Geez, do you want it done fast or do you want it done well? Patience...
-Dave-
Where are the tests ?do you think it is easy to decide what to do with the holy trinity of MF CCD goodies ? 6 stops, 3D look and 16bits
do you think it is easy to decide what to do with the holy trinity of MF CCD goodies ? 6 stops, 3D look and 16bits
I will be very surpriced if the 250 is not inferrior to the CCD-backs on base iso.
By the way, here is the challenging, real-world, but beautiful location, in which we tested the back. More details tomorrow:
(IQ250, 32HR, 8mm rise)
By the way, here is the challenging, real-world, but beautiful location, in which we tested the back. More details tomorrow:DR certainly looks impressive…
(IQ250, 32HR, 8mm rise)
Why would you think this?
Sorry if you felt this was a criticism of you. It was not!!
Just because we have been told for many years how much better the CCDs are
and because Phase One have been working with CCD for many years and should know
this tecnology much better.
Just because we have been told for many years how much better the CCDs are
and because Phase One have been working with CCD for many years and should know
this tecnology much better.
Interesting that this Sony chip, with its own preamps/converters, delivers digital right off the sensor. While Phase/Pentax/Hasselblad might be able to improve this somewhat, for the most part, the image quality is all in Sony's hands.
I'm insulted by this. I've got six years of history here being very direct about both the pros and cons of anything we sell. To imply it's taking "so long" because there is some conspiracy to keep the results from you vastly underestimates the amount of work we put in to providing these tests.
I spent 7 hours at the Morgan Library on Monday capturing every combination of:
IQ250, IQ260, IQ280
32HR, 32XL, 40HR, 60XL
0/15/30mm rise
0/15/-15mm shift
I also added an ISO sweep test, and tested the 47XL and 28LS with the IQ250.
With LCCs that 271 images.
It took most of three days (90% done at this point) to backup, organize, apply LCC's, and adjust those files. The organization is especially important because we intend the raws to be able to be processed by people not present at the test, who will therefore need to know exactly what each file represents.
We'll be making all these files available to our clients, and most of them available to anyone (there are some bandwidth concerns in sharing the entire inventory to the entire world). Both the ones that show the IQ250 shining (most of them) and the ones that show the IQ250 really struggling (like the 35XL with 15mm movement).
Keep in mind that in that time since the launch we've also
- changed 13 time zones, and did a 16 hour flight
- written a lengthy article that will be published on LL tomorrow, based on extensive interviews and conversation with the R+D team
- written an extensive FAQ on the IQ250 (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq250-11-things-to-know) which had information no one else published
- tested the new version of C1 and Capture Pilot
- posted answers to dozens of questions asked here on the forum
- captured and published a video of the IQ250 live view (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4poi4c45qH8&feature=youtu.be)
- rushed TIFFs of the raw files we had to client's that have time sensitive requests which could not wait for the new version of C1 (e.g. one is planning a project for next month and needs to know if an IQ250 or IQ260 will be better for his project)
- done all the normal office work (ya know, like supporting our existing customers - our #1 priority, whose questions and issues don't suddenly stop because there is a new product to test)
If anything, I do accept blame for overestimating the speed at which we'd get the tests out. For that I do apologize.
If I sound a bit annoyed at the accusation, I am. I've basically not slept a full night since the launch, doing everything possible to get good, relevant, real world testing done, while also taking care of our existing customers (as a dealer we are very hands on with our client's and any issues/questions they have). I do this, despite knowing that as soon as I post the test the comments will be filled with posters telling me I'm dumb because I didn't do XYZ ("you should have done 17.5mm of shift, not 15mm blah blah"), because I know there are many here who have a genuine curiosity, and don't have access to rent/evaluate a back and therefore rely on such testing to help them make very large financial decisions.
Anyway, back to work...
Is there is fixed data path here or can you bypass the on-chip gain and/or ADCs and roll your own?I am fairly sure that the Sony EXMOR sensors (and all sensors that do column-parallel ADC) always do ADC at the bottom of each column of pixels, and are only wired to output a digital signal from there.
I am fairly sure that the Sony EXMOR sensors (and all sensors that do column-parallel ADC) always do ADC at the bottom of each column of pixels, and are only wired to output a digital signal from there.
However, the ADC process can be adjusted: reducing the sweep rate of the sawtooth voltage input used with ADCs can increase accuracy (maybe adding a bit or two) in exchange for a lower frame rate.
That and CFA design seem to be the main sensor customizations available. (Demosaicing algorithms and such are also relevant to in-camera JPEGs.)
I'm insulted by this. I've got six years of history here being very direct about both the pros and cons of anything we sell. To imply it's taking "so long" because there is some conspiracy to keep the results from you vastly underestimates the amount of work we put in to providing these tests.
I spent 7 hours at the Morgan Library on Monday capturing every combination of:
IQ250, IQ260, IQ280
32HR, 32XL, 40HR, 60XL
0/15/30mm rise
0/15/-15mm shift
I also added an ISO sweep test, and tested the 47XL and 28LS with the IQ250.
With LCCs that 271 images.
It took most of three days (90% done at this point) to backup, organize, apply LCC's, and adjust those files. The organization is especially important because we intend the raws to be able to be processed by people not present at the test, who will therefore need to know exactly what each file represents.
We'll be making all these files available to our clients, and most of them available to anyone (there are some bandwidth concerns in sharing the entire inventory to the entire world). Both the ones that show the IQ250 shining (most of them) and the ones that show the IQ250 really struggling (like the 35XL with 15mm movement).
