Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: haring on January 11, 2011, 09:10:19 am
-
Is there a place on the net where MF digital backs are compared (with samples)?
-
only some of sensors http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/579%7C0/(appareil2)/512%7C0/(appareil3)/585%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Phase%20One/(brand2)/Leaf/(brand3)/Hasselblad
but i will not sure about this site results fairness...
-
Actually figuring out which back you should invest in is not a very tough thing to do. It all depends on your particular needs/expectations and obviously your price limit (I'd say the former is more important than the latter). Spare some time figuring out a list of things you want to accomplish and features you expect. What's the priority etc etc. It shoud make things really easy as there are not that many options available.
-
I always try to do it as follows:
For fashion, beauty, glamour I don't think anything can beat the Leaf backs.
For long exposures the Phase one.
Hasselblad is also very nice but I like the Mamiya open system a bit more.
-
Thanks guys!
-
For the reproduction of works of art and high quality photography of still-live objects, multishoot Sinar backs are on top. System integration with Sinar cameras offers exclusive comfort.
-
We can help you with a hands-on demonstration of the Hasselblad MF solution, I think you are aware Doug Peterson who can demo alternative brands.
(Your Miami location makes a hands-on demo effortless)
John
-
For the reproduction of works of art and high quality photography of still-live objects, multishoot Sinar backs are on top. System integration with Sinar cameras offers exclusive comfort.
According to who and based on what. Just as importantly, when was this opinion arrived at? Is it based on current technology?
Multishot manufacturers have long touted the claim to be the kings of the pixel count. On paper, Blads claim to 200MP from the 50MP multi would be hard to beat. IN THEORY.
In practice, there are so many sytstem variables such as camera stand/head rigidity, floor stability (even concrete floors vibrate), lens resolving power, etc, etc, that the results very rarely back up the claims. There are also some questions about the quality delivered by the software processing to combine the data from each exposure.
For example, I recently (late 2010) saw the results of a side-by-side demo of a 80Mp Leaf single capture back versus a Blad Multishot where the 80 megapixel back was the clear IQ winner both on resolution and coulour fidelity as well as colour artifacting. That was 80Mp vs 160Mp.
-
For example, I recently (late 2010) saw the results of a side-by-side demo of a 80Mp Leaf single capture back versus a Blad Multishot where the 80 megapixel back was the clear IQ winner both on resolution and coulour fidelity as well as colour artifacting. That was 80Mp vs 160Mp.
There is no 160MP Hasselblad back. I think you are referring to a side-by side with the 39MP (of which I have seen the results as well if we are talking about the same demo)?
We did just that, compare 2 Hasselblad products (H4D60/H4D50MS) with 2 Leaf Product (AptusII 10 & AptusII 12) last week. In resolution the 80 clearly stands out as it should with having almost twice the resolution. Colour fidelity and colour artifacting I would not dare to say anything about that besides the 4 being very close. Certainly no clear IQ winner in that area. I am still scrutinizing the Raw files but your statement is IMO not correct. Lets say this, as before, I would not rule out the Leaf AptusII 12 for repro work.
I have yet to see the 200MP files but with 6 shots it definitely has a more complex workflow than the single shot 80MP of Leaf.
-
The camera vary much more than the backs, so figure out which camera system you need first. Then see which backs are available.
-
In practice, there are so many sytstem variables such as camera stand/head rigidity, floor stability (even concrete floors vibrate), lens resolving power, etc, etc, that the results very rarely back up the claims. There are also some questions about the quality delivered by the software processing to combine the data from each exposure.
I'd love to hear more about your experiences with shooting multi-shot. I have been shooting multi-shot since 2001 on location and in studio in a variety of conditions and I'd love to know what you mean by "the results very rarely back up the claims".
Nick-T
-
I'd love to hear more about your experiences with shooting multi-shot. I have been shooting multi-shot since 2001 on location and in studio in a variety of conditions and I'd love to know what you mean by "the results very rarely back up the claims".
Nick-T
Hi!
I am very interested in your experience using the multishot-backs on location. Can I ask what you shoot and with what back?
Have anybody used ms backs outdoor?
-
Hi Henrik
I shoot more in studio these days but for years shot for a home wares company (think Pottery Barn type sets). Lots of the shots were of made beds in locations typically looking like they were daylight with some fuzzy views out the window. I started with an Imacon 6MP back (3020) and then went to a 16MP (384) which I still use all the time. I've attached an example. IMO the multi-shot is un-beatable for capturing accurate colours and detail. (And before Yair pipes up this is not intended as a dig at Leaf's latest). Stability is relatively important but not that hard to achieve even on wooden floors and with old flash units, just make sure no one walks near the tripod during the shot. I would always shoot a single shot as well as a safety net to be masked in over any movement (trees blowing in the wind). It is a nice co-incidence that things that move (plants/people/sauces) are also the things that don't generally benefit from multi-shot (if that makes sense). Here's a 4-shot by way of an example:
-
According to who and based on what. Just as importantly, when was this opinion arrived at? Is it based on current technology?
