Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: fredjeang on May 13, 2010, 10:21:25 am

Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 13, 2010, 10:21:25 am
Hi,

I woud not like this thread to be seen as another war 35mm vs MF.

As there are more and more "vintage" digital backs circulating in the market at more reasonable prices, I'm asking myself this simple question:

If speed is not required, will a 22MP back be a better option in terms of IQ than a 20+ MP FF DSLR?

Is the fact that there is less pixel-density, no AA filter, in the MF backs crucial? and are you truly able to make a clear difference between a file from a FF dslr and a same resolution MF back?

Thank you.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on May 13, 2010, 10:44:32 am
Man this is loaded for WWIII. Fred let me simply say this. I will take ANY 22mpx back over and above ANY DSLR out there. Why because it is better image quality. If IQ is not enough for you to shoot MF than go with a DSLR . I have never seen any DSLR outpace a MF back when it comes to image quality and I don't give a rats droppings what anyone says. I have been doing digital only since 1991 and I am NOT going to sit here and go through a million reasons why i feel this way. It's really not my issues if you don't buy into my comment but as a very experienced Pro that is my gut feeling and won't back off it in any way shape or form. Now taken other factors into account a DSLR maybe better for a lot of folks because of functionality, ergonomics and such. That is a given but when I put image to paper i love what i see coming from MF backs. Let me clearly state before some armchair scientific ding bat responds, I go by what I see and my most valuable asset is my eyes and what they see and i trust that over any scientific evidence of anything when it comes to photography on any level and after 34 years as a working Pro i earned that right to believe in my eye's. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. LOL
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Roskav on May 13, 2010, 11:03:15 am
What he said...

R

Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: bigalbest on May 13, 2010, 11:07:20 am
Personally I have owned and used virtually every dslr available before purchasing my H3DII-22. In anything but low light high ISO this camera has more dynamic range and a level of crisp sharpness along with more accurate color than any dslr out there period. When used with strobe lighting at 50 ISO the detail and sharpness is amazing. That being said I have also seen other better photographers than myself using the cheapest out of date equipment and producing spectacular images.

Some samples from the H3DII-22:

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1087/4602191665_35dd189c8d_o.jpg)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3376/4577519938_941edb4715_o.jpg)

Of course I would take a 20-30 MP MF over a dslr any day but there is a tool for every job. I recently sold my 5D and all my Canon lenses and haven't regretted it for a second.
My cameras:
Leica M6
Hasselblad H3DII-22
Hasselblad H1
Hasselblad 500CM
Canon D10
My next camera:
8X10?

Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on May 13, 2010, 11:14:58 am
Quote from: Guy Mancuso
I will take ANY 22mpx back over and above ANY DSLR out there.
One relevant question might be: ¿why can they not now produce a 24Mpx DSLR that is better (IQ) than a MFDB several years old?

Is it just the Anti-Aliasing filter?

Is it the limitations of the (24 * 36mm) format size related to the pixel density and the wavelength of light?

..and how do quality small modern cameras like the M9 compare?

Will the availability of professional software (Phocus) make a significant difference?
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: amsp on May 13, 2010, 11:17:47 am
Yeah, I don't want to get into yet another battle over formats so I'll give a short simple answer. I'm glad I have both a DSLR and a P25, but if I had to keep only one I'd keep the back for sure. The top 3 reasons why would be picture quality, the 645 format, and I just find the medium format camera more fun to work with. But like I said, it's nice to have the convenience of the DSLR too sometimes.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on May 13, 2010, 11:29:35 am
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
One relevant question might be: ¿why can they not now produce a 24Mpx DSLR that is better (IQ) than a MFDB several years old?

Is it just the Anti-Aliasing filter?

Is it the limitations of the (24 * 36mm) format size related to the pixel density and the wavelength of light?

..and how do quality small modern cameras like the M9 compare?

Will the availability of professional software (Phocus) make a significant difference?


Yes the AA filter is a big factor and simply Can/Nik sell 100's of thousands of these units and just imagine the PR nightmare if it produced moire on a daily basis among all those folks. They will never let this happen and why they are in place.

Software will always play a roll just look at your Hassy system for example and as a Phase user I certainly get better image quality and more important the most tuned between back and software. Phocus and C1 along with Leaf Capture and Sinar software is all obviously tuned to there backs.

Size has a roll but let the scientist handle that one. Bottom line even in film bigger is better period. Not any different in digital.

The M9 as i have tested is maybe one of the best examples of what you can draw from a 35mm FF sensor. It is very good overall but my P30+ smoked it in many area's but that is fine it is IMHO one of the best I have seen to MF. Don't get me wrong the 35mm DSLR are awesome and produce very well and since I started digital in 1991 I can't tell you the vast improvement from those days and i do mean VAST. Folks we are lucky dogs compared to those days very lucky indeed. The top DSLR's are wonderful examples of what can be done, no one should degrade them on any level for that but MF is overall better IQ but you pay for that also.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: mtomalty on May 13, 2010, 11:47:08 am


Will a digital back provide a better Raw file?   Without question

Will a digital back make anyone a better photographer?   Not a chance.


Mark

Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on May 13, 2010, 11:50:31 am
Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Size has a roll but let the scientist handle that one. Bottom line even in film bigger is better period. Not any different in digital.
The difference in digital is that you can measure size in pixels or mm... but everybody has conveniently forgotten about line pairs/mm (lp/mm), and in the real world...

res = (lp/mm) * (sensor size in square mm)

...or, for a lens (lp/mm) * ∏((image circle diameter)/2)^2

...but the IQ of a system has aspects in addition to res.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 13, 2010, 12:00:40 pm
Well, I think that's a good moment to asked this thread because of the current situation where more choice is offered.

We know that the Canons and Nikons Dslr are going to increase resolution in their future FF models.
But the new situation IMO, is that is circulating now 22, 30mp first or second generation backs with reduced price that allows to guys like me an access to these gear. Logically, these informations are important to know.

I think, out of the possible forum war, that this is an important moment for a lot of us because prices between both systems are reducing and resolution is getting closer.

