Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: KevinA on November 19, 2013, 08:36:42 am

Title: Not worth it ?
Post by: KevinA on November 19, 2013, 08:36:42 am
The undercurrent here looks to be saying MFDB is not worth it. The difference between DSLR and MFDB was once defended to the death, now I get the feeling the D800 gets the nod.
Not that the MF is not better, but more the difference is of little practical value compared with the extra outlay.
I don't mention it as detractor from the value of the MFDB, I come at it as someone that is doing the sums on a P65+ kit, every couple of years I go through this. Wondering if the difference would make a difference, wether a MFDB would add or subtract from my bottom line, that and a desire to have MF again.
I've never used MF digital only DSLR, film days it was the reverse, I still prefer the MF way of working, but I need more than that to justify the cost.
I'm using the 1DX after the 1DsmkII and III, I'm very impressed, yet I still hanker after a MFD system.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: gerald.d on November 19, 2013, 08:48:36 am
I'm shooting with 1Dx's on a project at the moment.

Great cameras that can of course do so much more than any MF system ever could.

But there is simply no comparison between the files you get from the 1Dx, and what pops out of my IQ180.

Every time I click on a 1Dx file in Lightroom to see the full detail, my reaction is "meh".

Every time I double click on an IQ180 in Capture One to see the full detail, my reaction is "OMFG". Every. Single. Time.

I don't think it's just down to the resolution. Frankly, I don't really care what it's down to.

If you're not seeing sense in going for a P65+, then don't waste your money. But...

Second hand, the IQ180 is less than 3x the price of a 1Dx body. I'd say that was a bargain.

Kind regards,

Gerald.

Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jonathan.lipkin on November 19, 2013, 09:16:21 am
I'd say it depends on the application. I shoot with both a Canon 5d.ii and a Hasselblad h3dii-39. The canon works very well in some situations, especially low light and shooting handheld, when I need a print no larger than 24x36. The Hasselblad produces a file that I can print upwards of 44x60 inches, and I can use the HTS adapter to produce panoramas that are tack sharp from edge to edge, even though it is using the outer limits of the image circle. But, I would not hand hold the Hasselblad at a shutter speed of less than about 1/180.

 I do find the Hasseblad significantly sharper than my Canon.

Finally, I have been shooting with the Hasselblad for about two years, and see no need to upgrade it. It works very well for what I need it to do, and there is no area I can see where it would need to be improved. Lenses are tack sharp, resolution is as high as I need, etc.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on November 19, 2013, 09:31:57 am
I guess I can't speak for all the forum members. Though I don't see nearly the consensus you do, and to some extent anyone who loves MFDB has been sick of these conversations for a decade so you'll forgive them if they don't jump into every nearly-identical-to-the-last-one-thread.

But I can speak to the end result... at least in the NY and TX market that Digital Transitions is primarily involved in, sales of MFDB are up year over year for several years now. Since the D800 was announced early in 2012 our sales are up, not down.

Tech camera sales are way up from even two years ago, DF/DF+ sales are way above what they were during the AF generation.

For some shooters a MFDB is not only not worth it, but would be WORSE than a dSLR even if they cost the same amount. When I'm shooting a wedding and the day turns into night and I'm in a dark reception hall with fast moving dancing I'd be insane to shoot medium format. But during the ceremony, during the bridal portraits, during cocktail hours (especially if they are outside or in a well lit room) it's so much more enjoyable for me to shoot a MFDB and the color and lens quality and ability to add flash to ambient (even at large distances) by syncing at 1/1600th and staying wide open and the size of the viewfinder make it my goto choice every time.

For other shooters the difference is going to be more stark. As one example relevant to this forum, for many shooters a tech camera with even a "low res" back (e.g. 20mp/40mp) is a far better tool for landscape, architecture, interiors than a D800 and SLR style TS lenses. You'll be hard pressed to find any significant % of tech camera shooters who are not absolutely overjoyed with the results they get.

For still other shooters the difference in handling, style of shooting, ergonomics, or aesthetics make it enough.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jonathan.lipkin on November 19, 2013, 09:41:58 am
One other thing I forgot to mention: I had been comparing the Hasselblad with 4x5 film, not 35mm digital. I'd been shooting 45, and due to the way I shoot (many sheets per shoot), taking a loan to buy the hasselblad ended up being much cheaper than paying to buy, scan and process the 45 film.

I reached the decision after coming back from a shoot with 200 sheets of film. The processing bill was quite high.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jerome_m on November 19, 2013, 10:24:59 am
If you are asking about "the bottom line", the right question is whether your customers are ready to pay for the difference, isn't it? On one hand, a modern SLRs will produce prints good enough for many commercial applications. On the other hand, some customers will simply require that you use a MF, and one with multishot as well (think museum reproduction, for example).

We can't really answer your question without knowing what your particular line of business is, can we?
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 19, 2013, 10:59:53 am
If you are asking about "the bottom line", the right question is whether your customers are ready to pay for the difference, isn't it? On one hand, a modern SLRs will produce prints good enough for many commercial applications. On the other hand, some customers will simply require that you use a MF, and one with multishot as well (think museum reproduction, for example).

We can't really answer your question without knowing what your particular line of business is, can we?

This is backwards thinking.  You should be charging prices that allow you to work the way you want to way before you start to put together a budget for better equipment.  I went MF this year and only marginally raised my pricing, b/c I was already charging a good amount.  My justification for my pricing revolves mainly around service, planning, and lighting the images correctly.  I made due with DSLRs with bracketing and layering to provide the quality needed; now with MF, I do less bracketing and less layering, freeing up time in post, while getting better results.

For me, an architectural shooter, MF is way worth the money.  First, the lenses are much sharper, by a few orders of magnitude.  Also, there are no aberrations with any of the lenses I use, none.  I always find it kind of interesting when new DSLR lens come out and no one ever comments on this (even though those lenses aberrate a lot); it is like DSLR shooters have become complacent and just accept it, like it is unavoidable.  Also, if we look at controlled perspective lenses, MF offers many more choices.  My lenses have no distortion; I never worry about it anymore and it was quite an issue with the Canon lenses.  

The DR is better in the files and I can push the shadows much more.  I also love the fact that I can do multiple exposures again, making my life in post much easier.  

The camera body is much more intuitive to use and considerably more precise with focusing.  

With that said, I shoot architecture, work with a tech camera and use a lot of lighting.  Like Doug said, if I shot in low light conditions, I probably would not shoot MF.  

PS: my fiancée, who shoots food, would like to get a H4X with a P65+ next year.  MF for her is better because the blacks are way better, the camera is designed better that the DSLR counterparts, no aberrations, she can use leaf shutters (I do not know of any DSLR that offers this) with her drink shots that involve movement, 3:4 is closer to the format adverts and magazines use, 3:4 also makes cropping a horizontal into a vertical easier and vise versa.  
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Primus on November 19, 2013, 11:55:48 am
This is an endless debate.

I have a 1DX and have bought and sold two Leica Ms over the past four years (the M240 only a month ago). Over the past 12 years I have bought almost every major DSLR from Canon, have used them with a variety of lenses from the 24TSE to the 600 MkII.

I am not a professional, never made a penny from my photography. I print all sizes, up to 44 X whatever at home. My prints are given away to friends and family or simply hung around the house. So my needs are quite different from somebody who needs a camera to make a living and I can therefore only address my comments to my own situation.

However, I do like perfection and have always aimed for the best image quality, both on the monitor and on print. I am my own critic and while I may not have a good eye for composition and other such nebulous elements that make a 'good photograph', I can tell a sharp and detailed print from one that is not.

I bought the IQ180 because I fell for the exquisite detail that is present in the images captured with it. Took a lot of thought and even after buying it for a while I wondered if I had spent too much money on quality that I could not market in any way. In fact up until a week ago I was seriously considering selling the system because I feared that I had 'paid too much for it'.

Then last weekend I went and took some pictures with my 1DX of the New York skyline again, at sunset and after dark. Came home and compared those with the ones taken with the IQ180 a month earlier. No question, the MFDB is simply so much better at detail and crispness. There is a discernible difference even when viewed at 'fit the screen' resolution and the picture is simply more appealing. I have not done people with this camera yet, but I am told it excels even more at portraits.

The big question is, is the difference in quality worth the huge difference in price?

That is very, very relative. Many comparisons of P&S cameras vs DSLRs have shown that there is not too much difference in the end results and yet the price is much higher at one end. The 1DX costs 10 times as much as an entry level DSLR with a kit lens, is the quality that much better? People who buy the 1DX do so not simply based on the difference in ultimate IQ but many many other factors that are important to them.

I won't even bring up the car analogy here.

The MFDB is not for the casual shooter, the limitations are obvious - no long exposures, need good light, preferably a tripod, slow, deliberate shots, not good for action or sports or wildlife (though Andy Biggs would differ). But for what it does well, it does extremely well with no competition. A high density sensor requires much more technique than a smaller one, as the new Sony A7R reviewers are discovering

In the end it all boils down to your style of shooting and the cost vs benefit ratio which is going to be variable for everyone. Some of my friends would buy a $100K car in a heartbeat but would never spend even $1K on a camera.

For me the sheer pleasure of the image quality and the extreme detail it can pull out is well worth my money. YMMV.

Pradeep
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on November 19, 2013, 01:15:23 pm
The MFDB is not for the casual shooter, the limitations are obvious - no long exposures, need good light, preferably a tripod, slow, deliberate shots, not good for action or sports or wildlife (though Andy Biggs would differ). But for what it does well, it does extremely well with no competition.

I couldn't agree more about your overall point.

Though
- long exposure is an area that some MFDB is world-class at. See our IQ260 long exposure (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq260-long-exposure-sample) test. It's only some backs which are limited in longer exposures.
- 90% of my personal medium format files were taken in mixed-quality lighting, handheld, with seconds of deliberation. But as a wedding shooter my needs are obviously going to be different.

But for sure, your overall point is sound - a 1DX can handle a wider breadth of shooting (e.g. sports) well while a good MFDB system can handle a narrower range of shooting extremely well.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Codger on November 19, 2013, 02:10:19 pm
Where does the Leica S2 and S fit into this discussion?  Their lens line-up is not extensive but does cover the "regular" range of view angles, and the image quality is seldom surpassed.  The pixel count is sufficient for good resolution and the sensor itself is a "tweener," bridging the size of the so-called full-frame (24x36) CaNikons to nearly the smaller of the Hassy and Phase models.  The leaf shutter alternative is there, and with the convenient form factor and size/weight, it would seem to be viable.  The cost clearly pushes it beyond the 1Dx and 800E realm, but comparable with the MFDB systems.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 19, 2013, 02:11:14 pm
I usually shoot MF Film, but recently had the chance to try out an IQ260 with an RmDi - great experience.
I can't compare to a DSLR though, just to my MF scans or P/S files- but hell - this was an experience ....
Now I'm craving ....
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Chris Barrett on November 19, 2013, 02:21:45 pm
I think it's all largely personal preference.  My 5d is decent enough for a lot of applications, but I enjoy working with my Rm3d / IQ 260.  It's slower and sometimes a pain in the ass in comparison, but I really enjoy the methodology of it.

Now if it was a choice between a 645DF and a D800, I might go for the D800, but neither of those cameras is suitable for my professional work.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Primus on November 19, 2013, 03:01:07 pm
I couldn't agree more about your overall point.

Though
- long exposure is an area that some MFDB is world-class at. See our IQ260 long exposure (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq260-long-exposure-sample) test. It's only some backs which are limited in longer exposures.
- 90% of my personal medium format files were taken in mixed-quality lighting, handheld, with seconds of deliberation. But as a wedding shooter my needs are obviously going to be different.

But for sure, your overall point is sound - a 1DX can handle a wider breadth of shooting (e.g. sports) well while a good MFDB system can handle a narrower range of shooting extremely well.

Sorry Doug, was referring to the IQ180. The IQ260 can of course handle a 60 minute exposure very well.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 19, 2013, 03:41:58 pm
Hi,

I recently went MFD, admittedly on the low end. What I got was a used Hasselblad V series camera with a P45+ back. I am quite happy that combo. On the other hand I don't know if I see a lot of benefits to MFD. My investment in the camera and lenses was something like 15000$US. Normally I am shooting with a Sony Alpha 99 and a few zoom lenses.

A modern camera like Phase One,  Hasselblad H-series or Rollei of course offers AF and better integration.

Getting to the images, I see a significant gain in resolution over my Sony Alpha 99, but I guess it corresponds to the 24MP vs. 39 MP difference. Other than that , I feel that the there is not a lot of difference in image quality. I am pretty sure that the Sony has better shadow detail. The Sony also has live view and no moving mirror.

Personally, I have quite a few issues with aliasing (both color and monochrome), but for most shooters it doesn't seem to be a problem. Stopping down to f/16 seems to take care of that issue.

An MFDB can be used on both on an SLR-type body, a view camera or a technical camera, that is a great feature.

I have no Nikon D800/D800E or Sony Alpha 7r, so I cannot compare the P45+ to a 36 MP 135 format camera. From what I have seen I would expect some small advantage in resolution for the MF option.

But resolution may not be so important. It is nice but I would guess it is seldom needed. I am not sure it really matters, because 24 MP is quite enough, and I honestly feel that 12 MP may also be quite enough, mostly. It depends on your needs.

It has been said that modern lenses for Hasselblad H and the newer lenses for the Phase One are much better than the V-series lenses for the Hasselblad. Many DSLR-s may also be challenged in lens quality. Again, it depends on your needs.

You can buy a Nikon D800 with a D600 as backup and half a dozen very good lenses for the price I paid for my used equipment, new MFD stuff comes at a higher price.

No question, high end MFD has quite a lot more resolution and in all probability some very good lenses. But it is a lot money. Again, it depends on your needs.

I have published a few images (with raw files) from my P45+ and there are also some comparisons with my Sony Alpha 99.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples3

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/

Two articles about the experience I had with MFD:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/76-my-medium-format-digital-journey
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/77-two-months-of-mfd-looking-back

Would I buy into MFD again? No, I don't think so, to little benefits for the cost.
Will I keep the MFD kit? Probably, I actually enjoy it a lot!

Best regards
Erik

The undercurrent here looks to be saying MFDB is not worth it. The difference between DSLR and MFDB was once defended to the death, now I get the feeling the D800 gets the nod.
Not that the MF is not better, but more the difference is of little practical value compared with the extra outlay.
I don't mention it as detractor from the value of the MFDB, I come at it as someone that is doing the sums on a P65+ kit, every couple of years I go through this. Wondering if the difference would make a difference, wether a MFDB would add or subtract from my bottom line, that and a desire to have MF again.
I've never used MF digital only DSLR, film days it was the reverse, I still prefer the MF way of working, but I need more than that to justify the cost.
I'm using the 1DX after the 1DsmkII and III, I'm very impressed, yet I still hanker after a MFD system.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Ken R on November 19, 2013, 05:26:01 pm
The undercurrent here looks to be saying MFDB is not worth it. The difference between DSLR and MFDB was once defended to the death, now I get the feeling the D800 gets the nod.
Not that the MF is not better, but more the difference is of little practical value compared with the extra outlay.
I don't mention it as detractor from the value of the MFDB, I come at it as someone that is doing the sums on a P65+ kit, every couple of years I go through this. Wondering if the difference would make a difference, wether a MFDB would add or subtract from my bottom line, that and a desire to have MF again.
I've never used MF digital only DSLR, film days it was the reverse, I still prefer the MF way of working, but I need more than that to justify the cost.
I'm using the 1DX after the 1DsmkII and III, I'm very impressed, yet I still hanker after a MFD system.


Is it worth it?

It depends. If you are looking for more detail and resolution, specially in wide angle landscapes then unless you go for a P65+/IQ160 and IQ180 or an IQ260 or IQ280 and a technical camera then I believe you might be better served by a D800E or a Sony A7R. The big sensor 60/80 backs combined with high quality tech camera lenses will wipe the floor silly with any DSLR. Results are not close. With other backs the tech camera setup will still have an edge but is it enough to warrant the cost? It is a tougher call.

If you are looking for more dynamic range and deeper color and a different color response then there are a lot of good options in regards to digital backs. You can easily get a very nice setup with a few lenses for under $10k.

If you work mostly in a studio and with strobes then a SLR/MFDB setup might be a great choice. They are great for tethered work. The large viewfinders are great for working with people and the high flash sync speeds are great for creative exposure control when working with flash also the different depth of field characteristics offer unique look possibilities.

