Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: benedmonson on July 15, 2007, 06:47:38 pm
-
I keep hearing lots of people harping on the fact that anything over ISO 400 is unusable on the P30, well in my opinion it is great, judge for your self by viewing attached photo. I guess I'm kind of getting cranky at hearing how freak'in great the new P30+ is and what a dog the P30 is. Let me just say that I shoot the P30 every day and couldn't be happier and have no plans of upgrading, I'm back to doing what I do best and that is make beautiful images(In my eyes at least!)! Some times you have to quit chasing the magic bullet and learn to use the tools you have at hand, I'm there!!!
Also, I must say that my recent find of a perfect Hasselblad 110F2 FE was the best find ever. At yesterday's wedding I shot it almost all the time except for a few shot witht the Contax 210 F4 (another lens that people dog, but is incredible). Just my .02 cents.
Love'in what I got!
ben edmonson
www.benedmonson.com
P.S. as for processing I didn't do a thing except process straight to 60% jpeg with c1 pro. No noise reduction of any kind or sharpening.[attachment=2820:attachment]
-
Looks great to me! Better than any 800 color film that I've seen. I've got a p25 and shoot 800 from time to time. But will never proccess in C1. LR handles the file great and makes the grain look more like film.
-
Rick I agree about the LR processing, in the last 2 weeks I have changed all my workflow over to it from C1 Pro. I just posted because i never see many high iso p30 images, but people sure love to talk bad about them. I think it has a lot to do with proper exposure.
ben
-
Ben -
Very nice picture ! Thank you for posting this image.
I had an issue under Firefox, with some browser induced banding, but downloaded the image and it is very nice indeed.
Hi ISO gives the Phase back a film-like look.
Edmund
PS- comes as a surprise that I have a son
-
Ben, what got me was the lone hair that found its way right into your 30mm-deep sharp zone. Nice. Had me chuckling for nearly an hour. I guess I've been doing this too long.
-H.
P.S. Edmund, are congratulations in order? or am I not getting another joke?
-
Like I said, no post at all on this shot, couldn't believe the lone hair was that sharp!
Ben, what got me was the lone hair that found its way right into your 30mm-deep sharp zone. Nice. Had me chuckling for nearly an hour. I guess I've been doing this too long.
-H.
P.S. Edmund, are congratulations in order? or am I not getting another joke?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ben Edmondson = Ben, Edmund's son
Edmund
P.S. Edmund, are congratulations in order? or am I not getting another joke?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ben,
very impressive. I visited your website. I love the sharpness and the brightness of your images. did you take them all with P30? What lenses dio you use?
-
Total agreement on LR, it's so good. Anyone downloaded michaels tutorial yet?
-
I haven't upadted my website in forever, too busy!!! Most of the images on the site were shot with my hasselblad 50mm F2.8 & 110 F2 love both of these lens. I just got a like new 110 F2 a few weeks ago for my P30 and am loving it. Alot of the images on my website were actually shot with my Hasselblad and chrome. Since getting the P30 there is no looking back and no film except polaroids shot at all.
Ben
Ben,
very impressive. I visited your website. I love the sharpness and the brightness of your images. did you take them all with P30? What lenses dio you use?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi Ben,
i like the image very much, the only thing that casts a shadow on it ist the
P.S. as for processing I didn't do a thing except process straight to 60% jpeg
because a scale (below 100%) will reduce noise (because multiple pixels are combined into one which has an averaging effect) and increase sharpness (because the features get smaller, whether you call this sharpness increase perceived or real, is open for discussion).
So
Like I said, no post at all on this shot
isn't correct.
That doesn't change the fact that it is a great picture it just reduces it's value as a noise comparisson image. Except if you compare noise of rescaled images.
Regards
SH
-
Brumbär,
Of course you are right, but any camera that can give me such images is ok for me
I just wish that eg. Sinar had a 1600 ISO setting in the hardware so I could get the same results with their backs, even if it means downrezzing. As it stands, I'm off to order a Phase back.
Edmund
Hi Ben,
i like the image very much, the only thing that casts a shadow on it ist the
because a scale (below 100%) will reduce noise (because multiple pixels are combined into one which has an averaging effect) and increase sharpness (because the features get smaller, whether you call this sharpness increase perceived or real, is open for discussion).
So
isn't correct.
That doesn't change the fact that it is a great picture it just reduces it's value as a noise comparisson image. Except if you compare noise of rescaled images.
