Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: peter_c on September 25, 2015, 08:56:27 pm
-
In response to this LL post (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104061.0), I'm posting a comparison I did a couple of weeks ago for my own benefit. My current working kit of several years is a Linhof 679CC with P45+ and various Rodenstock & Schneider digital lenses, mounted on a Rollei electric shutter system. A perfect system for my food work and I see no reason to upgrade. The P45+ also lives on a Contax on occasion. My personal system has progressed: GH2, OM-D 5, A72, A7R2. What you see is a quick, spontaneous studio shot of stuff I had on hand: P45+ and Rodenstock 70mm Apo Digital (not HR) vs Sony A7R2 with 55mm FE. I'm not going to comment, the raw files can are available here. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7npe20ws1b1gcby/Sony_VS_Phase.zip?dl=0). BTW I did recently sell my Canon 5D2.(http://peterchou.com/files/Sony_Phase.jpg)
-
Thanks Peter for the test.
My conversion on ACR, same values for everything except, white balance and exposure. I think they are fair. In some part of the images you see a bit of difference in focus distance and depth of field.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10120389/Screen-Shot.jpg)
-
Thanks for that comparison, Peter.
-
Thanks for posting this Peter... Having a Hasselblad CF-39MS myself which I often also use on Contax, I find it very useful since P-45+ shares the same sensor... One question please... would the result be better for the P-45+ if it was used with the Contax and a dedicated lens, or would it be worst? (I'm not familiar with the 70mm Rodie lens).
Personally, I like the P-45+ image better, I have excluded resolution from my judgement (because there's more than enough with both) and concentrated on color accuracy, color saturation and mid tone contrast... I also believe that if one develops both images to have a similar look as if it was the same contrast curve, the P-45+ image would come ahead in DR too... Lets see what others think...
-
Personally, I like the P-45+ image better, I have excluded resolution from my judgement (because there's more than enough with both) and concentrated on color accuracy, color saturation and mid tone contrast... I also believe that if one develops both images to have a similar look as if it was the same contrast curve, the P-45+ image would come ahead in DR too... Lets see what others think...
Hi Theodoros,
Tongue in cheek, right? ;)
A fit to 2007 DxoMark.com data shows P-45+ read noise at base ISO of about 13.5e- and clipping about 41500e- (the fits are not perfect, blame it on early days at DXO). That means that the camera requires about 11.6 bits to fully encode information rolling off the sensor into the raw data. 12-bits would have been plenty, 14-bits way overkill, 16-bits for marketing purposes only - so we can cancel any potential P45+ advantages in bit depth. Compare that to the a7RII read noise of 7.5e- and clipping at 52842e- and you realize that the a7RII comes out on top in terms of DR, SNR and tone gradations throughout the range at the sensor level.
Looking at color next, the Sensitivity Metamerism Index is 72 for the P-45+ and 85 for the a7RII, close to worst in class and best in class respectively, no inherent P45+ sensor color advantage here. In fact just the opposite again. Playing with contrast curves/profiles would only emphasize the IQ difference.
ANY potential advantages the P-45+ might have in contrast, local contrast, micro contrast would therefore become apparent solely at the picture level because of its larger sensor size and presumed quality of the lens used: we would expect to see better sharpness from it for instance. But we see just the opposite, meaning that the newer Zony 55FE is a better (or better focused) lens than the Rodenstock 70mm in this composition. Have I forgotten anything relevant? If not, I am afraid that any and all advantages that one sees on the 8 year old P-45+ image vs the state-of-the-art a7RII's can be ascribed to ye olde placebo effect.
:)
Jack
PS. Summary at http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Phase-One-P45-Plus-versus-Sony-A7R-II___456_1035.
-
If not, I am afraid that any and all advantages that one sees on the 8 year old P-45+ image vs the state-of-the-art a7RII's can be ascribed to ye olde placebo effect.
