Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: scott morrish on April 06, 2010, 03:53:50 pm
-
I have spent a little time looking at the new Phase One camera, with the Phase One 150mm lens today.
I am a little puzzled about what i am seeing when comparing the lenses performance with a much older H 150mm lens on a H1.
From what i can see, the Phase 150 is better than the H150 in terms of Chromatic aberration, but surprisingly, the Phase lens does not seem to be as sharp at equivalent apertures.
As a quick disclaimer (having seen others roasted for not producing scientifically rigorous tests)... I'll happily confess that I am not particularly technical and i like to keep things simple: so i used the same focal length / shutter / aperture combinations and simply looked at the raw files (with everything zeroed on import) side by side in LR2.6 - with the hope of ensuring a 'relatively' level playing field. In both cases i used P65s on tripods with mirrors-locked-up, 2 second delay... etc.
This leaves me with a few questions:
[1] Does anyone find that the newer 'Phase' lenses either equal or better the 'H' lenses at equivalent focal lengths?
[2] ... and if so which are better / worse?
and on a slightly different tack...
[3] Looking at alternative camera systems for 60MP backs... (Artec / Linhoff etc) would you expect better performance from the 'best' lenses, when compared to Hasselblad or Phase lenses?
Any thoughts would be appreciated...
Scott
-
I have spent a little time looking at the new Phase One camera, with the Phase One 150mm lens today.
I am a little puzzled about what i am seeing when comparing the lenses performance with a much older H 150mm lens on a H1.
From what i can see, the Phase 150 is better than the H150 in terms of Chromatic aberration, but surprisingly, the Phase lens does not seem to be as sharp at equivalent apertures.
As a quick disclaimer (having seen others roasted for not producing scientifically rigorous tests)... I'll happily confess that I am not particularly technical and i like to keep things simple: so i used the same focal length / shutter / aperture combinations and simply looked at the raw files (with everything zeroed on import) side by side in LR2.6 - with the hope of ensuring a 'relatively' level playing field. In both cases i used P65s on tripods with mirrors-locked-up, 2 second delay... etc.
This leaves me with a few questions:
[1] Does anyone find that the newer 'Phase' lenses either equal or better the 'H' lenses at equivalent focal lengths?
[2] ... and if so which are better / worse?
and on a slightly different tack...
[3] Looking at alternative camera systems for 60MP backs... (Artec / Linhoff etc) would you expect better performance from the 'best' lenses, when compared to Hasselblad or Phase lenses?
Any thoughts would be appreciated...
Scott
Should be using capture one software to compare instead of lightroom.
-
Should be using capture one software to compare instead of lightroom.
would it tell a different story?
-
Should be using capture one software to compare instead of lightroom.
I'll second that... MUCH better quality than Lightroom with the P65+.
As for the lenses, I have the Phase 150mm and have found it to be exceptional. extremely sharp, and an over all better performer than the H. In full disclosure I haven't used the H 150 in a couple years, but I always found it to be so so.... I have not tested the recent revision of it which I am told is much better.
While the 75-150 zoom is very good, for a zoom, I think the 150 is much better, and its really my favorite lens.
I find the 80mm lenses to be very comparable between Phase and Hasselblad.
Both 120mm lenses are extremely good, though the H probably wins out for being AF.
The Phase 28mm is very good... The H is not compatible.
I also found the Phase 45mm and the H 50mm to be similar.
When it comes to H lenses overall, most are very good, though I thought the quality on the 50-110 and 100mm were not as good as I would expect. I've seen 2 50-110 lenses produce wildly different color temperatures on the same back/camera on several occasions.
Over all Both systems make fantastic lenses... All the Phase One branded lenses and Mamiya Sekor D will give you top notch quality. The older lenses are not as good.. but they are very cheap.
-
Yes big time . LR basically is not Phase file friendly for starters. C1 is designed for their backs make no mistake about it. There algorithms and profiles get the absolute best out of the files. Also not sure what 150mm you have tried but the older one is okay nothing really special, on the other hand the 150MM D lens is killer and maybe one of their best lenses around. To get the most out of the P65 back i recommend all the D lenses for it. I have the P40+ but shoot the P65+ quite often. My lens selection right now is the 28D, 45D, 80D, 150D and i do have a 50mm old Shift lens that works very well and a older 200mm 2.8 manual focus that is also very sharp. The 70 -150D is also very good as well as the 300mm AF 4.5.
But do yourself a favor and get a trial version of C1 and use that. Hope that helps, the P65 is a extremely nice back and the detail from it is quite amazing.
JDG seems we posted the exact same time but both agree
-
FWIW... i have C1 Pro: swings and roundabouts in my mind, but that thread is already well-worn.
Remember that i am not comparing software in this instance... i am simply comparing lenses.
I realise both H and P systems are good: no doubting that.
I also realise that many will only be able to contemplate C1: but crucially... i fail to see how it could tell a factually different story to LR?
Can C1 make a relatively sharper image softer... or visa versa? I hope not or my world just got more complicated... again!
So... getting back to the idea of a comparing two lenses, on a level (if not optimal) playing field... any thoughts?
Has anyone looked at them side by side and found the opposite to me?
My reason for posting the question, is because i find it hard to believe what i am seeing.
I expected the Phase lens to be clearly better on every measure: it is several years newer... and at 6OMP... i thought that'd show.
As for the P65+ ... yes, its ability to capture detail is amazing!
-
and on a slightly different tack...
[3] Looking at alternative camera systems for 60MP backs... (Artec / Linhoff etc) would you expect better performance from the 'best' lenses, when compared to Hasselblad or Phase lenses?
I don't know the H or Phase lenses and in particular not on a P65. But the Contax lenses on a P45...
First, the Digitar and HR lenses are better, especially at the edges. But the difference is not that spectacular as one might think... actually; at least the Contax lenses are quite contrasty and quite sharp.
But if you take post work into account - software distortion + perspective correction (always including cropping) vs. movements with LF lenses - the final difference can be remarkable.
-
I don't know the H or Phase lenses and in particular not on a P65. But the Contax lenses on a P45...
First, the Digitar and HR lenses are better, especially at the edges. But the difference is not that spectacular as one might think... actually; at least the Contax lenses are quite contrasty and quite sharp.
But if you take post work into account - software distortion + perspective correction (always including cropping) vs. movements with LF lenses - the final difference can be remarkable.
So reading between the lines, you are saying that there may be less work in post production... as well as better overall results. Am i reading this correctly?
And by the way... which are the star performers in your lens line-up?
-
So reading between the lines, you are saying that there may be less work in post production... as well as better overall results. Am i reading this correctly?
yes, correct!
And by the way... which are the star performers in your lens line-up?
that's easy: the Digitar 47XL and recently the Apo Sironar Digital 70 (aka "Digaron-W 70) ... I only have those 2 lenses.