Regards
SH
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Edmund,
did you ever try a Sinarback at this ISO? I doubt. More seriously, you should try and compare side by side.
Best regards,
Thierry
Brumbär,
Of course you are right, but any camera that can give me such images is ok for me
I just wish that eg. Sinar had a 1600 ISO setting in the hardware so I could get the same results with their backs, even if it means downrezzing. As it stands, I'm off to order a Phase back.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Sinar have been a no-show in Paris as we already discussed. Your colleague in switzerland to who you referred me has refused to meet me several times on account of being too busy. At least Phase have a dealer net which is visible.
Edmund,
did you ever try a Sinarback at this ISO? I doubt. More seriously, you should try and compare side by side.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
well, I don't quite understand why you are so agressive because Sinar was not at a show when having in-house new product launches! There have been hundreds of shows where Sinar was present when others not, and there will be hundreds more. I don't quite understand your point.
Also, a colleague not meeting you because of a tight schedule isn't a mark of disrespect, IMO. I don't think my colleague ever said that he refused to meet you: that is just a wrong and misleading wording used. That you do not believe him that he was busy is another way to see things, isn't it?
You can certainly understand that it is not possible to meet all and anybody at any time when a request is made, especially during this period of time: I am based in Bangkok, but was present during those 2 weeks at Sinar to tell how everybody was busy or not.
Dealer net which is visible: what the hell has this to do with the above?!
Edmund, I have honestly difficulties sometimes to understand your purpose of being here: you seem to function according to the interest one gives you.
Best regards,
Thierry
Sinar have been a no-show in Paris as we already discussed. Your colleague in switzerland to who you referred me has refused to meet me several times on account of being too busy. At least Phase have a dealer net which is visible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128624\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thierry,
As far as I am concerned, Sinar have been perfectly respectful, and have a product which is very respected, as regular positive postings here demonstrate.
Edmund
-
that's what I am thinking and defending, but your post leads to think the contrary.
Thierry
Thierry,
As far as I am concerned, Sinar have been perfectly respectful, and have a product which is very respected, as regular positive postings here demonstrate.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Brumbär,
Of course you are right, but any camera that can give me such images is ok for me
I just wish that eg. Sinar had a 1600 ISO setting in the hardware so I could get the same results with their backs, even if it means downrezzing. As it stands, I'm off to order a Phase back.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Edmund,
what has Sinar to do with it ?
As I understood Ben wanted to show that you can get good results with the P30 and not only with the P30+.
And I agree his results are great. All I'm saying is that it fails as a fair comparison, because pixels are traded for noise reduction. A 31MP system used as a 11 MB 800 ISO system is put against a 31MP system at ISO 800.
Still I will not argue with Ben, about whether this shot is usable, it's more than that.
But the question for photographers is whether 11 MB are enough for what they do, and I'm sure some people are more than happy if the P30+ has a better high ISO performance (which I do not know, I just assume it because of what I've heard), because they can not afford to loose two thirds of the pixels the back is able to deliver to get good high ISO performance.
Just scale your output to postcard size and you will be able to get fantastic high ISO results with nearly any back. Also you have to worry much less about camera shake, because scaleing down will get rid of al lot of this. That's even cooler because so every camera has stabilization build in and no extra costs involved Just, how many clients are happy with postcard size imges ?
So I do not intervene for the sake of any product or brand, I do not argue about the quality of the image, I just voice my opinion that apples are compared to pears.
Regards
SH
-
Hi Edmund,
what has Sinar to do with it ?
I believe he said "eg Sinar"....
And I agree his results are great. All I'm saying is that it fails as a fair comparison, because pixels are traded for noise reduction. A 31MP system used as a 11 MB 800 ISO system is put against a 31MP system at ISO 800.
Why are you mixing in Megabytes with Pixels?
As far as I know the Sinar backs cant even go higher then 400ISO anyway? Different chipsize etc etcSo it will never be a apple to apple comparison anyway.
Svein Erik
-
as said already many times, Svein, I would suggest you to compare a Sinar ISO 400 with a PO ISO 400 (or should I say ISO 200 vs ISO 400, to put it more clearly?).
I am reacting harshly here, because some do not seem to know what they speak about.
Sorry about that.
Thierry
I believe he said "eg Sinar"....
Why are you mixing in Megabytes with Pixels?
As far as I know the Sinar backs cant even go higher then 400ISO anyway? So it will never be a apple to apple comparison anyway.
