Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on June 27, 2010, 11:24:41 pm
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your testing of the S2.
One question though, you write in your intro that the S2 eats "Japanese DSLR" alive in terms of image quality.
Yet, you find the M9 print to be "suprisingly" close to those of the S2 and P65+ on 24x30 inch prints.
At the same time, a recent and thorough comparison of the M9 to the A900/D3x find the latter to be superior.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/s2part4.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/s2part4.html)
Based on these data, it seems reasonnable to assume that 24 x 30 inch prints from an A900/D3x would have been just as surprinsgly close to the S2 as those of the M9. Did you not see that?
I am not questioning your conclusions, but could you please just ellaborate a little bit more on the "eat alive" part? What makes you say so from an experimental standpoint?
Thanks.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
Some authors here on the forum have explained that the camera tests Mr. Puts does are not very good. I didn't find out what the criticism is about, but obviously those authors have different finding from Mr. Puts. The Leica lenses are throughly excellent, also according to Mr. Puts.
I have read the test by Mr. Puts quite a few times. What I noticed was that the D3X pictures were more crisp than the A900, that was pretty clear. Also I had some issue with Mr. Puts's diskussion of Moiré.
Some observations about Mr. Dubovoy's 'first impression':
- Mr. Dubovoy points out that he compares prints and doesn't peep at actual pixels
- Both Mark Dubovoy and Michael Reichmann seem to agree that prints are the correct way to compare images
- The "test" was done on real subjects instead of studio shooting
Finally, there is two ways of testing stuff, looking for the strengths or looking for the weak points. Both approaches are valid, in my view. For instance, when I test a lens I always check the corners first, because I know that they used to be the weakest point, but it's very seldom I have a of of critical detail in the corners.
Anyway, it seems that Leica have developed a great camera.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your testing of the S2.
One question though, you write in your intro that the S2 eats "Japanese DSLR" alive in terms of image quality.
Yet, you find the M9 print to be "suprisingly" close to those of the S2 and P65+ on 24x30 inch prints.
At the same time, a recent and thorough comparison of the M9 to the A900/D3x find the latter to be superior.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/s2part4.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/s2part4.html)
Based on these data, it seems reasonnable to assume that 24 x 30 inch prints from an A900/D3x would have been just as surprinsgly close to the S2 as those of the M9. Did you not see that?
I am not questioning your conclusions, but could you please just ellaborate a little bit more on the "eat alive" part? What makes you say so from an experimental standpoint?
Thanks.
Regards,
Bernard
-
but could you please just ellaborate
another "6 stops"
-
... [Mark Dubovoy:]...S2 eats "Japanese DSLR" alive in terms of image quality....
[Mark Dubovoy:] "The dynamic range of a typical high-end professional 35 mm DSLR is around 7 F/stops. Medium Format cameras are closer to 13 F/stops of dynamic range. You can see the difference from 30 feet away in a small print."
As in any religion, dogmas (and authorities) are not to be questioned. Therefore, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that digital [German] MF "eats alive" Japanese 35mm DSLR and has six stops DR advantage, visible in a small print from 30 feet.
I think people do not appreciate enough what a Renaissance man Mark is, i.e., not only "Scientist, Venture Capitalist and Photographer", but also a poet, whose greatest poetic tool seems to be hyperbole.
-
I enjoyed the comparison between a P65+ and an S2.
Now lets compare a 1Ds mkIII against a 1D mkIII for resolution.
What a waste of time.
I'm a wedding shooter, we get knocked about a lot, our equipment gets bashed a lot. I've a lot of friends who are PJ's who get knocked about even more. Never once heard a complaint against 'Japanese' reversable lens hoods but apparently the landscape pros really hate them. Definately.
It's tough being a rich hobbyist isn't it...
-
...the S2 eats "Japanese DSLR" alive in terms of image quality.
What's wrong with that statement?
Honestly, can you make the difference between a G11 files and a m4/3 ? I guess you can no?
And these differences lay in sensor's size don't they?
The Mark's statement about this Leica is nothing new under the sun: sensor size matters.
Whatever the brand and system involved.
We all agree and can see the differences between an aps sensor and a full frame sensor.
We all see the gap between a compact cam and any entry level dslr when it comes to image quality don't we?
