Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: chrismuc on February 13, 2015, 11:37:08 am
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotoblogia/16490416232/in/album-72157650747935575/
Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R samples in full resolution with different lenses incl. TSE 17, TSE 24 and 11-24.
Damn convincing for a 4K EUR camera :-)
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotoblogia/16490416232/in/album-72157650747935575/
Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R samples in full resolution with different lenses incl. TSE 17, TSE 24 and 11-24.
Damn convincing for a 4K EUR camera :-)
Hi,
Thanks for the link.
I don't know what they did with the sharpening, but it leaves a lot to be desired...
But that's not the fault of the camera.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Which new lenses has Canon released which are supposed to go well with this camera and which new ones are coming?
-
I am quite pleased with these samples. I rarely require edge to edge sharpness, but it's nice to know it's available when needed. I look forward to testing out this camera.
-
Which new lenses has Canon released which are supposed to go well with this camera and which new ones are coming?
Hi,
All lenses go well with this camera, and the higher sampling density of the sensor allows to pull out a higher quality image, but the newer versions released since roughly the last ten years were usually redesigned with digital cameras in mind.
The lens design (software) capabilities, and (rare earth, and other mixes, e.g. replacing lead) lens materials, and manufacturing processes (shaping of Fluorite, mass production of aspherical lens surfaces) are constantly being improved. Therefore, more recent lenses have a higher probability of being better than their predecessors. Typically the 'L' lenses, often marked as type II when they replace an earlier design, are usually the best.
Nobody who really could know, can tell which lenses will be replaced in the future.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The JPGs don't do anything for me from an evaluative standpoint.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
I would agree on that. Full size JPEGs may tell a bit of the story, but for any real judgement, raw images are needed.
Best regards
Erik
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotoblogia/16490416232/in/album-72157650747935575/
Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R samples in full resolution with different lenses incl. TSE 17, TSE 24 and 11-24.
Damn convincing for a 4K EUR camera :-)
Thx for posting.
Technically these samples really don't cut the mustard. I see banding, sharpening artifacts, some haloing, some "glow" in parts of the images. At times the image looks like an uprezed image from a 5D3. Overall pretty ugly at 100%.
Maybe it's the jpg?
Also, use of a polarizer with the 17mm really?
I would expect better.
The studio photos have some really nice production / creative value and are perfect for showing what a high res camera can do unfortunately the jpgs really don't the scenes justice.
-
Anyone who compares these files to MF need to spend a little time with an MF camera.
-
What Synn said.
-
If you're wanting to show of your new tiny pixel high resolution sensor, this is not the way to do it. These images are horrible on multiple levels, most of them technical. And, obviously someone in Canon's marketing department approved of every one of these to be released to the public. Canon is known for having really crappy pre-release samples, but these don't do anything to generate any level of excitement. At least not here.
-
...Canon is known for having really crappy pre-release samples...
so is Zeiss ( look at the 55mm Otus samples !)
so is Nikon (d800 and beyond samples !)
I do not understand this kind of marketing...
-
No amount of fine technique can magically get amazing output from what is an oversized 7D2 sensor, which is a slightly updated 7D sensor.
-
I think this are regular out-of-camera jpegs. I like the dead-tree and the mysterious-water-and-architecture shot as images, but from these images you can't really figure out performance. "Impress shots" on the web are generally heavily post-processed products, so you can't figure out any performance from them either, what you need is raw files and we'll have to wait for that.
Meanwhile I don't think it really matters what images the manufacturer would release... people see what they want to see.
I think 7D2 was a large upgrade from the 7D in terms of sensor performance, it has no banding noise for example which is a big thing for Canon, if we get 7D2 pixel performance I think the 5DS will be okay, although forum folks would have preferred DR in class with Sony CMOS of course. Concerning color rendition we'll have to wait and see. For typical studio work the DR will of course not be an issue, hasn't been for a long time.
There are still many photographers out there that don't worry that much about having the best DxOmark numbers or think much about the elusive MFD or CCD look or whatever, and for those I think this camera will provide a new interesting mix of high resolution, speed and flexibility. Maybe architecture photographer Iwan Baan will consider swapping out his 1DX for this one...
-
Maybe architecture photographer Iwan Baan will consider swapping out his 1DX for this one...
I doubt it as he shoots mostly hand-held...if he was in need for a high resolution camera he would have gone medium format a long time ago...
-
Anyone who compares these files to MF need to spend a little time with an MF camera.
Ah, you have 5DS / 5DS R Raw files you want to share?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ah, you have 5DS / 5DS R Raw files you want to share?
Cheers,
Bart
I don't need to see RAW files to get an idea of what a camera is capable of, because I am not a measurebator.
Camera JPEGs have been typically very good for many years now and RAW files, while essential for almost everyone here aren't going to add 200 tonnes of awesome automatically, at least not without extensive post processing. Let's not forget that Flickr uploads also get automatically sharpened and you can't turn this off.
Despite all this, I still see hazy output, that boring, "uniform color" look, harsh highlights and none of the bite of an MF file. It's a bigger D800 file with 60% of the DR. If that floats your boat, go for it. But to think that this is an "MF killer" would get a chuckle and a "Sure it is" toast from me.
-
I doubt it as he shoots mostly hand-held...if he was in need for a high resolution camera he would have gone medium format a long time ago...
I guess you've heard about higher ISOs than 50? ;). That combined with Canon's excellent image stabilization available in many lenses will make hand-held shots quite feasible I think. And although his reputation is about hand-held documentary style architecture photography, if you look at his site you find many which are shot from a tripod too, obvious from the blurry people in motion.
If you can keep the flexibility and gain image quality, why not? I think the reason a photographer with his shooting style doesn't use medium format is not because high resolution is completely meaningless, but because shooting flexibility and handling is more important to make the shots. Now with the Credo 50 with the excellent CMOS sensor I think there's a possibility to get him and others with similar shooting styles interested in MFD, but it was not before that. Good ISO performance is a must.
-
Camera JPEGs have been typically very good for many years now and RAW files, while essential for almost everyone here aren't going to add 200 tonnes of awesome automatically, at least not without extensive post processing. Let's not forget that Flickr uploads also get automatically sharpened and you can't turn this off.
MFD underexposes quite much to gain highlight detail, while Canon do not. Their in-camera jpeg also have very simplistic highlight rendering (clip to white when the first channel hits color space max). You will get considerably better highlights with a competent raw workflow, I know I have used a Canon quite much.
I also know that my Hassy H4D-50 underexposes badly, it can show clip warnings two stops from clipping in some circumstances. Learning how the in-camera images relates to the real raw data is quite important to maximize the camera's potential in a context where dynamic range is important, such as landscape photography.
-
The point I am making is not whether or not the files from that camera could be improved upon, if the RAWs were given. I am fully aware that this is so.
What I am saying is that just because a pig is receptive of lipstick doesn't mean that on application, it turns into Jennifer Lopez. I have seen enough pigs and Ms. Lopez to reach this reasonable conclusion.
-
The point I am making is not whether or not the files from that camera could be improved upon, if the RAWs were given. I am fully aware that this is so.
What I am saying is that just because a pig is receptive of lipstick doesn't mean that on application, it turns into Jennifer Lopez. I have seen enough pigs and Ms. Lopez to reach this reasonable conclusion.
True, this being said the 5Ds with an Otus 85mm f1.4 in studio will most probably be objectively superior to many MF combos in terms of image quality.
That may not make it a superior studio camera of course.
But Canon has nothing coming close to the Otus and they aren't going to promote Zeiss glass obviously.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What I am saying is that just because a pig is receptive of lipstick doesn't mean that on application, it turns into Jennifer Lopez. I have seen enough pigs and Ms. Lopez to reach this reasonable conclusion.
Just because you make an outlandish, over-exaggerated comparison (that has nothing to do with reality) doesn't mean there aren't many applications where the 5Ds will be a superior tool to a MF camera and rival it in image quality, surpassing it with certain applications.
Jack
PS: Some people would even argue that Jennifer Lopez is herself a glorified, beautified pig ... in fact, Mariah Carey prefers the company of pigs (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mariahcare386473.html) :D
-
No amount of fine technique can magically get amazing output from what is an oversized 7D2 sensor, which is a slightly updated 7D sensor.
Listen, I agree with you that these samples contain some of the worst image quality I've ever seen, but I know for sure these are JPEGs processed by the camera, and every "Sample" I've seen dating back to even before 2004 from Canon and Nikon, and even Phase One, have been really bad!
Wait for a RAW file shot with a Zeiss, processed in Capture One, then come back and give your opinion.
BTW, I don't own any Canon gear at the moment. Looking at DP Merrill files, then looking at these samples makes me laugh. But just wait. It will be a pretty damn good camera, IMO, along with the Nikon and Sony versions, no doubt.