Svein Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edited for addendum
-
as said already many times, Svein, I would suggest you to compare a Sinar ISO 400 with a PO ISO 400 (or should I say ISO 200 vs. ISO 400, to put it more clearly?).
I am reacting harshly here, because some do not seem to know what they speak about.
Sorry about that.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128645\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edited for addendum
-
Every back maker should have an option to bin the pixels in exchange for hi-iso. Because if you are there and you have a camera, you need that camera to be able to shoot in bad light. Not everybody does studio. I do very little studio, and a lot of people shots.
Edmund
-
Hi Svein Erik,
Why are you mixing in Megabytes with Pixels?
That's a classical typo.
I only talk about Pixel not Megabytes.
11 MP and 31 MP are meant.
Regards
SH
-
Dear Thierry,
I am in the states so there really is not much you can do. But I was in the process of upgrading my P25 to either a P45 or A75. I have never considered Sinar due to their lack of presence in the states and frankly the elitist attitude from the local rep.
My Leaf dealer who I will not mention who also sells Sinar has pushed me away from Sinar digital. My first question was what is the E75 400 asa looking like? He stated to stay away if I need higher ISO. This is your dealer network.
At the end of the day if anyone needs 50 or 100 asa all the backs are just fine. At that point it becomes what software you prefer and can deal with. When you shoot high volume people or fashions and need bullet proof workflow and the ability to get higher ISO when needed, I have been advised to not go with Sinar. Hasselblad I will not go with because of the H3D's lock into their system. THe CF39 seemed like a good system but it has been rumored to be discontinued and concentrate only on the body back combo. But as well all know rumors are like @SS()0|3S everyone has one in this digital age.
I really respect what brumbear is doing with their highlight recovery, but no one seems to be posting any Sinar images at 400 to be able to inspect it.
I am not bagging on Sinar, Sinar has made some spectacular products. But there has always been an air of eliteism with SinarBron in the states.
The thing that MAC group and Phase have always done is be very customer service oriented. Hasselblad is now going in that direction and are really great. In the last few months of research customer service has been the most important deciding factor of who i will go with. Phase's support is second to none and Leaf has been catching up. I have not had the ability to test the Hassy support but I got support with a few test files I shot and they were great and aswered all my questions and were very informative.
Hopefully we get a chance to look at files. If the company's were smart you would be able to get RAW unretouched files available for download on the web. You sponsor and loan enough backs to big shooters that you should be able to get RAW shots for download. So that people can make their own decision on the file.
-
Every back maker should have an option to bin the pixels in exchange for hi-iso. Because if you are there and you have a camera, you need that camera to be able to shoot in bad light. Not everybody does studio. I do very little studio, and a lot of people shots.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. But that is of course IMHO
As long as there is an option to shoot high ISO, you can do the binning in the editor.
When doing it in the editor you can decide, how much resolution you sacrifice for how much noise reduction.
You can change the amount and try different amounts as often as you like, while when the camera does it the "additional" pixels are gone.
There are images which show less noise than others, because of the scene or shooting parameters. Why sacrifice resolution on them for a generic binning.
I find the back/sensor developers should invest the time in improving noise performance on the full resolution and leave the binning stuff to LR and PS or whatever editor you fancy.
I know that the dalsa sensor does not do something fancy when binning, it just adds the values of the cells, so no "real" improvement can be gained by that over binning in the editor. I do not know for the Kodak sensors, but I doubt that it does something more complicated than the Dalsa.
I personally see camera binning only as option for a system for which the images, that fall out of it, have to be "finished" like a P&S.
On a system where you will touch the files anyway and try to get the most out of them, I see it as an option that will not be used often. Because when you shot using binning there is no way back to higher resolution and you might often have that nagging feeling that the shot would probably have been better, when you would have shot it in full-res and than scaled it youreself or used that new noise reduction tool or.....
Regards
SH
-
Hopefully we get a chance to look at files. If the company's were smart you would be able to get RAW unretouched files available for download on the web. You sponsor and loan enough backs to big shooters that you should be able to get RAW shots for download. So that people can make their own decision on the file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I fully agree with you RicAqu. RAW files and also whatever proprietary converter software should be readily available (so that we can feel the workflow). I think that will say something about a manufacturer's confidence.
Henry
-
but no one seems to be posting any Sinar images at 400 to be able to inspect it.
When using my back I usually shoot under controlled circumstances and avoid high ISOs.
Because if I can avoid noise I do it.
