Downgrading my MF

[eronald]

Sorry for the digression indeed. As far as colors on the D800 go, they easily go from ok to great by grey card clicking in C1 Pro.

Although I own a copy of the 24-70f2.8, I hardly ever use it and never use it when I shoot for pleasure (which is 99% of the time). I far prefer using the Nikkor 24mm f1.4, Sigma 35mm f1.4, Zeiss 50mm f2.0 and Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-S. The 24-70f2.8 is a PJ lens and is in fact very good, but it is not meant for landscape shooting.

Cheers,
Bernard

It's interesting how much money Zeiss manage to squeeze from the Vanilla 50mm focal length Seems to be the place where all the major players dropped the ball.

Edmund

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The 24-70f2.8 is a PJ lens and is in fact very good, but it is not meant for landscape shooting.

And to add, Capture One Pro offers sharpness fall-off correction to boost the corner sharpness to a more uniform overall level.

Also, sharpening of 35mm DSLR images is still an underdeveloped skill with most users. MFDB sharpening is a bit different due to the risk of aliasing caused by the absence of an OLPF.

Cheers,
Bart

[BernardLanguillier]

And to add, Capture One Pro offers sharpness fall-off correction to boost the corner sharpness to a more uniform overall level.

Adding some more, DxO 8 does a great job with those completely automatically.

Cheers,
Bernard

[TMARK]

Bernd,

I did mean mirror slap, I should have been more specific.  Of course the leaf shutters have no perceived vibration. Its that big mirror.

And yes, the H finder is really great.  I never found the the mamiya finder quality terrible unless I compared it directly with an H, or even a Nikon F4.

 

You nailed the shortcomings of both the Hasselblad H and the Mamiya AFD-PhaseOne DF.

But there is no shutter shock in the H. There never was one. The effect comes exclusively from the mirror slap.

Setting the mirror delay to 200ms (=0,2sec.) helps, but is very irritating when taking pictures of people. You miss the good moment.

But anyway, imho the H is a much better camera than the Mamiya AFD or the Phase DF. The biggest limit (finally the killing off reason) is the optical quality of the prism finder. It cannot be overcome by any superbright focussing screen, no matter what Phase reps tell you. There is too much information/sharpness lost in the optical path of the prism. There should be a complete redesign, which would make the camera bigger.

But I wished, there was a complete redesign of the Hasselblad H body, too, with the mirror slap eliminated.

Bernd

[eronald]

And to add, Capture One Pro offers sharpness fall-off correction to boost the corner sharpness to a more uniform overall level.

Also, sharpening of 35mm DSLR images is still an underdeveloped skill with most users. MFDB sharpening is a bit different due to the risk of aliasing caused by the absence of an OLPF.

Cheers,
Bart

Why do 35 mm camera makers have such difficulty delivering good lenses and still argue that their wares are ok for cinematography?

Edmund

[jerome_m]

Why do 35 mm camera makers have such difficulty delivering good lenses

They dont. "Sharp to the corners", "less than 2 Kg" or "less than 6000€". Pick any two out of three.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Why do 35 mm camera makers have such difficulty delivering good lenses and still argue that their wares are ok for cinematography?

Hi Edmund,

Well, cinematography only requires limited output resolution, e.g. HDTV format is 1920 x1080 pixels. Good lenses are available, but at a price that many are not willing to pay ...

Good lenses for MF are even harder to produce, and require huge amounts of material, due to the size of the required image circle.

But even images made with good lenses require sharpening.

Cheers,
Bart

[TMARK]

Of all the motion work I've ever shot, corner to corner sharpness was never a consideration.  Sharp wide open and look is what mattered to me.  But then again, I filmed human subjects/lifestyle. I also always rented matched Zeiss and Cooke sets.

Why do 35 mm camera makers have such difficulty delivering good lenses and still argue that their wares are ok for cinematography?

Edmund

[bcooter]

Of all the motion work I've ever shot, corner to corner sharpness was never a consideration.  Sharp wide open and look is what mattered to me.  But then again, I filmed human subjects/lifestyle. I also always rented matched Zeiss and Cooke sets.

I think digital has brought in the age of oversharpening.   Nearly every lens review talks about corner to corner sharpness, rarely about the look and character of a lens.

For the RED's I have Zeiss in Nikon mount and RED primes in PL mounts.  The Zeiss are sharper or appear sharper as they have more contrast and crispness, but they're not as pretty.

