Sample: Sinar e22 on Rollei 6008

[Graham Mitchell]

I don't think I ever posted a sample from my new Rollei/Sinar setup, with a properly processed file (I was using a dirty hack before to get previews). Well contrary to Toby's comments (remember him?) these e22 files look good! No noise whatsoever that I can make out, and this is without any noise reduction.

I used the 80mm f2 Xenotar lens.

Full image:



100% crops:

[Dustbak]

Graham,

Maybe you could also supply with what ISO this has been done and what type of processing you have used otherwise it is pretty hard to imagine how good this is? (at least for me it is).

Maybe you can also post a sample of the best you can do with the highest ISO. I must confess I am particularly interest in how it fares on high ISO not so much in its lowest ISO.

I don't get something. Everybody is nagging about noise, it seems like everybody wants its files to be as clean as possible. I sometimes like to have my files with noise especially when it is grainlike (Yes, sure you can add noise/grain always afterwards but that feels differently). How is the eMotion in that area?

[Graham Mitchell]

I agree that noise can sometimes be desirable, but it is always easy to add it, and not so easy to remove without losing detail.

I haven't had time to do a test across all ISOs. Maybe it's time.

[Graham Mitchell]

and a 100% crop:

[Toby1014]

I don't think I ever posted a sample from my new Rollei/Sinar setup, with a properly processed file (I was using a dirty hack before to get previews). Well contrary to Toby's comments (remember him?) these e22 files look good! No noise whatsoever that I can make out, and this is without any noise reduction.

I used the 80mm f2 Xenotar lens.

100% crops:


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Graham

I am happy that you remember me.

Let me comment on one of the images:

In your second 100% crop you clearly have color shifts in the dress (magenta - green) (some kind of color moiré or color artifacts?) - you also have some clear pattern artifacts witch I have pointed out before (the stripes in the dress turns to pattern artifacts, lack of resolution?).

I am pretty amazed that you don’t see this

Give it another try....

Toby

[samuel_js]

Graham

I am happy that you remember me.

Let me comment on one of the images:

In your second 100% crop you clearly have color shifts in the dress (magenta - green) (some kind of color moiré or color artifacts?) - you also have some clear pattern artifacts witch I have pointed out before (the stripes in the dress turns to pattern artifacts, lack of resolution?).

I am pretty amazed that you don’t see this

Give it another try....

Toby
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's very clear. I think is called posterization...  
It happens when the resolution is not enought, but it could be the software too ...

[Graham Mitchell]

Well this just confirms my suspicion that Toby is a regular poster posting under a new name. I wonder why?

If the pattern becomes too fine in some places for a 22MP back to capture, then so be it. All backs will hit a limit, and I'm comfortable with the limits I have here, though it's nice to see that the lenses can take advantage of higher resolution backs in the future. 39 MP is only 33% more linear resolution.

By the way, I did a large print and it looks great

p.s. remember that you are seeing a JPEG here.

[pss]

Well this just confirms my suspicion that Toby is a regular poster posting under a new name. I wonder why?

If the pattern becomes too fine in some places for a 22MP back to capture, then so be it. All backs will hit a limit, and I'm comfortable with the limits I have here, though it's nice to see that the lenses can take advantage of higher resolution backs in the future. 39 MP is only 33% more linear resolution.

By the way, I did a large print and it looks great

p.s. remember that you are seeing a JPEG here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

why are you doing this to yourself? there are so many people here always asking for samples then they judge a jpeg....anyone who is buying a DMF back is crazy not check it out himself...there is SO much more to it then pixelpeeping..especially from jpegs....

i get moire with my P30..does it mean i sucks? no...the canon does not even show me the detail i find the moire in....film does not have moire....but every month i shoot digital and the frame count is higher then 1000 (which would mean at least 500-600$ in film and processing) i save money and can shoot for free, which saves me even more money....

i looked at the emotion before i bought the P30 and the files were completely noise/artifact and crossover free.....totally...i went for the P30 for the extra res, higher iso and lower price...i dn't need WA....the sinar backs are phantastic and everybody should look at them....IMO they are better then leaf or hass backs....but check it out for yourself....

