Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800  (Read 83348 times)

Snook

  • Guest
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #80 on: May 23, 2008, 11:43:01 am »

Quote
As Ray well knows, there are some advantages of larger formats over smaller ones that, for some photographers in some photographic situations, make a larger format the only acceptable choice, regardless of any advantages of smaller format gear is other respects. In that situation, the only noise level assessments of practical relevance are of the acceptable options; in this case, the various medium format options.

I would guess that medium format is often chosen simply for advantages like superior sharpness and resolution with currently available sensor and lens combinations. And once this is the case, comparisons to smaller format options are irrelevant, while assessments of the acceptable (MF) options are of far greater interest. Parts of this thread are as if someone were to post over and over again advocating the size and weight advantages of 4/3 format kits like an Olympus E-420 with 14-42/4-5.6 and 40-150/4-5.6 over 35mm format kits like the Canon 5D, 100-400/4-5.6, etc. that Ray uses, despite the clear unacceptability to Ray of that 4/3 format option for other reasons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197500\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do not forget about Dynamic range and Shadow detail.. Also the color transitions being 16 bit are WAY smoother than DSLR.
There is no argument it is Fact.
People obviously arguing have never tried it or shot side by side with both.
I just recently jumped to MFDB coming from 1Ds/1DsMII/5D for back-up and there is NO doubt My P30 is MUCH better in ALL aspects to DSLR 35 mm.
Guys shooting above 400 on a a daily basis  are obviously in another field and maybe the DSLR is a better choice for them.
Snook
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #81 on: May 23, 2008, 12:03:35 pm »

Quote
As Ray well knows, there are some advantages of larger formats over smaller ones that, for some photographers in some photographic situations, make a larger format the only acceptable choice, regardless of any advantages of smaller format gear is other respects. In that situation, the only noise level assessments of practical relevance are of the acceptable options; in this case, the various medium format options.

I would guess that medium format is often chosen simply for advantages like superior sharpness and resolution with currently available sensor and lens combinations. And once this is the case, comparisons to smaller format options are irrelevant, while assessments of the acceptable (MF) options are of far greater interest. Parts of this thread are as if someone were to post over and over again advocating the size and weight advantages of 4/3 format kits like an Olympus E-420 with 14-42/4-5.6 and 40-150/4-5.6 over 35mm format kits like the Canon 5D, 100-400/4-5.6, etc. that Ray uses, despite the clear unacceptability to Ray of that 4/3 format option for other reasons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197500\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Jeez, BJL, how obscure can you get? Can you repeat that in clear phrases   .

I sort of understand what you're getting at, but I suspect that MFDB is also chosen for status reasons. The emphasis is on smoothy cream skin texture on highly paid and highly made-up models. That's all I see on the MFDB photo thread.

It seems that MFDB might have an edge in this respect, but the shots are really a load of codswallop, of little artistic value and almost entirely commercial.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #82 on: May 23, 2008, 12:23:12 pm »

Quote
Jeez, BJL, how obscure can you get? Can you repeat that in clear phrases   .

I sort of understand what you're getting at, but I suspect that MFDB is also chosen for status reasons. The emphasis is on smoothy cream skin texture on highly paid and highly made-up models. That's all I see on the MFDB photo thread.

It seems that MFDB might have an edge in this respect, but the shots are really a load of codswallop, of little artistic value and almost entirely commercial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Codswallop?  Just the other day someone used the term "twadle".  Is the average age on this forum climbing into the 80's or are people reading too many English Victorian era novels?  

On a more serious note, there is some good work on the MFDB thread and there is some not so good stuff on there, just like in real life.  It also comes down to taste.  The shot you were so snidely commenting on was actually very nice in terms of a certain style of photography which I happen to enjoy.  Commercial, why yes, because if I were shooting fine art I would use film and how exactly would I pay for the MFDB set up otherwise.  Besides, what's wrong with commercial? MFDBs are commercial systems.

