Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: synn on February 11, 2014, 03:25:32 am

Title: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 11, 2014, 03:25:32 am
We've had these MFD vs 35mm arguments for far too long. To be honest, I have no illusions that either camp will change their opinion ever. But if we are to debate endlessly, might as well do it based on some images and not yet another graph.

Below are three images shot  on the same day. Same studio, same lights, same model. Two are with 35mm full frame cameras. One is with an MFDB.

All images were first processed in Capture 1 Pro 7.2 (With the most suitable profiles and a reference image of a color checker taken with each camera). and finished in Photoshop as 16 bit, prophotoRGB TIFFs (Final sharpening and skin retouching). All were retouched the same way.
Finally, they were exported as 2000px wide JPEGs in sRGB and laid side by side.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5508/12452920303_cae7742c3a_o.jpg)

Since the forum resizes images automatically, just right click the picture and select "View image" to see it full size.

For the pixel peeping types, here are crops of the faces:

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/12452880275_2464ef0994_o.jpg)

The task is simple.

1) Guess which camera shot which image.

2) Say which image appeals to you and why.

Mandatory disclaimer:

1) No "You should have processed it this way", "Send me the RAW files", "Should'a done this, should'a done that".
 No.
I did a test based on my workflow and my shooting style. If you prefer a different shooting methodology, feel free to conduct your own test.

2) No CCD, CMOS, CFA, CIA, NSA and whatever.
You have 86740474 threads to argue over all that jargon. This thread is only about looking at the images and saying what you think of them. Simple.

So without further delays, go ahead and have fun. Let's see if there is such a thing as the "MF look".
I'm gonna step back and be a neutral party until we have enough responses.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: torger on February 11, 2014, 03:37:11 am
It's a fun game, I like it!  :)

I like A the best, B the least and C is inbetween. I don't see huge differences though and I think all are fine, although B seems to need further tuning.

I base the liking most on skin tone, contrast and highlights.

The B is too yellow (can see it on the background even) and crushed highlights, and I suspect that's the D800, but it's a bit of cheating as you've posted D800 images before which had yellow tone ;)

I'd guess A is with the Credo 40, B with the D800 and C is some other 35mm.

In terms of look I think it's about CFA, profiling and curves, the Dalsa sensor provides a good CFA to work with and Phase One has done a very good job handling it. Sensor size and lens is less important. But it doesn't really matter, if camera X provides the best workflow out of the box to suit your style and subjects it can be worth it.

What works for you is what matters. I've seen other photographers make very good results with the D800, but I don't know how they do the processing. As far as I understand it takes quite a bit of tuning to get it right, while the MF systems generally has a great default workflow for this type of photography.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Dustbak on February 11, 2014, 04:04:30 am
I like A the best followed by C and last B. I cannot tell why but I just do. I cannot say which camera is which but I can say what I like most. A because the color appears richer, shadows nicer, 'less screamy and more creamy' so to speak. C has that too but too a lesser extend. B is 'more screamy and less creamy'..

I had not yet read Torger's comment but it seems we have the same order of liking.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 11, 2014, 04:20:09 am
Hi,

Good demo!

I need to look more on a real monitor, but looking at my iPad 2, I would say I like A best and B least. A has best shadow detail and highlights. Hair on B is turning black. It seems to me that hair is stipled on B and C.

So initial guess is A is best, fllowed by C and B is coming last.

Best regards
Erik


We've had these MFD vs 35mm arguments for far too long. To be honest, I have no illusions that either camp will change their opinion ever. But if we are to debate endlessly, might as well do it based on some images and not yet another graph.

Below are three images shot  on the same day. Same studio, same lights, same model. Two are with 35mm full frame cameras. One is with an MFDB.

All images were first processed in Capture 1 Pro 7.2 (With the most suitable profiles and a reference image of a color checker taken with each camera). and finished in Photoshop as 16 bit, prophotoRGB TIFFs (Final sharpening and skin retouching). All were retouched the same way.
Finally, they were exported as 2000px wide JPEGs in sRGB and laid side by side.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5508/12452920303_cae7742c3a_o.jpg)

Since the forum resizes images automatically, just right click the picture and select "View image" to see it full size.

For the pixel peeping types, here are crops of the faces:

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/12452880275_2464ef0994_o.jpg)

The task is simple.

1) Guess which camera shot which image.

2) Say which image appeals to you and why.

Mandatory disclaimer:

1) No "You should have processed it this way", "Send me the RAW files", "Should'a done this, should'a done that".
 No.
I did a test based on my workflow and my shooting style. If you prefer a different shooting methodology, feel free to conduct your own test.

2) No CCD, CMOS, CFA, CIA, NSA and whatever.
You have 86740474 threads to argue over all that jargon. This thread is only about looking at the images and saying what you think of them. Simple.

So without further delays, go ahead and have fun. Let's see if there is such a thing as the "MF look".
I'm gonna step back and be a neutral party until we have enough responses.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: gerald.d on February 11, 2014, 05:00:20 am
I don't shoot people, and never really pay any attention to shots of people.

So I have no idea based on the model.

Based on the backdrop, I'd guess C is the MFDB.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Theodoros on February 11, 2014, 05:10:50 am
Easy…  ;) A. is your Credo… B. Is a Canon C. Is your D800 processed with C1, but using IQ 250 profile!  ;D
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Kitty on February 11, 2014, 05:15:15 am
A = MFDB
The retouching is good. All images were properly unsharp mask so it looks pretty close.
But MFDB always has no halo on the contrast edge eg. hair, body&background. The tone gradation is smoother than DSLR.
IMHO
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: sixbysix on February 11, 2014, 05:30:06 am
A and B look almost identical in terms of composition, so i'm thinking they're the 35mms. Therefore i'd assume C is an MFDB, though i'm prepared to be shot down on it.

Good comparison, and one I should remember next time I think "hey, I really should consider getting a loan for a Phase One" (though if someone would invent a way to use leaf shutter lenses on a Nikon, it would be altogether more conclusive!)
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: JerryReed on February 11, 2014, 05:39:22 am
All images are certainly well done.  I prefer the skin tones of C, the tones seem to transition from darker areas to lighter ones more smoothly.  I did not look at the enlarged images.

