Hi Jerome,
That is an interesting question to which I have no answer. You sometimes made the point that the way I work I equalise things, and that is quite true. I normally shoot medium apertures, and for limited DoF I rather use a long telephoto on the DSLR where I can focus using magnified live view. I see some disadvantage in DR to MFD but I don't see it as very limiting. Colour rendition is pretty close after I made my own DNG profiles. In general, what I see (based on my equipment) is that:
I do see a very significant difference in resolution/MTF stuff, on screen, with my 24 MP pixels uprezzed to the 39 MP of the P45+. In A2 prints I see no difference. I have done some limited experiments with different people and they are not conclusive. Perhaps I may have the impression that if we are comparing details, little difference is noticed in A2-size. Going up to A1 I would say the difference starts to be clear. Looking on screen there is a large difference. But, at least in one test folks easily detected which was which.
Something like this:
- The left one is better, is that with the blad? (Correct, Elderly observer partially color blind).
- That one is the MFD, it has higher contrast. (Correct, but I don't feel it is higher contrast, young guy)
- That one is MFD, it is a better crop, you have moved the camera. You don't think I notice. Correct, camera was moved 10 cm at bout 5 m distance to subject. Elderly observer.
On the other hand:
I test he very same image with a young guy, with perfectly good vision and he cannot see the difference. Most other test I have done with a trained observer, little difference was noted.
It is very hard to make to similar images, with two different equipments. Lab conditions, it is easy. But in real world lighting changes, graduated filters are used in postprocessing, white point may differ.
My finding after 17 months is that there is significant difference on my P45+ (39 MP) and Sony Alpha 99 (24 MP) in sharpness, but, I cannot see that difference in A2 size prints. I have seen examples where other observers would easily detect differences. Far to few experiments to draw conclusions.
Here are some images I shot on a two week trip:
This is Hasselblad P45+, compound of two images.
While I was shooting the above image I made this free hand shot on the Sony SLT 99 (snapshot):
Later in the evening we went for a walk, I just carried my Sony Alpha 77 (APS-C), two lenses in my pocket, tripod and an ND filter:
The next image was shot just after sunrise, using the Sony Alpha 99 (full frame 135). Waiting an hour for good light.
This one was shot on APS-C using a Sigma fisheye lens at f/16 for DoF (handheld):
This was Sony Alpha 99 SLT (Full frame 135)
And this one was Hasselblad P45+
I am perfectly sure all of these will make perfectly good A2 images.
- Now, getting back to the original question. I am basing my lens and camera buys mostly on tests and never on hearsay suggestions.
- I have some respect for rent and test yourself suggestions. But designing good testing is not easy. Professional testers are hopefully good at it.
- I would say that published tests have some relevance, but you need to be aware of their limitations.
Getting back to the DxO tests, what I see is that:
- They correspond pretty well with my experience on noise, DR related stuff
- I cannot say about the lens tests. My experience neither contradicts DxO findings or clearly support them.
Best regards
Erik
I am really losing interest in these discussion and actually regret to have started this thread.
I said in my first message that the DXO tests "will show indirect differences (e.g. lower noise coming using larger sensels)". I am not arguing about that.
But the tests do not show other effects, because they are designed to ignore these effects. Erik, for example: you use both a MF camera and a 24x36 A99. Are you really sure that you never noticed any other effect beyond increased dynamic range and lower noise?
