Topic: Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R samples at flickr (Read 36875 times)

Richard Osbourne · « **Reply #80 on:** February 21, 2015, 02:01:50 pm »

Quote from: AreBee on February 21, 2015, 11:20:25 am

Atina,

If Richard will provide the date and time the photo was shot I can provide the angle.

Shot 1 was 20th January 2015, 5.13pm Norfolk, UK
Shot 2 was 8th February 2015, 5.35pm Norfolk, UK
Shot 3 (P45+) was 21st November 2013, 5.54pm Blackpool, UK

Atina · « **Reply #81 on:** February 21, 2015, 02:24:01 pm »

Quote from: AreBee on February 21, 2015, 11:20:25 am

Atina,

If Richard will provide the date and time the photo was shot I can provide the angle.

Yes, I know it can be done that way, but I intentionally didn't ask for that.

You know how astronomers calculated the timing of Moonrise, Hernandez, Mexico? That's what I was thinking of.

AreBee · « **Reply #82 on:** February 21, 2015, 02:41:47 pm »

Richard,

Quote

Shot 1 was 20th January 2015, 5.13pm Norfolk, UK
Shot 2 was 8th February 2015, 5.35pm Norfolk, UK
Shot 3 (P45+) was 21st November 2013, 5.54pm Blackpool, UK

Thanks.

For shot 1, angle = -8.4 degrees
For shot 2, angle = -7 degrees
For shot 3, angle = -15.5 degrees

I've assumed that shot 2 was also shot in Fritton, in Norfolk, as per shot 1.

Unfortunately the results turn out to be unhelpful as we have a negative value for altitude for shot 1, even though the sun clearly is visible in the shot. Not sure why. Daylight saving time? Richard, could the timestamp be out by one hour? This would make sense given the time of year the shots were made.

EDIT: Sorry Atina.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #83 on:** February 21, 2015, 02:42:59 pm »

Hi,

I don't think that either Torger, Edmund or me are astronomers. I would have liked to be an astronomer, but I am not bright enough for that. So I work on simulation software. Anders (Torger) is in software engineering, but he is working on the Raw Therapee software and he is also behind Lumariver HDR.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Atina on February 21, 2015, 02:24:01 pm

Yes, I know it can be done that way, but I intentionally didn't ask for that.

You know how astronomers calculated the timing of Moonrise, Hernandez, Mexico? That's what I was thinking of.

voidshatter · « **Reply #84 on:** February 21, 2015, 03:12:41 pm »

Quote from: Richard Osbourne on February 21, 2015, 10:57:13 am

Unfortunately I can't post the RAW files right now. The difference would be very clear: the IQ260 files in those examples required a remarkable amount of saturation (50+points), clarity, levels, contrast, just to get something out of them. The P45+ I had to turn the saturation DOWN. I did little else other than WB (which it wasn't good at) adjustment and a bit of levels. That was the case most of the time, especially in low light work.

These IQ260 examples were at ISO 50 and ISO 100 respectively, both of which produce excellent results in good light conditions: at ISO 200, the files definitely show signs of falling apart a bit. And ISO 140 has something of a destructive noise reduction going on at the detail level in low light so I try to avoid it. I'm doing a long exposure shoot in London next week with a Lee Big Stopper so I can look at how the files hold up over several minutes.

I'll also be using a Sony A7R which I've found to have very good low-light and long-exposure colour, though it sometimes looks a little 'sickly' - usually just a WB issue. It also has wide dynamic range and noise-free shadows. A rumoured 50MP version is not going to get me away from the technical camera, despite the IQ260 limitations, but it's sounding very good for everything else. This new Canon's reported 11.8 EV dynamic range vs. the Sony's 14.8 is a significant difference - and a bit of a conundrum as I've still got a lot of Canon glass.

If you use the Lee Big Stopper and compare the IQ260 against the A7R you would be shocked by how poorly the IQ260 performs. Be prepared to get bashed by the tiling issue of lithography partition on the IQ260, as well as the poor SNR. You will then find how excellent the IMX094 Sony sensor is (i.e. A7R and D800E). In long exposure mode, the IQ260 performs similarly as the current Canon, which is significantly behind the Sony CMOS sensors.

IQ260 tiling issue of lithography partition and poor SNR:

IQ260 poor dynamic range:

Richard Osbourne · « **Reply #85 on:** February 21, 2015, 04:32:21 pm »

Thanks voidshatter. Looking at those test shots I'm just glad I didn't go for an IQ280! I have to say that your long exposure work is exceptional. Despite the limitations of the digital backs used, the Rodenstock lenses really shine IMO - probably the main reason I'm still using MFD. There's an authority and 'look' to their rendering that can't be duplicated in FF35mm.