Jerry
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Theodoros on February 11, 2014, 05:46:15 am
All images are certainly well done.  I prefer the skin tones of C, the tones seem to transition from darker areas to lighter ones more smoothly.  I did not look at the enlarged images.

Jerry
Me too (on the posted pictures)..., but I think that A is a bit (slightly) over saturated…
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: fdisilvestro on February 11, 2014, 05:50:21 am
I like A the most, and I would say that's from the MFDB.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Sareesh Sudhakaran on February 11, 2014, 05:53:47 am
First of all, thank you, Sandeep, for taking the time to post this.

Never shot with MFDB, but I prefer B. In spite of the wider angle, I feel it has more 'depth', and the dress looks more real and less 'muddier'. I like the hair in B too.

C looks more color-neutral, though it is awfully similar to A - almost like it was just zoomed in a bit! If they are different cameras, it is strange how they are very similar - too hard to pick between them.

Can't wait for the results.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: aaron on February 11, 2014, 06:06:19 am
"Guess which camera shot which image"

I think the fact that you suggest its a guess either way tells its own story.

Nice images reglardless of format.

Thanks,
Aaron
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: henrikfoto on February 11, 2014, 06:12:29 am
I think A is a MF back.
C looks worst.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Manoli on February 11, 2014, 06:45:04 am
A has the poorest tonal gradation - face/cheek highlight to shadow transitions are the harshest.
Very hard to differentiate between B&C based on 'hair' or resolution,
You say 'identical lighting' but even in this test the shadow under the chin and the LHS hair highlight in B&C are different, but assuming the MFDB should give you the smoothest tones I would say 'C'.

In short - it's a toss-up between B&C as to which one I prefer.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 11, 2014, 07:44:10 am
Can you provide the contacts of the model?  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: AreBee on February 11, 2014, 08:37:13 am
Synn,

Quote
Guess which camera shot which image.

I am unable to identify which image was shot with MFD. Can I see (marginal) differences between images? Yes. Can I identify the MFD image other than out of blind luck? No. Therefore, my guess is just that: a guess, and like aaron, I consider that to tell its own story.

My guess is that C is the MFD image for the same reason stated by Gerald - the background. My rationale is that the background for C is significantly dissimilar from A and B, and since you mentioned (you would have increased the validity of the test if you hadn't) that two images were shot with 35mm and one with MFD...

Quote
Let's see if there is such a thing as the "MF look".

Judging by the variation in responses posted thus far, apparently not.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 11, 2014, 08:41:02 am
We've had these MFD vs 35mm arguments for far too long.

Hi Sandeep,

You are suggesting that the differences are static, non-changing, but new sensor generations in general improve over older ones. So, yesterday's opinion may differ from today's, and today's may differ from tomorrow's.  Therefore the discussion will not stop, as long as technology develops.

Quote
To be honest, I have no illusions that either camp will change their opinion ever.

That's an odd position. I for one, am not in a camp, but will judge based on the presented evidence and on how well the equipment is suited for the purpose.

Quote
But if we are to debate endlessly, might as well do it based on some images and not yet another graph.

As long as the images are somewhat comparable. Graphs and charts will allow a more objective judgment with fewer variables to consider.

Quote
Below are three images shot  on the same day. Same studio, same lights, same model. Two are with 35mm full frame cameras. One is with an MFDB.

They are reasonably close, close enough for comparison, but the Raw conversion process will always benefit one over the other, depending on what one is looking at. Some camera profiles are better than others for certain subjects (which is why a number of people say they prefer Leaf backs for portraits / skin color). Both Leaf and PhaseOne backs use the same basic (CCD) sensor technology, yet some prefer Leaf for one type of subject, and PhaseOne for another type.

With that out of the way, A = MFDB, B and C are 35mm FF cameras (B is possibly a Canon, C is possibly a Nikon).
That is based on the aliasing character of A, and the sharpening Halo on B and C.

There is some difference in the color rendering, but that may (besides camera profile) also be caused by moving colored objects/surfaces/clothing close to the camera that seems to reflect some green on the subject. We have to assume that the flash emitted a constant color temperature, because changing the output power could introduce a slight shift in colorbalance, which could require a different correction in the Raw conversion process.

The highlights of A are a bit too desaturated for my taste, and the overall bias is more orange than yellow, which is apparently considered more pleasing with Asian types of skin color, or so I'm told.
The colors of B are slightly greener in the shadows, and the skintone in C looks desaturated (maybe Raw compression and noise reduction also caused a bit more smoothing, although that may also be due to CaptureOne's Detail settings for the specific camera model).

So for me the differences are mostly color mapping related, B needing a bit less green, and the others needing less desaturation. Of course, this is only going to jump out in a direct side by side comparision. The highlight roll-off is a function of tonecurve, and can be adjusted to taste.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: gerald.d on February 11, 2014, 08:46:29 am
Interesting to note that one person thinks A is too saturated, and another that it is too desaturated.

I think what this post has actually demonstrated is that no-one can agree on anything when it comes to people.

I'm definitely sticking with inanimate objects.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 11, 2014, 08:54:31 am
Interesting to note that one person thinks A is too saturated, and another that it is too desaturated.

Both are true, mid-tones for A are relatively orange (see blush under cheekbones) compared to the others, highlights are desaturated (look at the specular reflections on e.g. the lips). So it's more a question of what one is specifically looking at.

Quote
I think what this post has actually demonstrated is that no-one can agree on anything when it comes to people.

Taste is a difficult subject to quantify.

Quote
I'm definitely sticking with inanimate objects.

LOL, there is beauty in both, but it's still in the eye of the beholder and it depends on the occasion ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: RobertJ on February 11, 2014, 09:19:21 am
I generally like to see a nice highlight roll-off on the skin, and IMO, that would be C, even though the smoothness can be simulated in post-processing.  It also, to me, has the most neutral color.  It's cool how we all see things differently... or is it? :)
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Theodoros on February 11, 2014, 11:32:03 am
Hi Sandeep,

You are suggesting that the differences are static, non-changing, but new sensor generations in general improve over older ones. So, yesterday's opinion may differ from today's, and today's may differ from tomorrow's.  Therefore the discussion will not stop, as long as technology develops.

That's an odd position. I for one, am not in a camp, but will judge based on the presented evidence and on how well the equipment is suited for the purpose.

As long as the images are somewhat comparable. Graphs and charts will allow a more objective judgment with fewer variables to consider.

