Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mhecker* on December 04, 2010, 10:08:22 pm
-
Hi All,
See http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/645D/645DA.HTM
The 645D betters the 35mm champs. :)
Look, download and see for yourself.
Enjoy,
Miles
-
The 645D betters the 35mm champs. :)
Look, download and see for yourself.
Have you spotted the on sensor magnification differences? Makes everything else a moot point ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
What do you mean? Can you explain a little?
Best regards
Erik
Have you spotted the on sensor magnification differences? Makes everything else a moot point ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
What do you mean? Can you explain a little?
Best regards
Erik
Download the full files for yourself (you see only selected crops in the review) and check out the obvious framing/magnification differences. That is one ridiculous comparison.
-
Hi Bart,
What do you mean? Can you explain a little?
Hi Erik,
The 645D image magnification is much higher, hence for that reason alone it will allow higher detail resolution and run a lower risk of aliasing. The 645D image magnification is in the order of 50% larger than the 1Ds3, and the D3x magnification is some 8% larger than the 1Ds3. The absence of an AA-filter may have created some pseudo detail, we don't know for sure. Finally, the 1Ds3 and D3x image crops do not seem to be optimally sharpened, but because of the earlier issues it doesn't matter that much, a resolution comparison is already flawed.
If the purpose is to demonstrate that higher on-sensor magnification results in higher image quality, then the obvious has been demonstrated.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I guess I see your point.
I downloaded two images and upsized to 50x70 cm at 200 PPI using Bicubic Smoother. After that image-adjust-Match colors was applied. I addition Smart Sharpen 0.5, 150 was applied on the Nikon image.
The Pentax image is on the left and the Nikon image is on the right.
I also downloaded a 200 ISO image for the Pentax 645D and a 100 ISI image from the D3X and developed in CS5 resp Lightroom with default settings and calculated LW/PH for 50% MTF using Imatest:
Pentax 645D: 4605 LW/PH
Nikon D3X: 3057 LW/PH
Would I scale up the Nikon to the same number of pixels as the Pentax it would have around 4200 LW/PH. I don't know which lens was used but assume that it was the 24-70/2.8
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
The 645D image magnification is much higher, hence for that reason alone it will allow higher detail resolution and run a lower risk of aliasing. The 645D imagnification is in the order of 50% larger than the 1Ds3, and the D3x magnification is some 8% larger than the 1Ds3. The absence of an AA-filter may have created some pseudo detail, we don't know for sure. finally, the 1Ds3 and D3x image crops do not seem to be optimally sharpened, but because of the earlier issues it doesn't matter that much, a resolution comparison is already flawed.
If the purpose is to demonstrate that higher on-sensor magnification results in higher image quality, then the obvious has been demonstrated.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I just downloaded and measured the 2 full images, 645D vs D3x. I optimumally sharpened them myself.
The difference in vertical framing measured to the same points on the still life is slightly less than 2% in favor of the 645D.
If you want to believe that accounts for the big difference in micro detail we see, I think you're kidding yourself.
IMO the 645D under the conditions of the test is producing a file with significantly more micro detail and better tonal transitions than either of the 35mm cameras. YMMV.
I will make 24x30 prints and see how visible the difference is in that venue.
I invite others to do the same and make their own evaluation.
-
Hi,
If you do match color the images will get much closer in tonality...
Best regards
Erik
I just downloaded and measured the 2 full images, 645D vs D3x. I optimumally sharpened them myself.
The difference in vertical framing measured to the same points on the still life is slightly less than 2% in favor of the 645D.
If you want to believe that accounts for the big difference in micro detail we see, I think you're kidding yourself.
IMO the 645D under the conditions of the test is producing a file with significantly more micro detail and better tonal transitions than either of the 35mm cameras. YMMV.
I will make 24x30 prints and see how visible the difference is in that venue.
I invite others to do the same and make their own evaluation.
-
I just downloaded and measured the 2 full images, 645D vs D3x. I optimumally sharpened them myself.
The difference in vertical framing measured to the same points on the still life is slightly less than 2% in favor of the 645D.
If you want to believe that accounts for the big difference in micro detail we see, I think you're kidding yourself.
IMO the 645D under the conditions of the test is producing a file with significantly more micro detail and better tonal transitions than either of the 35mm cameras. YMMV.
I will make 24x30 prints and see how visible the difference is in that venue.
I invite others to do the same and make their own evaluation.
That is very strange. According to my own measurements of the same shots (the still life), the bottles in the 645D shot are at least 15-17% bigger than in the 35mm DSLR shots. I double checked my measurements ? Can you please double check yours ?
Also, as far as lenses are concerned (check exif for the shots) , they used the 75mm for the Pentax, which I understand is a superb lens (no direct experience with that) , and the Sigma 70 Macro for DSLRs - apparently only a very good lens (no direct experience either) so I wish they had used a Zeiss MP, to give a true account of sensor potential, not lenses (I bet even the 50 Makro-Planar Zeiss -not to mention the 100 - will kick the living hell out of the Sigma in terms of both micro-contrast and color gradation, for example )
PS I do have extensive direct personal experience with Zeiss versus cream of the crop Canikon lenses.
-
I just downloaded and measured the 2 full images, 645D vs D3x. I optimumally sharpened them myself.
The difference in vertical framing measured to the same points on the still life is slightly less than 2% in favor of the 645D.
If you want to believe that accounts for the big difference in micro detail we see, I think you're kidding yourself.
I don't see how you could arrive at such conclusions. When I measure the length of the upper wooden bar (with the 19 strands of yarn on nails) at the top right, I measure 3094 pixels for the 645D and 2295 pixels for the D3x, a difference of +34.8% for the 645D. When subject matter is sampled by 34.8% more pixels, it obviously displays more detail. The length on the 1Ds3 image is 2100 pixels, so the difference is +47.3% for the 645D. It doesn't require rocket science, denser sampling or larger magnification helps ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't see how you could arrive at such conclusions. When I measure the length of the upper wooden bar (with the 19 strands of yarn on nails) at the top right, I measure 3094 pixels for the 645D and 2295 pixels for the D3x, a difference of +34.8% for the 645D. When subject matter is sampled by 34.8% more pixels, it obviously displays more detail. The length on the 1Ds3 image is 2100 pixels, so the difference is +47.3% for the 645D. It doesn't require rocket science, denser sampling helps ...
