-
Hi,
The question has been posted on a separate thread. My experience is essentially that I see no difference between my P45+ and my Sony SLT99 in A2 size prints, but I would think I see differences in larger prints.
I got some fierce suggestions that I use inferior technique, so I took a somewhat different approach. This time I have used a test shot from the Pentax 645D at Imaging Review and compared with my SLT99. Both images were developed in LR5.3 with identical settings and analysed using Imatest.
Imatest has an option for calculating SQF (Subjective Quality Factor) that is based on research by Ed Granger at Kodak Eastman. If we assume 17" print height at 40 cm viewing distance the SQF figure for the Pentax 645D would be around 93 on the Pentax 645D and around 90 on the Sony Alpha 99. According to Kodak research it takes about 5% of SQF to make a visible difference.
So, according to Kodak research there would be no discernible difference on an A2 print (17" wide) between a Pentax 645D image shot at Imaging Resource and my SLT 99 shot when viewed at 40 cm distance.
Looking at images at 100 cm height there would be a perceptible difference, still viewed at 40 cm distance.
Imatest also calculates an optimal sharpening. This probably corresponds to something like an extra sharpening step with radius = 2 and an amount of 15%.
Best regards
Erik
-
http://www.imatest.com/docs/sqf/ (http://www.imatest.com/docs/sqf/)
What is the sqf rating of the IQ250/260 shots in imatest?
What is the correlation of MP to print size? Your 24MP gives you a 90 at 17" diagonal, what about 16MP (90), 36MP (90)?
-
Wait, you mean you are going by numbers and haven't made prints? Is this a joke? Where are you getting the SQA numbers from anyhow? Are you familiar with all the variables in Imatest that affect SQF besides the print size? The SQF will be different for each lens and aperture tested and there can be much larger differences than 5% between two different lenses on the same system. Therefore your approach will not be convincing.
What's your goal now? Some kind of extra "measurbation"?
There are many qualities besides sharpness that separate MFDB images from DLSR images. Forget sharpness for a moment (which is where I think you are going with SQF) The format size differences alone make a visible impact and also the way the images rolls from in focus to OOF areas is different.
If you can't see these kinds of "forrest through the trees" things then well… I don't know but maybe you waste your time and ours.
-
Hi Keith,
Someone was asking about the visible difference between 17" prints on another thread. This is a response to that posting
What this posting shows is what to expect based on research at Kodak Rochester comparing a 39 MP back with a 24MP DSLR using identical processing. The 39 MP image is none of mine in this case, it is from one of the tests at Imaging Resource.
I would really recommend anyone considering an MFDB to download a reference image taken with their cameras of choice and do large size prints.
Regarding your suggestion to use the SLT 99 up to A2 and the P45+ for larger prints, it would suggest that print size would be known at exposure, and that is often not the case.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, if your experience is essentially that you see no difference between your P45+ and your Sony SLT99 in A2 size prints then use your Sony for the A2 prints and your P45+ for your larger prints.
Above all enjoy making images rather than using your cameras as testbeds.
I genuinely wish you well and good shooting!
-
No in small prints I can't. Where I will start to see the difference is in a print that is 23 x 33 (fits a 30 x 40 frame matted) and larger. I like to print up to 36 x 72 and I for this I prefer not to interpolate unless totally necessary. Here the larger resolution of the MFD helps as you can get there much easier. However I realize you can stitch 35mm, as I have been doing that since early 2003.
As for small prints no, I can't see much difference, say 20 x 30 and smaller. However it's also sometimes depending on the subject matter of the print. If the image has a lot of small details the MF back print will do better in my experience.
This is printing on a 9900 only. Canvas or paper.
Paul C.
-
Hi Eric,
You may perhaps realise that other people than yourself are entitled to an opinion that may differ from yours?
I did make prints, but they are always affected by subjective evaluation. SQF numbers are much less sensitive to lens variations than you may believe. I have every reason to believe that the image I used from Imaging Review is correctly taken. They use focus bracketing and they do testing for living.
I did measure SQF with Imatest, a program you also use and I am quite familiar with, since I was using it since it's inception.
Roger Ciala does at lens rentals uses Imatest extensively, as they test all incoming lenses from rentals. He is quite clear on that significant variation in Imatest results like LW/PH result in little visible difference in prints.
It is difficult to post prints over the net, as you may know. I would recommend anyone investing a major amount into a new system to download raw images from a source, like Imaging Resource, do they own processing and printing. I have done that for all systems I bought and some others ones, too.
Best regards
Erik
Wait, you mean you are going by numbers and haven't made prints? Is this a joke? Where are you getting the SQA numbers from anyhow? Are you familiar with all the variables in Imatest that affect SQF besides the print size? The SQF will be different for each lens and aperture tested and there can be much larger differences than 5% between two different lenses on the same system. Therefore your approach will not be convincing.
What's your goal now? Some kind of extra "measurbation"?
There are many qualities besides sharpness that separate MFDB images from DLSR images. Forget sharpness for a moment (which is where I think you are going with SQF) The format size differences alone make a visible impact and also the way the images rolls from in focus to OOF areas is different.
If you can't see these kinds of "forrest through the trees" things then well… I don't know but maybe you waste your time and ours.
-
Someone was asking about the visible difference
about the visible difference... not the measurable difference. Do you think your post is really helpful to answer the initial question?
-
about the visible difference... not the measurable difference. Do you think your post is really helpful to answer the initial question?
Hi Thomas and others,
The SQF metric that Erik used, is the quantification of the visual/subjective image quality differences. When the SQF tells that there is not a significant difference, then there is no relevant visual/subjective difference.
An objective metric tends to allow a more meaningful discussion. If there is no significant quantitative difference, and people state that they do see a difference, there is a possibility for more targeted discussion, e.g. about viewing distances or print pipeline optimizations that can explain such differences. It took me e.g. quite some effort to convince some of the establishment here at LuLa, that printing at 600/720 PPI does make sense for higher quality output (Qimage users already knew that for more than a decade). First met with skepticism, now the official recommendation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Imatest has an option for calculating SQF (Subjective Quality Factor) that is based on research by Ed Granger at Kodak Eastman. If we assume 17" print height at 40 cm viewing distance the SQF figure for the Pentax 645D would be around 93 on the Pentax 645D and around 90 on the Sony Alpha 99. According to Kodak research it takes about 5% of SQF to make a visible difference.
So, according to Kodak research there would be no discernible difference on an A2 print (17" wide) between a Pentax 645D image shot at Imaging Resource and my SLT 99 shot when viewed at 40 cm distance.
Erik, I said it once and I will repeat it: if one tests two cameras and equalises per pixel resolution, uses an aperture that will equalise lens differences, makes sure that light and exposure is within the usable values of the two cameras, uses subjects with simple, pure colours and only shoots resolution targets, one will find that the two cameras are equivalent for any couple of cameras. But that is not a limitation of the cameras, it is a limitation of the test design.
That test from Kodak is not an answer to your question: "Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?". That test from Kodak is an answer to the question: "At what size can we print pictures taken in ideal conditions with a MFDB and a DSLR and have a standard observer not notice the imperfections of the camera?". It is a completely different question and the reason that you are increasingly frustrated with the discussion is because you are mistaking one question for the other.
You could notice the difference in small prints between your MFDB and your DSLR if you were shooting imperfect pictures, because the imperfections of the cameras are different. Can you try to do that?
-
Hi,
A much better answer than bragging. Look here, you cannot send prints on the web. Folks can download raw images from the net and do their own processing and printing, that is what I would recommend, but there are not that many comparable images on the net.
The figures here are essentially based on long research by and calculated by industrial quality tools. The Pentax shot I compare with was made under optimal conditions by professional testers.
In my experience, the differences are not readily observable, but I had only a few observers. Quite a few MFD users indicate that there is little difference between the new 36 MP cameras and low end MFD to which my P45+ belongs. Opinions differ.
Another reflection is that you start with an image, and do capture sharpening, after that there may be some creative sharpening. The image will than be resampled to printer resolution that may be 360PPI or 720PPI on Epsons and output sharpening applied. Different pipelines may give different results, but any image will go trough many conversions before it is converted to small dots on paper.
Jeff Schewe and the late Bruce Raser have written a small book on sharpening, Jeff writes that research by Bruce indicated that 180 was plenty of resolution for prints viewed by 20/20 vision at 50 cm or more. That resolution would correspond to 22 x 33 inch on a 24MP DSLR clearly larger than the 17" that was asked.
Page 30 in that book shows smallish prints from iPhone 4S, Fuji Fine Pix A820, Canon EOS Digital Revel XT, Canon EOS 1DsIII and a Phase One P65+. Jeff says that the images cannot be told apart. Of course, the P65+ image could be enlarged to 28"x37" and the iPhone 4s to 4"x5.3", but what Jeff says is that when the image is good enough there will be little visible difference.
A while ago, there was a conversation between Mikael Reichmann and the famous printer Ctein. Ctein used Pentax 67 in former days but now shoots 4/3, which he clearly says is good enough. Good enough for A2 size prints which is the largest he makes.
Best regards
Erik
about the visible difference... not the measurable difference. Do you think your post is really helpful to answer the initial question?
-
Something else to consider is that most of the "MF" look has to do with bokeh and depth of field rendering. And no, I am not talking about how a 80mm 2.8 is supposed to look like a 50mm 1.4 on FF, it comes close, but there are big differences besides DOF thickness. A fast 1.4 lens on FF will have more blur then even f/2 medium format glass most of the time, BUT, there is something too it that makes the images much more 3D. It is almost like someone used clarity on the entire image, but without the harshness. It is something you do not get on 35mm. Shooting test targets or subjects at infinity, shooting stopped down, are not going to show you much.
Even if you equalize aperture, focal length and such, there is one factor that you cannot equalize, no matter how many focal reducers or combinations you use. It is magnficaiton. The larger the sensor area you are using, the larger the magnficaiton you will have to use to get the same framing, this is regardless of focal length. On 8x10 just a simple portrait with a "normal" lens is putting you close to 1:1. So it would make sense that shooting at infinity or small apertures you would see zero difference.
-
Hi Jerome,
Yes I understand what you say, sort of. It is very difficult to compare different images. Admittedly I like numbers. I am of course aware that numbers are not the best answer.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I said it once and I will repeat it: if one tests two cameras and equalises per pixel resolution, uses an aperture that will equalise lens differences, makes sure that light and exposure is within the usable values of the two cameras, uses subjects with simple, pure colours and only shoots resolution targets, one will find that the two cameras are equivalent for any couple of cameras. But that is not a limitation of the cameras, it is a limitation of the test design.
That test from Kodak is not an answer to your question: "Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?". That test from Kodak is an answer to the question: "At what size can we print pictures taken in ideal conditions with a MFDB and a DSLR and have a standard observer not notice the imperfections of the camera?". It is a completely different question and the reason that you are increasingly frustrated with the discussion is because you are mistaking one question for the other.
You could notice the difference in small prints between your MFDB and your DSLR if you were shooting imperfect pictures, because the imperfections of the cameras are different. Can you try to do that?
-
Hi,
My guess is that it is much easier to make an f/2.8 lens than an f/1.4 lens. Most f/1.4 lenses have significant colour fringing for instance. Zeiss made an "all out" effort to make a near perfect 55/1.4 lens designing the Otus. That is a lens essentially free of colour bokeh. An 80/2.8 can perform decently well without stopping down at all.
That kind of differences would be visible regardless of print size.
My guess is that it was not kind of difference the OP was asking for, but yes you have a very good point.
Best regards
Erik
Something else to consider is that most of the "MF" look has to do with bokeh and depth of field rendering. And no, I am not talking about how a 80mm 2.8 is supposed to look like a 50mm 1.4 on FF, it comes close, but there are big differences besides DOF thickness. A fast 1.4 lens on FF will have more blur then even f/2 medium format glass most of the time, BUT, there is something too it that makes the images much more 3D. It is almost like someone used clarity on the entire image, but without the harshness. It is something you do not get on 35mm. Shooting test targets or subjects at infinity, shooting stopped down, are not going to show you much.
Even if you equalize aperture, focal length and such, there is one factor that you cannot equalize, no matter how many focal reducers or combinations you use. It is magnficaiton. The larger the sensor area you are using, the larger the magnficaiton you will have to use to get the same framing, this is regardless of focal length. On 8x10 just a simple portrait with a "normal" lens is putting you close to 1:1. So it would make sense that shooting at infinity or small apertures you would see zero difference.
-
Hi Thomas and others,
The SQF metric that Erik used, is the quantification of the visual/subjective image quality differences. When the SQF tells that there is not a significant difference, then there is no relevant visual/subjective difference.
:-) maybe. maybe not. I don't know. I don't care about those comparision tools.
What I do know is that this forum is completely polluted with too much theoretical talk (scientific and pseudo scientific talk). In every thread I get explained that my DBs show aliasing, moire and pseudo details (as f I wouldn't know it...). 2 posts later someone talks about AA filters and deconvultion sharpening. In the third post a completely unexperienced user finds out that C1 doesn't produce accurate colors (based on a color checker passport shot with mixed lights). In the 5th post someone is talking about skin tones although he never shoots people. But he is finding flowers and/or animal hair compares quite good to skin. And in the 6th post we talk about the D800 or D800E or the A7R.
In EVERY thread, 3 times a day.
That's all fine... but it gets really, really old. Not a particular issue is getting old... but the way and the style things get discussed here. Erik invested 15K just to be able to talk about MFD. Now, this is an issue that should be treated seriously... I really think he needs professional help. But, please, let's not discuss this on this forum...
Bart, sorry, maybe the method implemented in the said SQF thing is great. But I simply don't care (anymore).
-
Hi,
I buy that argument! But I don't think that was the original question.
Best regards
Erik
Something else to consider is that most of the "MF" look has to do with bokeh and depth of field rendering. And no, I am not talking about how a 80mm 2.8 is supposed to look like a 50mm 1.4 on FF, it comes close, but there are big differences besides DOF thickness. A fast 1.4 lens on FF will have more blur then even f/2 medium format glass most of the time, BUT, there is something too it that makes the images much more 3D. It is almost like someone used clarity on the entire image, but without the harshness. It is something you do not get on 35mm. Shooting test targets or subjects at infinity, shooting stopped down, are not going to show you much.
Even if you equalize aperture, focal length and such, there is one factor that you cannot equalize, no matter how many focal reducers or combinations you use. It is magnficaiton. The larger the sensor area you are using, the larger the magnficaiton you will have to use to get the same framing, this is regardless of focal length. On 8x10 just a simple portrait with a "normal" lens is putting you close to 1:1. So it would make sense that shooting at infinity or small apertures you would see zero difference.
-
Hi Jerome,
Yes I understand what you say, sort of. It is very difficult to compare different images. Admittedly I like numbers. I am of course aware that numbers are not the best answer.
I don't think that you quite understand what I say. There is nothing wrong with numbers. I like numbers as well. I am actually a trained engineer and mathematician.
My guess is that it is much easier to make an f/2.8 lens than an f/1.4 lens. Most f/1.4 lenses have significant colour fringing for instance. Zeiss made an "all out" effort to make a near perfect 55/1.4 lens designing the Otus. That is a lens essentially free of colour bokeh. An 80/2.8 can perform decently well without stopping down at all.
That kind of differences would be visible regardless of print size.
Yes, that is one thing. An f/2.8 lens will have considerably smaller optical aberrations, most noticeably chromatic and spherical aberrations. This directly influences depth of focus. The formulas that everyone uses to estimate depth of focus suppose that the aberrations are negligible and they are not for a f/1.4 lens.
Erik invested 15K just to be able to talk about MFD.
I think that Erik spent 15K to be able to understand the difference between MFD and smaller formats. That is a completely different perspective and, in my opinion, entirely legitimate.
I think that because this is what I did. I wanted to understand what the difference was and where it came from. Having used the camera, I found where some (maybe most) of the differences came from and, as a consequence, I find that MFD are wonderful cameras. I am glad I spent the money. Can money buy anything more precious than experience and knowledge?
-
Hi,
If you are not interested in a thread you can just ignore it.
Regarding the 15K investment I could do with significantly smaller investment if I just wanted to talk MFD, but I also invested in five lenses and a flexbody. That stuff is for taking pictures of which I have posted quite a few. But yes, I feel sometimes I would need a shrink, but not a great idea to take a lot of money with you in the grave, it won't serve you on the other side.
Most of my recent shooting is with the blad and I enjoy it, at least for the time being.
Best regards
Erik
:-) maybe. maybe not. I don't know. I don't care about those comparision tools.
Erik invested 15K just to be able to talk about MFD. Now, this is an issue that should be treated seriously... I really think he needs professional help. But, please, let's not discuss this on this forum...
-
Erik,
I needed to work more with my Mac Beta version of Imatest and I have taken test images with most all of the lenses in Rollei 6000/Hy6 mount so I ran some of them through to look at SQF numbers.
First of all, as I mentioned there are quite a lot of variables that influence SQF results - so YMMV. There's the lens of course, then the aperture, then the region of interest chosen (center or edge), then capture level sharpening if used, noise reduction,
My recollection was most of the Rollei lenses scored in the high end, but I didn't realize that they were as high as they were. I'm looking at the AF 80mm Xenotar lens for Rollei 6000/Hy6 @ f/8 data now. Every point in the frame is scoring over 98 at a picture height of 40cm and most of the center is over 99. I'm attaching one chart from a test point on the very left edge just for reference which reads almost 99 at picture height of 40cm. The center points are all ranging from 99.8 to 99.3
Erik - Hopefully from this actual test datum - you'll begin to understand why I have always felt you could be getting more from your MFDB. It's true that the Rollei lenses are quite excellent, but I believe that even your older Hasseblad should be capable of more than you have shown.
Please refrain from asking me to supply you RAW files for your own enjoyment. At some time this year I will be publishing comprehensive lens test data on all the Rollei lenses for Hy6 and 6000 series cameras.
I have no idea where you got your SQF numbers for your Pentax 645D and other cameras but you should really check to make sure what parameters were used so that the can be compared fairly in this hypothetical test of yours. And as pointed out - if the question is whether a person could see a difference in a print, then actually using real prints is probably the best approach.
-
I think that Erik spent 15K to be able to understand the difference between MFD and smaller formats. That is a completely different perspective and, in my opinion, entirely legitimate.
trying to understand something is not only legitimate... it is in fact desirable.
Trying to convince people from one's own view again and again is.... well... intrusive.
Especially when this "view" is based on pseudo-scientific findings.
-
trying to understand something is not only legitimate... it is in fact desirable.
Trying to convince people from one's own view again and again is.... well... intrusive.
Especially when this "view" is based on pseudo-scientific findings.
Yes, this is exactly my point of view.
-
Hi,
SQF is not related to MP but to MTF of the sensor and the lens. It is calculated from the MTF integrated (summed) over the angular sensivity of the eye.
So you need to measure the MTF of the lens, camera and conversion chain. I would calculate the MTF of the IQ-250 if I had a shot of a slanted edge.
MTF is much affected by sharpening, I used the same sharpening on both images. I did the test with an IQ-180 and that would give an SQF around 98, visibly better than either the Pentax 645D or the Sony.
The IQ-180 image was coming from Tim Parkin.
Sharpening is a real joker in the context. I should have mentioned it before.
Best regards
Erik
http://www.imatest.com/docs/sqf/ (http://www.imatest.com/docs/sqf/)
What is the sqf rating of the IQ250/260 shots in imatest?
What is the correlation of MP to print size? Your 24MP gives you a 90 at 17" diagonal, what about 16MP (90), 36MP (90)?
-
:-) maybe. maybe not. I don't know. I don't care about those comparision tools.
What I do know is that this forum is completely polluted with too much theoretical talk (scientific and pseudo scientific talk). In every thread I get explained that my DBs show aliasing, moire and pseudo details (as f I wouldn't know it...). 2 posts later someone talks about AA filters and deconvultion sharpening. In the third post a completely unexperienced user finds out that C1 doesn't produce accurate colors (based on a color checker passport shot with mixed lights). In the 5th post someone is talking about skin tones although he never shoots people. But he is finding flowers and/or animal hair compares quite good to skin. And in the 6th post we talk about the D800 or D800E or the A7R.
In EVERY thread, 3 times a day.
That's all fine... but it gets really, really old. Not a particular issue is getting old... but the way and the style things get discussed here. Erik invested 15K just to be able to talk about MFD. Now, this is an issue that should be treated seriously... I really think he needs professional help. But, please, let's not discuss this on this forum...
Bart, sorry, maybe the method implemented in the said SQF thing is great. But I simply don't care (anymore).
I remember the animal hair skin tone post. One of the most hilarious things I have ever seen on the internet.
@Erik: I sincerely hope that some day, you will ask yourself " why are other people shooting better images than me with better AND worse gear.
Unfortunately,there is no lab test in the world that can answer that question.
-
Erik, if your experience is essentially that you see no difference between your P45+ and your Sony SLT99 in A2 size prints then use your Sony for the A2 prints and your P45+ for your larger prints.
certainly logical ... but I rarely know when shooting when those cases will be. So I must always assume I will be wanting to make a big print...
-
To make it simple, it depends on what you call a 'small print'. Then you toss in what printer you're dealing with, and what paper/material you're printing on. Top it off with the viewing environment and the viewing distance, and there are lots of variables. Then you have the person viewing the image, what level of detail can they discern, and how is their eyes' color spectrum. Too many variables, too much thinking.
Take the same question at the paper size (16.5 x 23.4 in) and do it just in DSLR's and compare crop to full frame. Can you tell a difference? It comes down to you, the observer.
MFD won't shine as much in smaller sizes, but the bigger the print, the bigger the improvement.
-
certainly logical ... but I rarely know when shooting when those cases will be. So I must always assume I will be wanting to make a big print...
+1, that states it very well.
Paul C.
-
certainly logical ... but I rarely know when shooting when those cases will be. So I must always assume I will be wanting to make a big print...
herewith you are indirectly saying you don't know what you shoot.
Think while you shoot. Have a plan. Have a concept. (Also a concept of presentation.) Never (never!) take snapshots.
Sometimes I go "shooting" (2, 3, 4 days tours...) and don't even take the camera out of my case at all because the respective motifs are not worth shooting ...
Photography is not about touching or handling the gear and pressing knobs... it is about the final image. It is about vision.
-
Hi
This was the original post, and I feel it deserves an honest answer. I interpreted the question as a resolution thing, and I have really found that most of my cameras were good enough for A2. I also did some extra checking with Bart van der Bart's tool and checked the Bruce Fraser/Jeff Schewe book and also measured SQF on two samples.
Regarding the colour question I cannot say much, as I don't own a Nikon and don't shoot portraits, but colour does not relate to print size.
Best regards
Erik
To make it simple, it depends on what you call a 'small print'. Then you toss in what printer you're dealing with, and what paper/material you're printing on. Top it off with the viewing environment and the viewing distance, and there are lots of variables. Then you have the person viewing the image, what level of detail can they discern, and how is their eyes' color spectrum. Too many variables, too much thinking.
Take the same question at the paper size (16.5 x 23.4 in) and do it just in DSLR's and compare crop to full frame. Can you tell a difference? It comes down to you, the observer.
MFD won't shine as much in smaller sizes, but the bigger the print, the bigger the improvement.
-
Hi,
SQF is not related to MP but to MTF of the sensor and the lens. It is calculated from the MTF integrated (summed) over the angular sensivity of the eye.
So you need to measure the MTF of the lens, camera and conversion chain. I would calculate the MTF of the IQ-250 if I had a shot of a slanted edge.
MTF is much affected by sharpening, I used the same sharpening on both images. I did the test with an IQ-180 and that would give an SQF around 98, visibly better than either the Pentax 645D or the Sony.
The IQ-180 image was coming from Tim Parkin.
Sharpening is a real joker in the context. I should have mentioned it before.
Best regards
Erik
That is why I used the word correlation. I do not expect a precise function.
Personally I find Super B (13x19 in) is good from a 16-24MP camera. Consumers can usually get that size printer and paper easily.
If I want a shot to frame in C or D size I expect to stitch 2x2 or 3x3 shots.
I bet people bitching about the thread would not be out shooting every day either if they lived as far north as Erik.
-
Photography is not about touching or handling the gear and pressing knobs... it is about the final image. It is about vision.
Exactly, the camera is clearly the least important thing in photography (and I totally mean this).
But these threads are not about photography, they are about cameras. ;)
The good news is that it is totally possible for one person to be interested in both subjects since they happen to be vaguely related. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I once compared the same pastry made by two different chefs by reading up the recipe. I even used prescription glasses.
They tasted the same to me.
-
I once compared the same pastry made by two different chefs by reading up the recipe. I even used prescription glasses.
They tasted the same to me.
Wrong analogy. You should have said that you tasted the lab analysis results.
Please concentrate! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wrong analogy. You should have said that you tasted the lab analysis results.
Please concentrate! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed, that's what I tasted.
...and both of them were awful and therefore, every pastry in the world must be the same.
-
Hi,
Some folks would say that 12 or 25 MP is enough. The folks at Outbackphoto used to say that 12 MP is enough, I don't know if it is still their opinion. The reasoning is that larger print sizes are normally viewed at a longer distance.
My experience is that 12 MP was quite enough for A2 size prints. I found this out when I started looking at 24MP full frame compared to 12 MP MPS-C. The files from the 24 MP camera were much better, but the difference in A2 size prints was very small. Bruce and Jeff's book mention 180 PPI as a reasonable limit and my 12 MP camera would give 16.8" on the short dimension at 180PPI. The 180 PPI is based on 20/20 vision at 50 cm / 20 inches. Once you get to the 180PPI limit resolution plays a lesser role and fine detail contrast dominates, which is much effected by sharpening.
A couple of years ago I found an autumn subject I really liked. The problem I had was that it was windy, and I was quite concerned about subject motion. I initially tried with my Sony Alpha 900 but figured I could use the SLT 55 I also had at the time. The SLT would allow me to use a shorter lens, focus accurately, open up one more stop and use an EV step higher ISO.
I ended up with printing both images in A2, it was the 16 MP image that made on to the wall, but they very pretty close.
I think this discussion is meaningful, the OP was really asking if he would gain benefits with MF stating that he prints mostly A3 and up to A2 (if I recall correctly).
Best regards
Erik
That is why I used the word correlation. I do not expect a precise function.
Personally I find Super B (13x19 in) is good from a 16-24MP camera. Consumers can usually get that size printer and paper easily.
If I want a shot to frame in C or D size I expect to stitch 2x2 or 3x3 shots.
I bet people bitching about the thread would not be out shooting every day either if they lived as far north as Erik.
-
Hi,
That is what I do now, I mostly carry a dual kit, but most shooting is with the P45+, I actually enjoy it.
But this thread was started to give a good response from some one making A3 up to A2 size prints and asking if there was a a gain at that size.
Best regards
Erik
05:44 PM
Erik, that's a persuasive argument for using your P45+ wherever possible.
-
Aloha,
I think after about 40 inches getting solid prints from 35mm is a crap shoot, and depends a lot on how perfect the shot was and the subject matter, I also think a lot of the problems from big 35mm prints comes from lens choice. But again I think sometimes you can get really nice big prints from 35mm
I don't shoot 35mm anymore, I do tons of printing but all to developed film using lightjet, this in itself probably makes big 35mm prints seem nicer, but everything I shoot now has the potential to be done as a big print, so I don't risk shooting 35mm.
I also feel the quality of the gear in MF to be much better than 35mm and a lot of the lenses superior in every way.
I think in the print size of 36 to 72 inches MF will just shine against 35mm in a more consistent manor, in that more of your shoots will look great big.
After 72 inches I don't know how even MF will hold up when examined critically, as you are starting to up sample a lot by then, and things start to smooth out, a couple of my friends start to add noise on really big prints to counter balance this.
I guess there are so many variables depending on camera, subject, post work, etc...
-
I remember the animal hair skin tone post. One of the most hilarious things I have ever seen on the internet.
@Erik: I sincerely hope that some day, you will ask yourself " why are other people shooting better images than me with better AND worse gear.
Erik,
I am sorry you are on the receiving end of these comments. Kindergarten behavior.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Some folks would say that 12 or 25 MP is enough. The folks at Outbackphoto used to say that 12 MP is enough, I don't know if it is still their opinion. The reasoning is that larger print sizes are normally viewed at a longer distance.
My experience is that 12 MP was quite enough for A2 size prints. I found this out when I started looking at 24MP full frame compared to 12 MP MPS-C. The files from the 24 MP camera were much better, but the difference in A2 size prints was very small. Bruce and Jeff's book mention 180 PPI as a reasonable limit and my 12 MP camera would give 16.8" on the short dimension at 180PPI. The 180 PPI is based on 20/20 vision at 50 cm / 20 inches. Once you get to the 180PPI limit resolution plays a lesser role and fine detail contrast dominates, which is much effected by sharpening.
That may be A logic, it is not what I do. If I see a nice image in a gallery I position to a normal viewing distance, take in the whole thing, if I like it I will lean in or move closer. If it still has quality detail I will be impressed. If it does not I will be disappointed.
Only images that survive impressing someone may get bought.
-
Same here,
Still I feel it is a bit amazing how well small MP often holds up.
Also, I actually think it depends on subject. If the subject doesn't have unresolved detail it may be that sharpening plays a larger role.
Personally I am in favour of high resolution (small pixels), as I find it can reproduce fine detail, but the question is how much is visible in print.
Best regards
Erik
That may be A logic, it is not what I do. If I see a nice image in a gallery I position to a normal viewing distance, take in the whole thing, if I like it I will lean in or move closer. If it still has quality detail I will be impressed. If it does not I will be disappointed.
Only images that survive impressing someone may get bought.
-
Hi,
I can live with that. If you post on a listing you can always count on having some bad comments.
Synn and some other posters have a view missing out the fact that many of the posters on these forums are not portrait shooting professionals. Many are amateurs and many are landscape shooters. So many aspects important for professionals is not very important for many readers who may be landscape shooters and shooting in their free time. Quite a few are not flush with money.
The OP (the posting was on another thread) has migrated from MF/LF film to digital. He was printing in small to moderate sizes like A3 and A2, not larger. The question he asked if MFD would give a visual advantage at those sizes. From what I have seen, I am a bit skeptical, as I have printed files with very different MP (and vastly different on screen at 1:1) and not being able to tell them apart in print at A2-size. I have tested those images on quite few persons but now one could tell them apart.
I have done quite a few test like this and it seem that if processing is equal, little difference may be visible, specially if the subject does not have very fine detail. It is more down to sharpening and that can be varied quite a lot.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I am sorry you are on the receiving end of these comments. Kindergarten behavior.
Edmund
-
Hi,
You can get very different SQF depending on sharpening. I used my standard sharpening for both images, see below. It is easy to add some additional sharpening like amount 15 and radius 3 to those images, that would push SQF comfortably above 100 on both lenses. Still I am pretty sure that if you apply same sharpening to the processed images you would get pretty close result in small prints.
I would love to publish SQF with better sharpening, but my first experiments today went into what I consider oversharpening, so I need more work before I can share.
The Pentax image was this one: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/645D/645DhRES7264F.DNG.HTM
The Pentax was at slight advantage here, by the way. It has a very recent 75/2.8 lens at f/5.6, while my lens in the sample I posted was a 20 year old Minolta Macro 100/2.8 at f/8 which is not it's best aperture. I will do some more testing and repost, but I am quite sure that:
- If you use same processing the SQF values will be pretty close (within 5%) for low end MF and high end DSLRs
- If you use use different processing you can get almost any SQF you want
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I needed to work more with my Mac Beta version of Imatest and I have taken test images with most all of the lenses in Rollei 6000/Hy6 mount so I ran some of them through to look at SQF numbers.
First of all, as I mentioned there are quite a lot of variables that influence SQF results - so YMMV. There's the lens of course, then the aperture, then the region of interest chosen (center or edge), then capture level sharpening if used, noise reduction,
My recollection was most of the Rollei lenses scored in the high end, but I didn't realize that they were as high as they were. I'm looking at the AF 80mm Xenotar lens for Rollei 6000/Hy6 @ f/8 data now. Every point in the frame is scoring over 98 at a picture height of 40cm and most of the center is over 99. I'm attaching one chart from a test point on the very left edge just for reference which reads almost 99 at picture height of 40cm. The center points are all ranging from 99.8 to 99.3
Erik - Hopefully from this actual test datum - you'll begin to understand why I have always felt you could be getting more from your MFDB. It's true that the Rollei lenses are quite excellent, but I believe that even your older Hasseblad should be capable of more than you have shown.
Please refrain from asking me to supply you RAW files for your own enjoyment. At some time this year I will be publishing comprehensive lens test data on all the Rollei lenses for Hy6 and 6000 series cameras.
I have no idea where you got your SQF numbers for your Pentax 645D and other cameras but you should really check to make sure what parameters were used so that the can be compared fairly in this hypothetical test of yours. And as pointed out - if the question is whether a person could see a difference in a print, then actually using real prints is probably the best approach.
-
Hi,
Most of the posting here are questioning my (fill in please)
Anyway, a few posts indicate that MF superiority is visible at larger sizes and that may be helpful for the person asking the original question.
I would also like to thank Jerome_m and Fine_Art and some other posters I have forgotten for comments that may not answer the question posted but are relevant in the context.
