 4x5 camera, there are no vignetting, no exposure, or other issues that are involved as with moving (change position) of the image area and of the lens… Practically, what he does, is a form of scanning the area that the lens projects. Surely, none can argue that accuracy problems (nodal point, vignetting, exposure) are eliminated… It is a far superior method which improves resolution by much, increases the nyquist limit since area is increased and widens the AOV… Using a view camera's whole image area in combination with the ability to use lens movements on the total image area is surely much superior than stitching a pano using a DSLR…. Not many would argue for the opposite… ;)
-
Hi,
Well, there is something called the law of cosine four, resolution drops across the image circle, all lenses have some distortion and the increases when moving outwards the image circle.
Best regards
Erik
Bernard, if one stitches on the camera (without moving the lens at all) as it happens when one is stitching ion a 4x5 camera, there are no vignetting, no exposure, or other issues that are involved as with moving (change position) of the image area and of the lens… Practically, what he does, is a form of scanning the area that the lens projects. Surely, none can argue that accuracy problems (nodal point, vignetting, exposure) are eliminated… It is a far superior method which improves resolution by much, increases the nyquist limit since area is increased and widens the AOV… Using a view camera's whole image area in combination with the ability to use lens movements on the total image area is surely much superior that stitching a pano using a DSLR…. Not many would argue for the opposite… ;)
-
Hi,
Well, there is something called the law of cosine four, resolution drops across the image circle, all lenses have some distortion and the increases when moving outwards the image circle.
Best regards
Erik
That too! It's best to have resolution dropping as it would do if the image area was united, rather than having "wavy" resolution and it's best to pre-view and control lens distortion (again like if it was a single shot) than have it spread in a "wavy" manner.
-
A nodal-point calibrated click-stop pano head and appropriate software will produce very good results. It seems like most think that DSLR stitching is something that's generally done handheld. You can, but you don't have to. With a calibrated pano head you can stitch tight indoor superwide scenes without parallax issues.
Stitching inside an image circle is not free of problems either. Few tech cameras have click-stops (my Techno has for horizontals though), and turning the back into position with knobs takes time and there's a high risk of disturbing, cocking the manual shutter also is a disturbance risk. It's quite likely you'll need software alignment anyway, as you can see in Doug's recent tests. Wide angles loss of resolution towards the edges may fully nullify the image stretching too, it depends. If you shoot an ultra-wide you generally get some pixel crosstalk and color fidelity loss towards the sides too, a problem you don't have with spherical stitching.
"Wavy" resolution is generally not a problem of spherical stitching. I do recommend to use a camera with AA-filter though, eg a D800 rather than a D800E as the softer pixels handles post-processing stretching better.
You can of course do camera-turning stitching with tech cams too, and many do. Multi-row is unpractical due to the heavy bulky bodies, but cylindrical stitches are fine, and for landscape panoramas a cylindrical projection is often better looking than an ultra-wide rectalinear due to the perspective stretch.
Attached is an example of stretching required for a 3 shot cylindrical stitch reprojected to rectalinear.
-
I would really prefer it, if the conversation won't diverge completely from the subject… which of course is, the usefulness and quality of old 22mp backs in todays world as alternatives to modern more expensive solutions… ::)
-
I've shot a bit with a Hasselblad CF-22 on my Techno. It's nice. Moiré is a problem sometimes, but in landscape as I shoot I can live with it (and no, a D700 with AA filter has no way near as much moiré issues as a 22mp back withou AA).
The advantages of the 22 megapixel backs today as I see it is 1) they are cheap, 2) they are cheap, 3) they don't require as much from the camera body and lenses in terms of precision and sharpness, 4) the lower resolution means that you generally are less anal about focus precision and overall lens quality.
In terms of absolute image quality they may have a color cast advantage on symmetrical wides (ie less cast than smaller pixel backs), but compared to a 33 or 39 megapixel back I don't think it's so large difference. They are considerably better than the 6um sensors though. Concerning the full well capacity the 9um Kodak KAF-22000 has ~100k electrons, while a newer 6um CCD sensor has about ~50k electrons. However this 1 stop advantage is buried in noise and quantization, and is of course only on pixel level, per area the 6um sensor gathers about the same amount of photons.
The color filters and profiles for especially the Kodak backs gives a saturated "Kodak color" which some like, and it can be hard to reproduce in the same way with a modern Dalsa sensor. I think it's primarily that people refer to when they say "fat pixel magic", but I think it's more about nostalgia than a real useful image quality advantage.
I think the 22 megapixel backs are great when you want to make a low cost entry to MF and is interested in using legacy cameras. But if your budget allows a more recent back I'd suggest to go for that, a 33 or 39 should provide little disadvantages even on legacy cameras.
-
As a landscape shooter, I can't see much need or advantage to the older 22MP backs. The only one I would consider is the P25+, only then for longer exposures as I understand it does a pretty good job at base iso.
For me resolution is all about final output. My goal has always to create output without uprezing with software as I have yet to find any software solution that really can go the distance. This creates situations where I will stitch with 35mm or Phase One depending on the conditions.
1. You are limited to pretty much the base iso maybe plus one stop.
2. There are plenty of 35mm cameras that can get the job done better at 18 to 20MP, all however CCD, but I have not been much of a believer that the CCD
is so much better.
3. Stitching, is something I do quite a bit of, don't see any advantage to the older 22mp backs at all. I am only stitching for one reason to get to a larger print
output without having to use interpolation (software based uprezing).
4. Not a user of 4x5 so I can't address the statement it's better for stitching. However I have found that stitching either nodal or non-nodal with a 35mm camera
can create excellent images.
5. Moving to the 33 x to 39MP range makes more sense to me.
6. The 22MP backs don't have the ability to use the LS lenses that offer the faster flash sync.
7. Most if not all of the 22MP platforms are no longer seeing any improvements from their parent company and or software (raw conversion improvements).
For money, I would much rather have a 2nd D800e.
Paul C.
-
Bernard, if one stitches on the camera (without moving the lens at all) as it happens when one is stitching on a 4x5 camera, there are no vignetting, no exposure, or other issues that are involved as with moving (change position) of the image area and of the lens… Practically, what he does, is a form of scanning the area that the lens projects. Surely, none can argue that accuracy problems (nodal point, vignetting, exposure) are eliminated… It is a far superior method which improves resolution by much, increases the nyquist limit since area is increased and widens the AOV… Using a view camera's whole image area in combination with the ability to use lens movements on the total image area is surely much superior than stitching a pano using a DSLR…. Not many would argue for the opposite… ;)
I, for one, very clearly disagree. ;)
With those technical cameras:
- You are moving the sensor relative to the lens, which introduces a very real possibility of compromised alignment with the risk of asymmetric results,
- The sharpness of the outer area of the image circle is clearly less than its center.
On the other hand, the drop of resolution of top 35mm lenses like the Otus between its centre and half of the frame at f5.6-f8 is negligible, there is no such effects as the wavy resolution you seem concerned about.
You can of course do spherical stitching with a back as well and many one this very forum do just that.
But to the initial point, I frankly see no value in buying those 22mp back nowadays. And yes, I used to own a Mamiya ZD so I have a fairly good idea of what I am talking about here. The D3x was already superior from a DR standpoint, the D800/a7r just bury them alive.
Get a Sony a7r with the 55mm f1.8 and a spherical pano head instead. You'll spend less than the cost of one of those super tech camera Roddy lenses and will get a higher image quality in a smaller and lighter package.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Multi-row is unpractical due to the heavy bulky bodies, but cylindrical stitches are fine, and for landscape panoramas a cylindrical projection is often better looking than an ultra-wide rectalinear due to the perspective stretch.
I've done lots of multi-row (full spherical in fact) stitching with both the ALPA TC and FPS on a Seitz VR Drive 2. Works very nicely...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2N1po56z18
;)
-
I've done lots of multi-row (full spherical in fact) stitching with both the ALPA TC and FPS on a Seitz VR Drive 2. Works very nicely...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2N1po56z18
;)
Ahh, nice example :). That head allows for nodal point calibration so it should work nicely in tight indoor scenes too. But it's not for free I assume.
-
- You are moving the sensor relative to the lens, which introduces a very real possibility of compromised alignment with the risk of asymmetric results,
With a plate-on-plate system like Arca, Cambo, or Alpa this is nigh impossible. I've never seen it and if I did it would be a warranty service to eliminate.
With standards based view cameras (e.g. rear standard + front standard) this is more of a potential.
- The sharpness of the outer area of the image circle is clearly less than its center.
This is absolutely true. Many lenses like the 120ASPH, 60XL, 90HR-SW, 32HR, and 40HR the usable image circle easily allows 2, 3, 4 or sometimes even 6 or 9 frames (depending on the back sensor size, resolution, and focus distance) but there is no doubt that pan-and-stitch works better for massive number of frames.
