Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on May 02, 2014, 03:22:18 pm
-
Hi,
Diglloyd is know for his meticulous tests of cameras and lenses, and he is now testing a Rolleiflex Hy6 medium format camera. He is still in early testing.
Diglloyd is mostly a pay site, but I enjoy his analysis enough to subscribe to a few of his web sites. Subscribing to a site is about 50$, little money for anyone considering a major investment in a new system.
His reports are here: http://diglloyd.com/index-dap.html#Hy6Mod2
Best regards
Erik
-
Seems to me that these cameras are now supermodels, you are supposed to pay to look, not to touch ...
Edmund
Hi,
Diglloyd is know for his meticulous tests of cameras and lenses, and he is now testing a Rolleiflex Hy6 medium format camera. He is still in early testing.
Diglloyd is mostly a pay site, but I enjoy his analysis enough to subscribe to a few of his web sites. Subscribing to a site is about 50$, little money for anyone considering a major investment in a new system.
His reports are here: http://diglloyd.com/index-dap.html#Hy6Mod2
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi Edmund,
I don't really see your point.
Regarding Lloyd's reviews, he is making part of his living by writing about stuff.
Personally, I am in a quite different situation, as I am just having photography as a hobby. So I can share my experience freely (like free beer), but I can only write about stuff I have bought and use daily.
I happen to be interested in technique and I find Diglloyd has some interesting info, so I subscribe to some of his sites now and than. One interesting thing with Diglloyd that he tests pretty much everything and he also has an open mind.
One disadvantage with Diglloyds analysis is that it is pretty much pixel peeping, and I am not really sure about how much that is relevant to real images in a real world. I cannot really see a lot of difference between say APS-C and "full frame" 135 in A2 size prints. So discussing microcontrast at actual pixels may not be relevant, as pictures are seldom viewed at actual pixels. It also seems that empirical reasearch has found that medium frequency detail dominates, with MTF at 20 lp/mm often mentioned, while pixel peeping is more in the 70 - 120 lp/mm range.
Best regards
Erik
Seems to me that these cameras are now supermodels, you are supposed to pay to look, not to touch ...
Edmund
-
I enjoyed meeting Lloyd, and it was interesting to see his method which is quite different than mine. I have lots of imatest runs of the lenses at all apertures but not so many sample images available so I am going to put up a bunch over the next weeks.
Here's a shot with the AFD 180/2.8 lens handheld at f/11 of my daughter with the Hy6 and AFi-ii 12 that you can view and download in full res. I think the detail is pretty amazing across the frame - check the fabric on the bottom edge.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5506/13896220557_0518e098a2_s.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/naXLeB)180mm AFD Sample - Portrait Kids 20140486 (https://flic.kr/p/naXLeB) by rolleiflexusa (https://www.flickr.com/people/100482978@N06/), on Flickr
Here's the direct link to the full size view: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rolleiflex-usa/13896220557/sizes/o/
-
It's no doubt an ok review for its type, but I always find it annoying when people link to his site and refuse to discuss, even in plain terms, the essence of what he "finds". I know it's a pay for view site, but surely if people don't plagiarise its contents it's okay to discuss conclusions? It'd make for a more interesting discussion here, at least.
-
It's no doubt an ok review for its type, but I always find it annoying when people link to his site and refuse to discuss, even in plain terms, the essence of what he "finds". I know it's a pay for view site, but surely if people don't plagiarise its contents it's okay to discuss conclusions? It'd make for a more interesting discussion here, at least.
Let's be clear: I like Lloyd's work, it is worth paying a subscription generally to see what the trends are. He has a point of view though, and is only competent within it - don't expect insights on the usability of a camera for sports.
As for value for money, the last few guys I sent profiles to on this forum never paid their $25 or so, and in fact I have found photographers generally such bad customers that I have stopped answering emails concerning profiles.
Edmund
-
Hi,
My impression is that he is not done with the review yet. On the other hand, the impression I get from his writing is that he feels that the lenses can not really keep up with the sensor (except in the central region) and that the sensor lacks in DR and colour fidelity compared to latest generation CMOS. But, he may come to other conclusions in a couple of weeks.
My take is that reading Lloyd's article would be a good spending for anyone planning to spend on the combo he tests.
Another point of view may be that a lot is happening in both 135 and MFD (read Pentax 645Z). Especially, 135 digital may go to 54 MP within a year and so, and seems to have the lenses to keep up with 54MP from Zeiss (Otus-line) and Sigma (Art-line).
But, I also gather that the real limitation may be the photographer, rather than sensor and/or lens. Making the best of today's sensors and lenses may be a real challenge!
Best regards
Erik
It's no doubt an ok review for its type, but I always find it annoying when people link to his site and refuse to discuss, even in plain terms, the essence of what he "finds". I know it's a pay for view site, but surely if people don't plagiarise its contents it's okay to discuss conclusions? It'd make for a more interesting discussion here, at least.
-
As for value for money, the last few guys I sent profiles to on this forum never paid their $25 or so, and in fact I have found photographers generally such bad customers that I have stopped answering emails concerning profiles.
Edmund
That's really bad form, indeed. I would never feed good about taking advantage of people in this way. I guess I'm just saying that speaking in general terms about the review should be fine, although there is definitely a line that when crossed would infringe on copyright.
Hi,
My impression is that he is not done with the review yet. On the other hand, the impression I get from his writing is that he feels that the lenses can not really keep up with the sensor (except in the central region) and that the sensor lacks in DR and colour fidelity compared to latest generation CMOS. But, he may come to other conclusions in a couple of weeks.
My take is that reading Lloyd's article would be a good spending for anyone planning to spend on the combo he tests.
Another point of view may be that a lot is happening in both 135 and MFD (read Pentax 645Z). Especially, 135 digital may go to 54 MP within a year and so, and seems to have the lenses to keep up with 54MP from Zeiss (Otus-line) and Sigma (Art-line).
But, I also gather that the real limitation may be the photographer, rather than sensor and/or lens. Making the best of today's sensors and lenses may be a real challenge!
Best regards
Erik
Thanks, Eric.
I've always had a hunch that the Hy6 was the best, modern digital MF platform. I've never had the pleasure of seeing one in the flesh, but the system options seem second to none. It's a real shame the platform isn't better supported or hasn't become the standard platform for Phase. This is all old ground to re-cover, I know. I just thought I'd say again anyway, for hope that someone high up is listening!
My impression too is that 80mpx is going to push the lenses on all DMF systems. And you are correct, much of the last few ounces of quality in terms of pixel level sharpness is always going to come down to perfect technique at this kind of resolution. More importantly though, for this kind of money you'd better LOVE the way the lenses draw and the system handles. Last thing anyone most people want is a clinical, aesthetically bland but sharp photo. Unless of course you're shooting charts and such.
-
That's the whole thing about this race ahead in MP, mostly meant at keeping some differentiation with smaller formats.
The look of these lenses is indeed probably wonderful, but so is the look of the Otus and many other much cheaper lenses.
If look is more important than technical perfection, then why do you need 80mp in the first place? A 22mp back will do the job perfectly fine, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sure, but in such a back it may be possible to have both great aesthetic quality and resolution, where technique is up to it. Otherwise, I agree. A M9 and noctilux produces pretty sweet looking results, too! Just not at 80mpx.
-
Let's be clear: I like Lloyd's work, it is worth paying a subscription generally to see what the trends are. He has a point of view though, and is only competent within it - don't expect insights on the usability of a camera for sports.