-
I have seen D800 and D810 files shot with Otii, processed in C1P and whatnot (I use Nikon's best glass on my personal D800 and process in C1P, BTW) and I still don't consider them anywhere near what I can achieve with my MF kit. This canon sensor has a pixel count advantage over the Sony in the Nikons and pretty much nothing else, so I am not expecting it to surprise me.
There are applications where I prefer the Nikon over the Credo, but that's besides the point. I didn't get the Credo to be my doitall camera and I have no illusions that it is one. In terms of absolute IQ for tripod/ studio based low ISO applications (Which are the use case scenarios for all the samples in that Flickr set), the 35mm cameras are not on par with MF. This is a working artist's opinion, not that of a professional test chart analyst. Take it for what it is worth.
If one is used to the 35mm scene and wants a step up in IQ, I am sure this thing or a D800/810 will make them more than happy. But please, don't sing that song to people who have actually used MF gear for artistic purposes. There are many scenarios where we choose something else over the MF gear to do our work, but "Superior IQ" isn't one of them.
At least, not yet.
-
True, this being said the 5Ds with an Otus 85mm f1.4 in studio will most probably be objectively superior to many MF combos in terms of image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
How did you come to that conclusion? Can you please define "better"?
-
Hi,
There are two things that set the Otus apart from almost other lenses I know about:
- It is almost totally free axial color aberrations at full aperture, no green/magenta fringing in OOF areas.
- It is sharp enough to produce moiré at f/1.4 in the corners on a 36 MP sensor
I have seen enough examples to feel that the above are proven facts. From that I would assume that the lens would produce pretty much perfect images with a 50 MP or even 100 MP sensor.
How Otus would stand up against a 50 MP sensor with an excellent lens is something we don't know. Personally, I would expect the Canon 5Ds to do very well if used by a competent photographer.
On the other hand, I would still think that IQ-280 with a technical camera and Rodenstock HR lenses at optimal aperture may play in a slightly different division.
Best regards
Erik
How did you come to that conclusion? Can you please define "better"?
-
I'll give you a simple test that anyone can do without knowing what a nyquist or a Bayer or whatever is.
Shoot your 35mm high res camera with whatever lens you want and process in the raw converter of your choice. Export as 16 bit TIFF to photoshop. Now do the same with an MF camera of similar MP with a competent lens (say, the Schneider Kreuznach P1 lenses). Blow both images up to 200% (without using fancy plugins. We are not evaluating the efficiency of a scaling algorithm). You'll see that the MF image holds up MUCH better with only a hint of quality loss. The 35mm file completely breaks apart in comparison.
Whatever the scientific reason behind it is, MF files have a certain fatness to them that the 35mm cameras are yet to match. This is something MP counts or DxO scores won't tell you.
-
I'll give you a simple test that anyone can do without knowing what a nyquist or a Bayer or whatever is.
Shoot your 35mm high res camera with whatever lens you want and process in the raw converter of your choice. Export as 16 bit TIFF to photoshop. Now do the same with an MF camera of similar MP with a competent lens (say, the Schneider Kreuznach P1 lenses). Blow both images up to 200% (without using fancy plugins. We are not evaluating the efficiency of a scaling algorithm). You'll see that the MF image holds up MUCH better with only a hint of quality loss. The 35mm file completely breaks apart in comparison.
Whatever the scientific reason behind it is, MF files have a certain fatness to them that the 35mm cameras are yet to match. This is something MP counts or DxO scores won't tell you.
I am trying to stay out of this as much as possible, but I have to agree with Synn here. I often examine my files at 200% on location to find the critical focus point. At 100%, the files are too "nice" looking to find it, at 200% they are still very nice, but it is easier to find where the camera is exactly focused at.
Any DSLR files do not hold up at 200% and look horrible.
-
Hi,
There are two things that set the Otus apart from almost other lenses I know about:
- It is almost totally free axial color aberrations at full aperture, no green/magenta fringing in OOF areas.
- It is sharp enough to produce moiré at f/1.4 in the corners on a 36 MP sensor
I have seen enough examples to feel that the above are proven facts. From that I would assume that the lens would produce pretty much perfect images with a 50 MP or even 100 MP sensor.
How Otus would stand up against a 50 MP sensor with an excellent lens is something we don't know. Personally, I would expect the Canon 5Ds to do very well if used by a competent photographer.
On the other hand, I would still think that IQ-280 with a technical camera and Rodenstock HR lenses at optimal aperture may play in a slightly different division.
Best regards
Erik
Yeah, I know Otus is a great lens, so are some MF lenses too... My question is (was) different though... A good lens certainly improves things... but this is with any sensor! And there are many very good lenses out there for MF cameras.
-
I'll give you a simple test that anyone can do without knowing what a nyquist or a Bayer or whatever is.
Shoot your 35mm high res camera with whatever lens you want and process in the raw converter of your choice. Export as 16 bit TIFF to photoshop. Now do the same with an MF camera of similar MP with a competent lens (say, the Schneider Kreuznach P1 lenses). Blow both images up to 200% (without using fancy plugins. We are not evaluating the efficiency of a scaling algorithm). You'll see that the MF image holds up MUCH better with only a hint of quality loss. The 35mm file completely breaks apart in comparison.
Whatever the scientific reason behind it is, MF files have a certain fatness to them that the 35mm cameras are yet to match. This is something MP counts or DxO scores won't tell you.
Agree... Nikon's 16mp sensor is about the only one that comes close to an MF sensor when blown to 200%.... Things are even more impressive if one prints an image at ...36ppi!!! ...with D800/E/810 ...just forget it!
-
I now use two MFDBs, one of 9μm pixel size and another of 6.8μm size... The second one has some clear advantages (at single shot mode) when it comes down to moire, but that's about the only thing I would criticise if compared to the "fat" pixel other back... On anything else the image of the (same image area) lower pixel count sensor is in the lead. No surprise, the same happens with my Nikon 16mp sensor when compared to any other FF sensor I've ever tried... it is simply in a class of its own for FF performance.
EDIT: Especially now that I use my (7 + TC) Zeiss lenses of the Contax645 on my Nikons via the JAS adapter (which is AF and aperture compatible)... the 16mp sensor behaves more close to the performance of an MFDB than I could ever imagine an FF sensor would.
-
Hi,
I just made that test of yours.
- Left one is Distagon 40/4 FLE on Hassellblad 555/ELD with P45+ back, processed in C1v8
- Center is Sony Alpha 99 (24MP) 24-70/2.8 at f/8 and 30 mm, processed in LR5
- Right One Distagon 40/4 FLE on Hassellblad 555/ELD with P45+ back, processed in LR5
.
Same day, same time, camera repositioned for the DSLR shoot about two meter to the right for better composition. All enlarged 200% using bicubic in Photoshop CS.
I would love to do this comparison with sensors of similar resolution, but I used what I have and use on subjects I normally shoot.
Raw files are here:
P45+ 39MP: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20140708-CF045336.iiq
Alpha 99 (24 MP): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20140708-_DSC4865.dng
Best regards
Erik
I'll give you a simple test that anyone can do without knowing what a nyquist or a Bayer or whatever is.
Shoot your 35mm high res camera with whatever lens you want and process in the raw converter of your choice. Export as 16 bit TIFF to photoshop. Now do the same with an MF camera of similar MP with a competent lens (say, the Schneider Kreuznach P1 lenses). Blow both images up to 200% (without using fancy plugins. We are not evaluating the efficiency of a scaling algorithm). You'll see that the MF image holds up MUCH better with only a hint of quality loss. The 35mm file completely breaks apart in comparison.
Whatever the scientific reason behind it is, MF files have a certain fatness to them that the 35mm cameras are yet to match. This is something MP counts or DxO scores won't tell you.
-
I shoot in studio every week using primarily a 5D3 and I am very happy with this camera. To date, it is the best dslr I've owned. Occasionally, a client will request a MFD camera, but not often. For what I do, which is advertising campaigns for the film studios and tv networks – the 5D3 is more than adequate for the 27" x 40" printed posters. Often times the artwork is repurposed for billboards, bus sides, and sometimes building sides and other collateral materials. My camera stills holds up on billboards because the viewing distance is typically over 60' and beyond, so whatever artifacts and blemishes are on the image are rarely perceived by the naked eye.
Based on what I'm seeing in theses sample photos, I feel that the 5Ds may provide a satisfying bump in resolution to make the posters that much better, in terms of detail - though, it remains to be seen how good this camera will perform. I don't expect it to provide the heightened details you'll find in medium format images, in terms of getting a full body shot of a person and being able to zoom in and find exceptional detail in the eye lashes, eye brows and the iris.
