Leaf Aptus 12, Canon 5D2, Hasselblad CFii-39MS, and Phase p20 Comparison images

[EricWHiss]

This is a follow up to the DR comparison post using the 4 different camera/back set-ups.  While I had them here I shot a few different set-ups with each using the same lighting to get a feel for overall look (color and tonality).  

The first image is of an old clock.  I chose it because it has actually a lot of color variation in the face as it oxidized that was subtle but also a fair bit of detail.
Notes:
1) All cameras shot at base ISO, CFii-39MS and Phase p20 both shot with Rollei 90mm apo macro lens, Leaf Aptus on Phase DF body with 120mm macro, Canon 5D2 with very good Leica 35-70mm f/2.8
2) Because the Phase p20 is square I chose to frame the height to make a more pixels to pixels but in real world you might need to back off and crop - so not exactly fair.
3) All files processed in C1 except the CF which I did in phocus.  Other than white balance which I did with X-rite passport card, nothing is necessarily done the same with the files - IOW I used my own judgment on how to handle them.  The CF files had the most headroom for adjustment, but exposure is not 100% matched either, and I was not too concerned with blowing out the highlights to the same level on each.  The highlight and shadows control has been dealt with in the DR comp post.
4) I'm including both single and multishot examples from CFii-39MS because it may be of interest to those that want to know if the Aptus 12 is truly a 'multishot killer" or not, but be mindful of the differences in lenses and potential focusing accuracy.

Okay now to the images - first here's the full frame - resized. 

[EricWHiss]

Wish I could attach more than 4 images... 

[EricWHiss]

Now to crops - this gold region has a lot of color and some stains in it.  How much can each camera make it come alive? Hard to pick a winner but its easy to see the canon is not picking up the coloration of the clock face as well - particularly the subtle changes in the stained areas.

[EricWHiss]

I dunno what you want to look for...  Do you see that 'liquid color' others have mention in the 80mp back?   The crops are 100% this time so also the level of detail captured will be available.
There are lots of variants in the processing - input color profiles and curves and custom profiles, color adjustments, etc...   I used the canned profiles but did add some small curve adjustments - but don't get hung up on how they differ in color - just feel it.

Whoops here's the 1st canon crop. 

[EricWHiss]

2nd crop - is the 39 mp Multishot defeating the 80mp Goliath here? or is it just differences in lenses and focus accuracy?

[EricWHiss]

Sorry I don't mean to suggest the canon is left behind the others - its just the order I started and LuLa only lets me attach 4 images per reply.

[EricWHiss]

3rd crop area to show dark region

[EricWHiss]

Is this the way you would like to see tonality comparisons?  What do you think about the different cameras?

I myself was surprised how much detail the CF-ii 39MS caught and overall on the downsized image how much they all looked alike.

[torger]

A very important aspect when testing cameras this way I think is to expose manually and really max out the histograms (expose to the right), because this is what most of us do when shooting base ISO from a tripod to maximize image quality. Any camera that has not its histogram maxed out is at disadvantage, it will show less dynamic range than it is capable of.

(Sometimes the histograms are too poorly implemented in the camera to be trusted so one need to check the actual file in suitable software if the brightest point is at saturation.)

Perhaps this is exactly what you've done but I don't see you mention that in the method description.

[EricWHiss]

The separate DR thread is here:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54348.0

[bradleygibson]

Wow, nice work, Eric!

That multishot is amazing.  Now I know why you're looking for that CF-528! 

To me, the multishot followed by the Leaf stand out for detail.

Thanks, this is a lot of work, and I appreciate your sharing it with us. 

[EricWHiss]

I think a bit of that detail in the CF images probably comes from the Rollei 90mm apo macro.  If you look at the thread I posted the shot of the flower taken with that lens and the AFi-ii 12, you also see impressive detail.   

[A.Garcia]

Properly sharpened, not easy to tell apart the differences between singleshot and multishot.

[henrikfoto]

Hm.. I am very suppriced how small the differenses are between these backs.
But the lens used with the Hasselblad-back is normally a lot better than the one you use with the Leaf, isn't it?

Henrik

[gazwas]

I think your test clearly reveals that MF is a lot better than 35mm with regard to colour rendering and sharpness but more surprisingly how little difference in the quality (apart from resolution) there is between a MF digi back bought in 2004 and one bought in 2011. 

The same can't be said for 35mm I imagine. 

[EricWHiss]

Hm.. I am very suppriced how small the differenses are between these backs.
But the lens used with the Hasselblad-back is normally a lot better than the one you use with the Leaf, isn't it?

Henrik

Yes, I think that's true.  The Rollei / Schneider 90mm apo macro is truly in a class by itself and maybe one lens worth going to the AFi for all by itself.   The Mamiya lens I used was the 120mm - which I guess is supposed to be good enough?  Now that I have the AFi, I could retest the CFii-39MS and AFi-ii 12 and see only differences in the back. 

[EricWHiss]

Properly sharpened, not easy to tell apart the differences between singleshot and multishot.

Maybe with this crop, but having worked with the MS backs, I can tell you the differences are subtle and sometimes seen not close up at 100% but further back too.  I can only describe the differences as this - single shots capture detail, and MS shots capture texture and feel.   I shot $2 bills with the Aptus 12 and CFii-39MS.   The aptus has twice the pixels and got a very tiny bit more detail, but missed the fingerprint mark on the bill and the crumpled wrinkles in the bill that the multi-shot got.  Since Yair and I have gone back and forth about Multi-shot killers, I'll have to post that thread because its just not true. Multishot is still king of the hill at least in my testing.

[cunim]

When I looked at the 50MS comparing single and MS acquisitions, I was very impressed with the "better" look of images taken with MS.  To my eyes, a key benefit of MS is noise reduction, visible particularly as subtle intensity transitions in dark areas but also a clean edge transitions.  Everything is just smoother and that gives images a sense of naturalness.  Add to that better color rendition and those were the best quality images I have made.  The 200MS must be a wondrous thing.

I did not have time to try something.  I would like to average four and nine single shot images and compare them with a four-shot MS.  I wonder if averaging would provide at least some of the noise reduction benefit of MS, without requiring quite so much perfection in exposure.  Eric, feel like trying this with the 39?

Peter

[EricWHiss]

Peter,
That's an interesting idea and I guess I could try it. But you'll have to guide me on what software is available to average the data.   I think the advantage of the Multi-shot is actually more that it gets R,G,B data for each pixel location and so the image does not need to go through a bayer interpretation.  In a way this is higher resolution not just cleaner.   

I'll post some images with very fine detail shot both with the Aptus 12 and the CFii-39MS soon.

Eric

[cunim]

Peter,
That's an interesting idea and I guess I could try it. But you'll have to guide me on what software is available to average the data.   I think the advantage of the Multi-shot is actually more that it gets R,G,B data for each pixel location and so the image does not need to go through a bayer interpretation.  In a way this is higher resolution not just cleaner.   

Eric, for the few images I averaged I just used the average function in batch processing under Photomatix Pro.  Apparently, it is simple to average layered images in PS as well, but I do not know how.

I fully agree about the improved resolution with MS, but to me there appears to be a lovely pixel to pixel smoothness as well.  Perhaps that is just a function of higher spatial resolution but I hope noise reduction through averaging could fake some of the effect.  Sadly, not much of my work allows the tight light control that MS needs so I look for ways to get part way there.