Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Harry on February 16, 2017, 09:00:11 am
-
An old friend who is a Leica chauvinist claims that the Leica S2 makes far better images than the Nikon d800 because despite the same pixel count Leica images have greater and more subtle gradations of tones.
This point generalizes to tonal quality versus resolution.
I wonder what the experts here think of this controversy and if it is valid which cameras solver the best tonal continuum.
-
it's true. Also, in the case of the S, it is the lens quality too. But there comes a point where resolution matters also.
-
Cameras don't make images. People do.
-
Cameras don't make images. People do.
I've never seen a person without using a camera actually make a photo. Along with the person, the camera, lens and most importantly the image processing all make the photo. If any of these are compromised, the final photo is compromised.
-
Cameras don't make images. People do.
Can't take an image without a camera???
-
..... the Leica S2 makes far better images than the Nikon d800 because ........
Define far better.
But using my own idea of what far better means I think this is a gross exaggeration. A trained photographer might see the difference in a side by side test, but in a blind test with random images I doubt many people can spot the difference between a Leica S2 image and an D800 image (assuming both are technically taken/processed correctly)
-
One can certainly make an image without a camera.
Define image.
-
Truisms like "Cameras don't make images people do" don't address the question. This one reminds me go "Guns don't kill people, people do." Stiil if you shoot someone with a 50 caliber machine gun he is more likely to die than if you shoot him with a 28 gauge shot gun.
This nonsense aside, it seems that subtlety of tone is a factor little talked about and possibly something to consider in a camera. It is a factor in painting so why not in digital images? For instance,Leonardo Da Vinci's portraits have greater subtlety of shading of skin tones when compared to his peers e.g. Botticell. IMO this makes a big difference in the way his portraits look.
-
Cameras can be very different in how they render tones, highlight rolloffs, shadows, how noise is handled and what characteristics it has. Then you have the lenses that can make a world of difference when it comes to contrast, color rendition, out of focus quality, sharpness, etc.
I would say they are different. Maybe what you see is the result of larger pixels and different image processing.
-
Truisms like "Cameras don't make images people do" don't address the question. This one reminds me go "Guns don't kill people, people do." Stiil if you shoot someone with a 50 caliber machine gun he is more likely to die than if you shoot him with a 28 gauge shot gun.
This nonsense aside...
Haha ya got me! Sorry I've been reading too many "14 bit vs 16bit" threads lately and should have just logged off rather than post and muck up your thread. Apologies.
However - To carry on with your gun analogy: Your original question compares a Leica S2 to a Nikon D800. So are you saying that the S2 is the 50 cal and the D800 is the 28 gauge shotgun? Because that would be nonsense.
-
Pinholes!
-
it's true. Also, in the case of the S, it is the lens quality too. But there comes a point where resolution matters also.
Put an Otus on a D810... and I swear the results are going to be identical or the Nikon will come on top... at any ISO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Leica S2, with its lenses that are literally riddled with chromatic aberration, along with the low DR of the sensor, does not come even CLOSE to a Nikon D810 with Zeiss Otus lenses in terms of absolute technical quality.
-
Hi,
Technically speaking nothing of that is true.
The pixel count really decides how large you can print with good detail. Present displays cannot reproduce more than 8MP (for 4K). So anything you see on screen is downsized, with downsizing adding a lot of artifacting of it's own. Or you can look at a picture at actual pixels which results in obscene magnifications.
Regarding the number of different tones a system can reproduce, that is limited by what is known as full well capacity. At full well capacity any sensor clips. That applies to S2, Nikn D810 or essentially every camera ever made with the exception of some early dual pixel Fuji models.
So all this talk about highlight roll off is pure nonsense, technically speaking. On the other hand, a camera system may underexpose and create headroom and different camera profiles may give different compression of highlights.
Check the image below (or this link for full size: https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58984278/2ae5eacd49d34b248c71368a4a313844 )
(https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58984278/2ae5eacd49d34b248c71368a4a313844)
The image shows a print white text over a grey gradient going from Lab (100, 0, 0) to Lab(80, 100, 100). The mage here is a print, so paper white limits white to around Lab (95, 0, 0). The text begins with Lorem ipsum and the first separable letter in the original image is the 'm' in Lorem. It is also the first letter separable in both images. Top one is Sony A7rII and close relative of the Sony Exmoor sensor used in the Nikon D810, the one at the bottom is from a P45+ back using a Kodak CCD based sensor very similar to the the one used in the S2.