But here are quite a few photographers using a lot more of those lenses... maybe they can tell you a bit more...
-
FWIW... i have C1 Pro: swings and roundabouts in my mind, but that thread is already well-worn.
Remember that i am not comparing software in this instance... i am simply comparing lenses.
I realise both H and P systems are good: no doubting that.
I also realise that many will only be able to contemplate C1: but crucially... i fail to see how it could tell a factually different story to LR?
Can C1 make a relatively sharper image softer... or visa versa? I hope not or my world just got more complicated... again!
So... getting back to the idea of a comparing two lenses, on a level (if not optimal) playing field... any thoughts?
Has anyone looked at them side by side and found the opposite to me?
My reason for posting the question, is because i find it hard to believe what i am seeing.
I expected the Phase lens to be clearly better on every measure: it is several years newer... and at 6OMP... i thought that'd show.
As for the P65+ ... yes, its ability to capture detail is amazing!
I have compared the two systems extensively now - since I am working with the H1-P65+ combo right now. The 150 mm by Phase is stellar compared to the 150 mm H-lens.
I have also compared the 120 mm H-lens with the 150 mm (H) - and I am glad keeping my 120 mm instead of the 150 mm...
The 120mm-H lens is better than the Mamiya 120 mm - not only because of the AF - you can use it both for Macro and for infinity - the latter gets difficult for the Mamyia lens.
For now I still stick to the H-system because the H-camera is al lot more user friendly. The Phamyia DF is ok - and even much better than the H-camera when it comes to focussing manually. If looking at the lenses, there are two big issues for me: the 300 mm H-lens is much better than the Mamiya 300 mm - and there is no equivalent to the 50-110 mm on the Phase/Mamiya side - seems like they are sleeping there!
However - after having suffered quite a time with lens errors, reattach lens... - with my nice H1 system I am longing for switching to a Phase system on the level of the 80/150 mm with a camera that matches the state of the art of digital cameras.
Markus
-
yes, correct!
that's easy: the Digitar 47XL and recently the Apo Sironar Digital 70 (aka "Digaron-W 70) ... I only have those 2 lenses.
But here are quite a few photographers using a lot more of those lenses... maybe they can tell you a bit more...
thank you...
-
From what i can see, the Phase 150 is better than the H150 in terms of Chromatic aberration, but surprisingly, the Phase lens does not seem to be as sharp at equivalent apertures.
The Phase 150mm is one of the best lenses I've tested on any platform. I would review/double-check your method of testing or ask your dealer to try another copy of the lens (maybe that one was e.g. dropped at some point).
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
However - after having suffered quite a time with lens errors, reattach lens... - with my nice H1 system I am longing for switching to a Phase system on the level of the 80/150 mm with a camera that matches the state of the art of digital cameras.
Markus
My situation is similar. And it is only today, after a long, long wait to test the DF and new lenses... that i have begun to realise that i may also be sticking with the H1 for a while longer. I am surprised at the awkwardness of the DF. Mirror can not be left up. AEL does not work in manual mode. No user settable button (which we all got used to on the H1). Still heavy (why so heavy?). No magnifier for the viewfinder? And why such an awkward switch on the front of the camera for switching between M, S, C etc? I am genuinely surprised to be thinking these thoughts... as i am more than ready to part with the H1.
-
My situation is similar. And it is only today, after a long, long wait to test the DF and new lenses... that i have begun to realise that i may also be sticking with the H1 for a while longer. I am surprised at the awkwardness of the DF. Mirror can not be left up. AEL does not work in manual mode. No user settable button (which we all got used to on the H1). Still heavy (why so heavy?). No magnifier for the viewfinder? And why such an awkward switch on the front of the camera for switching between M, S, C etc? I am genuinely surprised to be thinking these thoughts... as i am more than ready to part with the H1.
http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/03/...stom-functions/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/03/24/df-body-custom-functions/)
The AEL and AF buttons can be swapped for rear button focus (the most common setting for the user-setting button on the H body - at least in my market).
You can get a magnifier for the viewfinder from any Mamiya/Phase dealer.
Switching systems almost always leaves you wondering where things are and missing the unique advantages of the older system (mirror can remain up between exposures). Give it a few weeks and you'll (likely) start to feel more comfortable and you'll start to appreciate some of the unique advantages of the new system (e.g. both focal plane and leaf shutter lenses).
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/03/...stom-functions/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/03/24/df-body-custom-functions/)
The AEL and AF buttons can be swapped for rear button focus (the most common setting for the user-setting button on the H body - at least in my market).
You can get a magnifier for the viewfinder from any Mamiya/Phase dealer.
Switching systems almost always leaves you wondering where things are and missing the unique advantages of the older system (mirror can remain up between exposures). Give it a few weeks and you'll (likely) start to feel more comfortable and you'll start to appreciate some of the unique advantages of the new system (e.g. both focal plane and leaf shutter lenses).
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
Appreciate your feedback Doug, but swapping AEL and AF buttons still wont make AEL work in M mode.
The old 'periscope' focusing aid isn't easy to use (and focusing shouldn't be difficult) unless there is something new i have not been made aware of...
As for the leaf and focal plane shutters... great if its useful to you... otherwise it simply adds cost and weight.
And granted, familiarity would make things... more familiar... but really testing equipment ahead of jumping ships doesn't allow much time for that...
FWIW... i just ran through the comparisons in C1 Pro. The softer image is still from the Phase 150mm.
I'll talk to my dealer again tomorrow as you suggest: they are good people.
I just wondered wether others had found the same as me... or not?
-
....The old 'periscope' focusing aid isn't easy to use (and focusing shouldn't be difficult) unless there is something new i have not been made aware of...
....
You might be thinking of the Mamiya Angle finder FA401 as the "periscope." The Magnifying Finder is the FD402. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=m...itialSearch=yes (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=mamiya+645AF+magnifier&N=0&InitialSearch=yes)
My 150mm D is fantastic. The new D series lenses are top-notch, but the 150 D is my favorite by far. Very fast focusing on the 645DF.
-
I'll add my 2c worth - one of the two sharpest lenses I own is the 150 mm D. (The other is the 135/1.8 Zeiss for Sony). It is very sharp wide open and perfect at f4.
Bill
-
The Phase 150mm is one of the best lenses I've tested on any platform. I would review/double-check your method of testing or ask your dealer to try another copy of the lens (maybe that one was e.g. dropped at some point).
[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson ()
Well, as advised, i reviewed and double-checked, and from what i can see, i still think there is an issue, but possibly with the DF body more than the 150mm lens. It seems, that the new Phase 55 and 80mm LS lenses are better than the older Hasselblad equivalents, as one would hope / expect, most notably in terms of CA... but the 150 mm tells a different story.