I'm happy to see that most of you are actually using both systems so your observations are very interesting.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 13, 2010, 12:07:50 pm
Quote from: mtomalty
Will a digital back provide a better Raw file?   Without question

Will a digital back make anyone a better photographer?   Not a chance.


Mark
Digiback or whatever technology will not make anyone better in his art. No tool is able to do that.

I think that it's good to know what to expect on a system when comes the moment of choice. More we are informed, more we can choose well according to
our aims. IMO. Of course, nothing can replace trying the gear, but it is interesting to hear experienced users (and there are many here), many points of views etc...
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: bcooter on May 13, 2010, 12:10:53 pm
Quote from: mtomalty
Will a digital back provide a better Raw file?   Without question

Will a digital back make anyone a better photographer?   Not a chance.


Mark

I started to write a detail response but the quote above sums it up.

Personally I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Some people love the look of a non aa filtered ccd camera, some don't , though most professional photographers select a camera weighted toward the scene, subject and project.

In the film days you selected the camera/lenses first, because any film would go into any camera and workflows were virtually equal between a Hasselblad, an RZ or a Nikon.  One might shoot faster than the other, or focus easier, but they all used the same film, "sensor".  Size may have a resolution difference but looks were comparable.

Today, regardless of camera the film (digital) portion of the process is equal or takes precident, more so with 645 cameras than 35mm, because most medium format cameras are shot tethered and are very software, computer dependent.

Even to get to the detailed preview, software is 1/2 of the process and  will have as much to do with the look as any back, or lens.

Personally, I select a camera first, because that' the first point of contact between you and the subject.  If your not happy with the camera and lens, you'll probably never be happy with the result, even if the results are acceptable.

Just FYI, the standard for all medium format cameras (not always backs) is the H series blads, at least in the digital world.  Probably more backs are mounted onto these bodies than any camera twice over, so that means specialty lenses you might want to rent, or backups/repairs are fairly easy to source.

Then if I found the camera I loved, I'd start exploring the backs and their related software.

Since your in Madrid, I am sure it will be easy to do a test between a lot of systems.

This you probably know and is not really worth mentioning, but beautiful images, hundreds of thousands of beautiful images are shot with virtually every brand, every format daily so the camera is probably not as important a factor as lights, subject and talent.  BTW:  talent covers a lot of territory, from pre production, on set all the way through post.

Also keep in mind that web conversation is a democracy where every voice carries the same weight.   This forum is no exception and you'll notice in the answers some people are more prone to loving cameras that what they actually produce, others see the camera as but a small (but vital) part of the process.

Test it yourself and do what makes you happy, because attitude goes a long way into producing an image.

BC
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 13, 2010, 12:13:37 pm
Quote from: bigalbest
Personally I have owned and used virtually every dslr available before purchasing my H3DII-22. In anything but low light high ISO this camera has more dynamic range and a level of crisp sharpness along with more accurate color than any dslr out there period. When used with strobe lighting at 50 ISO the detail and sharpness is amazing. That being said I have also seen other better photographers than myself using the cheapest out of date equipment and producing spectacular images.

Some samples from the H3DII-22:

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1087/4602191665_35dd189c8d_o.jpg)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3376/4577519938_941edb4715_o.jpg)

Of course I would take a 20-30 MP MF over a dslr any day but there is a tool for every job. I recently sold my 5D and all my Canon lenses and haven't regretted it for a second.
My cameras:
Leica M6
Hasselblad H3DII-22
Hasselblad H1
Hasselblad 500CM
Canon D10
My next camera:
8X10?
Nice little girl!
Well, yeah, the d.o.f...I forgot about that too.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: bjanes on May 13, 2010, 12:35:46 pm
Quote from: bigalbest
Personally I have owned and used virtually every dslr available before purchasing my H3DII-22. In anything but low light high ISO this camera has more dynamic range and a level of crisp sharpness along with more accurate color than any dslr out there period. When used with strobe lighting at 50 ISO the detail and sharpness is amazing. That being said I have also seen other better photographers than myself using the cheapest out of date equipment and producing spectacular images.

Some samples from the H3DII-22:


Of course I would take a 20-30 MP MF over a dslr any day but there is a tool for every job. I recently sold my 5D and all my Canon lenses and haven't regretted it for a second.
My cameras:
Leica M6
Hasselblad H3DII-22
Hasselblad H1
Hasselblad 500CM
Canon D10
My next camera:
8X10?

Those are nice shots, but a good dSLR could likely do just as well at 800 x 600 pixels. Those shots prove nothing.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: HarryHoffman on May 13, 2010, 12:44:14 pm
Quote from: fredjeang
If speed is not required, will a 22MP back be a better option in terms of IQ than a 20+ MP FF DSLR?

Is the fact that there is less pixel-density, no AA filter, in the MF backs crucial? and are you truly able to make a clear difference between a file from a FF dslr and a same resolution MF back?

Thank you.

I tried the D3X against a 18mp P21+ and the files were very close, no clear winner whatsoever.
I would think a larger MF in the 22mp-30mp range would be much better especially one with a bigger chip
The used 22-  30mp backs are in a really great price range right now too


I have a D3X and a P40+
I love both of them. If the DF body would focus faster and have more focus points, I would sell the Nikon in a heartbeat. Till then I'll keep both systems
To all the MF only guys...go rent a D3X and give it a spin...it doesn't suck

Right now I would have to say the P1 lenses are much better. Bought an adapter for Mamiya to Nikon and am going to do some tests in the next couple weeks to see if this is the reality or at the least my reality.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on May 13, 2010, 12:46:52 pm
Quote from: mtomalty
Will a digital back make anyone a better photographer?
It would be nice to imagine that photographers get judged by the quality of their photographs, so, does a good camera capable of producing good photographs make you a better photographer?

Digital cameras, through instant feedback, can let a photographer learn fast and thus become a better photographer... but if you have been "getting it right in camera" for decades, then you do not need this instant feedback, unless you are working to a higher standard, or doing more technically demanding work...

You could argue that using a 5*4 sheet film camera would make a digital photographer better, by slowing them down and making them think, and a Medium Format Digital View Camera might slow them down enough to help.

An MFD camera is a useful tool that enables a good photographer to "get it right" to a higher degree, especially with live view and view cameras.

