Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Mini Medium Format Shootout  (Read 36370 times)

TEBnewyork

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2010, 09:56:44 AM »

Could you better explain your comments about C1 and the inability to get a good raw conversion and the use of the highlight and shadow sliders. I am newer to C1 than I am to LR but I haven't found any instances where I said "gosh I wish I were using LR for this RAW file".
Logged

tsjanik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 693
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2010, 10:21:51 AM »

Nick and Mark, thanks for taking the time (and inevitable flak) for writing this report.  I do find it interesting that most of the respondents so far are more concerned with the Canon and Leica than the Phase and Pentax!  Nick, if you haven’t used one of the manual focus A 645 lenses, I would encourage you to do so.  Not only may the A lenses solve the “quantized” or stepwise focus problem you mentioned in a previous report, but they also feel much better in the hand.  I have a couple of 645 lenses in the A and FA versions; the lenses may be identical in optical performance but the FA versions lost a lot of solidity with the addition of AF.  I much prefer the A 120mm macro over the FA version.   The focus ring is remarkably solid and precise; additionally, the lens hood is integral rather than the reversing plastic one with the FA.    As a side note: I’ve used that lens a great deal and as tempting as it is to use f16 to increase DOF, diffraction is really taking a toll at that point.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 05:42:53 PM by tsjanik »
Logged

ndevlin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 675
    • Follow me on Twitter
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2010, 10:35:09 AM »

Funny you mention the "A" lenses.  I have one on the way (the 200mm) and am also borrowing a couple of 67 lenses to try out as well (the 90-180 and 135 macro).

I know what you mean about the focus-feel.  All AF lenses feel a bit 'looser', which must have something to do with the need to be able to accelerate and decelerate them rapidly during auto-focusing.

- N.
Logged
Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera        www.nickdevlin.com

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2010, 10:40:43 AM »

I am newer to C1 than I am to LR but I haven't found any instances where I said "gosh I wish I were using LR for this RAW file".

for example try really high ISO raw file and compare NR from ACR 6.x/LR 3.x w/ C1 v5.x... albeit this is more for dslr and not for mf.
Logged

TEBnewyork

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2010, 11:11:56 AM »

for example try really high ISO raw file and compare NR from ACR 6.x/LR 3.x w/ C1 v5.x... albeit this is more for dslr and not for mf.

Perhaps, on DSLR high ISO noise reduction but the article refers to the shadow/highlight sliders on a P40+ low ISO files. I'm using the same P40+ back and C1 works very, very well with the files.   
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1735
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2010, 01:28:41 PM »


And lastly, you're right, it wasn't a fair test. I should have averted to the fine-print in Canon's EF lens brochure, where they clearly state: "The EF 24-105 is not suitable for photography of highly textured subjects. Under near-ideal conditions this lens is limited to producing a fraction of the resolution of which the Canon 1-series cameras are capable. By purchasing this lens at a list price of over $1,000, users agree to and accept the terms of Canon's "Inferior But Nonetheless "L" designated Lenses Policy" found at Appendix "B" to this brochure".

Our bad.
 ;)  ;D


Sorry but that is an immature response. Whether or not Canon designate a lens as whatever or sell for whatever price, you were trying to show what a 1Ds mkIII can do and you didn't come close because you seemingly have a chip on your shoulder about what this lens should be and are judging the camera based on it.

What your test of the '35mm' DSLR's has told me is that a prime is better than what is known to be an inferior zoom for all its price. Right.

I'm no canon fanboy, not in the slightest, heck I've sold my mkIII, but this comparison between the M9 and 1Ds mkIII says nothing and trying to pretend otherwise would IMO damage the hard work of the MF comparison.

juicy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2010, 01:39:15 PM »

"Am I correct that when you do this you buy additional sharpness at the expense of auto-focus and auto-exposure functions?"


Zeiss ZE-lenses are manual focus lenses. They do however communicate electronically with the camera body because these are in "native" Canon EF-mounts. Auto-exposure works normally and also auto-aperture works like in any modern slr-lens.

