Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Paul2660 on January 09, 2016, 03:28:08 pm
-
Lots of stuff on this link. Appears that C1 9.0.3 will be needed to really work the files, due to the known issue of green cast on LCC conversion. But a lot of downloadable files. Indoor shoot only from what I can tell, but a lot of files to work with.
Here is the link:
https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-technical-camera-testing/ (https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-technical-camera-testing/)
Paul C
-
Thanks for the link. Lots of files to look at. This will take time to digest :)
-
I've made an initial look with my tools, and it looks quite good.
The back seems to be more robust for horizontal shifts in landscape orientation (I think the IQ250 was the same) so it's not really a fully conclusive test. Looking at the shift amounts they have tested it seems like they have been very aware of the limitations, or found the "limits" with trial-and-error as the test shots do have more horizontal shift than vertical rise/fall. I would guess that past the provided max values in this test there's a sharp falloff in performance.
I can see with my tools that there is crosstalk in the files, but I really need some established reference to say something useful if it's much or not, it's too long ago I was deep into it. It's not so huge that you get any obvious demosaicing failures in any case, but the files are often quite underexposed (noisy) with soft details so it's much harder to evaluate than Doug's library test with the IQ250.
-
Hi,
More than I ever would have asked for but I would not complain!
Thanks CI!
Best regards
Erik
Lots of stuff on this link. Appears that C1 9.0.3 will be needed to really work the files, due to the known issue of green cast on LCC conversion. But a lot of downloadable files. Indoor shoot only from what I can tell, but a lot of files to work with.
Here is the link:
https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-technical-camera-testing/ (https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-technical-camera-testing/)
Paul C
-
I would have liked to see 15mm of shift on the 32mm.
Paul C
-
Paul, I'm envisioning a crazy rig... Arca MF2 / Dex focal plane shutter / IQ3 100 / 'Blad CFi/e glass. Crazy I tell you. Id just need an ultra-wide solution. I'm going to test my 'Blad glass with the new back on the XF Wednesday. No shifts, but at least I can judge sharpness of the lenses.
CB
-
Paul, I'm envisioning a crazy rig... Arca MF2 / Dex focal plane shutter / IQ3 100 / 'Blad CFi/e glass. Crazy I tell you. Id just need an ultra-wide solution. I'm going to test my 'Blad glass with the new back on the XF Wednesday. No shifts, but at least I can judge sharpness of the lenses.
CB
Chris,
I would be very interested in seeing your results from shooting the old V system glass on the 100 Mp back. In my experience, the 40/4 IF CFE renders beautifully on the IQ160 (very sharp) and some of the other old lenses perform quite nicely as well. I've pasted in an example below, shot with the 40/4 IF CFE @ f/11 on a 501CM so no shifts or tilts. You can go to the image on my Flickr site if you'd like to see the full size jpg (only cropped out the lower 1/3 of the image to make it square). I used default sharpening and mild lens-specific sharpening in C1 (yes there's a profile for this lens in C1!), and then mild sharpening in CC. The detail of the upper part of the tower holds up pretty well, IMHO.
- John
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1560/23652646954_53e3e2cc22_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/C36ZTQ)CF003498_C1 (https://flic.kr/p/C36ZTQ) by John Ngai (https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_n_berk_pics_xyz/), on Flickr
-
I've attached a few measurements.
It shows:
* IQ3200 40HR shifted right 15mm - from CI tests
* IQ3200 32HR shifted up 10mm and right 10mm - from CI tests
* IQ250 32HR shifted left 15mm and up 15mm - from Doug's library test
* IQ260 32HR shifted left 15mm and up 15mm - from Doug's library test
There are two heat maps per combination.
The first shows the signal loss, that is how many stops the channel (red green or blue) that vignettes most loses. If it's green it's less than one stop, yellow less than 4 stops, red more than 4 stops. That is if you have 15 stops of DR and loses 4 stops in the corner, you have 11 stops left there.
