Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: BJNY on March 06, 2010, 04:31:57 am
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/h3d50ii.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml)
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/h3d50ii.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml)
I might seem logical to compare the best Phase camera to the best Hasselblad camera before Hasselblad ship a better camera.
I have had no problems with the metering on my H3D11-50.
-
I was reading this comparison with great interest and surprise until i got to this bit:
"The dynamic range of a typical high-end professional 35 mm DSLR is around 7 F/stops. Medium Format cameras are closer to 13 F/stops of dynamic range. You can see the difference from 30 feet away in a small print."
Unfortunately that piece of misinformation just put a big question mark over the credibility of the whole piece. My point & shoot has more than 7 stops of dynamic range.
-
I was reading this comparison with great interest and surprise until i got to this bit:
"The dynamic range of a typical high-end professional 35 mm DSLR is around 7 F/stops. Medium Format cameras are closer to 13 F/stops of dynamic range. You can see the difference from 30 feet away in a small print."
Unfortunately that piece of misinformation just put a big question mark over the credibility of the whole piece. My point & shoot has more than 7 stops of dynamic range.
you really think that you have more than 7 usable stops with a CaNikon ?
-
I have two criticisms here:
- No comparison photograph of the newspaper with the p65
- My D3x has a decent amount of DR. I'd say it runs out of pixels faster than it runs out of DR.
Edmund
-
I have two criticisms here:
- No comparison photograph of the newspaper with the p65
- I took a P65 image yesterday, compared with a D3x in low light, ISO 800. The D3x has at least half a stop more DR.
Edmund
The highlight recovery and shadow fill features in Phocus 2 extend the DR of Hasselblads by at least 2 stops.
-
Both highlight recovery as well as shadow light fill in Phocus do come at a price.
I really wonder what the purpose is of any test when you know the ins-& outs of one system and have only limited experience with the other. Considering this, the Hasselblad shows remarkable performance. I consider it a nice personal exercition but no more than that.
AFAIK, zero'ing out Phocus will only leave a small curve instead of the linear rendition of reproduction mode but I am pretty sure David will correct me and fill this in where needed. The whole discussion about color I find totally irrelevant. This can be manipulated to whatever you like or want. If accurate color is your goal, this can be done too (without too much effort).
Anyway, thanks for the comparison.
-
I was reading this comparison with great interest and surprise until i got to this bit:
"The dynamic range of a typical high-end professional 35 mm DSLR is around 7 F/stops. Medium Format cameras are closer to 13 F/stops of dynamic range. You can see the difference from 30 feet away in a small print."
Unfortunately that piece of misinformation just put a big question mark over the credibility of the whole piece. My point & shoot has more than 7 stops of dynamic range.
I agree
I guess DXO mark is a good judge on that.
-
All and all, not a bad read.
I disagree with his comments about poor metering, as I've always been impressed with the metering capabilities of my H2F/CF39 -MS combo.
I often come across the red and blue blotches noted in the single shot image of the newspaper page taken with the Hassey. I've gotten into the habbit of using the color noise reduction slider in Phocus to completely eliminate those artifacts.
Color fidelity out of the box is probably more accurate with the PhaseOne camera. However, I find that it's very, very easy to tweak the color in Phocus. And, even if I were shooting with a P65, I'd end up tweaking the color. There is a big difference between "pleasing color" and "accurate" color.
I've used both the H and the Mamiya cameras. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. The menu system on the Hassey is a little clunky, but it does offer a tremendous amount of choices and customizing. It certainly gets the job done. I love being able to put a waste finder on the Hasselblad for copystand work.
In terms of fine art repro, multi-shot is without a doubt the better choice. I think that my CF39 MS would probably outperform the P65 in that capacity.
-
Perhaps David Grover would comment on:
A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE
In the past, one of the common complaints I used to hear from Hasselblad owners was that the CaptureOne
performed all kinds of magic on the files before rendering them as “without any adjustments”,
which wrongly lead people to believe that PhaseOne image quality was better than Hasselblad”.
After working with the Hasselblad software (Phocus) for several weeks,
there is no question in my mind that the situation (at least today) is the exact opposite.
There is a heck of a lot more image processing going on in Phocus than in C1
before an image is displayed (with all adjustments set to zero) in default mode.
It is crystal clear to me that before Phocus displays an image at its default settings,
with “no adjustments”, the software has already applied a large number of adjustments
to lead to a specific look in terms of contrast, color, saturation, clarity and sharpness.
The look is what I would call Velvia double plus.
Imagine the overly saturated and contrasty look of Velvia film and then punch it up not one, but two more notches.
This is what you get in Phocus with “no adjustments”.
While some photographers might like this look (I assume that many Hasselblad owners do),
personally I think it is grossly overdone. The shadows are way too dark, to the point of loosing much detail,
the upper mid-tones and highlights have too much contrast at first and too much compression on the high end;
finally, the color is so exaggerated that it is totally unreal.
There is a “Repro” mode somewhat hidden in the software menus,
which needs to be activated each and every time you open the application if you want to use it (!).
It is supposedly meant for people who need high color accuracy, such as folks making reproductions of fine art.
The very existence of this mode confirms that the software defaults to a specific look,
rather than accuracy or any semblance of “no adjustments”.