--------
Aloha,
I think after about 40 inches getting solid prints from 35mm is a crap shoot, and depends a lot on how perfect the shot was and the subject matter, I also think a lot of the problems from big 35mm prints comes from lens choice. But again I think sometimes you can get really nice big prints from 35mm
I don't shoot 35mm anymore, I do tons of printing but all to developed film using lightjet, this in itself probably makes big 35mm prints seem nicer, but everything I shoot now has the potential to be done as a big print, so I don't risk shooting 35mm.
I also feel the quality of the gear in MF to be much better than 35mm and a lot of the lenses superior in every way.
I think in the print size of 36 to 72 inches MF will just shine against 35mm in a more consistent manor, in that more of your shoots will look great big.
After 72 inches I don't know how even MF will hold up when examined critically, as you are starting to up sample a lot by then, and things start to smooth out, a couple of my friends start to add noise on really big prints to counter balance this.
I guess there are so many variables depending on camera, subject, post work, etc…
----------------
No in small prints I can't. Where I will start to see the difference is in a print that is 23 x 33 (fits a 30 x 40 frame matted) and larger. I like to print up to 36 x 72 and I for this I prefer not to interpolate unless totally necessary. Here the larger resolution of the MFD helps as you can get there much easier. However I realize you can stitch 35mm, as I have been doing that since early 2003.
As for small prints no, I can't see much difference, say 20 x 30 and smaller. However it's also sometimes depending on the subject matter of the print. If the image has a lot of small details the MF back print will do better in my experience.
This is printing on a 9900 only. Canvas or paper.
Paul C.
-----------------
Best regards
Erik
-
Quite frankly, Erik, I don't see why you are asking this question since you already have the answer. You posted pictures taken with your P45+ and with your A99 and people could not tell which was which.
Anyway, the answer to your question is that, for landscape pictures taken with the best lenses and careful technique, people will not see a difference between a MF and a 35mm digital shot on A2 prints. But that is a rather silly question to ask: everyone here should know that a 35mm DSLR is able to produce extremely good A2 prints.
Furthermore, and that is something you refuse to understand, the answer is implicit in the question asked: you are selecting the best picture a 35mm DSLR is able to produce and comparing that to the best picture a MF can produce and find out that they are of the same quality. Basically, out of 100 pictures taken by each camera, you compare the best one of each. You will indeed find that they are similar: one in a hundred selected here and one in a hundred selected there.
What your test does not show is that, for these 100 pictures, you will only find one or two at that level in the batch of 100 out of the 35mm DSLR but you will find 40-60 at that level in the batch of 100 out of the MF.
Last but not least, this discussion is only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy. May I ask why you are only interested in these aspects?
-
Hi Jerome,
This question was asked on a different thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87606.msg713822#msg713822
"I have very much enjoyed large format and medium format with film. One of the issues that keeps me on the fence regarding moving to MFDB is that I don't have a need to
print large which is a frequently reported virtue of digital medium format. Most of my prints are A3 and rarely A2. Like some others I have experienced challenges with D800
color and skin tones.
For those who have seen significant differences in printed images from MFDB files, at what print sizes do those differences emerge? (I am in the process of arranging to rent an
H4D-40, but I am trying to gather as much information as I can.) Also, for portrait work are there benefits in color rendition and skin tones from FF sensors like P65+ or Credo 60
compared to entry level cropped sensors like Credo 40 or H4D-40? I have no need for wide angle lenses and do understand the differences in DOF.
Appreciate any thought or suggestions.
Richard"
I feel that is a good question, and I feel it deserves a good answer.
I know my answer, and that is that I don't see an advantage of MF in A2 size and below. But I also know that other posters may have a different answer.
My guess is the guy who asked the question regards buying a low end MF equipment which means spending a significant amount money, he wants to know if there is an advantage of such equipment at the sizes he prints.
Best regards
Erik
Quite frankly, Erik, I don't see why you are asking this question since you already have the answer. You posted pictures taken with your P45+ and with your A99 and people could not tell which was which.
Anyway, the answer to your question is that, for landscape pictures taken with the best lenses and careful technique, people will not see a difference between a MF and a 35mm digital shot on A2 prints. But that is a rather silly question to ask: everyone here should know that a 35mm DSLR is able to produce extremely good A2 prints.
Furthermore, and that is something you refuse to understand, the answer is implicit in the question asked: you are selecting the best picture a 35mm DSLR is able to produce and comparing that to the best picture a MF can produce and find out that they are of the same quality. Basically, out of 100 pictures taken by each camera, you compare the best one of each. You will indeed find that they are similar: one in a hundred selected here and one in a hundred selected there.
What your test does not show is that, for these 100 pictures, you will only find one or two at that level in the batch of 100 out of the 35mm DSLR but you will find 40-60 at that level in the batch of 100 out of the MF.
Last but not least, this discussion is only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy. May I ask why you are only interested in these aspects?
-
This question was asked on a different thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87606.msg713822#msg713822
I did not notice that question in that thread at the time, sorry. I was more interested in the experience other people had with their MF cameras.
I feel that is a good question, and I feel it deserves a good answer.
I know my answer, and that is that I don't see an advantage of MF in A2 size and below. But I also know that other posters may have a different answer.
My guess is the guy who asked the question regards buying a low end MF equipment which means spending a significant amount money, he wants to know if there is an advantage of such equipment at the sizes he prints.
"Is there an advantage of MF cameras if I only print at A2 size maximum?" is a different question than the one you are asking, even if one is only interested about sharpness (which is what SQF measure). Coming back to what I wrote earlier, there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures in A2" versus 1%. Or you can say that there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures" in both cases, but having less constraints in focal length and aperture choice for the MF. Or you can say that there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures" in both cases, but just having to click a button in the manufacturer software for the MF and having to find, install and learn to jump between 3 or 4 different programs for the 35mm DSLR.
Last but not least, you framed the discussion to be only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy, while the original question was only about "advantages". May I ask again why you are only interested in these aspects?
-
Furthermore, and that is something you refuse to understand, the answer is implicit in the question asked: you are selecting the best picture a 35mm DSLR is able to produce and comparing that to the best picture a MF can produce and find out that they are of the same quality. Basically, out of 100 pictures taken by each camera, you compare the best one of each. You will indeed find that they are similar: one in a hundred selected here and one in a hundred selected there.
What your test does not show is that, for these 100 pictures, you will only find one or two at that level in the batch of 100 out of the 35mm DSLR but you will find 40-60 at that level in the batch of 100 out of the MF.
Last but not least, this discussion is only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy. May I ask why you are only interested in these aspects?
Jerome,
Don't let your passion get in the way of politeness! Civility has always been a feature of this forum, and it has served us well in the past, so let's continue that way.
We all encounter people here who we would not be meeting in real life, who do not belong to our own professional culture, and we need to find common ground with them. Cameras are designed and see first light in labs where no sun is ever seen and women wear bunny suits, and then they are exposed to supermodels and jungle climates :)
Now regarding the choice of images. My experience with MF has been that the keep rate is fairly low, because of technical issues with my pictures. My Mamiya shift lens was never really subjectively sharp, I don't know why, and it impacted my landscape images. Even with AF I had a lot of focus failures with the 80mm on portraits. The used 150mm I got cheaply was razor sharp, focused cleanly, and even took perfectly sharp images handheld under streetlights. Performance of the elements of the Mamiya system was unpredictable, and it is a complaint which I've found echoed in user-reviews on the web. I never found a fast portrait lens with an outstanding look. In the end I sold the MF system because the technical issues involved with bringing back a clean picture had become impossible to overcome consistently at my level of handheld incompetence. The keeper rate was often *zero*.
With the AF cameras I used, I found that the first images of a model session -often taken with an extreme tele in the street- were clean, sharp, and focused; so were the last, made in the studio. In between were some good and bad shots but the technically unusable were a small percentage. And of course in the end, the first and last images were usually the selects. Some of the Canon lenses eg the 135/2 have interesting "looks", I found for portrait. My Nikon files were consistently average with later models, focus mostly spot on, although the first Nikon I had, the D1x had very good color, and paradoxically I made a lot of nice portraits with the 17-35. In summary, I'd say that my chances of getting a usable retouchable first cut of the image I want with a dSLR, from a planned session, are just about 100%.
The Phase One had good skin tone, and superb color; the dSLR skin tones ranged from horrible orange peel to really good, with most in the "usable, nothing to write home about" category. Some of the dSLRs had good landscape color eg. 5D2, some unimpressive eg. D3x, with most somewhere in between.
At the huge shooting rate of dSLRs, and camera phones, one should look at the number of bursts, not frames, that yield a keeper.
One interesting camera I had was the Leica M8. This produced extraordinary images quite often, but had a bad habit of blanking out at random. Here I was virtually guaranteed several outstanding pictures per card.
The only camera I now use is a very battered Canon 1Ds3, acquired cheaply in a swap. It has a wonderul finder, fast AF and gives me decent colorful focused images about 90% of the time, decent skin tone, and is *completely predictable*.
If you have better success rates with MF and dSLR, well you are a better practitioner of MF than dSLR.
Edmund
-
Hi Jerome,
Good question, but I have no good answer.
Ease of use is not visible in prints. Also, I am perfectly happy with the user interface on my DSLR. I, like you on the A900, have three presets and those take care of most issues for me. There are some things I would like have different, but that is very camera and user dependent. I almost exclusively use live view for focusing when shooting with camera on tripod, that is very helpful with focusing.
- Skin tones, I have little knowledge in the area
- Bokeh, I care not so much about bokeh. I feel the Sony lenses I have are OK. Hassy have some weakness, but those are lenses of some age.
- User interface, not so much user interface on the Hassy. OK, I hate the aperture ring on the 80/2.8 Planar, anyone exited by that?
- Large apertures? The Zeiss lenses don't shine, but they are old designs.
I don't know about good picture/bad picture ratio. I shoot more exposures on the MF-kit, but that depends on a few things, like I am pretty sure I nail everything on the DSLR with the first shot, but on the MFDB I am "forking in" exposure, once I have done it I do MLU and shoot the final image, and that is the only one that will be used. Not much of relevance to share.
Best regards
Erik
I did not notice that question in that thread at the time, sorry. I was more interested in the experience other people had with their MF cameras.
I cannot comment on skin tone, as my experience of skin is nil. I don't shoot people and don't sell images. So I don't have he slightest interest in skin so I cannot say anything on the issue.
Also, colour interpretation is highly subjective. I have posted at a lot of images of what I have shot, people can download develop with their choice of raw developer.
But I cannot simply say what is good, nice, bad, correct or horrible. Measurable quantities are easier to discuss.
Same with lenses, most lenses will do fine when stopped down medium apertures. I seldom shoot large apertures, specially on MF, partly because I cannot focus dead on with live view. The lenses I have are 20-30 years of age, and quite likely not as good as later designs in corners and large apertures. Actually the Sonnar 150/4 is good at full aperture across the field, but that lens is the exception of the five I have. Discussing medium apertures and lens sweespot is more adequate.
The viewfinder on the Hassy is not so great, so that is so much to discusse either.
"Is there an advantage of MF cameras if I only print at A2 size maximum?" is a different question than the one you are asking, even if one is only interested about sharpness (which is what SQF measure). Coming back to what I wrote earlier, there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures in A2" versus 1%. Or you can say that there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures" in both cases, but having less constraints in focal length and aperture choice for the MF. Or you can say that there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures" in both cases, but just having to click a button in the manufacturer software for the MF and having to find, install and learn to jump between 3 or 4 different programs for the 35mm DSLR.
Last but not least, you framed the discussion to be only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy, while the original question was only about "advantages". May I ask again why you are only interested in these aspects?
-
Hi,
Regarding keepers I cannot really tell. For instance, when I shoot "street" I usually have my Sony Alpha 77, which is smaller than the Alpha 99. The MF kit is strictly landscape.
I had been quite busy recently and we had (have) an ugly winter, days are short and I had little time to shoot for private reasons. But days soon get longer and wether may be less boring.
BTW, I don't find Jerome unpolite, and he makes a lot of good points. His findings sometimes differ from mine, but I guess we have different ways of shooting and different priorities. Also Jerome has Hasselblad H-system and I have Hasselblad V.
Best regards
Erik
Jerome,
Don't let your passion get in the way of politeness! Civility has always been a feature of this forum, and it has served us well in the past, so let's continue that way.
We all encounter people here who we would not be meeting in real life, who do not belong to our own professional culture, and we need to find common ground with them. Cameras are designed and see first light in labs where no sun is ever seen and women wear bunny suits, and then they are exposed to supermodels and jungle climates :)
Now regarding the choice of images. My experience with MF has been that the keep rate is fairly low, because of technical issues with my pictures. My Mamiya shift lens was never really subjectively sharp, I don't know why, and it impacted my landscape images. Even with AF I had a lot of focus failures with the 80mm on portraits. The used 150mm I got cheaply was razor sharp, focused cleanly, and even took perfectly sharp images handheld under streetlights. Performance of the elements of the Mamiya system was unpredictable, and it is a complaint which I've found echoed in user-reviews on the web. I never found a fast portrait lens with an outstanding look. In the end I sold the MF system because the technical issues involved with bringing back a clean picture had become impossible to overcome consistently at my level of handheld incompetence. The keeper rate was often *zero*.
With the AF cameras I used, I found that the first images of a model session -often taken with an extreme tele in the street- were clean, sharp, and focused; so were the last, made in the studio. In between were some good and bad shots but the technically unusable were a small percentage. And of course in the end, the first and last images were usually the selects. Some of the Canon lenses eg the 135/2 have interesting "looks", I found for portrait. My Nikon files were consistently average with later models, focus mostly spot on, although the first Nikon I had, the D1x had very good color, and paradoxically I made a lot of nice portraits with the 17-35. In summary, I'd say that my chances of getting a usable retouchable first cut of the image I want with a dSLR, from a planned session, are just about 100%.
At the huge shooting rate of dSLRs, and camera phones, one should look at the number of bursts, not frames, that yield a keeper.
One interesting camera I had was the Leica M8. This produced extraordinary images quite often, but had a bad habit of blanking out at random. Here I was virtually guaranteed several outstanding pictures per card.
If you have better success rates with MF and dSLR, well you are a better practitioner of MF than dSLR.
Edmund
-
Edmund and Erik: I did not say that I get 60% of "good pictures" with the MFD and only 1% with the 35mm DSLR. I said that, in the case of landscape photography, I will find it much easier to get 60% of "sharp pictures". By "sharp pictures", I meant "pictures which would fare high on the SQF metrics: without lens defects up to the corners, with good colours and good exposure.
Everything is important in the sentence:
1: it has to be landscape pictures
2: they must be judged on criteria measured by SQF.
Remember what question was asked, please.
Now, if you ask about "good pictures", I would say that of these 60% of "sharp pictures", most aren't very interesting. And of the 99% of DSLR pictures with some defects measurable by SQF metrics in A2 size, some have been printed to A2 and exhibited. They have defects I can see (mostly lens defects), but these defects aren't important to the overall picture.
How can I say that and be understood? The problem here is not about the cameras, it is about the question asked. The discussions are becoming more controversial and Erik is increasingly frustrated with the forum because he is asking one question but others are giving answers to a different question. That can only lead to conflict.
-
Ease of use is not visible in prints.
I believe that the ease of use of my DSLR vs my RX100M2 is "visible" in my images. The former allows me to power up the camera, put the viewer to my eyes, focus, check exposure and fire a series of images before the motor lens of the compact camera have moved into place.
This ought to be visible in the form of a higher number of interesting and technically ok images.
On the other hand, the weight/size of the Sony means that it will be brought at events where an SLR is out of the question. "Image" certainly is visibly better than "no image" :-)
-h
-
I believe that the ease of use of my DSLR vs my RX100M2 is "visible" in my images. The former allows me to power up the camera, put the viewer to my eyes, focus, check exposure and fire a series of images before the motor lens of the compact camera have moved into place.
This ought to be visible in the form of a higher number of interesting and technically ok images.
Yes, but Erik is measuring something different. Out of 100 pictures taken with the DSLR and 100 pictures taken with the RX100, he would select the ones which are as perfect technically as possible and compare them. That process is designed so that it cannot measure ease of use.
-
Hi,
On the DSLR I would say something like 100 hit ratio. Live 11X magnification and histogram and blinkies make for images of good technical quality.
On the Hasselblad I have a 3X monocular for focusing or an ocular made for my eyesight, but I have been told that my images lack in quality sharpness. Exposure is a different thing, I shoot until I get it right.
The Hasselblad is always on tripod.
I don't know, but I am pretty sure the hit/keeper rate is better on the DSLR. Essentially, I am using the Hasselblad for static shooting on tripod but with the DSLR I also do "street type" shooting. So it is hard to say. Need more experience to tell.
Anyway, my shooting skills don't show up in prints, really. If I feel a picture is not a keeper I don't print it.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, but Erik is measuring something different. Out of 100 pictures taken with the DSLR and 100 pictures taken with the RX100, he would select the ones which are as perfect technically as possible and compare them. That process is designed so that it cannot measure ease of use.
-
Anyway, my shooting skills don't show up in prints, really. If I feel a picture is not a keeper I don't print it.
So you never had a picture which was technically imperfect, but which you decided to keep anyway because the subject, ambiance or overall apparence made it such that it was interesting nevertheless?
This is Robert Capa:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02709/War_Capa_Omaha_2709766k.jpg)
-
Hi,
I am not Robert Capa…
I don't really know, I would certainly not print an image which I found unsatisfactory. I did some shooting of a horse jumping a year ago for a colleague and I missed focus, but I could still make a "decent" A3-print. That was shot on ISO 6400 and at 6FPS. Didn't want to use AF.
Else, I try to get them right.
What spoils my images mostly is dullness, or having better images from the same shot.
But yes, there are some images I kept although I wished they would be better, technically or otherwise:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-hHzHqtK/0/XL/20080914-DSC05748-XL.jpg)
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-Kp5TbpQ/0/X2/20080920-DSC00175-X2.jpg)
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-tBbTb3m/0/XL/20091016-DSC01356-XL.jpg)
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-4HBbv3q/0/XL/20091017-DSC05563-XL.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
So you never had a picture which was technically imperfect, but which you decided to keep anyway because the subject, ambiance or overall apparence made it such that it was interesting nevertheless?
-
I am not Robert Capa…
I don't really know, I would certainly not print an image which I found unsatisfactory. I did some shooting of a horse jumping a year ago for a colleague and I missed focus, but I could still make a "decent" A3-print. That was shot on ISO 6400 and at 6FPS. Didn't want to use AF.
Else, I try to get them right.
What spoils my images mostly is dullness, or having better images from the same shot.
We all try to "get them right", Erik. And none of us is Robert Capa. That is not the question.
You wrote that "what spoils your images is mostly dullness". How could you address that problem?
(http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_423861816_730457_rinko-kawauchi.jpg)
(Image: Rinko Kawauchi. Camera: 6x6 MF)
-
Still I feel it is a bit amazing how well small MP often holds up.
This isn't my experience. After using my MF and LF systems, I'm almost always disappointed with the results from 35mm and smaller cameras. This is even true with tiny prints. There is a MF look that can't be easily gotten with smaller cameras. Also worth noting, sometimes I am still really amazed by film prints - analog capture and analog printing. Sometimes, not all the time, but even small prints.
-
So you never had a picture which was technically imperfect, but which you decided to keep anyway because the subject, ambiance or overall apparence made it such that it was interesting nevertheless?
This is Robert Capa:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02709/War_Capa_Omaha_2709766k.jpg)
Well, this is probably the wrong example, since Capa didn't decide anything here. Life was the editor and there was not much to choose from since most of the films were ruined during development. Nevertheless a strong image, but not necessarily the photographers'/editors choice.
By the way, The work of Rinko Kawauchi is of course great as well...
-
So you never had a picture which was technically imperfect, but which you decided to keep anyway because the subject, ambiance or overall apparence made it such that it was interesting nevertheless?
This is Robert Capa:
Puzzled how you see this as relative. The technical issues are acceptable only because of it's historical significance ... I doubt if anyone on this forum is doing that kind of work, and if so probably aren't hanging out here to learn how to do it.
Shoot the same blurry shot on a movie set and it gets deleted.
-
Erik and others, thank you for all of the thoughts and suggestions.
In the 1980's I was smitten with MF when I first looked down the WLF of a Mamiya RB67 and even more so when viewing 8x10 prints from my Nikon compared to those of the RB67. Back in the film era it was easier to make comparisons between formats; I just needed to learn how to process sheet film in my darkroom when considering a move up to LF.
In the last few years, while following the MFDB development on Lu-La and GetDPI, I have been saving for a digital medium format purchase. During that period of time, even with the advances made with digital backs,
the trend seems to have been toward smaller formats. While I don't have any knowledge of the statistics of the industry, I have observed the switch just by reading the posts made by the pro photographers whose work I have admired and whose writings have been informative and entertaining. Here is a short list of them in no particular order:
- eronald - from P45 to D3x
- Paul Schefz - from Phase One to 5DII
- Mark Tucker - from Hassy H to D3x
- Graham Mitchell - from Hy6 with Aptus II 12 (staunch defender of the MFDB faith) to D800
- Rainer - designed a brilliant tech cam for Sinar and used DBs to singing praises of 5DII and Canon wides for architectural work
- Rethmeier - MFDB (don't recall which) to D3x
- Simon Harper - from Mamiya RZ and with Leaf to D800 and looking forward to D4x
- Andre Napier - from various DBs to D3x
- Guy Mancuso - founding father of GetDPI, pro, course instructor and user of many backs for stated financial reasons switched to D800E and more recently A7 and A7R
- Jack Flesher - founding father of GetDPI, instructor user of MFDBs for stated financial reasons moved to D800
- Michael Reichmann - has many cameras including MFDBs but seems to have posted most of his images in the last couple of years with various smaller formats
- bcooter - has recently acquired S2 to extend the use of his Contax lenses, but even upon request had not posted any images form the new tool while in almost every
recent post has extolled the virtues of Olympus OMDs
I hope that I have not misrepresented or offended any of the folks mentioned. If I did, it was my mistake and I apologize. They are my "forum" teachers and I look up to them. (Some have not posted for a while.)
The good news and the bad news at the same time is that prices of DMF drop rapidly and drastically. In the last 14 months Leica S2 and 70mm lens have been available for less than 50% of the original cost. (Camera West)
So the problem with a MFD purchase is not just the original cost, but rapid loss of value for resale or trade ins. This is difficult to ignore in our high tech world in which a new "Holy Grail" camera is always just around the
corner.
While ordering supplies from B&H the last few times, I asked the sales people about the outlook on MFDB since there have been zero reviews of H5D cameras since they were released over a year ago. The answer was the same
from at least 5 different salesmen: more and more pros are moving to smaller formats, not just for the lower cost, but also, for ease of use and improved quality.
Even so, later this year when I have some time off, I will rent a MFDB and try it out for myself. I am sure that the learning curve is steeper than tray processing sheet film.
Richard
-
Richard,
Thanks for responding and enjoy your journey!
Best regards
Erik
Erik and others, thank you for all of the thoughts and suggestions.
In the 1980's I was smitten with MF when I first looked down the WLF of a Mamiya RB67 and even more so when viewing 8x10 prints from my Nikon compared to those of the RB67. Back in the film era it was easier to make comparisons between formats; I just needed to learn how to process sheet film in my darkroom when considering a move up to LF.
In the last few years, while following the MFDB development on Lu-La and GetDPI, I have been saving for a digital medium format purchase. During that period of time, even with the advances made with digital backs,
the trend seems to have been toward smaller formats. While I don't have any knowledge of the statistics of the industry, I have observed the switch just by reading the posts made by the pro photographers whose work I have admired and whose writings have been informative and entertaining. Here is a short list of them in no particular order:
- eronald - from P45 to D3x
- Paul Schefz - from Phase One to 5DII
- Mark Tucker - from Hassy H to D3x
- Graham Mitchell - from Hy6 with Aptus II 12 (staunch defender of the MFDB faith) to D800
- Rainer - designed a brilliant tech cam for Sinar and used DBs to singing praises of 5DII and Canon wides for architectural work
- Rethmeier - MFDB (don't recall which) to D3x
- Simon Harper - from Mamiya RZ and with Leaf to D800 and looking forward to D4x
- Andre Napier - from various DBs to D3x
- Guy Mancuso - founding father of GetDPI, pro, course instructor and user of many backs for stated financial reasons switched to D800E and more recently A7 and A7R
- Jack Flesher - founding father of GetDPI, instructor user of MFDBs for stated financial reasons moved to D800
- Michael Reichmann - has many cameras including MFDBs but seems to have posted most of his images in the last couple of years with various smaller formats
- bcooter - has recently acquired S2 to extend the use of his Contax lenses, but even upon request had not posted any images form the new tool while in almost every
recent post has extolled the virtues of Olympus OMDs
I hope that I have not misrepresented or offended any of the folks mentioned. If I did, it was my mistake and I apologize. They are my "forum" teachers and I look up to them. (Some have not posted for a while.)
The good news and the bad news at the same time is that prices of DMF drop rapidly and drastically. In the last 14 months Leica S2 and 70mm lens have been available for less than 50% of the original cost. (Camera West)
So the problem with a MFD purchase is not just the original cost, but rapid loss of value for resale or trade ins. This is difficult to ignore in our high tech world in which a new "Holy Grail" camera is always just around the
corner.
While ordering supplies from B&H the last few times, I asked the sales people about the outlook on MFDB since there have been zero reviews of H5D cameras since they were released over a year ago. The answer was the same
from at least 5 different salesmen: more and more pros are moving to smaller formats, not just for the lower cost, but also, for ease of use and improved quality.
Even so, later this year when I have some time off, I will rent a MFDB and try it out for myself. I am sure that the learning curve is steeper than tray processing sheet film.
Richard
-
Well, this is probably the wrong example, since Capa didn't decide anything here. Life was the editor and there was not much to choose from since most of the films were ruined during development. Nevertheless a strong image, but not necessarily the photographers'/editors choice.
Puzzled how you see this as relative. The technical issues are acceptable only because of it's historical significance ... I doubt if anyone on this forum is doing that kind of work, and if so probably aren't hanging out here to learn how to do it.
Shoot the same blurry shot on a movie set and it gets deleted.
The pictures are iconic examples of images where the technique failed, but the results were felt to improve on what message would have been conveyed by simple, technically perfect shots. There are many pictures of D-day, most of which are reasonably sharp. This one from Capa is probably the most famous because it is a blurred, surreal shot, which conveys the chaos and confusion of the day.
That picture is world famous because it is not sharp.
By the way, The work of Rinko Kawauchi is of course great as well...
Rinko Kawauchi (thank you for correcting my spelling error) works with a Rolleiflex and an Hasselblad V camera (with film). So she uses medium format cameras. She does not use them to get pictures sharp enough to be enlarged beyond A2 size, she uses these cameras because of the way they are operated and the rendering that she gets. I think she is a valid example of a photographer who is not interested in maximum sharpness yet prefers to use a MF camera.
-
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-4HBbv3q/0/XL/20091017-DSC05563-XL.jpg)
I also like the squirrel, but this one is good.
-
Hi,
I didn't really say that my pictures are dull, I said that dullness spoils more of my pictures than technical faults.
How to avoid dullness??
- Learn from mistakes
- If you see that subject doesn't work just give it up and find something that works
- If something works, make you best of it
But, doing mistakes is necessary, without mistakes there would be little progress.
Best regards
Erik
You wrote that "what spoils your images is mostly dullness". How could you address that problem?
-
Rinko Kawauchi (thank you for correcting my spelling error) works with a Rolleiflex and an Hasselblad V camera (with film). So she uses medium format cameras. She does not use them to get pictures sharp enough to be enlarged beyond A2 size, she uses these cameras because of the way they are operated and the rendering that she gets. I think she is a valid example of a photographer who is not interested in maximum sharpness yet prefers to use a MF camera.
Not really, she uses these cameras because of the 1:1 format. Or, to put it more simple: it allows for a more circular composition towards the center.
Anyway, since a few years she also uses digital cameras and different image proportions. By the way, she shoots daily with her iphone as well.
She is actually a valid example of a photograper who doesn't care or has any preferences about or for the kind of camera.....
-
Hi Jerome,
This image has some kind of haziness to it I cannot explain. I always feel it should be better but I cannot see the reason it is lacking in detail. But I like it, so it ends up in my slide shows. In a sense it reminds a bit of my shots with the 50/4 Zeiss on the Hassy, decently sharp but still has some hazy feeling to it.
The squirrel image has focus on the tail, that was not really my intention. But I feel it's fun, so I keep it in my slide shows. I could try to improve it with some deconvolution sharpening if I wanted to print it.
The grizzly shot is 12 MP, shot with 400/4.5 and 1.4 extender. I had it hanging at an exhibition at A2 size and it works, but I think it could be a great bit sharper.
The buffalo shot is decently sharp, but two of the buffalos are out of focus. My best friend thinks that image is a throw away, but I like it. Sometimes you feel attached to a picture.
Best regards
Erik
I also like the squirrel, but this one is good.
-
Not really, she uses these cameras because of the 1:1 format. Or, to put it more simple: it allows for a more circular composition towards the center.
Anyway, since a few years she also uses digital cameras and different image proportions. By the way, she shoots daily with her iphone as well.
She is actually a valid example of a photographer who doesn't care or has any preferences about or for the kind of camera.....
I know that Rinko Kawauchi shoots with her iPhone. I follow her tumblr regularly.
If you think she does not care about the camera or only cares about the square format, you have not watched her pictures close enough.
-
Synn and some other posters have a view missing out the fact that many of the posters on these forums are not portrait shooting professionals. Many are amateurs and many are landscape shooters. So many aspects important for professionals is not very important for many readers who may be landscape shooters and shooting in their free time. Quite a few are not flush with money.
Erik,
I don't see your logic here. If you are talking about image quality and whether one type of product can produce a print distinguishable from another product's print, then the professionals are going to be a great resource of information. Their job depends on producing work people want to pay for and more than likely they have figured out where the rubber meets the road. You profess to be interested in learning - yet you choose to discard the information these people offer you- that makes no sense to me.
Sinn has shown us some great photo work of his and has been pretty informative. He uses most of the gear that has been brought into question, and I respect his opinion much more than people who just play with charts and hypothetical questions.
-
- eronald - from P45 to D3x
- Paul Schefz - from Phase One to 5DII
- Mark Tucker - from Hassy H to D3x
- Graham Mitchell - from Hy6 with Aptus II 12 (staunch defender of the MFDB faith) to D800
- Rainer - designed a brilliant tech cam for Sinar and used DBs to singing praises of 5DII and Canon wides for architectural work
- Rethmeier - MFDB (don't recall which) to D3x
- Simon Harper - from Mamiya RZ and with Leaf to D800 and looking forward to D4x
- Andre Napier - from various DBs to D3x
- Guy Mancuso - founding father of GetDPI, pro, course instructor and user of many backs for stated financial reasons switched to D800E and more recently A7 and A7R
- Jack Flesher - founding father of GetDPI, instructor user of MFDBs for stated financial reasons moved to D800
- Michael Reichmann - has many cameras including MFDBs but seems to have posted most of his images in the last couple of years with various smaller formats
- bcooter - has recently acquired S2 to extend the use of his Contax lenses, but even upon request had not posted any images form the new tool while in almost every
recent post has extolled the virtues of Olympus OMDs
I hope that I have not misrepresented or offended any of the folks mentioned. If I did, it was my mistake and I apologize. They are my "forum" teachers and I look up to them. (Some have not posted for a while.)
The good news and the bad news at the same time is that prices of DMF drop rapidly and drastically. In the last 14 months Leica S2 and 70mm lens have been available for less than 50% of the original cost. (Camera West)
So the problem with a MFD purchase is not just the original cost, but rapid loss of value for resale or trade ins. This is difficult to ignore in our high tech world in which a new "Holy Grail" camera is always just around the
corner.
While ordering supplies from B&H the last few times, I asked the sales people about the outlook on MFDB since there have been zero reviews of H5D cameras since they were released over a year ago. The answer was the same
from at least 5 different salesmen: more and more pros are moving to smaller formats, not just for the lower cost, but also, for ease of use and improved quality.
Even so, later this year when I have some time off, I will rent a MFDB and try it out for myself. I am sure that the learning curve is steeper than tray processing sheet film.
Richard
That's an interesting list and observation. However I'm not sure you can conclude much from it with regard to image quality. Some of those on your list I know personally changed due to economics and not any other reason and some on the list I know shoot several formats simultaneously. Some seem to always have the newest camera out there.
I bet you could make a similar list of notable people that have started shooting film again in the last two years, another list of photographers that are doing more video than stills, and another list of photographers who tried MFDB this year from DSLR's, one of people who switched to tech cameras with MFDB, and another list of photographers who use multiple formats. There will always be movement as technology jumps and shifts.
Also with regard to the 5 sales guys - I guess you aren't quoting the Phase back sales guys in there because they are saying they had higher sales each year for a while now?
-
Having shot some published editorial fashion, I have not seen anything from Synn which an average Canon cannot do, or rather which Synn and an average Canon could not do. In fact the artist who adoped the name Cooter seems to be doing *very* well in fashion with micro 4/3, and he seems to be burning rubber like a Daytona driver.
