Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR  (Read 45717 times)

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #60 on: February 04, 2012, 03:41:22 pm »

Yes Phase is on the left, but I had to go back into Lightroom to check as I couldn't tell the difference.  Here are screen shots from Lightroom: left Phase at 100 percent, Phase at 50 percent and Leica at 100 percent.  Really, this is not done scientifically...certainly there are people who could process better than me too but after all the talk on this topic I wanted to see what differences, if any I could see for myself. I could have probably spent more time in Lightroom to get the images to match more carefully so please keep that in mind.   eleanor

Eleanor,

I think you did a pretty good work. I spent long time in post production shade, could recognise the phase simply by the way it displays transitions smoother, and DR. (boots and containers are the most visible). The Leica does a pretty amazing job, but still it's visible even on the web. You could have matched even closer with more post, but it's very difficult in the end to ecual totally. The phase contains more info and contrasts later.
The Leica is amazingly good though. But the Phase IMO still has better render on this side even at the same reduced magnification.

Best regards.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 08:23:09 pm by fredjeang »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #61 on: February 04, 2012, 04:01:00 pm »

Always a good point! ;-)

BR
Erik


+1. Plus better photographers if I should add... Regards, Theodoros.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #62 on: February 04, 2012, 04:14:45 pm »

Yes Phase is on the left, but I had to go back into Lightroom to check as I couldn't tell the difference.  Here are screen shots from Lightroom: left Phase at 100 percent, Phase at 50 percent and Leica at 100 percent.  Really, this is not done scientifically...certainly there are people who could process better than me too but after all the talk on this topic I wanted to see what differences, if any I could see for myself. I could have probably spent more time in Lightroom to get the images to match more carefully so please keep that in mind.   eleanor
Do you turn your Raws to DNGs and work on Lightroom Eleanor?
Logged

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #63 on: February 04, 2012, 04:21:50 pm »

I recently converted all my RAW files to DNG (without the original RAW file embedded as takes up too much hard drive space.)  I have also recently been working in Lightroom 4 beta (from LR3) but on certain files Capture One does an incredible job.  However LR4 beta now offers so many advantages that I seldom work in C1.  Occasionally my M9 DNGs have a very slight magenta tint in LR and if I take that file over to C1 it does a better job removing the tint.  In the files I sent of the wall in my garage, the M9 file has a very very slight magenta tint on the fishing wader boots that C1 did a better job with eliminating. Eleanor

Do you turn your Raws to DNGs and work on Lightroom Eleanor?
Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #64 on: February 04, 2012, 04:37:58 pm »

Hi Eleanor,

Thanks for sharing. Your results is what I would expect. Would be interesting to hear your experience once you get your NEX-7 for the four lenses of yours waiting for it!

Best regards
Erik

Ps. You wouldn't consider sharing the raw images?




Since i find this topic interesting I did a test yesterday between my 60 megapixel P65+ and Leica M9 at 18 megapixels.  The shot was done in my garage of one wall..P65 on a Hassy H2 with hassy prime 80mm at f8 (iso 100) on tripod with timer set.  Leica with 50/ 1.4 mm prime at f8 (iso 160) also on tripod using timer. Raw processed in LR4 beta and both printed with short side at 16" to make 16X20 prints.  THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST...just my personal test to satisfy my curiosity but though I would share.  Phase file printed at 720 dpi and Leica file at 360 dpi on Canson Baryta paper on Epson 7900 printer.  Forget about looking at "viewing distance".  I view at reading distance and my eyesight is corrected through contacts for 20/20.  On first very careful study the prints look very very equal...really.  it is only when I study in bright light that I can begin to see some advantage in the Phase One print but only in a few specific areas like the weave in the blue dog leash...or the edge detail in the far right pair of skis.  Really..this is incredibly close match even at 16X20.  In this print size the Phase One file has a tiny advantage but you have to know what you are looking for and study it close at reading distance.  Both files have deep shadows and the only area where detail is totally blocked (on both files) is inside the boot in the lower left corner.  Highlights are held on all metal surfaces.  Let me be clear:  These are MY visual impressions only, and others looking at the same files and prints may certainly have different views.