And IMHO binning is not really an option, because than I'm back in the resolution range of my Nikon. Of course we now could argue about different colors between the system and there are other advantages and disadvantages between the systems. IMHO when the resolution between MF and Nikon system is identical I will not always choose the MF system.
When I can't avoid high ISOs it's usually moving targets in the distance, so I will use my Nikon with it's multipoint AF and a long lens (200 or 400 mm) anyway.
I'm no pro photographer, so my needs may be different from yours (nobody special, the casual reader so to say).
I must admit that I use binning consciously when I shoot for a non photographic website or when I receive images for the same use. More than once a not so sharp or noisy shot transformed miraculously into an useful and absolutely adequate image.
Hopefully we get a chance to look at files. If the company's were smart you would be able to get RAW unretouched files available for download on the web. You sponsor and loan enough backs to big shooters that you should be able to get RAW shots for download. So that people can make their own decision on the file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd love that as well.
I always wonder and get frustrated by why it is so difficult to get a raw file from any of the backs.
Probably we could set up a website and change that.
In this forum there should be enough people with all the major backs to deliver enough material.
So we could have shots for different backs, uses (architecture, landscape, available light, fashion etc.) and ISOs and whatever.
Regards
SH
-
Brumbär,
You are clearly right; binning might better be left for software post - I should have said that the software should always give one the option. However, reading 2x or 4x hardware binned pixels might allow drowning out the read amp noise, and hence it would seem to me that hardware binning might sometimes be useful if and only if read amp noise is a critical factor.
My note on Hi ISO is that often I'm emplaced and need a couple of Hi-ISO shots *with the camera I am holding*. No possibility to switch bodies.
I hope that at some point your tools will become available to all camera users ...
I concur that we should set up an image database.
Edmund
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. But that is of course IMHO
As long as there is an option to shoot high ISO, you can do the binning in the editor.
When doing it in the editor you can decide, how much resolution you sacrifice for how much noise reduction.
You can change the amount and try different amounts as often as you like, while when the camera does it the "additional" pixels are gone.
There are images which show less noise than others, because of the scene or shooting parameters. Why sacrifice resolution on them for a generic binning.
I find the back/sensor developers should invest the time in improving noise performance on the full resolution and leave the binning stuff to LR and PS or whatever editor you fancy.
I know that the dalsa sensor does not do something fancy when binning, it just adds the values of the cells, so no "real" improvement can be gained by that over binning in the editor. I do not know for the Kodak sensors, but I doubt that it does something more complicated than the Dalsa.
I personally see camera binning only as option for a system for which the images, that fall out of it, have to be "finished" like a P&S.
On a system where you will touch the files anyway and try to get the most out of them, I see it as an option that will not be used often. Because when you shot using binning there is no way back to higher resolution and you might often have that nagging feeling that the shot would probably have been better, when you would have shot it in full-res and than scaled it youreself or used that new noise reduction tool or.....
Regards
SH
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Henry (and Ricagu),
I agree to some extend, that Raw files should be available. It is not a question of being confident in one's own confidence, IMO, rather that we leave this part to our distributors: most of them (probably all) will hand you over files shot during a demo and made under your own shooting conditions. This does not mean that we will not do this in the future by our own
But then, file provided by a manufacturer does tell a lot but also absolutely nothing about a back's quality:there will always be people saying "yes, but this is shot under adequate conditions". The important thing is to make side by side comparisons, also IMO.
Also, our software is free and usually handed over by our distributors to anybody being interested to have a look in it.
Now, I agree that a image database or site with different samples would be a good idea.
Thierry
I fully agree with you RicAqu. RAW files and also whatever proprietary converter software should be readily available (so that we can feel the workflow). I think that will say something about a manufacturer's confidence.
Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Henry (and Ricagu),
I agree to some extend, that Raw files should be available. It is not a question of being confident in one's own confidence, IMO, rather that we leave this part to our distributors: most of them (probably all) will hand you over files shot during a demo and made under your own shooting conditions. This does not mean that we will not do this in the future by our own
But then, file provided by a manufacturer does tell a lot but also absolutely nothing about a back's quality:there will always be people saying "yes, but this is shot under adequate conditions". The important thing is to make side by side comparisons, also IMO.
Also, our software is free and usually handed over by our distributors to anybody being interested to have a look in it.