Cheers,
Bart
Thank you, for an even more precise measurement :) .
-
Download the full files for yourself (you see only selected crops in the review) and check out the obvious framing/magnification differences. That is one ridiculous comparison.
Why ridiculous?
In the test image I'm looking at ('still life' - beer bottles, fabric swatches etc.) the vertical framing is well matched. Obviously, objects in the Pentax image are bigger - it's a 40MP image vs. a 24MP image. You're free to upsize one, or downsize the other.
The Pentax image looks impressive.
-
..... . When subject matter is sampled by 34.8% more pixels, it obviously displays more detail. The length on the 1Ds3 image is 2100 pixels, so the difference is +47.3% for the 645D. It doesn't require rocket science, denser sampling or larger magnification helps ...
Cheers,
Bart
Bart:
I'm not sure why you object to this, it is not a pixel-to-pixel comparison, but rather image-to-image. If I were to conduct such a test, I would compare images with a similar angle of view, exactly what IR has done given the constraints of 4:3 vs 3:2 formats. Of course the 645D has more pixels, isn’t that the point of 40MP?
-
Bart:
I'm not sure why you object to this, it is not a pixel-to-pixel comparison, but rather image-to-image. If I were to conduct such a test, I would compare images with a similar angle of view, exactly what IR has done given the constraits of 4:3 vs 3:2 formats. Of course the 645D has more pixels, isn’t that the point of 40MP?
Sure, but why do people get worked up about the improved resolution when comparing smaller 21-24.5 MP sensors with a larger 40 MP one , and one of the cameras without AA-filter, and sub par sharpening of the smaller sensor results? What kind of comparison is that? I could have told what the outcome would be without even looking at such a comparison.
A comparison with another say 45mp sensor would be much more interesting, especially given their price differences (although there are more differences than just that).
Cheers,
Bart
-
My measurements are based on % of image height, not pixel to pixel!
People shoot MF and LF to get more film or silicon on the image being shot.
Pixel for pixel, or millimeter for millimeter, 35mm may have an advantage.
That is in IMO a moot point.
For small prints, the difference is probably minimal, it might be invisible.
For making large prints, 20"x25", 24"x30" or even 30"x40" the files I see being produced by the 645D
will yield a visibly better end product than the files produced by the other two cameras.
That's all that matters to me.
I am not a pixel peeper. YMMV. :)
-
I was in a large retailer yesterday in their pro department. Which was empty of customers. Asked one of the sales guys I know if they're selling any medium format and they said yea, mostly Hasselblad, nearly all to advanced amateurs.
So maybe Pentax doesn't have to worry about tethering, because their market doesn't have to tether.
The sales guy did say that he hopes the Pentax puts some pressure on Phase and Hasselblad to get their prices lower, though he's not sure if that will change anything.
On a side note, I went down one floor to the not pro department and the Leica area was empty, the Canon shelf had a few customers, Nikon a few more, the video area had a waiting line.
I don't know what this means, since it is the Christmas sales period, but . . .
IMO
BC
-
Sure, but why do people get worked up about the improved resolution when comparing smaller 21-24.5 MP sensors with a larger 40 MP one , and one of the cameras without AA-filter, and sub par sharpening of the smaller sensor results? What kind of comparison is that? I could have told what the outcome would be without even looking at such a comparison.
A comparison with another say 45mp sensor would be much more interesting, especially given their price differences (although there are more differences than just that).
Cheers,
Bart
Sure a comparison of the 645D to a MFDB would be interesting. Mark and Nick have already posted such a comparison here. Although they were widely criticized for their technique, the report told me what I was interested in: that there was little to choose between the Pentax and Phase files. As you point out, everyone expects the 645D to have more resolution than the D3x, what wasn’t known is how the 645D compares at higher ISO, or the general output from the sensor or how the old 645 lenses perform on a digital sensor. If the 645D files were mediocre, whatever the cause, the D3x would be a better choice even for a landscape photographer. I think IR rightly points out that the cost of the Pentax makes it a viable choice for anyone considering a D3x or 1Ds III, depending on the application. For landscapes, the Pentax seems a clear winner, especially if you have a closet full of Pentax lenses.
-
I don't see how you could arrive at such conclusions. When I measure the length of the upper wooden bar (with the 19 strands of yarn on nails) at the top right, I measure 3094 pixels for the 645D and 2295 pixels for the D3x, a difference of +34.8% for the 645D. When subject matter is sampled by 34.8% more pixels, it obviously displays more detail. The length on the 1Ds3 image is 2100 pixels, so the difference is +47.3% for the 645D. It doesn't require rocket science, denser sampling or larger magnification helps ...
Maybe I am misreading you, but isn't the obvious reason that there are more pixels in same section the Pentax image because....there are more pixels in the Pentax sensor? ???
The point is not to compare pixel-to-pixel, but rather similarly frame subject with similar perspective lens.
- N.
-
Maybe I am misreading you, but isn't the obvious reason that there are more pixels in same section the Pentax image because....there are more pixels in the Pentax sensor? ???
Hi Nick,
Bingo, exactly my point, but the resolution difference is not really surprising then, is it?
The point is not to compare pixel-to-pixel, but rather similarly frame subject with similar perspective lens.
Indeed, but what possible revelation could come from such a test? It's all rather predictable. The conclusion that a sensor array of that size with decent optics has its benefits is not exactly a surprise. Were the testers expecting something different?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
The impression from Nick's and Mark's test I got was:
- The 39 MPixels are for real
- Old lenses work
- The Pentax 645D is competitive in performance with systems twice the price
Best regards
Erik
Hi Nick,
Bingo, exactly my point, but the resolution difference is not really surprising then, is it?
Indeed, but what possible revelation could come from such a test? It's all rather predictable. The conclusion that a sensor array of that size with decent optics has its benefits is not exactly a surprise. Were the testers expecting something different?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Maybe I am misreading you, but isn't the obvious reason that there are more pixels in same section the Pentax image because....there are more pixels in the Pentax sensor? ???