Most of the photographers we work with value capturing the scene in front of them with a more traditional/organic method where even 4 frames is starting to push into undesired category. A quick left-right stitch on a tech camera to get to a 2:1 aspect ratio or a 1:1 aspect ratio is easy and intuitive. Others of course will get a kick out of the machine-driven computationally-intensive have-the-computer-reconstruct-the-scene method that a massive pan-and-stitch requires. I once did a 100+ image depth-of-field stack of a fly's eye which required days of post processing to have the computer reconstruct the scene I was capturing only slivers of at a time, so I can appreciate the enjoyment factor of watching that all come together. But personally if I'm hiking up a mountain to take a photo I'd rather stick with traditional manners of creating the image - not out of a purity nothing-new-is-good point of view, but because it feels somehow more tactile and direct to me to compose in the field and see the frame-edges at that time, and know that the path to the final image is - to me - more direct and simple. On the other hand tech cameras require an LCC which is a counter argument to that point. I guess my point is that the final result as measured in pixels is only one consideration as to which method is more appropriate for any individual shooter.
-
Bernard, I'm so grateful for the clarification. I now realise the error of my ways. I'm at such a huge disadvantage that I might as well toss my piece of crap of a camera into a hole and be done with it.
As always your D800 images just scream superiority.
'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit' - Oscar Wilde
-
I've done lots of multi-row (full spherical in fact) stitching with both the ALPA TC and FPS on a Seitz VR Drive 2. Works very nicely...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2N1po56z18
impressive movie - what's next ?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2557799/The-dizzying-pictures-taken-Chinas-tallest-buildings.html
-
'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit' - Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wild was referring for sarcasm on a sensible conversation... If one uses the term "bury them alive" (which is no where near for truth) it's no longer a sensible statement in a sensible conversation, then, sarcasm's meaning changes to …."satire" (Aristophane was the inventor) [/i] and is a very ethical thing to do since it uses/exposes the ridicule of the original false statement… My Imacon 528c used with my C645 lenses, out performs my D800E at near base Iso… and the result of the D800E to be worthy to compare (not to beat - just to be maximised so that the comparison will need closer examination), one has to use the best of primes closed down to their best performing apertures… Also, Iso sensitivity on those older backs is clearly underestimated by the makers, 50 Iso (on my 528c) should be exposed at the same settings of shutter and aperture, as 100 Iso on my D800E for exposure to be equal in mid tones… then one realises that those old backs have better usable DR too... where by usable I mean what is left of DR after one processes for a realistic print look.
-
In terms of absolute image quality they may have a color cast advantage on symmetrical wides (ie less cast than smaller pixel backs), but compared to a 33 or 39 megapixel back I don't think it's so large difference. They are considerably better than the 6um sensors though.
I agree on the Dalsa 33mp sensor as being superior… My personal opinion is that it's the best sensor out there ever… it keeps nearly all the advantages of the 22mp backs, it's as easy (due to the shallow depth of its pixels?) with view/tech cameras, it is usable up to 400Iso, its colour is the best around out of all backs, it is very "moire resistant" and its DR is simply superb… but to be honest with you, I had a chance to have compared P25+ and P45+ on the same camera with the same lenses (Hassy H2 with 120m and 80mm) back on 2008 and although there where some advantages with the 39mp Kodak sensor, I would (slightly) prefer P25+ over the two, because of its (little but clear) DR advantage and more linear presentation in the mid tones… Also, resolution difference wasn't as much as one would think by not having tested the sensors side by side… especially if one (like me) is not the "mp junkie" kind of person but thinks of other values as more important for picture quality. By this, I don't mean that one should like his pictures soft, but clearly, with a 22mp back one can print really large with all the detail that a sensible person would consider as being sharp enough.
Never the less, this conversation was initiated to talk about the worth (or not) and the reasons that one (especially if he is absent from MF or is a new comer) should consider such a back "ten years after…" and to inform those new comers on the advantages or disadvantages (like occasional -but rare- moire) they should expect with respect to the DSLRs (or MF film/sheet film) that they use with their cameras.
-
Often erroneously attributed to Wilde ...
Oscar Wild was referring for sarcasm on a sensible conversation...
Make your minds up.
-
Make your minds up.
OK… please replace O.W with "whoever" in my statement…, Aristophane stays! ….so my statement should read:
Whoever (instead of O.W.) was referring for sarcasm on a sensible conversation... If one uses the term "bury them alive" (which is no where near for truth) it's no longer a sensible statement in a sensible conversation, then, sarcasm's meaning changes to …."satire" (Aristophane was the inventor) [/i] and is a very ethical thing to do since it uses/exposes the ridicule of the original false statement… My Imacon 528c used with my C645 lenses, out performs my D800E at near base Iso… and the result of the D800E to be worthy to compare (not to beat - just to be maximised so that the comparison will need closer examination), one has to use the best of primes closed down to their best performing apertures… Also, Iso sensitivity on those older backs is clearly underestimated by the makers, 50 Iso (on my 528c) should be exposed at the same settings of shutter and aperture, as 100 Iso on my D800E for exposure to be equal in mid tones… then one realises that those old backs have better usable DR too... where by usable I mean what is left of DR after one processes for a realistic print look.
-
'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit' - Oscar Wilde
I think the appropriateness of wit is best preached by Pope :)
Edmund
-
The full "quote" is also given as :- "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence."
It does not appear in any of his writings that have been published and is attributed to him, without evidence, of having once said it.
I shoot a P20 to show I am on topic ;D
-
I think the appropriateness of wit is best preached by Pope
Alexander or Francis ?
-
Bernard, I'm so grateful for the clarification. I now realise the error of my ways. I'm at such a huge disadvantage that I might as well toss my piece of crap of a camera into a hole and be done with it.
As always your D800 images just scream superiority.
It takes a great man to confess his mistakes, congratulations!
But I do apologize in case my comments affected the resell value of your 22mp back even a cent! ;D
As far as my images go, well they are what they are amidst the constraints that are mine, but the interesting thing is that you got pumped up to the point of having to use the atomic weapon of personal attacks on this forum... ;)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7300/12213063356_78998373f4_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It takes a great man to confess his mistakes, congratulations!
But I do apologize in case my comments affected the resell value of your 22mp back even a cent! ;D
As far as my images go, well they are what they are, but the interesting thing is that you got pumped up to the point of having to use the atomic weapon of personal attacks on this forum... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I doubt comments can affect the value of a 22mp back… They've taken more, much more than that through time. I'm not sure on the D800 future value though…. will it worth (and be demanded) more than what a D50 costs (and is wanted) today? :P :D
-
I doubt comments can affect the value of a 22mp back… They've taken more, much more than that through time. I'm not sure on the D800 future value though…. will it worth (and be demanded) more than what a D50 costs (and is wanted) today? :P :D
Are you advising to OP to invest in a 22mp back?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Are you advising to OP to invest in a 22mp back?
Cheers,
Bernard
No… I just wonder why ten years after so many people pros still make their living out of them and provide super results… Let me put it to an extend that will be more understandable to you… Back in the 70s one could buy a Ferrari or a Porsche…. but if you was to win in a rally race, …you should get your self a "statos"… Ten years after, it was still the same, with a new model Ferrari or a Porsche, it accelerated better, it had more top speed, even handled better… but would still loose the race from the "stratos"! …It's only that one needs "balls" to drive the later!
-
nice pic - is there a toy museum near you?
Edmund
It takes a great man to confess his mistakes, congratulations!
But I do apologize in case my comments affected the resell value of your 22mp back even a cent! ;D
As far as my images go, well they are what they are amidst the constraints that are mine, but the interesting thing is that you got pumped up to the point of having to use the atomic weapon of personal attacks on this forum... ;)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7300/12213063356_78998373f4_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No… I just wonder why ten years after so many people pros still make their living out of them and provide super results… Let me put it to an extend that will be more understandable to you… Back in the 70s one could buy a Ferrari or a Porsche…. but if you was to win in a rally race, …you should get your self a "statos"… Ten years after, it was still the same, with a new model Ferrari or a Porsche, it accelerated better, it had more top speed, even handled better… but would still loose the race from the "stratos"! …It's only that one needs "balls" to drive the later!
The equivalent of that in the photographic world must be the Betterlight back, that takes balls! Backs and DLSRs are children garden territory in comparison.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit' - Oscar Wilde
I never said half the shit people quote in my name.
- famous person
-
...and yes, I would like to get a 22mp back eventually to bring my bronica gear into the digital age.
There's an awesome thread at getdpi full of fat pixel magic...
-
nice pic - is there a toy museum near you?
Well spotted! :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The equivalent of that in the photographic world must be the Betterlight back, that takes balls! Backs and DLSRs are children garden territory in comparison.
