MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples

[Ray]

I CANNOT believe I missed this. Brought a tear to my eye. After much soul searching many graphs and much leaned 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

 

I can believe you missed it because you also missed my reply to Jack where I stated that a more affordable, lighter and less disadvantaged digital MF would be appealing.

In the days of film, not only was the price difference between 35mm format and MF not nearly as great as it is between the DSLR and the DB, but we also had more substantial differences in quality between the formats. Quite often the additional resolution provided by the larger piece of film was not required, but the smoothness, the greater tonality and the freedom of grain were always apparent at any reasonable print size.

It's difficult to imagine that it might be impossible for viewers to guess which camera was used when comparing two A3 size prints of the same scene, one taken with 35mm film and the other taken with 6x7 format. However, such difficulty in seeing the difference between the Canon G10 and the P45+ on A3+ prints was recently demonstrated by Michael.

You probably also missed in this thread the fact that I've admitted (and in fact have never denied on any thread) that the larger sensor always tends to have some qualitative advantage over the smaller sensor, whether it be higher resolution, greater DR or better tonal range. My complaint is that the qualitative differences between the formats are now not as great as they used to be in the days of film, especially using the D3X as a benchmark, but the price difference certainly is.

I get the impression that those who extoll the virtues of the current MFDB systems are engaging in a bit of hyperbole to justify the outrageous prices.

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

Well Ray I never thought I would say this but I agree with you.

The difference between my Nikon D3x and my Leaf Aptus 75 on either my Mamiya 645 or RZ is marginal.

Also in this current economic recession I won’t be buying a P65 back for $45,000.00 US = $64,400.00 NZ dollars as my advertising clients wouldn’t even notice the difference and at the end of the day its all printed at 300dpi or less.
 
All they are interested in is creating the image they commissioned me to do, not what cameras I used.

Cheers

Simon  
Harper Photographics Limited

Email:      simon@harperphoto.co.nz
Website:  http://www.harperphoto.com

Phone:     +64 9 444 1148
Fax:         +64 9 444 1148
Mobile:    +64 29 444 1148

[tho_mas]

I get the impression that those who extoll the virtues of the current MFDB systems are engaging in a bit of hyperbole to justify the outrageous prices.

I paid less for my P21+ than for a D3x. You can get a nice MFD Kit below 10K  

[Ray]

I paid less for my P21+ than for a D3x. You can get a nice MFD Kit below 10K  

Sure! You can always pick up second hand gear at a much lower price. DXO Mark do not show any test results for the P21+, but I think I'd almost certainly prefer a D3X. I think the D3X would be better in almost all respects, including resolution.

[Ray]

Hello,

Well Ray I never thought I would say this but I agree with you.

Hello,
Thanks for your honesty and common sense.  

[Ray]

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.

Give up by all means. You don't want to inconvenience yourself with a bit of truth, do you?  

I can tell you, if owned a P65+, I would be very, very interested in the fact that a reputable organisation like DXO had produced some test results indicating that a recent 35mm DSLR model (namely the Nikon D3X) actually had slightly better DR and only very marginally worse tonal range.

If I thought that DXO were misrepresenting the situation, I'd take the trouble to at least hire a D3X and a good lens, if I didn't already own any Nikkor lenses, and do my own tests to see in what way DXO might be misrepresenting the situation and by how much.

I'm reminded of the occasion when Nikon released the D3. There was great excitement about its high-ISO performance. Claims were made that its high-ISO images were not only better than Canon, but up to 2 stops better than any other 35mm DSLR available. I found that difficult to believe. I was in Bangkok at the time and took the trouble to check this out for myself. I wasn't able to hire a D3 because they were in such short supply, but I was able to use the Nikon demonstration model in the shop, shooting into a dark corner of the shop with both the D3 and my Canon 5D. I simulated ISO 6400 and 12,800 with the Canon by underexposing appropriately at ISO 3200.

What I found was that the high-ISO advantage of the D3 was far less than 2 stops. At best, according to my test results, it had half a stop advantage at ISO 3200 and even less than 1/2 a stop advantage above ISO 3200.

Guess what! A year or two later when DXO Mark began publishing its test results, they approximately confirm these results of mine with respect to DR at high ISO. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of DXO tests. If you doubt them, then you are the one who should be making your own DX3/P65+ comparisons, not me.

[JeffKohn]

I think you forget we have ISO 200 as well on the MFD backs , so if you need the speed you have it .

So which is more likely to negatively impact image quality: adding a polarizer when you need the slower shutter speed, or boosting your ISO by two stops when you need a faster shutter speed (especially on an MF back)?

So a 6 stop ND filter combo with Polarizer is the most ideal way.

Now you're just spouting nonsensical hyperbole. Why would I need 7-8 stops of filtration to make up for a two stop difference in base ISO?

Obviously you missed the point as well as Ray but whatever.

I didn't miss anything. I'm not arguing whether 35mm is as good or better than MFD, I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. And I can certainly see why somebody who mostly shoots with strobes would want a lower base ISO.