Repro mode is definitely more tame, the contrast is much more controlled and it brings back shadow and highlight detail.
In fact, the contrast can often be a little too low. But even in Repro mode the colors and the saturation are quite exaggerated.
As mentioned above, I had the advantage of being able to see the actual objects and compare them to the calibrated EIZO display in my computer,
as well as actual prints under controlled lighting conditions with a GTI Graphics print viewing station,
so the reader will have to trust me on the following comments:
The default mode with no adjustments in CaptureOne renders deadly accurate color and contrast in the PhaseOne images,
both, on the screen and in prints.
With the Hasselblad files, I had to turn on Repro mode, modify the contrast curve, desaturate the colors and adjust hues
before I could come close to matching the real objects either on the screen or in prints.
But even after doing all that, the PhaseOne colors still looked more accurate (perhaps a real expert in Phocus could do better than me).
-
you really think that you have more than 7 usable stops with a CaNikon ?
There's no question that i get more than 7 usable stops on my Nikons.
I rarely use more than 5 or 6, but I know there's at least 9-10 there, more if you want to go down in to the deep shadows.
I guess it all depends on what you consider a 'usable stop', but regardless, to say a mfd back has 6 more usable stops than 35mm is highly misleading.
-
I found this article interesting partly because I've been testing my own ixpress 528c multishot back against my own phase p20. I've come to the opposite conclusion as Mark has - but I eliminated the camera and lens differences in his testing by using the same camera and lens - a Rollei 6008AF with schneider 150mm apo macro (and some testing with the 90 apo macro). I had a job to shoot paintings in a gallery for catalog and possible reproduction and carefully shot both backs using the same lighting, camera and lens. It appears that he the ixpress has better color fidelity, dynamic range, and actually a cleaner iso 400 shot too. The multishot and microstep functions of the 528c just leave the phase P20 for dead when it comes to color, tonality, detail, noise, etc. These are older backs, but the current software for processing. YMMV.
I posted this to the other thread running on the article in the "About this site"
-
I simply can't believe that the H camera has exposure problems up to 2 stops as stated in the review.
I also do not believe that Mr. Dubovoy knows Phocus very well ... to me it sounds like an user error.
I don't know neither the H camera nor the software... but I'm sure we would read A LOT about such obvious errors or misbehaviour if they were the standard with the H system.
A real pitty that such tests/comparisions are not made as a collaboration of two photographers both knowing their systems.
Reminds me of the P65+ vs. H3D50MS comparision posted here some weeks ago that was totally screwed-up by the OP due to wrong software settings.
edit: this one - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=40416&st=0 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40416&st=0)
This is how both softwares look at default (respectively all settings to zero) posted by Niels v. Iperen:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&id=18969 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=18969)
And this is how both softwares look at default (respectively all settings to zero) posted by Steve Hendrix:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&id=18990 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=18990)
Apparently these two users did not experience the problems Mr. Dubovoy discovered...
-
In 2~3 years, I've used leaf 22, phase P25, P45 and now use CF-39MS.
I've very impressed 1st CF-39MS shot. It has huge difference about P45 single shot.
detail, sharpness, color... all of article, MS shot wins.
I agreed tho_mas opinion.
each software (C1, phocus, LC11) has a difference in many ways.
I think each MFDB maker have a difference about default setting.
It is MFDB maker's character, for example, phase has low noise in long exposures.
-
The only thing we can agree with this "test" is that it's totally biased, as he proudly announces before quietly demonstrating it.
Now, he alone could explain how he commits himself in this hilarious testing
Oh, the landscape photographer who writes : "My only reason for testing is that I want to know what the best tools are to help me make the best images considering my subject matter and working habits." and then he tests old newspaper lol
"Since I am interested in practical results, as opposed to endless scientific tests, I chose to use very simple sets that were essentially flat." Is your garden flat ? Ouch !
Or I suppose, he is just trying to convince his wife he did a good deal anyway (because of huge price gap between the two systems ?).
This kind of poor testings doesn't help, but just demonstrate the P1 people prefers their P1 and Hassy People their Hassy (as the opposite test demonstrated here exactly the contrary). But, we had raw files to analyze the results. Here we have Phocus at it's worst setting ... glurps
That was the joke of the day ! Thanks for the good time
-
The only thing we can agree with this "test" is that it's totally biased, as he proudly announces before quietly demonstrating it.
Now, he alone could explain how he commits himself in this hilarious testing
Oh, the landscape photographer who writes : "My only reason for testing is that I want to know what the best tools are to help me make the best images considering my subject matter and working habits." and then he tests old newspaper lol
"Since I am interested in practical results, as opposed to endless scientific tests, I chose to use very simple sets that were essentially flat." Is your garden flat ? Ouch !
Or I suppose, he is just trying to convince his wife he did a good deal anyway (because of huge price gap between the two systems ?).
This kind of poor testings doesn't help, but just demonstrate the P1 people prefers their P1 and Hassy People their Hassy (as the opposite test demonstrated here exactly the contrary). But, we had raw files to analyze the results. Here we have Phocus at it's worst setting ... glurps
That was the joke of the day ! Thanks for the good time
Give the guy a break. It wasn't a bad review nor particularly biased.