[thsinar]

dear Paul,

this is a fair and honest comment from somebody having purchased another product, rare enough to be noticed and appreciated.

Best regards,
Thierry

why are you doing this to yourself? there are so many people here always asking for samples then they judge a jpeg....anyone who is buying a DMF back is crazy not check it out himself...there is SO much more to it then pixelpeeping..especially from jpegs....

i get moire with my P30..does it mean i sucks? no...the canon does not even show me the detail i find the moire in....film does not have moire....but every month i shoot digital and the frame count is higher then 1000 (which would mean at least 500-600$ in film and processing) i save money and can shoot for free, which saves me even more money....

i looked at the emotion before i bought the P30 and the files were completely noise/artifact and crossover free.....totally...i went for the P30 for the extra res, higher iso and lower price...i dn't need WA....the sinar backs are phantastic and everybody should look at them....IMO they are better then leaf or hass backs....but check it out for yourself....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Graham Mitchell]

Ok I have been meaning to do an ISO range test anyway, and Dustbak's post was the final push I needed.

I set up a quick'n'dirty scene on my living room floor. Lens is 80mm Xenotar again, this time at f11.

I set the Profoto Pro6 1200 to full power at the camera's ISO 25 setting, down a stop for the ISO 50 setting, etc. Any variations in exposure are due to either inaccuracy in the flash generator, or inaccuracy in the e22's sensitivity, or perhaps a bit of both. Anyway, this is nothing which concerns me in the slightest.

None of these files have been sharpened, noise reduced, had curves applied, or any other post-processing.

Some people say that Sinar's ISO ratings read a stop lower than they actually are, i.e. ISO 25 is more like ISO 50 on other backs. I will refer to the ISO setting on the camera, and you can make up your own mind about the rest.

Full scene at ISO 200:



Full scene at ISO 25:



The rest are 100% crops:

ISO 200



ISO 100



ISO 50



ISO 25

[Graham Mitchell]

One more image: the ISO 200 sample run through noise ninja and a small curve applied to match the exposure better to the ISO 25 sample:

[thsinar]

I had noted it and made the same remark to myself: incidentally I did notice the active people at the time before and during the post.

given the grammatical way to write and some mistakes in words, it should be easy to "locate".

Well this just confirms my suspicion that Toby is a regular poster posting under a new name. I wonder why?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[thsinar]

which "witch" are we speaking about here?

"pattern artifacts witch ....."

[Dustbak]

Thx Graham!

Your effort is much appreciated. 200ISO doesn't seem to be a dealbreaker for the eMotion22. It appears to be pretty noise free and clean.

It think I have to start putting Sinar backs on my short list as well (I still want something AF as well).

[Morgan_Moore]

Thx Graham!

Your effort is much appreciated. 200ISO doesn't seem to be a dealbreaker for the eMotion22. It appears to be pretty noise free and clean.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As with digital cameras (xept maybe the latest generations)

I think to evaluate noise you need to see big muddy shadow areas on long exposures so these example should be viewed with care

Say under some trees at sunset in a landscape shot or under tables and chairs in interior shots

I can get a lot more (unwanted) noise out of my eyelike than seen here - that doesnt mean it is worse than the competition

Often I am burning these dark areas even darker so the effect is reduced anyway

Incedentally after keeping my Eye at a strict 50 I am begining to rack it up to 200 and live with it

I find the noise  not a worry for editorial portraits but would not be appropriate say for architecture where I would stick to strict 50 iso and often fill shadow areas with subtle flash

SMM

[Toby1014]

I had noted it and made the same remark to myself: incidentally I did notice the active people at the time before and during the post.

given the grammatical way to write and some mistakes in words, it should be easy to "locate".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thierry

You are confirming there is a kind of  “Sinar mafia” on this forum trying to mob people with different opinions than yours.

You seem obsessed by knowing my identity, but it is perfectly ok to be anonymous on this forum and you have to respect this or leave the forum.

When two female members (Danijela and Shara) appeared on the forum you never questioned their identity, they suddenly left and I wonder why?

I think you are pathetic calling other people Witches and Trolls if they have other opinions than yours. It kind of reminds me of….