This Leica is a medium format camera, and therefore has a much bigger sensor than the FF 35mm.
What do you expect? Suddenly the differences we can see and accept in any other formats are not valuables for this Leica?
Like it or not, MF will always smoke any 35mm in that terrain. You seem to accept evidences in smaller formats that you are not accepting
when it comes to MF, this is an unexplainable collective behaviour and I don't have any rational explaination to that strange phenomenon.
We all know that size matters, that AA filter matters, that CCD matters, and the special sauce applied in image processing matters, and lens quality
matters...
Do you expect your G11 being as good in terms of image quality than your D3? So why would you expect your D3 to be as good as a P65 or a Leaf aptus?
This simply does not makes sense. I don't get what's wrong with the fact that on this planet there are higher image quaility available than the D3 or the 1D saga...
This Leica is not an expection, it is an advance medium format in a dslr package, and as a medium format camera the Mark's statement is just the logical and unquestionable conclusion. I would have not taken him seriously if he would have pointed the opposite.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your testing of the S2.
One question though, you write in your intro that the S2 eats "Japanese DSLR" alive in terms of image quality.
Yet, you find the M9 print to be "suprisingly" close to those of the S2 and P65+ on 24x30 inch prints.
At the same time, a recent and thorough comparison of the M9 to the A900/D3x find the latter to be superior.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/s2part4.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/s2part4.html)
Based on these data, it seems reasonnable to assume that 24 x 30 inch prints from an A900/D3x would have been just as surprinsgly close to the S2 as those of the M9. Did you not see that?
I am not questioning your conclusions, but could you please just ellaborate a little bit more on the "eat alive" part? What makes you say so from an experimental standpoint?
Thanks.
Regards,
Bernard
I guess it has something to do with the AA filter, which both of Leicas [as far as I can remember] do lack.
I´ve got yet another question, and it is about the hoods.
What is so bad about the japanese hoods?
I am a happy pentax camper in that regard, but for one hood. Even the kit lens has a very decent hood, with that little polarizer window that allows you to rotate the filter with the hood attached.
The limited hoods are quite allright, with black flocking inside, and the collapsible 77 and 70 designs [the dome design is not that good, but it does work left on the lens]. The recangular hood for the petite fast fifty is a pain in the ass, though. It has a too delicate inner mate coating, is cumbersome to use, and looses grip on the lens way too often. And it was almost as expensive as the very lens.
-
...the S2 eats "Japanese DSLR" alive in terms of image quality.
What's wrong with that statement?
Honestly, can you make the difference between a G11 files and a m4/3 ? I guess you can no?
And these differences lay in sensor's size don't they?
The Mark's statement about this Leica is nothing new under the sun: sensor size matters.
Whatever the brand and system involved.
We all agree and can see the differences between an aps sensor and a full frame sensor.
We all see the gap between a compact cam and any entry level dslr when it comes to image quality don't we?
This Leica is a medium format camera, and therefore has a much bigger sensor than the FF 35mm.
What do you expect? Suddenly the differences we can see and accept in any other formats are not valuables for this Leica?
Like it or not, MF will always smoke any 35mm in that terrain. You seem to accept evidences in smaller formats that you are not accepting
when it comes to MF, this is an unexplainable collective behaviour and I don't have any rational explaination to that strange phenomenon.
We all know that size matters, that AA filter matters, that CCD matters, and the special sauce applied in image processing matters, and lens quality
matters...
Do you expect your G11 being as good in terms of image quality than your D3? So why would you expect your D3 to be as good as a P65 or a Leaf aptus?
This simply does not makes sense. I don't get what's wrong with the fact that on this planet there are higher image quaility available than the D3 or the 1D saga...
This Leica is not an expection, it is an advance medium format in a dslr package, and as a medium format camera the Mark's statement is just the logical and unquestionable conclusion. I would have not taken him seriously if he would have pointed the opposite.
Yet... the M9 and P65+ prints look nearly the same...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess it has something to do with the AA filter, which both of Leicas [as far as I can remember] do lack.
Are we talking engineering specs or real world photography?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yet... the M9 and P65+ prints look nearly the same...
Cheers,
Bernard
So the logical conclusion, as the M9 sensor is not bigger, is that CCD, no AA, lens quality and Leica processing is what makes the difference and why users are finding similitudes with the P65 rendering.