:)
Maybe Jack, but I'm afraid it more like Cognitive Dissonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) :(
But you are right, the specs are in favor of the A7R II, so it would be hard for the P45+ to pull ahead based on sensor size alone. Of course, in a studio setting with controlled lighting and with custom profiles the differences will become smaller. Both are potentially capable of producing good to exellent results.
I'm not sure, but the tethering abilities of the A7R II seem to have received little attention so far, but well supported tethering can also make a difference in actual (studio) use.
Cheers,
Bart
-
But you are right, the specs are in favor of the A7R II, so it would be hard for the P45+ to pull ahead based on sensor size alone. Of course, in a studio setting with controlled lighting and with custom profiles the differences will become smaller. Both are potentially capable of producing good to excellent results.
I'm not sure, but the tethering abilities of the A7R II seem to have received little attention so far, but well supported tethering can also make a difference in actual (studio) use.
All agreed, although I would toss the reference to custom profiles as immaterial presuming both camera/lens combinations get their own: a 'perfect' custom profile can only present at best what's there, it cannot make up for what isn't there in the first place.
Jack
-
All agreed, although I would toss the reference to custom profiles as immaterial presuming both camera/lens combinations get their own: a 'perfect' custom profile can only present at best what's there, it cannot make up for what isn't there in the first place.
Jack
Hi Jack, no matter what DXO findings are, I'm still among those that trust their eyes more. On the pictures Peter posted, I don't like the magenta cast of the Sony when compared to P45+, I don't like the color or the (luck of) metal structure on the (metal) cup that he included and I surely think that there is a lot of "holding" happening in HL area contrast which leads the paper ball to have a totally unreal presentation... IMO, if one aims to match the contrast of the K39000 sensor in the HLs (so that the paper will have an equally "live" presentation) he'll end up with less DR with the A7RII sensor... The same happens with my D800E when compared with my CF-39MS to my experience...
EDIT: Note that to my experience, there are two (totally different) DRs one may aim for... One (not important) is the range that a sensor may be able to record, the other (and most important) is what is left after processing as to produce a (subjective) print that has the appropriate tonal balance to make the photo-graph acceptable...
EDIT-2: Note also the color saturation difference at the red and blue ball at the lower right of the frame...
-
Hi Jack, no matter what DXO findings are, I'm still among those that trust their eyes more. On the pictures Peter posted, I don't like the magenta cast of the Sony when compared to P45+, I don't like the color or the (luck of) metal structure on the (metal) cup that he included and I surely think that there is a lot of "holding" happening in HL area contrast which leads the paper ball to have a totally unreal presentation... IMO, if one aims to match the contrast of the K39000 sensor in the HLs (so that the paper will have an equally "live" presentation) he'll end up with less DR with the A7RII sensor... The same happens with my D800E when compared with my CF-39MS to my experience...
EDIT: Note that to my experience, there are two (totally different) DRs one may aim for... One (not important) is the range that a sensor may be able to record, the other (and most important) is what is left after processing as to produce a (subjective) print that has the appropriate tonal balance to make the photo-graph acceptable...
EDIT-2: Note also the color saturation difference at the red and blue ball at the lower right of the frame...
Conversely, if you adjust the P45 image to match the A7rII instead of the other way round, you're left with even worse shadow detail than you started off with. The magenta cast is just a matter of white balance, or a difference between the two lenses, not a difference in sensor colour accuracy (which is always relative to a white point).
When I shoot an image, I want the camera to produce as technically good an image as possible - not to add any of its own character, not to achieve a certain 'look', but merely to capture the photons as accurately as possible. Any image, no matter the camera, is going to end up tortured under a multitude of curves and layers in Photoshop anyway - the better the original is technically, the better the final result.
I really wish the A7rII had a base ISO of 25, though, for minimal low ISO noise (and a base ISO almost two stops higher)... shooting four frames and averaging them isn't quite the same.
-
Camera shake/ Shutter vibration in the case of the Sony?
