Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Mike Sellers on July 29, 2012, 12:14:46 pm
-
My need is to print very large prints so between these two cameras which one would produce the best looking file for large prints?
Mike
-
Pop corn please!
Eduardo
My need is to print very large prints so between these two cameras which one would produce the best looking file for large prints?
Mike
-
Even after popcorn the d800E produces a 36MP image and the H3D 22mp a 22MP image...
-
Even after popcorn the d800E produces a 36MP image and the H3D 22mp a 22MP image...
Just a 28% difference in resolving power. Perhaps more, perhaps less, depending how the difference in aspect ratio affects the final image. I print with a 44" printer and no one can tell which images come from a 22MP P25+ back and a 40MP Pentax 645D--at 100% the Pentax obviously shows more, but even printed to 44" roll paper, the printer does not show all the detail in the file. Pixel resolution is vastly overrated.
-
Thanks 645 Guy for the helpful post.
-
Because sensor size is also part of the equation.
Eduardo
Just a 28% difference in resolving power. Perhaps more, perhaps less, depending how the difference in aspect ratio affects the final image. I print with a 44" printer and no one can tell which images come from a 22MP P25+ back and a 40MP Pentax 645D--at 100% the Pentax obviously shows more, but even printed to 44" roll paper, the printer does not show all the detail in the file. Pixel resolution is vastly overrated.
-
Because sensor size is also part of the equation.
Eduardo
Sensor size does make a difference, but it's hot really that big of a difference because the 22MP MF sensors are still quite small.
48.9 x 36.7 is not really a big difference from 24x36. While MFD manufactures like to refer to their sensors as being twice the size of a FF 35mm DRLR sensor they are referring to surface area, not linear size. Resolution and depth of field are all dependent on linear functions not area.
So really for issues like diffraction and resolution you need to look at linear difference.
Going from a 36 x 24 to a 48.9 x 36 is actually only a 25.385 % linear increase.
This will only improve diffraction a theoretical amount of 25%
Shallow depth of field is often touted as an advantage with larger sensors as is better bokeh. However if you keep in mind that Nikon and Canon make much faster lenses this is a moot point and marketing spin.
If larger sensor or capture area is important your better off going with film that has much larger negatives.
5x7 and 6x8 cm cameras will have a visual look that is hard to match with MFD, especially if you consider that the lenses available are as fast
as MFD lenses, but with larger negatives.
For example Phase one's fastest 645 lens is 80mm at f2.8 yet their RZ67 110mm is also a 2.8.
Then there is also the issue of iris blades that drastically effect bokeh if you are not wide open.
Phase One Schneider use 5 blades and have pentagon shaped artifacts off out of focus highlights.
Nikon's 85mm 1.4 for example uses a 9 blade circular iris.
Fuji gx680 uses 8 blade circular or almost circular iris.
-
Because sensor size is also part of the equation.
Eduardo
But sensor size does not indicate which would produce "better" prints. That is a subjective call.
-
For example Phase one's fastest 645 lens is 80mm at f2.8 yet their RZ67 110mm is also a 2.8.
Why would you say the 80mm is the fastest Phase One lens?
Other lenses that work great on the Phase One 645 DF are as fast or faster (depending on if you mean absolute aperture or aperture relative to focal length):
- Schneider 110mm f/2.8 LS
- Phase One 150mm f/2.8 D
- Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 (older manual focus lens)
- Mamiya 300mm f/2.8 (older manual focus lens)
Hard to beat the rendering of the 150mm D. Beautiful lens.
-
Why would you say the 80mm is the fastest Phase One lens?
Other lenses that work great on the Phase One 645 DF are as fast or faster (depending on if you mean absolute aperture or aperture relative to focal length):
- Schneider 110mm f/2.8 LS
- Phase One 150mm f/2.8 D
- Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 (older manual focus lens)
- Mamiya 300mm f/2.8 (older manual focus lens)
Hard to beat the rendering of the 150mm D. Beautiful lens.
