Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?

[rethmeier]

I was going to do the test with Chris,however I've decided to have a beer with him instead.
The only way a test would be valid in my eyes,is with the same lens and in a studio.
I can't see a Rodenstock 23HR or similar mounted on a D3x,5DmkII or a Leica.

The lens and the Raw processor have to be the same as well.

As we all know,that Phase,Nikon ,Canon and Leica play with their Raw capture,it's still hard.

So far I'm happy with my D3x and the files certainly wipe the floor of my 6x8 trannies.

Regards,
Willem.

[Dustbak]

You could send us images taken with the various setups of the beer drinking  Naturally you are right having a beer and meeting pleasant company is much more important. Quite frankly who cares how which system performs. By now most of them are adequate for virtually everyone. So why bother  ? Thank god there is more to images than pixel quality.

[Dick Roadnight]

And those using a P65 don't need a toy like a d3x :-P.

Those using a P65+ (or the H3D11-60 I will have soon) may well have a requirement for a D3, M9, or something else superior to the P65+ in low ambient light situations if hi-res is not a requirement.

...do you have a spare P65+ system?

[Christopher]

Those using a P65+ (or the H3D11-60 I will have soon) may well have a requirement for a D3, M9, or something else superior to the P65+ in low ambient light situations if hi-res is not a requirement.

...do you have a spare P65+ system?

Nope one and a M9 is more than enough.

[ThierryH]

Some sensed words and acts, finally.

It leaves much better memories than doing those boring tests. Isn't it Willem?

Cheers,
Thierry

I was going to do the test with Chris,however I've decided to have a beer with him instead.
Willem.

[Christopher]

Some sensed words and acts, finally.

It leaves much better memories than doing those boring tests. Isn't it Willem?

Cheers,
Thierry

Well I'm still thinking about the test. I know for a fact that my P65 or even a P45 holds more DR than a M8, m9 or 5dii and even than a d3x. At all iso till 400. However, I wouldn't want to make a fast sloppy test. i don't have a studio access and so I am not sure if I really gonna waste my time to make a test for some people who prefer to stick to strict numbers as facts.

[rethmeier]

At Thierry,
I'll never forgot our first meeting in Bangkok.
What was it called again?
Vertigo or Moon Bar?
Imagine a bar with no railings on the top floor?
Anyway,I was (we) my future wife and I were off to Italy to get married in Puglia.
Great memories,
Best,
Willem.

[ThierryH]

Vertigo

Thierry

Vertigo or Moon Bar?

Willem.

[rethmeier]

@ Dustbak!
Volgende keer dat je in Sydney bent,geef even een belletje?
Groetjes,
Willem

[rethmeier]

Thanks Thierry,
I think the Moon bar was the "bar" and the restaurant was Vertigo,hence I purchased a bottle of Chateau Neuf du Pape, as I couldn't read the price list.Still one of those nights never to forget.
Regards,
Willem.

[ThierryH]

Christopher,

my guess is that it will be a waist of time, if your intention is to do it for others, respectively I am sure that all factors and conditions will never be met for others, thus your test "judged" as flawed. IMO everybody has to do his own tests.

Have a nice time in this wonderful city of Sydney,
Thierry

I am not sure if I really gonna waste my time to make a test for some people who prefer to stick to strict numbers as facts.

[rethmeier]

I couldn't agree more! with Thierry

[rethmeier]

Off topic!
2 views from my balcony.
Remember our dust storm in Sydney?
Taken with my Panasonic LX3 ,not my D3x.

[ThierryH]

you must be right, I had Vertigo in my mind, because it was "vertigo" in my head!
Always in my memories.

Bad thing not being able to read the price list in such a place!



Thierry

Thanks Thierry,
I think the Moon bar was the "bar" and the restaurant was Vertigo,hence I purchased a bottle of Chateau Neuf du Pape, as I couldn't read the price list.Still one of those nights never to forget.
Regards,
Willem.

[douglasf13]

You'll need to make sure you use the same lens on whichever cameras you're using for your DR comparison.  The following post has a link with a treasure trove of info about veiling glare and DR.