Edmund
Maybe Jack, but I'm afraid it more like Cognitive Dissonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) :(
But you are right, the specs are in favor of the A7R II, so it would be hard for the P45+ to pull ahead based on sensor size alone. Of course, in a studio setting with controlled lighting and with custom profiles the differences will become smaller. Both are potentially capable of producing good to exellent results.
I'm not sure, but the tethering abilities of the A7R II seem to have received little attention so far, but well supported tethering can also make a difference in actual (studio) use.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Camera shake/ Shutter vibration in the case of the Sony?
Hi Edmund,
I haven't seen any comparison between the two. All cameras/lenses with moving parts will produce some movement/vibration. The longer focal length required for a physically larger sensor will magnify subject movement on the sensor, and the physically smaller sensor needs more magnification for the same size output. Sensor stabilization against camera shake may help with handholding, but it is also needed more on the smaller sensor.
Cheers,
Bart
-
All agreed, although I would toss the reference to custom profiles as immaterial presuming both camera/lens combinations get their own: a 'perfect' custom profile can only present at best what's there, it cannot make up for what isn't there in the first place.
The differences between CFAs/sensors may be smaller than the difference due to the profiles.
So it's hard to say without actually testing it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I really wish the A7rII had a base ISO of 25, though, for minimal low ISO noise (and a base ISO almost two stops higher)... shooting four frames and averaging them isn't quite the same.
base ISO25 is not a guarantee of low "readout" noise in deep shadows - it just typically a sign that sensel well capacity is big (big sensor big sensels) or pushed to the limits (when manufacturer tries use every single electron even all sensels have physically different wells) or that sensor schematics allows in process readout from sensels effectively making more than 1 exposure behind the scenes... but DR (which is defined by both sensel well saturation capacity and readout noise) can still be technically worse (even S/N above deep shadows better)... and averaging will increase S/N (and/or resolution based on setup and software - see photoacute.com for example) like it or not...
-
Conversely, if you adjust the P45 image to match the A7rII instead of the other way round, you're left with even worse shadow detail than you started off with. The magenta cast is just a matter of white balance, or a difference between the two lenses, not a difference in sensor colour accuracy (which is always relative to a white point).
When I shoot an image, I want the camera to produce as technically good an image as possible - not to add any of its own character, not to achieve a certain 'look', but merely to capture the photons as accurately as possible. Any image, no matter the camera, is going to end up tortured under a multitude of curves and layers in Photoshop anyway - the better the original is technically, the better the final result.
I really wish the A7rII had a base ISO of 25, though, for minimal low ISO noise (and a base ISO almost two stops higher)... shooting four frames and averaging them isn't quite the same.
1. No sensor is accurate to the software's white point... it's all an interpolation tuning matter (of the processor) in combination with sensor ability...
2. That's what YOU do... Obviously you don't use MF...
3. If the A7rII had 25 ISO as sensor base, then it would be 2 stops worst with higher ISO... Obviously that wasn't Sony's aim...
-
1. No sensor is accurate to the software's white point... it's all an interpolation tuning matter (of the processor) in combination with sensor ability...
Exactly.
Try to make the A7rII file look like the P45+ file and you lose image quality. Try to make the P45+ file look like the A7rII file and you also lose image quality.
2. That's what YOU do... Obviously you don't use MF...
I shot MF and LF film for a long time, and have also shot landscapes using the IQ180. These days, though, between stitching software, better lens selection and a less cumbersome system, improved full-frame sensors make MF barely worth in in most situations.
3. If the A7rII had 25 ISO as sensor base, then it would be 2 stops worst with higher ISO... Obviously that wasn't Sony's aim...
No it wouldn't. Maximum usable ISO has nothing to do with the minimum. Maximum ISO is all to do with signal-to-noise ratio. Minimum ISO is to do with well depth. You can increase one without changing the other.
-
Exactly.
Try to make the A7rII file look like the P45+ file and you lose image quality. Try to make the P45+ file look like the A7rII file and you also lose image quality.
