Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: amsp on May 20, 2008, 01:43:15 pm
-
So, after reading so many posts where ppl are saying DBs are terrible at high ISO and how they are afraid to shoot at anything over 100, I decided to show what it can look like if you process them correctly. These are shot with a regular P25 (non +) at f5.6 and processed in C1 3.8 with ONLY color noise suppression applied. So there is no luminance noise suppression applied at all. Mind you, this is supposed to be the the worst of all the backs at high ISO.
ISO 200:
[attachment=6655:attachment]
ISO 400:
[attachment=6656:attachment]
ISO 800:
[attachment=6657:attachment]
-
It would be interesting to see them without massive compression and noise filtering applied. The 800 looks pretty dreadful in the boke areas and on the pots, but I'm not sure if that's the software messing it up or it came out that way.
I see banding and lots of "grain" at 800. 200 looks pretty decent, though.
-
Mind you, this is supposed to be the the worst of all the backs at high ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I expect the Mamiya ZD would be worse.
-
It would be interesting to see them without massive compression and noise filtering applied. The 800 looks pretty dreadful in the boke areas and on the pots, but I'm not sure if that's the software messing it up or it came out that way.
I see banding and lots of "grain" at 800. 200 looks pretty decent, though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dreadful? What a joke. You could print that A3 easy without seeing a single noise grain. As far as compression goes they are 50% size 70 quality JPEG. But whatever you say. The point for me with this post is not really to debate it, but to let ppl see what it can look like and let everyone make up their own mind.
-
You could print that A3 easy without seeing a single noise grain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed. That noise might be discernible in a print, but not in a bad way.
-
The noise in the 800 image would never show on a web press. I really like the noise structure in MFDB files, and frequently try to sharpen the luminance noise so that it will show in a print.
-
I'm super impressed, I never shoot anything other than ISO 200 on my P21 where there is virtually no noise at all, even on a tripod I wouldn't bother shooting at 100 as there is really no advantage you can see in print. I did do a quick dirty test on 400 the other day and that was really good too. As you've shown with your test, by the time you get to 800 theres plenty of noise but it's a nice noise and it still has that lovely thickness and sparkle to it.
-
The noise in the 800 image would never show on a web press. I really like the noise structure in MFDB files, and frequently try to sharpen the luminance noise so that it will show in a print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hmm, sounds like a good trick, i'll try that.
-
I'm super impressed, I never shoot anything other than ISO 200 on my P21 where there is virtually no noise at all, even on a tripod I wouldn't bother shooting at 100 as there is really no advantage you can see in print. I did do a quick dirty test on 400 the other day and that was really good too. As you've shown with your test, by the time you get to 800 theres plenty of noise but it's a nice noise and it still has that lovely thickness and sparkle to it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The trick is to use C1, ACR does a much worse job with color noise. It's obvious PhaseOne has some kind of custom noise reduction for their backs implemented. And set the color noise slider function to manual and play with the slider till you're happy. For iso100 & 50 I usually use ACR though.
-
The trick is to use C1, ACR does a much worse job with color noise. It's obvious PhaseOne has some kind of custom noise reduction for their backs implemented. And set the color noise slider function to manual and play with the slider till you're happy. For iso100 & 50 I usually use ACR though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196841\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lightroom is really good at ISO 200 on the P21. The C1 version 4 does do better, it's just I can't control color like I want to on C1 which is a pity because the quality of the conversions is really great.
-
Another side
Any comparison requires at least two participants. Here are examples from the lowly (but not the "lowliest") Canon 40D (a 10 Mpix camera for $1000), ISO 200, 400, 800 and 1600. Shutter between 1/20s (ISO 200) and 1/160s (ISO 1600). Low color noise suppression on 800 and 1600. The JPEGs are full size, from 2.5 MB to 4 MB (the noise of the 1600 shot is observable on the file size as well).
ISO 200 JPEG (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO200_40D10119.JPG)
ISO 400 JPEG (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO400_40D10120.JPG)
ISO 400 JPEG (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO800_40D10121.JPG)
ISO 1600 JPEG (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO1600_40D10122.JPG)
However, I do not trust JPEGs, they do not reflect the camera's capability, for
a. JPEG reflects already the raw processing,
b. the exposure counts more than the ISO in noise, and that can be seen only on the raw image.
So, here are the raw files as well, 11MB to 13MB.
ISO 200 raw (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO200_40D10119.CR2)
ISO 400 raw (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO400_40D10120.CR2)
ISO 400 raw (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO800_40D10121.CR2)
ISO 1600 raw (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO1600_40D10122.CR2)
-
Another side
Any comparison requires at least two participants. Here are examples from the lowly (but not the "lowliest") Canon 40D (a 10 Mpix camera for $1000), ISO 200, 400, 800 and 1600. Shutter between 1/20s (ISO 200) and 1/160s (ISO 1600). Low color noise suppression on 800 and 1600. The JPEGs are full size, from 2.5 MB to 4 MB (the noise of the 1600 shot is observable on the file size as well).
ISO 200 JPEG (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO200_40D10119.JPG)
ISO 400 JPEG (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO400_40D10120.JPG)
ISO 400 JPEG (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO800_40D10121.JPG)
ISO 1600 JPEG (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO1600_40D10122.JPG)
However, I do not trust JPEGs, they do not reflect the camera's capability, for
a. JPEG reflects already the raw processing,
b. the exposure counts more than the ISO in noise, and that can be seen only on the raw image.
So, here are the raw files as well, 11MB to 13MB.
ISO 200 raw (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO200_40D10119.CR2)
ISO 400 raw (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO400_40D10120.CR2)
ISO 400 raw (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO800_40D10121.CR2)
ISO 1600 raw (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/ISO1600_40D10122.CR2)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I understand this thread, this is not a comparison. We're talking medium format digital noise here. Nothing to do with 35mm.
-
As I understand this thread, this is not a comparison. We're talking medium format digital noise here. Nothing to do with 35mm.
Really? The OP wrote
after reading so many posts where ppl are saying DBs are terrible at high ISO
Do you think "ppl are saying" that DBs are terrible on their own, or in comparison to other cameras?
-
As I posted yesterday, I think that MFD noise looks terrific when properly processed. Very film-like.
This is how my P20 looks at ISO 800 with a bit of NR. Obviously this can be worked out more...
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/p20iso800/crop5.jpg)
/Samuel
-
Really? The OP wrote
Do you think "ppl are saying" that DBs are terrible on their own, or in comparison to other cameras?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think there's single MFD user here interested in a noise comparison against 35mm at this point.
My vote is still - keep this thread about MFD noise only. Thank you.
-
There's two types of behavior under different conditions: LotsaLite and BadLite.
Usually LotsaLiteis ok at hi-ISO, because the spectrum is well balanced (sun, flash).
But BadLite is low on blue or spiky and gives strange chroma noise.
Edmund
-
I want to than AMSP and Samuel for bringing this up. I've just shot some ISO 800 on my P20 today tethered with C1 4.1 and was amazed. I didn't think my p20 could do this well.
In my tests I used a flash, my 150mm TX lens and 1/1000 C1 4.1 does do a slightly better job with the color noise and indeed as ASMP has suggested using higher chroma noise reduction and low luminance works well. I'm impressed!
All my previous tests with the p20 and ISO 800 were with slow shutter so I'm going to do more tests to see if ISO 800 with slow shutter (1/60) are just as good.
Update: The quick answer is no they are not. And the longer the exposure the bigger the differential between base ISO and ISO 800 gets. So for me I get the quality ISO 800 files that ASMP and Samuel posted if I am using fast shutter and small aperture.