They are reasonably close, close enough for comparison, but the Raw conversion process will always benefit one over the other, depending on what one is looking at. Some camera profiles are better than others for certain subjects (which is why a number of people say they prefer Leaf backs for portraits / skin color). Both Leaf and PhaseOne backs use the same basic (CCD) sensor technology, yet some prefer Leaf for one type of subject, and PhaseOne for another type.

With that out of the way, A = MFDB, B and C are 35mm FF cameras (B is possibly a Canon, C is possibly a Nikon).
That is based on the aliasing character of A, and the sharpening Halo on B and C.

There is some difference in the color rendering, but that may (besides camera profile) also be caused by moving colored objects/surfaces/clothing close to the camera that seems to reflect some green on the subject. We have to assume that the flash emitted a constant color temperature, because changing the output power could introduce a slight shift in colorbalance, which could require a different correction in the Raw conversion process.

The highlights of A are a bit too desaturated for my taste, and the overall bias is more orange than yellow, which is apparently considered more pleasing with Asian types of skin color, or so I'm told.
The colors of B are slightly greener in the shadows, and the skintone in C looks desaturated (maybe Raw compression and noise reduction also caused a bit more smoothing, although that may also be due to CaptureOne's Detail settings for the specific camera model).

So for me the differences are mostly color mapping related, B needing a bit less green, and the others needing less desaturation. Of course, this is only going to jump out in a direct side by side comparision. The highlight roll-off is a function of tonecurve, and can be adjusted to taste.

Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart, I believe that the HL roll off is a consequence of Synn using IQ250 profile to develop the Nikon ("C")… The Canon ("B") must have been developed with the same profile (IQ250), but it not being a Sony sensor, the green cast that you correctly observe has been developed as if it was the Canon profile… (It would have been a blue cast on "C" (Nikon) if he didn't use the IQ250 profile but the D800 one). Never the less, the back ("A"), doesn't have the HL roll-off nor the halos that you correctly observe on the DSLRs, but it is still easier to recognise by the more DR extension in the deep shadows (neck, iris, right part of dress, right/dark part of hair) where it holds colour information… The skin is a bit over saturated with the back ("A") IMO, while the Nikon ("C") is a bit desaturated (look at the lips on both DSLRs) which leads to better skin tones, but it also prevents the blue cast that would other wise start to appear in the deep shadows.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 11, 2014, 11:38:50 am
Hi,

I looked closely now, and I still feel the order is A, C, B. Don't know which camera is which.

On the darks, I feel 'A' is worst, the other two may be better. Hard to know.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: BlasR on February 11, 2014, 11:46:09 am
So U start a game, and when it will end?  I hope its NOT a season like baseball or some kind of sport..Anyway, I hate people so I do not like anyone.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Fine_Art on February 11, 2014, 12:31:46 pm
First I have to say I am looking at these on a color corrected laptop with limited gamut. I have to be careful on the highlights comments. The lighting looks a bit harsh blowing right through the skin.

A has a slight magenta cast
B has a definite green cast
C has proper color.

A detail is clean
B is a bit soft
C has good detail with stronger contrast.

I would bet B is a crap (relative) camera
C is a D800
A is a MFDB

I like C the most.

Areas to look at are the tone transitions by the left eye to the shadow at hair. Tone transitions in shadow under the chin. Detail in the dress which is wiped out on B. Fine lines of the hair. Best on A, Good on C.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: jerome_m on February 11, 2014, 12:44:46 pm
Judging by the variety of opinions above, I would say that the game is conclusive: people here can't tell which camera is which.  ::)

My opinion is that:
-I find B the worst, because of a green-yellow color balance.
-A is a bit darker and a bit more saturated than C. I think I prefer C, the skin structure seems a bit more natural. A seems to exaggerate the red colour of the cheeks as well (as brought by the make-up).

Obviously, the model is a beautiful young lady, but if you could redo the test with someone of caucasian descent and a little bit less make-up, maybe the difference would be more obvious. In any case, I always enjoy looking at beautiful young women, so feel free to test us again!  ;)

(Actually, you can even try with male models. We do have some female photographers here...)
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: EricWHiss on February 11, 2014, 12:59:55 pm
I like A also… but I could just be sucker for the redder lips?   …   and then B then C.    Pretty model, nicely shot - thanks Synn.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 11, 2014, 01:04:03 pm
A has the most pleasing color for me and the best highlights.

The green cast on B is obvious.

There's a problem with C, since the lady is bigger there.
The detail on the necklace on C is great, but the face looks the most plasticky to me from the three.

Concerning resolution I'd think C is MFDB, but again - its bigger than A and B and might fool me because of that.
Concerning colour rendition I'd think A is MFDB.

So in terms of overall look I'd say A>C>B.





Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: torger on February 11, 2014, 01:22:21 pm
Statistics so far:

A is best: 9 votes
B is best: 1 vote
C is best: 6 votes

A is MFDB = 6 votes
B is MFDB = 0 votes
C is MFDB = 5 votes
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 11, 2014, 01:31:03 pm
Hi,

A few comments:

1 - In my view the pictures are all oversharpened, but that is a question of personal taste
2 - I feel that we may have a little different reference frame. Here in Europe black hair is very infrequent, what we see is dark brown. Another place, the reference frame may be different.

So, I guess that responses may depend on where we are living.

Best regards
Erik

Statistics so far:

A is best: 9 votes
B is best: 1 vote
C is best: 6 votes

A is MFDB = 6 votes
B is MFDB = 0 votes
C is MFDB = 5 votes

Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Theodoros on February 11, 2014, 02:06:48 pm
Statistics so far:

A is best: 9 votes
B is best: 1 vote
C is best: 6 votes

A is MFDB = 6 votes
B is MFDB = 0 votes
C is MFDB = 5 votes

Count me out of the "best" thing… I don't like any of them… IMO, there should be a reflector to ease the shadow (beard?) on the neck out and a bit less saturation on the Credo! I only said, A=Credo, B=Canon, C=D800 which was the enquire, also said that D800 (and possibly Canon too) has been developed using IQ250 profile on C1 …piece of cake, ….what do I win?
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Alan Klein on February 11, 2014, 02:19:54 pm
Well it would be nice if they were all the same size to start.  The third is larger to begin with.  Even without that,  comparing small internet posted pictures aren't really effected by resolution of the camera.  You'd have to look at large prints that are blown up.  That's where resolution shows its stuff.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 11, 2014, 02:20:19 pm
Statistics so far:

Based on the presented renderings it might look something like that. But then a ranking was not what was requested, and different processing could have generated a different outcome. So it basically says that all 3 cameras (and the lenses used) can produce a good result (especially when viewed in isolation), and color is very much a function of post capture processing.