So what this illustrates is that old or new sensors, the highlight handling is virtually identical. Now, raw processors can add highlight roll off, but that is not related to a camera. The profiles are supplied with the raw converter (*).
The same posting contains an extremely high contrast image covering a luminance rage > 13EV, with some controlled and contained higlight clipping. Here is the highlight part:
(Here is the link to full size: https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58984278/7ca61b80d0494593a586be910e162a8c )
(https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS1600x1600~forums/58984278/7ca61b80d0494593a586be910e162a8c)
The crops are from P45+ (Kodak sensor similar to the one used in the S2), Sony A7rII (present generation Sony Exmoor) and Sony A900 (using first generation Sony Exmoor, same age as the P45+). Not a lot of difference.
Now, what has happened in the last ten years is that pixels went smaller while Full Well Capacity was maintained. But with modern CMOS the readout noise has been much reduced. So we had a hike in resolution while highlight capacity was maintained, but darks got much cleaner. Lets look at the dark side of the previous image:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58991988/9b2c3bf485cc41e69d5c5c448c7287da
(https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58991988/9b2c3bf485cc41e69d5c5c448c7287da)
Here you can see that the Sony A900 and P45+ images have real problems while the Sony A7rII still has clean darks. That means that the Sony A7rII is significantly superior to the older cameras in simultaneous handling highlights and deeps darks, it has more dynamic range.
Smaller pixels reproduce better detail. Large pixels cannot resolve fine detail, so the fine detail the pixels cannot handle is converted into artefacts.
Check the images below. They are shot from the same position, both using the same Hasselblad Planar 100/3.5 lens. The image on the left is small pixels (4.5 micron pitch) while the one on the right is larger pitch (6.8 microns). The small pixel sensor resolves the image much better.
(https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58656097/6bf08a08d72e470faf3ea8993ab7d0ec )
(https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58656097/6bf08a08d72e470faf3ea8993ab7d0ec)
Downressing the 4.5 micron pitch image to lower resolution of the 6.8 micron sensor still results in a much cleaner image:
(https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58656097/313cbbac87a442679b634149c5e99a1e)
(https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58656097/313cbbac87a442679b634149c5e99a1e)
A high resolution lens combined with a low resolution sensor is not a great combination, as it will produce a lot of fake detail, a phenomenon called aliasing. The fake detail is an alias of the real detail that is not resolved.
So, your friend is wrong, technically speaking, and I think Leica needs to reconsider their pixel sizes. Just to say, bad technique can mask the disadvantages of large pixels. Shoot handheld, stop down to f/16 and don't focus properly and there will be no fake detail, as a matter of fact there will be barely any fine detail at all…
Here are the links to the original postings:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58984278
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58656097
(*) The Leica S2 uses DNG as file format. So the image can have an embedded DCP profile that will yield Leica's preferred rendition. The few Leica S2 images I have do have an embedded profile.
Best regards
Erik
An old friend who is a Leica chauvinist claims that the Leica S2 makes far better images than the Nikon d800 because despite the same pixel count Leica images have greater and more subtle gradations of tones.
This point generalizes to tonal quality versus resolution.
I wonder what the experts here think of this controversy and if it is valid which cameras solver the best tonal continuum.
-
Truisms like "Cameras don't make images people do" don't address the question. This one reminds me go "Guns don't kill people, people do." Stiil if you shoot someone with a 50 caliber machine gun he is more likely to die than if you shoot him with a 28 gauge shot gun. . .
Your analogy requires more specificity. At a range of five yards, the shot load from a 28 gauge and the bullet from a .50 would be roughly the same size and would make the same devastating wound in the victim. At that range there would be no difference. Both target victims die from their wounds. I know that's not what you wanted, but there is the problem with analogies.
-
Hi,
I was at a Leica shop a couple of years ago and were looking at a bunch of images shot with the Leica. They were like images, you know… something like decent size prints, say 50x70 cm or a bit larger. We were told to talk about with guy who shot them. So we pointed to the one we liked best and said it is really nice picture. The guy said, that one was taken with a Canon 5DIII actually.
Most gear can produce decent quality images today, subject, lighting, photographer and technique matters far more than camera gear in most cases.