Keep in mind that in that time since the launch we've also
- changed 13 time zones, and did a 16 hour flight
- written a lengthy article that will be published on LL tomorrow, based on extensive interviews and conversation with the R+D team
- written an extensive FAQ on the IQ250 (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq250-11-things-to-know) which had information no one else published
- tested the new version of C1 and Capture Pilot
- posted answers to dozens of questions asked here on the forum
- captured and published a video of the IQ250 live view (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4poi4c45qH8&feature=youtu.be)
- rushed TIFFs of the raw files we had to client's that have time sensitive requests which could not wait for the new version of C1 (e.g. one is planning a project for next month and needs to know if an IQ250 or IQ260 will be better for his project)
- done all the normal office work (ya know, like supporting our existing customers - our #1 priority, whose questions and issues don't suddenly stop because there is a new product to test)
If anything, I do accept blame for overestimating the speed at which we'd get the tests out. For that I do apologize.
If I sound a bit annoyed at the accusation, I am. I've basically not slept a full night since the launch, doing everything possible to get good, relevant, real world testing done, while also taking care of our existing customers (as a dealer we are very hands on with our client's and any issues/questions they have). I do this, despite knowing that as soon as I post the test the comments will be filled with posters telling me I'm dumb because I didn't do XYZ ("you should have done 17.5mm of shift, not 15mm blah blah"), because I know there are many here who have a genuine curiosity, and don't have access to rent/evaluate a back and therefore rely on such testing to help them make very large financial decisions.
Anyway, back to work...
I'm insulted by this. I've got six years of history here being very direct about both the pros and cons of anything we sell. To imply it's taking "so long" because there is some conspiracy to keep the results from you vastly underestimates the amount of work we put in to providing these tests.
I spent 7 hours at the Morgan Library on Monday capturing every combination of:
IQ250, IQ260, IQ280
32HR, 32XL, 40HR, 60XL
0/15/30mm rise
0/15/-15mm shift
I also added an ISO sweep test, and tested the 47XL and 28LS with the IQ250.
With LCCs that 271 images.
It took most of three days (90% done at this point) to backup, organize, apply LCC's, and adjust those files. The organization is especially important because we intend the raws to be able to be processed by people not present at the test, who will therefore need to know exactly what each file represents.
We'll be making all these files available to our clients, and most of them available to anyone (there are some bandwidth concerns in sharing the entire inventory to the entire world). Both the ones that show the IQ250 shining (most of them) and the ones that show the IQ250 really struggling (like the 35XL with 15mm movement).
Keep in mind that in that time since the launch we've also
- changed 13 time zones, and did a 16 hour flight
- written a lengthy article that will be published on LL tomorrow, based on extensive interviews and conversation with the R+D team
- written an extensive FAQ on the IQ250 (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq250-11-things-to-know) which had information no one else published
- tested the new version of C1 and Capture Pilot
- posted answers to dozens of questions asked here on the forum
- captured and published a video of the IQ250 live view (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4poi4c45qH8&feature=youtu.be)
- rushed TIFFs of the raw files we had to client's that have time sensitive requests which could not wait for the new version of C1 (e.g. one is planning a project for next month and needs to know if an IQ250 or IQ260 will be better for his project)
- done all the normal office work (ya know, like supporting our existing customers - our #1 priority, whose questions and issues don't suddenly stop because there is a new product to test)
If anything, I do accept blame for overestimating the speed at which we'd get the tests out. For that I do apologize.
If I sound a bit annoyed at the accusation, I am. I've basically not slept a full night since the launch, doing everything possible to get good, relevant, real world testing done, while also taking care of our existing customers (as a dealer we are very hands on with our client's and any issues/questions they have). I do this, despite knowing that as soon as I post the test the comments will be filled with posters telling me I'm dumb because I didn't do XYZ ("you should have done 17.5mm of shift, not 15mm blah blah"), because I know there are many here who have a genuine curiosity, and don't have access to rent/evaluate a back and therefore rely on such testing to help them make very large financial decisions.
Anyway, back to work...
…
I think it is already indicated that the results will not be as bad as we feared, but not as good as we hoped (when it comes to technical camera usage with shifts, etc).
…
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
By the way, here is the challenging, real-world, but beautiful location, in which we tested the back. More details tomorrow:
(IQ250, 32HR, 8mm rise)
I'm sure Phase did testing on a tech camera during development - or, at least, you would hope they did - this thing costs $35k after all. Why the results aren't made available at launch is odd.
Imagine BMW bringing a new car to market (costs about the same - yes, still hard to get your head around), and then after it goes on sale they declare 'no - we don't know how it drives in the wet - someone had better do some testing and find out'. Doh !
Do you know if any tech cams will be coming on tour with the IQ250 demos? I know I won't really be able to test much in a studio, but I would love to see them together when Allison/Michelle come to Denver.
Was all tech camera testing indoors?
Good news is that we got the article up (and all the various small typos and issues changing from final draft to the blog platform and formatting and the LL team being swamped during and after their trip to Antarctica).
IQ250, CMOS Fully Realized (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_phase_one_iq250_cmos_fully_realized.shtml)
Bad news is I'm still organizing and uploading sample files and writing up our findings. Great news is I think they were be very useful in evaluating the real-world usable image circle for each of the tested lenses for each of the tested backs.
Good news is that we got the article up (and all the various small typos and issues changing from final draft to the blog platform and formatting and the LL team being swamped during and after their trip to Antarctica).
IQ250, CMOS Fully Realized (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_phase_one_iq250_cmos_fully_realized.shtml)
Bad news is I'm still organizing and uploading sample files and writing up our findings. Great news is I think they were be very useful in evaluating the real-world usable image circle for each of the tested lenses for each of the tested backs.