The second heat map shows crosstalk. Unfortunately crosstalk cannot be that accurately measured as the results depends on the light. The more similar red and blue content in the illuminant the lower crosstalk numbers, it does not mean that there is less crosstalk but only that the measurement can differ between what's crosstalk and what's real signal (and that is the problem that makes crosstalk so hard to correct for).
As the light probably has not been 100% the same between Doug's library test and CI's test it's not 100% comparable, but my guess is that it's about the same.
Anyway, the green means less than 1.5% which is normal variation, yellow less than 1.5-10% crosstalk, and red is 10%-30%
A few comments of the results.
* IQ3100 loses a bit more signal than IQ260, but it's probably compensated in full with the better DR of the sensor.
* IQ250/IQ3100 has the same crosstalk behavior (you see the same pattern, if they had been shifted same amount the heat maps would look very similar, minus the difference in sensor size), the IQ3100 may/might have a bit less crosstalk but not with much.
* The 40HR with 15mm right shift has negligible problems. I shall look at larger shifts later.
* The Sony sensors holds up better sideways and up/down concerning crosstalk.
* The IQ260 which is shifted to hard vignette in the example would have less than 5% worst case if not hard vignetting for the 32HR, ie not an issue.
From these test resluts it seems like the IQ3100 will yield similar results as to the IQ250 regarding shifting, possibly a little better but no big difference.
I think 10mm rise/fall is too little for this sensor size, I think one should push the tests to at least 12-15mm.
-
Added CI's 40hr with 18mm left and 10mm up.
As you can see the crosstalk pattern is always the same, but here it only reaches 12% in the worst red zones while the 32hr pushed it to 24%.
How much is acceptable? That's up to you. Crosstalk means that red green and blue is mixed, that is tonality performance is reduced (colors gets gradually more desaturated and similar), and as green1 and green2 starts separating you eventually get demosaicing failures too (mazing).
For me personally I think I could live with the 40hr performance and shift without thinking, while the 32hr would feel more like a center frame lens, you will risk tonality when shifting it by any sizable amount. However as it looks okay in most cases I think many will do sizable shifts with it anyway.
This is obviously about shoehorning in a digital back that was not designed for these lenses, and we are pushed to compromise one of the classic key features of medium format -- superior tonality -- in the red zones it becomes probably worse than your mobile phone camera in that aspect, but the center is good and the CMOS feature set is of course hard to resist...
-
Added CI's 40hr with 18mm left and 10mm up.
As you can see the crosstalk pattern is always the same, but here it only reaches 12% in the worst red zones while the 32hr pushed it to 24%.
How much is acceptable? That's up to you. Crosstalk means that red green and blue is mixed, that is tonality performance is reduced (colors gets gradually more desaturated and similar), and as green1 and green2 starts separating you eventually get demosaicing failures too (mazing).
For me personally I think I could live with the 40hr performance and shift without thinking, while the 32hr would feel more like a center frame lens, you will risk tonality when shifting it by any sizable amount. However as it looks okay in most cases I think many will do sizable shifts with it anyway.
This is obviously about shoehorning in a digital back that was not designed for these lenses, and we are pushed to compromise one of the classic key features of medium format -- superior tonality -- in the red zones it becomes probably worse than your mobile phone camera in that aspect, but the center is good and the CMOS feature set is of course hard to resist...
Thanks for the analysis of crosstalk! It's consistent with my mazing artifact test results. I will upload my files to dropbox and if you are interested to take a look you are welcome. (But I have an ADSL connection and the uploading speed is a pain)
-
Thank you Anders that is very helpful. Obviously anyone thinking about this back will do their own tests, but all this work you guys are doing helps to determine whether it is worth even considering. My widest lens is the 40hr, and I don't stitch that lens. I do shift it for geometry corrections, and of course use tilt. I often stitch my others (60xl, 90hrsw, sk150) but those are less of a concern. So for me it may be worth looking into.
Again thank you CI, Doug, Anders, Bart, Yunli and others.
-
Added the SK60XL to the measurements. Note that as the SK60XL is a symmetric lens, it puts similar stress on the sensor like the weakly retrofocus 40HR. If you use the 60XL's huge 110mm image circle to the edge you may even put more stress on the sensor than the 40HR at its 90mm IC edge.