Best regards
Erik
Define far better.
But using my own idea of what far better means I think this is a gross exaggeration. A trained photographer might see the difference in a side by side test, but in a blind test with random images I doubt many people can spot the difference between a Leica S2 image and an D800 image (assuming both are technically taken/processed correctly)
-
Thanks Erik for the more technical explanation!
Most gear can produce decent quality images today, subject, lighting, photographer and technique matters far more than camera gear in most cases.
Indeed!
-
Put an Otus on a D810... and I swear the results are going to be identical or the Nikon will come on top... at any ISO.
Cheers,
Bernard
I would actually really like to see a proper comparison like this. Personally these two systems are two i am considering carefully.
The S with S lenses really does have a very high quality look that I think might be tricky to top and from what I have seen from various samples I think it might have the edge. It's the smoothness of tone and colour that I have not seen in 135 cameras.
Then there is also talk of a new S at 60MP which I think will be very interesting.
-
An old friend who is a Leica chauvinist claims that the Leica S2 makes far better images than the Nikon d800 because despite the same pixel count Leica images have greater and more subtle gradations of tones.
This point generalizes to tonal quality versus resolution.
I wonder what the experts here think of this controversy and if it is valid which cameras solver the best tonal continuum.
There is a huge range of Leica equipment if you count all the film-era stuff, and even now Leica makes cameras in a variety of formats and levels of quality. The closest comparison with a top-of-the-line Nikon would be a current Leica of the same format. Even then, different lenses have different characteristics. So, are you comparing just lenses or just sensors or the combination?
As far as comparing formats, all other things being equal, and assuming proper technique and the same viewing conditions (size of print, viewing distance, etc.), the larger format images will generally exhibit a greater range of subtle tonalities than smaller format ones. However, in practice, all other things are seldom equal, so it is rarely as simple as you are trying to make it out to be.
Oh, and image quality is highly subjective.
-
I thought to an extent this still goes back to the old adage "no replacement for displacement" or in the camera world...sensor size. Imagine drawing an image on a postage stamp and an 8x10 canvas. Which one will have the ability to show more variations of tone, subtle detail, and finer variation? Obviously the larger working space. It's just straight forward.
Does the Leica S2 show more...yes probably, it has a somewhat larger sensor surface area. (30% is it?)
The difference now a days is that tech has gotten really good. Lenses have gotten really good. Resolution shrinks the gap between the extremes.
If you have ever seen an original 11x14 contact print that was masterfully made it is breathtaking. Nothing we have compares in my opinion. Though technically it may not be as clinical, the subtlety is amazing. Talk about surface area!
Image quality is subjective. And everything now a days can create excellent prints and visual content. There is still a difference is fine variation and tonal gradation between sensor sizes. I use m43 and a 49mm my sensor daily together. The gap is not huge, but there's is a difference. There is a difference between this and my 36mm sensors going either way. But the gap has gotten inconsequential for most images for most general uses. In my opinion.
I notice the subtle tone differences mostly in skin and twighlight images..at least in the work that I do. There is more complexity and "truth to the scene" in the larger sensors. However, that doesn't necessarily make it any better.
-
Hi,
One important factor is full well capacity and we can deduce it from Signal Noise Ratio.
Sony A7rII and Nikon D810 have an SNR of 46.3 and 46.4 at base ISO, while the S (typ 006) has 42.4. So the Leica cannot make use of it's sensor size. The Nikon D810 and the Sony A7rII also have lower base ISO and that indicates that they absorb more light.
The only advantage the S2 or S (type 006) may hold is really MTF, due to larger pixels. But to reach that advantage the S/S2 would need very accurate focus and there is significant doubt if it can achieve it. Manual focus is not quite accurate enough and AF is problematic, too. Sony A7rII and Nikon D810 can use magnified live view for pin point accurate focus, CCD based sensors don't have that capability.
The CMOS sensor in the S (Type 007) is probably a better match. But, best of breed 24x36 mm technology is quiet a bit of very stiff competition for slightly larger formats.
100 MP at 54x40 mm combined with Sony Exmoor technology, that is a different race…
Best regards
Erik
I thought to an extent this still goes back to the old adage "no replacement for displacement" or in the camera world...sensor size. Imagine drawing an image on a postage stamp and an 8x10 canvas. Which one will have the ability to show more variations of tone, subtle detail, and finer variation? Obviously the larger working space. It's just straight forward.