I *have* seen some difficult and beautiful interior and architecture work here, and landscape, and I respect those guys for their creative and technical abilities, but I don't intend to do that type of image. Although I admit that another forum member and I did a test in Paris with Nikon, Phase, 4x5 and the Phase backs made mincemeat out of the D3x/24mm shift.
Also, MF prices have gone crazy. 10x Dslr prices need justification. A Hasselblad or Rollei film system showed its value at the first image. I remember when i got my Hassy, the first transparency was gorgeous.
Edmund
Erik,
I don't see your logic here. If you are talking about image quality and whether one type of product can produce a print distinguishable from another product's print, then the professionals are going to be a great resource of information. Their job depends on producing work people want to pay for and more than likely they have figured out where the rubber meets the road. You profess to be interested in learning - yet you choose to discard the information these people offer you- that makes no sense to me.
Sinn has shown us some great photo work of his and has been pretty informative. He uses most of the gear that has been brought into question, and I respect his opinion much more than people who just play with charts and hypothetical questions.
-
Having shot some published editorial fashion, I have not seen anything from Synn which an average Canon cannot do, or rather which Synn and an average Canon could not do. In fact the artist who adoped the name Cooter seems to be doing *very* well in fashion with micro 4/3, and he seems to be burning rubber like a Daytona driver.
I *have* seen some difficult and beautiful interior and architecture work here, and landscape, and I respect those guys for their creative and technical abilities, but I don't intend to do that type of image. Although I admit that another forum member and I did a test in Paris with Nikon, Phase, 4x5 and the Phase backs made mincemeat out of the D3x/24mm shift.
Also, MF prices have gone crazy. 10x Dslr prices need justification. A Hasselblad or Rollei film system showed its value at the first image. I remember when i got my Hassy, the first transparency was gorgeous.
Edmund
From film to digital, equipment size and cost really isn't that much different if you factor in all the costs.
8x10 always cost more than 4x5 and on down the line to 35mm, in lenses, bodies, tripods, filters and obviously film cost and processing.
But the only thing that has changed with digital is there is no more larger than medium format "film". I guess it's like a compression of equipment. medium format digital covers what 8x10 and medium format film covered, 35mm digital covers what medium format and 35mm film did all the way down to micro 4/3 that covers what 35mm film did.
The only reason to use micro 4/3 is the ability to cross purpose over to video with cameras like the Gh3 and soon the gh4, but other than that it's kind of the same.
Yes I think $35,000 for the phase cmos back is expensive, but right now phase is the only maker shipping so that may change as time goes on.
The upside with Phase is they usually make solid software and equipment, the downside is they don't move that much on prices, but compared to film it would take two to three camera formats to do what the phase cmos camera does, so it's kind of a wash.
Photography has always been very personal. I've known great photographers that do the strangest things and have used the strangest combination of equipment that works for them.
The only rule of professional photography is if it's pretty, hopefully somewhat unique and the client pays.
It's been a long time since I've had a client demand a certain format or pixel count. We carry a lot of stuff, so either way that's not an issue, but nobody has complained, other than me about what equipment I do or don't use, other than me. Hopefully they trust that we'll do what works.
My micro 43 kit use to fit in a messenger bag, now barely fits in a think tank bag I use to use for medium format.
I guess my point is there is no one camera does everything system. 35mm DSLR's get close, but in my view aren't exceptional in either stills and motion, obviously better at stills, lacking in motion.
Same with lenses, tripods, sound, etc. Professional work usually requires professional equipment, more today than ever.
We hear about instigram, tumbler all of these sites where everyone is a photographer with a mobile phone or a 5d3 and some of the imagery is great, but most of it is just great because they happened to be there.
Those sites don't really apply to me because most of the people on those sites, regardless of talent aren't making a living out of posting and giving their work away for free.
Any client, regardless of what they tell you that cruises instigram looking for a photographer, may tell you they're looking for a "real" or "different" style, but honestly what they're usually looking for is inexpensive work,.
The difference of what you see on those sites, vs working for commerce is being able to produce the same look on demand.
If a client needs great motion imagery with clean sound, or beautiful stills that reproduce, that's always difficult and even if the camera is small, everything around it isn't.
Now I would like to see more innovation, a one camera fits all world, but I haven't found it yet.
IMO
BC
P.S. but to answer the op's post of can I see the difference in formats? Only if I shoot it.
-
That's an interesting list and observation. However I'm not sure you can conclude much from it with regard to image quality. Some of those on your list I know personally changed due to economics and not any other reason and some on the list I know shoot several formats simultaneously. Some seem to always have the newest camera out there.
I bet you could make a similar list of notable people that have started shooting film again in the last two years, another list of photographers that are doing more video than stills, and another list of photographers who tried MFDB this year from DSLR's, one of people who switched to tech cameras with MFDB, and another list of photographers who use multiple formats. There will always be movement as technology jumps and shifts.
Also with regard to the 5 sales guys - I guess you aren't quoting the Phase back sales guys in there because they are saying they had higher sales each year for a while now?
Eric,
Your points are well taken regarding the list. Interestingly enough, I was expecting that the pros I mentioned would be "burning rubber" with MDDBs, but they mostly went in a different direction.
The 5 sales people at B&H were recently commenting on Hasselblad. In another conversation I had with B&H staff about 3 years ago, I was told that Hasselblad H dominated the pro market in NY.
At that time, time and now, B&H offer Mamiya/Leaf and Leica, but not Phase One.
Also, about 3 years ago when I was in your fair city of San Francisco, I stopped by Calumet to take a look at their MFDB offerings. I was comparing Hasselblad H and Mamiya with a Phase One back.
The salesman at the counter volunteered: "we generally sell twice at many Hasselblads as Phase Ones even though Phase One is more generous with us dealers than Hasselblad."
None of these considerations are conclusive in their own right, but when pondering a big ticket item it's may not be a bad idea to take all into account.
Where did the Hasselblad reps go? I seem to recall someone from Hasselblad would make an appearance from time to time.
Richard
-
Having shot some published editorial fashion, I have not seen anything from Synn which an average Canon cannot do, or rather which Synn and an average Canon could not do.
Well, since you asked very nicely... ;D
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3772/12869114085_3926418780_b.jpg)
Shot in the blazing hot equatorial sun at noontime, with a teeny weeny 400WS strobe and a speedlight. Unless the average Canon lens starts shipping with leaf shutter lenses, this isn't happening. (Yes, I know of ND filters. Tried them, hated them. At least not for me). Moot point anyway because I do not like the user experience of Canon bodies and if I don't like using something, I just won't use it.
All that aside, it's like what BC said in a post below. Choice of Camera gear is a very personal thing. It makes no sense to justify one's choice of gear beyond a certain point. Things get very silly, very fast.
I personally choose to shoot with MF for the user experience and the starting point that the files offer me. I enjoy this experience a lot more. During shooting AND in post production.
You've clearly had a very bad experience with MF and it's obvious you enjoy your 35mm experience a lot more and that's absolutely fine. But to extrapolate that experience to everyone shooting MF is rather silly.
Much like the list of photographers in the previous post who have moved from MF to 35mm, there's also a lit of photographers that did the opposite. I follow all of them as their styles inspire me. Names like David Hobby, Zack Arias, Frank Doorhof, Drew Gardner, Joey L and even local names like Wei Li and so on. They all have their (Very personal) reasons for it. Some published, some unpublished. I am pretty sure some of those reasons would make no sense to other people, but that's irrelevant.
As always, shoot with what you like. Numbers can only tell you so much.
p.s. Erik: Thanks for sharing this:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-4HBbv3q/0/XL/20091017-DSC05563-XL.jpg)
I am the first to admit that I get very impatient seeing a wall of text+charts and no pictures, but I am also the first to admire a beautiful photo. And this is definitely a very nice shot.
If I may suggest, please give DxO filmpack a try. It will make images like this really pop.
-
Hi,
Thanks for comments. The threads I am involved with are often technical and I don't see much value in adding some image that is not relevant to the discussion. But, I am an engineer taking pictures, the former pays for the latter. Also, I am not really a friend of small JPEGs, essentially, I publish most of my images full size. But, as BC says, that's just me!
Also, my signature points to my gallery at SmugMug would anyone be interested in my images.
I will check out DxO film pack.
Best regards
Erik
p.s. Erik: Thanks for sharing this:
I am the first to admit that I get very impatient seeing a wall of text+charts and no pictures, but I am also the first to admire a beautiful photo. And this is definitely a very nice shot.
If I may suggest, please give DxO filmpack a try. It will make images like this really pop.
-
One question I have in the back of my mind is how much print work is even happening anyhow? It seems like these days half of all content is viewed on a phone and a big chunk of the other half on a computer screen. More often I see artwork displayed on a framed LCD too. It seems like for a lot of work the turnaround is more important than the actual quality and maybe justifiably so since most of its going to the web.
Amateurs are doing this now but instantly posting their work to the social media.
Anyhow - I was reading an article on *I think* Petapixel about a photographer named Julian Calverley and went by his site. Lovely work indeed, but what struck me was the article went on to say that he had written in to clarify that he had a page where the top images were all made with a digital back on an Alpa mostly and the images at the bottom of the page were taken with an iPhone. His work is lovely, have a look just to see his great images, but also check to see if you can pull out the differences even in tiny thumbnail images. Sure is obvious to me. Once you start to get the format differences - you can start to separate out 4/3rds from compact cams and even DSLR from MFDB. http://www.juliancalverley.com/personal/#north-northwest
My point is even in tiny web images - the differences are there.
-
Eric,
Your points are well taken regarding the list. Interestingly enough, I was expecting that the pros I mentioned would be "burning rubber" with MDDBs, but they mostly went in a different direction.
The 5 sales people at B&H were recently commenting on Hasselblad. In another conversation I had with B&H staff about 3 years ago, I was told that Hasselblad H dominated the pro market in NY.
At that time, time and now, B&H offer Mamiya/Leaf and Leica, but not Phase One.
Also, about 3 years ago when I was in your fair city of San Francisco, I stopped by Calumet to take a look at their MFDB offerings. I was comparing Hasselblad H and Mamiya with a Phase One back.
The salesman at the counter volunteered: "we generally sell twice at many Hasselblads as Phase Ones even though Phase One is more generous with us dealers than Hasselblad."
None of these considerations are conclusive in their own right, but when pondering a big ticket item it's may not be a bad idea to take all into account.
Where did the Hasselblad reps go? I seem to recall someone from Hasselblad would make an appearance from time to time.
Richard
If I were in NYC looking for a medium format camera, I guess B&H might be on my list of places to stop in but not at the top - I mean there's DT and Fotocare and a bunch of other places I don't even know. If I were shopping for a Canon or Nikon, then it would for sure. I remember hearing a nice report on the radio about how walnuts were very healthy for you and all the great things they do for you if you eat them daily, and then at the end of the report the announcer said the report was sponsored by the walnut growers association. I've been learning to take information in with the source always in mind.
But you're right - Hasselblads used to be the mainstay of the rental houses (just like Profoto) and where are they now. I can't explain Hasselblad. Calumet in San Francisco sort of morphed from this Pro store to a place that sells inkjet papers unfortunately. Samy's is in town now too and they look like the old Calumet.
When I started my Rolleiflex dealership, I thought I'd be scouting a retail location, but so much of my business is purely over the internet it hardly makes sense. I feel for the stores like Calumet. No doubt every person coming in to look at a camera will use their phone to check prices elsewhere and lot of the deals they will look up will be out of state and tax free.
btw - you had Mark Tucker in your list of MFDB to DSLR - great photographer whose work I have always admired. I don't know him but read his blog - have you seen the 8x10 wet plate work he's been doing or the double exposures? Really great stuff.
-
If you think she does not care about the camera or only cares about the square format, you have not watched her pictures close enough.
Believe me, I did Jerome..... ;)
-
One question I have in the back of my mind is how much print work is even happening anyhow? It seems like these days half of all content is viewed on a phone and a big chunk of the other half on a computer screen. More often I see artwork displayed on a framed LCD too. It seems like for a lot of work the turnaround is more important than the actual quality and maybe justifiably so since most of its going to the web.
Amateurs are doing this now but instantly posting their work to the social media.
Anyhow - I was reading an article on *I think* Petapixel about a photographer named Julian Calverley and went by his site. Lovely work indeed, but what struck me was the article went on to say that he had written in to clarify that he had a page where the top images were all made with a digital back on an Alpa mostly and the images at the bottom of the page were taken with an iPhone. His work is lovely, have a look just to see his great images, but also check to see if you can pull out the differences even in tiny thumbnail images. Sure is obvious to me. Once you start to get the format differences - you can start to separate out 4/3rds from compact cams and even DSLR from MFDB. http://www.juliancalverley.com/personal/#north-northwest
My point is even in tiny web images - the differences are there.
Thank you for the link.
My first impression was somewhat negative, but by the time I had finished looking through it all, I was more than impressed.
His handwriting is very strong indeed, and anything but realistic, which shows that where you meet the right clients, things go well. I get the impression that it would be a style easy enough to copy, but not to sustain; one of those instances where if you want it, then you need to source the real deal.
In the end, I was left wondering what could not have been done on a 4x5 with infinitely less expensive equipment. A 'blad with fixed 38mm would have been helpful too.
Again, thank you for a link that makes one think.
Rob C
-
The wonder is so many folk here spend so much time worrying about the least important thing in photography.
The matter of format is different to the matter of how important camera is to do photography… There are so many appliances to what my MF system can do (and vide versa) with respect to my FF Dslr system, that missing one of them would restrict my photography (and income) a lot…. This is the main reason why I'm against people buying MF to do the same things that they could do perfectly if they would use a DSLR instead… That final statement is where your comment (and the one you quoted on) is correct. In other words, "photographer and his skills, matter more than the equipment they use, as long as the equipment is sufficient to perform the task…"
-
Shot in the blazing hot equatorial sun at noontime, with a teeny weeny 400WS strobe and a speedlight. Unless the average Canon lens starts shipping with leaf shutter lenses …
Not as far as I know, but you could try a Fuji 100S ..
Much like the list of photographers in the previous post who have moved from MF to 35mm, there's also a lit of photographers that did the opposite... Names like David Hobby, Zack Arias, Frank Doorhof, Drew Gardner, Joey L
No, they didn't MOVE, they ADDED to their weaponry ...
https://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/fuji-x100s-follow-up-review-life-without-dslrs/
edit:
".. shooting for Land Rover. I shot that job with a mix of Fujis and the Phase One. Everything else has been Fuji only."
*yawn*
… and if I don't like using something, I just won't use it.
Now you're talking …
-
I didn't see many photographers touting MF at the Olympics and equally I don't see any L'Oreal ad campaigns shot on 35mm (FF). It's been discussed many times before, probably will be in the future too – but that guideline has held up since well before the onset of digital. There's only one thing as tedious as 35mm photographers who bleat on about the superiority of their equipment v MF - and that's MF photographers who do likewise.
-
As long as this discussion is still centred on the title of this thread.
'We have long known that it takes larger and larger amounts of money to achieve smaller and smaller incremental gains in quality. Once you reach a certain plateau, the curve gets very flat, very quickly.'
And if you want to know where that came from, try
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
-
Not as far as I know, but you could try a Fuji 100S ..
No, they didn't MOVE, they ADDED to their weaponry ...
https://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/fuji-x100s-follow-up-review-life-without-dslrs/
As long as this discussion is still centred on the title of this thread.
'We have long known that it takes larger and larger amounts of money to achieve smaller and smaller incremental gains in quality. Once you reach a certain plateau, the curve gets very flat, very quickly.'
Another reason why I don't like (other than their image area) modern high resolution backs and I prefer the "old" approach of back design, IQ difference is small to an extend that skills can beat it, they are less compatible with view and tech cameras or Fuji GX680, they don't do high resolution MS, they are not user adaptable to other MF systems and they are very expensive to buy, while on the other hand, they offer nothing important to one's photography than the past.
I now own an Imacon 528c… in a hypothetical situation where the back would still be made and I would have as only alternative at the same price to get an IQ260, my choice would still be with the 528c… Why? …"Because of what I posted above and on my previous post".
-
...and that can only be decided by the individual rather than a group huddle.
It can still "help" pixel peepers to advance their thoughts from pixel peeping though….
-
The wonder is so many folk here spend so much time worrying about the least important thing in photography.
I'd guess that the operators of e.g. the Hubble Space Telescope camera would disagree to a large extent. I also prefer if the specialists in my hospital use the imaging equipment they think will allow to do the better job, not just good enough, but the preferably the best.
Cameras are enablers, without them (or rather a model best suited for the task), there would be little photography that's worth looking at (unless one promotes Lomography to an art form). I also get more joy out of operating a good camera than an mediocre one, and that will also show in the end result because my creativity did not suffer from distractions. The process of creation should be smooth, not an uphill battle if possible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
What would you prefer: A car with a very good engine and nice gearing, nice steering and nice seats, or a car with a wonderful engine, mediocre gearing, horrible steering, and a bicycle saddle seat?
In your hospital, with wonderful imaging equipment, should they be using 13" uncalibrated monitors?
MF sensors are still the best, but the complete imaging experience has suffered. Look at the way all these companies refuse to put an iPhone or Galaxy phone LCD on the back of their thingies - it's not like they cannot get mobile phone displays on the Chinese open market. Look at the outdated focus module of the Phamiyas.
In Europe we make lab or industrial technology and repurpose it, in the US they make military tech and repurpose it, and in Japan they make consumer technology straight out of the box.
Edmund
I'd guess that the operators of e.g. the Hubble Space Telescope camera would disagree to a large extent. I also prefer if the specialists in my hospital use the imaging equipment they think will allow to do the better job, not just good enough, but the preferably the best.
Cameras are enablers, without them (or rather a model best suited for the task), there would be little photography that's worth looking at (unless one promotes Lomography to an art form). I also get more joy out of operating a good camera than an mediocre one, and that will also show in the end result because my creativity did not suffer from distractions. The process of creation should be smooth, not an uphill battle if possible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
What would you prefer: A car with a very good engine and nice gearing, nice steering and nice seats, or a car with a wonderful engine, mediocre gearing, horrible steering, and a bicycle saddle seat?
In your hospital, with wonderful imaging equipment, should they be using 13" uncalibrated monitors?
MF sensors are still the best, but the complete imaging experience has suffered. Look at the way all these companies refuse to put an iPhone or Galaxy phone LCD on the back of their thingies - it's not like they cannot get mobile phone displays on the Chinese open market. Look at the outdated focus module of the Phamiyas. I worked in a top applied maths lab once, we had Fields medals but not enough money for a Matlab license.
Edmund
I don't see the relevance of …cars, neither their spec comparison or why the specs must be like this…..
-
I like the way the thread title includes "can you see the difference..." and in order to see the difference a scientific measurement is used.
-
Hi,
Actually, properties of human vision are quite well known. I would even say that scientists know a lot more about human vision than photographers do.
Best regards
Erik
I like the way the thread title includes "can you see the difference..." and in order to see the difference a scientific measurement is used.
-
I like the way the thread title includes "can you see the difference..." and in order to see the difference a scientific measurement is used.
It's like asking people how good their eyes are… isn't it? …he doesn't ask "can you see A difference?"… he asks if one can see the difference that exists... it is admitted in the enquire that there is a difference and the question is if one has good enough vision as to spot it….
-
Hi,
Actually, properties of human vision are quite well known. I would even say that scientists know a lot more about human vision than photographers do.
Best regards
Erik
Exactly… soooo, why the question?
-
As long as this discussion is still centred on the title of this thread.
'We have long known that it takes larger and larger amounts of money to achieve smaller and smaller incremental gains in quality. Once you reach a certain plateau, the curve gets very flat, very quickly.'
And if you want to know where that came from, try
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
That review says it all. The rest is "sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Now you have to consider limited contrast of the print vs a good screen. I bet the difference will be clear on a 4K screen.
-
That review says it all.
that "review" - the comparison respectively - is based on a very soft capture of the Hassy/P45+ kit (it's misfocussed). So I am not sure it says anything at all ... ;)
-
Yeah, that review has been debated many times here in LuLa in the past - maybe do a search. Somewhere there are also posts that claim that early digital cameras are equal to 4x5 sheet film as well. Hmm… Like anything you read YMMV.
The internet is great for self validation of ideas. If you search for something, you'll find someone that says what you searched for. But is it really true?
-
Hi,
Quite true but those industry insiders didn't notice the defocus either, it may depend on dowsizing for print masks the differences.
Some audio expert made a simple experiment. He had two amplifiers, a McIntosh and a better grade "consumer" amplifier. Hooked up one of them to a pair of loadspeaker through a box with a switch on, without connecting any cable to switch. So whatever they switched they were listening to the same set. The switch was simply a fake. Of sixteen testers there was only one who could not hear the difference.
I cannot really recall the exact circumstances, but is was a fake experiment and 15 of 16 listeners could hear the non existing difference.
Best regards
Erik
that "review" - the comparison respectively - is based on a very soft capture of the Hassy/P45+ kit (it's misfocussed). So I am not sure it says anything at all ... ;)
-
Quite true but those industry insiders didn't notice the defocus either, it may depend on dowsizing for print masks the differences.
obviously those "experts" didn't see the defocusing even when viewed on a screen: That evening I looked at the files on my laptop screen, along with several other people, and we were amazed to see that the differences between the 39 Megapixel medium format system and the 15 Megapixel pocket digicam didn't seem that dramatic
I wonder why nobody noticed that the Hassy/P45+ shot is nowhere near what this kit is capable of under normal circumstances.
-
Hi,
The issue is a bit complex. The eye has a finite resolution, depending on the density of the cones in the fovea. They act as a sensor, much like a digital sensor. The spacing of the cones gives an angular resolution of about one minute of arc, that corresponds to 20/20 vision. Once resolution of an image exceeds one minute of arc it will be perceived as sharp. Another factor is edge contrast. Contrasty edges will be perceived sharper than less contrasty edges. Some folks have better than 20/20 vision, as far as I recall 0.7 minutes of arc seems to be the absolute limit.
You can measure edge sharpness by MTF, but it is very much dependent on sharpening.
What I have seen is that I can feed images with obviously very different quality on screen into a printing pipeline and have virtually indistinguishable results. Now, I print from Lightroom which does it's own uprezzing and output sharpening, and to that comes dithering in the printer driver. So what you see on the screen is not what you get.
Experience and science seems to converge on 180 PPI being good enough for an excellent print when viewed by a person having 20/20 vision at 50 cm. A young person with 20/20 vision would need 360 PPI at 25 cm which is the probable reason Epson has chosen 360 PPI for photographic rendition.
So yes, science says that there is no visible difference in resolution, contrast, etc if you print at 180 PPI and view at 50 cm and have 20/20 vision. To that comes colour rendition, but that is not dependent on either print or sensor size, but much dependent on CFA (Color Filter Array) and colour profiles.
Best regards
Erik
Exactly… soooo, why the question?
-
- bcooter - has recently acquired S2 to extend the use of his Contax lenses, but even upon request had not posted any images form the new tool while in almost every
recent post has extolled the virtues of Olympus OMDs
This is simple truth.
You use what you like, or you use what you got.
If you like it you shoot better, if you don't you usually don't and you want what you want.
Just because someone else doesn't use, or like or even find it reasonable means squat.
I shot this with an m-8 and nobody pointed a gun to my head and told me to use anything. I used it because I wanted to. Did the camera matter.
It did to me at the time and that's all that really matters.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/m8_paris.jpg)
I haven't posted new images in a while, actually haven't even really updated our website in two years.
What we do now has a lot of motion content, plus the stills.
One project last year had 180 final minutes of multiple videos in multiple languages so the videos and the accompanying stills are either under embargo or contract until everything is disseminated.
I can't explain what pre and post work it takes to produce 180 minutes of dialog videos and from that project we just finished the first retouching session of 117 still images.
This week we will begin using the Leica for the first time in production and even then I probably won't show an image of this shoot for a year. I just stopped showing recent work in world view for a lot of reasons, some contractual some because
it does me no good to blast it out without the ability to control the audience.
I think I might have a schedule break this year and we'll either shoot something personal or editorial (what editorial is left) and then I'll post that.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
My guess is that we are going to see more of 4K and even 8K in a few years. 4K is available right now on screen and hopefully also on affordable projectors, soon. With 4K the colour gamut is also greatly expanded so much will improve. YouTube and Flicker still stay the way they are, of curse, but there are and will be better places to share images like SmugMug and Vimeo.
Best regards
Erik
One question I have in the back of my mind is how much print work is even happening anyhow? It seems like these days half of all content is viewed on a phone and a big chunk of the other half on a computer screen. More often I see artwork displayed on a framed LCD too. It seems like for a lot of work the turnaround is more important than the actual quality and maybe justifiably so since most of its going to the web.
-
Quite true but those industry insiders didn't notice the defocus either
This probably explains the title of that article. You'd think they knew… but maybe not until they had made sufficient progress on the article as to not turn around.
But a serious comment - one can't assume that what they see is what others see or hear for that matter. Erik K dumped out some information about eyesight but that's a generality - in fact the eyesight varies quite a bit person to person and sadly as we age we loose a lot of what we started with. Years ago I remember showing some of my prints to some older people and watching the eyeglasses come out and then still they felt they needed to move to an area with more light. Now I understand!
If you can't see a difference doesn't mean it isn't there.
-
Hi,
Whenever I found an interesting case I usually tested on several people. But age plays a role. Anyway the 180 PPI figure I mentioned is based on Bruce Frazers research, and its corresponds to 20/20 at 50 cm.
There is really one way to find out, you can download raw images from say Imaging Resource, process on your own and print at the sizes you want. The problem is that they have only one MFD camera tested, the Pentax 645D. You can also test with different amount of sharpening, there is some probability that sharpening decides which of the prints is best.
The samples below were made from Imaging Resource test images from the Pentax 645D and the Nikon D3X (I have neither camera). The images are from A2 prints (actually crops printed on A4) and scanned at 300PPI. The images are:
Left: Nikon D3X sharpened with Lightroom's "Landscape" setting, which is the one that Jeff Schewe finds OK for images with fine high frequency detail
Center: Nikon D3X sharpened with my standard sharpening, still in Lightroom but more aggressive
Right: Pentax 645D at Lightrooms "Landscape" setting
At a larger size, like A0, the Nikon D3X falls apart. See second screen dump showing different detail. The third dump shows the "ancient mosaic" again in A2, and here the D3X does still remarkably well. Could be that the D3X resolves almost all existing detail, so sharpening matters more than resolution in that case?
I know that you apply much different sharpening than I do, that of course may matter a lot, too.
This is also an experiment anyone can do, with zero cost. It costs some paper, but much cheaper than an MFD rental.
Best regards
Erik
But a serious comment - one can't assume that what they see is what others see or hear for that matter. Erik K dumped out some information about eyesight but that's a generality - in fact the eyesight varies quite a bit person to person and sadly as we age we loose a lot of what we started with. Years ago I remember showing some of my prints to some older people and watching the eyeglasses come out and then still they felt they needed to move to an area with more light. Now I understand!
If you can't see a difference doesn't mean it isn't there.
-
With 4K the colour gamut is also greatly expanded so much will improve.
I would not dare to assume that "4k" guarantees a larger gamut projected onto my retina.
The format change does carry some possibilities, given that the industry cares enough to actually implement them.
-h
-
Eric,
If you can't see a difference doesn't mean it isn't there.
Equally, if one can see a difference doesn't mean it exists.
-
Measurements is a necessary base for equipment discussion, nice A/B testing is even better, it's the only thing that can put a difference in context. Is it large or is it small? If a difference is "small" or "large" is a very personal thing, the same objective difference some will call huge and others will call so small it's irrelevant.
It's very common that those which prefer subjectivity and dislike measurements give exaggerated descriptions of the differences, ie differences are claimed to be huge and obvious in situations where most laymen and many skilled photographers would not be able to sort them out in an A/B test. I saw this a lot when I worked with HiFi audio, and I see this again in photography. If you don't have the golden ears/eyes you can't hear/see the magic unmeasurable "three dimensionality" difference, and the usual elitist discussions and eventually name-calling follow.
As golden eye folks just as little as golden ear folks want to do blind A/B testing (with a few exceptions) it's hard to know if differences are real or imagined. In a way it doesn't matter, for us deadly it's better to focus on things we can appreciate ourselves. When I built HiFi systems I didn't use expensive cables, I did A/B test and I could not differ a good quality cheap cable from a high-end expensive cable, but I could easily differ between a well-damped room with good listening position and a bad one, so I put energy there. An analogy for landscape photography could be to put effort/money into shooting technique and tripod/head than resolution in the back (and post-processing technique not the least).
When it comes to MF the reason I'm using it is not so much about image quality but from other factors: I just like making pictures with my view camera. As I tend to view prints on nosing distance I quite easily spot differences in resolution though, even in small prints if the printer is good. Images are easier to compare than sound. I'm less certain I would see a difference in "three dimensionality" when viewing prints at a distance though... ;)
-
Measurements is a necessary base for equipment discussion, nice A/B testing is even better, it's the only thing that can put a difference in context. Is it large or is it small? If a difference is "small" or "large" is a very personal thing, the same objective difference some will call huge and others will call so small it's irrelevant.
Hi,
That's why many of the better measurements are also output normalized to a measure of relevancy, JND (just noticeable difference), Delta E, SQF, etc. etc.
Of course, increasing the viewing distance can solve all disputes ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Photography is not about touching or handling the gear and pressing knobs... it is about the final image. It is about vision.
When it comes to MF the reason I'm using it is not so much about image quality but from other factors: I just like making pictures with my view camera.
Shhh! be careful, Torger! Don't you know that tho_mas has decreed that you are forbidden to contemplate any other aspect to photography than the final image?! Taking "other factors" into account - are you mad? And where, may I ask, is your vision as you footle around with your view camera, "liking making pictures"? Get a grip, man!
Ray ;D
-
It's like asking people how good their eyes are… isn't it? …he doesn't ask "can you see A difference?"… he asks if one can see the difference that exists... it is admitted in the enquire that there is a difference and the question is if one has good enough vision as to spot it….
Ah right then tripped up by semantics.
So measuring it for 20 20 vision is clearly the answer. Do Phaseone/Hassy issue eye test charts with their cameras so you can check your worthiness?
-
Thre is one thing to think of regardless of format and equipment is where you buy and the relationship you have with a dealer.
I know the two large all brand camera dealers on both coasts can be good, but they also have a lot of turnover in their ranks. Nothing is more frustrating than calling Bill (no one's real name) and hearing he is moved to another dept, or gone.
The two dealers that advertise on this page along Yair with Leaf products, will either find the best deal you can get and have almost on the minute followup service.
I've bought from Steve Hendrix at C-1 for a long time and I'm sure not their best customer, given my Phase backs as 7 years old, I recently bought an S2, (not the latest model) and one 120mm lens, two contax adapters.
The only reason I write this if you mention Phase or Leica everybody screams price, but if your working in production, and have an issue with your equipment a fast fix and dealer attention goes a long way to saving money. I'm not against the loner system, though when we're green lighted on a project we are given little time to prepare. If your going to have a software or equipment issue I can promise you it will happen two days before you board a plane.
So price is relative and quality, well there is no quality if the camera doesn't work.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I may agree. On the other hand the only time since 1980 equipment has failed for me was two years ago in Idaho Falls the day after debarking the plane. I had two small failures:
1) The legs of my newly delivered RRS tripod came loose. It was caused by incorrectly applied Locktite in assembly. Easily fixed.
2) A screw got loose on the tripod mount of my Sony 70-400/4-5.6, locking it up. I removed the tripod assembly later that night at the hotel and removed the loose screw. Fixed the problem permanently back in Sweden.
I always try to carry a reasonable backup for everything, except the long zoom and the tripod.
Regarding cost, I think it differs a lot. Professionally there are big operations and small operations, I guess. It may also be a question of priorities, I have corresponded with a guy who owns an IQ 180, but drives a 10 year old Bronco.
The P45+ I have is pretty nice.
Best regards
Erik
The only reason I write this if you mention Phase or Leica everybody screams price, but if your working in production, heck even if your going on holiday and have an issue with your equipment a fast fix and dealer attention goes a long way to saving money. I'm not against the loner system, though when we're green lighted on a project we are given little time to prepare. If your going to have a software or equipment issue I can promise you it will happen two days before you board a plane.
-
Eric,
Equally, if one can see a difference doesn't mean it exists.
Eric, maybe you don't fully realise just how true that is!
Rob C
-
Eric, maybe you don't fully realise just how true that is!
Rob C
Eric or Erik K?
Could be true... we all have our biases. Some people see things in clouds. At least I make real photos and look at real prints with my own gear, and not just download things from the internet or interpret other people's results. It's a complete tangent, but I did read this interesting book called the "Hidden Brain" that talks about how hidden biases influence people's decision making.
-
Eric or Erik K?
Could be true... we all have our biases. Some people see things in clouds. At least I make real photos and look at real prints, and not just download things from the internet.
Oops!
I meant to address the reply to the chap whose post I quoted: AreBee!
Mea culpa.
Rob C
-
Hi,
I may agree. On the other hand the only time since 1980 equipment has failed for me was two years ago in Idaho Falls the day after debarking the plane. I had two small failures:
1) The legs of my newly delivered RRS tripod came loose. It was caused by incorrectly applied Locktite in assembly. Easily fixed.
