Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Alex Waugh on December 01, 2013, 02:47:30 am
-
Hi all,
As a long time lurker, I was wondering if anyone could take the time to explain to me (technically) what composes the medium format look. I accept that it is there, however I cannot even explain it to myself. For me it isn't a question of resolution, as I've seen legacy backs with the same look, and I do not believe that it is the lenses (i could be wrong). What I see is something in the colour reproduction - its almost less colorful, at least in the normal exaggerated sense. The colors seem to have a more gentle gradient, perhaps contain more shades and are less "harsh". The format also seems to excel in smoothness of focal zone transition and softness of blur. Finally, while 35mm formats seem to have more "pop" and more obvious contrast changes, i find the less obvious contrast (micro contrast?), for example the detail held within a woven blue shirt as opposed to a large brightness shift, to be much finer.
I actually love the look that the medium provides and while many people I try to explain it to can't see it, I can. If any technically gifted reader could perhaps shed some light on what I'm seeing, id be extremely appreciative. Apologies for any possible misuse of technical terms.
Alex
-
crudely put, CCD vs CMOS, Oh and aafilter
-
Hi all,
As a long time lurker, I was wondering if anyone could take the time to explain to me (technically) what composes the medium format look. I accept that it is there, however I cannot even explain it to myself. For me it isn't a question of resolution, as I've seen legacy backs with the same look, and I do not believe that it is the lenses (i could be wrong). What I see is something in the colour reproduction - its almost less colorful, at least in the normal exaggerated sense. The colors seem to have a more gentle gradient, perhaps contain more shades and are less "harsh". The format also seems to excel in smoothness of focal zone transition and softness of blur. Finally, while 35mm formats seem to have more "pop" and more obvious contrast changes, i find the less obvious contrast (micro contrast?), for example the detail held within a woven blue shirt as opposed to a large brightness shift, to be much finer.
I actually love the look that the medium provides and while many people I try to explain it to can't see it, I can. If any technically gifted reader could perhaps shed some light on what I'm seeing, id be extremely appreciative. Apologies for any possible misuse of technical terms.
Alex
All of the above Alex and I think it quite possible that we get too hung up on the technical issues at times rather than just standing back and savoring the magic. In fact I think you have put your finger on it very well for although I see exactly what you see in dMF it is rarely spoken of in those terms which is a loss to the craft.
-
Hi,
To a great part, I would say it's a myth.
Check out this page: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/index.html
Two kits were used on that shot a Sony Alpha 99 with 24-70/2.8 and 70-400/4-5.6 zooms and A P45+ on Hasselblad V (555 ELD) and five Zeiss lenses (40/4, 50/4, 80/2.8, 120/4 and 150/4) can you see which is which? All images processed to taste and resized to 4000 pixels using Lanzos (which introduces few artefacts of it's own).
Answers are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html
And all raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/rawfiles.html
Regarding AA-filter, check the images below, both are taken with a 150 mm lens at 3.5 m, the left one with a P45+ sensor the right one with a Sony Alpha 77 APS-C camera. Pixel sizes are 6.9 microns (left) and 3.9 microns (right). THe P45+ image was upsized to match right image.
Best regards
Erik
Hi all,
As a long time lurker, I was wondering if anyone could take the time to explain to me (technically) what composes the medium format look. I accept that it is there, however I cannot even explain it to myself. For me it isn't a question of resolution, as I've seen legacy backs with the same look, and I do not believe that it is the lenses (i could be wrong). What I see is something in the colour reproduction - its almost less colorful, at least in the normal exaggerated sense. The colors seem to have a more gentle gradient, perhaps contain more shades and are less "harsh". The format also seems to excel in smoothness of focal zone transition and softness of blur. Finally, while 35mm formats seem to have more "pop" and more obvious contrast changes, i find the less obvious contrast (micro contrast?), for example the detail held within a woven blue shirt as opposed to a large brightness shift, to be much finer.
I actually love the look that the medium provides and while many people I try to explain it to can't see it, I can. If any technically gifted reader could perhaps shed some light on what I'm seeing, id be extremely appreciative. Apologies for any possible misuse of technical terms.
Alex
-
Hi,
To a great part, I would say it's a myth.
Check out this page: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/index.html
Two kits were used on that shot a Sony Alpha 99 with 24-70/2.8 and 70-400/4-5.6 zooms and A P45+ on Hasselblad V (555 ELD) and five Zeiss lenses (40/4, 50/4, 80/2.8, 120/4 and 150/4) can you see which is which? All images processed to taste and resized to 4000 pixels using Lanzos (which introduces few artefacts of it's own).
Answers are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html
And all raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/rawfiles.html
Regarding AA-filter, check the images below, both are taken with a 150 mm lens at 3.5 m, the left one with a P45+ sensor the right one with a Sony Alpha 77 APS-C camera. Pixel sizes are 6.9 microns (left) and 3.9 microns (right). THe P45+ image was upsized to match right image.
Best regards
Erik
Better start off with a smiley as I disagree somewhat but don't want to fall out - :)
But the sad truth is that we don't invest thousands to take pictures of feathers under lab conditions. If I may refer back to my link here - http://www.inkplusimages.com/natplgh13/index.html (http://www.inkplusimages.com/natplgh13/index.html) I'd like to suggest that pictures 3 and 6 in particular have a certain look about them that I have yet to see emerge from a dSLR. Maybe its the DoF but the smoothness of colours and tones in the bonnet and engine of the Fordson Major hint at something more than technical specs suggest, whilst further on along there is a Massey Harris Combine that seems to fill the page in a way that dSLR's cannot, in fact that particular picture was used twice in the same issue of one magazine so it must of attracted somebody's eye or, and more likely, it was a cock up.
My apologies for not presenting the pictures separately here, but I haven't got them on this computer.
-
Part of the look is indeed that MF users, in average, do not take pictures in the same conditions as 24x36 users. This is especially true for fashion and portrait, where MF users usually have a considerable better knowledge of light and thus take pictures with much better technique than the average 24x36 user. This obviously will not show in pictures of a feather taken under lab conditions. It will also not show on pictures of abandoned cars taken under natural light. But it is not really an inherent property of MF cameras either.
-
I'd like to suggest that pictures 3 and 6 in particular have a certain look about them that I have yet to see emerge from a dSLR.
What aperture did you use for pictures 3 and 6?
-
Regarding AA-filter, check the images below, both are taken with a 150 mm lens at 3.5 m, the left one with a P45+ sensor the right one with a Sony Alpha 77 APS-C camera. Pixel sizes are 6.9 microns (left) and 3.9 microns (right). THe P45+ image was upsized to match right image.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, am I missing something in your post? Uprezzing the P45+ image makes the comparison completely invalid, right??? I would expect you to use a longer lens on the P45+ so that you can match compositions from the given distance and THEN compare pixel to pixel... if, ya know, you really want to compare pixel to pixel.
Personally, I may just have to pick up the new A7R. If I do, I'll shoot something similar against my IQ260.
-
I shoot MF and I shoot 35mm DSLR. For me, it is the color. My MF files have better color with a smoother tone that anything I have gotten from a 35mm file. With that said, I light and time all of my images.
-
I shoot MF and I shoot 35mm DSLR. For me, it is the color. My MF files have better color with a smoother tone that anything I have gotten from a 35mm file. With that said, I light and time all of my images.
Yep, I would say in general the color is the biggest difference between medium format digital and 35mm (or smaller) digital. The depth of color and the "robustness" of the files when manipulating them in post is higher. Color differentiation is higher, at least in my back, than any DSLR I have used.
Regarding resolution, it can be much higher in medium format digital, depending on the system you use. Tech cameras/lenses and the 60-80mp backs lead the way in that dpt. with the latest medium format SLR bodies and lenses close behind. Some "legacy" systems might offer some great performance as well (Contax).
-
I am preparing a couple of reports on the 36 Megapixel Sony A7r, using Leica M lenses, and also the Hasselblad H5D-60. I've been shooting with both systems here in Mexico and will continue to do so for the rest of the winter.
I'm going to write below a rough draft of a section of what will be in the Hasselblad report, though it likely will be somewhat different after editing. This is just a first pass at my thoughts on the matter.
Can You See The Difference?
Chris Sanderson and I, along with our friend photographer Lars Svanstrom recently spent two days shooting landscape and cultural photography in the isolated mountains of Eastern Queretero called the Sierra Gorda.
I was shooting with the new Sony A7r, on loan for long term testing by Sony Canada, and a half dozen of my own Leica M lenses via a Novaflex adaptor. I will detail in my test report how well these lenses match up with the A7r, but in brief, any lenses of 35mm or longer works flawlessly, and wider lenses either don't work well at all, but most do, with most just needing some post processing attention to fix vignetting and lens cast correction. Full details in my test report.
The other camera I am using is a Hasselblad H5D-60, which Hasselblad has kindly loaned my for a couple of months of testing. Again, my report will appear here, likely in January.
On this two day shoot, the first time with both cameras, shooting the same subjects, I was more focused on getting the best images I could than in doing any comparisons. When I got back home I did find that I had enough shots of the same subject at the same time with matching focal length lenses that comparisons can be made.
What started off the comparisons, was that Chris had spent some time looking over my shoulder the next day as I worked on my Sony files. I had not yet downloaded the Hasselblad's CF card because I had misplaced my card reader. We chatted about the Sony images, composition, aesthetics of the shots, and also did a little 100% pixel peeping, commenting on how sharp and lovely the Sony / Leica images were.
Later that day I found the CF reader and loaded the Hasselblad files. I had not touched any yet, just had thumbnails on my laptop's screen in Lightroom, and a random full size image of one of the files on the 27" screen. Just then Chris walked into my office to chat about something. His first comment, standing in the doorway 12 feet from the monitor was, "That's from the Hasselblad, isn't it?"
Thus began an hour or so of serious pixel peeping. We put up shot after shot from both cameras, doing full screen and side by side comparisons, many at 100% magnification.
What was fascinating (yet something that knowledgable medium format owners have taken for granted for many years – myself included) is that the Hasselblad images were "more appealing" on screen and in prints (I'm using an Epson 3880 with Baryta paper). Does "more appealing" mean sharper? Yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it due to the shallower DOF? Yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it colour rendition, acuity, tonal smoothness?
The answer is it's all of the above, and not necessarily any of the above.
We find ourselves in the same situation as audiophiles with high-end sound systems. Some electronics and speakers just sound sweeter. Spec sheets and test reports have little to do with it. It's just how it sounds. The same applies here. It's the overall look of the image.
I'll have more to say on this in my review, but I urge anyone considering an MF system purchase to borrow or rent one from a dealer and do your own testing and comparisons. Again I urge, forget technical specs and random pictures of people's cats and flowers. If you're going to spend $50,000 to buy a new BMW, you won't rely on sometone else telling you how it drives. You'll damn well take it for a test drive yourself.
Same thing with a MF back or camera. All that matters is what you see. Oh yes, and the other important factor is the current state of your Visa card balance. Again, something that no one else can take into consideration for you.
Michael
-
Cross posted from here:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/49368-influence-format-size-photograph.html
An image system is just that: a system.
Discussing any single element (like sensor size) is entirely fruitless.
Here is a partial list of factors influencing the technical rendering of an image:
Lens coating > Lens elements (number/design/spacing/composition) > Aperture (blade design, blade quantity) > internal body coating > microlens design > Anti aliasing filter (found in 35mm but not in medium format) > IR filter > sensor photo well > bayer pattern (spectral overlap of R, G, and B filters) > sensor read-out (heat-sinking and/or active cooling very important here) > cables to A/D converter > A/D converter > (read-out of black calibration file from sensor recorded as adjunct to the image) > debayering algorithm, deconvolution / detail finding algorithm, noise reduction based on black calibration file > noise reduction based on image data > sharpening.
The sensor size, in and of itself, is a factor in the final outcome of the image rendering. But the "look" of MF is always going to be a combination of all of the above factors.
In general medium format engineers are less constrained by how their design decisions increase the cost, slow down the operation, or increase the physical size, of the resulting product. They are also often targeting a market which cares deeply about the look/feel of the image, and not just it's technical specifications or price. I don't think it's any surprise that many people thereby find the results of their design work (high-end cameras) to produce a special looking image.
Apart from all that (technical) stuff you have the non-technical element - the human element - the impact on the photographer of using a system which is slower and requires more thought and for which they likely spent more time researching and saving up $$ for. In theory one can spend as much time considering composition/color/subject-selection/aperture/exposure etc etc with a point and shoot as with an 8x10 camera. In theory it should not matter if you spend $1 on a camera or $10,000 - you should put equal thought behind learning to use each to it's greatest capability. But people are not machines and the tool often influences the man. So the work produced by medium format shooters (or, for instance, Leica rangefinders) often feels deeper in subject matter, better thought out, and more impactful.
In my opinion anyone who tries to isolate any photograph, or any camera system, down to one specific technical element is missing the bigger picture - pun intended.
-
Hi Chris,
What you are missing that I am not comparing APS-C to MF.
What I am doing is demonstrating the difference between large pixels without OLP filters and small pixels with adequate OLP filtering. The reason I have uprezzed the image was more for comfortable viewing.
The other way is to demonstrate the difference is to downsample the small pixel image. It is available here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/FakeDetail/comparison1.html
The intended message is that large pixels and sharp lenses produce fake detail, which is very obvious on the P45+ image. The way to get around getting fake detail is increasing resolution. Once the pixels are small enough the lens can be fully utilised and will produce true detail.
What I would suggest is pixels must be small enough to avoid aliasing (that is fake detail). With normal lenses it seems that 3-4 microns do a decent job. With excellent lenses smaller pixels are needed. So to have images with true detail, you would need very large files. With small enough pixels it would be possible to do demosaic in camera firmware using a quick and dirty algorithm and present a smaller RGB image, with an option to use all pixels from raw data.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, am I missing something in your post? Uprezzing the P45+ image makes the comparison completely invalid, right??? I would expect you to use a longer lens on the P45+ so that you can match compositions from the given distance and THEN compare pixel to pixel... if, ya know, you really want to compare pixel to pixel.
Personally, I may just have to pick up the new A7R. If I do, I'll shoot something similar against my IQ260.
-
What aperture did you use for pictures 3 and 6?
ISO 160, f5.7, 125th shutter priority for both with the 80mm 2.8 standard lens.
Looking at the Super Major picture a little more closely the plane of focus seems to be around the front axle.
-
Cross posted from here:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/49368-influence-format-size-photograph.html
That generally makes a lot of sense but surely some parts of the system will have a greater overall effect on final IQ than others, and it will vary according to the conditions.
-
I think Michaels and Dougs posts are completely spot on.
I have a 20 MP scan of a 4x5" negative and people not knowing about the technique behind it somehow react special to that image (and others from that 4x5 camera). Sure - I used somewhat limited depth of field in that file and did a little postprocessing with selective sharpening but, however - I've done that to other files from other cameras as well.
To some extent I think it is possible to mimick the look of larger format files (MF, 4x5") in post, but after all its a sum of many variables, including the pace and mindset at which you shoot when operating a large camera.
Comparing technical parameters helps for some very rough comparisons, but after all -when spending 10-50 grands for a system- take an extensive test drive so see if you like it or not.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Hi,
To elaborate a bit. I am certain that there is a resolution advantage to larger formats, even if I would rather discuss that in MTF terms.
There are differences in colour rendition between different sensors, but that has nothing to do with format and a lot to do with the colour filters on the CGA. Some authors regard the Sony sensors to have very good colours. It seems that many customers prefer DALSA sensor vs. Kodak sensors, regarding colour.
A larger sensor can collect more photons, so highlights will be smoother, period. Modern CMOS has much lower readout noise than the CCDs used in MFDB, something like a 4X advantage. On shadow detail modern CMOS wins. Canon and Nikon D4 uses old generation CMOS that shines at high ISO but doesn't deliver on shadow detail.
I personally shoot Sony Alpha 99 (24 MP CMOS) and Phase One P45+ (39 MP CCD). In general I cannot see differences on screen or print. The P45+ excels in resolution, but causes a lot of aliasing artefacts. Sony excels in shadow detail. Colours are different, the P45+ has yellowish greens. Is that good colour separation or fake colour? I don't know!
Best regards
Erik
Hi all,
As a long time lurker, I was wondering if anyone could take the time to explain to me (technically) what composes the medium format look. I accept that it is there, however I cannot even explain it to myself. For me it isn't a question of resolution, as I've seen legacy backs with the same look, and I do not believe that it is the lenses (i could be wrong). What I see is something in the colour reproduction - its almost less colorful, at least in the normal exaggerated sense. The colors seem to have a more gentle gradient, perhaps contain more shades and are less "harsh". The format also seems to excel in smoothness of focal zone transition and softness of blur. Finally, while 35mm formats seem to have more "pop" and more obvious contrast changes, i find the less obvious contrast (micro contrast?), for example the detail held within a woven blue shirt as opposed to a large brightness shift, to be much finer.
I actually love the look that the medium provides and while many people I try to explain it to can't see it, I can. If any technically gifted reader could perhaps shed some light on what I'm seeing, id be extremely appreciative. Apologies for any possible misuse of technical terms.