What he said plus all the V series lenses inc. the FE 110/f2 if you're into paper thin DOF....probably the shallowest DOF this side of 6x7...
-
Because sensor size is also part of the equation.
And so is the level of the technlogy in the sensors, like the recent Nikon-Sony sensors using column-parallel on-sensor ADC which have far lower dark noise and better dynamic range than the sensors in any current DMF back, which all still rely on CCD technology that has barely improved in the last decade. It is hard to use the mantra of "biger sensors are always better" when the smaller sensor has both more pixels and better per pixel performance on most measures.
But then lens quality is also part of the equation: as with sensors, this should favor the larger format, unless the far larger R&D budgets of the 35mm format makers give them a big enough technological lead in this area too. This is a far messier comparison, which I will leave to others.
-
+1
In all probability the most important factor.
Best regards
Erik
The one being used by the person who has a clue.
-
Why would you say the 80mm is the fastest Phase One lens?
Other lenses that work great on the Phase One 645 DF are as fast or faster (depending on if you mean absolute aperture or aperture relative to focal length):
- Schneider 110mm f/2.8 LS
- Phase One 150mm f/2.8 D
- Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 (older manual focus lens)
- Mamiya 300mm f/2.8 (older manual focus lens)
Hard to beat the rendering of the 150mm D. Beautiful lens.
Why do I say that the fastest lens is the 80mm 2.8.... well because there are no other Phase or Mamiya lenses in production that are faster than 2.8.
The Mamiya 80mm 1.9 is out of production and most copies you can find are hazy today due to bonding between the elements degrading.
I looked at many copies before I found a good one. It is also far from sharp wide open.
Manual focus on the DF body with the 80mm 1.9 is hit and miss. Focus confirmation pretty much useless.
One really needs a high magnification and bright waist level finder to accurately shoot wide open with fast MF lenses.
For the best shallow depth of field look the D800 with the 85mm 1.4G or 200mm 2.0G is the best way to go.
Very fast and accurate focusing with both autofocus and live view manual focusing. Both of these being
faster in comparison to any current MF offering. Pair that with the infinitely superior focusing of the D800 in both off center focusing points and both manual and auto focusing right to the corners in live view.
Regarding the Mamiya 150mm 2.8D.... yup it's the best Mamiya has to offer. Very nice look to it. It does stand out from the rest of the Mamiya Phase lineup. It does however suffer from a fair bit of vignetting wide open. Something I actually don't mind.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5015/5518429209_4690227c1d_o.jpg)
-
What he said plus all the V series lenses inc. the FE 110/f2 if you're into paper thin DOF....probably the shallowest DOF this side of 6x7...
I had the Hasselblad 110mm f2. Brilliant lens, but really hard to focus without a bright high magnification waist level finder.
I found it pretty much unusable with the DF body. Focus confirmation did not work accurately enough and no good for focus and recompose.
I used to use it on a Hasselblad V body with the very rare moving loup viewfinder. Very nice.
I also used a 110mm that was modified with a perfectly round iris replacement that too less than half a stop off.
The result was really really nice. It too away most of the funny buisness of wide open, without introducing the artifacts of the 5 blade iris.
I never used my 110 other than wide open.
-
The one being used by the person who has a clue.
And how about when the one with a clue compares both?
And what about the one used by a person who has a clue and spends the small fortune he or she saved by going with the less expensive option
to travel to some amazing location....... ;)
-
...So Mike, there you have it. Both will produce stunning large prints. Your decision between these two systems should not be based on which one you think makes better big prints.
Instead your decision should be made on mundane features that - surprise - haven't changed much in the last several decades. All in context of your preferred workflow, your subject matter, your shooting style, and your priorities:
Cost, lens selection, control layout, specific features, live view, viewfinder, weight, what fits in the hand, format, and maybe most important - which one gets your creative juices flowing!
