Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: neil snape on February 09, 2009, 10:48:44 am
-
As promised here is a little crop of an image shot with the same light, similar f stop around f11 and similar enough almost default development in their respective applications.
The Canon is new to me. I don't know it well yet and find it focuses on the nearest zone in the AF points rather than having a central weighting for focus which intended or not the older 5D does.
I found the Phocus application easy to learn but only had it for a few days. The defaults are acceptable but there could be some room for improvement in their defaults settings.
The Hasselblad was shot on the 120 macro, at ISO 100, the Canon too. Development was very slightly adjusted to make the image look close enough to one another on the default settings, and reduced the sharp radius to 0.5 pixels. Increased the moire (or anti moire) in Phocus to 2.
They are crops from 16 bit images saved in jpg at 12 quality. Nothing conclusive but if you open them in Photoshop you can see there are differences.
overview (http://www.neilsnape.com/canon5DvsH39/canon_overview.jpg)
Canon5DMKII (http://www.neilsnape.com/canon5DvsH39/canon5DII.jpg)
Hasselblad 39 MKII (http://www.neilsnape.com/canon5DvsH39/H39MKII.jpg)
Canon jeans (http://www.neilsnape.com/canon5DvsH39/canonJeans.jpg)
H39MKII jeans (http://www.neilsnape.com/canon5DvsH39/H39jeans.jpg)
-
The correct link for the H39MK2 file is: http://www.neilsnape.com/canon5DvsH39/H39MKII.jpg (http://www.neilsnape.com/canon5DvsH39/H39MKII.jpg)
-
Why is the H3D image looking so bad? It is if it is OOF?? Also strange artefacts on her mouth and in her neck but I guess that is part of the reflection on the make-up?
-
Why is the H3D image looking so bad? It is if it is OOF?? Also strange artefacts on her mouth and in her neck but I guess that is part of the reflection on the make-up?
There are some very ugly artifacts in both images along the hair-face area on the left side, and also in the hairline above the face in the 5D2 image. It looks like posterization. What kind of processing was done? Additionally, the 5D2 image was cropped a little closer, possibly adding to an impression of greater detail. The 5D2 image looks more tense, and the Hasselblad image looks a lot more relaxed, but the conversion to JPG left some critical artifacts, distorting the final impression. Were the colour spaces not set correctly or not converted to sRGB for web viewing?
-
Why the moire reduction, did you see moire with the slider set to 0?
-
There are way too many rainbows, which is not the same as moire. Yet with Phocus you need to set the moire filtre fairly high. I didn't crop the jeans in the pictures but the points of contrast with the Hasselblad have coloration all over the place.
BTW I did a still life with a H39MK I and a 800 mm the day before and it also showed the coloured points. I cannot say if in FlexColor if this is a problem.
The images are in Adobe RGB , the Canon converted from ProPhoto from LR.
The Canon has the typical red shadow transition problem , less than the 5D MK 1 but neverless still there. Hasselblad is much better in this respect.
However the , either Phocus or the camera are noisy. I am glad you saw the strange things happening , and no it's not makeup. It is not in the Canon images, nor was it to my eye.
The crops were done free hand so there are pixel level crops. Obviously the Canon has a lower pixel count. Looking at images , well you should be looking at 100% in Photoshop. If you do you should see the images have an Adobe RGB space embedded.
JPG compression could add some posterisation but being nº 12 quality not much.
For the settings read the first post.
-
I opened in PS. I did some sharpening to the H3D image. Even with some sharpening it doesn't look like the thing I am used to. The artefacts are weird, maybe a result of the moire reduction (but I am guessing).
It doesn't look too good to me. Would you be willing to provide the raw file via posting a yousendit link?
-
Here's another process, with DPP 3.5.2.
A bit too saturated for me but there is a certain softness that would take out a lot of retouching.
Canon with DPP (http://www.neilsnape.com/canon5DvsH39/DPP07D90209122860.jpg)
-
Guess I'm confused. If the original crops were the same FoV, shouldn't the Hasselblad file show considerably less face than the 5D file if I'm viewing original files at 100%? The eyes in that file are smaller than the eyes in the 5DMk2 file.