-
I am trying to stay out of this as much as possible, but I have to agree with Synn here. I often examine my files at 200% on location to find the critical focus point. At 100%, the files are too "nice" looking to find it, at 200% they are still very nice, but it is easier to find where the camera is exactly focused at.
Any DSLR files do not hold up at 200% and look horrible.
That's interesting, I find it to be quite the opposite and for a simple reason -- MFD images due to lack of OLPF are, depending on subject and sharpness, often riddled with aliasing and I don't like that to become visible. The more you enlarge the more visible it becomes. However the idea of MF is to have so many megapixels that you don't need to enlarge very much of course and then aliasing is usually less visible unless you havemoire. Anyway that's also why I would get the 5DS rather than the 5DS R, to get better image quality.
Photographers tend to think sharper pixels = better, that's why the R version is there in the first place due to popular demand, but from a real image quality aspect it makes no sense, especially if you must scale up. When sensors was really noisy and sharpening software was very limited it might have been an advantage with no OLPF under some conditions, but that time has passed.
I do agree though that without OLPF it's easier to find the exact focus point, which might be an advantage in live view focus peaking too, but that's the only real advantage I see. However if the manufacturer actually implements USM sharpening in the live view that advantage is nullified.
-
Hi,
There are two things that set the Otus apart from almost other lenses I know about:
- It is almost totally free axial color aberrations at full aperture, no green/magenta fringing in OOF areas.
- It is sharp enough to produce moiré at f/1.4 in the corners on a 36 MP sensor
I assume it actually has round aperture too? I don't like edgy out of focus aperture rings, and I can't understand why high end MF lenses keep those cheap-looking aperture shapes. I can understand it on my Copal shutters as it's really old design, and it doesn't matter much as you rarely have out of focus areas, but on my Hassy HC lens... come on!
The Zeiss Otus is manual focus though which to me makes it a dud for portraiture so I don't find that lens that interesting anyway from practical reasons. What use is that great resolving power at f/1.4 if I won't be able to place focus anyway? It's useful in landscape, but then you stop down and at least f/8 there are many competitors up to the task.
Anyway, I don't see any reason for fanboyism, some things are better on MFD systems and some things are better with DSLR systems. For me it's very simple, I have seven evenly spaced primes corner-to-corner sharp flexible movements on them all (thanks to view camera design), and actually lighter weight than a DSLR system would be, and f/16 is a decent and for my style useful workaround for the aliasing issue.
-
Hi Anders,
You are right. I assume the Otuses have circular apertures. I own no Otus, just seen test images.
All my Hasselblad lenses have some colour fringing (axial chromatic aberration) on OOF areas, and I have seen it almost all lenses. Even some Leica-S samples I have seen have a lot of it. The "rheingold1" image in this sample is a very obvious example of that: http://s-newsletter.leica-camera.com/s2-raw/
I am quite interested in the Otus 85/1.4. Once I have a camera I can put it on I might buy it, waiting for an upper end Sony (say A9) with 50MP+ and electronic first shutter curtain. The reason I want a wide aperture lens is that I have some interest in short DoF shooting, now that I can focus accurately using live view, but I don't want a lot of green/magenta fringing on the out of focus areas.
Just as an explanation. My APS-C camera is a Sony Alpha 77. That camera has 3.77 micron pixel pitch. At that pixel size most of my lenses are bit soft, but the Alpha 77 has widely better resolution (lp/mm) than either the Alpha 99 or the P45+, also the Alpha 77 has little aliasing at f/8. So from that that I believe that full frame with 3.5-4 micron pitch would be pretty decent.
I also don't think that 3.8 micron pixels outresolve most lenses. The Planar 80/2.8 I have can resolve 150-180 lp/mm at f/8 on Adox 120CMS film in the sweet spot. I have not tested my other lenses on film, but MTF measurements I made indicate that they perform at about the same level.
The cameras I use are Hasselblad 555/ELD with 40/4, 50/4, 80/2.8, 100/3.5, 120/4 and 180/4 lenses and a P45+ back. All lenses outresolve that back, as indicated by aliasing. To this comes the Sony Alpha 99 and the Sony Alpha 77 which I mostly use with a couple Sony's better zooms.
Best regards
Regard
I assume it actually has round aperture too? I don't like edgy out of focus aperture rings, and I can't understand why high end MF lenses keep those cheap-looking aperture shapes. I can understand it on my Copal shutters as it's really old design, and it doesn't matter much as you rarely have out of focus areas, but on my Hassy HC lens... come on!
-
I am quite interested in the Otus 85/1.4. Once I have a camera I can put it on I might buy it, waiting for an upper end Sony (say A9) with 50MP+ and electronic first shutter curtain.
As I pointed out in my edit above I think a huuuuge disadvantage of the Otus is that it's manual focus. To me it's a show stopper. Sure you can focus on live view and shoot great landscapes but then I would use f/8-f/11 on a full-frame DSLR, and I'm sure lenses like the Sigma Art is up for the task then?
When it comes to shooting wide open portraiture I don't like manual focus. There's the focus indicator in the viewfinder so it's not as difficult as on a legacy 100% manual systems, but I'm not really fast or precise enough getting there. I guess it can come with training though, can be a fun challenge to become good at, similar to that I've enjoyed to become a master at ground glass composition and focusing with my Linhof, there I use a 20x loupe and several seconds to get to the "focus point" though.
I would not suggest a Zeiss Otus to someone that wants to see how capable a DSLR system is especially a Canon system, taking away the autofocus from a recent higher end Canon is taking away a lot of it's really strong points. The light sensitivity of the autofocus system is just incredible.
I think there's still limitations in the lens lineups for high res DSLR, there are gaps here and there. For Canon the weak TS-E 45 is one such gap. In 4-5 years it will be better, today I still see high res DSLR as an "early adopter" thing.
-
Hi Anders,
I have some interest shooting subjects with thin DoF like say strains of grass with very soft background. I feel that a short tele is best for what I am interested in shooting, so the Sigma 50/1.4 Art is no option, a Sigma 85/1.4 Art would be quite interesting. I found out that the Sony 85/1.4 ZA is quite OK, and I may buy that lens. It is very different from the Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/85. Would we have an 85/2.0 with true apochromatic performance, I would prefer that, I think.
Best regards
Erik
As I pointed out in my edit above I think a huuuuge disadvantage of the Otus is that it's manual focus. To me it's a show stopper. Sure you can focus on live view and shoot great landscapes but then I would use f/8-f/11 on a full-frame DSLR, and I'm sure lenses like the Sigma Art is up for the task then?
When it comes to shooting wide open portraiture I don't like manual focus. There's the focus indicator in the viewfinder so it's not as difficult as on a legacy 100% manual systems, but I'm not really fast or precise enough getting there. I guess it can come with training though, can be a fun challenge to become good at, similar to that I've enjoyed to become a master at ground glass composition and focusing with my Linhof, there I use a 20x loupe and several seconds to get to the "focus point" though.
I would not suggest a Zeiss Otus to someone that wants to see how capable a DSLR system is especially a Canon system, taking away the autofocus from a recent higher end Canon is taking away a lot of it's really strong points. The light sensitivity of the autofocus system is just incredible.
I think there's still limitations in the lens lineups for high res DSLR, there are gaps here and there. For Canon the weak TS-E 45 is one such gap. In 4-5 years it will be better, today I still see high res DSLR as an "early adopter" thing.
-
Hi Erik,
I suggest to wait for a Sigma 85f1.4 Art ... or go for the sharp and extraordinary well corrected ZE 135f2 Apo-Sonnar (which also has a long focus tube up to 1:4).
:-)
Christoph
-
As I pointed out in my edit above I think a huuuuge disadvantage of the Otus is that it's manual focus. To me it's a show stopper. Sure you can focus on live view and shoot great landscapes but then I would use f/8-f/11 on a full-frame DSLR, and I'm sure lenses like the Sigma Art is up for the task then?
When it comes to shooting wide open portraiture I don't like manual focus. There's the focus indicator in the viewfinder so it's not as difficult as on a legacy 100% manual systems, but I'm not really fast or precise enough getting there. I guess it can come with training though, can be a fun challenge to become good at, similar to that I've enjoyed to become a master at ground glass composition and focusing with my Linhof, there I use a 20x loupe and several seconds to get to the "focus point" though.
I would not suggest a Zeiss Otus to someone that wants to see how capable a DSLR system is especially a Canon system, taking away the autofocus from a recent higher end Canon is taking away a lot of it's really strong points. The light sensitivity of the autofocus system is just incredible.
I think there's still limitations in the lens lineups for high res DSLR, there are gaps here and there. For Canon the weak TS-E 45 is one such gap. In 4-5 years it will be better, today I still see high res DSLR as an "early adopter" thing.