Ciao,
Dave
-
...So Mike, there you have it. Both will produce stunning large prints. Your decision between these two systems should not be based on which one you think makes better big prints.
Instead your decision should be made on mundane features that - surprise - haven't changed much in the last several decades. All in context of your preferred workflow, your subject matter, your shooting style, and your priorities:
Cost, lens selection, control layout, specific features, live view, viewfinder, weight, what fits in the hand, format, and maybe most important - which one gets your creative juices flowing!
Ciao,
Dave
You left out two things that are important.
Dynamic range and reliability.
Dynamic range is better with the D800.
As far as reliability goes ... my experience has been that both high end Canons and high end Nikons are hard to beat.
Not only are they more reliable, but repair service is less expensive and quicker. Bugs get sorted out very quickly thanks to the massive user base and the resources that these bigger companies can throw at a bug.
Then if you look at reliability on a fixed budget there is no comparison.
For the price of one MFDB camera you can buy from 2 to 10 35mm DSLRs
With the d800 you can work 4 times as fast, but also as slow as you want.
-
As far as reliability goes ...
Nothing beats the ability of own 1 or 2 back ups of your main body with the exact same specs. Considering the price of the D800E, this is a no brainer.
Add to this the ability to shoot to a back up card in camera and you reduce risk by a tremendous margin during important shoots.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I do nature photography. I am represented by an art licensing agency and one stock agency. In the last few years I have tried the Canon 5D MKII,Contax 645 film and Sony a850. I really liked the ease of use with the Contax. The more buttons,menus and switches there are the more confused I get. I have been looking at medium format digital but have also been looking at the SD1. I read a report on the Sigma SD1 that the files have about the same IQ as 30mp medium format? Anyway,I want another camera for the upcoming fall color season.
-
Hi,
It depends a lot on the lens you put in front, how you work and if you have a perfectly aligned sample. The area where Nikon has an advantage is live view and contrast detecting AF, plus flexibility regarding lenses. You have a choice of AF lenses from Nikon and some very fine Zeiss lenses.
My guess is that Nikon would have the edge. But I have tested neither, so I don't know.
Marc McCalmont who is a frequent poster here on this forums seems very satisfied with his D800E.
Best regards
Erik
My need is to print very large prints so between these two cameras which one would produce the best looking file for large prints?
Mike
-
I do nature photography. I am represented by an art licensing agency and one stock agency. In the last few years I have tried the Canon 5D MKII,Contax 645 film and Sony a850. I really liked the ease of use with the Contax. The more buttons,menus and switches there are the more confused I get. I have been looking at medium format digital but have also been looking at the SD1. I read a report on the Sigma SD1 that the files have about the same IQ as 30mp medium format? Anyway,I want another camera for the upcoming fall color season.
Then you should also think about a Pentax 645D which would make a very nice nature photo system.
The Sigma really does not have the equivalent resolution as a 30MP camera--that is marketing. The other potential problem with the Sigma would be the colors--they are very unique--which may be difficult to match with your other cameras. If you work with single images, that might not be an issue.
-
The biggest difference between these cameras is going to be in the color and depth. Recently I had a friend in the studio with a D800E and we compared his files to mine. The D800e picked up lots of detail and I was impressed by it, however the differences in color were pretty large. Areas of skin and fabric that had lots of subtle color changes came out flat in the D800E files. It was weird. You could see the little hairs, strands of fabric, so the detail was there, but the color at 100% was all mushed together. I'd think that the H3D22 would produce a more pleasing and real looking image at least at base ISO than the nikon. But how much difference makes its way to the print is hard to say.
-
Hi,
Were you using the same raw processor for both?
Resolution test charts tend to show some color fringing on the D800e, at least with LR. The D800 does not seem to have the same problem.
It has also been said that Color grid Array on Nikons may be more optimized for high ISO, while MF sensors may have CGAs that have less overlap.