-
So the logical conclusion, as the M9 sensor is not bigger, is that CCD, no AA, lens quality and Leica processing is what makes the difference and why users are finding similitudes with the P65 rendering.
No, that is not the logical conclusion.
The logical conclusion is that the initial statement deserves some questioning as it appears not to be based on the actual comparison of prints that the author tells us is the measure of all things in landscape photography.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm a wedding shooter, we get knocked about a lot, our equipment gets bashed a lot. I've a lot of friends who are PJ's who get knocked about even more. Never once heard a complaint against 'Japanese' reversable lens hoods but apparently the landscape pros really hate them. Definately.
Well, it depends. Most of the landscape photographers I know use this: http://www.lenshoods.net/ (http://www.lenshoods.net/)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice review thanks.
By the time Leica have a more complete set of lenses out for the S2 ...
Phase One will be called Phase Two and their top line for pro back will have 100 useless megapixels ( thats 40 more useless megapixels on top of the 20 extra they just added) , Hasselblad will still be trying to get their 60 useless megapixel back out, and be on to their new improved blue tooth enabled for Ipad (Ipad 111) GPS ing H5D11-60 ( Canon ill sue for calling the camera H5D11) and the old 30-40 megaxel backs will sell for 3K and be collected by amateurs to use on Chinese made Alpas/artecs and wotnots with Russian copies of Schneider and Rdenstock designs, the 35mm crowd will still insist that the CaNikon mk33.76 @ 25 megapixels i as good as the Phase Two 100 megapixel back and RED will be releasing a full frame wizzer 'imminently'.
the Leica M10 will be about to be released ( to the usual beta testers ) with an updated made for digital shooting line of M lenses - lens barrels sporting distinctive yellow and orange aperture and distance scales with graphite hoods - and lens coding will use red an black unobtanium inks.
btw - all the MFD makers will still be sporting the same useless LCD - just for tradition's sake.
and Leica nuts will still buy all things Leica- whilst Leica haters will hate anything Leica - German haters will hate Leica on principle of course.
-
Hi Bernard,
Some authors here on the forum have explained that the camera tests Mr. Puts does are not very good. I didn't find out what the criticism is about, but obviously those authors have different finding from Mr. Puts. The Leica lenses are throughly excellent, also according to Mr. Puts.
He does typically ere a bit on the side of Leica.
I see no reason to question his comments when he writes something different.
For what it is worth, Asahi camera in Japan, one of the most reputed technical publications in the world, released last month a compariosn between the S2 and the D3x in which they called the S2 a clear winner but were surprised by how small the gap was.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would think that the truth of this, as always, is that we are picking nits here. It looks as if the D3X, the S2, the M9, and the Phase 645 with P65 are all extraordinarily good cameras. Any one of them will produce prints which will knock your socks off, as indeed will all the latest high-end kit. You could choose any one of them and it will serve you well, and for most of us mere mortals we will never be limited by the camera's capability but only by our own lack of skill or vision.
We should be grateful that we have such choice, given the means to afford it.
John
-
He does typically ere a bit on the side of Leica.
I see no reason to question his comments when he writes something different.
For what it is worth, Asahi camera in Japan, one of the most reputed technical publications in the world, released last month a compariosn between the S2 and the D3x in which they called the S2 a clear winner but were surprised by how small the gap was.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
On the official big press, I would beleive even less on any conclusion on that matter as relaible and unpartial sources.
I've been involved enough time in journalism when I was younger in Paris to understood that this world is an economic battle with huge interest behind, and I've seen so far enough money under the table
and pressures to the press to draw a smile like this one when it comes to these kind of sources and the conclusions one journalist can draw in favor or against a product.
I don't know if you follow me bacause I won't go further on that matter here. (and I would say the same if the D3 where involved). Asahi is Japanese, not German.
Again, I can't beleive that with such big differences in sensor size, there are no significant differences in the final result. These differences exists and are not small between a D3X and let's say a D90.
But suddenly, it results that from 20ish MP CMOS and 40thish CCD the differences then are just more or less academics...