Having spent the day with him and observed his testing 'methods', I'm not sure there is much special about what he does - at least in the actual shooting, and its likely a different person might get different results because he made a lot of rookie mistakes that I would not expect of a seasoned photographer - for example when he used a remote release but out of fear of the camera falling in the river decided to cradle it with his hands during the exposure - oh yeah that's going to be sharp. What he should have done is repositioned his tripod so it was stable. Other times he forgot to lock down the tripod head. He didn't use a white balance card because he thought the reflection off of his shirt would influence the results (how about a gray shirt then?) - he complained later he couldn't get the right color balance. He had trouble focusing - the first shot he set up had the focus spot over the running water and it didn't lock so he turned off the auto focus and went manual, but didn't consitently focus check - never mind that DOF is going to be small with MFDB at 2 meters distance. Are the edges of the frame blurry because the lens is bad or because there's nothing within the focal plane? Might have been a good idea to check focus on something on the edge of the frame if that is what he was looking for. Unfortunately he was very resistant to any help from me or suggestions on how to better do something. He was extremely defensive. He didn't take notes or delete the images that were suspect saying he'd remember everything. Of course he was e-mailing me later to remind him which lens was shot first, etc. Later he complained that Capture One wasn't working for him - almost like he never used it before. Anyhow, I do not make much of his tests other than to highlight that working with a Medium format camera is different than the DSLR's and 4/3's cameras and that it takes practice and discipline to get the best results.
After his tests went live some photographers using the Hy6 wrote me to tell me they are getting better results and I quite agree. I immediately went out and took shots in my back yard with the same lenses and also got better results too. I'll be posting a bunch more sample images of nicer subjects than my yard at full res to show what's possible when you know the system.
He also really glossed over some of the best features of the camera, the ergonomics, the modular design with 4 different finders, interchangeable film and digital backs, focus trap, focus stepping, fast sync speeds up to 1/1000th at all times with the leaf shutter lenses. I dunno... its almost like he just wanted to find and accentuate the worst things he could find sort of like what he did with the A7R shutter vibration issue. We actually talked a bit about that. He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.
-
Thanks, Eric, for posting this here. Looks like he might have had preconceived notions and is just testing to confirm them. He wouldn't be the first. Has been Rollei's fate for the longest time. Not that they are perfect either, but nevertheless, they have wrestled with some undeserved bad publicity for a long time. Looking forward toward your findings.
-
If you are the one planning to use the camera in question, why can't people do their own subjective testing in real world scenarios? I mean, dealers are there for a reason, and many well comp you the rental fee(s) for the borrowed equipment if you purchase it from them within a certain timeframe...
Kinda like having someone else test-drive a car for you, but you're going to be the one driving it everyday.
-
If you are the one planning to use the camera in question, why can't people do their own subjective testing in real world scenarios? I mean, dealers are there for a reason, and many well comp you the rental fee(s) for the borrowed equipment if you purchase it from them within a certain timeframe...
Kinda like having someone else test-drive a car for you, but you're going to be the one driving it everyday.
+1
Absolutely agree with this. For anyone with interest in the Hy6, I have a demo kit available (with film back only sorry) but can meet anyone near the SF bay area with my own digital back for testing.
-
Hi,
Just as a comment, Lloyd has tested several MF cameras, but I got the impression that he found focusing problematic on most of them, with the Hasselblad H4 (?) being a possible exception. He very clearly had focusing issues on both the Pentax 645D and the Leica-S2, AF is just not exact enough and live AF did not work well enough on the backs he tested. The IQ-250 has excellent live view, it seems from the reports.
Lloyd is shooting with a few of the best lenses ever built for 135 format, the Coastal Optics 60/4 and the Zeiss Otus 50/1.4, both diffraction limited at f/5.6 or so and essentially without any colour aberration, so he has a very solid reference ground.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure that a very good lens with an IQ-2xx will outperform even an Otus on a 36 MP 135 format camera.
Something I would mention is that I think that we all do pixel peep a bit to much. Pictures are normally either shown on screen (which really only has 2MP resolution) or in print. Large prints viewed at very close are close to pixel peeping, but looking at pictures at 1:1 view on screen is very critical, because of the large pixel pitch on most monitors (a 4K monitor at 24" inch would be a better match for visual evaluation).
Next issue is that if you look at two systems of different resolution at actual pixels the system with higher resolution is always at disadvantage. Something I do is to up-res both images to print size. Say, if I print at 70x100 (cm) I would up-res to 200 PPI (because that is what my lab uses), than I would compare the pictures side by side at actual pixels. Still looking at that file on screen would correspond to 140x200 cm (as pixel pitch on screens is normally 100PPI or so.
In general, I got the impression that from my experience is that the more controlled the experiment is the more similar the results would be. For instance, shooting a colour checker for WB and adjusting exposure to match can reduce differences between systems quite a lot. Build a colour profile for both and they will become even more similar. Personally, I shoot P45+ and Sony Alpha 99 and I cannot tell the two apart in A2 (16"x23") prints, but I am pretty sure I could see a difference in large prints.
The enclosed screen dumps may illustrate the matter a bit. They show a crop from DPreview's test images at actual pixels in the first image and the second shows the A7r image upsized to IQ-180 short dimension. In the first image the Schneider 80/2.8 LS lens on the IQ-180 shows some weakness while the 85/1.4 ZA-Sonnar on the A7r is essentially sharp. The second picture shows that the up-rezzed image from the A7r falling apart. The third one is a screen dump at 1:2 size, which would correspond more to 200 PPI viewed on print. As a side note, 20/20 vision resolves high contrast detail at around 180 PPI when viewed at
50 cm. So the third image is close to what an observer with 20/20 vision would see in a 145x109 cm (57"x43") print viewed at 0.5 m distance.
Sorry for not using my own images, but I don't have neither an IQ-180 nor an A7r. Would I use my own images there would be a lot of blaming of my technique. The images are available in raw form from DPReview for anyone. I feel this is proper use demonstrating some aspects of testing.
Best regards
Erik
I've always had a hunch that the Hy6 was the best, modern digital MF platform. I've never had the pleasure of seeing one in the flesh, but the system options seem second to none. It's a real shame the platform isn't better supported or hasn't become the standard platform for Phase. This is all old ground to re-cover, I know. I just thought I'd say again anyway, for hope that someone high up is listening!
My impression too is that 80mpx is going to push the lenses on all DMF systems. And you are correct, much of the last few ounces of quality in terms of pixel level sharpness is always going to come down to perfect technique at this kind of resolution. More importantly though, for this kind of money you'd better LOVE the way the lenses draw and the system handles. Last thing anyone most people want is a clinical, aesthetically bland but sharp photo. Unless of course you're shooting charts and such.
-
Well,
I actually don't agree. A test drive will not really give you a lot of info, you drive/shoot for an hour or so. A tester has the stuff a much longer time, a car tester may be able to compare with different cars and even may have the option to drive it on the track.
But, folks are different. Myself, I try to read up as much as possible before committing to something. Get as much information as possible and match to my economy and needs. I have not bought any photo equipment I was able to hold before buying since 2008 (that happened to be a Velbon 630 tripod).
Best regards
Erik
If you are the one planning to use the camera in question, why can't people do their own subjective testing in real world scenarios? I mean, dealers are there for a reason, and many well comp you the rental fee(s) for the borrowed equipment if you purchase it from them within a certain timeframe...