Cheers,
Bernard
….Which in return works only on an LF camera and is much worst than an MS version of these backs when used for the same purpose! …In fact any back ever is worst when compared to a correctly done 16x image out of the MS version of these backs… But again, the conversation here is on their single shot (not scanning or MS) ability as of today when compared to other single shot solutions…. we are only trying to be specific on the "race" terms… ;)
-
….Which in return works only on an LF camera and is much worst than an MS version of these backs when used for the same purpose! …In fact any back ever is worst when compared to a correctly done 16x image out of the MS version of these backs… But again, the conversation here is on their single shot (not scanning or MS) ability as of today when compared to other single shot solutions…. we are only trying to be specific on the "race" terms… ;)
OK, if that has become too manly, then I'll propose an alternative contender costing 480 US$ new called a Sigma DP3m (not even speaking about its successor to keep the race somewhat interesting).
Granted, there are some limitations, but we are speaking about 7% of the back second hand cost... and you still get similar image quality at base ISO.
You may want to give it a try it!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...and yes, I would like to get a 22mp back eventually to bring my bronica gear into the digital age.
There's an awesome thread at getdpi full of fat pixel magic...
There is a lot of "conspiracy" going on, on the values of MF… this "conspiracy" is oriented from those that do keep prices high and "vanish" from the market what could expose the conspiracy while at the same time, it shrinks the base of MF, that would be hundreds of thousands of users by now… It is the same conspiracy that has enforced some of the older cameras to be excluded (not supported) for their users to be able to experience "digital MF", the same conspiracy that takes older backs for "part exchange" and then never returns them to the market as S/H, the same conspiracy that is basing prices to resolution increase -when it has nothing to do with it-, the same conspiracy that wants to convince people that when there was nothing else around but what we are talking about right here... photographs were crap! But… look around you people… has photography/i] improved those past ten years? …Lets say that these "war machines" that some are trying to convince us that are now "worthless ancient crap" actually are! …How come and photographs are only worst? …How come and so many artists still use them? …how come and they don't feel the need to upgrade? …how come and they find some magic into them?
Go ahead Synn and give rebirth to your ETRS… (I'm thinking of doing the same actually), maybe you'll decide later to advance it into prime use and make some money back….
-
OK, if that has become too manly, then I'll propose an alternative contender costing 480 US$ new called a Sigma DP3m (not even speaking about its successor to keep the race somewhat interesting).
Granted, there are some limitations, but we are speaking about 7% of the back second hand cost... and you still get similar image quality at base ISO.
You may want to give it a try it!
Cheers,
Bernard
I would have… if only it could copy a large painting the way an MS back does in 16x so that I could provide to my family as I do… and if the rest of my photography wasn't B&W "artistic" and some high Iso weddings to add some extra income… It's a matter of choosing the right tool for the race you see… I'm surprised why you don't replace your D800 with one….
-
There is a lot of "conspiracy" going on, on the values of MF… this "conspiracy" is oriented from those that do keep prices high and "vanish" from the market what could expose the conspiracy while at the same time, it shrinks the base of MF, that would be hundreds of thousands of users by now… It is the same conspiracy that has enforced some of the older cameras to be excluded (not supported) for their users to be able to experience "digital MF", the same conspiracy that takes older backs for "part exchange" and then never returns them to the market as S/H, the same conspiracy that is basing prices to resolution increase -when it has nothing to do with it-, the same conspiracy that wants to convince people that when there was nothing else around but what we are talking about right here... photographs were crap! But… look around you people… has photography/i] improved those past ten years? …Lets say that these "war machines" that some are trying to convince us that are now "worthless ancient crap" actually are! …How come and photographs are only worst? …How come and so many artists still use them? …how come and they don't feel the need to upgrade? …how come and they find some magic into them?
Go ahead Synn and give rebirth to your ETRS… (I'm thinking of doing the same actually), maybe you'll decide later to advance it into prime use and make some money back….
It is much more simple than that.
I don't think anybody doubts the fact that 22mp backs still deliver excellent images today when used in their area of expertise (base ISO, good light, perhaps on a technical camera), nor that there is little need for more for 99% of applications. Heck, my Mamiya ZD did deliver brilliant images, no doubt and very few people print large enough to actually need more.
[(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5054/5564061476_63f08e1eac.jpg)
The discussion is more about their price/performance ratio compared to other options.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would have… if only it could copy a large painting the way an MS back does in 16x so that I could provide to my family as I do… and if the rest of my photography wasn't B&W "artistic" and some high Iso weddings to add some extra income… It's a matter of choosing the right tool for the race you see… I'm surprised why you don't replace your D800 with one….
I have both, in fact I use a DP2m. I am sure you own several cameras, so do I. There are some situations where the DP2m is the best tool for the job, some where the Betterlight back is the better option and many where a stitched D800 job blows everything else out of the water.
The Merrill is not quite at D800 level in terms of DR and detail, but it is very close in terms of detail, a bit farther behind in terms of DR. My guess is that the Quattro will be ahead of the D800.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8198/8178591831_868aff6772.jpg)
MS backs are clearly the best option today for what you do, no doubt. Was the OP interested in art reproduction? Sorry if I missed that part.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Blah blah DR this,DxO that.
Bruce Percy shot his best work with Velvia. They are also better than any I have seen the science brigade post.
I am sorry if the truth hurts.
-
Blah blah DR this,DxO that.
Bruce Percy shot his best work with Velvia. They are also better than any I have seen the science brigade post.
I am sorry if the truth hurts.
It is for sure possible to get excellent results with film, 4x5 or other formats. Not sure why this would hurt.
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/44/150999551_41844a6f72.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't think anybody doubts the fact that 22mp backs still deliver excellent images today when used in their area of expertise….
[(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5054/5564061476_63f08e1eac.jpg)
The discussion is more about their price/performance ratio compared to other options.
Cheers,
Bernard
Wouldn't your D800 "bury it alive" in this shot? …. :P :D
-
Wouldn't your D800 "bury it alive" in this shot? …. :P :D
In terms of DR yes, I would have liked the shadows in the hair of the little girl to be cleaner.
But I don't disagree that subject matter is more important than DR. Discussing the technical aspects of photography in the context of gear selection does not imply an inability to see other things. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In terms of DR yes, I would have liked the shadows in the hair of the little girl to be cleaner.
But I don't disagree that subject matter is more important than DR.
Com'on, you know better than that. Speaking about the technical aspects of photography in the context of gear selection does not imply an inability to see other things. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
it's in DR where your D800 would be "buried alive" in this particular shot… unless if you would never print it that is…. It is because "I know better than that" why I make the comment.
-
it's in DR where your D800 would be "buried alive" in this particular shot… unless if you would never print it that is…. It is because "I know better than that" why I make the comment.
Feel free to believe whatever you want, but keep in mind that you are in the process of influencing a person who may end up spending North of 10,000 US$ on a possible purchase. I may just be me, but I do feel a certain degree of responsibility in terms of conveying accurate facts.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Feel free to believe whatever you want, but keep in mind that you are in the process of influencing a person who may end up spending North of 10,000 US$ on a possible purchase. I may just be me, but I do feel a certain degree of responsibility in terms of conveying accurate facts.
Cheers,
Bernard
If you think that "I believe what ever I want" may you please post the raw file so that I can process it myself?
-
If you think that "I believe what ever I want" may you please post the raw file so that I can process it myself?
I apologize, this image is copyrighted, I have no intention to share the raw data.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is for sure possible to get excellent results with film, 4x5 or other formats. Not sure why this would hurt.
It is possible to get good results from ANY tool; which is the point.
Bruce Percy uses Velvia because that's the tool most suited for his style. I doubt if he has spent an hour on DxO fretting over their methodology or what sensor has what DR. It is absolutely fine to select the tool that's right for your style based on technical points, but to discredit the choices of other photographers because it's not manly enough for YOU/ is not value for money enough for YOU / is technically inferior for YOU etc (See a recurring pattern?) is just silly. People are free to choose whatever they want based on their priorities. I find Canon DSLRs terrible, but I don't spend my hours admonishing my friend for getting one. When we are out together, we shoot.
...and please don't make me laugh, you or no one else has an "Obligation" to educate anyone about to make a medium format purchase. It's nice of you to share your opinion if they ask for advice, but there's certainly no "Obligation". And BTW, we're talking $3k here, not $10k for a 22MP back. Also, almost anyone who buys medium format backs do their homework and have their own reasons to go in that direction which may or may not co-relate with your personal beliefs.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/t1/425857_10150586949868196_959055880_n.jpg)
Nikon D70s. I couldn't give a rat's rear end what DxO thinks of this sensor. It is what I could afford at that time, It is all I had.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/v/t35/q80/s720x720/1019974_10151538326878196_1895483047_o.jpg?oh=cb2d219631e402f5b18c4a0546c8cddc&oe=5304CDC5&__gda__=1392820230_196c79c9c149c6fb89fc9b399d20cdd2)
iPhone 4. Probably not good enough to make it to DxO.