In any case, I do not understand why you feel the need to convince others of your point that dslrs are as good as mfdb or whatever other point you are attempting to make.  Why is it important to you?  Why does it bother you that I (and others) made the choice to shoot MFDB?  Do you feel that the choice to shoot MFDB is somehow not legitimate? I'm not attempting to insult, I'm legitimately curious as to your motivations.

Regards,
T
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 12:33:06 pm by TMARK »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #83 on: May 23, 2008, 12:44:01 pm »

Quote
In any case, I do not understand why you feel the need to convince others of your point that dslrs are as good as mfdb or whatever other point you are attempting to make.  Why is it important to you?  Why does it bother you that I (and others) made the choice to shoot MFDB?  I'm not attempting to insult, I'm legitimately curious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point! I'd like to answer the question seriously. I have no brand or format loyalty. Cameras are tools, no more, except for the sentimental. We are probably all sentimental to a degree, but we must recognise it as such.

I have no doubt that a modern DB can produce better image quality than a smaller sensor with fewer pixels. Who would argue with that?

When the larger sensor does not have more pixels, then it gets interesting, especially when the larger sensor costs 10,000 or 20,000 dollars and the smaller sensor costs 7 or 8 thousand dollars.

This comparison has never been made... competently.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #84 on: May 23, 2008, 02:06:20 pm »

Quote
Do not forget about Dynamic range and Shadow detail ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197506\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Snook,
   no dispute (I am not qualified to debate that topic anyway). I only chose advantages like "image detail" as being already a sufficient reason for some to reject 35mm format in favor of medium format, even if there are many other reasons too.

My only goal was to make the point that in those cases, comparisons of other IQ aspects between the formats becomes irrelevant and divert a thread off topic, even if those comparisons are valid and do have a place, somewhere else. My choice was partly because the advantage of greater detail from substantially higher pixel counts like 39MP vs 22MP or 12.7MP are rather hard to deny. In fact Ray just said as much!
Logged

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #85 on: May 24, 2008, 08:02:30 am »

Quote
Despite all the rubbish that has been thrown in unfortunately, I have to thank AMSP for starting this thread. I have been looking at how to shoot higher ISO with my Aptus 22 and the quality is more to liking now with recent effort in tweaking my settings.

The other thing I have found for the A22 (which Edmund has pointed out for his Phase) is that shooting at ISO 100 and pushing the exposure in the raw converter for underexposed images (LR is my choice) actually looks better than using the higher ISO choices on the back. Black and white shots at 400-800 ISO are really nice, grainy but a very pleasing film feel to the noise.

Hats off. Some good has come of this. I think a lot of us shooting with backs have re-evaluated the usuability of higher ISOs.

One reason I like MFDB is the manual focus 80/1.9 on the Mamiya AFDII. If and when I can nail the focus on that thing wide open, it is nice. I recently upgraded to an AFDII from AFD and I can already tell a huge difference in the focusing, response of the camera, shooting the back at a good pace. All good now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're quite welcome, even just one comment like this would have made it worth it.
Logged

Juanito

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • John Raymond Mireles
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #86 on: May 25, 2008, 02:02:54 am »

While I appreciate AMSP posting the photos, I have to say that I never really put much stock in test images where the subject is perfectly exposed in full sun. Don't know about anyone else, but when I crank up the ISO, I'm usually in crappy, often mixed light right on the edge of a good exposure. I'd like to see a test where the entire image was captured maybe a stop or two down with lots of shadows that you're trying to pull detail out of.

I'd like to see test shots that looks more like this:



John

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #87 on: May 25, 2008, 07:47:31 am »

Quote
While I appreciate AMSP posting the photos, I have to say that I never really put much stock in test images where the subject is perfectly exposed in full sun. Don't know about anyone else, but when I crank up the ISO, I'm usually in crappy, often mixed light right on the edge of a good exposure. I'd like to see a test where the entire image was captured maybe a stop or two down with lots of shadows that you're trying to pull detail out of.