-
Guess I'm confused. If the original crops were the same FoV, shouldn't the Hasselblad file show considerably less face than the 5D file if I'm viewing original files at 100%? The eyes in that file are smaller than the eyes in the 5DMk2 file.
Hmmmm, The originals show the Hassy slightly larger than the Canon. The framing with the Canon was tighter though. The file size are correct in full size> 120 MB Canon and 220 MB at 16 bit. Yet , 7000 pixels compared to the 3400 of Canon should be a bigger difference agreed.
-
The file size are correct in full size> 120 MB Canon and 220 MB at 16 bit. Yet , 7000 pixels compared to the 3400 of Canon should be a bigger difference agreed.
The file sizes are reflecting the pixel counts x 6; there is nothing wrong there.
-
The framing with the Canon was tighter though.
Ah ... yes seeing the full frame it appears the Canon FoV is about 20% closer than the Hasselblad.
FWIW, I used to shoot my Hasselblad/P45+ for portraits until I bought the 1DsMark3. I much prefer the look of the Canon for portraits except large groups where small detail may be important. Not sure if the anti-aliasing filter just works well to improve skin or what. Appears the 5DMk2 should be a great choice for portrait work.
-
Hi Neil, have you been using the Hassy for a while? How do you feel about the output from the respective cameras?
Also, your link to the DPP output does not seem to work...
Thanks.
-
Hi Neil, have you been using the Hassy for a while? How do you feel about the output from the respective cameras?
Also, your link to the DPP output does not seem to work...
Thanks.
Yes I wish they didn't have the http auto write in the link tag as copying over links one has to be careful. I fixed it.
As I said before I had the Canon on the day of the shoot and the Hassy both the 39MKI and II two days before.
Phocus software is very well done, and very easy to understand. A few places need some changes but nothing drastic.
I find the beauty in the camera itself, as the Canon is so cheap in comparison. The Hassy has more detail, less color artifacts in most areas, but the rainbows around contrast points are not good. I think this is a software de-mosaic fault but should not have slipped through. IT is on both the Hasselblad 39s I tried two different lens, two different computers.
The Canon for the price is a fair deal. For any pictures where smaller prints are okay , in fact the 5D outperforms the 5DII in speed, focus. The new one does however have what it takes to get into the big league. The Nikon 3x though if the price was lower would have been the better choice. The Hasselblad cameras are very reasonably priced.
-
Have you tried processing the Hasselblad files through Flexcolor? Just to see if this rainbow effect is due to the raw converter or the camera(s) itself. I have not seen this effect myself (CF39 & CF39MS) with files unless we are talking about moire which can be invoked fairly easily on many fabrics.
I like Phocus as well but do see several points that need improvement, it is still an ongoing development in those areas. Quite frankly I still prefer Flexcolor for the majority of work that I do.
-
I seem to be in the minority here, but on my calibrated monitor. The posterization problem is all OVER the canon 5dmk2. I see problems in both files, and it honestly makes me wonder.
-
I seem to be in the minority here, but on my calibrated monitor. The posterization problem is all OVER the canon 5dmk2. I see problems in both files, and it honestly makes me wonder.
Ah if you can define the nature of the posterization it may help.
I have four calibrated monitors here , and don't really see much of a problem in posterization other than the fact the Canon still has a problem in dark red repro. The Hassy does not.
You must open the images in Photoshop or other clr mngd app as browsers aren't good at displaying images at 100%
-
Ah if you can define the nature of the posterization it may help.
I have four calibrated monitors here , and don't really see much of a problem in posterization other than the fact the Canon still has a problem in dark red repro. The Hassy does not.
You must open the images in Photoshop or other clr mngd app as browsers aren't good at displaying images at 100%
The posterization that I was mentioning is also clearly visible whether in my browser (Safari, which does handle colour spaces) or CS4. I am talking about the facial shadow area on the left side of the image, especially around her right eye and the corner of her mouth. The shadows are so bad as to be useless here. My original 5D didn't give me results like this, and I don't understand why it is happening at all. I cannot imagine the results being accepted for critical use by any magazine? Is it always like this? The rest of the image looks fine, but that area is horrible.