As before, my disclaimer is that i am not particularly technical. I keep things simple - cameras on tripods, 2 second delay, all the usual common sense for working with high-end equipment, and I judge with my eyes, and in this case the eyes of my dealer too, as they'd quite like me to go on and buy the kit that i tested! Admittedly I am kind of fussy, especially when things are very expensive... and for me seeing is preferable to believing.
So, back to the new 150. At the same aperture and shutter speed combinations, the Phase lens manages to out-perfom (apparent detail / sharpness) the H lens at F5.6, and perhaps more importantly at 1/160 sec. Stopping down to F8 / 11 / 16, with with correspondingly slower shutter speeds of 1/80, 1/40, 1/20th, and the tables turn: the Hasselblad lens is noticeably crisper. (In terms of CA, the phase lens is always better from what i have seen to date).
Does the DF suffer from the shakes?
Would it show on a P45 (i am on a P65)?
Anyone else notice softer images below 1/80th second?
And FWIW... the same story is revealed in LR 2.6 / LR3 // C1 Pro 5. whatever it is now... all show the exact same issues.
I realise that i may be mistaken... which is why i asked the original question.
Now back to waiting to hear something / anything from Phase about how and when this issue will be resolved, if it is an issue (?), but in the mean time I am still happily awe-struck by the P65+, and it is still stuck to the back of my trusty old H1.
Back to work...
Scott
-
Well, as advised, i reviewed and double-checked, and from what i can see, i still think there is an issue, but possibly with the DF body more than the 150mm lens. It seems, that the new Phase 55 and 80mm LS lenses are better than the older Hasselblad equivalents, as one would hope / expect, most notably in terms of CA... but the 150 mm tells a different story.
As before, my disclaimer is that i am not particularly technical. I keep things simple - cameras on tripods, 2 second delay, all the usual common sense for working with high-end equipment, and I judge with my eyes, and in this case the eyes of my dealer too, as they'd quite like me to go on and buy the kit that i tested! Admittedly I am kind of fussy, especially when things are very expensive... and for me seeing is preferable to believing.
So, back to the new 150. At the same aperture and shutter speed combinations, the Phase lens manages to out-perfom (apparent detail / sharpness) the H lens at F5.6, and perhaps more importantly at 1/160 sec. Stopping down to F8 / 11 / 16, with with correspondingly slower shutter speeds of 1/80, 1/40, 1/20th, and the tables turn: the Hasselblad lens is noticeably crisper. (In terms of CA, the phase lens is always better from what i have seen to date).
Does the DF suffer from the shakes?
Would it show on a P45 (i am on a P65)?
Anyone else notice softer images below 1/80th second?
And FWIW... the same story is revealed in LR 2.6 / LR3 // C1 Pro 5. whatever it is now... all show the exact same issues.
I realise that i may be mistaken... which is why i asked the original question.
Now back to waiting to hear something / anything from Phase about how and when this issue will be resolved, if it is an issue (?)...
Sounds like you are discovering how carefully one must use a 60 megapixel sensor when dealing with shutter speeds like 1/20th of a second with a long focal plane lens. The Hassy H body uses leaf shutter lenses (and leaf shutter lenses only) - this has advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that there is less net-motion caused by the shutter during the exposure (disadvantages would include a low maximum shutter speed, and increased weight/size/manufacturing-cost of the lens, and a tendency towards showing diffraction earlier in the f-stop range).
The DF body can use both leaf shutter lenses and focal plane lenses. When using a focal plane lens the motion of the shutter needs to be accounted for. The motion (or vibration/bounce) of the shutter is insignificant at most shutter speeds but when using a longer lens in the "danger zone" of 1/4th to 1/15th (or so) it will be a challenge. You'll want to be very careful of your tripod/head selection and increase your self timer (used after the mirror up) to be several seconds rather than 1 or 2 seconds. Carrying a high quality ND or polarizing filter can also help you jump the system down the stop needed to get out of that range.
Many many many of our landscape shooters use this lens and love it. All of them have had to learn through trial and error which tripods, which heads, and what settings will take full advantage of the P65+ 60 megapixel full-frame sensor.
By the way the "mirror-dampening" and "shutter-bounce-reduction" of the DF is already the best of any focal plane MF body I've used. I'm sure this will always be an area they work on (like every company always works on autofocus), but they cant' change physics.
I maintain this is one of the best lenses I've used on any platform: fast f-stop (f/2.8), great color, great bokeh, great sharpness even wide open, very low CA even wide open even without software lens corrections, smooth focus operation, fast autofocus performance, manageable filter size, relatively light weight and compact size, good minimum focus distance.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
Many many many of our landscape shooters use this lens and love it. All of them have had to learn through trial and error which tripods, which heads, and what settings will take full advantage of the P65+ 60 megapixel full-frame sensor.
Hi Doug,
Most of my exposures are on the slow side, with a long lens, and they are always on a tripod. I have not had any issues of soft images, at any speed with the H system (besides user error), for the obvious reasons you outline.
It sounds like you have either tested (or know people that have tested) this body and lens combination at a range of speeds below 1/80th and had good results: in which case can i ask what tripod / head combination you / Phase would recommend?
Scott
-
If looking at the lenses, there are two big issues for me: the 300 mm H-lens is much better than the Mamiya 300 mm - …
Markus
Oh no! The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm is better than the 300 mm H-lens. I just bought a Phase One DF + P40+ with a Mamiya 4,5/300 mm instead of a H4D40 because of the better performance of the 300 mm lens. The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm has it's best sharpness at open aperture. I tested at infinty. If you want I can send you the test images.
Christopher
-
Oh no! The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm is better than the 300 mm H-lens. I just bought a Phase One DF + P40+ with a Mamiya 4,5/300 mm instead of a H4D40 because of the better performance of the 300 mm lens. The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm has it's best sharpness at open aperture. I tested at infinty. If you want I can send you the test images.
Christopher
This is a very bad choice. H4D40 has no equal in its class, the lowest noise level, excellent quality at higher speeds at full resolution (P40 + sensor + has only 10mpix) Of course, exposure time 4 min ... I guess that you are shooting landscapes. If you can, I will be happy to see those pics. Perhaps you received a defective lens or not functioning properly.
Best regards,
Design Freak
-
I would like to draw you attention to one case. Why do we say bad about the brand Hasselblad lenses, but only those that hook up to the strategic projections combo h2 + Phase One back. Someone who read it might get the impression that "hasselblad" produces a poor lens which is not true. 28 mm lens beats Mamiya brand structures. If we want something we have to do is to compare the compatibility of lenses from the same period. It would be like to compare the latest BMW 750i with Mercedes S500 from 2000. Of course you can but this does not make sense. Let's examine the lens' HCD 28 "and" HCD 35-90. Compare with PhaseOne counterparts. Please note that in spite of all Hasselblad lenses have the whole system (from 28 mm to 300) whose average quality is very high. At Photokina this average significantly improve :-) Gentlemen, we can assume that the true denounced 1,000 times becomes the truth.