Best regards
Erik
The biggest difference between these cameras is going to be in the color and depth. Recently I had a friend in the studio with a D800E and we compared his files to mine. The D800e picked up lots of detail and I was impressed by it, however the differences in color were pretty large. Areas of skin and fabric that had lots of subtle color changes came out flat in the D800E files. It was weird. You could see the little hairs, strands of fabric, so the detail was there, but the color at 100% was all mushed together. I'd think that the H3D22 would produce a more pleasing and real looking image at least at base ISO than the nikon. But how much difference makes its way to the print is hard to say.
-
Thanks for all the info. I will say that a big plus for the Hasselblad is the tilt/shift adapter. I used a Fuji GX 680 at one time but it was a little heavy to lug around.
If I get a nice wildlife photo it is by chance as a result of my being at a lake for landscape photos so I do "static" photography primarily.
I will say this about the Sigma SD1-I downloaded a raw file plus their software and opened it up to a tif. I went in to 100% and it looked really smooth and buttery. Better than a file from my Sony a850.
I will probably go with the Nikon depending on announcements from Photokina!
-
The biggest difference between these cameras is going to be in the color and depth. Recently I had a friend in the studio with a D800E and we compared his files to mine. The D800e picked up lots of detail and I was impressed by it, however the differences in color were pretty large. Areas of skin and fabric that had lots of subtle color changes came out flat in the D800E files. It was weird. You could see the little hairs, strands of fabric, so the detail was there, but the color at 100% was all mushed together. I'd think that the H3D22 would produce a more pleasing and real looking image at least at base ISO than the nikon. But how much difference makes its way to the print is hard to say.
Did you do a side by side test?
I did some comparisons between the D800 and the Phase One P25+.
I found that results were very close color wise at base iso. However quite different exposure
was required. Less with the Nikon and more with the Phase back.
What I did find is that with fine textures any moire correction on the P25+ resulted in mushy
color. Even mild correction required on natural textures like wood grain would mush up the
colors.
Now that said the D800 is not immune to moire, but it is much less likely to rear it's head
and if present it is far easier to correct.
As far as skin tones go the D800 and P25+ each have their respective advantages.
I find high key lighting of skin tones far better on the D800, same goes for skin with shine, especially
on black skin.
On the other hand I do like the slightly less real pastelly touch that I got with the P25+ on
skin tones with with reddisnesses to them. However with a few steps in photoshop I can
get the same thing with the D800. Keep in mind I'm talking about subtle differences.
As far as skin tone with black and white conversions the difference is much bigger.
D800 wins hands down. Both highlight and shadows of the blue channel are just way cleaner.
About the same difference that I found between the 5D III and D800.
Also anything other than base ISO on the P25+ would not hold up against the D800.
-
Did you do a side by side test?
Of course! That's what I wrote. YMMV
-
Dynamic range is after all a fairly specific quantitative measure --- we are not talking about more visceral, experiential attributes like "pop" or "3D effect" or the way that different lenses "draw", or how a camera "falls in the hand".
...BJL?? I don't expect to read something like this from you.
Of course dynamic range is visceral.
Most quantitive measures of DR only loosely correlate to useful photographic dynamic range.
For a shadow or highlight detail to be photographically useful in a high quality workflow I propose it needs to show:
- accurate color, especially when comparing shadows and quarter tones of the same object. If half of a banana is in deep shadow and half is in bright light then I only consider the shadow to be part of the useful dynamic range of the camera if the shadow-half is a correct-in-saturation-and-hue yellow - if it's a muddy brown color then I don't care that I can see the banana, it's not useful dynamic range. Likewise with skin tone and clouds/sky in highlight to three-quarter tone transitions - if the skin is a weird pink before a blown out highlight then the pink is at best questionably part of the useful DR.