So it all depends. Medium Format Digital is not one solution. There are many options and choices available. It all depends on want you want and need. Not all the solutions are extremely expensive there are good choices in the $6k range.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: eronald on November 19, 2013, 06:41:34 pm
It is clear that people who use tripods and take landscape images, or work studio with flash will find MF quality much better than dSLR. Every test I did showed me that. People who do not fall in this category should do extensive tests before they buy.

Edmund
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 19, 2013, 07:31:56 pm
Interesting to note than the 4 photographers in this thread currently owning DSLRs and backs are all Canon shooters so far.

I have a feeling that many people still have not realized to what extend Canon is behind pretty much everybody else (at least Sony and Nikon) in sensor technology at the lower ISOs typically used in applications for which backs are most appealing.

As a D800 shooter, my view remains that the image quality of recent back is a bit better a equal resolution and have obviously a higher resolution when everything is done perfectly, which does not always happen due to the lack of live view. In many cases, stitching with a DSLR is a low cost high returns approach to higher resolutions when prints larger than A1 are targeted.

There are of course many applications for which the back has inherent advantages, starting with movements on LF style cameras.

Now, I recently took the decision to invest in a Betterlight Super 6K back instead of a second hand MFDB because I don't consider the 40MP backs to offer significant value over my DSLR and am intimately convinced that the lack of live view removes most of the potential value of MFDB LF/Pancake camera mounting.

This is less an issue with the scanning backs because:
- the area being scanned is much larger, or put it otherwise, the pixels are much bigger, so the accuracy required in terms of focusing is less,
- the lenses are optimized for a smaller f stop (typically f16) which helps also,
- there is a form of live view, although it is a bit crude.

This being said, my first casual tests indicate that ever the BL super 6K is probably no significantly better the D800 in terms of image quality or at least that it is an order of magnitude (no exageration here - meaning 10 times) more challenging to tap into its potential... and that it is studio where nothing moves and time is available.

I don't regret my purchase at all, I love the ability to shoot 4x5 again without having to scan, but I did it with an objective understanding of how good the D800 is.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Paul2660 on November 19, 2013, 07:48:01 pm
The decision has definitely gotten a bit harder with the Nikon D800.  In my workflow I use both a IQ260 and D800. 

I am strictly an outdoor photographer working traditional landscapes with occasional wildlife thrown into the mix.  I purchased my first MFD in March of 2008 with a P45+ and AFDIII camera body from Digital Transitions.  Before that I was working with Canon's 1ds MKII and MKIII stitching 3 portrait frames into 1 3:2 image by using a Zork adapter.  I found that with this solution I was able to great final details and large prints up to 30 x 45 and 36 x 72. However this work was tedious and I was hoping that by using the P45+ I could get by with single frame captures.

After working with the P45+ and various Mamiya/Phase One lenses, I was still not satisfied with the wide angle lens selection as most of the lenses I had were not consistently sharp to the corners thus requiring a crop which quickly reduced the overall resolution of the files from the P45+.  Overall I found that the P45+ files were not very forgiving with exposure (highlights being very easily blown and shadow details problematic).  I had read about the tech camera solutions, but was worried about focus issues due to the lack of live view (workable) on all current MFD backs.  However in the demo's I did with both Cambo and Arca solutions, I was amazed by the results.  The workflow is tedious and cumbersome but the results can be most impressive.   

I made the move to the IQ160 with a Arca tech camera.  The results of the 160 were a vast improvement over my P45+ and the tools the IQ series offer both though hardware and software are a big asset.  I found the Dynamic range of the 160/P65+ chip allowed me a much greater workable range with a single image.  With the P45+, I usually had to shoot a series of bracketed exposures for highlights and shadows.  The IQ160 output at base iso was cleaner and on average I found the ability to adjust a single image as much as +2,-2 stops.  With the advent of Capture One vr. 7, the output from the IQ back was improved considerably.

The D800/e to me is still one of the most revolutionary chips since the announcement of the original Canon 1ds MKII.  The range of a single exposure from this camera still impresses me 1.5 years later.  To me the single most important aspect to the D800 is the fact that a shot taken at base iso 100 can easily be pushed as much as 3 to 3.5 stops, with nominal noise in the shadows.  Before the D800 was announced I used Canon's and had tried them all up to the 1ds MKIII.  I found Canon just can't do this and if you try, you will see way too much destructive noise in the shadows.  My method of shooting with both the Canon and P45+ was always a bracketed series of exposures since I knew that I was not going to be able to pull up my shadows without noise.   The exposure range of the D800 is most impressive.   

I guess the most important aspect of the system I use is the versatility.   The weight of a Acra rm3di & lens/IQ260 and a D800e/14-24 lens is pretty close and I believe the D800e will be just a bit heavier.  With the Arca, I am limited to a max shutter speed of 1/500 and use of a manual shutter.  Workflow is slow and I have to also add in the time to shoot a LCC.  Since most times I will also shift for the ability to have a short panorama, this also adds in work.  Everything is manual expect for the image previews on the MF back.  I am also pretty limited to iso 200 with the IQ260 if I want the maximum details and dynamic range from the IQ back.  With the IQ260/Arca a tripod is always in use also.  The D800 offers me more flexibility with shutter speed and iso combinations.  There are times I don't want to be tied to a tripod.  I can also get a very good result from iso ranges up to 3200.  Images that can be used at full resolution.  The IQ260 offers sensor plus but at the expense of 3/4's of the output resolution.  15MP instead of 60MP.  I am also hoping that Phase One will continue to make improvements to the IQ260 imaging with further firmware upgrades.  When I want to walk around and shoot with a mid range telephoto, the D800 is my first pick. Not my Phase One DF and 75-150 lens.  I have VR,  excellent AF and just more control over what I am trying to shoot. 

With both solutions, D800 and Phase One, I found that working with a dealer made the most sense.  If you are looking at a MFD back, (at least Phase One) I strongly recommend working through a dealer.  Warranty/repair issues are complicated enough and if attempt to work through these by yourself it can be tedious.  The dealer should provide you added value, something you don't hear about as much anymore.  But it's important.  You are not going to walk into a local camera store and find a Cambo/Arca/Alpa--Phase One setup to try out or anyone in the store knowing much about the equipment.  Phase One relies on the dealer channel to do their marketing.  Being able to demo the equipment is very important. 

I will also say, I find viewing web comparisons of these cameras is pretty worthless.  I don't think you can begin to get a feel for the full range of the output unless you are working with the raw files and able to view them at a 100% view within LR or Capture One.  Files that have been processed for web viewing just don't show the finer aspects of these cameras.  Even 100% crops IMO don't do them justice.  If you are serious about a MFD solution a 1 demo from a dealer or photographer working with the product is worth 100% web reviews. 

Paul Caldwell
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: bcooter on November 19, 2013, 07:53:12 pm
Interesting to note than the 4 photographers in this thread currently owning DSLRs and backs are all Canon shooters.

I have a feeling that many people still have not realized to what extend Canon is behind pretty much everybody else (at least Sony and Nikon) in sensor technology at the lower ISOs typically used in applications for which backs are most appealing.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard

Didn't it hurt to get that big yellow and black tattoo on your chest?

I think the reason most have Canon is if you own a 30 to whatever medium format back, you are less inclined to go to a high megapixel dslr, because you pretty much have territory covered.

The 1dx makes sense because it focuses faster, goes to higher iso, than the d800 and for me who shoots some still frame motion at fast fps, the 1dx works well.

Also a lot of people that when to medium format we're professionals and semi early adopters so they bought into the medium format eco system and had Canons for options, because for a long time Canon was the only Full Frame 35mm Camera.

I actually think the 1dx works great except in processing.  In dpp the skintones are beautiful, but in lightroom they look very red/orange warm and kind of global which makes skin tones hard to hit.

No offense but the 1dx files kind of have that Nikon color look when processed in lightroom.

But to be truthful, if there had been a 35 mpx dslr like the d800 out when I bought my medium format backs, I might have gone a different direction.

IMO

BC


Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Ken R on November 19, 2013, 08:24:42 pm
I own Canon also but I rented a D800E, a Zeiss 15mm ZF, a 14-24mm and a 24 PC-E to test the camera. While it did have more resolution than the Canon and the Dynamic Range was indeed impressive I used it in several situations I would normally use the Canon in and the results were similar unless I went up and beyond the 20x30" print size. The extra DR did help in a few situations though. I did find the Live View on the D800E really bad. Very tough to focus and almost useless at night. Might as well use the IQ160 live view :). The Sony A7R is actually a better bet than the Nikon for Landscape and macro. Also, you can mount almost any lens on the Sony. The nikon mount is quite limiting.

I also compared the Pentax 645D to the Nikon and it was very close call in landscape situations.

Check out this test comparing the D800E to the Canon 5D3 and the best wide angles HERE (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1199128/0) and HERE (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1199128/2)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 19, 2013, 09:03:38 pm
Didn't it hurt to get that big yellow and black tattoo on your chest?

This isn't about Nikon really, I totally agree that the Sony A7R is a great option and might buy one also. As I said, pretty much everybody besides Canon is now offering sensors with DR similar to that of backs. I would use Canon bodies if they offered something likely to help my photography.

I do also fully understand that those owning a large set of Canon lenses have no other option but to stay on board. The great thing is that I'll be able to use my F mount lenses on a Canon body the day they release something significantly better.  ;)

I think the reason most have Canon is if you own a 30 to whatever medium format back, you are less inclined to go to a high megapixel dslr, because you pretty much have territory covered.

I think most guys bought they backs after their Canon because it did not meet their expectations. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Paul2660 on November 19, 2013, 09:15:48 pm
Ken brings up a great point on Live view on the Nikon's.  In low light it's very hard to use as no noise is being buffered out.  Canon gives you more of a video image, not quite as sharp, but at least the noise is being buffered somehow. (based on Canon 6D vs Nikon D800e).  It's different than the CCD based live view with Phase.  The huge amount of blooming that goes on on the screen, even with just changing the focus makes the usage next to impossible.  Even with ND"s and other filters in use to help darken the image it's very hard to use.  But it's interesting to note that in low light, noise is nominal with the IQ and view view.

Paul Caldwell
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 19, 2013, 10:01:45 pm
Ken brings up a great point on Live view on the Nikon's.  In low light it's very hard to use as no noise is being buffered out.  Canon gives you more of a video image, not quite as sharp, but at least the noise is being buffered somehow. (based on Canon 6D vs Nikon D800e).  It's different than the CCD based live view with Phase.  The huge amount of blooming that goes on on the screen, even with just changing the focus makes the usage next to impossible.  Even with ND"s and other filters in use to help darken the image it's very hard to use.  But it's interesting to note that in low light, noise is nominal with the IQ and view view.

The live view of the D800 has 3 "issues", 2 of which are easy to bypass:
1. It uses the aperture set on the camera and shows therefore an image stopped down. This results in very dark images in low light situations,
2. It offers a high magnification mode going way past 100% (100% being one sceen pixel per sensor pixel),
3. It is based on the video and therefore skips some lines in the image.

The first point is in fact a plus when using lenses with focus shift (most lenses in fact) but results in very dark images in low light situations if nothing is done. The obvious workaround is to focus a full aperture and then stop down later, this works perfect with good lenses with little focus shift but it does add one operation and is indeed annoying.

The second point is in fact great and although the view is pixelized and looks terrible, it is possible to use the look of the staircase to identify perfect sharpness. It works splendid for me.

The third point is mostly about looks and I agree, it doesn't look good.

Like most tools, they have their downsides, some are easy to workaround, some are annoying and some render a tool unusable. I have not found the live view of the D800 to be a major obstacle even in dusk/dawn situations.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Gigi on November 19, 2013, 10:16:33 pm
We've been here before, but one more time, with gusto:

There seem to be three variables at play here, each in their own realm:

- convenience, ease of use and latitude in operation
- flexibility in shooting. for low light, what we might call latitude with light
- quality of the image, its ability to stand up under post, perhaps called latitude in the file

There is no doubt that (pick your favorite DSLR) is going to win the first point, that of convenience. The only possible exception (IMHO) is in perspective correction, where the tech camera and MFDB combination actually might be easier to use, or at least more flexible.

With regard to latitude with light, the high ISO capabilities of the DSLR take the crown; except that if one is shooting on a tripod, this difference lessens significantly. Also to be considered is dynamic range, and some will still say the MFDB is superior in this.

The real point tho with MFDB is the quality of the image. And while the D800 has challenged this, the discerning user typically prefers the MFDB, almost universally, at least in this regard. As an earlier post put it, open up the MFDB file and its "OMG", not just "good enough". That thrill happens every day, every shoot.

Its not forgiving, and if you work with MFDB, you have to be prepared to get smacked around - it doesn't help you with the marginal shot, rather it makes a good shot better and a bad one…. well, you don't always win. But  very very few people who have gotten used to MFDB have gone back to DSLRs.

There is a big place in the world for the quicker shooter, and the more forgiving camera. Such tools serve the needs of many photographers, and serve them well. But there is also a small place for the discerning shooter, who treasures quality above convenience, and cherishes that last little bit, where the light doesn't just sit, but dances across the image. Anything less just isn't good enough.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: bcooter on November 19, 2013, 10:30:49 pm

I think most guys bought they backs after their Canon because it did not meet their expectations. :-)


Actually, Canon Always met my expectations, from the 1ds on.

The only glitch was the 1ds2 which mine and others had a file corruption problem with shooting then quick lcd viewing.

Canon eventually slowed the cameras up and it worked.

I had two reasons for going medium format.  First was when the 1ds2 hit problems I walked into Samy's with the intention of buying a new camera.  The Hasselblad wasn't there yet, the Aptus wasn't out, Phase had no LCD on their backs so I bought a d2x and a ton of the last Contax in the box cameras, a leaf Valeo (which was a great back) and moved from the Valeo to the Aptus 22.

The second reason for medium format was at this early stage in digital there was a lot of "digital experts" pitching every project I did all saying  their medium format backs smoked those Canons,  so since I had two digital backs and we knew our stuff we could get the "experts"  out of the room and the billing, but honestly, if the 1ds2 hadn't flaked and the digital experts had not appeared I'd probably have never owned any still camera but a Canon.

I've also owned the D2x, D700, D3 (for low light)  and a bunch of nikon glass from legacy manual (which I used in motion imagery) to the newest Nano coating lenses.  My favorite Nikon lens is the old 50mm 1.2 manual and the newer 200mm f2.  I love the 200.

In regards to medium format if I was in 2007 I'd think about buying a new Leaf of Hasselblad, though we  shoot nearly every project in motion and stills with continuous light and medium format isn't the world's best camera for that scenario.

Also after some brief thought this year when I looked at Hasselblad, Leaf and Phase (in that order), I decided I wasn't gaining enough over my p30, p21 and contax to make the investment, but what really happened since 2007 is the cameras didn't change, our business model did.

Today our medium format style cameras are RED motions cameras have two R1's and a Scarlet.   They are the medium format equivalent of motion imagery.  They require a personalized Rep to keep up with firmware, changes and software upgrades, they require crafted light and they're damn expensive, at least in the photo world (not the motion picture world).

I'm sure they will al be replaced someday with something smaller and cheaper. 

But today, I don't think Canon can be ruled out.  I'm sure they'll have a 36 to 40mpx camera and the internet blogs will light up in comparison tests, medium format guys dogging it, the same thing we've seen forever, though in reality, motion or still cameras are made to allow beautiful images to be made and the pundits will hate it, but when Canon comes rolling out, I'm sure a lot of eos lens owners will buy and buy and buy.

I kind of thought the 1dx was the last semi expensive still camera I would ever buy, but with the 1dc just looking at what it can be, not just what it is, if they take it up a notch. go with in camera stabilization, long run time 4k to 5k and allow it to produce a high rez still, Canon could be back on top.
IMO

BC



Shot with the original 1ds which I still use from time to time.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/1ds.jpg)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 19, 2013, 10:40:32 pm
There is a big place in the world for the quicker shooter, and the more forgiving camera. Such tools serve the needs of many photographers, and serve them well. But there is also a small place for the discerning shooter, who treasures quality above convenience, and cherishes that last little bit, where the light doesn't just sit, but dances across the image. Anything less just isn't good enough.