But I'll leave final conclusions for the OP, assuming he was looking for more than just a bit of fun.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: MrSmith on February 11, 2014, 02:36:52 pm
The client would be happy with either as long as the bottom line was the same.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: torger on February 11, 2014, 02:46:50 pm
Don't worry, in the stats I tried only to count those that actually said something definitive of what they thought. Can't guarantee I counted 100% correctly though.

I think one important factor in terms of the "MF look" is that the MFDB manufacturers have control of the rendering pipeline, ie Phase One makes Capture One.

Making a pleasing color profile part is lots of black magic, it's not an easy task. Capture One does not make it less black magic by operating its curves in RGB space (causes color shifts), so the color profile needs to be adapted for that too. The profiles adjust colors differently depending on brightness which means that to get the designed result you need to expose correctly (so the skin tones is in the appropriate range for the profile) and use the associated curve.

All this makes it hard to duplicate the result with another camera in a different software.

When it comes to studio portraits MF is not just a camera, it's a workflow. If you rent an MF camera and shoot away and you get the desired result *bam* just like that with the default settings in the software, that could be worth a lot if you haven't succeeded with your other cameras. I'm convinced that CMOS and smaller formats can be just as successful with the same concept, but it may require adjustments to CFA and profiling. Or just a different taste of the photographer.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 11, 2014, 02:57:40 pm
Making a pleasing color profile part is lots of black magic, it's not an easy task. Capture One does not make it less black magic by operating its curves in RGB space (causes color shifts), so the color profile needs to be adapted for that too. The profiles adjust colors differently depending on brightness which means that to get the designed result you need to expose correctly (so the skin tones is in the appropriate range for the profile) and use the associated curve.

Hi Anders,

Don't forget that the ColorEditor in CaptureOne Pro operates in HSL colorspace, and allows to save a new ICC profile that includes the tweaks made, based on a given type of exposure.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Willow Photography on February 11, 2014, 03:26:46 pm
I think this test is a "victory" for those that say it is (very) hard to see a difference
between MFD and DSLR.

Its more important how you develop your files than which camera you use. ( regarding IQ ).

Maybe not the result the OP was looking for after reading his other posts.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: bjanes on February 11, 2014, 03:34:40 pm
Statistics so far:

A is best: 9 votes
B is best: 1 vote
C is best: 6 votes

A is MFDB = 6 votes
B is MFDB = 0 votes
C is MFDB = 5 votes


I would have to go with the prevailing opinion and rate A as best and B as worst, but I think that all are too contrasty. The skin of the forehead and malar areas of all show specular granularity, perhaps from the harsh lighting. Shot B shows blocked up hair and blown facial highlights. There are really too many uncontrolled variables to allow a definite conclusion on the merits of the different systems. If A is the MFDB, I don't think the OP is getting a good return on his investment. With proper lighting and processing, I think that any of the systems could produce a good result.

Bill
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: henrikfoto on February 11, 2014, 04:05:45 pm
Maybe it's time for the truth, Synn?
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 11, 2014, 04:10:14 pm
Maybe it's time for the truth, Synn?

Like, they were all shot with a GoPro Hero 3 Black? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Theodoros on February 11, 2014, 04:23:40 pm
I think this test is a "victory" for those that say it is (very) hard to see a difference
between MFD and DSLR.

Its more important how you develop your files than which camera you use. ( regarding IQ ).

Maybe not the result the OP was looking for after reading his other posts.
Although I disagree…. I would like to ask you if that is the reason you sold your P65+ and now sell the rest of your Contax system?

IMO, DSLRs are now to a level that studio and fashion photography has little to benefit from using MF, it's lighting that makes the difference and the ability of the photographer to set it up or take advantage of it… (I will agree with you there). But for still-life, architectural, artistic (directed) or some (demanding) landscape, MF is still the king…
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 11, 2014, 04:31:52 pm
I think Synn shot all three with a Sigma DP something and processed them slightly different to fool us ... :P
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: henrikfoto on February 11, 2014, 04:42:09 pm
Like, they were all shot with a GoPro Hero 3 Black? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)

Cheers,
Bart


 No it's scans from a polaroid ;D
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Willow Photography on February 11, 2014, 05:33:01 pm
Although I disagree…. I would like to ask you if that is the reason you sold your P65+ and now sell the rest of your Contax system?

IMO, DSLRs are now to a level that studio and fashion photography has little to benefit from using MF, it's lighting that makes the difference and the ability of the photographer to set it up or take advantage of it… (I will agree with you there). But for still-life, architectural, artistic (directed) or some (demanding) landscape, MF is still the king…

So you think it is easy to see the difference?

Actually, some years ago, another photographer published 10 pictures here, taken with 4-5 different cameras.
In my reply I nailed 8 or 9 of them and even could tell the Leaf from the P1.
Some experience and a little luck of course. ;-).

Today I am not sure I could do the same.

Even if I have sold my P65+ and now sell the Contax kit, I will not rule out that I will re-enter MFD again.
But for my line of work, the D800E makes my job easier and the IQ is 95% of the P65+/Contax.
The clients for sure doesn't see the difference.



Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Theodoros on February 11, 2014, 06:00:08 pm
So you think it is easy to see the difference?

Actually, some years ago, another photographer published 10 pictures here, taken with 4-5 different cameras.
In my reply I nailed 8 or 9 of them and even could tell the Leaf from the P1.
Some experience and a little luck of course. ;-).

Today I am not sure I could do the same.

Even if I have sold my P65+ and now sell the Contax kit, I will not rule out that I will re-enter MFD again.
But for my line of work, the D800E makes my job easier and the IQ is 95% of the P65+/Contax.
The clients for sure doesn't see the difference.