I shot MF and LF film for a long time, and have also shot landscapes using the IQ180. These days, though, between stitching software, better lens selection and a less cumbersome system, improved full-frame sensors make MF barely worth in in most situations.
No it wouldn't. Maximum usable ISO has nothing to do with the minimum. Maximum ISO is all to do with signal-to-noise ratio. Minimum ISO is to do with well depth. You can increase one without changing the other.
Hi,
1. I only want to make the worst image look like the better one... (mind you that I don't like P1 backs either - I think they have the worst color out of all MFDBs - but still much better than all DSLRs with much more processing latitude as with all backs)...
2. There is not much difference in IQ between the IQ 180 and the P45+ (other than res - the least important of IQ factors)... but never the less having used an IQ-180 is different than living with one....
3. Yes it would... It would require significantly more amplifying form the sensor's output...
-
Iso doesn't add noise. It is lack of signal that produce more noise in an image. High iso would be the same if you just had a larger well (iso 25, through some magic).
-
Iso doesn't add noise. It is lack of signal that produce more noise in an image. High iso would be the same if you just had a larger well (iso 25, through some magic).
But you don't.... so the avalliable quantity of photons in what you have, has to be amplified...
EDIT: In reality, the problem is not with noise, but rather with S/N ratio... So if we assume that base ISO would have the same S/N ratio, lower base ISO produces more noise in proportion the more the signal is amplified...
-
But you don't.... so the avalliable quantity of photons in what you have, has to be amplified...
EDIT: In reality, the problem is not with noise, but rather with S/N ratio... So if we assume that base ISO would have the same S/N ratio, lower base ISO produces more noise in proportion the more the signal is amplified...
No.
In order to get a lower ISO, you need a greater well depth. Otherwise, the wells will just fill up too quickly and you won't get your lower ISO.
This greater well depth gives you greater SNR, but only at base ISO. A sensor with a base ISO of 25 will have 2 stops greater DR than a sensor with base ISO 100, electronic readout and other architecture being the same. But only at ISO 25 - if you boosted it to ISO 100, it would have the same DR at ISO 100 as the other sensor. The same applies if you shoot it at ISO 25600 - it would have the the same DR as the other sensor with the higher base ISO.
It would be very easy to design a sensor with a base ISO of 25600 - you wouldn't need any well depth. It also wouldn't perform any better at high ISO than any other similarly-designed sensor with a lower base ISO.
-
But you don't.... so the avalliable quantity of photons in what you have, has to be amplified...
EDIT: In reality, the problem is not with noise, but rather with S/N ratio... So if we assume that base ISO would have the same S/N ratio, lower base ISO produces more noise in proportion the more the signal is amplified...
You don't have the same number of photons.
If you shoot at ISO 25, you're collecting four times as many photons as when shooting at ISO 100. But you need a sensor with a deep well capacity, capable of a base ISO of 25, to take advantage of this (a sensor with poor quantum efficiency will also require all these extra photons, but only because they require many more incoming photons to end up with the same number of photoelectrons - a more efficient sensor can do the same at a higher ISO).
MF CCD sensors don't have deep well capacities - they just have poor quantum efficiency, which is why they need to collect so many more photons to achieve the same SNR. That's why they're terrible at ISO 100 and above.
Also, shooting at high ISO isn't multiplying from base - it's collecting a smaller number of photons and multiplying from that. At ISO 25600, two sensors of the same size and quantum efficiency will collect the same number of photons, regardless if one has abase ISO of 200 and the other has a base ISO of 25. Therefore, the SNR will be the same.
-
Hi,
1. I only want to make the worst image look like the better one... (mind you that I don't like P1 backs either - I think they have the worst color out of all MFDBs - but still much better than all DSLRs with much more processing latitude as with all backs)...
You see, I find that the MFDB gives me the worse image, with more artifacts...