None of us were born good photographers, but MFDs help the next generation realize their potential more quickly than we did.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 13, 2010, 01:01:35 pm
Quote from: bcooter
I started to write a detail response but the quote above sums it up.

Personally I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Some people love the look of a non aa filtered ccd camera, some don't , though most professional photographers select a camera weighted toward the scene, subject and project.

In the film days you selected the camera/lenses first, because any film would go into any camera and workflows were virtually equal between a Hasselblad, an RZ or a Nikon.  One might shoot faster than the other, or focus easier, but they all used the same film, "sensor".  Size may have a resolution difference but looks were comparable.

Today, regardless of camera the film (digital) portion of the process is equal or takes precident, more so with 645 cameras than 35mm, because most medium format cameras are shot tethered and are very software, computer dependent.

Even to get to the detailed preview, software is 1/2 of the process and  will have as much to do with the look as any back, or lens.

Personally, I select a camera first, because that' the first point of contact between you and the subject.  If your not happy with the camera and lens, you'll probably never be happy with the result, even if the results are acceptable.

Just FYI, the standard for all medium format cameras (not always backs) is the H series blads, at least in the digital world.  Probably more backs are mounted onto these bodies than any camera twice over, so that means specialty lenses you might want to rent, or backups/repairs are fairly easy to source.

Then if I found the camera I loved, I'd start exploring the backs and their related software.

Since your in Madrid, I am sure it will be easy to do a test between a lot of systems.

This you probably know and is not really worth mentioning, but beautiful images, hundreds of thousands of beautiful images are shot with virtually every brand, every format daily so the camera is probably not as important a factor as lights, subject and talent.  BTW:  talent covers a lot of territory, from pre production, on set all the way through post.

Also keep in mind that web conversation is a democracy where every voice carries the same weight.   This forum is no exception and you'll notice in the answers some people are more prone to loving cameras that what they actually produce, others see the camera as but a small (but vital) part of the process.

Test it yourself and do what makes you happy, because attitude goes a long way into producing an image.

BC
I certainly agree with your points.

Recently I falled in love with the Contax 645 that I found in a Madrid's shop for nothing. This is just the ergonomics I wanted and I wish more camera makers could do something so well implemented. Also, the compatibility is perfect.

My first idea was to use it with film, but with the recent backs that are circulating now in the market at prices much more according to my current budget, the choice is there. As far as I know, others are also in the same dilema.

You point a crucial factor IMO, is that talent covers a lot of territory.
I was in the studio of a spanish fashion photographer a few weeks ago and there was some huge prints on the wall from an editorial made with the Canon MKIII.
Really impressed by what I was seeing, but very studdied light, talents in all the chain involved, from the photographer to the make-up, model, retoucher (very good woman actually) printer etc...

The camera for me has always been just a part of the process, I'm shooting with mostly anything, even my mobile phone.
But I'm in a moment where I also want to invest in something solid. As the gap between the 2 systems is reducing step by step,
I think we are in a very interesting moment.    

In Madrid, the range of MF back is strangely very reduced compare to, let's say Paris. It is not le Boulevard Beaumarchais.
Sinar and Leaf for example are difficult to find and try. (Phase and Hasselblad are very present thought, maybe a distribution issue).

Software is important, work with C1 5 and ACR depending on the task and a very very old   version of Photoshop: the CS3. Happy with it.

The things that drives me nuts with digital are the constant changes, updates, unstability, information sometimes difficult to find...I really enjoy
"being crazy in a reliable world" not so much "being reliable in a crazy world" (sorry, can't find the way to say it in english).

I think I'll go for the 22mp backs and mount on the Contax.

And yes BC: attitude goes a long way into producing an image, wise sentense.
 
Cheers.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 13, 2010, 01:16:13 pm
Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Yes the AA filter is a big factor and simply Can/Nik sell 100's of thousands of these units and just imagine the PR nightmare if it produced moire on a daily basis among all those folks. They will never let this happen and why they are in place.

Hi Guy,

Are you suggesting that aliasing is less of an issue on MF, or that since there are fewer images produced with MF the issue is less frequently encountered? I have difficulty understanding what you are actually saying.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: jimgolden on May 13, 2010, 01:20:48 pm
"Will a digital back provide a better Raw file? Without question

Will a digital back make anyone a better photographer? Not a chance."

perfect
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 13, 2010, 01:25:04 pm
Quote from: BartvanderWolf
Hi Guy,

Are you suggesting that aliasing is less of an issue on MF, or that since there are fewer images produced with MF the issue is less frequently encountered? I have difficulty understanding what you are actually saying.

Cheers,
Bart
If I got Guy's point, it seems to me that he is saying that the kind of "consumer" audience of the CaNikon would hate to have to deal with moire in PP even if they had a better IQ without AA filter. But I'm not sure either.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 13, 2010, 01:44:12 pm
Quote from: KLaban
The only customer/client/agent/agency/gallery that has ever queried what formats or cameras I use was a camera manufacturer. Cameras don't make images, people do.

Worry less about image qualities and more about quality images.

I'd like to take-up Klaban's post.

Well, yes what you say is 100% true, it has been said so many times and there is no doubt about it.

But yes, gear is important! It is. Equipment in general, and IQ is part of that chain is important. It is not crucial, it is not what makes talent, of course.
Talent is made with living, attitude, practise and others aspects that have nothing to do with cameras.

But cameras have something to do in the level of confort (organic) one experience his particular talent.
And, the amont of digihassles that can be avoided or not. Nothing more, but nothing less either.

My student camera was a Lubitel 6x6, and I was happy with that, I never complained about it.
I'd shoot with any thing, even a washing machine if it was possible. But a washing machine is made for washing,
and the plastic Lomo 6x6 was not made very much either for photography, despite I did 3meters B&W prints with it in the fine arts lab.

Now, I also like good gear. What do I call good gear? Something that I do not notice its presence because it is natural in my hands and that interferes
the less possible into the task.
What do I call good IQ ? A file that gives me room.

Nothing to do with the quality of a final image yes, but an important part of the chain in how you experience the overall process.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: bigalbest on May 13, 2010, 02:29:27 pm
Quote from: bjanes
Those are nice shots, but a good dSLR could likely do just as well at 800 x 600 pixels. Those shots prove nothing.