-
I could not find on the CI web page if they used a CF on the 60xl. Does anyone know?
It looks like no.
Dave
-
torger,
Will it be possible to see "heat map" results for the centred 23HR?
-
Rob, I'll do a heat map for that too later, meanwhile here's more comparison for the SK60XL. My expectation for the center frames is that all are 100% okay, the reason being that the sensor has offset microlenses and thus works extra well for center frames.
The 80MP Dalsa suffers from the smaller pixels and get some minor issues, you can even see that it gets higher crosstalk number than the IQ3100 on the 60XL (12% instead of 11%), but it's more predictable and really on the edge while 3100 reaches it's peak number further in.
That the 80MP back has some more issues than the 60MP is known, and I always thought the 60MP to be a better choice for tech wide angle. However if the 80MP is good for you today, the IQ3100 doesn't lead to that sharp increase in issues so it may work out.
EDIT: added new with the 23hr. Up to 14% crosstalk, a bit more than I expected for a center frame. Not ideal, but the hot zones are pretty small and I'm more worried with the 32hr 10mm shift than the 23hr centered.
-
torger,
...added...the 23hr.
Thanks very much.
-
Paul, I'm envisioning a crazy rig... Arca MF2 / Dex focal plane shutter / IQ3 100 / 'Blad CFi/e glass. Crazy I tell you. Id just need an ultra-wide solution. I'm going to test my 'Blad glass with the new back on the XF Wednesday. No shifts, but at least I can judge sharpness of the lenses.
CB
I don't share any of your enthusiasm regarding the older V lenses. I have most of the lenses you have except the 40 and have found them all to be substandard when compared to modern Rody's or Schneider's. Even the smaller A7rll sensor showed signs of sub-par sharpness. Just my observations of several years......
Victor
-
I don't share any of your enthusiasm regarding the older V lenses. I have most of the lenses you have except the 40 and have found them all to be substandard when compared to modern Rody's or Schneider's. Even the smaller A7rll sensor showed signs of sub-par sharpness. Just my observations of several years......
There are some examples in neighboring threads, and yes they're soft at pixel peep compared to the tech cam lenses. However they seem to behave well regarding aberrations, so it's really only that softness that's the issue. They probably make fine prints.
Actually I'd like to have that softness out of my tech cam lenses too (an image that's smooth at pixel peep never get ugly pixelation regardless of upsizing), maybe some 400 megapixels or so will give me that look :)
-
Assuming the Rodenstock Digarons were designed with the Dalsa 6um technology in mind, which is not unlikely, their target seemed to have been to keep crosstalk below about 5% when within hard vignette (as seen in my heat maps, which should only be seen as an approximate relative crosstalk measurement, a filtered LCC shot is required for more exact absolute number). It's probably a reasonable limit.
In certain conditions you can do with very high crosstalk and still not get issues, a surface which is close to neutral in color and have little micro detail can handle high amounts. Higher micro contrast and colors more different than the color of the illuminating light will increase likelihood of issues. As it happens when you shoot the things that end up in the hot zones often have low contrast, low detail, low saturation, and you're fine.
After LCC was applied I did not see any visible problems in any of the CI shots related to crosstalk, but the hot zones were exactly in such parts of the image where it's unlikely to get issues.
It's quite rare to get into a situation with the opposite effect, where crosstalk effects is exaggerated. This makes it difficult for me to decide what level is okay to live with. Sure if I had the choice to get a 60MP CMOS which behaved more like the old Dalsa CCD rather than getting this 100MP it would be an easy choice, but now it's either go with CMOS which has these properties or get a CCD. Or sit with the CCD you already have and wait until the next generation CMOS comes along and hope things improve. We've not seen BSI yet at this size. Phase One is also good at giving you an upgrade offer you can't refuse :), so it shall be interesting to see how many tech users that makes the move.
-
I have most of the lenses you have except the 40 and have found them all to be substandard when compared to modern Rody's or Schneider's.