Paul2660 · « **Reply #86 on:** February 21, 2015, 06:06:29 pm »

As a total aside, Void, I love the 260 of the Thames and Parliament. Here to me, I do see a bit more life in the "pixels", CCD vs CMOS. It's rare that I do see this in my work. But your 260 shot is smoother (I realize it's a longer exposure), but the transition of shadows in under the bridge are just more pleasing to me.

I was surprised that you received that much tilting on the 260, without a shift? That to me is a back calibration issue possibly. I only tend to see tiling with my 160/260 when I shift, and that is much more rare now since I moved to the 40mm HR-W. I do see microlens ripple also, but C1 with the LCC can remove 99% of that (on the Rodies), not so much on the Schneiders.

Still great shot, thanks for sharing and taking the time to produce the comparisons, I know how much time that takes.

You also have shown something I have noticed, the 260 often produces more noise in the LE mode with normal exposures, in the 1/60 to 1/250 range. I had hoped to see an improvement here due to the LE mode but the only place I really see much improvement is in shots that are 4 to 10 minutes long. Here it does make a big difference.

I have also learned to take a shot 1/500 after any long exposure with the 260 as this seems to clear out the registers and makes for a cleaner next exposure.

PS, most interesting comparison between the 280 and 260.

Paul

gazwas · « **Reply #87 on:** February 21, 2015, 07:16:23 pm »

I was all set to upgrade my P65+ to an IQ260 when they were announced but the £4500 GBP ($7000 USD) price discrepancy US and UK dealers were being allowed to sell them for stopped me in my tracks. However, reading this thread now fills me with relief rather than remorse that I had felt towards P1. What would pain more if I had gone the IQ260 route is I get the impression that the CCD backs have probably reached their conclusion in the IQ2 series and will no longer get any more attention improving the IQ via firmware as earlier Phase backs seemed to get.

The tech camera is still king when it comes to IQ (pixel peeping) but also brings with it all other sorts of issues (LCC, fall off etc) and as the latest 5Ds and soon Sony might not bring the same pixel peeping joy, when in printed form I imagine the difference to my minimal. Until the MFD camp can offer bigger full frame sensors or significantly more resolution (80-100Mpix) I see no real technical advantage to an MFD system other than the joy of owning and using one. An earlier poster reported the vast difference they see in files shot with MFD yet claim not to be a pixel peeper, however to see those differences you really do need to study images very closely which by definition is pixel peeping turned up to 11.

When I look back at shots from my P65+ and tech camera lenses that I once thought the pinnacle of Image quality I see plenty wrong with the shots (aliasing, false detail, centre fold, LCC discrepencies, detail loss in shadows) that makes me realise this is one complete merry-go-round and just a total distraction from the important stuff - taking pictures.

Atina · « **Reply #88 on:** February 22, 2015, 01:22:57 pm »

Quote from: AreBee on February 21, 2015, 02:41:47 pm

Richard,

Thanks.

For shot 1, angle = -8.4 degrees
For shot 2, angle = -7 degrees
For shot 3, angle = -15.5 degrees

I've assumed that shot 2 was also shot in Fritton, in Norfolk, as per shot 1.

Unfortunately the results turn out to be unhelpful as we have a negative value for altitude for shot 1, even though the sun clearly is visible in the shot. Not sure why. Daylight saving time? Richard, could the timestamp be out by one hour? This would make sense given the time of year the shots were made.

EDIT: Sorry Atina.

Don't apologize! Why would you?!

Yes, I, just out of curiousity, tried to determine the same thing and came up with these results, of course. I presume that it is those times minus 2 hours?

Quote from: ErikKaffehr on February 21, 2015, 02:42:59 pm

Hi,

I don't think that either Torger, Edmund or me are astronomers. I would have liked to be an astronomer, but I am not bright enough for that. So I work on simulation software. Anders (Torger) is in software engineering, but he is working on the Raw Therapee software and he is also behind Lumariver HDR.

Best regards
Erik

Hi, Erik.

Of course. I know that. However, the three of you love your charts, your curves, your semiconductor-physics talks so I presumed you all must know at least some physics and physics is ultimately mathematics. So perhaps you knew how to measure an angle of the Sun from a photograph.

I was wrong?

Richard Osbourne · « **Reply #89 on:** February 22, 2015, 01:26:54 pm »

Hi, no idea why shot 1 should be out - it's not daylight savings time in February in the UK. Of course, it is possible that the time on the back is wrong - I haven't checked it recently. Nonetheless, it still shouldn't a lot of post-processing to get decent colours in golden hour!