I was just curious to your view on the matter, you see I also use C645 and D800E… My back is the Imacon 528c (MS is absolutely essential for what I do), but I've also tried P65+ on an M645 and I have to say, I wasn't as impressed as I expected to be (liked it, but not thrilled). May be It was because of the (older) M645 lenses, but I also tried an HY6+75LV within a month and I have to say that combination impressed me. Now, because my first back on the Contax was the E-motion 22 and because I loved the colour and DR (in single shot) better than the 528c I now use, I am thinking to add a single shot back on my Contax and a lean towards the Dalsa 33mp sensor more than the 60mp one… I would like your opinion on the matter...
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: JV on February 11, 2014, 06:21:25 pm
A, B and C in that order.

Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Theodoros on February 11, 2014, 06:25:47 pm
A, B and C in that order.


You (and others) may have missed the Q… which is what is what….
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: JV on February 11, 2014, 06:30:35 pm
You (and others) may have missed the Q… which is what is what….

A being MFDB, the other 2 35mm.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 11, 2014, 06:48:12 pm
Wow, that's a lot of replies! Much more than  I expected!  ;D

Thanks for the participation folks. This test to me, is a good indicator that taste is very subjective. It also tells me what people generally expect a "Medium format file" to look like.

Some people noticed that they have all been sharpened properly. That's correct and it's my first curveball. Obviously, the 35mm files had to be sharpened more, but I wanted to make them all look more or less the same.

Second curveball was that I shot these with a golden reflector. This means that with the "Flash" white balance, the subject should be a bit yellowy-warm and not neutral. Are we getting some ideas now? ;)

Before I go further, I want to address this post. Out of all those who posted, this post nailed it. Sareesh, I know you work in motion and also have some experience in color grading, so good work!

First of all, thank you, Sandeep, for taking the time to post this.

Never shot with MFDB, but I prefer B. In spite of the wider angle, I feel it has more 'depth', and the dress looks more real and less 'muddier'. I like the hair in B too.

C looks more color-neutral, though it is awfully similar to A - almost like it was just zoomed in a bit! If they are different cameras, it is strange how they are very similar - too hard to pick between them.

Can't wait for the results.

So... Here are the results.

Image A is a D800 image, processed with the IQ 250 profile. I can totally see how this appeals to a lot of people. It's very contrasty out of the box and is leaning towards magenta, which most people tend to like.

Image B is the Credo 40 file (Shocker!). This was processed with the "Portrait soft" profile, which is a lot less contrasty than most default camera profile. I can also see how this does not appeal to a lot of people.

Image C is a Canon 5D Mark III file, processed with the IQ250 profile. I am actually surprised no one picked this one correctly.


So, which one do I prefer?

D800:

The IQ 250 profile is a game changer. It has instantly made the D800 files a lot more usable. More than what any Nikon specific profile in any software has managed to, till date. This leads me to believe that P1 has worked on the IQ 250 sensor inside out.
However, the file still has a global color look for my taste. with a bit of red in everything. It loses the subtleties between tones, which is something I do not like (More of that later).

5D3:

This file was the hardest to work on. The default profile is godawful (Even after color passport adjustment), the 1Ds II profile was a bit better and the IQ 250 profile showed the most promise. It still took a lot of work to get a decent image out of it. Personally, it's still a bit too  "Flat" for my liking and not from a tone curve perspective. It does isolate the subtle tones a bit better than the D800, but lacks the "Punch".

Credo:

The "Intentional color cast" notwithstanding, I prefer this (Big surprise, I know). It is the only one that got the golden reflector induced warmth right. It also has the most subtle tones of the three. This is most evident in the cheeks where the blush gradually fades off and the skin shows. The range of tones in this file is far more than the other two.

p.s. Why is the background green? Simply because I cooled the shadows down a tad for shits and giggles.  ;D

Does it all matter? No, not really. Like I said in another thread the other day, shoot with what you like instead of arguing over profitability and whatever. I like shooting with my MF gear and I enjoy that process far more than I do with 35mm. That's all that matters to ME. If another format does the same for you, enjoy that and ignore the technobabble.

Was I "Expecting" any particular result? No again. Like I said, I am not aiming to change anyone's opinions. Also, I have been shooting portraits long enough to know just how subjective it can get. The thread did satisfy my curiosity about how people's opinions vary wildly when doing a blind test.

Here's another pretty picture of the pretty model to finish off.

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3767/12468627894_a9d2f81b2e_b.jpg)

Do I even need to say what camera was used to shoot it? ;)
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: EricWHiss on February 11, 2014, 07:15:04 pm
hah!  Those were some good curveballs Synn!

I was wondering if B was the Credo even though I preferred the A…  now I know, but even I did have a hard time with this one.  I guess I go for a more saturated image. Image C was the only one that looked really flat (as in 2d) to me.   How much more sharpening did you add? And did you change the saturation on the files? Also I wondered if you used a different f/stop for the Credo 40 vs the DSLR's?

What's interesting - a month or so back, someone posted a link to a guess the format slideshow and it seemed I was doing pretty well on guessing there.   
Couple comments  - the skin profiles in C1 - they do bring the range of skin colors together to help make skin look smoother.  If you set the same file to 'product' you'll see a lot more variation and color detail in the skin (or anything that includes those colors).  Also the credo 40 is the smallest footprint of the MFDB these days.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: BlasR on February 11, 2014, 07:21:02 pm
Great, so keep those DSLR'S, I stay with MDF..So lets move one now.  I hope its another post just for those love DSRL..I like real things.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 11, 2014, 08:06:57 pm
hah!  Those were some good curveballs Synn!

I was wondering if B was the Credo even though I preferred the A…  now I know, but even I did have a hard time with this one.  I guess I go for a more saturated image. Image C was the only one that looked really flat (as in 2d) to me.   How much more sharpening did you add? And did you change the saturation on the files? Also I wondered if you used a different f/stop for the Credo 40 vs the DSLR's?

What's interesting - a month or so back, someone posted a link to a guess the format slideshow and it seemed I was doing pretty well on guessing there.   
Couple comments  - the skin profiles in C1 - they do bring the range of skin colors together to help make skin look smoother.  If you set the same file to 'product' you'll see a lot more variation and color detail in the skin (or anything that includes those colors).  Also the credo 40 is the smallest footprint of the MFDB these days.

Thanks, Eric.

For the 35mm files, I added 1px sharpening in Focus magic. To the careful eye, they do look a tad "Artifactey", but does get them closer to  the MF files.