Kinda like having someone else test-drive a car for you, but you're going to be the one driving it everyday.
-
Having spent the day with him and observed his testing 'methods', I'm not sure there is much special about what he does - at least in the actual shooting, and its likely a different person might get different results because he made a lot of rookie mistakes that I would not expect of a seasoned photographer - for example when he used a remote release but out of fear of the camera falling in the river decided to cradle it with his hands during the exposure - oh yeah that's going to be sharp. What he should have done is repositioned his tripod so it was stable. Other times he forgot to lock down the tripod head. He didn't use a white balance card because he thought the reflection off of his shirt would influence the results (how about a gray shirt then?) - he complained later he couldn't get the right color balance. He had trouble focusing - the first shot he set up had the focus spot over the running water and it didn't lock so he turned off the auto focus and went manual, but didn't consitently focus check - never mind that DOF is going to be small with MFDB at 2 meters distance. Are the edges of the frame blurry because the lens is bad or because there's nothing within the focal plane? Might have been a good idea to check focus on something on the edge of the frame if that is what he was looking for. Unfortunately he was very resistant to any help from me or suggestions on how to better do something. He was extremely defensive. He didn't take notes or delete the images that were suspect saying he'd remember everything. Of course he was e-mailing me later to remind him which lens was shot first, etc. Later he complained that Capture One wasn't working for him - almost like he never used it before. Anyhow, I do not make much of his tests other than to highlight that working with a Medium format camera is different than the DSLR's and 4/3's cameras and that it takes practice and discipline to get the best results.
After his tests went live some photographers using the Hy6 wrote me to tell me they are getting better results and I quite agree. I immediately went out and took shots in my back yard with the same lenses and also got better results too. I'll be posting a bunch more sample images of nicer subjects than my yard at full res to show what's possible when you know the system.
He also really glossed over some of the best features of the camera, the ergonomics, the modular design with 4 different finders, interchangeable film and digital backs, focus trap, focus stepping, fast sync speeds up to 1/1000th at all times with the leaf shutter lenses. I dunno... its almost like he just wanted to find and accentuate the worst things he could find sort of like what he did with the A7R shutter vibration issue. We actually talked a bit about that. He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.
Thanks for the insight.
-
Hi,
The issue with A7r shutter vibration has been reported by Lloyd first, but confirmed by others.
One reason that it is observed by some photographers but not by others is probably that it depends quite a bit on camera/lens/pivot point combination. Another is that it is most visible in on tripod shots with very acute details (like test charts). It is not really visible as camera shake. It would not affect handheld shooting, as it would be dampened by hand holding.
Jim Kasson has published a lot of info on the vibration issue, this is just an entry point: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=4713
One of Jim's observations is the A7, which has electronic first curtain, doesn't have the problem and it is very hard to achieve the same level of sharpness on the A7r as on the A7 in a limited shutter speed range (like 1/12 to 1/160 s).
Personally, I am quite interested in the A7 series, but I felt that the A7r was rushed out. The A7 has a newer sensor, with on sensor phase detecting AF and electronic first curtain. Also, the A7 designation indicates that it is not top of the line, I guess an A9 may be around to Photokina or later. That one may be more interesting for me.
Another reservation I have is the lens program. It seems that some lenses are really good, and there may be coming some really nice lenses.
Interestingly, the 24-70/4 Zeiss got very bad critics at Photozone and SLR-gear and pretty good one at DxO. Tim Ashley, who went trough a lot of stuff recently was enthusiastic about that lens, so he decided to sell of his Leica stuff and go Sony only: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/3/the-sony-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-24-70mm-f4-za-oss-hallelujah
I am not really a believer in testing stuff in a couple of hours. I have had my P45+ for 10 months now and I still don't feel I have a clear opinion on it. But I am only an occasional shooter.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
A few observations, Lloyd discusses viewfinder options in his article and he also discusses ergonomics. Now, ergonomics is also a bit of taste. He also discusses short shutter times and the low level shutter vibration from the leaf shutter.
He was not happy with live view (or lack thereof), and the screen on the back, which was not up to his standard, and he prefers electronic viewfinders.
It seems that he located the best focus in his images, even if you miss focus, something is going to be in focus. That spot sharpens up nicely when stopping down, indicating there is no problem with camera shake.
There are some colour demosaic artifacts that indicate proper focus, as it means that some point in the picture is just detected on a single pixel.
Also, he notes some colour fringing that goes away when stopping down. A bit to much, could be said. An Otus, Sigma Art or Coastal Optics lens would not have visible fringing even fully open.
Best regards
Erik
Having spent the day with him and observed his testing 'methods', I'm not sure there is much special about what he does - at least in the actual shooting, and its likely a different person might get different results because he made a lot of rookie mistakes that I would not expect of a seasoned photographer - for example when he used a remote release but out of fear of the camera falling in the river decided to cradle it with his hands during the exposure - oh yeah that's going to be sharp. What he should have done is repositioned his tripod so it was stable. Other times he forgot to lock down the tripod head. He didn't use a white balance card because he thought the reflection off of his shirt would influence the results (how about a gray shirt then?) - he complained later he couldn't get the right color balance. He had trouble focusing - the first shot he set up had the focus spot over the running water and it didn't lock so he turned off the auto focus and went manual, but didn't consitently focus check - never mind that DOF is going to be small with MFDB at 2 meters distance. Are the edges of the frame blurry because the lens is bad or because there's nothing within the focal plane? Might have been a good idea to check focus on something on the edge of the frame if that is what he was looking for. Unfortunately he was very resistant to any help from me or suggestions on how to better do something. He was extremely defensive. He didn't take notes or delete the images that were suspect saying he'd remember everything. Of course he was e-mailing me later to remind him which lens was shot first, etc. Later he complained that Capture One wasn't working for him - almost like he never used it before. Anyhow, I do not make much of his tests other than to highlight that working with a Medium format camera is different than the DSLR's and 4/3's cameras and that it takes practice and discipline to get the best results.
After his tests went live some photographers using the Hy6 wrote me to tell me they are getting better results and I quite agree. I immediately went out and took shots in my back yard with the same lenses and also got better results too. I'll be posting a bunch more sample images of nicer subjects than my yard at full res to show what's possible when you know the system.
He also really glossed over some of the best features of the camera, the ergonomics, the modular design with 4 different finders, interchangeable film and digital backs, focus trap, focus stepping, fast sync speeds up to 1/1000th at all times with the leaf shutter lenses. I dunno... its almost like he just wanted to find and accentuate the worst things he could find sort of like what he did with the A7R shutter vibration issue. We actually talked a bit about that. He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.
We actually talked a bit about that. He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.
Thanks for the insight.
-
Jim Kasson has published a lot of info on the vibration issue, this is just an entry point: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=4713
One of Jim's observations is the A7, which has electronic first curtain, doesn't have the problem and it is very hard to achieve the same level of sharpness on the A7r as on the A7 in a limited shutter speed range (like 1/12 to 1/160 s).
Hi Erik,
Slightly off-topic in this thread, but just for the record .. Jim Kasson has indeed tested the A7 series at length and amongst the blog posts you've linked to, he published a 4-part series entitled 'COMPARING SONY A7 AND A7R SHARPNESS'. His conclusion was
'My conclusion is that even at the camera’s worst shutter speed, the a7R images have higher resolution and micro-contrast than the a7 images. Therefore if you’re shooting in landscape orientation at focal lengths of 135 mm and shorter, and are willing to go to a little trouble to mount your gear carefully, then you’ll get better IQ with the a7R than with the a7 at all shutter speeds.'