Another interesting thing I think could be explored more is noise in OOF regions. It appears that this is where the noise gets out of control. If true then why?
-
What Edmund said is key to the "useability at high ISO" question:
- Shooting with plenty of light will look good on most cameras, low or high ISO; high ISO well exposed can look terrific. This is clearly seen here in amps example.
- Once you get into low-light levels, particularly tungsten-based lighting, the high-ISO challenge hits you hard and fast. This kind of scenario is the proof-of-the-pudding. Chroma noise can get very ugly. Sometimes black-and-white conversion is the last resort.
Peter
-
Ah. So it is the software getting in the way as I suspected. Fair enough.
I do like how the artifacts and noise are very evenly spread out, very much like pushed film. This is nothing like you get from a typical DSLR. Probably because it has no AA filter on it and so any AA or NR you do is a one-time thing when you process it.
Does it look "good" at 800? No. 200 plainly looks better. Does it look tons better than any DSLR that I've seen at 800? Without a doubt.
-
C1 3.6.x and later are the king of chroma noise removal, IMO. I think version C14 is terrible with color noise, and I have to use other software to remove it from the converted 16 bit TIFFs, if I were to use version 4.
I think Lightroom is tied, or second best with color noise removal and control. Plus, it just gives you clean files, no matter what file you're processing, however, sometimes you need to add in a fine edged sharpen after converted from LR, where in C14, it gives you the control for the radius, amount, threshold, etc, more so than LR does.
-
Absolutely right, Edmund: there is a huge difference at high ISOs when LotsaLite or BadLite.
I refer to this situation, taken at ISO 800 with the eMotion 75:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=7 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=7)
There was also light in this situation, but not "Lots", as it is shot in the early morning during sunrise.
Thierry
There's two types of behavior under different conditions: LotsaLite and BadLite.
Usually LotsaLiteis ok at hi-ISO, because the spectrum is well balanced (sun, flash).
But BadLite is low on blue or spiky and gives strange chroma noise.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I don't think there's single MFD user here interested in a noise comparison against 35mm at this point.
My vote is still - keep this thread about MFD noise only. Thank you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really! MFDB users pay amazing sums of money for their equipment because they want the best possible image quality, whatever the ISO used.
The fact that 35mm DSLRs seem to do a better job at high ISO (albeit starting off from a lower quality base) must be of concern to users of MFDB.
From reports I've read from Edmund, Phase DB's produce equally good results, if not better results, when underexposed at base ISO instead of the option of using the same shutter speed at a higher ISO.
Canon DSLRs, on the other hand, produce significantly better results at a higher ISO, compared to the same exposure at a lower ISO. That's the key issue here, for me and I would think for anyone interested in image quality above base ISO.
Why aren't DB manufacturers using the same technology that 35mm manufacturers use to boost the analog signal before A/D conversion? My guess is, because the CMOS sensor makes this possible and most (if not all) DBs are CCD.
-
Really! MFDB users pay amazing sums of money for their equipment because they want the best possible image quality, whatever the ISO used.
The fact that 35mm DSLRs seem to do a better job at high ISO (albeit starting off from a lower quality base) must be of concern to users of MFDB.
From reports I've read from Edmund, Phase DB's produce equally good results, if not better results, when underexposed at base ISO instead of the option of using the same shutter speed at a higher ISO.
Canon DSLRs, on the other hand, produce significantly better results at a higher ISO, compared to the same exposure at a lower ISO. That's the key issue here, for me and I would think for anyone interested in image quality above base ISO.
Why aren't DB manufacturers using the same technology that 35mm manufacturers use to boost the analog signal before A/D conversion? My guess is, because the CMOS sensor makes this possible and most (if not all) DBs are CCD.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My impression is that the actual sensor used are pretty good with respect to noise at high ISO and should yield good images when scaled down a bit, due to their large number of pixels. However, the camera makers seem to be using chips which are out of spec (cheaper), and correcting this by software, but the software corrections don't work well at high-iso.
Edmund
-
Really! MFDB users pay amazing sums of money for their equipment because they want the best possible image quality, whatever the ISO used.
The fact that 35mm DSLRs seem to do a better job at high ISO (albeit starting off from a lower quality base) must be of concern to users of MFDB.
From reports I've read from Edmund, Phase DB's produce equally good results, if not better results, when underexposed at base ISO instead of the option of using the same shutter speed at a higher ISO.
Canon DSLRs, on the other hand, produce significantly better results at a higher ISO, compared to the same exposure at a lower ISO. That's the key issue here, for me and I would think for anyone interested in image quality above base ISO.
Why aren't DB manufacturers using the same technology that 35mm manufacturers use to boost the analog signal before A/D conversion? My guess is, because the CMOS sensor makes this possible and most (if not all) DBs are CCD.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please don't feed the troll's.
-
Here is the same iso800 image with Neat Image noise removal applied...
[attachment=6679:attachment]
-
Here is the same iso800 image with Neat Image noise removal applied...
[attachment=6679:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196993\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I prefer it with a bit of noise I think. I always add noise to files anyway.
-
I prefer it with a bit of noise I think. I always add noise to files anyway.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, I sometimes remove the digital noise if I think it's ugly and then add fake film grain. It both hides the noise reduction and adds more pleasant grain.
-
My impression is that the actual sensor used are pretty good with respect to noise at high ISO
This can not be stated so generally. For example the Sinar eM22 has only one ISO, which is I guess about 40; everything else is software.
-
Thanks for the test. Please are you talking ISO or are you talking exposure? Its a significant difference. Do you expose to the right or do you let the meter decide how you expose.
ISO is a standart for film/sensor sensitivity. Using the "expose to the right" technique would eventually result in an overexposure of the sensor or in other words by ISO standart, you are using a lower speed than what your back tells you.
It is also difficult to judge correctly on a downscaled image and as has been said its a good light shot. You can certainly print it to A3, would it look different from an image taken with a APS camera? Probably not!
Please keep going with your testing, I am not yet confinced that MF backs are able to deliver the image quality of a top notch APS camera at high ISO
-
This can not be stated so generally. For example the Sinar eM22 has only one ISO, which is I guess about 40; everything else is software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197037\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Woof, that is really nice looking..
I will have to go back through the thread to see but I think your camera was the P25 non+ series, correct?
I would never expect that at 800.
I have a P30 and it is suppose to be even better at higher iso/asa than the P20 or P25, as far as I have read.
Looks good
Snook
-
Woof, that is really nice looking..
I will have to go back through the thread to see but I think your camera was the P25 non+ series, correct?
I would never expect that at 800.
I have a P30 and it is suppose to be even better at higher iso/asa than the P20 or P25, as far as I have read.
Looks good
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's actually asmp's test.
-
Thanks for the test. Please are you talking ISO or are you talking exposure? Its a significant difference. Do you expose to the right or do you let the meter decide how you expose.
ISO is a standart for film/sensor sensitivity. Using the "expose to the right" technique would eventually result in an overexposure of the sensor or in other words by ISO standart, you are using a lower speed than what your back tells you.
It is also difficult to judge correctly on a downscaled image and as has been said its a good light shot. You can certainly print it to A3, would it look different from an image taken with a APS camera? Probably not!