Fortunately, with the set I've acquired, that hasn't been my experience at all. I don't have any great tech lenses left, but here is the 40mm CFe (left) compared to the Rodenstock 45mm Apo-Sironar Digital (right). A7r2.
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/t31.0-8/12493813_10207371693105608_1454965447184743545_o.jpg)
-CB
-
Fortunately, with the set I've acquired, that hasn't been my experience at all. I don't have any great tech lenses left, but here is the 40mm CFe (left) compared to the Rodenstock 45mm Apo-Sironar Digital (right). A7r2.
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/t31.0-8/12493813_10207371693105608_1454965447184743545_o.jpg)
-CB
Thanks for the above Chris... It's been a while since one presented a comparison of an MF lens with respect to a lens dedicated for view/tech cameras... Could you please comment on which lens (on the particular scene) is more color neutral? The color presentation between the two lenses is obvious (with the Rodenstock looking cooler than the CFe...) but is it that the scene is cooler or is the Hasselblad lens more accurate?
Another thing that interests me... Do you have any experience how the CFe compares to the Contax Distagon 35mm f3.5 for sharpness, distortion and CAs present? (not necessarily on a view camera).
-
Thanks for the great contribution, Anders!
* The Sony sensors holds up better sideways and up/down concerning crosstalk.
I don't quite get that: does the sensor hold up better sideways (=shifted) or up/down (=rise/fall)?
thanks,
geb
-
Thanks for the great contribution, Anders!
I don't quite get that: does the sensor hold up better sideways (=shifted) or up/down (=rise/fall)?
thanks,
geb
It shouldn't be different... (presumably that the pixels are square and the microlenses on them symmetrical to the entrance).
-
Fortunately, with the set I've acquired, that hasn't been my experience at all.
-CB
I wish my experiences more mirrored yours especially since I already owned a 60, 80, 120 and 180. I had thought about purchasing a 40 until I saw the associated price tags. It is regarded as a legendary V lens. My biggest disappointment was the 60mm which I found unusable - a shame! The 120 was relatively decent at closer distances but I found very lacking at or near infinity. Even the legendary 180mm was inferior, really inferior, when compared to my Schneider 180mm Digitar - which is one of the most outstanding lenses I own. So, all in all a big disappointment for me. Great that they work for you......
Victor
-
Thanks for the great contribution, Anders!
I don't quite get that: does the sensor hold up better sideways (=shifted) or up/down (=rise/fall)?
If you have the sensor in landscape orientation and shift sideways (left/right) it holds up better than if you shift up/down (rise/fall).
-
It shouldn't be different... (presumably that the pixels are square and the microlenses on them symmetrical to the entrance).
The reason that it's still different is that the wiring between pixels which is in front of the photodiode (it's not a BSI sensor) is as a side effect functioning as a light shield. If the pixels are wired together in horizontal rows rather than vertical columns you get a stronger light isolation between rows than between columns, and hence you get less crosstalk in that direction.
My description above is a bit simplified, I don't know exactly how the sensor physically looks in the electron microscope, but the point is that there's quite a lot more than photo diodes on the sensor, and the structure of that extra stuff is generally not symmetric and thus causes effects in how crosstalk flows when you increase the angle of incoming light past the designed maximum angular response.
Another interesting thing to know about this sensor is that like the IQ250 sensor the microlenses are offset to work better for center frames. It also makes shifted frames work a bit better (up to a certain limit) but the peak angular response performance is had for centered lenses.
Offset microlenses:
(http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/translation_img/products/o4j5/feature/func_0_3.png)
Didn't find any images for Sony sensors, but here's a ray simulation from Dalsa show how light hits wiring (the grey boxes):
(http://blog.teledynedalsa.com/wp-stuff/uploads/2012/05/Right-Edge-Pixel-non-shifted-b.png)
The Dalsa blog post is an interesting read for understanding crosstalk the visual way:
http://blog.teledynedalsa.com/2012/05/the-angle-on-optical-acceptance/
-
I wish my experiences more mirrored yours especially since I already owned a 60, 80, 120 and 180. I had thought about purchasing a 40 until I saw the associated price tags. It is regarded as a legendary V lens. My biggest disappointment was the 60mm which I found unusable - a shame! The 120 was relatively decent at closer distances but I found very lacking at or near infinity. Even the legendary 180mm was inferior, really inferior, when compared to my Schneider 180mm Digitar - which is one of the most outstanding lenses I own. So, all in all a big disappointment for me. Great that they work for you......