Now can we PLEASE get back to the topic and not derail yet another thread?
-
Bernard, you have posted some fine images. They say far more about you than your usual endless insistence on the superiority of your techniques and equipment.
Thanks.
My only focus is to convey an accurate view of the respective strengths and weaknesses of equipment. MFDBs don't need to be oversold on qualities they don't have, like a magical DR compared to recent DSLRs.
I am sure none of us would want a potential new comer to be led to expect things he will not find. All in all, the only difference between me and all 3 of you in this discussion is that my claims (mostly about DR) are factual, or at least intended to be factual.
Erik comes to mind, he doesn't seem to regret his investment in a P45+, but he is also very realistic about the areas where he hasn't gained anything compared to his Sony A99, and DR is again one of those.
So this is not about my equipment vs others (why would I care?), it is about being accurate about the actual qualities of 22mp backs. I wouldn't have jumped in had unrealistic claims not been made.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The D70s was a Nikon D1x in a smaller package. Very good CCD sensor with binning in one direction if I remember rightly.
Edmund
It is possible to get good results from ANY tool; which is the point.
Bruce Percy uses Velvia because that's the tool most suited for his style. I doubt if he has spent an hour on DxO fretting over their methodology or what sensor has what DR. It is absolutely fine to select the tool that's right for your style based on technical points, but to discredit the choices of other photographers because it's not manly enough for YOU/ is not value for money enough for YOU / is technically inferior for YOU etc (See a recurring pattern?) is just silly. People are free to choose whatever they want based on their priorities. I find Canon DSLRs terrible, but I don't spend my hours admonishing my friend for getting one. When we are out together, we shoot.
...and please don't make me laugh, you or no one else has an "Obligation" to educate anyone about to make a medium format purchase. It's nice of you to share your opinion if they ask for advice, but there's certainly no "Obligation". And BTW, we're talking $3k here, not $10k for a 22MP back. Also, almost anyone who buys medium format backs do their homework and have their own reasons to go in that direction which may or may not co-relate with your personal beliefs.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/t1/425857_10150586949868196_959055880_n.jpg)
Nikon D70s. I couldn't give a rat's rear end what DxO thinks of this sensor. It is what I could afford at that time, It is all I had.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/v/t35/q80/s720x720/1019974_10151538326878196_1895483047_o.jpg?oh=cb2d219631e402f5b18c4a0546c8cddc&oe=5304CDC5&__gda__=1392820230_196c79c9c149c6fb89fc9b399d20cdd2)
iPhone 4. Probably not good enough to make it to DxO.
Now can we PLEASE get back to the topic and not derail yet another thread?
-
Now can we PLEASE get back to the topic and not derail yet another thread?
Ah ah ah... I applaud your ability to perform self criticism. ;) I don't think I am the one who has brought film, iPhone 4 or D70 images in this discussion, am I?
The topic is whether to invest in a 22mp back or spend money otherwise, is it not?
My advice stands, a Sony a7r + 55mm f1.8 + stitching head. And no, I do not own the Sony.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ah ah ah... I applaud your ability to perform self criticism. ;) I don't think I am the one who has brought film, iPhone 4 or D70 images in this discussion, am I?
The point <---
Your head<----
Moving on; a fat pixel back is a genuinely useful and practical tool for those with legacy MF systems like my ETRSi kit. For those, it's a more sensible purchase than dropping the sizable legacy kit they have and moving to a whole new system.
With all the hype about the new CMOS backs, I hope the prices of legacy backs drop further and make them accessible for a lot more people.
-
Hi Bernard,
You are quite correct. I enjoy shooting with the P45+/Hassy V combo, but I see no magic benefits. I ask myself about the sanity of the investment, but no way the P45+/Hassy go to EBay!
I think that may be some placebo like effect, you find what you expect to find. For me MF has worked as I expected, but would I have other expectations I guess I may have felt that they also would be fulfilled.
I see that the P45+ is lagging in DR compared to my Sonys, due to noisy shadows, but it is very seldom DR is a problem for me.
It is seldom I shoot the same subject under real world conditions with both the P45+ and the Sony, and even than, real world conditions often change. So I don't have a lot of comparable images.
I am pretty sure that pixels can go much smaller on MF, at least on SLR type cameras with retrofocus designs. I have not tested this on MF because I have only the P45+, but if I shoot say a 24 MP APS-C camera with 150 mm lens and shoot with an 150 mm lens on the P45+ I can essentially demonstrate how say a 120 MP MFD device would render the image, and it is a great improvement. So I am against fat pixels (except on technical cameras with significant shift).
Best regards
Erik
Thanks.
Erik comes to mind, he doesn't seem to regret his investment in a P45+, but he is also very realistic about the areas where he hasn't gained anything compared to his Sony A99, and DR is again one of those.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
….Which in return works only on an LF camera and is much worst than an MS version of these backs when used for the same purpose! …In fact any back ever is worst when compared to a correctly done 16x image out of the MS version of these backs
Actually, the Betterlight can work with Fuji 680 and Mamiya RB/RZ67 cameras with adapters. And I'm curious about your statement that MS backs are better than scanning backs. Would you mind explaining further?
Thanks,
Kumar
-
impressive movie - what's next ?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2557799/The-dizzying-pictures-taken-Chinas-tallest-buildings.html
Pfft.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2320641/Sandstorm-Burj-Khalifa-Watch-breathtaking-video-showing-sandstorm-engulfing-worlds-tallest-building.html
;)
-
No clue about the topic, but if somebody would donate a Leaf Aptus 22 (or even a Valeo 22) in V or RZ mount to me, I'd love to find out by myself :-)))
-
Pfft.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2320641/Sandstorm-Burj-Khalifa-Watch-breathtaking-video-showing-sandstorm-engulfing-worlds-tallest-building.html
In the terminology of Ali G, 'RESPECT' !
-
Bernard, as far as I can remember I have never made any claims of any kind about the superiority of any MFD backs - 22MP or otherwise - over DSLRs. It's not something I do. I just use them to make images.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Apologies if I misquoted you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Just to say, multishoot with fat pixels can increase resolution by shifting the pixels. That in turn depends on the pixels having a relatively low fill factor. 4X multishot samples RGBG pixels for each pixel position but 16X multishot probable also samples data between pixels, quadrupling resolution and reducing aliasing.
May explain why MS backs are good for repro.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Just to say, multishoot with fat pixels can increase resolution by shifting the pixels. That in turn depends on the pixels having a relatively low fill factor. 4X multishot samples RGBG pixels for each pixel position but 16X multishot probable also samples data between pixels, quadrupling resolution and reducing aliasing.
May explain why MS backs are good for repro.
Best regards
Erik
Moire is already not an issue with 4X, there is no moire when one shoots MS… What 16X does, is to multiply resolution four times, but it does so by shooting four different areas of the same imaging area… The result is that the Nyquist limit is if the area was of quadruped the size, but with exactly the same characteristics as with 4x (for lens resolution, pixel etc.)… If 16x is done correctly, 80mp backs look much inferior (in resolution) than 16x backs and if you add "true colour" on the above… It's a real experience!
P.S. Mind you, that "successful 16X" is different to "16X done correctly", many have done successfully 16x and because the result is impressive, they don't bother to explore it further where they would realise that it can be a real life experience...
-
This isn't exactly what you are asking for, but I did shoot the same image (outdoor architecture, all artificial lighting, night shot) with a Canon 5DII and an Aptus 7 (33 MP) on a tech cam with a 35 mm lens. The Aptus image was clearly superior, especially in highlight detail. Where the Canon had clipped channels and made the wood go yellow, the Aptus kept both accurate color and impressive detail. It was good enough that if you needed a bigger image, you could just uprez it in photoshop as all the useable detail in the scene was captured. I was impressed.
The client didn't see any appreciable difference and went with the Canon shot because it was a little wider and they liked the 2x3 perspective. I vastly preferred shooting with the Canon because the camera was mounted on a very tall tripod and where the Canon could be completely controlled with Capture One, the tech cam required making adjustments to the lens/shutter blind by reaching high overhead. The tripod was on a hill in a snow bank.
Now, I have not done a similar shoot with a D800 or A7/r, and that could be interesting. Especially an A7/r with a Canon T/S lens.
I got to play in a studio with a model and a D800 and IQ180. All the picture from the D800 were technically good, but I had a hard time getting a great picture from it. It just seemed a bit flat. It took all my C1 mojo to make them look good. The IQ180/DF (might have been DF+) was a different story. Getting an acceptably focused image was very difficult because of the DF and full size chip, but the ones that were in focus were spectacular and presented a very different challenge in C1 -- the images could be made to look any way that you wanted. While the DSLR had IMO one correct way to process them, the IQ180 files were so flexible that your own creativity was the limiting factor.