Quote from: AreBee on February 21, 2015, 02:41:47 pm

Richard,

Thanks.

For shot 1, angle = -8.4 degrees
For shot 2, angle = -7 degrees
For shot 3, angle = -15.5 degrees

I've assumed that shot 2 was also shot in Fritton, in Norfolk, as per shot 1.

Unfortunately the results turn out to be unhelpful as we have a negative value for altitude for shot 1, even though the sun clearly is visible in the shot. Not sure why. Daylight saving time? Richard, could the timestamp be out by one hour? This would make sense given the time of year the shots were made.

EDIT: Sorry Atina.

Richard Osbourne · « **Reply #90 on:** February 22, 2015, 01:33:12 pm »

Have to agree with you here. I bought the IQ260 last year and went out on the first shoot literally the day they announced the IQ250! I was not pleased as it was obvious I was buying into old tech (hence the huge discount I was offered in the form of an £11k p/ex offer on a P45+).

Unlike many on here, I've only been using tech cams since 2012. There is one hell of a learning curve to get the best out of each system under different circumstances. There are all the strange foibles of lenses, backs and all the accessories to get to grips with. Then, after 3 years, I discover that I bought into the wrong system and should have bought an Arca Swiss RM3Di! Ah well, you live and learn. I'd get bored if everything worked perfectly...

Quote from: gazwas on February 21, 2015, 07:16:23 pm

I was all set to upgrade my P65+ to an IQ260 when they were announced but the £4500 GBP ($7000 USD) price discrepancy US and UK dealers were being allowed to sell them for stopped me in my tracks. However, reading this thread now fills me with relief rather than remorse that I had felt towards P1. What would pain more if I had gone the IQ260 route is I get the impression that the CCD backs have probably reached their conclusion in the IQ2 series and will no longer get any more attention improving the IQ via firmware as earlier Phase backs seemed to get.

The tech camera is still king when it comes to IQ (pixel peeping) but also brings with it all other sorts of issues (LCC, fall off etc) and as the latest 5Ds and soon Sony might not bring the same pixel peeping joy, when in printed form I imagine the difference to my minimal. Until the MFD camp can offer bigger full frame sensors or significantly more resolution (80-100Mpix) I see no real technical advantage to an MFD system other than the joy of owning and using one. An earlier poster reported the vast difference they see in files shot with MFD yet claim not to be a pixel peeper, however to see those differences you really do need to study images very closely which by definition is pixel peeping turned up to 11.

When I look back at shots from my P65+ and tech camera lenses that I once thought the pinnacle of Image quality I see plenty wrong with the shots (aliasing, false detail, centre fold, LCC discrepencies, detail loss in shadows) that makes me realise this is one complete merry-go-round and just a total distraction from the important stuff - taking pictures.

torger · « **Reply #91 on:** February 23, 2015, 10:02:04 am »

If I was only in MFD for image quality I would probably be out about now (not because MFD is bad, but because the competition is so good), but for me it's more about wanting to shoot large format and not having to mess around with film. I like using the Linhof Techno, and I like having flexible movements on all seven lenses I carry around in my backpack.

Due to my articles related to second hand MFD photography I often get asked for advice and I always say that don't do it only for image quality, and don't pay more than you think it's worth, or else you'll end up having to think the gear is greater than it actually is. It is what it is, it makes great images but the talk about "MF magic" is mostly just wishful thinking, and I don't want to pay too much for that. It's part because price are high in an absolute sense, but also because I can't get rid of that feeling I'm being ripped off when I pay a lot more for a thing than I think it's worth. I don't find any value or status in paying lots of money for something just because I can -- the prodcut I'm buying must deliver corresponding value.

Second hand market is good at showing what people really think this type of gear is worth. That it's not only about image quality you can see when Hassy H systems are sold real cheap while the CFV backs keeps a high second hand value, simply because many enjoy using a retro camera that looks kind of cool.

Tech cams are cool too, but if you use Rodies only because they're sharper and not because they provide movements I think it's a losing battle in the not-so-long-term. MFD will be a bit ahead, but when all reasonable systems can make great looking 60" inch prints it's all come down to a pixel peeping contest. I do enjoy pixel peeping like everyone else though, but there's a limit to how much I think it's worth.

gazwas · « **Reply #92 on:** February 23, 2015, 12:13:45 pm »

Well said!

I get sick of new users and dealers spouting off how utterly amazing MFD is compared to the "lesser" formats. I've shot MFD for 14 years and tech cameras for 3 of those years and enjoyed every minute of it right up until recently when I sold it all. No real regrets but I don't think it has the IQ advantage it once had and newer smaller format cameras now offer real competition, especially when viewed in printed form.