-
Carstenw, I see no issues in those shadows. (try a print and see what shows.) Clicking back and forth between the Canon and the H, the shadows look the same on my monitor...though the Canon files is a wee bit lighter. If you pulled those shadows down a hair to match the density of the H, they might match more precisely. I do see some unevenness in her skin tone which may be mistaken as posterization in BOTH files. (on her right cheek and her chin - left side of monitor.)
-
Carstenw, I see no issues in those shadows. (try a print and see what shows.) Clicking back and forth between the Canon and the H, the shadows look the same on my monitor...though the Canon files is a wee bit lighter. If you pulled those shadows down a hair to match the density of the H, they might match more precisely. I do see some unevenness in her skin tone which may be mistaken as posterization in BOTH files. (on her right cheek and her chin - left side of monitor.)
With "no issues", do you mean that it won't show in the final output, or that you don't see anything untoward even in these crops?
It looks to me like there is next to no information in those shadows, and the colour jumps very suddenly from black to dark red to normal skin tones.
-
The Canon shot is framed too close on order to be cropped as the Hassy one. You shot it about 25% too close. The canon shot should have been cropped below the knee for a proper comparison. If you put the two faces nect to each other you can seee the the Hassy's one is at least 25% smaller.
In any case shadows transitions are smoother on the Hassy shot, though the Hassy image is strangely dull for a 39mp shot.
Something is wrong.
-
Who knows when you are looking at a web jpeg. If I had to choose one to make a print from based on what is presented here, it would be the Canon. Perhaps Neil would make the RAWs available via yousentit.com so everyone can peep their brains out ;-)
By the way Neil, which lens on the Canon?
Thanks.
-
The Canon shot is framed too close on order to be cropped as the Hassy one. You shot it about 25% too close. The canon shot should have been cropped below the knee for a proper comparison. If you put the two faces nect to each other you can seee the the Hassy's one is at least 25% smaller.
In any case shadows transitions are smoother on the Hassy shot, though the Hassy image is strangely dull for a 39mp shot.
Something is wrong.
No I don't think so . I frame as I see fit to shoot. I didn't have the cameras on tripods and do a sync shoot. That is not my style. I want to see how a camera works for me. This is how they work so it it is a very good test . Is the H39 flat? The histogram should tell. IF you look at the screen capture of the info on each you see the frame on each image. So yes as I said before there is a difference in cropping , but that should be obvious. I do have a test on a tripod of a still life black on black. Unfortunately it was the day before I bought the Canon MKII so it is a much lower res. Come to think of it that was also the H39 MKI.
The transitions are definitely smoother on the H39. To be expected. Actually I'm a bit disappointed with the new Canon. I thought by going to 14 bit it would have been a lot better but in fact it's not much better than at 12 bits.
-
Who knows when you are looking at a web jpeg. If I had to choose one to make a print from based on what is presented here, it would be the Canon. Perhaps Neil would make the RAWs available via yousentit.com so everyone can peep their brains out ;-)
By the way Neil, which lens on the Canon?
Thanks.
I have the exported psd's on my server, but at 120 and 220 MB it's a hefty download. The raw's no they are here. Too bad I didn''t keep Flexcolor on the edit Mac.
Canon was shot on the famous lens I use 100mm 2.8 macro. It is the only lens capable of rendering everything for close ups at around 100mm which I shoot. The Hassy was the 120 macro which in theory should be the equivalent.
For most shooting I see the Canon as the faster way, easier way, as you can shoot into LR or CO or whatever else you like.
Quality wise I'd say if Phocus worked out the bugs, would be the better choice. The differences though are a lot less than some want to believe.