[ErikKaffehr]

Cristoph,

In my view a test would be helpful for those considering MFDBs but not sure about spending their money. Jsut putting some well exposed RAW images on the net that those with genuine interest can download, develop and print. No doubts, there will be a lot of comments.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

Well I'm still thinking about the test. I know for a fact that my P65 or even a P45 holds more DR than a M8, m9 or 5dii and even than a d3x. At all iso till 400. However, I wouldn't want to make a fast sloppy test. i don't have a studio access and so I am not sure if I really gonna waste my time to make a test for some people who prefer to stick to strict numbers as facts.

[bjanes]

Sorry i don't have a current Imatest license.  But that would be a good test.   No doubt shooting into backlight will reduce the contrast but what experienced photographer would do that (unless intended for purpose)?.  
Regarding the posts - I'm not trying to knock these guys but understand I'm not interested in taking that or anything on faith.  No guy from Berkeley, Harvard would make a post with conviction without referencing a study or linking to data.

An experienced photographer would avoid shooting into a back light if possible, but high contrast scenes are frequent and reduce the DR of the system. In fact, lens flare is a major impediment to HDR as demonstrated by John McCann in his lecture in which he presents ample data. (You do not need to view the entire document, but start at about 6 minutes in the timeline to see the pertinent section.) David Cardinal does have data from his collaboration that was published with the Stanford group. Your request for data is most appropriate. We have plenty of unsubstantiated assertions in this thread and there is a real need for data, which thus far is lacking.

For these high contrast situations, one should not have a filter over the lens, which should be multicoated and with as few air to glass surfaces as possible. The camera chamber should be well blackened. As John points out, one problem with digital cameras is the shiny surface of the sensor.

[Ray]

This person on Flickr seems to have a decent comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...6120567/detail/

Bill

       An excellent example of what not to do. For the benefit of anyone contemplating doing a serious comparison between the P65+ and the D3X, one should (1) pay particular attention to equalizing the FoV in one of the dimensions, through choice of lens focal length, and (2) one should equalize DoF by changing the F stop by the same multiplier that has been applied to the focal length.

The photographer on Flickr has completely ignored point (2) and got point (1) slightly wrong. The P65+ shot uses a 150mm lens at F11.  For a portrait aspect ratio, the equivalent FL for the D3X should be 90 mm, and the equivalent F stop either F6.3 or F7.1. The Flickr guy has used F13 with the D3X.

I think everyone except a complete beginner would appreciate that any good lens will be noticeably sharper at F6.3 than at F13 on a high-pixel-density camera such as the D3X.

In the following 100% crops, I downsampled the P65 image to the same file size as the D3X. If your monitor has a resolution of 120dpi, the 100% crops represent a print size of 33"x50". At larger sizes than this, the P65 would have a resolution advantage. In the crops below, the P65 actually does show a resolution advantage, but only as a result of an inappropriate choice of F stop.

[attachment=16795:P65_v_D3X.jpg]

[ErikKaffehr]

Ray,

In my humble opinion we may be happy that we have a good comparison. The person who published these pictures made a real effort to help.

Regarding your view on equalizing parameters I don't agree. Reason is that whatever DOF we need is dependent on setting. Landscape shooters normally focus on far away objects and may very well choose optimum aperture. In portrait we may strive for short depth of field.

Best regards
Erik

     An excellent example of what not to do. For the benefit of anyone contemplating doing a serious comparison between the P65+ and the D3X, one should (1) pay particular attention to equalizing the FoV in one of the dimensions, through choice of lens focal length, and (2) one should equalize DoF by changing the F stop by the same multiplier that has been applied to the focal length.

The photographer on Flickr has completely ignored point (2) and got point (1) slightly wrong. The P65+ shot uses a 150mm lens at F11.  For a portrait aspect ratio, the equivalent FL for the D3X should be 90 mm, and the equivalent F stop either F6.3 or F7.1. The Flickr guy has used F13 with the D3X.

I think everyone except a complete beginner would appreciate that any good lens will be noticeably sharper at F6.3 than at F13 on a high-pixel-density camera such as the D3X.

In the following 100% crops, I downsampled the P65 image to the same file size as the D3X. If your monitor has a resolution of 120dpi, the 100% crops represent a print size of 33"x50". At larger sizes than this, the P65 would have a resolution advantage. In the crops below, the P65 actually does show a resolution advantage, but only as a result of an inappropriate choice of F stop.

[attachment=16795:P65_v_D3X.jpg]

[Dustbak]

@ Dustbak!
Volgende keer dat je in Sydney bent,geef even een belletje?
Groetjes,
Willem

Doe ik zeker