The little isle is all inrail'dEdmund
With a rose-fence, and overtrail'd
With roses: by the marge unhail'd
The shallop flitteth silken sail'd,
Skimming down to Camelot.
A pearl garland winds her head:
She leaneth on a velvet bed,
Full royally apparelled,
The Lady of Shalott.
Good news is that we got the article up (and all the various small typos and issues changing from final draft to the blog platform and formatting and the LL team being swamped during and after their trip to Antarctica).
IQ250, CMOS Fully Realized (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_phase_one_iq250_cmos_fully_realized.shtml)
Bad news is I'm still organizing and uploading sample files and writing up our findings. Great news is I think they were be very useful in evaluating the real-world usable image circle for each of the tested lenses for each of the tested backs.
Out of all articles I've ever seen about MF sensor quality, this is the first one that the pictures presented and the development of them reminds so much of a common CMos DSLR… If I didn't know that the article is about an MFDB, I would be confident that this is a next step Dslr that claims to have surpassed other high end DSLRs in DR and colour stability, by sacrificing a bit of its higher Iso performance… Hence (in my mind) the question still remains: "Why should one buy an MFDB (in ten times the price) to only improve a little than a current high end Dslr"? …especially if he can wait for some time and purchase a next generation Dslr that will (inevitably) carry the improvements. To my mind, MFDBs are not there to provide higher resolution than Dslrs, but to supplement what Dslrs can't do or are unsatisfactory in performing…. and this is colour accuracy at lower Iso, Tech and view camera compatibility, multishot, ability to "dig" deeper in the shadows with colour still present, and colour stability with respect to colour tonality. Sorry, but I don't see the special project which the new back can carry out and that alternative (and cheaper) equipment won't be able to perform to the same or better level… :(
I think just knowing that there is a CMOS in this back will make some disregard from it and prefer CCD, it's going to be a HiFi vinyl vs CD thing. And as such, not all arguments will be sane ;)
Correct (except for that there is a difference between vinyl and CDs). Try a double blind test on a couple of images, and the prejudiced will miserably fail in identifying which is which, CMOS or CCD. Because there is no difference, other than the Bayer CFA used.
Apparently, from Doug's article, Phase One had some influence on Sony to choose a different trade-off between color accuracy and overall sensitivity compared to regular DSLRs built for speed. I don't know how close the match is between the current CCD CFAs and the final choice of the CMOS CFAs, so there might still be some difference, but I doubt it would be easily detected in real images. The higher DR of the CMOS is probably the telltale sign that identifies it, not the color accuracy, especially at higher ISO settings (or underexposure).
Cheers,
Bart
Concerning the conflict between speed and color accuracy I don't understand why they don't just sacrify one of the green pixels in the Bayer pattern for an unfiltered one and make the ramaining 3 more specific to get better color separation.
Hi Chris,
Probably because that reduces the accurate demosaicing of the green pass-band. It would help if a 4x (or 16x) multistep capture was used, because that samples each pixel position with all filters, and reduction of exposure time would allow to reduce the risk of uneven lighting between sub-exposures.
Cheers,
Bart
This appears to me as my example being not a trade between speed and color accuracy then, but a trade between spatial resolution and color accuracy.
With the current high resolution solutions this should be a viable option.
Cheers
~Chris
This appears to me as my example being not a trade between speed and color accuracy then, but a trade between spatial resolution and color accuracy.
With the current high resolution solutions this should be a viable option.
Cheers
~Chris
Hi,
I would think that the issue is a bit overrated. For some cameras high ISO is important for marketing, but I guess that high ISO is more about noise reduction than orthogonality of colour filters.
I am not so sure orthogonal filters are optimal. I am pretty sure some overlap is needed to be able to reproduce subtle colours.
CCD vendors normally publish data for spectral sensivity but I have not seen similar data from CMOS vendors.
Best regards
Erik
Awesome article!except for tiresome mantra about "CMOS colors" with the word CMOS in it... it is the time to really drop it... it is a blood libel really in camera's world ;D
Phase One has before this back was introduced gained from exaggerating the differences between CMOS and CCD to distance them from DSLRs. So my guess is that the difference has not been that large in actuality, it's all about the CFA, and once you have that you don't need to develop your profiles with any different methodology. So I'm sure color from this back is good.Lets put it this way… judging from the article's posted pictures, "colour from this back looks good (better) and (more) stable with respect to what we are used to call as "Cmos colour looks" when it's created by another Sony sensor Dslr…"
I assume you are thinking in terms of orthogonal vectors describing a vector space.
I am not sure how an orthogonal design could work at all here even if possible to construct and after all the human eye has overlap as well.
You know that a set of points in a 2 dimensional space (the spectral power distribution) is converted into a single point in a 3-dimensional RGB colorspace -
this is an irreversible data reduction - maybe not mathematically, but surely from an engineering point of view.
This happens in a camera and it happens in the human eye.
I can't imagine how orthogonality would apply in this kind of transformation.
If the CFA would be able to exactly mimic that process in a way how it is done in the system of trichromatic vision in the human retina we'd have at least
something equivalently powerful as human trichromatic colorvision, I think.
I don't know if anyone has ever designed a CFA with a spectral response identical to the response of the cones in the human eye or if there are maybe even reasons against that though.
Cheers
~Chris
except for tiresome mantra about "CMOS colors" with the word CMOS in it... it is the time to really drop it... it is a blood libel really in camera's world ;D
I don't know if anyone has ever designed a CFA with a spectral response identical to the response of the cones in the human eye or if there are maybe even reasons against that though.
