Difference between single & multi

[E_Edwards]

Thank you Steve, but I've been in this digital game since the outset and I have become extremely sceptical about any kind of claims, both from dealers as well as users.

Without mentioning names, I had had reps in the studio from all manufacturers, except Sinar.

One of them was convinced that their product was superior to all the competitors. OK, let's see, he came and his demo was the worst disaster and waste of time you can imagine. The demo from a second rep, from another manufactuer was also bad, big software glitch, but since at least I could see some pictures, and he was quite un-pushy about his product (and didn't knock the competition) I gave him a chance for a second demo day when the glitch had been sorted.

My tests were considerably more elaborate than any of the tests posted here, in terms of tell-tale objects to determine highlight detail, shadow separation, text definition, minute scratches on metal, colour saturated patches, specular highlights, grey gradation, etc, etc. These tests bore me to tears, but they have to be done once, to make your choice, after which, they become completely eradicated from my mind.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only 4-shot camera of around 39 megapixel I know of is the Hasselblad.  OK then, let's compare it to an equivalent and current top of the line one-shot backs, because something from an earlier generation where the difference between 1-shot and 4-shot used to be more noticeable is not really representative of today's quality.

I bet you that the differences are nowhere as great as the samples above, I'd loved to be corrected, because I'm always in seach for better quality.

Edward

[Dustbak]

Maybe Thierry can provide some comparison shots of the Sinar 75Evolution (if that was the name). This is a 33Mp multishot back from Sinar. Uses a Dalsa chip which is also used by Leaf (75) and a smaller one in the 65.

I hope to upgrade somewhere next year to a more modern version of MS back but I am looking for 22MP with microstep (since I already own a 39Mp single shot back). So, don't expect those coming from me

There are other people that I know read this forum that own 39Mp MS backs that could post images. I hope they will.

[E_Edwards]

The Sinar eVolution 75H sounds very interesting as I could compare it against my Aptus A65, (same chip, slightly cropped,  fewer pixels.)

I would update from my Leafs (and I'm very happy with them) if the new Sinar would at least offer:

-Better capture of small detail. I mean clearly, discernably better files in every respect. A tiny difference wouldn't sway me. In one-shot mode it should be as good as the Leaf, in four-shot mode, clearly better.

-At least as fast a capture. Possibility to tether to Lightroom via hot folder.

-At least as good a Live Video, absolutely essential for my uses.

-Well written software that doesn't crash, with hot keys for everything useful.

-Full compatibility with the Rollei electronic shutter.

-I don't mind low ISO at all, it's for studio use.

-Reliable dealer, no ifs and buts, I want to see a demo that works 100 per cent and not hear false promises that everything will eventually work in about 30 years time.

-If the camera works well and shows promise, I want to test it on my own for at least a day, no rep breathing down my neck.

These are, I think, reasonable expectations. If all conditions are met, you are on your way to making a sale. I've been using Sinar cameras for 20 years, you develop the same sort of affection that some medium format users have for Hasselblad, Contax, etc. but as far as digital backs, Sinar has been (fair or not) if not a bit of the underdog, at least a little obscure, I do hope this changes.
Edward

[pprdigital]

Thank you Steve, but I've been in this digital game since the outset and I have become extremely sceptical about any kind of claims, both from dealers as well as users.

Without mentioning names, I had had reps in the studio from all manufacturers, except Sinar.

One of them was convinced that their product was superior to all the competitors. OK, let's see, he came and his demo was the worst disaster and waste of time you can imagine. The demo from a second rep, from another manufactuer was also bad, big software glitch, but since at least I could see some pictures, and he was quite un-pushy about his product (and didn't knock the competition) I gave him a chance for a second demo day when the glitch had been sorted.