I agree. I wouldnt choose a portrait lens for its ultimate sharpness capability but one that I would like to work with and has the look I want. Unless I am using a camera optimized to be used in Manual Focus I would much rather use a lens that has really nice AF. Of course if you want to shoot test charts and/or landscapes/still life/products on a tripod then Manual Focus is fine. But for working with people AF is key, at least for me. That said, the newer cameras with great EVFs and built in manual focusing assists in the EVF are making manual focus a viable option again. The Fuji X-T1 and the Sony A7 series qualify. All modern 35mm DSLRs do not. The Leica S (with microprism screen) is the only DSLR I have used that does.
I can't wait for the 5DS/R to be thoroughly tested. I am not expecting much improvement in Dynamic Range (some, but not a lot, as has been suggested) but a bit of Improvement in Color. Putting more pixels on a scene (with a bayer sensor) means significantly better color sampling. Any resolution improvements are welcome of course but I am sure they will be more lens dependent, like with any camera.
Anyway, Im overall curious on the workability and look of the raw files. This is something that I liked about the D810. To me it the raw files are a nice improvement over the D800/D810 both in Color and even some DR. They are nicer no question.
Of course no DSLR will replace my IQ160 back. The Phase is just great to work with in a huge range of conditions and situations (with both the Arca and the H1) and the files are unreal and most importantly WAY different than any CMOS camera. I like something different.
-
Hi Christoph,
I have found that I very seldom use 135 mm for the kind of pictures I have on mind. Would there be a Zeiss 85/2 APO, I would have it in my bag. I am quite interested in the Sigma 85/1.4 Art, but I don't think it has been announced yet.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
I suggest to wait for a Sigma 85f1.4 Art ... or go for the sharp and extraordinary well corrected ZE 135f2 Apo-Sonnar (which also has a long focus tube up to 1:4).
:-)
Christoph
-
Hi Erik,
I also never was interested much in the 135mm focal length for 24x36mm sensor size, 85 or 100 fit more my style. Also I would prefer a 85f2 Apo to a 85f1.4 non-Apo ... but, I tested the 135f2 Apo-Sonnar at a dealer and that changed my mind. The lens is technically so excellent at any aperture and renders wonderfully so I became a 135mm shooter thanks to that lens:-)
And btw. on the FPS the lens becomes a 100mm equivalent focal length lens due to it's large image circle.
Christoph
-
As I pointed out in my edit above I think a huuuuge disadvantage of the Otus is that it's manual focus. To me it's a show stopper. Sure you can focus on live view and shoot great landscapes but then I would use f/8-f/11 on a full-frame DSLR, and I'm sure lenses like the Sigma Art is up for the task then?
When it comes to shooting wide open portraiture I don't like manual focus. There's the focus indicator in the viewfinder so it's not as difficult as on a legacy 100% manual systems, but I'm not really fast or precise enough getting there. I guess it can come with training though, can be a fun challenge to become good at, similar to that I've enjoyed to become a master at ground glass composition and focusing with my Linhof, there I use a 20x loupe and several seconds to get to the "focus point" though.
I would not suggest a Zeiss Otus to someone that wants to see how capable a DSLR system is especially a Canon system, taking away the autofocus from a recent higher end Canon is taking away a lot of it's really strong points. The light sensitivity of the autofocus system is just incredible.
Well that stinks. But I think the real problem is not that the Otus is manual, but that all camera manufactures (including the MF guys) did away with real focusing screens. >:(
Why? I would love to know. When I bought my first digital camera, I was so disappointed that there was no split prism and ultra sensitive ring (around that prism) on the focusing screen.
-
Well,
Modern DSLRs and some MFD backs have live view focusing. Pretty accurate at 11X magnification.
Best regards
Erik
Well that stinks. But I think the real problem is not that the Otus is manual, but that all camera manufactures (including the MF guys) did away with real focusing screens. >:(
Why? I would love to know. When I bought my first digital camera, I was so disappointed that there was no split prism and ultra sensitive ring (around that prism) on the focusing screen.
-
Thanks,
I have a very positive impression of the 135/2.0 APO. Just not my focal length. Once I have a camera to put it on I will consider it.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
I also never was interested much in the 135mm focal length for 24x36mm sensor size, 85 or 100 fit more my style. Also I would prefer a 85f2 Apo to a 85f1.4 non-Apo ... but, I tested the 135f2 Apo-Sonnar at a dealer and that changed my mind. The lens is technically so excellent at any aperture and renders wonderfully so I became a 135mm shooter thanks to that lens:-)
And btw. on the FPS the lens becomes a 100mm equivalent focal length lens due to it's large image circle.
Christoph
-
... I found out that the Sony 85/1.4 ZA is quite OK, and I may buy that lens ...
Erik,
FYI, I've worked with the Sony 85/1.4 ZA for two years on the a900 and the lens is very sharp but it unfortunately has quite a lot of colour fringing (axial chromatic aberration) on OOF areas, so be aware of that before you buy it for wide open use.
Peter
-
Hi Peter,
Thanks a lot. I have seen it has axial chroma on the Photozone site, so it is not unexpected. Guess that it moves off the short list…
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
FYI, I've worked with the Sony 85/1.4 ZA for two years on the a900 and the lens is very sharp but it unfortunately has quite a lot of colour fringing (axial chromatic aberration) on OOF areas, so be aware of that before you buy it for wide open use.
Peter
-
As I pointed out in my edit above I think a huuuuge disadvantage of the Otus is that it's manual focus. To me it's a show stopper. Sure you can focus on live view and shoot great landscapes but then I would use f/8-f/11 on a full-frame DSLR, and I'm sure lenses like the Sigma Art is up for the task then?
When it comes to shooting wide open portraiture I don't like manual focus.
I have shot hundreds of portrait pictures of my 3 years old daughter with the D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4 and Nikon 85mm f1.4 AF-S and the success ratio for tack sharp pictures on the part of eye where it matters is in fact a bit higher with the Otus manual focused. It should be even easier with the Otus 85mm f1.4 considering the higher magnification.
I have used my share of MF lenses as well, and I am yet to find one that has the same level of quality as the Otus on 35mm, but I am not trying to convince anyone. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have shot hundreds of portrait pictures of my 3 years old daughter with the D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4 and Nikon 85mm f1.4 AF-S and the success ratio for tack sharp pictures on the part of eye when it matters is in fact a bit higher with MF. It should be even easier with the Otus 85mm f1.4 considering the higher magnification.
I have used my share of MF lenses as well, and I am yet to find one that has the same level of quality as the Otus on 35mm, but I am not trying to convince anyone. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
MTF-wise, the Rodenstock Digaron HR lenses outperform the Zeiss Otus, but that's just theory. Do you have raw samples for a comparison?
-
MTF-wise, the Rodenstock Digaron HR lenses outperform the Zeiss Otus, but that's just theory. Do you have raw samples for a comparison?
I can relate to that, but that's a technical camera lens. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referring to SLR lenses since those represent most of the portrait usage.
And no, I don't have raw samples for a comparison.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have shot hundreds of portrait pictures of my 3 years old daughter with the D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4 and Nikon 85mm f1.4 AF-S and the success ratio for tack sharp pictures on the part of eye where it matters is in fact a bit higher with the Otus manual focused.
It could be because you're talented though, people differ on how good they are at nailing manual focus, just as how still they can hold a camera. I could never be a watchworker, and likewise I very very much appreciate lens stabilization it really makes a difference for my hand-held photography, even for faster shutter speeds. I've tried manual focus on various MFD systems and DSLRs, and no it's not for me. With DSLRs you have the "cheat" with focus indicator though which makes a big difference of course, but I'm just fast enough and I don't think the extra Otus sharpness is makes it worth trying to learn when there are other good lenses that have autofocus.
It's personal though, but I would not raise the Otus lens to a general recommendation, I'd rather say that a manual lens for wide aperture photography on a DSLR is "a speciality lens".
-
Well that stinks. But I think the real problem is not that the Otus is manual, but that all camera manufactures (including the MF guys) did away with real focusing screens. >:(
Why? I would love to know. When I bought my first digital camera, I was so disappointed that there was no split prism and ultra sensitive ring (around that prism) on the focusing screen.
With a DSLR you get a focus indicator in the viewfinder, which takes away much of the need of a split prism. The issue I personally have with manual focusing is not finding focus, it's about speed, especially with moving subjects.
My favourite portrait lens for my shooting style the rare occassions I make photographs of people, which generally is at parties and such, is actually the 70-200/2.8 II IS, the sharpest 70-200 zoom there is, great lens stabilization and perfect focal length span and very speedy autofocus. I also think ~f/4 makes nicer portraits than f/1.4, which means sharp corners at f/1.4 is meaningless to me. But then again I'm very much an amateur in this context and then equipment that allows me to get the shot is more important than maximizing image quality and losing shots. Now when I have a H4D-50 with a 80/2.8 lens I shall try to use just for fun sometime though.