My guess is that since our "red" & "green" cones are so close in their respective responses, the degree of processing needed to emulate human color vision with a more "accurate" CFA would be formidable. Probably just easier to move the green response curve down to shorter wavelengths for more distinct red/green separation.
-Dave-
I don't know if anyone has ever designed a CFA with a spectral response identical to the response of the cones in the human eye or if there are maybe even reasons against that though.
If the CFA would be able to exactly mimic that process in a way how it is done in the system of trichromatic vision in the human retina we'd have at least
something equivalently powerful as human trichromatic colorvision, I think.
I don't know if anyone has ever designed a CFA with a spectral response identical to the response of the cones in the human eye or if there are maybe even reasons against that though.
except for tiresome mantra about "CMOS colors" with the word CMOS in it... it is the time to really drop it... it is a blood libel really in camera's world ;D
They are walking on a very narrow ridge here.
Once you admit that CMOS is just as good as CCD, you quickly reach a point where the only differentiation with the upcoming next gen high megapixel bodies from
Nikon (and - who knows - Canon) is resolution, but even that is unclear.
Everything is being played within a few % of absolute performance and ends being mostly in the head of the buyers and about how they perceive their end to end experience with the equipment.
So comforting buyers in the belief that their check is well worth it remains essential.
Cheers,
Bernard
They are walking on a very narrow ridge here.
Once you admit that CMOS is just as good as CCD, you quickly reach a point where the only differentiation with the upcoming next gen high megapixel bodies from
Nikon (and - who knows - Canon) is resolution, but even that is unclear.
Everything is being played within a few % of absolute performance and ends being mostly in the head of the buyers and about how they perceive their end to end experience with the equipment.
So comforting buyers in the belief that their check is well worth it remains essential.
Cheers,
Bernard
I absolutly agree on this.
My first thought when I heard about the CMOS-back was that this will be the beginning of the end for
the the expensive backs. If the only difference between the MF backs and a Nikon/Canon/Sony is a bigger
sensor I think it will be even harder to justify the huge price-difference. Just my thoughts..
I absolutly agree on this.
My first thought when I heard about the CMOS-back was that this will be the beginning of the end for
the the expensive backs. If the only difference between the MF backs and a Nikon/Canon/Sony is a bigger
sensor I think it will be even harder to justify the huge price-difference. Just my thoughts..
Normally photographers do their work by taking a naked sensor and hold it in the air towards the thing they want to photograph.
So it's natural to assume that nothing but the sensor matters – lens technical quality, lens look, feature set, tethering speed/stability, flash sync speed, features, review speed/ease/power/accuracy, tactility of the capture process, mechanical precision, ergonomics of the body, brightness of the viewfinder, color accuracy, color pleasantness, etc.
Then again, the sensor is 1.7x larger and has
“We can confirm that the pig traveled, and we can confirm that it will never happen again,” US Airways spokesman David Castelveter said. “Let me stress that. It will never happen again.”
Sources familiar with the incident told the Philadelphia Daily News for Friday’s editions that the pig’s owners convinced the airline that the animal was a “therapeutic companion pet,” like a guide dog for the blind.
Owners Had Doctor’s Note
The pig was traveling with two unidentified women, one in her 30s, the other a senior citizen. An internal US Airways incident report said the owners claimed they had a doctor’s note that allowed them to fly with the animal.
US Airways and Federal Aviation Administration rules allow passengers to fly with service animals.
“According to [the] Philadelphia agent who talked to passenger over phone … passenger described pig as being 13 pounds, so based on this info, authorization was given,” the report stated. Passengers on the flight told the Daily News the pig actually weighed several hundred pounds.
Pig Goes Wild
The pig, which spent the flight in the first row of first class, went ape when the aircraft taxied into Seattle, according to the report.
It reportedly ran loose through the aircraft, squealing loudly, and even tried to enter the cockpit.
“Many people on board the aircraft were quite upset that there was a large uncontrollable pig on board, especially those in the first-class cabin,” the incident report stated.
Normally photographers do their work by taking a naked sensor and hold it in the air towards the thing they want to photograph.
So it's natural to assume that nothing but the sensor matters – lens technical quality, lens look, feature set, tethering speed/stability, flash sync speed, features, review speed/ease/power/accuracy, tactility of the capture process, mechanical precision, ergonomics of the body, brightness of the viewfinder, color accuracy, color pleasantness, etc.
Then again, the sensor is 1.7x larger and has
Normally photographers do their work by taking a naked sensor and hold it in the air towards the thing they want to photograph.My wonder is if P1 is considering to use a cropped size of this sensor down to 135 FF size and corporate with a large Dslr maker to bring it in production based on a current FF body…. Would (the same) people prefer the back, or the smaller (and much cheaper) body in such a case? I say this to back up my opinion that MFDBs should apply to different applications than DSLRs, instead of trying to only expand the image area and increase resolution both of which aren't key factors to develop one's photography further.
So it's natural to assume that nothing but the sensor matters – lens technical quality, lens look, feature set, tethering speed/stability, flash sync speed, features, review speed/ease/power/accuracy, tactility of the capture process, mechanical precision, ergonomics of the body, brightness of the viewfinder, color accuracy, color pleasantness, etc.
Then again, the sensor is 1.7x larger and has
As far as I know the Sony Alpha 99 was/is a DSLR where CFA is more focused on color than on high ISO performance, and should have better color than the more recent A7r. I'm not sure, but I think the A99 is pretty unique in this aspect.Why do I have that suspicion, that if one uses C1P1 with IQ250 profiles for his D800 or other Sony sensor Dslr, will benefit a lot…? :-X ;)
I sure think that there is a market for making DSLRs with sensors designed for color, I think there are many out there that would sacriface a stop in ISO performance in exchange for better tonality at base ISO. One problem however is that the manufacturer's own raw converters are not that popular, if you have a Nikon/Canon/Sony camera you'd probably use Lightroom or Capture One rather than the manufacturer's own converter although they may have better color.