John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The first shot I posted in another thread was taken at sundown, at iso800, f/2.8, 1/60th. So basically at the limit of what you can do hand held. It's exactly the same. Here's the link: [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25306&hl=]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=25306&hl=[/url]

Not quite sure why you think I'm trying to deceive anyone. Like I've said before in this thread, it's not about convincing anyone that doesn't own a DB, but to convince the ones that do to try it out themselves.
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #88 on: May 25, 2008, 07:50:26 am »

Morning sunrise, 06.30am in Thailand, flat light with the sun at the horizon ---> shadows and highlights.
ISO 800 with eMotion 75 LV / Sinar Hy6 - Zeiss Planar 110mm/f2
1/40th at f 5.6

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=7

Thierry

Quote
While I appreciate AMSP posting the photos, I have to say that I never really put much stock in test images where the subject is perfectly exposed in full sun. Don't know about anyone else, but when I crank up the ISO, I'm usually in crappy, often mixed light right on the edge of a good exposure. I'd like to see a test where the entire image was captured maybe a stop or two down with lots of shadows that you're trying to pull detail out of.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

BJNY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1112
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #89 on: May 25, 2008, 10:10:02 am »

Quote
Not quite sure why you think I'm trying to deceive anyone.

Deceive is a pretty strong word, asmp.
I highly doubt Juanito was implying that you were.
It makes sense to me, too, that moody images with shadows is a harder test.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2008, 10:10:32 am by BJNY »
Logged
Guillermo

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #90 on: May 25, 2008, 10:38:55 am »

Well I posted several links that are indoors and also under cloudy skies that give you a idea what these backs are able to do at the high ISO's . I know that the Phase one backs are doing a excellent job at it since that is what i shot and from what i have seen from Sinar as well. I think the point that keeps getting overlooked is this can actually be done at the high ISO's with very good results. I think what the original OP is saying the dark days maybe over because it is working and from me testing this out on the Phase backs i have to agree 100 percent. i have gotten excellent results so far. But let me also say shooting two stops under is NOT normal either. We don't normally do that in our everyday shooting but they still can pull a rabbit out of the hat when you do. It may not be perfect but it certainly can save the day and in the past you may have been toast. Now with regards to 35mm like I said before if you need to get over ISO 800 than turn to a Canon or Nikon which maybe a better choice for noise but certainly not detail and DR. You really can't compare the two , just completely different beasts. I think most Pro's know full well when to reach for a nikon in a certain situation and these are just tools that are to get a job done. Most of us will grab the MF gear until we know a situation asks for something else. I really don't think it is one or the other but a compliment to each other at least that is how i will work.
Logged
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showt

Juanito

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • John Raymond Mireles
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #91 on: May 25, 2008, 10:54:42 am »

Quote
Not quite sure why you think I'm trying to deceive anyone.
Whoa! Never intended nor implied that. I'd just like to see some high iso images shot under the lousy conditions under which I generally find myself when I actually do crank up the iso. Over the years, I've seen lots good looking high iso images taken under ideal conditions only to find out that in reality the camera is a noise machine under more real world conditions.

John

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #92 on: May 25, 2008, 05:17:06 pm »

Quote
Whoa! Never intended nor implied that. I'd just like to see some high iso images shot under the lousy conditions under which I generally find myself when I actually do crank up the iso. Over the years, I've seen lots good looking high iso images taken under ideal conditions only to find out that in reality the camera is a noise machine under more real world conditions.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197869\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here we go again, if you're not happy with the conditions under which these photos were shot just go do it yourself. I've shot at iso800 under all sorts of real world conditions, and I know it does equally well as long as you do a proper exposure. Anyway, this is boring me now, as far as I'm concerned we can lock the thread.
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #93 on: May 25, 2008, 06:03:39 pm »

Quote
I never really put much stock in test images where the subject is perfectly exposed in full sun

Juanito is right; well exposed shots say nothing about ISO capability. In fact, processed images generally tell nothing about the camera's capabilities. The raw files, or the very least the raw histograms are required to separate the post processing from what the camera has delivered.
Logged
Gabor
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up