-
For me, what is more important than absolute image quality is using a camera system which you like to use! There is no doubt that both systems will produce wonderful files, add a little sanity to the testing, and one could say that the differences are negligible. Back to my point, if going MF, choose the system which speaks to you, which feels comfortable and does what you want. Flash sync, top autofocus, for high end portraits for example? Hasselblad. Open system and like tinkering? Phase. Do you just happen to like one better? Get that. Don't care? Then maybe this article is for you. There is no point searching for the fraction of a percent of difference between these systems as it is hideously stressful and won't improve your photography either.
-
Hi,
Having a difference by six stops sounds a bit excessive to me. A one stop difference sound physically reasonable. Reason is that a sensor cell of double size should be able to detect twice the number of photons. It seems that electronics (readout pre-amps) are a bit better on DSLRs than of MFDBs, that may reduce the difference even further.
Best regards
Erik
I was reading this comparison with great interest and surprise until i got to this bit:
"The dynamic range of a typical high-end professional 35 mm DSLR is around 7 F/stops. Medium Format cameras are closer to 13 F/stops of dynamic range. You can see the difference from 30 feet away in a small print."
Unfortunately that piece of misinformation just put a big question mark over the credibility of the whole piece. My point & shoot has more than 7 stops of dynamic range.
-
For those who are sceptical about Mr. Dubovoy's observations(I know I always am), I used an H3D-39 for three years and switched to a P65 on an H2 last fall. I did not expect that the Phase files would be all that different from the H3D files and switched for "other reasons." However, after using the cameras to shoot landscapes and processing the files in Phocus and C1, there really are quite significant differences in the files in certain areas. First, the H3D-39 has a very hard time with high frequency detail like foliage and tree branches. There tends to be a lot of "noise" in such files. That's not a scientific term, but I sure see it in the files. The P65 files are just able to handle all that detail very effectively. I tried turning off the sharpening in both raw converters and using Focus Magic to sharpen, but that did not change the result. Second, there are color artifacts in the H3D files where there is foliage against a blue sky. You can see that in the H3D-50MS file above. Third, any blue sky in the Hasselblad files has a grayish, almost "dirty" cast to it, as if it was polarized. The P65, OTOH, renders a delicate blue sky much more "true". In fact, the H3D files generally seem to have a "heavy" quality to them. And I personally do not feel it is "just" a matter of too much saturation. Fourth, the level of detail in the P65 files is simply breathtaking. I did not expect this improvement compared to a 39mp file. Finally, the shadow detail in the P65 files is also quite a bit better.
Does this mean that you cannot make beautiful photographs with an H3D-39? Of course not. However, my experience is that the P65 files are both different and "better" in ways that are meaningful to me. Will the H4D-60 with the same Dalsa chip as the P65 level the playing field compared to the P65? Maybe. That will be interesting. I never compared in detail the H3D-39 to the P45, both of which used the same Kodak sensor.
BTW, Hasselblad deserves kudos for Phocus 2.0. It is a very easy to use piece of software that I prefer to Capture One. The latter may be more powerful in some ways, but Phocus is much more intuitive and quite satisfactory for my needs.
-
For those who are sceptical about Mr. Dubovoy's observations, I used an H3D-39 for three years and switched to a P65 on an H2 last fall.
I'm testing the H3D50 against the H3D31 : it's a world of improvement. We cannot compare old sensors with new ones. The 39 MP is an old one. Comparing the 50 MP against the P65+ is not a bad idea : this is two new sensors, and with very close specifications. I think a lot of people are wondering if they will upgrade to the H4D50 or to the H4D60. As we have no real informations about the H4D60, comparing the 50MP sensor with the Dalsa 60 MP would a very valuable information.
Now, I don't buy a test with such bad use of phocus, that at the best we can consider as a mistake. This test looks too much as a response from P1 to the adverse testing from a hassy dealer. Too bad. We know for sure that we have to good brands here, and the differences are to be made on real fact on the system, not by small details that are not really significant.
-
I'm testing the H3D50 against the H3D31 : it's a world of improvement. We cannot compare old sensors with new ones. The 39 MP is an old one. Comparing the 50 MP against the P65+ is not a bad idea : this is two new sensors, and with very close specifications. I think a lot of people are wondering if they will upgrade to the H4D50 or to the H4D60. As we have no real informations about the H4D60, comparing the 50MP sensor with the Dalsa 60 MP would a very valuable information.
Now, I don't buy a test with such bad use of phocus, that at the best we can consider as a mistake. This test looks too much as a response from P1 to the adverse testing from a hassy dealer. Too bad. We know for sure that we have to good brands here, and the differences are to be made on real fact on the system, not by small details that are not really significant.
I agree that the newer chips from Kodak that Hasselblad is using now may be better in certain ways, but I do see the same color artifacts around the tree branches against a bright background(i.e., a blue sky) with the H3D-50MS in the review. This has the newer Kodak 50mp chip. I can't tell about the other issues that I saw with the 39mp chip.
-
I agree that the newer chips from Kodak that Hasselblad is using now may be better in certain ways, but I do see the same color artifacts around the tree branches against a bright background(i.e., a blue sky) with the H3D-50MS in the review. This has the newer Kodak 50mp chip. I can't tell about the other issues that I saw with the 39mp chip.