I'm not sure if it is in Phase One's interest to make profiles for a Sony DSLR such that it rivals say the IQ250 in color. And Adobe doesn't seem to be have the interest in making those hand-tuned profiles that seem to be Capture One's edge.
But say if DSLR manufacturers start to think more about CFA for color in their high MP models and Adobe hire some color magician to make MF-like profiling for those key models then competition would harden further.
Why do I have that suspicion, that if one uses C1P1 with IQ250 profiles for his D800 or other Sony sensor Dslr, will benefit a lot…? :-X ;)
Why do I have that suspicion, that if one uses C1P1 with IQ250 profiles for his D800 or other Sony sensor Dslr, will benefit a lot…? :-X ;)
Doug - you're right obviously. But as a professional wedding shooter, without the sensor advantages (perceived or actual), if it comes down to 5x the price of a D4 for sharper lenses, better flash sync and a larger sensor (and slower af, way less af points, single card slot, slower buffer, etc. etc.) the other advantages of medium format quickly begin to shrink and the cost difference is exacerbated. I'd contend that it will be the price of the sensor and the DF+ shortcomings that will make the IQ250 a hard sell to those of us who should be its target market. Who uses high ISO more than anyone? Sports, wedding and journalistic shooters. We can all agree sports isn't the target, but if they could make a full system (IQ230 even) for $10k, every wedding photographer I know would want one. It just confuses as to who the target client is, because there are other features currently missing that someone who needs high ISO also needs to pair with that feature.
OK wow, excellent tip. Just tried this on some of my D800 files and the results were amazing.
They are walking on a very narrow ridge here.Not quite; at least not yet. It is becoming more and more clear that the difference in color handling between sensors for medium format cameras and those for smaller formats is primarily a difference in the designs of the color filter arrays, in turn dictated by different priorities: color accuracy, low light performance, handling weird light sources like fluorescent .... (I suppose it could also be related to sensor/pixel size and to differences in CFA design expertise between Kodak/Truesense and Dalsa on one side and Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. on the other.) The idea that differences in how the electrons in a photo-site are processed (the only substantial difference between CCD and CMOS technology) effect color handling seems to be on its way out.
Once you admit that CMOS is just as good as CCD, you quickly reach a point where the only differentiation with the upcoming next gen high megapixel bodies from
Nikon (and - who knows - Canon) is resolution, but even that is unclear.
So the owner won the pigs can fly bet.
It's a fairly standard strategy in luxury goods to create a mythology around the product. Customers are then not focused on the value of the item, they are looking at the value of the prestige. They buy into an association with the perceived quality, thinking it reflects on them. Maybe that works in the camera world, who knows.
CMOS has growing benefits so for medium format to pretend the current 135 sensors do not solve several problems for the pro would be "in denial". The DR of larger pixels on a bigger area sensor is the beef of the matter. You either need that extra light in one shot or you go 135.
Hi,LOL… ;D Erik will abandon LR for his A99… :D I can see him using C1P1 for the Sony and LR for the P45+ any time now! :o
Interesting piece of info. Thanks for sharing!
Best regards
Erik
Gerald, a number of reasons. Larger files means more cropping and printing options (for albums etc.), shallower dof of a larger sensor makes for gorgeous portraits, a larger viewfinder, faster flash sync, which is a huge issue when you're often stuck shooting in less than optimal light, having 50 ISO at 1/1600 flash sync would give me a lot more options to overpower daylight without having to use wonky high speed sync modes or lug my huge rangers around on a wedding day. And if they could give me better color (as Doug's article sorta touches on), if I can save 30 seconds of color correction per file, times 600-800 delivered files per wedding, times 30+ weddings a year, that's a HUGE time savings. My biggest time suck in post is color correcting, especially skin tones in mixed light, especially when my second shooter shoots Canon (a problem that wouldn't necessarily go away).Shallower DOF than FF DSLR? …I'm afraid that with only two 80mm being at f2 (the Schneider and the Contax) and all other lenses of any focal length at f2.8 or more, this sounds as a joke… so does hi-iso noise (for the same AOV and DOF).
If Phase were to give me a dual slot, even 5fps 11 focus point camera, I'd seriously consider buying two and ditch my Nikons.
LOL… ;D Erik will abandon LR for his A99… :D I can see him using C1P1 for the Sony and LR for the P45+ any time now! :o
The 100 Hasselblad, (then you're on a 1/800 sync system) would be an amazing wedding lens...Forgot about that… sorry! …but again, the fall off wide open is the worst around from all lenses I know… is it not? …and still are some f1.2 lenses around for 135 FF with similar AOV.
Forgot about that… sorry! …but again, the fall off wide open is the worst around from all lenses I know… is it not? …and still are f1.2 lenses for 135 FF around similar AOV.
Forgot about that… sorry! …but again, the fall off wide open is the worst around from all lenses I know… is it not? …and still are f1.2 lenses for 135 FF around similar AOV.
Once you start using the Canon 85/1.2 wide open, you are in a different realm of photography - more like the cinematic look.I've used Nikkor 135mm f2 D.C on some weddings… although its use was limited and I replaced it, I sometimes miss the bugger!
Edmund
Once you start using the Canon 85/1.2 wide open... more like the cinematic look.Ironically, that "cinematic look" is usually achieved with a frame no wider than 24.9mm (as for Super 35mm), and lenses no faster than f/1.2, a combination that gives DOF comparable to what one gets with about f/1.8 in a 36mm wide format and what would require f/2.1 with the 44mm width of the IQ250's sensor. The dramatic OOF effects we see in the cinema are greatly enhanced by the very large apparent (angular) image sizes that one can get there.