But you said it was a fact that a lower base ISO is preferable for landscape shooters. That's not a fact, not even close. It may be your personal preference, but that's hardly the same thing as a fact since you don't speak for all landscape shooters (or even majority of them).

[Kitty]

I admit that 35mm is lightweight small and easy to use.
But file quality is no way to match MDF.
35mm DSLR always lack of micro details, no sparkling, muddy shadow.
It is very hard or no way to get razor sharp from 35mm DSLR.
Only leica M8 has MDF quality but hard to get perfect focus.
It may be difficult to judge this from monitor.
But you will see it on print.

I notice on web or youtube we see a lot of professional use DSLR more and more eg. sportillustrated, pirelli 2010 calendar.
I don't know it is advertisment or not?
I don't know they are using mix camera but we saw only DSLR?

But 35mm DSLR files is much like painting to me, smooth soft.
It require a lot of post process.

IMHO

[tho_mas]

DXO Mark do not show any test results for the P21+

but it does exist. And it can capture images. Crazy world!

[Guy Mancuso]

So which is more likely to negatively impact image quality: adding a polarizer when you need the slower shutter speed, or boosting your ISO by two stops when you need a faster shutter speed (especially on an MF back)?

Now you're just spouting nonsensical hyperbole. Why would I need 7-8 stops of filtration to make up for a two stop difference in base ISO?

I didn't miss anything. I'm not arguing whether 35mm is as good or better than MFD, I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. And I can certainly see why somebody who mostly shoots with strobes would want a lower base ISO.

But you said it was a fact that a lower base ISO is preferable for landscape shooters. That's not a fact, not even close. It may be your personal preference, but that's hardly the same thing as a fact since you don't speak for all landscape shooters (or even majority of them).

Here is a article that explains ND and Polarizers http://nyfalls.com/article-photographing-2.html. Also you have to remember your shooting a 35mm at Base ISO 200 with a AA filter to start now your going to add a filter or even more than one filter which is adding more glass to the front end that cause more degradation to the image. Bright sun at F16 is 1/250 at base ISO 200. You can't stop down any further with 35mm without diffraction so to get it down to a number that can blur maybe up to 6 stops that means now you just added two filters. 2 stops for a Polarizer and many folks will buy a 4 stop ND so they have 2, 4 and 6 stops to work with, I know people that buy a 6 stop ND . Take 6 stops off and you are at 1/4 of a second which maybe not enough to get a effect you may desire some yes depending on water flow but you just added a lot of stuff on the front end of your lens. Now i should have not said the word fact so forgive me but shooting water under different varies lighting and movement of water sometimes you want to get to even 6 seconds or more. I have done 30 at F22 ISO 50 in the very early predawn,

Second part of your question . Very little difference on a P40 between 50 and 200 very little difference which BTW is the same sensor for the P65. They are rated at 12.5 stops which is a half stop better than there past backs and the noise levels have gotten so good from previous backs. On my S2 review with the P40+ we actually did noise tests under tungsten which is the worst noise offender when it comes to light full review here http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12243  100 percent samples here

[Guy Mancuso]

Ray you did not answer the question but went off on some other path. Bottom line is they sell to Nikon does it pay to show a P65 better. Makes you wonder. I never trusted DXO numbers first it is not real world and that is fine if you do . Not here to debate them but i can tell you I could not get this detail in the foreground with 35mm period. I would maybe even get it with a P25+ a P45+ I would say pretty much but after a lot of testing the P65 and P40 smoke those 2 backs on DR. This is a P40+ shot which without any work to it I don't believe shooting into a sunset this detail would show. This is the stuff I go by. If you want to go by DXO numbers great but I go by direct comparisons of known backs and real world situations. With that I have work to get done. But go out and test. I do it all the time with public results . If I wanted a D3X i would buy one without concern I know it is a good cam. That is not the point though. I can buy anything I want, it's all a write off anyway.

You also admit that cost is a concern and i hear that everyday and totally understand it but there is a lot to MF that many just want to blank out as well because they simply want to avoid paying. Which in turn makes there 35mm chose the best thing going. Sorry folks i own a forum too but i see this everyday in a Canon or Nikon forum. Defending it until the cows come home, which is fine but if your really interested in MF than you should go demo it and work with the files. There is a lot to it than just simple DR , noise levels. Honestly i don't care what folks buy all I care about is they have the correct information before they buy anything.

[fredjeang]

Ray you did not answer the question but went off on some other path. Bottom line is they sell to Nikon does it pay to show a P65 better. Makes you wonder. I never trusted DXO numbers first it is not real world and that is fine if you do . Not here to debate them but i can tell you I could not get this detail in the foreground with 35mm period. I would maybe even get it with a P25+ a P45+ I would say pretty much but after a lot of testing the P65 and P40 smoke those 2 backs on DR. This is a P40+ shot which without any work to it I don't believe shooting into a sunset this detail would show. This is the stuff I go by. If you want to go by DXO numbers great but I go by direct comparisons of known backs and real world situations. With that I have work to get done. But go out and test. I do it all the time with public results . If I wanted a D3X i would buy one without concern I know it is a good cam. That is not the point though. I can buy anything I want, it's all a write off anyway.