2) A screw got loose on the tripod mount of my Sony 70-400/4-5.6, locking it up. I removed the tripod assembly later that night at the hotel and removed the loose screw. Fixed the problem permanently back in Sweden.
I always try to carry a reasonable backup for everything, except the long zoom and the tripod.
Regarding cost, I think it differs a lot. Professionally there are big operations and small operations, I guess. It may also be a question of priorities, I have corresponded with a guy who owns an IQ 180, but drives a 10 year old Bronco.
The P45+ I have is pretty nice.
Best regards
Erik
My point is prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
I also have had few equipment failures, usually with electrics like lights, or anything wireless seems to have drop offs and issues, but cameras are all pretty good.
Most of it comes down to peace of mind.
I know my medium format cameras front and back, (well except the Leica) and I don't expect issues, but when you hire a new tech, he can't connect, I'm standing in studio with 10 people going over a creative brief, the last thing I have time for is to say excuse me and stand in front of a computer training someone or trouble shooting.
With the dealers on this site, they usually can be reached anytime and have tech people that will help your tech people.
The point I'm making is I can't call olympus and ask why the wi-fi doesn't work, or how to set it up. It's a google, youtube thing and that takes time.
The project we're doing at the moment has 21 minutes a setup. Honestly and that includes video. That time frame seems insane in 2006, normal in 2014.
To segway to last night Oscars "Dallas Buyers Club" was shot in two weeks, which probably is 40 setups a day, so no one is immune to time/money compression.
If we waste 45 minutes with a down system I've lost two shots, or ran over on talent and location and crew, not to mention that's not the best look to stand around and say try this, or try that.
I'm not selling medium format, because I use everything and I'm not advocating upgrading to a new anything every 12 months, but every time someone talks about specialty equipment the first scream from a forum is price and like I say price is relative.
These forums are cost, chart, pixel staring, DXO rating crazy over everything.
With all of this technical and cost comparison few discussions move to the long game of how long you can use a system, how well it works under pressure, what kind of dealer or manufacturer support you receive and will whoever you buy from/whatever you buy, how long will it be supported?
I dread buying new stuff in the digital world. Every menu is a learning curve, every new camera usually requires a software/computer/drive interface change or upgrade, every new system is less intuitive to you than the one it replaced.
Maybe that's why I still keep my Contax and have no plan to replace my original RED 1's. I can walk over to either camera open a case and close my eyes and put it together and know who to call if a problem "could" happen.
IMO
BC
-
Maybe that's why I still keep my Contax and have no plan to replace my original RED 1's. I can walk over to either camera open a case and close my eyes and put it together and know who to call if a problem "could" happen.
That is a really good place to be where the gear becomes transparent to the work, becomes one part of you. It's also great to be confident you know the look each lens will have, and on. This all is so hard when the 'obsolescence' period of a product is 2 years or even less. People that shot film cameras expected to be using them for a career with the help of some service and repairs, but with digital it isn't possible. They won't even have the chips or circuit boards in 5 to 7 years.
-
That is a really good place to be where the gear becomes transparent to the work, becomes one part of you. It's also great to be confident you know the look each lens will have, and on. This all is so hard when the 'obsolescence' period of a product is 2 years or even less. People that shot film cameras expected to be using them for a career with the help of some service and repairs, but with digital it isn't possible. They won't even have the chips or circuit boards in 5 to 7 years.
That is related with people "buying the film with the camera", which wasn't the case in the past… IMO, that will change Eric, it won't be long before we'll be able to replace the sensor only and even replace the processor in our cameras… (possibly in our MFDBs too…). The problem with MF, is more that discontinued brands won't have their lenses advanced to future sensor demands…. unless if they are brought back yo life of course.
-
Hi Eric,
As it happens I also look at my own pictures with my own gear, but you have posted pretty serious observations on my technique and therefore I have chosen to check out images by professional testers.
Just to make a point, I have posted something like 50 images available as raws. (Last time I checked the exact number was 104, but I guess that about 50 of them are properly referenced, and if you cannot find them they don't count).
Why I post raw images? The reason is mainly that an image without information on processing is about useless.
There are some other guys, sharing experience and images generously. Tim Ashley, Marc McCalmont, Tim Parkin are some guys who helped me with both images and constructive critique on my writing. I also had some very good comments from Doug Peterson and from Steve Hendrix who also seems to be a very good guy. Doug also published a lot of raw files comparing the IQ-250 with larger sensor CCD models.
I actually shot two images yesterday that will be good subject for prints, a lot of fine detail. Significant advantage to the P45+ this time, question if it is visible in print.
Best regards
Erik
Eric or Erik K?
Could be true... we all have our biases. Some people see things in clouds. At least I make real photos and look at real prints with my own gear, and not just download things from the internet or interpret other people's results. It's a complete tangent, but I did read this interesting book called the "Hidden Brain" that talks about how hidden biases influence people's decision making.
-
Erik, Ming Thein has a recent series of posts about pushing print limits where he says with proper processing and printing he can see the difference between 16 and 36 mpix in a 8x12" print, that's basically A4 size. Of course he is in the business of selling prints so you might wanna read the blog with critical eyes, but I found it interesting at least.
-
Rob,
Eric, maybe you don't fully realise just how true that is!
I meant to address the reply to the chap whose post I quoted: AreBee!
In that case yes, I do realise how true my statement is. Do you consider otherwise?
Regards,
-
Hi,
I have some pretty good stuff, that I will post tomorrow.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, Ming Thein has a recent series of posts about pushing print limits where he says with proper processing and printing he can see the difference between 16 and 36 mpix in a 8x12" print, that's basically A4 size. Of course he is in the business of selling prints so you might wanna read the blog with critical eyes, but I found it interesting at least.
-
Hi,
These are taken from:
- A 24 MP DSLR image cropped in height, the sensor has OLP filter, Sony 70-400/4-5.6G at f/11 (image size after crop 19.6 MP)
- A 39 MP P45+ image, no OLP, Zeiss Planar 120/4 at f11 (? no exif data), stitched fro two images (Image size after stitch and crop 42.5 MP)
The reason the P45+ image was cropped stitched was that the subject did not fit into the frame using the 120 Planar and I didn't want to use the much wider 80/2.8 Planar. Stitching like this I do quite often.
The images were processed similarly in Lightroom 5.3. An additional sharpening of 15% at radius 2 done in PS CS5. The images were cropped to half size and than printed from Lightroom at 760 PPI (my mistake should have been 720) in A4 size, so this corresponds to A2 for the uncropped images.
Sharpness differences were not very obvious visually, but very obvious using a 5.5X loupe. Also, DoF is significantly deeper on the DSLR image (70 vs 120 mm lens used), most of the image is visibly sharper on the DSLR.
Scans were made at 300PPI, the screen dumps show these scan side by side. Scanning was at 300 PPI and most computer screens are around 100PPI, so the 300PPI corresponds to 3X magnifcation. The second one was downscaled 33% and corresponds pretty well the print on a 24" (1920x1200) screen, the details are same size on print and my screen.
I am not happy with sharpening, as I feel the images are over sharpened a bit, so I will reprocess the images. I will also post the raw images, probably today evening.
Best regards
Erik
-
Could be that the V system lenses are not up to par, but I can tell you that my Credo files processed in Capture One Pro are sharper than that with basic adjustments.
-
Well, since you asked very nicely... ;D
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3772/12869114085_3926418780_b.jpg)
Shot in the blazing hot equatorial sun at noontime, with a teeny weeny 400WS strobe and a speedlight. Unless the average Canon lens starts shipping with leaf shutter lenses, this isn't happening. (Yes, I know of ND filters. Tried them, hated them. At least not for me). Moot point anyway because I do not like the user experience of Canon bodies and if I don't like using something, I just won't use it.
All that aside, it's like what BC said in a post below. Choice of Camera gear is a very personal thing. It makes no sense to justify one's choice of gear beyond a certain point. Things get very silly, very fast.
I personally choose to shoot with MF for the user experience and the starting point that the files offer me. I enjoy this experience a lot more. During shooting AND in post production.
You've clearly had a very bad experience with MF and it's obvious you enjoy your 35mm experience a lot more and that's absolutely fine. But to extrapolate that experience to everyone shooting MF is rather silly.
Much like the list of photographers in the previous post who have moved from MF to 35mm, there's also a lit of photographers that did the opposite. I follow all of them as their styles inspire me. Names like David Hobby, Zack Arias, Frank Doorhof, Drew Gardner, Joey L and even local names like Wei Li and so on. They all have their (Very personal) reasons for it. Some published, some unpublished. I am pretty sure some of those reasons would make no sense to other people, but that's irrelevant.
As always, shoot with what you like. Numbers can only tell you so much.
p.s. Erik: Thanks for sharing this:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-4HBbv3q/0/XL/20091017-DSC05563-XL.jpg)
I am the first to admit that I get very impatient seeing a wall of text+charts and no pictures, but I am also the first to admire a beautiful photo. And this is definitely a very nice shot.
If I may suggest, please give DxO filmpack a try. It will make images like this really pop.
Synn,
I appreciate the names of the photographers who have added MFDB to their toolbox. I looked up all of them; Zack Arias, in particular, writes about his experience in a very detailed and extensive manner.
Very much worth reading. Expands the horizon.
Richard
-
Hi,
As I said, the difference is very visible with a 5.5X loupe on the prints, but not very visible without magnification. Also, DoF is much shallower in the MFD image (both were shot at f/11) so the DSLR image has much better appearance on first look as much more detail is in focus. Stopping down the Planar to f/22 would help with DoF but it would probably eliminate the sharpness advantage.
Did you try scanning your A2 size prints, as I did? Else how do you know?
Best regards
Erik
Could be that the V system lenses are not up to par, but I can tell you that my Credo files processed in Capture One Pro are sharper than that with basic adjustments.
-
Erik,
Most people aren't going to look at the print with a lupe, they are going to step back a bit and look at the whole thing with both eyes. If you can't see a difference when viewing the whole of both prints side by side, I'd be surprised, but if you don't that does not mean much to me. I can see a difference in images shot with my DSLR and my MFDB in prints 4 inches big as well as larger. It's not just sharpness but also overall look and feel. The MFDB images have more life to them, more depth, but these qualities you can not measure, you can only feel.
Also I know you have your own opinion, but I'm always wondering if something is amiss with your hasselblad system. Your images almost always look soft to me. I couldn't say but it's possible your focus screen is off calibration and you misfocus, or you have a bum set of lenses or something else. I just can't imagine you'd have such soft images even with those old zeiss lenses. Have you had your system checked out?
Some of these old Zeiss lenses were also offered on the Rolleiflex platform so I am familiar with them. I don't think the Rolleiflex ones were made to a higher quality than those that went onto Hasselblad but I guess that's one other potential explanation, though unlikely. The zeiss 120mm lens is a pretty good lens actually so I wonder about your shots. It's not as good at infinity as close up though.
Lastly, I know you have left C1 for LR, but I'm convinced you will get a better file from C1 v7 for at least the Phase P45 files.
-
Hi,
If you look at the print with a loupe the difference is huge. Looking at the file at pixel level the P45+/Planar combo is sharper and the file has about twice the numbers of pixels. So limitation is eyesight.
It is interesting to note that some of the respondants say that they see no or little difference at the print sizes discussed (17" on the short size) but all posters say the differences are obvious at larger sizes (say 22") and up.
There may be other factors than sharpness/resolution that you may observe in prints, like contrast, colour rendition, clarity.
I would also say that my observations are pretty close to the recommendation that 180 PPI is what you can observe in a print.
(Sources: Bruce Fraser, Jeff Shchewe, Bart van der Wolf and Tim Parkin)
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Most people aren't going to look at the print with a lupe, they are going to step back a bit and look at the whole thing with both eyes. If you can't see a difference when viewing the whole of both prints side by side, I'd be surprised, but if you don't that does not mean much to me. I can see a difference in images shot with my DSLR and my MFDB in prints 4 inches big as well as larger. It's not just sharpness but also overall look and feel. The MFDB images have more life to them, more depth, but these qualities you can not measure, you can only feel.
Also I know you have your own opinion, but I'm always wondering if something is amiss with your hasselblad system. Your images almost always look soft to me. I couldn't say but it's possible your focus screen is off calibration and you misfocus, or you have a bum set of lenses or something else. I just can't imagine you'd have such soft images even with those old zeiss lenses. Have you had your system checked out?
Some of these old Zeiss lenses were also offered on the Rolleiflex platform so I am familiar with them. I don't think the Rolleiflex ones were made to a higher quality than those that went onto Hasselblad but I guess that's one other potential explanation, though unlikely. The zeiss 120mm lens is a pretty good lens actually so I wonder about your shots. It's not as good at infinity as close up though.
Lastly, I know you have left C1 for LR, but I'm convinced you will get a better file from C1 v7 for at least the Phase P45 files.
-
There may be other factors than sharpness/resolution that you may observe in prints, like contrast, colour rendition, clarity.
I would also say that my observations are pretty close to the recommendation that 180 PPI is what you can observe in a print.
(Sources: Bruce Fraser, Jeff Shchewe, Bart van der Wolf and Tim Parkin)
Hi Erik,
As said earlier, and on other occasions, viewing distance (angular visual resolution) will set the limit on achievable resolution, unless the image itself lacks resolution. I always find it a sobering experience when viewing my Star target (100mm diameter at the outer edge) from a distance of a few metres. When increasing the viewing distance there will be a distance where we will no longer be able and discern any detail in the star, at which point it becomes simple to calculate our personal visual acuity for reasonably high contrast at that distance. It's always interesting to observe how gradual that limit is reached with increasing distance, there is no hard transition between in/out of visual resolution, exactly because the contrast reduces with detail size.
There are other factors to image quality besides pure resolution, e.g. MTF and Visual Contrast sensitivity (wrapped together in the SQF metric) where larger format sensors can have a benefit due to a larger on sensor magnification factor and thus MTF, but there is also some additional capacity that postprocessing can achieve. A plug-in like Topaz Labs Clarity will lift a veil of drabness from all images without adding halos, and that helps tonal contrast.
Whenever upsampling is involved, e.g. to meet the native printer resolution, an application like PhotoZoom Pro can really add resolution to existing image detail (edge detail remains/gets smaller than the magnification would produce). Also essential for the highest output quality is post up-sampling output sharpening. A plugin like Topaz Labs Detail allows to control the (micro-)contrast very well (in anticipation of additional media related losses further down the output chain), and it allows to use deconvolution sharpening to address any upsampling (and/or remaining capture) blur. Also adding some noise at that output magnification level, which will be invisible as noise at the intended viewing distance will help to suggest some detail where there isn't any, and it will smoothen gradients.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Erik K,
Without getting into this technical discussion, what I can say is this. The samples you post from the MFD are consistently soft; be it in this thread or the other. Therefore, there's a good chance that there's a dud element in your kit; be it hardware or software. If it's possible, do try using another Hasselbald V body and / or copies of lenses to see if there's any difference. I have seen files from 22MP backs that are sharper out of the box; which is why your samples are quite puzzling.
This is what Eric is saying too.
-
I while back I compared a 36Mp file with a 24MP file (a99 and a7r), both files RAW from imaging resources. On screen there was a very clear and obvious difference in resolution. Since printing is what I do with pictures, I printed both files, on 20x30 inch, which is my normal printing size. There was a difference, but disappointingly small.
From 24 to 36Mp is only a small step in linear resolution. I was curious in what is the room left for improvement, resolution wise, for my size of printing.
So yesterday I have set up an experiment that takes such a comparison to the extreme. I made picture with my nex-7 with a Touit 12mm f2.8 mounted (used at f5.6). This is an amazing lens and it also happens to be the one I use most of the time (I get better results with this combination as from my a99 with the 16-35mm f2.8 zoom at comparable length). I made the same picture again, but now as a stitch with my nex-7 and the e50mm f1.8 at f8. This file has a size of roughly 16 times 24Mp. 4 times the linear resolution. I reduced this file to 15000x10000 pixels, to make it more manageable. Using such a large amount of data not only improves resolution, but also dramatically reduces noise, increases DR etc. The subject for this exercise was a cityscape with a lot of fine detail. There was both housing with fine brickwork and all sort of plants in the scene.
On screen the differences was ridiculous. So much more detail, like comparing mf film with 8x10. Not only was there more resolution, but since I already reduced the resolution down to 150Mp, there where less artifacts. So even at 100%, the stitched file looked better.
Anyway, I printed both files, again on 20x30 inch. There is a very obvious difference in depth of field, should probably have stopped down the 50mm a bit more to f11 or 16. But I was after resolution, and f8 is already past optimum for the nex-7.
Apart from the depth of field, it depends on the distance you look from. At 50cm there is not much to choose between the two prints. There are some very subtle visual differences. At a viewing distance of say 20cm the differences become more clear. The larger file has a more natural look. everything looks 'easy', while at this distance the 24Mp file looks a bit strained at some places. and there is some more detail in the larger file.
I would not mind having a camera that would give a result like this every time, but the gain is modest. I showed some other people and the only thing they noticed was a small difference in lighting. This was a well lid subject and I did not do any post processing. The large file could handle almost anything you could do with it. The 24Mp aps-c file would break up much sooner. But still, it is amazing what an equalizer printing is. At this size. I could print the large file 100 inch wide and it would still look great at any distance. But I never print so large.
Printing was done with Qimage (handled the scaling and final sharpening for print) on an Epson 7800. This printer is probably not as sharp as the newer ones. Could make a difference when looking at 20cm.
-
Erik K,
Without getting into this technical discussion, what I can say is this. The samples you post from the MFD are consistently soft; be it in this thread or the other. Therefore, there's a good chance that there's a dud element in your kit; be it hardware or software. If it's possible, do try using another Hasselbald V body and / or copies of lenses to see if there's any difference. I have seen files from 22MP backs that are sharper out of the box; which is why your samples are quite puzzling.
This is what Eric is saying too.
I agree about the softness. However my P45+ was never really sharp. Detailed yes, subjectively super-sharp like the first Phase backs and digital Hasselblads I shot, no. I tried several P45+and various bodies, they were all like that; for my own portrait/fashion/street use it was ok since skin tone, material texture and color are what you need, not sharpness. At some point I got an original P45 value-added loaner and used it with my own body/lens - that was *very* sharp.
Frankly, I know everyone thinks Phase One are saints, but they are a commercial company - they will respond to their customers. It is possible that they needed to solve Moiré issues on textiles which were annoying fashion users, and did so by using a slightly diffusing mod. Remember that the time the competition were dSLRs with AA filters and half the pixels of a back. This competition did not suffer from Moiré, so there was detail to spare and an annoyance to lose. And older gen backs had much fewer pixels, so the new gen showed rez improvement over both the dSLRs and the older backs.
If you compare such a blurry device with a modern dSLR with no AA filter, then of course differences become harder to spot. Which is exactly what we are seeing,or more literally often ... not seeing :)
There is no earthly reason why moiré should suddenly disappear from backs "due to pixel size" if high frequency sharpness is maintained - sorry guys, I do know that much mathematics with certainty, just as I know that mostly everything I drop will either fall down or be shown to be propped up, very few things sit there and just float in the air :)
Edmund
-
There is no earthly reason why moiré should suddenly disappear "due to pixel size" if high frequency sharpness is maintained - sorry guys, I do know that much mathematics with certainty, just as I know that everything I drop will either fall down or be shown to be propped up.
Moire does not disappear, it's still there of course. I think it's more about usage statistics, for the most ugly moire to occur there should be patterns shot at a certain scale. With the 22 megapixel backs it seems to happen more often that objects important for the scene are pictured in a scale that cause moire. Fill factors (lower on the 22 megapixel sensor I think) and aperture combinations probably also take part in the general impression that 22 megapixel backs moire more often than even my 33 megapixel one.
-
Moire does not disappear, it's still there of course. I think it's more about usage statistics, for the most ugly moire to occur there should be patterns shot at a certain scale. With the 22 megapixel backs it seems to happen more often that objects important for the scene are pictured in a scale that cause moire. Fill factors (lower on the 22 megapixel sensor I think) and aperture combinations probably also take part in the general impression that 22 megapixel backs moire more often than even my 33 megapixel one.
Go and look at the "fat pixel" thread on getdpi. You'll see jump-out sharpness of the old backs, and the Moiré appearing on everything including natural rock faces. Which is to be expected as you're going to have a 1/f power spectrum in a lot of real world objects.
Edmund
-
Update: Raw images posted here (as DNG): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize2/RawImages/
Hi Synn,
Yes, I am aware of the softness issue. I don't really have a good explanation. Let's see:
- All my five Zeiss lenses being substandard? Not very probable.
- Bad focus, not very probable with the amount of colour aliasing I have.
- Vibrations during exposure? MLU, Central shutter and RRS Versa 33 without center column with Arca Swiss D4 should avoid that. Colour aliasing still applies.
But this are valid questions and that is the reason I included the test I have done involving the Pentax 645D images from Imaging Resource.
More probable explanations:
- I may have a bad sharpening workflow.
- Doug Peterson made it clear that the Zeiss lenses are not very sharp. But they are still sharp enough to induce quite a lot of colour aliasing.
- Edmund has indicated that he had several samples of the P45+ and all were significantly less sharp than a P45 he had.
All these factors combined may give subpar results. The sharpening workflow I can improve upon.
BUT, none of the factors explain that the P45+ print is significantly much sharper when viewed with a 5.5X loupe but there is little difference that can be seen by the naked eye. I had a colleague who has long experience working with the leading photographers in Sweden and he found that the there was no visual advantage to the P45+ print. The only reasonable explanation I can see is that the P45+ image is significantly sharper, but that the Sony SLT 99 image is sharp enough for an A2 print.
The actual images sent to the printer are shown below at 720PPI. This images have been uprezzed by Lightroom and sharpened for output. They are shown below. Sony Alpha on the left P45+ on the right.
The second image is a scan of the printed image at 100PPI (normal screen resolution), here the P45+ is on the left and the Sony Alpha 99 on the right.
Best regards
Erik
Erik K,
Without getting into this technical discussion, what I can say is this. The samples you post from the MFD are consistently soft; be it in this thread or the other. Therefore, there's a good chance that there's a dud element in your kit; be it hardware or software. If it's possible, do try using another Hasselbald V body and / or copies of lenses to see if there's any difference. I have seen files from 22MP backs that are sharper out of the box; which is why your samples are quite puzzling.
This is what Eric is saying too.
-
Erik,
You need to also review the prints by standing back and looking a the 'big picture' meaning the whole image like a typical viewer would do. Lupe and 100% view is fine, but most print viewers will not do this, and looking in a lupe for detail is only one tiny facet of an image, and for small 40cm prints much less important anyhow.
Take a step back and see if you can determine if one of the prints has more life, more depth, more presence, more real looking quality to it than the other. These qualities are more important than sheer detail, unless you are making maps or test charts anyhow.
-
I have posted the link before, but I have seen very sharp images made by the Bulb Exposures blog guy with the P45+ , which makes me think that there's something wrong with Erik's setup. I also recall seeing similarly sharp images from other users when the P45+ hit the market and the 1 hour plus exposures were all the rage.
p.s. The Bulb Exposures guy uses a Mamiya platform, so it might be down to the lenses. I am not certain.
-
Eric:
I downloaded one of the P45+ dng files and looked at it Lightroom 5.3. The dng had your original settings and all I did was decrease the detail slider (I believe you had it on 100%) and backed it off to around 50% and then added a bit more from the sharpening slider. I exported the image at 300dpi, which is what I do for everything I work with. (I will print from either PS or LR and most times will select 180 or 240 for the print output), On the P45+ image I would have picked 240 if I was going to make a print.
After export, I used Focus Magic to give the image a bit more sharpening to my like. I prefer this method and get very good results when printed with either my 9900 or 7800 Epson. I did not upgrez this image to anything larger than what the default image was at 300 dpi.
Net, your P45+ image looks great, the areas that were in the focus plane of the camera/lens are very very sharp. The growth rings on the cut tree to the left and the lichens on the center rocks all look very good. The overall image looks very good to me nice shadow detail and no noise to speak of. With the Hassi Zeiss lenses you are getting some great fine details. The other thing that caught my eye was the small ferns towards to the top, even though these were a bit past the focus point, they still resolved very well also, with detail extending into the individual fern fronds. Also the out of focus areas have an excellent transition, note the pine tree trunk on the right of the image. No smearing or increase in noise artifact, which I tended to get with my Mamiya 35mm AF or 28mm AF and the P45+
I attached a crop below from the center.
Paul C
-
For what it's worth, I processed the same file in Capture One Pro 7.2 (With no sharpening in Photoshop later) and it looked sharper there (than Paul's version) to me.
I am at work now, but I will post the finished file later when I am back home.
-
Are you using a wide aperture?
I've read some of your observations on the P45+ and just figured you were a real tough critic. I downloaded one of your dng's and think, now I understand why you are not wowed by the MFDB. It doesn't seem to have the snap of sharpness that I see in my P40+. I use my P40+ with a 503 CW and late vintage 50, 80, and 120mm Zeiss lenses and with a Cambo Wide DS and a Schneider 24,35,47 and a Rodenstock 55. The tech cam lenses are a step above the Hasselblad kit, but the Hasselblad with the Zeiss lenses still blow away my 5D3 and A7r (with Sony lenses) kits for technical quality. I rarely using anything but default sharpening on my images, they just don't need it and if I sharpen them they will simply be another in the modern style of over sharpened images. The major motivation for hauling out the MF equipment, for putting up with the expense and hassle is the native sharpness. Without that, we have much better options in smaller cameras.
Update: Raw images posted here (as DNG): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize2/RawImages/
Hi Synn,
Yes, I am aware of the softness issue. I don't really have a good explanation. Let's see:
- All my five Zeiss lenses being substandard? Not very probable.
- Bad focus, not very probable with the amount of colour aliasing I have.
- Vibrations during exposure? MLU, Central shutter and RRS Versa 33 without center column with Arca Swiss D4 should avoid that. Colour aliasing still applies.
But this are valid questions and that is the reason I included the test I have done involving the Pentax 645D images from Imaging Resource.
More probable explanations:
- I may have a bad sharpening workflow.
- Doug Peterson made it clear that the Zeiss lenses are not very sharp. But they are still sharp enough to induce quite a lot of colour aliasing.
- Edmund has indicated that he had several samples of the P45+ and all were significantly less sharp than a P45 he had.
All these factors combined may give subpar results. The sharpening workflow I can improve upon.
BUT, none of the factors explain that the P45+ print is significantly much sharper when viewed with a 5.5X loupe but there is little difference that can be seen by the naked eye. I had a colleague who has long experience working with the leading photographers in Sweden and he found that the there was no visual advantage to the P45+ print. The only reasonable explanation I can see is that the P45+ image is significantly sharper, but that the Sony SLT 99 image is sharp enough for an A2 print.
The actual images sent to the printer are shown below at 720PPI. This images have been uprezzed by Lightroom and sharpened for output. They are shown below. Sony Alpha on the left P45+ on the right.
The second image is a scan of the printed image at 100PPI (normal screen resolution), here the P45+ is on the left and the Sony Alpha 99 on the right.
Best regards
Erik
-
For what it's worth, I processed the same file in Capture One Pro 7.2 (With no sharpening in Photoshop later) and it looked sharper there (than Paul's version) to me.
I am at work now, but I will post the finished file later when I am back home.
Synn, I agree my crop looks a bit soft. Not sure what happened in the transform to jpg. The original seemed very sharp to me except for the areas that were not in the plane of focus.
Paul C
-
Synn, I agree my crop looks a bit soft. Not sure what happened in the transform to jpg. The original seemed very sharp to me except for the areas that were not in the plane of focus.
Paul C
Hi Paul,
It might be the forum upload engine applying a compression. Perhaps, you could try uploading to Flickr? My observation is that Flickr doesn't degrade image quality in any perceptible way.
-
Hi,
Thanks for taking time. I looked a bit at your suggested sharpening and it works better than mine. I have been playing around with Focus Magick, too. Back to sharpening school!
I also looked at the images in Capture One, and I see some clear advantages, worth discussing.
The main question on this thread is still if there is visible difference between a DSLR and an MFDB when printed in relatively small prints, like A2. Reasonably, the same sharpening or even better could be applied to the Sony Alpha 99 image, too.
This is very relevant for anyone printing small and cares about spendings. My test here is done with a 10-25 year old kit (except the back) that costs about 12K$, compared to one that costs something like 4k$, and it is a zoom vs. a prime that is a bit soft but highly regarded. Hartblei.de sells the same optical group for 4595€, something like 6k$. (Stefan says it is same optical group but round aperture and improved internal shielding, and also it works best at f/11 which I think was used here.)
Now, you can get 24MP kit with an excellent lens like the Sony A7 with the Sony 55/18 ZF lens for 2696$, that lens seems to be very good. It may be a better choice for small prints than a 12K used MFD kit if there is little difference at that print size, if economy matters. I guess that economy matters for most readers on these forums. (Regarding the A7r, I would not really consider it right now. I would rather wait a year or so for next generation but the A7 seems attractive). You can of course buy Canons, Nikons too, and Sigma seems to make some very good lenses at attractive prices.
For someone not caring about spendings and wanting the best I guess that a technical camera with Rodenstock HRs is the way to go, or may be even buying a drum scanner and working with 8x10" film.
Best regards
Erik
Eric:
I downloaded one of the P45+ dng files and looked at it Lightroom 5.3. The dng had your original settings and all I did was decrease the detail slider (I believe you had it on 100%) and backed it off to around 50% and then added a bit more from the sharpening slider. I exported the image at 300dpi, which is what I do for everything I work with. (I will print from either PS or LR and most times will select 180 or 240 for the print output), On the P45+ image I would have picked 240 if I was going to make a print.
After export, I used Focus Magic to give the image a bit more sharpening to my like. I prefer this method and get very good results when printed with either my 9900 or 7800 Epson. I did not upgrez this image to anything larger than what the default image was at 300 dpi.
Net, your P45+ image looks great, the areas that were in the focus plane of the camera/lens are very very sharp. The growth rings on the cut tree to the left and the lichens on the center rocks all look very good. The overall image looks very good to me nice shadow detail and no noise to speak of. With the Hassi Zeiss lenses you are getting some great fine details. The other thing that caught my eye was the small ferns towards to the top, even though these were a bit past the focus point, they still resolved very well also, with detail extending into the individual fern fronds. Also the out of focus areas have an excellent transition, note the pine tree trunk on the right of the image. No smearing or increase in noise artifact, which I tended to get with my Mamiya 35mm AF or 28mm AF and the P45+
I attached a crop below from the center.
Paul C
-
The main question on this thread is...
... whether your workflow is really appropriate to show meaningful differences. Paul showed you a much better processing of your capture and you might want to do the print comparison again. And while we're at it ... since you can't safe the very obvious advantage of the P45+ file into the print I doubt that your printing workflow is really appropriate to make generalized statements about the differences.
That said you can of course make great A2 prints out of 24MP files (also 18MP or even 10MP will do... depending on the subject, the desired look and the printing workflow).
-
Erik,
As mentioned earlier, I edited your P45+ RAW in C1P 7.2. Did some basic adjustments. Changed color profile to P45+ daylight, curve4 to film high contrast, Custom WB, did some highlight recovery, added a little bit of clarity and increased the sharpness a little.
A 100% crop of this is as below:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2821/12947974645_1caefd4245_o.jpg)
I took the file to Photoshop CC as 16 bit profoto RGB TIFFs and added 1 Pixel sharpening in Focus magic. A 100% crop is as below:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7456/12948379494_9a60638941_o.jpg)
The forum software resizes them. Just right click and choose "View image" to see them properly.
I echo Paul's sentiments. Your file, after being processed properly renders wonderfully. Colors really pop, the in-focus areas have tonnes of detail even before sharpening and the transition from in focus to out of focus is very buttery. Overall, you have a lovely frame there. I am convinced that there's nothing wrong with your hardware and that it's the post production that needs some sharpening. Pun intended.
If you want to get the most out of your P45+ files, I strongly suggest that you rethink your post production workflow, in terms of the tool used and also the steps involved.
The full size files can be downloaded here:
Unsharpened:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3668/12948198543_c255a83ed7_o.jpg
Sharpened in Focus Magic:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/12948029025_793088c959_o.jpg
p.s. I downloaded your A99 RAW too and tried to open it in C1P, but C1P won't recognize the file. This is another debate altogether, but I also suggest that you upload IIQs and ARWs and not DNGs on your site if you want other people to try things with your files.
However, judging from my experience with the D800, I can confidently say that you won't be able to sharpen the A99 files as much as the MF files before things start to look too "Digital" and artificial.
-
Hi,
Paul suggested a small modification and use of focus magic. I tried his settings and I will look into this.
Still,as I said before the P45+ advantage was very much visible in print using a 5X loupe, but not really visible with the naked eye. Eyesight may play a role here, of course. But I did consult a colleague and his findings were similar.
More work ahead…
Best regards
Erik
... whether your workflow is really appropriate to show meaningful differences. Paul showed you a much better processing of your capture and you might want to do the print comparison again. And while we're at it ... since you can't safe the very obvious advantage of the P45+ file into the print I doubt that your printing workflow is really appropriate to make generalized statements about the differences.
That said you can of course make great A2 prints out of 24MP files (also 18MP or even 10MP will do... depending on the subject, the desired look and the printing workflow).
-
Synn,
Thank you very much for your effort. I realize I get some unexpected learning experience from this which I appreciate very much.