The cinematic look has more to do with longer focal lengths than super large apertures.Both are equally important: OOF effects (for subjects at the same distance when the images are compared at the same apparent size) are determined by the combination of focal length f and aperture ratio N by the simple combination f/N, which is the effective aperture diameter. That is why I increased the f-stops in proportion to the increase of focal length needed to get the same angular FOV in a larger format.
Not quite; at least not yet. It is becoming more and more clear that the difference in color handling between sensors for medium format cameras and those for smaller formats is primarily a difference in the designs of the color filter arrays, in turn dictated by different priorities: color accuracy, low light performance, handling weird light sources like fluorescent .... (I suppose it could also be related to sensor/pixel size and to differences in CFA design expertise between Kodak/Truesense and Dalsa on one side and Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. on the other.) The idea that differences in how the electrons in a photo-site are processed (the only substantial difference between CCD and CMOS technology) effect color handling seems to be on its way out.
If it is just a matter of designing the CFA for more accurate, robust color, and Sony if has the ability to do that, then for now, the formats larger than 36x24mm will maintain that advantage, along with the resolution advantage. (Aside: many subjects are not amenable to stitching, so "greater one-shot resolution" is still a real advantage in many situations.)
But maybe Sony and Nikon (or Canon) will at some time decide to offer "high color accuracy priority" models in 36x24mm format, just as Nikon and others have started offering the option of no AA filter. Then the case for choosing formats like 44x33mm and 54x40mm rather than 36x24mm would shrink a bit more. (My guess is that other factors will keep the "bigger than 36x24" sector alive, but that it will continue to shrink in size.)
Ok, first off, I have worked in probably 50 film for tv commercial productions and some movies over the past 11 years. I am a member of the Cinematographers Guild (Local 600). I know several DP's and have worked side by side with them as a unit stills photographer.
In some cases DPs like to shoot wide open. Whether it is with low budget Zeiss Superspeeds (T1.2-1.5), the uber expensive Master Primes (T1.3), the Cooke S4/S5's (T2) or any other lens set of their choice. Yes, focus pullers hate this (usually the 1stAC) but it is their job and quite a few do it very well. In other cases they shoot at T5.6-T8. Just like photographers, cinematographers have their preferences.
The "cinematic look" (if there is such a look per se) can be attributed to the mostly wide aspect ratio horizontal framing, generally well lit and produced scenes and superb color correction that generally is used to create a desired look and feel and not necessarily to be color accurate.
That said (going back to the IQ250) I am looking at some of the RAW files that Doug made and they look really really good. They do look a touch more saturated and contrasty compared to the IQ260 (both at base iso) but the color looks nice.
Not quite; at least not yet. It is becoming more and more clear that the difference in color handling between sensors for medium format cameras and those for smaller formats is primarily a difference in the designs of the color filter arrays, in turn dictated by different priorities: color accuracy, low light performance, handling weird light sources like fluorescent .... (I suppose it could also be related to sensor/pixel size and to differences in CFA design expertise between Kodak/Truesense and Dalsa on one side and Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. on the other.) The idea that differences in how the electrons in a photo-site are processed (the only substantial difference between CCD and CMOS technology) effect color handling seems to be on its way out.
If it is just a matter of designing the CFA for more accurate, robust color, and Sony if has the ability to do that, then for now, the formats larger than 36x24mm will maintain that advantage, along with the resolution advantage. (Aside: many subjects are not amenable to stitching, so "greater one-shot resolution" is still a real advantage in many situations.)
But maybe Sony and Nikon (or Canon) will at some time decide to offer "high color accuracy priority" models in 36x24mm format, just as Nikon and others have started offering the option of no AA filter. Then the case for choosing formats like 44x33mm and 54x40mm rather than 36x24mm would shrink a bit more. (My guess is that other factors will keep the "bigger than 36x24" sector alive, but that it will continue to shrink in size.)
Fine numbers for reproducing big fields of homogenous color such as the squares on the Macbeth chart have little to do with the color differences between CCD sensors and CMOS sensors, and pleasant reproduction is tangential since that all can be changed with an ICC profile or a the color tools in post. Being able to discern a subtle color change between two small adjacent regions has been a primary advantage of the CCD sensors in MFDB, as well as more accurately capturing tonal gradation across a subject.
I've tested the d800e side by side to my Kodak and Dalsa sensored MFDB and when you zoom into areas on flowers, skin, or things like green leaves on trees - the MFDB files have lots of color gradation where the D800e will be flat and even. The tree leaves at a certain size and below become one color of green, not the yellow, green orange in the MFDB files. A patch of skin is not one flat color, but a huge range of colors - red, yellow, blue, purple, brown. Just zoom in on a MFDB shot (that hasn't been to the retoucher and is taken on a model without foundation or make-up everywhere.) all these little colors are there. Now look at the D800 - its one big mush.
I believe the illusion of depth can be enhanced with better color detail and tonality (and by larger sensors / film plane ) and that is why I think this all matters. A more believable image is what I'm after. It's weird too to circle back to film, because film has really less accurate colors and I'm sure less detail too, but in a way a color film image can look like it has more depth - probably because of greater 'tonality'.
I won't make a comment on the IQ 250 since I haven't done my own tests, but that's what I'd be looking for - the ability to discern small color differences between adjacent areas.
I'm a bit suspicious about the tonal gradient argument, haven't really seen it myself but I can't say that I've made a thorough comparison either. It's a thing than could be quite easily measured though, both on processed JPEGs and directly in the raw file. It would be an interesting test.