Does the Leica S2 show more...yes probably, it has a somewhat larger sensor surface area. (30% is it?)
The difference now a days is that tech has gotten really good. Lenses have gotten really good. Resolution shrinks the gap between the extremes.
If you have ever seen an original 11x14 contact print that was masterfully made it is breathtaking. Nothing we have compares in my opinion. Though technically it may not be as clinical, the subtlety is amazing. Talk about surface area!
Image quality is subjective. And everything now a days can create excellent prints and visual content. There is still a difference is fine variation and tonal gradation between sensor sizes. I use m43 and a 49mm my sensor daily together. The gap is not huge, but there's is a difference. There is a difference between this and my 36mm sensors going either way. But the gap has gotten inconsequential for most images for most general uses. In my opinion.
I notice the subtle tone differences mostly in skin and twighlight images..at least in the work that I do. There is more complexity and "truth to the scene" in the larger sensors. However, that doesn't necessarily make it any better.
-
To add to what I said above, when I used Leica equipment many years before digital, there were some Leitz lenses that had a look that I liked above all other small format lenses I used. However, this did not apply to all Leitz lenses. Some were mediocre lenses, yet you still paid a high price for them. I don't know if that quality that I saw with film has carried over to digital. If it does, a good copy of a 50mm Summicron on a full-frame Leica would probably still be one of the best representatives of the Leitz look.
-
Hi,
Diglloyd have done some comparisons like that. The one I have studied was a comparison between the Leica S2 and the Nikon D3X. In that case the Leica S2 had significant aliasing while the Nikon had little. The Nikon images were significantly sharper at the corners. The comparison was probably between the Zeiss 100/2.0 Macro Planar and the correspondng S-lens.
I don't any longer subscribe to Diglloyd, so I cannot really post a reference to that article.
Focusing is critical to achieving optimal results, and Lloyd Chambers mentioned that was very hard on the S2. Modern cameras offer live view and magnified live view is probably the most accurate way focus. On the other hand, he had a lot (an awful lot) of aliasing on the S2 in that test image, so he must have gotten focus right.
Best regards
Erik
I would actually really like to see a proper comparison like this. Personally these two systems are two i am considering carefully.
The S with S lenses really does have a very high quality look that I think might be tricky to top and from what I have seen from various samples I think it might have the edge. It's the smoothness of tone and colour that I have not seen in 135 cameras.
Then there is also talk of a new S at 60MP which I think will be very interesting.
-
There's no substitute for skill. Resolution is secondary. Of course, sometimes both skill and resolution are interdependent.
-
There's no substitute for skill. Resolution is secondary. Of course, sometimes both skill and resolution are interdependent.
There's also no substitute for resolution.
Skill lets you take a nice photo. Resolution determines how big you can print it. They can't substitute for each other.
-
Hi,
I won't argue on that, but those are floating limits.
This year I go back to Iceland. Been there in 2006, but now we have much better gear. So I go there to get some images that are technically better. But, I hope that I also learned some in the eleven years since. So I hope that I will get back with a set of great images that I may have missed back in 2006.
Best regards
Erik
There's also no substitute for resolution.
Skill lets you take a nice photo. Resolution determines how big you can print it. They can't substitute for each other.
-
Erik:
Hope you bring the sunshine filter! ;-)
-
A skilled master printer can allow you to print much bigger than you think even without 50 - 100mp resolution. I've seen plenty of amazing prints that were large back when medium format was pushing the frontiers with 16 and 22 megapixels. We could only dream of that for big printing...wasn't so long ago...
I personally would take skill over resolution any day.
There's also no substitute for resolution.
Skill lets you take a nice photo. Resolution determines how big you can print it. They can't substitute for each other.
-
A skilled master printer can allow you to print much bigger than you think even without 50 - 100mp resolution. I've seen plenty of amazing prints that were large back when medium format was pushing the frontiers with 16 and 22 megapixels. We could only dream of that for big printing...wasn't so long ago...
I personally would take skill over resolution any day.
Why do you feel skill and resolution are mutually exclusive? I'd take both thank you.