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5080
M
Edit:
He also wrote an interesting post on the A7 v the Leica M240, http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5073, " Bottom line, I wouldn’t worry about the AA filter on the Sony alpha 7."
-
Hi M,
I think you take that posting a bit out of context:
The A7r was mounted this way:
(http://blog.kasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/L1004621.jpg)
and the A7 this way:
(http://blog.kasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/L1004644.jpg)
It says that you can tame vibration on the A7r in the horisontal position, but he has not found a solution for the vertical shooting position.
Joseph Holmes and Lloyd Chambers found that adding weight reduces the problem. Lloyd came up with a solution using the camera with a flash to add weight.
Personally I have my P45+ to play around with for 30+ MP. I will wait until I see where Sony goes with the lenses. Also, I am actually quite happy with my SLT 99, and my Hassy 555/P45+ combo. Time to take them on a walk…
Best regards
Erik
Hi Eric,
Slightly off-topic in this thread, but just for the record .. Jim Kasson has indeed tested the A7 series at length and amongst the blog posts you've linked to, he published a 4-part series entitled 'COMPARING SONY A7 AND A7R SHARPNESS'. His conclusion was
'My conclusion is that even at the camera’s worst shutter speed, the a7R images have higher resolution and micro-contrast than the a7 images. Therefore if you’re shooting in landscape orientation at focal lengths of 135 mm and shorter, and are willing to go to a little trouble to mount your gear carefully, then you’ll get better IQ with the a7R than with the a7 at all shutter speeds.'
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5080
M
-
I will wait until I see where Sony goes with the lenses [...] Time to take them on a walk…
Hi Erik,
For sure an interesting topic - possibly for another thread in a few months time - also tied in with the, as yet untested, A7s.
All best,
Manoli
-
Hi Manoli,
I was checking out DPReviews test image for the A7r in the recent couple of days and it is sharp although exposed at 1/15s. I was thinking about how they did it…
It seems that Sony found a new market with the A7, and I am pretty sure they will explore that market fully. It also seems that Sony will produce some decent lenses for the A# series.
So I am looking forward to new stuff, and new expenditure :-)
Let's go back to the Hy6…
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
For sure an interesting topic - possibly for another thread in a few months time - also tied in with the, as yet untested, A7s.
All best,
Manoli
-
Having spent the day with him and observed his testing 'methods', I'm not sure there is much special about what he does - at least in the actual shooting, and its likely a different person might get different results because he made a lot of rookie mistakes that I would not expect of a seasoned photographer - for example when he used a remote release but out of fear of the camera falling in the river decided to cradle it with his hands during the exposure - oh yeah that's going to be sharp. What he should have done is repositioned his tripod so it was stable. Other times he forgot to lock down the tripod head. He didn't use a white balance card because he thought the reflection off of his shirt would influence the results (how about a gray shirt then?) - he complained later he couldn't get the right color balance. He had trouble focusing - the first shot he set up had the focus spot over the running water and it didn't lock so he turned off the auto focus and went manual, but didn't consitently focus check - never mind that DOF is going to be small with MFDB at 2 meters distance. Are the edges of the frame blurry because the lens is bad or because there's nothing within the focal plane? Might have been a good idea to check focus on something on the edge of the frame if that is what he was looking for. Unfortunately he was very resistant to any help from me or suggestions on how to better do something. He was extremely defensive. He didn't take notes or delete the images that were suspect saying he'd remember everything. Of course he was e-mailing me later to remind him which lens was shot first, etc. Later he complained that Capture One wasn't working for him - almost like he never used it before. Anyhow, I do not make much of his tests other than to highlight that working with a Medium format camera is different than the DSLR's and 4/3's cameras and that it takes practice and discipline to get the best results.
After his tests went live some photographers using the Hy6 wrote me to tell me they are getting better results and I quite agree. I immediately went out and took shots in my back yard with the same lenses and also got better results too. I'll be posting a bunch more sample images of nicer subjects than my yard at full res to show what's possible when you know the system.
He also really glossed over some of the best features of the camera, the ergonomics, the modular design with 4 different finders, interchangeable film and digital backs, focus trap, focus stepping, fast sync speeds up to 1/1000th at all times with the leaf shutter lenses. I dunno... its almost like he just wanted to find and accentuate the worst things he could find sort of like what he did with the A7R shutter vibration issue. We actually talked a bit about that. He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.
While I have always been critical of Lloyd's problems with focus with many camera bodies, I don't believe he has ever claimed he was a professional photographer.
-
While I have always been critical of Lloyd's problems with focus with many camera bodies, I don't believe he has ever claimed he was a professional photographer.
Agreed, and I never suggested that he is billing himself that way, and I have nothing against him personally or am suggesting that all of his work is flawed. My experience and observations are limited to that one day and it could have been that he just had a bad day - he himself stated he wasn't feeling well.
Regarding the focus issues - he had his contacts in instead of glasses. This could have impacted his focusing since these don't have any close up corrections - bifocal glasses might have been more useful. He had mentioned he took a very high value of correction in the contacts - something like 9 or 10 diopters. I showed him how to adjust the diopter on the lupe finder, but instead of doing this himself, he told me to just set it to neutral which I could only estimate as on the lupe its not marked. I never understood why he didn't want to turn it himself until it his view became sharp, but it was things like this that made me feel he didn't get the best results he could have from the Hy6.
Every time I tried to suggest he check something like focus he'd bristle and tell me how well he knew his stuff in a very defensive way. One one occasion he did allow me to focus the camera for him on a setup with the small stick on a rock. I misunderstood where he wanted the focus and assumed he wanted it on the stick, but he wanted the face of the rock so he suggested we just adjust the focus ring using the distance indicators. Well okay, I moved it and he said move it more. Fine but no real way to know even this shot was focused really correctly. I think Lloyd was assuming that a lot more would be within the DOF but with MFDB its really thin. In my imatest chart tests, I've noticed that the apex of focus is considerably sharper and quite noticeable. Just a cm of distance correction can be seen in the data.
-
Look, let's just agree that MF is not in Lloyd's domain of competence.
Most of us already knew that anyway.
As for the Hy6, it just never got the commercial push it needed, if Leaf sold a $10K package it might do well opposite the Pentax, with its nice lenses and WLF.
Edmund
Agreed, and I never suggested that he is billing himself that way, and I have nothing against him personally or am suggesting that all of his work is flawed. My experience and observations are limited to that one day and it could have been that he just had a bad day - he himself stated he wasn't feeling well.
Regarding the focus issues - he had his contacts in instead of glasses. This could have impacted his focusing since these don't have any close up corrections - bifocal glasses might have been more useful. He had mentioned he took a very high value of correction in the contacts - something like 9 or 10 diopters. I showed him how to adjust the diopter on the lupe finder, but instead of doing this himself, he told me to just set it to neutral which I could only estimate as on the lupe its not marked. I never understood why he didn't want to turn it himself until it his view became sharp, but it was things like this that made me feel he didn't get the best results he could have from the Hy6.