Alex
-
What was fascinating (yet something that knowledgable medium format owners have taken for granted for many years – myself included) is that the Hasselblad images were "more appealing" on screen and in prints (I'm using an Epson 3880 with Baryta paper). Does "more appealing" mean sharper? Yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it due to the shallower DOF? Yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it colour rendition, acuity, tonal smoothness?
The answer is it's all of the above, and not necessarily any of the above.
We find ourselves in the same situation as audiophiles with high-end sound systems. Some electronics and speakers just sound sweeter. Spec sheets and test reports have little to do with it. It's just how it sounds. The same applies here. It's the overall look of the image.
Michael
Amen to that. My printing set up is not quite as sophisticated as yours but the Mamiya prints have a finesse that is lacking totally in any dSLR print that I have produced.
-
ISO 160, f5.7, 125th shutter priority for both with the 80mm 2.8 standard lens.
I only asked about the aperture, because that is what responsible for the better rendering of the transition from the focus plane to the out of focus zones. All lenses have good "bokeh" at f/5.6 or slower, because the aberrations responsible for bad bokeh are negligible at these apertures. The difference is that MF or larger format use these apertures and still get some subject isolation while smaller format need faster apertures.
-
Hi,
I shot same subject with my Hasselblad 555 ELD an Sonnar 150/4 and my Sony Alpha 99 and SAL 70-400/4-5.6G lens. Show the images to a friend with long experience at a Swedish pro lab. So my friend looks at the images 64x86 cm prints at 25 cm distance and says: the left image is warmer, a bit more yellow. Looks again. After a couple of minutes he says, look here this trunk of the tree is sharper on the left image.
So it takes my friend something like 15 minutes to find a difference, not side by side but one image on top of the other. He has worked with Lennart Nilsson, one of the leading photographers in the world http://www.lennartnilsson.com .
The images we were discussing were the images at top on this site: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/
Best regards
Erik
Hi all,
As a long time lurker, I was wondering if anyone could take the time to explain to me (technically) what composes the medium format look. I accept that it is there, however I cannot even explain it to myself. For me it isn't a question of resolution, as I've seen legacy backs with the same look, and I do not believe that it is the lenses (i could be wrong). What I see is something in the colour reproduction - its almost less colorful, at least in the normal exaggerated sense. The colors seem to have a more gentle gradient, perhaps contain more shades and are less "harsh". The format also seems to excel in smoothness of focal zone transition and softness of blur. Finally, while 35mm formats seem to have more "pop" and more obvious contrast changes, i find the less obvious contrast (micro contrast?), for example the detail held within a woven blue shirt as opposed to a large brightness shift, to be much finer.
I actually love the look that the medium provides and while many people I try to explain it to can't see it, I can. If any technically gifted reader could perhaps shed some light on what I'm seeing, id be extremely appreciative. Apologies for any possible misuse of technical terms.
Alex
-
Hi,
I shot same subject with my Hasselblad 555 ELD an Sonnar 150/4 and my Sony Alpha 99 and SAL 70-400/4-5.6G lens. Show the images to a friend with long experience at a Swedish pro lab. So my friend looks at the images 64x86 cm prints at 25 cm distance and says: the left image is warmer, a bit more yellow. Looks again. After a couple of minutes he says, look here this trunk of the tree is sharper on the left image.
So it takes my friend something like 15 minutes to find a difference, not side by side but one image on top of the other. He has worked with Lennart Nilsson, one of the leading photographers in the world http://www.lennartnilsson.com .
Best regards
Erik
But was he looking at the trees rather than the wood (forest) as a whole?
Edit, actually I posted that before following the second link, so the pun wasn't intended but it works. :) If asked I'd say all those on the left have the 'quality' of MF, especially the bottm one where the clouds look like physical objects that can be held whereas the image on the right just hasn't got that sort of depth.
-
What was fascinating (yet something that knowledgable medium format owners have taken for granted for many years – myself included) is that the Hasselblad images were "more appealing" on screen and in prints (I'm using an Epson 3880 with Baryta paper). Does "more appealing" mean sharper? Yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it due to the shallower DOF? Yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it colour rendition, acuity, tonal smoothness?
The answer is it's all of the above, and not necessarily any of the above.
We find ourselves in the same situation as audiophiles with high-end sound systems. Some electronics and speakers just sound sweeter. Spec sheets and test reports have little to do with it. It's just how it sounds. The same applies here. It's the overall look of the image.
Contrary to the beliefs that run in some of the audiophiles communities, there are some known and perfectly measurable physical reasons why some systems sound better than others. Conversely, when these reasons are absent, the best "audiophile" cannot hear the difference in a blind test. Let google search for "monster cable coat hanger" for an amusing example.
The same is true for MF cameras. There are simple reasons why they do not give the same results than cameras with a smaller sensor. It is not magic. The discussion is only obscured by people who devise comparative tests in a way that make the advantages of MF camera disappear. If one tests two cameras and equalises per pixel resolution, uses an aperture that will equalise lens differences, makes sure that light and exposure is within the usable values of the two cameras, uses subjects with simple, pure colours and only shoots resolution targets, one will find that the two cameras are equivalent for any couple of cameras. But that is not a limitation of the cameras, it is a limitation of the test design.
-
I shot same subject with my Hasselblad 555 ELD an Sonnar 150/4 and my Sony Alpha 99 and SAL 70-400/4-5.6G lens. Show the images to a friend with long experience at a Swedish pro lab. So my friend looks at the images 64x86 cm prints at 25 cm distance
That is a good example of a test designed to equalise things. For this kind of subject, everything will be equal but resolution: we have no out of focus areas, lenses are at their sweet spot, colours and dynamic range are within reason and you equalise resolution by printing within what the Sony can do with its 24 mpix.
-
Hi,
I don't know. He is just a friend, I sometimes ask to compare images. He does not know what he compares.
But, I think that forest to forest comparisons are more truthful than others. He does not have any clues to look for!
Best regards
Erik
But was he looking at the trees rather than the wood (forest) as a whole?
-
That is a good example of a test designed to equalise things. For this kind of subject, everything will be equal but resolution: we have no out of focus areas, lenses are at their sweet spot, colours and dynamic range are within reason and you equalise resolution by printing within what the Sony can do with its 24 mpix.
Indeed, from a practical point of view in the sort of work I do it is of far more value to take the camera out of its comfort zone to see how it copes and here the D3 would appear to have disappointed today, but that's for another thread.
-
I think this gets way over thought. The MF look was there when we were only shooting film, so that tells me that it's not CCD vs CMOS, CFAs, MLs or any other acronym. It's driven by sensor size, and to a lesser amount, lens rendering style.
Sensor size defines secondary magnification (sensor size ––> viewing/print size). With a larger sensor, the final image is magnified less, resulting in smoother tonality. This was completely obvious when comparing 35mm to 6x7, more subtle now that we're talking about MFD which is < 645.
-
With a larger sensor, the final image is magnified less, resulting in smoother tonality.
While this was true with film using an optical enlarger, this is less true with a digital system where:
-people tend to use MF for vastly larger prints
-printer drivers used in digital printing simply throw away excess resolution for small prints.
-
While this was true with film using an optical enlarger, this is less true with a digital system where:
-people tend to use MF for vastly larger prints
-printer drivers used in digital printing simply throw away excess resolution for small prints.
I am not sure if I agree with you here. Everyone that I know personally (like those who I meet and have a drink with) who shoots MF do not print big (or at all) with their MF systems. They use them even for web sized images.
Even at this res, MF just tends to look better; I see the differences on my own website where 40% of the images are from my Canons. What Alan said could just be another part of the sum that Michael mentioned earlier.
-
The people I have seen use MF print wall-size, so my mileage may vary. But I am not saying that some difference will not show on smaller images, quite on the contrary.
-
The people I have seen use MF print wall-size, so my mileage may vary. But I am not saying that some difference will not show on smaller images, quite on the contrary.
Most photographers really like cameras. I love this shot of William Eggleston's camera case.
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/05/egglestoncameras.jpg)
He's said to own over 300 cameras and I also love the fact this photo was done with a fuji x1 pro.
My point, buy what you like, don't worry about it.
IMO
BC
-
What about MF film vs. MF digital?
-
What about MF film vs. MF digital?
This was put to bed about 7 years ago...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
Michael
-
This was put to bed about 7 years ago...
...
... for most professionals ... ;)
-
I use the same printer as Michael is using in Mexico to make my prints. 15x20" or 14x21" is as large as I go other than the occasional stitched pano on roll paper. All my recent sensor-based cameras (various m43, Fuji X-E1, Pentax 645D) can produce files that look very nice indeed when printed at these sizes. That said, I can readily pick out prints made from 645D files. So can other people. My friend Bruce, who draws, paints & sculpts and is well attuned to the visual world, IMO puts it best: "These (645D prints) look smoother tonally when you view 'em from a distance and crisper spatially when you get close." Now granted, I don't own a recent 35mm format camera...no doubt something like a D800(e) and lenses of similar character to the Pentaxes would narrow the gap, at least in terms of spatial detail.
I'm sure Jerome is right that all this can be quantified. IMO mysteries are just explainable phenomena that haven't yet been sufficiently explained. ;) But I'll leave that for other people. I just like that thing that the 645D does.
-Dave-
-
... I just like that thing that the 645D does.
...
Yeah - and I think thats the important final argument.
People talk too much about numbers and too little about the rendering style of the systems in use.
E.g. like this interersting project (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lomography/the-lomography-petzval-portrait-lens) where they want to recreate the Petzval lens, usable for modern DSLRs.
-
In my view the more square aspect ratio of most MF sensor is a key contributor to the look that has not been mentioned so far, it works especially well for portait/fashion.
Besides, other elements are:
- the association of a longer focal length with a wider angular coverage subtly results in less DoF and therefore more separation even with wider lenses. The way sharpness recedes behing the plane of sharpness is also impacting (this was the main focus of the designers of the nikkor 58mm f1.4 for example),
- systematic under-exposure by backs at most ISOs takes highlights away from the danger zone and results in smooth looking tones,
- the look of lenses that are typically less optimized for sharpness and also are much less ambitious designs with a much more modest full aperture that gave designers more room to correct chromatic aberations for example,
- light fall off in corners.
It is easy to simulate most of that and to go far beyond with stitching for those subjects where it is applicable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just like that thing that the 645D does.
Seconded!
Or should that be 'thirded' Whatever, totally agree. :)
-
Hi,
It was not at test. The tree in question is one of my favorite subjects. I shot it with both cameras, quite simply.
Best regards
Erik
That is a good example of a test designed to equalise things. For this kind of subject, everything will be equal but resolution: we have no out of focus areas, lenses are at their sweet spot, colours and dynamic range are within reason and you equalise resolution by printing within what the Sony can do with its 24 mpix.
-
Hi,
I don't really agree with Bernard on some aspects.
- I crop for composition. Aspect ratio affects composition but sometimes one or the other is better.
- I don't think MF lenses are better corrected for chromatic aberration. Lightroom (or C1) removes lateral chroma automagically. My zooms have less axial chroma than my Sonnar 150/4,
- I expose for highlights and check my images with RawDigger.
- I would say that default processing with LR tends to be darker on the P45+.
The best MF lens I have is the Sonnar 150/4, just 5 elements in three groups. A simple design indeed.
Best regards
Erik
In my view the more square aspect ratio of most MF sensor is a key contributor to the look that has not been mentioned so far, it works especially well for portait/fashion.
Besides, other elements are:
- the association of a longer focal length with a wider angular coverage subtly results in less DoF and therefore more separation even with wider lenses. The way sharpness recedes behing the plane of sharpness is also impacting (this was the main focus of the designers of the nikkor 58mm f1.4 for example),
- systematic under-exposure by backs at most ISOs takes highlights away from the danger zone and results in smooth looking tones,
- the look of lenses that are typically less optimized for sharpness and also are much less ambitious designs with a much more modest full aperture that gave designers more room to correct chromatic aberations for example,
- light fall off in corners.
It is easy to simulate most of that and to go far beyond with stitching for those subjects where it is applicable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In my view the more square aspect ratio of most MF sensor is a key contributor to the look that has not been mentioned so far, it works especially well for portait/fashion.
Actually I think Bernard nailed it.
When you shoot 35mm you automatically start with a 33% crop of the original image projected by the lens.
-
I feel this image has a fantastic look, and thought it was MF, turns out it was a Fuji X100. It will be interesting to see how these XTRAN sensors evolve:
http://tomridout.com/eingehullt/4f1zjx5t620pkgj3ezqunc6q0tojzi
-
I see the biggest difference between MF and 35mm when the depth of field is visible in the photo. Not so much that MF digital is shallower depth of field, but rather in the way that the lenses render that depth of field and the difference between sharp and out of focus.
I've directly compared the 1Ds III with 85mm f/1.2 L II and 50mm f/1.2 L lenses against an Aptus 22 on a RZ67 with 110mm and 150mm lenses. The Canon lenses are sharp, and they are capable of making just as shallow depth of field (if not more shallow) than the RZ lenses. However, the medium format images just have a better rendition of that separation between sharp plane of focus and background blur.
I attributed it to the whole concept of MTF and the greater resolution demanded of the small format lens. This effectively means that medium format image will have higher MTF/better acutance/better perceived microcontrast because the medium format lens needs to produce far fewer line pairs/mm than the 35mm lens, even if both are producing roughly the same total number of megapixels.
I see the same thing in a 4x5 film portrait, wonderfully detailed and contrasty plane of focus against nice smooth background blur. Similarly I notice the same differences between 1.6 crop and full frame digital. I loved my 24-70mm lens on full frame, but it wasn't that great when shot on a crop camera.
-
Most photographers really like cameras. I love this shot of William Eggleston's camera case.
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/05/egglestoncameras.jpg)
He's said to own over 300 cameras and I also love the fact this photo was done with a fuji x1 pro.
BC
I had no idea Eggleston was so into screwmount Leicas. I have a IIIf and enjoy giving it an occasional workout, but it's a fairly clumsy gizmo compared to an M camera. Focus via one finder & compose with another, two separate shutter speed dials, awkwardly placed (IMO) shutter release, PITA film loading unless you cut a longer leader (and not exactly the easiest even then). Mechanically, though, it's a little jewel. A functional artifact from an earlier world.
-Dave-
-
However, the medium format images just have a better rendition of that separation between sharp plane of focus and background blur.
Exactly!
As mentioned shortly, I attended recently a Nikon presentation focused on the design of the new Nikkor 58mm f1.4, and this very aspect of separation between sharp and unsharp was stressed again and again as the most important objective of the design of that lens.
They invested a lot of cash in designing a totally new optical bench mostly to be able to iterate faster on designs in order to reach exactly the expected results for such applications.
Now, I don't own the lens and have not seen any comparison shots between this lens and MF lenses known to contributing to the delivery this "MF" look, but it could be interesting to do such a test to validate this hypothesis about the importance of sharpness transition.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Most photographers really like cameras. I love this shot of William Eggleston's camera case.
(http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/05/egglestoncameras.jpg)
Thanks for posting that!
-
Hi,
I am not doing much shallow DoF photography, may be a reason I don't see that much difference between my 135 and MFD images.
I also agree on your analysis regarding sharpness and MTF. That is something I can see, but the original posting was about other aspects than sharpness.
Best regards
Erik
I see the biggest difference between MF and 35mm when the depth of field is visible in the photo. Not so much that MF digital is shallower depth of field, but rather in the way that the lenses render that depth of field and the difference between sharp and out of focus.
I've directly compared the 1Ds III with 85mm f/1.2 L II and 50mm f/1.2 L lenses against an Aptus 22 on a RZ67 with 110mm and 150mm lenses. The Canon lenses are sharp, and they are capable of making just as shallow depth of field (if not more shallow) than the RZ lenses. However, the medium format images just have a better rendition of that separation between sharp plane of focus and background blur.
I attributed it to the whole concept of MTF and the greater resolution demanded of the small format lens. This effectively means that medium format image will have higher MTF/better acutance/better perceived microcontrast because the medium format lens needs to produce far fewer line pairs/mm than the 35mm lens, even if both are producing roughly the same total number of megapixels.
I see the same thing in a 4x5 film portrait, wonderfully detailed and contrasty plane of focus against nice smooth background blur. Similarly I notice the same differences between 1.6 crop and full frame digital. I loved my 24-70mm lens on full frame, but it wasn't that great when shot on a crop camera.
-
I'd just like to thank everyone - such a fantastic array of responses is somewhat of a rarity these days. I think that perhaps color is the greatest perceivable difference to me, and I suppose it's not really any better or worse; I simply prefer it.
-
I re-found an article I wrote on another forum to explain the differences between a MF and a 24x36 camera. I might as well use it here. This is the part about what happens with lenses and how it relates to "bokeh" and sharp-unsharp transitions.
To study the case of digital sensors, I suggest to compare two cameras with similar resolution but different sensor sizes, the Nikon D800 and the Leica S. As an exercise, I suggest to study what happens if we would make the D800 bigger to match the sensor size.
The two cameras have similar resolution (D800: 36.3 mpix, S: 37.5 mpix), but one sensor is 36x24mm and the other 45x30mm. The linear dimensions are 1.25 bigger (25%) for the S. I will imagine that we have an expanding machine that can blow the D800 25% bigger in every dimension, creating a D800+. What happens?