PS if the Hassy shot is a bit flat, it is because I didn't have time to check the images until after (Phocus is so slow it's unusable while shooting) and realised that the Canon underexposes compared to Hasselblad for the same ISO and F stop. So I pulled the H39 expo down 0.27 or something. IF you leave the exposure high with the default settings unfortunately there is too much funky stuff going on with oversaturation in the 1/4 tones. Again is that because Phocus needs work?
-
No I don't think so . I frame as I see fit to shoot. I didn't have the cameras on tripods and do a sync shoot. That is not my style. I want to see how a camera works for me. This is how they work so it it is a very good test . Is the H39 flat? The histogram should tell. IF you look at the screen capture of the info on each you see the frame on each image. So yes as I said before there is a difference in cropping , but that should be obvious. I do have a test on a tripod of a still life black on black. Unfortunately it was the day before I bought the Canon MKII so it is a much lower res. Come to think of it that was also the H39 MKI.
The transitions are definitely smoother on the H39. To be expected. Actually I'm a bit disappointed with the new Canon. I thought by going to 14 bit it would have been a lot better but in fact it's not much better than at 12 bits.
I do not see it as a matter of shooting style, unless the main purpose of using those cameras is recreational or just inkjet printing.
If you need of printing those two images on a magazine, which normally have a ratio of 4 by 5, a portfolio that let's say is 11 by 14, or web for a customer web site, which 99% of them use a 4 by 5 ratio, on the canon shot you need of discarding 25% of the image unless, you want to have a "nice" white band on one side. while the hasselblad image is already pretty much proportional to the final media.
As it is framed the Canon images can be printed only on 11 by 17 format, which does not have many commercial use applications that I can recall of, or it is suitable for inkjet printing and hanging it on the wall. Not even model's portfolio have an 24 by 36 ratio.
What many people forget, it is that the for "24 by 36" format to be used on commercial media, we needs to discard between 20 to 25% percent of the image (top and bottom). Any time I work with the Canon or Sony, I keep that in mind, otherwise i'm going to deliver images that are not suitable for the client. we can make an exception if we are working in studio with a seamless background and we plan to extend the background on the sides.
As is the test is not valid for let's say commercial/professional use of the images.
-
The posterization that I was mentioning is also clearly visible whether in my browser (Safari, which does handle colour spaces) or CS4. I am talking about the facial shadow area on the left side of the image, especially around her right eye and the corner of her mouth. The shadows are so bad as to be useless here. My original 5D didn't give me results like this, and I don't understand why it is happening at all. I cannot imagine the results being accepted for critical use by any magazine? Is it always like this? The rest of the image looks fine, but that area is horrible.
Safari is not going to be the place to look at images even if they take into account embedded profiles.
Hmmm. Well Canon in skin tones has always done that horrible transition if you don't fill light it. Would it show in CMYK on press? Maybe depends on the press op if they run light for shadows. On the proof is it there? Yes. Can you do anything about it? Not much , perhaps CO is better, but I think it is the DR of the captor.
I did the shadow on purpose BTW. Black velvet covering a Styro board. I wanted to see if the 16 bit MF could dig into the shadows or not. It does, but the best thing is transitions are as they should be. Phocus is creating points though that definitely should not be there. I tried setting the moire to 3 and above but it blends the jeans onto her skin so it is unusable at 3.
Maybe I should send the RAW to Dustbank.
-
I do not see it as a matter of shooting style, unless the main purpose of using those cameras is recreational or just inkjet printing.
If you need of printing those two images on a magazine, which normally have a ratio of 4 by 5, a portfolio that let's say is 11 by 14, or web for a customer web site, which 99% of them use a 4 by 5 ratio, on the canon shot you need of discarding 25% of the image unless, you want to have a "nice" white band on one side. while the hasselblad image is already pretty much proportional to the final media.
As it is framed the Canon images can be printed only on 11 by 17 format, which does not have many commercial use applications that I can recall of, or it is suitable for inkjet printing and hanging it on the wall. Not even model's portfolio have an 24 by 36 ratio.
What many people forget, it is that the for "24 by 36" format to be used on commercial media, we needs to discard between 20 to 25% percent of the image (top and bottom). Any time I work with the Canon or Sony, I keep that in mind, otherwise i'm going to deliver images that are not suitable for the client. we can make an exception if we are working in studio with a seamless background and we plan to extend the background on the sides.