Obviously being at an amateur level in this style of photography affects what I think about gear, ease of use is important to me. In landscape I have obviously not opted for ease of use using symmetric wides focusing manually on ground glass...
-
It's personal though, but I would not raise the Otus lens to a general recommendation, I'd rather say that a manual lens for wide aperture photography on a DSLR is "a speciality lens".
I can for sure understand this view, because that's exactly how I used to feel until I started to work with the Otus. :)
I had bought it purely for landscape work, and it's great for that obviously, but it has become my most used lens across the board.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well that stinks. But I think the real problem is not that the Otus is manual, but that all camera manufactures (including the MF guys) did away with real focusing screens. >:(
Why? I would love to know. When I bought my first digital camera, I was so disappointed that there was no split prism and ultra sensitive ring (around that prism) on the focusing screen.
Hi Joe,
For lenses with an aperture that is wider then f/2.8, one needs to use a different focus screen. The regular focus screens do not show any difference in DOF for apertures wider than f/2.8, it's only when you stop down to something narrower that the DOF preview will actually show a change. Split prisms and micro-prisms are also made for specific apertures, otherwise they e.g. go black. The fact that wider apertures do not effectively show a narrower DOF, makes manual focusing harder to get it spot on.
My EOS 1Ds Mark III, like the other Series 1 models, has interchangeable focus screens. I use a special focus screen for wider apertures (the sort of fresnel like structure allows even brightness across the screen), and it really makes a difference, both in focusing manual focus accuracy and also in judging the actual DOF effect in DOF preview mode. The only drawback is a slightly to significantly darker viewfinder image when narrower aperture lenses (f/3.5, f/4, f/5.6, or when combined with a focal length extender) are used. However, despite the darker viewfinder, manual focusing is still more accurate (if there is enough scene light to judge).
I doubt if the 5DS / 5DS R will have interchangeable focus screens, but there are modifications for the current EOS 5 models available on the internet from folks who cut down the screens from the 1 series to make them fit, with DIY instructions and a screwdriver + shims to retro fit it in an EOS 5 series model.
Besides that, it also helps to get the AF Micro Adjustment spot on for the wide aperture lenses, because that will allow usable focus confirmation lights/beeps. Combined with the extremely shallow DOF, that also works well, because shooting wide will not risk focus shift which some lenses show when closing down the aperture.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Voidshatter,
I don't think that Rodenstock HR lenses would outperform Zeiss Otus lenses.
Enclosed the MFT of the Otus 85 at f4 and f5.6 reaching (measured!) contrast values of 80-90% at 40 l/mm resolution.
Regards, Christoph
-
Hi Voidshatter,
I don't think that Rodenstock HR lenses would outperform Zeiss Otus lenses.
Enclosed the MFT of the Otus 85 at f4 and f5.6 reaching (measured!) contrast values of 80-90% at 40 l/mm resolution.
Regards, Christoph
diglloyd hasn't measured the Rodenstock HR lenses so it's hard to tell. From the official documents I don't see the Otus having an advantage:
(https://qakqww.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2p1kjdly3HgNcD8xaWaXk5MRyuxdD9bpdwFOITGCE81zBpNMDjI-QIXbvjOu76XaxA2kszwZKSnymo4lSp8UxGoQGXeZ9kcTc1RlaI2yMKQ_yc4EpAcUv_kcgA0niDMTNWAWQu7N_lyS5nupi2m6tfow/46.JPG?psid=1)
-
Otus and Rodenstock Digarons are quite difficult to compare fairly. The Rodies are made for larger sensors, 54x41mm (still with margin for movements), and Otus is for 36x24. That is the Otus must resolve more lpmm to get the corresponding image quality on the smaller sensor.
Otus is a lens made for large aperture photography, and Rodenstock Digarons are made for small aperture photography, say f/8-f/11 (corresponding to f/5.6 - f/8 on the Otus). I would not be that suprised if the Otus 55 on a 5DS R outperforms my Schneider Digitar 72mm with H4D-50 in terms of sharpness (it needs to be very good to do so though), but it's still meaningless as 1) the digitar is already more than sharp enough and 2) the Otus has no lens movements so it's not a replacement for tech cam photography, 3) the Digitar lens costs less than half of the Otus and weighs about 1/4th....
It makes much more sense to compare with MF SLR lenses which have the same use cases, you must still compensate for sensor size difference of course.
I think such a comparison would be very interesting and with a 5DS R vs say P65+/IQ160/IQ260 (full-frame is best to be fair to MF systems designed for that) it will be quite easy to make. I don't think we'll see any MFD dealer make one though, so an independent review site or photographer would have to do it.
-
If the official MTF charts are to be trusted, then the Rodenstock Digaron can already destroy the Otus regardless of sensor size (i.e. even if you use a 5DSR on a Rodenstock Digaron you still get sharper images in the corner of the 5DSR sensor).
-
Otus and Rodenstock Digarons are quite difficult to compare fairly. The Rodies are made for larger sensors, 54x41mm (still with margin for movements), and Otus is for 36x24. That is the Otus must resolve more lpmm to get the corresponding image quality on the smaller sensor.
Otus is a lens made for large aperture photography, and Rodenstock Digarons are made for small aperture photography, say f/8-f/11 (corresponding to f/5.6 - f/8 on the Otus). I would not be that suprised if the Otus 55 on a 5DS R outperforms my Schneider Digitar 72mm with H4D-50 in terms of sharpness (it needs to be very good to do so though), but it's still meaningless as 1) the digitar is already more than sharp enough and 2) the Otus has no lens movements so it's not a replacement for tech cam photography.
It makes much more sense to compare with MF SLR lenses which have the same use cases, you must still compensate for sensor size difference of course.
I think such a comparison would be very interesting and with a 5DS R vs say P65+/IQ160/IQ260 (full-frame is best to be fair to MF systems designed for that) it will be quite easy to make. I don't think we'll see any MFD dealer make one though, so an independent review site or photographer would have to do it.
Having made quite a few images with my IQ160 and Roddie 40mm HR and also some with a D800E and Zeiss 15mm, 14-24mm and 24mm PC-E and seen them side by side the Roddie and IQ160 image absolutely WHIPPED the D800E images. I really get the feel that the Roddie (at f5.6-f8) can handle a much higher res sensor. It is really a stunning lens. I mean, it shouldn't be a surprise given the fact that #1 its not cheap and #2 it does not have any focusing mechanism whatsoever. At least on the wide angle end of things (which is what I have been able to compare side by side) the Rodenstock glass can't be touched by any SLR lens.
The 5DS/R won't change that fact.
At longer focal lengths the differences are less (judging from what I have seen working with many different files). Where is the crossover? Id say around 70mm. Generally 55-85mm SLR lenses are really quite good below that they start to have issues. Why is that I don't know and don't care since im not in the business of designing lenses.
If I get my hands on a 5DS/R ill gladly post comparisons.
-
At longer focal lengths the differences are less (judging from what I have seen working with many different files). Where is the crossover? Id say around 70mm. Generally 55-85mm SLR lenses are really quite good below that they start to have issues. Why is that I don't know and don't care since im not in the business of designing lenses.
If I get my hands on a 5DS/R ill gladly post comparisons.
It's easier to make "normal" lenses sharp than those that has to be retrofocus or tele, that's why. That's why Schneider Digitar symmetric lenses can perform so well with a minimal amount of lens elements, as (almost) all are "normal" designs.
There is no wide angle in the Otus line yet. It will be very interesting to see what they can do, as it will be more difficult to design, the lens will be huuuge with lots of glass for sure.
The DSLR lenses you mention is not designed for very high res sensors, Otus is in its own class here and that's why it would be very interesting to compare and see what that lens line can do in combination with high res sensors. I think it will do well. A trouble now though for high res photography with DSLRs is that the choice of lenses that can come close or possibly match MFD is very narrow, in fact maybe its only Otus lenses that come close.
-
Having made quite a few images with my IQ160 and Roddie 40mm HR and also some with a D800E and Zeiss 15mm, 14-24mm and 24mm PC-E and seen them side by side the Roddie and IQ160 image absolutely WHIPPED the D800E images. I really get the feel that the Roddie (at f5.6-f8) can handle a much higher res sensor. It is really a stunning lens. I mean, it shouldn't be a surprise given the fact that #1 its not cheap and #2 it does not have any focusing mechanism whatsoever. At least on the wide angle end of things (which is what I have been able to compare side by side) the Rodenstock glass can't be touched by any SLR lens.
The 5DS/R won't change that fact.