Please keep going with your testing, I am not yet confinced that MF backs are able to deliver the image quality of a top notch APS camera at high ISO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No offense, but I'm not even remotely interested in convincing you of anything. This post is a nudge to DB owners, who have been afraid to shoot at anything but iso100 in the past, to go try it themselves. If you can't judge from a 50% of a 20MP image that's your problem. And if you think these images would print the same as an APS sensor at A3 you are being quite ridiculous and obviously have no real experience on the matter. For all you pixel-peepers and whiners, if you are not happy with this test go do your own, it's that simple. Thank you.
-
No offense, but I'm not even remotely interested in convincing you of anything. This post is a nudge to DB owners, who have been afraid to shoot at anything but iso100 in the past, to go try it themselves. If you can't judge from a 50% of a 20MP image that's your problem. And if you think these images would print the same as an APS sensor at A3 you are being quite ridiculous and obviously have no real experience on the matter. For all you pixel-peepers and whiners, if you are not happy with this test go do your own, it's that simple. Thank you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Word.
-
No offense, but I'm not even remotely interested in convincing you of anything. This post is a nudge to DB owners, who have been afraid to shoot at anything but iso100 in the past, to go try it themselves. If you can't judge from a 50% of a 20MP image that's your problem. And if you think these images would print the same as an APS sensor at A3 you are being quite ridiculous and obviously have no real experience on the matter. For all you pixel-peepers and whiners, if you are not happy with this test go do your own, it's that simple. Thank you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Come on! I made the test some time ago with the P30. A 5D had the better IQ at iso 800 than the DB. The + is certainly better though.
And sorry I dont see why you name your thread a test and show us a downscaled image, but then again expect to read comments about the full size image quality.
I would be far more appropriate to answer to questions than to ride personal attack against posters. Have fun
-
Come on! I made the test some time ago with the P30. A 5D had the better IQ at iso 800 than the DB. The + is certainly better though.
And sorry I dont see why you name your thread a test and show us a downscaled image, but then again expect to read comments about the full size image quality.
I would be far more appropriate to answer to questions than to ride personal attack against posters. Have fun
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At least his showing images. You've got nothing more than words...
It would be nice to see your tests...
-
Yeah, I sometimes remove the digital noise if I think it's ugly and then add fake film grain. It both hides the noise reduction and adds more pleasant grain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do much the same. But I also tend to add a touch of grain as I'm not so keen on digital's smooth video look.
-
Mr. Horrible,
I'd like to see your test images as well not because I don't believe you but because IQ is subjective. Some people like sterile, (over) saturated images, some like color accuracy, some people hate colour noise. I can't stand color noise but love luminance noise on a high pixel image, kinda like pointalism in the OOF areas, and I require good color. The main advantage of a DB is in color. Even pushed images at 1600 on a DB have much better colour accuracy than any DSLR. Any colour noise cleans right up with a little colour NR, leaving the luminance noise to add to acutance. I know the 5D well and can say that 800 is great noise wise, but colorwise is just OK. This is my experience, I'd like to see your pics to see what you are seeing.
-
Come on! I made the test some time ago with the P30. A 5D had the better IQ at iso 800 than the DB. The + is certainly better though.
And sorry I dont see why you name your thread a test and show us a downscaled image, but then again expect to read comments about the full size image quality.
I would be far more appropriate to answer to questions than to ride personal attack against posters. Have fun
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
*Yawn* This NOT a DB vs. X thread. Why is that so hard for you to understand? This is just a couple shots to show ppl that DBs aren't necessarily as bad as you might think. I don't care if this test is not up to your standards, am I being clear enough? The fact that a couple of DB owners have already expressed their surprise at the results tell me that my intention with this post got through. But feel free to go start your own P30 vs. 5D thread, just stop posting your nonsense on mine.
-
*Yawn* This NOT a DB vs. X thread. Why is that so hard for you to understand? This is just a couple shots to show ppl that DBs aren't necessarily as bad as you might think. I don't care if this test is not up to your standards, am I being clear enough? The fact that a couple of DB owners have already expressed their surprise at the results tell me that my intention with this post got through. But feel free to go start your own P30 vs. 5D thread, just stop posting your nonsense on mine.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I know, I did not bring in the 40d or whatever, I just shared my experience in response to your complaint.
Its about high ISO, and the question was if the light were metered acording to ISO specs or if you simply exposed to the right.
I dont understand what so offending about this question. As you name your pics a test, it may be allowed to ask, otherwise it could give the impression that you want to proof something which isnt there.
-
Here's a shot from this afternoon with the Rollei 6008 / p20 handheld at ISO 800 forget the shutter but around 1/125. I made no adjustments to the file other than changing the color noise to 71 and the luminace nose slider to 6 (defaults are 58 and 25) in C1 4.1
Honestly I am really surprised! I had been holding off from even ISO 200 before seeing this post, and getting blurry images because I was afraid to bump the ISO.
-
Here's a shot from this afternoon with the Rollei 6008 / p20 handheld at ISO 800 forget the shutter but around 1/125. I made no adjustments to the file other than changing the color noise to 71 and the luminace nose slider to 6 (defaults are 58 and 25) in C1 4.1
Honestly I am really surprised! I had been holding off from even ISO 200 before seeing this post, and getting blurry images because I was afraid to bump the ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Looking great! I'm glad my post could inspire you to start experimenting. Did you try and develop it in C1 3.8 too? If not, you should try it and see which one you like best. I played around with your photo a little, hope you don't mind. It's quite a nice capture, I especially like it in B/W.
[attachment=6703:attachment]
[attachment=6704:attachment]
-
The fact that 35mm DSLRs seem to do a better job at high ISO (albeit starting off from a lower quality base) must be of concern to users of MFDB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please show me the DSLR which produces better IQ than this ISO 800 sample from a MFDB.
This is at 100% which is not a true comparison, because the image size of the MFDB is so much larger:
[attachment=6705:attachment]
And this is a 100% crop when reduced to 16MP (more like a high end DSLR):
[attachment=6706:attachment]
NO noise reduction used in either sample.
Honestly I couldn't ask for more at ISO 800 and I hope this kills the prevailing "MFDB can't compare to DSLR at high ISO" myth. It used to be true but not any more.
-
I just got back from doing my workshop in San Juan and Lance from Capture Intergration was there with all the backs for me to play with and our attendees. These are not hard core tests but i can assure you the P30 Plus can do high ISO' very well , the whole fashion shoot we did I shot at ISO 400 and there very clean plus some other casual testing. Read this thread
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1896 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1896)
I also got the chance to shoot the P25 NON plus and again ISO 400 was pretty darn good and I expect better from the PLus back which BTW i am sitting here waiting to be delivered . I bought the P25 plus with the new Phase Body and Lens plus the Horseman SWDII with 35mm digitar. Feel like a kid in a candy store but i was really impressed with the high ISO's even from the P25 and I want , need a back that can at least give me a clean ISO 400 but the P30 plus was even pretty clean at 1600 and maybe with some NN software it would clean up better or better with working with C1 with the correct settings. I was more guessing on what those maybe. I will do more formal testing when it comes . It was hard doing hard tests when your teaching a workshop but it was enough for me to buy.
here is the P25 thread
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1921 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1921)
-
As I'm sure everybody else did too, I did a lot of research before buying a digital back, and based on what I had read, I felt that I had been led overwhelmingly to believe that ISO 400 was so horrendous (see also the ISO 400 shot in bright daylight in the Luminous Landscape review of the older Ixpress 96 back (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/ixpress.shtml)) one might only use it in an emergency. So I braced myself to not be able to use ISO 400 unless absolutely necessary. However, when I got the 96C version of the back finally, and did my own testing, I have found the results to be quite usable and not at all as bad as I imagined it would be. Presumably, between the writing of that review and now, there have been numerous firmware updates, which have undoubtedly improved IQ. Here's a 100% crop taken at ISO 400. The light was window light only, and I was forced to shoot at lower shutter speeds and higher ISO than I would have liked, but I am pleased with the result.