It may take a day or two, until I reevaluate my position.
As a note, my perception of the day was that it was very, very green. A pretty dark winter day with heavy overcast very intensive dark green, no yellow at all.
Why do I always carry a grey card and never use it?!
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
As mentioned earlier, I edited your P45+ RAW in C1P 7.2. Did some basic adjustments. Changed color profile to P45+ daylight, curve4 to film high contrast, Custom WB, did some highlight recovery, added a little bit of clarity and increased the sharpness a little.
A 100% crop of this is as below:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2821/12947974645_1caefd4245_o.jpg)
I took the file to Photoshop CC as 16 bit profoto RGB TIFFs and added 1 Pixel sharpening in Focus magic. A 100% crop is as below:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7456/12948379494_9a60638941_o.jpg)
The forum software resizes them. Just right click and choose "View image" to see them properly.
I echo Paul's sentiments. Your file, after being processed properly renders wonderfully. Colors really pop, the in-focus areas have tonnes of detail even before sharpening and the transition from in focus to out of focus is very buttery. Overall, you have a lovely frame there. I am convinced that there's nothing wrong with your hardware and that it's the post production that needs some sharpening. Pun intended.
If you want to get the most out of your P45+ files, I strongly suggest that you rethink your post production workflow, in terms of the tool used and also the steps involved.
The full size files can be downloaded here:
Unsharpened:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3668/12948198543_c255a83ed7_o.jpg
Sharpened in Focus Magic:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/12948029025_793088c959_o.jpg
p.s. I downloaded your A99 RAW too and tried to open it in C1P, but C1P won't recognize the file. This is another debate altogether, but I also suggest that you upload IIQs and ARWs and not DNGs on your site if you want other people to try things with your files.
However, judging from my experience with the D800, I can confidently say that you won't be able to sharpen the A99 files as much as the MF files before things start to look too "Digital" and artificial.
-
Paul,
Thanks for your effort. Synn has also posted an improved image, I will check out as soon I can.
Synn says the P45+ image can take more sharpening before it breaks up, could explain some things.
I need to repeat the printing experiment to find out the differences show in small prints (like A2), I have little doubts the difference is significant at larger sizes.
Best regards
Erik
Eric:
I downloaded one of the P45+ dng files and looked at it Lightroom 5.3. The dng had your original settings and all I did was decrease the detail slider (I believe you had it on 100%) and backed it off to around 50% and then added a bit more from the sharpening slider. I exported the image at 300dpi, which is what I do for everything I work with. (I will print from either PS or LR and most times will select 180 or 240 for the print output), On the P45+ image I would have picked 240 if I was going to make a print.
After export, I used Focus Magic to give the image a bit more sharpening to my like. I prefer this method and get very good results when printed with either my 9900 or 7800 Epson. I did not upgrez this image to anything larger than what the default image was at 300 dpi.
Net, your P45+ image looks great, the areas that were in the focus plane of the camera/lens are very very sharp. The growth rings on the cut tree to the left and the lichens on the center rocks all look very good. The overall image looks very good to me nice shadow detail and no noise to speak of. With the Hassi Zeiss lenses you are getting some great fine details. The other thing that caught my eye was the small ferns towards to the top, even though these were a bit past the focus point, they still resolved very well also, with detail extending into the individual fern fronds. Also the out of focus areas have an excellent transition, note the pine tree trunk on the right of the image. No smearing or increase in noise artifact, which I tended to get with my Mamiya 35mm AF or 28mm AF and the P45+
I attached a crop below from the center.
Paul C
-
Heres a test, have a look at my new work page and tell me what was shot on a p65/contax or a canon 5dmk3. theres 4 shots done with the p65 there. i bet you you can't..
http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/
I disagree that there is less depth of field with a medium format. i can get a shallower depth of field with my 85 f1.2/50 f1.0 and even the 50 f1.2 than any of my fast contax lenses, including a hassy 110 f2. as my whole style is about shallow depth of field, and i test these things side by side regularly.
paul
-
Heres a test, have a look at my new work page and tell me what was shot on a p65/contax or a canon 5dmk3. theres 4 shots done with the p65 there. i bet you you can't..
http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/
I disagree that there is less depth of field with a medium format. i can get a shallower depth of field with my 85 f1.2/50 f1.0 and even the 50 f1.2 than any of my fast contax lenses, including a hassy 110 f2. as my whole style is about shallow depth of field, and i test these things side by side regularly.
paul
Awesome work! And you are right about shallow DOF. I can get shallower DoF with my 5D3 and 50 1.2L than with My Hasselblad H and 80mm f2.8 Lens. No question about it.
But I can dial down my strobes (w/ a soft box) down to about f2.8 max no problem at 4 feet without having to use ND and with the leaf shutter I can control daylight easier (again without having to use ND) so when using mixed light MF digital is more convenient for me. Obviously with ND filters one can make the 35mm camera work in similar situations.
What matters most to me is the way the OOF areas are rendered (Bokeh) when using a particular lens. That varies a lot. I love the look of cinema lenses in that regard, specially the Cooke S4/S5's and of course the Arri Master Primes. But all those are cost prohibitive for me even to rent. And being PL mount they require adapted bodies.
-
Heres a test, have a look at my new work page and tell me what was shot on a p65/contax or a canon 5dmk3. theres 4 shots done with the p65 there. i bet you you can't..
http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/
3 (the man showing the leather) and 12, 13, 14 (the middle age scenes)? But I am not sure about 23 (city) and 27 (car circuit) either.
I disagree that there is less depth of field with a medium format. i can get a shallower depth of field with my 85 f1.2/50 f1.0 and even the 50 f1.2 than any of my fast contax lenses, including a hassy 110 f2. as my whole style is about shallow depth of field, and i test these things side by side regularly.
Indeed. The shallowest depth of field can be had on 24x36 camera, because of the very fast lenses unique to this format.
-
Hi,
I also like the images a lot.
Aside from bokeh, do you have an idea if there is a visible difference between MFD and high end DSLR in print sizes up to A2/17"?
Best regards
Erik
Awesome work! And you are right about shallow DOF. I can get shallower DoF with my 5D3 and 50 1.2L than with My Hasselblad H and 80mm f2.8 Lens. No question about it.
But I can dial down my strobes (w/ a soft box) down to about f2.8 max no problem at 4 feet without having to use ND and with the leaf shutter I can control daylight easier (again without having to use ND) so when using mixed light MF digital is more convenient for me. Obviously with ND filters one can make the 35mm camera work in similar situations.
What matters most to me is the way the OOF areas are rendered (Bokeh) when using a particular lens. That varies a lot. I love the look of cinema lenses in that regard, specially the Cooke S4/S5's and of course the Arri Master Primes. But all those are cost prohibitive for me even to rent. And being PL mount they require adapted bodies.
-
Update: Raw images posted here (as DNG): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize2/RawImages/
I have been playing with the files as well. I agree that they may need a bit of sharpening, but I think that the problem lies somewhere else.
I think that the problem is the light. This is taken in a forest. The light in forests has a strong green cast. It has been my experience that MF cameras do not react positively to bad light. The effects are unpredictable and can include decreased sharpness. Here, the image does not look real, even when sharpened: the structure of wood, dead leaves and the granite stone look plasticy for example.
May I suggest that we try a different subject, taken under a more standard daylight?
Edit:
I suggest something more simple like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/12955758833/sizes/o/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/12955758833/sizes/o/) (warning: large image!). That picture is not very interesting, but the plants (nettles) on the front appear real to me and you probably can find nettles where you live for comparison. This is about the default treatment from Phocus, with a tiny bit of sharpening added.
-
Hi,
I may agree. Synn has posted an image, I still have to "swallow it". For me the subject was very low tone, but very, very saturated green with very little yellow. I am still looking at it, I don't know. In a way I feel that I don't want to sharpen over the edge. Where goes the line between under-sharpened and over-shapened?!
I don't really shoot test shots outdoors. What I do is essentially is to shoot for my pleasure. Some times, like here, I shoot with both cameras. Comparison stuff, that is something I shoot home.
You also asked about keeper/to shot rate. The way it is, I shoot differently with MF and DSLR. For instance I do some "street shooting" with the DSLR, and many of the images I like best are "street shoots" with the DSLR.
I looked at the "keepers" from July 2013. It was a wide mix of all cameras I have from RX 100 to P45. End of this year I will know more.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. What I find missing right now is long exposures, not very long but say in 1" to 60". Thinking about building a long exposure box. Two buttons, expose with and without delay and a wheel for exposure time. A solid metal box, permanently mounted to the camera. ;-)
I have been playing with the files as well. I agree that they may need a bit of sharpening, but I think that the problem lies somewhere else.
I think that the problem is the light. This is taken in a forest. The light in forests has a strong green cast. It has been my experience that MF cameras do not react positively to bad light. The effects are unpredictable and can include decreased sharpness. Here, the image does not look real, even when sharpened: the structure of wood, dead leaves and the granite stone look plasticy for example.
May I suggest that we try a different subject, taken under a more standard daylight?
-
MF can sometime have a painterly look to it all its own. I dodn't have a DB, but i have a couple of 40mp 645D's. Here is a comparison of sample photos taken with the Leica 35mm Film Camera - Kodak Easy Share 6mp PS -Epson RD1 6mp Rangefinder - Olympus PEN E-PM1 - Sony RX-100 20.2mp - Fuji X100 12mp - Fuji X-E1 16mp - Leica M240 24mp - Leica Monochrom 18mp - Pentax 645D 40mp
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/ (http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/)
(First section is SFW. Second section has some NSFW images.)
-
Hi,
I also like the images a lot.
Aside from bokeh, do you have an idea if there is a visible difference between MFD and high end DSLR in print sizes up to A2/17"?
Best regards
Erik
Again, If I compare almost every wide angle landscape scene that I have made with the Rodenstock 40mm HR and the IQ160 back to the best I have ever done with the Canon 5D3 the Answer is yes. Without a doubt if I look closely at the print. The larger the print the less close I have to be to tell the difference. Anything less than absolutely flawless technique and the best lenses on the DSLR and forget about it. My MFD rig blows it away even if I am not totally perfect using it. Also the MFD file prints are quite "crisp" even with zero sharpening. The DSLR files usually require careful sharpening. But a big difference that I constantly see in favor of the MFD files is the color gradations in skies. DSLR files break up very easily in post processing in that area.
Obviously, with amazing post processing a talented post person can make almost any file look awesome. But they can't make up detail that is not there in the original file unless they actually paint the stuff in.
It is my experience that to see a significant difference in resolution between two cameras, given equally good lenses and technique, you need to just about double the megapixel count. That is just my rule of thumb from using a bunch of digital cameras over the years. Nothing scientific.
-
I may agree. Synn has posted an image, I still have to "swallow it". For me the subject was very low tone, but very, very saturated green with very little yellow. I am still looking at it, I don't know. In a way I feel that I don't want to sharpen over the edge. Where goes the line between under-sharpened and over-shapened?!
Neither what you have done nor what Synn has done appears natural to me. Synn's result is more pleasing but looks artificial. It would make a nice print, though.
But we are not trying to print here, but to find out whether your camera and lenses work correctly. For that, I suggest trying a more standard subject.
-
It is my experience that to see a significant difference in resolution between two cameras, given equally good lenses and technique, you need to just about double the megapixel count. That is just my rule of thumb from using a bunch of digital cameras over the years. Nothing scientific.
This is my experience as well: double the count.
-
Hi,
The thread is actually about making a decently small print, like A2.
Paul and Synn seems to feel camera, lens and focusing is OK. Paul suggests slightly different sharpening. Both Synn and Paul suggest FocusMagick. I may feel I prefer less sharpening. I do have FocusMagick since a couple of years, but I feel it may go over the edge. Quite possible that less sharpening in LR5/CR/C1 and FocusMagick is better, but I prefer a parametric workflow and I prefer it very strongly.Ideological stuff, sanity not involved!
Best regards
Erik
Neither what you have done nor what Synn has done appears natural to me. Synn's result is more pleasing but looks artificial. It would make a nice print, though.
But we are not trying to print here, but to find out whether your camera and lenses work correctly. For that, I suggest trying a more standard subject.
-
The point of posting sharpened and non sharpened versions was to show that there's a lot more that can be done with erik's files than his conversions have shown so far. The point is also that when processed properly, prints from 39MP MFD files do look better than with a 24MP DSLR. Sharpness is only one part of the equation and this can be done to taste.
so is WB for that matter. Yellow grass or green, the points still stand.
Erik, all I hope to achieve with that demo is to make you open your eyes a bit and realize that MFD is capable of delivering much better results than what you have managed to get out of the files so far. Perhaps this will make you stop generalizing every possible scenario for comparing MFD and 35mm based on your suboptimal workflow. What I fail to understand is that you are interested in objective analysis, but when shown a better workflow, you stick to personal preferences that most certainly adds bias and user error to the equation. It's absolutely fine for an artist to say "I like to work this way even if it won't deliver the best results". But for someone who is painstakingly testing technical quality, that argument does not fly.
I do agree with Jerome though, the lighting in the scene is suboptimal. The solution is not to shoot a test chart, but just to shoot real life scenes in better light. It helps one develop as a photographer too.
-
+1
-
It's absolutely fine for an artist to say "I like to work this way even if it won't deliver the best results". But for someone who is painstakingly testing technical quality, that argument does not fly.
+1. At the end of day everybody should shoot what makes him happy and what inspires him and if that's a Sony then that is a Sony.
Why all these posts that don't prove anything? Sell the damned thing, make a trip with the $15K, take pictures with your Sony and be happy!!!
-
Hi,
There are two bits to it. One is that we may have different preferences on sharpening. I felt that yours is a bit over the edge. I have tested both your sharpening and Paul's. I am quite happy with Paul's settings in LR, but sharpening image in FM may go over the edge. FM can choose different settings, of course.
It's good to have found out that the deficiency Eric, Synn and Jerome and some others have found seems to be lack of sharpening. I can look more into that, a good learning experience.
The other point is that any improved sharpening I can also apply to the DSLR image, so the difference will still be small. I actually tested using Capture One this time but didn't go to print, as colour from the two cameras was much different in C1. In LR both cameras gave essentially identical colour, with the same WB. I guess it is due to my DCP profile for the P45+.
I would also make a point on "MP" both Ken R and Jerome makes the point that about twice the resolution is needed for a significant difference in print. It happened in this case as the DSLR was cropped down to 20MP and the P45+ image was stitched from two images and was 40 MP after cropping. The subject didn't fit within the FOV of the 120 lens and I could not move back.
Jerome and Synn say that bad light doesn't work well with MF. This was heavy overcast with very lush greens. I don't really like the idea of a camera that doesn't work in the forrest under overcast conditions. That is stuff I like to shoot! Jerome and Synn perhaps suggest acceptable light is light overcast with some hazed sunlight?
As I also said several times the prints are very similar when viewed with the naked eye, but a 5.5x loupe shows a very significant advantage for the P45+. So the differences are carried over to the print.
Eyesight is involved of course. Young eyes may see a difference although elderly may not. I have tested with a somewhat younger friend experienced in the area. I guess that you need experienced observers, as the DoF in the MF image is quite thin, making most parts of the image being sharper.
A bit of a side note, someone mentioned that a technical camera with the best wide angles doesn't need sharpening. I have seen that in Doug Peterson's library images. Those images were very sharp even without sharpening. Combination of very sharp lens and no OLP filtering. Really Right Stuff.
I absolutely agree with JV-s point. Shooting opportunities like travel are probably a better spending than a MFD equipment if printed reasonably small.
This is what I found.
I guess it's time for me to end this thread. I will not lock it, comments are welcome. But I feel the issue has been explored to enough depth.
Best regards
Erik
The point of posting sharpened and non sharpened versions was to show that there's a lot more that can be done with erik's files than his conversions have shown so far. The point is also that when processed properly, prints from 39MP MFD files do look better than with a 24MP DSLR. Sharpness is only one part of the equation and this can be done to taste.
so is WB for that matter. Yellow grass or green, the points still stand.
Erik, all I hope to achieve with that demo is to make you open your eyes a bit and realize that MFD is capable of delivering much better results than what you have managed to get out of the files so far. Perhaps this will make you stop generalizing every possible scenario for comparing MFD and 35mm based on your suboptimal workflow. What I fail to understand is that you are interested in objective analysis, but when shown a better workflow, you stick to personal preferences that most certainly adds bias and user error to the equation. It's absolutely fine for an artist to say "I like to work this way even if it won't deliver the best results". But for someone who is painstakingly testing technical quality, that argument does not fly.
I do agree with Jerome though, the lighting in the scene is suboptimal. The solution is not to shoot a test chart, but just to shoot real life scenes in better light. It helps one develop as a photographer too.
-
The other point is that any improved sharpening I can also apply to the DSLR image, so the difference will still be small.
You're still not reading what I am saying. The problem is not the sharpening. You can apply as much or as little as you want (Which is why I posted sharpened and unsharpened versions for your reference). Why are you talking as if the unsharpened version doesn't exist?
The problem is that your MFD workflow is flawed right from the start. You're using an inferior RAW processor, you're applying all the wrong settings in it and you're getting dud output. Which is not a problem by itself, but then you extrapolate that in every single thread saying that this is the best that can be achieved with MFD, ANY MFD by anyone; period. Which is just flat out wrong.
Jerome and Synn say that bad light doesn't work well with MF. This was heavy overcast with very lush greens. I don't really like the idea of a camera that doesn't work in the forrest under overcast conditions. That is stuff I like to shoot! Jerome and Synn perhaps suggest acceptable light is light overcast with some hazed sunlight?
This is also not what I said. I asked you to look for good light as a photographer to make pleasing images, which also happen to be good test images.
This isn't a forest, but it's a test scene I shot under overcast conditions and it happens to have quite a bit of greenery in it. I just processed it using a better workflow. (And please don't start the Kodak/ Dalsa thing again. Send me a Kodak sensor back and I will send back a similarly processed file).
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/12266936635_4b0b8f738b_k.jpg)
Cameras can be used under a variety of lighting conditions. MFD is no exception. It just so happens that no matter what camera you use, you get better results with better light. And understanding good light is an important part of being a photographer.
As I also said several times the prints are very similar when viewed with the naked eye
Again, prints made with your heavily flawed workflow. Why are you STILL not getting this? Doesn't matter how good the viewer's eyesight is; you're delivering a flawed product for him to view.
I guess it's time for me to end this thread. I will not lock it, comments are welcome. But I feel the issue has been explored to enough depth.
That's perfectly OK, but please don't start yet another thread comparing (for whatever reasons) images from two systems processed with flawed workflow that seriously negates the image quality advantage one has over the other. We can only point out these things to you so many times.
-
Just to make some points clear:
-I do not prefer images with more sharpening. I find the sharper image here unnatural. I even posted a picture of mine with what I consider more natural sharpness.
-the picture is actually nice. The light on the moss is nice. This is actually an image that you could print and hang on a wall. I am not saying that the light is bad, I am saying that the light is not adapted if one wants to judge sharpness at the pixel level
-we still do not know whether your camera, lenses and software work properly. I would still appreciate a simple picture of natural subjects (grass, nettles, stones) taken in flat daylight similar to the one I posted as example.
-
Hi,
Thanks, your points make sense.
Best regards
Erik
Just to make some points clear:
-I do not prefer images with more sharpening. I find the sharper image here unnatural. I even posted a picture of mine with what I consider more natural sharpness.
-the picture is actually nice. The light on the moss is nice. This is actually an image that you could print and hang on a wall. I am not saying that the light is bad, I am saying that the light is not adapted if one wants to judge sharpness at the pixel level
-we still do not know whether your camera, lenses and software work properly. I would still appreciate a simple picture of natural subjects (grass, nettles, stones) taken in flat daylight similar to the one I posted as example.
-
-we still do not know whether your camera, lenses and software work properly. I would still appreciate a simple picture of natural subjects (grass, nettles, stones) taken in flat daylight similar to the one I posted as example.
Hi Jerome,
I agree with the first part of your comment. However, while good natural subject rendering is the goal, I do not think that natural objects are good for isolating the issues. I think a few test shots of a Star target will give a much less ambiguous basis for analysis of the root causes(es).
I had a look at the Raw files that Erik posted, and had a very hard job achieving a good(!) looking sharpening that also holds up on enlargement. Horrible sharpening is easy, but natural sharpening was much harder. The results seem to lack real sharpness, but with aliasing added as a sort of compromise. Sharpening tends to 'enhance' the aliasing and stairstepping artifacts more than real sharpness. It's unclear to me whether the exposure time (and perhaps camera vibrations) is a cause, or the lens is not up to the challenge, or something else is spoiling a good party, but when I compare the almost razor sharp results from my 1Ds3 with AA-filter with what I see from Erik's camera+back, I'm disappointed in what the DB produces.
I also get much better demosaicing results from the same file with Capture One Pro, compared to ACR, allowing much more sharpening (e.g. with FocusMagic, or Topaz Labs Detail) before the image falls apart. Sharpening of Non-AA-filtered images is more difficult, but such images usually also require less sharpening, unlike Erik's images.
Color rendering and tonality are something that can be adjusted quite well in Capture One, but we know that Erik prefers the LR workflow.
I'd suggest a more methodical, objective, and quantifiable, analysis to isolate the Root causes before shooting all sorts of wind-blown variable lighting natural subjects, but that's just how I'd approach it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I thought the original subject was whether one would see a difference between a MFDB and a DSLR, in a 'small' print. it is possible to argue about all sort of subtle differences, that might be important to someone, but not to somebody else. Erik suggested to, when considering going to digital medium format, download some files and print this at a size that one would normally print on.
sound advice.
I am an engineer and that perhaps makes one a bit funny. I like to break problems down in simple sub-problems and look at each of those individuality. for me it seems that resolution is a important part of the likely differences (I am aware there is lot more).
I already described before how I had, for myself, made a comparison between an 24Mp file and one with four time the linear resolution, by means of making a multi row stitch with a lens of four times the focal length. but this is unnecessarily complicated. for just examining whether resolution makes a big difference, one could make a picture of ones normal subject, a landscape, whatever, with say a 50mm lens. using a tripod. after that shot, just replace the lens, without moving the camera, say with a 105 or 135mm lens. the idea is just to roughly double the focal length. as a next step, crop the result of the shorter fl to the same field of view. The same crop as obtained with the longer lens . one now has two identical pictures (i hope), with one having over double the linear resolution (four times the pixels). print them both at half the linear size of a 'normal' print (so 10x12, would be the size if one normal prints 20x24). And now just look if it makes a significant difference. if not, resolution of a digital mf camera is not going to make a significant difference. other things might.
-
so happens that no matter what camera you use, you get better results with better light. And understanding good light is an important part of being a photographer.
I usually find it more pleasing to watch portraits of interesting/pretty people than mundane people.
I don't think that an evaluation of camera capabilities needs to include pretty people, though. I take it that people with an interest in photography are able to make that connection themselves.
-h
-
I usually find it more pleasing to watch portraits of interesting/pretty people than mundane people.
I don't think that an evaluation of camera capabilities needs to include pretty people, though. I take it that people with an interest in photography are able to make that connection themselves.
-h
That does not negate my point, nor is it contrary.
-
3 (the man showing the leather) and 12, 13, 14 (the middle age scenes)? But I am not sure about 23 (city) and 27 (car circuit) either.
Indeed. The shallowest depth of field can be had on 24x36 camera, because of the very fast lenses unique to this format.
hi jerome, you got the slot car circuit correct.
the shots with red frames are the p65/contax.
i have to say that the p65 is a very good file, heaps of res and headroom with the highlights (although, bad in the darks). but the "look" isn't that distinctive imo.
i think the lenses give more of a difference of look than just a format.
paul
-
I thought the original subject was whether one would see a difference between a MFDB and a DSLR, in a 'small' print.
Hi Hans,
That's correct, but it is relatively obvious that either human visual acuity, or inherent image resolution after upsampling (less likely for a 'small' print), is the deciding factor. Besides that, there are more subtle (MTF related) differences, although many of those can be bridged by proper postprocessing.
I like to break problems down in simple sub-problems and look at each of those individuality. for me it seems that resolution is a important part of the likely differences (I am aware there is lot more).
Indeed, resolution as in sampling density is an important deciding factor.
For just examining whether resolution makes a big difference, one could make a picture of ones normal subject, a landscape, whatever, with say a 50mm lens. using a tripod. after that shot, just replace the lens, without moving the camera, say with a 105 or 135mm lens. the idea is just to roughly double the focal length. as a next step, crop the result of the shorter fl to the same field of view. The same crop as obtained with the longer lens . one now has two identical pictures (i hope), with one having over double the linear resolution (four times the pixels). print them both at half the linear size of a 'normal' print (so 10x12, would be the size if one normal prints 20x24). And now just look if it makes a significant difference. if not, resolution of a digital mf camera is not going to make a significant difference. other things might.
In principle that should work, if not for the introduction of several variables at the same time. Different lenses have different performance, and different focal lengths have different MTF for a given level of detail (cycles/mm), and different Depth of Field. Resampling the smaller sized version for output also introduces a variable, but that is maybe the most stable one for a straight comparison between larger and smaller sensel array sizes.
If it is only the number of pixels available for printing that one wants to compare, it's perhaps easier to compare a (several) down-sampled version(s) of the same image and print those at the same output size. Of course a very good down-sampling method should be used. However, the conclusion will probably be the same as the one I mentioned first, although good up-sampling may narrow the gap with real pixel content to a degree.
With specific image resolution (sampling density) out of the way, the rest of the platform induced differences will be of an optical and image magnification nature, and color rendering design choices.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Hans,
That's correct, but it is relatively obvious that either human visual acuity, or inherent image resolution after upsampling (less likely for a 'small' print), is the deciding factor. Besides that, there are more subtle (MTF related) differences, although many of those can be bridged by proper postprocessing.
Indeed, resolution as in sampling density is an important deciding factor.
In principle that should work, if not for the introduction of several variables at the same time. Different lenses have different performance, and different focal lengths have different MTF for a given level of detail (cycles/mm), and different Depth of Field. Resampling the smaller sized version for output also introduces a variable, but that is maybe the most stable one for a straight comparison between larger and smaller sensel array sizes.
If it is only the number of pixels available for printing that one wants to compare, it's perhaps easier to compare a (several) down-sampled version(s) of the same image and print those at the same output size. Of course a very good down-sampling method should be used. However, the conclusion will probably be the same as the one I mentioned first, although good up-sampling may narrow the gap with real pixel content to a degree.
With specific image resolution (sampling density) out of the way, the rest of the platform induced differences will be of an optical and image magnification nature, and color rendering design choices.
Cheers,
Bart
I agree the lens would play a role, but when the difference is as extreme as a factor of two or more in linear resolution, I would expect (assuming two decent lenses), this to be secondary. Indeed down sampling an existing file is also an option, although the down sampling will increase the pixel quality a lot (assuming a Bayer mask sensor). but in the end the idea would be to see of how much influence a big increase in resolution would have on the quality of the printed output, for a certain size. either method would do fine.
In my own experiment, with a stitched file to get the same field of view with four times the linear resolution, I was surprised how 'little' of this extra quality, so visible at 100% on screen, was visible in a 20x30 inch print. Although I must admit that the longer I look at both prints, the more visible the differences become. This is at close distance. Looking from a 'normal' viewing distance, there is little or nothing to differentiate the two print. My eyes are above average.
kind regards,
Hans
-
hi jerome, you got the slot car circuit correct.
the shots with red frames are the p65/contax.
i have to say that the p65 is a very good file, heaps of res and headroom with the highlights (although, bad in the darks). but the "look" isn't that distinctive imo.
i think the lenses give more of a difference of look than just a format.
Certainly it is the lenses and what I used as a guide were lens aberrations. Interestingly, it failed me. What camera/lens combination and aperture did you use for the leather (3) and middle age shoots?
-
I agree with the first part of your comment. However, while good natural subject rendering is the goal, I do not think that natural objects are good for isolating the issues. I think a few test shots of a Star target will give a much less ambiguous basis for analysis of the root causes(es).
Except that this subject is designed to ignore the effects of what we want to test:
-it is a flat subject, so we ignore all lens aberrations which arise outside of the plane of focus and these are a very important part of the "MF look" and even the effect of sharpening (sharpening influences the rendering of infocus to outfocus transitions on tridimensional subjects)
-it is a high-contrast monochrome subject, so we are in an ideal case for demosaicing and noise reduction. In my experience, grass is one of the most difficult subjects for post processing.
-
Hi Hans,
You are right about the original subject, and I feel that your suggestions make a lot of sense.
Best regards
Erik
I thought the original subject was whether one would see a difference between a MFDB and a DSLR, in a 'small' print. it is possible to argue about all sort of subtle differences, that might be important to someone, but not to somebody else. Erik suggested to, when considering going to digital medium format, download some files and print this at a size that one would normally print on.
sound advice.
I am an engineer and that perhaps makes one a bit funny. I like to break problems down in simple sub-problems and look at each of those individuality. for me it seems that resolution is a important part of the likely differences (I am aware there is lot more).
I already described before how I had, for myself, made a comparison between an 24Mp file and one with four time the linear resolution, by means of making a multi row stitch with a lens of four times the focal length. but this is unnecessarily complicated. for just examining whether resolution makes a big difference, one could make a picture of ones normal subject, a landscape, whatever, with say a 50mm lens. using a tripod. after that shot, just replace the lens, without moving the camera, say with a 105 or 135mm lens. the idea is just to roughly double the focal length. as a next step, crop the result of the shorter fl to the same field of view. The same crop as obtained with the longer lens . one now has two identical pictures (i hope), with one having over double the linear resolution (four times the pixels). print them both at half the linear size of a 'normal' print (so 10x12, would be the size if one normal prints 20x24). And now just look if it makes a significant difference. if not, resolution of a digital mf camera is not going to make a significant difference. other things might.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/12266936635_4b0b8f738b_k.jpg)
Synn - great image!
Is it a single image or part of a series? If so I'd love to see it.
Many thanks!
-
Synn - great image!
Is it a single image or part of a series? If so I'd love to see it.
Many thanks!
Hi Thomas,
Thanks, that's just my regular "Test shot scene" out of my window. :)
I use this frame as my test scene every time I get some new piece of camera gear. This was taken to test the Mamiya 35mm lens. Shot was made with a 3 stop Lee grad ND on the lens.
-
I mentioned months ago that there seemed to be a problem with the lens. If all the lenses are the same than the body must be badly adjusted.
I will donate a raw in overcast light to the discussion. It is part of a pano with not much meaning by itself (although quite pretty), so it can be out on the net. This is the type of mountain landscape with snow that Erik likes.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/ke2pce (http://www.sendspace.com/file/ke2pce)
The .nef is in a blue box. you should see the .nef extension when you hover your mouse. Ignore their ads.
In overcast there should be abundant D/R.
It should be sharp at 100% view. If your trees look much worse check your equipment.
-
that's just my regular "Test shot scene" out of my window. :)
;D however, it's interessting. The scene looks a bit artificial (the subject, not the photo) and this is why I like it.
-
I agree with the first part of your comment. However, while good natural subject rendering is the goal, I do not think that natural objects are good for isolating the issues. I think a few test shots of a Star target will give a much less ambiguous basis for analysis of the root causes(es).
Except that this subject is designed to ignore the effects of what we want to test:
-it is a flat subject, so we ignore all lens aberrations which arise outside of the plane of focus and these are a very important part of the "MF look" and even the effect of sharpening (sharpening influences the rendering of infocus to outfocus transitions on tridimensional subjects)
-it is a high-contrast monochrome subject, so we are in an ideal case for demosaicing and noise reduction. In my experience, grass is one of the most difficult subjects for post processing.
Hi Jerome,
I disagree. To ferret out potential lens issues, one should use a methodical test that eliminates as many variables as possible. So, a flat subject is preferred, it will show (when focused well) the maximum in achievable resolution. When that resolution is lacking, the rest becomes moot. When camera shake is detected, technique can be improved. When all corners, individually focused for the best resolution to eliminate field flatness and other lens aberration issues, show the same kind of resolution, then the lens is well centered, otherwise there is a lens decentering issue (not uncommon, especially with second hand lenses).
For all that, it is best to reduce the influence of the Raw converter, so a monochrome grayscale target is preferred. It also produces a nice test object to compare Raw converters with the same image.
When we have established that the lens is adequate, then we can grill the Raw converter and Capture sharpening workflow.
When all that is done, we can test the lens rendering quality in front or in the back of the focus plane, at various apertures. At least we have now established a solid correctly focused basis to compare with.
So we agree that real image performance is the ultimate goal, and that may lead to purchasing different lenses for their specific image qualities. But for a methodical test benchmark, problem solving, it's best to reduce the number of variables to those things that can be individually quantified and perhaps addressed.
Cheers
Bart
-
With 9 pages of discussion in this thread it must be getting pretty close.
-
http://www.sendspace.com/file/ke2pce (http://www.sendspace.com/file/ke2pce)
My computer says this file is infected.
-
Except that this subject is designed to ignore the effects of what we want to test:
-it is a flat subject, so we ignore all lens aberrations which arise outside of the plane of focus and these are a very important part of the "MF look" and even the effect of sharpening (sharpening influences the rendering of infocus to outfocus transitions on tridimensional subjects)
-it is a high-contrast monochrome subject, so we are in an ideal case for demosaicing and noise reduction. In my experience, grass is one of the most difficult subjects for post processing.