Yours
Design Freak
-
I would like to draw you attention to one case. Why do we say bad about the brand Hasselblad lenses, but only those that hook up to the strategic projections combo h2 + Phase One back. Someone who read it might get the impression that "hasselblad" produces a poor lens which is not true. 28 mm lens beats Mamiya brand structures. If we want something we have to do is to compare the compatibility of lenses from the same period. It would be like to compare the latest BMW 750i with Mercedes S500 from 2000. Of course you can but this does not make sense. Let's examine the lens' HCD 28 "and" HCD 35-90. Compare with PhaseOne counterparts. Please note that in spite of all Hasselblad lenses have the whole system (from 28 mm to 300) whose average quality is very high. At Photokina this average significantly improve :-) Gentlemen, we can assume that the true denounced 1,000 times becomes the truth.
Yours
Design Freak
The reason people like me are effectively forced to compare New Phase lenses with Old Hasselblad lenses, was brought about by Hasselblad themselves: It is because they made a strategic blunder in deciding to do a u-turn on open platforms. At that moment, they seemed to take their customers for granted, which is rarely a good idea.
Consequently, having chosen to use the H body and lenses (which i was happy with since 2005) with the Phase backs (which i am still happy with), people like me have no option but to compare Old H lenses with New Phase lenses. I have no real desire to switch systems... i am only trying to do so because Hasselblad has closed the possibilities of using Phase backs on their system. Their new lenses might be the best ever... but i cant know that... If Hasselblad comes out of such comparisons poorly... they did it to themselves!
-
Oh no! The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm is better than the 300 mm H-lens. I just bought a Phase One DF + P40+ with a Mamiya 4,5/300 mm instead of a H4D40 because of the better performance of the 300 mm lens. The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm has it's best sharpness at open aperture. I tested at infinty. If you want I can send you the test images.
Christopher
I can't comment on the theoretical optical qualities of the Mamiya 300mm lens v. the Hasselblad. However, I have never seen a real world capture from a Mamiya 300mm lens and a P65 at smaller apertures and shutter speeds below 1/60 second that was not unacceptably blurred, even using the best technique and equipment. I have many real world captures with the Hasselblad 300mm lens at 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, etc. that are exceptionally sharp. It appears to be an inevitable byproduct of the vibration induced by a focal plane shutter. I have never seen a similar analysis with 150mm lenses and 200mm leaf shutter v. focal plane shutters, but I would not be surprised to see similar but less striking differences. I use longer lenses at f/11 and f/16 with slow shutter speeds quite a bit, and this weighed very heavily in my mind in favor of using an H1 body with a P65 rather than the new Phase One DF. With a P65, the exceptional resolution is very unforgiving of any inherent flaw in the capture chain, and I do think that a focal plane shutter for this application is a "flaw."
-
I can't comment on the theoretical optical qualities of the Mamiya 300mm lens v. the Hasselblad. However, I have never seen a real world capture from a Mamiya 300mm lens and a P65 at smaller apertures and shutter speeds below 1/60 second that was not unacceptably blurred, even using the best technique and equipment. I have many real world captures with the Hasselblad 300mm lens at 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, etc. that are exceptionally sharp. It appears to be an inevitable byproduct of the vibration induced by a focal plane shutter. I have never seen a similar analysis with 150mm lenses and 200mm leaf shutter v. focal plane shutters, but I would not be surprised to see similar but less striking differences. I use longer lenses at f/11 and f/16 with slow shutter speeds quite a bit, and this weighed very heavily in my mind in favor of using an H1 body with a P65 rather than the new Phase One DF. With a P65, the exceptional resolution is very unforgiving of any inherent flaw in the capture chain, and I do think that a focal plane shutter for this application is a "flaw."
Interesting.
Then how would Hasselblad V system with manual focus compare to Mamiya 645 AFD3 / DF, assuming high res sensor such as P65+ or Aptus II 10/10R?
Thanks!
Rgds Anders
-
Re focal plane shutters and long lenses: I agree that shutter speeds of 1/8th, 1/15th (worst) and 1/30th need to be avoided with longer lenses like the 300 if one wants the best results. This improved significantly with the DF body, but close inspection of files with the 300 show it still exists to some degree. Whether that motion is significant enough to negatively impact a 24x32 print is a separate discussion -- the point is, camera motion is visible over that range of shutter speeds if you look closely even in the newest Phase body. But motion is also visible on other cameras with a 300 leaf-shutter lens used in that 1/8th to 1/30th range if you look closely; not as significant as the FP shutter, but still visible regardless...
My point is this: With a digital back, I cannot understand why there is even a need for any mechanical shutter IF the camera shutter button and settings can talk to the back -- can't the back cycle itself on and off precisely via onboard electronics far more accurately than any mechanical shutter? I do understand the need for a physical shutter in a tech or other fully manual camera or when third-party lenses are used, but not when manufacturer lenses and camera bodies with built-in electronics are used...
-
Re focal plane shutters and long lenses: I agree that shutter speeds of 1/8th, 1/15th (worst) and 1/30th need to be avoided with longer lenses like the 300 if one wants the best results. This improved significantly with the DF body, but close inspection of files with the 300 show it still exists to some degree. Whether that motion is significant enough to negatively impact a 24x32 print is a separate discussion -- the point is, camera motion is visible over that range of shutter speeds if you look closely even in the newest Phase body. But motion is also visible on other cameras with a 300 leaf-shutter lens used in that 1/8th to 1/30th range if you look closely; not as significant as the FP shutter, but still visible regardless...
My point is this: With a digital back, I cannot understand why there is even a need for any mechanical shutter IF the camera shutter button and settings can talk to the back -- can't the back cycle itself on and off precisely via onboard electronics far more accurately than any mechanical shutter? I do understand the need for a physical shutter in a tech or other fully manual camera or when third-party lenses are used, but not when manufacturer lenses and camera bodies with built-in electronics are used...
It's nice to read thruth statements.
I think it is time for the manufacturers to leave the old design chains and move once for awhile forward with the available technology we have today.