I really wasn't trying to prove anything, just give an informed opinion. Take it however you will. I've never been one to stare at 100% images all day to pick my cameras since most of my pictures do not get printed any larger than 8X10. I like the H3DII's ability to produce strong images straight out of the camera without the need for color correction, sharpening or other adjustments that are common when dealing with 35mm digital files.

Check this out:

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1087/4602191665_35dd189c8d_o.jpg)

This second picture is a 100% crop. The detail is pretty good but not earth shattering...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/4604013787_a8cf0d9247_o.jpg)

This last shot is at 300% and really shows where the advantage lies with smooth transitions and way less noise than from even the best 35mm dslr's.

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/4604638614_5d4105692d_o.jpg)

No this is not a scientific test comparing different cameras under the same conditions, just my opinion based on extensive testing and comparison.


Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on May 13, 2010, 02:42:18 pm
Quote from: fredjeang
If I got Guy's point, it seems to me that he is saying that the kind of "consumer" audience of the CaNikon would hate to have to deal with moire in PP even if they had a better IQ without AA filter. But I'm not sure either.


Yes it's two fold also. MF is CCD which AA filters are not needed. Now we may have to check with the scientist on this but from my understanding CMOS also needs to have a AA filter regardless of Moire which also help in noise area's. This we have to look into to get a proof positive answer but the point about Moire and 100's of thousands of users having to deal with a moire issue is something Nikon and Canon do not want to be involved in , so in essence they want to reduce it as much as possible to eliminate it. MF is targeted to a much smaller audience for one and also CCD is all that is used for MF.

Now some things to get answers that may also have reasons for being on MF only as well that may come into play. I don't want to answer them but here are some questions that put more on the reasons why things are like they are

CCD can be made in smaller runs and bigger sizes?

CMOS is controlled by mostly OEM manufacturers themselves. Ergo Canon ?

CCD only come in Kodak and Dalsa which are not OEM camera builders. Not a question we already know this. Kodak does not make 35mm sensors for themselves anymore.

CMOS requires AA filters for other reasons besides moire control, more in line with noise and higher ISO control?

There is no current CMOS chip bigger than 35MM FF ?

Cost much more to manufacture CCD in bigger sensor sizes and less yields. Not a question we know this one already

Obviously more questions on this but again I am not the scientist so rather not answer them and give the floor to someone more qualified in that area for sure.


Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 13, 2010, 02:43:06 pm
Quote from: bigalbest
I really wasn't trying to prove anything, just give an informed opinion. Take it however you will. I've never been one to stare at 100% images all day to pick my cameras since most of my pictures do not get printed any larger than 8X10. I like the H3DII's ability to produce strong images straight out of the camera without the need for color correction, sharpening or other adjustments that are common when dealing with 35mm digital files.

Check this out:

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1087/4602191665_35dd189c8d_o.jpg)

This second picture is a 100% crop. The detail is pretty good but not earth shattering...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/4604013787_a8cf0d9247_o.jpg)

This last shot is at 300% and really shows where the advantage lies with smooth transitions and way less noise than from even the best 35mm dslr's.

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/4604638614_5d4105692d_o.jpg)

No this is not a scientific test comparing different cameras under the same conditions, just my opinion based on extensive testing and comparison.
Actually, I agree that the color tone right out the box is what I expect it should be, and not the too much seen "velvia" remake from the default settings dslr.
But the most important IMHO is the 300% file. Yes, it is clear where the difference lays.
Thanks for sharing.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on May 13, 2010, 02:46:07 pm
Quote from: KLaban
Cameras don't make images, people do.
Cameras do make images, and even a painter cannot make an image without a brush or a stick, or something... but the best painters do not necessarily use the most expensive brushes.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on May 13, 2010, 02:54:35 pm
Quote from: HarryHoffman
I tried the D3X against a 18mp P21+ and the files were very close, no clear winner whatsoever.
I would think a larger MF in the 22mp-30mp range would be much better especially one with a bigger chip
The used 22-  30mp backs are in a really great price range right now too


I have a D3X and a P40+
I love both of them. If the DF body would focus faster and have more focus points, I would sell the Nikon in a heartbeat. Till then I'll keep both systems
To all the MF only guys...go rent a D3X and give it a spin...it doesn't suck

Right now I would have to say the P1 lenses are much better. Bought an adapter for Mamiya to Nikon and am going to do some tests in the next couple weeks to see if this is the reality or at the least my reality.


Now see this is where forums go to shit in a hand basket and being a forum owner I know this all to well. Go back and read everyones post , not ONE person ever even brought up that a D3X sucked. See to me this is how forums fall apart and wars start by misleading comments that never surfaced. If anything 35mm was given many excellent comments on how good it is both functionally and ergonomically maybe the best out there along with huge systems parts. No one is saying don't shoot 35mm far from it. All I'm saying is IQ on many levels is better than 35mm. But as some have said it may not be what you want to shoot or does not fit your style or needs.

Now this was not meant to pick on you but a example how things spin out of control and there is simply no reason too. End of day you shoot what works for your needs. It's only gear what is between your two ears is what really counts.

BTW I am a big fan of Nikon and shot the D3X.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: JeffKohn on May 13, 2010, 03:24:20 pm
Quote
Yes it's two fold also. MF is CCD which AA filters are not needed. Now we may have to check with the scientist on this but from my understanding CMOS also needs to have a AA filter regardless of Moire which also help in noise area's.

The decision of whether or not to use an AA filter has nothing to do with CCD versus CMOS. Any sensor with a bayer-filter array in front of it needs an AA filter, or you will get artifacts. And it's not just about moire, it's also about edge aliasing and color asliasing.  IMHO the real reason the MF manufacturers didn't use AA filters from the get go is because they're expensive to produce and the price goes up substantially as the surface area goes up.

non-AA images come straight out of the camera with a crispness and wow-factor that can initially be impressive. But to me the result looks too "digital". I'd rather use a well-designed AA filter and proper capture sharpening, personally.