Hi Jerome,
I disagree. To ferret out potential lens issues, one should use a methodical test that eliminates as many variables as possible. So, a flat subject is preferred, it will show (when focused well) the maximum in achievable resolution. When that resolution is lacking, the rest becomes moot. When camera shake is detected, technique can be improved. When all corners, individually focused for the best resolution to eliminate field flatness and other lens aberration issues, show the same kind of resolution, then the lens is well centered, otherwise there is a lens decentering issue (not uncommon, especially with second hand lenses).
For all that, it is best to reduce the influence of the Raw converter, so a monochrome grayscale target is preferred. It also produces a nice test object to compare Raw converters with the same image.
When we have established that the lens is adequate, then we can grill the Raw converter and Capture sharpening workflow.
When all that is done, we can test the lens rendering quality in front or in the back of the focus plane, at various apertures. At least we have now established a solid correctly focused basis to compare with.
So we agree that real image performance is the ultimate goal, and that may lead to purchasing different lenses for their specific image qualities. But for a methodical test benchmark, problem solving, it's best to reduce the number of variables to those things that can be individually quantified and perhaps addressed.
Bart: if Erik takes a picture of plants and it looks generally as detailed as the one I posted, we can conclude that:
-the lenses work in a similar manner on flat and 3-d subjects
-the focus system works accurately enough for a real subject
-the post-processing works, even on difficult subject.
All these are the likely sources of problems. A single picture would then allow us to determine if we need further tests or not.
Besides, I am fairly confident that Erik has already taken enough pictures of test charts to wear them down.
-
Hi Jerome,
I agree with Bart on test charts being best tools to sort out lens issues. The lens used here is a macro lens designed for short distances, so testing it in an infinity like setting may not be a very good idea. In the context presented I feel the use of a macro lens doesn't distort the findings, because:
1) The main issue with the Planar is field curvature. The focal plane is curved but the lens will be sharp in the areas that have focus.
2) The lens compared with is a premium quality zoom, not a high end prime
The tripod is standing on soft ground. That is fact of life. I would say it matters little.
I actually shoot some other subjects than test charts, a small selection is here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=5
and here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=6
All those page include raw images, for anyone interested, so it is feasible to see weather the inferior results are due to lens, focusing or raw processing.
When the P45 arrived, our host Michael Reichmann tested it with friends Charlie Cramer and Bill Atkinson and they published a series with different test cameras. The crop below is from one of those test shots APO Sironar HM 100/5.6 at f/11 on the right and my 120/4 at f/8 to the left. Yes, I feel that APO Sironar wins, but I also feel the Planar 120/4 is not so far behind. Both images are processed similarly.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Jerome,
I disagree. To ferret out potential lens issues, one should use a methodical test that eliminates as many variables as possible. So, a flat subject is preferred, it will show (when focused well) the maximum in achievable resolution. When that resolution is lacking, the rest becomes moot. When camera shake is detected, technique can be improved. When all corners, individually focused for the best resolution to eliminate field flatness and other lens aberration issues, show the same kind of resolution, then the lens is well centered, otherwise there is a lens decentering issue (not uncommon, especially with second hand lenses).
For all that, it is best to reduce the influence of the Raw converter, so a monochrome grayscale target is preferred. It also produces a nice test object to compare Raw converters with the same image.
When we have established that the lens is adequate, then we can grill the Raw converter and Capture sharpening workflow.
When all that is done, we can test the lens rendering quality in front or in the back of the focus plane, at various apertures. At least we have now established a solid correctly focused basis to compare with.
So we agree that real image performance is the ultimate goal, and that may lead to purchasing different lenses for their specific image qualities. But for a methodical test benchmark, problem solving, it's best to reduce the number of variables to those things that can be individually quantified and perhaps addressed.
Bart: if Erik takes a picture of plants and it looks generally as detailed as the one I posted, we can conclude that:
-the lenses work in a similar manner on flat and 3-d subjects
-the focus system works accurately enough for a real subject
-the post-processing works, even on difficult subject.
All these are the likely sources of problems. A single picture would then allow us to determine if we need further tests or not.
Besides, I am fairly confident that Erik has already taken enough pictures of test charts to wear them down.
-
My computer says this file is infected.
Maybe their sendspace accelerator is infected, my file is not. I use 2 top rated AV programs to scan my PC. Webroot and bitdefender.
Uncheck their download accelerator box.
A nef is not an executable.
-
I agree with Bart on test charts being best tools to sort out lens issues.
But you don't know that it is a lens issue. I think it is not a lens issue.
I actually shoot some other subjects than test charts, a small selection is here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=5
and here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=6
I did not write that you only shoot test charts, just that you shoot lots of them ;)
-
Maybe their sendspace accelerator is infected, my file is not. I use 2 top rated AV programs to scan my PC. Webroot and bitdefender.
Uncheck their download accelerator box.
A nef is not an executable.
100% crop Sharpening off, Contrast by detail off.
-
1) The main issue with the Planar is field curvature. The focal plane is curved but the lens will be sharp in the areas that have focus.
I thought they called it Planar for a reason….
-
Actually, I am also pretty sure the lens is pretty OK.
Regarding test charts, I actually feel that they have a lot of advantages. Most test targets are designed to do one or two things at do it well. Also any experiment with test charts can be easily reproduced. That is in part the reason I use a one Dollar bill. It is widely available.
There is also an advantage with shooting some kind of setup, I can go back and reshoot easily.
Best regards
Erik
But you don't know that it is a lens issue. I think it is not a lens issue.
I did not write that you only shoot test charts, just that you shoot lots of them ;)
-
Hi,
The reason they call it Planar is that it is a double gauss design and the reason they call it Makro Planar is that it is corrected short focusing distances.
Zeiss call their double gauss lenses Planars. One problem with most designs is the field curvature varies with focusing distance. Building a lens that has flat field over a wide range of focusing distances needs a floating element design, that is a group of elements that moves with focusing (according to Hubert Gauss of Zeiss). Some of the Zeiss Distagons have an extra focusing ring for the floating element. Those lenses have FLE designation.
The Makro Planar is designed for close up work. The Zeiss spec sheet http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFi120.pdf shows the MTF curves for both close range (1:4 magnification) and infinity, see below.
Still the Makro Planar is usable for general photography, but it needs to be stopped to f/11 (or even f/16) to make sharp photographs of flat subjects. The lens will always be sharp at the point of focus, but shooting a brick wall is not a good way to test this lens.
If you want to learn more about field curvature here is a very nice article: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/5/field-curvature---a-practical-guide
Another interesting article is the one below Hubert Nasse of Zeiss, Makro lenses are discussed on pages 8-12
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/en_CLB_40_Nasse_Lens_Names_Planar.pdf
As a curiosity, the article by Hubert Nasse ends with a banknote shot, showing a portrait of Friedrich Gauss.
Best regards
Erik
I thought they called it Planar for a reason….
-
Actually, I am also pretty sure the lens is pretty OK.
From the examination of the file "Fischleinboden" at the bottom of that page: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=6 (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=6), I think that the problem is that your camera has lots of noise in dark areas. On the iiq, you will need to use it without noise reduction to see it (and that is not easy unless using a non-commercial derawtiser). On the jpeg, this translate to the dark areas looking mudded and unsharp from the noise reduction (under the pines and the wooden house).
-
Hi,
Thanks, I can check with RawDigger (I think), or DC-raw. I rutinely use RawDigger to check exposures, it is a learning experience.
But, I don't think is the issue in this case as the subject has not very high contrast and it was exposed pretty much to the right. I don't think focusing is an issue either, as the depth of focus is shallow, so it is just about to look for a place which is in focus. My hunch is that aliasing may be the root of the problem. There is a lot of colour aliasing, and that essentially means that the lens outresolves the sensor.
It is very visible in the included crops.
I actually don't know what the problem is, but I got the impression that Bart says that the image doesn't sharpen well.
I made a small experiment, the second example here, it is a central crop from the image developed in Capture One with default sharpening and Focus Magic (out of focus, auto detect) on a separate layer. The FM layer is mostly masked out except in the marked areas. The out of focus areas sharpen nicely in FM but the in focus areas just fall apart. This is pretty much what I have seen in Synn's sharpening. In real world sharpening I guess I would apply FM with more finesse.
It would be interesting to reshoot the image with f/16 which seems to eliminate most aliasing.
Best regards
Erik
From the examination of the file "Fischleinboden" at the bottom of that page: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=6 (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=6), I think that the problem is that your camera has lots of noise in dark areas. On the iiq, you will need to use it without noise reduction to see it (and that is not easy unless using a non-commercial derawtiser). On the jpeg, this translate to the dark areas looking mudded and unsharp from the noise reduction (under the pines and the wooden house).
-
Erik,
You get high marks for answering a question I didn't ask. But you missed my point completely. Hope you didn't spend to much time on it.
-
I almost thought we were making some progress with this thread, but it seems like we are back to square one.
Oh well, graph lovers rejoice!
-
From the examination of the file "Fischleinboden" at the bottom of that page...
I don't think focusing is an issue either, as the depth of focus is shallow, so it is just about to look for a place which is in focus. My hunch is that aliasing may be the root of the problem. There is a lot of colour aliasing, and that essentially means that the lens outresolves the sensor.
Are you talking about to the "Fischleinboden" image Jerome was referring to? IMO the image clearly shows front focus and I can't see any color aliasing either ...
It would be interesting to reshoot the image with f/16 which seems to eliminate most aliasing.
You can eliminate aliasing once and forever by shooting your Sony A99. Easy fix.
-
Hi
Your posting:
thought they called it Planar for a reason….
could be interpreted like you are not well informed on Planars and Makro Planars. What would your point be? If you think that Makro Planars (the MF lenses) have planar field than you are obviously wrong. If you are familiar with the lens, your statement is absolutely pointless.
The papers by Hubert Nasse on Zeiss lenses are an interesting read.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
You get high marks for answering a question I didn't ask. But you missed my point completely. Hope you didn't spend to much time on it.
-
Nope , the original image. Bart says it doesn't sharpen well. Not very clear why, but my understanding is he feels the image falls apart in sharpening.
Bart, like me noted significant colour aliasing in the image when processed in LR 5.3, that colour aliasing doesn't show up in C1, but my guess is that it is still around in it's monochrome form and can create fake detail.
The Sony A99 also has aliasing but OLP filter reduces colour aliasing. There is plenty of monochrome aliasing on the A99. I guess it takes around 3 my pixels to get rid of aliasing entirely at f/8. On the P45+ it takes f/16. With f/11 theres is plenty and at f/16 it is almost entirely gone.
Best regards
Erik
Are you talking about to the "Fischleinboden" image Jerome was referring to? IMO the image clearly shows front focus and I can't see any color aliasing either ...
You can eliminate aliasing once and forever by shooting your Sony A99. Easy fix.
-
The main issue with the Planar is field curvature. The focal plane is curved but the lens will be sharp in the areas that have focus.
Contax Planar 2.0/80 at f11 (on P45). Background = crop of the top left edge from the processed TIF which already includes distortion correction (so some degradation due to interpolation).
This is medium distance, but the lens performs the same at wide distances.
-
Nope , the original image.
so you've replied to Jerome without replying to him. Hmh...
Bart says it doesn't sharpen well. Not very clear why, but my understanding is he feels the image falls apart in sharpening.
maybe you can post the original IIQ file and not a damn DNG.
-
Nope , the original image. Bart says it doesn't sharpen well. Not very clear why, but my understanding is he feels the image falls apart in sharpening.
Hi Erik,
That's correct. Proper (deconvolution) sharpening procedures restore resolution, but they do require a reasonably close resembling PSF to do their blur reversal while retaining a natural/organic look.
No matter what I tried (so far) on the moss images, it didn't restore a natural looking transition from blur to sharpness. Part of the explanation may be that the aliased pixel sharpness dominates the blur to a degree that it becomes objectionably visible as block artifacts (stair-stepping) before real blur is even removed. Trying to completely (as far as present in the optical image, i.e. lens + sensor) restore sharpness will exaggerate the stairstepping artifacts too much.
So we seem to have a somewhat blurry optical image, and a sharper stair-stepping artifacting that prevents optimal deblurring in a single operation. Had the lens been sharper, there would be less of a difference between the inherent blur and the sharp artifacts, and less sharpening could lift the total image resolution without too much artifact 'enhancement'.
Maybe, but that needs to be tested further, there is sort of a solution possible in the sense of adding an additional very small radius blur before doing the deconvolution of the real larger radius lens blur. That very small radius blur would take the 'edge' of the stair-stepping and take that detail level down a bit, closer to the real lens blur. Then a subsequent deconvolution of the real lens blur will not exaggerate the stair-stepping as much, and real lens resolution can be restored more.
Bart, like me noted significant colour aliasing in the image when processed in LR 5.3, that colour aliasing doesn't show up in C1, but my guess is that it is still around in it's monochrome form and can create fake detail.
It's not just the false color artifacting (which is more Bayer CFA related, and usually repairs relatively well), but also a more subtle treatment of aliasing that was introduced with the Capture One 7 engine. I also noticed it in images with my 1Ds3 which, despite the AA-filter, is still capable of aliasing and stair-stepping, but less so with Capture One 7.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Something you may have missed that we are discussing the Zeiss 120 Makro Planar which is a entirely different lens. The Makro planar is intended for close range, but it works well at infinity if stopped down.
| Sonnar 150/4 | Makro Planar 120/4 |
| f/5.6 | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Lenses/Sonnar_150_4_aperture_series_corner_2.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Lenses/Planar_120_4_aperture_series_edge_2.jpg) |
| f/11 | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Lenses/Sonnar_150_4_aperture_series_corner_5.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Lenses/Planar_120_4_aperture_series_edge_5.jpg) |
The right column is the Makro Planar 120/4. At f/4 focus something like 20 meter in front of the building (visible on grass), these crops are from the right edge of the shot. As you see the lens Makro Planar sharpens up nicely at f/11.
If you look at Zeiss MTF data at infinity you see that edge MTF is very low:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Lenses/Planar_120_4_MTF_at_infinity.png)
But at close up range it improves significantly, because field curvature gets small:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Lenses/Planar_120:4_mtf_at_closeup_range.png)
Best regards
Erik
Contax Planar 2.0/80 at f11 (on P45). Background = crop of the top left edge from the processed TIF which already includes distortion correction (so some degradation due to interpolation).
This is medium distance, but the lens performs the same at wide distances.
-
maybe you can post the original IIQ file and not a damn DNG.
That would indeed remove yet another unknown influence from the equation. I'd like to try my hypothesis of very small radius pre-blur (to reduce extremely high spatial frequency stairstepping) on a straight C1 v7 conversion without sharpening and without noise reduction, but with linear response tonecurve. It would help to eliminate the potentially detrimental DNG conversion for now.
I'm not sure yet if a pre-blur of the order of 0.37 radius is optimal, and it could be interesting to also test Topaz Labs DeJPEG plugin, which allows to reduce JPEG blocking artifacts, maybe it also works on single pixel block boundaries. Also worthwhile may be to compare against Topaz Labs InFocus with its automatic PSF Estimation with edge smoothing, maybe it picks up the correct/mixed PSFs and allows to reduce the stairstepping from dominating.
I understand Sandeep's sentiments, but without a real effort, Erik will remain to have a somewhat unsatisfied feeling when he inspects his images (I know I would). Others may also learn something for their own benefit along the way ...
Once that is cleared up, we can do a true comparison between small prints, although that will still be limited by viewing distance and inherent (but now optimal) image resolution.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Getting a handle on stair-stepping suppression when sharpening may also help the images from other cameras without OLPF, such as Sigma Foveon designs, D800E, Sony A7r, Pentax K3, other MFDBs, etc...
-
Something you may have missed that we are discussing the Zeiss 120 Makro Planar
Contax Apo Makro Planar 4/120 at f8 (on P45).
Background = 100% crops from the processed TIF (including perspective correction/straightening... so again some degradation due to interpolation). Image was intentionally focussed to get the grass as soft as possible while getting the building as sharp as possible at the same time.
Note the moiré of the ventilator at the edge of the image. Again no field of curvature to speak of in practice.
-
Hi,
What you miss is the Contax Apo Makro Planar is a different lens. Among other things it has 8 lens element and the Hasselblad 120/4 Makro Planar has 6 elements. I also checked, the Apo Macro has floating element (FLE) design.
So know you are better informed. OK?
Actually, I have been told that all 120/4 lens groups were identical designs, but that is obviously wrong. Nice for you to have an excellent general purpose lens.
Best regards
Erik
http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/645/Apo-Makro-Planar4_120mm_e.pdf
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CFi120.pdf
Contax Apo Makro Planar 4/120 at f8 (on P45).
Background = 100% crops from the processed TIF (so again some degradation due to interpolation). Image was intentioanlly focussed to get the grass as soft as possible while getting the building as sharp as possible at the same time.
Note the moiré of the ventilator at the edge of the image. Again no field of curvature to speak of in practice.
-
Hi Bart,
The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize2/RawImages/
The DNG files actually contain bitwise binary copies of the raw images.
I much appreciate your efforts, and I must say I am very much interested about what you find out.
Best regards
Erik
That would indeed remove yet another unknown influence from the equation. I'd like to try my hypothesis of very small radius pre-blur (to reduce extremely high spatial frequency stairstepping) on a straight C1 v7 conversion without sharpening and without noise reduction, but with linear response tonecurve. It would help to eliminate the potentially detrimental DNG conversion for now.
I'm not sure yet if a pre-blur of the order of 0.37 radius is optimal, and it could be interesting to also test Topaz Labs DeJPEG plugin, which allows to reduce JPEG blocking artifacts, maybe it also works on single pixel block boundaries. Also worthwhile may be to compare against Topaz Labs InFocus with its automatic PSF Estimation with edge smoothing, maybe it picks up the correct/mixed PSFs and allows to reduce the stairstepping from dominating.
I understand Sandeep's sentiments, but without a real effort, Erik will remain to have a somewhat unsatisfied feeling when he inspects his images (I know I would). Others may also learn something for their own benefit along the way ...
Once that is cleared up, we can do a true comparison between small prints, although that will still be limited by viewing distance and inherent (but now optimal) image resolution.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Getting a handle on stair-stepping suppression when sharpening may also help the images from other cameras without OLPF, such as Sigma Foveon designs, D800E, Sony A7r, Pentax K3, other MFDBs, etc...
-
Hi,
Here are all images: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize2/RawImages/index.html
The DNG images contain a bitwise copy the raw image. But I have put the raw images on the server, too.
I was actually answering Jeremy. He suggested that the problem was noise in shadow detail, due to noisy sensor. I said I didn't think so and suggested that aliasing may be the cause.
Best regards
Erik
That would indeed remove yet another unknown influence from the equation. I'd like to try my hypothesis of very small radius pre-blur (to reduce extremely high spatial frequency stairstepping) on a straight C1 v7 conversion without sharpening and without noise reduction, but with linear response tonecurve. It would help to eliminate the potentially detrimental DNG conversion for now.
I'm not sure yet if a pre-blur of the order of 0.37 radius is optimal, and it could be interesting to also test Topaz Labs DeJPEG plugin, which allows to reduce JPEG blocking artifacts, maybe it also works on single pixel block boundaries. Also worthwhile may be to compare against Topaz Labs InFocus with its automatic PSF Estimation with edge smoothing, maybe it picks up the correct/mixed PSFs and allows to reduce the stairstepping from dominating.
I understand Sandeep's sentiments, but without a real effort, Erik will remain to have a somewhat unsatisfied feeling when he inspects his images (I know I would). Others may also learn something for their own benefit along the way ...
Once that is cleared up, we can do a true comparison between small prints, although that will still be limited by viewing distance and inherent (but now optimal) image resolution.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Getting a handle on stair-stepping suppression when sharpening may also help the images from other cameras without OLPF, such as Sigma Foveon designs, D800E, Sony A7r, Pentax K3, other MFDBs, etc...
-
What you miss is the Contax Apo Makro Planar is a different lens. (...) Nice for you to have an excellent general purpose lens
I know it is a different lens.
But I also know that we use pretty similar equipment (Hassy V & Zeiss lenses & P45+ / Contax645 & Zeiss lenses & P45). You have issues with focussing (you tend to shoot with front focus), moire, aliasing, exposure, sharpening, noise and other artifacts. You stop down until your captures get soft. You use DNGs and Lightroom (which definitely shows more aliasing and stronger halos with your P45+ files even without sharpening applied).
I do not have those issues. For me the workflow and especially the results are really satisfying. Back then it took me some time to get familiar with MFD and I also tuned my kit (shims, screens...) to work as supposed to. But finally I made it work for my purposes.
I think our completely different expierence with a very, very similar kit can not be explained by MTF charts and/or the number of lens elements in a certain lens.
For whatever reason... there is something simply not working well in your workflow. But instead of trying to get the best out of your kit you are doing questionable comparisions again and again. You are wasting your time... and your money. Shoot your A99 and be happy.
BTW: the ZCX Apo Makro Planar is not an excellent general purpose lens. It's somewhat weak at very long distances (but that's expected with a Makro). But field of curvature is certainly a non-issue in practice... it's a non-issue with all my ZCX lenses (even the Distagon 3.5/35).
-
I was actually answering Jeremy. He suggested that the problem was noise in shadow detail, due to noisy sensor. I said I didn't think so and suggested that aliasing may be the cause.
My name is Jérôme, not Jeremy. And I don't think that the effect is caused by colour aliasing or front focus. There is a bit of front focus, but not on the wooden house and it looks muted as well. The pines which are well lit also look sharper than the places which are in the shade, even when the first are further away than the second.
Why don't you use Capture One for your back?
-
Hi Jerome,
Sorry for the miss-spelling.
I don't really want to discuss about the "Fischleinboden" image. I wanted DoF from the flower in the front to the mountains in the back. it is shot at f/22, while I normally use f/11.
There are a couple of reasons I don't use C1 as those may mainly be ideological.
- I prefer DNG
- I like Lightroom
- I am very much opposed to the idea that if I buy a camera/back I would need to use the manufacturers software
On the practical side
- I have a mighty lock in with 70000 images in Lightroom and I want a single solution
- I am not really happy with some aspects of Capture One, but that may change
- I don't like the user interface
There are a couple of areas where I find C1 superior. Mainly aliasing related but also better handling of CA.
Best regards
Erik
My name is Jérôme, not Jeremy. And I don't think that the effect is caused by colour aliasing or front focus. There is a bit of front focus, but not on the wooden house and it looks muted as well. The pines which are well lit also look sharper than the places which are in the shade, even when the first are further away than the second.
Why don't you use Capture One for your back?
-
- I prefer DNG
- I like Lightroom
- I am very much opposed to the idea that if I buy a camera/back I would need to use the manufacturers software
On the practical side
- I have a mighty lock in with 70000 images in Lightroom and I want a single solution
- I am not really happy with some aspects of Capture One, but that may change
- I don't like the user interface
There are a couple of areas where I find C1 superior. Mainly aliasing related but also better handling of CA.
in other words: you don't care about image quality.
I wonder why you do all these comparisions when IQ is not what you are aiming at... I don't get it.
-
OK, you don't get it.
Best regards
Erik
in other words: you don't care about image quality.
I wonder why you do all these comparisions when IQ is not what you are aiming at... I don't get it.
-
None of us do.
You do every possible test under the sun for image quality, but you deliberately choose a workflow that delivers inferior quality.
Just sell that back, Erik.you and your bank account will be much happier. Trust me.
-
Hi,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, I am testing Capture One and I am also testing RawTherapy.
Best regards
Erik
None of us do.
You do every possible test under the sun for image quality, but you deliberately choose a workflow that delivers inferior quality.
Just sell that back, Erik.you and your bank account will be much happier. Trust me.
-
He suggested that the problem was noise in shadow detail, due to noisy sensor. I said I didn't think so and suggested that aliasing may be the cause.
I had a look at the "forest" CF044568.IIQ file with raw photo processor. That software may not be the best, but I trust it not to apply any noise reduction when I tell it not to. You may be right that most of the problem comes from aliasing. Noise, while present in the darkest part of the image may be a bit higher than the one from an H3D-31 of which I had some files laying around (and which is about of the same era), but does not seem to be a real problem. Aliasing, on the other hand, is visible on some objects, for example: the rocks.
I would still suggest to try Capture One. I know that it is inconvenient to be forced to use the manufacturer's software: I don't like to use Phocus myself, because I also have my images in something else. But I also know that Phocus gives better results on Hasselblad files than anything else I tried. Therefore I suppose that Capture One would make your Phase One back sing. The manufacturers invest enormous resources into optimising their software for their backs and third parties may not even know all their little secrets. I believe that using the manufacturer's software is part of the secret of getting the quality one pays for when buying these cameras.
-
Hi
Your posting:could be interpreted like you are not well informed on Planars and Makro Planars. What would your point be? If you think that Makro Planars (the MF lenses) have planar field than you are obviously wrong. If you are familiar with the lens, your statement is absolutely pointless.
The papers by Hubert Nasse on Zeiss lenses are an interesting read.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Thanks for the laugh! You are absolutely hilarious!
-
Hi Jerome,
The latest samples I have posted were processed using Capture One 7.2, the great news is that Bart van der Wolf sent me a preview on the processing he figured for the image, it is astonishing. It is fascinating to see what is possible and than to learn doing myself. A great learning experience! Bart hopefully shares his processing, but I think that C1 v7 processing was an essential first stage of his work and it involves multiple tools. I guess I need to change attitude towards C1 and other tools.
Anyway, thanks for your observations. They are most helpful. Lots of food for thought!
Best regards
Erik
I had a look at the "forest" CF044568.IIQ file with raw photo processor. That software may not be the best, but I trust it not to apply any noise reduction when I tell it not to. You may be right that most of the problem comes from aliasing. Noise, while present in the darkest part of the image may be a bit higher than the one from an H3D-31 of which I had some files laying around (and which is about of the same era), but does not seem to be a real problem. Aliasing, on the other hand, is visible on some objects, for example: the rocks.
I would still suggest to try Capture One. I know that it is inconvenient to be forced to use the manufacturer's software: I don't like to use Phocus myself, because I also have my images in something else. But I also know that Phocus gives better results on Hasselblad files than anything else I tried. Therefore I suppose that Capture One would make your Phase One back sing. The manufacturers invest enormous resources into optimising their software for their backs and third parties may not even know all their little secrets. I believe that using the manufacturer's software is part of the secret of getting the quality one pays for when buying these cameras.
-
You are most welcome Eric!
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Thanks for the laugh! You are absolutely hilarious!
-
Hi Bart,
The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize2/RawImages/
The DNG files actually contain bitwise binary copies of the raw images.
I much appreciate your efforts, and I must say I am very much interested about what you find out.
Hi Erik,
Thanks for making the original files available. I'll do a number of tests on them and I'll share the steps, so anyone interested can follow along. It may take a few posts due to attachment # limitations. My preliminary conclusion is that there is indeed a limit to the amount of detail this lens has to offer, but there is still a lot that can be utilized. The issues do involve aliasing, but I do not think that stopping down further is the best remedy if we can find a way to work around it and keep more MTF response at all lower spatial frequencies.
Okay, here's the first approach I liked better than some others. I started off with Capture One Pro, version 7.15. Since I was not familiar with the original scene, I had to guess to get some parameters in the ball-park, others may prefer a different starting point.
As the attachments show, I only did very minimal adjustments in C1 on image CF044568.IIQ, pulled exposure a tiny bit, and added a small amount of HDR recovery to add a bit of a smoother roll off to the linear tonecurve response. The White balance was a bit of a guess, because as usual under a leaf canopy everything takes on a green cast, and part of the image was in the shadow while part was lit directly.
I added no Clarity yet, but did add a minuscule bit of 'Structure' in an attempt to give a slightly more defined micro contrast basis to work on with sharpening, just enough to give something to work on, but not enough to cause problems. Less is more ...
Because the image was well exposed, and at ISO 50, I reduced all noise reduction to zero. I left the Detail control at its default average setting.
I exported the image with all sharpening disabled. The reason for the minimal adjustments is not that C1 is that inferior in its toolset, but it's just that the tools I am going to use to extract as much detail out of the image data are so much better than anything else has to offer (and I've torture tested many of them).
That was the basis I would work different strategies on with Photoshop as a command center, also because I needed a small trick to help avoid some issues that cannot be done with C1, LR, ACR, or other tools as easily.
To be continued...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Continued from reply #217
Attached you will find screen grabs at 300% (and therefore pixelated) of the Original unsharpened Raw conversion with CaptureOne Pro, and FocusMagic restored versions. The first screen grab shows that there is very little contrast in the finest details (even in Green), which suggests that the lens is struggling. Diffraction does not help, so it might be possible to improve that micro-detail contrast by using a wider aperture, but then obviously there will be less DOF, unless one resorts to focus stacking.
The first screen grab shows the result after using FocusMagic with a radius setting of 2, on a duplicate layer in Photoshop, because a smaller radius has less effect, and 3 creates ringing artifacts. A good method to achieve the optimum radius setting is to start with an overdone Amount setting of 300%, and then slowly increase the Radius. There will be an increasing effectiveness, until suddenly there will apprear 'fat' edges instead of sharper edges. That's the signal that one needs to step back 1 Radius unit.
Very sharp lenses can require a Radius of 1, and not more, but 1 or 2 are common values for detail in the plane of optimal focus.
The FM sharpened result looks too contrasty, and a bit blocky (part of which is because of the 300% screen zoom), but there are no obvious edge halos. That means that the Radius setting was indeed optimal. However, the image does not look very organic anymore, so it seems to be pushed too far (amount to high). But I did that for a reason, with the following modifications in mind.
The FM deblurring was done on a separate layer, because that allows to use two useful adjustments. The first adjustment is to turn the layer Blend If mode into the following basic settings (which can be tweaked for further refinement):
(http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/downloads/Non-clipped-sharpening.png)
This Blend-if setting is based on the following assumptions. When edge contrast is very high already, additional sharpening can cause clipping on images that span the full brightness range, and because the contrast is already high, more contrast is not really needed. Therefore we gradually reduce the increased edge contrast effect the closer we get to the extremes of edge contrast. We also use a Luminosity blending mode to reduce the risk of color shifts caused by the boosted contrast. This already takes away some of the initial harshness, and the start and end of the transition zones can be tweaked for even smoother or more sudden transition. The initial 127/128 switch is a good starting point, so I just used that for simplicity. It is also possible to use a Photoshop action to create a duplicate layer and set the layer blending mode and invoke FocusMagic with a single click to play the action.
The second screen grab attachment compares the straight FM deblur, with the Blend-if version, and I also added an 85% opacity to the layer to let some of the original smooth transitions to blend in. That opacity setting is also a matter of taste, and depends on the subject matter, so use you imagination.
The Blend-if layer also tends to reduce noise that may be accentuated by sharpening, although Focus Magic attempts to not boost noise as much as detail.
To be continued...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Continued from reply #218
The deblurred shot, while sharper at the detail level, can still be significantly improved visually. It currently lacks a lot of local contrast, for which I prefer to use Topaz Labs Clarity (http://www.topazlabs.com/clarity), because it produces no halos and avoids color shifts that are usually introduced with changes in brightness / contrast. Topaz Clarity produces much higher quality results than LR/ACR or C1 do, that's why I recommend to give it a serious look. It's like Clarity on steroids, and is IMHO an essential tool which seems to lift a veil of drabness from images and let them come to life, as if someone added another lightsource to accentuate surface structure.
I've added screen grabs that demonstrate the positive effect that Clarity also has on perceived sharpness. I also used its HSL controls to adjust saturation a bit, which produces more natural looking colors as I know them from where I live. This is of course also subject to personal taste, so feel free to make other choices. Many of these changes can also be applied only locally, with the built in masking functionality.
Additionally one can adjust how different sizes of detail are rendered. For that I prefer to use Topaz Labs Detail (http://www.topazlabs.com/detail/), another must-have tool to enhance our image quality. It is also very useful for Output sharpening, because it also allows to use deconvolution sharpening (might even be used as an alternative if one doesn't have Focus Magic), even after upsampling to native printer output size.
To be continued...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Continued from reply #219
And to round off my series of posts, I attached a 'before and after' finishing touch with Topaz Labs Detail.
The 'before' is the Clarified image, and the 'after' is the same after adding some Detail.
It's an example of how one could prepare for print on Matte paper, opening up the shadows a bit,
and adding some more definition to pre-compensate for ink diffusion.
Hope you've found it instructive.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Everyone,
I don't use a MF system, but have always lusted to try it. I may treat my self and rent a system for a weekend one day. One of the things that about MF that intrigues me is that you can get a wide field of view without using "wide angle" lenses. The look of having a wide field of view without the wide angle look (less compression, distortion etc) really appeals to me.
I didn't see that mentioned in the previous posts. Wouldn't that be evident in small prints? If not, all my lusting for MF may be in vain.
-
Hi,
Can you explain a bit more?
Best regards
Eik
Hi Everyone,
I don't use a MF system, but have always lusted to try it. I may treat my self and rent a system for a weekend one day. One of the things that about MF that intrigues me is that you can get a wide field of view without using "wide angle" lenses. The look of having a wide field of view without the wide angle look (less compression, distortion etc) really appeals to me.