Every time I tried to suggest he check something like focus he'd bristle and tell me how well he knew his stuff in a very defensive way. One one occasion he did allow me to focus the camera for him on a setup with the small stick on a rock. I misunderstood where he wanted the focus and assumed he wanted it on the stick, but he wanted the face of the rock so he suggested we just adjust the focus ring using the distance indicators. Well okay, I moved it and he said move it more. Fine but no real way to know even this shot was focused really correctly. I think Lloyd was assuming that a lot more would be within the DOF but with MFDB its really thin. In my imatest chart tests, I've noticed that the apex of focus is considerably sharper and quite noticeable. Just a cm of distance correction can be seen in the data.
-
Hi,
Just to make a point, Lloyd is complaining both about autofocus and manual focus. It is also interesting to note that Lloyd was first to notice shutter vibration on the A7r, which has been confirmed quite convincingly by Jim Kasson, Jospeh Holmes and others. The loss of sharpness is very much measurable. This is actually a quite strong evidence that a folks who don't observe it are either lucky or ignorant. They can have a combo that is not sensitive to those vibrations or they are just not observant enough to see the problem. It would not be a problem for handheld shots for instance, handholding makes for a decent level of damping vibrations, but also adding vibrations of it's own.
It is well known that AF is not very accurate. It seems that Canon made a strong leap forward in that area with the 5DIII and new lenses, but before that AF was not working very well. It is not very probably that MF would be ahead in AF performance.
Joseph Holmes looked a lot into focusing and came up with the suggestion of using a 3X monocular for manual focusing. I tried that approach but I now have an eyepiece made for my own vision that doesn't work with my Zeiss monocular, unfortunately. I try to focus as exactly I can and stop down to f/11 normally to reduce the significance of focusing errors. I have noticed that f/11 will cause a small degradation of image quality due to diffraction. Life is a compromise…
Lloyd shoots a lot at maximum aperture. Shooting at f/8 or f/11 is much less demanding. I would also point out that Lloyd is an ophthalmologist by profession (AFAIK) so he knows a few things about human vision.
Best regards
Erik
While I have always been critical of Lloyd's problems with focus with many camera bodies, I don't believe he has ever claimed he was a professional photographer.
-
I would also point out that Lloyd is an ophthalmologist by profession (AFAIK) so he knows a few things about human vision.
Not sure about that one, Erik K - my understanding is that he was a software engineer before.
-
This is awkward. A third party tests the Hy6 and finds issues. So you'd think OK…there are issues.
Then Eric is now saying the testing wasn't so good. Not ideal for Lloyd or Eric, not to mention the rest of us.
Without having subscribed to Digilloyd, I haven't read the test and so don't know what he said. But if the critique is focus accuracy - that's an odd one: once the lenses on the Hy6 are dialed in (focus offset setup correctly), they are pretty much sharp and on the money. If the issue is edge to edge sharpness, that's true enough on the 40mm, but not IMO on the other lenses. But maybe he saw something in his testing that some of us have missed.
If the critique is more broad, and that the lenses are not sharp, well… time for a new test. That just doesn't pass muster.
I've seen some of Eric's work with the 80 mp back, and its pretty amazing. More local use of a Leaf 7 II (33mp) isn't as extreme as the 80 mp, but a 60, 90 and 150 Rollei Schneider were tested against a 55 Apo Sironar, 90 Rodie HRW (older one) and a 150 Apo Sironar with the same back… and the Rollei/Schneiders sure didn't give anything up. Not at all.
Attached is a screen save of a test of three 150mm lenses on the leaf back, the first two Rollei/Schneiders, the last one a Schneider 150 on a tech camera. It was done some time ago, but is (I think) ISO 50, f11, 100% crops, center of the image.
-
Hi,
If you compare MTF data for say a Hasselblad 50/3.5 HCII (as measured by Hasselblad) and the Schneider Super-Angulon 2.8/50 HFT PQS data published by DHW, there is little doubt that the Hasselblad is quite a bit better, at least assuming that 10/20/40 lp results are shown. That would be in line with Lloyd's findings. The Super Angulon was used for two of Lloyds test shots.
The reason I looked at Hasselblad MTF data is that they publish MTF data measured on actual samples of all their lenses.
The lens he found best was the Apo Symmar 4/90 PQS.
The other two lenses were Apogon 80/2.8 and the Zeiss 110/2 Planar.
Lloyd tests all apertures, the lenses improve when stopped down to medium apertures.
Normally he does a lot of testing. Normally he shoots a mural mosaic for sharpness. This time he has a 3D object where he locates different points that are in focus and analyses rendition. I guess he just had stuff a short time.
Lloyd tests at all apertures, most of the lenses have some axial chromatic aberration at large apertures, that goes away at f/5.6 - f/8, Lloyd complains but not a big deal.
I would also add that most of us do to much pixel peeping. There is lots of research indicating that low to medium frequency details dominate human vision, like 20 lp/mm on 135 frame, but we look a lot of what is visible only on screen like 96 lp/mm detail.
On the other hand, we have a few really excellent lenses coming from Zeiss in the Otus line and we are going to see some 54 MP sensors in a year or so. Todays 24MP APS-C sized sensors would deliver 54 MP if scaled up to full frame, so the technology is already here. Sony seems to push CMOS sensor prices down, else they could couldn't produce full frame cameras around 2kUSD.
Now, an Otus 50/1.4 with a camera body for say 3k$ would total at around 8k$. A truly excellent lens on a 50+ MP sensor. It seems that the new Sigma 50 is a good match for the Otus stopped down to f/5.6. It would possible to buy a Pentax 645Z for eight grand, with no lens. The European/Israeli competition is much more expensive. So I guess competition will heat up a bit.
This review by Lloyd Chambers is quite a lot shorter than usual. Different samples would give better information. His findings are not very clear. The major findings are that the lenses are not on par with the 80 MP sensor except in the central part of the image and that the sensor gives significantly less DR than later generation Sony sensors. He also feels that Sony colour reproduction is better, but that may have a lot to do Capture One (that he is not used to) and finding colour balance. Another factor is that colour is highly subjective. Accuracy can be measured but measuring perception is very hard.
A small observation is that if the lenses are not on par with sensor, a 60 MP sensor may be a better and more economical alternative. The IQ-250 has similar DR to other Sony sensors and would avoid the corners of the lenses, but for some reason Phase backs seem not to be available for Hy6 and Leaf doesn't have a CMOS sensor yet. Anyway a 1.3X crop back is only an alternative if no "real wide" wide angles are needed. Pentax and Hasselblad have 24 mm lenses.
Personally I shoot P45+ on Hasselblad V, and the widest lens I have is 40 mm, I would like to have wider, but often I stitch instead. Doing a lot of stitching on the Hassy.
Best regards
Erik
This is awkward. A third party tests the Hy6 and finds issues. So you'd think OK…there are issues.
Then Eric is now saying the testing wasn't so good. Not ideal for Lloyd or Eric, not to mention the rest of us.
Without having subscribed to Digilloyd, I haven't read the test and so don't know what he said. But if the critique is focus accuracy - that's an odd one: once the lenses on the Hy6 are dialed in (focus offset setup correctly), they are pretty much sharp and on the money. If the issue is edge to edge sharpness, that's true enough on the 40mm, but not IMO on the other lenses. But maybe he saw something in his testing that some of us have missed.
If the critique is more broad, and that the lenses are not sharp, well… time for a new test. That just doesn't pass muster.
I've seen some of Eric's work with the 80 mp back, and its pretty amazing. More local use of a Leaf 7 II (33mp) isn't as extreme as the 80 mp, but a 60, 90 and 150 Rollei Schneider were tested against a 55 Apo Sironar, 90 Rodie HRW (older one) and a 150 Apo Sironar with the same back… and the Rollei/Schneiders sure didn't give anything up. Not at all.