Eleanor
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #65 on: February 04, 2012, 04:39:59 pm »

Ups...C1 is now teating properly DNGs ?

I ignored it. (been time away from it)

This is a big news.

It will snow in Timbuktu, palmtrees will flowrish in lake Michigan.

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #66 on: February 04, 2012, 04:51:29 pm »

Hi,

Is that a Finnish version of "pigs will fly when..."?

Best regards
Erik


It will snow in Timbuktu, palmtrees will flowrish in lake Michigan.


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #67 on: February 04, 2012, 04:58:07 pm »

Hi,

Is that a Finnish version of "pigs will fly when..."?

Best regards
Erik


Yeah, sort of. I remember one Phase dealer (Doug?) explaining some time ago why they weren't very DNG friendly. I remember the strong magenta tint in DNG files.
Maybe this is over and Phase has embrassed a reliable interpretation of the format.
I have the latest C1 but can't remember the last time I edited DNG files. So pretty much disconnected from stills ultimatly.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 04:59:59 pm by fredjeang »
Logged

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #68 on: February 04, 2012, 06:35:29 pm »

Hi Eric, yes when I get the NEX7 I will share my observations tho I did look at the digilloyd site and he had some shots of some small areas of nex7 files at 100 percent at 100 iso and there was a little more noise than I had expected in midtone (ripply water) areas..or at least this is what he was showing with  his files.  I will be curious to see what I can get from this new "pocket" sized camera with really good lenses (I also have the new Sony E mount Zeiss 24 1.8 to use).  About sharing my RAW files...my common sense tells me that would not be a good idea because, while there are many sensible people reading these forums, there are those who will pixel pick at anything and everything (to horrendously obsessive degrees)  and can really get brutal (...ie: was I off a few pixels on my manual focusing in the Leica file??...etc). Soooo,  I'm not going to set myself up for that.  Eleanor

Hi Eleanor,

Thanks for sharing. Your results is what I would expect. Would be interesting to hear your experience once you get your NEX-7 for the four lenses of yours waiting for it!

Best regards
Erik

Ps. You wouldn't consider sharing the raw images?




Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR - DYNAMIC RANGE
« Reply #69 on: February 04, 2012, 06:43:28 pm »

It's not higher, it's in a different level for Christ sake! When will some people understand that DSLRs ARE "TWEAKED" even at their "Raw" files? Some people are so busy with theory that can't see anymore... THE DSLR IMAGE IS THERE TO SERVE THE "AVERAGE" OBSERVER and that includes Pentax! Regards, Theodoros.

True, the D7000 image is softer, but I don't see a larger gap in softness in the shadows compared to the the highlights.

The gap is about the expected one considering the difference in resolution (16 vs 25mp) and the lack of AA filter on the back, it could also be the result of the upsampling of the 16mp image to get the same size of image when comparing the 100% views.

As far as raw being processed in camera to reduce noise, this is very possible, but I believe that all cameras are applying some processing. This is obvious for the backs since they have to get rid of moire through processing which ends up being a process similar to noise reduction.

Cheers,
Bernard

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #70 on: February 04, 2012, 10:03:56 pm »

I really should have posted following yesterday and perhaps many of posts above would not have been.

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/issues/lgb-0028/

That test was posted here on LuLa by Tim Parkin recent. It is per my knowledge the only fair test that so far has been published and that involves "Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR" but also film.

There are obvious clear differences that per my impression puts an end to arguments.

We all tend to look at image quality on calibrated monitors and fine art prints.... but the main way that my work is experienced is via websites and magazines... and I'm just saying that perhaps we care more about image quality than some of our clients do.. and if we are trying to make money at this game then perhaps we should be open minded about how we capture our images.

Very interesting point. If I was a professional photographer I may well be using a DSLR as my main tool, simply to get the job done quick, done, money, higher ISO, and since suffice image quality for the publishing requirements. However for times when I saw need to push for a competitive edge or simply saw desire or need to provide better image quality, I would grab MFDB. Money wise, indeed MFDB is expensive, but so are constant upgrades of DSLRs.