Following this idea, there is absolutly no reason then why so many photographers are still working and spending a lot of money with MF. They are all wrong because they could get the same
print quality with much cheaper and smaller format. So they are all listening to siren's songs and see magical properties with their MF gear that are in the domain of fabulations....??
Following the same idea, why don't you sell your D3 and just get a D5000? Because tomorrow I won't be suprised to read somewhere that same quality can be acheived with the D5000 than
with the D3X. Not surprised at all! Well simply you know perfectly that your D3 is a much better gear when it comes to IQ, and the main reson resides in the sensor size.
Affirming that this Leica S2 is just very close to a D3 is, according to my modest opinion, a exercice that I doubt you even beleive your own words.
Let's call it teasing?
Cheers.
-
Following the same idea, why don't you sell your D3 and just get a D5000? Because tomorrow I won't be suprised to read somewhere that same quality can be acheived with the D5000 than
with the D3X. Not surprised at all! Well simply you know perfectly that your D3 is a much better gear when it comes to IQ, and the main reson resides in the sensor size.
Affirming that this Leica S2 is just very close to a D3 is, according to my modest opinion, a exercice that I doubt you even beleive your own words.
Let's call it teasing?
Fred,
Notice that I didn't even really comment on the gap between a A900/D3x and a S2, I just asked Mark how he had reached this conclusion without any mention in his article of a comparison of prints.
For what it is worth, the same Asahi camera did it again this month with a comparison between the D3x and a Pentax 645D. Their conclusion, the Pentax wins but the gap is smaller than they expected. I guess that your "logical" conclusion on that one is that the 645D is inferior to the S2?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Here's a cosmic truth –– It's all subjective.
Does anyone remember my "You've Got to Be Kidding (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml)" essay of Oct, 2008?
I wasn't kidding. Pros and industry professionals with decades of experience were hard pressed to tell a $500 camera and a $40,000 camera's results apart in 13X19" prints.
We have a situation today where $1,000 camcorders are producing footage that is visually comparable on screen if not a vectorscope to that from $30,000 pro-level cameras. Canon 5D's are being used to shoot million dollar TV shows, and are being used interchangeable with $100,000 cameras on feature film productions.
It's time to move on. So-called experts arrive at different conclusions about the same gear because it's all subjective. Lab tests tell us what lab tests tell us, but in the real world it's all subjective.
These are just some quick thoughts before breakfast, and I'll likely turn this into an essay over the next few days. The emperor may in fact not be wearing clothes – but then again, he might.
Michael
-
Again, I can't beleive that with such big differences in sensor size, there are no significant differences in the final result.
Hi Fred,
Isn't that the whole purpose of conducting an objective test? One seeks to make a comparison based on quantifiable (or at least visually comparable) criteria/features. There is no belief involved, if the test is done well. It wouldn't be the first time that things turn out less spectacular than one subjectively was willing to believe.
People tend to almost religiously defend certain beliefs (often merely to justify ones own choices), a bit of down-to-earth realism won't hurt. Differences in sensor size alone means little, it's the number of sensels and their size, and the quality of their captured and converted output signals that ultimately counts, from a technical point of view that is.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm ready to accept any kind of mistake, and change my point of view if I realised I'm wrong.
But what happens to me or my ideas is nothing important,
what really would be completly surreal, and that would have more serious consequences, is that
all a part of an industry selling very expensive high-end gear, suddenly put on trail.
Lets imagine the consequences on Hassy, Phase, Leaf, Sinar, Leica and Co with this down to hearth,
If they can not justified any more their prices-equipment-performance equation because the gap between
a Canon S90 and a P65 is not that huge in the end...
But for the moment, as simply the gap between a G11 and my street aps Pentax camera being quite huge in real world,
I don't worry too much about the Phase sales.
For the moment...As I said, if I'm wrong I'll rectify.
-
I enjoyed the comparison between a P65+ and an S2.
Now lets compare a 1Ds mkIII against a 1D mkIII for resolution.
What a waste of time.
I'm a wedding shooter, we get knocked about a lot, our equipment gets bashed a lot. I've a lot of friends who are PJ's who get knocked about even more. Never once heard a complaint against 'Japanese' reversable lens hoods but apparently the landscape pros really hate them. Definately.
It's tough being a rich hobbyist isn't it...
Dear Mr. Reviewer/Web site owner.