At longer focal lengths the differences are less (judging from what I have seen working with many different files). Where is the crossover? Id say around 70mm. Generally 55-85mm SLR lenses are really quite good below that they start to have issues. Why is that I don't know and don't care since im not in the business of designing lenses.
If I get my hands on a 5DS/R ill gladly post comparisons.
I agree that IQ260+23HR wiped D800E+Zeiss 15mm/14-24mm, and IQ260+40HR wiped D800E+24mm PC-E. The only problem with the IQ260 is the (now relatively) poor dynamic range. For high contrast scenes, the D800E has more details in the shadow even with inferior glass and smaller sensor thanks to the much higher SNR. Bracketing the IQ260 is not viable for two reasons: a) cocking the copal 0 shutter would result in vibration disturbing subpixel alignments between exposures affecting sharpness in blended image; b) not suitable for long exposure of sunset/sunrise due to darkframe NR. After careful and extensive comparisons I had to give up the IQ260 as it makes overall inferior image quality compared against D800E so I had to get rid of the IQ260 and switch to the IQ250 just to catch up with the DR.
-
a) cocking the copal 0 shutter would result in vibration disturbing subpixel alignments between exposures affecting sharpness in blended image;
If that's a problem you should use a stitching HDR software like Lumariver HDR rather than just layering on top ;). I use that for my blending, and some minor subpixel errors is then no problem, and neither are minor movements as the equation can usually be solve with blend lines along long contrast areas.
-
If that's a problem you should use a stitching HDR software like Lumariver HDR rather than just layering on top ;). I use that for my blending, and some minor subpixel errors is then no problem, and neither are minor movements as the equation can usually be solve with blend lines along long contrast areas.
I remember we had this discussion before and due to the limitation of darkframe NR on CCD it is vital to take off the ND filter when exposing the foreground, making the distortion non-linear. I'll PM you a link for RAW files - would you be able to have a look this time (on the alignment issue)? :)
-
voidshatter:
Your dissatisfaction with the IQ260 is well known. Does not mean it is a bad product or that it has low Dynamic Range (it has MAYBE a stop less than the D810) in most dawn till dusk situations. It is just not for you I guess. Maybe digital backs are not for you either. The beauty of it all is that nowadays there are lot's of amazing choices out there, and now with the 5DS/R there will be even more. Can't wait for some real testing of those cameras.
Btw, where are you from?
-
I remember we had this discussion before and due to the limitation of darkframe NR on CCD it is vital to take off the ND filter when exposing the foreground, making the distortion non-linear. I'll PM you a link for RAW files - would you be able to have a look this time (on the alignment issue)? :)
Yes I'm downloading as we speak. I'll have a look... I just need to get some work done too today :-)
-
it (IQ260) has MAYBE a stop less than the D810 in most dawn till dusk situations.
True if you don't shoot long exposure, but then what's the point of not getting an IQ280/IQ180/Credo 80 instead?
If you shoot long exposure, then it's not just 1 stop less. It's as poor as (or even worse than) the current Canon, thanks to ISO 140 (actually ISO 200) in long exposure mode.
This is just another reason for people to care about the DR of the 5DSR.
-
I was only comparing MTF measurements, not taking image circles into account.
As far as I know, the Otus MTF curves published by Diglloyd were not measured by him but provided by Zeiss. And as one can see, the Otus 85f1.4 tops at about 90% contrast at f4 while the Rodenstock 100f4 tops at a calculated 82% at f5.6 which would be below 80% if measured, I guess.
... and btw., due to the larger image circle than 24x36, this slight MTF advantage for the Otus would remain also up to a 44x33 sensor size, I guess:-)
Anyhow, I expect the Otuses and the Apo-Sonnar to greatly match the 4.1 um resolution requirement of the 5Ds(-R).
-
As far as I know, the Otus MTF curves published by Diglloyd were not measured by him but provided by Zeiss.
Then why is it slightly different from the official Zeiss document?
And as one can see, the Otus 85f1.4 tops at about 90% contrast at f4 while the Rodenstock 100f4 tops at a calculated 82% at f5.6 which would be below 80% if measured, I guess.
Where did you see 90%?
-
voidshatter:
Your dissatisfaction with the IQ260 is well known. Does not mean it is a bad product or that it has low Dynamic Range (it has MAYBE a stop less than the D810) in most dawn till dusk situations. It is just not for you I guess. Maybe digital backs are not for you either. The beauty of it all is that nowadays there are lot's of amazing choices out there, and now with the 5DS/R there will be even more. Can't wait for some real testing of those cameras.
Btw, where are you from?
These is a lot to consider these days. I am currently a 260 user but would rather have the DR of the 150/250/Credo 50. From my work, the 260 at base iso 50 (some consider it 100 I am still not sure) will do an OK job on most shooting situations, as long as you don't need a fast shutter speed, say 1/60 or higher. I use the 28 HR, 40 HR-W and 60XL mainly and use the CF on the 28mm and 60mm so this cuts between 2.0 and 2.5 stops of light. I also use a Heliopan CF on the 40mm in low light situations as I feel it helps on noise in the shifts (12mm to 15mm). However I still have situations where I missed a shift exposure and thus the shadows suffer. I also can confirm that CCD love light. It's just that simple so on a normal exposure where you have bright and shadow areas, the 260 will NOT pull in the details as well in the shadows. C1 8 does help a lot over C1 7, but there are still times where I am looking at a shot and when I pull up the shadow areas, there is just mush. Where as with a 250, you can pull up 2.5 stops almost black and still see useable details. I have seen this with the DT Library testing and many test shots from different forums, manly from 50c shots.
If you have no wind, and can live with around 1/8th to 1/30th max of a shutter speed, you can do wonderful work with a 260. However if you push it to 200 iso to get to 1/125 or 1/250, then all bets tend to be off, in regards to shadows. If you push the iso to 400, you will start to see pretty harsh overall loss in image quality, at least I do. So, its not a great solution, as most tech Schneiders prefer to be in the F11 to F16 range and I find the Rrodenstocks I use do best in the F8 to F11 range, so you can't just open up the lens, you can but you start to suffer in overall DOF, again much more so with the Schneiders.
Yes, sensor plus, will give you great 400 and 800, but at a 3/4 loss in resolution, so I to me that's a trigger I rarely pull. You just don't invest in that much back to only get 15MP.
Where the 260 suffers, is long exposure, and for Phase One to say it will get 1 hour to me is a bit excessive. You can shoot it 1 hour but you won't be using the image for very much as the total noise and stuck pixels are way off the scale. This is not the way the P45+ worked as I have hundreds of 30 and 50 minute shots with it from night work and 30 to 40 10 to 15 minute shots and they are extremely clean, when taken at be iso of 50. From my testing taking a 260 much past 10 minutes is going to cause a very hard push in noise and overall stuck pixels. Phase may have made some internal non published changes, similar to how they fixed early P45+ cameras (mine was one of them), but so far I have not seen anything published.
I am sure a new back will be announced this year from Phase, CCD or CMOS is anyone's guess. If CMOS and full frame then even more issues may come out to the current lineup of tech lenses.
From Void's testing with the 250, I feel that in most situations, the 12mm shifts are fine, and in many cases, 15mm is totally OK. The extra DR in the shots is just amazing and in fact discouraging at the same time for a 260 owner, as currently there is no attractive way to move to a 250 without taking a huge loss. I have pretty much realized I can live with the 1:3 crop and 50MP output.
I also take a bit different tack to the CCD MF or CMOS MF vs a D810 with a good lens. I am picky and spend a lot of time on my work, and a D810 with a 14-24 at 14mm F 8 will do a darn fine job corner to corner. NO you will not be able to get to the same size as the output from the IQ180 or IQ260, but this is 80/60 MP vs 36MP. That is just basic. If you have to interpolate you always lose, always. However the D810 output I print stands up very well to around 30 x 40 which is about the largest print I tend to make. It totally compares with my MF in print sizes 12 x 18, 16 x 20, 18 x 24 and 20 x 30. I just don't see much difference. Any folks, it's only a print where this would matter as if you feel it makes a difference on webwork I don't agree. The web is 72 dpi, net. No two people have the same setup on their monitors, so you have no real idea what they are seeing. This obviously may not be true if you are working with a graphic artist that understands how to view such work on the web, but the vast majority of folks don't, and don't want to take the time to learn.