What's the point of all this? Well, if you are looking at legacy backs, I think a bigger sensor is a better sensor as long as you don't need the advantages of a smaller sensor (higher ISO, capture speed). The more recent digital backs (P30+, P40+, Aptus 7, Aptus 8) are more color accurate than any DSLR. There are limitations of the DF body, especially with focusing. This is more of a problem with a large chip because of DOF. The digital backs (any of them) tether better and more reliably than a DSLR.
So, from an overall technical view, I would say there are advantages, but at a cost. To me, the real reason to invest in a 22 mp back is because you want to upgrade to a newer technology back at some point, and want to start building a camera system. I would be surprised if there is any advantage to a 22mp back over a current DSLR. When you move up to a 33 - 39 mp back, I think that changes.
-
Hi,
Some observations, contradicting yours a little bit. Obviously I have a limited experience shooting only Sony and P45+.
Washed out highlights come from overexposure. If you expose correctly the highlights will be OK. Digital backs underexpose 1-1.5 stops, protecting highlights.
If you use "filme curve" in C1 it will push exposure 1-1.5 stops. Try checking with linear curve to see what the raw image really looks like.
Regarding colour accuracy, I measured colour accuracy on my Sony Alpha 99 and my P45+ and the Sony was much more accurate than the P45, and I have made similar measurements with similar results from published tests on Hasselblad compared to Nikon D800. The colours may be better but more accurate they are not.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+ColourRendition/ColourError/20131224-CF044440_C1_colorerror.jpg)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+ColourRendition/ColourError/20131225-_DSC3297_131225_colorerror.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
This isn't exactly what you are asking for, but I did shoot the same image (outdoor architecture, all artificial lighting, night shot) with a Canon 5DII and an Aptus 7 (33 MP) on a tech cam with a 35 mm lens. The Aptus image was clearly superior, especially in highlight detail. Where the Canon had clipped channels and made the wood go yellow, the Aptus kept both accurate color and impressive detail. It was good enough that if you needed a bigger image, you could just uprez it in photoshop as all the useable detail in the scene was captured. I was impressed.
The client didn't see any appreciable difference and went with the Canon shot because it was a little wider and they liked the 2x3 perspective. I vastly preferred shooting with the Canon because the camera was mounted on a very tall tripod and where the Canon could be completely controlled with Capture One, the tech cam required making adjustments to the lens/shutter blind by reaching high overhead. The tripod was on a hill in a snow bank.
Now, I have not done a similar shoot with a D800 or A7/r, and that could be interesting. Especially an A7/r with a Canon T/S lens.
I got to play in a studio with a model and a D800 and IQ180. All the picture from the D800 were technically good, but I had a hard time getting a great picture from it. It just seemed a bit flat. It took all my C1 mojo to make them look good. The IQ180/DF (might have been DF+) was a different story. Getting an acceptably focused image was very difficult because of the DF and full size chip, but the ones that were in focus were spectacular and presented a very different challenge in C1 -- the images could be made to look any way that you wanted. While the DSLR had IMO one correct way to process them, the IQ180 files were so flexible that your own creativity was the limiting factor.
What's the point of all this? Well, if you are looking at legacy backs, I think a bigger sensor is a better sensor as long as you don't need the advantages of a smaller sensor (higher ISO, capture speed). The more recent digital backs (P30+, P40+, Aptus 7, Aptus 8) are more color accurate than any DSLR. There are limitations of the DF body, especially with focusing. This is more of a problem with a large chip because of DOF. The digital backs (any of them) tether better and more reliably than a DSLR.
So, from an overall technical view, I would say there are advantages, but at a cost. To me, the real reason to invest in a 22 mp back is because you want to upgrade to a newer technology back at some point, and want to start building a camera system. I would be surprised if there is any advantage to a 22mp back over a current DSLR. When you move up to a 33 - 39 mp back, I think that changes.
-
Digital backs underexpose 1-1.5 stops, protecting highlights.
Best regards
Erik
Actually I find the opposite… If one trusts his light meter, MF backs (usually) overexpose. But again no image area "exposes", the photographer does.
-
Digital backs underexpose 1-1.5 stops, protecting highlights.
Erik,
Can we stop confusing
exposure, meaning how much light the sensor receives (determined by illumination, aperture ratio and shutter speed)
with
how much analog amplification is applied to the sensor's signal before ADC?
The difference is clearly important, as less exposure reduces photon counts and so leads to a worse ratio of signal to photon shot noise, whereas less amplification causes no change in the effect of photon shot noise, but only in the noise introduced after that amplification, which with either a CCD or CMOS sensor with column-parallel ADC is just quantization noise from the ADC. (Canon sensors are about the only remaining exceptions to this.)
What many MF backs are doing is applying less amplification than some other cameras, less analog gain before ADC, and this leaves more headroom for highlight recovery in the raw file. With a gap of two or the stops between the capabilities of ADCs delivering 16-bit and sensors delivering only 12-13 stops of DR, this make perfect sense: even base ISO amplification level probably puts the noise levels in the signal entering the ADC comfortably above the noise floor of the ADC, so that further analog gain does nothing to improve overall noise levels; it just increases the number of the least significant bits that are pure noise, and increase the risk of losing highlights that are within the sensor's range but get amplified into clipping.
In particular, if I am reading DXO's documents correctly, its measurement of what it mis-describes as "true ISO" are done with equalized exposure level at equal camera ISO setting. DXO measures all sensors with no lens (and so no aperture setting) and the same combination of exposure time and subject illumination for each given ISO setting. So there is no variation in in exposure, just a variation in the raw level placement for the output of that exposure.
By the way, it should be obvious that when manual settings of aperture and shutter speed are used, the level of exposure is dictated by those choices, and the camera cannot mess with the exposure level. Nor is there any evidence that MF backs are fudging the exposure in auto-exposure modes, by choosing a lower shutter speed and/or a lower aperture ratio than over cameras do at equal ISO speed setting.
-
In particular, if I am reading DXO's documents correctly, its measurement of what it mis-describes as "true ISO" are done with equalized exposure level at equal camera ISO setting. DXO measures all sensors with no lens (and so no aperture setting) and the same combination of exposure time and subject illumination for each given ISO setting. So there is no variation in in exposure, just a variation in the raw level placement for the output of that exposure.
By the way, it should be obvious that when manual settings of aperture and shutter speed are used, the level of exposure is dictated by those choices, and the camera cannot mess with the exposure level. Nor is there any evidence that MF backs are fudging the exposure in auto-exposure modes, by choosing a lower shutter speed and/or a lower aperture ratio than over cameras do at equal ISO speed setting.
My understanding was that for a given shutter speed/aperture/ISO the level of raw exposure reached by a back at ISO100 corresponds to the level of raw exposure reached by DSLRs at ISO30.
The raw processing software compensate for this when opening the raw file, which does not give the appearance of underexposure, but actually protects highlights from being blown. This resulting in the impression that backs have more "highlight" DR.
Am I mistaken?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I agree on exposure is something what we choose, but our exposure is either based on exposure index or on histograms.Normally I only use histograms, but it is also a question how exact they are.
See enclosed images:
Note:
1) IQ 180 has an ISO rating well above measured ISO
2) This doesn't seem to apply to P45+
3) The standard film curve is much brighter than the linear film curve, tricking you into exposing less (this is on P45+)
I also enclose the raw histogram from the same image.
As a side question, with the P45+ and the IQ 180 having exposure ratings so much apart, who is confusing, me or Phase One?
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Can we stop confusing
exposure, meaning how much light the sensor receives (determined by illumination, aperture ratio and shutter speed)
with
how much analog amplification is applied to the sensor's signal before ADC?
The difference is clearly important, as less exposure reduces photon counts and so leads to a worse ratio of signal to photon shot noise, whereas less amplification causes no change in the effect of photon shot noise, but only in the noise introduced after that amplification, which with either a CCD or CMOS sensor with column-parallel ADC is just quantization noise from the ADC. (Canon sensors are about the only remaining exceptions to this.)
What many MF backs are doing is applying less amplification than some other cameras, less analog gain before ADC, and this leaves more headroom for highlight recovery in the raw file. With a gap of two or the stops between the capabilities of ADCs delivering 16-bit and sensors delivering only 12-13 stops of DR, this make perfect sense: even base ISO amplification level probably puts the noise levels in the signal entering the ADC comfortably above the noise floor of the ADC, so that further analog gain does nothing to improve overall noise levels; it just increases the number of the least significant bits that are pure noise, and increase the risk of losing highlights that are within the sensor's range but get amplified into clipping.
In particular, if I am reading DXO's documents correctly, its measurement of what it mis-describes as "true ISO" are done with equalized exposure level at equal camera ISO setting. DXO measures all sensors with no lens (and so no aperture setting) and the same combination of exposure time and subject illumination for each given ISO setting. So there is no variation in in exposure, just a variation in the raw level placement for the output of that exposure.