REPEAT AFTER ME: IN REAL LIFE, FOR A WORKING PRO, A LENS HOOD DOES REDUCE STRAY LIGHT, BUT IT IS REALLY A FRONT ELEMENT PROTECTOR. THIS IS WHY NO SUPER-TELE IS EVER, EVER, EVER DEPLOYED WITHOUT THE HOOD.
Edmund
-
I think I'm going to glue some Ostrich Scrotum Leather on my Mamiya Press and put an additional red spot on it and be happy with it.
/me hides ...
-
[quote name='eronald' date='Jun 28 2010, 09:57 AM' post='373340']
Dear Mr. Reviewer/Web site owner.
REPEAT AFTER ME: IN REAL LIFE, FOR A WORKING PRO, A LENS HOOD DOES REDUCE STRAY LIGHT, BUT IT IS REALLY A FRONT ELEMENT PROTECTOR. THIS IS WHY NO SUPER-TELE IS EVER, EVER, EVER DEPLOYED WITHOUT THE HOOD.
Hi,
As were are having the soccer(yes together with the USA we call it soccer instead of Football) world cup here in South Africa at the moment, I was fortunate to be able to go to a couple of matches. I was amazed at all the press photographers. Lots of big white lenses(and black ones too).
But what was rather interesting was how many of the super tele lenshoods were lying on the grass behind the photographers!
As for me I have allways liked the 'look' of a lenshood on a lens. Makes it look somewhat more 'professional'?
Regards,
Ivan
-
Some authors here on the forum have explained that the camera tests Mr. Puts does are not very good.
Yes, but this seems to be a case of shooting the messenger. No basis is given for this dismissal, except for the fact it wasn't the expected result. Just like the same folks dismiss DxO tests, or any other rest/review/opinion that doesn't agree with their biases. At some point, you have to offer up a little more to support your position than "trust me, I know what I"m talking about".
-
I'm ready to accept any kind of mistake, and change my point of view if I realised I'm wrong.
remember that "6 stops" incident - neither mr Dubovoy nor mr Reichmann nor P1 people nor P1 dealers offered neither math (like Emil Martinec) nor raw files...
-
Michael, I just have a big regret.
Is that in your testing fashion shot about the S2 with the Phase, you didn't include a parallel testing with a D3x or a 1DsMKIII.
That would have definatly closed the debate about if MF is way superior in terms of IQ exept at high isos. (beautifull model I must say!)
Then, putting some 100% files crops in a dowload site on the important zones like the hair, eyes, skin tones transitions etc...
and the details in the very highlights and the shadows.
For me, I give up, and if some are willing to beleive that the differences are the domain of subtlenesses and almost impossible to perceive in the printings,
fine. We have beleived that some men could walk on the water and even open seas with a stick, so that is indeed a detail in comparaison.
I'm off that thread.
Best luck.
-
Yet... the M9 and P65+ prints look nearly the same...
Cheers,
Bernard
this is a statement for april 1. my D3x at least produces the same print quality as my m9
(if not better for prints larger than A2), it has at least 3 stops more dynamic range and above iso 320
there is no contest between the two. and my P65 'eats both alive' at print sizes larger than A3+.
i have no idea what the tester is seeing, most likely some leica magic---)))
peter
-
this is a statement for april 1. my D3x at least produces the same print quality as my m9
(if not better for prints larger than A2), it has at least 3 stops more dynamic range and above iso 320
there is no contest between the two. and my P65 'eats both alive' at print sizes larger than A3+.
i have no idea what the tester is seeing, most likely some leica magic---)))
peter
In the end, if you *need* extreme resolution and clarity, and low ISO DR, the bigger sensor the better. If you need to minimize weight and availability, the smallest cameras (iPhone, compacts, 4/3, M9) win. And the rest of us will continue to use the full-frame pro dSLRs because the fast AF, stabilized lenses, hi ISO, and fast framerates are an unbeatable combination: they can deal passably with any situation.
Is there anyone here who can truly claim he has too little equipment?
Edmund
-
Edmund,
There is some thing to that...
Erik
In the end, if you *need* extreme resolution and clarity, and low ISO DR, the bigger sensor the better. If you need to minimize weight and availability, the smallest cameras (iPhone, compacts, 4/3, M9) win. And the rest of us will continue to use the full-frame pro dSLRs because the fast AF, stabilized lenses, hi ISO, and fast framerates are an unbeatable combination: they can deal passably with any situation.