-
A skilled master printer can allow you to print much bigger than you think even without 50 - 100mp resolution. I've seen plenty of amazing prints that were large back when medium format was pushing the frontiers with 16 and 22 megapixels. We could only dream of that for big printing...wasn't so long ago...
I personally would take skill over resolution any day.
You can print as large as you like. You just won't get any more detail out of it.
If you like to walk up to a 3m-wide print and see a blur, go for it. I prefer to see detail even when up close.
-
You can print as large as you like. You just won't get any more detail out of it.
If you like to walk up to a 3m-wide print and see a blur, go for it. I prefer to see detail even when up close.
I have some photos that need to be 4 meter wide to be pleasant to look at. They have so much detail that it simply does not work smaller.
So everything works together. In this case it is a stitched 36MP image. ( posted on LL here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=115958.20 )
I like my d810 nikon - with 36MP i can do everything in every circumstance. Affordable, good quality sensor, good lenses available at moderate price levels. etc...
It is now all up to me.
-
Why do you feel skill and resolution are mutually exclusive? I'd take both thank you.
exactly! that argument is one of the weakest and most annoying in photography.
-
You can print as large as you like. You just won't get any more detail out of it.
If you like to walk up to a 3m-wide print and see a blur, go for it. I prefer to see detail even when up close.
This too, exactly! Put a 3meter 100MP print next to a 3meter 24MP print and the difference is night and day.
-
Hi,
I have a 4m wide print made with a 24 MP camera just outside my office, there is no blur at all, but it is only 90 cm high and it is stitched from around 9 images.
Best regards
Erik
This too, exactly! Put a 3meter 100MP print next to a 3meter 24MP print and the difference is night and day.
-
This too, exactly! Put a 3meter 100MP print next to a 3meter 24MP print and the difference is night and day.
Probably, but the numbers don't tell us which is going to be the better photograph so round and round we go.
-
Hi,
Two small real world experiences.
A couple of years ago one of my colleagues decorated a shopping mall with pictures from the town where I live. Those prints are about three meter high and fill something like 30 m of wall space. It is quite a few pictures, but it is also like 40m of wall space. All that was shot on Nikon D90. Yes, the images are quite fuzzy, but nobody cares.
This year we rebuilt the cafeteria where I work and I was asked to provide some decorations. One of my suggestions was accepted:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor/i-XHwr57K/0/X3/20160309-_DSC4420-X3.jpg)
That image got much admiration for it's technical quality and I have been asked for two additional prints. Furthermore, I was asked for prints to decorate a lot of wall space in our offices. I suggested something like 90 images of which 11 were chosen:
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/
The alternates were here:
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor/
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Spice/
We had a panel choosing the images. Technical aspects were not discussed at all. All selection was based on web size images and technique was not discussed at all. It was simply presumed that technical quality was OK.
There was one image were technique was discussed, this one:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor/i-pTD7ssx/1/X2/20140912-_DSC5752-X2.jpg)
With this image we felt that it may be to dark and low contrast. The final image is one of the better ones.
Best regards
Erik
Probably, but the numbers don't tell us which is going to be the better photograph so round and round we go.
-
I wasn't trying to be contentious Erik. If the images were identical except for one being from 24mp the other 100, the 100 would look better but why and when would that ever happen? I always desire more resolution, my main two bodies are 50 and 42mp. Ive enjoyed this discussion and I always enjoy your knowledgeable and gentlemanly contributions.
-
Probably, but the numbers don't tell us which is going to be the better photograph so round and round we go.
Two completely different and unrelated things.
Technical skill is a given - it's a basic prerequisite. If you lack the skill to take a shot or do the post-processing, you're not even in the game.
But, if you have the technical skill to take a photo, it's your equipment that determines what you can do with it. If you know what you're doing, the same shot can be taken with an iPhone or a 100MP MFDB. You can do a lot more with the MFDB file than with the iPhone JPEG. Skill has little to do with it.
And the skill requirement for landscape photography isn't high. Most of it is down to planning (using Google Earth, TPE and astronomy and weather charts), physical stamina and luck (weather, etc.). If you can meet this basic skill requirement, the only difference between your photo and a photo taken by someone standing next to you is the gear.
-
Probably, but the numbers don't tell us which is going to be the better photograph so round and round we go.
Obviously not...but given the same photo...I'd take the one with the high pixel count than the one with the low pixel count. How about you? You'd rather have the mushy large print on the wall or the crisp large print?