Attached is a screen save of a test of three 150mm lenses on the leaf back, the first two Rollei/Schneiders, the last one a Schneider 150 on a tech camera. It was done some time ago, but is (I think) ISO 50, f11, 100% crops, center of the image.
-
Regarding the MTF curves comparison - these are sort of useful but its hard to know much without having the lp/mm figures for each curve. Some manufacturers use calculated curves, some measured, but in the case of those posted its hard to know if the top curve is 10 lp/mm, 5 lp/mm or 20lp/mm. Hard to say since neither chart shows those figures, and also the Rollei curves are displayed out to 40mm while the HB curve only 35mm. Chart's presented also are not matched in apertures - f/2.8 vs f/3.5 and second f/5.6 vs f/8 so what can you really say about the relative lens performance with these charts?
Like Daniel, I still advocate doing one's own testing when possible. Besides seeing what you'd actually get, you'll also know if the camera's ergonomics suit you as well as many other things besides just sharpness.
-
Hi,
Hasselblad has always measured data and they specify conditions. White light, 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. The Rollei site does not give the parameters but 10/20/40 is pretty much standard. As Rollei representative you may find out exactly. Interestingly enough, Schneider specifies the LS lenses for Phase One at 15/30/60 lp/mm. As Rollei does not give the lp/mm figures I do assume that they are 10/20/40, because that is pretty much recommended within the European industry. The Phase One lenses are different designs from the Rollei lenses.
I hope that answers the questions about the MTF curves.
Hasselblad normally specify the light and lp/mm on the data sheet, I enclose another example, macro lenses. Top Rollei bottom Hasselblad.
Best regards
Erik
Regarding the MTF curves comparison - these are sort of useful but its hard to know much without having the lp/mm figures for each curve. Some manufacturers use calculated curves, some measured, but in the case of those posted its hard to know if the top curve is 10 lp/mm, 5 lp/mm or 20lp/mm. Hard to say since neither chart shows those figures, and also the Rollei curves are displayed out to 40mm while the HB curve only 35mm. Chart's presented also are not matched in apertures - f/2.8 vs f/3.5 and second f/5.6 vs f/8 so what can you really say about the relative lens performance with these charts?
Like Daniel, I still advocate doing one's own testing when possible. Besides seeing what you'd actually get, you'll also know if the camera's ergonomics suit you as well as many other things besides just sharpness.
-
Having spent the day with him and observed his testing 'methods', I'm not sure there is much special about what he does - at least in the actual shooting, and its likely a different person might get different results because he made a lot of rookie mistakes that I would not expect of a seasoned photographer - for example when he used a remote release but out of fear of the camera falling in the river decided to cradle it with his hands during the exposure - oh yeah that's going to be sharp. What he should have done is repositioned his tripod so it was stable. Other times he forgot to lock down the tripod head. He didn't use a white balance card because he thought the reflection off of his shirt would influence the results (how about a gray shirt then?) - he complained later he couldn't get the right color balance. He had trouble focusing - the first shot he set up had the focus spot over the running water and it didn't lock so he turned off the auto focus and went manual, but didn't consitently focus check - never mind that DOF is going to be small with MFDB at 2 meters distance. Are the edges of the frame blurry because the lens is bad or because there's nothing within the focal plane? Might have been a good idea to check focus on something on the edge of the frame if that is what he was looking for. Unfortunately he was very resistant to any help from me or suggestions on how to better do something. He was extremely defensive. He didn't take notes or delete the images that were suspect saying he'd remember everything. Of course he was e-mailing me later to remind him which lens was shot first, etc. Later he complained that Capture One wasn't working for him - almost like he never used it before. Anyhow, I do not make much of his tests other than to highlight that working with a Medium format camera is different than the DSLR's and 4/3's cameras and that it takes practice and discipline to get the best results.
After his tests went live some photographers using the Hy6 wrote me to tell me they are getting better results and I quite agree. I immediately went out and took shots in my back yard with the same lenses and also got better results too. I'll be posting a bunch more sample images of nicer subjects than my yard at full res to show what's possible when you know the system.
He also really glossed over some of the best features of the camera, the ergonomics, the modular design with 4 different finders, interchangeable film and digital backs, focus trap, focus stepping, fast sync speeds up to 1/1000th at all times with the leaf shutter lenses. I dunno... its almost like he just wanted to find and accentuate the worst things he could find sort of like what he did with the A7R shutter vibration issue. We actually talked a bit about that. He said the A7R was close to useless because of it, but I said - and it seems true- that lots of photographers including a number of pros were making fine images with it.
Thanks for the observations. It has been my impression that his reviews are a guide, but not a final answer. For example: I have no difficulty with focus on the 645D, despite his claims. He tests a lot of equipment, that's what drives subscribers to his site, sometimes too quickly.
-
Hm,
Have you tried to shoot at full aperture, shoot five frame with refocus between? If you get identical and sharp images focus is reproducible and exact.
What Lloyd has found with essentially all cameras that AF is not reproducible, that applies to Leica S2, Sony Alpha 900, all Nikons, Pentax 645D. Shooting at f/8 or so masks unprecise focus quite a bit.
Lloyd, like myself, wants live view. A well working live view with maximum magnification shows the actual pixels in the image. It essentially also shows some lens aberrations.
This article discusses focusing quite a bit: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html
Joseph Holmes used the P45 to replace 4x5" film, so he was very focused on taking it to the limit.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the observations. It has been my impression that his reviews are a guide, but not a final answer. For example: I have no difficulty with focus on the 645D, despite his claims. He tests a lot of equipment, that's what drives subscribers to his site, sometimes too quickly.
-
It may well be that the newest Hasselblad 50mm lens is also quite excellent, but I have no direct experience with it, and wouldn't dare to make any comment just based on some charts like is done above. Of course for a fast lens, facets more important to me than edge sharpness are the OOF character, the color, and rendering. When I am shooting an image wide open at f/2.8, my goal is normally to isolate the subject and its highly unlikely that I would place the subject on the edge of the frame, so of course so much of this talk is meaningless in real life situations.
-
Hi,
What is interesting that the 40 mm lens is not at all good, the separation between the sagittal and radial curves at 40 lp/mm indicates very significant astigmatism. That means that focus for structures in different directions say horisontal and vertical at the edge differs. If the curve is for 40 lp/mm it is not very good. Well it is actually bad.
The original Distagon 40/4 for the blad was also quite bad, but Zeiss developed a new lens IF (Internal Focus) designation which is pretty good (but probably has some lateral crhoma if my remembrance is OK). Anyway Hasselblad now designs their own lenses and the new lenses are mostly sharper than the old ones.
Anyway, a lens just transferring 20% MTF tangentially at 40 lp/mm will show some weakness pixel peeping on a sensor with nyquist limit at 96 lp/mm. Perhaps this would need some consideration befor discrediting Lloyd Chamber's testing. He sees what the MTF shows according to Schneider, you don't...
On the other hand, I don't really know if pixel peeping is relevant, but that is what both you, Lloyd and I do a lot.
Best regards
Erik
It may well be that the newest Hasselblad 50mm lens is also quite excellent, but I have no direct experience with it, and wouldn't dare to make any comment just based on some charts like is done above. Of course for a fast lens, facets more important to me than edge sharpness are the OOF character, the color, and rendering. When I am shooting an image wide open at f/2.8, my goal is normally to isolate the subject and its highly unlikely that I would place the subject on the edge of the frame, so of course so much of this talk is meaningless in real life situations.