Is there anyone here who can truly claim he has too little equipment?
Edmund
-
Here's a cosmic truth –– It's all subjective.
We have a situation today where $1,000 camcorders are producing footage that is visually comparable on screen if not a vectorscope to that from $30,000 pro-level cameras.
Michael
Should you be making such a comparison, IMHO you might find a waveform monitor more useful than a vectorscope...
Roy
-
First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their comments on the article.
Second, I would like to clarify a few points, that hopefully will answer some of the questions posed.
Let me quote directly from the article:" To the naked eye, at normal viewing distances, the M9 24x30 inch prints appear to be in the same general resolution league as the S2 and the P65+. "
Please note the operating words here: "AT NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCES", "APPEAR" (not are), "SAME GENERAL RESOLUTION LEAGUE".
In other words, not with your nose up against the print. Please note that I never said that IMAGE QUALITY was even close. I am talking here about APPARENT RESOLUTION only. I am also not saying that the M9 matches the others, all I am saying is that it appears to be in the same resolution league.
In all the sentences above I am referring to APPARENT RESOLUTION ONLY, not dynamic range, not color, not micro-dynamics, not anything else.
Also, here is a second quote from the article: "Leica has done an admirable job with the contrast, accutance and resolution of the M9 to give the eye the impression of such high resolution".
The operating words here are "TO GIVE THE EYE THE IMPRESSION".
I think this answers the resolution question, but I also want to mention that I specifically said in my methodology that I am talking about how the M9 images come out of Lightroom with no adjustments, and how the MF images come out of RAW conversion with no adjustments.
Here is the more important thing:
There are a myriad of factors that determine image quality. And Medium Format has an inherent advantage in many of them versus smaller DSLRs.
First of all, more megapixels and no AA filters, therefore more resolution. Even if it is subtle, it is always there.
Second, dynamic range. I have heard many protests about how the DxO tests indicate that dynamic range is the same for small format pro DSLR's versus MF back. Well, that is simply not the case. The DxO numbers are based on the number of F/stops between sensor saturation on the high end and signal equals noise on the low end. This is important information, but it does not tell you the true VISUAL dynamic range of a system. A crude analogy would be someone telling you the horsepower of two cars. Assume that you have two cars and each one has a 250 horsepower engine. Are they then automatically equal accelerating from zero to 100 Km/h?
Of course not! Why? because one is a sedan with a diesel engine, and the other one is an exotic ultralight with an aluminum composite engine that red lines at 9,500 RPM.
(yes, I am exaggerating here to make the example more poignant).
So, the DxO information is very useful, but not complete. Medium Format sensors have a totally different noise signature from smaller sensors. CCD's have a different noise signature from CMOS, the wiring in the chips is different, the physical construction of the photo sites is different, the anti-blooming mechanisms are different, etc.
The noise signature and the structure of larger MF sensors allows for better extraction of information in the shadows. MF sensors deliver more visual detail in the shadows and therefore a wider dynamic range (the definition of dynamic range being visible detail with full texture). I would encourage anyone that doubts this to make their own tests.
Richness of color and micro dynamics: I used to own a P45+. The first time I tried a P65+ I was blown away. It was not the resolution difference. It was something else. I quickly discovered that it was the richness of color. The best way to describe it is as follows: If I took a picture of a leaf with the P45+, and it delivered, say 12 different types of greens, it looked like the P65+ delivered 100. I do not know how else to describe this, and trying to measure it would probably require serious work and instrumentation, but the visual impression was definitely there.
This is an area where to my eyes MF eats the smaller cameras alive. The richness of the color palette and the differentiation between subtle changes of color is far superior with larger sensors. Same thing with micro-dynamics. The subtle tonal gradations are much finer with MF.
And there are still many other factors relating to noise, relating to color accuracy, relating to lenses, relating to sensor positioning and focusing tolerances and many more. While the differences in any one factor may be subtle, by the time you pile all the differences on top of one another, you end up with a quite substantial difference.