Bronica Zenzanon-S 150mm f/3.5 lens & Ixpress V96C @ ISO 400, 1/60th sec, f/3.5, mounted on a tripod. It was a little tricky as he was talking while I was shooting. Sorry for the rather stern look on his face and the nose hair is certainly not as appealing as Frank Doorhof's models, but the stern look seems to capture this guy's essence...
[attachment=6719:attachment]
(Edit:) I forgot to mention that I didn't do anything to the shot other than adjust black point slightly, output to JPEG and crop then post. No noise reduction or anything. FlexColor 4.8.4
-
ISO is a standart for film/sensor sensitivity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, ISO is an organization (the International Organization for Standardization?) that produces a great many standards, including
1) A scale of units for describing Exposure Index, used for example for both items (2) and (3): roughly a measure of what shutter speed goes with a particular combination of light level and aperture ratio to get appropriate mid-tone handling.
2) A film speed measurement (adapted from ASA/ANSI standard) based on adequate _shadow_ handling: roughly the _highest_ exposure index at which shadows are handled well enough.
3) a "base exposure index" definition for sensors, based on adequate _highlight_ handling: roughly the _lowest_ exposure index at which highlights are handled well enough.
These days, when people talk about "ISO" for digital cameras they are most often referring to the exposure index scale (1), as used in a camera's "ISO" settings, without necessarily making any claims about how well shadows or highlights or noise are handled at the various exposure index settings. This may be confusing to us old timers who think of ISO (or even ASA) as a measure of film speed based on shadow handling and such, but it is not totally incorrect.
That is why it is useful to have tests of cameras at various exposure index levels, like the ones that started this thread, and using "best development practice" rather than "standard development" makes sense for high end cameras.
So my thanks to the OP.
-
I think some misunderstandings need to be eliminated, for they are causing some confusions.
The ISO standard referred to often on these forums does not represent any sensitivity regarding digital imaging, but gain. BJL has posted this just above without spelling it out in cleartext.
Sensor gain is not identical to "pushing the exposure" in post processing. Higher gain is supposed to add details in the dark areas compared to a lower gain with equal exposure.
Therefor underexposing a shot by 3 EV and adjusting the lightness in the raw processing does not make ISO 800. It speaks a lot for some MFDBs, that they can produce high quality images with low exposure even though they do not offer higher ISO; the Sinar back is one such. (Note, that the PhaseOne backs do have higher gain, at least those I have analyzed.)
My observation is, that many MFDB photographers do not know the characteristics of their camera enough.
For example they believe, that they expose a shot properly, while heavily underexposing it; unfortunately some raw processors actively contribute to such misunderstandings. Or the photographer exposes lower than it would be ideal, because (s)he mistakenly believes, that the ISO gain will make up for that.
A further source of misconception is the belief, that no sharpening took place yet. For example the image posted just above by Graham has undergone noise reduction, but (I guess) the software did not tell about that.
Unfortunately, paternalizing and misleading the user is a quite common habit of raw processors.
-
Guy,
I hope you will post some examples from the Horseman either here or on your site!
Thanks
Paul C
-
Looking great! I'm glad my post could inspire you to start experimenting. Did you try and develop it in C1 3.8 too? If not, you should try it and see which one you like best. I played around with your photo a little, hope you don't mind. It's quite a nice capture, I especially like it in B/W.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No don't mind at all and thanks! Would not have tried this were it not for your post.
I did just now try the same image in C1 3.8 DB The B&W conversion using the B&W film looks and also using the panachromatic color profile looks good, but I think now seeing both I can say the noise handing of C1 4.1 is better. There is are a few vertical bands in the image in 3.78 DB that I didn't notice in 4.1
amsp, which do you prefer 3.78 or 4.1?
-
Please show me the DSLR which produces better IQ than this ISO 800 sample from a MFDB.
This is at 100% which is not a true comparison, because the image size of the MFDB is so much larger:
[attachment=6705:attachment]
And this is a 100% crop when reduced to 16MP (more like a high end DSLR):
[attachment=6706:attachment]
NO noise reduction used in either sample.
Honestly I couldn't ask for more at ISO 800 and I hope this kills the prevailing "MFDB can't compare to DSLR at high ISO" myth. It used to be true but not any more.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graham,
The new king of the block with regard to high ISO performance is the Nikon D3 with an effective, analog-gain based ISO up to ISO 6400 plus a couple of more 'false' ISO settings up to 25,600, which are basically ISO 6400 underesposed by one or two stops.
It would be interesting to compare the image quality of identical scenes with identical exposures, using a DB and the Nikon D3, because that's the only way one could get a meaningful comparison.
As one moves up the ISO scale, deterioration of image quality is always first noticeable in the shadows. If you choose your subject well, have lighting which is even, no deep shadows or bright highlights, it's often possible to get surprisingly good results at high ISO, with any camera.
Another issue, which I alluded to earlier, is the fact that at base ISO the DB produces images with greater dynamic range than any 35mm DSLR. If we consider that the DR of the Nikon D3 is 9 to 10 stops, then the DR of a Phase DB is probably 11 to 12 stops using the same measurement standard, ie. about 2 stops more.
As a consequence of this fact, it is reasonable to suppose that one should be able to raise ISO on a DB by 2 stops above base ISO and still get image quality which is no worse than that from a 35mm DSLR used at base ISO, with regard to tonality and shadow noise. If the DB has substantially more pixels than the DSLR (which is usually the case), then resolution in the brighter parts of the scene should still be better than the DSLR.
The issue here, as I see it (let's pretend I know something), is how the camera handles that underexposure. From my own experience with cameras such as the Canon 20D and 5D, it is clear that image quality is significantly better at high ISO than the same exposure used at low ISO. Ie. Image quality at ISO 800 is significantly better than at ISO 100 using the same exposure, which means underexposure by 3 stops.
As I understand it, this improvement at high ISO (in Canon DSLRs) is not due merely to software manipulation, but is hard-wired into the sensor's electronics. I get the impression that such technology is possible (or at least easier to implement) in the CMOS type sensor rather than the CCD sensor of the DB.
If you want to do a meaningful experiment, try comparing an image from your DB underexposed at base ISO, with the same scene at the same exposure but correctly exposed at a higher ISO. Is there any improvement in image quality at the higher ISO setting after appropriate post processing? Edmund found there wasn't.
-
Dear Panopeeper,
this is absolutely not true, and I wish to insist on it: there is no NR applied in the Brumbaer "eMotion DNG Converter" tool: we have had this discussion on another forum and I have given you the explanation(s) why it does not happen. Please refer to my post:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1846 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1846)
But I will let Stefan Hess together with Rainer Viertlböck speak about this, who are both members on this forum, if they wish to intervene, since they are the ones having created this tool together, as such much more able to speak about it.
Also, your second last sentence does suggest that sharpening is taking place somewhere during DNG conversion, if I understand you right. No, that's not the case at all, there is no sharpening done in either Brumbaer's DNG Converter nor in Sinar eXposure.