-
I did do a test on the DF body with the Mamiya 300mm AF lens and it did much much better than when I tried this with the AFDIII body. Now I tried this with the 150 D lens and I could not see any motion but the 300mm I did. Nice data point to see here as to what to avoid when shooting with the long glass. BTW someone asked about the 300mm wide open and it's performance on one of the threads and this lens for a older design is very very good wide open although I try to get it to 5.6 for any focus error on my part.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php...mp;postcount=78 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=168680&postcount=78)
-
Re focal plane shutters and long lenses: I agree that shutter speeds of 1/8th, 1/15th (worst) and 1/30th need to be avoided with longer lenses like the 300 if one wants the best results. This improved significantly with the DF body, but close inspection of files with the 300 show it still exists to some degree. Whether that motion is significant enough to negatively impact a 24x32 print is a separate discussion -- the point is, camera motion is visible over that range of shutter speeds if you look closely even in the newest Phase body. But motion is also visible on other cameras with a 300 leaf-shutter lens used in that 1/8th to 1/30th range if you look closely; not as significant as the FP shutter, but still visible regardless...
... but surely they cant expect us to avoid going below 1/80th second... and remember this is with the 150mm, not a 300mm!
If a camera can do amazing things like flash sync up to 1/1600th of a second - or whatever it is - that is great (for those that need it)... but there must be plenty of others like me that like longish lenses, rely on available light, work on a tripod, and rarely work as fast as 1/100th second. My dealer was not aware of these issues, like Doug, they assumed i'd made mistakes first time around, to the point that they came back to me and we shot side by side, with them working the Phase system, on their own tripod. They were clearly surprised by what they were seeing too.
If there are tripods / heads that get around these problem (?)... i simply think that Phase / Phase dealers should tell us (potential customers) how to avoid these issues, rather than letting us run into the sand with them. Logically, theres not much point spending hard earned cash on all-singing and all-dancing state-of-the-art cameras and 150mm lenses - if shutter re-coil is simply going to blur the otherwise lovely and sharp 60MP files: cheap filters can to do that!
-
My point is this: With a digital back, I cannot understand why there is even a need for any mechanical shutter IF the camera shutter button and settings can talk to the back -- can't the back cycle itself on and off precisely via onboard electronics far more accurately than any mechanical shutter? I do understand the need for a physical shutter in a tech or other fully manual camera or when third-party lenses are used, but not when manufacturer lenses and camera bodies with built-in electronics are used...
CCD sensors require a readout period during which the sensor must be in the dark.
I find it hard to imagine that in 10 years that any cameras will be using mechanical shutters (except for companies that pride themselves on tradition) but for now we are stuck with a small piece of metal flying up/down or inward/outward.
-
... but surely they cant expect us to avoid going below 1/80th second... and remember this is with the 150mm, not a 300mm!
If a camera can do amazing things like flash sync up to 1/1600th of a second - or whatever it is - that is great (for those that need it)... but there must be plenty of others like me that like longish lenses, rely on available light, work on a tripod, and rarely work as fast as 1/100th second. My dealer was not aware of these issues, like Doug, they assumed i'd made mistakes first time around, to the point that they came back to me and we shot side by side, with them working the Phase system, on their own tripod. They were clearly surprised by what they were seeing too.
If there are tripods / heads that get around these problem (?)... i simply think that Phase / Phase dealers should tell us (potential customers) how to avoid these issues, rather than letting us run into the sand with them. Logically, theres not much point spending hard earned cash on all-singing and all-dancing state-of-the-art cameras and 150mm lenses - if shutter re-coil is simply going to blur the otherwise lovely and sharp 60MP files: cheap filters can to do that!
Scott the Arca cube maybe the best of the best with stability in mind but I have the Arca P1 which is also a rock for a ball head and use a Gitzo 3 series tripod. I use ball heads for the flexibility and here is a great case for going to the extreme on overkill with gear. Tripods and heads buy the biggest bad boy you can get your hands on but Carbon Fiber maybe the best material for a modern tripod.
-
The reason people like me are effectively forced to compare New Phase lenses with Old Hasselblad lenses, was brought about by Hasselblad themselves: It is because they made a strategic blunder in deciding to do a u-turn on open platforms. At that moment, they seemed to take their customers for granted, which is rarely a good idea.
Consequently, having chosen to use the H body and lenses (which i was happy with since 2005) with the Phase backs (which i am still happy with), people like me have no option but to compare Old H lenses with New Phase lenses. I have no real desire to switch systems... i am only trying to do so because Hasselblad has closed the possibilities of using Phase backs on their system. Their new lenses might be the best ever... but i cant know that... If Hasselblad comes out of such comparisons poorly... they did it to themselves!
I completely understand you. But this is not a reason to be biased. If you want to do this comparison, contact your dealer hasselblad and arrange a test. Certainly the equipment will be available free of charge. At least that is happening in Poland.
Yours sincerely,
Design Freak
-
... but surely they cant expect us to avoid going below 1/80th second... and remember this is with the 150mm, not a 300mm!
The effects of the shutter are most pronounced around 1/8th-1/30th with the middle of that range being the worst. With proper tripod/head/technique you can go slower or faster. Again carrying an ND filter combined with the 2-3 stop flexibility you have between aperture and ISO should allow you to work around that range. I suspect if you were seeing issues at 1/80th that your tripod/head/technique were not "optimal" (not saying you were sloppy or your support gear was poor quality - just not optimal).
I'll leave it to the many experienced available light landscape shooters on this board to comment what tripods/heads they've found best and worst.
By the way someone above asked why we were "dissing" hassy lenses... I surely hope he didn't read anything of mine that he read as a diss to hassy lenses. Both Phase One / Mamiya / Scheider and Hasselblad make some decent lenses, some great lenses, and even a few extraordinary lenses. Each lens lineup has its own advantages and disadvantages. In fact I am in the middle of writing up a blog entry about it.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
I completely understand you. But this is not a reason to be biased. If you want to do this comparison, contact your dealer hasselblad and arrange a test. Certainly the equipment will be available free of charge. At least that is happening in Poland.
Bear in mind he was not posting a test as a complete-overview-comparison between Hassy & Phase systems but rather evaluating (for his own personal purposes) switching from a P65+ back on his H-Body to a P65+ on a Phase One body. If he was evaluating the option to go to lower resolution/sensors sizes by switching to a Hasselblad back he would surely run different tests, include gear from a hassy dealer and include the two HCD lenses which would then become available to him.
Saying someone has "bias" when testing specifically for their own situation is kind of redundant.
Edit: I've included a fair bit of my own "bias" in this post for humorous effect.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
I completely understand you. But this is not a reason to be biased. If you want to do this comparison, contact your dealer hasselblad and arrange a test. Certainly the equipment will be available free of charge. At least that is happening in Poland.
Yours sincerely,
Design Freak
I think you have missed the point that i was making... such is the way of forums from time to time: at least i always know what i mean!
As Doug pointed out... i am not trying to prove anything about any brand in particular: I am really not that interested in brands as it happens. I like good equipment... and I buy the equipment that works for me... is that Bias?
I am happy with the P65... it is stunning.