It can be argued that in the case of something like the P65+, an AA filter isn't really needed because even if the lens still out-resolves the sensor, any aliasing artifacts are going to be on a very small level that won't show up in real world viewing. But if you're talking about a 36x48mm 22mp sensor, that's a different story.  

I certainly wouldn't turn down the chance to use a P65+, especially attached to a view camera. But I would choose the D3x over an MF-DSLR with 22mp back any day. The lesser backs aren't going to have any advantage in dynamic range or color depth, but they do have many disadvantages regarding lens selection, DOF, exposure times, ISO, lack of live-view, etc.


Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Nick-T on May 13, 2010, 04:21:57 pm
Where's Ray when you need him?
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 13, 2010, 05:18:08 pm
Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Yes it's two fold also. MF is CCD which AA filters are not needed. Now we may have to check with the scientist on this but from my understanding CMOS also needs to have a AA filter regardless of Moire which also help in noise area's.

I'm not a scientist, but I was selling/advising about the use of Kodak scientific materials to the industry more than 30 years ago, so maybe that counts a bit. CCD or CMOS has nothing to do with the use of Optical Low Pass Filters (OLPF or anti-aliasing filers). It only has to do with sampled imaging with a regular sampling pattern.

It is common knowledge in Digital Signal Processing (DSP) circles that in order to avoid aliasing, one needs to low-pass filter the signal before it gets sampled. The only way to do that, is by fitering the high spatial frequency content that creates aliasing out. The problem with optics is that if we would completely eliminate the possibility of aliasing, we would also lose a lot of high frequency signal modulation, micro-contrast. Therefore most optical AA-filters are designed to only reduce the risk of aliasing, not eliminate it. Therefore the micro-contrast is reduced less, and can usually be restored quite well by proper (deconvolution) sharpening while eliminating most aliasing artifacts.

Noise reduction is not involved, but you probably referred to micro-lenses which are something different.

Quote
This we have to look into to get a proof positive answer but the point about Moire and 100's of thousands of users having to deal with a moire issue is something Nikon and Canon do not want to be involved in , so in essence they want to reduce it as much as possible to eliminate it. MF is targeted to a much smaller audience for one and also CCD is all that is used for MF.

I don't think anyone wants aliasing artifacts to spoil the fun. It just happens to be the case that manufacturers of larger sensor arrays don't include an AA-filter. That is not because they wouldn't help the image quality, but it's more about cost, and issues one may run into with oblique rays striking the OLPF at an angle and creating a longer travel path through the filter. Lenses for 35mm DSLRs are usually designed to have limited 'obliqueness' from the exit pupil (e.g. retrofocus wide angle lenses), which helps to reduce light fall-off, color cast, and spatially variant AA-filter effects. Probably the same reason Leica avoids using AA-filters, not for quality, but out of design necessity. So by avoiding the use of AA-filters, they save cost and avoid some other design challenges. The only thing left is to promote (spin) the lack of an AA-filter as a better solution. Unfortunately many fall for that marketoid speak. I'll repeat it once more, Aliasing is no good, but for larger sensor arrays one is stuck with the issue (just ask someone involved in shooting fabrics, or masonry, combed hair, or other periodically repetitive structured materials and lines, at an angle).

Quote
Now some things to get answers that may also have reasons for being on MF only as well that may come into play. I don't want to answer them but here are some questions that put more on the reasons why things are like they are

CCD can be made in smaller runs and bigger sizes?

CCD manufacturing is a smaller scale operation requiring dedicated machines. Lower volume and less synergy results in higher cost. CMOS production is a more common procedure (just like the zillions of memory chips that are produced with the same basic equipment) and thus is cheaper to do.

Technically there are some interesting differences between the resulting light sensitive sensor arrays. CMOS devices use much less power, and as a result don't get as hot as CCDs do. That helps in the battery consumption and reduction of thermal noise (especially at long exposures). CMOS devices have another interesting property that can be exploited for photography. The signal of each sensel, can be individually read-out, and it can be done multiple times (allows to reduce read-noise). CCD's off-load the signal destructively, in a bucket brigade type of flow, so a single poor performing sensel will influence all that follow. Hence a much lower yield in production, and higher cost.

Quote
CMOS is controlled by mostly OEM manufacturers themselves. Ergo Canon ?

Sony also produces CMOS sensors and there are others, but it may have to do with Canon's huge research effort and the resulting patent position. They are also manufacturers of the equipment needed for the production of sensors (e.g. wafer steppers (http://www.usa.canon.com/opd/controller?act=OPDModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=2404&modelid=16353)).

There are no real size limits to either technology I know of, other than practical ones like cost/yield/and the need for stitching multiple structures due to photo-lithographic dimension limitations.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: HarryHoffman on May 13, 2010, 06:33:13 pm
Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Now see this is where forums go to shit in a hand basket and being a forum owner I know this all to well. Go back and read everyones post , not ONE person ever even brought up that a D3X sucked. See to me this is how forums fall apart and wars start by misleading comments that never surfaced. If anything 35mm was given many excellent comments on how good it is both functionally and ergonomically maybe the best out there along with huge systems parts. No one is saying don't shoot 35mm far from it. All I'm saying is IQ on many levels is better than 35mm. But as some have said it may not be what you want to shoot or does not fit your style or needs.

Now this was not meant to pick on you but a example how things spin out of control and there is simply no reason too. End of day you shoot what works for your needs. It's only gear what is between your two ears is what really counts.

BTW I am a big fan of Nikon and shot the D3X.

Not trying to harsh your morning mellow Guy.

I don't think anyone would say the D3X sucked, which is why my tongue in cheek comment was supposed to be somewhat funny.

When someone asks how do you like your Corvette, I reply " it doesn't suck"

We are talking about camera's here, not cancer cures.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Wayne Fox on May 13, 2010, 08:12:18 pm
Quote from: Dick Roadnight
does a good camera capable of producing good photographs make you a better photographer?
Doesn't make you a better photographer, but certainly might make the quality of your photography better, and I think this applies at multiple levels.  A NASCAR driver can get a lot more out my souped up mini-cooper than I can, but he's not running it in the next NASCAR race.

This thread is a little different than the typical dSLR vs MFDB, in that it is comparing older technology (22mp MFDB) to newer technology (21-24mp dSLR).  Here the question probably isn't about image quality as much because they will be somewhat comparable, so it's more about all of the other factors.