-
Hi Jack, no matter what DXO findings are, I'm still among those that trust their eyes more. On the pictures Peter posted, I don't like the magenta cast of the Sony when compared to P45+, I don't like the color or the (luck of) metal structure on the (metal) cup that he included and I surely think that there is a lot of "holding" happening in HL area contrast which leads the paper ball to have a totally unreal presentation... IMO, if one aims to match the contrast of the K39000 sensor in the HLs (so that the paper will have an equally "live" presentation) he'll end up with less DR with the A7RII sensor... The same happens with my D800E when compared with my CF-39MS to my experience...
EDIT: Note that to my experience, there are two (totally different) DRs one may aim for... One (not important) is the range that a sensor may be able to record, the other (and most important) is what is left after processing as to produce a (subjective) print that has the appropriate tonal balance to make the photo-graph acceptable...
EDIT-2: Note also the color saturation difference at the red and blue ball at the lower right of the frame...
Hi Theodoros, I don't know whether this is an appropriate comment for your background but it's what I understand:
- visual information from the scene captured with good technique in the raw data represents the best IQ possible for the hardware setup; rendering and PP that come after that are arbitrary, software driven adjustments that can only interpret and present in a subjectively pleasing manner the information that is there - not make up for information that's not there.
- Better visual information captured in the raw data offers more options to the camera/artists. More options during rendering/PP typically result in a more, not less, pleasing final photograph. If a profile/algorithm makes an image look better from one capture, there will be an algorithm/profile that will make a different capture with better information look better still (or at least as good).
- Some indicators of the quality of visual information captured can be measured quite accurately.
- LR is not good software for this type of comparison: it is designed for ease of use, not for best IQ. For instance it changes profiles and parameters under the hood (i.e. with all sliders at zero) on the fly based on camera settings, let alone from camera to camera, so what you see is not what you get - it's what Adobe thought was pleasing at the time it came up with them, saturation twists and all.
I've downloaded the files. In the test at hand the a7RII+55FE at ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/8s objectively captures better visual information in the raw data than the P-45+70APO at ISO 100, f/11, 1/2s.
Cheers,
Jack
PS This shared understanding coupled with actually measured, objective IQ indicators is the reason why, I think, we no longer get apocalyptic posts from Edmund about the coming a7II green discrimination ;)
-
I've downloaded the files. In the test at hand the a7RII+55FE at ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/8s objectively captures better visual information in the raw data than the P-45+70APO at ISO 100, f/11, 1/2s.
I would think that f11 explains this right? This should take the P45+ well within diffraction area I would think.
Cheers,
Bernar
-
I would think that f11 explains this right? This should take the P45+ well within diffraction area I would think.
Yes, it probably negates the P45+'s sensor size advantage.
Jack
-
Hi Theodoros, I don't know whether this is an appropriate comment for your background but it's what I understand:
- visual information from the scene captured with good technique in the raw data represents the best IQ possible for the hardware setup; rendering and PP that come after that are arbitrary, software driven adjustments that can only interpret and present in a subjectively pleasing manner the information that is there - not make up for information that's not there.
- Better visual information captured in the raw data offers more options to the camera/artists. More options during rendering/PP typically result in a more, not less, pleasing final photograph. If a profile/algorithm makes an image look better from one capture, there will be an algorithm/profile that will make a different capture with better information look better still (or at least as good).
- Some indicators of the quality of visual information captured can be measured quite accurately.
- LR is not good software for this type of comparison: it is designed for ease of use, not for best IQ. For instance it changes profiles and parameters under the hood (i.e. with all sliders at zero) on the fly based on camera settings, let alone from camera to camera, so what you see is not what you get - it's what Adobe thought was pleasing at the time it came up with them, saturation twists and all.
I've downloaded the files. In the test at hand the a7RII+55FE at ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/8s objectively captures better visual information in the raw data than the P-45+70APO at ISO 100, f/11, 1/2s.