The D800 dimensions are 146x123x81.5mm, the D800+ is 182.5x153.5x101.5mm.
We still have 36.3 million pixels, they just get bigger (we could have chosen to get more pixels of the same size as would be the case between the Nikon D600 and Hasselblad H5D-50). Dynamic range for highlights being roughly proportional to the surface of pixels (for a given technology), we would increase dynamic range. This is irrelevant for photographic practice, since the D800 dynamic range is already sufficient for photographic subjects (we shall come to that later).
The weight is multiplied by the cube of 1.25. This is often overlooked when scaling objects, the weight is proportional to volume, i.e. dimensions to the cube. Our 1000g D800 becomes a 1953g D800+.
Since we are interested to a complete system, we will fit that D800 with a standard lens, a 50mm f/1.8G, 7 lenses in 6 groups, and see what happens. The lens becomes a 62.5mm. The dimensions increase from 72x52.5mm to 90x65mm. Weight increases (cube again) from 185g to 361g. Aperture stays identical at f/1.8, because it is a dimensionless number (the ratio of 2 dimensions).
Let us compare the D800+ with its 62.5mm lens to the Leica S.
The D800+ is bigger than the Leica S (182.5x153.5x101.5mm versus 160x120x80mm) and heavier (1953g versus 1410g). We should expect that, since Leica does not use a blow up machine, but uses standard components for the electronics (processor, memory, etc...). The only things which need to be bigger in the S are the sensor and the mechanics (shutter, mirror box, mount).
The real difference are the lenses. Leica standard lens focal is a bit longer at 70mm versus 62.5mm. But Leica standard lens is also:
-slower: f/2.5 versus f/1.8
-uses one element more: 8 versus 7
-is longer (93mm versus 65mm)
-has the same diameter, even if it is slower (90mm for both)
-is much heavier at 740g versus 361g.
Leica lenses for the S series are particularly complex and heavy, but we would find a similar situation for Hasselblad or Phase one: medium format lenses are slower and more complex than their small format counterparts, even taking account of linear scaling. This is even more pronounced with lenses away from the "standard" focal length: on 24x36 one is used to a 35mm f/2.0 being tiny and using a few elements. The equivalent in medium format is slower and uses double the number of elements.
(...)
Earlier in this thread I compared a Leica S2 to an hypothetical Nikon D800+, which is a D800 blown up so that its sensor size matches the one of the S2. That was including the lens, so the D800+ had a 62mm f/1.8 lens (a blown up 50mm f/1.8 ). The important part is that the f number did not scale at all, because f numbers are dimensionless. And this is very important, because many things are dependent on the f number.
For small sensors, the important part is diffraction. What is important from us is that the size of the sensels dictates the minimum aperture of a lens. For example, for a sensor with 6µm sensels, diffraction first effects will be barely noticeable when stopped down beyond about f/11-f/16. This is not a practical limitation, unless you are interested in macrophotography. For smaller sensors, however, the limitation is more serious. Typically, for the tiny sensors used in P&S or cellphones with pixels under 2µm, f/2.8 may be the slowest aperture that does not degrade the picture. Typically, these cameras do not have a diaphragm at all, but use gray attenuation filters (as is also customary practice for video cameras). Typically as well, they use zoom lenses with sliding apertures and the long end can be as slow as f/5.6 or f/8. Since the lens barely resolve the sensels at f/2.8, you will have divided your linear resolution by 2 and your pixel count by 4 at the long end. And you have no depth of field control, since you don't have a real diaphragm.
For medium and larger sensors, the main difference is in the bokeh. Older photographers may remember the saying that large and medium format cameras allowed better depth of field control. But this is not quite true: due to the availability of very fast lenses (f/1.4 or faster), 24x36 cameras are actually the cameras which produce the thinner depth of field. So where did this belief come from?
The belief first comes from the fact that medium and large format cameras were used to produce larger prints. The formulas for calculating depth of field are dependent on the apparent size of the prints and large prints seen close have been particularly attractive to the average viewer since the time of classical paintings.
But even if we do not want to produce larger prints, depth of field is, in practice, dependent of the sensor size: smaller sensors need a faster aperture to produce the same apparent depth of field all other things being equal. But aperture does not scale and a faster aperture, with any sensor size, comes with more optical aberrations. Spherical aberration, chromatic aberrations, coma, etc… are all dependent on aperture and increase considerably faster than the scaling power. Moreover, these aberrations also tend to be more difficult to control with smaller focal lengths, so smaller sensors are at a further disadvantage.
What does this mean in practice for different formats?
For tiny electronic sensors with tiny pixels, we would need apertures must faster than f/1.0 if we wanted small depth of field. The optical engineer can't do these at the standard focal length of these sensors and, in practice, the best they can do is f/1.8 (and much less for zooms at the long end). The f/1.8 lens is complex, need aspherical surfaces and special glass, mechanical tolerances are a nightmare since everything is so small (especially at the price the user is ready to pay) and the lens is plagued by aberrations, most noticeably chromatic aberration. Software corrections are often the only solution, but can only do so much.
For 24x36 cameras, fast lenses are doable around 50mm, produce a very thin depth of field, but are also difficult to correct. When the photographer wants a depth of field small enough to emphasize the subject with a lens around the standard focal length, apertures around f/2.0-f/2.8 are chosen and we are in a zone where the aberrations are still responsible for bad bokeh: donut shape of out of focus highlights / split highlights (spherical aberration) or colored out of focus highlights (longitudinal chromatic aberration). Sweet spot of the lenses is around f/5.6-f/8, but depth of field is fairly large at these apertures.
For medium format digital cameras, very fast lenses are usually not available. The reason is that these cameras use a central shutter and that limits the practical maximum aperture of the lenses. Still, when one wants depth of field control, apertures around f/5.6-f/8 are used and we are in the sweet spot: the lens is almost perfect and bokeh is neutral. Moreover, MF lenses are optimized for a different set of constraints since they do not need to be designed for large apertures but still use optical formulas more complex than their 24x36 equivalents.
For much larger sensors: large format cameras, we have so much resolution on the sensor than we can afford to waste some and close down beyond the limits of diffraction. f/64 is a value for aperture rendered famous by large format photographers. Even when the photographer wants small depth of field, f/11-f/16 or slower is common (*). Not only aberrations are negligible, but the out of focus highlights take a shape produced by diffraction. This shape, approximately a bell curve, is just what we need for very pleasing bokeh.
(* optimal depth of field is very much an acquired taste, but correspond in practice to fast lenses on 24x36 cameras because this is what we are used to. Very fast lenses on large format have been emulated, check the Brenizer method in google, and the results are strange. The viewer interprets the results as if the subject were a miniature.)
-
Steady on guys! I've got work to do today as well y'know. :D
-
TL,DR
::)
-
Thanks for posting that!
Dave (known as telecaster on this forum) has the best attitude of anyone.
He owns m43 and a pentax 645, along with a black magic pocket camera.
He has a lot of legacy glass, appreciates the look, doesn't pixel peep, shares what he learns and doesn't care what anyone thinks about what he buys.
I'll bet his lens case looks kind of like that eggelston case of cameras.
I find that refreshing.
I like his attitude so much if I had an extra boris tilt shift 35mm hartblei (the one made from the old Soviet stock pile) I'd send him one because I think it would make his day, because that lens is far from sharp, but even not used to throw focus is bloody beautiful.
There are a few cameras I love, the rest I use to make a living. The contax, Leica M8, Olympus omd em-5 and my RED One's I love, though they won't all fit in a wooden case.
The lenses i love are the Boris, Canons 85 1.2, Old Voigts for the Olympus, One old Nikon F 50mm F2, An old Nikon Push pull zoom, my set of RED PL primes, 80mm ziess contax, one 24mm leica and a creepy strange 100 too 300 Pansonic 4 to 5.6 m43 lens (especially if at about 150mm you stick your thumb somewhere on the lens as you shoot. Makes beautiful haze.
Contax 80mm
(http://russellrutherford.com/lifestyle/pictures/rr_life_0113.jpg)
Shot with modeling lights, aptus 22 and boris tilt shift.
(http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/rr_fashion_0090.jpg)
BC
-
Eggleston bag. More or less says it all.
Rob C
-
Shot with modeling lights, aptus 22 and boris tilt shift.
(http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/rr_fashion_0090.jpg)
BC
Just love that shot, one of the sexiest I've seen for a long time.
-
I feel this image has a fantastic look, and thought it was MF, turns out it was a Fuji X100. It will be interesting to see how these XTRAN sensors evolve:
http://tomridout.com/eingehullt/4f1zjx5t620pkgj3ezqunc6q0tojzi
Nice color. Is this PS perspective correction?
Edmund
-
I just photograph my kid, like every typical hobbyist, snapshots under natural or incandescent lighting. I see no problem getting shallow DOF and decent look, provided one uses the "good" lenses which cost less than half of their MF counterparts.
The real issues with 35mm snapshots is that unless one composes slowly one needs to crop and therefore runs out of pixels, detail eg. eye detail is quickly lost on a cropped image, unbalanced light and high ISO and bad DR means color breaks and needs to be fixed, or disappeared into monochrome.
The camera used in the square image is a Canon 1Ds3 I got on a swap for my 5D2 and a small amount of cash -no one wants the 1Ds3 but they can really focus - and the lens is an old, old 135mmF2. As I said, shallow DOF and good transitions are really not a problem in 35mm provided you have the right lenses, but in my experience only some of the cameras can focus them. The $100 50mm 1.8 does very nice things wide open on a very old Rebel, as well, see second, monochrome image, at the cost of manual focus. Cost for used camera plus lens here is under $300.
On both images I used my own film emulation profiles which are inspired by the old Kodachrome and TriX films made by the Kodak corporation. Superposing my own colormap solves the issues with dSLR color.
Of course I have an advantage, no clients chase me, no AD to look down her nose at me, my model throws no tantrums provided he gets his milk :) and I have infinite time to retouch a shot under PS myself.
Edmund
-
Exactly!
As mentioned shortly, I attended recently a Nikon presentation focused on the design of the new Nikkor 58mm f1.4, and this very aspect of separation between sharp and unsharp was stressed again and again as the most important objective of the design of that lens.
They invested a lot of cash in designing a totally new optical bench mostly to be able to iterate faster on designs in order to reach exactly the expected results for such applications.
Now, I don't own the lens and have not seen any comparison shots between this lens and MF lenses known to contributing to the delivery this "MF" look, but it could be interesting to do such a test to validate this hypothesis about the importance of sharpness transition.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree with you Bernard. My first experience with MF (like a lot of us) was with film and I was amazed. Sharpness and smoothness in the same time. Alive and creamy. But I didn't found that in crop MFDB like the S2 or H4/H5D40 ... not the same league.
For the DSLR side, very fast lenses are "close enough" to lure our eyes but not as 6x8 film. I hope that Nikon (or Canon) will continue to studies optics to get close to the MF rendering in 35mm. I have fun using the 50f1.2 AIS wide open to come close.
(http://zupimages.net/up/13/49/ebyo.jpg)
-
As I said, shallow DOF and good transitions are really not a problem in 35mm provided you have the right lenses, but in my experience only some of the cameras can focus them.
Cute model and nice picture! :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The H series and Mamiya lenses are japanese designs and many are a bit crunchy. The artist who was called James swears by his Contax lenses; The Canon 85/1.2 is sharp and has a good look, the 135/2 is also a good lensif you accept it is 35mm. I find the Canon 50/1.8 is cheaper and ok as a portrait lens when used wide open on a Rebel, the aperture is jagged so one cannot stop it down without artefacting. The new Nikon 85 f1.4 is very sharp but I see no beauty; in fact I have found no Nikon lens with a good look although I'm sure they exist.
Edmund
I agree with you Bernard. My first experience with MF (like a lot of us) was with film and I was amazed. Sharpness and smoothness in the same time. Alive and creamy. But I didn't found that in crop MFDB like the S2 or H4/H5D40 ... not the same league.
-
Some of the last pictures posted are actually good examples of the difference in lens rendering.
This picture is relatively typical of what comes out of a 24x36 camera using a fast lens:
(http://zupimages.net/up/13/49/ebyo.jpg)
Depth of field is very narrow, narrower that what can usually be attained with a MF camera and lens and the out of focus areas become very fuzzy. The right hand of the swimmer actually looks double (and this is an effect of the lens).
Compare to that picture:
(http://russellrutherford.com/lifestyle/pictures/rr_life_0113.jpg)
Here one immediately sees what is sharp and what is out of focus, but what is out of focus stays recognisable. Of course, depth of focus is larger on that picture and one could emulate it using a 50mm lens closed around f/2.0-2.8 on a 24x36 camera. Except that, with the faster aperture on the 24x36 camera, the "fuzziness" of the out of focus parts would be different and we would also have double lines in the light elements of the picture. For example, the white flower on the cushion would typically have double lines and some greenish colour outlines. The result is a picture which looks "busier".
-
This was put to bed about 7 years ago...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
Michael
wow ... hard to believe that was 7 years ago ...
-
Dave (known as telecaster on this forum) has the best attitude of anyone.
Hah! Here's the kind of attitude my folks were more accustomed to putting up with...or in some cases not putting up with (see attached pic, taken by my dad while on vacation in Bar Harbor, Maine, late spring 1965). I was a whiny little brat, as all my cousins can and will enthusiastically affirm.
I'll bet his lens case looks kind of like that eggelston case of cameras.
Yep, kinda. :D
I like his attitude so much if I had an extra boris tilt shift 35mm hartblei (the one made from the old Soviet stock pile) I'd send him one because I think it would make his day, because that lens is far from sharp, but even not used to throw focus is bloody beautiful.
A lovely lens, for sure, but best off in the hands of folks like yourself who know how to make it sing. 8)
My favorite lens at the moment is my Pentax's 150/2.8. It's responsible for a lot of the tonally rich & smooth, spatially crisp (but not clinical) prints I mentioned earlier in this thread. I liked it when I used it with film too, but if anything it's even sweeter on the 645D. Another one I really like right now is the Topcon (Voigtländer) 58/1.4 on m43 cameras via a Metabones SpeedBooster. Impressively sharp at the point of focus (which on Panasonic's GX7 can be placed literally anywhere in the frame) even wide open.
-Dave-
-
Hi Michael,
as someone using Leica S-system, Canon 5diii, Leica M and some other gear (m43 and dx sensor size) - almost always images from the S-system do surprise me in a positive way.
So I agree with your comments. Color is certainly one of the points, tonal graduations another one, sharpness is another one even though for me pixel sharpness is not the most important point any more.
Most comparisons focus on resolution and technical DR only, this is not the full picture.
Tom
-
Depends on the size of the box:
Hi BC,
wow, that must be a McIntosh sound system in the background – unfortunately the background is out of focus ;-). Are the McIntoshs combined with Klipsch speakers or KEF? And where is the turntable? AND what kind of audio person placed the speakers so "great"?
If I see that tears are running down my cheeks. BTW, bokeh is great.
Best,
Johannes
This location was tough. It was dark, had very little ambient light and to top it off, there was white dog (I assume dog) hair everywhere and I mean everywhere. It looked like a snow storm when you walked through.
I shot this unplanned as we were breaking for lunch, I saw the subject across the room reading and saw the light on the chairs and said come here, shot it in about 10 frames.
Then everyone ate (obviously outside)
IMO
BC
-
My favorite lens at the moment is my Pentax's 150/2.8. It's responsible for a lot of the tonally rich & smooth, spatially crisp (but not clinical) prints I mentioned earlier in this thread. I liked it when I used it with film too, but if anything it's even sweeter on the 645D. Another one I really like right now is the Topcon (Voigtländer) 58/1.4 on m43 cameras via a Metabones SpeedBooster. Impressively sharp at the point of focus (which on Panasonic's GX7 can be placed literally anywhere in the frame) even wide open.
-Dave-
I also like the 150mm 2.8. It's not a very sharp lens wide open but it has a nice look. This past weekend I have been getting silly with a few of my cameras and have noticed that the differences between how the files come in (besides absolute resolution and DOF) can be for the most part equalized by lightroom. For example here are 3 images from the GX7, 645D, and A7R with the white balance set to the same numeric value. The difference between how the sensor picks up the colours is different, especially on the skin tones. All in all the GX7 is the most fun to snap quick images with, the A7R has the best image quality to size ratio, and the 645D feels the most like a tuned tool out of the three. For example being able to use it with thick gloves on in winter is something the other two cameras simply can't do.
GX7 panasonic 20mm 1.7 pancake at f1.7:
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/gx7.jpg)
645D with the 55mm 2.8 at f3.5:
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/645d.jpg)
A7R with the 35mm 2.8 (at f2.8):
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/a7r.jpg)
Here are some 16x9 crops from the images white balanced to a colour checker passport for each camera, in addition there is a frame from a black magic pocket camera:
GX7:
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/gx7-16x9.jpg)
645D:
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/645d-16x9.jpg)
A7R:
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/a7r-16x9.jpg)
Blackmagic Pocket Camera with the 20mm 1.7 pancake at f 2.2:
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/bmpcc-16x9.jpg)
And here are three taken in what I thought was better light on the 645D without any tweaks done to the colours of the original raw.