I wish also to make something very clear here, since it seems to be misunderstood by you:
Although the Brumbaer "eMotion DNG Converter" tool does read, handle and convert eMotion and other Sinarbacks raw files, although I have myself and in many occasions praised and still am praising the quality of the DNGs produced by the Brumbaer, as well as the simple, and most fast and efficient workflow I have ever seen from ANY application in the market, I have to emphasize here that Sinar DOES NOT by any means SUPPORT this tool and it is NOT a Sinar application.
The Brumbaer "eMotion DNG Converter" from Stefan Hess is an application standing on its "own", developed and written by Stefan Hess and Rainer Viertlböck, both members on this forum, for the purpose to be able to handle eMotion files (and now as well other Sinarback files) with the best possible IQ quality and fastest possible workflow when needing to apply "white shadings" (very useful for architecture photography). It is however, though not supported by Sinar, still today the most powerful tool I know, praised by all who are using it.
As a consequence, and even though this Brumbaer toold DOES NOT apply any NR during conversion into DNG, I feel the sentence you have used, "Unfortunately, paternalizing and misleading the user is a quite common habit of raw processors" absolutely wrong and misleading in itself.
I would expect it to be taken away, if aimed at Sinar, for the rightness and truth. And I believe Stefan Hess, as well as Rainer Viertlböck might wish to jump in here to give their own comments about it.
Where I do absolutely agree with you, is when you are saying that many users do not know (without meaning this negatively) the characteristics of the camera/back fully.
Please do not use terms as "paternalizing" and "misleading" when you do not have the full details.
Thanks and best regards,
Thierry
PS: there is much more to say than what is presented here in a very "summarized" explanation, concerning "gain" and "sensitivity", in respect of their respective advantages AND disadvantages and the differences. BOTH have advantages BUT BOTH have disadvantages also.
A further source of misconception is the belief, that no sharpening took place yet. For example the image posted just above by Graham has undergone noise reduction, but (I guess) the software did not tell about that.
Unfortunately, paternalizing and misleading the user is a quite common habit of raw processors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I get the impression that such technology is possible (or at least easier to implement) in the CMOS type sensor rather than the CCD sensor of the DB
All pre-D300 Nikon sensors were CCDs, as are many other FFs, with real ISO gain. AFAIK the PhaseOnes have Kodak sensors, which too are CCDs, and those sensors do apply ISO gain.
-
All pre-D300 Nikon sensors were CCDs, as are many other FFs, with real ISO gain. AFAIK the PhaseOnes have Kodak sensors, which too are CCDs, and those sensors do apply ISO gain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe so, but pre-D300 Nikon cameras were not known for their stellar high ISO performance. Edmund has stated that his Phase P45 is maybe even better when underexposed 4 stops at ISO 50 than it is at ISO 800 with the same exposure.
-
Graham,
The new king of the block with regard to high ISO performance is the Nikon D3
Ray, you seem to be missing something here. If I scale down the e75 ISO 800 image to the same size as a D3 image, the result becomes totally noiseless.
Here is 100% crop:
-
Ray, you seem to be missing something here. If I scale down the e75 ISO 800 image to the same size as a D3 image, the result becomes totally noiseless.
Here is 100% crop:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graham,
I understand quite well if you throw noise away, you don't have any. If you throw away resolution, you also don't have any.
It's probably not true that your sample image has no noise. But let's not quibble. If the noise is not noticeable or not a problem, then for practical purposes it doesn't exist.
Bt downscaling your e75 image to the same size as a D3 image, you've thrown away both resolution and noise. Your e75 image is now no worse than a D3 image, but perhaps no better either. We'd really have to see proper controlled comparisons to determine that.
You should also bear in mind that smaller formats have an ISO advantage over larger formats, provided the lenses for both formats have the equivalent range of apertures.
For example, using the Canon 85/1.2 lens at F1.4 with the 1Ds3 at ISO 400 would allow you to use the same shutter speed and get the same DoF as a 49x37mm DB with a 125mm lens at F2 and ISO 800. So that's the sort of meaningful comparison which should be made.
I'll suspend my opinion on the likely outcome till I see such a comparison.
-
I beg you humbly: please no 16 pages with over 300 replies like in a recent other thread and comparison!
Thanks,
Thierry
For example, using the Canon 85/1.2 lens at F1.4 with the 1Ds3 at ISO 400 would allow you to use the same shutter speed and get the same DoF as a 49x37mm DB with a 125mm lens at F2 and ISO 800. So that's the sort of meaningful comparison which should be made.
I'll suspend my opinion on the likely outcome till I see such a comparison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ray all you do is take, you never give and you never let up. You have twice as many posts as Michael himself. And further still you don't even own or use a MF camera. What are you doing here? The basis of the forums is sharing. Now go to your room and don't come back until you have a MFDB and can add real data to these discussions.
-
Ray all you do is take, you never give and you never let up. You have twice as many posts as Michael himself. And further still you don't even own or use a MF camera. What are you doing here?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm learning, Eric. What are you doing here? It's true that I'm taking. I'm taking knowledge. But I'm also giving some back in return. A lot of my posts contain images demonstrating some photographic principle. Two posts ago I mentioned a principle that many of you MFDB owners appear not to be aware of.
Instead of being thanked, I seemed to get accused of being a troll. Some of you guys definitely have a problem.
-
That's the most senseful answer one can expect.
Thierry
But let's not quibble. If the noise is not noticeable or not a problem, then for practical purposes it doesn't exist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
That's the most senseful answer one can expect.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Thierry. However, if any of you do take the trouble to compare DB noise with a 35mm DSLR, it's worth bearing in mind that, just as you wouldn't use the same aperture for same DoF (with same FoV subjects), you also wouldn't use the same ISO for same shutter speed.
I just mention this beforehand because we don't want a repition of the P21/1Ds3 debacle, do we?
-
THIS is clear in case we do such a test and, ABSOLUTELY, we don't want (a repetition)!
Thierry
I just mention this beforehand because we don't want a repition of the P21/1Ds3 debacle, do we?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I will not add to the discussion about 35mm and MDFB it's a waste of time as all religious wars, but I have 5 cents about noise reduction.
Many things you do reduce noise, some are inflating it. If you want the least (absolute) noise reduction applied, you will have to open your camera and remove any filters from the PCB (happy soldering), avoid downscaling your image, avoid reducing the bit depth or reducing the levels, prevent application of the blackfile and so on. This is in some cases not possible. So whatever you do, some noise reduction will have been applied. Your NEF is not "raw".
What you will get in a NEF is less raw than what you get from an IA/BR file combination, because a lot of processing has been applied to the NEF in camera.
When you talk about noise reduction and sharpening you probably talk about dedicated algorithms which reduce noise and increase sharpness. The kind which will create artifacts when excessively applied.
eMotionDng does neither apply any noise reduction nor sharpening to the image in the sense of algorithms targeted to do so. You can reduce noise for the whitefile, which doesn't reduce the noise on the image. The DNG created by eMotionDng is at least as unprocessed as the NEF.
Of course I can't speak for any other software. And I do not know what processing is automatically applied by ACR, Lightroom or whatever.
regards
SH
-
Ray,
Graham uses the eMotion 54LV not the eMotion 75LV.
Cheers,
Willem.
That's why I made the comment!
-
hi Willem,
FYI: Graham has used "my" eMotion 75 "ISO 800" image sample to make his point.
Kind regards,
Thierry
Ray,
Graham uses the eMotion 54LV not the eMotion 75LV.
Cheers,
Willem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
just for those who are not familiar with the eMotion backs and its files (and I believe "Panopeeper" is not):
a ".IA" = Image Archive and a ".BR" = Black Reference are the 2 components of any eMotion RAW file (as raw as it can get, as mentioned by Stefan).
