Another useless MF-D800 comparison ;)

[jerome_m]

Normally, when I get a new lens, I try to test it corner to corner by shooting an horizon picture where the horizon is tilted corner to corner. Like this one:

I do that at various apertures so as to see the progression in sharpness. The test also gives information on AF accuracy and vignetting. Basically, it is a deceptively simple yet extremely accurate landscape test. I can also compare different lenses of the same focal between them (e.g. zoom versus prime, at different apertures, etc...).

Today, I tried to compare two different lenses mounted on two different cameras. One is the Hasselblad HC 50mm - II, mounted on the H3DII-50. The other is the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G, mounted on the D800. The HC 50 - II is an excellent lens, but so is the Nikon (in any case it is the best I have that gives that field of view and mounts on the Nikon). The HC 50 - II is full open at f/3.5 (it does not get much sharper closed down...), the Nikon 35mm is closed at f/4.0 (and it only gets a bit sharper when closed down to f/11, but not that much).

To ease the comparison, I cropped the horizon and rotated the pictures, then put them on top of each other. The D800 picture is scaled up to match the resolution of the Hasselblad. You get this:

Clic here to see the full resolution (on flickr).

[Chairman Bill]

I'm assuming the Hassy is the top image, with the Nikon underneath. The top one is clearly better in terms of resolution & detail, not to mention the fringing that is quite evident on the lower image

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

A good idea, did never think about it!

Best regards
Erik

Normally, when I get a new lens, I try to test it corner to corner by shooting an horizon picture where the horizon is tilted corner to corner. Like this one:

I do that at various apertures so as to see the progression in sharpness. The test also gives information on AF accuracy and vignetting. Basically, it is a deceptively simple yet extremely accurate landscape test. I can also compare different lenses of the same focal between them (e.g. zoom versus prime, at different apertures, etc...).

Today, I tried to compare two different lenses mounted on two different cameras. One is the Hasselblad HC 50mm - II, mounted on the H3DII-50. The other is the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G, mounted on the D800. The HC 50 - II is an excellent lens, but so is the Nikon (in any case it is the best I have that gives that field of view and mounts on the Nikon). The HC 50 - II is full open at f/3.5 (it does not get much sharper closed down...), the Nikon 35mm is closed at f/4.0 (and it only gets a bit sharper when closed down to f/11, but not that much).

To ease the comparison, I cropped the horizon and rotated the pictures, then put them on top of each other. The D800 picture is scaled up to match the resolution of the Hasselblad. You get this:

Clic here to see the full resolution (on flickr).

[evgeny]

My personal preference is the top image.
That is because I shot MF.
The bottom photo is clearly a Nikon look. Nikon guys will choose the bottom image.

Evgeny

[jerome_m]

The top one is clearly better in terms of resolution & detail

It should be, since it has more pixels... but what is interesting is that the D800 is quite comparable at the center (basically, the only difference is the difference in resolution), but degrades towards the edges of the picture. And this has indeed been my observation: 24x36 DSLRs may have a very high resolution, but the lenses available for them are no match to the ones available for MF cameras.

They are better, but they also cost twice as much, weight 50% more and are 8 times as slow (in that particular case). Nothing is perfect.

[Ken R]

If you compare the Nikon D800E (with the best glass) with a tech camera setup with rodenstock HR lenses and a 60 or 80mp phase back the difference is even more dramatic. The Hasselblad did a great job though. Thx for posting. 

[Chairman Bill]

... Nikon guys will choose the bottom image.

Really? I prefer the top image.

[bjanes]

My personal preference is the top image.
That is because I shot MF.
The bottom photo is clearly a Nikon look. Nikon guys will choose the bottom image.

Evgeny

Well, I'm a Nikon guy, but the tip image is clearly sharper, especially in the corners. The left portion of the of the bottom image appears less sharp than the right, suggestive of some lens slew (the flange of the mount not parallel to the sensor plane), but the subject matter makes it hard to judge definitively. Such slew is commonly brought out with fast lenses at large apertures where the depth of field is narrow.

The 35 mm f/1.4 Nikkor is an excellent lens, but weakness in the corners is typical for a fast wide angle. The falloff of resolution is shown in the PhotoZone tests using the D3x as a test bed. The Sigma art 35 mm f/1.4 is slightly better. Since the Hasselblad lens is only f/3.5, the lens designer has an easier job in optimizing image quality across the field of view. The observed difference is attributable to the lenses as well as the superior resolution of the MFDB.

Bill

[JV]

Well, I'm a Nikon guy, but the tip image is clearly sharper, especially in the corners.

I am guessing evgeny did not look at the full resolution pictures...  The difference in sharpness is crystal clear.

[pjtn]

Clever test! I wonder at what sizes this starts to become apparent in prints.