By the way, it should be obvious that when manual settings of aperture and shutter speed are used, the level of exposure is dictated by those choices, and the camera cannot mess with the exposure level. Nor is there any evidence that MF backs are fudging the exposure in auto-exposure modes, by choosing a lower shutter speed and/or a lower aperture ratio than over cameras do at equal ISO speed setting.
-
My understanding was that for a given shutter speed/aperture/ISO the level of raw exposure reached by a back at ISO100 corresponds to the level of raw exposure reached by DSLRs at ISO30.
Bernard (and Erik),
Firstly some of that is the lower base ISO sensitivity of many digital,backs, due to tue absense of microlenses and such. Beyond that, the short answer seems to be that you (and DXO) are talking about measurements of numerical levels in raw files (relative to maximum level), which are basically the product of
- how much _exposure_ the sensor gets
by
- the conversion factor in "levels per electron",
The latter in turn depends on the degree of _amplification_ applied before ADC, measured by the gain in "volts per electron". The differences you are talking about are differences in the choice of _amplification_, not a different level of _exposure_.
Also, please note the very important difference between
- losing highlights due to overfilling electron wells (too much exposure), which I call "blown highlights"
and
- losing higlights from photosites that did not get overfilled, but whose signal was then amplified beyond the maximum voltage that the ADC can handle (over-amplification), which I call "clipped highlights".
Amplifying a bit less, but still enough that the noise introduced by the ADC is insignificant compared to the noise in the analog signal coming from the sensor, is an unequivocally good thing for image qualify (less risk of highlight clipping with no significant decrease in SNR), so it puzzles me why so many people wish to characterize as a defect or deception or falsificTionof the ISO speed with inaccurate talk about "underexposure". And let us be frank: the prefix "under-” is clearly pejorative, implying an error, which is not the case.
I agree with your characterization that this gives the appearance of more "highlight DR", and your inference that this is rather mythical entity, but if the practical consequence is that standard light metering is less likely to lead to highlight problems and with no downside, I do not underatand your cynical attitude to this approach. Can you point to any disadvantage that I am overlooking?
-
Erik,
I am surprised that you have not read my previous explanations of this, or have forgotten them.
The name "ISO" is ambiguous with multiple related meanings defined in ISO standard 12232, including:
- the exposure index used by a camera's internal light metering to adjust (or in manual mode) how much exposure is given to the sensor.
- the _minimum_ exposure index consistent with placing mid-tones at least three stops below maximum level (related to the "base ISO speed".)
The former is what the "ISO" setting on a camera refers to; in fact this is mandated for Japanese cameras by their industry association.
The latter is roughly what DXO measures, and clearly there is no reason why this ISO-standard recommended _minimum_ should the the same as the former. In fact the better the ADC, the more it makes sense to increase the highlight headroom, by _amplifying_ by less than the amount that would give that minimum recommended space between metered mid-tone and maximum level, which DXO confusingly describes as a lower "ISO".
What your graphs show is two variations to this approach of amplifying a bit less.
The IQ180 with a Dalsa sensor keeps the amplification the same over the first three ISO setting levels, and then (with abundant highlight protection in place) amplifying in proportion to ISO setting beyond that. One suspicion is that the subsequent increase in "DXO measured level placement" is done by bit shifting, and there is no actual variation in analog gain, as indeed there does not beed to be of the ADC is good enough.
In the P45+ with a Kodak sensor, the first step up in ISO exposure index goes with doubled gain, presumably getting to a level where ADC noise is irrelevant, and after that the analog gain is fixed, with further level adjustments on the outout left to be done in raw conversion.
The difference is probably related to a fundamental difference between Dalsa and Kodak CCDs: the Dalsa ones do charge-to-voltage conversion on the sensor chip, at the corners, and output a voltage, whereas Kodak sensors do not, and output the actual charges from each photosite.
And of course, these choices are noted in the raw file and taken account of in conversion to JPEG, probably with simple bit-shifting (totally noise-free amplification!). The fact that increased analog amplification can introduce noise and nonlinearity(and require more complicated designs with more different levels of analog gain required) whereas digital amplification is perfectly linear and noise free, is another argument in favor of this approach of less analog gain, more digital gain.
-
As a side question, with the P45+ and the IQ 180 having exposure ratings so much apart, who is confusing, me or Phase One?
Why do you insist on calling these difference in exposure when in fact they are essentially just differences in how the information from the sensor is encoded in the intermediate stage of raw file levels, not evidence of any changes in how much exposure the sensor was given?
The differences are of course noted in the raw file and taken account of by all common raw conversion software, so I do not see why you should get confused: these are mainly just different ways of encoding the same information into the numerical raw levels. People who look at photographs rather than raw histograms should not be affected or confused in any way by these variations; the only people who need to care are the authors of raw conversion software.
-
People who look at photographs rather than raw histograms should not be affected or confused in any way by these variations; the only people who need to care are the authors of raw conversion software.
Can't +1 this enough.
-
I think your explanation referred to single-shot vs. multi-shot backs. With scanning backs, each pixel receives the full RGB exposure . So, what exactly is the difference between them and multi-shot backs?
Kumar
-
Hi,
You don't blow out highlights if you don't clip.
But, noise levels depend on how well the sensor is utilized. If you consider that an exposure E is just below saturation of the sensor you would have a certain SNR (Signal Noise Ratio). Reducing exposure one step would increase SNR by 41 percent.
So reducing exposure 1 stop from optimal reduces the SNR by 41 percent and reduces DR by 1EV (because you sensels are not fully utilized). It could also be said that a sensor like mine P45+ has twice the size of the sensor of my Alpha 99, so it can collect about twice the number of photons. So if I reduce exposure one stop on the P45+ it will collect about the same number of photons as the Alpha 99. So most of the advantage of the larger sensor would be gone.
The larger sensor of course can conserve more of lens MTF (due to lower sampling frequency for equal print size) and that advantage remains, and that is frankly the only advantage I have found with the P45+.
The images below were shot same evening. The clouds obviously moved a lot, so they are not the same. Alpha on the left P45+ on the right.
Best regards
Erik
Bernard (and Erik),
Firstly some of that is the lower base ISO sensitivity of many digital,backs, due to tue absense of microlenses and such. Beyond that, the short answer seems to be that you (and DXO) are talking about measurements of numerical levels in raw files (relative to maximum level), which are basically the product of
- how much _exposure_ the sensor gets
by
- the conversion factor in "levels per electron",
The latter in turn depends on the degree of _amplification_ applied before ADC, measured by the gain in "volts per electron". The differences you are talking about are differences in the choice of _amplification_, not a different level of _exposure_.
Also, please note the very important difference between
- losing highlights due to overfilling electron wells (too much exposure), which I call "blown highlights"
and
- losing higlights from photosites that did not get overfilled, but whose signal was then amplified beyond the maximum voltage that the ADC can handle (over-amplification), which I call "clipped highlights".
Amplifying a bit less, but still enough that the noise introduced by the ADC is insignificant compared to the noise in the analog signal coming from the sensor, is an unequivocally good thing for image qualify (less risk of highlight clipping with no significant decrease in SNR), so it puzzles me why so many people wish to characterize as a defect or deception or falsificTionof the ISO speed with inaccurate talk about "underexposure". And let us be frank: the prefix "under-” is clearly pejorative, implying an error, which is not the case.
I agree with your characterization that this gives the appearance of more "highlight DR", and your inference that this is rather mythical entity, but if the practical consequence is that standard light metering is less likely to lead to highlight problems and with no downside, I do not underatand your cynical attitude to this approach. Can you point to any disadvantage that I am overlooking?
-
Can't +1 this enough.
+1
-
I think your explanation referred to single-shot vs. multi-shot backs. With scanning backs, each pixel receives the full RGB exposure . So, what exactly is the difference between them and multi-shot backs?
Kumar
Scanning backs can only be used with LF cameras of 4x5 image area or more, while MS backs can be used with both MF cameras and LF cameras, the time required to capture the image is significantly less with MS backs which is extremely beneficial as far as constant lighting is concerned and success of the process. MF lenses are (usually) superior than LF lenses (especially if 4x5 image area capable lenses are concerned), testing the scene for accuracy (by using a single shot tethered pre-shot) is important to pre visualise the outcome (vital), with MS one can "stitch" a part of the image (like a curtain for example in an interior scene) using a single shot for the part of the scene he may have "movement detected" without altering any of the parameters, with MS one can stitch easily two or more images due to the time difference and thus shoot a much larger subject (e.g. a huge wall painting), or use an LF camera and do the stitching on the whole image area that the scan back would use, a big advantage for MS is that the MF cameras are more resistant to vibrations. Usually (if one masters the process and uses adequate equipment), a 16x MS shot is as easy as a longish (about a minute) exposure. Of course one can use the same MF back for single shot too.
Of course if both are correctly done, the result is superb with either… only that scanning is more difficult to get it right with and to control the obstructive parameters.