I have the same issue with my "old" 16 MP square Kodak chip.. I thought it was something that I was doing wrong.
Steve
-
The link below will take you to an image, on another forum, where the meter accuracy of the Hasselblad H4D-40 can be evaluated. The poster (unlike Mr. Dubovoy) has posted, along with the image, the metadata from the shot. It shows no exposure compensation, just standard aperture priority autoexposure. When exposure compensation is used, it is displayed in the metadata in the "Light Meter" line. According to the poster it is straight out of the camera.
The poster of the image (an australian landscape photographer) is not addressing Mr. Dubovoy's article. He's demonstrating the long exposure capability of the H4D-40. He's posting the metadata to show the exposure time which is in excess of 3 minutes. He is also offering to send the RAW file to whoever wants to see it. If someone is going to critique meter performance, it would be helpful to show at least the metadata to verify the settings used and conclusion being drawn.
Anyway judge for yourself and enjoy a lovely image...
H4D-40 Autoexposure Example Link (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14851)
-
On first skim read of this review my reaction is that it is pretty poor, I'll try and respond at length in the next few days, work permitting. I will say this. I have been shooting multi-shot commercially for 10 years which is quite a long time. I can say with confidence that for non-moving subjects multi-shot backs outperform single shot backs to the point where comparisons are pointless, I am amazed that the reviewer chose to do such a comparison and deeply skeptical of his findings.
Nick-T
-
I happened to have P65+ on H1/H2, and I also have H3D39 and H3D50, and Sinar backs, I don't usually do such tests such as many does (although I do enjoy reading them), but as a long time Phase user since P25, P45, P45+ then now P65+, I think there is a difference between the backs, but they are all good in some ways than others.
Software to develop the raw file is as important as who is one the driving seat of a same car, it runs differently. I think the Phocus is a big improvement from the earlier version, but me too did not spend nearly as much time on Phocus as I spend on Capture One Pro, the biggest reason was probably not because I use P65+ more often - yes, in deed I use the Phase back more often, but the mileage on the software also contributed from my other cameras such as 1Ds3 and 5D2 and Nikon D3X, so the accumulated experience on getting the raw image to process what I like is a lot more than on the Phocus, which I do agree that the first pop on the screen the Phase One shows a richer and punchier display. It is a preference, rather than which is better.
I don't have experience in H3D50 multi-shot, but even with a Sinar eV75H, just 33 million pixels multi-shot back from what I saw many times, I think it is still better than a single shot from P65+.
Anyway, today's singe shot back is so good, as the case with the P65+, unless those absolute situations that you really need a multi-shot back (or people with so many years experiences on the multi-shot workflow and jobs require it), it meeds 99% of job requirement.
Regards, K
-
Perhaps David Grover would comment on:
A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE
In the past, one of the common complaints I used to hear from Hasselblad owners was that the CaptureOne
performed all kinds of magic on the files before rendering them as “without any adjustments”,
which wrongly lead people to believe that PhaseOne image quality was better than Hasselblad”.
After working with the Hasselblad software (Phocus) for several weeks,
there is no question in my mind that the situation (at least today) is the exact opposite.
There is a heck of a lot more image processing going on in Phocus than in C1
before an image is displayed (with all adjustments set to zero) in default mode.
It is crystal clear to me that before Phocus displays an image at its default settings,
with “no adjustments”, the software has already applied a large number of adjustments
to lead to a specific look in terms of contrast, color, saturation, clarity and sharpness.
The look is what I would call Velvia double plus.
Imagine the overly saturated and contrasty look of Velvia film and then punch it up not one, but two more notches.
This is what you get in Phocus with “no adjustments”.
While some photographers might like this look (I assume that many Hasselblad owners do),
personally I think it is grossly overdone. The shadows are way too dark, to the point of loosing much detail,
the upper mid-tones and highlights have too much contrast at first and too much compression on the high end;
finally, the color is so exaggerated that it is totally unreal.
There is a “Repro” mode somewhat hidden in the software menus,
which needs to be activated each and every time you open the application if you want to use it (!).
It is supposedly meant for people who need high color accuracy, such as folks making reproductions of fine art.
The very existence of this mode confirms that the software defaults to a specific look,
rather than accuracy or any semblance of “no adjustments”.
Repro mode is definitely more tame, the contrast is much more controlled and it brings back shadow and highlight detail.
In fact, the contrast can often be a little too low. But even in Repro mode the colors and the saturation are quite exaggerated.
As mentioned above, I had the advantage of being able to see the actual objects and compare them to the calibrated EIZO display in my computer,
as well as actual prints under controlled lighting conditions with a GTI Graphics print viewing station,
so the reader will have to trust me on the following comments:
The default mode with no adjustments in CaptureOne renders deadly accurate color and contrast in the PhaseOne images,
both, on the screen and in prints.
With the Hasselblad files, I had to turn on Repro mode, modify the contrast curve, desaturate the colors and adjust hues
before I could come close to matching the real objects either on the screen or in prints.
But even after doing all that, the PhaseOne colors still looked more accurate (perhaps a real expert in Phocus could do better than me).
As usual these kinds of tests are fraught with difficulties. The comparison has caused lots of debate here and also over on getdpi.