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/country_hobo.jpg)
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/country_hobo2.jpg)
(http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/country_hobo3.jpg)
-
The comments about transition between focal plane and OOF areas mirror a lot what I believe as well.
I think the transition is more abrupt when using smaller sensors and smoother when using larger sensors.
For example when shooting FF an smaller with shallow DOF there is often an abrupt difference between one eye in focus and the other one out f focus.
Shooting the S with comparable DOF it does not look that abrupt.
And yes I sometimes I miss the Hy6 with the Sinar back I once had…even smoother.
-
Hi,
Interestingly, of the 16x9 crops I found the GX7 nicest.
Just a comment, 645Ds seem to be quite affordable now.
Best regards
Erik
I also like the 150mm 2.8. It's not a very sharp lens wide open but it has a nice look. This past weekend I have been getting silly with a few of my cameras and have noticed that the differences between how the files come in (besides absolute resolution and DOF) can be for the most part equalized by lightroom. For example here are 3 images from the GX7, 645D, and A7R with the white balance set to the same numeric value. The difference between how the sensor picks up the colours is different, especially on the skin tones. All in all the GX7 is the most fun to snap quick images with, the A7R has the best image quality to size ratio, and the 645D feels the most like a tuned tool out of the three. For example being able to use it with thick gloves on in winter is something the other two cameras simply can't do.
-
The comments about transition between focal plane and OOF areas mirror a lot what I believe as well.
I think the transition is more abrupt when using smaller sensors and smoother when using larger sensors.
For example when shooting FF an smaller with shallow DOF there is often an abrupt difference between one eye in focus and the other one out f focus.
Shooting the S with comparable DOF it does not look that abrupt.
And yes I sometimes I miss the Hy6 with the Sinar back I once had…even smoother.
People here love these discussions about the MF look, and show masterful blur and focus transitions And then as someone pointed out, they go and dial up their flash, dial down their aperture, and shoot those nice sharp catalogues fashion images :)
Edmund
-
The MF look for me is 6x6 (or larger) film. MFD might as pointed out give more appealing images, better colors, etc but it is all very subtle and less pronounced in my opinion. I like the simplicity of the cameras and the viewfinders which is why I shoot MFD but a very distinct and different digital MF look, it is stretching it a bit IMHO...
-
Hi,
Two images, three processings.
Left: Sony Alpha 99, Lightroom 5.3
Center: P45+, Lightroom 5.3 (with my own DNGProfile)
Right: P45+, Capture 1
White balance on snowpatch on mountain side. In this case the colours are very different.
I also added another sample with similar crops. Both images had similar processing, both in LR 5.3. Left image Sony Alpha 99 and right image P45+.
Just to make clear, the P45+ images have better detail, they are sharper. That depends both on pixel size and 39 MP vs. 24 MP.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Sharpness also matters. Even if the P45+ I have has relatively large pixels (6.9 microns) and the Zeiss lenses I use are pretty old designs, the camera sensor combo has good sharpness at the pixel level. Actual pixel crops are usable. The lack of OLP filtering also helps.
The sharpness advantage may be lost in many applications, on screen and also in smaller prints but it is still there.
Below is full image and two actual pixels crop. P45+, Planar 80/2.8, processed in LR 5.
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik, for these comparisons to be relevant, I believe the lens you used should also be provided.
Sensor resolution should hardly have any significance at this level of magnification.
After all we have a whole system MTF, and the look of the sharp/unsharp rendering is a lens feature, isn't it?
What I find very interesting is the difference between #2 and #3 on the top image at post #70.
A clear difference in sharpness between LR and C1.
Cheers
~Chris
-
People here love these discussions about the MF look, and show masterful blur and focus transitions And then as someone pointed out, they go and dial up their flash, dial down their aperture, and shoot those nice sharp catalogues fashion images :)
Edmund
Edmund,
Shooting with flash full tilt has nothing to do with a fast lens and definately not a reason not to own one.
(http://russellrutherford.com/red_lingerie.jpg)
As I've said before cars, lenses and music can't be too fast, or too loud. Well I guess lenses can be quiet. Anyway.
I have a car that has over 400 hp, which for LA would seem wasteful given the fact that going 12 miles usually takes 45 minutes, but on the rare occurrence that I find a long empty road and they're are no drones, cameras, CHP, farm tractors, protected species and/or cell phone tattletales that drive rusted out Hondas, I'll take it up to 155. No good reason other than I like to.
Now back to my flash.
IMO
BC
P.S. Who is that guy with a stick and why does he have a stick? Ok, never mind.
-
Edmund,
Shooting with flash full tilt has nothing to do with a fast lens and definately not a reason not to own one.
(http://russellrutherford.com/red_lingerie.jpg)
As I've said before cars, lenses and music can't be too fast, or too loud. Well I guess lenses can be quiet. Anyway.
I have a car that has over 400 hp, which for LA would seem wasteful given the fact that going 12 miles usually takes 45 minutes, but on the rare occurrence that I find a long empty road and they're are no drones, cameras, CHP, farm tractors, protected species and/or cell phone tattletales that drive rusted out Hondas, I'll take it up to 155. No good reason other than I like to.
Now back to my flash.
IMO
BC
P.S. Who is that guy with a stick and why does he have a stick? Ok, never mind.
And the same applies to those who want to try a little MF.
P.S. You missed bikes from your list and cheers for another sexy picture. :)
-
Hi,
Those images are just screen dumps from LR's image comparison module. I guess it is accurate for color, but not for judging sharpness. The P45+ images are Planar 80/2.8 at f/8 I think, the Sony image is 45 mm on a 24-70/2.8 ZA zoom, also at f/8. The P45 image has tighter crop. On the P45 i stitched two images to get the crop I wanted. One of the two images is shown. I often stitch on P45+.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, for these comparisons to be relevant, I believe the lens you used should also be provided.
Sensor resolution should hardly have any significance at this level of magnification.
After all we have a whole system MTF, and the look of the sharp/unsharp rendering is a lens feature, isn't it?
What I find very interesting is the difference between #2 and #3 on the top image at post #70.
A clear difference in sharpness between LR and C1.
Cheers
~Chris
-
....
Just to make clear, the P45+ images have better detail, they are sharper. That depends both on pixel size and 39 MP vs. 24 MP....
Best regards
Erik
I would like to see a comparison with the d800e + Zeiss Otus lens vs a medium format image with about the same lenstype.
My idea is that the MF have better lenses and/or more pixels that makes the difference in most comparisons.
With the d800e + Otus combination those two factors will be ruled out mostly.
I would not be surprised if the Otus images would be favourate.
(A nice test for LL?)
-
I would like to see a comparison with the d800e + Zeiss Otus lens vs a medium format image with about the same lenstype.
My idea is that the MF have better lenses and/or more pixels that makes the difference in most comparisons.
With the d800e + Otus combination those two factors will be ruled out mostly.
I would not be surprised if the Otus images would be favourate.
(A nice test for LL?)
Good idea, please share your results! ;)
-
I would like to see a comparison with the d800e + Zeiss Otus lens vs a medium format image with about the same lenstype.
My idea is that the MF have better lenses and/or more pixels that makes the difference in most comparisons.
With the d800e + Otus combination those two factors will be ruled out mostly.
I would not be surprised if the Otus images would be favourate.
(A nice test for LL?)
Our office in NY is always happy to help host such comparisons. Usually they are done for the individual and never published (we've found over the years that by far the best test is your own hands on shooting, and not a equalize-everything lab test), but we have no objection to that direction.
You'd have to bring the Otus though :).
-
I can see such a test be interesting, yet limited.
Why can't we have the D800e on the viewcam free from mix and match of lenses? Why introduce a variable that makes the difference. We all know how important and how different lenes can play in differnt types of light.
I have a few good lenes and a EF adapter (will need a EF to Nik adapter) and willing to test.
I respect others interest in such a test, but at least for me, I don't find apples vs orange comparisons useful for me. It only confuses me.
if you can't lock down the variables you can't make a consistent cup of espresso. Lock the variables, and just test the sensor, if that's your intention?
-
if you can't lock down the variables you can't make a consistent cup of espresso. Lock the variables, and just test the sensor, if that's your intention?
Not really; I'd imagine it's what each system can do on its own, and within its own possibilities.
Perhaps the only way to make decisions worth anything is simply to shoot the same subject on two systems, to produce two prints of about the same size - let's say A3 or A3+, just so that the obvious advantage of more pixels and a physically larger sensor doesn't get in the way.
If it's about 'look' then that's not the same as the concept of huge blow-ups; 'look' is also apparent, or is not, at smaller sizes of print. It certainly was with film.
Rob C
-
What a bunch of over critical photographers think is not the deciding factor, what I would like to know is can the client see the difference, can the client appreciate the difference, does the client pick the photographer with MF over the dslr?
That's what would sell me on the MF look.
-
..
You'd have to bring the Otus though :)...
Sadly I only have the d800e and live in Amsterdam :)
(Well it is not so far from the Zeiss factory...)
-
Can someone who has had a good day tell me how one displays images "large" in the posts rather than as thumbnails?
Edmund
-
Hi Edmund,
I know two ways:
- Actual pixel crops
- Clickable links to external images
Best regards
Erik
Can someone who has had a good day tell me how one displays images "large" in the posts rather than as thumbnails?
Edmund
-
Hi Edmund,
I know two ways:
- Actual pixel crops
- Clickable links to external images
Best regards
Erik
Thank you Erik!
Edmund
-
Hi,
I would guess that what's in front of (subject) , under (tripod) and behind (photographer) the camera matters more than the camera itself.
Most cameras are probably good enough for professional work, so I would think the other factors dominate.
Best regards
Erik
What a bunch of over critical photographers think is not the deciding factor, what I would like to know is can the client see the difference, can the client appreciate the difference, does the client pick the photographer with MF over the dslr?
That's what would sell me on the MF look.
-
Can someone who has had a good day tell me how one displays images "large" in the posts rather than as thumbnails?
Edmund
What's wrong with thumbnails?
What's wrong with thumbnails is that until Keith told me differently, I thought you just clicked them once and that was it. I then learned that no, you can click the first blow-up again, and in the case of my own shots, it reappears marginally larger but sharper!
If you go too big, you create problems for the viewer who has to scroll, and that destroys anything.
In fact, when I edit/compose and do any cropping of my stuff, I always reduce it so that the entire shot looks no bigger than about six inches across the greater dimension - makes the whole more contained and immediate.
My face is usually about 55 - 60cms from the screen, so that gives an idea of what I find comfortable for compositional decisions. Any closer and it induces a mild panic of visual indecision.
Rob C
-
:-), thats about as far is I am and maybe closer when pushing pixelson a 30" screen @2556x1600. I'll take a push back for anything compositional/balance etc.
-
There is a lot less (if any) crappy MF lenses vs 35mm. This likely is a significant contributing factor for the generalized MF look:)
-
Hi Michael,
I would suggest that it is a contributing factor. On the other hand, the original posting pretty much disregarded resolution as a factor.
If we look at short DoF shooting there are two ways to reduce DoF: longer lenses and wider apertures. Because MF is larger, lenses are longer, so they can be used at smaller apertures. Many large aperture lenses are not well corrected for axial chromatic aberration and the more affordable ones are often crappy.
Size gives a natural advantage to medium format. But smaller formats are often good enough, and with good engineering good enough can be pretty good.
Best regards
Erik
There is a lot less (if any) crappy MF lenses vs 35mm. This likely is a significant contributing factor for the generalized MF look:)
-
What a bunch of over critical photographers think is not the deciding factor, what I would like to know is can the client see the difference, can the client appreciate the difference, does the client pick the photographer with MF over the dslr?
That's what would sell me on the MF look.
That would be the logical way way of looking at things but clients are not always logical or particularly knowledgeable, but they may subconsciously recognise a 'nice' photo although they are not aware of why they appreciate it. To my mind then it is best to offer as good an image as one can with respect to budget constraints and offer these although the customer may not immediately favour them over your competitor, once they are used to quality they will hopefully start to recognise a lack of it.
I'm aware that this philosophy does not apply across the board but I feel that the most effective way of preserving the craft as a profession is to persistently demonstrate the difference between snap shots and photography.
-
That would be the logical way way of looking at things but clients are not always logical or particularly knowledgeable, but they may subconsciously recognise a 'nice' photo although they are not aware of why they appreciate it. To my mind then it is best to offer as good an image as one can with respect to budget constraints and offer these although the customer may not immediately favour them over your competitor, once they are used to quality they will hopefully start to recognise a lack of it.
I'm aware that this philosophy does not apply across the board but I feel that the most effective way of preserving the craft as a profession is to persistently demonstrate the difference between snap shots and photography.
Medium format cameras, still have a lot of analog dna in them and use ccds. Consequently we work them different than modern dslrs.
Last year I had three art directors from three different projects pull images from our website they liked.
It may be coincidence but every image they pulled was from a ccd sensor camera, even if the images weren't in the genre they worked in.
I don't know what this tells me, other than they all thought they were film. I think it's not that the ccd images looked like film, it's because they just looked slightly different in tone and sharpness and due to the way you shoot medium format, they were produced slower, a little more refined and maybe a fraction more thought process.
At least that's my guess.
This was one image they all selected, shot with a contax and p30+
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/sports/pictures/021rr_sports_june_08.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
Last year I had three art directors from three different projects pull images from our website they liked.
It may be coincidence but every image they pulled was from a ccd sensor camera, even if the images weren't in the genre they worked in.
Hi James,
It was no coincidence, but it has nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS (both convert photons to electrons with the photo voltaic properties of doped silicon).
It has a lot to do with the MTF of the lens+sensor combination, with a larger format sensor having a benefit. The magnification factor with identical framing is larger on the larger sensor due to a longer focal length, and larger magnification results in higher MTF response.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Alex, try hetting your hands on the "film" versions of 35mm, of 120 of 4x5 of 8x10 and feel for your self,
As with film the haze of technology is not in front of your eyes.. You ll undersand
-
Alex, defining a MF by word is like to define a sunset to a blind man; its impossible. I was like you searching for differences all the web, but a month ago I borrowed an iQ260 with phase one own body and its own 80mm lens, took a pic from myself not even with tripod and MUP but on hand brought the file to my workshop, I cropped the image of just my face which was approx. one fifth of the frame, made a 40" print with Epson 11880; What I saw was just myself in real life: it was color, detail, tonality, dynamic range: it was everything that your eyes can see in real life! all of a sudden my Nikon 800E with all Zeiss lenses become ridiculously childish compare to DB. Such a small crop of a frame made such a big print. I just fall in love that taught to myself how I just wasted my time during all these years. save your time by making a big print and you will understand ; nobody can tell you how a sunset looks like but just your own eyes! I am a believer! just you have to rob a bank...
-
due to the way you shoot medium format, they were produced slower, a little more refined and maybe a fraction more thought process.
I would guess that this accounts for 75% of the medium format "look" that people see.
Experienced photographer, taking their time to truly craft and execute their vision, to the best of their efforts.
And if they are going to take the time to do that, then they are going to shoot with the best equipment they have at their disposal.
Correlation, not causation.
-
Yeah, but, I've seen cat shots from DMF gear on Flickr that have the MFD look. These are far from considered, high production photos by experienced photographers.
I would guess that this accounts for 75% of the medium format "look" that people see.
Experienced photographer, taking their time to truly craft and execute their vision, to the best of their efforts.
And if they are going to take the time to do that, then they are going to shoot with the best equipment they have at their disposal.
Correlation, not causation.
-
Alex, defining a MF by word is like to define a sunset to a blind man; its impossible. I was like you searching for differences all the web, but a month ago I borrowed an iQ260 with phase one own body and its own 80mm lens, took a pic from myself not even with tripod and MUP but on hand brought the file to my workshop, I cropped the image of just my face which was approx. one fifth of the frame, made a 40" print with Epson 11880; What I saw was just myself in real life: it was color, detail, tonality, dynamic range: it was everything that your eyes can see in real life! all of a sudden my Nikon 800E with all Zeiss lenses become ridiculously childish compare to DB. Such a small crop of a frame made such a big print. I just fall in love that taught to myself how I just wasted my time during all these years. save your time by making a big print and you will understand ; nobody can tell you how a sunset looks like but just your own eyes! I am a believer! just you have to rob a bank...
Aren't you exaggerating a tiny little bit here?
I mean: MF is generally better, but it does not cure cancer, resurrect the dead nor give you a glimpse into the true face of God.
-
to be honest no! If you print large, by that I mean above 40", the quality difference is so huge that leave you no doubt; it was like miracle. I always take picture with my D800E on tripod, MU, Zeiss primes blah blah, but always couldn't see that quality in large print but this time with 260, it was so obvious that made my decision to go and bye one although its very expensive for me. try for yourself and go big this time!
-
Aren't you exaggerating a tiny little bit here?
I mean: MF is generally better, but it does not cure cancer, resurrect the dead nor give you a glimpse into the true face of God.
Well the Mamiya cleans out the kitty litter and you couldn't really ask for more than that.