Now, I agree that a image database or site with different samples would be a good idea.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128736\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dear Thiery,
IMHO, any RAW file you leave on an internet site for potential customers to download and work on can only lend good feelings not suspicious ones. Your potential customers cannot fault you if the files are good. After all your digital back did produce these RAW files and if they are not able to produce similar quality files later, it would mean their own inability to use the tools well. I think dealers are important but more in the context of sales & service. MHO is letting potential users have access to RAW files and converters is more of a marketing function. In fact, dealers who have their own web sites can also mirror these files and software to help their own customers have faster downloads. You already know my view of some dealers and distributors so you would understand why I would like to be quite independent at this stage.
Henry
-
Well noted, Henry, and thanks for the input which shall be duely forwarded.
Best regards,
Thierry
Dear Thiery,
IMHO, any RAW file you leave on an internet site for potential customers to download and work on can only lend good feelings not suspicious ones. Your potential customers cannot fault you if the files are good. After all your digital back did produce these RAW files and if they are not able to produce similar quality files later, it would mean their own inability to use the tools well. I think dealers are important but more in the context of sales & service. MHO is letting potential users have access to RAW files and converters is more of a marketing function. In fact, dealers who have their own web sites can also mirror these files and software to help their own customers have faster downloads. You already know my view of some dealers and distributors so you would understand why I would like to be quite independent at this stage.
Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128753\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thierry,
The reason I bought my Canon 1Ds was the full-size Tiff fies posted on the Canon site at the time. My greatest surprise was that when the camera arrived it really made files as good, at least, as the examples; I know that truth in advertising is a strange concept, bt it really makes you feel good about a company.
I would like to add that that I always had skin texture issues with the next model 1DsII, but these were visible already in the Canon example files for that camera; but I do not feel that Canon cheated, because the character of the camera was clearly visible in the examples they handed out, and not hidden.
I have had to go to great pains to get Raw samples from DBs, and simply do not understand why this is so. If the product is great, one should be able to see that clearly.
Edmund
Well noted, Henry, and thanks for the input which shall be duely forwarded.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Edmund,
I agree and can understand this, although one has to be aware that files produced and handed-over to potential customers do not necessarily show the negatives of a product.
Please, don't misunderstand me, I am not at all against this idea of having RAWs at the disposal of who whises to try them. I shall even put my (little) weight in the balance to have such RAWs in the future.
Best regards,
Thierry
Thierry,
The reason I bought my Canon 1Ds was the full-size Tiff fies posted on the Canon site at the time. My greatest surprise was that when the camera arrived it really made files as good, at least, as the examples; I know that truth in advertising is a strange concept, bt it really makes you feel good about a company.
I would like to add that that I always had skin texture issues with the next model 1DsII, but these were visible already in the Canon example files for that camera; but I do not feel that Canon cheated, because the character of the camera was clearly visible in the examples they handed out, and not hidden.
I have had to go to great pains to get Raw samples from DBs, and simply do not understand why this is so. If the product is great, one should be able to see that clearly.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thanks Thiery.
I'm looking forward to seeing some development in this direction.
I think we have hijacked the OP's thread somewhat. Sorry about that and so it should end here...
Henry
-
There have been a few threads on LL that have shown the higher ISOs from the P30 and P30+.
Here is a link from a thread that shows Steve Cole's P30+ ISO 1600 images:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=17844 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17844)
He also has posted some images of shooting with a normal P30 at ISO 800 and shows his results.
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration.com
-
... and the same with ISO comparisons of the eMotion 22, (from foto_z, for example), although I can't find the link anymore.
Thierry
There have been a few threads on LL that have shown the higher ISOs from the P30 and P30+.
Here is a link from a thread that shows Steve Cole's P30+ ISO 1600 images:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=17844 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17844)
He also has posted some images of shooting with a normal P30 at ISO 800 and shows his results.
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I fully agree with you RicAqu. RAW files and also whatever proprietary converter software should be readily available (so that we can feel the workflow). I think that will say something about a manufacturer's confidence.
Henry
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=128668\")
Henry, Richard or anyone looking for RAW Leaf files, there's a collection of images on our website that can be downloaded, along with LeafCapture software.
[a href=\"http://www.leaf-photography.com/pages/softwaredownload.aspx]http://www.leaf-photography.com/pages/softwaredownload.aspx[/url] click the "Access Leaf MOS files: Leaf Aptus RAW images" at the top of the list.
Not all are exceptional photographically but they provide a decent entry into Leaf's IQ. More images of specific scenes/ conditions can be provided upon request.
You will have to register and provide some basic info, you do not have to be a Leaf owner for this.
Enjoy
Yair