I don't know Mark personally or really have an insight into what he does, but his comments on Phocus applying multiple factors to an image even though defaults are set to zero, simply does not stack up.
Time and time again if you compare and H product to a Phase product normally our default rendering is slightly lower contrast and slightly lower saturation. No method is 'wrong' it is just the way we have decided to do things.
Therefore for Mark to find the opposite points that something was not quite right with the settings. Furthermore, stating that Reproduction mode needs to be found every time Phocus is started is also not the case which indicates perhaps Mark was not that comfortable in using Phocus and perhaps did not have everything set to default.
Actually describing the image as Velvia++ really does point to an error somewhere.
Reproduction mode was probably also not his best choice for the kind of images he was shooting. Secondly to say colours and contrast are even exaggerated in Repro mode really means something was a miss elsewhere! Mark is welcome to send me one of his files and I can happily look at it.
Nobody should EVER have to desaturate colours in Repro mode. So I really wonder what Mark did!!! There must have been all kinds of funky settings going against each other.
There is also a strange comment that Mark said he left Hasselblad because of the closed system argument... and then goes on to praise that aspect of the camera as being much better than Phase One?
I also just noticed that on some of the comparison shots the P65 is at 91.5%? I would prefer to see both at 100% regardless of any image size differences.
Anyway, I could go on but I am comforted by the fact that many institutions around the world (Tate London, National Gallery, London, Van Gogh Museum, EMMA, Australian Museums / Archives...multiples in the USA) chose Hasselblad Multi Shot systems for a) Color accuracy Repro mode and c) High resolution without artefacting / moire.
With these kinds of tests I would prefer that an experienced Capture One user handle the Phase side of things and an experienced Phocus user handled Hasselblad. They wouldn't even have to be in the same room - maybe a blind test would be better!
Happy weekend to all - I am off out to enjoy the sunshine.
D
-
As usual these kinds of tests are fraught with difficulties. The comparison has caused lots of debate here and also over on getdpi.
I don't know Mark personally or really have an insight into what he does, but his comments on Phocus applying multiple factors to an image even though defaults are set to zero, simply does not stack up.
Time and time again if you compare and H product to a Phase product normally our default rendering is slightly lower contrast and slightly lower saturation. No method is 'wrong' it is just the way we have decided to do things.
Therefore for Mark to find the opposite points that something was not quite right with the settings. Furthermore, stating that Reproduction mode needs to be found every time Phocus is started is also not the case which indicates perhaps Mark was not that comfortable in using Phocus and perhaps did not have everything set to default.
Actually describing the image as Velvia++ really does point to an error somewhere.
Reproduction mode was probably also not his best choice for the kind of images he was shooting. Secondly to say colours and contrast are even exaggerated in Repro mode really means something was a miss elsewhere! Mark is welcome to send me one of his files and I can happily look at it.
Nobody should EVER have to desaturate colours in Repro mode. So I really wonder what Mark did!!! There must have been all kinds of funky settings going against each other.
There is also a strange comment that Mark said he left Hasselblad because of the closed system argument... and then goes on to praise that aspect of the camera as being much better than Phase One?
I also just noticed that on some of the comparison shots the P65 is at 91.5%? I would prefer to see both at 100% regardless of any image size differences.
Anyway, I could go on but I am comforted by the fact that many institutions around the world (Tate London, National Gallery, London, Van Gogh Museum, EMMA, Australian Museums / Archives...multiples in the USA) chose Hasselblad Multi Shot systems for a) Color accuracy Repro mode and c) High resolution without artefacting / moire.
With these kinds of tests I would prefer that an experienced Capture One user handle the Phase side of things and an experienced Phocus user handled Hasselblad. They wouldn't even have to be in the same room - maybe a blind test would be better!
Happy weekend to all - I am off out to enjoy the sunshine.
D
I totaly agree with this David's point, and that would be done in real working sessions conditions. Also, the importance of the images at 100%.
At the end, I find that the debates in the forum generated by these comparaisons (with all my respect to every post of course) always end in an overdose of home made technical and pseudo-scientifical datas but we rarely see arguments supported by images from the field.
Reading these home-made physical tesis, I end (and I'm probably not the only one) more confused than before with a headache.
I've been very surprised, for example, by the passionate reactions on the David's 800 iso samples. But He was kind enough to bring real image here, things that strangely I have not seen from the ones who always critizise, claiming the lack of scientific rigor and want to show how informed they are with graphics and mathematic equations. Some saying how he should have done, then my question is: "why don't they bring that scientific rigor to us here, if they think that the way it has been done was not correct?
I say that with all the respect, but I can also be in strong disagreement and manifests it. What I'm complaining about is not the fact that people critizise or disagree, it is because more real images would be very nice in order to ilustrate the endeless arguments with real datas.
Yes, more images.
Best regards,
Fred.
-
Time and time again if you compare and H product to a Phase product normally our default rendering is slightly lower contrast and slightly lower saturation. No method is 'wrong' it is just the way we have decided to do things.
D
Agree. While I retouch a lot of files from Captureone back less from Phocus.
One thing I could say. Files from Phocus has very special character. Lower contrast, smooth skin tone. It looks like Phocus apply less aggressive sharpening.
Files from Leaf back with old software has the same character to Phocus.