-
Presumedly a 500 series hassy with a 16mp CFV would still give the MF look, right?
-
I still miss the Mamiya Press I sold.
But the bulk killed me.
I now shoot Mamiya 7 II.
Love it.
Sharpness, bokeh and all.
-
Presumedly a 500 series hassy with a 16mp CFV would still give the MF look, right?
If someone says yes are you going to say they are wrong because of the cropped sensor? :)
Nick-T
-
No not laying a trap, if it ain't about quantity of pixels, the MF look should be there with any MF back. Maybe the 16cfv was not the best example (at least it was square), a P25 might of been a better choice.
Do the older less pixel endowed backs still cut it with the "Look" dr etc. Just wondering how they stack up against modern NikoCano cameras, do they have as much "Look".
-
Yeah, but, I've seen cat shots from DMF gear on Flickr that have the MFD look. These are far from considered, high production photos by experienced photographers.
That's why I said 75%. :)
It's not that there isn't a MFD look, I actually think there is and discussed it in a previous post. It's just that often people are seeing things in photos that aren't just coming from the MFD camera.
And typically people don't lust over buying high end MFD gear based on cat photographs.
-
Hi,
It depends on what you mean by the MFD look:
1: Color rendition will not be affected
2: Short DoF and out of focus rendition will be affected as the crop factor is larger on the older backs.
3: If viewed at actual pixels larger pixel will have more acutance all other factors kept constant
4: Larger pixels increase risk for aliasing artefacts, like moiré and fake detail
5: Even 16 MP is quite enough for decent size prints like A2
Best regards
Erik
No not laying a trap, if it ain't about quantity of pixels, the MF look should be there with any MF back. Maybe the 16cfv was not the best example (at least it was square), a P25 might of been a better choice.
Do the older less pixel endowed backs still cut it with the "Look" dr etc. Just wondering how they stack up against modern NikoCano cameras, do they have as much "Look".
-
This is a 21mp back on a contax.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/v2marios_mustang_hollywood_.jpg)
22mpx leaf back on a contax
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/002rr_sports.jpg)
BC
-
Amazing shots,sir. For the lack of a better term, very "Filmic".
-
Here's a photo montage for an art show. Guess what the elements were photographed with: a) MFT; b) APS-C; c) FF 35mm; d) MFB.
-
I had lots of aliasing with iQ260, considering its pixel size and resolution, it was strange for me
-
Hi,
In a sense it is nice to hear that sampling theory still works. Good lens and exact work leads to aliasing. You get aliasing if the lens outresolves a sensor and most good lenses do.
Small apertures may help, and many subjects are quite tolerant about aliasing.
Best regards
Erik
I had lots of aliasing with iQ260, considering its pixel size and resolution, it was strange for me
-
Amazing shots,sir. For the lack of a better term, very "Filmic".
Thank You.
BC
-
Presumedly a 500 series hassy with a 16mp CFV would still give the MF look, right?
Yes; at least in my case (DCS645M, same sensor as the 16mp CFV), it does give a distinctive look that I cannot reproduce on my 5DII, even with the same M645 lens mounted on both cameras.
Ray
-
I'd say the 9 micron backs have a 'look' all of their own.
In comparison to the latest and greatest they are lower in resolution and are prone to moiré, but I know photographers who have those latest and greatest and yet still place a value on the larger pixel backs.
This is exactly why I've kept my P25 through the years, and sold so many other digital cameras I've used.
-
SCHNEIDER 80mm f/2.8 taken at f/11
-
Here's a photo montage for an art show. Guess what the elements were photographed with: a) MFT; b) APS-C; c) FF 35mm; d) MFB.
As an electric guitar player I appreciate your inclusion of a vacuum tube (valve if you're British) in your montage. ;D
-Dave-
-
This is a 21mp back on a contax.
22mpx leaf back on a contax
BC, these are so not what I do...which is why I like 'em so much. :D I love your use of color. You grab it by the b*lls and make it do what you want, which is an approach I very much respect.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
I am looking at aliasing on my P45+ and stopping down to f/11 doesn't help. At f/22 it goes away completely.
It depends a bit on what aliasing means to you. But as a general rule, if the lens has a decent amount of MTF at the pixel size you will get aliasing. The question is merely if it matters. It doesn't show up in landscape shooting that much. I also don't know if they would be visible in print. Just converting to JPEG reduces some artefacts, as it smears colour.
The kind of aliasing you will see are:
Broken hair, strains and wires - nothing to do about, it is the nature of things
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Sailboat_a.tif)
Fake detail, detail that aliasing invented (image on top P45+, image below Alpha 77 (80 resp 85 mm lens at 4 m), this pair of images indicates that small pixels possibly with OLP filtering really help. P45+ has 6.8 my pixels and Alpha 77 has 3.9 my pixels.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.tif)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na.tif)
Color aliasing - thin structures shift in color
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/fence_a.tif)
Moiré color or monochrome pattern - can be reduced
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/seawater_a.tif)
This illustrates the effect of small apertures:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/NormanKoren.tif)
Best regards
Erik
SCHNEIDER 80mm f/2.8 taken at f/11
-
A 6L6 if I'm not mistaken. I have an amp that takes 12 6L6s in the power stage. Suck to retube in matched pairs.
As an electric guitar player I appreciate your inclusion of a vacuum tube (valve if you're British) in your montage. ;D
-Dave-
-
BC, these are so not what I do...which is why I like 'em so much. :D I love your use of color. You grab it by the b*lls and make it do what you want, which is an approach I very much respect.
-Dave-
Thanks Dave.
BC
-
Hi,
I am looking at aliasing on my P45+ and stopping down to f/11 doesn't help. At f/22 it goes away completely.
It depends a bit on what aliasing means to you. But as a general rule, if the lens has a decent amount of MTF at the pixel size you will get aliasing. The question is merely if it matters. It doesn't show up in landscape shooting that much. I also don't know if they would be visible in print. Just converting to JPEG reduces some artefacts, as it smears colour.
The kind of aliasing you will see are:
Broken hair, strains and wires - nothing to do about, it is the nature of things
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Sailboat_a.tif)
Fake detail, detail that aliasing invented (image on top P45+, image below Alpha 77 (80 resp 85 mm lens at 4 m), this pair of images indicates that small pixels possibly with OLP filtering really help. P45+ has 6.8 my pixels and Alpha 77 has 3.9 my pixels.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.tif)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na.tif)
Color aliasing - thin structures shift in color
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/fence_a.tif)
Moiré color or monochrome pattern - can be reduced
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/seawater_a.tif)
This illustrates the effect of small apertures:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/NormanKoren.tif)
Best regards
Erik
Why is the feather much larger in the A77 image?
-
Ken,
The Alpha 77 image is larger than the P45+ image. Please remember that they were shot with similar lens and distance. The Alpha 77 has smaller pixels than the P45+ so the actual pixels image is larger. I also have a downsampled Alpha 77 image and an upsampled P45+ image for comparison.
What this shows that small pixels and OLP filtering are helpful in reducing aliasing. You could also say that the Alpha 77 image shows what you would see on an 120 MP MFD back.
It looks good in my browser now.
Best regards
Erik
Why is the feather much larger in the A77 image?
-
For me, the reasons why I don't use much my dslr anymore (canon, nikon, sigma) but the less convenient contax 645 (either with P65+ or Sinar 54lv) are :
1. colors : the Phase has very rich and accurate colors, the Sinar has beautiful warm colors. None of my dslr comes close.
2. smoothness (& still incredible accuracy even with P65) of my favorite Zeiss lenses : contax 80/2, 120/2
3. geometry, colors & details with the alpa SWA
Yes, dslr can make excellent pictures, also they are often the only capable tool.
But I don't care anymore trying to bring back a picture every time I go out, I don't care capturing 1 good picture over 250 of my boy running in the garden, I don't care of the perfect pixels of a leaf in a forest that has flat colors.
When I walk with my family, I will wait until there is a good light, a nice background, I will ask them to stop for 5 minutes and avoid moving too much and wait for a nice expression after they stopped complaining. But then back home, I will watch the picture again and again and never regret the efforts. And not because I could count the white hairs of my wife on the screen.
I couldn't see this value of MF in crops, on my laptop screen, with compressed web colors, etc. I see it on the pictures I made, on my calibrated 30" NEC screen. Then the unit that best measures "the MF look" is not MFT but minutes the image remains on the screen.
Enjoy !
Marc
-
A 6L6 if I'm not mistaken. I have an amp that takes 12 6L6s in the power stage. Suck to retube in matched pairs.
Looks like a preamp tube to me...12AX7 or something in that family. Is your amp a stereo/dual-mono hifi jobbie? When I was a kid my dad had a McIntosh mono amp with four output tubes. One big Lansing enclosure with a high-frequency horn and a conventional woofer. I remember going with him to Lafayette Electronics to do tube tests...they had a high-voltage tester. He gave it all to a friend when he "went stereo." :D I have one guitar amp that uses 6L6s...it originally took 7591s but I rewired the power tube sockets when my new-old-stock supply of the latter tube ran out.
-Dave-
-
I have a Mesa Bass amp. 12 6L6 and 4 12ax7s. It's a monster.
Too bad your dad went stereo. My father has two Marantz mono blocs. Too bad he mainly listens to mp3s on an NAD/Mirage set up. I'm angling for it.
Looks like a preamp tube to me...12AX7 or something in that family. Is your amp a stereo/dual-mono hifi jobbie? When I was a kid my dad had a McIntosh mono amp with four output tubes. One big Lansing enclosure with a high-frequency horn and a conventional woofer. I remember going with him to Lafayette Electronics to do tube tests...they had a high-voltage tester. He gave it all to a friend when he "went stereo." :D I have one guitar amp that uses 6L6s...it originally took 7591s but I rewired the power tube sockets when my new-old-stock supply of the latter tube ran out.
-Dave-
-
I have a Mesa Bass amp. 12 6L6 and 4 12ax7s. It's a monster.
Too bad your dad went stereo. My father has two Marantz mono blocs. Too bad he mainly listens to mp3s on an NAD/Mirage set up. I'm angling for it.
Good call, yes it is a 12AX7. I replaced the one (of two) in the photo with a matched pair of Mullards for my stereo. I rate my setup as being a respectable entry level audiophile hi-fi. It's nice having a good sound system in my lightroom. I'm surprised that nobody has volumteered an opinion as to what digital format(s) captured the elements used in the montage.
-
Good call, yes it is a 12AX7. I replaced the one (of two) in the photo with a matched pair of Mullards for my stereo. I rate my setup as being a respectable entry level audiophile hi-fi. It's nice having a good sound system in my lightroom. I'm surprised that nobody has volumteered an opinion as to what digital format(s) captured the elements used in the montage.
To be honest I can only see your montage as a whole. My eye/brain system rebels when I try to break it down (other than picking out broad shapes like 9-pin preamp tubes). This is probably the same reason why I've never been much of a pixel peeper. Yet I made my living as a programmer, and programming is all about breaking things down! Weird...
I often listen to music in my computer room via CD/Blu-ray/MP3 through the guitar amp I refered to above, an Ampeg Super Echo Twin. The high end rolls off past 7kHz or so...but after decades of electric guitar playing I can't hear much beyond that anyway. :D The only NOS Mullards I have left are EF86 pentodes. Still have good supplies of other NOS tubes of various brands & types...enough to outlast me!
-Dave-
-
For me, the reasons why I don't use much my dslr anymore (canon, nikon, sigma) but the less convenient contax 645 (either with P65+ or Sinar 54lv) are :
1. colors : the Phase has very rich and accurate colors, the Sinar has beautiful warm colors. None of my dslr comes close.
2. smoothness (& still incredible accuracy even with P65) of my favorite Zeiss lenses : contax 80/2, 120/2
3. geometry, colors & details with the alpa SWA
Yes, dslr can make excellent pictures, also they are often the only capable tool.
But I don't care anymore trying to bring back a picture every time I go out, I don't care capturing 1 good picture over 250 of my boy running in the garden, I don't care of the perfect pixels of a leaf in a forest that has flat colors.
When I walk with my family, I will wait until there is a good light, a nice background, I will ask them to stop for 5 minutes and avoid moving too much and wait for a nice expression after they stopped complaining. But then back home, I will watch the picture again and again and never regret the efforts. And not because I could count the white hairs of my wife on the screen.
I couldn't see this value of MF in crops, on my laptop screen, with compressed web colors, etc. I see it on the pictures I made, on my calibrated 30" NEC screen. Then the unit that best measures "the MF look" is not MFT but minutes the image remains on the screen.
Enjoy !
Marc
Marc,
That's beautifully said. I hope you stick around the forum and share some of these images.
-
To be honest I can only see your montage as a whole. My eye/brain system rebels when I try to break it down (other than picking out broad shapes like 9-pin preamp tubes). This is probably the same reason why I've never been much of a pixel peeper. Yet I made my living as a programmer, and programming is all about breaking things down! Weird...
I often listen to music in my computer room via CD/Blu-ray/MP3 through the guitar amp I refered to above, an Ampeg Super Echo Twin. The high end rolls off past 7kHz or so...but after decades of electric guitar playing I can't hear much beyond that anyway. :D The only NOS Mullards I have left are EF86 pentodes. Still have good supplies of other NOS tubes of various brands & types...enough to outlast me!
-Dave-
The hearing in my left ear starts to drop out at around 500Hz or so. I wear a hearing aid in that ear. I am now able to hear what my wife tells me to do, and I am better able to hear music.
On another topic, your reaction to my photo montage is on target. It references the cold war era. I remember hearing strange terms over the radio--"Iron Curtain" for example. Our radio and TV set ran on tubes that generated a lot of heat. Looking back, I think it's funny that the devices that delivered audio and video in the 50s and early 60s mostly operated on tubes--or valves as they say across the pond. (Cold War Hot Tubes) In the mid-50s through the early 60s, NORAD relied heavily on tracking and monitoring systems and computers that used vacuum tubes. Good thing military-grade tubes were more reliable than those used in our Philco. The USSR continued using tubes well into the 80s. Just think, a bad tube could have possibly caused WWIII. The movie Fail Safe (1964) explored what could happen if a single electronic component failed and caused a computer to spit out inaccurate data. In the movie, a resistor fails and triggers a nuclear war. Sort of like a Cold War version of Richard the Third--"A horse, my kingdom for a horse." The King's horse faltered due to a faulty horseshoe; the war was lost due to measly horse shoe.
Back to my photo montage: It is approachable on either a macro or micro level. On a macro level, it is supposed to invoke a feeling of vertigo--a menacing dream scape that has spiraled out of control. On a micro level, there are all sorts of little elements that hint at the Cold War era.
When I was a little boy, our family lived under the flight path of (Strategic Air Command) SAC in Omaha. We had air raid drills, civil defense sirens, sonic booms, B-52s, SS jets and all sorts of stuff going on in the background--incomprehensible sounds and sights to a little boy.
The photo elements in the montage were taken with an Olympus PL-1 camera and its 14-42mm kit lens. The electron tube was shot in my studio with a Nikon d800 and a macro lens. The photo looks great blown up to 20" X 36".
-
Ken,
The Alpha 77 image is larger than the P45+ image. Please remember that they were shot with similar lens and distance. The Alpha 77 has smaller pixels than the P45+ so the actual pixels image is larger. I also have a downsampled Alpha 77 image and an upsampled P45+ image for comparison.
What this shows that small pixels and OLP filtering are helpful in reducing aliasing. You could also say that the Alpha 77 image shows what you would see on an 120 MP MFD back.
It looks good in my browser now.
Best regards
Erik
Sorry I am a little slow. Ok, now I see what you did. You use the same focal length on both the P45+ and the A77 and positioned both cameras almost identically and shot the scene. Well that explains everything if I understood correctly. No wonder the feather looks so bad. As a whole the feather is a much smaller portion of the frame shot with the P45+ compared to the A77 since there is a large difference in sensor size. Angle of view given equal focal length is VERY different in both cameras. Fill the frame equally with both cameras with the same scene and the results are very different no? When composing an image that is realistically what one would do.
-
Hi Ken,
This is about aliasing not resolution. If some gave me an MFD camera with small pixels, I would used that instead. See it as a demonstration of what a MFD back with 120-130 MP would look like.
Best regards
Erik
Sorry I am a little slow. Ok, now I see what you did. You use the same focal length on both the P45+ and the A77 and positioned both cameras almost identically and shot the scene. Well that explains everything if I understood correctly. No wonder the feather looks so bad. As a whole the feather is a much smaller portion of the frame shot with the P45+ compared to the A77 since there is a large difference in sensor size. Angle of view given equal focal length is VERY different in both cameras. Fill the frame equally with both cameras with the same scene and the results are very different no? When composing an image that is realistically what one would do.
-
Hi Ken,
This is about aliasing not resolution. If some gave me an MFD camera with small pixels, I would used that instead. See it as a demonstration of what a MFD back with 120-130 MP would look like.
Best regards
Erik
Thats what it would take to eliminate moire? 120+?
-
Hi,
With the Planar 80/2.8 I used, maybe. The Alpha 77 probably also has OLP filtering. Stopping down to f/11 had little effect on the P45+ but stopping down to f/22 eliminated Moiré and sharpness. A better lens raises the limit.