The point is not to compare pixel-to-pixel, but rather similarly frame subject with similar perspective lens.
There should be approximately 27% more pixel in the Pentax image than in the D3x (approximately SQRT(40/24.5) - ignoring the different aspect ratio) for a similar framing of the image.
If the gap is larger, then this is not a fair comparison and gives only limited indication of the actual advantage of the 645D in terms of pixel quality and less information than it should in terms of actual image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There should be approximately 27% more pixel in the Pentax image than in the D3x (approximately SQRT(40/24.5) - ignoring the different aspect ratio) for a similar framing of the image.
If the gap is larger, then this is not a fair comparison and gives only limited indication of the actual advantage of the 645D in terms of pixel quality and less information than it should in terms of actual image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
The logic of going pixel to pixel is like wondering if the dollar bill in any joe's wallet is the same as the one in Bill Gates' wallet, completely missing the other differences. I maybe wrong but I feel most people are looking at this comparison to see which camera in a price range can deliver the best files. The prices of the D3x, 1Ds3, and the 645D are close enough to make a comparison regardless of # of pixels each has. And who said it had to be fair anyhow?
Eric
-
Hi All,
See http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/645D/645DA.HTM
The 645D betters the 35mm champs. :)
Look, download and see for yourself.
Enjoy,
Miles
Welcome to the discussion, Miles. For others, I would like to point that mheckler is listed as a newbie on this forum, but he is a well known and respected photographer. While reading the Road to Taos article Miles recently wrote for LuLa, I visited his web site and also noted that he has written an interesting article (http://www.wyofoto.com/Digital_landscape_cameras_2010.html) comparing dSLRs to MFDB--at least on paper. He mentioned the Pentax 645 but hasn't actually handled one.
-
Bernard,
I downloaded some appropriate test images from Imaging Resource and measured MTF50 with Imatest. I got the following results:
Pentax 645D: 4605 LW/PH
Nikon D3X: 3057 LW/PH
So the Pentax gives something like 50% better resolution. Some of the improvement is probably because of better lens, no OLP filter and so on. I made a comparison of the bottle images scaled to 50x70 cm and 70x100 cm. On 50x70 cm file very little difference was seen but the 70x100 file was clearly better on the Pentax.
The way I do these comparisons I upscale the image so I can make a 50x70 (or 70x100) print at 200 pixels/inch. I choose 200 line/inch because that is what my pro lab defaults to at these sizes. I'm not really sure about pixels/inch on the 70x100cm, could be 360 pixels/inch although it seems they are 200 pixels/inch, too.
I don't know if Imaging review had the best lens on the Nikon D3X. The EXIF says 70/2.8. I'd presume 24-70/2.8 at 70 mm.
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
There should be approximately 27% more pixel in the Pentax image than in the D3x (approximately SQRT(40/24.5) - ignoring the different aspect ratio) for a similar framing of the image.
If the gap is larger, then this is not a fair comparison and gives only limited indication of the actual advantage of the 645D in terms of pixel quality and less information than it should in terms of actual image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
The logic of going pixel to pixel is like wondering if the dollar bill in any joe's wallet is the same as the one in Bill Gates' wallet, completely missing the other differences. I maybe wrong but I feel most people are looking at this comparison to see which camera in a price range can deliver the best files. The prices of the D3x, 1Ds3, and the 645D are close enough to make a comparison regardless of # of pixels each has. And who said it had to be fair anyhow?
Eric,
All I am saying is that if you want to get useful data from a comparison of images online, they have to have been captured in comparable conditions, among which the framing. That's what I mean by fair. This is nothing but basic scientific experiment theory. You need to take that into account if the goal is to gather useful comparative information.
I expect the 645D to be clearly superior to the D3x when things are done perfectly. As mentioned before though, I believe that it will be much harder to get things perfect with the 645D because of the lack of live view.
So the real useful comparison would be to take 10 images with both cameras in real life situation and compare the actual image quality including that of images that are not optimally focused.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ah,
Miles is WyoFoto! Lucky guy to have a lot of Pentax lenses!
Best regards
Erik
Welcome to the discussion, Miles. For others, I would like to point that mheckler is listed as a newbie on this forum, but he is a well known and respected photographer. While reading the Road to Taos article Miles recently wrote for LuLa, I visited his web site and also noted that he has written an interesting article (http://www.wyofoto.com/Digital_landscape_cameras_2010.html) comparing dSLRs to MFDB--at least on paper. He mentioned the Pentax 645 but hasn't actually handled one.
-
Bernard,
I downloaded some appropriate test images from Imaging Resource and measured MTF50 with Imatest. I got the following results:
Pentax 645D: 4605 LW/PH
Nikon D3X: 3057 LW/PH
So the Pentax gives something like 50% better resolution. Some of the improvement is probably because of better lens, no OLP filter and so on.
Hi Erik,
That's totally cosistent with the expectations, no surprise there. The 645D has almost 35% more vertical pixels, so an increase in Line Widths per Picture Height of 35% would be expected, but the lack of an AA-filter boosts the MTF response even further. The reponse at and beyond Nyquist shows its potential for aliasing.
I made a comparison of the bottle images scaled to 50x70 cm and 70x100 cm. On 50x70 cm file very little difference was seen but the 70x100 file was clearly better on the Pentax.
The way I do these comparisons I upscale the image so I can make a 50x70 (or 70x100) print at 200 pixels/inch. I choose 200 line/inch because that is what my pro lab defaults to at these sizes. I'm not really sure about pixels/inch on the 70x100cm, could be 360 pixels/inch although it seems they are 200 pixels/inch, too.
Yes, that's a sensible test from a usability standpoint. The outcome is not surprising because, as I've said from the beginning, more pixels pay off when enlarging.
I don't know if Imaging review had the best lens on the Nikon D3X. The EXIF says 70/2.8. I'd presume 24-70/2.8 at 70 mm.