As is the test is not valid for let's say commercial/professional use of the images.
I actually just add background as I need to. Not the purest way I agree. I used to do this with drum scanned 6x6 too as it's my recreational style of shooting.
Yet I did say the test is up to you to see which means it is subjective. Not sure what shooting commercial is about, I just shoot what I want, as I can produce what I need for the magazines and ads I've done.
-
I actually just add background as I need to. Not the purest way I agree. I used to do this with drum scanned 6x6 too as it's my recreational style of shooting.
Yet I did say the test is up to you to see which means it is subjective. Not sure what shooting commercial is about, I just shoot what I want, as I can produce what I need for the magazines and ads I've done.
Let's say Franca Sozzani decide to print that image on Italian Vogue, you will need to crop the canon shot 25% off, or they will print it with a white band on one side(very few magazines do that anymore). You hardly see ads printed on 24 by 36 ratio unless are spread of a magazine. If you shoot on location and you cannot stretch the background to your liking on post, you will need of framing the picture differently, unless you do not mind chopping whatever is on the edges.
I have yet to meet an art director on the entire world that love to deal with chopping hands, shoes or foreheads, because the photographers were shooting 35mm without taking care of the basic rule of leaving enough space for cropping.
To each his own.
cheers.
-
Hi Niel
Thanks for doing the test. I'm not a canon user but I was struck by how bad the individual channels looked and the overall redness in the skin, I'd be interested to hear from a 5D2 user in the light of my following comments. To repeat, I'm not a Canon user, I am however a Hasselblad user, and at the risk of being rude must ask you Neil how well you know the (Hasselblad) system. The H3D image is in no way representative of the sort of quality I get from my back every day and as such I think the test is a bit flawed.
Nick-T
BTW I wanted to add that I'm familiar with Niel's beautiful work and in no way doubt his skills as a photographer.
-
Hi Niel
Thanks for doing the test. I'm not a canon user but I was struck by how bad the individual channels looked and the overall redness in the skin, I'd be interested to hear from a 5D2 user in the light of my following comments. To repeat, I'm not a Canon user, I am however a Hasselblad user, and at the risk of being rude must ask you Neil how well you know the (Hasselblad) system. The H3D image is in no way representative of the sort of quality I get from my back every day and as such I think the test is a bit flawed.
Nick-T
BTW I wanted to add that I'm familiar with Niel's beautiful work and in no way doubt his skills as a photographer.
As I said in the first post I just received both the Canon and Hasselblads both MKI + II. Phocus is the only software I have for RAW dev on the FFF files. There are not any LR 5D II profiles as they have for the 5D, nor did I make a camera calibration as I had previously. The problems I see in Phocus might not be present in Flexcolor, that I do not know. I can't say the quality is unexpected as the Canon and the Hasselblad look similar so I think this is just the way it is.
I did change the add a curve to the developed H39 file to bring it into line with the Canon.
The girl has this beautiful orange red skin which is quite unusual. A bit of a mix but a nice one at that.
-
Let's say Franca Sozzani decide to print that image on Italian Vogue, you will need to crop the canon shot 25% off, or they will print it with a white band on one side(very few magazines do that anymore). You hardly see ads printed on 24 by 36 ratio unless are spread of a magazine. If you shoot on location and you cannot stretch the background to your liking on post, you will need of framing the picture differently, unless you do not mind chopping whatever is on the edges.
I have yet to meet an art director on the entire world that love to deal with chopping hands, shoes or foreheads, because the photographers were shooting 35mm without taking care of the basic rule of leaving enough space for cropping.
To each his own.
cheers.
You know in French we'd say sans blague.
When you're shooting something it's going to have to fit into your camera. If your goal is to have the whatever space as headroom then that's what you do. It doesn't take one long to figure out that a crop on the traditional 355 mm frame is always long for the width for magazines. I thought that was something you learned when you picked up a camera, 35mm for me was many years ago.