Personally I'm in the same camp as Guy ... images from my p25 from years past I still think are better than those from my current 21mp dSLR gear, especially because they seem to handle uprezzing better.  If I were choosing between the two, and maximum quality was my goal, I'd opt for MF, hoping that over time I can afford to upgrade to a 40 or 60mp back.  That's because my passion is now about landscape photography.  Were I still a wedding/portrait photographer, I'd opt for the dSLR.  PLenty of quality, resolution isn't nearly as important (unless you do a lot of large groups), and easier to handle, better zoom lens options.

Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: evgeny on May 13, 2010, 10:05:01 pm
Quote from: fredjeang
I think I'll go for the 22mp backs and mount on the Contax..

I have a Contax 645 with lenses and like new Leaf 65 digital back with very low number of actuations for sell. I sold many items to Spain. My eBay score is 100%.
See details here http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=43387 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=43387)
I need to sell as a kit.
I can vary the minimum kit to slightly reduce the price.
Contact me, if you are ready to pay high grand.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on May 13, 2010, 10:06:42 pm
Quote from: HarryHoffman
Not trying to harsh your morning mellow Guy.

I don't think anyone would say the D3X sucked, which is why my tongue in cheek comment was supposed to be somewhat funny.

When someone asks how do you like your Corvette, I reply " it doesn't suck"

We are talking about camera's here, not cancer cures.


No worries no one can harsh my morning on any forum. I was just making a point and BTW if you do find a cure for breast and lung cancer let me know . It would save my wife a third surgery Monday morning from having half her lung removed.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on May 13, 2010, 10:12:58 pm
Quote from: Wayne Fox
Doesn't make you a better photographer, but certainly might make the quality of your photography better, and I think this applies at multiple levels.  A NASCAR driver can get a lot more out my souped up mini-cooper than I can, but he's not running it in the next NASCAR race.

This thread is a little different than the typical dSLR vs MFDB, in that it is comparing older technology (22mp MFDB) to newer technology (21-24mp dSLR).  Here the question probably isn't about image quality as much because they will be somewhat comparable, so it's more about all of the other factors.

Personally I'm in the same camp as Guy ... images from my p25 from years past I still think are better than those from my current 21mp dSLR gear, especially because they seem to handle uprezzing better.  If I were choosing between the two, and maximum quality was my goal, I'd opt for MF, hoping that over time I can afford to upgrade to a 40 or 60mp back.  That's because my passion is now about landscape photography.  Were I still a wedding/portrait photographer, I'd opt for the dSLR.  PLenty of quality, resolution isn't nearly as important (unless you do a lot of large groups), and easier to handle, better zoom lens options.


Agree we are talking about P25+, Aptus 22 and H22 backs here and i would say the DSLR's are very close here but I would still give the edge to the these MF backs. That darn P25+ I had really did sing a different tune in image quality. On the same token though I am glad I moved up to the P40+ which has even better tonal range and DR. The funny thing is you don't really know how good these backs are until you go to print. I just got a Epson 7900 and been printing these images from all three backs i have had and man do you really see how amazing these prints are from them. Frankly I'm stunned by the quality of image on paper.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: HarryHoffman on May 13, 2010, 10:29:11 pm
Quote from: Guy Mancuso
No worries no one can harsh my morning on any forum. I was just making a point and BTW if you do find a cure for breast and lung cancer let me know . It would save my wife a third surgery Monday morning from having half her lung removed.


Sorry to hear about your wife Guy....best wishes
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on May 13, 2010, 11:07:48 pm
Thanks appreciate that. Let's move on to the topic at hand though.


 I know a lot of folks are struggling in this exact area the 22mpx arena and what is the best choice. It really is a tough call MF is really nice but lets face it the big Canons and Nikons are pulling there weight for sure and both companies certainly have come to the plate to some degree on there lens designs as well. Ask me this two or three years ago and not sure i would give them that compliment.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: vandevanterSH on May 13, 2010, 11:39:54 pm
Quote from: Guy Mancuso
No worries no one can harsh my morning on any forum. I was just making a point and BTW if you do find a cure for breast and lung cancer let me know . It would save my wife a third surgery Monday morning from having half her lung removed.

OT (and really none of my business) but I had similar surgery two years ago....If the Drs don't suggest it,  ask if she is a candidate for an "epidural" catheter for post-operative pain management.  It can make a big difference in comfort and activity after surgery.

Steve
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 14, 2010, 12:23:55 am
Quote from: BartvanderWolf
Hi Guy,

Are you suggesting that aliasing is less of an issue on MF, or that since there are fewer images produced with MF the issue is less frequently encountered? I have difficulty understanding what you are actually saying.

It seems fair to think that MF users have higher skills that enable them to deal with moire when it shows up? Besides B2B type of support can also help control potential issues.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on May 14, 2010, 01:16:53 am
Actually with the P40+ it seems be much less of a issue than it was with the P25+ which was a bear to deal with in regards to Moire. Loved that back but Moire and the 9 micron sensors are problematic with Moire. Not a back I would recommend for fashion or people work. The newer 6 micron sensors it is even better than the H39/ P45+/P30+ and backs with 6.8 micron sensors. Honestly I have yet to have moire in normal shooting with the P40+ but that maybe just luck at this time . I know it will as I have seen it in tests.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Morgan_Moore on May 14, 2010, 01:44:26 am
I have a 22mp+hassy and a nikon D3 (not X) and a 5d2

If photography is a journey between subject and photographer via the camera the nikon gives the best ride by far

Ergonomics, handling AF, ISO

To me the D3 is the greatest portrait camera because it creates no barriers it is the first (Digital) camera I have ever trusted and felt at one with.

but the D3 is cr4p with flash on a sunny day and my (1990s)  nikkor lenses distort in a way the would make the architectural photogs queasy

The fact that Im still happy with those 1990 nikkors shows how much my clients care about a little wonk in a line

I think a  three zoom nikkor kit 14-24 , 24-70, 70-200 would be great small light and lower the barriers even more

I have been virtually affixed to my nikon since the day it arrived must be 200k frames - no issues - and i dont shoot a lot of frames

The other day I grabbed my mates D2x to photograph them on their birthday for fun - I was appalled by everything about it and can see my wisdom of buying the blad in that 2005 climate

Products in the studio

my 5d2 gets chosen because is has a file better than the D3 and LIVE VIEW and ZOOMING live view are the best tools in the studio

occasionally the 7d gets used for small products because of the small sensor giving us more DOF to represent the product better

We get best studio performance with even older MF nikkors on the canons BTW

The Hasselblad ?