There are other factors to consider as well, depending on one's subject choice. To reach a certain DOF on the 645D one may need to stop down further, and the effects of diffraction will become visible at the pixel level with apertures narrower than f/6.3, and a larger sensor array requires more exposure, so also shutter speed might become relatively lower unless one can add extra light. Live View and/or tethering is often a critical need, because nothing kills MTF as fast as defocus. So handling (e.g. think about portrait orientation) and placements of controls becomes important as well.
So the demonstration of potential (I'd rather call it that than a comparison or test, due to the different platforms) is nice, but it doesn't tell the whole story ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think some of the 35mm die hard have difficulty to digest the evidence and are finding any kind of excuse to deny the fact that once the focusing is there: more is more.
-
Hi,
The LW/PH figure I measured was a little bit on the low side for a truly excellent lens, correctly focused, on the D3X. Your other observations are absolutely valid.
I sort of presume that the camera is sitting on top a decent tripod and MLU is used if we talk resolution.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
There are other factors to consider as well, depending on one's subject choice. To reach a certain DOF on the 645D one may need to stop down further, and the effects of diffraction will become visible at the pixel level with apertures narrower than f/6.3, and a larger sensor array requires more exposure, so also shutter speed might become relatively lower unless one can add extra light. Live View and/or tethering is often a critical need, because nothing kills MTF as fast as defocus. So handling (e.g. think about portrait orientation) and placements of controls becomes important as well.
So the demonstration of potential (I'd rather call it that than a comparison or test, due to the different platforms) is nice, but it doesn't tell the whole story ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think some of the 35mm die hard have difficulty to digest the evidence and are finding any kind of excuse to deny the fact that once the focusing is there: more is more.
Why would anyone in his/her right mind resist the obvious fact that a 40MP 645D without AA filter has the potential to deliver significantly more resolution than a high end DSLR when focused properly?
Beyond that, why would anyone want to be a 35mm die hard??? I think most photographers look at their actual needs and budget and take a rational decision on what tool meets their minimal criteria for performance while offering a good price/performance ratio. It will be 35mm for some, MF for others.
There are objective information sources around to take such rational decisions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
It seems to me that the Pentax 645D delivers. What it delivers is MF performance at nearly D3X price. That of course rises the question of lenses. Those lenses Nick tested seem to be pretty good.
Another question is how a future Nikon (D4X?) will perform with Zeiss lenses and other high end primes? We see that Canon, Nikon and Sony introduce APS-C cameras with 16-18 MP sensors and that sensor pitch would be around 40 MP on full frame. So I guess that kind of resolution is on the horizon. My guess is that present day zooms may lack resolution across the field to match a 4.5 micron pitch sensor, but high quality primes can perhaps utilize a sensor fully. Anyway smaller pitches mean "weaker" OLP filter.
Another question is the market place. How many actors can we have in the MF marketplace? The Pentax 645D is in a sense very similarly positioned to the Leica S2.
Lloyd Chambers will soon do some testing on the Pentax 645D and he has done a lot of shooting with the Leica S2. No doubt, some will buy the Leica for the magic "red dot", but I got the impression from that it has some real advantages.
On the other hand I got the impression from Lloyd's and your writing that at least some Zeiss lenses really deliver, once correctly focused.
Anyway, it seems that future is bright for photographers. Doesn't always feel that way in the Swedish winter.
Best regards
Erik
Why would anyone in his/her right mind resist the obvious fact that a 40MP 645D without AA filter has the potential to deliver significantly more resolution than a high end DSLR when focused properly?
Beyond that, why would anyone want to be a 35mm die hard??? I think most photographers look at their actual needs and budget and take a rational decision on what tool meets their minimal criteria for performance while offering a good price/performance ratio. It will be 35mm for some, MF for others.
There are objective information sources around to take such rational decisions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
It seems to me that the Pentax 645D delivers. What it delivers is MF performance at nearly D3X price.
Yes, it does. Leaving economics, existing investments and personal preferences aside, it will be a no brainer for many of the landscape photographers confident in their ability to focus optimally a camera through its viewfinder, which should be the case for all existing MF owners (if not mine).
This remarkable achievement reflects the amount of money invested in the project by Pentax and a lot of very hard work, this itself resulting from a smart business model where volume funds R&D costs across product lines.
Besides the lack of live view, another problem with the Pentax system today is the lack of T/S lenses though. I have already mentioned this to them (along with the live view issue) and they are aware of these 2 limitations, acknowledge them, and are trying to find solutions.
I agree with your point that the 1ds4/A1000/D4x are not very far away. I will personally probably wait until the 2nd generation of the 645D, see if it does have live view and T/S lenses. If Pentax can pull that, chances are that I will sell most of my Nikon gear. If they don't, I might or might not buy a D4x that I would probably keep for 10 years or so. The D3x is already so damned close to perfection that even that will be a hard call.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
I downloaded some appropriate test images from Imaging Resource and measured MTF50 with Imatest. I got the following results:
Pentax 645D: 4605 LW/PH
Nikon D3X: 3057 LW/PH
Eric,
Interesting results. I don't know which images you downloaded, but for some testing on own, I downloaded D3XhRES6048F for the D3x and 645DhRES7264F.JPG for the 645. My Imatest results are shown below. The 645 resolution varies in the horizontal and vertical axis, so I chose the vertical for testing.
The problem is that the 645 image does not appear to be sharpened and the D3X image appears oversharpened to my eye, even though Imatest reports slight undersharpening. My results for MTF50 are shown:
D3x: 2750 lw/ph unsharpened, and 2818 lw/ph with Imatest standard sharpening.
645: 3021 lw/ph unsharpened, and 3773 lw/ph with Imatest standard sharpening.
Sharpening is said to be less critical with cameras lacking a low pass filter, but the 645 does appear to need sharpening. The D3x has a slightly lower MTF at Nyquist, consistent with the low pass filter, but there appear to be a lot of artifacts beyond Nyquist, which I would consider undesirable.
I think that the characteristics of the two sensors are so different that it would be difficult to equalize the variables with Imatest, where oversharpening can lead to MTF50 well beyond Nyquist consistent with artifacts. Ideally, one would use deconvolution sharpening for the D3x, but I don't see a raw file. Looking at the rendered images, the 645 appears smoother, but the magnification is greater as Bart pointed out.