I sure hope those guys stitch every time the technique can be applied to the scene they are trying to capture. ;)

I have read the "nothing less is good enough" many times only to find out that the photographers does not stitch scenes than can easily be stitched... Perfect example being American South West where nothing ever moves. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Paul2660 on November 19, 2013, 10:43:04 pm
Bernard,

From my usage with the D800 I realized there were the two options for live view focusing you mention, however I feel that even in the 2nd option, if the scene is all in low light, i.e. sunrise, sunset etc, then the camera still shows way too much noise and the noise makes the focusing very hard.  In any other situation, I find the live view on the D800 to be excellent, once you realize that the "100%" view zoomed past a normal 100% view and back it off by 3 steps. Works great.  However the noise I see in low light makes for a hard time focusing where as with Canon, somehow this noise is buffered out or written  out so that you see a cleaner image and can thus focus much easier.  Over time I have gotten more used to it.

Paul Caldwell
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 20, 2013, 12:19:23 am
Hi,

For Live View AF I think we need to see every pixel. I don't know how it works on other cameras. But no good idea to focus a 36MP camera at 7 MP.

Best regards
Erik



3. It is based on the video and therefore skips some lines in the image.


Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 20, 2013, 12:52:36 am
Hi,

I don't think BC makes a lot of stitching stuff...

What I have found that I stitch more on MF than I do DSLR, but that is mostly due to having a limited number of primes (5) compared to zooms. So when subject doesn't fit I stitch.

See sample below, I couldn't move back, because of a wall, I couldn't move forward because I could not position my tripod. I could switch lens to a much wider one, but choose stitching as the rescue.

I agree with Bernard that stitching is good, but it often does not work, for instance not for the work BC does.

By the way, I have both DSLR and MFD, but I have Sony not Canon. The main advantage I see with MFD is sharpness. DR definitively not, pretty sure the other way around. Color I don't know. Also a bit a question of taste. The P45+ has warmer colors and is more yellowish, but that could be a question of WB. I feel color rendition on the Sony is subtler and more accurate in measurable terms.

There has been a lot of development in sensors, too. The IQ 180 is much better than the P45+ I have in the DxO tests, that measure noise related things. I have little doubt the IQ200 series are even better.

DxO-mark publishes something called Color Metamerism Index, it measures color accuracy based on the Color Checker, it gives 88 and 85 for my Sonys and 72 for my P45+, for the IQ 180 the CMI is 80, great improvement.

It seems that the Sony SLT is on par or better with the P45+, except in DR at minimum ISO. The IQ180 is significant improvement over both.

The DxO results ignore sensor resolution, lenses and such things.

As a side remark, I actually feel that DR is better on my Alpha 99 than on my P45+, on absolute terms, but that is difficult to measure.


Best regards
Erik




I sure hope those guys stitch every time the technique can be applied to the scene they are trying to capture. ;)

I have read the "nothing less is good enough" many times only to find out that the photographers does not stitch scenes than can easily be stitched... Perfect example being American South West where nothing ever moves. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Wayne Fox on November 20, 2013, 01:56:25 am
The undercurrent here looks to be saying MFDB is not worth it.
The nikon, if  you put great glass on it, is a great choice and a fantastic camera and certainly is the first dSLR that is very competitive with some MFDB, especially in dynamic range. Of course great glass is something you want to do with every camera but becomes more critical as the sensor resolution climbs and size gets smaller.

 Over on getDPI.com there are several MFDB shooters that have added a d800 to their collection, but can only recall only a few in forums  that have dropped the MFDB system to use the nikon exclusively,  But then I’ve seen quite a few move to MFDB in that same period of time.  when looking at any of those photographers, I think you have to look at their particular needs and what they do with the gear.

As one who owns three systems, Arca Swiss with IQ180 (just purchased about 7 months ago), Phase DF (for the same back) and Nikon d800e with Zeiss prime lenses, the Nikon sees a little use (mainly for macro and some telephoto stuff), the DF a little more, and the majority of the work is with the Tech camera now.  It’s mostly about the rodenstock glass as well as the ability to shift.  It’s also the lightest of the three systems, which is helpful for a 60 year old body.

Most of my work ( i do exclusively landscapes) even with the tech camera is stitched nowadays (I live in that american southwest bernard referred to), so I could move to the Nikon and shoot more shots and end up with very comparable final files.  I just think I get more out of the larger sensor and the Rodenstock glass, and working with the files I just feel I can get more out of the Phase files, even when it comes to shadow detail. Probably more about what I’m used to than anything to do with the files.  I really like the ability to shift to keep the camera level, or sometimes a little closer to level when doing a pano stitch. My end goal is always an image that can handle just about any size (up to 90”) and is enjoyable at any viewing distance, whether up close to see interesting textures and details or from a distance to see the grand view.  That’s my personal goal when I shoot, mainly because that’s the kind of images I’m drawn to.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 20, 2013, 01:59:52 am
I don't think BC makes a lot of stitching stuff...

I agree with Bernard that stitching is good, but it often does not work, for instance not for the work BC does.

Agreed, never said that stitching was a universal tool and this comment was not meant for BC.

Just said that for many landscape shooters [claim to look for the best possible image quality, derive from that the need to use a MFDB and... not stitch] is pure non sense to me.

I understand that many photographers don't like stitching and that is 100% fine by me, but then the priority becomes convenience and not image quality.

I am just pointing out the incoherence here.

It is exactly as if Ansel Adams had claimed to be looking for best possible image quality and used a Hasselblad instead of his 8x10 camera.

Regards,
Bernard
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: tom b on November 20, 2013, 03:56:02 am
 In the final twenty years of his life, the Hasselblad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansel_Adams) was his camera of choice, with Moon and Half Dome (1960) being his favorite photo made with that brand of camera. In the same article it states that he was a consultant for Polaroid and made thousands of photographs with polaroid products.

Cheers,
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 20, 2013, 04:05:36 am
In the final twenty years of his life, the Hasselblad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansel_Adams) was his camera of choice, with Moon and Half Dome (1960) being his favorite photo made with that brand of camera. In the same article it states that he was a consultant for Polaroid and made thousands of photographs with polaroid products.

Indeed... he also selected convenience over image quality.

chees,
Bernard
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: torger on November 20, 2013, 04:48:10 am
I agree that if you want MF-like quality of the file Canon is way behind, as color, dynamic range and resolution at base ISO are so important factors to many. It's still the worst comparison point if you want to compare what DSLRs can do in MF territory today, I would not trust a salesperson that doesn't bring in D800E to compare, today it's simply a must when it comes to evaluating if "it's worth it". Don't even bother mentioning comparison with an MF digital back and a Canon product. For the typical DSLR shooting styles however Canon products shine as always (ie handheld, fast-moving subjects, higher ISO etc), and many prefer them over Nikon.

Thus when MF-like image quality is not a main target, a Canon is a good choice, so it's a good companion camera if you have a digital back. However, if you look into replacing the dual combo with one all-around camera, a D800 is certainly still the best choice by far. If it's good enough to replace your MF system is personal and is impossible to answer, but one can with certainty say that 135 format has never reached so far into MF territory as it does now. The new Sony A7r opens up for an interesting perspective for landscape/interior or other tripod shooters too thanks to the short flange distance. It's a little bit too new yet to know it's full potential though.

The reason I use MF myself is the Linhof Techno which I use for landscape. I have a "large format" style of shooting, but don't like to mess with film so it's a natural choice. I would not get an MF-DSLR as I find them booooring for landscape and sluggish for natural light hand-held work. If I would be a studio portrait photographer it could be otherwise though, might choose a MF-DSLR for the large viewfinder alone. I see my camera choice like choosing a higher end vintage motorcycle instead of a modern small car for transportation. Certainly not the most practical and economical choice (and I still need that car too) but more fun.

It's something I evaluate year for year though. If I can't afford to keep up with MF gear (I use legacy stuff to keep down costs) to compete in image quality with the best DSLRs, I'll probably sell off the stuff and go with a DSLR, because getting the best image quality with the budget I have is important too. As my companion camera indeed is a Canon, I don't think it will happen until Canon has something competitive on the table and have updated their whole tilt-shift range.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on November 20, 2013, 07:02:29 am
We use a D800e and a Leaf 40 megapixel back on a DF in our studio. Repro shooting. The D800 is an equal (bar a couple of megapixels) to the back in everything but colour and that is mainly due to profiles in C1 which are far better for the Leaf back, though one day I'll profile the D800e properly and it will be an interesting test. But we can shoot with the D800e at iso's above 80 (not so with the Leaf), the tethered liveview is heaven in comparison (tethering in general much faster) and about as (non) reliable as the leaf, it's far smaller, a world cheaper, doesn't crap out it's shutter at a rated 40K shots (thu, focuses far more accurately and faster and I'd say that the 60mm macro lens we use is sharper and better than the 80mm schneider LS. If we were starting again from scratch the MF would not have been bought, back then the D800e didn't exist. Please note that this comparison is for repro usage and lighting which is very flat and we really do not have to think about stuff like facial tones.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 08:14:09 am
Also a lot of people that when to medium format we're professionals and semi early adopters so they bought into the medium format eco system and had Canons for options, because for a long time Canon was the only Full Frame 35mm Camera.
Yup. Nikon were not even a consideration for that very reason when I move to digital.

Quote
I actually think the 1dx works great except in processing.  In dpp the skintones are beautiful, but in lightroom they look very red/orange warm and kind of global which makes skin tones hard to hit.
Do you use the Canon camera calibration profiles in the Develop module?  I used to have issues with red/orange separation before they were introduced. And if you do use them, you can also specifically calibrate to your camera using a colour chart and a PS action which was the solution before Adobe added the profiles into ACR/LR. Though whilst looking for a link that method, I came across this newer technique (http://blogs.adobe.com/richardcurtis/?p=1475).


Quote
But to be truthful, if there had been a 35 mpx dslr like the d800 out when I bought my medium format backs, I might have gone a different direction.
For me, it's not necessarily the MP count as why I would buy a MF back, but the sensor size and different look it gives. Though the odd time I have rented one it was specifically for the MP.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: eronald on November 20, 2013, 10:02:31 am
Hasselblads were really *much* better than 35mm; the very fact that a D800 and a MF system can be compared is frightening and shows MF are very bad value for money.

BTW, images tend to be better when you can see what you are doing - maybe all we really want is a decent sized clip on screen for the D800 or other dSLR - anything is better than the finders we have since digital came along.


Edmund
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Primus on November 20, 2013, 10:36:03 am
Like I said, an endless debate.

If convenience is the key, then we should all go for a P&S, which costs a fraction of the D800e and perhaps a hundredth of the IQ180 system. The fact that most photographers on this thread have a huge DSLR with all the lenses and paraphernalia suggests that it is also the image quality they are after.

Once you've reached that point, then it is all about a happy marriage between convenience and quality.

However, there comes a time when people want the ultimate quality even though it may be a tedious process to get there and may just cost a lot more than one is comfortable with.

Time to bring in the car analogy :-)

A Honda Civic today has everything you need in a car - bluetooth, navigation, power everything, great fuel economy and on city streets and even the   speed regulated highways of New York,  enough power to hold its own against a real 'sports car'.

And yet, those who can afford the gas-guzzling, high maintenance luxury of a $100K SL500 or an M5 will not hesitate to buy one. Does it offer them FIVE times the speed, comfort, or utility of the Civic? Of course not. The person buying such a car simply wants the best that (his) money can buy.

The same with an MFDB. At ten times the cost of the high-end DSLR and a hundred times that of a good P&S, it is not about the 'value for money'. Thus the question posed by the OP - 'Not Worth It?' can only be answered by 'How much money do you have?'

In the end that's all it boils down to.  Those who have the means and have bought into the hype, if you will, will of course say it is worth it to them. For those who do not, it will always be sour grapes.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 20, 2013, 10:59:42 am
Nothing against IQ, but sometimes IQ
fetishism distracts from art.
A very personal choice where that borderline actually is ...
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: eronald on November 20, 2013, 11:14:46 am
Nothing against IQ, but sometimes IQ
fetishism distracts from art.
A very personal choice where that borderline actually is ...

You can have the best of both worlds by mounting an IQ180 back on a Lomo or even better Diana.

Edmund
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 11:15:25 am
Time to bring in the car analogy :-)

A Honda Civic today has everything you need in a car - bluetooth, navigation, power everything, great fuel economy and on city streets and even the   speed regulated highways of New York,  enough power to hold its own against a real 'sports car'.

And yet, those who can afford the gas-guzzling, high maintenance luxury of a $100K SL500 or an M5 will not hesitate to buy one. Does it offer them FIVE times the speed, comfort, or utility of the Civic? Of course not. The person buying such a car simply wants the best that (his) money can buy.
Not quite. Cars are also very important status symbols - to the majority of folks. Which car will vary with kind the people you want to impress.
You're unlikely to impress anyone with a MFDB. Photo nerds excepted.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 20, 2013, 11:34:44 am
Toyota RAV 4 here...

Erik


Not quite. Cars are also very important status symbols - to the majority of folks. Which car will vary with kind the people you want to impress.
You're unlikely to impress anyone with a MFDB. Photo nerds excepted.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Rob C on November 20, 2013, 12:15:55 pm
Okay, Erik, you don't want to impress.

Neither do I. Anymore. I have a black Ford Fiesta. But for myself, and the self-satisfaction in the event that I ever do any long trips again, I bought the coupe with the biggest diesel, the 1.6 litre. I can get around 720 klicks in a single filling for normal town use, and probably much more for long drives. Great torque lets me overtake on motorways without thinking twice. Unfortunately, my eyes now make me think a hundred times instead, so I tend not to do much of that anymore either.

Carpe diem.

Rob C
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 20, 2013, 12:21:23 pm
You can have the best of both worlds by mounting an IQ180 back on a Lomo or even better Diana.
Edmund

Maybe this? This camera makes art of nothing. I just have to push the shutter from time to time. Don't even need film. Running around with it makes me an artist already ...

Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Primus on November 20, 2013, 12:54:56 pm
Not quite. Cars are also very important status symbols - to the majority of folks. Which car will vary with kind the people you want to impress.
You're unlikely to impress anyone with a MFDB. Photo nerds excepted.

Sorry, must disagree.

Cars may be important status symbols, but nobody (no sensible person at least) would take money away from important things in life to buy a luxury/sports car. It is only if you first have the money that you do so.

Everything depends upon where your priorities lie and how much 'discretionary' income you have. Even multi-millionaires would not buy an MFDB if they weren't passionate about photography to begin with. OTOH there are people like myself who need to shift priorities from other non-essentials in life to be able to indulge in our passions. It also helps to have a spouse who is 'understanding' :-)

In the end it IS about money and what you do with it, whether you spend it on a high-end camera or that vacation to Hawaii.

And yes, I agree, cameras are not bought to impress people. I cringe every time somebody comes up and says 'that must be an expensive camera'. I am constantly underplaying the amount I spend on photography. Strange, but people may not pay too much attention to your car, but if you have a very expensive camera, then suddenly you become 'super rich' in their eyes.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: MrSmith on November 20, 2013, 01:04:04 pm
Sorry, must disagree.

Cars may be important status symbols, but nobody (no sensible person at least) would take money away from important things in life to buy a luxury/sports car. It is only if you first have the money that you do so.

i see plenty of people on the national average wage or less driving around in cars that cost more than a years salary and paid for on the never-never. yet they are likely to have not enough savings so they could live for a couple of months if they lost their job or an unforeseen 'live event' should happen.

cars are rubbish analogy for cameras, it's better to use actual cameras  :)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 01:11:11 pm
Sorry, must disagree.

Cars may be important status symbols, but nobody (no sensible person at least) would take money away from important things in life to buy a luxury/sports car. It is only if you first have the money that you do so.

Everything depends upon where your priorities lie and how much 'discretionary' income you have.
First mistake - assuming people are sensible.
Second Mistake - that people spend within their means.
 ;D
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Primus on November 20, 2013, 01:22:45 pm
i see plenty of people on the national average wage or less driving around in cars that cost more than a years salary and paid for on the never-never. yet they are likely to have not enough savings so they could live for a couple of months if they lost their job or an unforeseen 'live event' should happen.

cars are rubbish analogy for cameras, it's better to use actual cameras  :)

There are always exceptions but I really doubt these people could have gotten loans to buy $100K plus cars in today's climate. But sometimes people DO live beyond their means. Those that I see driving around in such cars have the money and more.

