MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples

[tho_mas]

However, just to demonstrate how unexperienced I am I am quoting DXO Mark's test results again and again and again until you guys belive in numbers and nothing else

[bigalbest]

[Ray]

With all sincerity,  I for one am happy that Ray in has finally arrived at the decision that MF is not necessary for his style of photography, at least for him personally.  Congrats Ray!

Of course I'm referring only to the current crop of MFDBs, Jack. If either Canon or Nikon were to produce an affordable, lightweight MF system, perhaps removing the mirror, providing a LiveView finder but retaining all the advantages of the 35mm format such as fast frame rate and excellent high ISO performance, I might change my mind.  

[AlexM]

Here is a quick example of the range and adjustment potential of medium format digital.

This simply cannot be done with 35mm digital.

Same applies to Hasselblad. It has at least two stops of full quality image above and below its already high dynamic range shown on a histogram.

Nikons and Canons (I have a hasselblad and a nikon and I tested different models, from D2X to D3X) they let you do the same but in reality they have only 1/2-1 stop of recovery and that recovery of a much lower quality. You lose highlights and/or lose colors in highlights. Shadow areas are pretty bad noisy and not accurate as well. So you are not really increasing the dynamic range by recovering an image on a 35mm camera, maybe only a little.

On a Hasselblad the recovered shadows and highlights are of the same good quality as within the histogram and you don't add any noise or lose any colors.

Alex

[fredjeang]

Hi, it's me again.
I'm pretty new in the forum and really surprised about this kind of comparaisons.
what I see so far, is that 35mm guys are "attaking" MFD users, never the opposite...
you know, a lion does not need to proove anything.
and they do it with what, numbers? DXO?
So this tend to a testosterone debate about who's got the bigger one?
Any woman that uses MFD ?
Do you really think that a Javier Vallhonrat is reading DXO???!!!
If so, you fool yourself.

what's wrong with MFD? There are the highest photographic tools (with LF) available.
They are exiting, they deliver the best IQ and they are serious tools for a large range of photographic styles.

In the film age, LF, MF were co-existing with smaller format and it was fine.
What the duck is happening now?
Have I missed something?

Fred.

[JeffKohn]

Just a fact on ISO range any landscape shooter out there is going to want a base ISO of 50. You cannot shoot water with ISO 200 and slow the shutter down enough to get that velvet look many do with water . Can't be done without a ND filter. Even ISO 100 just 1 stop difference can be a shot that requires a 4 second shot done to 2 seconds and you won't get the same look. Sure have fun with those ND filters in the field when you half sitting in the water trying to work and you need to open your bag. It's just not fun screwing around with that stuff. Also with strobe work in the studio you can open up more for a certain look with a lower base ISO. Some strobes can't get down in power enough to shoot ISO 200

As a landscape shooter I disagree. Uness all you shoot is milky-smooth water, the higher base ISO is beneficial. If I want a slow shutter speed for whatever reason, I can easily add a polarizer or ND filter. On the other hand, with a lower base ISO even a gentle breeze is going to be problematic for the times when you don't want motion in your shot.  And sometimes even when shooting water you want a fast shutter speed.

[Ray]

I have shown an example of real world use. Show me an example where a d3x can do this and I will believe you.

Why do you have reason to disbelieve DXO Mark? These guys at DXO labs are very experienced at testing cameras. They have to be because they are in the business of developing and selling a very sophisticated RAW converter.

I can only form an opinion upon the evidence presented. Whenever I've carried out my own tests and comparisons with my own cameras, and once comparing a Nikon D3 with my 5D because I couldn't believe the hype about the high ISO performance of the D3, I've found that my results, at least in respect of DR and SNR, agree remarkable well with DXO Mark's results.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of DXO's test procedures. Nor have I seen any real world comparisons between the P65+ and the D3X demonstrating that the DXO test results are flawed.

[tho_mas]

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of DXO's test procedures. Nor have I seen any real world comparisons between the P65+ and the D3X demonstrating that the DXO test results are flawed.

nor have anyone posted any real world comparisions demonstrating that the DXO results are correct!

I've once compared a Sony A900 to a P21+ because I was looking for something to shoot with at ISO400 handhold (with my P45 that's actually impossible).
I ended up buying the P21+ for... well, for many reasons.
DR? I don't know... I only know that the P21+ "saw" much more, especially in shadow areas.
Here on the forum there was a comparision D3x with AA Filter, D3x with AA filter removed and P21+... unfortunately the link is not available anymore.
The P21+ was clearly suprior if (!) you like that clean and clear, bold look MFD produces.
That having said the RAWs I've seen from the D3x look very, very good. But simply not as good as MFD.

[pcunite]

I'm pretty new in the forum and really surprised about this kind of comparaisons.
what I see so far, is that 35mm guys are "attaking" MFD users, never the opposite...

...SKIP...

Have I missed something?

Yes, but the 35mm users were provoked . It is insulting to be told that MFD is superior (which it is at the file level) for business reasons when so many are doing just fine with 35mm. Talented folks using 35mm for commercial work, Rainer Viertlböck, Annie Leibovitz, Ryan Schude, and on and on. I may buy into MFD when the prices are reasonable but to be told I am somehow shortchanging my customers because I don't buy and use the BEST file creator is a bit ridiculous.