Regards,
Bill
-
Bill,
Thanks for comments.
The results you got were quite different from mine. I was working with raw images and converted with Lightroom with standard sharpening.
The images I used were:
D3XhMULTI0100 (100 ISO)
645FhRES7264F (200 ISO)
My figures were for standardized sharpening. I'm going to recheck my results.
Best regards
Erik
Eric,
Interesting results. I don't know which images you downloaded, but for some testing on own, I downloaded D3XhRES6048F for the D3x and 645DhRES7264F.JPG for the 645. My Imatest results are shown below. The 645 resolution varies in the horizontal and vertical axis, so I chose the vertical for testing.
The problem is that the 645 image does not appear to be sharpened and the D3X image appears oversharpened to my eye, even though Imatest reports slight undersharpening. My results for MTF50 are shown:
D3x: 2750 lw/ph unsharpened, and 2818 lw/ph with Imatest standard sharpening.
645: 3021 lw/ph unsharpened, and 3773 lw/ph with Imatest standard sharpening.
Sharpening is said to be less critical with cameras lacking a low pass filter, but the 645 does appear to need sharpening. The D3x has a slightly lower MTF at Nyquist, consistent with the low pass filter, but there appear to be a lot of artifacts beyond Nyquist, which I would consider undesirable.
I think that the characteristics of the two sensors are so different that it would be difficult to equalize the variables with Imatest, where oversharpening can lead to MTF50 well beyond Nyquist consistent with artifacts. Ideally, one would use deconvolution sharpening for the D3x, but I don't see a raw file. Looking at the rendered images, the 645 appears smoother, but the magnification is greater as Bart pointed out.
Regards,
Bill
-
I agree with your point that the 1ds4/A1000/D4x are not very far away. I will personally probably wait until the 2nd generation of the 645D, see if it does have live view and T/S lenses. If Pentax can pull that, chances are that I will sell most of my Nikon gear. If they don't, I might or might not buy a D4x that I would probably keep for 10 years or so. The D3x is already so damned close to perfection that even that will be a hard call.
Cheers,
Bernard
I pulled out the original 1Ds recently, I think that is 8 years old, and apart from the fact that it is VERY heavy, at normal ISO values and enlargement it will give any other camera a run for its money. I have the impression that much of the increase in ISO and noise since then is "fake", with ISO set conservatively to underexpose on the 1Ds and avoid burnout. Out of camera image processing has advanced considerably since then, so higher ISO and highlight recovery should be possible with the same hardware.
Note that I had Canon swap the sensor on my 1Ds, and I was doing fashion shows at 1250 ISO with it at the time ...
I did a bunch of portraits with the 1Ds and the old 135/2 Canon lens a couple of months ago, and can assure you it works. I would have been smarter not to be taken in by marketing and simply kept using the thing. Good big pixels trump bad small pixels every time.
Edmund
-
So disregarding the mathematics and the formula, print by print does the Pentax better the 35mm DSLR's?
Kevin.
-
Hi,
From the samples I would say yes, if printed larger than 50x70 cm and using perfect technique.
Moirés may be an issue, if technique is perfect. Stopping down to or past f/11 would probably much reduce moiré and aliasing, thanks diffraction. This observation is much based on Lloyd Chambers field test of the Leica S2, which had lot's of moiré that disappeared at f/11.
Cannot say more without getting the camera and shooting with it!
Best regards
Erik
So disregarding the mathematics and the formula, print by print does the Pentax better the 35mm DSLR's?
Kevin.
-
I pulled out the original 1Ds recently, I think that is 8 years old, and apart from the fact that it is VERY heavy, at normal ISO values and enlargement it will give any other camera a run for its money.
Edmund, honestly the only cameras that the old 1ds can "get" a run for its money today, are: 12mp, 500 bucks APSc consumer DSLR. ;D
Of course the pictures it can take are as good today are they were more than good enough back then.
IMO the 1ds was the first digital camera worth buying for replacing film on my work flow.
-
So disregarding the mathematics and the formula, print by print does the Pentax better the 35mm DSLR's?
Kevin.
You betcha!
Once I made a comparative test between a Sony a900 with zeiss 135mm (as good as any D3x with equivalent lens) and a Phase P30 with 150mm mamiya.
processed and sharpened to taste and printed in A3.
Showed the prints to 2 photographers that shoot only dslr, 2 art directors who normally works with high end photographers and an very fine architect.
Asked which one they preferred and one of the two 2 photographers could not tell the difference, the other 4 persons picked the Phase one print.
It was not a night and day difference, but it was there and could be seen.
From the files I have seen, IMO the Pentax is tangibly better than the phase P30 and will print better than any current DSLR.
-
Edmund, honestly the only cameras that the old 1ds can "get" a run for its money today, are: 12mp, 500 bucks APSc consumer DSLR. ;D
Of course the pictures it can take are as good today are they were more than good enough back then.
IMO the 1ds was the first digital camera worth buying for replacing film on my work flow.
I disagree. The 1Ds focuses faster an better than my 5DII, and the images have more crispness.
In fact I just managed to locate my equally old 85/1.2, and will be taking this dumb-bell out for a walk today.
I won't say the 1Ds is a better camera than the Nikon, It feels a bit like digging out a roll of a different film.
Edmund
-
So disregarding the mathematics and the formula, print by print does the Pentax better the 35mm DSLR's?
Kevin.
As I said in the article, at 13x19 the print from an M9 is very, very close to that from the P40+ and and 645D. Under ideal use conditions, the same would be true for the D3x, and, depending on the lens, the 5DII and 1DsIII.
At sizes where you have hit the limits of the printer's resolutions, whatever tonal transition benefits one gains from the increased information in the MF image are probably lost. At sizes bigger than 13x19, I expect that the differences will become more readily apparent to discerning viewers. It's important to emphasize that these differences are of a subtle scale. These are not 'screaming-in-your-face' differences. Michael's experiment with the P65+ and the G12 a couple of years ago demonstrated this quite acutely.