I know you shoot f/5.6 with HR lenses on an IQ 160 or IQ 260. I am quite certain that if you shoot a one dollar bill or the test target I used at 4 m at f/5.6 you would see a lot of Moiré. A guy who also posted on this topic has tested the IQ 260, and he loves it, but he also found a lot of aliasing.
But, it is seldom Moiré shows in real world images. I see it a bit more often than I'd like to but it doesn't stop me from using MFD.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Dollars.jpg)
Full size: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Dollars.jpg
Best regards
Erik
Thats what it would take to eliminate moire? 120+?
-
Back to my photo montage: It is approachable on either a macro or micro level. On a macro level, it is supposed to invoke a feeling of vertigo--a menacing dream scape that has spiraled out of control. On a micro level, there are all sorts of little elements that hint at the Cold War era.
When I was a little boy, our family lived under the flight path of (Strategic Air Command) SAC in Omaha. We had air raid drills, civil defense sirens, sonic booms, B-52s, SS jets and all sorts of stuff going on in the background--incomprehensible sounds and sights to a little boy.
Yes, I picked up on the spiral staircase...the degraded/mutated inverse image with the skeletal buildings. I saved your montage on my iPad and have gone back to it a few times today...thanks!
I lived in northern Israel during late 1983 & early 1984. This was not long after a military campaign in southern Lebanon (where I later spent time as well...lived in Egypt too, working on archaeological sites). There were F-16s roaring by overhead on a daily basis, and occasional sonic booms. Weekly security updates from the local military liaison officer. A slightly different vibe to the quiet 'burbs of southeastern Michigan. ;)
-Dave-
-
This is the difference of the look in the real world.
Three different images, though same model for the same editorial project.
The first is a Canon 1ds3 (girl in electrical dept. of movie studio), The second contax p30 +, talent on white
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/carl_web.jpg)(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hollywood_white_web.jpg)
The third, p30+ talent reading script.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hollywood_script_web.jpg)
All were shot with continuous light, all with tripods all around 800 to 1000 iso.
The horizontal image best illustrates the medium format look as it's not noiseless, not oversharp, but it has a look and sharpness I don't see from cmos cameras. The mf ccd images also don't have that global cmos color look.
Interesting the bottom image is 800 iso, 80mm lens, F4, produced with 1 500w broncolor hmi (with 1/4 stop of spun) for the key, the accent lights are small 250 watt frensnel tungstens.
This is basically the minimum light I would use for digital video, so the fact this older medium format back works in this situation is to me not surprising, but makes me feel a lot better about that purchase I made 6 or 7 years ago.
The talent in white somewhat flies in the face what most people here look for in a digital file. It's also shot with broncolor himi and I don't care much about noise shadow worry, as for me it's fairly easy to clean up, (though I don't shoot smooth objects,
but i do care about holding the whites and I shot this image tethered but never looked on the computer, only the challanged p30+ back and hit it. Also I do not check a histogram, I've never looked at a histogram other than turn it off as I don't even
know what a histogram means and imagine I never will.
The first image, from the 1ds3 is nice, but doesn't have that crisp depth you see (at least I see) in even these small web reductions.
So is medium format worth it? Well for me I'm not sure I would drop 50k for a system, but given I own 4 bodies, two backs every lens and bought over a period, it's well worth it, though I love the contax, don't care much for other medium format cameras other than
the Leica S2 and the Pentax and for long use, neither one of those cameras I would take over my Contax. As I've said before I would find it hard to believe that any modern lens is sharper than these contax Zeiss, or for that matter prettier.
Then again as mentioned by others you don't need to spend $50,000. A used p30+ will go for about 6 to 7k and a contax and a few lenses, $1,500 more, but at used prices you not going to depreciate much.
But as always it's down to personal opinion.
BC
I should add that to get the most out of a medium format file (any file actually) you'll have to fully understand post processing in more than just a convertor.
-
Bcooter, what is this sorcery? You are using your digital backs to make actual photographs you say? You are basing your opinions on years of use in a professional setting you say? There are more important things to a photograph than what can be quantified in numbers you say? BLASPHEMY I SAY! Now repent by deleting your posts and let this forum go back to it's regular broadcast of internet experts posting images of dollar bills and brick walls, numbers and graphs. Lest you be burned at the pixelpeeper-stake for heresy!
All hail the Canikon Dx900XDs1, hallowed be thy name.
/end sarcasm
-
The backs I've knows (leaf 22/54, 75s, Phase P25/30+, Sinar 54M), and the M8/M9/DMR, have more delicate color. Not accurate color by numbers, but delicate. This is a very good thing for breathing subjects. The Canon/Nikons I've known are more ham fisted, although I like teh Canon 5d2/ds3 color very much.
This is the difference of the look in the real world.
Three different images, though same model for the same editorial project.
The first is a Canon 1ds3 (girl in electrical dept. of movie studio), The second contax p30 +, talent on white
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/carl_web.jpg)(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hollywood_white_web.jpg)
The third, p30+ talent reading script.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hollywood_script_web.jpg)
All were shot with continuous light, all with tripods all around 800 to 1000 iso.
The horizontal image best illustrates the medium format look as it's not noiseless, not oversharp, but it has a look and sharpness I don't see from cmos cameras. The mf ccd images also don't have that global cmos color look.
Interesting the bottom image is 800 iso, 80mm lens, F4, produced with 1 500w broncolor hmi (with 1/4 stop of spun) for the key, the accent lights are small 250 watt frensnel tungstens.
This is basically the minimum light I would use for digital video, so the fact this older medium format back works in this situation is to me not surprising, but makes me feel a lot better about that purchase I made 6 or 7 years ago.
The talent in white somewhat flies in the face what most people here look for in a digital file. It's also shot with broncolor himi and I don't care much about noise shadow worry, as for me it's fairly easy to clean up, (though I don't shoot smooth objects,
but i do care about holding the whites and I shot this image tethered but never looked on the computer, only the challanged p30+ back and hit it. Also I do not check a histogram, I've never looked at a histogram other than turn it off as I don't even
know what a histogram means and imagine I never will.
The first image, from the 1ds3 is nice, but doesn't have that crisp depth you see (at least I see) in even these small web reductions.
So is medium format worth it? Well for me I'm not sure I would drop 50k for a system, but given I own 4 bodies, two backs every lens and bought over a period, it's well worth it, though I love the contax, don't care much for other medium format cameras other than
the Leica S2 and the Pentax and for long use, neither one of those cameras I would take over my Contax. As I've said before I would find it hard to believe that any modern lens is sharper than these contax Zeiss, or for that matter prettier.
Then again as mentioned by others you don't need to spend $50,000. A used p30+ will go for about 6 to 7k and a contax and a few lenses, $1,500 more, but at used prices you not going to depreciate much.
But as always it's down to personal opinion.
BC
I should add that to get the most out of a medium format file (any file actually) you'll have to fully understand post processing in more than just a convertor.
-
Bcooter, what is this sorcery? You are using your digital backs to make actual photographs you say? You are basing your opinions on years of use in a professional setting you say? There are more important things to a photograph than what can be quantified in numbers you say? BLASPHEMY I SAY! Now repent by deleting your posts and let this forum go back to it's regular broadcast of internet experts posting images of dollar bills and brick walls, numbers and graphs. Lest you be burned at the pixelpeeper-stake for heresy!
All hail the Canikon Dx900XDs1, hallowed be thy name.
/end sarcasm
Hit the heretic with a cushion !
-
Nice images bcooter. I agree that those illustrate the difference well, especially the first one vs the last one.
However if you told everyone that the first one was a P25/Contax image, I don't think anyone would have called you a liar.
-
Nice images bcooter. I agree that those illustrate the difference well, especially the first one vs the last one.
However if you told everyone that the first one was a P25/Contax image, I don't think anyone would have called you a liar.
Hi Sheldon,
I agree. And what's more, a photon looks the same to CCD or CMOS. Most of the alleged differences can be applied to any image in post-processing, in particular color differences depend heavily on the profile used. The examples shown also exhibit lots of dedicated lighting setups, which makes a difference regardless of the camera platform.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Great images Cooter.
Insofar as the DSLR vs. MFD, I do see a difference in the depth and color.
-
Hi,
I have great respect for BC's images, but it is not what I would typically shoot. More something like these (lots of different cameras, APS-C to MFD):
P45+
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Sweden/Some-new-pictures/i-z3d94qC/0/XL/20130801-CF043616-XL.jpg)
Sony Alpha 700?
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-TTV2gp3/0/XL/20080914-DSC05717-XL.jpg)
Sony Alpha 700
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-mDjm44r/0/XL/20091018-DSC01404-XL.jpg)
Sony Alpha 900
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Giau-Pass-1/i-cFLg4vh/0/XL/20100525-DSC06736-XL.jpg)
Sony Alpha 900
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Melk/i-pCnZzRs/0/XL/Melk-20090901-_DSC4908-XL.jpg)
Sony Alpha 77
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Sweden/Some-new-pictures/i-5ZbdsNP/0/XL/20120612-_DSC1957-XL.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
Hi Sheldon,
I agree. And what's more, a photon looks the same to CCD or CMOS. Most of the alleged differences can be applied to any image in post-processing, in particular color differences depend heavily on the profile used. The examples shown also exhibit lots of dedicated lighting setups, which makes a difference regardless of the camera platform.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Sheldon,
I agree. And what's more, a photon looks the same to CCD or CMOS. Most of the alleged differences can be applied to any image in post-processing, in particular color differences depend heavily on the profile used. The examples shown also exhibit lots of dedicated lighting setups, which makes a difference regardless of the camera platform.
Cheers,
Bart
I don't even know what a photon is and I'm not being flip about anyone that does know what a photon is.
But the "alleged" differences are real to me and I don't see a difference every now and then I see a difference every time I use medium format, which is not as often as I'd like.
The camera doesn't make the photographer, but the camera can enhance the photograph or make it more difficult.
I personally see a place for medium format and yes I think there is a drastic difference between ccd capture and cmos.
IMO
BC
-
But the "alleged" differences are real to me and I don't see a difference every now and then I see a difference every time I use medium format, which is not as often as I'd like.
...
I think there is a drastic difference between ccd capture and cmos.
I will not dispute that you see a systematic difference between:
(a) CCD sensors from Kodak/Truesense and Teledyne-Dalsa, mostly in formats larger than 36x24mm
and
(b) CMOS sensors from Sony, Canon, etc. in formats 36x24mm and smaller.
But there are several systematic differences between these two classes of sensors, and of these, the difference in how the signal is handled by the sensor _after_ it has arrived and been converted from light to an electric charge (which is the only significant difference between CCD and CMOS) is almost certainly not the difference that leads to a different look.
The likely cause is instead different design decisions for the color filter arrays, where the MF sensors seem to put a greater priority on color accuracy at the expense of lower sensitivity and thus worse low-light performance, whereas the CMOS sensors are mostly used on cameras where competitive pressure is more often based on comparisons of low-light performance, pushing the designs to skew towards better sensitivity at the cost of worse color accuracy.
By the way, this trade-off happens because one way to increase sensitivity ("quantum efficiency") is to have the color filters let through a wider range of colors, so that instead of being R or G or B, they are more like R+g, r+G+b, and g+B.
This gets worse as you go down the sensor size scale: the sensors in most compact cameras have suspiciously high quantum efficiency compared to SLR-sized sensors, a sign that their CFAs are letting through a broader range of colors.
-
Bill,
I share your analysis to a part. Interestingly BC also preferred Leica M9 rendition to Leica M(240).
Another interesting observation is that the images BC posted are taken at relative high ISO, and he mentions that he prefers the slightly grainy look of the DBs. He says that the MFD images are not so smooth as the DSLR images.
I have not used my P45+ above 50 ISO, so I don't know. I also don't shoot talent in artificial light, much because of lack of talent.
Best regards
Erik
I will not dispute that you see a systematic difference between:
(a) CCD sensors from Kodak/Truesense and Teledyne-Dalsa, mostly in formats larger than 36x24mm
and
(b) CMOS sensors from Sony, Canon, etc. in formats 36x24mm and smaller.
But there are several systematic differences between these two classes of sensors, and of these, the difference in how the signal is handled by the sensor _after_ it has arrived and been converted from light to an electric charge (which is the only significant difference between CCD and CMOS) is almost certainly not the difference that leads to a different look.
The likely cause is instead different design decisions for the color filter arrays, where the MF sensors seem to put a greater priority on color accuracy at the expense of lower sensitivity and thus worse low-light performance, whereas the CMOS sensors are mostly used on cameras where competitive pressure is more often based on comparisons of low-light performance, pushing the designs to skew towards better sensitivity at the cost of worse color accuracy.
By the way, this trade-off happens because one way to increase sensitivity ("quantum efficiency") is to have the color filters let through a wider range of colors, so that instead of being R or G or B, they are more like R+g, r+G+b, and g+B.
This gets worse as you go down the sensor size scale: the sensors in most compact cameras have suspiciously high quantum efficiency compared to SLR-sized sensors, a sign that their CFAs are letting through a broader range of colors.
-
Bcooter, what is this sorcery? You are using your digital backs to make actual photographs you say? You are basing your opinions on years of use in a professional setting you say? There are more important things to a photograph than what can be quantified in numbers you say? BLASPHEMY I SAY! Now repent by deleting your posts and let this forum go back to it's regular broadcast of internet experts posting images of dollar bills and brick walls, numbers and graphs. Lest you be burned at the pixelpeeper-stake for heresy!
All hail the Canikon Dx900XDs1, hallowed be thy name.
/end sarcasm
Haha.
It really is refreshing to see real images instead of charts and graphs, innit?
BC's images have really helped me make my decision to go MF. Can't say the same about all the numerical analysis.
-
Hi,
This topic led me to look trough a lot of images. I normally present my images as slide shows in 1080P format, that gets rid of the resolution difference, and I cannot really say which is which.
Going back to the images I found that there are quite a few images where the MFD stuff was better. What I also found that when I was shooting in with MFD and DSLR in parallell I got a lot of different images. Here are some images that were shot with DSLR (mostly freehand) and MFD (on tripod) essentially standing at the same spot, close to the tripod. All images are also available as raw files. Processing is quick and dirty, in part.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/OneSpot/
An observation is that using primes on the P45+ forces certain compositions which may turn out better than what I would get with DSLR and zoom lens. What I also have seen that I stitch more with MFD, an image is often just a bit to wide for the lens I use and I don't want to switch to a wider one, so I just make 2/3 exposures and stitch.
Best regards
Erik
-
I share your analysis to a part. Interestingly BC also preferred Leica M9 rendition to Leica M(240).
The M9 is the exception that proves the rule: the M9 is 36x24mm format, but uses a Kodak CCD with Kodak's color filter designs (at least, I am fairly sure that Leica did not tell Kodak to modify its CFAs in a way that sacrifices color accuracy for the sake of better low-light performance). On the other hand, I do not know anything about the CFA design that CMOSIS uses in its CMOS sensor for the M(240).
-
Hi,
I don't think it is about colour accuracy, it is more about pleasant colour.
This article by Tim Parkin may be worth checking out: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/02/the-myth-of-universal-colour/
Best regards
Erik
The M9 is the exception that proves the rule: the M9 is 36x24mm format, but uses a Kodak CCD with Kodak's color filter designs (at least, I am fairly sure that Leica did not tell Kodak to modify its CFAs in a way that sacrifices color accuracy for the sake of better low-light performance). On the other hand, I do not know anything about the CFA design that CMOSIS uses in its CMOS sensor for the M(240).
-
If we're sharing pictures, all I've got is some snaps of my kids.... Three are taken with an Aptus 22 RZ67 and three are Canon.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Comparison-1_zps47720092.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Comparison-5_zps8616b348.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Comparison-6_zps43052382.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Comparison-3_zps5f54446e.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Comparison-2_zps6544b352.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Comparison-4_zpsba70983b.jpg)
-
Sheldon,
Some really nice work there on your flickr page!
Eric
-
Thanks, Eric.
-
I
But there are several systematic differences between these two classes of sensors,..................snip
I dunno for you your right for me, not. I also drop a lot of files into a non linear editor and can usually see a big difference, to the point I have to add a layered tint on a medium format file and make it more globlal in color and also add slight lens blur to match a cmos file.
But my images aren't the best examples. Sheldon's are.
Up close on the tight head shot of the little girl, it looks like any camera. I have a beauty shot on a computer right now we're working that is from a 1ds3 and I can't tell a huge difference, but if I pulled back like Sheldon did on the little girl with the green outfit it shows and to me it's dramatic. It also shoes on the boy on the curb. CMOS does not render that way.
In regards to a m8, m9 or a medium format back, given the same sensor, (ccd) the bigger the better, but even at 35mm size to me the M8 and M9 are far superior to a m240. I love leicas and if you give me a 240 I'll sell it to KEH. Give me an M9 I'll keep it, give me an S and I'll kiss you on the lips (I can afford an S the kiss is just for fun*).
IMO
BC
*I'm very secure in my masculinity, not that there is anything wrong with that if I wasn't. (I think I covered that).