I was happy with the Hasselblad kit, and, if Hasselblad had not closed their system, i would have upgraded the body and lenses as better components came into the market, as i am sure they have, but Hasselblad chose to make that impossible for people like me, who prefer Phase backs. Why? Who knows? I suspect they looked themselves in the mirror, assumed no one could resist their well established brand, and tried to drag photographers away from other companies like Phase. This sounds harsh, but it is the way things seemed from my perspective. Like i said before Hasselblad have brought these sentiments upon themselves. I have always thought it was a ridiculous error of judgement: time will tell.
With the current Phase lens line up, incomplete as it is today (for me), if Hasselblad saw the error of their ways and opened the system up again... i'd test it tomorrow.
Until then, I'll look at the tools that fit my needs. Not so much bias as pragmatism... at least thats what i think.
-
I'll leave it to the many experienced available light landscape shooters on this board to comment what tripods/heads they've found best and worst.
If anyone could share that information... i would be very grateful.
Thanks,
Scott
-
Scott the Arca cube maybe the best of the best with stability in mind but I have the Arca P1 which is also a rock for a ball head and use a Gitzo 3 series tripod. I use ball heads for the flexibility and here is a great case for going to the extreme on overkill with gear. Tripods and heads buy the biggest bad boy you can get your hands on but Carbon Fiber maybe the best material for a modern tripod.
Thanks Guy.
I've never fancied the Arca cube... but i'd be interested in any good combinations, that are back-packable and can at least manage to stabilise the DF with the 150mm lens.
I hadn't thought to list what i am using:a Gitzo GT3541XLS (carbon Fibre), with an Arca Swiss Monoball Z.
... is that the same as you?
Scott
-
Thanks Guy.
I've never fancied the Arca cube... but i'd be interested in any good combinations, that are back-packable and can at least manage to stabilise the DF with the 150mm lens.
I hadn't thought to list what i am using:a Gitzo GT3541XLS (carbon Fibre), with an Arca Swiss Monoball Z.
... is that the same as you?
Scott
I was going from the Arca B2 to the Cube, the Cube is NOT as stable as the B2, but it's light and a real joy to use
The Arca Z is IMO a surprisingly good and stable head for it's size and weight. I do prefer the series 5 carbon gitzo's
/adam
-
I think you have missed the point that i was making... such is the way of forums from time to time: at least i always know what i mean!
As Doug pointed out... i am not trying to prove anything about any brand in particular: I am really not that interested in brands as it happens. I like good equipment... and I buy the equipment that works for me... is that Bias?
I am happy with the P65... it is stunning.
I was happy with the Hasselblad kit, and, if Hasselblad had not closed their system, i would have upgraded the body and lenses as better components came into the market, as i am sure they have, but Hasselblad chose to make that impossible for people like me, who prefer Phase backs. Why? Who knows? I suspect they looked themselves in the mirror, assumed no one could resist their well established brand, and tried to drag photographers away from other companies like Phase. This sounds harsh, but it is the way things seemed from my perspective. Like i said before Hasselblad have brought these sentiments upon themselves. I have always thought it was a ridiculous error of judgement: time will tell.
With the current Phase lens line up, incomplete as it is today (for me), if Hasselblad saw the error of their ways and opened the system up again... i'd test it tomorrow.
Until then, I'll look at the tools that fit my needs. Not so much bias as pragmatism... at least thats what i think.
I understand your frustration. But such is life. I like both systems, I have no interest to be for any brand. Evaluate equipment such as it is. If someone writes about the Mamiya 28mm lens is the best, it mildly odds with the truth. And this is only because he is the lucky owner of the equipment brands PhaseOne. Rejoice at his happiness. Has the right to do so. Identified with the hardware. Everything is correct. Why are not the owners of P1 to the manufacturer's claim that it had not prepared for such an eventuality. (hasselblad have right to do) Why does not mention the body "h1/h2" on PhaseOne DF. After all, digitalback is the largest expense and not the body. Simply replace the equipment and stop complaining (body) I know I have a strange way of perceiving the world. But as I do not like something, I do not complain, only to change it. This way you can punish such a producer. In this case it's brand Hasselblad. I do not believe that was profitable to them to open the system. The matter is simple, a world ruled by money. If you're a fan of P1 should move to 100% for this system and the sooner that is done the better for you.
Sorry if it offended anyone, this was not my goal. I just wanted to present a problem from my point of view. Phase In my opinion, should be prepared that the external company will perform such a move. And that P1 bears the entire responsibility for the situation in which they found to their customers. (Do not secured, respectively) P1 replace this equipment to customers in the brand new equipment for Phase small fee. Or, suggest a very favorable exchange.
My colleagues found themselves in the same situation, some changes to the Phase system, others on the Hasselblad.
Br
Design Freak
-
I understand your frustration. But such is life. I like both systems, I have no interest to be for any brand. Evaluate equipment such as it is. If someone writes about the Mamiya 28mm lens is the best, it mildly odds with the truth. And this is only because he is the lucky owner of the equipment brands PhaseOne. Rejoice at his happiness. Has the right to do so. Identified with the hardware. Everything is correct. Why are not the owners of P1 to the manufacturer's claim that it had not prepared for such an eventuality. (hasselblad have right to do) Why does not mention the body "h1/h2" on PhaseOne DF. After all, digitalback is the largest expense and not the body. Simply replace the equipment and stop complaining (body) I know I have a strange way of perceiving the world. But as I do not like something, I do not complain, only to change it. This way you can punish such a producer. In this case it's brand Hasselblad. I do not believe that was profitable to them to open the system. The matter is simple, a world ruled by money. If you're a fan of P1 should move to 100% for this system and the sooner that is done the better for you.
Sorry if it offended anyone, this was not my goal. I just wanted to present a problem from my point of view. Phase In my opinion, should be prepared that the external company will perform such a move. And that P1 bears the entire responsibility for the situation in which they found to their customers. (Do not secured, respectively) P1 replace this equipment to customers in the brand new equipment for Phase small fee. Or, suggest a very favorable exchange.
My colleagues found themselves in the same situation, some changes to the Phase system, others on the Hasselblad.
Br
Design Freak
Not offended at all: Strangely i think our philosophies are similar.
The back is certainly the linch pin for me... at this point in time.
My objective is not / was not to complain... but simply to find out if the problems as i see them... are seen by others... or unique to me.
The issue here is simply that the H1 / H2 route is a dead-end for Phase users... and it seems to me that the Phase system is patchy if IQ is important.
In that case i can save a lot of money, and plod on with the H1... until things change... which of course they will in time.
I do feel frustration that Phase One have not managed (or tried) to explain the issues, bearing in mind this started back in April for me... but as you say... that is life.