-
Hm,
Have you tried to shoot at full aperture, shoot five frame with refocus between? If you get identical and sharp images focus is reproducible and exact.
...............
Best regards
Erik
Yes Erik, as a matter of fact I have, but since there are only a few lenses I would use wide open and rarely at that, it's not important to me.
When I purchased the 645D I tested the focus of every 645 and 67 lens I own. I used the 645 eyepiece magnifier as a focusing aid. I found I could achieve accurate manual focus with all my lenses and in most cases the magnifier was unnecessary. Was every test exactly reproducible? No, but the variation in focus was, in most cases, within acceptable limits. Once I stopped using the matrix AF and switched to a single AF focus point, I found the AF to be quite accurate as well. I almost always use f/8 or f/11 and so focus is rarely an issue for me.
I agree that the addition of live view will be a great benefit. My copy of the 645D appears to have equivalent path lengths to the eyepiece and the sensor and so the focus is accurate. That may not be true for every 645D or any camera where focus and image occur in different places.
The point of my comment was that Lloyd tests lots of items very quickly and his results are a guide, but not a final verdict.
Tom
-
It may well be that the newest Hasselblad 50mm lens is also quite excellent...
Yes, it really is. HB better made it really good. The version I was not that good which is why it probably needed a much better replacement (Like the Macro vs II is also a lot better than the vs I). This I have from actually using these lenses and not the MTF charts....
-
50mm used for copy work. ISO 50, f11. 33mp back, but no softness. Jpg reduced in size, TIFF is sharper.
-
Hi,
Thanks for your response.
I checked out Lloyd's test again, and he was testing it for over a month perhaps more. He also tested it with 17 lenses, so it was not a quick test. Yes he found AF problemetic but he also found AF problematic on all other cameras, including Canon and Nikon. He also has taken up the route of using a 3X monocular for focusing, a technique I have also tried on my Hasselblad 555. The positive side of the 3X monocular is that it gives 9X magnification with the prism finder the minus side is that it only works on the central part and doesn't work with my special made ocular adopted to my vision.
So Lloyd found that AF was not exact enough, and manual focus to be difficult. Aside from that he found the camera highly recommended.
Getting back to AF, Roger Ciala has published a series tests of AF on different cameras which is an interesting read:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/autofocus-reality-part-4-nikon-full-frame
These clearly indicates that:
- AF used to be far less reliable than LV manual focus or LV contrast based AF
- But later generation systems got better
- The improvments needed were in both camera and lenses
These problems were also reported by Lloyd Chambers. So he is not especially critical of MFD, but finds that AF has limitations. He also sent quite a few Nikons back to factory because of alignment problems between sensor and lens mount. As the cameras worked better after repair they were working correctly, Lloyd's findings were probably right.
I guess the guy knows what he is doing.
As a side note, I am shooting Sony. Generally I shoot at f/8, or so, and I don't feel that AF precision is an issue for me. I use live view, if I can. Live view was actually the feature I missed on my Sony Alpha 900.
Best regards
Erik
Yes Erik, as a matter of fact I have, but since there are only a few lenses I would use wide open and rarely at that, it's not important to me.
When I purchased the 645D I tested the focus of every 645 and 67 lens I own. I used the 645 eyepiece magnifier as a focusing aid. I found I could achieve accurate manual focus with all my lenses and in most cases the magnifier was unnecessary. Was every test exactly reproducible? No, but the variation in focus was, in most cases, within acceptable limits. Once I stopped using the matrix AF and switched to a single AF focus point, I found the AF to be quite accurate as well. I almost always use f/8 or f/11 and so focus is rarely an issue for me.
I agree that the addition of live view will be a great benefit. My copy of the 645D appears to have equivalent path lengths to the eyepiece and the sensor and so the focus is accurate. That may not be true for every 645D or any camera where focus and image occur in different places.
The point of my comment was that Lloyd tests lots of items very quickly and his results are a guide, but not a final verdict.
Tom
-
Let's be clear: I like Lloyd's work, it is worth paying a subscription generally to see what the trends are. He has a point of view though, and is only competent within it - don't expect insights on the usability of a camera for sports.
As for value for money, the last few guys I sent profiles to on this forum never paid their $25 or so, and in fact I have found photographers generally such bad customers that I have stopped answering emails concerning profiles.
Edmund
Edmund,
One of the best things I ever did was to sign up with Photodeck to sell my images.
I no longer have discussions with new clients about price, I no longer have to spend time and money chasing payment. They search, select, pay then download. I now get my money before they get the image.
Even if they do correspond I set the results up on Photodeck, they know what it will cost and if they want it they have to pay upfront for it.
I would suggest you don't supply until they have paid. It's so easy with Paypal to send and receive across the Globe these days. Failing that I bet you could put your profiles on Photodeck, market them and have people buy and download them while you sit on the beach with a bottle of wine in your hand and couple of Girls at your feet, Dolce Vita .
-
You make the whole thing sound so worthwhile ...
Seriously, that's very good advice, and I think I shall do something like that.
Edmund
Edmund,
One of the best things I ever did was to sign up with Photodeck to sell my images.
I no longer have discussions with new clients about price, I no longer have to spend time and money chasing payment. They search, select, pay then download. I now get my money before they get the image.
Even if they do correspond I set the results up on Photodeck, they know what it will cost and if they want it they have to pay upfront for it.
I would suggest you don't supply until they have paid. It's so easy with Paypal to send and receive across the Globe these days. Failing that I bet you could put your profiles on Photodeck, market them and have people buy and download them while you sit on the beach with a bottle of wine in your hand and couple of Girls at your feet, Dolce Vita .
-
You make the whole thing sound so worthwhile ...
... and not too difficult, these 'guys' haven't changed their one page web site since 2006. www.jfilabs.com
-
I find that Lloyd tends to focus (no pun intended) on focus issues and lens performance. He has kind of an exhaustive library of tests with lots of different lenses. I would say going in, that handing him a camera to review is going to result in negative issues pointed out prominently, and indeed, emphasized. There are a scant few cameras/lenses that he has found among the many he's reviewed that he's expressed enthusiasm for without too much highlight on the compromises.
That's fine. As Edmund sort of said - he works within his own somewhat limited testing perspective.
I do kind of question the results and the environment, especially given Eric's added narrative of events. 3D environment to check edge to edge focus? The end of a branch hovering in the air over a gushing stream is not sharp? Just shooting anything with a stiff wind can create challenges - even if the subject matter is static. I appreciate that he pays so much attention to the glass - that is absolutely right. But I wouldn't draw firm conclusions from his analysis - I say put in in your hands and see how you do. Kudos to Eric for tagging along - it could have been worse without you on hand. Too bad you didn't have a Credo 80 for him (not that it would have made much difference).
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
Thanks for your comments, Steve, always appreciated. I can agree that resolution at actual pixel levels may not be as important as some of us may think. But I also feel that many customers buy MF because the image quality and resolution may be a significant part of that.
Another point may be that usability, focus and lens quality may be factors in choosing MF systems as the sensor itself is often the same. For instance, the IQ-250, the new CMOS-based Hasselblad and the Pentax 645Z use the same sensor and I am pretty sure that Leaf and Phase MFDs have much in common. So lenses, usability, vibrations and focusing ability may be important differentiators. For instance the Hasselblad has now live view on the back, can be a disadvantage in the field, but "True Focus" may be helpful in the studio.