-
Hi,
Indeed fine images on Sheldon's site. But you may have missed the fine print ;-)
Best regards
Erik
I dunno for you your right for me, not. I also drop a lot of files into a non linear editor and can usually see a big difference, to the point I have to add a layered tint on a medium format file and make it more globlal in color and also add slight lens blur to match a cmos file.
But my images aren't the best examples. Sheldon's are.
Up close on the tight head shot of the little girl, it looks like any camera. I have a beauty shot on a computer right now we're working that is from a 1ds3 and I can't tell a huge difference, but if I pulled back like Sheldon did on the little girl with the green outfit it shows and to me it's dramatic. It also shoes on the boy on the curb. CMOS does not render that way.
In regards to a m8, m9 or a medium format back, given the same sensor, (ccd) the bigger the better, but even at 35mm size to me the M8 and M9 are far superior to a m240. I love leicas and if you give me a 240 I'll sell it to KEH. Give me an M9 I'll keep it, give me an S and I'll kiss you on the lips (I can afford an S the kiss is just for fun*).
IMO
BC
*I'm very secure in my masculinity, not that there is anything wrong with that if I wasn't. (I think I covered that).
-
Hi,
Eric is right! Great images!
Best regards
Erik
Thanks, Eric.
-
Hi,
Indeed fine images on Sheldon's site. But you may have missed the fine print ;-)
Best regards
Erik
See. I think all photographs that are pretty MUST be from a ccd camera.
Maybe ol' Sheldon is slippin one by us.
BC
-
Haha! Too funny guys.
Erik, that's cheating going to check out the cross posting from my Flickr. :)
Tight headshot of my daughter is the Canon 1DX with 85 f/1.2 at f/2 with a 12mm extension tube to get up real close. The 85 f/1.2 gets all dreamy with an extension tube, aberrations... but in a good way.
My son on the curb is Aptus 22 with RZ67, the 150mm f/3.5 lens wide open. I love that lens, and I agree it's definitely got the MF look.
My daughter in the fairy princess costume is the 1DX and 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.4. In bcooter's defense, that one has been worked over in post a little with selective sharpening.
-
Haha! Too funny guys.
Erik, that's cheating going to check out the cross posting from my Flickr. :)
Tight headshot of my daughter is the Canon 1DX with 85 f/1.2 at f/2 with a 12mm extension tube to get up real close. The 85 f/1.2 gets all dreamy with an extension tube, aberrations... but in a good way.
My son on the curb is Aptus 22 with RZ67, the 150mm f/3.5 lens wide open. I love that lens, and I agree it's definitely got the MF look.
My daughter in the fairy princess costume is the 1DX and 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.4. In bcooter's defense, that one has been worked over in post a little with selective sharpening.
So, members on this forum failed to recognize the "MF look" when presented with your 6 pictures. I think that sums up the utility of this thread.
-
I think it is kind of strange if anyone claims that "camera A produce better images than camera B because it has sensor technology X", then proudly proclaim that they could care less about technology? Is inconsequential the right word (English not being my native language).
I mean, it is perfectly kosher to say that I prefer the images that I have been able to get out of camera A to those I have been able to get out of camera B (for whatever reason). Without getting into a technology debate about the hows and whys.
When you start claiming that CCD has inherent technology advantages/disadvantages vs CMOS, then you are making a theoretic, technical statement (possibly based on sensible observations, but seemingly not a scientific systematic approach to observing differences). That is leaving the subjective/artistic world and moving into the objective/scientific world, and you should not be surprised to see counter-arguments based on (ones understanding of) physics or science.
An obvious critique is that of correlation vs causality. Perhaps images that was produced on CCD cameras and presented on this forum are deemed, on average, "1 subjective point" better vs images that was produced on CMOS cameras and presented on this forum. Possible reasons for this (if true):
1. CCD has inherent benefits
2. Cameras using CCDs tends to have advantages over cameras using CMOS (that is not directly caused by sensor choice)
3. People using CCD cameras tends to post only their best images to this forum, while CMOS users posts some moderately good ones as well.
4. CCD cameras have existed for a longer time than CMOS cameras, thus, the accumulated number of amazing images might be expected to be higher for CCD
5. People using CCD cameras are better photographers than people using CMOS cameras
6. People judging images tends to be more positive towards images that they know to be produced by certain camera (technology)
I would suggest that it is impossible to be certain if any of the above are the most important factors (or if the most important factor was left out). We can certainly speculate.
I am frequently frustrated by side-by-sides where someone obviously tried to make each camera shine on its own terms, using whatever development/photoshop trick he/she knew. While this may seem like a good idea, what you get is two subjectively different images and (for my part) none the wiser. I'd rather see one (or several) interpretations where a skilled photoshop user tried to make one of the files look as good as possible/as realistic as possible/as close as possible to the photographers intention, then "force" the other file to be as similar as possible (including noise/loss of details in shadows, posterization, if applicable). An estimate of the time spent and number/complexity of operations would be enlightening.
An other alternative would be to use testcharts in the scene for recording color/blur/... and use something like RawTherapee to make matching "sort-of-objective but still pleasing" output using documented algorithms. The necessary difference in sharpening, noise reduction, color correction matrix etc would be interesting to correlate with the visual output.
-h
-
So True. M9 out of the camera with basic adjustments is fantastic. I usually crush the blacks a bit and desat, no sharpening. Looks great, much like a P30+ file. Dare I say Kodachrome-esque.
If you want pretty straight out of camera go M9. If you want a more flexible file go M240.
-
I think it is kind of strange if anyone claims that "camera A produce better images than camera B because it has sensor technology X", then proudly proclaim that they could care less about technology? Is inconsequential the right word (English not being my native language).
The first think that should be checked is: can they tell the cameras apart in a blind test?
-
Especially in the reds and blues. Its all Kodachrome.
Indeed.
Not sure if it's true or not but I did hear that it was a conscious decision by Leica to model the profiles on the Kodachrome look.
-
I dunno for you your right for me, not. I also drop a lot of files into a non linear editor and can usually see a big difference
bcooter,
to repeat, I am not denying that you see a difference; I am only disagreeing with you claim about what _causes_ that difference.
You seem to keep missing these points:
1) There is a systematic difference in design features such as the color filter arrays between the MF backs (plus the Leica M9) on one hand and the 35mm format cameras on the other. This is related for one thing to the different makers (Kodak and Dalsa for MF, Sony and Canon for the other) and the priorities of their different target markets.
2) This difference in color filtering and the way it effects subsequent processing needs is far more likely to be the cause of the differences that you see than differences in the electronic details of the photo-sites themselves.
Take this tip from a professional scientist: do not change two factors between two groups of experiments and then try to attribute the change in results to one of those changes while ignoring the other.
Geeky aside: Most CCDs are CMOS devices these ways; the difference is how those different CMOS chips then handle the electric charges after those charges have been gathered in the photo-sites:
CCDs move the charges around;
active pixel CMOS sensors use voltage-based signal transfers and charge amplification.
-
bcooter,
to repeat, I am not denying that you see a difference; I am only disagreeing with you claim about what _causes_ that difference.
If you read the following posts, bcooter saw a difference with files that proved later to come from the same camera.
-
Hi,
I guess that it could happen to any of us. Personally, I find it very hard to tell MF and DSLR images apart, unless I am looking for a well known clue.
I posted some comparison shots here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/ and the hit rate was around 50%.
The answers are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html
Best regards
Erik
If you read the following posts, bcooter saw a difference with files that proved later to come from the same camera.
-
When I was a student, I failed to recognize white wine from red wine in a blind test (after 2 or 3 glasses).
Since then, I know there is no difference.
MF and DSLR is a different story, the following picture demonstrates the difference.
These guys with dslr were focused on technology while I was trying to manually focus my contax 120mm on the truly artistic but moving subject of the day ...
-
So, members on this forum failed to recognize the "MF look" when presented with your 6 pictures. I think that sums up the utility of this thread.
We might learn some lesson from that failure, and that might be useful.
-
Is inconsequential the right word (English not being my native language).
Probably not -- maybe you're thinking of incongruous or incoherent.
-
Same event, 3 years, 3 cameras : Canon 5D2, Contax/Sinar 54, Nikon D3x
Possibly models don't shine so well with MF ...
-
Probably not -- maybe you're thinking of incongruous or incoherent.
Let's go with incoherent.
Honestly, I can't tell what other people use. To much goes on, the lighting the way I don't light, the processing the way I don't process, the moment they push the button.
S--t I've seen a cell phone image for a Jaguar outdoor board that was amazing. The AD shot it while the photographer set up.
A 50cent image backed up with $18,000 in post........but it looked good.
Even being incoherent I know what I see in my work, really can't judge what anyone else sees.
IMO
BC
-
When I was a student, I failed to recognize white wine from red wine in a blind test (after 2 or 3 glasses).
Since then, I know there is no difference.
I assume that this is a humorous stab at blind tests?
No scientific effort can prove that wine taste the same. Nor that homeopathy is a hoax.
H
-
If you read the following posts, bcooter saw a difference with files that proved later to come from the same camera.
Yes, that is because I have extrasensory vision. I can see past the display, past the processing, through the lens, into the mind of the photographer who I know was thinking "c--p I should have shot this with a medium format camera".
BC
-
Honestly, I can't tell what other people use. ... I know what I see in my work, really can't judge what anyone else sees.
Your experience is infinitely greater and your judgements will be better, so that's a little lesson for me.
-
I assume that this is a humorous stab at blind tests?
No scientific effort can prove that wine taste the same. Nor that homeopathy is a hoax.
H
Even if half of chardonnay production tastes about the same whatever the country (probably because this is the taste consumers want), I see some differences between a Bordeaux and a Burgundy, between a Chassagne Montrachet and a Corton Charlemagne, between the Corton of Louis Jadot and the one from Bonneau du Martray, between the Bonneau 2008 and the 2009 ...
So yes, that was just a kind of syllogism ...
What is best, a chateau Cheval Blanc 1982 or a chateau Maucaillou 2009 ?
The first has an incredible complexity and costs 50 times more than the very good but more industrial & simple second.
With a hamburger, you won't see much difference and would prefer either a beer or a coke ...
... MF & DSLR, you end up with an iphone ...
-
Yes, that is because I have extrasensory vision. I can see past the display, past the processing, through the lens, into the mind of the photographer who I know was thinking "c--p I should have shot this with a medium format camera".
BC
:D :D :D
I love your take on the world. You cut to the heart of the matter better than anyone else.
-
Most (not all) of the images I post in the recent works thread are shot on a DSLR but nobody complains :-) and I expect they couldn't tell the difference on screen or on the final image wherever it ends up.
I put them there because I feel they belong there, the ones shot on MFD are approached in exactly the same way just with a few more joules thrown at them.
-
Even if half of chardonnay production tastes about the same whatever the country (probably because this is the taste consumers want), I see some differences between a Bordeaux and a Burgundy, between a Chassagne Montrachet and a Corton Charlemagne, between the Corton of Louis Jadot and the one from Bonneau du Martray, between the Bonneau 2008 and the 2009 ...
So yes, that was just a kind of syllogism ...
What is best, a chateau Cheval Blanc 1982 or a chateau Maucaillou 2009 ?
The first has an incredible complexity and costs 50 times more than the very good but more industrial & simple second.
With a hamburger, you won't see much difference and would prefer either a beer or a coke ...
Simple blinded testing can be used to confirm (with some certainty) that an individual can taste the difference between two given wines. Once that is confirmed, the rest is about preference. I have a cold at the moment, left with very little sense of smelling, and I can confirm that wine taste really bad in this state.
... MF & DSLR, you end up with an iphone …
Not sure what you are saying here. Certainly, there are differences between the (typical) image capabilities of MF, DSLRs and iPhones that are relatively easy to measure or see in a well-designed test. As to the importance of those differences for a particular photographer, for a particular viewing condition etc, that seems a lot harder.
-h
-
So, members on this forum failed to recognize the "MF look" when presented with your 6 pictures. I think that sums up the utility of this thread.
What I meant here was not to criticize one particular person for thinking one picture was MF when it was not (while I conveniently avoided to risk an opinion myself). What I meant was that the difference in color rendition between cameras are not a reliable indication of the type of camera, contrary to the ongoing discussion yesterday.
There are some differences between MF cameras and 24x36 cameras. For example, I notice some difference with lenses (and I have posted to explain what optical phenomena explain them), some differences in highlights rendition (which, I think, mainly come from differences in exposure settings) and some differences in color rendition out of the box. These differences are small, which should not be a surprise because the sensor size difference is not huge either. They can be so small as to become invisible in some cases (careful choice of lenses and aperture, choice of light and exposure, color correction).
-
This location was tough. It was dark, had very little ambient light and to top it off, there was white dog (I assume dog) hair everywhere and I mean everywhere. It looked like a snow storm when you walked through.
I shot this unplanned as we were breaking for lunch, I saw the subject across the room reading and saw the light on the chairs and said come here, shot it in about 10 frames.
Then everyone ate (obviously outside)
IMO
BC
Reminds me of Mario Testino...
Rob C
-
Reminds me of Mario Testino...
Rob C
The photo or the dog hair?
There is a difference.
Thanks
BC
-
When I was a student, I failed to recognize white wine from red wine in a blind test (after 2 or 3 glasses).
Since then, I know there is no difference.
MF and DSLR is a different story, the following picture demonstrates the difference.
These guys with dslr were focused on technology while I was trying to manually focus my contax 120mm on the truly artistic but moving subject of the day ...
Tell that to my three cardiologists - so far.
I love well-chilled white and have to drink red, my second choice, because of their orders, based, apparently, on the benefits of the deoxidants in the red. As with cameras, formats, sensors, so with wines. I often break the general rule and chill the red; improves it no end.
;-(
Rob C
-
The photo or the dog hair?
There is a difference.
Thanks
BC
Neither: the model!
That shot you posted earlier (I've just revisited this thread - I have no MF so it's sort of irrelevant to me) from the P30 of the girl reading a scipt in the movie studio - that is beautiful colour and texture/look in my eyes, but the colour of the first one in the run I don't like at all. Which shows me yet again that so much about photography is subjective that such discussions are, ultimately, pointless, but that won't prevent them for running on forever.
Your pix are always a delight - maybe even because it's where I'd like to have been too.
Rob C
-
Tell that to my three cardiologists - so far.
I ... have to drink red, ..., because of their orders, based, ..., on the benefits of the deoxidants in the red. ...
Rob C
I will tell my wife first ! You have great cardiologists !
Btw, I also like most red wines around 16°C
Regarding cameras, the impact from the camera comes after the subject, composition, quality of light. Then comes post-treatment. So when looking at a picture that someone else took, you first see these elements.
When I listen to a cello concerto, I hear a melody, rythm, dynamics, I listen to both cello & orchester. The solist will listen to the tonal balance of the cello, listen to each note, evaluate his technique , etc.
Marc
-
(Just answering on red wine)
Traditionally, only some red wines are drunk at room temperature. Many red wines, especially amongst the fruity ones, are drunk a bit cooler even in their region of production. For example, red wines from the Loire area (e.g. Saumur) are traditionally drunk around 14°C. It is a relatively modern aberration that lead the general public to believe all red wines should be drunk at 20°C or more.
(And now back to photography)
-
(Just answering on red wine)
Traditionally, only some red wines are drunk at room temperature. Many red wines, especially amongst the fruity ones, are drunk a bit cooler even in their region of production. For example, red wines from the Loire area (e.g. Saumur) are traditionally drunk around 14°C. It is a relatively modern aberration that lead the general public to believe all red wines should be drunk at 20°C or more.
(And now back to photography)
It's also banal situation ethics: as I only cook for myself on weekends, a bottle holding six glasses will stretch to three weekends if living in a fridge (the bottle - not me, but winter in Mallorca is similar) and if left at room temperature will, instead, make an excellent remover of limescale from taps.
Rob C
-
(Just answering on red wine)
Traditionally, only some red wines are drunk at room temperature. Many red wines, especially amongst the fruity ones, are drunk a bit cooler even in their region of production. For example, red wines from the Loire area (e.g. Saumur) are traditionally drunk around 14°C. It is a relatively modern aberration that lead the general public to believe all red wines should be drunk at 20°C or more.
(And now back to photography)
Not quite yet. :) Over the past few years I've become very fond of certain Argentinian and Chilean red varietals. I find they're best enjoyed both when fairly young and when fairly well chilled.
-Dave-
-
I can at least differentiate the difference between a medium format glass of wine, a large format and a compact format.
I can better differentiate if there is Whiskey instead of wine, and even better when the glasses are finally emptied ...
:P
-
I have heard that if your meal calls for white whine, while your cellar contains only red, you might be able to save the evening by serving red wine at a lower than usual temperature.
-h
-
For example, red wines from the Loire area (e.g. Saumur) are traditionally drunk around 14°C.
I try to avoid being drunk before 18:00 :-)
-h
-
Red or white ? Rose from the Loire goes with just about everything I find, if you can find a dry one.
Anyhow....
Two images taken this very afternoon, one on a 12mp FF Nikon D3 and another on a 22mp Mamiya ZD. To my mind there is a distinct difference, other than the bothersome green caste on the Mamiya.