So I suppose you are dwelling on something that is obvious , a 35mm frame is cropped for magazine or practically any other use. So a 21.1 Mpx becomes something like 18 , and yes the ratio of a MF is better adapted just as the Fuji 6x8 was. But I'm going to tell you a secret, the covers I've done, all the covers I know are highly retouched, and if you have to add bleed you just do so. From what I've learned from reviewing pages coming back, you'd be challenged to see a print quality difference from MF vs drum scanned film, or the recent 20mpx Dslrs.
I have said , and will say it again, there is more detail in the 39mpx images period. This also gives you room to crop, absolutely right. Freedom at last, but at a price of liberty of hand holding and shooting quickly.
-
You know in French we'd say sans blague.
I think that's French for "No Sh#t!"
Niel's test is exactly how photographers test cameras.
The pixel peeper will pick up a camera and talk about aspect ratios, lens equivalents, relative apertures, choice of glass, and goodness knows what else. The pixel pitch of a certain sensor for example, although relevant, has very little to do with photography IMO.
The photographer will pick up a camera and shoot some frames to see which works best in his (or her) hands.
My previous comment was just to point out that I don't think Niel got any where near the quality out of the Hasselblad that he could have.
Nick-T
-
Exactly my thoughts as well though I am not sure where it went less than optimal.
Neill you can download Flexcolor from the (or any) Hasselblad website. You have to register and login.
-
The pixel peeper will pick up a camera and talk about aspect ratios, lens equivalents, relative apertures, choice of glass, and goodness knows what else. The pixel pitch of a certain sensor for example, although relevant, has very little to do with photography IMO.
The photographer will pick up a camera and shoot some frames to see which works best in his (or her) hands.
Nick-T
I somewhat agree with Nick that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Sure I'd love my digital backs to work as fast, easily and have the lcd and iso of a dslr but the flip side to this is I'd love my dslrs to have a different cropping ratio for vertical or sometimes like a removable aa filter, but they don't.
For me the real answer is I need more than one system and today I seem to use the dslrs more than the medium format cameras, but depending on the gig, maybe even my mood it might go the other way.
The upside to all of this is the dslrs have improved a great deal and medium format has come down in price so it's really possible to get more cameras, more use and have more options than ever before.
-
The upside to all of this is the dslrs have improved a great deal and medium format has come down in price so it's really possible to get more cameras, more use and have more options than ever before.
As Cooter says maybe we'll all end up like it used to back in the day where most pro's (in my world) had 35mm, medium and large format cameras and used whatever camera suited the job...
Nick-T
-
I think that's French for "No Sh#t!"
Niel's test is exactly how photographers test cameras.
The pixel peeper will pick up a camera and talk about aspect ratios, lens equivalents, relative apertures, choice of glass, and goodness knows what else. The pixel pitch of a certain sensor for example, although relevant, has very little to do with photography IMO.
The photographer will pick up a camera and shoot some frames to see which works best in his (or her) hands.
My previous comment was just to point out that I don't think Niel got any where near the quality out of the Hasselblad that he could have.
Nick-T
Mais bien sure Nik.
And I'm a photographer too.
Than again, if we make a comparison to asses quality and detail on two different cameras, we need to at least take on consideration the size of the subject in the frame, and the lens, making otherwise it is just a waste of time. or at least try of having the main subject of the same size on both photos. that does not require a too much of work and not even the camera to be on tripod.
But what is the purpose of comparing two photos from two different cameras and posting crops (especially jeans crops) if not for looking at details and quality, which like it or not involve pixel peeping.
Nik, I was talking about aspect ratio, simply for making a practical example of real life applications for those kind of cameras which could be fashion editorial publishing, catalogue or commercial printing. Sure we can take photos completely disregarding the aspects ratio relative of the media where the photos are supposed to be printed and following our deepest primordial artistic instincts, but that will not instantly turn anybody in the hottest artist of the year, but rather lead to have to reject a lot of supposed to be "great" shots, simply because once fitted on the page they will not work.
By the way, "Sans blague" means: "No kidding..." Nik.