-
Amplifying a bit less, but still enough that the noise introduced by the ADC is insignificant compared to the noise in the analog signal coming from the sensor, is an unequivocally good thing for image qualify (less risk of highlight clipping with no significant decrease in SNR), so it puzzles me why so many people wish to characterize as a defect or deception or falsificTionof the ISO speed with inaccurate talk about "underexposure". And let us be frank: the prefix "under-” is clearly pejorative, implying an error, which is not the case.
I agree with your characterization that this gives the appearance of more "highlight DR", and your inference that this is rather mythical entity, but if the practical consequence is that standard light metering is less likely to lead to highlight problems and with no downside, I do not underatand your cynical attitude to this approach. Can you point to any disadvantage that I am overlooking?
As far as I am concerned I think that what Phaseone does makes a lot of sense because most photographers are a lot more uncomfortable with blown highlights than they are with slightly noisier shadows.
As a result, I don't see "under exposure" at capture or through amplification as a negative thing, but I still think that it is reasonnable to call the approach under exposure relative to a supposed ideal ETTR exposure.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
OK… Let's go back to the (now old) 22Mp backs then… Their DR is superb because one can "dig" deep into the shadows with less noise, their mid tones linear part is more contrasty right out of the box, they are easier with older lenses, they present no pixelation if blown up to 200%… which means that the image can be up-sampled and can be printed really large, they have enough detail to compete with a 36mp DSLR, if one has an MS version he can shoot the best still image by far, Their 100 Iso is best exposed with EV value as if it was (more or less) 200 Iso of DSLRs, they keep the WA character of WA-MF lenses, and they are great (if not the optimum) to use with LF cameras as well as to bring life to older LF equipment… The Drawbacks now…, is mainly some (rare-but they are more prone to it than the next resolution step up) moire, which can be treated to much extend with modern software and (for pixel peepers only since these things are very sharp) a bit less resolution…
Did I miss something….? Oh yes! :o …the price that someone can get one and have a perfectly capable back to experience MF and LF! ;)
-
As far as I am concerned I think that what Phaseone does makes a lot of sense because most photographers are a lot more uncomfortable with blown highlights than they are with slightly noisier shadows.
As a result, I don't see "under exposure" at capture or through amplification as a negative thing, but I still think that it is reasonnable to call the approach under exposure relative to a supposed ideal ETTR exposure.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree that there is noting wrong with the approach but let me try to get this across one more time:
there is no difference in the exposure received by the sensor, so describing it as under-exposure is flatly wrong, and misleading.
Thus there is no deviation from "supposed ideal ETTR exposure."
The differences are just in the subsequent positioning of the numeric raw levels, so are essentially just different ways of using discrete numerical levels to encode the signal from the sensor.
Just for fun, let me add to the complication by noting that the effect of the difference between 16-bit and 14-bit ADCs is far more important to the anachronistic(*) part of the ETTR ideal about maximizing numerical raw levels.
That difference in bit-depth means that MF backs's lower raw level placements relative to maximum level (which is what DXO measures) still often correspond to the same or higher actual numerical levels. For example:
- if a camera with 14-bit raw output places mid-tones three stops below maximum level (the bare minimum tolerated by the ISO 122323 standard, misinterpreted by some as the one and only correct placement) the raw level is 2^14/2^3 = 2^11, about 2000.
- if a camera with 16-bit raw output places mid-tones four stops below maximum level (halving its "DXO" rating) the raw level is 2^16/2^4 = 2^12, about 4000.
Thus the latter has twice the density of raw levels: twice as many raw levels corresponding to any given range of sensor signal levels, and so is "twice as good" according to the part of the original ETTR idea about maximizing the fineness of raw levels.
So which camera is falling further short of that ETTR ideal?!
(*) Anachronistic because the part of the original ETTR idea about striving to have as many raw levels as possible was relevant when 10-bit and 12-bit ADC themselves imposed a potential limit on the accuracy at which sensor output is recorded, but is largely irrelevant when a modern 14-bit or 16-bit ADC has a wider "dynamic range" (counted for example in bit depth) than the sensor signal (counted for example in f-stops from the brightest photosite's signal down to the noise floor.)
-
Hi,
Some observations, contradicting yours a little bit. Obviously I have a limited experience shooting only Sony and P45+.
Washed out highlights come from overexposure. If you expose correctly the highlights will be OK. Digital backs underexpose 1-1.5 stops, protecting highlights.
If you use "filme curve" in C1 it will push exposure 1-1.5 stops. Try checking with linear curve to see what the raw image really looks like.
Regarding colour accuracy, I measured colour accuracy on my Sony Alpha 99 and my P45+ and the Sony was much more accurate than the P45, and I have made similar measurements with similar results from published tests on Hasselblad compared to Nikon D800. The colours may be better but more accurate they are not.
I suppose everyone's experience is different, and as you pointed out, it is very important to be specific about what cameras and backs we are comparing. Perhaps my architecture test says more about the Canon than the Leaf. I will say that when I shot my Sony A900 with adapted Leica lenses against an Aptus 8/DF/80mm, while I enjoyed shooting with the Aptus/DF more, the files were extremely similar to my eye. That said, it was sunset and the light was fading quickly, and exposure times were bumping up against the capability of the Aptus back.
I would expect the colors from a Sony A99 to be more accurate than a P45+, particularly in the green/yellow spectrum. Not sure about reds. That said, I stand by my post.
-
Hi,
The green/yellow part was most problematic for me, I created DCP profiles that I am quite happy with.
White balance is a major factor. I may think it is a bit warmer with C1 / P45+ than with LR5 and SLT99.
Best regards
Erik
I would expect the colors from a Sony A99 to be more accurate than a P45+, particularly in the green/yellow spectrum. Not sure about reds. That said, I stand by my post.
-
I thought this is a conversation for the position (and usefulness) of older 22mp "fat pixel" (9μm) backs… "ten years after" they where introduced (as being the "high end" of the days) and their position in todays market.
-
My apologies for the tangent in the conversation; back you your original topic:
OK… Let's go back to the (now old) 22Mp backs then… Their DR is superb because one can "dig" deep into the shadows with less noise ...
I have seen no visual evidence of this claim that those older (and noisier) 22MP CCD sensors give better shadows or less noise than modern high resolution CCDs (let alone the coming wave of medium format CMOS sensors) in any relevant comparison of "end products", meaning viewing prints or on-screen images from various cameras at the same size. Because printing (or otherwise displaying) an image with more pixels at the same size and thus at higher PPI increases the SNR of the signal received by the viewers' eyes and improves the fineness of perceived tonal range, cleanness of shadows and such; this is due to "dithering", roughly speaking. This benefit of "more pixel per image" has to be offset against the engineer's measure of the DR of the individual pixels.
A familiar illustration is seen in comparisons between prints of the same size made using the same film emulsion in different formats: the emulsion in each case has the same "DR", but the larger prints with a lower degree of enlargement show improved tonality and cleaner shadows.
P. S. Traditional silver halide negatives have a "per pixel DR" of about 1: if you look close enough, the pixels are all either pure black (silver from an exposed silver halide crystal) or white. All tonal gradations seen are due to "dithering" of that information, due to the size scale of the "pixels" being far below what the eye can resolve.
-
My apologies for the tangent in the conversation; back you your original topic:I have seen no visual evidence of this claim that those older (and noisier) 22MP CCD sensors give better shadows or less noise than modern high resolution CCDs (let alone the coming wave of medium format CMOS sensors) in any relevant comparison of "end products", meaning viewing prints or on-screen images from various cameras at the same size. Because printing (or otherwise displaying) an image with more pixels at the same size and thus at higher PPI increases the SNR of the signal received by the viewers' eyes and improves the fineness of perceived tonal range, cleanness of shadows and such; this is due to "dithering", roughly speaking. This benefit of "more pixel per image" has to be offset against the engineer's measure of the DR of the individual pixels.
A familiar illustration is seen in comparisons between prints of the same size made using the same film emulsion in different formats: the emulsion in each case has the same "DR", but the larger prints with a lower degree of enlargement show improved tonality and cleaner shadows.
P. S. Traditional silver halide negatives have a "per pixel DR" of about 1: if you look close enough, the pixels are all either pure black (silver from an exposed silver halide crystal) or white. All tonal gradations seen are due to "dithering" of that information, due to the size scale of the "pixels" being far below what the eye can resolve.
A usual mistake we do, is to compare "memories" we have with modern equipment… The older backs have improved a lot from modern software… actually all backs have improved - but the older the back, the more evident the improvement. Please check this for DR… there was no other reason I shot it, but to test imacon 528c for DR in single shot.
(http://)
-
I agree that there is noting wrong with the approach but let me try to get this across one more time:
there is no difference in the exposure received by the sensor, so describing it as under-exposure is flatly wrong, and misleading.
Thus there is no deviation from "supposed ideal ETTR exposure."