I'm still trying to come to grips with he bit-depth issue. I've always thought there was more robustness to well-exposed MF files. There is no difference that I can find, however, between a P40 and a 645D file. Indeed, the losslessly compressed RAW files off the 645D are a lot larger than the IIQ files from the P40+ (which means principally that Phase has better compression algorithms)- but there is no secret vault of extra data hiding in there.
That said, the difference between 12 and 14 bit may be real. It would be nice if someone did some sort of real-world test of this.
- N.
-
Once I made a comparative test between a Sony a900 with zeiss 135mm (as good as any D3x with equivalent lens).
I find this hard to believe. The extra stop of dynamic range in the D3x amounts to nothing in your opinion?
-
Hi,
It doesn't matter until you need it. If your subject has a limited tonal range it won't be helped by extensive DR. Also, DR is quite good on the Pentax 645D.
Another point, I have something like 50000 images on my computer, but it's not easy to find samples that really require a lot of DR.
Best regards
Erik
I find this hard to believe. The extra stop of dynamic range in the D3x amounts to nothing in your opinion?
-
I find this hard to believe. The extra stop of dynamic range in the D3x amounts to nothing in your opinion?
In 99% of photos it wont matter a zic.
But if for extra stop of DR you mean a chart representation of it, ala DxO, then I think is not even worth talking about it.
-
In 99% of photos it wont matter a zic.
But if for extra stop of DR you mean a chart representation of it, ala DxO, then I think is not even worth talking about it.
On the backs and the D3x you lose one stop of DR per stop ISO. So push the back to ISO 800, expose for the highlights, and you will notice your shadow noise and shadow details getting marginal - hair shadows are a good place to look.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I'd suggest that A3 is to small to show real difference. There are to many variables in the kind of test you have down:
- Processing to taste
- Possible focusing errors
- Capture sharpening
- Uprezzing and output sharpening
I'd made some comparisons between my Alpha 900 and my Alpha 700 doing A2 size prints and the results were quite close. I one case essentially no one could tell them apart. Two other comparisons I could easily tell which was which. Small differences in contrast may make a picture sharper, but contrast is pretty much a processing parameter. When I looked at the files there was a huge difference.
Michael Reichmann did a comparison between P45+ and Canon G10 where no difference could be seen on 13x19" prints.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
I'm pretty sure that the Pentax 645D would have and advantage over Nikon D3X at larger size prints, if both cameras were correctly focused that is.
Best regards
Erik
You betcha!
Once I made a comparative test between a Sony a900 with zeiss 135mm (as good as any D3x with equivalent lens) and a Phase P30 with 150mm mamiya.
processed and sharpened to taste and printed in A3.
Showed the prints to 2 photographers that shoot only dslr, 2 art directors who normally works with high end photographers and an very fine architect.
Asked which one they preferred and one of the two 2 photographers could not tell the difference, the other 4 persons picked the Phase one print.
It was not a night and day difference, but it was there and could be seen.
From the files I have seen, IMO the Pentax is tangibly better than the phase P30 and will print better than any current DSLR.
-
Bill,
I'm much surprised when looking at your Nikon D3X plot. It has very odd behavior right of the Nyquist limit. The Pentax image is much nicer. I guess this is coming from in camera JPEG processing.
I tried to upload my plots from Imatest, but they would not show up on the forum. Still learning to use the new forum software ;.(
Best regards
Erik
Eric,
Interesting results. I don't know which images you downloaded, but for some testing on own, I downloaded D3XhRES6048F for the D3x and 645DhRES7264F.JPG for the 645. My Imatest results are shown below. The 645 resolution varies in the horizontal and vertical axis, so I chose the vertical for testing.
The problem is that the 645 image does not appear to be sharpened and the D3X image appears oversharpened to my eye, even though Imatest reports slight undersharpening. My results for MTF50 are shown:
D3x: 2750 lw/ph unsharpened, and 2818 lw/ph with Imatest standard sharpening.
645: 3021 lw/ph unsharpened, and 3773 lw/ph with Imatest standard sharpening.
Sharpening is said to be less critical with cameras lacking a low pass filter, but the 645 does appear to need sharpening. The D3x has a slightly lower MTF at Nyquist, consistent with the low pass filter, but there appear to be a lot of artifacts beyond Nyquist, which I would consider undesirable.
I think that the characteristics of the two sensors are so different that it would be difficult to equalize the variables with Imatest, where oversharpening can lead to MTF50 well beyond Nyquist consistent with artifacts. Ideally, one would use deconvolution sharpening for the D3x, but I don't see a raw file. Looking at the rendered images, the 645 appears smoother, but the magnification is greater as Bart pointed out.
Regards,
Bill
-
In 99% of photos it wont matter a zic.
But if for extra stop of DR you mean a chart representation of it, ala DxO, then I think is not even worth talking about it.
There are plenty of cases where a one stop extra DR can make or break an image:
- morning overcast landscape scenes with a very bright area in the clouds surrounding the sun and much darker skies around,
- summer sunlit villages in Southern France with deep shadows where detail matters,
- Architecture scenes
- rock concerts
- ...
In all of these cases lifting shadows significantly is often required and the amount of noise you see there has a major impact on the perceived quality of the photograph. The recent addition of single shot HDR on DxO shows the way, information in deep shadows is becoming a key differentiator between cameras because it is the most obvious manifestation of DR.
Unless I am mistaken, you appreciate the qualities of your phaseone back in those conditions and the D3x would provide the same advantage. At least is it what I have experienced again and again shooting tens of thousands of images with one, just like the other owners on this very site.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At sizes where you have hit the limits of the printer's resolutions
- N.
Can you explain the above sentence please?
-
Size bloody matters!
I don't understand why it is so difficult to accept for some.
If this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdfUCQjYPCQ would try to do this work at this enlargement's sizes with a D3 or 1D MK2 it just wouldn't be possible with the today's tech without loosing too much quality and enter into unacceptable compromises.
Maybe a little less of reviews beleifs, brands supporting and lab measurements...
-
Hi,
If the printer cannot resolve the detail you won't see it. It's a bit more complex than that, because you really need to sharpen for output, so an additional halo is added to the image.