How do you know some people do not buy high-end cameras similarly :)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Primus on November 20, 2013, 01:23:30 pm
First mistake - assuming people are sensible.
Second Mistake - that people spend within their means.
 ;D


Agree completely. Guilty as charged.  ;D
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 01:31:09 pm
There are always exceptions but I really doubt these people could have gotten loans to buy $100K plus cars in today's climate. But sometimes people DO live beyond their means. Those that I see driving around in such cars have the money and more.
A friend who used to do AV and sound installations said there were many people in Sheffield who got such cars on the never never. Not only that there are several large families who regularly start up new businesses, rack up huge debts to various suppliers [he was one] and then walk away stiffing everyone. The various family members take turns to front these enterprises. Not really sure what the scam is.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on November 20, 2013, 01:35:28 pm
Not quite. Cars are also very important status symbols - to the majority of folks. Which car will vary with kind the people you want to impress.
You're unlikely to impress anyone with a MFDB. Photo nerds excepted.

I can't remember the last wedding I was at where at least one person didn't comment about my camera.

I can also definitively say that a significant percentage of my referrals from weddings (to shoot some other wedding) were from people I met at weddings when they asked about my camera. Is it because they were impressed by my camera and thought it made a statement about the quality? Or is it because they remember me because they had a conversation with me and liked me as a person (the fact the conversation was about a camera being unimportant)? Or maybe because they were curious about the camera enough to disproportionately remember to look at the images I shot weeks later when I posted them? I cannot say; probably some combination. But it works for me.

It's not why I shoot MFD at a wedding, but it is a nice side effect.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 20, 2013, 01:48:00 pm
It's not why I shoot MFD at a wedding, but it is a nice side effect.

Maybe the commercially most important effect of the camera in that context? A personal PR device? ;)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: eronald on November 20, 2013, 01:48:39 pm
I can't remember the last wedding I was at where at least one person didn't comment about my camera.


Breast enhancement might have the same effect :)

Edmund
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on November 20, 2013, 01:50:56 pm
Breast enhancement might have the same effect :)

I'm working on that one beer at a time.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 02:17:46 pm
Ha, ha!
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 20, 2013, 02:22:31 pm
Maybe using an 8x10" Box with a hidden DSLR inside would be the cheapest concerning sufficient image quality and awesome PR factor in one device ....
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 02:39:16 pm
I can't remember the last wedding I was at where at least one person didn't comment about my camera.
I get people talking about my kit too and it's not MF. It's simply what people use as an icebreaker to interact when they want to talk to the photographer.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 02:41:35 pm
Maybe using an 8x10" Box with a hidden DSLR inside would be the cheapest concerning sufficient image quality and awesome PR factor in one device ....
A friend went to a 1930's theme party some years back and had a typical 5x4 press camera as a prop. But inside he put a 35mm Olympus OM camera and rigged up to a flash on the big camera, so it all worked.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Martin Ranger on November 20, 2013, 02:44:35 pm
I can't remember the last wedding I was at where at least one person didn't comment about my camera.

Every time I use my Fuji X-E1, people comment about my camera, too. In that sense it might be a far more cost effective PR instrument  ;)

Of course, I doubt anyone has ever hired me because of it. So there.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 20, 2013, 02:52:10 pm
Every time I use my Fuji X-E1, people comment about my camera, too. In that sense it might be a far more cost effective PR instrument  ;)

Of course, I doubt anyone has ever hired me because of it. So there.

Just glue a red dot on it ...
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Martin Ranger on November 20, 2013, 02:59:13 pm
Just glue a red dot on it ...

Nooooo! If I do that, I'll get mistaken for a dentist or lawyer  ;D
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 20, 2013, 03:00:29 pm
Nooooo! If I do that, I'll get mistaken for a dentist or lawyer  ;D

Just think of the ladies ...  :-*
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 20, 2013, 03:17:05 pm
Depends on who you are.

Best regards
Erik
Breast enhancement might have the same effect :)

Edmund
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BJL on November 20, 2013, 03:21:46 pm
Every time I use my Fuji X-E1, people comment about my camera, too.
Yes, I would say that right now Fujifilm X and Olympus OM-D are the most cost-effective cameras for getting attention, even from non photo nerds. Almost as hip as wearing a tiny fedora.

Obligatory automotive analogy: forget the Lamborghini; get an Indian (http://www.indianmotorcycle.com/en-us).
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Craig Lamson on November 20, 2013, 05:18:41 pm
A friend who used to do AV and sound installations said there were many people in Sheffield who got such cars on the never never. Not only that there are several large families who regularly start up new businesses, rack up huge debts to various suppliers [he was one] and then walk away stiffing everyone. The various family members take turns to front these enterprises. Not really sure what the scam is.

Had to look up that never never thing just to be be sure :)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 21, 2013, 07:49:04 am
Not a phrase I normally use. It's a bit old fashioned now I think, probably came across it in a period drama or book.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: KevinA on November 21, 2013, 01:27:17 pm
If you are asking about "the bottom line", the right question is whether your customers are ready to pay for the difference, isn't it? On one hand, a modern SLRs will produce prints good enough for many commercial applications. On the other hand, some customers will simply require that you use a MF, and one with multishot as well (think museum reproduction, for example).

We can't really answer your question without knowing what your particular line of business is, can we?

Well there is the thing.
 If my existing customers were happy to pay more because of the gear that's used, well then they probably would be someone else's customers. I can't see me being able to increase my bill because I've invested in new equipment, I'm not a power company!
It would need to generate more money somehow to justify the buying.I'm not sure what exactly that would be.
Now if there is a wow factor every time an image is opened that is clear to see by my clients. If the designer finds it much easier to work with the image, then yes maybe I get more work over the next guy.
I've always valued the variety of ways to shoot a subject with DSLR, super wide, long tele, tilt shift, day or night etc.

My work 90% aerial work. http://kevinallen.photodeck.com/-/galleries/london-aerial-views
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 21, 2013, 01:42:20 pm
My work 90% aerial work. http://kevinallen.photodeck.com/-/galleries/london-aerial-views
Night shots are very impressive.
And technically impressive too as they are sharp and clean despite the tricky shooting conditions. What sort of ISOs/shutter speeds do you use for them? Do you use a stabiliser?
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: KevinA on November 21, 2013, 03:10:16 pm
Thank you.
I have various configurations of stabiliser mounts I've built. I used a KS8 and a KS6 for these. I also have a rig with a KS12 but it's not as easy to use.
Despite the fact high iso is very good, unfortunately none of my Canon f1.4 lenses are any good until stopped down a few clicks. These are shot with the 24mm f1.4 mm mkII.
 I still like stabilisers so I can shoot stopped down at a decent shutter speed. I don't like less than 1/30th.
The success rate slower than 1/100th falls off very quickly.
I would be interested to try the Movi, I'm just not sure how you point the camera when changing height and in an orbit.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Chris Barrett on November 21, 2013, 03:28:26 pm

I would be interested to try the Movi, I'm just not sure how you point the camera when changing height and in an orbit.

You can point the camera either via a wireless (RC Helicopter style) controller or via user input to the gimbal itself.  It can sense your input and distinguish that from instability.  You can also program the sensitivity of that and the input "windows".  Once you get your hands on one, they're pretty addictive... I've never thought of trying it for stills tho... hmm.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: KevinA on November 21, 2013, 03:52:24 pm
You can point the camera either via a wireless (RC Helicopter style) controller or via user input to the gimbal itself.  It can sense your input and distinguish that from instability.  You can also program the sensitivity of that and the input "windows".  Once you get your hands on one, they're pretty addictive... I've never thought of trying it for stills tho... hmm.
So I could pan the camera and it would know it's me panning and not a movement to be stabilised?
I was not convinced on the aerials I've seen with it, I thought there was a lot of selective editing and post stab.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Chris Barrett on November 21, 2013, 04:17:37 pm
Yes, in single operator "Majestic" mode it will follow your pans. You can set it to follow your tilts as well, or lock it out to hold a given tilt. In the software you can program how far you move before it responds (the window) and how aggressively it follows your input... From "right on your ass" to "I'll get there when I get there.  Slow and smooth"
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 21, 2013, 06:33:46 pm
Thank you.
I have various configurations of stabiliser mounts I've built. I used a KS8 and a KS6 for these. I also have a rig with a KS12 but it's not as easy to use.
Despite the fact high iso is very good, unfortunately none of my Canon f1.4 lenses are any good until stopped down a few clicks. These are shot with the 24mm f1.4 mm mkII.
 I still like stabilisers so I can shoot stopped down at a decent shutter speed. I don't like less than 1/30th.
The success rate slower than 1/100th falls off very quickly.
I would be interested to try the Movi, I'm just not sure how you point the camera when changing height and in an orbit.
Didn't think you'd be able to shoot as low a shutter speed as that. Stabilisers must be quite effective. What ISOs/body do you use then as it doesn't look like an extreme ISO.
I wonder how good the new Olympus sensor with its 5 point stabilisation would be for your work and if you used a metabones speed booster with your Canon lenses that would also give you some extra light. I wonder if that would outweigh the small sensor Vs your Canon sensor.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: KevinA on November 22, 2013, 04:15:12 am
Didn't think you'd be able to shoot as low a shutter speed as that. Stabilisers must be quite effective. What ISOs/body do you use then as it doesn't look like an extreme ISO.
I wonder how good the new Olympus sensor with its 5 point stabilisation would be for your work and if you used a metabones speed booster with your Canon lenses that would also give you some extra light. I wonder if that would outweigh the small sensor Vs your Canon sensor.
1DX, it's very usable at 12800iso if you want. I've found it works well just to use multi pattern metering, it then is probably over exposing. The raws are as flat as a flat thing. It was also a windy night which didn't help.
I use to think I wanted the raw to look close to the final image, so I often knocked a stop or two off the metered.
Over exposing I have lots of control over the shadows, the highlights hold as well. They are all processed in Aperture, no noise reduction added. I have Ninja, but honestly I prefer grain and detail to smooth with the edge off.
I think I got up to either 6k or 8k. It's a lot darker than it looks, well after Sunset for most of them.
The weather even at night makes a big difference, cloudy nights act like a reflector, reflecting all the city lights back. I actually prefer clear nights and a good Moon, if I get the choice.
Night aerials it depends on how much fill you want to record, the city lights are a constant, your exposure is just for the fill really without blowing to many highlights.
Film days I was limited to 800iso, so I shot at 1/30th at f2.8, no choice.
I know this goes against the herd, but I shot the Nikon 800, D4 and 1DX against each other at high iso in my kitchen, the 1DX won. All those pixels offered less resolution at high iso, the D4 and 1DX were neck and neck, the 1DX had a few more pixels which gave it a edge, small but there.
I've shot the 1DX on an air to air shoot in bad weather, it was still capable of being quick enough to give me a 4 image stitch of the target aircraft and extended City background.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Rob C on November 22, 2013, 09:46:51 am
Not a phrase I normally use. It's a bit old fashioned now I think, probably came across it in a period drama or book.


Yep, today's hipsters confuse it with a bottle of brown sauce, rather than with Peter Pan.

Rob C
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 22, 2013, 09:55:21 am
I know this goes against the herd, but I shot the Nikon 800, D4 and 1DX against each other at high iso in my kitchen, the 1DX won. All those pixels offered less resolution at high iso, the D4 and 1DX were neck and neck, the 1DX had a few more pixels which gave it a edge, small but there.

I am not surprised at all, it is well documented that the D800 and D4 are very close at 3200 and that the D4 pulls ahead from then on.

It is also well known that the D4 and 1Dx are close at those high ISOs.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 22, 2013, 09:57:50 am
Yep, today's hipsters confuse it with a bottle of brown sauce, rather than with Peter Pan.
It's not a Peter Pan thang actually. Never Never Land was a part of Australia which JM Barrie may have referenced for Never Land and the phraseI used in relation to debt may have simply had more to do with the chance of paying off such a loan.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Rob C on November 22, 2013, 03:19:37 pm
It's not a Peter Pan thang actually. Never Never Land was a part of Australia which JM Barrie may have referenced for Never Land and the phraseI used in relation to debt may have simply had more to do with the chance of paying off such a loan.


Well, I always had a thang for Tinker Bell rather than for Wendy, who was way too problematic - raging hormones, I guess. But anyway, if they were all high on stardust, it isn't really surprising there were domestic problems. Imagine if they'd been alcoholics too!

There were no Aboriginal persons in Peter Pan, AFAIR, so maybe that's straying perilously close to being off topic... Wow - never thought I could write that!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: bcooter on November 22, 2013, 04:00:12 pm
I am not surprised at all, it is well documented that the D800 and D4 are very close at 3200 and that the D4 pulls ahead from then on.

It is also well known that the D4 and 1Dx are close at those high ISOs.

Cheers,
Bernard


I've shot the 1dx regularly next to the omd em-5 (what a silly name) and the results are virtually identical up to 1000 iso, depending on the post processing.

Then again for the same dof, 1.8 on a m43 camera is around 3.5 on a full frame camera, so you gain a stop on the smaller sensors.

I believe every digital camera starts it's magic softening techniques above 800 iso, regardless of format.   You either get detail and noise, or smoothness and less detail but you can't have both.

The 5d3 which is the king of the glass smooth look, has an overwhelming look of softness at any speed, so I guess it's what your looking for.  

Viewing on computer no noise images when enlarged to 100% or something that looks a little more organic.

The never go to print, never shot film crowd seems to like the smooth look, the know what film use to do photographer doesn't seem to care.

I've found lately commercial clients are all about the look, not the pixel count.


IMO

BC

Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: douglasboyd on November 22, 2013, 08:42:06 pm
When I bought my Sony A900 I compared it to my Hasselblad H1 with P30 back and decided to upgrade to Hasselblad H3DII-39 to stay ahead.

When I bought my Nikon D800E I compared it to the H3DII-39 and sold the H3DII-39 because I couldn't see the difference in test shots.

Now after using the D800E for a year I find myself missing the Hasselblad.  When I review my best pictures over the past 5 years most of the best were taken with the Hasselblad system.   Its hard to pin down the reason for this, but nevertheless it seems to be true.

So I'm hoping the cost of a 50-60mp H3/4 will come down enough in the next year so I can jump back to Hassy before the Sony/Nikon 48mp DSLRs appear.

==Douglas Boyd
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 23, 2013, 12:19:14 am
Hi,

The ISO thing is a bit of fake. Light consists of particles called photons. The arrival of photons is a stochastic process which gives a natural variation. So each pixel receives a number of photons that varies statistically. That variation is normally the square root of available photons.

A large pixel can typically detect around 60000 photons and a small one probably about 15000. Normally you can utilize the sensor fully around 100 ISO and exposing for highlights (ETTR). So at nominal ISO the SNR (signal to noise ratio) will be 244 and on the small sensor 122. Now if we got to 6400 ISO we only use the 1/64-th of the capacity of the pixels. So on the large pixels we would have SNR around 30 and on the small one around 15.

On raw files camera processing would play little role, although some camera manipulate raw files or have on chip noise reduction. The major part is here the raw processor, that can apply different amount of noise reduction.

One area where cameras differ is readout noise. CMOS sensors with on chip ADCs, Sony Exmoor, the Leica M (240) sensor by CMOSIS, most sensors on Nikons have low readout noise. The sensors on Nikon D4 and Canons have low inherent noise but noisy ADC-s, at low ISO they have relatively much readout noise, therefor shadows suffer (low DR), in mid tones readout noise matters little and image quality is very good. When Canons and D4 is used at high ISO the signal is amplified before the ADC, so readout noise goes down. This is the reason they perform that well at high ISO.

Best regards
Erik



I've shot the 1dx regularly next to the omd em-5 (what a silly name) and the results are virtually identical up to 1000 iso, depending on the post processing.

Then again for the same dof, 1.8 on a m43 camera is around 3.5 on a full frame camera, so you gain a stop on the smaller sensors.

I believe every digital camera starts it's magic softening techniques above 800 iso, regardless of format.   You either get detail and noise, or smoothness and less detail but you can't have both.

The 5d3 which is the king of the glass smooth look, has an overwhelming look of softness at any speed, so I guess it's what your looking for.  

Viewing on computer no noise images when enlarged to 100% or something that looks a little more organic.

The never go to print, never shot film crowd seems to like the smooth look, the know what film use to do photographer doesn't seem to care.

I've found lately commercial clients are all about the look, not the pixel count.


IMO

BC


Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: KevinA on November 23, 2013, 06:37:34 am
I am not surprised at all, it is well documented that the D800 and D4 are very close at 3200 and that the D4 pulls ahead from then on.

It is also well known that the D4 and 1Dx are close at those high ISOs.

Cheers,
Bernard

When I posted this before the replies were akin to me being some kind of nutter. The 800 is obviously untouchable at anything.
Yet I know photographers that have the 800 and D4 and the 800 never comes out of the bag.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 23, 2013, 07:15:42 am
Hi,

That may depend on those photographers not needing the stuff the D800 is good at. Resolution and dynamic range. There are a lot of things that may be better on D800, like FPS, AF, high ISO.