If I put it in Photoshop the image would make a 27" wide print at 300ppi. When zooming out to print size, the images do look closer, however the Hasselblad still has the edge.

[eronald]

A very simple and smart test. This type of post makes my day.

Now, the H is clearly one "generation" ahead in the center, and two in the corners.
I'd say the D800 is doing well for its price, and should be tested again with a Sigma 35 and Zeiss lens; possibly investing in a top lens for the D800 would "save" the price of investing in the H body, for someone who wants these results. It would be interesting to see a similar comparison from someone with an 80MP back and Alpa.

Edmund

[Fine_Art]

If a d800 user needed the higher resolution they would stitch rather than uprez. If there is a weak point these days it is in the seams.

[pjtn]

Stitching is a PITA...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't feel that way. I often stitch, seldom to increase resolution, more to avoid cropping. With MFD I sometimes stitch because I don't have a lens appropriate for the point of view and cannot change PoV. With DSLRs and zoom lenses it is less of a problem.

Best regards
Erik

Stitching is a PITA...

[jerome_m]

possibly investing in a top lens for the D800 would "save" the price of investing in the H body, for someone who wants these results.

The problem is that the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G is already the top lens from Nikon in that focal length. The others are the old 35mm f/2.0 (not as good) or zooms (not as good either). Possibly, the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 would be a bit better at f/5.6-f/8.0, I don't have that lens.

If a d800 user needed the higher resolution they would stitch rather than uprez.

We all know that stitching will beat any MF or even LF camera resolution wise. Everybody has seen the huge Gigapan pictures.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Stitching is a PITA...

Stitching is liberating ..., both for resolution and for composition.

Using a longer focal length allows to capture a higher resolution, and stitching will make up for the FOV. Stitching allows to compose more freely, not limited by the rectangular sensor dimensions, but rather by the framing that the subject requires.

What Jerome's example shows is that up-sampling will not benefit resolution, and that sharpness fall-off towards the corners can be an issue when producing large format output. A Raw converter like Capture One offers a sharpening correction for such sharpness fall-off. It could also be done with a duplicate layer that was deconvolution sharpened specifically for the corners, and a circular mask. Stitching would allow to down-sample to gain corner sharpness with a more natural transition across the image.

Cheers,
Bart

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Jerome's example shows that the Nikon lens doesn't deliver in the corners. Center is a close match for the Hassy but moving to the corners the Nikon image starts to fall apart. There is significant color fringing, I would reduce it in raw conversion. Blurring is pretty bad. Could be lens, alignment between lens and sensor or even both. Would be interesting if Jerome see's weak corners on lenses that typically are very good across the field like short telephoto and macro lenses.

Regarding stitching I do it often. It works well mostly.

Best regards
Erik

Stitching is liberating ..., both for resolution and for composition.

Using a longer focal length allows to capture a higher resolution, and stitching will make up for the FOV. Stitching allows to compose more freely, not limited by the rectangular sensor dimensions, but rather by the framing that the subject requires.

What Jerome's example shows is that up-sampling will not benefit resolution, and that sharpness fall-off towards the corners can be an issue when producing large format output. A Raw converter like Capture One offers a sharpening correction for such sharpness fall-off. It could also be done with a duplicate layer that was deconvolution sharpened specifically for the corners, and a circular mask. Stitching would allow to down-sample to gain corner sharpness with a more natural transition across the image.

Cheers,
Bart

[jerome_m]

Would be interesting if Jerome see's weak corners on lenses that typically are very good across the field like short telephoto and macro lenses.

The test on the horizon is deceptively simple. It actually allows one to determine defects such as centering and, by comparison with a few lenses, lack of parallelism between sensor and mount on the camera. I tested a good dozen lenses on that D800 and even more on my Sony A900. A few on Canon as well. I can definitely say that sharpness corner to corner is much better for wide angle lenses on the Hasselblad H system than on any 24x36 system.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

So you see the problem on wide angles but not on longer lenses?

What surprised me somewhat was that it was not just a corner fallof on the Nikon but the degradation of the image was obvious over a large part of the field. I will do the same test with some of my lenses.

Best regards
Erik

The test on the horizon is deceptively simple. It actually allows one to determine defects such as centering and, by comparison with a few lenses, lack of parallelism between sensor and mount on the camera. I tested a good dozen lenses on that D800 and even more on my Sony A900. A few on Canon as well. I can definitely say that sharpness corner to corner is much better for wide angle lenses on the Hasselblad H system than on any 24x36 system.

[Nick-T]

We all know that stitching will beat any MF or even LF camera resolution wise. Everybody has seen the huge Gigapan pictures.

Yeah we should compare a stitched Nikon with stitched medium format....