The sharpening workflow is essentially
- Capture sharpening, and this should be quite agressive on a OLP-filtered camera
- "Creative sharpening"
- Resizing for output
- Output sharpening
After which the image is will be sent to the printer that does error diffusion dithering before ink hits the paper.
Just to explain that many things happen until the image is transferred to print...
Best regards
Erik
Can you explain the above sentence please?
-
Bill,
I'm much surprised when looking at your Nikon D3X plot. It has very odd behavior right of the Nyquist limit. The Pentax image is much nicer. I guess this is coming from in camera JPEG processing.
I tried to upload my plots from Imatest, but they would not show up on the forum. Still learning to use the new forum software ;.(
Erik,
I agree that the Imatest results for the D3x are odd and likely related to processing of the JPEGs, probably sharpening. The Pentax resolution series had a raw file (DNG), but I was unable to locate a raw file for the Nikon D3x series so that I could do my own processing.
The new software has a number of frustrations. If you use the insert image icon on the toolbar, it merely inserts an image tag in the file for linking to an image on your own server. It is easier to use the attachment option at the bottom of the screen, as shown below. For anything including text or line graphics, it is best to use GIF or PNG. Unfortunately, the image does not appear in the preview and you have no control over the location of the attachment on the screen. :(
Regards,
Bill
-
Hi,
If the printer cannot resolve the detail you won't see it. It's a bit more complex than that, because you really need to sharpen for output, so an additional halo is added to the image.
The sharpening workflow is essentially
- Capture sharpening, and this should be quite agressive on a OLP-filtered camera
- "Creative sharpening"
- Resizing for output
- Output sharpening
After which the image is will be sent to the printer that does error diffusion dithering before ink hits the paper.
Just to explain that many things happen until the image is transferred to print...
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik, I think I just misread Nick's post and did not realise he was talking about down-scaling
I know the ins and outs of printing, having worked in the imaging/ pre-press industry for a long time in both R&D and field positions...
BTW there is no such thing as "capture sharpening" in MFDB...there might be some basic parameters tagged to the raw file that the raw converter will use (or not) but there is no sharpening that is done in the capture stage
Creative sharpening, IMO means nothing if it does not relate to the final output size and medium
Yair
Leaf Imaging
-
Hi,
The sharpening workflow I described has been "invented" by the late Bruce Faser and advocated by Jeff Schewe, among others. Capture sharpening is not done in the camera but on raw import. The idea with capture sharpening is to "restore" contrast that has been lost in the capture process.
Creative sharpening is local enhancement of sharpness.
Output sharpening is done after resizing for print. This is the way Lightroom works.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik, I think I just misread Nick's post and did not realise he was talking about down-scaling
I know the ins and outs of printing, having worked in the imaging/ pre-press industry for a long time in both R&D and field positions...
BTW there is no such thing as "capture sharpening" in MFDB...there might be some basic parameters tagged to the raw file that the raw converter will use (or not) but there is no sharpening that is done in the capture stage
Creative sharpening, IMO means nothing if it does not relate to the final output size and medium
Yair
Leaf Imaging
-
I know the ins and outs of printing, having worked in the imaging/ pre-press industry for a long time in both R&D and field positions...
BTW there is no such thing as "capture sharpening" in MFDB...there might be some basic parameters tagged to the raw file that the raw converter will use (or not) but there is no sharpening that is done in the capture stage
Yair
Leaf Imaging
Yair,
I see that you are with Leaf imaging and presumably have some expertise with digital backs. I understand that MFDBs need less capture sharpening than dSLRs, since the former usually have no low pass filter. However, my Imatest analysis of images from the Pentax 645D indicate that some capture sharpening is needed. Please document your assertion with data from your backs.
Regards,
Bill
-
I think what YAYA is saying is that MFDB actual raw files are not sharpened during capture by the back - ever,
not that they dont need it applied by the capture software - just that the RAW data is actual RAW un-molested data.
I believe nikon and canon dslr Raws do get some minor processing of some sort in camera - I may be mistaken however ?
-
AFAIK the only thing that is ever done to RAW files is that sometimes the electronic offset (bias) level is subtracted; Nikon does this, Canon does not. Canon is correct it its approach - "un-molested" data, as Dennis nicely puts it.
How could one sharpen a RAW image, when adjacent pixels are sampling different, independent colours?
-
Hi,
The sharpening workflow I described has been "invented" by the late Bruce Faser and advocated by Jeff Schewe, among others. Capture sharpening is not done in the camera but on raw import. The idea with capture sharpening is to "restore" contrast that has been lost in the capture process.
Creative sharpening is local enhancement of sharpness.
Output sharpening is done after resizing for print. This is the way Lightroom works.
Best regards
Erik
Adobe's workflow is only one of many...what you call Capture sharpening is a set of parameters applied to the preview in the raw converter (e.g. Lightroom). These will be provided by the software provider, sometimes after working/ testing with some files and sometimes as a "reasonable compromise"
In some workflows (for example in Leaf Capture or in the old Creo scanning software, oXYgen) the sharpening parameters will adjust automatically according to the output size if you work with a preset or you can fine tune them manually. Every preset comprises of 5 different parameters in addition to 3 channels to choose from. This way your "Output sharpening" is done WHILE resizing and not AFTER...you get a 100% preview of the scaled AND sharpened image...it'll only be applied to the image once the raw file is exported.
Naturally, those presets are geared towards commercial CMYK print and are created during extensive testing and years of field experience. I assume you already know that in general, a printed image requires more sharpening than an image that is viewed on a screen etc.
You can download Leaf Capture and some raw files from our website (http://www.leaf-photography.com/downloads.asp) and try it for yourself
Cheers, yair
-
Yair,
I see that you are with Leaf imaging and presumably have some expertise with digital backs. I understand that MFDBs need less capture sharpening than dSLRs, since the former usually have no low pass filter. However, my Imatest analysis of images from the Pentax 645D indicate that some capture sharpening is needed. Please document your assertion with data from your backs.
Regards,
Bill
Hi Bill,
I don't recall any such assertion that I've made here and surely you are not expecting me to answer for Pentax, right?