Best regards
Erik


When I posted this before the replies were akin to me being some kind of nutter. The 800 is obviously untouchable at anything.
Yet I know photographers that have the 800 and D4 and the 800 never comes out of the bag.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 23, 2013, 08:09:45 am
When I posted this before the replies were akin to me being some kind of nutter. The 800 is obviously untouchable at anything.
Yet I know photographers that have the 800 and D4 and the 800 never comes out of the bag.

I highly disagree with this statement; the D800 is not the best camera for many things.  Really anything that involves technical shooting, from my point of view.  Also, once again, no access to leaf shutters, a big disadvantage for quite a few subjects and methods of shooting. 
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jerome_m on November 23, 2013, 01:15:42 pm
A large pixel can typically detect around 60000 photons and a small one probably about 15000.

The pixels in MF cameras are not much larger than the pixels of full frame cameras of the same generation. I use a Sony A900 and an Hasselblad H3DII-50. The two cameras use 6 µm pixels.
Title: Pixel sizes, 35mm and MF cameras; shot noise vs read noise
Post by: BJL on November 23, 2013, 01:57:03 pm
The pixels in MF cameras are not much larger than the pixels of full frame cameras of the same generation. I use a Sony A900 and an Hasselblad H3DII-50. The two cameras use 6 µm pixels.
Yes, there is strangely almost no pattern of DMF using larger photosites than the classic "35mm" format of 36x24mm: it is 6.3 microns in Canon's highest resolution 36x24mm bodies, 6 microns in 24MP 36x24mm format; the same 6 microns in the recent 40MP, 50MP, and 60MP backs and the Leica S2, about 5.2 microns in the 80MP backs, 4.9 microns in the 36MP 36x24mm bodies.

But perhaps a better way to look at the effect of photon counting on visible noise is full well capacity normalized to "photons per image", which with recent sensors seems roughly proportional to sensor area, despite the differences in sensor technology. There is where I expect a larger sensor to have better noise properties at low exposure index (”ISO speed") and over most of the range of photographically interesting tonal levels within the image. On the other hand, modern CMOS sensors with lower read noise can win in the very darkest parts of the image, say 11 or more stops below the highlights, and in not so extremely dark parts of the images made at higher exposure index.

In other words, what Erik says about "midtones" is probably also true all the way down to fairly deep shadows, when exposing for long enough to make good use of the available well capacity.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: KevinA on November 23, 2013, 02:02:58 pm
I highly disagree with this statement; the D800 is not the best camera for many things.  Really anything that involves technical shooting, from my point of view.  Also, once again, no access to leaf shutters, a big disadvantage for quite a few subjects and methods of shooting. 

Sorry.
I was being sarcastic :-)
Title: Re: Pixel sizes, 35mm and MF cameras; shot noise vs read noise
Post by: jerome_m on November 23, 2013, 03:31:50 pm
But perhaps a better way to look at the effect of photon counting on visible noise is full well capacity normalized to "photons per image", which with recent sensors seems roughly proportional to sensor area, despite the differences in sensor technology. There is where I expect a larger sensor to have better noise properties at low exposure index (”ISO speed") and over most of the range of photographically interesting tonal levels within the image.

In this you are implicitly implying that two pictures, one taken by a 24x36 camera and one by a digital full frame medium format camera are printed at the same size. You are also implying that this size is huge, because the difference should not show on tiny prints. There is nothing wrong with this hypothesis, I just want to make clear what we are talking about.

(edit: replaced "full frame" by "medium format", which is what I intended to write)
Title: Re: Pixel sizes, 35mm and MF cameras; shot noise vs read noise
Post by: BJL on November 23, 2013, 06:45:58 pm
In this you are implicitly implying that two pictures, one taken by a 24x36 camera and one by a digital full frame camera are printed at the same size. You are also implying that this size is huge, because the difference should not show on tiny prints.
I mostly agree.

On the first point: the only IQ comparisons that make the slightest bit of sense to me are ones between images viewed at the same size: same-size prints, or same size on-screen. Take away that constraint and I can prove that any camera is vastly better than itself and do it by comparing prints of the same file: just make one print big enough to show some flaws, and another small enough to hide them!

On the second point: maybe not huge, but at least reasonably large, and not going to your opposite extreme of "tiny" (there are many other options in between!). After all, we are talking about rather expensive and bulky cameras, so the interesting image quality comparisons are with the images displayed big enough to reveal the advantages over the numerous smaller, lighter, cheaper alternatives.


P. S. [put this in the wrong place before, didn't I?] a 36x24mm format camera is the same as what some people still strangely call a "digital full frame camera", so I presume you mean "36x24mm versus the various larger so-called medium formats", which is the comparison I was talking about.
Title: Re: Pixel sizes, 35mm and MF cameras; shot noise vs read noise
Post by: eronald on November 23, 2013, 09:10:05 pm
MF reminds me of this really high maintenance gal whom we all went out with when younger - you know, the one who was really really hot, and really high strung, and demanded you take her to all these very very expensive places, and then each time you would nurse her moods in the hope she would get drunk but not too drunk, and if you managed all of that, then she would be a lot of fun :)

Turns out that for most of us she was ... an interesting time in our life, but not worth it in the end.

I'm sure someone here will explain it all in terms of photons etc, and James will find an ironic quote by some guy like Kierkegaard that sums it all up, but that's my feeling in plain english.

Edmund


I mostly agree.

On the first point: the only IQ comparisons that make the slightest bit of sense to me are ones between images viewed at the same size: same-size prints, or same size on-screen. Take away that constraint and I can prove that any camera is vastly better than itself and do it by comparing prints of the same file: just make one print big enough to show some flaws, and another small enough to hide them!

P. S. a 36x24mm format camera is the same as what some people still strangely call a "digital full frame camera", so I presume you mean "36x24mm versus the various larger so-called medium formats", which is the comparison I was talking about.

On the second point: maybe not huge, but at least reasonably large, and not going to your opposite extreme of "tiny" (there are many other options in between!). After all, we are talking about rather expensive and bulky cameras, so the interesting image quality comparisons are with the images displayed big enough to reveal the advantages over the numerous smaller, lighter, cheaper alternatives.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: EricWHiss on November 24, 2013, 12:54:53 am
Hehe  Edmund,
Please have a seat on the couch and tell us about your childhood.  :)

For me, that was the Leica's and the Ducati's.  5 months to repair a lens? 4 months to put a button back on a DMR?  Forget it! Finally out from under the spell. Once I found Rollei, I never looked back.  DSLR's don't have the viewfinder, ergonomics, leaf shutters,  or sync speed. It's not just about pixels. 

I think everyone should go find some old family photos from 50 years back or older and put them next to a print made from the latest and greatest DSLR.  It's crazy how those old photos will have all this depth and presence to them and how flat the DSLR images will look.  Try it!    There is no substitute for sensor/film size.   MF has the advantage of size.  It's different.  I'd like to see bigger and bigger sensors.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 24, 2013, 02:09:07 am
Hi,

I don't think so, not that I have a lot of family photos 50 years old, but I don't think images where that good at that time.

I also feel that the look of the images is 99% processing and 1% camera. I listened to a discussion with Michael Reichmann and Ctein. Ctein said that the 4/3 camera was good enough compared to the Pentax 67 he used before, he said it offered MF quality. I had a Pentax 67, too, so I know about scanning Velvia.

In the old times larger formats were frequently used. Those cameras were often stopped down to f/16 or even more. The lenses were probably differently corrected, possibly with a more pleasant bokeh than todays lenses.

Best regards
Erik


I think everyone should go find some old family photos from 50 years back or older and put them next to a print made from the latest and greatest DSLR.  It's crazy how those old photos will have all this depth and presence to them and how flat the DSLR images will look.  Try it!    There is no substitute for sensor/film size.   MF has the advantage of size.  It's different.  I'd like to see bigger and bigger sensors.
Title: my family archives of film photos have nothing on what modern gear gives
Post by: BJL on November 24, 2013, 11:48:22 am
For me, that was the Leica's ... Finally out from under the spell. Once I found Rollei, I never looked back.
This I can agree with; the limitations of film made the advantages of medium format over the 36x24mm  "compact format" clear in even moderate sized prints. And if I indulge my desire to return to dark-room dabbling, it will be with second-hand medium format, not a far more expensive Leica system.
But this ...
Quote
I think everyone should go find some old family photos from 50 years back or older and put them next to a print made from the latest and greatest DSLR.  It's crazy how those old photos will have all this depth and presence to them and how flat the DSLR images will look.  Try it!
I _have_ tried it, and totally disagree: by every standard I care about (which does not include massive, intrusive, unnatural yet allegedly artistic OOF effects, obviously) I find my family archives of prints and slides from 35mm and even medium format (lots of contact prints from a Brownie!) disappointing apart from their historic, emotional significance; I vastly prefer the results I can get from my 4/3" format gear.

P. S. Actually, I am old enough that I can go back almost 50 years with my own photographs, to using a Pentax K1000 with just a 50/1.7 lens and a mix of monochrome and color film for some years. Not to disparage those photos, but there is nothing in those albums that makes me think I am losing anything by leaving that gear in my closet when I go out photographing. (For me, f/1.7 was solely for focusing and for overcoming the limitations of low ISO film, not to add "depth and presence" by blurring parts of the image that were sharp when I looked at the actual scene.)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: EricWHiss on November 24, 2013, 01:43:16 pm

I was suggesting to look back 50 years to get back past all the 35mm family snaps with cheap 35mm cameras with drugstore processing - I'm thinking MF film or LF film done with the better cameras of those days if you want to compare to the better cameras of today.  But anyhow this is the problem with comparisons.  So many of the qualities of an image are personally interpreted.  After you get into digital photography and used to zooming in on image, you might take on a bias towards that being the critical part of an image.    So I meant to stand back, not use a lupe, and look at the prints.  To me the differences are quite obvious - but then I don't get hung up on sharpness.  Certainly film has some advantages in tonality still, but I think the biggest differences have to do with the larger format used.   

And getting back to this thread, I do think MF has that advantage over 35mm just like 35mm has it over the mobile phones.  The perception of depth seems to be tied to format size used in capture.  I'm interested to see bigger and bigger digital sensors - with not necessarily more pixels.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BJL on November 24, 2013, 02:01:37 pm
I was suggesting to look back 50 years to get back past all the 35mm family snaps with cheap 35mm cameras with drugstore processing - I'm thinking MF film or LF film done with the better cameras of those days if you want to compare to the better cameras of today.
OK, I guess your family and mine were doing photography differently 50 years ago! Mine was using a decent 35mm film camera with Kodochrome mailed in to Kodak for development, and before that a Brownie with B&W film. Maybe your talk of "MF film or LF film ..." is thinking back to formal family photos taken by professionals? In that case, too many other factors are varying in the comparison, like the competence of the photographer, time taken to arrange the posing and lighting ...
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 24, 2013, 02:03:57 pm
An 80 MP 4x5" one shot back with long exposure for tech cameras as a scanback replacement....
Probably I'd not live long enough to earn the money needed to buy such a thing.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 24, 2013, 02:15:08 pm
Hi,

Bigger pixels alias, produce fake detail. In my view there are advantages to large sensors but pixels should be small. To avoid aliasing the sensor must outresolve the lens! This is sort of fact in sampling theory.


Best regards
Erik



And getting back to this thread, I do think MF has that advantage over 35mm just like 35mm has it over the mobile phones.  The perception of depth seems to be tied to format size used in capture.  I'm interested to see bigger and bigger digital sensors - with not necessarily more pixels.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: EricWHiss on November 24, 2013, 09:40:57 pm
Bigger pixels alias, produce fake detail. In my view there are advantages to large sensors but pixels should be small. To avoid aliasing the sensor must outresolve the lens! This is sort of fact in sampling theory.

Erik,
I think you are stuck in a trap.   ;)   Let's call it the Engineer's trap.    The contents: Idea / composition, look, color, and feel are what most people experience in an image. Most people don't see what they don't know to look for.   Now that you know about fake detail, moire, aliasing, CA or whatever you tend to look for it - the engineers trap.  But don't forget about the content - how it feels to you - or at least don't' forget how other people view the images anyhow :)  What's the point of sweating over details that other people will overlook?

I'm coming at this discussion from the angle of what tends to enhance the perception of an image by a general viewing audience, and my experience has been that the larger the sensor, the better the feel or perception of depth is.  It's hard to quantify but its there at least to me. 

 
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: eronald on November 24, 2013, 10:42:30 pm
"The question is asked in ignorance, by one who does not even know what can have led him to ask it."
(Kierkegaard).

Edmund
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BJL on November 24, 2013, 11:10:11 pm
Eric: Erik was talking solely about your comments apparently in favor of fewer, bigger photosites, and pointing out that this can lead to visible, undesirable consequence; moiré and other aliasing artifacts. His explanations in terms of aliasing might be engineering mumbo-jumbo to you, but the visible consequences exist regardless of the viewer's engineering knowledge.

The far more dangerous "engineering trap" is the one where people use the per pixel engineering measure of "dynamic range" as an indication of how well a sensor handles scenes of high subject brightness range, without reference to pixel count, print PPI, dithering, downsamping and such -- leading to the widespread but mostly false belief that having fewer, bigger photosites on a sensor of the same size improves the visible quality of the final displayed image of such scenes by improving its "DR".

P. S. I would bet on the usage of
(a) good prime lenses,
(b) at typically higher f-stops, and
(c) the lower degree of enlargement of the image produced by the lens used to get a print of a given size
as the dominant reasons why images from MF cameras are in some ineffable way preferred to images from smaller formats like 36x24mm by many people such as yourself.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Telecaster on November 25, 2013, 12:05:30 am
I tend to approach most things from an analytical standpoint. I'm a "show me the data" kinda guy. But when it comes to photography and music—my two favorite creative pursuits—I find I'm best off allowing a more instinctual approach to prevail. I added a Pentax 645D to my photo toolkit not because of specs or because I'm interested in making big prints (I'm not) but because I saw modest-sized prints (by today's standards...15x20"s) made by an acquaintance who owns one...and I really liked them. They stood out tonally from other prints made by the same person with different tools. Exactly what precisely the tonal differences are and why they exist...I'm sure that can be quantified but I don't much care. I just know this camera along with those lenses does that thing, and I want (at least some of) my photos to have that look. And they do. I don't have to work for it in post...it's just there. For me that's the end of the story.

My taste in guitars is similar. I'm drawn to quirky instruments that may lack versatility but have a distinctive sound or an idiosyncratic feel. I own more practical & versatile guitars too but unless I'm playing with other people they seldom get used.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 12:18:55 am
Hi Eric,

See the two examples below. Even if you remove the color aberration on the water the surface looks erratic, the waves are discontinuous. These effects increase with pixel size. Aliasing is not the same as moiré, even of moiré is an aliasing artefact. For that reason I think the pixels should be as small as possible. Smaller pixels are simply better. The third sample just shows smooth waves from a different part of the same image.

There are two ways to reduce aliasing, one is to reduce pixel size the other is reducing edge contrast (MTF) at pixel sizes. Reducing contrast can be achieved by either stopping down, defocusing or adding an OLP filter.

With a moderate reduction of pixel size, there will only be gains. The sensor sees still the same number of photons, just distributed over more pixels, so noise doesn't suffer. There will be a loss of engineering DR (1 stop if halving pixel diameter).

I don't think you would argue that a P25 gives better image quality than an IQ180, because of it having larger pixels? Also I am pretty sure that pixel size doesn't affect manufacturing costs. I guess the same components are used in all backs from a vendor (like IQ 1##-series). The sensor cost is related more to sensor area than to pixel size.

Just to be clear, I am shooting a lot with my P45+, and aliasing artefacts normally don't spoil my day, but I see far more of that than I would like.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
I think you are stuck in a trap.   ;)   Let's call it the Engineer's trap.    The contents: Idea / composition, look, color, and feel are what most people experience in an image. Most people don't see what they don't know to look for.   Now that you know about fake detail, moire, aliasing, CA or whatever you tend to look for it - the engineers trap.  But don't forget about the content - how it feels to you - or at least don't' forget how other people view the images anyhow :)  What's the point of sweating over details that other people will overlook?

I'm coming at this discussion from the angle of what tends to enhance the perception of an image by a general viewing audience, and my experience has been that the larger the sensor, the better the feel or perception of depth is.  It's hard to quantify but its there at least to me.  

