Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.

[EricWHiss]

Yes, the profiles in C1 can make really significant differences without even getting to the curve selection.  Just compare the gamma in profoto RGB to any of the others for example.  But this really is an advantage of the Leaf actually - I like having the different choices to choose for as starting points with different looks.  But everyone with a leaf back should read their document that explains the color profiles since the naming can be a bit confusing.


My friend Geoff always uses portrait for landscape work and when he sends me images I'm always caught by this 'film' like look they have. So simple to do.

ps.  Synn - since you were there - which one looked most like the model in the lighting you had?

[synn]

Yes, the profiles in C1 can make really significant differences without even getting to the curve selection.  Just compare the gamma in profoto RGB to any of the others for example.  But this really is an advantage of the Leaf actually - I like having the different choices to choose for as starting points with different looks.  But everyone with a leaf back should read their document that explains the color profiles since the naming can be a bit confusing.


My friend Geoff always uses portrait for landscape work and when he sends me images I'm always caught by this 'film' like look they have. So simple to do.

ps.  Synn - since you were there - which one looked most like the model in the lighting you had?

I would say the "Portrait" profile was the closest. It captured her dusky skin faithfully.

BTW, could you please link me to the document about Leaf profiles? I've never come across this, actually. So far it has been all trial and error...

[Dustbak]

I totally liked A the best and found B the worst I guess I should have a look at the IQ250 profile in C1. Apparently no need for buying an IQ250 (which I am really tempted to). I prefer using the HB for my work but I have no hesitation of using the D800e when I need to. What wonderful times we live in...

[MrSmith]

Statistics so far:

A is best: 9 votes
B is best: 1 vote
C is best: 6 votes

A is MFDB = 6 votes
B is MFDB = 0 votes
C is MFDB = 5 votes

[UlfKrentz]

snip

BTW, could you please link me to the document about Leaf profiles? I've never come across this, actually. So far it has been all trial and error...

Synn, that probably was meant for the original leaf profiles, the documentation can be found here:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/assets/files/documentation/techbull_leaf_image_profiles.pdf

Not sure about the implementation in C1, they have somehow found a way into it but being absolutely not familiar with P1 / C1 I don´t know how. With LC though we never used the "portrait-profile" and the look in your last image matches my expectation of a leaf back and is quite far away from your sample "B". To me the "MF-Look" has not much to do with resolution, it´s more about the actual sensor size and rendering of the MF lenses, I´d actually prefer a 35MP back with a "Full frame 6/7cm" but I doubt that will ever happen. May be I´ll take a look at the Nikon ;-)


Cheers, Ulf

[synn]

Synn, that probably was meant for the original leaf profiles, the documentation can be found here:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/assets/files/documentation/techbull_leaf_image_profiles.pdf

Not sure about the implementation in C1, they have somehow found a way into it but being absolutely not familiar with P1 / C1 I don´t know how. With LC though we never used the "portrait-profile" and the look in your last image matches my expectation of a leaf back and is quite far away from your sample "B". To me the "MF-Look" has not much to do with resolution, it´s more about the actual sensor size and rendering of the MF lenses, I´d actually prefer a 35MP back with a "Full frame 6/7cm" but I doubt that will ever happen. May be I´ll take a look at the Nikon ;-)


Cheers, Ulf

Thank you for that.

The last image is how I would normally process a portrait. The one in the comparison was more of a curiosity killer rather than anything, lol.

If you're looking at 35mm though, I'd suggest that you consider Sony. Skintones look nicer from Sony cameras without the mud wrestling that one has to do with Nikon files before something decent comes up.

[UlfKrentz]

OK, thank you for not letting me spend my time for mud wrestling ;-)
But once again I´ll better skip FF35 for now…

Cheers!

[Fine_Art]

Thank you for that.

The last image is how I would normally process a portrait. The one in the comparison was more of a curiosity killer rather than anything, lol.

If you're looking at 35mm though, I'd suggest that you consider Sony. Skintones look nicer from Sony cameras without the mud wrestling that one has to do with Nikon files before something decent comes up.

How's that? Nikon is using Sony chips. Both have good color separation between channels.

[synn]

How's that? Nikon is using Sony chips. Both have good color separation between channels.

There are many scientist types here who would gladly explain the how part.
I can only speak from experience.

[Ken R]

We've had these MFD vs 35mm arguments for far too long. To be honest, I have no illusions that either camp will change their opinion ever. But if we are to debate endlessly, might as well do it based on some images and not yet another graph.

Below are three images shot  on the same day. Same studio, same lights, same model. Two are with 35mm full frame cameras. One is with an MFDB.

All images were first processed in Capture 1 Pro 7.2 (With the most suitable profiles and a reference image of a color checker taken with each camera). and finished in Photoshop as 16 bit, prophotoRGB TIFFs (Final sharpening and skin retouching). All were retouched the same way.
Finally, they were exported as 2000px wide JPEGs in sRGB and laid side by side.



Since the forum resizes images automatically, just right click the picture and select "View image" to see it full size.

For the pixel peeping types, here are crops of the faces:



The task is simple.

1) Guess which camera shot which image.

2) Say which image appeals to you and why.

Mandatory disclaimer:

1) No "You should have processed it this way", "Send me the RAW files", "Should'a done this, should'a done that".
 No.
I did a test based on my workflow and my shooting style. If you prefer a different shooting methodology, feel free to conduct your own test.