Saturation is more or less as it were from the profiles. The "Portrait soft" Leaf profile has lower saturation
than the rest.

Can't remember the f/ stop now, but I believe the D800 and credo were at f/8 at ISO 50 and the 5D3 a stop smaller at ISO 100.

You're absolutely right about the color profiles too. I have observed that the product/ portrait settings work best for my portrait work. I used the "Portrait soft" option for this test just to add to the confusion.

The image I posted in the previous post is incidentally from the Credo, set to Portrait and processed using the workflow that I usually use for portrait work.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: pixjohn on February 11, 2014, 08:51:37 pm
I thought A was MFDB, I guess I was also wrong also.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 12, 2014, 12:18:16 am
Hi,

Interesting. My preference was A, C, B. The reason I preferred A was rendition of the darks in the hair. Synn made a good job making the images looking similar.

What I found interesting/bad is that you can take a profile made for the IQ 250 and apply to both Nikon D800 and Canon and still get better rendition than the "native" profiles made for each camera.

Says something about the quality of profiling :-(

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Fine_Art on February 12, 2014, 12:32:01 am
I thought A was MFDB, I guess I was also wrong also.

It's not a matter of wrong, they were processed with different tints, different sharpness (B in particular), different sizes. The main takeaway is the differences are small between different systems. Small enough that small differences in processing become dominant differences, at least on downsampled images. Nothing surprising.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: EricWHiss on February 12, 2014, 12:54:30 am
I wasn't wrong about which was the MFDB file (though admittedly not confident enough to declare it), but what surprised me was that I preferred A mostly for color and a bit more contrasty. Total sucker for the redder lips.   What I learned most from this is that I could probably be adding more saturation and contrast to my own files.  No chance I'm going to give up any of my MF cameras - and I have a lot of them - not just Rolleiflex's - and go out and pick up a D800 or A7R.   
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 12, 2014, 01:12:23 am
I wasn't wrong about which was the MFDB file (though admittedly not confident enough to declare it), but what surprised me was that I preferred A mostly for color and a bit more contrasty. Total sucker for the redder lips.   What I learned most from this is that I could probably be adding more saturation and contrast to my own files.  No chance I'm going to give up any of my MF cameras - and I have a lot of them - not just Rolleiflex's - and go out and pick up a D800 or A7R.   

Pretty much my thoughts too.
The lesser contrast and saturation in the original sample is purely because of the "Portrait soft" profile. Which is why I posted the second image to show how saturated and "Full" and MF file can be.

The DSLR files used in this test, while contrasty and punchy, lack the tonal gradations between shades (Like the blush and the skin on the cheek, as mentioned) in the MF file and no profile can bring those back.

My personal takeaway from this exercise is that while I will continue to use my MF kit as the main system for portraiture, I am much happier with the 35mm files with the IQ250 profile than I was ever before.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 12, 2014, 01:38:06 am
Seems we learned about the importance of profiling,
which sort of supports my personal theory,
that things usually fail because of the basic stuff,
not the sophisticated stuff.

Great test and thanks for posting it.
Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: UlfKrentz on February 12, 2014, 01:47:41 am
We have never used the portrait profiles for our Leaf backs, actually I was always wondering why they have been added. Now I know, to make MF look worse than 35FF :-)
The one to finish is the credo with product profile?

Cheers!
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 12, 2014, 01:49:45 am
We have never used the portrait profiles for our Leaf backs, actually I was always wondering why they have been added. Now I know, to make MF look worse than 35FF :-)
The one to finish is the credo with product profile?

Cheers!

Yep, that's the Credo, but that's the "Portrait" profile. It's only a tad less saturated than the "Product" profile.
I prefer to use the product profile when there are brightly colored fabrics involved.

Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: EricWHiss on February 12, 2014, 02:38:37 am
Yes, the profiles in C1 can make really significant differences without even getting to the curve selection.  Just compare the gamma in profoto RGB to any of the others for example.  But this really is an advantage of the Leaf actually - I like having the different choices to choose for as starting points with different looks.  But everyone with a leaf back should read their document that explains the color profiles since the naming can be a bit confusing.


My friend Geoff always uses portrait for landscape work and when he sends me images I'm always caught by this 'film' like look they have. So simple to do.

ps.  Synn - since you were there - which one looked most like the model in the lighting you had?
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 12, 2014, 02:51:51 am
Yes, the profiles in C1 can make really significant differences without even getting to the curve selection.  Just compare the gamma in profoto RGB to any of the others for example.  But this really is an advantage of the Leaf actually - I like having the different choices to choose for as starting points with different looks.  But everyone with a leaf back should read their document that explains the color profiles since the naming can be a bit confusing.


My friend Geoff always uses portrait for landscape work and when he sends me images I'm always caught by this 'film' like look they have. So simple to do.

ps.  Synn - since you were there - which one looked most like the model in the lighting you had?


I would say the "Portrait" profile was the closest. It captured her dusky skin faithfully.

BTW, could you please link me to the document about Leaf profiles? I've never come across this, actually. So far it has been all trial and error...
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Dustbak on February 12, 2014, 03:24:40 am
I totally liked A the best and found B the worst :) I guess I should have a look at the IQ250 profile in C1. Apparently no need for buying an IQ250 (which I am really tempted to). I prefer using the HB for my work but I have no hesitation of using the D800e when I need to. What wonderful times we live in...
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: MrSmith on February 12, 2014, 03:46:09 am
Statistics so far:

A is best: 9 votes
B is best: 1 vote
C is best: 6 votes

A is MFDB = 6 votes
B is MFDB = 0 votes
C is MFDB = 5 votes

Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: UlfKrentz on February 12, 2014, 03:49:50 am
snip

BTW, could you please link me to the document about Leaf profiles? I've never come across this, actually. So far it has been all trial and error...

