Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Jost von Allmen on December 20, 2008, 06:29:54 pm
-
In a first comparision, I have published some crops from my P45+, my D3x and the D3.
There are of course some important facts:
I'm comparing the Nikon with the 24-70mm to the Rodenstock APO Sironar Digital HR, but that's what's available for me and how I'm going to use these two systems.
Different camera systems for different tasks (and clients)!
Also I'm using C1 for the Phase files and Capture NX2 for the Nikon files.
The Nikon files have both been upsized in Photoshop to 7216 pixels (the width of the P45+ file) using bicubic smoother, so that was just "quick and dirty".
It has already been pointed out to me, that sharpening wasn't ideal on the Nikon files.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30419028 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30419028)
There's no possibility in the near future, that MF is going away......
-
In a first comparision, I have published some crops from my P45+, my D3x and the D3.
There are of course some important facts:
I'm comparing the Nikon with the 24-70mm to the Rodenstock APO Sironar Digital HR, but that's what's available for me and how I'm going to use these two systems.
Different camera systems for different tasks (and clients)!
Also I'm using C1 for the Phase files and Capture NX2 for the Nikon files.
The Nikon files have both been upsized in Photoshop to 7216 pixels (the width of the P45+ file) using bicubic smoother, so that was just "quick and dirty".
It has already been pointed out to me, that sharpening wasn't ideal on the Nikon files.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30419028 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30419028)
There's no possibility in the near future, that MF is going away......
Jost, I just did a quick-and-dirty comparison between my new Sony Alpha 900 (24+ mp) and my P45+. I made 24 by 36 inch prints using all the usual techniques to level the playing field and had my non-photographer wife judge them. I fear she was a little insulted that I wondered if she'd see the difference, which she stated was "like night and day".
I simply will agree with your conclusion - MF is not going to go away!
Bill
-
the 35mm HR is in a class of its own. It would be more meaningful to compare a zoom lens on a MF SLR vs a zoom lens on the Nikon, or a prime lens on a MF SLR on a prime lens on a Nikon.
I don't think there are many MF lenses at a 35mm focal length that are very good
I love the 35mm HR but hardly use it because work dictates that I use a camera where I can actually gauge my focus and composition fast, in this case with a MF SLR.
-
whoah, you are the one that did that?
I was showing it off from dp.
makes me want a DB for my camera.
-
you should have compared it to a G10!
-
In a first comparision, I have published some crops from my P45+, my D3x and the D3.
There are of course some important facts:
I'm comparing the Nikon with the 24-70mm to the Rodenstock APO Sironar Digital HR, but that's what's available for me and how I'm going to use these two systems.
Different camera systems for different tasks (and clients)!
Also I'm using C1 for the Phase files and Capture NX2 for the Nikon files.
The Nikon files have both been upsized in Photoshop to 7216 pixels (the width of the P45+ file) using bicubic smoother, so that was just "quick and dirty".
It has already been pointed out to me, that sharpening wasn't ideal on the Nikon files.
Thks for the test. There is of course no ideal way to proceed with these, but I would be interested in the following:
- D3x file converted using Raw Developper 1.8.2 using zero noise reduction and deconvolution sharpening
- no up-resing of the D3x file
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thks for the test. There is of course no ideal way to proceed with these, but I would be interested in the following:
- D3x file converted using Raw Developper 1.8.2 using zero noise reduction and deconvolution sharpening
- no up-resing of the D3x file
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Because I highly appreciate Bernards contributions in the variours forums, I have decided to offer the two RAW files from the D3x and the D3 for download, so you can play around with them, using various RAW convertors, upsizing or downsizing methods and sharpening settings.
You can compare your own results with my crops from the P45+ in this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30419028 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30419028)
And no, I won't publish the original file from the P45+, taking too much bandwith away!
These files may not be used for any other purposes than comparing them, examples therefore may certainly be published online, but no images may be published in printed matter in any way.
I hope my webserver won't collapse, if there are too many requests, but then again, these files may be made accessible to others online on other servers.
Draw your own conclusions, but keep us informed!
D3x:
http://www.jostvonallmen.com/Download/D3x/_DSC0083.NEF (http://www.jostvonallmen.com/Download/D3x/_DSC0083.NEF)
D3:
http://www.jostvonallmen.com/Download/D3x/_JVA5920.NEF (http://www.jostvonallmen.com/Download/D3x/_JVA5920.NEF)
I'm not using the MF system for the same purposes or at the same circumstances as the Nikon system, so I have decided to make this comparison with the zoom and the Rodenstock HR. It just shows the differences with what's available for me.
Thanks for your interest and input.
-
Because I highly appreciate Bernards contributions in the variours forums, I have decided to offer the two RAW files from the D3x and the D3 for download, so you can play around with them, using various RAW convertors, upsizing or downsizing methods and sharpening settings.
Thanks for your interest and input.
Much appreciated Jost, thanks a lot.