Best regards,
Anders
Logged

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR - DYNAMIC RANGE
« Reply #71 on: February 04, 2012, 10:10:33 pm »

As far as raw being processed in camera to reduce noise, this is very possible, but I believe that all cameras are applying some processing. This is obvious for the backs since they have to get rid of moire through processing which ends up being a process similar to noise reduction.

@ Bernard,

For digital backs any such processing occurs at RAW processor level as per my understanding. The exception must be the mapping for discrepancies of the sensor. Else one can clearly see when loading large files that e.g. Capture One applies processing to optimize image quality when reading a file at defaults.

There is also no need to have such processing in the backs, since they do not produce JPGs and histograms are produced from RAW data.

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 10:23:26 pm by Anders_HK »
Logged

mtomalty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
    • http://www.marktomalty.com
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #72 on: February 04, 2012, 11:53:58 pm »


Thanks for the comparison,Eleanor.
Definitely highlights the resolution potential of the M9.

Are you finding any issues with green or magenta color casts of the sort typically seen with
some wides on a MFDB platform?

I bought into the M9 system a few months ago and have been constantly disappointed with the
results as far as color balance and color cast are concerned with asph 24 and asph 28.
Even  a current 50 2.0 exhibits a red tendency on one side.
Most can be dealt with in Cap One but,like you've mentioned, Lightroom just has so many useful
tools that I don't really want to leave the Adobe workflow.
Your series from the high arctic using the M9 was extremely neutral and wondered how you handled
this issue

Mark

www.marktomalty.com
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #73 on: February 05, 2012, 01:33:00 am »

Hi Anders,

We had a lengthy discussion on this forum about the Tim Parkin test and I was the person starting that thread.

I am most impressed by Tim's test. That said it was not really an MFDB vs. DSLR test. DSLRs were included in the test but played a marginal role. The test was essentially a resolution test and didn't look into DR.

I had no issue with the test itself. But at the resolution tested the small sensor devices fall apart.

What I have seen in Tim's test mainly was that large format film could outperform even the IQ180.

On the other hand, Tim has his own high end drum scanner and he scanned at 8000 PPI. I guess that it takes some time. Tim has bought his scanner at very reasonable price.

I guess that no one really questions that a 80 MP MFDB has better image detail than a 24 MP DSLR. The questions may be:

- What do I gain for spending 20 kUSD on a low end MF digital (lenses included) over a high end DSLR?
- What do I gain buying an old back (like 16-25 MP backs) over a high end DSLR?
- If the MFDB is superior to a DSLR at which print size will the difference be significant?

Questions like above are not the focus of Tim's article.

Regarding fairness I don't agree that Tim's test is the only fair test published. I'd say that all tests are fair as long as:

- The test is not designed to put a certain device at disadvantage
- The test is properly made
- All parameters are disclosed

For instance, the analogue vs. digital tests I made are fair in my view. I have done everything I could to set up a level playing field. I even had some very high resolution drum scans made with the friendly help of Dominique Ventzke, at 6000 PPI. The only omission is that I have tested the equipment I have. Would I have a higher performing lens the results may have been better, but I have not. You know, I have invested many hours of work in those tests, just choosing an image for involves scanning 4-5 focus bracketed images at highest resolution, a couple of hours of work.

One issue worth mentioning is that we have seen in Tim's that even 4x5" could match the IQ180, at least in some sense. Some earlier tests indicated that P45 performed similar to Velvia scanned at 2000 PPI. This discrepancy came probably from the fact that the authors of those tests used 2000 PPI on their 4x5 scans. So the tests was not really intended to find out how much performance could be eaked from 4x5" but to see if the backs were good enough to replace 4x5" in the authors workflow. This applies to the "Great MFDB shootout of 2006" by Reichmann, Atkinson, Cramer and Sanderson: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

The enclosed image is from my test and shows a small crop at 6000PPI. In this image the Sony Alpha is actually at disadvantage because of camera vibration (due to enabled Antishake).

Best regards
Erik

For anyone interested my test is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2?start=1







I really should have posted following yesterday and perhaps many of posts above would not have been.