2) No CCD, CMOS, CFA, CIA, NSA and whatever.
You have 86740474 threads to argue over all that jargon. This thread is only about looking at the images and saying what you think of them. Simple.

So without further delays, go ahead and have fun. Let's see if there is such a thing as the "MF look".
I'm gonna step back and be a neutral party until we have enough responses.

Hi, I was traveling to NM so I just got a good look at this.

I like the image in the center. It has better gradation from the highlights to the shadows. The highlight "rolloff" seems smoother. The image to the left seems a bit harsher in that regard. More Nikon like and the image to the right seems more "pasty" or smoother, too smooth, more Canon like. I could be wrong and it is tough to judge from the jpgs posted but that is my initial impression right away.

[Manoli]

Hi, I was traveling to NM so I just got a good look at this.

Brilliant ! - how perceptive, especially since you've just been told what each shot was …

[Ben Rubinstein]

I could have sworn that C was a sony sensor. And I own a 5D3 and A7r and we have a couple of D800e's and an Aptus II - 8 in the studio. Just goes to show. If you know your software then these days, it's more about the software and operator than the sensors anymore. Albeit I'm sure that at certain level it's been like that for more than a while.

[torger]

How's that? Nikon is using Sony chips. Both have good color separation between channels.

Nikon and Sony have done different CFA choices despite using the same underlying sensor, so yes differences can be had. Sony A99 is said to be a good example of Sony caring more for base iso color than high iso performance. DxoMark make some measurements of the sensor's color response and you can indeed see that they can be different between cameras that both use Sony Exmor sensors. It's hard to see what's more pleasing from a measurement though, but that they are different can be established.

[bjanes]

Hi, I was traveling to NM so I just got a good look at this.

I like the image in the center. It has better gradation from the highlights to the shadows. The highlight "rolloff" seems smoother. The image to the left seems a bit harsher in that regard. More Nikon like and the image to the right seems more "pasty" or smoother, too smooth, more Canon like. I could be wrong and it is tough to judge from the jpgs posted but that is my initial impression right away.

Did you form your opinion before or after you learned the sensor used to capture each image? Your opinion does not agree with the majority of the blinded opinions.

Bill

[Ken R]

Did you form your opinion before or after you learned the sensor used to capture each image? Your opinion does not agree with the majority of the blinded opinions.

Bill

I did not read the 3 pages of posts I just read the first post from the OP. So I had not clue what each camera was. Il check them out now and see.

[BernardLanguillier]

This reminds me of the story of a friend trying to sell a very high end intrgrated amplifier to a trader friend of his.

The potential customer owned a limited series speakers from Kef, some of the most expensive speaker ever designed, and challenged them with a blind testing against his current amp, pretty good too in absolute terms... but, according to the seller, in a much lower league.

He told them "if you, the seller, can tell apart your amp from mine repeatedely, I buy your wonder cash".

They couldn't... although the amp they were trying to sell must be the best review piece of high audio equipment of the last few years...

Cheers,
Bernard

[bjanes]

This reminds me of the story of a friend trying to sell a very high end intrgrated amplifier to a trader friend of his.

The potential customer owned a limited series speakers from Kef, some of the most expensive speaker ever designed, and challenged them with a blind testing against his current amp, pretty good too in absolute terms... but, according to the seller, in a much lower league.

He told them "if you, the seller, can tell apart your amp from mine repeatedely, I buy your wonder cash".

They couldn't... although the amp they were trying to sell must be the best review piece of high audio equipment of the last few years...

That is what Doug is trying to do with his new camera. However, in this case I don't doubt that the results of the new Phase One CMOS and with best apochromatic lenses are demonstrable better than those that could be obtained with the D800e with high grade Zeiss optics. However, is the much greater cost worth a relatively small and difficult to detect difference with many imaging situations, as shown in the current blind test of 3 systems.

Regards,

Bill

[Manoli]

... although the amp they were trying to sell must be the best review piece of high audio equipment of the last few years...

Curiosity killed the cat … what was the amp ?

[synn]

This reminds me of the story of a friend trying to sell a very high end intrgrated amplifier to a trader friend of his.

The potential customer owned a limited series speakers from Kef, some of the most expensive speaker ever designed, and challenged them with a blind testing against his current amp, pretty good too in absolute terms... but, according to the seller, in a much lower league.

He told them "if you, the seller, can tell apart your amp from mine repeatedely, I buy your wonder cash".

They couldn't... although the amp they were trying to sell must be the best review piece of high audio equipment of the last few years...

Cheers,
Bernard

it might remind you of a lot of things, but I am not trying to sell anything.
the scientific technobabble that goes on here does remind me of the story of a man who tried learning swimming via mail though...

[synn]

That is what Doug is trying to do with his new camera. However, in this case I don't doubt that the results of the new Phase One CMOS and with best apochromatic lenses are demonstrable better than those that could be obtained with the D800e with high grade Zeiss optics. However, is the much greater cost worth a relatively small and difficult to detect difference with many imaging situations, as shown in the current blind test of 3 systems.

Regards,

Bill

...and you miss the point of the test by a long shot.

for artists like me, what I can make a file look like is not remotely as important as what the shooting experience feels like or how how much effort it takes to arrive at the results I want. THIS is the primary criteria for many of us when we choose our tools.

The world of the working photographer is very different from that of a professional test chart interpreter.