My tests were considerably more elaborate than any of the tests posted here, in terms of tell-tale objects to determine highlight detail, shadow separation, text definition, minute scratches on metal, colour saturated patches, specular highlights, grey gradation, etc, etc. These tests bore me to tears, but they have to be done once, to make your choice, after which, they become completely eradicated from my mind.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only 4-shot camera of around 39 megapixel I know of is the Hasselblad.  OK then, let's compare it to an equivalent and current top of the line one-shot backs, because something from an earlier generation where the difference between 1-shot and 4-shot used to be more noticeable is not really representative of today's quality.

I bet you that the differences are nowhere as great as the samples above, I'd loved to be corrected, because I'm always in seach for better quality.

Edward
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157475\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edward:

I'm sorry you've been the victim of false claims and poor presentations (not a good combination). I understand your skepticism from that experience. I hope that you're able to obtain more credible dealer counsel in the future.

And I am not necessarily out to convince you. Whether you believe my "claims" or not, doesn't really matter to me. You're not my customer, and I don't even know where in the world you reside.

I try to post what I know to be facts when it comes to products. I am so sure of this fact that I would wager a very large amount of money with anyone, anytime that a multi-shot capture of a non-moving subject is superior in quality to a single shot capture. The fact is multi-shot is superior to single shot. Maybe not enough to make you want to jump through those hoops. In addition to the increased complexity of the solution (requires electronic shutters, controllable from software) and the resulting increase in price of purchase, many choose not to utilize multi-shot for those reasons if the differences they see don't warrant it.

But the differences are there, and while they may not be dramatic to some, the variance is in the subject matter and what you wind up doing with the file ultimately.

Dustbak - I do not have any samples in my collection that show the difference dramatically, but if I produce some, I'll be sure to post a link.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php

[thsinar]

I shall, as promised, post some as soon as I have got them from my distributor, comapring 4- and 16-shot with the SB 54H.

Best regards,
Thierry

Maybe Thierry can provide some comparison shots of the Sinar 75Evolution (if that was the name). This is a 33Mp multishot back from Sinar. Uses a Dalsa chip which is also used by Leaf (75) and a smaller one in the 65.

I hope to upgrade somewhere next year to a more modern version of MS back but I am looking for 22MP with microstep (since I already own a 39Mp single shot back). So, don't expect those coming from me

There are other people that I know read this forum that own 39Mp MS backs that could post images. I hope they will.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[E_Edwards]

I shall, as promised, post some as soon as I have got them from my distributor, comapring 4- and 16-shot with the SB 54H.

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But not the multi-shot 75Evolution?

That's the one that I'm interested in, as well as many other posters, I'm sure.

Edward

[thsinar]

I am sorry, Edward, in another tread it was question about 16-shot vs scanner in general, and differences with a 4-shot.
In this tread the question was single shot vs. multishot: I have therefore tried to organize some 4- as well as 16-shot samples, to show the differences. The eVolution, like any other multishot back with 33 or 30 MPx does not have a 16-shot mode.

But I shall try to find multishot files taken with the 33 MPx, without promise.

Thanks for your understanding,
Thierry

But not the multi-shot 75Evolution?

That's the one that I'm interested in, as well as many other posters, I'm sure.

Edward
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157632\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[E_Edwards]

But I shall try to find multishot files taken with the 33 MPx, without promise.

Thanks for your understanding,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you Thierry, even if you can't promise.

Though really I'm only interested in top of the range side-by-side comparisons. You need to compare to be able to decide.


4-shot Hasselblad CF39 MS and 4-shot Sinar 75Evolution

versus:

One-shot Aptus 75 or PhaseOne P45

This is what anyone in the still-life market for a top digital back is curious to know prior to arranging their own demos.


Oh, I forgot, a good Live Video preview is essential for the dying breed of photographers who know how to, and why you need to use view cameras in the studio. But who cares about us still-life guys when you can shift many more cameras to the people shooters, eh!



Edward

[thsinar]

Edward,

It will be much difficult to comapre the way you wish and with the back you're listing up: one should do a side-by-side shoutout, of the same subject and the same camera/lens. That something which I can't do or provide.