Toby

[Dustbak]

As with digital cameras (xept maybe the latest generations)

I think to evaluate noise you need to see big muddy shadow areas on long exposures so these example should be viewed with care

Say under some trees at sunset in a landscape shot or under tables and chairs in interior shots

I can get a lot more (unwanted) noise out of my eyelike than seen here - that doesnt mean it is worse than the competition

Often I am burning these dark areas even darker so the effect is reduced anyway

Incedentally after keeping my Eye at a strict 50 I am begining to rack it up to 200 and live with it

I find the noise  not a worry for editorial portraits but would not be appropriate say for architecture where I would stick to strict 50 iso and often fill shadow areas with subtle flash

SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are right there. Noise will probably be most visible in dark areas like shadows. If you want to you can get a lot of noise at higher ISO. If I would take ISO400 on my Aptus underexpose a bit, I end up with a lot of really ugly noise. When I would be exposing to the right I get really nice 400ISO images, very filmlike.

This I only use when taking existing light images mainly of people. I can really appreciate higher ISO especially when it is grainlike.

Naturally I would stick with either 25 or 50 with still & product.

[thsinar]

you are absolutely right!

It is fine to be on this forum anonymous. No problem for me. But it does not give you much credibility when you are posting words as the ones in your previous tread. And your "sudden" appearance and out of-the-blue this morning is at the very least "suspiscious". Just the right timing, isn't it, like the last time and with the very same member (and should I dare to add "with the very same brand"?).

If you want to be credible in what you are claiming, then you could understand that people need to know who you are and where you come from, and what is your background. That is a rule of life. And this seems to be shared not only by Sinar users: read again the reactions last time.

I am not at all obsessed by knowing your identity, not at all, in the contrary.

As for your claim that there is a "Sinar Mafia": I shall leave these words to the "judgement" and opinion of other members.

Fact is, that I am here under my real name, with a very clear agenda which I have explained in a very long introduction post, when I joigned LLF: to inform and help wherever I can AND to put things right, when I have the feeling that it is a wrong, distorted or "suspicious" claim, coming from non-Sinar users or Sinar users as well.

I would like however, and for the record to put it clearly: I have been respectful to all members here, and answered all questions in a respectful manner, from anybody, being it a Sinar user or not. Actually I have even said and written it in one of my posts: the gear is not what makes the photographer, it is how it is used and the phtographer itself making it becoming a good gear or not.

I put you on the prove to point out one single unrespectful post by myself.

And if you did not notice it: I did not call you or anybody else a "witch" (I never spoke about a "troll"), simply pointing out your wording in an ironcal manner. I see that you don't understand humor.

By the way is your remark/question to foto-z in your last post humor or ....

We shall leave at this stage.

Best regards,
Thierry

PS & Addendum: BTY, speaking about "Sinar mafia" on this forum, I have been out this last Sunday with 2 very good friends of mine, for a shooting day in Bangkok and for some fun together. It happens that I knew one of this friend from the LL Forum. He is shooting with Phase backs (P25, P45, P 45+) and with the H3D since recently. The other friend was shooting with his Canon. We had a wonderful day together, shooting and speaking about photography and not about the brand in our bags. They are both wonderful phtographers and that is why I respect them.

Thierry

You are confirming there is a kind of  “Sinar mafia” on this forum trying to mob people with different opinions than yours.

You seem obsessed by knowing my identity, but it is perfectly ok to be anonymous on this forum and you have to respect this or leave the forum.

When two female members (Danijela and Shara) appeared on the forum you never questioned their identity, they suddenly left and I wonder why?

I think you are pathetic calling other people Witches and Trolls if they have other opinions than yours. It kind of reminds me of….

Toby
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[damien]

Hi Graham,

I use a P25 22mp back and the minor artifacts in your images are similar to those I used to get before I understood a bit more about banding supression and noise supression. If you re process the file of the girl in the grey dress using another software you will see a different look at those high frequency patterns. It's not a problem in my opinion but you can get the quality of your images higher still with fine tweaking. The software is everything when it comes to fine detail rendering. Try Raw Developer perhaps.

Well done for putting you head above the parrapet and sharing your real world experiences with us.

Damien.