-
I will also add that I use the P65+ on an H2 with lenses up to 210 and don't have issues with getting sharp images provided my technique is OK. I use a 2540 Gitzo tripod with the RRS #40 lightweight head. I also have the RRS 55 head but found I do fine with the more lightweight and easier to carry RRS40. I do think the leaf shutter lenses have something to do with my 65+ stability here. Eleanor
I have not had any issues of soft images, at any speed with the H system (besides user error), for the obvious reasons you outline.
It sounds like you have either tested (or know people that have tested) this body and lens combination at a range of speeds below 1/80th and had good results: in which case can i ask what tripod / head combination you / Phase would recommend?
Scott
[/quote]
-
Not offended at all: Strangely i think our philosophies are similar.
The back is certainly the linch pin for me... at this point in time.
My objective is not / was not to complain... but simply to find out if the problems as i see them... are seen by others... or unique to me.
The issue here is simply that the H1 / H2 route is a dead-end for Phase users... and it seems to me that the Phase system is patchy if IQ is important.
In that case i can save a lot of money, and plod on with the H1... until things change... which of course they will in time.
I do feel frustration that Phase One have not managed (or tried) to explain the issues, bearing in mind this started back in April for me... but as you say... that is life.
I am very pleased that so you think. As for the Hasselblad, for users of third-party DigitalBack so it had to end. Hasselblad had the choice of going out of business, or peel her own way. And I think we should not blame them for it. Although this decision was controversial. And hit many ordinary users.
Br
Design Freak
-
I will also add that I use the P65+ on an H2 with lenses up to 210 and don't have issues with getting sharp images provided my technique is OK. I use a 2540 Gitzo tripod with the RRS #40 lightweight head. I also have the RRS 55 head but found I do fine with the more lightweight and easier to carry RRS40. I do think the leaf shutter lenses have something to do with my 65+ stability here. Eleanor
Thanks Eleanor. The funny thing is, that i was not even slightly interested in the leaf shutters in the new Phase lenses: I just thought they added weight and cost!
Now however, in the light of my tests to date, i am beginning to think leaf shutters might fix the problems on the DF... so now i am hoping there are more in production asap, especially the 150mm.
-
If anyone could share that information... i would be very grateful.
Head/Pod combos that work for me: For MF digital, my favorite is the Arca Cube head on top of a 3 series Gitzo CF pod WITHOUT a center column and mounted directly to the pod's top plate. Center columns on tripods add a leverage moment and thus add flex to the system. Other heads I've found to be as rigid or more so than the Cube: Arca B1, B2, RRS BH55, Gitzo 3780. I'm sure any other quality head in the same size range would be adequate, but I'm going to irritate a lot of folks with this next comment: I've never found any Bogen or Manfrotto head rigid or tight enough for critical high-resolution MF or LF use, and this especially applies to their geared heads. They are probably fine for 35mm DSLR and smaller cameras though. Sorry to all who love theirs, but that's been my experience having had to correct issues for workshop participants that arrive with a Bogen head. And FWIW, I think Bogen QR plates make the situation even worse.
That out of the way, there are two more really important issues. More than once, I've seen an L-bracket not properly fastened to the camera. Usually this involves a camera that has a reducer bushing from 3/8ths to 1/4 thread. My point here is if you need to make absolutely certain your L-bracket is TIGHT against the base of your camera, with absolutely zero wiggle or wobble as the slightest amount will show up during slow shutter speeds. Don't be afraid to gently tap the base as you tighten it. Final issue is heads that have had aftermarket clamps installed. This is another fairly common problem for folks that have added an RRS QR or Screw clamp to whatever brand head. That clamp has to be properly seated and tightened TIGHT to the head. If not, the clamp allows the camera mass to "spring" on it as it fires and this destroys resolution.
My .02,
-
Thanks Guy.
I've never fancied the Arca cube... but i'd be interested in any good combinations, that are back-packable and can at least manage to stabilise the DF with the 150mm lens.
I hadn't thought to list what i am using:a Gitzo GT3541XLS (carbon Fibre), with an Arca Swiss Monoball Z.
... is that the same as you?
Scott
Same Gitzo as you Scott and both heads are very strong just a little different design between the Z and P1. The one disadvantage of the P1 is you can't rotate straight down it has no slot for that. I think these are rated at 56 LBs which should hold just about anything we can throw at it in MF. Another good trick is a sand bag on a long lens on top of it for stability but always be aware of wind as in most cases that is the culprit for movement. The DF is a major improvement here over the AFDIII for sure. I can't speak for the Hassy though but same type of setup would certainly work.
Arca makes damn good heads
-
[quote name='dougpetersonci' date='Jul 1 2010, 12:10 AM' post='373814']
I'll leave it to the many experienced available light landscape shooters on this board to comment what tripods/heads they've found best and worst.
[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson ()
For landscapes ballheads from the following are typically considered the top;
Markins, Kirks, Arca-Swiss, Really Right Stuff. A ballhead with much clamping power gives solid support. I have used Markins Q10 for years, very solid. It is lightest weight of the brands I mentioned, yet same top of the line quality of product.
In regards to solid tripod, frank most tripods on market tend to approach, well junk. Look for carbon fiber legs and three section legs without telescoping top. The reason is that four section legs have more joints and thus risk being less stable. A telescoping top makes a tripod tad into a monopod on tripod... I have used a Getzo, and before that Manfrotto (4-section) (same company, different lines). When I sold the Manfrotto after 5 years heavy use I disassembled and cleaned it. Tons of dirt and sand came out, yet functioned like day one!
The Arca-Swiss cube? Must be assumed to be solid, but... also heavy. Competitor is Korean, here http://www.tripodballhead.com/2009/02/phot...ed-head_23.html (http://www.tripodballhead.com/2009/02/photo-clam-multiflex-geared-head_23.html)
Hope above is helpful.
Regards
Anders
-
I've never fancied the Arca cube... but i'd be interested in any good combinations, that are back-packable and can at least manage to stabilise the DF with the 150mm lens.
I hadn't thought to list what i am using:a Gitzo GT3541XLS (carbon Fibre), with an Arca Swiss Monoball Z.
Scott
Additionally, in light of further responses to date, i never use a centre-column, there are no attachments or alterations, and having enjoyed 5x4 in the past... i am very aware of the wind: on the day of testing there was no wind, just a fine hot sunny summers day.
It doesn't look like i am obviously using the wrong tripod / head?
I guess my expectations may need re-calibrating (?), but i still think Phase should be the ones identifying which gear will enable their flag-ship products to work well.
-
.
It doesn't look like i am obviously using the wrong tripod / head?
No, but then I've never used the Z head. So if your L bracket is properly tightened, and your head is solidly tightened to the tripod legs, and your head or head clamp isn't malfunctioning, you've probably got something wrong with your camera...