I didn't see that mentioned in the previous posts. Wouldn't that be evident in small prints? If not, all my lusting for MF may be in vain.
-
I can try...
I use an APS-C sensor (Fuji S5pro). If I want to take a picture that encompasses some foreground elements and background elements, I'll be using a wide angle lens. For the example, let's say 14mm. The foreground elements will be very large relative to the background elements. It will look unlike what our eyes see.
If using a MF system, in order to frame the photo similarly, a 35mm (I think?) lens would be used. With the 35mm lens, the foreground and background elements will be more similar in relative size and the background will appear "closer" than the image taken using the APS-C sensor with 14mm lens.
One of the recent images that I've seen posted in the forums here is SailRonin's picture of a person in a red jacket walking in a snow covered forest "out for a walk". It was taken with an 80mm lens. As a result, there is a subtle, slight "telephoto" effect, yet there is a wide field of view (relative to an APS-C or 35mm sensor). To frame the image similarly with an APS-C camera, one would have to use a 35mm lens. The image would have a totally different look/feel.
Does the above help to explain the differences that I would expect to see, even in a small print? Maybe I over estimate the difference in the look/effect between the different sensor sizes and lens focal lengths.
-
Hi,
No I don't think so.
The angle of view is proportional to the size of the sensor. So, if you shoot with say 14 mm on APS-C you would need 21 mm on full frame (24x36) and 30 mm on 49x37 mm (the format of my P45+). Proportions and perspective would stay exactly the same. With the larger sensor you would need to stop down more for having the same depth of field.
It is very simple. If you don't move, perspective will not change. Proportions will not change. If you use a different lens, the angle of view would change but proportions would be the same.
Simple test. Shoot a picture from where you stand with a wide angle. Shoot the same subject with a telephoto lens. Crop the wide angle image to telephoto crop. The proportions will be the same, but its is probable that DoF on the tele shot will be shorter.
Best regards
Erik
I can try...
I use an APS-C sensor (Fuji S5pro). If I want to take a picture that encompasses some foreground elements and background elements, I'll be using a wide angle lens. For the example, let's say 14mm. The foreground elements will be very large relative to the background elements. It will look unlike what our eyes see.
If using a MF system, in order to frame the photo similarly, a 35mm (I think?) lens would be used. With the 35mm lens, the foreground and background elements will be more similar in relative size and the background will appear "closer" than the image taken using the APS-C sensor with 14mm lens.
One of the recent images that I've seen posted in the forums here is SailRonin's picture of a person in a red jacket walking in a snow covered forest "out for a walk". It was taken with an 80mm lens. As a result, there is a subtle, slight "telephoto" effect, yet there is a wide field of view (relative to an APS-C or 35mm sensor). To frame the image similarly with an APS-C camera, one would have to use a 35mm lens. The image would have a totally different look/feel.
Does the above help to explain the differences that I would expect to see, even in a small print? Maybe I over estimate the difference in the look/effect between the different sensor sizes and lens focal lengths.
-
I use an APS-C sensor (Fuji S5pro). If I want to take a picture that encompasses some foreground elements and background elements, I'll be using a wide angle lens. For the example, let's say 14mm. The foreground elements will be very large relative to the background elements. It will look unlike what our eyes see.
If using a MF system, in order to frame the photo similarly, a 35mm (I think?) lens would be used. With the 35mm lens, the foreground and background elements will be more similar in relative size and the background will appear "closer" than the image taken using the APS-C sensor with 14mm lens.
Hi Geoff,
As Erik said, the relative sizes of foreground and background object/subjects remains unchanged when the entrance pupil position is unchanged, regardless of focal length differences. The entrance pupil position is the only thing that determines projection perspective.
There is a perceived perspective issue when viewing output from the 'wrong' distance. Wide angle shots will have a stretched wide angle 'look' when viewed from relatively far away, farther away than the ratio of focal length to sensor size would dictate. But that has more to do with viewing distance than focal length in the case of comparing smaller or larger prints. Smaller prints are usually viewed from shorter distances, so you'll get the wide angle 'look' faster than from the same image printed larger and viewed from the same distance.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Everyone,
I don't use a MF system, but have always lusted to try it. I may treat my self and rent a system for a weekend one day. One of the things that about MF that intrigues me is that you can get a wide field of view without using "wide angle" lenses. The look of having a wide field of view without the wide angle look (less compression, distortion etc) really appeals to me.
I didn't see that mentioned in the previous posts. Wouldn't that be evident in small prints? If not, all my lusting for MF may be in vain.
I highly recommend that you rent a system and try it out first hand than depend on the internet for answers.
people have different preferences, not always aligned to your own.
-
Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful and informative posts. I guess I've been misinformed this whole time. I've spent some time trying to wrap my head around this new, to me, information.
Consider a tight head shot from a close working distance. If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera? If so, then I've been completely wrong in my view about some of the differences between different sized formats. If it's not true, then wouldn't some of these differences be evident, even in a small print?
There is so much good information on these boards. I've got even more to learn than I thought. Thanks again.
-
Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful and informative posts. I guess I've been misinformed this whole time. I've spent some time trying to wrap my head around this new, to me, information.
Consider a tight head shot from a close working distance. If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera? If so, then I've been completely wrong in my view about some of the differences between different sized formats. If it's not true, then wouldn't some of these differences be evident, even in a small print?
There is so much good information on these boards. I've got even more to learn than I thought. Thanks again.
Cropping from a 14mm on an APS-C will give you much less options for enlargement than using a 35mm on a medium format.
Also, optical aberrations on 135 format ultrawides tend to be higher than that of MF wide angle lenses (General case).
-
Hi,
I guess two pictures say more than two thousands words. Below are two awful portraits of me, doing my best to look like a crook, with my APS-C camera and 20 mm lens and 1.1X crop MF camera using 40 mm lens. APS-C is normally 24 mm wide and my P45+ sensor is 49 mm wide, so 40 mm corresponds almost exactly to 20 mm on APS-C. 40 mm is the widest I have on the P45+, so no comparison for 15 mm.
Both images shot at arms length from front of the lens, about 85 cm?
No artistic attempts. Both images coming straight from Capture One.
Left one is APS-C (Sony SLT 77 with 16-80/3.5-4.5 at 20 mm and f/10), right one is P45+ with Hasselblad Zeiss Distagon 40 at f/11.
Note: This is not a scientific experiment, just a quick and dirty demo. Doing an engineering grade test would take longer time.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful and informative posts. I guess I've been misinformed this whole time. I've spent some time trying to wrap my head around this new, to me, information.
Consider a tight head shot from a close working distance. If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera? If so, then I've been completely wrong in my view about some of the differences between different sized formats. If it's not true, then wouldn't some of these differences be evident, even in a small print?
There is so much good information on these boards. I've got even more to learn than I thought. Thanks again.
-
If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera? If so, then I've been completely wrong in my view about some of the differences between different sized formats. If it's not true, then wouldn't some of these differences be evident, even in a small print?
The internet abounds with claims about this or that formats benefits. Often, those claims are made without note of conditions, so they serve as little more than one random persons subjective impression while caring about something... For once, I agree with Synn, trying yourself is the right thing to do before spending.
My own understanding was significantly helped by the writeup below. Note that "equivalence" is not the same as "equalness". Once I got my head around that, I found the information to be concise, relevant and to the point for my photography:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
-h
-
Oh man! Those are some images I WON'T be printing! Not even small ones! ;D
-
Consider a tight head shot from a close working distance. If it's true that the projection perspective and, therefore, the "look" doesn't change, would that mean that a 35mm lens on a MF camera would be as unflattering to a person's face as a 14mm on an APS-C camera?
Hi Geoff,
When shot from the same position, they would both be equally unflattering, because the entrance pupils of the lenses are approx. at the same position, hence they produce the same perspective (relative size difference due to distance). The focal length and the sensor dimensions together will determine what field of view you can record.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Eric,
We all appreciate your insightful comments. Thanks for widening our understanding.
Best regards
Erik
Oh man! Those are some images I WON'T be printing! Not even small ones! ;D
-
Heres a test, have a look at my new work page and tell me what was shot on a p65/contax or a canon 5dmk3. theres 4 shots done with the p65 there. i bet you you can't..
http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/
I disagree that there is less depth of field with a medium format. i can get a shallower depth of field with my 85 f1.2/50 f1.0 and even the 50 f1.2 than any of my fast contax lenses, including a hassy 110 f2. as my whole style is about shallow depth of field, and i test these things side by side regularly.
paul
Lovely images BTW! I had to weed through heaps of uninteresting stuff to finally find your original post but it was worth it...
-
Hope you've found it instructive.
Yes, thank you.
-h
-
I am deeply impressed by Bart's efforts!
Best regards
Erik
Yes, thank you.
-h
-
Hi Eric,
We all appreciate your insightful comments. Thanks for widening our understanding.
Best regards
Erik
Ah! Well played, Mr. Kaffehr! and you're absolutely welcome!
A nice surprise to see you understood sarcasm.
-
ps. for me this discussion was over the moment I looked at my Imatest SQF results and saw 99's in most of the image areas at the print height in question, which according to the data should make the difference between the 90 from the DSLR sample you posted quite discernible as its greater than the 5% needed you had quoted. I already knew this from seeing my own prints, but I did post one of my Imatest charts on page 1 remember? That was all that needed to be shown so I felt the the OT question about whether a difference could be seen was completely settled to the affirmative - yes a difference can be seen even in small prints.
It seems like a lot of the rest of this thread was taken up with how to process a file properly, and to understand why your test images were not as good as they could be. Synn and Bart and others did a nice job on that and I had nothing to add.
-
Hi
What you may miss that both images may receive similar sharpening. I actually responded to that argument here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87650.msg714619#msg714619
The essence was:
- If you use same processing the SQF values will be pretty close (within 5%) for low end MF and high end DSLRs
- If you use use different processing you can get almost any SQF you want
I really appreciate the sharpening lesson by Bart. He made a good job of finding a strategy to sharpen my images and describe the technique in great detail while your essentially spent your time making sarcastic remarks. Bart's workflow can be helpful anyone. I will try to write it down and publish on my web site, with Bart's kind permission.
Anyway, I really learned a lot.
Best regards
Erik
ps. for me this discussion was over the moment I looked at my Imatest SQF results and saw 99's in most of the image areas at the print height in question, which according to the data should make the difference between the 90 from the DSLR sample you posted quite discernible as its greater than the 5% needed you had quoted. I already knew this from seeing my own prints, but I did post one of my Imatest charts on page 1 remember? That was all that needed to be shown so I felt the the OT question about whether a difference could be seen was completely settled to the affirmative - yes a difference can be seen even in small prints.
It seems like a lot of the rest of this thread was taken up with how to process a file properly, and to understand why your test images were not as good as they could be. Synn and Bart and others did a nice job on that and I had nothing to add.
-
My own understanding was significantly helped by the writeup below. Note that "equivalence" is not the same as "equalness". Once I got my head around that, I found the information to be concise, relevant and to the point for my photography:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Thanks for that link. A lucid essay which clears away at least some of the fog that surrounds these technical issues in my mind.
-
Bart, thank you for the lengthy tutorial on sharpening processes, software you have found optimal for particular situations/sharpening effects, and the details of applying these techniques in the particular image of Erik's that you were working with. I need to print out your responses, re-read, and re-read again to aid my understanding, make the Topaz people a little richer with some additions to my software collection, and then practice -- and practice some more. I truly feel that you graced us with a mini-tutorial that many of us would have been willing to travel and pay money to have the benefit of, and I thank you. --Barbara
-
Hi,
I am most thankful for Bart's effort. I asked for Bart's permission to publish it on my website, but it will take some time.
As a side note, I have used both Topaz InFocus and Focus Magic, but have not really find them useful. Bart's effort was a real eyeopener in this case. I have known Bart a long time, here on LuLa and he has always been very helpful.
Best regards
Erik
Bart, thank you for the lengthy tutorial on sharpening processes, software you have found optimal for particular situations/sharpening effects, and the details of applying these techniques in the particular image of Erik's that you were working with. I need to print out your responses, re-read, and re-read again to aid my understanding, make the Topaz people a little richer with some additions to my software collection, and then practice -- and practice some more. I truly feel that you graced us with a mini-tutorial that many of us would have been willing to travel and pay money to have the benefit of, and I thank you. --Barbara
-
I don't understand why Bart's "original raw conversion" is so soft. I never seen anything so soft coming out of a camera without low pass filter, even with no sharpening applied.
-
Bart, thank you for the lengthy tutorial on sharpening processes, software you have found optimal for particular situations/sharpening effects, and the details of applying these techniques in the particular image of Erik's that you were working with. I need to print out your responses, re-read, and re-read again to aid my understanding, make the Topaz people a little richer with some additions to my software collection, and then practice -- and practice some more. I truly feel that you graced us with a mini-tutorial that many of us would have been willing to travel and pay money to have the benefit of, and I thank you. --Barbara
Hi Barbara, thanks for the kind words. I'm just a satisfied user of the Topaz Labs products, and they are really innovative in some aspects. That's something we need, to keep progressing to better tools that will allow us to reach our creative intent with less effort. The tools I've mentioned are not perfect, and it's a pity we need several to achieve our goal, but they are amongst the best on the market.
I also have to repeat that Topaz Labs organize Webinars about their products, at the end of which they usually share a limited time coupon discount code for the specific product that was the focus of the webinar topic, or for their whole bundle when new versions of products are announced. So far, all updates and even upgrades to new versions have been free for existing users, so the investment over time is quite manageable for most people.
As to the mini-tutorial, I thought it was a better idea to show what I was talking about than just talk about it in general terms. I have skipped elaborating more about some alternative approaches that I've also tried before picking the IMHO best ones for the task at hand.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am most thankful for Bart's effort. I asked for Bart's permission to publish it on my website, but it will take some time.
As a side note, I have used both Topaz InFocus and Focus Magic, but have not really find them useful. Bart's effort was a real eyeopener in this case. I have known Bart a long time, here on LuLa and he has always been very helpful.
Hi Erik,
You're welcome. I'm a strong believer in sharing information to help others, it usually benefits all parties involved.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't understand why Bart's "original raw conversion" is so soft. I never seen anything so soft coming out of a camera without low pass filter, even with no sharpening applied.
Hi Jerome,
That's what was puzzling me as well, although it also allowed to show that there is still a lot that can be done to salvage the situation. However, I usually get better base material to work from, even with an OLP-Filtered sensor array, so there may still be an issue with the lens. To ferret out that aspect, which is beyond the topic of the thread, some more systematic testing is required (as I already said, a star target shot may help to determine the actual limiting resolution, but focusing on a flat subject must be close to perfect).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
I made a series of shots with the Planar 120 at 1 cm intervals it is 50x70 kappa board with five of your resolution targets, shot at 1 cm intervals.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/ForBart/Planar120_f8_series/
Here are some selected shots from the 2006 MFD shootout by Michael Reichmann, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer using different combos. Please don't redistribute. The copyright owners permitted pesonal use: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/ForBart/2006ShootOut/
There is a file called CaptureInfo.xml describing all combos. I just posted a selection of files. They have the extension TIF but they all raw.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Jerome,
That's what was puzzling me as well, although it also allowed to show that there is still a lot that can be done to salvage the situation. However, I usually get better base material to work from, even with an OLP-Filtered sensor array, so there may still be an issue with the lens. To ferret out that aspect, which is beyond the topic of the thread, some more systematic testing is required (as I already said, a star target shot may help to determine the actual limiting resolution, but focusing on a flat subject must be close to perfect).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I made a series of shots with the Planar 120 at 1 cm intervals it is 50x70 kappa board with five of your resolution targets, shot at 1 cm intervals.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/ForBart/Planar120_f8_series/
Hi Erik,
Of this series, CF044614.IIQ looks to have the best center focus, CF044613.IIQ is marginally less it seems. The series shows how much the blur diameter grows with just a few centimetres difference, resolution is affected easily by defocus. However, I have a question because the target(s) seem to be shot from too close-up to really stress the lens. I know that indoors with longer focal lengths is can be difficult to get enough distance.
Maybe I'm mistaken in my interpretation, but the target (star diameter) measures approx. 1224 pixels which, on a 6.8 micron pitch sensor, means that the maximum star diameter is 1224 x 0.0068mm = 8.3232 mm on sensor. The original target's star diameter, when printed at the indicated PPI, measures 100 mm. That means that the effective magnification factor was 0.083232, or approx. 1:12 . A magnification factor of 1:12 with a 120 mm lens means that the shooting distance was approx. 1.56 metres, or 13x the focal length. My recommendation is to use 25x to 50x focal length. That will reduce the influence of the print quality and stress the performance of any lens, and also produce a smaller target which is easier to post full size crops of.
Is my reconstruction of 1.56 metres shooting distance approximately correct? I'd prefer doing an analysis on something more critical, say 3 metres for a 120mm lens, just to minimize the influence of the print quality.
And could you tell me which aperture was used, that info is not recorded in the EXIF.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
I will redo it, no problem.
There was a couple of reasons I did it this way. I wanted to have your test charts in the corners, and this was the largest board I have found at home. The other was that the lens is optimized for short distances, at least according to those who make it.
Just to note, there is a newer version called CFi wh ich is much improved according to Zeiss. MTF curves are basically same, but Zeiss says the new lens has much higher contrast. I pressume they really say that flare levels are reduced.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
Of this series, CF044614.IIQ looks to have the best center focus, CF044614.IIQ is marginally less it seems. The series shows how much the blur diameter grows with just a few centimetres difference, resolution is affected easily by defocus. However, I have a question because the target(s) seem to be shot from too close-up to really stress the lens. I know that indoors with longer focal lengths is can be difficult to get enough distance.
Maybe I'm mistaken in my interpretation, but the target (star diameter) measures approx. 1224 pixels which, on a 6.8 micron pitch sensor, means that the maximum star diameter is 1224 x 0.0068mm = 8.3232 mm on sensor. The original target's star diameter, when printed at the indicated PPI, measures 100 mm. That means that the effective magnification factor was 0.083232, or approx. 1:12 . A magnification factor of 1:12 with a 120 mm lens means that the shooting distance was approx. 1.56 metres, or 13x the focal length. My recommendation is to use 25x to 50x focal length. That will reduce the influence of the print quality and stress the performance of any lens, and also produce a smaller target which is easier to post full size crops of.
Is my reconstruction of 1.56 metres shooting distance approximately correct? I'd prefer doing an analysis on something more critical, say 3 metres for a 120mm lens, just to minimize the influence of the print quality.
And could you tell me which aperture was used, that info is not recorded in the EXIF.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
I will redo it, no problem.
There was a couple of reasons I did it this way. I wanted to have your test charts in the corners, and this was the largest board I have found at home. The other was that the lens is optimized for short distances, at least according to those who make it.
Yes, I understand. What I usually do to determine the maximum performance of the corners, is shoot a single target positioned in a corner and individually focused one at a time. The reason is that 5 targets on a flat plane tell more about field curvature than optimum corner performance. Also, when the 4 corners are individually focused to the best possible resolution, then a well centered lens will give the same resolution in all 4 corners. When one or two corners on one side perform worse, then decentering is in play.
The difficulty with lenses optimized for the close up or macro range, is that the target needs to have even higher quality to out resolve the capabilities of the best lenses. An inkjet print at 600 or 720 PPI can 'resolve'/dither detail up to 1/23.6 or 1/28.3 of a millimeter (which will diffuse a bit depending on the paper coating). To make sure that a very good lens cannot possibly resolve that level of detail, we would need at most a magnification factor of say 1:10, or 1.32 metres with a 120mm lens, still not very close-up. Printed targets (not bi-tonal, but grayscale, such as sinusoidal) are a limiting factor for close-up testing.
That's also a bit too close to what you used if the lens is very good (which we want to establish as true or false). So if your lens is very good, it may be the (dithered) print quality that sets part of the apparent system resolution limit. Hence my recommendation for at least 25x focal length. When your lens is not perfect, which we suspect, then the current resolution limit of an approx. 104 pixel blur diameter, or 88% of Nyquist (64.8 cycles/mm out of 73.5 cycles/mm maximum for a 6.8 micron sensor), will not change very much with a more demanding target distance because it's mostly the lens that limits system performance. This would also suggest that you'd not be able to print as large as with a better system resolution for an identical visual resolution. Not a real drama, but still something like 12% can be considered a significant size difference.
Of course, diffraction continues to have it's influence, and a lens often has it's peak performance 1-2 stops narrower than wide open, which may be limiting for single shot DOF. Compromises, compromises, ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
[quote author=ErikKaffehr link=topic=87650.msg717378#msg717378 date=1394482648
The essence was:
- If you use same processing the SQF values will be pretty close (within 5%) for low end MF and high end DSLRs
- If you use use different processing you can get almost any SQF you want
Anyway, I really learned a lot.
[/quote]
Yes, I wrote that as well in the very beginning - that the outcome of the imatest results can vary depending on how the image is processed.
More importantly I also wrote that detail is but only one facet of a number of image qualities that can distinguish a Medium format image from a 35mm image.
There is also: Tonality, Color separation, Image compression effects due to different magnification levels, roll off from in focus to OOF areas… etc. All of these will affect the appearance of depth and lend a more palpable quality to even printed images which is what your original topic was about - if a person could see the differences.
Like so many of the these threads, most of the qualities of an image are thrown aside because they are hard to measure and compare and the discussion congeals around sharpness. But this leads to may false comparisons and discounts so many important aspects of an image - including the concept, idea, and composition which are paramount.
Much of what Bart wrote about processing images is very useful information and I thank him for that, though I admit that I haven't been able to get results from focus magic or topaz as easily as he does, nor do I have the time to handle batches of images in this way. Instead I use a two step process - initial sharpening in C1 with modest amounts of sharping and then a 2nd step in Lightroom with the detail slider set high and also modest amounts of sharpening. This seems to work well for me and fits into a workflow that can be easily handled in batches.
Erik, I am happy that you "learned a lot" and am thankful that Bart, Synn and others have been able to show you that both your images may be processed better and also that some are not focused well. I have been sending you personal messages about potential issues with your camera or handling for many months but you never seemed to notice. I hope that now you are aware of this you will revisit many of the 'report's and findings you have put forth to the world and see if you have not come to any wrong conclusions now that you know you can get better results with your MFDB.
-
Well,
Much of this discussion would not be needed if MF dealers like yourself posted carefully made comparison images available as raw files. Unfortunately this is seldom the case, and some of the cases I have seen the DSLR files from MF vendors they have been quite crappy.
Imaging Resource has posted good raw images shot with the Pentax 645D, and I used those files for my SQF calculations. Similarly I got some images from Diglloyd so I could compare Leica S2 with Nikon D3X, my findings on those images were published here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images, with kind permission of Mr. Lloyd Chambers.
So, my findings are not limited to my own shooting with my equipment.
Regarding sharpening, I feel it is perfectly OK to compare images with similar sharpening, using the same toolkit. It may be that Capture One is a better choice than my favorite tool Lightroom, but I would say that for a proper comparison an identical toolset is needed, with either identical or optimal settings. Establishing optimal settings can be difficult, so I feel identical settings are a better choice.
What I also stated, quite clearly, is that there is a very obvious difference between my prints using a 5.5X loupe, so much of the difference in image quality is carried over to print, just not or possibly barely visible in the print.
Quite a few posters have found that there was no significant difference in prints up to say 20" wide, which is pretty consistent with my observations. Some posters have other observations.
My recommendation is that anyone planning to buy an MFDB should either arrange a rental, or loan if possible. Or download high quality reference raw images that he/she can develop on his/her own. For a proper comparison proper comparison images are needed from existing equipment.
I have seen and used images from the following sources in forming my opinions:
- Marc Calmont: Phase One IQ 180 and Nikon D800E (and used his images with his kind permission)
- Tim Ashely: Phase one IQ 180 and Nikon D800E (and used his images with his kind permission)
- Tim Parkin: Published several comparisons between different cameras, supplied me with images from Phase One IQ180 and Nikon D800/D800E. Tim Also suggested that I look into MFD colour rendition.
- Lloyd Chambers: Nikon D3X and Leica S2.
- Chris Barret was nice enough to publish raw images from IQ 260 and Sony A7r
Some of the images were used as a basis for this article: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts which was reviewed by Tim Ashley, Tim Parkin and Marc McCalmont. All three reviewers felt the article was very good. I asked all contributors to read the article and suggest improvements.
So, I have quite a few sources who are experienced users of high end MF equipment.
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
[quote author=ErikKaffehr link=topic=87650.msg717378#msg717378 date=1394482648
The essence was:
- If you use same processing the SQF values will be pretty close (within 5%) for low end MF and high end DSLRs
- If you use use different processing you can get almost any SQF you want
Anyway, I really learned a lot.
Yes, I wrote that as well in the very beginning - that the outcome of the imatest results can vary depending on how the image is processed.
More importantly I also wrote that detail is but only one facet of a number of image qualities that can distinguish a Medium format image from a 35mm image.
There is also: Tonality, Color separation, Image compression effects due to different magnification levels, roll off from in focus to OOF areas… etc. All of these will affect the appearance of depth and lend a more palpable quality to even printed images which is what your original topic was about - if a person could see the differences.
Like so many of the these threads, most of the qualities of an image are thrown aside because they are hard to measure and compare and the discussion congeals around sharpness. But this leads to may false comparisons and discounts so many important aspects of an image - including the concept, idea, and composition which are paramount.
Much of what Bart wrote about processing images is very useful information and I thank him for that, though I admit that I haven't been able to get results from focus magic or topaz as easily as he does, nor do I have the time to handle batches of images in this way. Instead I use a two step process - initial sharpening in C1 with modest amounts of sharping and then a 2nd step in Lightroom with the detail slider set high and also modest amounts of sharpening. This seems to work well for me and fits into a workflow that can be easily handled in batches.
Erik, I am happy that you "learned a lot" and am thankful that Bart, Synn and others have been able to show you that both your images may be processed better and also that some are not focused well. I have been sending you personal messages about potential issues with your camera or handling for many months but you never seemed to notice. I hope that now you are aware of this you will revisit many of the 'report's and findings you have put forth to the world and see if you have not come to any wrong conclusions now that you know you can get better results with your MFDB.
-
Hi Bart,
I posted two series, shot at 3.9 m (measured from approximate sensor plane). The images were shot with 2-3 cm intervals. In the first series I used the Planar 120 at both full aperture using incandescent light and at f/8 using electronic flash. I found an asymmetry in the off axis targets and readjusted them to be within 1 cm measured from the lens and reshot a single image a 0 offset, marked unfortunately as 150/8.
I also added a series using my Sonnar 150/4 shot at f/8.
I used the split image wedge with the PM5 viewfinder and there was no visual difference on the wedge with the camera movement I had.
Regarding aprture, I shoot mostly f/11 if I can. I see some loss of resolution at f/11, but focusing in the field is not easy, so I rather add a tiny bit of DoF. On the Distagon 40/4 I feel there is a need to stop down to at least f/11 because it is my belief, based on Zeiss MTF data, that the lens has significant field curvature, with edges bending toward the camera. This can often yield sharp foreground. My interpretation of the Zeiss MTF data may of course be faulty, there may be other reason for the low MTF off axis.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, I understand. What I usually do to determine the maximum performance of the corners, is shoot a single target positioned in a corner and individually focused one at a time. The reason is that 5 targets on a flat plane tell more about field curvature than optimum corner performance. Also, when the 4 corners are individually focused to the best possible resolution, then a well centered lens will give the same resolution in all 4 corners. When one or two corners on one side perform worse, then decentering is in play.
The difficulty with lenses optimized for the close up or macro range, is that the target needs to have even higher quality to out resolve the capabilities of the best lenses. An inkjet print at 600 or 720 PPI can 'resolve'/dither detail up to 1/23.6 or 1/28.3 of a millimeter (which will diffuse a bit depending on the paper coating). To make sure that a very good lens cannot possibly resolve that level of detail, we would need at most a magnification factor of say 1:10, or 1.32 metres with a 120mm lens, still not very close-up. Printed targets (not bi-tonal, but grayscale, such as sinusoidal) are a limiting factor for close-up testing.
That's also a bit too close to what you used if the lens is very good (which we want to establish as true or false). So if your lens is very good, it may be the (dithered) print quality that sets part of the apparent system resolution limit. Hence my recommendation for at least 25x focal length. When your lens is not perfect, which we suspect, then the current resolution limit of an approx. 104 pixel blur diameter, or 88% of Nyquist (64.8 cycles/mm out of 73.5 cycles/mm maximum for a 6.8 micron sensor), will not change very much with a more demanding target distance because it's mostly the lens that limits system performance. This would also suggest that you'd not be able to print as large as with a better system resolution for an identical visual resolution. Not a real drama, but still something like 12% can be considered a significant size difference.
Of course, diffraction continues to have it's influence, and a lens often has it's peak performance 1-2 stops narrower than wide open, which may be limiting for single shot DOF. Compromises, compromises, ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Erik,
All of the images I won the 1st place (fine art) category in the Prix de la Photography Paris were taken with medium format, same with all the IPA merit awards. All of my images published in Black and White magazine were taken with medium format. In fact all of them were taken with one Rollei or another and a MFDB. It's because I loved the Rolleiflex system so much I became a dealer, but I remain very interested with my own art and image-making and still do some product, scientific, and art reproduction work - most of which I can't show or share freely.
I have posted very many images in various places, some in full res, and frequently correspond with friends and clients where we share images. Occasionally, I'll post some images here to LuLa as well with 100% crops when its necessary to explain something. I don't understand your constant requests for RAW images when you have your own MFDB system, and see them as purely self indulgent. Additionally, from what I have observed of your posts and how you have recently used a list of other people to put yourself higher, the probability for you to misunderstand or mis-represent me and my images is very high. I disdain the idea of you mushing around with one of my files when the only purpose is for you to "measurebate".
Much of this discussion would not be needed if MF dealers like yourself posted carefully made comparison images available as raw files. Unfortunately this is seldom the case, and some of the cases I have seen the DSLR files from MF vendors they have been quite crapp
So, I have quite a few sources who are experienced users of high end MF equipment.
-
Hi,
The reason I suggest raw files is simply disclosure. I am in no way suggesting that you present any of your award winning images as raws.
Regarding my sources, I just explain that my opinion is based on a wider selection of images than my own.
Best regards
Erik
I have posted very many images in various places, some in full res, and frequently correspond with friends and clients where we share images. Occasionally, I'll post some images here to LuLa as well with 100% crops when its necessary to explain something. I don't understand your constant requests for RAW images when you have your own MFDB system, and see them as purely self indulgent. Additionally, from what I have observed of your posts and how you have recently used a list of other people to put yourself higher, the probability for you to misunderstand or mis-represent me and my images is very high. I disdain the idea of you mushing around with one of my files when the only purpose is for you to "measurebate".
-
Hi,
The reason I suggest raw files is simply disclosure. I am in no way suggesting that you present any of your award winning images as raws.
Regarding my sources, I just explain that my opinion is based on a wider selection of images than my own.
Best regards
Erik
The dealers here have always been more than helpful to prospective customers and have provided them with raw files fitting their requirements. I am one such example.
There are several raw files available for download on the mamiyaleaf website and a few on phaseone's site (no test charts though, so you might be disappointed). How many raw files can you download from the canon, Nikon or Sony sites? Or from b&h or adorama, the biggest dealers of these brands?
Nobody owes you anything Erik, let alone raw files. The resources are always there for people with genuine needs. If you can't find what you want to pixel peep at 400% and measurebate, that's your problem, no one else's.
-
Hi,
I feel that if some post statements on a forum claiming the superiority of equipment he sells, it would be nice if he also would support his statements with images, and processed images say little about the starting point. Bart's processing of my image is a good example of that. I do post raw images mostly. I am not asking for raw images, I am sharing mines.
I don't see those images as piece of art, just as the most basic and correct information I can deliver.
But, yes I agree none has obligation to share images, it just seems to me that it is quite honest to do that.
Best regards
Erik
The dealers here have always been more than helpful to prospective customers and have provided them with raw files fitting their requirements. I am one such example.
There are several raw files available for download on the mamiyaleaf website and a few on phaseone's site (no test charts though, so you might be disappointed). How many raw files can you download from the canon, Nikon or Sony sites? Or from b&h or adorama, the biggest dealers of these brands?
Nobody owes you anything Erik, let alone raw files. The resources are always there for people with genuine needs. If you can't find what you want to pixel peep at 400% and measurebate, that's your problem, no one else's.
-
The superiority of equipment shines through when someone with superior taste, skill and technique uses it. Sharing raw files will do nothing for those who do not possess those qualities (files that are btw, available. Read my post again).
in simpler words, full access to Fernando Alonso's Ferrari won't make you drive like him. You actually would drive it slower than you do your Volvo. Incidentally,Alonso would drive your Volvo faster than you do too.
the question is, why are you not settling with the Volvo you clearly are comfortable with and are obsessing with the Ferrari you can't make head and tail of?
-
Hi Synn,
I actually drive a Toyota, and I actually can see the difference between a Volvo and Ferrari. But this thread is about visible differences between relatively small prints. I don't think so, presuming similar processing, on the samples I have seen. Larger print sizes, where resolution exceeds the resolution of the human eye, there is absolutely a difference.
You made a pretty neat test yourself, published on this thread on LuLa: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87158.0
If you print those images in size A2 (or smaller) and show to a few uninformed friends, can they tell the difference?