The RED PL, have a look of sharpness, with soft roll off and just produces a deeper more cinematic image.

Then again, a lot of this is to taste.

When I bought the 4/3's system couldn't wait to put my Leica 90mm M mount lens on the cameras and was really shocked with the CA and softness of the image, where the mft 43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic are sharp and almost CA free, though most of that comes from under the hood processing.

Anyway, the prettiest lens I've ever owned is the Hartblei tilt shift (old Russian sourced).  Nothing about this lens is sharp, even in the zero position, but it has a character I've never seen in any lens and it is one of the few lenses that produces a look, I can't replicate with processing by moving the sliders around.

Some lenses are pretty, some are brutally sharp, rarely are both at least in what we shoot.



IMO

BC

[eronald]

yeah, we have a poster here who wants to do landscape -which he seems to view as the large scale equivalent of dermatology
I guess atmospheric would be the equivalent of fashion

Edmund

I think digital has brought in the age of oversharpening.   Nearly every lens review talks about corner to corner sharpness, rarely about the look and character of a lens.

For the RED's I have Zeiss in Nikon mount and RED primes in PL mounts.  The Zeiss are sharper or appear sharper as they have more contrast and crispness, but they're not as pretty.

The RED PL, have a look of sharpness, with soft roll off and just produces a deeper more cinematic image.

Then again, a lot of this is to taste.

When I bought the 4/3's system couldn't wait to put my Leica 90mm M mount lens on the cameras and was really shocked with the CA and softness of the image, where the mft 43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic are sharp and almost CA free, though most of that comes from under the hood processing.

Anyway, the prettiest lens I've ever owned is the Hartblei tilt shift (old Russian sourced).  Nothing about this lens is sharp, even in the zero position, but it has a character I've never seen in any lens and it is one of the few lenses that produces a look, I can't replicate with processing by moving the sliders around.

Some lenses are pretty, some are brutally sharp, rarely are both at least in what we shoot.



IMO

BC

[BJL]

...
My issues with D800e.
Great resolution, but poor corner performance on many lenses. I have the 24-70 that I carry mostly on family holidays. Great for portraiture, but try and do some serious landscapes and the corners crumble. ...

Another issue is the clipping of highlights. I've found that at values 240-255, I need to be really careful about how the channels behave.

On these two points, I have some comments, though I am not disputing your overall case for preferring a MF system.

1) Since MF systems are mostly used with prime lenses, using the Nikon D800 with the 24-70 zoom lens hardly seems a good or fair measure of what the system is capable of. Are you really looking at a high priced medium system [like the Leica S] in pursuit of very high quality landscape images, and then planning to use a zoom lens for those landscapes? You could buy and carry a good selection of good Nikon-mount primes for similar bulk and far lower cost than a Leica S with just that one 30-90 zoom lens.

2) Since the D800 has (by the agreement of most but not all) dynamic range that is at least as good as that offered any current DMF camera (due to the vastly better low-light and noise characteristics of its sensor), and DMF systems tend to reduce the risk of highlight clipping by favoring lower exposure levels, one could achieve the same additional margin of highlight safety by systematically lowering exposure level a bit, say -1/2 or -1 stop compensation, while still handling shadows at least as well as DMF systems do. It is easy enough to have a raw batch conversion preset profile to support a default choice such as -1 stop exposure by applying a default of +1 stop push in conversion.

[pjtn]

Why did you think otherwise, if I may ask?

I have seen a 32 second exposure taken with the H3DII-31 which was really quite terrible. The corners had turned purple and the image was smattered with hot pixels. My assumptions are solely based on this one image. Your photograph completely changes my mind, that image would easily enlarge to a 40x30" print and look terrific.

Part of the DSLR appeal for me is high ISO capability. I've been thinking about shooting some work at night. The ability to set an ISO of say, 1600, then making a few 30 second exposures and stacking is quite appealing.

I'm quite enjoying some experimentation at the moment.

[satybhat]

On these two points, I have some comments, though I am not disputing your overall case for preferring a MF system.

1) Since MF systems are mostly used with prime lenses, using the Nikon D800 with the 24-70 zoom lens hardly seems a good or fair measure of what the system is capable of. Are you really looking at a high priced medium system [like the Leica S] in pursuit of very high quality landscape images, and then planning to use a zoom lens for those landscapes? You could buy and carry a good selection of good Nikon-mount primes for similar bulk and far lower cost than a Leica S with just that one 30-90 zoom lens.