Cheers,
Jack
PS This shared understanding coupled with actually measured, objective IQ indicators is the reason why, I think, we no longer get apocalyptic posts from Edmund about the coming a7II green discrimination ;)
Hi Jack, I agree with you that capture information looks at first site to be more with the A7RII, but the same (with the HLs) looks to happen with my D800E when compared to my CF-39MS (85mm/2.8 micro PC on the Nikon set at zero movements, 120APO micro on the Contax)... My point is different though, if I develop both files using phocus (which does a much better job with the D800E than LR or CR), I find that to keep that extra HL information with the D800E, one has to end up with a dull (at the HLs) final result... OTOH, If one aims for the same punch in the HLs at both images, then (using phocus) he ends up with (slightly) more DR with the CF-39MS.
That said, the behavior of the two sensors at the LLs is also different, with the CF-39MS holding color information with much less noise (back at ISO 50, D800E at ISO 100) in the deeper shadows. OTOH, if one under exposes the CF-39MS by 2/3rds of a stop (which almost compensates for the ISO difference) he can match the information captured in the HLs, while at the same time there is almost no loss in the LLs... So, most of the times I use the 39-MS in single shot mode in other than stills or without controlled lighting, I usually underexpose it by 2/3rds of a stop...
Other than the above, because with the CF-39MS one can also use the 4x MS mode when comparing (which of course beats both results easily) he can have a reference at the same scene with the same exposure and lens and thus have a better comparison trying to bring both images as close to the MS image as possible...
Off course one has to admit that the Nikon D800E is not the same as the A7RII which I haven't tried, but the images that Peter posted, have much of the differences I've noticed when doing similar tests comparing my DSLR with my MFDB and it led to me posting my opinion on this thread... That said, I do find the Sony very attractive and seriously thinking to invest in one to combine it with a Cambo Actus... what I wait for, is an electronic mount for the Contax lenses on the Actus which will allow me to control aperture, so that I will avoid investing in more lenses (the mount is highly rumored).
-
Stepping away from the technical talk for a moment (sorry folks...):
I prefer the P45+ image to the A7rII by quite a long way. It looks almost effortlessly natural in a way which I love, whereas the A7rII image looks technically good, but pretty ordinary from an aesthetic standpoint.
That begs a question, though - how much of this is to do with the sensor/software package, and how much is it actually due to the relative qualities of the lenses?
-
Stepping away from the technical talk for a moment (sorry folks...):
I prefer the P45+ image to the A7rII by quite a long way. It looks almost effortlessly natural in a way which I love, whereas the A7rII image looks technically good, but pretty ordinary from an aesthetic standpoint.
That begs a question, though - how much of this is to do with the sensor/software package, and how much is it actually due to the relative qualities of the lenses?
That should be easy to check since it must be possible to mount that lens on the a7rII, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That begs a question, though - how much of this is to do with the sensor/software package, and how much is it actually due to the relative qualities of the lenses?
.. and how much of it is to do with work in post ?
That should be easy to check since it must be possible to mount that lens on the a7rII, right?
Bernard, you know perfectly well that says b** all about f** all !
Best,
M
-
Bernard, you know perfectly well that says b** all about f** all !
I must be slow today, but sorry I have really no idea what you mean here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
.. and how much of it is to do with work in post ?
Hi Manoli,
You are quite right in mentioning this, IMO the best method to compare two different sensors, is to use them with the associated equipment that they will be matched with for the photographer's/potential customer needs and develop them for the best possible (hypothetical) salable outcome rather than trying to match the looks as much as possible... Then compare the final result and see which suits the tester most...
I have this (not usual) opinion about testing, simply because I believe that "better" is what satisfies the user most according to his needs/likes... Of course one may claim that if one aims for the best possible image, then the development should lead to similar looks, but if one tries the method without looking when he develops the second image of what the processing of the first image looks like, he may be surprised with how different results he may come up with when using different sensors and different associated equipment that leads the mind to adapt itself with the equipment's characteristics.
-
Theodore,
Well, yes and no ...