It could be the case that what we actually see is that the slightly noisier CCD provides a more pleasing tonal structure rather than a more accurate. It could also be the case that a higher full well capacity on the larger CCD pixels provides a real advantage in the midtones thanks to a lower shot noise.
When it comes to small differences it's extremely easy to trick oneself into seeing things we want to see, if we want CCD to be better we'll see that it is better, and the opposite if we want CMOS to be better. Therefore it can be good to sanity check with measuring and/or do blind testing, if one really is interested in an objective evaluation.
I'm suspecting that it's about noise characteristics rather than actual tonal gradients, that the CCD has a smoother noise and the CMOS has blotchier noise. If so it can be quite hard to show in a measurement. I don't think CMOS have to have blotchy noise characteristics though, but it's been quite common.
Here's a snap from an old side-by-side comparison of 3 stop pushed color patches Aptus 75 top left, D7000 (sony exmor, very similar pixels to D800) top right and Canon 5Dmk2 bottom. The small bottom left patch is showing the original brightness before pushing.
(http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/img/nt-ettr-dark1.png)
Note the smoother noise of the Aptus 75 and the blotchy noise in the D7000 blue patch, I also think the red patch is a bit blotchier. Unfortunately that test did not include any object where one could side-by-side compare a gradient object, a fine gradient from one color to another would be a nice test patch.
I've tested the d800e side by side to my Kodak and Dalsa sensored MFDB and when you zoom into areas on flowers, skin, or things like green leaves on trees - the MFDB files have lots of color gradation where the D800e will be flat and even. The tree leaves at a certain size and below become one color of green, not the yellow, green orange in the MFDB files. A patch of skin is not one flat color, but a huge range of colors - red, yellow, blue, purple, brown. Just zoom in on a MFDB shot (that hasn't been to the retoucher and is taken on a model without foundation or make-up everywhere.) all these little colors are there. Now look at the D800 - its one big mush.
Why don't you post some images demonstrating such massive differences? Talk is cheap, but seeing is believing.
Bill
Why don't you post some images demonstrating such massive differences? Talk is cheap, but seeing is believing.He has, his (correct) observations where in coincidence with mine, his D800 (as mine) "crack" when one "digs" into shadows and developed colour casts by exploding the "blue" part of "deep grey" (obviously the red/green frequencies aren't there) as LL information. Now, …that's not (usable) DR extension …is it?
Bill
I have posted several, but people seem to be more into graphs than images.
I think the argument is actually about if IQ250 is going to suck or not because it's a CMOS :)
Why don't you post some images demonstrating such massive differences? Talk is cheap, but seeing is believing.
Bill
An IQ260 achromatic with a filter wheel should be the ultimate multi-shot back, right? For reproduction it could be feasible. Filter wheels have been used before.
Good test/comparison. The noise characteristics in your Canon 5D MK2 are so familiar to me. The blue box is covered with red noise and if you zoom in (best done from an ipad) you can see some vertical banding in the Canon also. I found this in all canon files until the 6D, which has a much more even noise, almost like film grain. The 7100 shot also is not surprising to me, as all of the 24MP crop sensors I have used/demo'd show pretty harsh noise somewhere. The Sony Nex-7 was even worse than the 7100 here.
I agree in your test the Aptus is cleaner in the way the noise is displayed.
I don't agree.
Forgive my ignorance, but why...
"It is not surprising that the Aptus has better per pixel performance than the D7000, since the pixel sizes are 8.98 and 4.89 microns respectively."
... is it necessary for anything to follow that statement?
What are you implying with that statement?
That for the same resolution, medium format will have a clear advantage over 35mm because its pixels are larger?
Is it really as simple as all that?
An IQ260 achromatic with a filter wheel should be the ultimate multi-shot back, right? For reproduction it could be feasible. Filter wheels have been used before.It wouldn't be able to do 16X… and it wouldn't improve detail in 4X… only colour would benefit.
Concerning CCD vs CMOS etc raw files shot side by side on the same subject would be needed for a proper comparison. Differences is probably going to be so small that you'd have to make A/B testing to draw any reliable conclusions. It would be great to see that with IQ260 vs IQ250 and throw in a D800 or A7r for fun.
I have the complete test here if you're interested: http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/noise-test.html
I explain there why it's pixel per pixel, but in short -- the reason I get a back with more resolution is to be able to make detailed prints of landscapes that look nice up close. I want 80 megapixels to print twice the size as 40 megapixels. If I must reduce the size to equal size as the 40 megapixel print to smooth noise I could just have kept the 40 megapixel back. Sure if you want to have the same print sizes you're free to scale down, and I discuss that in the test too.
The raw converter is RawTherapee, there's no noise reduction or different curves applied, just a standard matrix.
It's a straightforward test to verify some noise characteristic basics I was interested when I first got my back in 2012. I'll do a similar test when/if I upgrade to Dalsa 6um technology, but then look more at gradients and color stability in pushed shadows. I like to make some basic technical test to establish a baseline so I know what I got. Say if this old back would have had really bad noise performance I would have tried to get a newer back, but I could see here that it did perform very well for its age (which is not surpising in the world of CCDs).
I'm not particularly interested in having a back that performs best, I can't afford the latest anyway, but I want to verify that it's fairly competitive with the state of the art. The reason I use a digital back is for camera (tech camera), lenses and upgradability in terms of resolution. As a landscape photographer I couldn't care less about skin colors, but of course understand it's a main driver in the professional segment. To me resolution and dynamic range are the most interesting aspects. I'm becoming more interested in color separation in shadows though. I've noticed that cameras can lose it there, and I'm not sure it's a linear relationsship to noise.