-
And the skill requirement for landscape photography isn't high. Most of it is down to planning (using Google Earth, TPE and astronomy and weather charts), physical stamina and luck (weather, etc.). If you can meet this basic skill requirement, the only difference between your photo and a photo taken by someone standing next to you is the gear.
I totally disagree with this. That's like saying for glamour shots in fashion magazines...its all the makeup people and the model and the gear...the pinhead that presses the shutter has nothing to do with it. It's like saying the camera with the amazing focus tracking and 12 fps is what captures the great sport photos...the photographer is there to just hold the camera.
Getting the right exposure and composition for an awe inspiring landscape image takes skill and know how...not just luck as you imply.
-
Probably, but the numbers don't tell us which is going to be the better photograph so round and round we go.
The better photograph has nothing to do with pixel count so no, it doesn't go round and round. 100Mp cameras make better 3 meter prints than 24Mp cameras.
-
Hi,
No doubt about that, but that also makes serious demands on the photographer. Utilising 100 MP in real life can be hard. But, it would often work for landscape or architecture. The key is:
- Use tripod and eliminate vibrations
- Focus accurately - can be hard
- Don't stop down to much
- Use an excellent lens
Best regards
Erik
The better photograph has nothing to do with pixel count so no, it doesn't go round and round. 100Mp cameras make better 3 meter prints than 24Mp cameras.
-
Hi,
No doubt about that, but that also makes serious demands on the photographer. Utilising 100 MP in real life can be hard. But, it would often work for landscape or architecture. The key is:
- Use tripod and eliminate vibrations
- Focus accurately - can be hard
- Don't stop down to much
- Use an excellent lens
Best regards
Erik
In theory, you would think, but in use not so much. I've not found it excessively demanding. Hand held in low light wth a moving target - no problems.
-
I have a 4m wide print made with a 24 MP camera just outside my office, there is no blur at all, but it is only 90 cm high and it is stitched from around 9 images.
sorry Erik but this seems pretty irrelevant. I don't think anyone would deny that stitching increases your effective resolution dramatically. In the case of this image your are referring to, it was captured with an effective resolution of well over 100mp so the fact you took it with a 24mp camera doesn't really apply. The question would be if you capture it with a single shot, and printed an identical size print, how would that compare? Obviously you didn't think a single shot would capture adequate detail or you probably wouldn't have done a stitch.
The most skilled printer in the world cannot make up for detail that's not there. So resolution is an important factor, but is related to output size.
The basic challenge of those who feel they only need 24mp or so "most of the time" because they only need an A3 print is to figure out when they need more, and if they do can they stitch to compensate for it.
personally I look at it the other way. I'm going to capture with as much resolution as I can, assuming I need to make an 85" print. That means stitching if possible even with a 100mp back. Certainly some of the time the image doesn't lend itself to being that large, and in fact often isn't even worth printing. I only end up printing about 3% of what I shoot. And to be honest the quality out of single captures with my IQ180 or now IQ3 100 at 85" is pretty impressive, so I find myself stitching a little less often. But I'd rather get the detail than be sorry I didn't when it comes time to offer an image for sale.
-
And the skill requirement for landscape photography isn't high. Most of it is down to planning (using Google Earth, TPE and astronomy and weather charts), physical stamina and luck (weather, etc.). If you can meet this basic skill requirement, the only difference between your photo and a photo taken by someone standing next to you is the gear.
Whenever I have done landscape work in the company of other photographers, the results have been dramatically disparate. Often, it hard to say that one set is better than another, but they certainly are quite different.
Jim
-
Hi Wayne,
You are obviously right on the issue. On the other hand, would I shoot anything with a 4:1 aspect ratio, I would stitch. Why would I crop away pixels I have paid for? So I stitched with 6MP and I still stitch with 42 MP. Would I have 100 MP, I would still stitch. Aspect ratio doesn't fit? Stitch! It obviously doesn't work always but it works very often, so it is worth a try.
Having 100 MP is a great advantage over 36-50 MP we have in smaller formats right now, and that allows something like 41% larger print size based on resolution, unless you need to crop. On the other hand, I often used stitching on MFD to avoid cropping.
Yes, I think that 100 MP medium format makes a lot of sense. But it is not a magic wand, it's more like quite bit more.