[Frank Doorhof]

@Ray,
Try triggering a studio strobe on 1/250th....
I hardly ever use TTL strobes, only accupacks.

And yes the days in LA are very bright..... especially when you shoot outside in the middle of the day next to some glass and concrete

Trust me.... it was not possible with a base of ISO200.
And even than, the DOF on the MF system is totally different than on a DSLR, and I don't want sharpness front to end in my photography.

[Frank Doorhof]

@PCunite,
A lot of the talented folk are using both.
And they understand why, horses for courses.

Most of what I do can be done with a DSLR also and will give customer satisfaction, however not my satisfaction.
And some of what I do can't be done with a DSLR the way I want it.

[teddillard]

(deleted.  ted gives up.  )

[pcunite]

And they understand why, horses for courses.

Most of what I do can be done with a DSLR also and will give customer satisfaction, however not my satisfaction.
And some of what I do can't be done with a DSLR the way I want it.

Frank you are totally right, I did not want to list all the types that MFD is best suited for... just pointing out that you can be successful and please customers with either system. When MFD (autocad) companies find someone to build the tech I want I hope to buy in. I would prefer MFD for some things to please myself and who knows maybe the Pentax will deliver and scratch that itch.

[adammork]

That having said the RAWs I've seen from the D3x look very, very good. But simply not as good as MFD.

I think they are quite close.... my assistant, she is developing most of my files, keeps claiming that she can push the files more from my D3x than from my Aptus 75 before noise and other unpleasant stuff appears. And she is normally right  

I'm still using the back for a least 75% of my work, 100% architecture, but that is because of the Alpa's and Digitar's in front of the back.

/adam

[Guy Mancuso]

As a landscape shooter I disagree. Uness all you shoot is milky-smooth water, the higher base ISO is beneficial. If I want a slow shutter speed for whatever reason, I can easily add a polarizer or ND filter. On the other hand, with a lower base ISO even a gentle breeze is going to be problematic for the times when you don't want motion in your shot.  And sometimes even when shooting water you want a fast shutter speed.

I think you forget we have ISO 200 as well on the MFD backs , so if you need the speed you have it . So a 6 stop ND filter combo with Polarizer is the most ideal way . Hmmm let's see , nice looking through that finder for sure.
Obviously you missed the point as well as Ray but whatever.

[Guy Mancuso]

Why do you have reason to disbelieve DXO Mark? These guys at DXO labs are very experienced at testing cameras. They have to be because they are in the business of developing and selling a very sophisticated RAW converter.

I can only form an opinion upon the evidence presented. Whenever I've carried out my own tests and comparisons with my own cameras, and once comparing a Nikon D3 with my 5D because I couldn't believe the hype about the high ISO performance of the D3, I've found that my results, at least in respect of DR and SNR, agree remarkable well with DXO Mark's results.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of DXO's test procedures. Nor have I seen any real world comparisons between the P65+ and the D3X demonstrating that the DXO test results are flawed.

Ray very simply question about DXO. Does DXO raw converter support ANY MF back at all. Next question do they sell DXO software for Nikon camera's

Conclusion. You decide.

I'm with Ted . I give up too. Not worth my time for sure the Olympics are on much more fun to watch.

[teddillard]

I think you forget we have ISO 200 as well on the MFD backs , so if you need the speed you have it . So a 6 stop ND filter combo with Polarizer is the most ideal way . Hmmm let's see , nice looking through that finder for sure.
Obviously you missed the point as well as Ray but whatever.

I've got to add...  the tests I shot at ISO 800 and tungsten light were FAR better than what I'd seen only a few years ago at ISO 400 and even 200.  Way better than what I'd expected to see, and, although not really on par with DSLR, certainly a step forward.

[tho_mas]

my assistant, she is developing most of my files, keeps claiming that she can push the files more from my D3x than from my Aptus 75 before noise and other unpleasant stuff appears. And she is normally right  

I can't judge about the D3x files but I'd say what she is saying makes sense when the reference of each file is a shot at native ISO. MFDBs are excellent at base ISO but the more you push them the more noise will be increased (the same goes for the D3x but it is still relatively clean at higher ISO). However from my (rather limited) experience MFD files tolerate much heavier editing with curves/levels/colors within the captured range of tonal values (... if it hopefully makes sense what I am trying to say   ).

[Guy Mancuso]

I've got to add...  the tests I shot at ISO 800 and tungsten light were FAR better than what I'd seen only a few years ago at ISO 400 and even 200.  Way better than what I'd expected to see, and, although not really on par with DSLR, certainly a step forward.

Ted the new P40+ back and P65 just smoke any of the 6.8 sensors of the past on the ISO front. I would imagine the Hassy 40 and Leaf 40 you will see similar results. Off to the Olympics. Have fun. Bottom line shoot whatever turns your jets on. Really all that counts anyway is what you like to shoot.

[Nick-T]

For me personally, the significantly additional cost of MFDB combined with the significantly extra weight (taking lenses into consideration), offset by a significant lack of flexibility with regard to performance at high ISO and its much slower frame rates, do not make the MFDB package attractive to me, in my circumstances and for my purposes.

I CANNOT believe I missed this. Brought a tear to my eye. After much soul searching many graphs and much learned comment Ray has at last come to realise he doesn't need Medium Format.

Would the last person out of the forum please get the lights.
Nick-T