This is not unlike the days of film, where even putting sharpness aside, large format film delivered a much richer image. The impact of an 8x10 inch contact print was immediate versus an enlarged 35 mm original, even if one could argue that the 35 mm original was "in the same general sharpness league" at that size. I think the vast majority of people would agree that an 8x10 contact print looks much better than an enlarged 35 mm print.
So, not to beat a dead horse, to my eyes, in real prints, MF images look significantly better than those captured with smaller cameras.
-
Again, I can't beleive that with such big differences in sensor size, there are no significant differences in the final result. These differences exists and are not small between a D3X and let's say a D90.
But suddenly, it results that from 20ish MP CMOS and 40thish CCD the differences then are just more or less academics...
Plausibly, Nikon did finesse the use of the CMOS sensor in a way that the MFDB manufacturers cannot do with a CCD. I think Nikon did something unusual in the way of signal processing to get the low/black tones on the D3x as pristine as they do. For example, they might have used biamplification or something like it, which would be basically a hardware implementation of the Zero Noise / Emil Martinec trick. I don't believe you can get these same advantages out of a CCD due to read noise. BUT, if the MFDB makers move to CMOS, a number of technological improvements might be open to them, including BSI, and ultimately, stacking functional layers on BSI for active processing on the sensor.
-
[...]Second, dynamic range. I have heard many protests about how the DxO tests indicate that dynamic range is the same for small format pro DSLR's versus MF back. Well, that is simply not the case. The DxO numbers are based on the number of F/stops between sensor saturation on the high end and signal equals noise on the low end. This is important information, but it does not tell you the true VISUAL dynamic range of a system. A crude analogy would be someone telling you the horsepower of two cars. Assume that you have two cars and each one has a 250 horsepower engine. Are they then automatically equal accelerating from zero to 100 Km/h?
Of course not! Why? because one is a sedan with a diesel engine, and the other one is an exotic ultralight with an aluminum composite engine that red lines at 9,500 RPM.
(yes, I am exaggerating here to make the example more poignant).
I don't know if that is the relevant analogy. But there is another practical side to this question.
RAW digital images do not emerge like film negatives into an enlarger, and demonstrate their range in a straight mapping to print. There are many intermediate steps of processing (eg, local contrast enhancements, sharpening, level adjustments), and the "dynamic range" (if any single quantity exists) is evinced in the malleability of the file as much as the final product. The D3x, for example, plausibly due to enhancements available mainly for CMOS sensors, delivers extraordinarily deep dark/black tones with no trace of noise. The practical benefits of this involve the ability to withstand extensive processing without loss of impact. And if you cannot discern these tones on the equivalent of a step-wedge, that does not say they are not perceptible in many ways.
-
A crude analogy would be someone telling you the horsepower of two cars. Assume that you have two cars and each one has a 250 horsepower engine. Are they then automatically equal accelerating from zero to 100 Km/h?
Of course not! Why? because one is a sedan with a diesel engine, and the other one is an exotic ultralight with an aluminum composite engine that red lines at 9,500 RPM.
(yes, I am exaggerating here to make the example more poignant).
oh, so you claim that the difference in acceleration will be what ? "6 stops" (that is 6g in a proper language) ? well, it will be under 1g (under 1 stop that is)... you really need F1 race car to get a little bit over a stop (>1 g) difference in acceleration, but then it will be way above 250hp and then top end FF dDSLRs are no diesels tracks either... and that is regardless of your personal feelings behind the wheel and amount of smoke produced by the review... oops, by the tires... the same with the sensors...
-
Hi,
I agree with that. On the other hand those saying that have considerable experience in the area.
On the other hand, the premises of the test by Mr. Puts could be non typical. Also Mr. Puts writing is sometimes not that easy to follow, so the information in the articles can sometimes be misinterpreted for that reason.
I studied the Erwin Puts artikle with some interest and I could not say that I was not seeing Leica falling short of the D3X. The difference between the D3X and the Alpha was significant. Also, Mr. Puts presents images so the reader can draw his/her conclusion.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, but this seems to be a case of shooting the messenger. No basis is given for this dismissal, except for the fact it wasn't the expected result. Just like the same folks dismiss DxO tests, or any other rest/review/opinion that doesn't agree with their biases. At some point, you have to offer up a little more to support your position than "trust me, I know what I"m talking about".