J
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 01:42:02 PM by juicy »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8809
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2010, 02:34:15 PM »

Could you better explain your comments about C1 and the inability to get a good raw conversion and the use of the highlight and shadow sliders. I am newer to C1 than I am to LR but I haven't found any instances where I said "gosh I wish I were using LR for this RAW file".

In the particular case of this file, in C-1 it wasn't possible to open the indoor portion enough without blowing the highlights of the outdoor portion, even using both sliders and the Curve tool. In Lightroom I was able to accomplish this easily. Both are very good programs. I think this is another instance of the fact that depending upon the situation, different programs show-up different kinds of capabilities.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2010, 02:54:25 PM »

In the particular case of this file, in C-1 it wasn't possible to open the indoor portion enough without blowing the highlights of the outdoor portion, even using both sliders and the Curve tool. In Lightroom I was able to accomplish this easily. Both are very good programs. I think this is another instance of the fact that depending upon the situation, different programs show-up different kinds of capabilities.

Or perhaps shows how program familiarity -- or lack thereof -- can affect test results.   Just sayin... 
Logged

bobtowery

  • Antarctica 2016
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 229
    • http://bobtowery.typepad.com
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2010, 03:36:41 PM »

Re: the Canon 24-105..
 
I don't see any mention in the article or these forum posts as to whether you turned off the IS? I believe most people (including Chuck Westfall) feel IS is detrimental when the camera is tripod mounted:

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/image-stabilization-on-tripods

??

Jay101

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2010, 03:53:10 PM »

Thanks for reporting o your mini-shootout (and the earlier review of the Pentax 645D)

Honestly, this was REALLY helpful to me as I have been weighing up a P1 or the Hasselblad H4D-31 - and the Pentax ticks so many boxes it's fast heading up my list.  The one thing "missing" for me is the option for tethered shooting on the Pentax - which you have noted.  However, this (less than clear) text from Pentax Japan suggests it might be coming??

The PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4 software (included) is designed to facilitate the filing and viewing of recorded images, as well as to handle the development and editing of RAW-format files. It even allows the editing of JPEG-format images. A remote-access application will soon to be added to this software, allowing you to control your PC from a distance using the 645D.

http://www.pentax.jp/english/imaging/digital/medium/645d/feature_6.html
Logged

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
    • http://www.billcaulfeild-browne.com
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2010, 04:52:00 PM »

Totally agree.  Just completed working up a 2-shot pano I took with the M9 and 50mm from Jackson Hole.  I've printed the image at 20x40 and am pleased with that was I would have been had I shot it with my Cambo WRS/P45+.

Don


+1!

Bill
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3207
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2010, 05:56:15 PM »

Thanks to Mark Segal and Nick Devlin for an interesting and well thought out test of the cameras in question (and the Leica and Canon as well). 

Yes, the comparisons were interesting. The shadow detail in the test shots with the two MFDBs looked good after post processing, but it is difficult to judge dynamic range. Too bad they didn't include a DR shot with the Canon to see if the difference between MFDB and good dSLR is as great as some MFDB proponents claim.

Regards,

Bill
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8809
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2010, 07:09:45 PM »

Or perhaps shows how program familiarity -- or lack thereof -- can affect test results.   Just sayin... 

Always possible, despite the inherently speculative nature of a comment predicated on the possibility that you may not know what you don't know. But in the final analysis, it doesn't take a PhD in the imaging sciences to operate either of these programs, especially with all the training, reference material and practice we have available to us. It does happen though Jack, that in certain cases some things just work very well and others less so. Every application has its place, as well as its strengths and limitations. I'll leave this tangent at that.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

WaitingForAnR10

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2010, 10:02:20 PM »

Is it possible that, rather than the camera backs being out of alignment with the brick wall, that the sensors are out of alignment within the camera body?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8809
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2010, 10:08:09 PM »

Re: the Canon 24-105..
 
I don't see any mention in the article or these forum posts as to whether you turned off the IS? I believe most people (including Chuck Westfall) feel IS is detrimental when the camera is tripod mounted:

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/image-stabilization-on-tripods

??

Yes, indeed IS was turned off. I've been hoisted on that petard in the past and this time made sure first thing after putting the camera on the tripod that it was OFF. It is true that with this lens - and others - if IS is ON when the camera sits on a tripod, it can impair sharpness.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8809
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2010, 10:14:24 PM »

Is it possible that, rather than the camera backs being out of alignment with the brick wall, that the sensors are out of alignment within the camera body?