Do you really need to pixel peep on order to see that the chick on the photos is much larger in size on one photo rather than the other?
-
By the way, "Sans blague" means: "No kidding..." Nik.
And "No kidding" means "No sh#t"... but anyway
I take your point on the cropping of the two files I guess it would be nice to see tests that were half way between Niel's and a real pixel peeper one of a newspaper. Also it would be nice if there was a way to have someone really familiar with each system to advise. For example it would be a waste of time me doing a test with a Canon as I know very little about them.
Nick-T
-
I somewhat agree with Nick that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Sure I'd love my digital backs to work as fast, easily and have the lcd and iso of a dslr but the flip side to this is I'd love my dslrs to have a different cropping ratio for vertical or sometimes like a removable aa filter, but they don't.
For me the real answer is I need more than one system and today I seem to use the dslrs more than the medium format cameras, but depending on the gig, maybe even my mood it might go the other way.
The upside to all of this is the dslrs have improved a great deal and medium format has come down in price so it's really possible to get more cameras, more use and have more options than ever before.
Well, using the right camera for the job is the most sensitive thing to do.
It was like that on film days and it became somewhat affordable to do it on digital as well. that is why most of us, use 2 or 3 different formats depending on the job. at least i do.
for some people there is "the camera do it all" and for others "there is the camera for the job".
there are photos than cannot possibly be taken with a digital back, but can be taken with the dslr, yet the opposite is becoming less the case.
there are more situations where a 20+dslr can be used instead of a DB, rather than the opposite. Some situation that were DB domain, until not long ago, they can be done with a DSLR.
But this should be another topic.
-
As Cooter says maybe we'll all end up like it used to back in the day where most pro's (in my world) had 35mm, medium and large format cameras and used whatever camera suited the job...
Nick-T
Pretty sure we are going there. At least I am and most people I know that have MF also have LF & 35mm.
-
Pretty sure we are going there. At least I am and most people I know that have MF also have LF & 35mm.
With Hasselblad being the first group to cut the price in half, they opened the door for the current users of film , and Dslr to move up and have the possibility of using both.
I am one of those potential clients, and there are a LOT more around. Phase one followed, and it is logical that Leaf should do the same.
as I said the camera, the viewfinder, the system is night and day above the 5D. It has more detail, transitions are better. I think you can pull more from them too.
For the person stuck on the framing and size between the two , well there will not be a 39 mpx Dslr in the near future to compare same framing to anyway. Yet the repro from the Canon is not only good enough for pixel peeping, but good enough for shooting anything if you forgive it's bit depth and less margin for error.
Personally I don't care , as it certainly never will be me that would say I wouldn't want both Dslr and a MF for what they do best. For what this test shows is the quality of the Dslr is not that far off the H39. I don't shoot MTF charts, never will. I shoot what I want how I want, and know enough to shoot according to the format , with lenses that meet the requirements for what I do. Hasselblad have a lame comparison in Victor mag with a Canon on a 50 1.2 lens shot at f2, the H at 80mm 2.8 wide open. Neither is ideal but the Canon at 1.2 , now that is a crazy thing to do considering it is studio. This quick test is exactly what happens in a studio, with a contrasty light both at around the ideal f , exposure close enough to the same. I said the settings were as close as default as possible. Believe me , if I want to improve the default settings I know how. Setting grey balance for example has and is still very important for MF, much less so for Dslr.
I will try to dl Flex but I don't have much time between a shooting and retouching like crazy this week.
-
I've had the white band treatment
On the other hand, do a double spread, and suddenly the 35mm ratio looks much more useful. Not that I've been so lucky.
Good old Hasselblad square format was more democratic, I guess, you knew that you were going to chop, or get chopped, however you went. But that was before I ever published anything
As for the actual chopping, the fashion for tall tubular models with wiry arms and slim legs and no or fake boobs who look like a spider with four legs is a real issue for the photographers - either you have this pole standing to a side of the more or less empty frame, or you fold her up in some strange contortion, or well yes, you do chop. I can see it happening more and more in the magazines; maybe one day the fashion houses will revert to hiring normal-looking females again to present their image to the buyers. The way the dresses are cut for super-thin tubular creatures, it's no surprise that the only thing a fashion house can sell to the 30 year lady with money is a belt, shoes or a handbag.