  
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 25, 2013, 12:50:45 am
And getting back to this thread, I do think MF has that advantage over 35mm just like 35mm has it over the mobile phones.  The perception of depth seems to be tied to format size used in capture.  I'm interested to see bigger and bigger digital sensors - with not necessarily more pixels.

Agreed, there is something special about covering a wide field of view with a longer lens.

That's the great thing about stitching though. You can generate a very large virtual sensor and cover an angular view similar to that of a wide angle lens, but with a 100+ mm lens. You get the look and feel of 4x5, minus all the corner defects and plus the pixel level sharpness and dynamic range of modern DSLRs.

Of course, you can add light fall off and grain if required.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: EricWHiss on November 25, 2013, 01:08:38 am
Bernard,
That's an interesting point. Not so much of what I do personally allows for stitching so I never think of it as a solution, but one day I'll try that.

BJL,
Yes C) is the reason I think is the main reason.  This changes a lot actually - puts the details at a different rendered frequency more easily handled with by the lens, and the rate of roll off from the apex of focus through the DOF.

Erik,
Yeah could be smaller pixels help with moire / aliasing.  I hardly see moire with my 80mp back. But it's a trade off - smaller pixels don't support camera movements as well nor do they collect as much light. 
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 01:28:03 am
Hi,

The thing about camera movement is correct, but it may also have to do with some of the DALSA sensors having microlenses. The one used in the IQ180 definitively has microlenses but I read that the one on IQ160 has them, too.

I am not familiar with Aptus names, but do you feel that your back has more noise or worse DR than backs with lower resolution? The smaller pixels collect less light, individually, but there are more of them and they still collect the same amount of light. Having more pixels may reduce pixel/wiring ratio on the chip.

Here is a good discussion of the issue, but it is a long article and the relevant discussion starts half way:
 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml

Best regards
Erik



Erik,
Yeah could be smaller pixels help with moire / aliasing.  I hardly see moire with my 80mp back. But it's a trade off - smaller pixels don't support camera movements as well nor do they collect as much light.  
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 01:35:46 am
Hi,

I don't stitch a lot for getting more pixels, don't print that large. I started stitching to make wide images. Instead of cropping I stitched. Now that I am shooting MF I feel more limited by lenses, so I often stitch to extend field of view. Let's say that I need a 70 mm, lens but I have only 80 and 50 mm lenses, than I would try to make 2-3 images with the 80mm and stitch rather than use the 50 and crop.

With 35 mm I use zooms, mostly, so I can crop exactly as I want.

Zooming with my feet is mostly not very prcatical, as I cannot walk on water or float the in air. Moving point of view also affects perspective. So I try to find the best POV and make the best of it.

Best regards
Erik


Agreed, there is something special about covering a wide field of view with a longer lens.

That's the great thing about stitching though. You can generate a very large virtual sensor and cover an angular view similar to that of a wide angle lens, but with a 100+ mm lens. You get the look and feel of 4x5, minus all the corner defects and plus the pixel level sharpness and dynamic range of modern DSLRs.

Of course, you can add light fall off and grain if required.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 25, 2013, 05:47:30 am
That's the great thing about stitching though. You can generate a very large virtual sensor and cover an angular view similar to that of a wide angle lens, but with a 100+ mm lens. You get the look and feel of 4x5, minus all the corner defects and plus the pixel level sharpness and dynamic range of modern DSLRs.
Not so good for shots involving spontaneity or movement though.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: KevinA on November 25, 2013, 08:19:06 am
Agreed, there is something special about covering a wide field of view with a longer lens.

That's the great thing about stitching though. You can generate a very large virtual sensor and cover an angular view similar to that of a wide angle lens, but with a 100+ mm lens. You get the look and feel of 4x5, minus all the corner defects and plus the pixel level sharpness and dynamic range of modern DSLRs.

Of course, you can add light fall off and grain if required.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

The DR of modern the dslr I don't see as a bonus, good in the shadows, bloody lawful with highlights or near highlights. HDR doesn't exactly tame it either.
I suspect most problems anyone has with skin tone is because of the poor highlight dr  and the lack of gradation in the top of the curve.
I shot some Portra alongside a 1DSIII as an experiment on a static subject a few years ago, I could get near natural looking images from the film scanning a 6 stop over exposed image, the Canon lost most of it a stop and a half over, 2 stops over and forget it. Yes mid tones were ok, highlight completely gone and colours above mid tone blown to bits.
No doubt the D800 might of improved things a bit, but not enough for me to think the dr of modern dslrs is a bonus. Seriously if you want to max your DR, shoot a roll of Portra, expose for the shadows, scan and process for the highlights, you will be surprised at the DR  available, you can take the image anywhere you want to.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 25, 2013, 09:00:32 am
The DR of modern the dslr I don't see as a bonus, good in the shadows, bloody lawful with highlights or near highlights. HDR doesn't exactly tame it either.
I suspect most problems anyone has with skin tone is because of the poor highlight dr  and the lack of gradation in the top of the curve.
I shot some Portra alongside a 1DSIII as an experiment on a static subject a few years ago, I could get near natural looking images from the film scanning a 6 stop over exposed image, the Canon lost most of it a stop and a half over, 2 stops over and forget it. Yes mid tones were ok, highlight completely gone and colours above mid tone blown to bits.
No doubt the D800 might of improved things a bit, but not enough for me to think the dr of modern dslrs is a bonus. Seriously if you want to max your DR, shoot a roll of Portra, expose for the shadows, scan and process for the highlights, you will be surprised at the DR  available, you can take the image anywhere you want to.

Urban legend live long... ;)

There is no such thing as highlight DR with our CCDs/CMOS linear sensors. Be it on backs or DSLRs.

You've only got ISO over rating with backs that result in systematic underexposure by up to 2 stops at ISO100 (Phaseone backs example). I believe that this is were the impression of highlight headroom comes from, it can easily be emulated by dialing in a 1.5 stop underexposure on the D800.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: eronald on November 25, 2013, 10:08:10 am
Bernard,

 The technology has changed; new CMOS sensors have highlight shoulders, by dint of adaptation of the well-known anti-blooming technology - furthermore these shoulders seem to be set in firmware. Of course the shoulders mess up the highlight color rendering because they are ... nonlinear :) On the bright side, the shoulders prevent totally burnt through holes on cheekbones foreheads and noses on every selfie.

Of course the old CCDs used in MF are linear. I really wish you were right and we had linear sensors and good color in the newer cams; but the trend is to more convenient so...


for CMOS here are some random numbers I made up for you

1.5 stops of the official ISO get chucked in the hilites (non linear, screwed up color reproduction at best). My friends say it is 1.3 stops.
2 stops get chucked in the shadows (read noise, amp noise, readout defects, miscalibration, banding)
1.5 stop gets chucked by moving to ISO 400 so you get a decent shutter speed, handheld
0.5 stops easily are lost to unbalanced light, more in incandescent hence the blue channel noise

so in real life your 14 stop dSLR camera shooting flowers handheld @ISO 800 in incandescent lighting has become an 8.5 or 8 stop camera at most. Talk about DR - ROTFL.
DBs may actually do better because they get used on tripods, closer to native ISO, in balanced light, have linear ceilings so you can use the ceiling DR if you expose VERY carefully, and hopefully accurate readout calibration.

As for urban legends, well some are true, some aren't, depends on who is doing the drinking and talking, but I'd say that when it comes to camera DR and the shooting of Kennedy anyone can have an opinion, orthodox or not, that's ok as long as they're happy about it.

Edmund

Urban legend live long... ;)

There is no such thing as highlight DR with our CCDs/CMOS linear sensors. Be it on backs or DSLRs.

You've only got ISO over rating with backs that result in systematic underexposure by up to 2 stops at ISO100 (Phaseone backs example). I believe that this is were the impression of highlight headroom comes from, it can easily be emulated by dialing in a 1.5 stop underexposure on the D800.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: KevinA on November 25, 2013, 11:37:21 am
Urban legend live long... ;)

There is no such thing as highlight DR with our CCDs/CMOS linear sensors. Be it on backs or DSLRs.

You've only got ISO over rating with backs that result in systematic underexposure by up to 2 stops at ISO100 (Phaseone backs example). I believe that this is were the impression of highlight headroom comes from, it can easily be emulated by dialing in a 1.5 stop underexposure on the D800.

Cheers,
Bernard

Myth legend or whatever, digital is still crap with highlights and near highlights :-)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Rob C on November 25, 2013, 11:53:13 am
Myth legend or whatever, digital is still crap with highlights and near highlights :-)


This is also experience: mine. It doesn't do them so well even when they are not actually clipped, just as Kevin indicates.  I've found myself faking bits of sky that should never have required any tender loving.

The only film I used that came close was Velvia 50.

Even for me, not all the G.O.Ds were free of faults.

Rob C
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on November 25, 2013, 11:59:04 am
The DR of modern the dslr I don't see as a bonus, good in the shadows, bloody lawful with highlights or near highlights. HDR doesn't exactly tame it either.
I suspect most problems anyone has with skin tone is because of the poor highlight dr  and the lack of gradation in the top of the curve.
I shot some Portra alongside a 1DSIII as an experiment on a static subject a few years ago, I could get near natural looking images from the film scanning a 6 stop over exposed image, the Canon lost most of it a stop and a half over, 2 stops over and forget it. Yes mid tones were ok, highlight completely gone and colours above mid tone blown to bits.
No doubt the D800 might of improved things a bit, but not enough for me to think the dr of modern dslrs is a bonus. Seriously if you want to max your DR, shoot a roll of Portra, expose for the shadows, scan and process for the highlights, you will be surprised at the DR  available, you can take the image anywhere you want to.

Ok but flip it the other way and in the shadows the story is exactly the opposite. However you can underexpose the highlights until the point where they are treated well and bring up the shadows. I doubt one medium is superior to the other once you shoot it the right way to maximise quality. Especially these days.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Justinr on November 25, 2013, 12:10:42 pm
The DR of modern the dslr I don't see as a bonus, good in the shadows, bloody lawful with highlights or near highlights. HDR doesn't exactly tame it either.
I suspect most problems anyone has with skin tone is because of the poor highlight dr  and the lack of gradation in the top of the curve.
I shot some Portra alongside a 1DSIII as an experiment on a static subject a few years ago, I could get near natural looking images from the film scanning a 6 stop over exposed image, the Canon lost most of it a stop and a half over, 2 stops over and forget it. Yes mid tones were ok, highlight completely gone and colours above mid tone blown to bits.
No doubt the D800 might of improved things a bit, but not enough for me to think the dr of modern dslrs is a bonus. Seriously if you want to max your DR, shoot a roll of Portra, expose for the shadows, scan and process for the highlights, you will be surprised at the DR  available, you can take the image anywhere you want to.

On a side note may I ask what you are using to scan the film? My old flatbed which was one of the better models around in its time has gone kaput. It wasn't that good with transparencies anyway.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Justinr on November 25, 2013, 12:18:15 pm
Hi Eric,

See the two examples below. Even if you remove the color aberration on the water the surface looks erratic, the waves are discontinuous. These effects increase with pixel size. Aliasing is not the same as moiré, even of moiré is an aliasing artefact. For that reason I think the pixels should be as small as possible. Smaller pixels are simply better. The third sample just shows smooth waves from a different part of the same image.

There are two ways to reduce aliasing, one is to reduce pixel size the other is reducing edge contrast (MTF) at pixel sizes. Reducing contrast can be achieved by either stopping down, defocusing or adding an OLP filter.

With a moderate reduction of pixel size, there will only be gains. The sensor sees still the same number of photons, just distributed over more pixels, so noise doesn't suffer. There will be a loss of engineering DR (1 stop if halving pixel diameter).

I don't think you would argue that a P25 gives better image quality than an IQ180, because of it having larger pixels? Also I am pretty sure that pixel size doesn't affect manufacturing costs. I guess the same components are used in all backs from a vendor (like IQ 1##-series). The sensor cost is related more to sensor area than to pixel size.

Just to be clear, I am shooting a lot with my P45+, and aliasing artefacts normally don't spoil my day, but I see far more of that than I would like.

Best regards
Erik


I was under the impression that the advantage of larger pixels was that less photons would be lost through absorption by the wall of the well. Even though the number of photos experienced  by similar sized sensors may be the same the item with larger pixels would record more.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 25, 2013, 12:26:44 pm
I don't understand why absolute pixel size should define the aliasing.
Wouldn't it be pixels per image width/height = resolution?

When imaging an object on a sensor in a a certain ratio, lets say 1:10, IMO the aliasing should be the same, be it large or small pixels, as long as the resolution is the same.
Lets say a D800e against a P40 - should have basically the same aliasing situation if focal lengths are chosen accordingly to give the same viewing angle/ratio.

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Telecaster on November 25, 2013, 02:33:40 pm
...so in real life your 14 stop dSLR camera shooting flowers handheld @ISO 800 in incandescent lighting has become an 8.5 or 8 stop camera at most. Talk about DR - ROTFL.
DBs may actually do better because they get used on tripods, closer to native ISO, in balanced light, have linear ceilings so you can use the ceiling DR if you expose VERY carefully, and hopefully accurate readout calibration.

IMO 8 stops of DR ain't bad at all when most of the color photos you've (I've) taken have been on Kodachrome with its 5 or so lovely stops. My approach when using a camera that crushes highlight tones is to "underexpose" enough to move those tones into linear territory. As with transparency film let the shadows fall where they will. Use HDR technique (with subtlety, please) if/when desired.

I think having a background in transparency film gives a person a better appreciation of both the benefits and drawbacks of electronic photography. You can see technological limitations as boundaries to be leaned against rather than as barriers blocking your way.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: bcooter on November 25, 2013, 02:52:49 pm
IMO 8 stops of DR ain't bad at all when most of the color photos you've (I've) taken have been on Kodachrome with its 5 or so lovely stops. My approach when using a camera that crushes highlight tones is to "underexpose" enough to move those tones into linear territory. As with transparency film let the shadows fall where they will. Use HDR technique (with subtlety, please) if/when desired.

I think having a background in transparency film gives a person a better appreciation of both the benefits and drawbacks of electronic photography. You can see technological limitations as boundaries to be leaned against rather than as barriers blocking your way.

-Dave-

I agree, most people today seem to think the idea of having 5 stops of dr or some noise and they'd go crazy when in reality nearly every image that is worked down in post to be pretty is always crushed to about 4 or 5 stops.

Right before I went to digital, I shot provia for commercial work, because it pushed so well.  Wasn't that pretty a film, but workable.

I shoot a great deal of lingerie and holding white's with transparency film was an exercise in science as well as art and I found if I would underexposed at least a full stop and have a good drum scan, I could move it anywhere I wanted.

Actually, what you just described.   

The only issue with this in film was it was difficult to explain to a client that this dark piece of celluloid would be ok in a few hours..

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: eronald on November 25, 2013, 03:01:15 pm
Hey, J, you should be more philosophical, like "only the image in your head to  bring out DR is".

Edmund

I agree, most people today seem to think the idea of having 5 stops of dr or some noise and they'd go crazy when in reality nearly every image that is worked down in post to be pretty is always crushed to about 4 or 5 stops.

Right before I went to digital, I shot provia for commercial work, because it pushed so well.  Wasn't that pretty a film, but workable.

I shoot a great deal of lingerie and holding white's with transparency film was an exercise in science as well as art and I found if I would underexposed at least a full stop and have a good drum scan, I could move it anywhere I wanted.

Actually, what you just described.   

The only issue with this in film was it was difficult to explain to a client that this dark piece of celluloid would be ok in a few hours..

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 03:10:45 pm
Hi,

When a lens project an image on the sensor the projected image will have a certain resolution. If you photograph a star, the image will not be a single spot, but a small disk. If that disk is smaller than a pixel and it falls across a pair of pixels the different situations are possible:

1) Both pixels see it
2) Neither pixels see it
3) Either pixel sees it but not another

So details smaller than pixel size can not be resolved by the sensor. The response to the same disk can be different if the pixel is moved a tiny little bit.

Check out the enclosed image, it was taken with 150 mm at f/8 alt f/9 at 3.5 m distance on a:

- Top left P45+  (MFD, 6.9 my pixels, not AA filtered)
- Bottom left Sony Alpha 99 (6 my pixels, AA filtered)
- Right Sony Alpha 77 (3.9 My pixels AA filtered)

Neither sensor on the left can reproduce detail correctly. We can see cross hatch detail and incontinous strains. In the image on the right the 3.9 my pixels of  the SLT make a better job. The ideal combination would be the surface area of the P45+ and the pixel size of the Alpha 77, corresponding to 120 Megapixels.