Synn, that probably was meant for the original leaf profiles, the documentation can be found here:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/assets/files/documentation/techbull_leaf_image_profiles.pdf

Not sure about the implementation in C1, they have somehow found a way into it but being absolutely not familiar with P1 / C1 I don´t know how. With LC though we never used the "portrait-profile" and the look in your last image matches my expectation of a leaf back and is quite far away from your sample "B". To me the "MF-Look" has not much to do with resolution, it´s more about the actual sensor size and rendering of the MF lenses, I´d actually prefer a 35MP back with a "Full frame 6/7cm" but I doubt that will ever happen. May be I´ll take a look at the Nikon ;-)


Cheers, Ulf
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 12, 2014, 04:12:27 am
Synn, that probably was meant for the original leaf profiles, the documentation can be found here:

http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/assets/files/documentation/techbull_leaf_image_profiles.pdf

Not sure about the implementation in C1, they have somehow found a way into it but being absolutely not familiar with P1 / C1 I don´t know how. With LC though we never used the "portrait-profile" and the look in your last image matches my expectation of a leaf back and is quite far away from your sample "B". To me the "MF-Look" has not much to do with resolution, it´s more about the actual sensor size and rendering of the MF lenses, I´d actually prefer a 35MP back with a "Full frame 6/7cm" but I doubt that will ever happen. May be I´ll take a look at the Nikon ;-)


Cheers, Ulf

Thank you for that.

The last image is how I would normally process a portrait. The one in the comparison was more of a curiosity killer rather than anything, lol.

If you're looking at 35mm though, I'd suggest that you consider Sony. Skintones look nicer from Sony cameras without the mud wrestling that one has to do with Nikon files before something decent comes up.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: UlfKrentz on February 12, 2014, 04:36:10 am
OK, thank you for not letting me spend my time for mud wrestling ;-)
But once again I´ll better skip FF35 for now…

Cheers!
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Fine_Art on February 12, 2014, 04:53:34 am
Thank you for that.

The last image is how I would normally process a portrait. The one in the comparison was more of a curiosity killer rather than anything, lol.

If you're looking at 35mm though, I'd suggest that you consider Sony. Skintones look nicer from Sony cameras without the mud wrestling that one has to do with Nikon files before something decent comes up.

How's that? Nikon is using Sony chips. Both have good color separation between channels.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 12, 2014, 05:36:00 am
How's that? Nikon is using Sony chips. Both have good color separation between channels.

There are many scientist types here who would gladly explain the how part.
I can only speak from experience.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Ken R on February 12, 2014, 12:48:24 pm
We've had these MFD vs 35mm arguments for far too long. To be honest, I have no illusions that either camp will change their opinion ever. But if we are to debate endlessly, might as well do it based on some images and not yet another graph.

Below are three images shot  on the same day. Same studio, same lights, same model. Two are with 35mm full frame cameras. One is with an MFDB.

All images were first processed in Capture 1 Pro 7.2 (With the most suitable profiles and a reference image of a color checker taken with each camera). and finished in Photoshop as 16 bit, prophotoRGB TIFFs (Final sharpening and skin retouching). All were retouched the same way.
Finally, they were exported as 2000px wide JPEGs in sRGB and laid side by side.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5508/12452920303_cae7742c3a_o.jpg)

Since the forum resizes images automatically, just right click the picture and select "View image" to see it full size.

For the pixel peeping types, here are crops of the faces:

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/12452880275_2464ef0994_o.jpg)

The task is simple.

1) Guess which camera shot which image.

2) Say which image appeals to you and why.

Mandatory disclaimer:

1) No "You should have processed it this way", "Send me the RAW files", "Should'a done this, should'a done that".
 No.
I did a test based on my workflow and my shooting style. If you prefer a different shooting methodology, feel free to conduct your own test.

2) No CCD, CMOS, CFA, CIA, NSA and whatever.
You have 86740474 threads to argue over all that jargon. This thread is only about looking at the images and saying what you think of them. Simple.

So without further delays, go ahead and have fun. Let's see if there is such a thing as the "MF look".
I'm gonna step back and be a neutral party until we have enough responses.

Hi, I was traveling to NM so I just got a good look at this.

I like the image in the center. It has better gradation from the highlights to the shadows. The highlight "rolloff" seems smoother. The image to the left seems a bit harsher in that regard. More Nikon like and the image to the right seems more "pasty" or smoother, too smooth, more Canon like. I could be wrong and it is tough to judge from the jpgs posted but that is my initial impression right away.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Manoli on February 12, 2014, 12:52:55 pm
Hi, I was traveling to NM so I just got a good look at this.

Brilliant ! - how perceptive, especially since you've just been told what each shot was …
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on February 12, 2014, 01:04:55 pm
I could have sworn that C was a sony sensor. And I own a 5D3 and A7r and we have a couple of D800e's and an Aptus II - 8 in the studio. Just goes to show. If you know your software then these days, it's more about the software and operator than the sensors anymore. Albeit I'm sure that at certain level it's been like that for more than a while.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: torger on February 12, 2014, 03:14:32 pm
How's that? Nikon is using Sony chips. Both have good color separation between channels.

Nikon and Sony have done different CFA choices despite using the same underlying sensor, so yes differences can be had. Sony A99 is said to be a good example of Sony caring more for base iso color than high iso performance. DxoMark make some measurements of the sensor's color response and you can indeed see that they can be different between cameras that both use Sony Exmor sensors. It's hard to see what's more pleasing from a measurement though, but that they are different can be established.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: bjanes on February 12, 2014, 03:22:39 pm
Hi, I was traveling to NM so I just got a good look at this.

I like the image in the center. It has better gradation from the highlights to the shadows. The highlight "rolloff" seems smoother. The image to the left seems a bit harsher in that regard. More Nikon like and the image to the right seems more "pasty" or smoother, too smooth, more Canon like. I could be wrong and it is tough to judge from the jpgs posted but that is my initial impression right away.

Did you form your opinion before or after you learned the sensor used to capture each image? Your opinion does not agree with the majority of the blinded opinions.

Bill
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Ken R on February 12, 2014, 05:32:52 pm
Did you form your opinion before or after you learned the sensor used to capture each image? Your opinion does not agree with the majority of the blinded opinions.

Bill

I did not read the 3 pages of posts I just read the first post from the OP. So I had not clue what each camera was. Il check them out now and see.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 12, 2014, 06:01:58 pm
This reminds me of the story of a friend trying to sell a very high end intrgrated amplifier to a trader friend of his.

The potential customer owned a limited series speakers from Kef, some of the most expensive speaker ever designed, and challenged them with a blind testing against his current amp, pretty good too in absolute terms... but, according to the seller, in a much lower league.

He told them "if you, the seller, can tell apart your amp from mine repeatedely, I buy your wonder cash".