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/issues/lgb-0028/

That test was posted here on LuLa by Tim Parkin recent. It is per my knowledge the only fair test that so far has been published and that involves "Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR" but also film.

There are obvious clear differences that per my impression puts an end to arguments.

Very interesting point. If I was a professional photographer I may well be using a DSLR as my main tool, simply to get the job done quick, done, money, higher ISO, and since suffice image quality for the publishing requirements. However for times when I saw need to push for a competitive edge or simply saw desire or need to provide better image quality, I would grab MFDB. Money wise, indeed MFDB is expensive, but so are constant upgrades of DSLRs.

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 01:43:49 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

paratom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #74 on: February 06, 2012, 01:27:13 pm »

.....
I guess that no one really questions that a 80 MP MFDB has better image detail than a 24 MP DSLR. The questions may be:

- What do I gain for spending 20 kUSD on a low end MF digital (lenses included) over a high end DSLR?
- What do I gain buying an old back (like 16-25 MP backs) over a high end DSLR?
- If the MFDB is superior to a DSLR at which print size will the difference be significant?

...
Best regards
Erik

For anyone interested my test is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2?start=1

I have tried several times direct comparisons between DSLR and digital MF but there is almost allways something which makes a direct comparison difficult.
What I do see as someone shooting both smaller sensors and a Leica S2 is that I get a much higher keeper rate of images with the S2.

What I mean is images which seem to show colors and tones the way I remember to have seen them (color is a big thing for me-specially skin color), images which show a fine graduation of color and tones, and a nice transition between sharp areas and out of focus areas. Also the ability to show very fine microdetail on things like skin, fruits,stones etc.

One other thing I really like is the size and quality of the viewfinder of a MF camera.

Of course there are also many advantages of a dslr over MF (like AF speed, price, size)

Regarding print size - I believe I can see it at nearly every print size, but thats just my impression (and maybe lack of post processing skills)

Tom

Logged

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #75 on: February 06, 2012, 01:42:36 pm »

Yes Mark I am definitely having some issues with the Magenta cast (and some cyan also) on the edges of the M9 files mostly with wide angle shots.  Many times the cast doesn't show enough to matter but when I shoot bright snow or sky for example it is definitely a problem.  I haven't found a good solution in Lightroom to correct this, tho what I will do is desaturate the purple ad magenta in HSL if that is possible without effecting the rest of the image.  On a few of my arctic shots I used this technique and it worked fairly well.  On other shots  the magenta cast wasn't enough of an issue to worry about, fortunately...but I didn't do many shots with my 24mm lens either. Have you tried cornerfix??  I haven't tried that yet.  eleanor


Thanks for the comparison,Eleanor.
Definitely highlights the resolution potential of the M9.

Are you finding any issues with green or magenta color casts of the sort typically seen with
some wides on a MFDB platform?

I bought into the M9 system a few months ago and have been constantly disappointed with the
results as far as color balance and color cast are concerned with asph 24 and asph 28.
Even  a current 50 2.0 exhibits a red tendency on one side.
Most can be dealt with in Cap One but,like you've mentioned, Lightroom just has so many useful
tools that I don't really want to leave the Adobe workflow.
Your series from the high arctic using the M9 was extremely neutral and wondered how you handled
this issue

Mark

www.marktomalty.com
Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #76 on: February 06, 2012, 03:04:54 pm »

Hi,

The NEX-7 is an APS-C camera so the most critical region is cropped of. Most of the color probably comes from the IR-filter. From what I have read elsewhere rangefinder lenses on the wide angle side are problematic on the NEX-7. I guess that the Sony and Zeiss lenses made for the NEX series are more tele-centric designs. That kind of design unfortunately also results in larger lenses.

Best regards
Erik


Eleanor, I have to wonder what chance is there of the Leica wides behaving themselves on the NEX-7 or X-Pro1 when they display these casts on the Leica M9?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #77 on: February 06, 2012, 03:08:52 pm »

Do you remember, no?...http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/27729-wide-lens-iq-180-shoot-out-digitar-28xl-versus-digaron-32hr-w.html


I got the sensation, just the sensation ok? that it is somehow admitted nowdays to release on the market Beta products as #1 and let's see if and how react the consumers...