While Phaseone files since v.4 has less aggressive sharpening. You will notice from less halo in high contrast.
Captureone v.5 has minus clarity which might create less macro contrast.
But still Phocus files has the smoothest graduate tone I have ever seen.
I don't know about color reproduction is correct or not. But I like skin color and contrast from Phocus.
I feel sad that Hasselblad choose to closed their system.
I really don't know it is good or bad for their business in long term.
But if I could use Hasselblad back with my H system. I would get one a long long time ago.
IMHO
kitty
-
The comments (and sample) regarding Phocus files in the review are quite bizarre, actually. 3FR files from my CFV-39 back processed via Phocus are certainly not over-saturated with the default settings, quite the reverse. They are pretty neutral, and quite subdued. I don't quite know how you would make them look like the example in the review just as a standard 3FR>FFF>TIFF conversion. Unless the Hass 50MP sensor is outputing something quite different to the 39.
John
-
In addition to the comments about repro mode that didn't make sense, I also found some of the comments regarding the hasselblad in single shot mode simply weird. The first comparison between the Hasselblad's single shot and multi-shot modes was perfectly illustrative of the differences between the two approaches, but then he goes on to say this--
"Based on the color “blotchiness” and the lack of resolution in single shot mode, I would not consider using this camera in anything other than Multishot mode. I hardly need to say this, but the PhaseOne System is far superior to the H3D 50 II in single shot mode, as it never shows any “blotchiness” and has much higher resolution."
Hmmm...well first off, he hasn't shown us a comparison image of the P65 to demonstrate that it "never shows any blotchiness"...but then we scroll down to the bottom comparison of the same newspaper...and there it is...the P65 showing almost exactly the same level of artifacting as the single shot Hasselblad shot from earlier...he even comments on it...although he's certainly more forgiving of the P65 failure in this case--and certainly never says he wouldn't ever use the P65 in single shot mode because of it.
It's hard to imagine how I've managed these past years with all the blotchiness on my H3d-31.
Barry
-
I have no dog in this hunt, and probably shouldn't even post here, but feel the need to say something. I have met Mark and can tell you that in addition to being a nice guy, he's definitely an experienced digital imagist -- and I mean the complete process from capture through large print.
I also wanted to take the opportunity to simply agree with a comment Michael made in the closing comment the other post that went way OT:
There is wide agreement among photographers that use or have used both formats that MF has an advantage of several F/stops in DR versus the small cameras. The precise number will vary depending on the specific camera and back being compared as well as the comparison methodology, but the difference is quite noticeable in actual images.
The key concept (IMO) being from those who have used both formats extensively...
Lastly I admit there seems to be a disconnect between the two camps over semantics. The electronic engineering world has a very precise definition of what Dynamic Range is, and it relates only to what is output from a digital sensor, ignoring any downstream processes that may enhance the raw signal set to further use. For those of us that came to digital imaging from the wet film side, our definition comes from the total tonal range we see in our final prints. In fact, the key components of the Zone system were there to fully exploit the total imaging process from capture, to negative development through print processes to lay down the maximum range of tones in a print. Perhaps we can agree that from a photographic standpoint, the range that matters is the total tonal range that makes it visually into the final print?
Peace,
-
I also wanted to take the opportunity to simply agree with a comment Michael made in the closing comment the other post
Jack, forget that DR thing. It's boring as hell. I wonder why those who use both don't show the "clear" difference. Michael could. You could. I'd do it in a second... but I simply have no DSLR to do it.
The whole DR debate unfortunately distracted from the fact that also the entire rest of the review is pointless as this "experienced digital imagist" quite obvioulsy didn't know how to work with Phocus.
-
I think the review author overreached himself here.
BTW, I own a P45+ and a D3x, and familiar to a point with both. The "clear difference won't get published because it just ain't so clear once you get into the SLR's hidden menus and morph it from a 12 bit 5fps action camera into a 14 bit 1.8 fps landscape snail, and also choose to record uncompressed files. Of course, a shooter who is not familiar with said SLR will have trouble in finding said menu.
And if you differ, go ahead rent a Nikon and show us, remembering to peg the Raw histogram identically in both captures.
Edmund
Jack, forget that DR thing. It's boring as hell. I wonder why those who use both don't show the "clear" difference. Michael could. You could. I'd do it in a second... but I simply have no DSLR to do it.
The whole DR debate unfortunately distracted from the fact that also the entire rest of the review is pointless as this "experienced digital imagist" quite obvioulsy didn't know how to work with Phocus.
-
And if you differ, go ahead rent a Nikon and show us, remembering to peg the Raw histogram identically in both captures.
"you" in general or "you" referring to me personally?
Me I couldn't care less which system offers higher DR. I like what my backs do. But I also found the few RAW files of the D3x I've seen quite impressive.
But again: I don't care that much about DR.
-
"you" in general or "you" referring to me personally?
Me I couldn't care less which system offers higher DR. I like what my backs do. But I also found the few RAW files of the D3x I've seen quite impressive.
But again: I don't care that much about DR.
you designates anyone who cares - wanna claim a difference, exhibit said difference. Or else admit that indiscernibles are fungible.
Edmund
-
you designates anyone who cares
got it, thanks!
-
got it, thanks!
BTW, I have no problem admitting a back will outresolve an SLR and also give a different look. I see this in my images.