My own contribution was meant to show quality reached and differences in multi-shot modes, 4- and 16-shot.

But in any case, I'm convinced that even a multishot 22 MPx is superior to a 39 MPx single-shot (except if you reproduce a white piece of paper!). It is not only about resolution: this is just a little piece in the whole.

Best regards,
Thierry

Thank you Thierry, even if you can't promise.

Though really I'm only interested in top of the range side-by-side comparisons. You need to compare to be able to decide.
4-shot Hasselblad CF39 MS and 4-shot Sinar 75Evolution

versus:

One-shot Aptus 75 or PhaseOne P45

This is what anyone in the still-life market for a top digital back is curious to know prior to arranging their own demos.
Oh, I forgot, a good Live Video preview is essential for the dying breed of photographers who know how to, and why you need to use view cameras in the studio. But who cares about us still-life guys when you can shift many more cameras to the people shooters, eh!
Edward
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[jpop]

I'll also try to get some samples together of 1-4-16 shot Sinarback 54h along with 1-4 shot of the 75h.  I looked through some of my archives and couldn't find anything I had done in the past as should there have been any moire issues or quality breakdown of a single shot realized, it was discarded and only the multi-shot was kept.

There are definitive advantages of shooting multi-shot on static subjects.  With newer CCD technology and smaller pixels those advantages have been diminished but not entirely eliminated.  Static subjects such as textiles, off figure fashion, screen printed packaging, furniture, automotive interiors or a braided steel hose on a motorcycle are all likely suspects to show the differences between single and multi-shot.  

If those types of subjects make up the largest portion of your work, then multi-shot will have some advantages, despite many quick fixes being available to those using single shot only cameras.  Distance to subject can be changed, moving away from premium apertures or slight defocusing of the subject.  If my job is shooting off figure apparel every day with higher shot count production demands, I don't want to mess around taking multiple shots, layering photoshop files, moving my camera around or needing to adjust power on my lights and aperture to get a shot done, nor find out after the fact I had a moire problem.  

There is also a set of detractions for shooting multi-shot.  You need a stable shooting platform, consistent pop to pop strobes, fill cards that won't move around when the furnace comes on and additional wear and tear on strobe gear.  If you're operating on the fifth floor of a 5 story building with wood floors, 30 year old strobe technology, a train running down the tracks outside and the air conditioning making sails of your softboxes, multi-shot just isn't going to perform very well.  Stability of the environment is critical to having success.

As for micro-stepping or 16 shot, it's certainly not as good as expanding the image area manually doing 4 up shots or using pieces of gear like the quad-stitch adapter from KaptureGroup or the Sinar Macroscan adapter.  16 shot resolves beyond the capabilities of most lenses, has a critical need for a stable environment and reduces edge contrast by 50%.  If I have a subject with hard lines of black and white from one pixel to the next micro stepping between them in 16 shot produces a gray pixel.  This causes the image to look somewhat soft at 100% but exceeds what can be delivered from resizing a single or 4 shot file to the same resolution.  Again, expanding the image area is always better, just not always a reality.

I definitely miss the days of the Sinar Macroscan where you could get different fields of a view from a single lens, being a 1 up, 2 up or 4 up Macroscan without needing to touch the camera.  Shorter focus planes, lens draw issues when X marked the spot but the subject didn't fill the frame and wide angle opportunities without prohibitively expensive lenses or compromised lens designs.  Somehow it escaped the engineers, designers and marketing people that the functionality was more about flexibility than resolution and it had more places to fit than just the high resolution needs of the reproduction market.

[thsinar]

jpop,

I absolutely agree on all with you, including the Macroscan vs 16-shot part.

BTW: the Macroscan can be used with the 54H (and is in many places), sometimes even in combination with 16-shot. And we do even still have it available.