Probably due in part to the incredible competition and the pressure to release cameras on strategical dates every 2 or 3 years, and in other part because there is a very high consummer acceptance. IMHO.

Am I wrong or there is also a cast issue on the Nex 7, reported here in Lu-La no?


 

« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 03:49:03 pm by fredjeang »
Logged

mtomalty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
    • http://www.marktomalty.com
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #78 on: February 06, 2012, 03:44:01 pm »


Eleanor,
If I'm staying out of Cap One and working in Lightroom/Camera Raw I've been using a combination of Brush tool or Gradient and picking a color opposite of the shift
in very low amounts (4-8) Generally does the trick but aggravating nonetheless and creates additional work.
As I'm up in Montreal, snow and ice is a reality for 4-5 months of the year so the M9 is proving to be a disappointment in this regard.
Unfortunately, i drank the 'M' Kool-aid and am having difficulty kicking the habit.

Keith,
Originally, the 28 2.8 asph  but has been dumped as it is near impossible to color cast correct in some situations despite being fantastically sharp and small.
The 28 2.0 is twice the price and twice the size but does not perform as well in a landscape application where f11-f16 might be needed for hyperfocal reasons.
Settled on the 24 2,8 asph. Much better colorcast response but still a nuisance. I've even seeing some cast with 35 2.0 and 50 2.0 but modest but, as Eleanor mentioned,
not apparent on many subjects/scenes- except where I live and shoot much of the time  :)

Spent the day printing out close to 30 17 x 22's of various tests between my M9 and my 5DMkll with 24 shift and a few Zeiss wide primes.
End of the day using the same sharpening routine and amounts (despite all the claims of sogginess due to anti-aliasing filter with 5D) there is absolutely
no apparent fine detail/sharpness advantage to the M9.  Form factor,yes.  Portability,yes but no sharpness advantage.  Ease of getting a wide file to print is easy advantage to 5D.

Anyhow, apologies to all for steering the thread away from the core Medium Format topic.

Mark
www.marktomalty.com




Logged

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography
Re: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR
« Reply #79 on: February 06, 2012, 04:36:55 pm »

Thanks for the tip.   I'm in Colorado half the year and right now surrounded by snow.  I did a lot of snow images last year with the M9 and have the magenta issue on some of them..especially the ones taken with my 35 cron much more so than my 50 lux. eleanor


Eleanor,
If I'm staying out of Cap One and working in Lightroom/Camera Raw I've been using a combination of Brush tool or Gradient and picking a color opposite of the shift
in very low amounts (4-8) Generally does the trick but aggravating nonetheless and creates additional work.
As I'm up in Montreal, snow and ice is a reality for 4-5 months of the year so the M9 is proving to be a disappointment in this regard.
Unfortunately, i drank the 'M' Kool-aid and am having difficulty kicking the habit.

Keith,
Originally, the 28 2.8 asph  but has been dumped as it is near impossible to color cast correct in some situations despite being fantastically sharp and small.
The 28 2.0 is twice the price and twice the size but does not perform as well in a landscape application where f11-f16 might be needed for hyperfocal reasons.
Settled on the 24 2,8 asph. Much better colorcast response but still a nuisance. I've even seeing some cast with 35 2.0 and 50 2.0 but modest but, as Eleanor mentioned,
not apparent on many subjects/scenes- except where I live and shoot much of the time  :)

Spent the day printing out close to 30 17 x 22's of various tests between my M9 and my 5DMkll with 24 shift and a few Zeiss wide primes.
End of the day using the same sharpening routine and amounts (despite all the claims of sogginess due to anti-aliasing filter with 5D) there is absolutely
no apparent fine detail/sharpness advantage to the M9.  Form factor,yes.  Portability,yes but no sharpness advantage.  Ease of getting a wide file to print is easy advantage to 5D.

Anyhow, apologies to all for steering the thread away from the core Medium Format topic.

Mark
www.marktomalty.com





Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up