Edmund
Let's say Franca Sozzani decide to print that image on Italian Vogue, you will need to crop the canon shot 25% off, or they will print it with a white band on one side(very few magazines do that anymore). You hardly see ads printed on 24 by 36 ratio unless are spread of a magazine. If you shoot on location and you cannot stretch the background to your liking on post, you will need of framing the picture differently, unless you do not mind chopping whatever is on the edges.
I have yet to meet an art director on the entire world that love to deal with chopping hands, shoes or foreheads, because the photographers were shooting 35mm without taking care of the basic rule of leaving enough space for cropping.
To each his own.
cheers.
-
I did a test with 1Ds MarkIII and H3DII 39, the result was that H3D is the winner, but even with that i will keep using Canon for what it should be, and H3D is there nearby always for another job.
-
Let's say Franca Sozzani decide to print that image on Italian Vogue, you will need to crop the canon shot 25% off, or they will print it with a white band on one side(very few magazines do that anymore). You hardly see ads printed on 24 by 36 ratio unless are spread of a magazine. If you shoot on location and you cannot stretch the background to your liking on post, you will need of framing the picture differently, unless you do not mind chopping whatever is on the edges.
I have yet to meet an art director on the entire world that love to deal with chopping hands, shoes or foreheads, because the photographers were shooting 35mm without taking care of the basic rule of leaving enough space for cropping.
To each his own.
cheers.
I don't have the Italian Vogue but a quick scan of my European magazines show that the majority is printed in A4 format (21x30cm).
-
I don't have the Italian Vogue but a quick scan of my European magazines show that the majority is printed in A4 format (21x30cm).
Italian Vogue and all its child issues (Pelle, Sposa, Gioiello etc...) are 21 by 27.8 cm. Also europeans issues of Elle and Marie Claire are very close to that proportion.
Still you need to chop a bit to get the 24 by 36 ration in to those pages. 645 and 67 film, and digital MF are the closest thing to that ratio.
-
Italian Vogue and all its child issues (Pelle, Sposa, Gioiello etc...) are 21 by 27.8 cm. Also europeans issues of Elle and Marie Claire are very close to that proportion.
Still you need to chop a bit to get the 24 by 36 ration in to those pages. 645 and 67 film, and digital MF are the closest thing to that ratio.
Ok, magazines come in various sizes and probably most high fashion ones in the 3:4 ratio. But since we are discussing precious megapixels being cut off by cropping we should remeber that a 300dpi full page print for 21 x 27.8 centimeters is 2480 x 3283 pixels or mere 8.1 megapixels. So it doesn't matter if an image cropped from 21MP to 18MP. And nor does it matter if the image is 18MP or 39MP.
Best, Hrannar
-
I am a large and high resolution junkie fan, the larger the better.
Those famous magazine don't work to print on magazines only, they print for walls, billboards, exhibitions/galleries,.... so in this case they always be sure they have the highest image quality to work for, and it is not harmful to use those highest image quality to print on magazines in about A4 or even A5 sizes, still amazing to look at.
-
I am a large and high resolution junkie fan, the larger the better.
Those famous magazine don't work to print on magazines only, they print for walls, billboards, exhibitions/galleries,.... so in this case they always be sure they have the highest image quality to work for, and it is not harmful to use those highest image quality to print on magazines in about A4 or even A5 sizes, still amazing to look at.
I would be telling a lie if I told you I don't like resolution. My point was only pointing out that loosing a few MP to cropping for a magazine is a non matter. For billboards and exhibitions the aspect ration would normally not matter. For comparing 135 and MF resolution is not the deciding factor anymore for most type of jobs.
As I see it one would choose MF for the look and 35mm for speed. I would probably also have a digital MF gear (I sold my lovely RZ67) if it wasn't so blooody expensive.