Victor
What back is that experience with? ...I by no means question your findings, but I suspect highly (without being sure yet) that MF lenses will look much better with backs that have microlenses on the sensor, while "traditional" view camera lenses will look better on CCD backs without microlenses on and of fairly "big" pixel (larger or near to 6μm...). I kind of developing a sense that the larger the distance of the lens last element to the sensor (focused to infinity), the more the lens will be "friendly" to small pixels with microlenses on...
-
The reason that it's still different is that the wiring between pixels which is in front of the photodiode (it's not a BSI sensor) is as a side effect functioning as a light shield. If the pixels are wired together in horizontal rows rather than vertical columns you get a stronger light isolation between rows than between columns, and hence you get less crosstalk in that direction.
My description above is a bit simplified, I don't know exactly how the sensor physically looks in the electron microscope, but the point is that there's quite a lot more than photo diodes on the sensor, and the structure of that extra stuff is generally not symmetric and thus causes effects in how crosstalk flows when you increase the angle of incoming light past the designed maximum angular response.
Another interesting thing to know about this sensor is that like the IQ250 sensor the microlenses are offset to work better for center frames. It also makes shifted frames work a bit better (up to a certain limit) but the peak angular response performance is had for centered lenses.
Offset microlenses:
(http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/translation_img/products/o4j5/feature/func_0_3.png)
Didn't find any images for Sony sensors, but here's a ray simulation from Dalsa show how light hits wiring (the grey boxes):
(http://blog.teledynedalsa.com/wp-stuff/uploads/2012/05/Right-Edge-Pixel-non-shifted-b.png)
The Dalsa blog post is an interesting read for understanding crosstalk the visual way:
http://blog.teledynedalsa.com/2012/05/the-angle-on-optical-acceptance/
Hmmm... it makes sense Anders!
-
What back is that experience with? ...I by no means question your findings, but I suspect highly (without being sure yet) that MF lenses will look much better with backs that have microlenses on the sensor, while "traditional" view camera lenses will look better on CCD backs without microlenses on and of fairly "big" pixel (larger or near to 6μm...). I kind of developing a sense that the larger the distance of the lens last element to the sensor (focused to infinity), the more the lens will be "friendly" to small pixels with microlenses on...
I haven't used the V lenses with any back that I own (Leaf/Credo 50, IQ 180). At the time of my experimentation I was using those lenses with my A7r/A7rll. It didn't take long to establish that those lenses just didn't have the same kind of resolving power that I was used to with Digitars on my Leaf/Phase backs. I took numerous identical images with both systems which showed remarkable differences not just with resolution but also with other lens aberrations. I now also have an Actus system where I could try the V lenses but it just seems to me like a waste of money to go through the exercise. I have a fairly extensive arsenal of Digitar lenses (35XLmm, 60XLmm, 72mm, 100mm, 120mm, 150mm, 180mm) some of which had to be tweaked by Schneider, which perform extraordinarily on both of my backs..... and looking forward to their performance on the 100MP which has been ordered. The V lenses, in my opinion, are just not in the same league.
Victor
-
I wish my experiences more mirrored yours especially since I already owned a 60, 80, 120 and 180. I had thought about purchasing a 40 until I saw the associated price tags. It is regarded as a legendary V lens. My biggest disappointment was the 60mm which I found unusable - a shame! The 120 was relatively decent at closer distances but I found very lacking at or near infinity. Even the legendary 180mm was inferior, really inferior, when compared to my Schneider 180mm Digitar - which is one of the most outstanding lenses I own. So, all in all a big disappointment for me. Great that they work for you......