Best regards
Erik
The superiority of equipment shines through when someone with superior taste, skill and technique uses it. Sharing raw files will do nothing for those who do not possess those qualities (files that are btw, available. Read my post again).
in simpler words, full access to Fernando Alonso's Ferrari won't make you drive like him. You actually would drive it slower than you do your Volvo. Incidentally,Alonso would drive your Volvo faster than you do too.
the question is, why are you not settling with the Volvo you clearly are comfortable with and are obsessing with the Ferrari you can't make head and tail of?
-
The superiority of equipment shines through when someone with superior taste, skill and technique uses it. Sharing raw files will do nothing for those who do not possess those qualities
+1
Nice one Synn …. A truer statement can not be made.
And this may explain why so many people don't see the difference. I'm not sure I'd say MF takes more skill to use properly, because that probably isn't true, but it is different.
-
I asked you to look for good light as a photographer to make pleasing images, which also happen to be good test images.
...
It just so happens that no matter what camera you use, you get better results with better light.
I usually find it more pleasing to watch portraits of interesting/pretty people than mundane people.
I don't think that an evaluation of camera capabilities needs to include pretty people, though. I take it that people with an interest in photography are able to make that connection themselves.
-h
That does not negate my point, nor is it contrary.
(I have pasted quotes of the relevant parts of posts in good faith to represent the discussion as I see it.)
A skilled photographer ought to be able to see the qualities of a good camera even if the model is ugly or the light is boring. A less skilled photographer, on the other hand, might need "impressive" shots in order to appreciate the qualities of a camera.
-h
-
Surely a good camera, even if the model is ugly and the light boring, will assist the photographer to make the best of what is presented whilst a bad camera just adds to the problems faced.
This links to the "tool for the job" argument.
A similar question to the original has been posed on another forum :- "What does a DMF give in exchange for it's astronomical costs?"
These are mainly amateurs but with disposable income, up to now it is the old chestnuts, bit depth and lenses no one has yet said the camera/viewfinder.
-
What if you don't look through the viewfinder to make images?
I rarely use the viewfinder shooting still-life.
In answer to the OP. No I don't see a difference but then I don't shoot to print.
-
The superiority of equipment shines through when someone with superior taste, skill and technique uses it. Sharing raw files will do nothing for those who do not possess those qualities (files that are btw, available. Read my post again).
in simpler words, full access to Fernando Alonso's Ferrari won't make you drive like him. You actually would drive it slower than you do your Volvo. Incidentally,Alonso would drive your Volvo faster than you do too.
the question is, why are you not settling with the Volvo you clearly are comfortable with and are obsessing with the Ferrari you can't make head and tail of?
I find this smug and condescending comment directed to Erik Kaffer inappropriate for collegiality and good taste on the forum. Erik is a well respected forum member who has an engineering background and is an inveterate experimenter, and I have learned much from his posts and website and the discussion they engender. He brings scientific rigor to his analyses. One reason for requesting raw files is to minimize the variables that are inherent in rendered images (demosaicing, sharpening, noise reduction, etc.) Synn mocks Eric for wanting raw images, yet his own analysis of some of Erik's raw images demonstrate why raw images are necessary for proper evaluation.
Synn apparently considers him self to be a great artist who can get the most from his MFDB equipment. I've looked at his images on his web site and he does good work, but he is no Ansel Adams or Yousuf Karsh. I have seen similar quality work shown by talented amateurs at my local camera club. (I can't wait for him to challenge me to show my own images, but that is not the point. Does an art critic need to have painted on the level of Monet?)
The automobile comparison is in poor taste and implies that Erik doesn't know what he is doing. However, the comparison is appropriate in one way: a Ferrari is not a very practical car. It is temperamental, uncomfortable, and high maintenance as well as expensive. It does make a statement by rich car aficionados. The same qualities might also apply to MFDB setups. Artistic merit can be judged at relatively low resolution and one does not have to have MFDB setups to achieve artistic merit. Many of Ansel's iconic images are not all that sharp by modern standards.
Bill
-
I find this smug and condescending comment directed to Erik Kaffer inappropriate for collegiality and good taste on the forum.
+1
Not just this comment but quite a few others - and not just Synn. As a previous poster said 'civility has always been a feature of this forum' – shame that a few felt the need to disrespect that.
-
I find this smug and condescending comment directed to Erik Kaffer inappropriate for collegiality and good taste on the forum. Erik is a well respected forum member who has an engineering background and is an inveterate experimenter, and I have learned much from his posts and website and the discussion they engender. He brings scientific rigor to his analyses. One reason for requesting raw files is to minimize the variables that are inherent in rendered images (demosaicing, sharpening, noise reduction, etc.) Synn mocks Eric for wanting raw images, yet his own analysis of some of Erik's raw images demonstrate why raw images are necessary for proper evaluation.
Synn apparently considers him self to be a great artist who can get the most from his MFDB equipment. I've looked at his images on his web site and he does good work, but he is no Ansel Adams or Yousuf Karsh. I have seen similar quality work shown by talented amateurs at my local camera club. (I can't wait for him to challenge me to show my own images, but that is not the point. Does an art critic need to have painted on the level of Monet?)
The automobile comparison is in poor taste and implies that Erik doesn't know what he is doing. However, the comparison is appropriate in one way: a Ferrari is not a very practical car. It is temperamental, uncomfortable, and high maintenance as well as expensive. It does make a statement by rich car aficionados. The same qualities might also apply to MFDB setups. Artistic merit can be judged at relatively low resolution and one does not have to have MFDB setups to achieve artistic merit. Many of Ansel's iconic images are not all that sharp by modern standards.
Bill
It was clear when he presented the MFDB as a small soft image relative to the Nikon and Canon shots of the model. It was a con. Of course the overriding factor on large files downsampled to about 1MP is going to be the processing.
-
Hi Bill,
Your kind words are much appreciated.
Best regards
Erik
I find this smug and condescending comment directed to Erik Kaffer inappropriate for collegiality and good taste on the forum. Erik is a well respected forum member who has an engineering background and is an inveterate experimenter, and I have learned much from his posts and website and the discussion they engender. He brings scientific rigor to his analyses. One reason for requesting raw files is to minimize the variables that are inherent in rendered images (demosaicing, sharpening, noise reduction, etc.) Synn mocks Eric for wanting raw images, yet his own analysis of some of Erik's raw images demonstrate why raw images are necessary for proper evaluation.
Synn apparently considers him self to be a great artist who can get the most from his MFDB equipment. I've looked at his images on his web site and he does good work, but he is no Ansel Adams or Yousuf Karsh. I have seen similar quality work shown by talented amateurs at my local camera club. (I can't wait for him to challenge me to show my own images, but that is not the point. Does an art critic need to have painted on the level of Monet?)
The automobile comparison is in poor taste and implies that Erik doesn't know what he is doing. However, the comparison is appropriate in one way: a Ferrari is not a very practical car. It is temperamental, uncomfortable, and high maintenance as well as expensive. It does make a statement by rich car aficionados. The same qualities might also apply to MFDB setups. Artistic merit can be judged at relatively low resolution and one does not have to have MFDB setups to achieve artistic merit. Many of Ansel's iconic images are not all that sharp by modern standards.
Bill
-
i don´t understand this wars... 35mm vs DMF the mediums are so different.
I love DMF, but i dont use it for events i use my 35mm canon.
Just composing in big viewfinder 645 camera its a different experience, a joy.
DMF and 35mm are different like sport cars vs station wagons ??? its silly compare...
-
"It's not just that my equipment is better than yours - I am better than you". One of the low points to which DMF and other equipment discussions unfortunately sometimes descend. There are of course equivalents on the other side of the argument. "More money than sense". Those taking a dig at Eric K should remind themselves that this has particularly low credibility to forum regulars because Eric himself is always courteous and unfailingly plays the ball and not the man.
-
DMF and 35mm are different like sport cars vs station wagons ??? its silly compare...
That analogy works for me -- these days I am just enjoying my MFT motorbike.
-
Yes, they are different and not just in the files but in the work flow. Probably most MFDB users also have a DSLR and can choose which tool for the job. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of them also shoot film on occasion.
So many forums used to be filled with Mac vs. PC arguments and now we get the endless is the MFDB really better. I'll admit that I've been frustrated by these kinds of discussions because they invariably end with only a sharpness pixel peek, but I would still shoot MF even just for the viewfinder which I find useful for composition. None of the comparisons value composition so things like finders and ergonomics get overlooked. The look and feel of the different formats IS visible just as the different characteristics of individual lenses can be.
I have to stand up for Synn as I think he has been a valuable contributor to the forum, one who shoots with both formats and doesn't seem to have a bias and calls things as he sees them.
-
(I have to stand up for Synn as) I think he has been a valuable contributor to the forum, one who shoots with both formats and doesn't seem to have a bias and calls things as he sees them.
Absolutely - and clearly someone with real expertise. What is in question is simply one thing he wrote.
-
I have to stand up for Synn as I think he has been a valuable contributor to the forum, one who shoots with both formats and doesn't seem to have a bias and calls things as he sees them.
IF, you believe that , I really can't see on what basis you can attack Erik who has been all that and more. And no, it's not just Synn, it's you too. Some of your posts were not only condescending and patronising in the extreme but equally antagonistic and insulting. It's a reflection on Erik that he showed such restraint.
-
My problem is with people who claim to be scientifically inclined doing all sorts of tests with flawed methodology and then extrapolate those results as if this is what EVERY MF shooter who has ever shot with MF will achieve. Sorry, I disagree completely because my personal experience and anecdotal evidence from my peers say otherwise.
My problem is also with the implication that the norm is that people who look at A2 size prints from MF and 35mm cameras are looking at it with a 5x loupe at pixel level. Sorry, no one except a handful of people on this forum do that in real life.
People who look at my prints (Or Eric Hiss' prints as he explained) look at them at proper viewing distance and their impressions of the print are formed not only by the resolution, but also the color reproduction, micro and macro contrast, tonality, transition from in-focus to out of focus areas and many such factors. Several of which cannot be measured with graphs and charts. This is something the science brigade repeatedly fails to understand and as an artist who actually shows his prints to people, it's sort of infuriating to keep reading this sort of threads.
To answer a question from Erik; yes, I have shown 12x15 prints from 35mm and MF to several people in real life. All of them knew which were the MF pictures were and not one of them possessed a 5x loupe.
Lastly, one of the reasons many of us shoot MF (As I have explained 9535736 times before) has nothing to do with any of this. It's called user experience and there does not exist a single lab that can measure than and put it into numbers.
This is seriously the last post I want to make on this topic. Seriously, people. Go shoot with what you like. Good photographs can be made in the time that's being wasted on these comparisons.
-
IF, you believe that , I really can't see on what basis you can attack Erik who has been all that and more. And no, it's not just Synn, it's you too. Some of your posts were not only condescending and patronising in the extreme but equally antagonistic and insulting. It's a reflection on Erik that he showed such restraint.
Oh dear… having stayed out of this thread for reasons of discretion, well, forgive the intrusion. I agree with Synn's point that he raises above. The reason for the heated discussion is that someone is focusing on a part of the problem/project and there is a stubbornness in heeding the insights or advice of others. IMHO, there is photography (the art), then behind that is the technique to make the art (the practice), behind the technique is the equipment. The goal for me is the photograph, the rest of the process and equipment is in service to that goal.
We have had a long discussion (and a partial one at that) on one aspect of the process, and a flawed one at that (as has been pointed out several times). The question is a valid one, but the lack of resolution, or willingness to accept insights from others, has been exasperating. Sorry to offend, but there it is.
Like others, I recommend to the OP that he spend more time studying photographs by the masters, more time making prints, learning how to develop a critical stance and apply judgment to his own work. And then many of the questions raised will answer themselves. Its not that hard - make the prints, learn the discipline, study and do the work. Just like other fields.
-
Hi,
The question was very simple: "Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?".
It is a very simple question with two possible answers, either "yes" or "no".
Just to make it clear, "art" is not involved. The question is very easy to answer, two experiments that can easily be done:
1) Shoot a subject with an MFDB and a DSLR, put them trough same processing and print in your selected size. See if you can see the difference.
2) Assuming we compare 39MP and 24 MP as I did. Open the 39 MP image in PS and print it, downscale it to 78% and upsize to 128% and print it in the same format. Can you see a difference?
Minimal right brain activity. No creativity involved. If you cannot see a difference you just saved 10-20k.
If you are considering buying MF it is a bit of sanity check.
I don't understand why artist cannot answer a simple technical question. Some photographers did answer in a civilised manner. One stated he can seen advantages of Technical cameras with wide angles even in small prints. Some of the responses were negative. It seems that something like 20" and up is needed for a for significant visual difference. Some variation in responses some responses may have been 17" on short side and up.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
The question was very simple: "Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?".
It is a very simple question with two possible answers, either "yes" or "no".
umm... no.
This is exactly what we have been trying to tell you for ages now and something that you refuse to understand for some reason.
Your experiments and train of thought perfectly answers the question "Is it possible to make an MF file and a 35mm file look close enough that it's nearly impossible to tell them apart when printed in A2 size"? Your experiments answer it with a resounding "Yes".
However, in the real world, most prints are made by artists. Not test chart shooters. Lots of creativity involved. And those prints are judged based on a lot of factors which I listed in the previous post (I really dont want to type them out again). A person with good artistic vision and the right technical skills to support it can certainly create A2 MF prints of their creative vision that can be distinguished from a 35mm execution of the same.
Short version: The right person can make a small print from an MF camera stand out from a small print from a 35mm camera. Technical aspects such as resolution is only one part of why he is able to do so. There are so many creative variables involved that can and will change form frame to frame that will make this possible.
Now we can go around in circles for another 10 pages or you could try opening your eyes a bit. Go ahead and choose.
-
Hi Synn,
I appreciate that kind of answer.
Best regards
Erik
umm... no.
This is exactly what we have been trying to tell you for ages now and something that you refuse to understand for some reason.
Your experiments and train of thought perfectly answers the question "Is it possible to make an MF file and a 35mm file look close enough that it's nearly impossible to tell them apart when printed in A2 size"? Your experiments answer it with a resounding "Yes".
However, in the real world, most prints are made by artists. Not test chart shooters. Lots of creativity involved. And those prints are judged based on a lot of factors which I listed in the previous post (I really dont want to type them out again). A person with good artistic vision and the right technical skills to support it can certainly create A2 MF prints of their creative vision that can be distinguished from a 35mm execution of the same.
Short version: The right person can make a small print from an MF camera stand out from a small print from a 35mm camera. Technical aspects such as resolution is only one part of why he is able to do so. There are so many creative variables involved that can and will change form frame to frame that will make this possible.
Now we can go around in circles for another 10 pages or you could try opening your eyes a bit. Go ahead and choose.
-
Sorry to extend the conversation - but lets try. But try as we might, it depends on your standards, what you are shooting, and how you wish to judge. Some personal observation on this : I've been given the opportunity to try a Leica Monochrome. It has an 18mp CCD sensor, which is generally understood to be very much at the top of the smaller cameras, equal more or less to the top DSLRs (see Sean Reid's reviews for more on this). Its CCD sensor is used to only give BW information. I have not compared it to a D800 tho, but rather used it as a small camera and tried shooting very demanding architectural and landscape scenes. The local Leica dealer calls these scenes torture tests, so the gear gets a workout. The lenses used were the 21 SE, the 28 2.8 Asph, and a 50 'cron.
Up to about 13x19 inches, the MM results looks as good as MFDB (Leaf 33 mp). Everything is there and super crisp. The standard used is looking at a print for absolute detail at about 10" (25 cm) viewing distance. The prints are gorgeous.
When taken up to 17x22, things starts to change. Here's where its tricky: for the MM, if the lens is a really good one, the shooting technique is good, and full frame, the MM holds up reasonably well. If any of those factors slip, well, you can see it. If all is good, then the results are good, very good, but… you can see a difference between the MM and MFDB at this size. At first, its not so apparent, but put the prints side by side, and one is very very nice and the other just pops. When shooting landscape (leaves, very fine texture), for example, the difference is there and it is visible, not just to me, but to others. The MFDB simply renders at 17x22 with more detail. However, if the subject is more dramatic, then the difference between the two is less obvious - that is, it is still there, but it is not so apparent. So for me, 17x22 is the upper limit for the smaller camera to make really really, blow you away, crisp results. Again, this is with prints viewed at very close distances. If you made bigger prints, the viewing distance should increase as well, and its likely larger prints would still captivate, as many others have reported.
These results were generally confirmed in observation with friends. I think if you could see the prints you'd agree. Whether you think its a critical difference - well, now we are back to art….However, these results don't necessarily match what others have reported, who say they take MM prints up to larger sizes with great success. I believe the print is the ultimate way to judge, and haven't seen their work in person. Its possible they get better results. Perhaps their trade craft is better, or have better up-rezzing techniques (which I don't use). I use only modest sharpening (LR for the MM, C1 for the Leaf). Maybe C1 is better for the MM, I don't know.
Its also possible they may apply different standards. I'm looking for a very high level of definition, as if these were 4x5 film replacements. That's a ridiculous standard, but one which, with today's technology, is practically achievable, and happily so. Not to say these are the same as 4x5, but rather to give an overall sense of the standards being used.
Other DSLR's are likely to get different results than the MM.
Two other things - where the MM really shines over MFDB is in low light and high ISO. It can hold its quality levels at 2500 ISO very easily, something MFDB can't. So handholding, low light, and small size have their place. Also, the Leaf back is a 33mp back,a few years old. A higher resolution back would permit more cropping (and still hold the quality), or much larger prints with no loss of refinement. The 33mp back has its virtues, tho, especially for use with tech cameras, or at higher f-stops, as diffraction is not so pressing an issue for the 33mp back with its larger pixels.
Hope this helps.
-
I've used an MM (one of the better smaller cameras) to shoot very demanding architectural and landscape scenes, in high detail. The local Leica dealer calls these scenes torture tests, so the gear gets a workout.
Geoffrey,
A well reasoned post, but what is an MM camera?
Bill
-
He mentions the local Leica dealer so I read it as the Leica M Monochrome.
-
Like others, I recommend to the OP that he spend more time studying photographs by the masters, more time making prints, learning how to develop a critical stance and apply judgment to his own work. And then many of the questions raised will answer themselves. Its not that hard - make the prints, learn the discipline, study and do the work. Just like other fields.
I would agree that a critical stance is an important skill. People are seemingly quite irrational, and we will tend to defend our views, our profession, our purchasing habits etc. Being able to make a judgement on what matters to me and what I want to do can mean hours and money spent wisely vs not so wisely.
This discussion seems to head in a classic "objectivist" vs "subjectivist", "rationalist" vs "sensualist", "knowing" vs "believing", "engineer" vs "artist" debate. Such debates never have a happy ending where people shake hands or anyone ever changing their opinion.
-h
-
Hi,
The question was very simple: "Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?".
It is a very simple question with two possible answers, either "yes" or "no".
Just to make it clear, "art" is not involved. The question is very easy to answer, two experiments that can easily be done:
1) Shoot a subject with an MFDB and a DSLR, put them trough same processing and print in your selected size. See if you can see the difference.
2) Assuming we compare 39MP and 24 MP as I did. Open the 39 MP image in PS and print it, downscale it to 78% and upsize to 128% and print it in the same format. Can you see a difference?
Minimal right brain activity. No creativity involved. If you cannot see a difference you just saved 10-20k.
If you are considering buying MF it is a bit of sanity check.
I don't understand why artist cannot answer a simple technical question. Some photographers did answer in a civilised manner. One stated he can seen advantages of Technical cameras with wide angles even in small prints. Some of the responses were negative. It seems that something like 20" and up is needed for a for significant visual difference. Some variation in responses some responses may have been 17" on short side and up.
Best regards
Erik
It's not that simple.
The obvious answer is No. You probably will not a see a difference in small prints. Heck. In small prints it is probably hard to impossible to tell apart a 12MP file from a 5D from a 22MP from a 5D3.
BUT, yeah I know here comes the long explanation, There is another question. Would you see a difference in regards to what image quality aspect? Resolution? Color? In what type of shot? Subject? Yes, subject does matter. With what lens? Wide Angle? Macro? Heck, then again, if you need to get into really extensive details to find out then the difference (between the different MP cameras) in small prints is really minimal.
Given equals (subject, composition, distance to subject, light, Post-Processing to normalize any color differences etc) it is hard to spot a difference in small prints other than differences in regards to optics (lens used) and format (sensor size and pixel count) which will most evidently show themselves in different out of focus rendering (bokeh) and perceived "focus falloff" from the focus plane.
In respect to Erik. Someone with almost 7,000 posts has bound to have taken, and keep taking, a LOT of heat every once in a while. It's the nature of the forum biz. :D
-
Ken and Geoff,
Thanks for your observations. They are pretty much consistent with what I see. Little difference up to A2 (17" width) and more at larger sizes.
The reason I started the thread was this question: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87606.msg713822#msg713822 which I felt deserved a good answer.
I have learned a lot from the discussion, foremost from Bart van der Wolf's demo of advanced processing.
Best regards
Erik
It's not that simple.
The obvious answer is No. You probably will not a see a difference in small prints. Heck. In small prints it is probably hard to impossible to tell apart a 12MP file from a 5D from a 22MP from a 5D3.
BUT, yeah I know here comes the long explanation, There is another question. Would you see a difference in regards to what image quality aspect? Resolution? Color? In what type of shot? Subject? Yes, subject does matter. With what lens? Wide Angle? Macro? Heck, then again, if you need to get into really extensive details to find out then the difference (between the different MP cameras) in small prints is really minimal.
Given equals (subject, composition, distance to subject, light, Post-Processing to normalize any color differences etc) it is hard to spot a difference in small prints other than differences in regards to optics (lens used) and format (sensor size and pixel count) which will most evidently show themselves in different out of focus rendering (bokeh) and perceived "focus falloff" from the focus plane.
In respect to Erik. Someone with almost 7,000 posts has bound to have taken, and keep taking, a LOT of heat every once in a while. It's the nature of the forum biz. :D
-
However, in the real world, most prints are made by artists. Not test chart shooters. Lots of creativity involved. And those prints are judged based on a lot of factors which I listed in the previous post (I really dont want to type them out again). A person with good artistic vision and the right technical skills to support it can certainly create A2 MF prints of their creative vision that can be distinguished from a 35mm execution of the same.
Short version: The right person can make a small print from an MF camera stand out from a small print from a 35mm camera. Technical aspects such as resolution is only one part of why he is able to do so. There are so many creative variables involved that can and will change form frame to frame that will make this possible.
Actually, it is not that simple. You presented yourself some images taken with MF and 24x36 cameras for us to judge skin tones, and the public was not able to tell which was which. More recently, at page 8 of this thread, Paul Ross Jones asked us to find the 4 shots done with the P65 on his home page:
http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/ (http://paulrossjones.com/NEW-WORK/1/thumbs-caption/) and nobody managed. I was actually the only person to attempt the challenge and I failed.
-
Sorry to extend the conversation - but lets try. But try as we might, it depends on your standards, what you are shooting, and how you wish to judge. Some personal observation on this : I've been given the opportunity to try a Leica Monochrome. It has an 18mp CCD sensor, which is generally understood to be very much at the top of the smaller cameras, equal more or less to the top DSLRs (see Sean Reid's reviews for more on this). Its CCD sensor is used to only give BW information. I have not compared it to a D800 tho, but rather used it as a small camera and tried shooting very demanding architectural and landscape scenes. The local Leica dealer calls these scenes torture tests, so the gear gets a workout. The lenses used were the 21 SE, the 28 2.8 Asph, and a 50 'cron.
Up to about 13x19 inches, the MM results looks as good as MFDB (Leaf 33 mp). Everything is there and super crisp. The standard used is looking at a print for absolute detail at about 10" (25 cm) viewing distance. The prints are gorgeous.
When taken up to 17x22, things starts to change. Here's where its tricky: for the MM, if the lens is a really good one, the shooting technique is good, and full frame, the MM holds up reasonably well. If any of those factors slip, well, you can see it. If all is good, then the results are good, very good, but… you can see a difference between the MM and MFDB at this size. At first, its not so apparent, but put the prints side by side, and one is very very nice pops and the other pops. When shooting landscape (leaves, very fine texture), for example, the difference is there and it is visible, not just to me, but to others. The MFDB simply renders at 17x22 with more detail. However, if the subject is more dramatic, then the difference between the two is less obvious - that is, it is still there, but it is not so apparent. So for me, 17x22 is the upper limit for the smaller camera to make really really, blow you away, crisp results. Again, this is with prints viewed at very close distances. If you made bigger prints, the viewing distance should increase as well, and its likely larger prints would still captivate, as many others have reported.
These results were generally confirmed in observation with friends. I think if you could see the prints you'd agree. Whether you think its a critical difference - well, now we are back to art….However, these results don't necessarily match what others have reported, who say they take MM prints up to larger sizes with great success. I believe the print is the ultimate way to judge, and haven't seen their work in person. Its possible they get better results. Perhaps their trade craft is better, or have better up-rezzing techniques (which I don't use). I use only modest sharpening (LR for the MM, C1 for the Leaf). Maybe C1 is better for the MM, I don't know.
These are my observations as well. I call 13x19 "A3" and 17x22 "A2" and my experience with an A900 is that the resolution is sufficient for A2, but that I am limited in my choices of lenses and apertures if I want lens defects to be negligible. The A900 has roughly the same resolution as your Leica.
I'll take the example of landscape pictures. Basically, a camera of about 20-25 mpix can produce perfect A3 prints (13x19) and very nice A2 prints (17x22). For the next size up, A1 (which is twice as big… 22x34), I suppose I would need double the resolution.
The emphasis is on "can". And this is the main difference with medium format: with the A900 or the D800, I am very limited in my choices of lenses and apertures if I want to print that big. I need to play a bit with various software pieces to correct lenses defects (e.g. chromatic aberrations), get the sharpening right, etc… I need a heavy tripod, because the focal plane shutter induces vibrations at certain speeds. I need to calibrate AF precisely. etc…
With the H3D-50, I take any lens, any aperture, a light tripod and shoot. I enter the files into Phocus and only need to adjust the sharpness slider to taste, everything else is more or less automatic. Even the AF, with its single point, is well calibrated most of the times (it is still an occasional problem, but I am planning a new laptop to be able to shoot tethered). Not that I am saying that the H is perfect or better than any competition. I suppose that Phase One allows the same workflow, and I am quite aware that the camera is big, heavy, slow and more dependent on light quality.
The difference is not that one cannot produce a very nice picture with a 24x36 camera. The difference is that, with the highest resolution 24x36 camera, you will need to select your lenses amongst a very limited choice of, maybe, 4 to 8, and when everything works perfectly, you may be able, with the help of various software to produce a landscape picture which is sharp corner to corner when printed to A2. With the H3D-50, it is much easier and you get enough pixels to print to A1. And this is on a single criteria: sharpness. With the H, I also get cleaner bokeh, more pleasant skin tones and flash sync at any speed.
I also find the camera a joy to use, but that is just me… ;)
-
Hi Jerome,
I would agree with most of your observations. Most Sony lenses I have are weak in the corners.
Regarding taking pictures I have a small benefit as the Sony Alpha 99 is essentially vibration free, it has a fixed mirror, not causing vibrations and it also has electronic first curtain, so the only vibration arises when the second curtain closes. I normally use live at maximum magnification for focusing, and that is essentially exact.
I actually have some corner sharpness issues on Hasselblad V-series lenses, too, but they are all older designs (4 CF and 1 CFE). For instance, Zeiss says that the 120/4 CFi is markedly superior to the 120/4 CF I have. The Hasselblad H-series lenses are new designs. The lenses are designed by Hasselblad, but the optical assembly is manufactured by Fujinon in Japan. Just to make clear, Contax 645 lenses may have similar designations but at least some of them are very different design.
I enclose an actual pixel crop of the images I used for my initial test. The Sony image is here resized to same width the P45+ image has. Pixel peeping at actual the P45+ image is much better, but in my approximately A2 size print (half of the image printed on A4) neither I or my friend could see any difference. I looked at flower marked with red boxes with a 5.5X loupe on print and in enlargement the P45+ image was much better. I guess it is about limitation in vision, I am 58 and my friend is around 40, both near sighted (I have 20/20 vision with glasses). Another consideration is that both images are scaled to printer resolution and output sharpened by Lightroom. To that comes the printing process. (The images were here processed in Lightroom, they could have been much enhanced by Bart's process, but I guess that it would benefit both images nearly equally.)
Yes, I am astonished how small the visual difference is in print.
Best regards
Erik
These are my observations as well. I call 13x19 "A3" and 17x22 "A2" and my experience with an A900 is that the resolution is sufficient for A2, but that I am limited in my choices of lenses and apertures if I want lens defects to be negligible. The A900 has roughly the same resolution as your Leica.
I'll take the example of landscape pictures. Basically, a camera of about 20-25 mpix can produce perfect A3 prints (13x19) and very nice A2 prints (17x22). For the next size up, A1 (which is twice as big… 22x34), I suppose I would need double the resolution.
The emphasis is on "can". And this is the main difference with medium format: with the A900 or the D800, I am very limited in my choices of lenses and apertures if I want to print that big. I need to play a bit with various software pieces to correct lenses defects (e.g. chromatic aberrations), get the sharpening right, etc… I need a heavy tripod, because the focal plane shutter induces vibrations at certain speeds. I need to calibrate AF precisely. etc…
With the H3D-50, I take any lens, any aperture, a light tripod and shoot. I enter the files into Phocus and only need to adjust the sharpness slider to taste, everything else is more or less automatic. Even the AF, with its single point, is well calibrated most of the times (it is still an occasional problem, but I am planning a new laptop to be able to shoot tethered). Not that I am saying that the H is perfect or better than any competition. I suppose that Phase One allows the same workflow, and I am quite aware that the camera is big, heavy, slow and more dependent on light quality.
The difference is not that one cannot produce a very nice picture with a 24x36 camera. The difference is that, with the highest resolution 24x36 camera, you will need to select your lenses amongst a very limited choice of, maybe, 4 to 8, and when everything works perfectly, you may be able, with the help of various software to produce a landscape picture which is sharp corner to corner when printed to A2. With the H3D-50, it is much easier and you get enough pixels to print to A1. And this is on a single criteria: sharpness. With the H, I also get cleaner bokeh, more pleasant skin tones and flash sync at any speed.
I also find the camera a joy to use, but that is just me… ;)
-
Hi,
In a sense, I am not the OP, I got a question that I essentially passed on. I am in no way insecure in my observations, but I am a bit astonished how well DSLRs seem to keep up with MF in print and I wanted to get more observations on the issue.
I guess the main cause to ask this question is that the intention is to print small and asking if a major expenditure going to MF will have benefits with the print sizes in question. I don't think art has any relevance to the question. Great art is great art weather printed large or small. But it is a perfectly good question if you plan on spending say 20k$US.
Best regards
Erik
Like others, I recommend to the OP that he spend more time studying photographs by the masters, more time making prints, learning how to develop a critical stance and apply judgment to his own work. And then many of the questions raised will answer themselves. Its not that hard - make the prints, learn the discipline, study and do the work. Just like other fields.
-
I actually have some corner sharpness issues on Hasselblad lenses, too, but they are all older designs (4 CF and 1 CFE). For instance, Zeiss says that the 120/4 CFi is markedly superior to the 120/4 CF I have.
The Hasselblad lenses for the H series are completely different to the lenses for the V series. They are recent designs, manufactured by Fujinon. They are incredibly good.
I enclose an actual pixel crop of the images I used for my initial test. The Sony image is here resized to same width the P45+ image has. Pixel peeping at actual the P45+ image is much better, but in my approximately A2 size print (half of the image printed on A4) neither I or my friend could see any difference. I looked at flower marked with red boxes with a 5.5X loupe on print and in enlargement the P45+ image was much better. I guess it is about limitation in vision, I am 58 and my friend is around 40, both near sighted (I have 20/20 vision with glasses). Another consideration is that both images are scaled to printer resolution and output sharpened by Lightroom. To that comes the printing process. (The images were here processed in Lightroom, they could have been much enhanced by Bart's process, but I guess that it would benefit both images nearly equally.)
Yes, I am astonished how small the visual difference is in print.
I said it already: the way you are testing things, you cannot find any other result. Simply because you design all your tests to test resolution only and the 24 mpix of your A99 are a sufficient resolution for an A2 print.
Last but not least, I find your obsession with resolution and sharpness somewhat puzzling. You are obviously an intelligent and educated person, but you refuse to talk about anything else. Yet, resolution and sharpness are boring. I mean: we all want our cameras to work properly, up to a point, and I am probably guilty myself of too much time spent testing lenses. But when the pictures are reasonably sharp the objective of testing and pixel peeping is done. There is a world of a lot more interesting things to do with a camera.
-
Hi,
You have a point.
Best regards
Erik
Last but not least, I find your obsession with resolution and sharpness somewhat puzzling. You are obviously an intelligent and educated person, but you refuse to talk about anything else. Yet, resolution and sharpness are boring. I mean: we all want our cameras to work properly, up to a point, and I am probably guilty myself of too much time spent testing lenses. But when the pictures are reasonably sharp the objective of testing and pixel peeping is done. There is a world of a lot more interesting things to do with a camera.