You also admit that cost is a concern and i hear that everyday and totally understand it but there is a lot to MF that many just want to blank out as well because they simply want to avoid paying. Which in turn makes there 35mm chose the best thing going. Sorry folks i own a forum too but i see this everyday in a Canon or Nikon forum. Defending it until the cows come home, which is fine but if your really interested in MF than you should go demo it and work with the files. There is a lot to it than just simple DR , noise levels. Honestly i don't care what folks buy all I care about is they have the correct information before they buy anything.

Thank you for this beautiful picture Guy.
We can see the MFD touch even at this reduced size and resolution.

[ced]

bigalbest thanks but you ought to put a 35dslr image (i.e to directly compare) so the viewers can see what you mean by the claim. KR!

[teddillard]

bigalbest thanks but you ought to put a 35dslr image (i.e to directly compare) so the viewers can see what you mean by the claim. KR!

that would be what I did in the review, yo.

[Frank Doorhof]

Maybe "one" should first master the tools before debating the tools.
I can't see myself selling either one.

There is no one does it all beter solution.

[Jack Flesher]

Maybe "one" should first master the tools before debating the tools.
I can't see myself selling either one.

There is no one does it all beter solution.

IMO if they at least just demoed the tools in some serious fashion before they debated them, it would lend some credence to their summations. As it is, the debate seems just tilting at windmills...

[fredjeang]

As it seems that it is impossible to 35mm and MFD reaching a consensus in image quality,
(if we going this way the Canon G10 will of course soon at the same level than MFD as I saw here one day in an entry)  
I focus in this post about design, feeling, desire, organic...
What to say, aren't they beautifull?
[attachment=20417:mfd.jpg]

Fred.

[bigalbest]

bigalbest thanks but you ought to put a 35dslr image (i.e to directly compare) so the viewers can see what you mean by the claim. KR!

That's alright, I really don't care if you agree with me or not. I also don't know how I let myself get sucked into this pointless discussion and probably won't comment on 35mm vs. MF again. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.  

[JeffKohn]

Here is a article that explains ND and Polarizers http://nyfalls.com/article-photographing-2.html. Also you have to remember your shooting a 35mm at Base ISO 200 with a AA filter to start now your going to add a filter or even more than one filter which is adding more glass to the front end that cause more degradation to the image. Bright sun at F16 is 1/250 at base ISO 200. You can't stop down any further with 35mm without diffraction so to get it down to a number that can blur maybe up to 6 stops that means now you just added two filters. 2 stops for a Polarizer and many folks will buy a 4 stop ND so they have 2, 4 and 6 stops to work with, I know people that buy a 6 stop ND . Take 6 stops off and you are at 1/4 of a second which maybe not enough to get a effect you may desire some yes depending on water flow but you just added a lot of stuff on the front end of your lens. Now i should have not said the word fact so forgive me but shooting water under different varies lighting and movement of water sometimes you want to get to even 6 seconds or more. I have done 30 at F22 ISO 50 in the very early predawn

Sunny 16 exposure rarely comes into play when shooting water features though, at least for me. I don't usually try for that "smooth" waterfall/creek shot under full midday sun. I have a Vari-ND, which lets me dial in anywhere from 2-8 stops of filtration with a single high-quality filter. But to be honest I almost never use it, usually a polarizer gives me slow enough shutter speeds when shooting that sort of stuff, and I sually want at least some polarizing effect for those types of scenes anyway.  Getting a long shutter speed during twilight/dusk hours, or in a heavily shaded forest canopy on an overcast day, just isn't a problem even at ISO-200.

I shoot with a D3x now, so my base ISO is 100. But after previously shooting with a base-ISO of 200, I miss it. More often than not, a fast shutter speed is preferable to avoid wind-induced movement in foliage and trees. So for me, adding extra filtration on those rare occasions when I need a slow shutter speed is preferable to having to bump ISO when I need a faster shutter speed.

[Guy Mancuso]

Different strokes but I rather have a base ISO at 50 my last back was 100 the P30+ and there are times I wished for a slower shutter without resorting to a Polarizer. ISO 200 on the P40+ is just a no brainer now if I need it. But I can tell ya that is all I have in my bag , there is no need for a ND at all. Besides all that i don't want anything ever in front of my sensor that includes AA filters. To me it's like shooting through a screen door. One of the main reasons I shot Leica's for a long time with the DMR and M8 was no AA filters , going to MF was a natural progression up in sensor. But many feel that the DSLR's are enough for them and I am not here to argue that point at all. We all make choices on gear and I have no regrets spending the money on MF and actually end of day think it was a good investment for what i do. Even though I will lose my shirt on resale that is just the way MF is it seems. I went from the P30+ to P40+ in a upgrade and i tested it 3 times before I made that decision which is way more than I normally would but I wanted to see what that upgrade actually did for me. Anyway not everyone wants to buy into MF as well and totally understand that but people need to try it before beating it down the hill because there is so much more to them than just general argument points. No question they have there limits as well. There is no perfect solution and NEVER will be. Anything you buy is a compromise on something what the buyer needs to figure out is what they can live with.