Not the pixels are larger, the sensor is larger so more total light data is recorded. Pixel size is a tradeoff between better location info vs better DR/ lower noise.
Sorry, but the claim was... of course it will have "better per pixel performance", because the pixels are bigger.
Not my words.
And presumably, for the same resolution, better per pixel performance will translate into better performance at the sensor level when comparing larger sensors to smaller ones.
The question remains - assuming resolution is the same across both formats, is that fundamentally what it boils down to? bjanes would appear to be saying that you have to remove the fundamental advantage that a larger sensor brings to the table, precisely because it gives it an advantage.
I have the complete test here if you're interested: http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/noise-test.html
Sorry, but the claim was... of course it will have "better per pixel performance", because the pixels are bigger.
Not my words.
And presumably, for the same resolution, better per pixel performance will translate into better performance at the sensor level when comparing larger sensors to smaller ones.
The question remains - assuming resolution is the same across both formats, is that fundamentally what it boils down to? bjanes would appear to be saying that you have to remove the fundamental advantage that a larger sensor brings to the table, precisely because it gives it an advantage.
Other things being equal, a larger pixel will have a better signal to noise ratio since it collects more photoelectrons. SNR is proportional to the square root of the number of photons collected, so doubling the number of photons collected by doubling the pixel area will improve the SNR by a factor of 1.414. However, for a given sensor size, increasing the pixel size will decrease the resolution. In comparing sensors with different resolutions, it is necessary to normalize the SNR and DR values. DXO (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization) does this by resampling to 8 MP. This does not remove the fundamental advantage of a higher resolution sensor. One could alternatively upres the lower resolution sensor. This is the concept of the DXO print DR figures. If you are printing at a given print size and resolution, the file has to be resized to match the resolution of the printer. If one has downsized the image with a higher resolution, the SNR will be improved by pixel binning.
Bill
Other things being equal, a larger pixel will have a better signal to noise ratio since it collects more photoelectrons. SNR is proportional to the square root of the number of photons collected, so doubling the number of photons collected by doubling the pixel area will improve the SNR by a factor of 1.414. However, for a given sensor size, increasing the pixel size will decrease the resolution. In comparing sensors with different resolutions, it is necessary to normalize the SNR and DR values. DXO (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization) does this by resampling to 8 MP. This does not remove the fundamental advantage of a higher resolution sensor. One could alternatively upres the lower resolution sensor. This is the concept of the DXO print DR figures. If you are printing at a given print size and resolution, the file has to be resized to match the resolution of the printer. If one has downsized the image with a higher resolution, the SNR will be improved by pixel binning.
Bill
| P45+ (39 MP MFD) | Sony Alpha 99 (24 MP FF) | |
| Dowscaled both to same size | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/20131117-CF044323_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/20131117-_DSC3262_vsmall.jpg) |
| Actual pixels | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/20131117-CF044323.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourneyEOY/Noise/20131117-_DSC3262.jpg) |
Other things being equal, a larger pixel will have a better signal to noise ratio since it collects more photoelectrons. SNR is proportional to the square root of the number of photons collected, so doubling the number of photons collected by doubling the pixel area will improve the SNR by a factor of 1.414. However, for a given sensor size, increasing the pixel size will decrease the resolution. In comparing sensors with different resolutions, it is necessary to normalize the SNR and DR values. DXO (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization) does this by resampling to 8 MP. This does not remove the fundamental advantage of a higher resolution sensor. One could alternatively upres the lower resolution sensor. This is the concept of the DXO print DR figures. If you are printing at a given print size and resolution, the file has to be resized to match the resolution of the printer. If one has downsized the image with a higher resolution, the SNR will be improved by pixel binning.
Bill
I still have to disagree. When I look at your P45 shot down-sampled, I see large swaths of magenta and the same on blue-green. It looks unrecoverable. No random noise filter is going to recognize it is not part of the image. When I look at the full size P45 shot I see dots of these colors that I think I could strip out. The impression of the file completely changes.
The noise would look a lot more like noise in RT. Even on the full size image the splotching of magenta, cyan is clearly not part of the scene. That is a LR failure. If you (the software) can't remove color noise, you should leave it at fine pixel by pixel randomness for a capable noise program.
Hi,
If you check my posting you would note that I had noise reduction disabled. I wanted to investigate the noise in the sensor and not how it affects noise reduction.
The reasons for that were threefold:
1 - normally try to keep noise recuction low
2 - if you go into noise reduction there will be a an infinite number of possible combinations of options
3 - it is my belief that noise should be kept to minimum, an image with no or little noise is preferable to an image that depends on noise reduction
Best regards
Erik
Then the demosaicing is failing. People may stop noticing because they always seem to get blobs of magenta and cyan in their darks. It's time to reality check that. How many landscapes have blobs of magenta and cyan? It is clearly a product of the software.
The images below are from Doug's test of the IQ250 vs the IQ 260, and processed in Capture One, with noise reduction set to zero and defaults.
Notably the screen grabs of the IQ250 and IQ260 files Erik just posted are with a 4 stop push (as noted elsewhere).
Hi Doug,
It is pretty much my way of comparing DR. Expose for the highlights and see how much noise there is in the shadows. That is actually what DR is about.
That said, I very seldom feel limited by DR.
Best regards
Erik
Ok, now I understand what you are doing.
Here is the same area cropped that you selected. I just turned on NR 30, Red channel 30. Impulse NR on. Nothing fancy, something anyone would try as a starting position.
That is the 0 shift, 0 rise IQ250 shot. The conversion is RT. 4.0.11.79