They couldn't... although the amp they were trying to sell must be the best review piece of high audio equipment of the last few years...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: bjanes on February 12, 2014, 06:11:18 pm
This reminds me of the story of a friend trying to sell a very high end intrgrated amplifier to a trader friend of his.

The potential customer owned a limited series speakers from Kef, some of the most expensive speaker ever designed, and challenged them with a blind testing against his current amp, pretty good too in absolute terms... but, according to the seller, in a much lower league.

He told them "if you, the seller, can tell apart your amp from mine repeatedely, I buy your wonder cash".

They couldn't... although the amp they were trying to sell must be the best review piece of high audio equipment of the last few years...

That is what Doug is trying to do with his new camera. However, in this case I don't doubt that the results of the new Phase One CMOS and with best apochromatic lenses are demonstrable better than those that could be obtained with the D800e with high grade Zeiss optics. However, is the much greater cost worth a relatively small and difficult to detect difference with many imaging situations, as shown in the current blind test of 3 systems.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Manoli on February 12, 2014, 07:05:35 pm
... although the amp they were trying to sell must be the best review piece of high audio equipment of the last few years...

Curiosity killed the cat … what was the amp ?
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 12, 2014, 07:37:39 pm
This reminds me of the story of a friend trying to sell a very high end intrgrated amplifier to a trader friend of his.

The potential customer owned a limited series speakers from Kef, some of the most expensive speaker ever designed, and challenged them with a blind testing against his current amp, pretty good too in absolute terms... but, according to the seller, in a much lower league.

He told them "if you, the seller, can tell apart your amp from mine repeatedely, I buy your wonder cash".

They couldn't... although the amp they were trying to sell must be the best review piece of high audio equipment of the last few years...

Cheers,
Bernard

it might remind you of a lot of things, but I am not trying to sell anything.
the scientific technobabble that goes on here does remind me of the story of a man who tried learning swimming via mail though...
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 12, 2014, 07:50:35 pm
That is what Doug is trying to do with his new camera. However, in this case I don't doubt that the results of the new Phase One CMOS and with best apochromatic lenses are demonstrable better than those that could be obtained with the D800e with high grade Zeiss optics. However, is the much greater cost worth a relatively small and difficult to detect difference with many imaging situations, as shown in the current blind test of 3 systems.

Regards,

Bill

...and you miss the point of the test by a long shot.

for artists like me, what I can make a file look like is not remotely as important as what the shooting experience feels like or how how much effort it takes to arrive at the results I want. THIS is the primary criteria for many of us when we choose our tools.

The world of the working photographer is very different from that of a professional test chart interpreter.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: Ken R on February 12, 2014, 08:19:07 pm
Yeah, just a wee bit too much cynical attitude around here. I don't think he needs defending but treating a person like Doug like he is selling snake oil is just rude.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: EricWHiss on February 12, 2014, 11:00:11 pm
Actually this was a great exercise and thread and I thank Sandeep for going to all the work to set this up. 

Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 12, 2014, 11:04:10 pm
Curiosity killed the cat … what was the amp ?

A Devialet D-Premier.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 12, 2014, 11:12:41 pm
it might remind you of a lot of things, but I am not trying to sell anything.
the scientific technobabble that goes on here does remind me of the story of a man who tried learning swimming via mail though...

That's not how I meant it, nor was I talking about Doug by the way.

My point was more about the fact that we often tend to have a certain perception about the qualities of the equipment we use/like, that is not always backed up by some objective/third party experiments.

As a generic rule, the more we pay for a piece of gear, the less objective we tend to be about it once we have receptioned it, but there are obviously many exceptions to this rule.

It typically applies first and foremost to me, although I don't intend to spend more than a few thousand US$ on photographic equipment in the coming years... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: synn on February 12, 2014, 11:21:52 pm
That's not how I meant it, nor was I talking about Doug by the way.

My point was more about the fact that we often tend to have a certain perception about the qualities of the equipment we use/like, that is not always backed up by some objective/third party experiments.

As a generic rule, the more we pay for a piece of gear, the less objective we tend to be about it once we have receptioned it, but there are obviously many exceptions to this rule.

It typically applies first and foremost to me, although I don't intend to spend more than a few thousand US$ on photographic equipment in the coming years... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard


That's not entirely against my PoV either. My point was that these "Qualities" that we desire in our equipment go beyond test charts or side by side experiments. Sometimes it's the user experience or even the feel.

Going by the audio analogy, I am sure some test out there that proves CDs or FLAC files to be better than vinyl records, but I know more than one audiophile who prefers the latter.
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 12, 2014, 11:24:58 pm
That's not entirely against my PoV either. My point was that these "Qualities" that we desire in our equipment go beyond test charts or side by side experiments. Sometimes it's the user experience or even the feel.

Going by the audio analogy, I am sure some test out there that proves CDs or FLAC files to be better than vinyl records, but I know more than one audiophile who prefers the latter.

Absolutely.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Let's play a little game of what camera shot what.
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 13, 2014, 12:10:46 am
Hi,

That would be different CFA designs. Tim Parkin (publisher of the english publication On Landscape) started looking at this in this article: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/02/the-myth-of-universal-colour/

Here he notes that the SMI rating by DxO mark correlates well with his findings of his and friends cameras. This comparison, made a couple of years ago, include Sony Alpha 900, Nikon D3X, Canon 5D , Canon 5DII and the Phase One P45+.

Sony Alpha 900: 87
Canon 5D:         84
Canon 5DII:       80
Nikon D3X:        79
Phase One p65+:76
Phase One P45+:72

The D800E was not available at that time but the SMI is given to 77.

I am sceptical to the SMI value, but Tim says it corresponds well to his experience. The problem I see with SMI is that it is a simple measurement of colour accuracy for a given source of light. DxO doesn't use these values in their DxO mark.

DxO also measures color sensivity, the number of colours the sensor can separate, the enclosed screen dumps illustrate this. The top one shows color sensivity at actual pixels view (ignoring the size of the sensor) the one at the bottom corresponds to a standard size print.

All this is not very conclusive, and I would guess that the quality of the camera profiles may be more important than sensor characteristics. I guess that the DxO data tells a lot about what data is given to those profiles, but little about what is coming out of those profiles.

Best regards
Erik







There are many scientist types here who would gladly explain the how part.
I can only speak from experience.