-
No, but then I've never used the Z head. So if your L bracket is properly tightened, and your head is solidly tightened to the tripod legs, and your head or head clamp isn't malfunctioning, you've probably got something wrong with your camera...
Well, the issues of tripod and heads may turn out to be less clear-cut than i had remembered or reported here. So just to keep my account in order...
First time around (April), i didn't understand why i was seeing such poor results from the Phase 150mm, so i sent the equipment back, with comparative files for Phase to look at, and I waited to see what conclusions arose. In this instance, i had worked both cameras alternately on my tripod. At this point i was assuming the issue was with the lens, and was happy to accept i might have made a mistake... or been unlucky. There was general agreement that the older H lens was (surprisingly) better, but also a firm belief that the Phase lens was the better lens... and widely respected / loved etc. Mmmm.
Two months later, my dealer kindly drove out to me, to re-do the test with another 150mm lens, but this time, i shot with my H system on my tripod etc... and here is the bit i'd overlooked, he shot the DF on his tripod and head. Now i know his kit looked much like mine, (also Gitzo, also carbon fibre, and i think also an Arca ball head), but as i have said before... i don't pay too much attention to equipment unless it is mine and i need to use it. It turns out that he may well have used his centre column!
That doesn't explain away why the results were so poor first time around, but admittedly, it does warrant revisiting the second test.
Either way, it seems reasonable to assume that whatever is going on, is probably more to do with the body with the longer lens, rather than the just the lens itself, and i continue to wait for a response from Phase One.
Apologies for overlooking the details above.
For those interested, I'll let you know the outcome...
Scott
-
Hi,
I had a Manfrotto 055 tripod with a Bogen #3039 head. THe camera I had was the Pentax 67. My 300/4 + 1.4X was never sharp on this combo. I replaced it with a Velbon Sherpa Pro 630CF tripod weighting less than half of the Manfrotto/Bogen combo and started getting decent pictures. Nowdays Iuse a Sherpa 630 with a RRS BH40 and a Gitzo GT3541LS without center column and a RRS BH55. I shoot up too 400/4.5 with 2X extender.
Best regards
Erik
Head/Pod combos that work for me: For MF digital, my favorite is the Arca Cube head on top of a 3 series Gitzo CF pod WITHOUT a center column and mounted directly to the pod's top plate. Center columns on tripods add a leverage moment and thus add flex to the system. Other heads I've found to be as rigid or more so than the Cube: Arca B1, B2, RRS BH55, Gitzo 3780. I'm sure any other quality head in the same size range would be adequate, but I'm going to irritate a lot of folks with this next comment: I've never found any Bogen or Manfrotto head rigid or tight enough for critical high-resolution MF or LF use, and this especially applies to their geared heads. They are probably fine for 35mm DSLR and smaller cameras though. Sorry to all who love theirs, but that's been my experience having had to correct issues for workshop participants that arrive with a Bogen head. And FWIW, I think Bogen QR plates make the situation even worse.
That out of the way, there are two more really important issues. More than once, I've seen an L-bracket not properly fastened to the camera. Usually this involves a camera that has a reducer bushing from 3/8ths to 1/4 thread. My point here is if you need to make absolutely certain your L-bracket is TIGHT against the base of your camera, with absolutely zero wiggle or wobble as the slightest amount will show up during slow shutter speeds. Don't be afraid to gently tap the base as you tighten it. Final issue is heads that have had aftermarket clamps installed. This is another fairly common problem for folks that have added an RRS QR or Screw clamp to whatever brand head. That clamp has to be properly seated and tightened TIGHT to the head. If not, the clamp allows the camera mass to "spring" on it as it fires and this destroys resolution.
My .02,
-
That doesn't explain away why the results were so poor first time around, but admittedly, it does warrant revisiting the second test.
Either way, it seems reasonable to assume that whatever is going on, is probably more to do with the body with the longer lens, rather than the just the lens itself, and i continue to wait for a response from Phase One.
My take:
The first time you were not aware that using a long focal plane lens used with the highest resolution digital back made in the range where it is most vulnerable to shutter movement required diligent technique and carefully selected tripod/head to get the best possible result. Therefore are any number of small things you could have done that would have caused issues, for instance using 1-2 second self timer rather than using a several second self timer.
The second time the dealer used a tripod/head/technique combination that was not up to the task.
That lens can be used with a properly functioning DF body perfectly well (actually a gross understatement) for low light landscapes with the right support-gear/technique as exhibited by dozens of our customers using it in that exact context, several of whom are on this board.
P.S. I might check with your dealer to see if he has updated the firmware of his DF body - perhaps he has one of the pre-production units or very first units off the line and has never updated the firmware. It's a stretch but something to check.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
Not sure this has even been mentioned as I have not looked back in this thread but has anyone talked about mirror lockup. If not my technique is using the self timer with lockup and I set it for about four seconds . So mirror up self timer on hit shutter and get your damn body parts away from the unit. LOL
-
My bad double post
-
Not sure this has even been mentioned as I have not looked back in this thread but has anyone talked about mirror lockup. If not my technique is using the self timer with lockup and I set it for about four seconds . So mirror up self timer on hit shutter and get your damn body parts away from the unit. LOL
He did mention mirror up used in the very first post many pages ago. But he also mentioned 2 seconds as the self timer, which I think is a bit fast for this combination of gear/shutter-speed. Several seconds would be better.
-
Totally agree Doug, Even a light press of your finger puts downward pressure and I never tested this but I would say a minimum of 3 seconds. Vibrations last awhile to settle out. I go 4 just to be safe. Scientific no but it's a gut feeling.
-
He did mention mirror up used in the very first post many pages ago. But he also mentioned 2 seconds as the self timer, which I think is a bit fast for this combination of gear/shutter-speed. Several seconds would be better.
Thanks for thinking around this.
And yes... i always use mirror up, and i then also use a 2 second delay. This has worked flawlessly on the H system for years. Guess with the DF, i'll have to try longer...
I am still waiting on the details of tripod and head used by my dealer for the re-run test, and out of courtesy to all who have followed this thread, i will post that info here once i have it.
On a more general note, and more out of bewilderment than anything else, (i am certainly not intending to be antagonistic), why don't Phase let there dealers know about these 'issues', and why aren't the dealers then able to fore-warn potential customers [1] that there are issues to be aware of in certain circumstances, and [2] how to work around them?
This equipment is promoted under various promotional sound-bytes like 'ultimate quality' etc. So please, Phase One, and Phase One dealers, let us know how to realise 'ultimate quality' when we test your equipment. You never know... we might go on and buy it.
And do i want to clear another couple of days in my schedule to get the equipment back down to me for a third time, only to have to add a selection of tripods and heads to see which ones allow a very very expensive camera to sit still? Mmmm?