Another way to see it:

I have measured MTF for my Zeiss Sonnar 150/4 that was used on the Hasselblad, it looks like this:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Zeissness_3/F8/Imatest_small.png)

Now, if we check the black curve, we can see that at Nyquist limit (120 lp/mm) on the SLT 77 the lens has an MTF of 4% (or so). This is to low to cause a lot of aliasing.

The P45+ has a pixel size of 6.9 microns, corresponding to 72 lp/mm, here the MTF is around 22%, more than enough to cause significant aliasing.

Best regards
Erik


I don't understand why absolute pixel size should define the aliasing.
Wouldn't it be pixels per image width/height = resolution?

When imaging an object on a sensor in a a certain ratio, lets say 1:10, IMO the aliasing should be the same, be it large or small pixels, as long as the resolution is the same.
Lets say a D800e against a P40 - should have basically the same aliasing situation if focal lengths are chosen accordingly to give the same viewing angle/ratio.

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 03:34:56 pm
Hi,

What is crap with this:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Iceland-2006/i-5HxdXPB/0/L/PICT9663-Edit-2-L.jpg)

or this:

(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-wBBqZ8h/0/XL/%5B1%5D%20USA_2008%2C%20GTNP_01%2C%204%20images%2C%2020080927-DSC00761%20-%2020080927-DSC00764%20-%206781x3678%20-%20CCUL-Smartblend-XL.jpg)

or this (note this image is not HDR):

(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/HDR/HDR/i-KZ5FXMb/0/XL/20100805-DSC07994-XL.jpg)

or this
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Sweden/Some-new-pictures/i-KphChHD/1/XL/20130124-_DSC0742-XL.jpg)


or this
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Sweden/Some-new-pictures/24082913_TM5FgX#!i=1956154927&k=jqZgDXj&lb=1&s=A)

or this
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Stuff/i-JnGb9Pw/0/XL/20130119-_DSC0692-XL.jpg)

ort this
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Stuff/i-s6RWMPw/0/XL/20130119-_DSC0706-XL.jpg)

Best regards
Erik

Myth legend or whatever, digital is still crap with highlights and near highlights :-)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 03:53:20 pm
Hi,

I expose so that I don't get clipped histogram and no clipped highlights. The histograms on the Sony Alpha do a decent job. I also use lowest ISO whenever I can.

Best regards
Erik

IMO 8 stops of DR ain't bad at all when most of the color photos you've (I've) taken have been on Kodachrome with its 5 or so lovely stops. My approach when using a camera that crushes highlight tones is to "underexpose" enough to move those tones into linear territory. As with transparency film let the shadows fall where they will. Use HDR technique (with subtlety, please) if/when desired.

I think having a background in transparency film gives a person a better appreciation of both the benefits and drawbacks of electronic photography. You can see technological limitations as boundaries to be leaned against rather than as barriers blocking your way.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 25, 2013, 04:08:14 pm
Erik - sorry if I'm standing on the line so to say:

What I believe I do understand well what aliasing is.

But what I still do not understand:
When the object is rendered on the sensor at a certain size, but would be sampled by the same amount of pixels - lets say that star in your example would cover 5x5 pixels - let it be on 6.9µ or 4.8µ pixels - I still don't understand why the pixel size would matter here.
I understand well, that a larger resolution with smaller pixels on the same projected image causes less aliasing, thats pretty obvious,
but on a larger format sensor with larger pixels you would use a wider lens to get the same image and the image should
cover the same amount of pixels, if focal length was chosen accordingly.
Why should this situation cause more aliasing?

I somehow understand that the MTFs of MF and FF lenses differ and that f-stop plays a role (as AA Filter so to say), but if we could eliminate this variable - would the pixel size still matter?
And if yes why?

Sorry again - I have a scientific academic background and usually grab things pretty well - but here I just don't get it.

And yes - in the images of the feather - did you have exactly the same number of pixels per image feature, like lets say 10 pixels per streak of the feather or so?

Cheers and thanks for taking the hassle to answer
~Chris
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Fine_Art on November 25, 2013, 04:16:55 pm
Hi,

When a lens project an image on the sensor the projected image will have a certain resolution. If you photograph a star, the image will not be a single spot, but a small disk. If that disk is smaller than a pixel and it falls across a pair of pixels the different situations are possible:

1) Both pixels see it
2) Neither pixels see it
3) Either pixel sees it but not another

So details smaller than pixel size can not be resolved by the sensor. The response to the same disk can be different if the pixel is moved a tiny little bit.

Check out the enclosed image, it was taken with 150 mm at f/8 alt f/9 at 3.5 m distance on a:

- Top left P45+  (MFD, 6.9 my pixels, not AA filtered)
- Bottom left Sony Alpha 99 (6 my pixels, AA filtered)
- Right Sony Alpha 77 (3.9 My pixels AA filtered)

Neither sensor on the left can reproduce detail correctly. We can see cross hatch detail and incontinous strains. In the image on the right the 3.9 my pixels of  the SLT make a better job. The ideal combination would be the surface area of the P45+ and the pixel size of the Alpha 77, corresponding to 120 Megapixels.

Another way to see it:

I have measured MTF for my Zeiss Sonnar 150/4 that was used on the Hasselblad, it looks like this:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Zeissness_3/F8/Imatest_small.png)

Now, if we check the black curve, we can see that at Nyquist limit (120 lp/mm) on the SLT 77 the lens has an MTF of 4% (or so). This is to low to cause a lot of aliasing.

The P45+ has a pixel size of 6.9 microns, corresponding to 72 lp/mm, here the MTF is around 22%, more than enough to cause significant aliasing.

Best regards
Erik



This doesn't seem right to me. What I see in the image is a larger feather from the A77. Therefore the lines of the feather are not near the size of the pixels, therefore there is not aliasing. You are relying on the magnification (FL crop multiplier) to get the detail. If the width of the feather was the same in all shots, say for example 1000pixels across, you would have higher contrast from the bigger sensors as well as the same detail.

Your pictures on the next post are quite nice BTW.
Title: convert some "shadow DR" to "highlight DR" by reducing exposure or ISO setting
Post by: BJL on November 25, 2013, 04:21:53 pm
The DR of modern the dslr I don't see as a bonus, good in the shadows, bloody lawful with highlights or near highlights.
This simply means that the camera is overexposing, which unfortunately is a hazard with the common practice of exposure metering and analog gain levels that place metered midtones at around 12% of maximum raw level.

There is a simple solution: for example, to buy one stop of highlight headroom protection with one stop of that surplus shadow handling excellence:
1. when there is enough light to use base ISO speed, reduce the exposure by one stop
2. in lower light, where a higher ISO speed is needed, keep exposure (aperture and shutter speed) the same, but reduce that ISO setting by one stop
(Note that either of these can be achieved with -1 exposure compensation in A, S, or P mode).
3. in either case, compensate with a +1 levels adjustment in raw conversion (or just use auto-levels as a starting point.)

In fact some cameras [like the Olympus EM5] do this more or less as default, producing raw files with four or more stops between typical mid-tone placement and maximum raw level. (They are the cameras whose DXO measured sensitivity (what DXO calls "ISO speed") is significantly lower than the camera's ISO speed setting.)
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 04:25:03 pm
Hi Cristoph,

The aliasing comes from "excess resolution". You always get aliasing if the resolution of the lens exceeds that of the sensor. Now, MF lenses use to be pretty good, so at optimal aperture they easily outresolve the sensor. (I would rather not use that term, but I use it for simplicity.)

You can get rid of that aliasing by stopping down. Stopping down to f/16 - f/22 reduces resolution, so aliasing goes away.

The image below was shot with a Distagon 40/4 at f/8 and shows color aliasing
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/AliasingSamples/20130804-CF043750.jpg)

A second image shot at the same time with f/16-22 doesn't show color aliasing:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/AliasingSamples/20130804-CF043748.jpg)

What I really say is that small pixels are beneficial to image quality.

Best regards
Erik

Erik - sorry if I'm standing on the line so to say:

What I believe I do understand well what aliasing is.

But what I still do not understand:
When the object is rendered on the sensor at a certain size, but would be sampled by the same amount of pixels - lets say that star in your example would cover 5x5 pixels - let it be on 6.9µ or 4.8µ pixels - I still don't understand why the pixel size would matter here.
I understand well, that a larger resolution with smaller pixels on the same projected image causes less aliasing, thats pretty obvious,
but on a larger format sensor with larger pixels you would use a wider lens to get the same image and the image should
cover the same amount of pixels, if focal length was chosen accordingly.
Why should this situation cause more aliasing?

I somehow understand that the MTFs of MF and FF lenses differ and that f-stop plays a role (as AA Filter so to say), but if we could eliminate this variable - would the pixel size still matter?
And if yes why?

Sorry again - I have a scientific academic background and usually grab things pretty well - but here I just don't get it.

And yes - in the images of the feather - did you have exactly the same number of pixels per image feature, like lets say 10 pixels per streak of the feather or so?

Cheers and thanks for taking the hassle to answer
~Chris
Title: Re: convert some "shadow DR" to "highlight DR" by reducing exposure or ISO setting
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 25, 2013, 04:26:26 pm
This simply means that the camera is overexposing, which unfortunately is a hazard with the common practice of exposure metering and analog gain levels that place metered midtones at around 12% of maximum raw level.

There is a simple solution: for example, to buy one stop of highlight headroom protection with one stop of that surplus shadow handling excellence:
- when there is enough light to use base ISO speed, reduce the exposure by one stop
- in lower light, where a higher ISO speed is needed, reduce that ISO setting by one stop
- in either case, compensate with a +1 levels adjustment in raw conversion (or just use auto-levels as a starting point.)

In fact some cameras [like the Olympus EM5] do this more or less as default, producing raw files with four or more stops between typical mid-tone placement and maximum raw level. (They are the cameras whose DXO measured sensitivity (what DXO calls "ISO speed") is significantly lower than the camera's ISO speed setting.)

I always thought ETTR at lowest possible ISO would be the solution to this.
And if you don't like the highlight rendering compress in post by applying curves later to get a shoulder.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 25, 2013, 04:28:55 pm
Hi Cristoph,

The aliasing comes from "excess resolution". You always get aliasing if the resolution of the lens exceeds that of the sensor. Now, MF lenses use to be pretty good, so at optimal aperture they easily outresolve the sensor. (I would rather not use that term, but I use it for simplicity.)

You can get rid of that aliasing by stopping down. Stopping down to f/16 - f/22 reduces resolution, so aliasing goes away.

The image below was shot with a Distagon 40/4 at f/8 and shows color aliasing
..image..
A second image shot at the same time with f/16-22 doesn't show color aliasing:
..image..

What I really say is that small pixels are beneficial to image quality.

Best regards
Erik


Okay - the excess resolution thing I understand - I also understand that a simple blur in post cannot fix this.
So - basically in comparable situations you'd just have to stop down in MF to get diffusion or very slightly defocus?
Title: convert some "shadow DR" to "highlight DR": ETTR? or just bracket!
Post by: BJL on November 25, 2013, 04:37:40 pm
I always thought ETTR at lowest possible ISO would be the solution to this.
I suppose that is a solution in cases where (a) you have enough light to use base ISO speed, and (b) you can reliably check the exposure (histogram preview?) to know that your brightest highlights are placed just below clipping.

But often that is not possible; for one thing the preview histogram is based on a conversion to JPEG. I instead have decided that
1. At base ISO sensitivity, the sensor's DR is usually far more than my images need, so that shadow noise is not a problem unless I underexpose horribly, and then I am happy to leave some comfort zone at the right end of the histogram.

2. If there is time to check and review histograms in pursuit of a perfectly right-justifed histogram, it is usually also possible to bracket exposures and choose the best one later, which is typically a much quicker and easier approach!
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 04:39:01 pm
Hi,

Stop down.

One thing to keep in mind is that diffraction is benign to sharpening.

The enclosed image shows some artefacts I was very unhappy about.

Regarding diffraction, I think that these figure illustrates it pretty well:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1

But, there is also sharpening: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=2

I sort of plan to write two articles pretty soon now, one on sharpening and one on aliasing.

Best regards
Erik

Okay - the excess resolution thing I understand - I also understand that a simple blur in post cannot fix this.
So - basically in comparable situations you'd just have to stop down in MF to get diffusion or very slightly defocus?
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 25, 2013, 05:00:23 pm
One thing to keep in mind is that diffraction is benign to sharpening.

Yeah - since I learned that I became more courageous to stop down.
And Topaz InFocus, which I use does an incredible job at estimating PSF if you chose the right estimation area.
Title: Re: convert some "shadow DR" to "highlight DR": ETTR? or just bracket!
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 25, 2013, 05:01:07 pm
I suppose that is a solution in cases where (a) you have enough light to use base ISO speed, and (b) you can reliably check the exposure (histogram preview?) to know that your brightest highlights are placed just below clipping.

But often that is not possible; for one thing the preview histogram is based on a conversion to JPEG. I instead have decided that
1. At base ISO sensitivity, the sensor's DR is usually far more than my images need, so that shadow noise is not a problem unless I underexpose horribly, and then I am happy to leave some comfort zone at the right end of the histogram.

2. If there is time to check and review histograms in pursuit of a perfectly right-justifed histogram, it is usually also possible to bracket exposures and choose the best one later, which is typically a much quicker and easier approach!

Sounds very reasonable to me.
Title: Re: convert some "shadow DR" to "highlight DR" by reducing exposure or ISO setting
Post by: Telecaster on November 25, 2013, 05:10:47 pm
I always thought ETTR at lowest possible ISO would be the solution to this.
And if you don't like the highlight rendering compress in post by applying curves later to get a shoulder.

In my experience it depends on the sensor and what the camera does to the RAW data before saving it. I agree re. creating a shoulder (and toe) via curves when you want greater tonal compression. This is useful particularly when printing. But what do you do when an ETTR exposure results in mashed highlights because you've pushed them beyond the sensor/camera's linear range? They're not overexposed per se, just turned into Cream Of Wheat.   :o  Granted, I don't currently own any cameras that do this, or at least I don't use 'em in a way that reveals such behavior. (These days I expose for a useful JPEG even though I use the RAWs for printing. This likely mitigates any sensor non-linearity. The Pentax 645D with its well-behaved CCD is an exception...there I push the histograms TTR and rely on in-camera RAW conversion to give me lovely JPEGs.) I guess what I'm getting at is that techniques like ETTR should be used contextually rather than unilaterally.   :D  Do what works.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 05:11:29 pm
Hi,

There is not a lot of difference in MTF between MF and FF lenses, some are obviously better than others. The two lenses I used were quite close in MTF, with a slight edge to the Sonnar 150/4. So, each strain covers more pixels on the SLT 99 than on the P45+.

In the feather shots, everything was kept constant, focal length, distance and aperture, with small deviations. So the difference is down to pixel size. You can say it shows what an image from a 149 MP MF sensor with crop factor 1.0 would look like.


Best regards
Erik


Erik - sorry if I'm standing on the line so to say:



I somehow understand that the MTFs of MF and FF lenses differ and that f-stop plays a role (as AA Filter so to say), but if we could eliminate this variable - would the pixel size still matter?
And if yes why?

Sorry again - I have a scientific academic background and usually grab things pretty well - but here I just don't get it.

And yes - in the images of the feather - did you have exactly the same number of pixels per image feature, like lets say 10 pixels per streak of the feather or so?

Cheers and thanks for taking the hassle to answer
~Chris
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on November 25, 2013, 05:22:47 pm
Quote
basically in comparable situations you'd just have to stop down in MF to get diffusion or very slightly defocus?

Is this to say that it is OK as long as we introduce diffraction or expect some sort of AA filter effect to control this? Just wondering as....

One area of MF legitimacy in file quality is in the scientific and product photography that is at macro levels and these details become the center stage of the problem you are dealing with. making them slightly "unsharp" would to some degree defeat the use of MF. Take an image of a faceted stone and you will see how soft the separations get.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 05:33:02 pm
Hi,

Yes, MFDBs will induce some artefacts, unless stopped down so diffraction acts as AA-filter. Images below Sonnar 150/4 at f/5.6 (left) and f/22 (right). Note color fringes at top of left image.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Diffraction/20130629-CF043302-2.jpg)(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Diffraction/20130629-CF043305-2.jpg)

Please note, I am not in the forgery business and shooting 1$ bills is not my favorite subject. I like the dollar bill because:

1) It contains a lot of fine detail

2) Most people who can buy MFDs have access to 1$ bills, so they can easily reproduce my test and post some nice raw files, like I do. Some people survive on that money each day, but they don't buy MFDBs.