Edmund
-
You could. I'd do it in a second... but I simply have no DSLR to do it.
FTR, I don't own a DSLR anymore so cannot do it either
-
FTR, I don't own a DSLR anymore (because I hated the files ) so cannot do it either
Jack, I own a DSLR and I also hate the files
but the way to MFD and LF is expensive and I'm into savings.
-
FTR, I don't own a DSLR anymore so cannot do it either
okay
-
Jack, I own a DSLR and I also hate the files
but the way to MFD and LF is expensive and I'm into savings.
Ah Fred, you caught me before I could edit that little attempt at humor out of my post -- I figured it would probably just add gasoline to the fire...
-
The electronic engineering world has a very precise definition of what Dynamic Range is, and it relates only to what is output from a digital sensor, ignoring any downstream processes that may enhance the raw signal set to further use.
I thought it was all about H3D50 and P65+ ...
Now, I understand it was all about MF and DSLR. lol
So, if Mark is a nice guy, we won't laugh anymore !
Peace and fun, friends
-
BTW, I have no problem admitting a back will outresolve an SLR and also give a different look. I see this in my images.
Edmund
If a camera with an Anti-Aliasing filter spreads the light destined for each pixel over the adjacent pixels, then you would need to down-res by a factor of 9 to compensate... but I do not know what proportion of the light is spread over the adjacent pixels ...and it should be technically possible to make a camera with a fixed sensor without an AA.
Are the first digital backs ever made still better than the latest 24 MPx DSLRs?
-
If a camera with an Anti-Aliasing filter spreads the light destined for each pixel over the adjacent pixels, then you would need to down-res by a factor of 9 to compensate... but I do not know what proportion of the light is spread over the adjacent pixels ...and it should be technically possible to make a camera with a fixed sensor without an AA.
Are the first digital backs ever made still better than the latest 24 MPx DSLRs?
Dick, I unfortunately do not own to date a MFD but I've been working with both dslr files and mfd in severe post production for arquitecture.
The files from a 1Ds mark 3 (do not know the ones from Nikon D3) certainly do not reach the files from any of the first MFD, at least for serious post production needs.
But if I say that too loud in the forum then missiles will fall.
Also I can not bring the proof here of what I'm saying, because I do not own the mfd files, so it is more a question of trusting the field experience.
But I'm more than sure than users who own both system and work daily with them will confirm that fact.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
If a camera with an Anti-Aliasing filter spreads the light destined for each pixel over the adjacent pixels, then you would need to down-res by a factor of 9 to compensate... but I do not know what proportion of the light is spread over the adjacent pixels ...and it should be technically possible to make a camera with a fixed sensor without an AA.
Are the first digital backs ever made still better than the latest 24 MPx DSLRs?
It's actually a very interesting exercise to see a Phase One H25 (around $4-$5k, first released in 2003) next to a Canon 1Ds III or 5D Mark 2. The H25 files hold up extremely well side-by-side. In most areas of image quality I would favor the H25 (we are a Canon Dealer so that's what I have for points of comparison). Differences become more evident as the file is pushed/pulled/shadow-or-highlight recovered, changed in WB, or otherwise post processed) - the H25 file takes a tremendous amount of punishment. It's worth noting the H25 only performed/performs well at ISO 50 or 100 - but it's now 7 years old and costs less than a 1Ds III and we still have many shooters using their H25s for applications like product photography or macro work - and many of them also own 5D Mark 2s (or similar) and could be using them but still use the H25 because of the image quality and the ability to use it on a view camera with full movements.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
...we still have many shooters using their H25s for applications like product photography or macro work - and many of them also own 5D Mark 2s (or similar) and could be using them but still use the H25 because of the image quality and the ability to use it on a view camera with full movements.
Thanks, Doug.
Most of what you you say is of no surprise to me, but Macro and product photography are two areas in which I would contemplate using a small format camera (D-lux 3, M9)... for the greater DOF.
Movements enable one to make the most of the reduced DOF of MF, but a small format camera would enable me to take adequate (for some jobs) "snapshots" without using movements.
MF is popular is for portrait/fashion work, as a portrait looks sharp if you can clearly see individual hairs, but MF lacks the DOF to get a whole head in focus (without using a very small aperture which might result in diffraction).
For DOF-limited applications small pixels are best, and could they not minimize noise by letting us use 2 micron pixels at 12 iso? 12 iso would not be a problem for the studio photographer on small sets, and for bigger sets, I have 4 Elinchrome 1500s.
-
Thanks, Doug.
Most of what you you say is of no surprise to me, but Macro and product photography are two areas in which I would contemplate using a small format camera (D-lux 3, M9)... for the greater DOF.
Movements enable one to make the most of the reduced DOF of MF, but a small format camera would enable me to take adequate (for some jobs) "snapshots" without using movements.
MF is popular is for portrait/fashion work, as a portrait looks sharp if you can clearly see individual hairs, but MR lack the DOF to get a whole head in focus (without using a very small aperture which might result in diffraction).
For DOF-limited applications small pixels are best, and could they not minimize noise by letting us use 2 micron pixels at 12 iso? 12 iso would not be a problem for the studio photographer on small sets, and for bigger sets, I have 4 Elinchrome 1500s.