Unfortunately, I am currently 11.000 kms from my Mac and will not be able to play with your files until early January.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I have downloaded the Nikon NEFs and looked at them using Raw Developer. I see the same softness on both the 3D and the 3DX image. I also see quite a lot of lateral chromatic aberration. The impression I get is that the image quality of this sample of 24-70/2.8 is not really acceptable in this pretty much of axis area. Closer to center the image looks much better.
In short, to me it seems to be a lens thing.
Best regards
Erik
Much appreciated Jost, thanks a lot.
Unfortunately, I am currently 11.000 kms from my Mac and will not be able to play with your files until early January.
Cheers,
Bernard
[attachment=10457:Bild_16.jpg]
-
Hi,
I have downloaded the Nikon NEFs and looked at them using Raw Developer. I see the same softness on both the 3D and the 3DX image. I also see quite a lot of lateral chromatic aberration. The impression I get is that the image quality of this sample of 24-70/2.8 is not really acceptable in this pretty much of axis area. Closer to center the image looks much better.
In short, to me it seems to be a lens thing.
Thanks a lot Erik.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I have downloaded the Nikon NEFs and looked at them using Raw Developer. I see the same softness on both the 3D and the 3DX image. I also see quite a lot of lateral chromatic aberration. The impression I get is that the image quality of this sample of 24-70/2.8 is not really acceptable in this pretty much of axis area. Closer to center the image looks much better.
In short, to me it seems to be a lens thing.
Best regards
Erik
[attachment=10457:Bild_16.jpg]
Hi Erik
Thanks for your input.
Similar comments have been made in my original thread on dpreview.
I will have the combination of my D3x and the 24-70mm checked by Nikon.
I have also published an inital comparison between the D3 and the D3x at 1600 ISO, where I used the ZF 100mm with Live view: The difference in resolution between the two cameras are definitely much more visible.
Obviously MF is still far superior to any 35mm system.
-
Sssstttt.... don't say that too loud. You might wake-up sleeping dogs. I do agree with some of the remarks that no 35mm lens can compare to the Digitars. I have been toying around with my X-act and Schneider Digitars this weekend. I thought my Hasselblad HC lenses were pretty good but the difference between those and my 90 and 120 digitars was very noticeable.
-
Sssstttt.... don't say that too loud. You might wake-up sleeping dogs. I do agree with some of the remarks that no 35mm lens can compare to the Digitars. I have been toying around with my X-act and Schneider Digitars this weekend. I thought my Hasselblad HC lenses were pretty good but the difference between those and my 90 and 120 digitars was very noticeable.
Before getting my P45(+) and the ALPA SWA with the Rodenstock HRs and the APO Digitar 180mm almost two years ago, I did a great many comparisons between (then) Hasselblad H2 (and the lenses), the Mamiya 645 AFD II (and the lenses), the Cambo Wide DS and the ALPA SWA each with the digitally optimized Rodenstocks and Schneider lenses, using Aptus 65 and P45 backs:
The advantage of the ALPA (and almost as clearly the Cambo) was very obvious.
For my landscape work, nothing beats my current system. And although the announced P65+ seems tempting, the deal breaker probably will be the limitation of shutter speeds to a maximum of about 30sec to 60sec.
The Nikon D3x (or ANY other 35mm "full frame" camera) are great tools but are NOT playing in the same league resolutionwise and also considering their dynamic range.
They got other strong points (e.g. frames/sec, autofocus, display, live view, Menu options...), which of course would be a welcome addition in the world of MFD.
-
Hi Jost,
Thanks for sharing! I have no doubt that MFDBs have an advantage when paired with the best lenses over any "DSLR", but I think that the person behind the camera also matters a lot. It may just be that good photographers make better pictures, even if good stuff certainly may help.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik
Thanks for your input.
Similar comments have been made in my original thread on dpreview.
I will have the combination of my D3x and the 24-70mm checked by Nikon.
I have also published an inital comparison between the D3 and the D3x at 1600 ISO, where I used the ZF 100mm with Live view: The difference in resolution between the two cameras are definitely much more visible.
Obviously MF is still far superior to any 35mm system.
-
Hi Jost,
Thanks for sharing! I have no doubt that MFDBs have an advantage when paired with the best lenses over any "DSLR", but I think that the person behind the camera also matters a lot. It may just be that good photographers make better pictures, even if good stuff certainly may help.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Eric
Of course I absolutely agree: It's the first, big statement I'm making on my own homepage, where I discuss the technical details of my photography.
It is however fascinating to realize, how dramatically our technical possibilities have evolved in the last ten years, since digital capture, workflow and printing have really "taken off".....
Jost
-
The Nikon D3x (or ANY other 35mm "full frame" camera) are great tools but are NOT playing in the same league resolutionwise and also considering their dynamic range.
They got other strong points (e.g. frames/sec, autofocus, display, live view, Menu options...), which of course would be a welcome addition in the world of MFD.
To many, the steepest learning curve with the high resolution dSLRs is DoF control vs. diffraction limit.