Victor
I haven't used the V lenses with any back that I own (Leaf/Credo 50, IQ 180). At the time of my experimentation I was using those lenses with my A7r/A7rll. It didn't take long to establish that those lenses just didn't have the same kind of resolving power that I was used to with Digitars on my Leaf/Phase backs. I took numerous identical images with both systems which showed remarkable differences not just with resolution but also with other lens aberrations. I now also have an Actus system where I could try the V lenses but it just seems to me like a waste of money to go through the exercise. I have a fairly extensive arsenal of Digitar lenses (35XLmm, 60XLmm, 72mm, 100mm, 120mm, 150mm, 180mm) some of which had to be tweaked by Schneider, which perform extraordinarily on both of my backs..... and looking forward to their performance on the 100MP which has been ordered. The V lenses, in my opinion, are just not in the same league.
Victor
As much as I'm enamoured by my old V lenses, I'm not too surprised (although a little surprised by your experience with the 180). The 40 IF and 100 are touted to be a cut above the others and indeed are the sharpest in my kit, as judged on my IQ160 (6 micron pixel pitch). I'm guessing that CB will find the 40 (non-IF) and other lenses to go soft in the corners on the IQ3 100 but the results of his upcoming tests will speak for themselves.
I have my eye on the Rodie 40HR for when I migrate to a tech cam, but this is still only a wish based on want and not need. Still, I'd be interested in seeing a direct comparison of this lens with the Zeiss 40/4 IF. One might be at the point of diminishing returns on the IQ160, at least in terms of resolution, but the 100 Mp sensor may have pushed that point out a bit further.
Apologies to all if I've played a role in dragging this thread off-topic...
- John
-
I haven't used the V lenses with any back that I own (Leaf/Credo 50, IQ 180). At the time of my experimentation I was using those lenses with my A7r/A7rll. It didn't take long to establish that those lenses just didn't have the same kind of resolving power that I was used to with Digitars on my Leaf/Phase backs. I took numerous identical images with both systems which showed remarkable differences not just with resolution but also with other lens aberrations. I now also have an Actus system where I could try the V lenses but it just seems to me like a waste of money to go through the exercise. I have a fairly extensive arsenal of Digitar lenses (35XLmm, 60XLmm, 72mm, 100mm, 120mm, 150mm, 180mm) some of which had to be tweaked by Schneider, which perform extraordinarily on both of my backs..... and looking forward to their performance on the 100MP which has been ordered. The V lenses, in my opinion, are just not in the same league.
Victor
Do you question the testing that Chris did and that he posts above then? ...can you post some examples of your findings with the IQ 180?
-
Do you question the testing that Chris did and that he posts above then? ...can you post some examples of your findings with the IQ 180?
No.....of course not. His posts are for either an A7r or A7rll which is what I used for my testing of my V lenses. I never shot the V lenses with either of my MFDB's...... as stated in my above post.
Victor
-
Hi,
Yes, it is the distance between the outlet pupil and the sensor that decides the beam angle. So, DSLR (Distagon) type of lenses that need to provide room for mirror have the outlet pupil at a higher distance than symmetrical (Biogon type) lenses.
Best regards
Erik
What back is that experience with? ...I by no means question your findings, but I suspect highly (without being sure yet) that MF lenses will look much better with backs that have microlenses on the sensor, while "traditional" view camera lenses will look better on CCD backs without microlenses on and of fairly "big" pixel (larger or near to 6μm...). I kind of developing a sense that the larger the distance of the lens last element to the sensor (focused to infinity), the more the lens will be "friendly" to small pixels with microlenses on...
-
Hi,
I am somewhat surprised that Chris gets so good results with his 40/4 CFE. My 40/4 CF is not that great, in my very limited testing on the A7rII. Could be that he has a very good sample and that I have not very good one.
The 60/3.5 seems to be a pleasant surprise on the A7rII, on the other hand.