Yes it is likely that the alignment problem is within the camera rather than between the camera and the wall. Have a look at the up-date comment we posted at the end of the article. We think it possible that the sensors are not perfectly aligned with the optical axis of the lenses.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2010, 11:56:48 PM »

Hi,

I'd just call your attention to this article: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html

I enjoyed the articles very much, well written and interesting. I wouldn't expect the old Pentax lenses to hold up to the digital sensor but they obviously do.

Just three comments:

  • I have observed that depth of field is incredibly short, at the pixel level, when shooting digital. This applies also to medium apertures.
  • There is also field curvature, it's not given that the optical image projected by the lens is entirely flat.
  • In recent testing I have done it has been my experience that foliage and treetops are far more critical than brick walls or book shelfs. My Sigma 12-24 is quite decent on both book shelf and brick walls but the image has serious problems at edge and corner shooting real world subjects.
Best regards
Erik


Yes it is likely that the alignment problem is within the camera rather than between the camera and the wall. Have a look at the up-date comment we posted at the end of the article. We think it possible that the sensors are not perfectly aligned with the optical axis of the lenses.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2010, 01:12:59 AM »

Yes it is likely that the alignment problem is within the camera rather than between the camera and the wall. Have a look at the up-date comment we posted at the end of the article. We think it possible that the sensors are not perfectly aligned with the optical axis of the lenses.

Mark,
Could this be the reason why you ended up moving to MFDB, your 1Ds3 had a misaligned sensor?

This review is really short on hard facts. Okay! The two of you had lots of fun comparing cameras. No harm in that. But I can't help wondering, after your taking the plunge to move into the ultra-expensive MFDB system, if there remains a need to justify that expensive move.

The subconscious can play interesting tricks. Getting you to produce an incompetent result, when using your 'rejected' 1Ds3, is not difficult for the subconscious  ;D .
Logged

darr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
    • photoscapes
Re: Mini Medium Format Shootout
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2010, 08:10:20 AM »

Thanks Guys!! 

In regards to throwing the Canon and Leica M9 into the mix, I enjoyed reading it.  While other readers may not be too happy with it, or consider it fair, I appreciate the comparisons just the same--one cannot own all of the tools to compare and my main concern with MF digital at this point-in-time, is sharpness and DOF (cost as well).

If I travel to shoot specifically for landscapes and find that I get superior results when shooting my Nikon and stitching, I cannot help but question why should I invest in MF digital for this purpose? I have yet to receive the "WOW" from my MF digital landscape kit, but before I sell it off, I will be asking my vendor to take it all back and to please tweak all of its components for the "wow." I feel there is something missing in my expensive landscape kit and the experts should have a chance to test it, tweak it, and charge me for the necessary time to bring it all together (if possible).

I do have one request in regards to your mentioning of testing 67 lenses with the 645D: I would be interested in seeing how the 100 F4 SMC Macro performs.  I have a beautiful-performer of this lens, plus the 55mm, zoom 55-100mm, and 165mm LS in my kit.  I will ship any or all of these lenses to you free of expense and liability for testing if you are interested. (Please PM me if you are interested.)

The biggest reason I have held onto my 67II kit is because of its superb performance in regards to sharpness and DOF. If I eventually buy into the Pentax 645D line, I will want to use my 67 lenses.

I understand this is the first generation of the 645D and I do not expect it to be stellar, but I am willing to contribute into their Research & Development (R&D) fund more-so, than anyone else at this time. I have made my living as a photographer for over 30 years, and I do not plan on stopping anytime soon, but I have grown disappointed with some of the industry and have lost a bit of trust in their concern for professional needs and simplicity of design.

Pentax has made me hopeful, and it is easier for me to trust their future with my dollars mainly because of the "WOW" factor I repeatably receive through their equipment and their timing into the MF digital market. Pentax IMHO, seems to have waited on the sidelines, observing others R&D before they went to their own drawing board, and this I like! It is a smart business model and one that I think will eventually pay-off.

Kind regards,
Darr
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up