2) Since the D800 has (by the agreement of most but not all) dynamic range that is at least as good as that offered any current DMF camera (due to the vastly better low-light and noise characteristics of its sensor), and DMF systems tend to reduce the risk of highlight clipping by favoring lower exposure levels, one could achieve the same additional margin of highlight safety by systematically lowering exposure level a bit, say -1/2 or -1 stop compensation, while still handling shadows at least as well as DMF systems do. It is easy enough to have a raw batch conversion preset profile to support a default choice such as -1 stop exposure by applying a default of +1 stop push in conversion.

BJL,
very valid points.
My main issue at this stage is that considering the nature of my photographic endeavors, most "shoots" happen during family holidays where my ability to change lenses is seriously limited. You'll be able to see some of my recent work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/87227412@N04/
I'm happy to go with f8 and tripods ( avoiding diffraction and risking DOF sharpness ) , but that's about it. After 2 or 3 changes of lenses, my wife's patience is stretched like a rubber band. So it becomes a frustrating situation where I know I need to carry primes but am unable to when out and about. The only solution to this is to try and stick to one focal length ( or two ) which many of us might do. In that instance, I would rather use the M9. Not sure of people's experiences here, but I've found that M9 files are actually a bit superior in microcontrast and colour fidelity to the D800e files ( not bashing nikon, not bashing nikon, bear with me ) at my preferred print size ( 24x36 inches ). Hence my thought process goes like this:
If primes are what I would prefer, I would prefer the M9 and Leica primes anyday over Nikon. Anyday.
If the Leica S 30-90 is indeed as good as it is supposed to be, it saves me the hassle of changing lenses in field. If it isn't, then no, I wouldn't bother going the leica S way. Add to that a larger sensor, weather sealing and an amazing handling experience and battery life... it might just be worth putting my nikon stuff on ebay. Mind you, I haven't looked at the other DMF zoom offerings here.

ERonald, not sure what you meant by your comment regarding landscape and dermatology.
Best,
saty

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BC,

I would agree on oversharpening.

On the other hand I would suggest that a lens should just reproduce the subject, neither add or subtract. A lens the simply transfer all information from subject to sensor would simply be a perfect lens. Near perfect lenses do exist.

I understand that absolute sharpness is not wanted in many kinds of photography, like portraiture. On the other hand, with a very good lens and a high resolution sensor with proper OLP filtering we would perhaps need no sharpening at all. That would give natural sharpness.

Landscape photographers seldom complain about sharpness in the lens. Treetops should not become diffuse blue shades, remote figures on hilltops (which happens to add scale to a landscape) should not turn into bluish haze. I guess that architecture photographers also love sharpness.



Best regards
Erik

I think digital has brought in the age of oversharpening.   Nearly every lens review talks about corner to corner sharpness, rarely about the look and character of a lens.

For the RED's I have Zeiss in Nikon mount and RED primes in PL mounts.  The Zeiss are sharper or appear sharper as they have more contrast and crispness, but they're not as pretty.

The RED PL, have a look of sharpness, with soft roll off and just produces a deeper more cinematic image.

Then again, a lot of this is to taste.

When I bought the 4/3's system couldn't wait to put my Leica 90mm M mount lens on the cameras and was really shocked with the CA and softness of the image, where the mft 43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic are sharp and almost CA free, though most of that comes from under the hood processing.

Anyway, the prettiest lens I've ever owned is the Hartblei tilt shift (old Russian sourced).  Nothing about this lens is sharp, even in the zero position, but it has a character I've never seen in any lens and it is one of the few lenses that produces a look, I can't replicate with processing by moving the sliders around.

Some lenses are pretty, some are brutally sharp, rarely are both at least in what we shoot.



IMO

BC

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I would agree on oversharpening.

Hi Erik,

So do I, and that's why I keep stressing the use of proper Capture sharpening (or combined Capture and Output sharpening). That should only restore the losses, caused by the hardware and output media we use, to the natural state.

We then still have the possibility to be creative with local contrast, and targeted spatial frequencies.

On the other hand I would suggest that a lens should just reproduce the subject, neither add or subtract. A lens the simply transfer all information from subject to sensor would simply be a perfect lens. Near perfect lenses do exist.

The problem with that is that lenses do have a 'signature' by design, due to the shape of the MTF curves and glare resistance. Residual lens aberrations also add to the character of lenses. Since lenses are a mix of compromises, a perfect lens is not possible, although a combination of hardware and software can come a long way.