Dick I'm curious how do you know all this stuff?
Nick-T
-
Thanks, Doug.
Most of what you you say is of no surprise to me, but Macro and product photography are two areas in which I would contemplate using a small format camera (D-lux 3, M9)... for the greater DOF.
Movements enable one to make the most of the reduced DOF of MF, but a small format camera would enable me to take adequate (for some jobs) "snapshots" without using movements.
MF is popular is for portrait/fashion work, as a portrait looks sharp if you can clearly see individual hairs, but MR lack the DOF to get a whole head in focus (without using a very small aperture which might result in diffraction).
For DOF-limited applications small pixels are best, and could they not minimize noise by letting us use 2 micron pixels at 12 iso? 12 iso would not be a problem for the studio photographer on small sets, and for bigger sets, I have 4 Elinchrome 1500s.
Dick, are you serious ??
Fred.
-
Dick I'm curious how do you know all this stuff?
Nick-T
... I have been learning about photography for 50+ years. I am an Agricultural Electronic Engineer, so I have an interest in things technical.
-
Dick, are you serious ??
Fred.
... you mean about 2 micron 12 iso pixels?
If low-iso small pixels could be made it would help the DOF/res compromise.
I thought that the disadvantage of small pixels was noise, due to the small "sample" (=number of photons/pixel) and they might be able to fix this with low iso. ... but people like small cameras to have high iso, so it would be a very specialist camera (or digital back), so no one would manufacture it.
¿If the photons/pixel limit 4 micron pixels to 50 iso, (or 6 microns to 100) it would seem logical that 12 iso would be right for 2 micron?
Small pixels would have little space for "photon" storage, so 2 micron pixels would probably not be able to have a high iso, or high dynamic range.
-
... you mean about 2 micron 12 iso pixels?
No. Everything. Just everything is so strange, outside of people's experience actually using cameras to make photographs. No disrespect intended, but maybe its time to put some theory into practice.
I liked your idea of using a beam trigger for sports. Please go out and try it!
-
... you mean about 2 micron 12 iso pixels?
I assume he wondered how you shoot marcos and products with a rangefinder camera... or so...
-
... you mean about 2 micron 12 iso pixels?
If low-iso small pixels could be made it would help the DOF/res compromise.
I thought that the disadvantage of small pixels was noise, due to the small "sample" (=number of photons/pixel) and they might be able to fix this with low iso. ... but people like small cameras to have high iso, so it would be a very specialist camera (or digital back), so no one would manufacture it.
¿If the photons/pixel limit 4 micron pixels to 50 iso, (or 6 microns to 100) it would seem logical that 12 iso would be right for 2 micron?
Small pixels would have little space for "photon" storage, so 2 micron pixels would probably not be able to have a high iso, or high dynamic range.
Ok, I did not get your point first as I'm useless in ingineering. Thanks for these aclarations.
On the Sigmas there is a 50 iso mode wich is an extended mode.
You effictively gain in grain free but you loose DR in highlights Sigma made it clear about it and warned users. Do not know why.
A 25 iso would be spectacular but I wonder about the technical difficulties in others aspects.
An interesting proposal.
Fred.
-
Smaller pixels would not get you more depth of field, but likey less. Smaller pixels show less depth of field because they resolve sharper details in the middle than were previously resolved with larger pixel lower resolution backs. Hence P65+ has narrower DOF at an equal aperture than say a P25+.
-
Smaller pixels would not get you more depth of field, but likey less. Smaller pixels show less depth of field because they resolve sharper details in the middle than were previously resolved with larger pixel lower resolution backs. Hence P65+ has narrower DOF at an equal aperture than say a P25+.
When viewed at 100%. Downsize the 65+ files to the 25+ size and the DOF will be the same (ignoring the slightly larger chip size).
-
Smaller pixels would not get you more depth of field, but likey less. Smaller pixels show less depth of field because they resolve sharper details in the middle than were previously resolved with larger pixel lower resolution backs. Hence P65+ has narrower DOF at an equal aperture than say a P25+.
DOF is a function of magnification.
For a given pixel count, smaller pixels give you a smaller sensor.
A smaller sensor gives you less magnification.
Less magnification gives you more DOF
It is a mathematical fact.
Low-res cameras have better DOF partly as DOF is also function of Circle Of Confusion (which depends on the lens and the pixel size). ...so you can be more out of focus without the image being any less sharp than your lens/sensor could be in the middle on the axis of the lens in the middle of the plane of sharpest focus.
If you have a 60Mpx sensor, and you only need 20 for a job where DOF is critical you can improve DOF by using a wider lens and cropping down to a smaller format. (less magnification).
The above applies if you use a smaller (part of a) sensor with the same number of (smaller) pixels. If you use a sensor with the same size but more (smaller) pixels, you would calculate the DOF with smaller Circle Of Confusion, (assuming that the pixel size was the limiting factor for res) and you would get less DOF... but you could the crop and get your DOF back.
...of course the 40lp/mm digital specialist lenses we have now would be out-resolved by pixels smaller than about 4-5 microns, so we would need a new set of lenses.
...of course if you use pixels much smaller than about 2 microns, no lens could out resolve them, as the pixel size would be getting too close to the wavelength of light (. 4 to .7 microns).