Paul
-
I have to agree that the IQ260 is very disappointing in low light. I had the P45+ and it excelled once the sun went down or before it came up. Saturated colours, low noise at ISO50, even on long exposures. The IQ260 basically sucks in that situation - weak colours, terrible shadow noise - to the point of destroying details in an image even at ISO140. And ISO200 and above are basically unusable. In good light, it's amazing, but even then I've noticed a greenish cast on many images that needs 2-4 points of magenta correction to look right. [It could be C1 v8 doing this as the daylight shots from other cameras (D800e, A7r, 1DsIII) have shown something similar when using Daylight WB.] So, I, for one, am really missing my P45+. I haven't fallen for the IQ260: it feels like a re-hash of a P65+ rather than new tech. A full-frame IQ250 might be the answer but only if it does low light well!
voidshatter:
Your dissatisfaction with the IQ260 is well known. Does not mean it is a bad product or that it has low Dynamic Range (it has MAYBE a stop less than the D810) in most dawn till dusk situations. It is just not for you I guess. Maybe digital backs are not for you either. The beauty of it all is that nowadays there are lot's of amazing choices out there, and now with the 5DS/R there will be even more. Can't wait for some real testing of those cameras.
Btw, where are you from?
These is a lot to consider these days. I am currently a 260 user but would rather have the DR of the 150/250/Credo 50. From my work, the 260 at base iso 50 (some consider it 100 I am still not sure) will do an OK job on most shooting situations, as long as you don't need a fast shutter speed, say 1/60 or higher. I use the 28 HR, 40 HR-W and 60XL mainly and use the CF on the 28mm and 60mm so this cuts between 2.0 and 2.5 stops of light. I also use a Heliopan CF on the 40mm in low light situations as I feel it helps on noise in the shifts (12mm to 15mm). However I still have situations where I missed a shift exposure and thus the shadows suffer. I also can confirm that CCD love light. It's just that simple so on a normal exposure where you have bright and shadow areas, the 260 will NOT pull in the details as well in the shadows. C1 8 does help a lot over C1 7, but there are still times where I am looking at a shot and when I pull up the shadow areas, there is just mush. Where as with a 250, you can pull up 2.5 stops almost black and still see useable details. I have seen this with the DT Library testing and many test shots from different forums, manly from 50c shots.
If you have no wind, and can live with around 1/8th to 1/30th max of a shutter speed, you can do wonderful work with a 260. However if you push it to 200 iso to get to 1/125 or 1/250, then all bets tend to be off, in regards to shadows. If you push the iso to 400, you will start to see pretty harsh overall loss in image quality, at least I do. So, its not a great solution, as most tech Schneiders prefer to be in the F11 to F16 range and I find the Rrodenstocks I use do best in the F8 to F11 range, so you can't just open up the lens, you can but you start to suffer in overall DOF, again much more so with the Schneiders.
Yes, sensor plus, will give you great 400 and 800, but at a 3/4 loss in resolution, so I to me that's a trigger I rarely pull. You just don't invest in that much back to only get 15MP.
Where the 260 suffers, is long exposure, and for Phase One to say it will get 1 hour to me is a bit excessive. You can shoot it 1 hour but you won't be using the image for very much as the total noise and stuck pixels are way off the scale. This is not the way the P45+ worked as I have hundreds of 30 and 50 minute shots with it from night work and 30 to 40 10 to 15 minute shots and they are extremely clean, when taken at be iso of 50. From my testing taking a 260 much past 10 minutes is going to cause a very hard push in noise and overall stuck pixels. Phase may have made some internal non published changes, similar to how they fixed early P45+ cameras (mine was one of them), but so far I have not seen anything published.
I am sure a new back will be announced this year from Phase, CCD or CMOS is anyone's guess. If CMOS and full frame then even more issues may come out to the current lineup of tech lenses.
From Void's testing with the 250, I feel that in most situations, the 12mm shifts are fine, and in many cases, 15mm is totally OK. The extra DR in the shots is just amazing and in fact discouraging at the same time for a 260 owner, as currently there is no attractive way to move to a 250 without taking a huge loss. I have pretty much realized I can live with the 1:3 crop and 50MP output.
I also take a bit different tack to the CCD MF or CMOS MF vs a D810 with a good lens. I am picky and spend a lot of time on my work, and a D810 with a 14-24 at 14mm F 8 will do a darn fine job corner to corner. NO you will not be able to get to the same size as the output from the IQ180 or IQ260, but this is 80/60 MP vs 36MP. That is just basic. If you have to interpolate you always lose, always. However the D810 output I print stands up very well to around 30 x 40 which is about the largest print I tend to make. It totally compares with my MF in print sizes 12 x 18, 16 x 20, 18 x 24 and 20 x 30. I just don't see much difference. Any folks, it's only a print where this would matter as if you feel it makes a difference on webwork I don't agree. The web is 72 dpi, net. No two people have the same setup on their monitors, so you have no real idea what they are seeing. This obviously may not be true if you are working with a graphic artist that understands how to view such work on the web, but the vast majority of folks don't, and don't want to take the time to learn.
Paul
-
All,
Is the so-called golden hour considered to be low light, insofar as it relates to digital backs?
-
All,
Is the so-called golden hour considered to be low light, insofar as it relates to digital backs?
I would say the 'dark end' of golden hour is low light. The brighter part isn't a problem - e.g.. this:http://www.richardosbourne.com/latestimages/h19a37e17#h19a37e17
Here's an IQ260 low light shot: http://www.richardosbourne.com/latestimages/h7745237#h7745237
Vs. a P45+ low light shot: http://www.richardosbourne.com/latestimages/hcf288e2#hcf288e2
That may or may not show the difference clearly but I know I used to get excited after sunset / before sunrise when I had a P45+. With the IQ260 I know I'm going to be a little disappointed, and will have to work hard on the files.
-
Richard,
Thanks. Would it be fair to say that in your opinion, IQ series CCD digital backs are suitable for use during the so-called golden hour...with caveats, or do you consider that statement overly conservative and it is only with dark/long exposure shots that these backs struggle?
-
It's always a bit of a shock to read such statements a few years after the release of those backs because the initial feedbacks of users having just spent 30,000+ US$ are typically extremely positive in the weeks/months following purchase...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would say the 'dark end' of golden hour is low light. The brighter part isn't a problem - e.g.. this:http://www.richardosbourne.com/latestimages/h19a37e17#h19a37e17
Here's an IQ260 low light shot: http://www.richardosbourne.com/latestimages/h7745237#h7745237
Vs. a P45+ low light shot: http://www.richardosbourne.com/latestimages/hcf288e2#hcf288e2
That may or may not show the difference clearly but I know I used to get excited after sunset / before sunrise when I had a P45+. With the IQ260 I know I'm going to be a little disappointed, and will have to work hard on the files.
I don't think the two examples you show are very comparable. I used an IQ160 for a year as I had a loaner since I was instructing two PODAS landscape photo workshops in 2013. I found that I could lift shadows a lot without noise.
File number one is the edited version, number two unedited and the last a 100% crop. The shot was with the IQ160 f/11, 1/6s, ISO 50, 135mm using the 75-150 zoom lens (the old one).
-
I don't think the two examples you show are very comparable. I used an IQ160 for a year as I had a loaner since I was instructing two PODAS landscape photo workshops in 2013. I found that I could lift shadows a lot without noise.
File number one is the edited version, number two unedited and the last a 100% crop. The shot was with the IQ160 f/11, 1/6s, ISO 50, 135mm using the 75-150 zoom lens (the old one).
Hans, nice shot, and a good example of pushing shadows with a 160. I shot a 160 for almost 2 years before upgrading to the 260. My 160 at times could a,so handle this type of a push. However it could only be done in certain conditions, low humidity, and outdoor temps under 75 degrees. With prolonged all day use, I tended to find that the noise envelope increased considerably. Again this is at base iso of 50. If you needed iso 200 I believe that the shadow recovery would not have been as good.
I also feel that it's possible to get a "good" and "bad" back, in that certain backs seem to have better performance in low light/noise characteristics. When my 160 had to go into Phase One for a repair, I received a loaner back, that definitely did not perform as well as mine, considerably so.
I had hoped that the "technology" behind the new chip/controller in the 260, would somehow allow for better low light recovery than the 160, however in my work, I have found that it's no better and in some times seems worse. Overall, I still feel that the 260 does not really perform that well in low light situations, even at base iso of 50 and that it's important to consider an exposure bracketing process, especially when shifts of 12mm or more are involved.
The 260 should out perform a 160 on a "long" exposure of 10 minutes or less, but I just don't see it getting anywhere close to the performance of the P45+ in 30 minute to 50 single exposures.
Paul
-
Unfortunately I can't post the RAW files right now. The difference would be very clear: the IQ260 files in those examples required a remarkable amount of saturation (50+points), clarity, levels, contrast, just to get something out of them. The P45+ I had to turn the saturation DOWN. I did little else other than WB (which it wasn't good at) adjustment and a bit of levels. That was the case most of the time, especially in low light work.