One has the unique possibility to get access to these RAWs, when using a eMotion back.
For the rest, I guess it makes it clear, after Stefan's explanation, that the Brumbaer DNG converter does not apply any NR, as implied. And the explanation of noise reduction (denoise) of the white shading is the one I have given on another forum: it does de-noise the white shading, but leaves the image data as it is/was.
Best regards,
Thierry
What you will get in a NEF is less raw than what you get from an IA/BR file combination, because a lot of processing has been applied to the NEF in camera.
eMotionDng does neither apply any noise reduction nor sharpening to the image in the sense of algorithms targeted to do so. You can reduce noise for the whitefile, which doesn't reduce the noise on the image.
SH
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thierry,
I still have the ISO 800 sample file you made available in another post and after I did my tests with my own back, the P20, I did compare the results to that e75 file. There is no question that the e75 has less noise than my p20. No argument at all there at all. Getting back to the original point of the thread, I am quite amazed that my older generation back actually can do quite well, much better than I would have guessed. All of this is good news for MFDB users.
Eric
-
Yes, Eric, I absolutely agree with you.
I don't know who did misguide (if somebody did) or where from this belief comes, but my primary intention with this test done a few weeks ago was to make exactly this point: that MFDBs are not that bad at all at higher ISOs: Whatever we call ISO, however we achieve it, the important is ultimately the end resulting image.
Best regards,
Thierry
Thierry,
I still have the ISO 800 sample file you made available in another post and after I did my tests with my own back, the P20, I did compare the results to that e75 file. There is no question that the e75 has less noise than my p20. No argument at all there at all. Getting back to the original point of the thread, I am quite amazed that my older generation back actually can do quite well, much better than I would have guessed. All of this is good news for MFDB users.
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
hi Willem,
FYI: Graham has used "my" eMotion 75 "ISO 800" image sample to make his point.
Kind regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Thierry,
that was the reason for my post reply!
Cheers,
Willem.
-
Also,
I think it's time to move on from this!
At the end of the day,all it counts how it looks printed in a high-end coffee table book.
And from experience a 5D will give great results for a single page!
Why do I use a Hy6/e-75LV as well?
Because I love and can afford it!
Cheers,
Willem.
-
Yes, Eric, I absolutely agree with you.
I don't know who did misguide (if somebody did) or where from this belief comes, but my primary intention with this test done a few weeks ago was to make exactly this point: that MFDBs are not that bad at all at higher ISOs: Whatever we call ISO, however we achieve it, the important is ultimately the end resulting image.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry,
There seems to be some confusion here (in my mind at least). According to Sinar's website, the 22mp eMotion 54LV has an ISO range from 50-200 and the 33mp 75LV, 50-400.
Do I take it that the ISO 800 sample image is actually ISO 200 underexposed by 2 stops?
At the risk of laboring a point, if the 22mp 54LV were compared with the 1Ds3 for the purposes of noise comparison, it would only be sensible to use one stop lower ISO with the 1Ds3 (after having adjusted FL and aperture for same FoV and DoF, of course).
In other words:
(1) the 54LV underexposed 2 stops at ISO 200 compared with the 1Ds3 correctly exposed at ISO 400.
(2) the 54LV underexposed 3 stops at ISO 200 compared with the 1Ds3 correctly exposed at ISO 800.
(3) the 54LV underexposed 4 stops at ISO 200 compared with the 1Ds3 correctly exposed at ISO 1600.
By correctly exposed, I mean an exposure which pushes the histogram as far as possible to the right without clipping highlights.
-
Thierry,
There seems to be some confusion here (in my mind at least). According to Sinar's website, the 22mp eMotion 54LV has an ISO range from 50-200 and the 33mp 75LV, 50-400.
Do I take it that the ISO 800 sample image is actually ISO 200 underexposed by 2 stops?
At the risk of laboring a point, if the 22mp 54LV were compared with the 1Ds3 for the purposes of noise comparison, it would only be sensible to use one stop lower ISO with the 1Ds3 (after having adjusted FL and aperture for same FoV and DoF, of course).
In other words:
(1) the 54LV underexposed 2 stops at ISO 200 compared with the 1Ds3 correctly exposed at ISO 400.
(2) the 54LV underexposed 3 stops at ISO 200 compared with the 1Ds3 correctly exposed at ISO 800.
(3) the 54LV underexposed 4 stops at ISO 200 compared with the 1Ds3 correctly exposed at ISO 1600.
By correctly exposed, I mean an exposure which pushes the histogram as far as possible to the right without clipping highlights.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=197408\")
No, the are referring to the new version (iso 100-800)
[a href=\"http://www.sinarcameras.com/file_uploads/bibliothek/k_92_Brochures/436_0_prosphy6_210x280_gb_150dpi.pdf]http://www.sinarcameras.com/file_uploads/b...0_gb_150dpi.pdf[/url]
Pleae Ray, get over it. It's friday!
-
No don't mind at all and thanks! Would not have tried this were it not for your post.
I did just now try the same image in C1 3.8 DB The B&W conversion using the B&W film looks and also using the panachromatic color profile looks good, but I think now seeing both I can say the noise handing of C1 4.1 is better. There is are a few vertical bands in the image in 3.78 DB that I didn't notice in 4.1
amsp, which do you prefer 3.78 or 4.1?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So far I prefer 3.8, but I haven't done extensive testing.
-
In my experience, the issue with the Phase backs is that they stripe at higher ISO. This is possibly a reflection of lacking hi-iso calibration. Noise is really not the problem. Under-exposing with a lower ISO in my experience (or imagination) seems to minimize this striping.
Quite possibly the problem will at some point be brought under control by software, as competitors advance. When I raised a ruckus about bad 400 ISO with my first P45+ back the Phase response was that my images were underexposed, and the dealer explained that I shouldn't be shooting at high speed. It's pretty obvious now that the attitude of the competition has changed, and ISO 800 is now given as shootable by Sinar. Frankly, if Sinar or Hassy can do high ISO well, I will be switching to one of these brands in due course.
Edmund
-
Guy,
I hope you will post some examples from the Horseman either here or on your site!
Thanks
Paul C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I get the Horseman today so will be working on some shots to post. I have a loaner P25 until my P25 plus comes in early next week.
I just wanted to add something here. First off we are not comparing it to DSLR's and the original intent from the OP is hey guys look we can actually use the higher ISO settings on these backs. Something maybe we could not have done before but after using the Phase backs you get really clean files at the 400 , 800 settings as well as the Sinars. Now I have shot digital from day one 15 years or so ago and had every system made , Nikon, Kodak , Canon , Leica and they have there place and yes you can pull some higher ISO' than the DB like the D3 for instance it is very clean. So bottom line you need ISO 3200 or higher buy a Nikon but whoever thinks for a second a DSLR is better file wise in detail , micro contrast and such is sniffing something he should not. And frankly you sound pretty stupid even suggesting they are. I have had them all and tested them all and MF is a eye opener , simply put bigger is better. Frankly the only thing close was the DMR and M8 but there issue is there a few mpx short in the pants. Honestly the only true way to find out is go drop your money down and buy one.
-
This is fascinating, if I keep reading this thread I will know for sure which is better, 35mm or medium format. What will the answer be, I can't wait.
Come on if you don't have actual information or an actual question just knock it off, endless silly arguments by people coming up witH hypothetical comparisons as to what might be theoretically better is no use to anyone.