Multishot manufacturers have long touted the claim to be the kings of the pixel count. On paper, Blads claim to 200MP from the 50MP multi would be hard to beat. IN THEORY.
In practice, there are so many sytstem variables such as camera stand/head rigidity, floor stability (even concrete floors vibrate), lens resolving power, etc, etc, that the results very rarely back up the claims. There are also some questions about the quality delivered by the software processing to combine the data from each exposure.
For example, I recently (late 2010) saw the results of a side-by-side demo of a 80Mp Leaf single capture back
versus a Blad Multishot where the 80 megapixel back was the clear IQ winner both on resolution and coulour fidelity as well as colour artifacting. That was 80Mp vs 160Mp.
Can you show us this demo, or wasbit just something you saw live? Made by Leaf?
I think everyone who have peorsonal experiense with a ms back have seen how the ms outperforms singelshot backs?
-
Hi,
Fairness is absolute I think, relevance may be another thing. DxO is measuring the sensor, not the camera or the software.
Some software like Capture One or Focus may use the raw file better than the others.
Best way to find out may be to visit a dealer like Capture Integration.
Best regards
Erik
only some of sensors http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/579%7C0/(appareil2)/512%7C0/(appareil3)/585%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Phase%20One/(brand2)/Leaf/(brand3)/Hasselblad
but i will not sure about this site results fairness...
-
The camera vary much more than the backs, so figure out which camera system you need first. Then see which backs are available.
From my point of view this is likely to be the case for most people. So in my opinion, before you invest, take a good look at the camera systems. Maybe you could decide to buy a camera with lenses instead?
Good look with you peek.
-
Hi Henrik
I shoot more in studio these days but for years shot for a home wares company (think Pottery Barn type sets). Lots of the shots were of made beds in locations typically looking like they were daylight with some fuzzy views out the window. I started with an Imacon 6MP back (3020) and then went to a 16MP (384) which I still use all the time. I've attached an example. IMO the multi-shot is un-beatable for capturing accurate colours and detail. (And before Yair pipes up this is not intended as a dig at Leaf's latest). Stability is relatively important but not that hard to achieve even on wooden floors and with old flash units, just make sure no one walks near the tripod during the shot. I would always shoot a single shot as well as a safety net to be masked in over any movement (trees blowing in the wind). It is a nice co-incidence that things that move (plants/people/sauces) are also the things that don't generally benefit from multi-shot (if that makes sense). Here's a 4-shot by way of an example:
Nick please tell us that this is not the view from your bedroom or I'll be hating you forever:-)
3ºc here and the boiler's gone...no heating, no hot water...
Back to the topic, there are some good points raised here and I think that art reproduction has many aspects that need to be considered when buying a camera:
1. What is the required typical output size and quality? If it's A4 press or 800p web view then the camera can be different than if it was A1+ or full size web jpegs (the latter is very common in research and calls for a high res camera)
2. What is the required/ expected throughput? Some reproduction companies work in 18 hrs shifts and record >3,000 documents/ manuscripts/ drawings in high-resolution every day per camera and some will only shoot 1-2 paintings a day. For this environment the reliability and longevity of the system (shutters, light bulbs) is one of the most important aspects.
For example, Schneider e-shutters come with a 1,000,000 actuation guarantee. It takes less than a year to destroy a shutter if you shoot 3,000 frames/ day especially on a copy stand since the wear is greater that way.
3. If the project is colour-critical, how easy is it to get the correct colours in-camera or by using the camera's software? Does it offer or can it handle custom profiling?
4. How does the camera/ software handle artefacts such as moire (colour AND pattern)?
5. How easy and accurate is the focusing? Through a viewfinder? Ground-glass? Live View?
6. What does the camera require on the workflow side? Lighting? Camera support (tripod/ stand)? computer horsepower? Storage for archiving and backup?
In my (educated) opinion, if a single-shot system can equal or supersede a multi-shot system in terms of image quality (resolution, colour, detail and artefacts) then it makes a better choice since it will most likely give a better overall solution on the workflow side from capture-to-output and can save time and money on storage, processing and wear
Yair
-
Good post Yaya.
I agree that in a situation where there is massive amounts of data to be captured it may be more sensible to use a single shot.
If I take two examples in The Netherlands for instance.