The differences are just in the subsequent positioning of the numeric raw levels, so are essentially just different ways of using discrete numerical levels to encode the signal from the sensor.
Let's compare two situations, leaving DSLRs aside:
1. Camera A where an exposure of 1/60 sec at f8 and ISO 100 results in highlights using the highest possible values in the raw file, just short of clipping, the so called ETTR. Let's assume, by chance, that the level of illumination used in this test is the one defined by the ISO standard,
2. Camera B, say an IQ280, with the exact same exposure results in the raw values being 2 stops short of the brightest possible values in the raw file.
I could be wrong, but according to my understanding of the definition of ISO in digital defined in ISO Standard 12232, sensor sensitivity, rated by its ISO number, is related to the exposure necessary to saturate the camera. Which means to reach the highest possible raw values.
According to this definition, the actual digital ISO of Camera B is lower than 100 when ISO100 is dialed in camera.
For all practical matters, this is similar to what film companies used to do when they rated Velvia at 50 while it was actually an ISO40 film. The purpose was to expose the film less than the camera thought in order to avoid blowing highlights and saturating colors more, in other words under-expose the film.
I fail to see how the approach used by Phaseone is not about under-exposing the sensor per the ISO definition of what ISO rating is.
Now, I believe that the approach used with camera B:
1. Results in more ability to brighten highlights in post processing without running into clipping, which is seen by most photographers as a great thing,
2. Results in shadows having less raw values available per shadow stop, which is not that great for advanced users who would probably want to tap better in the DR potential of their camera, but is still not a disaster.
Now, what part are you not in agreement with? :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
There are so many errors in your post, and we are so far off the topic of his thread that I propose to respond by starting another thread on the whole subject of misunderstanding of the multiple ISO 12232 defined measures of (1) exposure index, (2) recommended MINMUM usable exposure index based on highlight handling and (3) recommended MAXIMUM exposure index based on shadow handling ... Along with your persistent failure to see he difference between how much exposure the SENSOR gets and how much that signal I s subsequently AMPLIFIED in order to produce the raw levels. Meanwhile, I suggest reading a bit about ISO 12232: there is a decent Wikipedia page.
-
If I may, isn't exposure required to just protect HLs from blowing different for different developers? …and isn't it different from past developers to the modern versions of them? Another thing… isn't exposure relevant to the lens flare resistance? I mean a prone to flare lens limits mid tone contrast, while a flare resistant lens improves it… obviously the later is easier to expose for HLs, since the first one will lead to a dull/unprintable image… Now coming back to the subject… aren't "fat pixel" backs better with lenses when wide open? And… (especially with the Kodak sensor) don't the "fat pixel" backs have more contrasty (and linear) mid tones in their raw (which is exactly what some people call the "fat pixel magic")?
-
Bernard,
There are so many errors in your post, and we are so far off the topic of his thread that I propose to respond by starting another thread on the whole subject of misunderstanding of the multiple ISO 12232 defined measures of (1) exposure index, (2) recommended MINMUM usable exposure index based on highlight handling and (3) recommended MAXIMUM exposure index based on shadow handling ... Along with your persistent failure to see he difference between how much exposure the SENSOR gets and how much that signal I s subsequently AMPLIFIED in order to produce the raw levels. Meanwhile, I suggest reading a bit about ISO 12232: there is a decent Wikipedia page.
Sure, no problem.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now why again are you all beating this horse cadaver?
Edmund
-
Well… not many systems could achieve this price on e-bay…..
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Contax-645-kit-with-PhaseOne-P25-digital-bag-/271401131897?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&autorefresh=true&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&nma=true&si=SShfe1KP%252BxxWtwkYHZGmve51%252BYs%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
-
Sure, no problem.
Cheers,
Bernard
Here is it: mostly some facts on what the two most relevant standards organizations (the International Organization for Standardization [ISO] and the Camera and Imaging Products Association [CIPA]) say about measuring and reporting on exposure index, sensitivity etc.: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87439.msg711760#msg711760
Not that this is very likely to change opinions on how MFD backs should operate, but at least I hope to stop people making flatly false claims about what ISO says, what the "ISO speed" of a camera means, and so on.
-
Here is it: mostly some facts on what the two most relevant standards organizations (the International Organization for Standardization [ISO] and the Camera and Imaging Products Association [CIPA]) say about measuring and reporting on exposure index, sensitivity etc.: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87439.msg711760#msg711760
Not that this is very likely to change opinions on how MFD backs should operate, but at least I hope to stop people making flatly false claims about what ISO says, what the "ISO speed" of a camera means, and so on.
You are right of course on what the setting for ISO should be… but, (why there is always a but in engineering? ???) with digital, things get a bit more complicated… a sensor receives light on all its surface and that includes corners... ;D (you see where I'm getting at… but its more ;)), then there is the fact that people use different focal lengths…. and then… (especially) the older backs are designed to be used with different cameras and different batch of lenses with each one of them… Now these different lenses have also different rear (last) element too and quite often it differs in size…. Remember when Sinar increased the noted sensitivity on their E-motion backs by one stop (on 22, 54lv, 75 & 75lv) without altering anything on signal amplification? :) Guess why? ::) …. The 22mp backs are among the best in DR if exposed right… and what "right" is, should be found from the owner depending on the scene… If he masters the sensitivity with respect to the situation and the distribution of light across the scene (which he should if he is a photographer), the results can be excellent.
-
You are right of course on what the setting for ISO should be… but, (why there is always a but in engineering? ???) with digital, things get a bit more complicated ...
What are you talking about? The standards ISO 12232-2006 and CIPA DC-004 that I mention are all specifically for Digital Still Cameras, so how can digital make things "a bit more complicated"?
And since the topic is exposure index, ISO speed, and ISO speed latitude, your talk about different focal lengths and back designs is irrelevant.
P. S. There is of course at least one argument for still using a 22MP sensor back: cost. It is the least expensive way to get a format as big as 48x36mm, which has some advantages over smaller formats like 44x33mm, like less of the enforced cropping of the image from lenses designed for 645 format.
-
What are you talking about? The standards ISO 12232-2006 and CIPA DC-004 that I mention are all specifically for Digital Still Cameras, so how can digital make things "a bit more complicated"?
And since the topic is exposure index, ISO speed, and ISO speed latitude, your talk about different focal lengths and back designs is irrelevant.
P. S. There is of course at least one argument for still using a 22MP sensor back: cost. It is the least expensive way to get a format as big as 48x36mm, which has some advantages over smaller formats like 44x33mm, like less of the enforced cropping of the image from lenses designed for 645 format.
What I'm talking about is that photons are not received evenly across the sensor area (and this is affected by lenses and their design too), while sensitivity is an average on the whole sensor area….
-
I found Moire to be a huge issue with the P-25 sensor with the type of photography I do. Mostly in clothing, always seemed to be popping up and could be very difficult to clean up. With the later backs it has become almost a non issue. If you are shooting things with fabric you would be better off with the D800
-
I found Moire to be a huge issue with the P-25 sensor with the type of photography I do. Mostly in clothing, always seemed to be popping up and could be very difficult to clean up. With the later backs it has become almost a non issue. If you are shooting things with fabric you would be better off with the D800
True… fabric structure pro work is where "fat-pixel" backs should be avoided… Well, nothing is perfect in this world. :D
-
How do they compare with film?
I have yet to see a digital file that is as film-like as the P21+... especially at somewhat higher ISO. I mostly use a P45. But when I shoot the P21+ again and again I am very impressed by its very nice look.
Are those 22mp "fat pixel" backs that people used to buy (at those days) at prices similar to a good quality family car still worth buying?
Currently I have a P45 and P21+ (on Contax 645 and Cambo WRS), a Sony A7R, a Panasonic GH2 and GH3 (well, actually just sold the GH3) and some pocket cameras. If I had to choose only one single system today I'd most likely choose a tech cam with a 33MP or 39MP back. (Or, of course, a more recent back... but that was not the initial question...).
-
I have yet to see a digital file that is as film-like as the P21+... especially at somewhat higher ISO. I mostly use a P45. But when I shoot the P21+ again and again I am very impressed by its very nice look.
Currently I have a P45 and P21+ (on Contax 645 and Cambo WRS), a Sony A7R, a Panasonic GH2 and GH3 (well, actually just sold the GH3) and some pocket cameras. If I had to choose only one single system today I'd most likely choose a tech cam with a 33MP or 39MP back. (Or, of course, a more recent back... but that was not the initial question...).
As I stated before, I would also choose a Dalsa 33mp sensor as my first choice… but that's not "ten years after" yet! I believe your P21+ is also a "fat pixel" (9μm) back that only has different image area size (it's 33x44 …no?), it has micro lenses and it's a stop more sensitive… I wouldn't be surprised if it behaves like a 22mp back, with more contrasty mid tones and great colour information in the deep shadows that is what you call "film like" presentation and others call it the "fat pixel magic".