Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: MFD @ 800 ISO  (Read 18823 times)

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
    • http://www.graham-mitchell.com
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2008, 06:36:57 AM »

I just received my eMotion 54LV today and ran it through a quick test at different ISOs. Sorry about the subject matter, it was just what was lying around my place.

Scene:



Here is a crop of the highest sensitivity setting which is called ISO 400 on the back but it exposed perfectly when I set the Rollei to ISO 800 so who knows. You need to compare noise and backs at the same scene with the same exposure settings to get an accurate comparison. This is with the noise reduction switched on in CaptureShop:



Definitely usable with NR on. Not so pretty with NR deselected.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 06:39:02 AM by foto-z »
Logged
Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2008, 06:58:31 AM »

Graham,

What I can see here is that you have done a lot of shopping!

 

Glad that you got your upgrade.

Best regards,
Thierry


Quote
I just received my eMotion 54LV today and ran it through a quick test at different ISOs. Sorry about the subject matter, it was just what was lying around my place.

Definitely usable with NR on. Not so pretty with NR deselected.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJNY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1112
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2008, 10:18:39 AM »

Graham,
Would you show a file with real shadows, not so flatty lit, please?
Billy
Logged
Guillermo

fraherim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2008, 04:06:02 PM »

Quote
Graham,
Would you show a file with real shadows, not so flatty lit, please?
Billy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

All of you have certainly showed me that MFD is up to the task of much higher ISO's than my current H20 (which  I still think makes a sweet file at 50 ISO).
Now to be untethered with quality!!


Bob
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2008, 08:33:40 PM »

Warning about ACR

I guess ACR is not the preferred raw processor for most MFDB photographers, but those, who use it should be aware of the fact, that ACR applies a +1 EV adjustment to P30 and P45 raw images @ ISO 400 and +2 EV @ ISO 800 without giving any indication of the adjustment.

Taking the histogram and the clipping indication seriously, one will be led to underexpose the shots, causing noisiness.
Logged
Gabor

Igor Feldman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2008, 03:06:34 AM »

I was wondering, in DSLRs, there's a somewhat clear correlation between the pixel size + microlenses with ISO performance, of course given the same or close technology.  Does it work with these DBs?  For example, P30+ has microlenses, and it's ISO goes to 1600 and it performs well at low light.  But its pixels are only 6.8 microns.  P21+, on the other hand, also has microlenses, and its pixels are 9 microns, but its top ISO is only 800.  I would, if anything,  think it should perform better than p30+ in low light.  No?  Also, if people know, how does P25+ fits in into this line?

Thank you,
Igor.
Logged

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2008, 12:17:21 PM »

Quote
I was wondering, in DSLRs, there's a somewhat clear correlation between the pixel size + microlenses with ISO performance, of course given the same or close technology.  Does it work with these DBs?  For example, P30+ has microlenses, and it's ISO goes to 1600 and it performs well at low light.  But its pixels are only 6.8 microns.  P21+, on the other hand, also has microlenses, and its pixels are 9 microns, but its top ISO is only 800.  I would, if anything,  think it should perform better than p30+ in low light.  No?  Also, if people know, how does P25+ fits in into this line?

Thank you,
Igor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The p21+ and P30+ have a different look, almost like different films.

At 800 iso and pushed + .64 which gives in thoery 1312 iso.  and by my subjective standards it looks good to me as it has noise  that more resembles grain, and it seems more evenly distributed between midtones to shadows, without too much smoothing or chroma noise.

(the p21 was processed in V4 and must be set on high IQ for 800 iso.)

Now whether this is really 1312 iso, or if any camera is really correct at it's iso is another matter, but it does make me think that Phase could have a 1200 iso settng on the p21 and it would work.

We can all talk this iso thing to death, but the real and the only way to know if a back or camera works for what you do is to test it in the exact conditions in which you shoot.

Some work well under tungesten, some don't, some are fine at high iso and backlight, some are awful, some underexpose, then open up without chroma noise and some look like a billion christmas trees were put in the shadows, once again, use it in how you work, not how it looks in a dealers showroom, or just the controlled conditions of studio with 12 million watts of strobe.

Even in the days of film I've compared, Contax, Bronicas and Rz's all set at the same shutter and f stop and all at the same subject and their was a difference of nearly a stop between them and also a way different look coming from the contrast of the lenses used.

I believe in the worst case scenario thing, where you go into a shoot with a billion pounds of equipment but the the quality of the light coming from the windows is much nicer than anything you would construct.  Can you just pull the pocket wizard, bump the iso and shoot it where it's sharp and useable?

At that point it really doesn't matter if the camera says, 400, 800 iso or 1200 iso, it just matters if it works.

JR
Logged

Igor Feldman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2008, 07:30:42 PM »

Quote
I believe in the worst case scenario thing, where you go into a shoot with a billion pounds of equipment but the the quality of the light coming from the windows is much nicer than anything you would construct.  Can you just pull the pocket wizard, bump the iso and shoot it where it's sharp and useable?

At that point it really doesn't matter if the camera says, 400, 800 iso or 1200 iso, it just matters if it works.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


:-)

Thank you James.
Best,
Igor.
Logged

BJNY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1112
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2008, 09:08:24 AM »

Deleted
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 12:53:21 PM by BJNY »
Logged
Guillermo

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2008, 09:22:52 AM »

Quote
As good as the results are out of the H3DII-31 and P30+, are photographers still clamoring for a 37x49 version of the same micro-lensed sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Would be nice, I think. But maybe less sharp than today's 37x49 sensors.

Edmund
Logged

BJNY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1112
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2008, 09:35:33 AM »

Deleted
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 12:53:43 PM by BJNY »
Logged
Guillermo

Igor Feldman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2008, 01:13:42 PM »

Quote
Would be nice, I think. But maybe less sharp than today's 37x49 sensors.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edmund, how do microlenses reduce sharpness?  Each of them covers only one pixel.  To reduce sharpness, the information that comes from the lens to each pixel needs to be washed over several of them.  No?

Thank you,
Igor.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2008, 02:21:51 PM »

Quote
Edmund, how do microlenses reduce sharpness?  Each of them covers only one pixel.  To reduce sharpness, the information that comes from the lens to each pixel needs to be washed over several of them.  No?

Thank you,
Igor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmmm, we'd have to simulate or write some equations to confirm my intuition.
On the other hand, before buying my back I looked at some images, and they seemed to bear out my conjecture. .

Edmund
Logged

Igor Feldman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
MFD @ 800 ISO
« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2008, 02:50:09 PM »

Quote
Hmmm, we'd have to simulate or write some equations to confirm my intuition.
On the other hand, before buying my back I looked at some images, and they seemed to bear out my conjecture. .

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let me know if you think of something, I'm truly curious.  I always thought that microlenses may not be necessary, but never a bad thing.

Thank you,
Igor.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up