Best regards
Erik
sorry Erik but this seems pretty irrelevant. I don't think anyone would deny that stitching increases your effective resolution dramatically. In the case of this image your are referring to, it was captured with an effective resolution of well over 100mp so the fact you took it with a 24mp camera doesn't really apply. The question would be if you capture it with a single shot, and printed an identical size print, how would that compare? Obviously you didn't think a single shot would capture adequate detail or you probably wouldn't have done a stitch.
The most skilled printer in the world cannot make up for detail that's not there. So resolution is an important factor, but is related to output size.
The basic challenge of those who feel they only need 24mp or so "most of the time" because they only need an A3 print is to figure out when they need more, and if they do can they stitch to compensate for it.
personally I look at it the other way. I'm going to capture with as much resolution as I can, assuming I need to make an 85" print. That means stitching if possible even with a 100mp back. Certainly some of the time the image doesn't lend itself to being that large, and in fact often isn't even worth printing. I only end up printing about 3% of what I shoot. And to be honest the quality out of single captures with my IQ180 or now IQ3 100 at 85" is pretty impressive, so I find myself stitching a little less often. But I'd rather get the detail than be sorry I didn't when it comes time to offer an image for sale.
-
Hi Wayne,
You are obviously right on the issue. On the other hand, would I shoot anything with a 4:1 aspect ratio, I would stitch. Why would I crop away pixels I have paid for? So I stitched with 6MP and I still stitch with 42 MP. Would I have 100 MP, I would still stitch. Aspect ratio doesn't fit? Stitch! It obviously doesn't work always but it works very often, so it is worth a try.
Having 100 MP is a great advantage over 36-50 MP we have in smaller formats right now, and that allows something like 41% larger print size based on resolution, unless you need to crop. On the other hand, I often used stitching on MFD to avoid cropping.
Yes, I think that 100 MP medium format makes a lot of sense. But it is not a magic wand, it's more like quite bit more.
Best regards
Erik
There are many situations for which stitching is not practical or even possible. I shoot a lot of moving water which by its nature cannot be stitched with any degree of accuracy.
-
Hi,
My experience is that stitching moving water works remarkably well, at least when using good stitching programs. Still water with rippled surface is more problematic.
The stitched image I have on my office wall is 28270x5925 pixels, something like 167 MP, also, it covers around 180 degrees of field of view. The IQ3100 MP has 11608 pixels, so I would still need to made 3-4 exposures to match the image quality using the IQ3100 MP. The image was taken back in 2009, by the way. The IQ3100 MP was not available at that time, the IQ 180 was releases 2 years later, 2011 I think, so P65+ was the top end at Phase One at that time.
Best regards
Erik
There are many situations for which stitching is not practical or even possible. I shoot a lot of moving water which by its nature cannot be stitched with any degree of accuracy.
-
Hi,
My experience is that stitching moving water works remarkably well, at least when using good stitching programs. Still water with rippled surface is more problematic.
The stitched image I have on my office wall is 28270x5925 pixels, something like 167 MP, also, it covers around 180 degrees of field of view. The IQ3100 MP has 11608 pixels, so I would still need to made 3-4 exposures to match the image quality using the IQ3100 MP. The image was taken back in 2009, by the way. The IQ3100 MP was not available at that time, the IQ 180 was releases 2 years later, 2011 I think, so P65+ was the top end at Phase One at that time.
Best regards
Erik
Really...your concept of moving water must be different than mine. How would you stitch these?
-
Really...your concept of moving water must be different than mine. How would you stitch these?
This is before Autopano tweaking. There are a few oopsies, like the deconstructed boogieboard, but I kinda like them.
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/KauaiPoipu.jpg)
Jim
-
How fast did you shoot those? I can count at least 11 frames, that's between 1 and 2 seconds on a DSLR or mirrorless camera, but over 10 seconds on a digital back.
-
Yes,
I was more thinking about things like waterfalls and flowing water, like rapids. A stitching program can select where to put the cuts, so it often works remarkably well.
The image I have on the office wall is this one:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/i-n3K5FTB/2/X4/20091026-JennyLake_03_brighter-X4.jpg)
Just to say, I have done a lot of stitching in my medium format days. For the image below I needed an ultrawide, but only had a 40 mm lens for my P45+. So I stitched, that image has no moving water.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor/i-4RX9sZ7/1/XL/20150702-CF046785-Pano-XL.jpg)
This one is also stitched. I realised that the sky was very nice. It was possible to use a shorter lens, turn the back vertical and crop. But the choice made here was to shoot two images, a base composition and one with more sky and stitch. That shot was probably with the Distagon 60 and the closest wider lens I had was 40 mm. So cropping would have wasted 55% of my pixels. The stitched image is 49.7 MP.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor/i-BdCZxPB/0/X3/20141130-CF045901-Pano-X3.jpg)
This one was also about getting around wide angle limitation. That image was quite tricky to stitch.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor/i-LK6MJnQ/0/X3/20150702-CF046783-Pano-X3.jpg)
Sailboat rigs are very difficult to stitch, BTW. A hard learned lesson.
Best regards
Erik
Really...your concept of moving water must be different than mine. How would you stitch these?
-
Hi,
For some reason we drifted away from the original question that was really about if the Leica S2 makes technically better images than a Nikon D810, if I recall it correctly.
In that case I would say that far more depends on the photographer than on the device. To start with, the camera needs to be focused correctly. Lens selection obviously matters, but the original posting was more about per pixel quality. The Leica S2 has 2008 era CCD sensor 37.5 MP vs 36 MP. Both have pixels with around 60000 e- full well capacity, which would give the same signal/noise levels in bright areas. The Nikon probably has something like one fourth (1/4) of the readout noise. So the Nikon image would be cleaner in the shadows.
Leica lenses are said to be great, but so can we put great lenses on the Nikon, having the option to use Zeiss Otus and Sigma A lenses in addition to the Nikon lenses. Lens quality doesn't affect tonality, but it may be that less sharpening is with an excellent lens. If you need to stop down for DoF diffraction comes into the play, requiring more sharpening.
Thriving for the best image quality the 100MP backs are the obvious choice, they have up to date sensor technology, best of breed DR and have a healthy advantage in surface area. Leica really needs to consider the Hasselblad GFX and the Fuji GFX. A few more pixels, with great DR and in all probability excellent lenses.
Best regards
Erik
-
How fast did you shoot those? I can count at least 11 frames, that's between 1 and 2 seconds on a DSLR or mirrorless camera, but over 10 seconds on a digital back.
Nikon D4 set to max continuous rate: I can't remember if it's 10 or 11 fps. I no longer own the camera.
You're right; it wouldn't work with a MF digital back.
I just wanted to point out that the usual way of doing stitching, with a series of slow, considered, careful captures, is not the only way, and that there are some advantages to a rapid set of captures.
Jim
-
Nikon D4 set to max continuous rate: I can't remember if it's 10 or 11 fps. I no longer own the camera.
You're right; it wouldn't work with a MF digital back.
I just wanted to point out that the usual way of doing stitching, with a series of slow, considered, careful captures, is not the only way, and that there are some advantages to a rapid set of captures.
Jim
Absolutely, I've stitched many times with my Nikons like you did. If the background doesn't change I shoot people or action first, then the rest later.
-
Hi Jim,
Nice stuff, I considered that something like that could be made, but it is not exactly my workflow. Very nice images and I like the way you don't crop those panos.
Best regards
Erik
This is before Autopano tweaking. There are a few oopsies, like the deconstructed boogieboard, but I kinda like them.
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/KauaiPoipu.jpg)
Jim
-
Very nice images and I like the way you don't crop those panos.
Me too. Embrace the artifacts. ;)
-Dave-
-
Me too. Embrace the artifacts. ;)
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/celebrating-the-process/
Jim
-
I love those panos, Jim. I also realize I've looked at them before! :o And the Ted Orland photos too. Info and image overload…
-Dave-
-
iphone photo in pano mode. Does all the necessary stitching for you and it is ready to send off within seconds. Why tinker around with multiple shots and merging during processing when you can get this with a press of the shutter. ;D
-
iphone photo in pano mode. Does all the necessary stitching for you and it is ready to send off within seconds. Why tinker around with multiple shots and merging during processing when you can get this with a press of the shutter. ;D
Sharpness, editing ability, perspective control, resolution, dynamic range...
Jim
-
Straight horizons? ;)
-
Me too. Embrace the artifacts. ;)
-Dave-
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/1730333_orig.jpg)
Not artyfacts artifacts!
;-)
Rob