I have been using those lenses on the Hasselblad 555/ELD P45+ combo too, of course and findings were similar there. I have been trough a bunch of Hasselblad lenses, 150/4 (had two), 120/4 (had two), 180/4, 100/3,5, 80/2.8 (now sold), 60/3.5, 50/4 (now sold) and the 40/4. So I have seen quite a few samples.
It is entirely possible that the 40/4 yields very good results in practice, I was perfectly happy with it on the P45+. That said, I have seen quite a few bad corners in pixel peeping, but never in 16"x23" prints.
Best regards
Erik
No.....of course not. His posts are for either an A7r or A7rll which is what I used for my testing of my V lenses. I never shot the V lenses with either of my MFDB's...... as stated in my above post.
Victor
-
No.....of course not. His posts are for either an A7r or A7rll which is what I used for my testing of my V lenses. I never shot the V lenses with either of my MFDB's...... as stated in my above post.
Victor
Given that Chris testing was on the new P1 back and given that 1Q3-100 is the same pixel size, also has microlenses and (should be) of similar technology with the sensor used on the α7RII, the center of the image should exhibit similar results for different lenses with α7RII... don't you think? Can you please post some comparison with the tests you made with the α7RII then?
-
Assuming the Rodenstock Digarons were designed with the Dalsa 6um technology in mind, which is not unlikely, their target seemed to have been to keep crosstalk below about 5% when within hard vignette (as seen in my heat maps, which should only be seen as an approximate relative crosstalk measurement, a filtered LCC shot is required for more exact absolute number). It's probably a reasonable limit.
In certain conditions you can do with very high crosstalk and still not get issues, a surface which is close to neutral in color and have little micro detail can handle high amounts. Higher micro contrast and colors more different than the color of the illuminating light will increase likelihood of issues. As it happens when you shoot the things that end up in the hot zones often have low contrast, low detail, low saturation, and you're fine.
After LCC was applied I did not see any visible problems in any of the CI shots related to crosstalk, but the hot zones were exactly in such parts of the image where it's unlikely to get issues.
It's quite rare to get into a situation with the opposite effect, where crosstalk effects is exaggerated. This makes it difficult for me to decide what level is okay to live with. Sure if I had the choice to get a 60MP CMOS which behaved more like the old Dalsa CCD rather than getting this 100MP it would be an easy choice, but now it's either go with CMOS which has these properties or get a CCD. Or sit with the CCD you already have and wait until the next generation CMOS comes along and hope things improve. We've not seen BSI yet at this size. Phase One is also good at giving you an upgrade offer you can't refuse :), so it shall be interesting to see how many tech users that makes the move.
On the other hand, is there any chance that Rodenstock updates some of their lenses in recent years?
-
I could not find on the CI web page if they used a CF on the 60xl. Does anyone know?
It looks like no.
Dave
Hi Dave -
No Center Filters were utilized so as to keep in the spirit of the testing.
Steve Hendrix
-
Thank you Steve.
-
Hi Dave -
No Center Filters were utilized so as to keep in the spirit of the testing.
Steve,
Does that also apply to the Rodenstock 32 and 40mm lenses?
Thanks and thanks for these very informative tests!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Steve,
Thanks a lot for these test shots. This scene is very useful as it contains a lot of good detail, all over the image plane. Also it has high contrast so we can see how good shadow recovery works.
This is very good and useful stuff!
BTW, I really think Phase One pulled that rabbit out of that hat! Impressive back!
Best regards
Erik
Hi Dave -
No Center Filters were utilized so as to keep in the spirit of the testing.
Steve Hendrix
-
Given that Chris testing was on the new P1 back and given that 1Q3-100 is the same pixel size, also has microlenses and (should be) of similar technology with the sensor used on the α7RII, the center of the image should exhibit similar results for different lenses with α7RII... don't you think? Can you please post some comparison with the tests you made with the α7RII then?
I would agree with you regarding the performance of the V lenses on both sensors. However, this is really a moot point for me. If Chris or anyone is satisfied with the results given from their particular V lens then fine. I'm not pleased at all and never will be. I would be much happier if this weren't the case but it is - at least for me. I'll look around and see if I can find some examples of the V lenses on my A7rll but don't hold your breath. I can't shoot that camera any more as its in the bottom of a canyon in the Dolomites and I haven't replaced it.