- smooth, visually appealing transitions to tones around it (posterization and other visually awkward transitions, chunky rather than evenly distributed noise)
- tactile, natural looking detail/texture
And numerical representations of DR of a particular sensor almost always exclude vital parts of producing actual photographic images like the lens (lens characteristics, namely flaring, but also, micro contrast, total resolution, and chromatic aberration can all affect the usefulness of sensor-recorded data in highlights and shadows) and the software used to process (e.g. Capture One uses some proprietary data in a Phase One raw file to reduce noise inherent in the sensor based on the temperature of the sensor at the time of capture - processing in other software ignores that information).
Highlight rolloff, tonal transition smoothness, noise grain structure, shadow color accuracy, loss of texture in shadows - some of these things can be represented numerically, but given the number of variable the best approach is to look at actual pictures. If you can dodge out an important subject in such a way that the subject is beautifully rendered then it was inside the range of the useful DR of the camera. If you can see it, differeniate it from it's surroundings but it's artificial looking and generally aesthetically crappy then it was not.
In practice it's perfectly possible to have two cameras with identical "measured" DR but have their highlights/shadow be lightyears apart in real-world-photographic-usefulness. Much like you can have three noises which are equally "loud" on average (as measured in DB) but one is a beautiful trumpet jazz quartet, a second a dozen screaming babies, and a third the loud but generally tolerable rumble of a jet engine in the exit row seat of an international jetliner.
-
Hi Doug,
Thanks for explaining.
Problem is that we see very few samples, specially not samples with comparable images shot under comparable conditions with raw files available.
Marc McCalmont has posted some images a couple of months ago, comparing his new D800E to his IQ180 mounted on his Alpa. Those were good images and he made raw files available. Most thankful for that.
Another very good set of sample images were posted by Alex Koskolov, here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69391.0 .
Mr. Koskolov also made raw images available.
Best regards
Erik
...BJL?? I don't expect to read something like this from you.
Of course dynamic range is visceral.
Most quantitive measures of DR only loosely correlate to useful photographic dynamic range.
For a shadow or highlight detail to be photographically useful in a high quality workflow I propose it needs to show:
- accurate color, especially when comparing shadows and quarter tones of the same object. If half of a banana is in deep shadow and half is in bright light then I only consider the shadow to be part of the useful dynamic range of the camera if the shadow-half is a correct-in-saturation-and-hue yellow - if it's a muddy brown color then I don't care that I can see the banana, it's not useful dynamic range. Likewise with skin tone and clouds/sky in highlight to three-quarter tone transitions - if the skin is a weird pink before a blown out highlight then the pink is at best questionably part of the useful DR.
- smooth, visually appealing transitions to tones around it (posterization and other visually awkward transitions, chunky rather than evenly distributed noise)
- tactile, natural looking detail/texture
And numerical representations of DR of a particular sensor almost always exclude vital parts of producing actual photographic images like the lens (lens characteristics, namely flaring, but also, micro contrast, total resolution, and chromatic aberration can all affect the usefulness of sensor-recorded data in highlights and shadows) and the software used to process (e.g. Capture One uses some proprietary data in a Phase One raw file to reduce noise inherent in the sensor based on the temperature of the sensor at the time of capture - processing in other software ignores that information).
Highlight rolloff, tonal transition smoothness, noise grain structure, shadow color accuracy, loss of texture in shadows - some of these things can be represented numerically, but given the number of variable the best approach is to look at actual pictures. If you can dodge out an important subject in such a way that the subject is beautifully rendered then it was inside the range of the useful DR of the camera. If you can see it, differeniate it from it's surroundings but it's artificial looking and generally aesthetically crappy then it was not.
In practice it's perfectly possible to have two cameras with identical "measured" DR but have their highlights/shadow be lightyears apart in real-world-photographic-usefulness. Much like you can have three noises which are equally "loud" on average (as measured in DB) but one is a beautiful trumpet jazz quartet, a second a dozen screaming babies, and a third the loud but generally tolerable rumble of a jet engine in the exit row seat of an international jetliner.