Best regards,
Thierry

I'll also try to get some samples together of 1-4-16 shot Sinarback 54h along with 1-4 shot of the 75h.  I looked through some of my archives and couldn't find anything I had done in the past as should there have been any moire issues or quality breakdown of a single shot realized, it was discarded and only the multi-shot was kept.

There are definitive advantages of shooting multi-shot on static subjects.  With newer CCD technology and smaller pixels those advantages have been diminished but not entirely eliminated.  Static subjects such as textiles, off figure fashion, screen printed packaging, furniture, automotive interiors or a braided steel hose on a motorcycle are all likely suspects to show the differences between single and multi-shot. 

If those types of subjects make up the largest portion of your work, then multi-shot will have some advantages, despite many quick fixes being available to those using single shot only cameras.  Distance to subject can be changed, moving away from premium apertures or slight defocusing of the subject.  If my job is shooting off figure apparel every day with higher shot count production demands, I don't want to mess around taking multiple shots, layering photoshop files, moving my camera around or needing to adjust power on my lights and aperture to get a shot done, nor find out after the fact I had a moire problem. 

There is also a set of detractions for shooting multi-shot.  You need a stable shooting platform, consistent pop to pop strobes, fill cards that won't move around when the furnace comes on and additional wear and tear on strobe gear.  If you're operating on the fifth floor of a 5 story building with wood floors, 30 year old strobe technology, a train running down the tracks outside and the air conditioning making sails of your softboxes, multi-shot just isn't going to perform very well.  Stability of the environment is critical to having success.

As for micro-stepping or 16 shot, it's certainly not as good as expanding the image area manually doing 4 up shots or using pieces of gear like the quad-stitch adapter from KaptureGroup or the Sinar Macroscan adapter.  16 shot resolves beyond the capabilities of most lenses, has a critical need for a stable environment and reduces edge contrast by 50%.  If I have a subject with hard lines of black and white from one pixel to the next micro stepping between them in 16 shot produces a gray pixel.  This causes the image to look somewhat soft at 100% but exceeds what can be delivered from resizing a single or 4 shot file to the same resolution.  Again, expanding the image area is always better, just not always a reality.

I definitely miss the days of the Sinar Macroscan where you could get different fields of a view from a single lens, being a 1 up, 2 up or 4 up Macroscan without needing to touch the camera.  Shorter focus planes, lens draw issues when X marked the spot but the subject didn't fill the frame and wide angle opportunities without prohibitively expensive lenses or compromised lens designs.  Somehow it escaped the engineers, designers and marketing people that the functionality was more about flexibility than resolution and it had more places to fit than just the high resolution needs of the reproduction market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[E_Edwards]

Thank you both.


I find it dead easy to join two or more pictures with the Linhof sliding back adapter, in fact I do it often when shooting double page spreads. I find it a lot quicker and better than when I used to use the Imacon 16-shot, I mean much quicker, two exposures, bang, that's it. Joining in Photoshop is a 30 second job.

I never found problems of stability with 4 shots, but with 16 shots, at my old studio which was ground level, I found that even the noise from a passing motorbike or track would affect the outcome due to minute vibration, and I do use a heavy studio stand!

So 16 shots is not practical for me.

I have never found any issues of moire with the Aptus 65, and I shoot fabrics and all sorts of backgrounds, though at quite detailed close range. I think it's Dustback who shoots shoes, I have also shot shoes and no problem with moire on leather or fabric, so it's only natural to question the need for a 4 shot back.

Also, I find it perhaps a little exaggeration to compare a 1-shot/4-shot to the difference between a 1DS and a digital back, maybe yes, with older generation backs, but not pitched against an Aptus 65/75 or P45 for example, not from what I've seen.


Let me just say that I'm extremely satisfied with the Aptus, tied to Lightroom, it has revolutionised the way I work, but it is a photographer's job to continuously be on the search for something better, however elusive it may be, in my case, the camera or gear just being a very small part in the overall quest for perfection!

Edward