I know I'll buy a MFD camera again in the future but it won't be for IQ reasons, just pleasure (and sometimes the pain) of shooting MF.

synn · « **Reply #93 on:** February 24, 2015, 05:16:06 am »

None of this back and forth blah blah of the usual post-page 2 nature is addressing the fact that canon is barely able to match up to the best of APSC and Full frame competition in terms of IQ,whithout even bringing up larger formats.

Craig Lamson · « **Reply #94 on:** February 24, 2015, 09:17:41 am »

Quote from: synn on February 24, 2015, 05:16:06 am

None of this back and forth blah blah of the usual post-page 2 nature is addressing the fact that canon is barely able to match up to the best of APSC and Full frame competition in terms of IQ,whithout even bringing up larger formats.

Gosh, I'm in real trouble then. I guess I'll need to refund all that money my clients continue to pay me for my inferior 1DsIII, 5dII or 6D images.

If only I had done them on a superior camera......

gazwas · « **Reply #95 on:** February 24, 2015, 10:03:16 am »

Quote from: synn on February 24, 2015, 05:16:06 am

None of this back and forth blah blah of the usual post-page 2 nature is addressing the fact that canon is barely able to match up to the best of APSC and Full frame competition in terms of IQ,whithout even bringing up larger formats.

This is more of the same noise I hear from new MFD users all the time, still in their honeymoon period and understandably with a biased judgement. If you seriously think the differences between MFD and any modern smaller format camera is night and day then you are seriously doing something wrong in your technique. There are many great cameras available today all capable of amazing IQ and pledging your allegiance to one format (brand) is plain silly IMO.

Josef Isayo · « **Reply #96 on:** February 24, 2015, 12:23:41 pm »

Quote from: synn on February 24, 2015, 05:16:06 am

None of this back and forth blah blah of the usual post-page 2 nature is addressing the fact that canon is barely able to match up to the best of APSC and Full frame competition in terms of IQ,whithout even bringing up larger formats.

Synn I had no idea image quality had everything to do with shadow recovery. Things like color (specially skin tone), and lens character apparently take a back seat to whatever DXO chart you subscribe to. Apparently my H4D-40 and Canon 5D3's are crap according to you.

voidshatter · « **Reply #97 on:** February 24, 2015, 01:26:45 pm »

Quote from: Josef Isayo on February 24, 2015, 12:23:41 pm

Synn I had no idea image quality had everything to do with shadow recovery. Things like color (specially skin tone), and lens character apparently take a back seat to whatever DXO chart you subscribe to. Apparently my H4D-40 and Canon 5D3's are crap according to you.

Whenever I saw this kind of arguments I always asked for RAW files for a comparison to prove why something like a D800E cannot achieve the skin tone of a 5D3 or an H4D-40's. No Canon or CCD user has ever shared any RAW files to prove it. I guess this is just common sense so no Canon or CCD user needs to prove it.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #98 on:** February 24, 2015, 01:40:29 pm »

Hi,

Here are some samples with skin tone on P45+, with raw files: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/PortraitSamples/

On the other hand I don't feel my P45+ or MFD are superior, well, except that 39 MP is more than 24MP.

I only have P45+ images from this shoot, as I lent out my Sony Alpha 99 to the young ladies posing in the pictures, as they could not use their own DSLRs due to circumstances.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: voidshatter on February 24, 2015, 01:26:45 pm

Whenever I saw this kind of arguments I always asked for RAW files for a comparison to prove why something like a D800E cannot achieve the skin tone of a 5D3 or an H4D-40's. No Canon or CCD user has ever shared any RAW files to prove it. I guess this is just common sense so no Canon or CCD user needs to prove it.

voidshatter · « **Reply #99 on:** February 24, 2015, 01:42:48 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr on February 24, 2015, 01:40:29 pm

Hi,

Here are some samples with skin tone on P45+, with raw files: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/PortraitSamples/

On the other hand I don't feel my P45+ or MFD are superior, well, except that 39 MP is more than 24MP.

I only have P45+ images from this shoot, as I lent out my Sony Alpha 99 to the young ladies posing in the pictures, as they could not use their own DSLRs due to circumstances.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks! But I was asking for the same composition, same light condition, same time and location, same model etc. I also need to know the core post-processing procedures affecting the skin tone (i.e. excluding DB or texture, tone & color separation etc) for the claimed superior camera so that we can see whether it is possible for both cameras to achieve the same skin tone that makes 99% people hard to distinguish.

Author Topic: Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R samples at flickr (Read 36875 times)