Victor
-
Theodoros, the only files that I could find were lens chart samples. I always start with a lens chart for any lens test..... its not the tell all but a good starting point. This was shot at f11 and I've cropped the upper right hand corner to show how out of focus the lens was. Remember that this is with a crop sensor compared to the image circle of this lens. This all translates to real world images. What I recall about this lens is that none of this was due to curvature.... when I got close to the edges everything was out of focus, I couldn't find any sharp focus point either near or far.
Victor
-
Hi,
What you see here is astigmatism, sagittal and radial structures has different focus. Which camera is it on? Distagon 60/3.5 CF?
Best regards
Erik
Theodoros, the only files that I could find were lens chart samples. I always start with a lens chart for any lens test..... its not the tell all but a good starting point. This was shot at f11 and I've cropped the upper right hand corner to show how out of focus the lens was. Remember that this is with a crop sensor compared to the image circle of this lens. This all translates to real world images. What I recall about this lens is that none of this was due to curvature.... when I got close to the edges everything was out of focus, I couldn't find any sharp focus point either near or far.
Victor
-
Hi Erik..... I shot this on an A7Rll. I don't think this is a lens that is out of the ordinary but rather one that is of the norm. In general my experience has found that the V lenses are not up to the tasks that I need/expect. The lens is the Distagon 60/3.5 CF.
Victor
-
Fortunately, with the set I've acquired, that hasn't been my experience at all. I don't have any great tech lenses left, but here is the 40mm CFe (left) compared to the Rodenstock 45mm Apo-Sironar Digital (right). A7r2.
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/t31.0-8/12493813_10207371693105608_1454965447184743545_o.jpg)
-CB
Chris, I've got a couple of those too!
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91018096/Screen%20Shot%202016-01-11%20at%202.20.25%20PM.png)
-
Hi,
What you see here is astigmatism, sagittal and radial structures has different focus. Which camera is it on? Distagon 60/3.5 CF?
Best regards
Erik
Agreed... as predicted by the published MTF curves for the 60/3.5 (http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF60.pdf (http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF60.pdf)) - a useful sanity check. A quick glance through the data on the collection of V series lenses (http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspxhttp://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx (http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx)) indicates that this lens was not the sharpest tool in the shed, both figuratively and literally. While perhaps not approaching the quality of the more modern tech cam lenses, the best of the V series are in a different league than the 60.
John
-
so I’ve been wanting to check out these images, but so far no 9.0.3?
-
Hi,
I sort of choose lenses based on focal length rather than sharpness. The way I see it none of the Zeiss wide angles for the V-series is really great. The exception may be the 40/4 CFE IF, but even that lens has a lot of either astigmatism or lateral colour according the MTF data. The great lenses are the two Sonnars, and the Planar 100/3.5. Some later generation superachromats are also great according to Zeiss MTF.
The Distagon I have is not that bad, according to those MTF curves. I am pretty sure I could live with it on a 100 MP back. The HC-lenses are a bit better according to their MTF curves. I don't know if anyone has tested HC-lenses on a 100 MP back.
The best lenses I have for the 'Blad' are the 180/4 and the 100/3.5. I have been trough some other lenses, like two Sonnar 150/4, two Macro Planar 120/4, Planar 80/2.8CFE and Distagon 50/4. I ended up keeping 40/4, 60/3.5, 100/3.5, 120/4 and 180/4. Of these lenses the 100/3.5 was the only one chosen for sharpness.
Best regards
Erik
Agreed... as predicted by the published MTF curves for the 60/3.5 (http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF60.pdf (http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF60.pdf)) - a useful sanity check. A quick glance through the data on the collection of V series lenses (http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspxhttp://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx (http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx)) indicates that this lens was not the sharpest tool in the shed, both figuratively and literally. While perhaps not approaching the quality of the more modern tech cam lenses, the best of the V series are in a different league than the 60.
John