Lets end it here, there is a price and that is that people don't feel safe to post these type of examples of high iso oR whatever for fear of the thread being dragged into the gutter.
THIS IS A PLACE TO SHARE KNOWLEDGE NOT PROVE YOUR AGENDA!!
-
No, the are referring to the new version (iso 100-800)
http://www.sinarcameras.com/file_uploads/b...0_gb_150dpi.pdf (http://www.sinarcameras.com/file_uploads/bibliothek/k_92_Brochures/436_0_prosphy6_210x280_gb_150dpi.pdf)
Pleae Ray, get over it. It's friday!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay! Understood. There's a new model with an ISO 800 capability. Since that's 33mp the situation changes somewhat. Downsizing 33mp to the 21mp of the 1Ds3 changes slightly the DoF relationship. By how much it's not certain.
However, it seems clear to me that ISO for the same shutter speed, DoF and FoV, whilst not as much as one stop difference, will still not be the same. It will be higher for the e75, perhaps by 2/3rds of an F stop. We need to see the comparisons to find out just how much.
But let's not quibble. Let's see a competent comparison so we can see just how significant the improvement is.
Those who argue this is a religious war between MFDB and 35mm are totally wrong. I'm not religious in the slightest degree. I'll always try to bend with the facts.
Unfortunately, I'm not getting much in the way of facts from you people. Most of your images are of heavily made up models trying to create an illusion of desirability. The desirability of the subject matter is clearly connected to the desirability of the equipment
The fact that you cannot produce a competent comparison between a 1Ds3 and a P25 or eMotion 54LV indicates that you are truly in the business of illusion and don't care about the facts.
The accusation by highly regarded peple like James Russell that I'm unreasonable and obsessive because I expect busy professionals to take the trouble to do proper comparisons, is totally misplaced. I don't expect that. If you are too busy, I understand. There's no problem there at all for me.
All I ask is, if you are going to take the trouble to make comparisons, then do it properly.
As my mother always said, if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well. Don't you guys follow that principle?
I'm not sure I trust you guys. The following shot is not of Owls but Frogmouths.
[attachment=6729:attachment]
-
The fact that you cannot produce a competent comparison between a 1Ds3 and a P25 or eMotion 54LV indicates that you are truly in the business of illusion and don't care about the facts.
Ok, you are starting to get on my nerves now. I don't happen to have a spare 1Ds3 lying around. Send me one and I'll gladly do the test.
-
Ok, you are starting to get on my nerves now. I don't happen to have a spare 1Ds3 lying around. Send me one and I'll gladly do the test.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't either. You think I'm concerned with brand wars here? I'm concerned only with photographic principles. I want to cut through the bull***t.
You don't have a 1Ds3 and I don't have a DB, of any sort. You are more likely to be able to afford a 1Ds3 because you've paid $30,000 for a DB and are a professional photographer with a revenue stream.
I'm an amateur who is very concerned about image quality, but I'm reluctant to waste money hiring equipment at a very high cost in order to confirm (or debunk) what my reason tells me is true.
-
I don't either. You think I'm concerned with brand wars here? I'm concerned only with photographic principles. I want to cut through the bull***t.
You don't have a 1Ds3 and I don't have a DB, of any sort. You are more likely to be able to afford a 1Ds3 because you've paid $30,000 for a DB and are a professional photographer with a revenue stream.
I'm an amateur who is very concerned about image quality, but I'm reluctant to waste money hiring equipment at a very high cost in order to confirm (or debunk) what my reason tells me is true.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197450\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please don't feed the trolls!
-
Please don't feed the trolls!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please try to make an intelligent comment.
-
As Ray well knows, there are some advantages of larger formats over smaller ones that, for some photographers in some photographic situations, make a larger format the only acceptable choice, regardless of any advantages of smaller format gear is other respects. In that situation, the only noise level assessments of practical relevance are of the acceptable options; in this case, the various medium format options.
I would guess that medium format is often chosen simply for advantages like superior sharpness and resolution with currently available sensor and lens combinations. And once this is the case, comparisons to smaller format options are irrelevant, while assessments of the acceptable (MF) options are of far greater interest. Parts of this thread are as if someone were to post over and over again advocating the size and weight advantages of 4/3 format kits like an Olympus E-420 with 14-42/4-5.6 and 40-150/4-5.6 over 35mm format kits like the Canon 5D, 100-400/4-5.6, etc. that Ray uses, despite the clear unacceptability to Ray of that 4/3 format option for other reasons.
-
As Ray well knows, there are some advantages of larger formats over smaller ones that, for some photographers in some photographic situations, make a larger format the only acceptable choice, regardless of any advantages of smaller format gear is other respects. In that situation, the only noise level assessments of practical relevance are of the acceptable options; in this case, the various medium format options.
I would guess that medium format is often chosen simply for advantages like superior sharpness and resolution with currently available sensor and lens combinations. And once this is the case, comparisons to smaller format options are irrelevant, while assessments of the acceptable (MF) options are of far greater interest. Parts of this thread are as if someone were to post over and over again advocating the size and weight advantages of 4/3 format kits like an Olympus E-420 with 14-42/4-5.6 and 40-150/4-5.6 over 35mm format kits like the Canon 5D, 100-400/4-5.6, etc. that Ray uses, despite the clear unacceptability to Ray of that 4/3 format option for other reasons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197500\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do not forget about Dynamic range and Shadow detail.. Also the color transitions being 16 bit are WAY smoother than DSLR.
There is no argument it is Fact.
People obviously arguing have never tried it or shot side by side with both.
I just recently jumped to MFDB coming from 1Ds/1DsMII/5D for back-up and there is NO doubt My P30 is MUCH better in ALL aspects to DSLR 35 mm.
Guys shooting above 400 on a a daily basis are obviously in another field and maybe the DSLR is a better choice for them.
Snook
-
As Ray well knows, there are some advantages of larger formats over smaller ones that, for some photographers in some photographic situations, make a larger format the only acceptable choice, regardless of any advantages of smaller format gear is other respects. In that situation, the only noise level assessments of practical relevance are of the acceptable options; in this case, the various medium format options.
I would guess that medium format is often chosen simply for advantages like superior sharpness and resolution with currently available sensor and lens combinations. And once this is the case, comparisons to smaller format options are irrelevant, while assessments of the acceptable (MF) options are of far greater interest. Parts of this thread are as if someone were to post over and over again advocating the size and weight advantages of 4/3 format kits like an Olympus E-420 with 14-42/4-5.6 and 40-150/4-5.6 over 35mm format kits like the Canon 5D, 100-400/4-5.6, etc. that Ray uses, despite the clear unacceptability to Ray of that 4/3 format option for other reasons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197500\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeez, BJL, how obscure can you get? Can you repeat that in clear phrases .
I sort of understand what you're getting at, but I suspect that MFDB is also chosen for status reasons. The emphasis is on smoothy cream skin texture on highly paid and highly made-up models. That's all I see on the MFDB photo thread.
It seems that MFDB might have an edge in this respect, but the shots are really a load of codswallop, of little artistic value and almost entirely commercial.
-
Jeez, BJL, how obscure can you get? Can you repeat that in clear phrases .
I sort of understand what you're getting at, but I suspect that MFDB is also chosen for status reasons. The emphasis is on smoothy cream skin texture on highly paid and highly made-up models. That's all I see on the MFDB photo thread.
It seems that MFDB might have an edge in this respect, but the shots are really a load of codswallop, of little artistic value and almost entirely commercial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Codswallop? Just the other day someone used the term "twadle". Is the average age on this forum climbing into the 80's or are people reading too many English Victorian era novels?