If I've understood him correctly, and to paraphrase Jack Hogan's posts - what he's said is that the differences in sensors and lenses are demonstrably evident and proof lies in scientific measurements – some of which he's referred to above. In short it can be, and is, measured. It's not based on subjective opinion which, to a degree rules profiles, and to a larger extent, post_p.
One needs to distinguish one from the other.
But, in the end result, the 'print', the two are inexorably entwined.
-
As I suspected, a can of worms :)
A few points: The comparison included other lenses for both cameras, with a range of apertures throughout. I elected to simplify the post with just 1 capture from each, 3 stops from wide open. Both cameras shot tethered in C1, with focus on main eye of bank note. Difference in focus likely my error. The question of whether the P45+ would have superior result on Contax with native Zeiss lens- no. In the past, I have compared that combination vs. my Rodenstock and Schneider lenses, and found the latter set of lenses to resolve better fine detail. I hope anyone commenting on the advantages of one or another will take the time to download the RAW files first.
As a tethered studio camera, Sony / Capture One have a few issues. As pointed out in other threads: the HDMI output for live-view does not work when tethered via USB; the live-view will not rotate for portrait orientation in C1; the naming in C1 with camera counter does not work. Also, you cannot use a less than HD monitor from the HDMI out, when recording 4K internal video.
Still, my conclusion is the Sony is pretty impressive.
-
More depth of field in the phase shot. Just a quick n dirty conversion (had to use dng converter) in lightroom. There is not much in it. Impressive performance. But on the eye of the bank note I would have to give the nod to the Sony for sharpness. Diffraction and f-stops aside, thats mighty impressive from that 55.
-
More depth of field in the phase shot. Just a quick n dirty conversion (had to use dng converter) in lightroom. There is not much in it. Impressive performance. But on the eye of the bank note I would have to give the nod to the Sony for sharpness. Diffraction and f-stops aside, thats mighty impressive from that 55.
You would have had very similar results with a a7r, D800E or D810, probably even closer with an Otus.
So this is basically 3 years old news.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
According to my RawTherapee with Deconvolution sharpening workflow (also looked at the files in C1), the Sony is miles ahead in terms of sharpness and the way it renders detail. The P45 looks very "digital" in the way the detail is rendered. It looks like a file from a digital camera, while the Sony looks like I'm standing there looking at the damn table.
At first, it appeared the P45 had more dynamic range after recovering the highlights of that crumpled up white paper/napkin, but I think they're pretty equal. Is the Sony dynamic range overhyped? IMO, it is WAY overhyped (thanks DPREVIEW). Don't care what those clowns at DXOmark have to say.
On the bright side, Nikon and Sony cameras will continue to get better and better. Right now, I would take a Nikon D810 instead.
-
Hi Peter,
It's funny, I was doing an unrelated test last night and then realized that my test image was in some ways similar to yours. I was testing the Mamiya 150 f/3.5 (Non D) on the 645DF+ with my Credo 40 back. Here is the test image, straight out of C1P with some basic processing.
Here is the image. F/4.5, ISO 100, 1.6s. Right click-> View image to see at 100%.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/569/21781779682_f9e46a830d_o.jpg)
It just might be me, but I feel that this is sharper than both samples that you have provided, even though this is in no way the sharpest Mamiya lens out there. Maybe diffraction is hurting your images or maybe there is some sort of shake inducing element. I am not sure.
But all that aside, lack of sharpness is not a big deal. It can be cured in post. But what caught my eye was how the gentle sub-tones come out in the P45 image and are lost in the sony.
For example, look at the bottle, right above the label. There are light green streaks running down in the Phase image that are completely lifeless in the Sony. Same goes for the shades of brown and green in the wooden board on the side. The Phase image shows way more differentiation in the colors, to my eyes.
I am quite sensitive to these sub tonal thingies, which is why I moved to MF in the first place. Other people may not see this/ care much for it, so the difference may not be so clear cut for them.