Just doesnt fit into any of my low to mid level commercial work at all - basically my clients are too impatient - budgets too stretched - 'good enough' is good enough and those DSLR cameras do it all and do it fast, reliably and repeatably

But looking at the files my 2005 blad just rips the other cameras apart at a low ISO - modern backs must be amazing on that front also the creamy focus just looks more right than a DSLR at F2.8 or F2

S
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 14, 2010, 03:32:28 am
Quote from: Guy Mancuso
No worries no one can harsh my morning on any forum. I was just making a point and BTW if you do find a cure for breast and lung cancer let me know . It would save my wife a third surgery Monday morning from having half her lung removed.

I Wish you both the best in that process.

I'll just add something from my experience about the post-recovery.
In delicate situations, establishing a goal can be decisive in the recovering process. I've seen it many times, and that's how it works:
What's the patient likes most, or dream to do? If for example the person would have loved to visit Paris but never did, planning such a trip
after the surgery has very good effects on the recovery.

I had a severe motocycle accident many years ago, and the doctors told me that I will have other surgery with metal inserts in my leg, and that I'll
probably will never recuperate the fully functionality of my legs.
But my inner speach was very different. On the worst part, I decided to go moutain climbing in the Pyrenées (moutains in France) with only one leg
working. I had a goal, something I beleived I had to acheive and did it.
After a month, I recover the all functionality of my leg. No more surgery was needed.
When the head hospital doctor asked me about that I explained the story, he looked at me very seriously and keep silent for awhile.
Then he said: Son, you have done the right thing, but we can not say it because if it goes bad we'd be on trial.
Mind (and state of mind), is the key that drives the body. I have no doubts about it now.

Best luck.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 14, 2010, 05:16:47 am
Back into the thread, I think that these are exciting times in the sense that my thread entry would have just been impossible not a long time ago.
There are mouvements in the market place with high-end gear.

1 year ago, a MF back was out of my possibilities, now it is there. And DSLRs don't stop improoving so many aspects come into consideration.

That's why I asked for example in another thread about these backs in extreme outdoor conditions.

The forum is a good place for getting informations. I can, and have to, try any gear I'm interested in, but what can not be done in a few hours or days is daily experience.
In my understanding, there is sometimes a big difference when it comes to real world, I mean daily work with some equipment, and that is were the forum shines IMO: field experience.

A great thanks to all of you for sharing your field's experiences.

Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 14, 2010, 06:02:44 am
Quote from: Nick Walker
On a monitor, yes, in print the differences are negligible between a high end DSLR and MF up to certain print sizes. A reminder - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml)

The content is more important than the tool when you are comparing the likes of a high grade DSLR to a MF format back in print.
Yes Nick,

I think this topic was the very best real atomic bomb ever released by Michael since Lu-La exists.

I knew it will show up at one point or another.

I think that Michael likes teasing, provocating from time to time and give him the luxury to contradict himself.
That's fine, free people do that.

Now, to what extend this can be taken really seriously is another story.

I'm sorry but the G10, despite being good for what it is, is everything except a serious photographic tool.
Files are the same than any point and shoot: horrible!
Can you make a decent print with it? I certainly beleive so, as I pointed before, I managed to do decent huge enlargements with a LOMO Lubitel 6x6.
You know what that is, when the Russian used to do cheap plastic MF cameras? They could do it worsed than any other industry... but they worked miraculously...in the center frame

If you ever drive a 80's Skoda, you'll understand. Yes, the Skoda could drives you to one point to another, like a Chevy.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 14, 2010, 06:10:40 am
Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Actually with the P40+ it seems be much less of a issue than it was with the P25+ which was a bear to deal with in regards to Moire. Loved that back but Moire and the 9 micron sensors are problematic with Moire. Not a back I would recommend for fashion or people work. The newer 6 micron sensors it is even better than the H39/ P45+/P30+ and backs with 6.8 micron sensors. Honestly I have yet to have moire in normal shooting with the P40+ but that maybe just luck at this time . I know it will as I have seen it in tests.

Hi Guy,

There are several explanations for your observations. The larger the physical sensels are, the more likely they are to produce aliasing (under otherwise similar circumstanses). That is caused by the fact that there are more fine details, high spatial frequencies, that cannot be reliably resolved by such large pitch sensor arrays. As the sensel pitch gets smaller, it will allow to resolve fine detail which thus cannot contribute to aliasing. What's more, as the sensel pitch gets smaller, the lens will start to act a bit more like an AA-filter, and diffraction becomes visible at the pixel level at relatively wider apertures.

Another factor that actually helps MF to reduce the sensitivity to creating aliasing artfacts, is the reduced DOF compared to smaller sensor arrays. Defocus is an effective countermeasure to suppress aliasing.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 14, 2010, 06:50:19 am
Quote from: BartvanderWolf
I'll repeat it once more, Aliasing is no good, but for larger sensor arrays one is stuck with the issue (just ask someone involved in shooting fabrics, or masonry, combed hair, or other periodically repetitive structured materials and lines, at an angle).

Looking at blacks fonts on a white screen with or without anti-aliasing in PS is a simple way to validate this. Anti-aliasing is considered to be a major progress in display...

Things get worse with imaging sensors because of the interpolation from the Bayer filter.

But anyway, in the end it is a matter of like or dislike.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 14, 2010, 07:11:44 am
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Looking at blacks fonts on a white screen with or without anti-aliasing in PS is a simple way to validate this. Anti-aliasing is considered to be a major progress in display...

Things get worse with imaging sensors because of the interpolation from the Bayer filter.

But anyway, in the end it is a matter of like or dislike.

Cheers,
Bernard
Yes.
You know, more I'm back on to photography and work with it, more I tend to go towards 2 extremes step by step.