On a more serious note, there is some good work on the MFDB thread and there is some not so good stuff on there, just like in real life. It also comes down to taste. The shot you were so snidely commenting on was actually very nice in terms of a certain style of photography which I happen to enjoy. Commercial, why yes, because if I were shooting fine art I would use film and how exactly would I pay for the MFDB set up otherwise. Besides, what's wrong with commercial? MFDBs are commercial systems.
In any case, I do not understand why you feel the need to convince others of your point that dslrs are as good as mfdb or whatever other point you are attempting to make. Why is it important to you? Why does it bother you that I (and others) made the choice to shoot MFDB? Do you feel that the choice to shoot MFDB is somehow not legitimate? I'm not attempting to insult, I'm legitimately curious as to your motivations.
Regards,
T
-
In any case, I do not understand why you feel the need to convince others of your point that dslrs are as good as mfdb or whatever other point you are attempting to make. Why is it important to you? Why does it bother you that I (and others) made the choice to shoot MFDB? I'm not attempting to insult, I'm legitimately curious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point! I'd like to answer the question seriously. I have no brand or format loyalty. Cameras are tools, no more, except for the sentimental. We are probably all sentimental to a degree, but we must recognise it as such.
I have no doubt that a modern DB can produce better image quality than a smaller sensor with fewer pixels. Who would argue with that?
When the larger sensor does not have more pixels, then it gets interesting, especially when the larger sensor costs 10,000 or 20,000 dollars and the smaller sensor costs 7 or 8 thousand dollars.
This comparison has never been made... competently.
-
Do not forget about Dynamic range and Shadow detail ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197506\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Snook,
no dispute (I am not qualified to debate that topic anyway). I only chose advantages like "image detail" as being already a sufficient reason for some to reject 35mm format in favor of medium format, even if there are many other reasons too.
My only goal was to make the point that in those cases, comparisons of other IQ aspects between the formats becomes irrelevant and divert a thread off topic, even if those comparisons are valid and do have a place, somewhere else. My choice was partly because the advantage of greater detail from substantially higher pixel counts like 39MP vs 22MP or 12.7MP are rather hard to deny. In fact Ray just said as much!
-
Despite all the rubbish that has been thrown in unfortunately, I have to thank AMSP for starting this thread. I have been looking at how to shoot higher ISO with my Aptus 22 and the quality is more to liking now with recent effort in tweaking my settings.
The other thing I have found for the A22 (which Edmund has pointed out for his Phase) is that shooting at ISO 100 and pushing the exposure in the raw converter for underexposed images (LR is my choice) actually looks better than using the higher ISO choices on the back. Black and white shots at 400-800 ISO are really nice, grainy but a very pleasing film feel to the noise.
Hats off. Some good has come of this. I think a lot of us shooting with backs have re-evaluated the usuability of higher ISOs.
One reason I like MFDB is the manual focus 80/1.9 on the Mamiya AFDII. If and when I can nail the focus on that thing wide open, it is nice. I recently upgraded to an AFDII from AFD and I can already tell a huge difference in the focusing, response of the camera, shooting the back at a good pace. All good now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're quite welcome, even just one comment like this would have made it worth it.
-
While I appreciate AMSP posting the photos, I have to say that I never really put much stock in test images where the subject is perfectly exposed in full sun. Don't know about anyone else, but when I crank up the ISO, I'm usually in crappy, often mixed light right on the edge of a good exposure. I'd like to see a test where the entire image was captured maybe a stop or two down with lots of shadows that you're trying to pull detail out of.
I'd like to see test shots that looks more like this:
(http://mirelesblog.com/photos/delaware/nyc4.jpg)
John
-
While I appreciate AMSP posting the photos, I have to say that I never really put much stock in test images where the subject is perfectly exposed in full sun. Don't know about anyone else, but when I crank up the ISO, I'm usually in crappy, often mixed light right on the edge of a good exposure. I'd like to see a test where the entire image was captured maybe a stop or two down with lots of shadows that you're trying to pull detail out of.
John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=197826\")
The first shot I posted in another thread was taken at sundown, at iso800, f/2.8, 1/60th. So basically at the limit of what you can do hand held. It's exactly the same. Here's the link: [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25306&hl=]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=25306&hl=[/url]
Not quite sure why you think I'm trying to deceive anyone. Like I've said before in this thread, it's not about convincing anyone that doesn't own a DB, but to convince the ones that do to try it out themselves.
-
Morning sunrise, 06.30am in Thailand, flat light with the sun at the horizon ---> shadows and highlights.
ISO 800 with eMotion 75 LV / Sinar Hy6 - Zeiss Planar 110mm/f2
1/40th at f 5.6
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=7 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=7)
Thierry
While I appreciate AMSP posting the photos, I have to say that I never really put much stock in test images where the subject is perfectly exposed in full sun. Don't know about anyone else, but when I crank up the ISO, I'm usually in crappy, often mixed light right on the edge of a good exposure. I'd like to see a test where the entire image was captured maybe a stop or two down with lots of shadows that you're trying to pull detail out of.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Not quite sure why you think I'm trying to deceive anyone.
Deceive is a pretty strong word, asmp.
I highly doubt Juanito was implying that you were.
It makes sense to me, too, that moody images with shadows is a harder test.
-
Well I posted several links that are indoors and also under cloudy skies that give you a idea what these backs are able to do at the high ISO's . I know that the Phase one backs are doing a excellent job at it since that is what i shot and from what i have seen from Sinar as well. I think the point that keeps getting overlooked is this can actually be done at the high ISO's with very good results. I think what the original OP is saying the dark days maybe over because it is working and from me testing this out on the Phase backs i have to agree 100 percent. i have gotten excellent results so far. But let me also say shooting two stops under is NOT normal either. We don't normally do that in our everyday shooting but they still can pull a rabbit out of the hat when you do. It may not be perfect but it certainly can save the day and in the past you may have been toast. Now with regards to 35mm like I said before if you need to get over ISO 800 than turn to a Canon or Nikon which maybe a better choice for noise but certainly not detail and DR. You really can't compare the two , just completely different beasts. I think most Pro's know full well when to reach for a nikon in a certain situation and these are just tools that are to get a job done. Most of us will grab the MF gear until we know a situation asks for something else. I really don't think it is one or the other but a compliment to each other at least that is how i will work.
-
Not quite sure why you think I'm trying to deceive anyone.
Whoa! Never intended nor implied that. I'd just like to see some high iso images shot under the lousy conditions under which I generally find myself when I actually do crank up the iso. Over the years, I've seen lots good looking high iso images taken under ideal conditions only to find out that in reality the camera is a noise machine under more real world conditions.
John
-
Whoa! Never intended nor implied that. I'd just like to see some high iso images shot under the lousy conditions under which I generally find myself when I actually do crank up the iso. Over the years, I've seen lots good looking high iso images taken under ideal conditions only to find out that in reality the camera is a noise machine under more real world conditions.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197869\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here we go again, if you're not happy with the conditions under which these photos were shot just go do it yourself. I've shot at iso800 under all sorts of real world conditions, and I know it does equally well as long as you do a proper exposure. Anyway, this is boring me now, as far as I'm concerned we can lock the thread.
-
I never really put much stock in test images where the subject is perfectly exposed in full sun
Juanito is right; well exposed shots say nothing about ISO capability. In fact, processed images generally tell nothing about the camera's capabilities. The raw files, or the very least the raw histograms are required to separate the post processing from what the camera has delivered.