Best regards
Erik

Is this to say that it is OK as long as we introduce diffraction or expect some sort of AA filter effect to control this? Just wondering as....

One area of MF legitimacy in file quality is in the scientific and product photography that is at macro levels and these details become the center stage of the problem you are dealing with. making them slightly "unsharp" would to some degree defeat the use of MF. Take an image of a faceted stone and you will see how soft the separations get.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: tho_mas on November 25, 2013, 06:04:40 pm
MFDBs will induce some artefacts, unless stopped down so diffraction acts as AA-filter. (...) Note color fringes at top of left image.
The color fringes may or may not be pronounced (or suppressed/leveled out) in the raw software. May also have to do with the "calibration" of the DB. I've looked through some of your captures (raws). Although your captures seem to be somewhat soft they show quite a lot of color artefacts. I do shoot almost the same back (P45 non-plus) on Contax and while my captures (raws) are typically sharper/more detailed they also show much less color artefacts. I also shoot the very same back on a tech cam with very sharp lenses and while the captures are sure even more sharp/more detailed than shot with Contax lenses (at least at the edges...) the back still doesn't show that much color artefacts.
I don't want to say my back does not produce color artefacts ... it does. But overall much less... and much less pronounced.
Moiré, of course, is another story...
So your findings may very well apply to your kit... but not necessarily to MFD in general...??
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 06:15:24 pm
Hi,

What sharpening are you using?

I am using LR 5, and it yields more color artefacts than Capture One, but C1 is not free from color artefacts either.

It is interesting that your images are sharper than mine, as the Contax lenses are said to be very similar to the Zeiss lenses on Hasselblad V. I shoot on a decent tripod with a decent head and MLU, so I don't think it is vibration. Focusing errors are possible. I think I have a tendency to front focus, I will check more into that.

Best regards
Erik
The color fringes may or may not be pronounced (or suppressed/leveled out) in the raw software. May also have to do with the "calibration" of the DB. I've looked through some of your captures (raws). Although your captures seem to be somewhat soft they show quite a lot of color artefacts. I do shoot almost the same back (P45 non-plus) on Contax and while my captures (raws) are typically sharper/more detailed they also show much less color artefacts. I also shoot the very same back on a tech cam with very sharp lenses and while the captures are sure even more sharp/more detailed than shot with Contax lenses (at least at the edges...) the back still doesn't show that much color artefacts.
I don't want to say my back does not produce color artefacts ... it does. But overall much less... and much less pronounced.
Moiré, of course, is another story...
So your findings my very well apply to your kit... but not necessarily to MFD in general...???

Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 25, 2013, 06:20:09 pm
Hi,

Yes, MFDBs will induce some artefacts, unless stopped down so diffraction acts as AA-filter. Images below Sonnar 150/4 at f/5.6 (left) and f/22 (right). Note color fringes at top of left image.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Diffraction/20130629-CF043302-2.jpg)(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Diffraction/20130629-CF043305-2.jpg)
But what do the images look like after post processing to get the best result? Or is this after work has been done?
As it stands one is sharp with artefacts and the other soft with no artefacts. Personally I would choose the image that looks in focus over the artefact free shot.
Come to think of it, did you adjust for focus shift when you stopped down?
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 06:35:01 pm
Hi,

I don't think there is significant focus shift on a Sonnar 150/4 when stopped down from f/5.6 to f/22. Both images are shown with same post processing. The idea was to demonstrate the effects of diffraction, the reduction of color artifacts is just a side effect.

I didn't vary sharpening (which I usually do when stopping down) because it is easy to get into a sharpening race. If I sharpen the right image a bit more, I can also sharpen the left one a bit more.

This is an older test showing the effects of quite extreme sharpening.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=2

Best regards
Erik

But what do the images look like after post processing to get the best result? Or is this after work has been done?
As it stands one is sharp with artefacts and the other soft with no artefacts. Personally I would choose the image that looks in focus over the artefact free shot.
Come to think of it, did you adjust for focus shift when you stopped down?
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: tho_mas on November 25, 2013, 06:35:46 pm
What sharpening are you using?
Personally I do not apply sharpening at the RAW stage. I first apply (multi-step) sharpening when the image is resized to the desired size...
But concerning your RAWs I've viewed them in C1 with the standard sharpening I use to preview my P45 files.

Quote
It is interesting that your images are sharper than mine, as the Contax lenses are said to be very similar to the Zeiss lenses on Hasselblad V
well, actually we would have to do side-by-side comparisions to be sure... but I am talking about my overall impression of your RAWs based on my experience with my P45 files. But the Hassy vs. Contax thing aside the more intressting point is the use of high res digital LF lenses (Digitar & Rodenstock HR)... these are extremly sharp lenses but I still do not see that kind of color artefatcs ... According to your theory I should see more color artefacts and more fake detail when using sharper lenses on the same DB. But I do not ... I only see a more sharp/more detailed image ... for whatever reason.
And while we're at it... I also shoot a P21+ (9 microns!)... and the very same lenses also do not show more color artefacts when shooting this back. The files are just "brutally" sharp (either way if I use the Contax or the digital LF lenses). Of course the P21+ is more prone to show pattern Moiré, but, again, this is a different story ...
So in my - personal !! - experience something simply doesn't add up ...



Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: jjj on November 25, 2013, 06:42:03 pm
No need for a sharpening race, just do each as best they can be done. Simply see how well artefacts can be removed and how well they sharpen. The only real comparison that can be made is after PP is finished as best as can be done. Doing both the same is not really relevant as you didn't use same camera settings.


Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Fine_Art on November 25, 2013, 06:56:36 pm
The color fringes may or may not be pronounced (or suppressed/leveled out) in the raw software. May also have to do with the "calibration" of the DB. I've looked through some of your captures (raws). Although your captures seem to be somewhat soft they show quite a lot of color artefacts. I do shoot almost the same back (P45 non-plus) on Contax and while my captures (raws) are typically sharper/more detailed they also show much less color artefacts. I also shoot the very same back on a tech cam with very sharp lenses and while the captures are sure even more sharp/more detailed than shot with Contax lenses (at least at the edges...) the back still doesn't show that much color artefacts.
I don't want to say my back does not produce color artefacts ... it does. But overall much less... and much less pronounced.
Moiré, of course, is another story...
So your findings may very well apply to your kit... but not necessarily to MFD in general...??


Color artifact are a completely different issue. They are about how well the lens is apochromatic. Many lenses approximate focusing the 3 primaries to the same spot. Many fail. The lens in question probably has an element out of alignment or the coatings are failing.

Attached is a screenshot at 100% with all sharpening off. very fine lines, pixel level lines, can still be seen with mild stairstepping. That is all you can ask of a lens in terms of resolution. Give me clean separation at the pixel level. If I turn on sharpening all that happens is contrast is cranked.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 08:35:20 pm
Hi,

Thanks for your observations. I don't have any decent explanation. I know Lightroom produces more color artifacts than C1

Best regards
Erik


And while we're at it... I also shoot a P21+ (9 microns!)... and the very same lenses also do not show more color artefacts when shooting this back. The files are just "brutally" sharp (either way if I use the Contax or the digital LF lenses). Of course the P21+ is more prone to show pattern Moiré, but, again, this is a different story ...
So in my - personal !! - experience something simply doesn't add up ...




Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 25, 2013, 08:40:31 pm
Hi,

The issue below is not CA.

(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/AliasingSamples/20130804-CF043750.jpg)

Best regards
Erik

Color artifact are a completely different issue. They are about how well the lens is apochromatic. Many lenses approximate focusing the 3 primaries to the same spot. Many fail. The lens in question probably has an element out of alignment or the coatings are failing.

Attached is a screenshot at 100% with all sharpening off. very fine lines, pixel level lines, can still be seen with mild stairstepping. That is all you can ask of a lens in terms of resolution. Give me clean separation at the pixel level. If I turn on sharpening all that happens is contrast is cranked.

Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Fine_Art on November 25, 2013, 11:42:16 pm
Hi,

The issue below is not CA.

(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/AliasingSamples/20130804-CF043750.jpg)

Best regards
Erik


I think the technical terms are spherochromatism and transverse chromatic aberration if it mostly shows up away from the center. Either way, your pictures deserve a try with a different sample lens.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 26, 2013, 01:32:06 am
Hi,

Anyway, I am most thankful for your comments. Much appreciated.

A guess is that this may also do with subject. The things that show these colour artefacts is normally small detail at close to pixel size. Sail boat rigging is very typical, pine needles against white wall. Unfortunately also waves on water. I see it often in test shots but seldom in normal photography.

The reason that my images are softer than yours at the raw level is interesting, it may depend on slight front focusing.


Best regards
Erik


Personally I do not apply sharpening at the RAW stage. I first apply (multi-step) sharpening when the image is resized to the desired size...
But concerning your RAWs I've viewed them in C1 with the standard sharpening I use to preview my P45 files.
well, actually we would have to do side-by-side comparisions to be sure... but I am talking about my overall impression of your RAWs based on my experience with my P45 files. But the Hassy vs. Contax thing aside the more intressting point is the use of high res digital LF lenses (Digitar & Rodenstock HR)... these are extremly sharp lenses but I still do not see that kind of color artefatcs ... According to your theory I should see more color artefacts and more fake detail when using sharper lenses on the same DB. But I do not ... I only see a more sharp/more detailed image ... for whatever reason.
And while we're at it... I also shoot a P21+ (9 microns!)... and the very same lenses also do not show more color artefacts when shooting this back. The files are just "brutally" sharp (either way if I use the Contax or the digital LF lenses). Of course the P21+ is more prone to show pattern Moiré, but, again, this is a different story ...
So in my - personal !! - experience something simply doesn't add up ...




Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: AreBee on November 26, 2013, 02:14:08 am
Fine_Art,

Quote
The lens in question probably has an element out of alignment or the coatings are failing.

Coatings fail?
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: EricWHiss on November 26, 2013, 02:21:16 am
The color fringes may or may not be pronounced (or suppressed/leveled out) in the raw software. May also have to do with the "calibration" of the DB. I've looked through some of your captures (raws). Although your captures seem to be somewhat soft they show quite a lot of color artefacts. I do shoot almost the same back (P45 non-plus) on Contax and while my captures (raws) are typically sharper/more detailed they also show much less color artefacts. I also shoot the very same back on a tech cam with very sharp lenses and while the captures are sure even more sharp/more detailed than shot with Contax lenses (at least at the edges...) the back still doesn't show that much color artefacts.
I don't want to say my back does not produce color artefacts ... it does. But overall much less... and much less pronounced.
Moiré, of course, is another story...
So your findings may very well apply to your kit... but not necessarily to MFD in general...??

I'm with tho_mas here Erik:  I've been somewhat baffled by your sample images actually since its not what I see.  Also in your sample image with the bill - the purple fringing around the black test chart marks leads me to believe either you haven't focused properly (axial CA) or there's another issue going on with your set up.  I've shot bills with all kinds of digital backs from DMR to AFi-ii 12 and multishot backs.



Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 26, 2013, 02:44:02 am
Hi,

Yes, I can confirm that the Sonnar 150/4 has axial chromatic aberration. I don't think that is the issue, however. I will try to reshoot the image with focus bracketing, as I plan some other test shoots this week.

Best regards
Erik


I'm with tho_mas here Erik:  I've been somewhat baffled by your sample images actually since its not what I see.  Also in your sample image with the bill - the purple fringing around the black test chart marks leads me to believe either you haven't focused properly (axial CA) or there's another issue going on with your set up.  I've shot bills with all kinds of digital backs from DMR to AFi-ii 12 and multishot backs.




Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: synn on November 26, 2013, 02:51:01 am
I might be the odd man out here, but I fail to see how any of this analysis paralysis would actually answer the question "Whether MF is worth it or not". People who opt for MF as a tool, as I plan to do shortly, do it for a variety of reasons, none of which involves looking at charts and graphs and 100% pixels for hours.

Sorry if I offended anyone, but a tool is a tool. It's about finding the one that fits ones requirements best.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 26, 2013, 04:56:21 am
Hi,

The pixels are forming the image...

Best regards
Erik


I might be the odd man out here, but I fail to see how any of this analysis paralysis would actually answer the question "Whether MF is worth it or not". People who opt for MF as a tool, as I plan to do shortly, do it for a variety of reasons, none of which involves looking at charts and graphs and 100% pixels for hours.

Sorry if I offended anyone, but a tool is a tool. It's about finding the one that fits ones requirements best.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Fine_Art on November 26, 2013, 10:17:39 am
Fine_Art,

Coatings fail?

From cleaning (abrasion), peeling, pollution (or any chemical reaction; sea spray?), fungus eating it, sometimes it has holes to begin with where it did not stick at manufacture.

High end multicoatings are a large part of the cost of lenses. We do well to inspect carefully at purchase to make sure they are intact.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: Fine_Art on November 26, 2013, 10:30:43 am
I might be the odd man out here, but I fail to see how any of this analysis paralysis would actually answer the question "Whether MF is worth it or not". People who opt for MF as a tool, as I plan to do shortly, do it for a variety of reasons, none of which involves looking at charts and graphs and 100% pixels for hours.

Sorry if I offended anyone, but a tool is a tool. It's about finding the one that fits ones requirements best.

IMO the advantages of MF are 2:

Anytime you have to get a massive amount of data in 1 shot. Otherwise stitch.

Larger lenses allow the curves in the lens to be smoother relative to the limit of grinding technology. Theoretically you could design in more precise rendering style.

The latest lens manufacturing tech is using a jet of liquid to shape the rotating lens at the molecular level. The new crops of ultra lenses are probably from this machine. Even aspherics. I think it makes the old limits of putting together systems of spherical ground lenses history.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 26, 2013, 03:40:06 pm
Hi,

I would agree on point one, if you talk about high resolution backs, like IQ 160 and up. Not really P25 class. I agree that P45+ has better detail than 24 MP digital.

Regarding lens technology, I do disagree. Small lenses are generally regarded to be easier to design for high performance. Exotic technologies make it first to cell phone cameras, check the enclosed screen dumps from an article by Carl Zeiss. And please not the MTF diagram goes to 80 lp/mm instead of the usual 40 lp/mm.

There are a couple of glasses in today's glass catalogs allowing for moulded aspherics. Almost any lens you can buy today has a couple of aspherics.

Best regards
Erik





IMO the advantages of MF are 2:

Anytime you have to get a massive amount of data in 1 shot. Otherwise stitch.

Larger lenses allow the curves in the lens to be smoother relative to the limit of grinding technology. Theoretically you could design in more precise rendering style.

The latest lens manufacturing tech is using a jet of liquid to shape the rotating lens at the molecular level. The new crops of ultra lenses are probably from this machine. Even aspherics. I think it makes the old limits of putting together systems of spherical ground lenses history.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: EricWHiss on November 27, 2013, 02:17:50 am
Yes, I can confirm that the Sonnar 150/4 has axial chromatic aberration. I don't think that is the issue, however. I will try to reshoot the image with focus bracketing, as I plan some other test shoots this week.

Erik, the Axial CA shows in the just out of focus areas - so if you see it in your test chart with the lens set to a small aperture, my best guess is you have not focused well. There are other causes of purple fringing but the P45+ has great control of blooming so I'm not thinking that is the cause of it on your test images.  More likely Axial CA.   You could actually use this as a guide for focusing. Goes from purple to green and when you are in focus none.
Title: Re: Not worth it ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 27, 2013, 02:41:05 am
Hi,

I know axial chromatic aberration well, and I can observe it during focusing. But I don't think that is causing the issue shown, because the colors are different. A bit also because I used the slanted edges for MTF measurement and the MTF on those images was "darned good". My guess is that LR4 landscape sharpening preset was used but I don't know.

You see that MTF at f/4 is close to MTF at f/5.6, and it drops at f/8. Note also that the f/5.6 image shows paper structure on the dollar bill. The image was shot at around 3.5 m.

Very clearly, I will spend some more time looking into this. Doing som focus bracketing, to begin with.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, the Axial CA shows in the just out of focus areas - so if you see it in your test chart with the lens set to a small aperture, my best guess is you have not focused well. There are other causes of purple fringing but the P45+ has great control of blooming so I'm not thinking that is the cause of it on your test images.  More likely Axial CA.   You could actually use this as a guide for focusing. Goes from purple to green and when you are in focus none.