Having followed Lloyds writings a long time I have an appreciation of his work. Generally he shoots different subjects, including a large mural, landscape and so on. The kind of 3D scene in this test is useful to check bookeh. The way he works is to find in focus areas and analyze them.
Having a lot of experience with different lenses helps in seeing different issues, like the very obvious magenta/blue fringing. I can see a lot of that on my Zeiss lenses of older design. The MTF data that DHW publishes on those lenses is quite reminiscent of the corresponding MTF data for Zeiss lenses I have, which my be an indication that they are older designs. MTF data for the LS lenses for the Phase One cameras is in a different league, but it needs to be kept in mind that those data are shown at higher frequency than older data. European recommendations used to be 10/20/40 lp/mm but the LS lenses are shown at 15/30/60 lp/mm.
Saying that MTF data is not relevant is simply stupid. That is the data that lens designers use for constructing the lenses. Well, they also use ray tracing, optical bench analysis and so on. All that work is done in software based at the design state.
To me it seems that Eric Hiss comments are more about discrediting Lloyd than being constructive. A good example is him talking about the shutter vibration issue of the A7r. Lloyd has noted it first, I have seen it analysed to death but it is very clear that the problem is real. It is a small vibration degrading the image. Not very obvious, not like double contours, but the system may not deliver if used in the affected speed range if used with high quality lenses. Jim Kasson has published around a dozen articles of the issue. It is an issue Sony needs to fix.
If someone using the A7r is not affected by the issue, congratulation to that person. The vibration is obviously depending on system mass, pivot point, moment of inertia, but it is pretty obvious that the issue is real. It is good to be aware of the issue if you buy a 5k$ lens and a 2k$ camera body for optimum quality.
So using the A7r shutter vibration issue to discredit Lloyd's testing, is not only stupid, ignorant but also dishonest. Offering a system for an independent tester and than discrediting the results seems highly unprofessional to me. If you send a system for test you face the consequences. Has Eric Hiss checked out the diglloyd site before handling out equipment for test he would have known what to expect.
Remark: I feel obliged to mention that I did have a significant argument with Eric Hiss on these forums, so it may be that I have an axe to grind.
Best regards
Erik
I find that Lloyd tends to focus (no pun intended) on focus issues and lens performance. He has kind of an exhaustive library of tests with lots of different lenses. I would say going in, that handing him a camera to review is going to result in negative issues pointed out prominently, and indeed, emphasized. There are a scant few cameras/lenses that he has found among the many he's reviewed that he's expressed enthusiasm for without too much highlight on the compromises.
That's fine. As Edmund sort of said - he works within his own somewhat limited testing perspective.
I do kind of question the results and the environment, especially given Eric's added narrative of events. 3D environment to check edge to edge focus? The end of a branch hovering in the air over a gushing stream is not sharp? Just shooting anything with a stiff wind can create challenges - even if the subject matter is static. I appreciate that he pays so much attention to the glass - that is absolutely right. But I wouldn't draw firm conclusions from his analysis - I say put in in your hands and see how you do. Kudos to Eric for tagging along - it could have been worse without you on hand. Too bad you didn't have a Credo 80 for him (not that it would have made much difference).
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Remark: I feel obliged to mention that I did have a significant argument with Eric Hiss on these forums, so it may be that I have an axe to grind.
So the truth behind your dis is revealed? Very big of you to admit it Mr. Kaffehr. I'll take your admission as a sort of apology. It does seem like you have had arguments with other people on this forum too, so this new self reflection of yours is a headed in the right direction. Do you think we can move on now?
Actually I had been thinking about how to post my own sample images from the Hy6 and lenses - it sort of merits its own thread since the DOF is quite thin for medium format compared to 4/3rds and even DSLR's - especially at close distances. Working with with MF is different in this regard. If it was easy for Lloyd to assume he'd catch something in the DOF to evaluate the lens, and then didn't (and wrongly assumed he was seeing something was soft when in reality it was just out of focus) then probably a lot of other people encounter this too. When I was reviewing shots in my image catalog taken with the 50mm f/2.8, it struck me how thin the DOF really was at f/2.8 and also how it seems that the focus peak was visible, and I think this might be of general interest.
-
Steve,
Yes I had to tag along since it was all my own personal gear and not too far away from home. Anyhow, I'd love to have a Credo back at some point even if I keep my AFi-ii 12. I'll have to talk to you about that at some point. :) The AFi-ii 12 is still so unique for the revolving sensor that matches the ergonomics of the Hy6 so well. But the Credo is so much faster and the screen is really great. Nice to have the instant zoom to 100% for focus checks.
-
When I was reviewing shots in my image catalog taken with the 50mm f/2.8, it struck me how thin the DOF really was at f/2.8 and also how it seems that the focus peak was visible, and I think this might be of general interest.
Hi Eric,
Indeed, the DOF in the plane of optimal focus is actually very narrow. However, that is when pixel peeping on a monitor. Due to the relatively larger sensor dimensions, the final output magnification is smaller, hence the DOF will look deeper than up close on display, and the defocus can seem to transition smoother from sharp to blurred.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You make the whole thing sound so worthwhile ...
Seriously, that's very good advice, and I think I shall do something like that.
Edmund
Not only do they buy online from Photodeck, but you build a data base of people that actually know the value of what you are selling, I can't recommend Photodeck enough.
Tuesdays sales paid for the year subscription, so for me a cheap option too.
-
No,
Something called honesty. My perception is that you have a tendency to miscredit anyone who has opinions and experience that contradicts your. Your example of Lloyd's report on the A7r is a clear example of this. The issue is totally irrelvant to the Hy6, Lloyd actually tells in his report the Hy6 is vibration free, because MLU/selftimer is correctly implemented and leaf shutters are vibration free.
But you spreed two pieces of false information:
- Once, you imply that Lloyd's article on A7r shutter vibration is a sign of incompetence/irrelevance
- You also imply that the the issue is irrelevant because many people are satisfied with the images the A7r makes
Now, that issue has been troughly investigated by others, Joseph Holmes, Jim Kasson and others and confirmed to be real. So why do you comment on stuff that you don't understand?
Regarding our past communication, I essentially stated that little difference can be seen between 24 MP DSLR and MFDB in A4 images.
I have been criticized for:
- For using SQF
- You demonstrate that you can achieve better SQF with more sharpening (which is true, but true for all formats)
- For using test images from test sites instead my own
- Having bad technique
- Having bad focus
- Having bad lenses
- Have bad sharpening (which may be true, but that would apply two all images MFD or DSLR). I sharpen a bit more than what is recommended by Jeff Schewe for landscape iamges and I don't sharpen in both Capture One and LR as you indicate you do.
I have used test-site images to eliminite my equipment as a factor, so you are blaming me for that than you blame me for bad technique on my own images.
But fact is that quite a few MFD posters essentially say what I have observed, little or no difference in A2 size prints.
Best regards
Erik
So the truth behind your dis is revealed? Very big of you to admit it Mr. Kaffehr.
-
For a brief moment, hope was that this was behind us. Point made. Can the discussion please move on?
-
Hi Geoffrey,
You are obviously right. The topic is the Hy6 test on the diglloyd site.
Best regards
Erik
For a brief moment, hope was that this was behind us. Point made. Can the discussion please move on?