The Van Gogh uses an H4D50MS setup for copying Van Gogh's paintings as they are not pushing through huge quantities on a daily basis. The multi shot was a clear winner in tests when they were looking at reproducing the texture created by the different techniques used to apply the paint. The same goes for colour fidelity.
The National Archives who subcontract to a third party company decided on 2 x H4D60 setups to copy thousands of B&W 4x5 negatives. Shooting multi shot would be too time consuming here when the quantities are so high. Also the advantage of being able to precisely focus the H4D60 remotely without interfering with the camera setup was a huge bonus. Think cameras high up on a copy table which maybe too hard to reach.
Different needs, different cameras.
David
-
I always try to do it as follows:
For fashion, beauty, glamour I don't think anything can beat the Leaf backs.
For long exposures the Phase one.
Hasselblad is also very nice but I like the Mamiya open system a bit more.
Interesting, when you say you prefer Leaf for fashion, what reasons do you prefer this?
I've shot the Leaf backs and I didn't like the file as much as the Phase. Most other fashion photographers I know shoot Phase backs too.
Only asking as I'm trying to decide between Phase and Blad. I would have liked to shoot Phase on the Blad as I find the Mamiya quite uninspiring. Damn the Blad closed system. I'd consider the V System but I haven't Manual Focused for a while and my style has evolved around a dSLR shooting pace so I'm not sure if I'd miss the shots...
-
Here's a 4-shot by way of an example:
Nice shot. I want to live here!
-
Don't get me wrong I also like the Phase backs.
Main reason for me at that moment was I fell in love with the colors and look of the Dalsa chip.
At that moment Phase did use other chips and I found the skincolors of the Leaf backs in the studio a bit better.
Phase one has much more sales however I think so it's not more than normal that you see more Phase backs :D
I also wanted a bigger sensor and at that time Leaf was also in that case the best choice for me.
-
Thanks. Interesting. I used an Aptus22 a fair bit and found, while nice, the skin tones were a bit off for my liking. They had that classic digital blue/grey about them which kind of sat underneath the tones somehow. Moire was sometimes out of control as well on certain fabrics. I did like Leaf Capture though, really reliable and simple. All this was years ago though so I'm sure things are different now, maybe I should revist the Leaf backs...
-
I do use a color checker and Photoshop with the raws, not a capture one or LC profile.
With leaf capture I found the portrait profiles or product sometimes very good but somehow I always prefered the custom profiles in Photoshop.
-
...........snip........... but somehow I always prefered the custom profiles in Photoshop.
Take all of this perfect skin tone, film like look in digital with a tiny, tiny, tiny grain of salt.
Do this. lay out a bunch of cameras, a Nikon, a Canon, a Phase, a Leaf, a hasselblad and shoot different scenes with different complexions.
Window light, direct flash, led, HMI, direct sun and tungsten.
Shoot dark African skin, medium brown brazilian, semi tan Russian and white translucent any nationality, especially Red Heads.
Then drop these files into C-1, Lightroom (any version), Photoshop (the last few versions) and all of their proprietary softwares, (depending on who owns who at the moment) and I can promise you that you'll go away scratching your head, or worse come to the conclusion that it's all subject, light, camera, ambient color, processor dependent.
I know because doing non scientific shooting everything looks different depending on the day.
We just finished one shoot with one model in 10 different settings, from rooms, to outside, to night scenes, window light, leds, hmi's, practical tungsten and you'd think the model was 5 different people.
So like most professional imaging, it always comes down to working an image deep in photoshop. The look from the processor is just that a preview look for clients to review on set or in web galleries.
In the cinema world I'd compare what a processor/camera does as a one light daily. Something for a client to chose an image from but nowhere close to where a final image will actually go.
I will admit that the newer versions of c-1 tend to produce the most pleasing skin tones and process faster, lightroom I feel has the most intuitive interface and I know little of Phocus but the skin tones I've seen in very limited testing looked really good.
Still, in the world of professional imaging, regardless of camera and processing, everything goes to photoshop for finish and everything that is finished well goes to a lot of layers in photoshop.
My suggestion, find the camera you like, the digital back/capture device you like, the processor that fits your workflow and don't worry about it.
Any pretty image can be made pretty. Any non pretty image can't really be saved.
So my point to the original OP is the same thing most people will tell you. Try what you want to buy and find what works for you most of the time. Nothing will be 100% but nothing ever is.
IMO
BC
P.S. If you want to emulate film try exposure 2 or 3 from Alien Skin. Goofy name, great looks, though few of them can be applied and just run. Once again it takes a few layers.
-
You don't compare backs, backs just are. :D
Cheers,
Bernard