-
To many, the steepest learning curve with the high resolution dSLRs is DoF control vs. diffraction limit.
But that's even harder to manage with MFDBs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But that's even harder to manage with MFDBs.
Cheers,
Bernard
With some digital backs... blanket statements do not help those that may be reading about digital backs for the first time.
-
With some digital backs... blanket statements do not help those that may be reading about digital backs for the first time.
Well, it is mostly related to the size of the sensor, isn't it? From that standpoint, it will always be easier to find a good compromise between DR and DoF on a smaller imager, but there will of course be less detail.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think that Ansel Adams used to say that there is no substitute for square inches. This is a truth that still applies, but only if use those square inches in a good way. A good way is to use lenses optimized for digital sensor resolution, employ "Scheimpflug principle" to your advantage, work with precision and so on.
Under optimal conditions the format having the most and largest pixels will always win.
One point I would make is that we tend to make comparisons between zooms and fixed focals to the fixed focals advantage. I often find that the vantage point is quite limited, like under the phone cable, over the hill or between the trees. Using zooms I can do exact framing with fixed focals I take the next wider lens and than need to crop.
I guess that part of the reason that so many great pictures are taken with MFDBs is simply that they are used by great photographers.
There is a story about a Swedish photographer (in the fifties) who tried to take a picture of a waterfall but there were two big trees he neither could avoid or put to use. So he went home for a chainsaw and cut the down. No image manipulation ;-)
Best regards
Erik
Before getting my P45(+) and the ALPA SWA with the Rodenstock HRs and the APO Digitar 180mm almost two years ago, I did a great many comparisons between (then) Hasselblad H2 (and the lenses), the Mamiya 645 AFD II (and the lenses), the Cambo Wide DS and the ALPA SWA each with the digitally optimized Rodenstocks and Schneider lenses, using Aptus 65 and P45 backs:
The advantage of the ALPA (and almost as clearly the Cambo) was very obvious.
For my landscape work, nothing beats my current system. And although the announced P65+ seems tempting, the deal breaker probably will be the limitation of shutter speeds to a maximum of about 30sec to 60sec.
The Nikon D3x (or ANY other 35mm "full frame" camera) are great tools but are NOT playing in the same league resolutionwise and also considering their dynamic range.
They got other strong points (e.g. frames/sec, autofocus, display, live view, Menu options...), which of course would be a welcome addition in the world of MFD.
-
Hi,
I don't really think the diffraction limit is a problem. Stop down below f/16 and blame yourself. The loss between optimal aperture and f/16 can certainly be measured but I don't really think it matters that much. On the other hand I would say that f/64 is an extremely bad idea in the era of imagers with 6 micron pixel pitch.
The MFDB/view camera guys have a point. Focusing with a good loupe on the ground glass takes much of the guess work out of depth of field,if the MFDB has "live view" it is even better.
But that's even harder to manage with MFDBs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But that's even harder to manage with MFDBs.
The tighter is the pixel pitch the more difficult it becomes. With weak AA filter on D3X diffraction effects are visible past f/5.6.
-
Hello Jost,
Have you had the opportunity to re-shoot some of this with a prime lens on the d3x?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hello Jost,
Have you had the opportunity to re-shoot some of this with a prime lens on the d3x?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard
Yes I have!
I did a whole comparison with the Zeiss ZF 2/100mm, more carefully watching focus (with Live view!), diffraction limits and using MLU of course again.
I also processed the files with various settings. NX still remains my preferred method for the NEF files.
My 24-70mm was perfect on the D3, but it has to be checked with the D3x by Nikon: Tolerances are getting even smaller now due to the diminished pixel size....
The D3x definitely does have a significant advantage in resolution over the D3, but only visible with the best lenses (as expected).
I have therefore already traded in my D3.
I also just finished my first professional job with the D3x with great success:
Winter advertising images for a local cable car company (in our swiss mountains). The D3x worked absolutely flawlessly and delivered!
BUT the gap between the 35mm sensor(s) and my P45+ remains big.
So whenever I can, I prefer to shoot "old style" with my ALPA SWA on the tripod, with focussing on the ground glass with a loupe: The precision can't be beaten.
I habe also published a comparison between the D3 and the D3x at 1600ISO using the ZF 100mm, but without another P45+ image to compare with:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30418008 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30418008)
Because of all kind of images and comparisions on the net with the D3x involved, I'd rather not publish any more samples.
Thanks for your interest.
-
which city is in the pictures Jost - looks very beautiful!
-
which city is in the pictures Jost - looks very beautiful!
It's the capital of Switzerland: Bern, with the governmenthouse in the back (left).
-
Yes I have!
I did a whole comparison with the Zeiss ZF 2/100mm, more carefully watching focus (with Live view!), diffraction limits and using MLU of course again.
I also processed the files with various settings. NX still remains my preferred method for the NEF files.
Jost,
Thanks for your feedback.
Cheers,
Bernard