I seriously plan to do street photography with a LF camera + back in the future. Not kidding.
I'm completely "alergic" to these micro formats fashionable cameras.

On the other hand, I miss more break designs than digital is allowing. I'm very interested in displaying images in other supports than papers,
I do beleive that the future will be without paper, and in a 3D spacial environment. Will save trees anyway.

I think in terms of IQ, "low res" backs and high-end dslr will merge in the close future. Then, it is more a matter of,
do I need flexibility? speed? etc...

The Pentax 645 will be in Spain in August at 7000 euros. Very very tempting offer, (will probably kill the S2) but it has no back and will be slower
,bigger, heavier etc...than any FF Dslr.
No way the investment could be used in LF-view cameras gear or other body. The Pentax crazyness when it shows up, seems to me today a less interesting proposal, in the current context.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 14, 2010, 07:25:25 am
Quote from: Nick Walker
The reasoning for my link - if a lowly G10 sensor (over pixel crammed camera) can do vastly better than anticipated in print against a MF back, the gap will be further narrowed between a top grade DSLR and MF back - though only up to certain print sizes. I don't own a compact digital camera and use D3S and D3X cameras. As a professional sports photographer I am spoilt, being armed with a choice of 12 - 24 MP quality to cover different client's needs. Quality that I could have only dreamt of many years ago. Excellent optics, RAW software and processing skills are key to getting the best from any format. Although I use top grade zooms for portability, a prime lens looks as if software sharpening has been applied in comparison to a top grade zoom lens at wide or near wide open apertures.

Some additional information

James Russell http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/ (http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/)

Melvin Sokolsky http://www.sokolsky.com/ (http://www.sokolsky.com/)

In the 'past' both photographer's reported it is difficult to tell the difference between an EOS 1DS MKI and H25 camera 'in print'  There are many other photographer's who have reported similar findings. They have far more experience than me with MF as I have only tested an H25 against a 16 MP DSLR.
Am I dreaming or the Russell website changed?

Well this new version is much better designed and I'm very happy to see that we have now an option to choose HTML galleries.
That's another user experience!
Now, I can view the James work instantanously. What a change!!!

They finally did it. And did it well.

Edit: I checked, in fact the link that provides BC in his posts is the same as before. Did not know the "group" version, wich is much faster and plaisant IMHO.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 14, 2010, 08:23:11 am
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
But anyway, in the end it is a matter of like or dislike.

Hi Bernhard,

There is little to like about aliasing artifacts ...
I hope you don't run into challenging subjects, customers usually don't pay for your postprocessing attempts and time needed to rectify.

Cheers,
Bart.
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on May 14, 2010, 03:05:34 pm
While we are talking about old digibacks...

If you wanted a high quality small file (for rapid stacking for regular macro work) an old low-res multi-shot digiback would be a good choice would it? and which one?
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 14, 2010, 06:05:35 pm
Quote from: BartvanderWolf
Hi Bernhard,

There is little to like about aliasing artifacts ...
I hope you don't run into challenging subjects, customers usually don't pay for your postprocessing attempts and time needed to rectify.

Sure, there is little to like about artifacts, but it would seem that many folks love the feel of sharpness that they get when looking at some of those files.

I personnally prefer by far the look of a well sharpened image coming from a sensor equiped with a well designed AA filter.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 15, 2010, 03:07:20 am
What surprises me is the division that always emerge between both systems.
I think that the dilema occurs when the budget is limited and one has to choose in a way or another.
That is where choice sometimes maybe be rough, because it is like: "if you had to be on a desert island with just one gear".

But most of users here actually own both systems, and indeed that's the ideal situation: using a dslr and the back for what they are best at, according to the situation.

In the Dslr users, like Bernard, I don't know if the Pentax offer will actually be a sort of compromise between what they like from the dslr design and the goodies of MF. Would they buy such a camera compare to their Nikons ? With the new lens investment that suppose etc...
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: Rob C on May 15, 2010, 04:05:50 am
Quote from: fredjeang
Am I dreaming or the Russell website changed?

Well this new version is much better designed and I'm very happy to see that we have now an option to choose HTML galleries.
That's another user experience!
Now, I can view the James work instantanously. What a change!!!

They finally did it. And did it well.

Edit: I checked, in fact the link that provides BC in his posts is the same as before. Did not know the "group" version, wich is much faster and plaisant IMHO.


Hi Fred

Russell website.

Yes, I think it has some very lovely pictures on show, my favourite is in the Fashion Gallery, 17th row extreme right. It's a shot of a girl lying across a couch. She is wearing what looks like a beaded mask, orange stockings and yellow gloves and has a green bag by her side. For some reason I think digi Leica M because it reminds me of shots once shown to represent his work with that camera.

Beautiful use of lights... dream on, Rob C, now you know why you concentrated on beaches!

As an aside, my first attempt with weebly got me the rows of small images, but no way of clicking on them to make a single, larger picture. From your understanding of the weebly freebie product, is that because you have to upgrade to the paying level to buy that facility? Or is it just I don't now how to get there yet?

;-)

Rob C
Title: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?
Post by: fredjeang on May 15, 2010, 04:13:37 am
Quote from: Rob C
Hi Fred

Russell website.

Yes, I think it has some very lovely pictures on show, my favourite is in the Fashion Gallery, 17th row extreme right. It's a shot of a girl lying across a couch. She is wearing what looks like a beaded mask, orange stockings and yellow gloves and has a green bag by her side. For some reason I think digi Leica M because it reminds me of shots once shown to represent his work with that camera.

Beautiful use of lights... dream on, Rob C, now you know why you concentrated on beaches!

As an aside, my first attempt with weebly got me the rows of small images, but no way of clicking on them to make a single, larger picture. From your understanding of the weebly freebie product, is that because you have to upgrade to the paying level to buy that facility? Or is it just I don't now how to get there yet?

;-)

Rob C
Hi Rob.

In weebly platform, the "image" is just a single image and for a gallery that's not the correct tool.
You have to go in: "multimedia" and choose "photo gallery". It is the right tool.

I'll write to you in your mail here and explain in more details the trick.

Cheers.