I understand that absolute sharpness is not wanted in many kinds of photography, like portraiture. On the other hand, with a very good lens and a high resolution sensor with proper OLP filtering we would perhaps need no sharpening at all. That would give natural sharpness.

There is a difference between natural sharpness, and artifacts caused by improper sharpening. It's the latter that cause issues. There is nothing wrong with e.g. a correctly sharpened portrait, it just looks natural. We still have the possibility to reduce the visibility of pore structure, lines, and wrinkles, but that is more Creative tonemapping than sharpening.

Cheers,
Bart

[BernardLanguillier]

I have been shooting a lot hand held with the family recently.

I find the combination of the 85mm f1.4 AF-S and the sigma 35mm f1.4 hard to beat in terms of look and technical qualities on the D800.

Auto ISO and DxO 8 are 2 key aspects of the package.

Cheers,
Bernard

[julienlanoo]

My thought is i much prefere my old bentley than driving a new toyota, same price, more problems but when it works , i am in love

[Steve Hendrix]

Some people feel the Canon/Nikon files are plenty, or are close enough to medium format. Some - mostly owners of both systems - prefer the medium format file, regardless of the megapixels. More often these days, unless there are real image quality and scale requirements, I'm seeing users who are making choices for what they like to shoot with. Why should you shoot with a P25+ (other than the fact the OP already owns one) when the technically advanced Canon/Nikon cameras deliver a file that is close? And yet many people still do.

What is lost in all the discussion over the great variety of photographic equipment options is the much, much greater variety of people who use the equipment and the many ways that their preferences and desires differ. And thank goodness.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Roger Ciala, LensRentals, compared 24-70/2.8 zooms from Canon, Nikon and Tamron. As a side not he mentioned that all three were better than the Macro Planar 50/2.8 which is a highly regarded lens.

Comparing Canon 24-70/2.8L IS2 with the Planar 50/2.8 with DxO data seems to indicate that is the case.

I have also compared Zeiss MTF data between Planar 50/2 Macro and the new Apo Distagon 55/1.4. The Distagon 55/1.4 is incredibly sharp at f/1.4 and peaks at f/4 - f/5.6 (center peaks at f/4 corner improve at f/5.6). Not a lot of difference between Distagon 55 and Macro Planar between f/5.6 - f/8 I would guess.

Best regards
Erik

On these two points, I have some comments, though I am not disputing your overall case for preferring a MF system.

1) Since MF systems are mostly used with prime lenses, using the Nikon D800 with the 24-70 zoom lens hardly seems a good or fair measure of what the system is capable of. Are you really looking at a high priced medium system [like the Leica S] in pursuit of very high quality landscape images, and then planning to use a zoom lens for those landscapes? You could buy and carry a good selection of good Nikon-mount primes for similar bulk and far lower cost than a Leica S with just that one 30-90 zoom lens.

2) Since the D800 has (by the agreement of most but not all) dynamic range that is at least as good as that offered any current DMF camera (due to the vastly better low-light and noise characteristics of its sensor), and DMF systems tend to reduce the risk of highlight clipping by favoring lower exposure levels, one could achieve the same additional margin of highlight safety by systematically lowering exposure level a bit, say -1/2 or -1 stop compensation, while still handling shadows at least as well as DMF systems do. It is easy enough to have a raw batch conversion preset profile to support a default choice such as -1 stop exposure by applying a default of +1 stop push in conversion.

[eronald]

Steve,

 Actually, this is turning into one of the better discussions here, partly because of your contribution

 Here is an interesting 35mm image by DigiLLoyd which as he says looks very like MF, maybe necause of the Zeiss lens, or maybe just because some parts are out of focus

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131007_4-Zeiss-Otus-55f1_4-medium-format-look.html

Edmund

Some people feel the Canon/Nikon files are plenty, or are close enough to medium format. Some - mostly owners of both systems - prefer the medium format file, regardless of the megapixels. More often these days, unless there are real image quality and scale requirements, I'm seeing users who are making choices for what they like to shoot with. Why should you shoot with a P25+ (other than the fact the OP already owns one) when the technically advanced Canon/Nikon cameras deliver a file that is close? And yet many people still do.

What is lost in all the discussion over the great variety of photographic equipment options is the much, much greater variety of people who use the equipment and the many ways that their preferences and desires differ. And thank goodness.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration