Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Ben Rubinstein on June 13, 2017, 01:14:56 pm
-
Hi folks,
I'm sure you've had to put up with this question a lot but I'm hoping my rather specific niche requirement might let me off asking this question again. :)
I run a large Reproduction studio for an antiquities museum in Jerusalem. Over the past 5 years we have digitized well over 1 million pages from ancient manuscripts dating back over the past 900 years.
We did use a Leaf Aptus II-8 back on a DF camera but due to ongoing issues with the camera system we changed over to Nikon some years ago with the D800e and lately the D810 and haven't looked back. Our first ever repair on a Nikon has just gone in after 4 years of constant daily use of around 2000 frames a day. The issue is the USB port which had worked loose dropping the tethering. That's the sum total of repairs. Repair within a couple of days. In comparison the DF shutter and/or mirror box would die about twice a year requiring shipping to Denmark for repair.
We are currently looking at a higher resolution solution for our studio for at least one of the copy stations and for use with more precious works which require the additional resolution.
Until recently we had not looked back into medium format solutions due to our previous history with them. The release of two 50 megapixel cameras which are mirrorless is making us rethink our options. No mirror and a far better shutter rating than Mamiya system ever had brings these tools right back into the spotlight. Please note that for various reasons technical cameras are not being considered at this time. Chief among which is price, local availability and a required integration into a specific custom electronic workflow.
Currently we shoot tethered directly into Capture One. Using Live View in C1 for framing, precise manual focus and indeed shooting. With our Nikons we can shoot for hours straight directly from live view in C1. Incredibly useful when working with piles of documents which need to be placed accurately within the frame and photographed without hesitation before moving to the next one. Not a deal breaker though, however useful. We never had this ability with the digital back of course. Another essential element is the use of custom ICC profiles (currently made with our Gretag Colorchecker Digital SG chart). We cannot achieve true accuracy without this ability.
Which ever choice we would use for our higher resolution option would need to include these two abilities. Tethered Live View and ICC profiling. Please note that we will probably not be using native lenses with either option.
Fuji:
Pro's: Cheaper, reliable in country service and parts availability (confirmed today actually).
Con's: Does it do tethered LV at all? Cannot be processed in C1 and LR will not allow 'real' ICC profiling.
Hasselblad:
Pro's: Phocus software allows LV and in depth colour calibration.
Con's: Dealer here has a bad reputation and I personally did not get any feeling of confidence from him, is there any ability to photograph during LV? Has to be sent out of country for service.
A big con for both systems, albeit a temporary one, is that neither has had enough field time to be considered a reliable workhorse within the industry. Like any new system or software or computer, etc. That has to be taken under consideration and we are not 'running' into either solution quite yet.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Thanks!
-
Any thoughts...?
how soon P1 dealer appears in this topic to suggest P1's Cultural Heritage gear ?
-
The release of two 50 megapixel cameras
why not Canon 5Ds/5Dr - they are 50mp too ... or cheap multi-shot Olympus E-M1 II dSLM (or Pentax too, even it is dSLR, for that matter)?
-
Or why settle on 50Mp which is a minor resolution bump compared to the two 100MP systems ?
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
How about looking at the Phase One IQ3 100mp which has an electronic shutter that will give you vibration free shooting and you don't have to worry about the mirror or leaf shutter. The warranty is 5 year without any activation count restrictions. This would give you complete C1 tethering support etc.
-
Well Hasselblad is built for reproduction with the built in reproduction profiling mode in Phocus. Colour is also pretty accurate out of the box.
Also the high sync speed and lens shutter means no ambient light or vibration to worry about.
Service wise, how often are expecting to need service on a new camera with no moving parts used inside? Sensor clean perhaps if you don't do it yourself.
I only have an H3DII and have used service twice. Both parts were 8 years old. In both cases I took it to the dealer and they put it in a box and sent it to Sweden. So I don't think the dealer matters that much.
-
How about looking at the Phase One IQ3 100mp which has an electronic shutter that will give you vibration free shooting and you don't have to worry about the mirror or leaf shutter.
it also depends on the light used - may be they run flash... otherwise both dSLRs and dSLMs do electronic shutter as well...
-
GFX tethering with LR is rock solid via a paid 80$ plug in....easy and no problem making color profiles....
LR should be a lot easier and flexible in terms of DAM....C1 is great for tethering but still very limited in terms of DAM....2000 files a day need to be stored and moved.....C1 is not the tool for that....
sounds like the tilt finder of the GFX would come in really handy....or at least the movable rear LCD....even if everything is shot tethered anyway....
the 120 fuji macro is getting amazing reviews everywhere...
the GFX works...now....everybody with the X1D has stories of lock-ups...
the GFX can be run from a permanent power source....don't know about the X1D?
can't imagine sync speed is an issue, pretty sure neither the camera not the objects move....both have electric shutters and i am syncing 1/4000 with broncolor equipment with GFX
fuji pro service in the US has 2 day turnaround and loaners...not sure how that works in other places....
-
LR should be a lot easier and flexible in terms of DAM....
neither LR nor C1 are enterprise level DAM - they are both simple desktop level software packages...
-
why not Canon 5Ds/5Dr - they are 50mp too ... or cheap multi-shot Olympus E-M1 II dSLM (or Pentax too, even it is dSLR, for that matter)?
The Canon 50 megapixel solution is not sufficient for an upgrade from side to side testing. The files just aren't as robust.
-
how soon P1 dealer appears in this topic to suggest P1's Cultural Heritage gear ?
I wrote CI a long email asking about their repro tech cam solution (the one with electronic shutter) and asking for a trial of the C1 Cultural Heritage software. The automatic cropping alone might have been worth the heart stopping price ($6000). Currently we employ a person in the studio whose only task all day every day is cropping. The National Library here have 6 people doing cropping. That was months ago, still no reply.
In reply to other valuable points made,
We did a trial of the P1 IQ3 100 megapixel back on the latest P1 camera. Had it in the studio for about 4 hours with a team from the dealer. It was buggy. Slow. Wouldn't tether except using USB2 for some reason either on windows or mac (we tried all types of USB/Firewire solutions). The lenses (blue ring Schneider) were not particularly exciting in combination with that back. The tonality was better as well as the resolution but not significantly enough to justify the pricing. That was our conclusion. I'm sure others have reached different conclusions for their specific workflows and that's great! One of the biggest names in our business uses one on an Alpa system and he doesn't settle for anything but the best. For ourselves, our workflow and our testing, we do not consider it either a workhorse solution which justifies its cost to us.
Photographic level DAM is irrelevant to our workflow. Or at least at these levels. We have other software which deals with this momentous task and is tied into our central databases, offsite backups, etc.
We use both flash (profoto) and LED lighting (custom builds), the maximum shutter speed used is 1/125 so sync speeds are not a barrier.
Service wise we would indeed be expecting little needed, hence looking again at MFD solutions.
Why only 50 megapixels? If there were mirrorless options in higher resolution I'd love a 60 megapixel solution for example. 80 is too much for our uses to be honest, it's just not a requirement for our end product. 50 (in MFD) is just enough to justify upgrading a current 36 megapixel system. The 42 megapixels of sony was not sufficient and they've stopped any in house repairs in the country which also stopped us from looking into that solution. Ditto Pentax incidentally. We didn't want a DSLR system anyway but certainly not without a repair centre in country.
We work too fast for multi shot to be an option except in special circumstances. We're shooting some 3000 frames per day with just two stations in our current studio and are looking to significantly enlarge our capabilities. MS is a nice idea but you need the time to be able to do it. The National Library have a Hasselblad MS 50 megapixel back which they use but it has its own station and seems to be rarely actually used.
-
GFX tethering with LR is rock solid via a paid 80$ plug in....easy and no problem making color profiles....
LR should be a lot easier and flexible in terms of DAM....C1 is great for tethering but still very limited in terms of DAM....2000 files a day need to be stored and moved.....C1 is not the tool for that....
sounds like the tilt finder of the GFX would come in really handy....or at least the movable rear LCD....even if everything is shot tethered anyway....
the 120 fuji macro is getting amazing reviews everywhere...
the GFX works...now....everybody with the X1D has stories of lock-ups...
the GFX can be run from a permanent power source....don't know about the X1D?
can't imagine sync speed is an issue, pretty sure neither the camera not the objects move....both have electric shutters and i am syncing 1/4000 with broncolor equipment with GFX
fuji pro service in the US has 2 day turnaround and loaners...not sure how that works in other places....
LR with tethering does not offer live view at all does it? We tested it yesterday with our Nikons. Colour profiles in LR are not accurate enough for our needs. Repro needs a very high level of colour accuracy. A 24 chart profile, even if it was a real ICC profile, is not sufficient. We've tested this extensively. :)
We shoot on copy stands. Viewfinders and screens are not important, live view is. That said, does the finder go out to 90 degrees, i.e. fully vertical? That would be useful on our document copy station perhaps.
You make a good point with the Fuji not having reported problems. It is obvious that I need to do some more research!
-
Thank you to all for your help! Looking forward to more thoughts.
-
Our first ever repair on a Nikon has just gone in after 4 years of constant daily use of around 2000 frames a day.
That would be about 1.6 millions frames for that camera. Impressive.
A big con for both systems, albeit a temporary one, is that neither has had enough field time to be considered a reliable workhorse within the industry. Like any new system or software or computer, etc. That has to be taken under consideration and we are not 'running' into either solution quite yet.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Yes: maybe you should wait a bit till these cameras are better tested and the present bugs solved. Also: fully electronic camera systems (that is: without mechanical shutter) may be presented by Sony after summer, that could be another interesting option.
This being said the X1D has a definite advantage in that the camera itself does not have a shutter. On the GFX, if the shutter breaks you need to send the camera out for service. On the X1D, you would just exchange the lens.
Also: the X1D and GFX can use the older HC series lenses via an adapter and the HC 120 macro is relatively cheap on the used market (or can be rented easily). That would be a relatively inexpensive backup for the X1D. That might also be a way to spare the GFX focal plane shutter, as it would then use the shutter in the lens (I am not sure about that, but a simple test would show whether the GFX still moves its shutter with a CS lens).
-
That would be about 1.6 millions frames for that camera. Impressive.
Yes: maybe you should wait a bit till these cameras are better tested and the present bugs solved. Also: fully electronic camera systems (that is: without mechanical shutter) may be presented by Sony after summer, that could be another interesting option.
This being said the X1D has a definite advantage in that the camera itself does not have a shutter. On the GFX, if the shutter breaks you need to send the camera out for service. On the X1D, you would just exchange the lens.
Also: the X1D and GFX can use the older HC series lenses via an adapter and the HC 120 macro is relatively cheap on the used market (or can be rented easily). That would be a relatively inexpensive backup for the X1D. That might also be a way to spare the GFX focal plane shutter, as it would then use the shutter in the lens (I am not sure about that, but a simple test would show whether the GFX still moves its shutter with a CS lens).
Not quite, we don't work every day of the year. :) It's still impressive. Using it with a fixed shutter speed of 1/60 (less stress on the shutter) and in live view to spare the mirror box makes a big difference to allowing these cameras to just keep going.
I didn't realise the X1D didn't use a shutter at all. On one hand that means that it will last longer and has no shutter vibration. On the other hand we will need to either mount only leaf shutter lenses or forgo flash usage (is that true?) for this camera.
-
The X1D has only lead shutter. No electronic one. With the GFX you could use the electronic one and have NO movement at all. (Same as on the IQ3100, but your ruled that out.)
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
The X1D has only lead shutter. No electronic one. With the GFX you could use the electronic one and have NO movement at all. (Same as on the IQ3100, but your ruled that out.)
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
Thanks, that is an important factor. We had not intended to use native lenses.
-
That would be about 1.6 millions frames for that camera. Impressive.
I haven't tested the broken camera but this is the shutter count from a newer D800e which is still going strong and in daily use. :) The broken one has been in use for about a year longer.
-
Something that I hadn't considered, readout speed from these sensors, specifically when using our LED lighting. I've read that the readout speed of the Fuji is 1/4 second which would be problematic with most LED's. Anyone know if this is the same with the Hasselblad? If using regular FP shutter on the Fuji we can probably expect shutter vibration as we have from our Nikons when using constant lighting (the reason why we have to shoot with LV and the D810 only when using LED's. The D800e doesn't have EFCS).
If I take a photo with EFCS on the nikons at a 1/4 and don't see any banding does that mean our LED's are ok or does that not prove anything about readout?
-
Hi Ben,
Please feel free to contact me on or off line if the iXG (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Cultural-Heritage/Camera-Systems/iXG-Camera-Solutions.aspx) is on your radar.
Cheers
Yair
-
Hi Ben,
Please feel free to contact me on or off line if the iXG (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Cultural-Heritage/Camera-Systems/iXG-Camera-Solutions.aspx) is on your radar.
Cheers
Yair
Very nice to hear from you again Yair! I will call you when I get a free second, thanks!
-
The Canon 50 megapixel solution is not sufficient for an upgrade from side to side testing. The files just aren't as robust.
what is not robust in them (I am not a Canon user btw) ? not enough light to saturate the sensor and you have to push in raw conversion or the pages you are shooting are somehow challenging the DR ?
-
I'm with Yair. This screams iXG. No SLR or general purpose body is as fine tuned for copystand work as the iXG or the RCam it grew out of.
-
We work too fast for multi shot to be an option except in special circumstances.
seriously ? exposure time is 1/125 , so 8 shots will in 1 sec for 80mp raw from E-M1 II... are you replacing pages manually on a copy stand that fast ?
-
what is not robust in them (I am not a Canon user btw) ? not enough light to saturate the sensor and you have to push in raw conversion or the pages you are shooting are somehow challenging the DR ?
We cannot allow for there to be a banding problem in the shadows. I used to shoot a 5D3 personally so know the issue. Although our current needs do not dictate the need for such shadow pushing, we still have no idea what newer technology might bring to the table. Recovering rubbed out text, seeing into ink spots, seperating ink bleed through from the other side of the page, deciphering text from among bad ink acid damage, etc, etc.
-
seriously ? exposure time is 1/125 , so 8 shots will in 1 sec for 80mp raw from E-M1 II... are you replacing pages manually on a copy stand that fast ?
I'm afraid that sensors of that size do not begin to be sufficient for our needs.
-
Given your past experience, I would cross Hasselblad off of your list. Their repair turnaround times are horrible. My H5 took nearly three months and a trip to Sweden to have a simple repair performed. My X1D is seriously flawed. Instead of replacing it, they're sending it off to Sweden where it will be months before I see it. I shipped it off back in April and there's no return in sight. Really can't say anything good about Hasselblad service. If you count on your camera to make a living, don't count on Hasselblad.
John
-
I wrote CI a long email asking about their repro tech cam solution (the one with electronic shutter) and asking for a trial of the C1 Cultural Heritage software. The automatic cropping alone might have been worth the heart stopping price ($6000). Currently we employ a person in the studio whose only task all day every day is cropping. The National Library here have 6 people doing cropping. That was months ago, still no reply.
In the US, Capture One Cultural Heritage (https://dtdch.com/capture-one-ch/) is exclusive to Digital Transitions Division of Cultural Heritage (http://www.dtdch.com), as is the iXG, the DT RCam, the Schneider 120ASPH, the Schneider 72mm Digitar, the DT BC100, DT RG 3040, DT RGC 180, DT Atom, DT Photon and other solutions specific to this market. CI (Capture Integration) is not a reseller of these products.
Outside of the US these products are represented by Phase One Cultural Heritage Dealers. Since you are in Israel, Yair, who has replied on this thread, would be your appropriate point of contact.
If "CI" in your post was a typo, and you contacted us (DT / DTDCH) please know that if we received your email we would have replied, so if you did not receive a reply we did not receive your email. Our answer would have been to connect you to Yair, but we would have answered. We do sometimes have issues with spam filters, so if you ever wish to reach out to us and do not respond a very prompt reply then please call or text me. (US +1) 740-707-2183.
-
In the US, Capture One Cultural Heritage (https://dtdch.com/capture-one-ch/) is exclusive to Digital Transitions Division of Cultural Heritage (http://www.dtdch.com), as is the iXG, the DT RCam, the Schneider 120ASPH, the Schneider 72mm Digitar, the DT BC100, DT RG 3040, DT RGC 180, DT Atom, DT Photon and other solutions specific to this market. CI (Capture Integration) is not a reseller of these products.
Outside of the US these products are represented by Phase One Cultural Heritage Dealers. Since you are in Israel, Yair, who has replied on this thread, would be your appropriate point of contact.
If "CI" in your post was a typo, and you contacted us (DT / DTDCH) please know that if we received your email we would have replied, so if you did not receive a reply we did not receive your email. Our answer would have been to connect you to Yair, but we would have answered. We do sometimes have issues with spam filters, so if you ever wish to reach out to us and do not respond a very prompt reply then please call or text me. (US +1) 740-707-2183.
I did contact the DTDCH, apologies. I wrote my letter via the contact form but never heard back.
-
With the GFX you could use the electronic one and have NO movement at all.
Indeed. I had not thought about that. But see below.
Something that I hadn't considered, readout speed from these sensors, specifically when using our LED lighting. I've read that the readout speed of the Fuji is 1/4 second which would be problematic with most LED's. Anyone know if this is the same with the Hasselblad?
The long readout time will produce bands when using the electronic shutter, but not when using a mechanical shutter. So the GFX indeed has an electronic shutter, but you cannot use it.
-
Indeed. I had not thought about that. But see below.
The long readout time will produce bands when using the electronic shutter, but not when using a mechanical shutter. So the GFX indeed has an electronic shutter, but you cannot use it.
Note that the Phase One IQ3 100mp electronic shutter has an anti-flicker/banding setting that can be placed at either 50hz or 60hz and works beautifully with LED light sources such as our DT Photon (https://dtdch.com/dt-photon-custom-cultural-heritage-lighting/). So this is not an issue that eliminates electronic shutter from use; only those without a sufficiently sophisticated implementation.
-
I did contact the DTDCH, apologies. I wrote my letter via the contact form but never heard back.
Must be a black hole of the internet. In any case you have my cell phone number (and the office numbers are on our website) in case you should ever wish to reach us and don't get an immediate response.
-
Must be a black hole of the internet. In any case you have my cell phone number (and the office numbers are on our website) in case you should ever wish to reach us and don't get an immediate response.
Doug is always eager to hear from a sales lead, and always there for a customer who needs help :)
I don't lnow why but he always reminds me of the Energizer Bunny -
Edmund
-
You probably should rewind and think about the budget. $10K cameras or $40K cameras?
You could buy a cupboard full of X1D's for some of the suggestions and never have to worry about service (:-)
-
Must be a black hole of the internet. In any case you have my cell phone number (and the office numbers are on our website) in case you should ever wish to reach us and don't get an immediate response.
Thanks!
You probably should rewind and think about the budget. $10K cameras or $40K cameras?
You could buy a cupboard full of X1D's for some of the suggestions and never have to worry about service (:-)
You are of course correct. This is very much a consideration. As I am constantly having to explain to the powers that be, we do not buy a camera, we buy a camera solution. Features, cost, ease of use, reliability, access to problem solving, support, repair, replacement, etc. The best and greatest does not always equal the correct solution.
-
How about looking at the Phase One IQ3 100mp which has an electronic shutter that will give you vibration free shooting and you don't have to worry about the mirror or leaf shutter. The warranty is 5 year without any activation count restrictions. This would give you complete C1 tethering support etc.
It's reproduction work: if money was not an object the proper solution will be the H5D-200 either the CMOS or the CCD version, buy consistent lighting and be done with it.
A multishot back will have better color separation, and that is more important than having almost twice the resolution.
Best regards,
-
It's reproduction work: if money was not an object the proper solution will be the H5D-200 either the CMOS or the CCD version, buy consistent lighting and be done with it.
A multishot back will have better color separation, and that is more important than having almost twice the resolution.
Best regards,
So speaks a man who knows what museum/library budgets are like for studios. :D The powers that be who live in a bubble of academia and history seem to have less patience than we might prefer for the latest technological advances in photographic tools when it comes to budgetary concerns. :D
I would also talk about what the actual necessities may be for reproduction quality. Ultimate quality is always a worthwhile goal but perhaps not always a realistic one. We are photographing ancient manuscripts and documents 98% of the time. Not material which has a requirement for such exacting colour accuracy. Although multishot colour accuracy may perhaps be wonderful to imagine, I do not believe it is a priority in comparison to the need for that level of colour accuracy in a studio doing precious artwork reproduction for example. Certainly not sufficient enough to persuade the purse string holders. :D It is an unfortunate truism that it is hard to persuade people to invest in technological advances which they cannot see on their own screens. Even when I got the boss a NEC Spectraview because I was getting fed up of this limitation. :)
That said I witnessed a fascinating project at the National Library here recently. They were photographing half size 35mm contact prints which had been smuggled out of wartime Poland, images of a valuable and large (A3+) manuscript photographed page by page. The library, using the 50MS back, were achieving legible detail. Legible enough to be read and copied. I would never have believed it possible. Would never have believed a tiny contact print could contain so much detail? The text would have been marginal for a 12 megapixel camera never mind the contact prints from a handheld WWII era 35mm camera (leica?). Truly impressive.
-
I just had a very worthwhile hour long conversation with Yair. The leaps and bounds made by the Cultural Heritage program since the days when we were using MFD are truly impressive. The more information we have the better we can consider our options.
-
Hi folks,
I'm sure you've had to put up with this question a lot but I'm hoping my rather specific niche requirement might let me off asking this question again. :)
I run a large Reproduction studio for an antiquities museum in Jerusalem. Over the past 5 years we have digitized well over 1 million pages from ancient manuscripts dating back over the past 900 years.
We did use a Leaf Aptus II-8 back on a DF camera but due to ongoing issues with the camera system we changed over to Nikon some years ago with the D800e and lately the D810 and haven't looked back. Our first ever repair on a Nikon has just gone in after 4 years of constant daily use of around 2000 frames a day. The issue is the USB port which had worked loose dropping the tethering. That's the sum total of repairs. Repair within a couple of days. In comparison the DF shutter and/or mirror box would die about twice a year requiring shipping to Denmark for repair.
We are currently looking at a higher resolution solution for our studio for at least one of the copy stations and for use with more precious works which require the additional resolution.
Until recently we had not looked back into medium format solutions due to our previous history with them. The release of two 50 megapixel cameras which are mirrorless is making us rethink our options. No mirror and a far better shutter rating than Mamiya system ever had brings these tools right back into the spotlight. Please note that for various reasons technical cameras are not being considered at this time. Chief among which is price, local availability and a required integration into a specific custom electronic workflow.
Currently we shoot tethered directly into Capture One. Using Live View in C1 for framing, precise manual focus and indeed shooting. With our Nikons we can shoot for hours straight directly from live view in C1. Incredibly useful when working with piles of documents which need to be placed accurately within the frame and photographed without hesitation before moving to the next one. Not a deal breaker though, however useful. We never had this ability with the digital back of course. Another essential element is the use of custom ICC profiles (currently made with our Gretag Colorchecker Digital SG chart). We cannot achieve true accuracy without this ability.
Which ever choice we would use for our higher resolution option would need to include these two abilities. Tethered Live View and ICC profiling. Please note that we will probably not be using native lenses with either option.
Fuji:
Pro's: Cheaper, reliable in country service and parts availability (confirmed today actually).
Con's: Does it do tethered LV at all? Cannot be processed in C1 and LR will not allow 'real' ICC profiling.
Hasselblad:
Pro's: Phocus software allows LV and in depth colour calibration.
Con's: Dealer here has a bad reputation and I personally did not get any feeling of confidence from him, is there any ability to photograph during LV? Has to be sent out of country for service.
A big con for both systems, albeit a temporary one, is that neither has had enough field time to be considered a reliable workhorse within the industry. Like any new system or software or computer, etc. That has to be taken under consideration and we are not 'running' into either solution quite yet.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Thanks!
Ben, it seems that there's little consideration for "your" need (price and image quality) to qualify a mirrorless medium format camera system. Please feel free to send an email to: info@hasselbladbron.com and we'll do our best to pair you up with Dealer that will allow you to test the X1D-50c in your environment and see if it fits or can be adapted to your workflow. Furthermore, if I wish to redirect you too, I would offer the H5D-200c multi-shot camera system which can generate up to a 1.3 GB file, tethered to our Phocus image processing software do live view composing with critical focus adjustments, enable reproduction mode for linear capture for profiling and screen calibration.
-
I find it a bit amusing to see that dealers in this thread insist on a multishot back while:
-there is no apparent need for the increased color accuracy
-the multishot technique would require new, more expensive lights
-the multishot technique would need longer time per shot (capture and processing), which is a real disadvantage.
-
I have been informed that there is as yet no AC adaptor for the X1D? Is that correct? That's a deal killer. So is using a FP shutter (vibration) on the Fuji if the electronic shutter is too slow for our uses. I think that it is becoming apparent that these systems are too young for consideration at this present time.
Technical camera solutions and specifically the new iXR system with its relative simplicity, electronic shutter with extended lifetime and superior lenses are of interest however they are a significant jump in budget which has to be considered. It is also a brand new system which is always a consideration.
Yesterday was a nightmare, the powers that be are demanding a 'concrete' budgetary estimate (whatever that is ::) for a higher resolution system. I don't have an answer today. Literally. We are so close to the finest cutting edge of technology here that the options are either too new, too unreliable, unsuitable for a high volume setup or rather expensive. That is before you get into sensor limitations. I just don't have an answer today. A few months from now I will have the chance to give an educated decision. The current time tested solutions, MFDB's on DSLR's are not an option for us due to our volume from our own experience.
-
I'm afraid that sensors of that size do not begin to be sufficient for our needs.
how does the sensor size affects you ? it is not an old Canon sensor - no banding in deep shadows when pushed ... works fast, cheap (buy a dozen), no vibrations, big jump in resolution (80mp from 36mp), it is dSLM - mount any lens u want... has AC power adapter too
-
how does the sensor size affects you ? it is not an old Canon sensor - no banding in deep shadows when pushed ... works fast, cheap (buy a dozen), no vibrations, big jump in resolution (80mp from 36mp), it is dSLM - mount any lens u want... has AC power adapter too
Let me do some research. On paper it is actually an interesting solution for one of our copy stations. We would need to change the lighting of course. If it can shoot and process the file ready to shoot within 3 seconds, provide 60+ megapixels of resolution with accurate colour and superior tonality, I could be persuaded to look into either the Oly or Pentax K1 as a solution for a specific project that is causing me headaches at present.
-
I'm currently downloading the files from this comparison:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k1&attr13_1=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=oly_em5ii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=200&attr126_0=2&attr126_3=2&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.5787503664039937&y=-0.1836417618008543
The key here is detail rather than just size of course. The Pentax is a cleaner file but doesn't resolve particularly better than our current D810, the Canon is bigger but I'm not fully persuaded that there is that much more detail resolved and the Oly is just a blurry mess in comparison.
Including the Fuji GFX to the comparison.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k1&attr13_1=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=2&attr126_3=2&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.5658820336923192&y=-0.1900310943933952
I'm going to uprez the Pentax MS file to match the Canon and Fuji files (when they finish downloading) and compare. I've got a feeling there's not going to be all that much difference. Interesting.
-
Just realised that my CS6 at home won't open all the files and neither will C1 9 which is all I've got at home. Quick download of trials then I'll be able to see the RAWs. :D
edit, that was silly, C1 won't read the Fuji files will they. ::)
-
The Pentax is a cleaner file but doesn't resolve particularly better than our current D810
D810 is a mess of chroma aliasing vs Pentax
-
Just realised that my CS6 at home won't open all the files and neither will C1 9 which is all I've got at home. Quick download of trials then I'll be able to see the RAWs. :D
edit, that was silly, C1 won't read the Fuji files will they. ::)
Hard to tell till you do the raw processing yourself of course. Converting to DNG's and wishing I could do this in C1 which has very impressive colour moire correction.
-
the Oly is just a blurry mess in comparison.
you did not get the E-M1 II raw file (the latest model with 20mp Sony sensor) - you get the old one E-M5 II raw !!!
note that dpreview did not post multishot from E-M1 II there and I do not suggest to use E-M5 II - older sensor, way less resolution (in multishot mode) and slow processing in camera
-
you did not get the E-M1 II raw file (the latest model with 20mp Sony sensor) - you get the old one E-M5 II raw !!!
note that dpreview did not post multishot from E-M1 II there
Fair enough. I'll wait till I can compare.
Big news incidentally for me, C1 will load a DNG made from the Fuji GFX file. It has no presets but we make our own ICC profiles and curves anyway. That is indeed very interesting! Allows us a level playing field for testing.
-
C1 which has very impressive colour moire correction.
that moire correction in C1 is simply a desaturation... you are not seriously considering that for archival repro work, when moireless (color-wise) solutions available !
-
C1 will load a DNG
C1 greatly improved DNG support in recent versions (v10.x) , but AFAIK yet it still attempts to treat converted DNG files differently from regular raw files (like with White Balance application, etc) ... one small step left for P1 to fix
-
that moire correction in C1 is simply a desaturation... you are not seriously considering that for archival repro work, when moireless (color-wise) solutions available !
I'm not seriously considering anything other than seeing the files for myself and drawing conclusions based on the files themselves.
-
Fair enough. I'll wait till I can compare.
I think Imagine Resource site has multi shot raw from E-M1 II with resolution target
-
seeing
seeing is believing (c)
-
Initial findings using the adobe raw engine.
Pentax noticeably superior to Nikon. Pentax (when uprezzed) resolves less detail than canon but due to aliasing not canon does not win with necessarily usable detail. Fuji trumps the Canon. Considerably better resolving detail, sharpness and control of aliasing. For 36 megapixels the Pentax is the best solution but I'm not sure it reaches the detail of the 50 megapixel sensors.
Capture One results when my headache goes away. :D
-
Then do the EM1-II using the IR test chart and hope they use the same chart for say the Canon so I can run a comparison.
Still can't get over the difference between the canon and fuji. Numbers really aren't everything are they?
-
Then do the EM1-II using the IR test chart and hope they use the same chart for say the Canon so I can run a comparison.
Still can't get over the difference between the canon and fuji. Numbers really aren't everything are they?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-ii-image-quality.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-pen-f/olympus-pen-fTECH2.HTM - this one is Olympus Pen F which like E-M1 II also with 20mp multi-shot, but E-M1 II is the camera to get vs Pen F simply because it is the top line in Olympus stable
PS: make sure to see where IR talks about 50mp OOC JPG (which is different and less detailed vs off camera conversion from the full 80mp multishot raw)
-
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-ii-image-quality.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-pen-f/olympus-pen-fTECH2.HTM - this one is Olympus Pen F which like E-M1 II also with 20mp multi-shot, but E-M1 II is the camera to get vs Pen F simply because it is the top line in Olympus stable
PS: make sure to see where IR talks about 50mp OOC JPG (which is different and less detailed vs off camera conversion from the full 80mp multishot raw)
Downloading raw from the Oly, Fuji and canon.
-
Uprezzed the Canon and Fuji to match the Oly file. Oly doesn't begin to compete. Looks like a soft uprez in comparison to the 50 megapixel files. Certainly not close to a real 50 megapixels nevermind 80. Fuji still considerably better than the Canon.
-
I'll say this, if you're a dealer and don't use your actual name, don't have contract info in your profile or signature, and say to email info@ for help, don't bother.
I'm not sure that up-resing the multishot 35mm products is really fair. It's creating information, and even with a multishot setup, it's faking it. Real details require real pixel wells.
The DTDCH setup is the pre-built, supported as a package that is hard to compete with. That it plugs into your current workflow makes it that much better. Yes, you could recreate it to some effect with 35mm gear, but what are you really saving? You could also build a motorized base and move the subject around and stitching those photos. You could build a rig with 4 of the Nikon D810's and sync shoot them & stitch those files. You could do a large format lens and a sliding back that would again need stitching.
All of the rig & stitching can be done with the IQ 100mp as well, so why not start there? Get a price on the full DTDCH iXR with the lighting, add in 2 top end workstations with 5k monitors & 100TB of storage. See what push back you get from that cost. Yes, it's the Rolls Royce option, but it'll give you a starting point. Price adverse? Try with the 50/60/80mp options and upgrade the back in a year or two once they have some experience in the differences.
Yes, there will be higher MP backs in the 33x44 size relatively soon, but I wouldn't wait for them. The larger backs will be the current 100mp chip for a while, and you should be ready to ask at what point you'll need to reshoot subjects due to higher MP & quality being available. The cost of reshooting in a year or two because you can do higher resolution can quickly make up for the larger investment now.
-
The DTDCH setup
OP stated - the money matter... so the whole point is to find something that works for him yet costs less than that...
-
Fair enough. I'll wait till I can compare.
Big news incidentally for me, C1 will load a DNG made from the Fuji GFX file. It has no presets but we make our own ICC profiles and curves anyway. That is indeed very interesting! Allows us a level playing field for testing.
The GFX is not supported in Capture One, and will not be supported in Capture One.
Any workarounds, hacks, or temporary exceptions (e.g. older versions of C1 may sometimes work with DNGs from newer unsupported cameras) will come with significant limitations and are unlikely to work at all for very long.
The GFX is a nice camera. But if you want to use the GFX you should plan to use it with LightRoom or other software which supports it.
-
that moire correction in C1 is simply a desaturation...
Presumably he is referring to the demoasicing algorithms in Capture One, not the after-the-fact moire tool.
It's very common for a given raw file to show as having moire in a more general-purpose raw convertor and show completely cleanly in Capture One. The math in Capture One for demosaicing highly detailed raw files from single-shot cameras with no AA filter and ultra-sharp lenses is better than any on the market in my experience.
In fact it's my belief and experience that historically, it's the surprisingly sub-par demosaicing of the raw processors used by some companies making multi-shot cameras that often errantly exaggerate the sharpness gap between single-shot and multi-shot cameras. Presumably since they had multishot hardware they didn't have much motivation to put the enormous R+D investment needed to bring single-shot demosaicing to very nearly the same level as a multishot capture.
People often accuse Capture One of adding some sharpening that can't be disabled; that's incorrect – it's math is just that much better.
-
Technical camera solutions and specifically the new iXR system with its relative simplicity, electronic shutter with extended lifetime and superior lenses are of interest however they are a significant jump in budget which has to be considered. It is also a brand new system which is always a consideration.
Two notes:
- You mean iXG (https://dtdch.com/phase-one-ixg-cultural-heritage-camera/) not iXR.
- It is a new incarnation, but it not a brand new system like the XF was when it launched (and had a couple months of the teething problems any brand new system has). The iXG operating system, firmware, sensor, electronics, user interface, and most of the subsystems are from the iXU and iXA which are heavily proven systems, and of course the tethering is provided by Capture One CH which is by far the most mature tethering software made. The "brand new" part of the iXG system is the focusing mount (encoded linear slide built for precision and shooting straight down rather than a general purpose focus barrel), and in engineering terms this is a pretty "routine" component.
It's also being built by the Phase One Industrial team who have an extreme dedication to reliability. It's one thing to build a camera that works really really reliably in a commercial context, and quite another to build camera models where five units go up in a plane and cannot miss (or even be a few milliseconds behind on) capturing even a single frame on any of the five cameras during a multi-hour survey of continuous shooting, lest the run need to be repeated in it's entirety.
We've been testing iXG since the prototype phase and have had absolutely no issues even at that point.
None of this means I can guarantee zero problems of course. That would be silly.
But it is to say there is every reason to view it differently than you would a "brand new system".
I know you're abroad, but if by any chance you're coming to ALA Conference (https://dtdch.com/events/ala-2017-annual-conference-exhibition-booth-2044/) next week (the largest CH show in north america) we will have three iXG cameras there ready to play with.
-
I'll say this, if you're a dealer and don't use your actual name, don't have contract info in your profile or signature, and say to email info@ for help, don't bother.
From this and his/her other posts it would seem HBIEVP is actually a Hassy employee, not working at a dealer.
For what it's worth I think we should be very welcoming to anyone from Hasselblad who would like to post here. I try very hard to provide level-headed, experienced-based, truthful advice and comments. But there is zero question that I am biased; having someone from Hasselblad (or Leica, Sony, etc) to even that out is very welcome! I think the community would benefit from that.
So, while I agree it's good advice for HBIEVP to add a signature with his/her name and contact info I'd also like to say "Welcome!" and "Hope you stick around".
-
OP stated - the money matter... so the whole point is to find something that works for him yet costs less than that...
Yep, money matters, but it didn't sound like he's got the full budget number of what the DTDCH solution would be, especially adding on things like the workstations and added storage. Depending on the subject, the cost of getting an object back in a year or two to reshoot at a higher MP would cost.
When dealing with one of a kind, priceless artifacts, each time you digitize it, there's risk to damage, be it in transport, in the tech shooting it, etc.
-
From this and his/her other posts it would seem HBIEVP is actually a Hassy employee, not working at a dealer.
For what it's worth I think we should be very welcoming to anyone from Hasselblad who would like to post here. I try very hard to provide level-headed, experienced-based, truthful advice and comments. But there is zero question that I am biased; having someone from Hasselblad (or Leica, Sony, etc) to even that out is very welcome! I think the community would benefit from that.
So, while I agree it's good advice for HBIEVP to add a signature with his/her name and contact info I'd also like to say "Welcome!" and "Hope you stick around".
Yes, I apologize HBIEVP, please introduce yourself, we love to have more Hassy folks part of the discussion. Unfortunately, I am assuming the info@Hassy email would literally get shuffled to the local dealer for Ben, who based on the original posting had issues.
-Joe
-
Yes, I apologize HBIEVP, please introduce yourself, we love to have more Hassy folks part of the discussion. Unfortunately, I am assuming the info@Hassy email would literally get shuffled to the local dealer for Ben, who based on the original posting had issues.
-Joe
He didn't say "info@Hassy" or info@hasselblad.com which is the international address. He said info@hasselbladbron.com which is country specific afaik.
-
I'll say this, if you're a dealer and don't use your actual name, don't have contract info in your profile or signature, and say to email info@ for help, don't bother.
I'm not sure that up-resing the multishot 35mm products is really fair. It's creating information, and even with a multishot setup, it's faking it. Real details require real pixel wells.
The DTDCH setup is the pre-built, supported as a package that is hard to compete with. That it plugs into your current workflow makes it that much better. Yes, you could recreate it to some effect with 35mm gear, but what are you really saving? You could also build a motorized base and move the subject around and stitching those photos. You could build a rig with 4 of the Nikon D810's and sync shoot them & stitch those files. You could do a large format lens and a sliding back that would again need stitching.
All of the rig & stitching can be done with the IQ 100mp as well, so why not start there? Get a price on the full DTDCH iXR with the lighting, add in 2 top end workstations with 5k monitors & 100TB of storage. See what push back you get from that cost. Yes, it's the Rolls Royce option, but it'll give you a starting point. Price adverse? Try with the 50/60/80mp options and upgrade the back in a year or two once they have some experience in the differences.
Yes, there will be higher MP backs in the 33x44 size relatively soon, but I wouldn't wait for them. The larger backs will be the current 100mp chip for a while, and you should be ready to ask at what point you'll need to reshoot subjects due to higher MP & quality being available. The cost of reshooting in a year or two because you can do higher resolution can quickly make up for the larger investment now.
I didn't uprez the oly files. I uprezzed the canon and fuji files to match the native resolution MS Oly. Where it failed, badly. I uprezzed the Pentax file to see if it could match the higher resolution cameras due to its MS capability as had been suggested. It could not despite providing an otherwise superlative IQ for it's megapixel value.
Any camera we buy would have to work across our stations. The station, the equipment used to hold the element being photographed, always, always takes precedence to the camera and will always dictate the camera requirements. Although we are interested in the iXG (spelt properly this time Doug :) ) camera system, the station which is being marketed with it does not answer our specific requirements (if that is what you are recommeding?). I have talked to Yair about taking a trip to London in the coming months to try out the system with our travelling station which would provide a good benchmark for our studio in general.
Please note that I have several possible requirements at present which will need to be answered. We need a high resolution solution, a higher resolution solution (than current) and a higher resolution solution which could be answered with MS in theory (one which we are currently looking into a scanner solution for but I'm open minded). That is why the iXG is interesting me even while I investigate the Fuji or even 35mm MS.
Doug, although I appreciate the confidence you have in the new system, it is my responsibility to keep a 7am-9pm studio running 5 days a week without fail. We are attached to a research centre where materials are often available for digitization for only hours at a time, most of the material we digitize belongs to private collectors from outside the country and with a (justified) mania for security. As such they are almost always on a very short term loan. You will understand that my recommendation of a new systems reliability based on 'the dealer said so' would hardly carry any weight. We will do our research into the system, try it out hopefully within the next few months and come to our conclusions based on factors such as local dealer support, repair turnaround times, etc. Murphy loves confidence. It gives him a chuckle when planning to make things go wrong because the poor goofs don't expect it.