-
It's amazing they could build those cars with Citroën 2CV engine. I thought they were old BMW motorcycle ones but no.
(I wonder what's the maximum speed)
-
It's amazing they could build those cars with Citroën 2CV engine. I thought they were old BMW motorcycle ones but no.
(I wonder what's the maximum speed)
I believe the greatest factor in determining its maximum velocity is the quantity of Christmas pud consumed by the occupants! :D
BTW, this one was actually built by Lomax as a demo and certainly sounds the part, in fact I think that's where most of its 18hp goes, rattling the windows rather than getting it anywhere!
-
It's also banal situation ethics: as I only cook for myself on weekends, a bottle holding six glasses will stretch to three weekends if living in a fridge (the bottle - not me, but winter in Mallorca is similar) and if left at room temperature will, instead, make an excellent remover of limescale from taps.
Rob C
I guess wine kept in a fridge for a week can be used to cook - barely; the second week one can use it as salad dressing :)
What is that definition of a restaurant in hell again? English cooks, american waiters, swiss cashier ?
PS. I have a vacuum gadget, and it really works. I recommend it!
Edmund
-
I guess wine kept in a fridge for a week can be used to cook - barely; the second week one can use it as salad dressing :)
What is that definition of a restaurant in hell again? English cooks, american waiters, swiss cashier ?
PS. I have a vacuum gadget, and it really works. I recommend it!
Edmund
Me too: I eat with it!
; -)
Rob C
-
Me too: I eat with it!
; -)
Rob C
And end up pickled :)
Edmund
-
I think the best way to understand the MF look is to look at yourself in your bathroom mirror but may be wrong
-
Perhaps the best way to understand the "MF look" is to shoot a Zeiss of a (ten years old) Contax 645 or Hassy-V on an (again) ten years old Kodak 22mp sensor and compare it with the look of your D800… The "WTF"? claim that will come up to your mouth, should be the one and only truth… Then put that same "fat pixel magic" back on your 20 years old view camera and you have the rest of the same truth…
-
I think the best way to understand the MF look is to look at yourself in your bathroom mirror but may be wrong
Hmmm... all I see is a rather thin, cheap red Rioja. If for medicinal purposes, not much point in anything else: mustn't get hung up on your medication! Neither a 'blad nor Contax in sight, and not even a whiff of Deardorff! A black, unused Chanel 5 spray graces a corner of the vanitry unit, though.
;-)
Rob C
-
Does this answer the question?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1534728_10151954839039209_338595565_o.jpg)
- Better color accuracy and separation.
- Better sharpness and resolution
- Better overall look without having to spend a long time in post
Yep, I can see the "MF look" for sure.
-
Does this answer the question?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1534728_10151954839039209_338595565_o.jpg)
- Better color accuracy and separation.
- Better sharpness and resolution
- Better overall look without having to spend a long time in post
Yep, I can see the "MF look" for sure.
Great example of the differences. Always nice to see a comparison shot in a situation that does not equalize everything as opposed to a studio lit image with no variation in color temp of subjects that are rather dull with no saturation.
-
Hi,
Top image has more exposure and the two images have significantly different white balance. That is what I see. Sharpness is better on the Creo and the Creo has some moiré.
Would be interesting to see difference with matched exposure and correct white balance.
Best regards
Erik
Does this answer the question?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1534728_10151954839039209_338595565_o.jpg)
- Better color accuracy and separation.
- Better sharpness and resolution
- Better overall look without having to spend a long time in post
Yep, I can see the "MF look" for sure.
-
I've shot Phase One backs on a Hasselblad camera and lenses since 2005. In the last few days I've been shooting my new Zeiss Otus on my Nikon D800e and Sony A7r and I'm getting very very close to medium format look...the combination of blow me away sharpness, micro detail and contrast couple with near to far sharpness vs blur/bokeh and unbelievable color is what I see. Yes my Phase 60 megapixel has higher pixel count than 36 megapixels but pixel for pixel I think they are now essentially equal. I'm shooting ALL cameras at iso 50 which gives me incredible creamy smooth tonal transitions, so this might have something to with it. Eleanor
Ps, I would also add than when I process both RAW files in capture one I get, for the most part, better results both in micro detail and contrast in detailed areas, and more tonal smoothness in less detailed areas...and I compare the files at 400 percent too.
-
Nice example Synn
Wait until you shoot some portraits…. :-)
-
Does this answer the question?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1534728_10151954839039209_338595565_o.jpg)
- Better color accuracy and separation.
- Better sharpness and resolution
- Better overall look without having to spend a long time in post
Yep, I can see the "MF look" for sure.
If you want to compare sharpness and resolution, it would help to equalize diffraction and DOF effects by adjusting aperture ratio in proportion to focal length/format size; say f/6 with the D800 if staying at f/8 with the Credo. In your comparison, the D800 has greater diffract effects but more DOF; at least of both image are with focal lengths that cover the same FOV; if not, then comparing crops to the same FOV (and so a different fraction of the full image) is useless for comparing sharpness and resolution.
Next, exposure levels should be equalized, rather than the "6s vs 10s at equal f-stop" used here; either the same exposure time for both at equal f-stop, or with the proposed f-stop adjustment, stay with 6s for the D800 vs 10s for the Credo 40. However, the final D800 image is already brighter despite its shorter exposure time and so lower exposure index, so something is different with the levels used in the conversion or the different meanings of "ISO 200" on the two cameras. Maybe using each at its best (minimum?) ISO speed setting and adjusting exposure time for each to get the best exposure level would be a better comparison; comparisons with one camera at less than optimal settings do not tell us much.
Thirdly, it might help to remove the AA filter by using D800E instead of the D800, since the Credo 40 does not have one!
-
Hi,
I am not concerned about aperture, the scene here probably works with medium apertures. I am not really concerned about ISO either, if you buy an MF camera you probably don't need high ISOs.
What concerns me mostly is that exposure differs and it is not taken care of in raw conversion, Also I'm quite sure white balance differs significantly. The Nikon image is yellowish while Creo image is colder. I would try to grey balance on some neutral part of the image.
Regarding sharpness, I would suggest that the D800 needs quite a bit of more sharpening, small radius large amount to handle the OLP-filtering.
The Creo image lacks shadow detail, but I presume it is due to raw development.
The Creo image also has color moiré, see attachement.
Best regards
Erik
If you want to compare sharpness and resolution, it would help to equalize diffraction and DOF effects by adjusting aperture ratio in proportion to focal length/format size; say f/6 with the D800 if staying at f/8 with the Credo. In your comparison, the D800 has greater diffract effects but more DOF; at least of both image are with focal lengths that cover the same FOV; if not, then comparing crops to the same FOV (and so a different fraction of the full image) is useless for comparing sharpness and resolution.
Next, exposure levels should be equalized, rather than the "6s vs 10s at equal f-stop" used here; either the same exposure time for both at equal f-stop, or with the proposed f-stop adjustment, stay with 6s for the D800 vs 10s for the Credo 40. However, the final D800 image is already brighter despite its shorter exposure time and so lower exposure index, so something is different with the levels used in the conversion or the different meanings of "ISO 200" on the two cameras. Maybe using each at its best (minimum?) ISO speed setting and adjusting exposure time for each to get the best exposure level would be a better comparison; comparisons with one camera at less than optimal settings do not tell us much.
Thirdly, it might help to remove the AA filter by using D800E instead of the D800, since the Credo 40 does not have one!
-
The MF look has been clearly illustrated here by Synn's example. The endless nit-picking and hypothetical conjecture from pixel peepers has also been demonstrated! :o
-
The MF look has been clearly illustrated ... endless nit-picking and hypothetical conjecture from pixel peepers has also been demonstrated!
I don't know if it has or not. What I do see is an unexplained difference between the two images - look at the 'splurge' on the RHS of the nikon image and compare that to the credo below.
-
Thanks, Eric and Joe. can't wait to use the credo with some strobes!
Erik, BJL and Manoli: The scene is a very small crop from a much bigger scene. Here's the full scene on the Credo:
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3682/11618187855_02e0262caa_k.jpg)
And here's the full scene on the D800:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2875/11618149655_adbfe3509d_k.jpg)
(Slightly cropped on the top and bottom, I tried to match the FoV as close as I can. I'm sorry, I don't have a "63mm" lens for the D800, only a 70. Sucks that it has the 3:2 ratio too.)
I shot the scene like how I would in the real world, not with the intention of microanalyzing and whatnot. Both cameras were set up on a very sturdy tripod, mirror lock up was used and both images were shot at "Fluorescent" WB that the respective cameras provide.
I chose f/8 because of the depth of the scene. I can't be bothered to compensate for diffraction and whatnot because I am shooting an image, not a lab test. I need to get all the important elements in focus and if the smaller sensor has the problem of diffraction kicking in earlier, oh well; sucks.
I trusted the meters in both cameras to deliver me a good exposure. This is what the god knows how many bazillion pixel matrix meter of the D800 and the comparatively rural meter of the Mamiya gave me. So yeah, 6s vs 10s.
WB was left untouched in both images. As far as I can see, the D800 does quite well in the blues. It does a very shitty job of separating the lights near the tree from the color of the leaves on the tree. I tried to separate them in post but nope, the majority of the leaves are in the yellow spectrum. Can I do it with some masking etc.? sure. But the point is, the Credo gets it right out of the box.
As for sharpening, I do sharpen my D800 images in post. Every single one of them. And I am so sick of doing it. I've shot with a D800e before and I do own a D7100 and they are not that much better.
I didn't notice the "Color moire" when I was looking at the image at 100%. If it bothers me that much, I'll touch it up in C1. No biggie.
Oh, and those "Splurges" are people. It's a public place. As much as I want to, I can't stop people from walking into the shot. They are getting cloned off the credo shot right now.
I am sure many people are more than happy to shoot test charts and equalized everything and brick walls and what not. I am not one of those people. I shoot images as I would in the real world. the analysis is secondary. I suspect most people who have seen the "MF look" and wanting to know more about it are looking at real world images too and not test images.
-
Hi Sandeep, would you mind PM-ing me a link to D800 raw. I'd like to try converting it with RawTherapee and a custom DCP.
-
I've been doing many many comparisons of my top primes on my D800e and phase one/Hasselblad system with top primes for sometime now trying to get the medium format look using 36 megapixel full frame 35mm. Can get close but not there. Then came along my Zeiss Otus and WOW! I realized previously my Hasselblad lens blew away my best Nikon lenses...now with the Otus I'm getting as good as or superior results over the Hassy lenses. I've found for the best comparison I must use 50 iso, my Otus lens, ideally convert in Capture One for both systems and need multiple files to tell the whole story. With the Otus and shooting at iso 50, or at max, iso 100 on the Nikon I get that three dimensional pop...the high sharpness and intricate micro detail transitioning to smooth tonal gradations which to me is the hallmark of 3D medium format. Eleanor
-
Oh, and those "Splurges" are people. It's a public place. As much as I want to, I can't stop people from walking into the shot ..
Next time you're shooting, call me, a bit of gentle persuasion goes a long way … (just jesting)
From a non-MF guy, my first reaction was to notice the difference in the trees and leaves - both colour and detail. In the second full-frame shot - exactly the same.
Synn/
Congratulations on your new acquisition - hope you really enjoy it.
All the best for 2014,
M
-
Next time you're shooting, call me, a bit of gentle persuasion goes a long way … (just jesting)
From a non-MF guy, my first reaction was to notice the difference in the trees and leaves - both colour and detail. In the second full-frame shot - exactly the same.
Synn/
Congratulations on your new acquisition - hope you really enjoy it.
All the best for 2014,
M
Thank you!
@Michael Ezra: Check your PM.
-
Hi,
What I suggest is that you do two things in Capture One.
1) Reduce exposure by one step on the D800
2) Set white balance on a reasonable area on both images, in the image below I marked and area that I think would be reasonable.
In the image below you can see that the Nikon image has much more detail in the shadows, that probably comes from the exposure difference, but it could be that lens flare also comes into play. My understanding is that MFD often underexposes 1-1.5 steps, possibly to protect highlights while DSLRs tend to utilise the whole dynamic range.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Divstuff/Demo1.jpg)
I have been shooting MFD for half a year now, but I don't use exposure meter at all, just work with histogram and try to reach ETTR (Expose To The Right). I have a spot meter but digital exposure is a different world, so I rely on the histogram. My pictures with P45+ and Sony Alpha 99 don't differ a lot, check here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/
Regarding the moiré, it may be no major issue, but if it shows up in the first crop of your first posted picture it may indicate that it is quite frequent.
By the way, I enjoy my Hasselblad 555ELD/P45+ combo, and I see benefits, mostly regarding sharpness.
Best regards
Erik
-
Dear Erik,
Once more, my aim is not to do a thesis on the images. Both images were shot in a manner showing what the majority of people will see in their typical usage scenario.
I can do a white balance on that spot for sure and it cleans up the yellows and greens in the D800 file, but then the blues go overboard and I have to spend more time fixing that.
The aim for setting both cams to the "Fluorescent" WB setting was to see what they come up with using the manufacturer set presets. Credo gets it right out of the box. D800 needs lot of tweaking to come close. Even on the on-camera display, this was apparent.
...and here's something that I can't demonstrate using charts and graphs. I actually ENJOY shooting with the Credo more. To me, that counts for more than ETTR and histograms and moire and whatnot.
-
Sandeep, thanks for sharing the raw file. I must say that all DCP profiles at I had hand failed to render purple colors at all. I used the default camera matrix built in RawTherapee and it worked (with much effort though).
Here is the reduced jpg and 100% crop from RawTherapee.
(http://michaelezra.com/Projects/Posts/_DSC6891_RawTherapee-01.jpg)
(http://michaelezra.com/Projects/Posts/_DSC6891_RawTherapee-02.jpg)
-
Eleanor,
Thanks for sharing the experience!
Best regards
Erik
I've been doing many many comparisons of my top primes on my D800e and phase one/Hasselblad system with top primes for sometime now trying to get the medium format look using 36 megapixel full frame 35mm. Can get close but not there. Then came along my Zeiss Otus and WOW! I realized previously my Hasselblad lens blew away my best Nikon lenses...now with the Otus I'm getting as good as or superior results over the Hassy lenses. I've found for the best comparison I must use 50 iso, my Otus lens, ideally convert in Capture One for both systems and need multiple files to tell the whole story. With the Otus and shooting at iso 50, or at max, iso 100 on the Nikon I get that three dimensional pop...the high sharpness and intricate micro detail transitioning to smooth tonal gradations which to me is the hallmark of 3D medium format. Eleanor
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the work on the file. I do not use Raw Therapee, but your treatment of the file is consistent with my observations while editing it in Capture One and LR whe I tried custom white balance and advanced color editing.
In C1, I can more or less get close to your rendering but as you said, it takes much work. Also, similar to the example you've shown, the separation between the shades of green is still nowhere as good as the Credo. In fact, that's a very consistent thing I have encountered while working with DSLR files. That several subtle shades of the same color tend to get blocked up together in a singular mush.
I spent probably 5 minutes editing the Credo file in C1. Just set some basic parameters, a tone curve and some presharpening. I spent 4 times that cloning the people out of the shot in Photoshop. ;D
-
Erik, it's been interesting for sure..I haven't directly compared the Otus to my best Nikon lenses so far, only the Otus on my D800e and Sony A7r to my Phase One and Hasselblad lenses. However on my previous non scientific tests of Phase One/Hassy vs D800e and my top Nikon primes I was surprised that even my Hassy normal 80mm lens beat out my Nikon top lenses. It wasn't until I put the new Zeiss Otus on to compare to medium format did I start to see just how important the lens qualities are. I was honestly shocked. My medium format files always had a "textured" "pop" to them layered over super smooth creamy tonalities to give a feeling I could just walk into the image…a 3D look if you will. The qualities of the new Zeiss on a high megapixel Nikon (or new Sony A7r) with no AA filter gives the same "feel" as my Phase set up. Hard to be precise…it's just a "feel" one gets after looking at file after file . Eleanor (also keeping in mind that for me, one needs a super low iso to get the Nikon/Otus files at or nearly at the level of my Phase files…and I'm talking "pixel for pixel" basis…not overall actual file size.)
Eleanor,
Thanks for sharing the experience!
Best regards
Erik
-
Eleanor,
Thanks for sharing. Enjoy your lens! :-)
Best regards
Erik
Erik, it's been interesting for sure..I haven't directly compared the Otus to my best Nikon lenses so far, only the Otus on my D800e and Sony A7r to my Phase One and Hasselblad lenses. However on my previous non scientific tests of Phase One/Hassy vs D800e and my top Nikon primes I was surprised that even my Hassy normal 80mm lens beat out my Nikon top lenses. It wasn't until I put the new Zeiss Otus on to compare to medium format did I start to see just how important the lens qualities are. I was honestly shocked. My medium format files always had a "textured" "pop" to them layered over super smooth creamy tonalities to give a feeling I could just walk into the image…a 3D look if you will. The qualities of the new Zeiss on a high megapixel Nikon (or new Sony A7r) with no AA filter gives the same "feel" as my Phase set up. Hard to be precise…it's just a "feel" one gets after looking at file after file . Eleanor