But yes I think that the general consensus is that MFDB images will typically be sharper than those taken with DSLRs due to lack of AA filtering, pixel/ sensor design and sensor-specific characteristics (Dalsa Vs Kodak etc.). This of course is subject to many variables and should not be taken as a 100% fact.
If you would like to see some Leaf raw files you can find a few on our website. If you are after a specific type or subject/ conditions/ camera used please contact me directly off-line and I'll help you
Cheers
Yair
[email protected] +44 77 8992 8199
-
Yair -
It's a theory -
The idea is to deconvolve the input in a first pass (focus errors, lens aberrations, sensor cover glass, body flare), to use esthetic and physiological sharpening in a second pass for emphasis (eg clarity), and then before printing factor in a sharpening that will compensate for the printer's loss of sharpness at the printed scale.
So, it's an approach, a flowchart. You can like it or you can dump it. However it has little to do with Adobe, or Leaf, or Pentax, or Nikon, aside from the fact that some manufacturers like Hasselblad and Canon are better than others at measuring their equipment in-house and providing deconvolution algorithms for their cameras and lenses and sensors. I still remember how I almost fell off my chair when using the Canon algorithms in DPP the first time - it was as if someone had handed me a new camera.
Edmund
Adobe's workflow is only one of many...what you call Capture sharpening is a set of parameters applied to the preview in the raw converter (e.g. Lightroom). These will be provided by the software provider, sometimes after working/ testing with some files and sometimes as a "reasonable compromise"
In some workflows (for example in Leaf Capture or in the old Creo scanning software, oXYgen) the sharpening parameters will adjust automatically according to the output size if you work with a preset or you can fine tune them manually. Every preset comprises of 5 different parameters in addition to 3 channels to choose from. This way your "Output sharpening" is done WHILE resizing and not AFTER...you get a 100% preview of the scaled AND sharpened image...it'll only be applied to the image once the raw file is exported.
Naturally, those presets are geared towards commercial CMYK print and are created during extensive testing and years of field experience. I assume you already know that in general, a printed image requires more sharpening than an image that is viewed on a screen etc.
You can download Leaf Capture and some raw files from our website (http://www.leaf-photography.com/downloads.asp) and try it for yourself
Cheers, yair
-
Adobe's workflow is only one of many...what you call Capture sharpening is a set of parameters applied to the preview in the raw converter (e.g. Lightroom). These will be provided by the software provider, sometimes after working/ testing with some files and sometimes as a "reasonable compromise"
What was described; capture, creative and output sharpening is not an "Adobe workflow" as you say but a sharpening workflow worked out as a multi-pass sharpening workflow by the late Bruce Fraser...yes, Adobe has adopted the sharpening workflow concept into Camera Raw and Lightroom, but it isn't an Adobe thingie...
C1 can do capture sharpening just fine and in the new C1 6, it can do output sharpening upon printing. The local creative sharpening is somewhat limited however. But for optimal final image quality, I seriously doubt any single sharpening workflow will be superior to a multi-pass sharpening workflow...oh, and it ain't a "reasonable compromise" as you call it but an optimal workflow for IQ. See Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow (http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-thoughts-on-a-sharpening-workflow) by Bruce Fraser.
-
Bill,
I tried to attach the images but they simple didn't show up. Did it the way you suggested.
I will dig into the issue with differences in print, because I made some experiments earlier where I could see little difference in A2 prints between 12 MP APS-C and 24 MP full frame, although the full frame files were obviously much better. I think that processing pipeline really matters and so does processing.
I'll post my findings on my own web page. Guess it will take a couple of days.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I agree that the Imatest results for the D3x are odd and likely related to processing of the JPEGs, probably sharpening. The Pentax resolution series had a raw file (DNG), but I was unable to locate a raw file for the Nikon D3x series so that I could do my own processing.
The new software has a number of frustrations. If you use the insert image icon on the toolbar, it merely inserts an image tag in the file for linking to an image on your own server. It is easier to use the attachment option at the bottom of the screen, as shown below. For anything including text or line graphics, it is best to use GIF or PNG. Unfortunately, the image does not appear in the preview and you have no control over the location of the attachment on the screen. :(
Regards,
Bill
-
I just did a portrait by tungsten with the old 1Ds and old 85/1.2, to check. It gave me something I don't think I can reproduce with anything with a smaller sensor, and I don't think anything else at all. The only word I have is film-like. Like old 35mm film. I have other cameras, but this one is unique.
Edmund
Edmund, honestly the only cameras that the old 1ds can "get" a run for its money today, are: 12mp, 500 bucks APSc consumer DSLR. ;D
Of course the pictures it can take are as good today are they were more than good enough back then.
IMO the 1ds was the first digital camera worth buying for replacing film on my work flow.
-
What was described; capture, creative and output sharpening is not an "Adobe workflow" as you say but a sharpening workflow worked out as a multi-pass sharpening workflow by the late Bruce Fraser...yes, Adobe has adopted the sharpening workflow concept into Camera Raw and Lightroom, but it isn't an Adobe thingie...
C1 can do capture sharpening just fine and in the new C1 6, it can do output sharpening upon printing. The local creative sharpening is somewhat limited however. But for optimal final image quality, I seriously doubt any single sharpening workflow will be superior to a multi-pass sharpening workflow...oh, and it ain't a "reasonable compromise" as you call it but an optimal workflow for IQ. See Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow (http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-thoughts-on-a-sharpening-workflow) by Bruce Fraser.
I don't think we are in disagreement here...we're just looking at it from different angles...
IMO there is no such thing as "optimal workflow for IQ"...it might be optimal for SOME applications. In today's commercial world, workflow wise, a lot of the "creative sharpening" is done by retouchers on an already processed image, meaning that "capture sharpening" is either done by the photographer or not and that "output sharpening" is either done by the retoucher or by someone else afterwards, yet it is still "optimal" and is based on multiple software solutions.
That's what I meant when I said that Adobe's workflow is only one of many. Also if the math involved in one workflow is better than the other and is based on less steps and still provides better final results then which one is the more "optimal"? I don't think there is one answer...