These IQ260 examples were at ISO 50 and ISO 100 respectively, both of which produce excellent results in good light conditions: at ISO 200, the files definitely show signs of falling apart a bit. And ISO 140 has something of a destructive noise reduction going on at the detail level in low light so I try to avoid it. I'm doing a long exposure shoot in London next week with a Lee Big Stopper so I can look at how the files hold up over several minutes.
I'll also be using a Sony A7R which I've found to have very good low-light and long-exposure colour, though it sometimes looks a little 'sickly' - usually just a WB issue. It also has wide dynamic range and noise-free shadows. A rumoured 50MP version is not going to get me away from the technical camera, despite the IQ260 limitations, but it's sounding very good for everything else. This new Canon's reported 11.8 EV dynamic range vs. the Sony's 14.8 is a significant difference - and a bit of a conundrum as I've still got a lot of Canon glass.
I don't think the two examples you show are very comparable. I used an IQ160 for a year as I had a loaner since I was instructing two PODAS landscape photo workshops in 2013. I found that I could lift shadows a lot without noise.
File number one is the edited version, number two unedited and the last a 100% crop. The shot was with the IQ160 f/11, 1/6s, ISO 50, 135mm using the 75-150 zoom lens (the old one).
-
I would say the 'dark end' of golden hour is low light. The brighter part isn't a problem - e.g.. this:http://www.richardosbourne.com/latestimages/h19a37e17#h19a37e17
Here's an IQ260 low light shot: http://www.richardosbourne.com/latestimages/h7745237#h7745237
Vs. a P45+ low light shot: http://www.richardosbourne.com/latestimages/hcf288e2#hcf288e2
That may or may not show the difference clearly but I know I used to get excited after sunset / before sunrise when I had a P45+. With the IQ260 I know I'm going to be a little disappointed, and will have to work hard on the files.
I wonder if torger or ErikKaffehr or eronald can measure the angle of the Sun in that IQ 260 low-light shot.
-
Atina,
I wonder if torger or ErikKaffehr or eronald can measure the angle of the Sun in that IQ 260 low-light shot.
If Richard will provide the date and time the photo was shot I can provide the angle.
-
I don't think the two examples you show are very comparable. I used an IQ160 for a year as I had a loaner since I was instructing two PODAS landscape photo workshops in 2013. I found that I could lift shadows a lot without noise.
File number one is the edited version, number two unedited and the last a 100% crop. The shot was with the IQ160 f/11, 1/6s, ISO 50, 135mm using the 75-150 zoom lens (the old one).
When you can't agree with dxomark you would need to figure it out by yourself. A side by side comparison is all what you needed. If you ever compared the IQ260 against a D800E side by side you might be significantly disappointed as I was. The IQ260 even has inferior dynamic range than the D4S has when doing long exposure. Download the RAW files if you don't believe me.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52844-backlight-landscape-photography-realized-say-no-silhouette.html#post616023
-
Atina,
If Richard will provide the date and time the photo was shot I can provide the angle.
Shot 1 was 20th January 2015, 5.13pm Norfolk, UK
Shot 2 was 8th February 2015, 5.35pm Norfolk, UK
Shot 3 (P45+) was 21st November 2013, 5.54pm Blackpool, UK
-
Atina,
If Richard will provide the date and time the photo was shot I can provide the angle.
Yes, I know it can be done that way, but I intentionally didn't ask for that. :)
You know how astronomers calculated the timing of Moonrise, Hernandez, Mexico? That's what I was thinking of.
:)
-
Richard,
Shot 1 was 20th January 2015, 5.13pm Norfolk, UK
Shot 2 was 8th February 2015, 5.35pm Norfolk, UK
Shot 3 (P45+) was 21st November 2013, 5.54pm Blackpool, UK
Thanks.
For shot 1, angle = -8.4 degrees
For shot 2, angle = -7 degrees
For shot 3, angle = -15.5 degrees
I've assumed that shot 2 was also shot in Fritton, in Norfolk, as per shot 1.
Unfortunately the results turn out to be unhelpful as we have a negative value for altitude for shot 1, even though the sun clearly is visible in the shot. Not sure why. Daylight saving time? Richard, could the timestamp be out by one hour? This would make sense given the time of year the shots were made.
EDIT: Sorry Atina.
-
Hi,
I don't think that either Torger, Edmund or me are astronomers. I would have liked to be an astronomer, but I am not bright enough for that. So I work on simulation software. Anders (Torger) is in software engineering, but he is working on the Raw Therapee software and he is also behind Lumariver HDR.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, I know it can be done that way, but I intentionally didn't ask for that. :)
You know how astronomers calculated the timing of Moonrise, Hernandez, Mexico? That's what I was thinking of.
:)
-
Unfortunately I can't post the RAW files right now. The difference would be very clear: the IQ260 files in those examples required a remarkable amount of saturation (50+points), clarity, levels, contrast, just to get something out of them. The P45+ I had to turn the saturation DOWN. I did little else other than WB (which it wasn't good at) adjustment and a bit of levels. That was the case most of the time, especially in low light work.
These IQ260 examples were at ISO 50 and ISO 100 respectively, both of which produce excellent results in good light conditions: at ISO 200, the files definitely show signs of falling apart a bit. And ISO 140 has something of a destructive noise reduction going on at the detail level in low light so I try to avoid it. I'm doing a long exposure shoot in London next week with a Lee Big Stopper so I can look at how the files hold up over several minutes.
I'll also be using a Sony A7R which I've found to have very good low-light and long-exposure colour, though it sometimes looks a little 'sickly' - usually just a WB issue. It also has wide dynamic range and noise-free shadows. A rumoured 50MP version is not going to get me away from the technical camera, despite the IQ260 limitations, but it's sounding very good for everything else. This new Canon's reported 11.8 EV dynamic range vs. the Sony's 14.8 is a significant difference - and a bit of a conundrum as I've still got a lot of Canon glass.
If you use the Lee Big Stopper and compare the IQ260 against the A7R you would be shocked by how poorly the IQ260 performs (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52844-backlight-landscape-photography-realized-say-no-silhouette.html). Be prepared to get bashed by the tiling issue of lithography partition on the IQ260, as well as the poor SNR. You will then find how excellent the IMX094 Sony sensor is (i.e. A7R and D800E). In long exposure mode, the IQ260 performs similarly as the current Canon, which is significantly behind the Sony CMOS sensors.
IQ260 tiling issue of lithography partition and poor SNR:
(https://1xzpta.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2p-CGVQ7PsryYAzDa8DaaY2saBPc6T4w1xdFoQWv9Iv-QDBY4UzrlJS8Cnf2qcoLfbKl8BYKypYPIRdvfds7_p1jyZgGxONitxceStQVpnkODrcMZAoK-Cop2ONBOvePt7WFsAnGGahAYUXInx26jivg/lithography_partition_1.jpg?psid=1)
IQ260 poor dynamic range:
(https://1xzpta.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pZ9QgcF9OlROFOv0o_bCyMvuefIwBdVR7rEJ3podx79s-ytpeg6BargoxtHWr3IP7nlshfMli1OiczJz6gxYhSanOrbW6Fjdb_enuGa-Ozub0lIdbJeX3zvG09obXw7kcvGbgcI9h5k4DfyZLpJ8NHA/DR1_IQ250_IQ260_D800E.JPG?psid=1)
(https://1xzpta.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2p9EuR60d8u7I3aWAlBIm6iXb-hLlqdmgSX1vFebplqVA_HhuqJk048UZZUG34loAp9H8xJr_YGGwFO2dXLe59UJmYcvUgKhvy43xkvkpcKjBFRDY6YY1bZ3zgqUw6SgXtrlY2I440Ayi06JVM3n7Y5g/DR2_IQ260_D800E.JPG?psid=1)
(https://1xzpta.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pSfOlQFJwQac8rG6cNnrUpvMiHzWHCzLVN-PdF0AXZzHltXVZw5hXCidymHYFnLkqa3g_EvHCAlqzv9Vinb0_KW4zcBXcRk5v1LuBEhgvprLgoHzjBHF3skgzlOKUAC0RTVbLwdN7gFfIDKi3445kjA/1.JPG?psid=1)
(https://1xzpta.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pr_Ffgmp8HwymkvdmDD7_3gJvxlxCC4GCAq7ynyUpLJ41IG1AiaHYJqjin3riqy3fRRNu7LxZSuFyQSCqBDaGrV06TBe9L4QtoBlim7brlIB9lBW0mUCPLQGWT2qnKs-utqzCM-8E2SpQe3sivHdHYw/2.JPG?psid=1)
(https://1xzpta.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2p2yd66E_FqHBvIMhUUVEDzgpj2b_rbcxis0ghhp9U3TO3mP91AtAPAuGq6pE3Sm3XI8UO9jnUwN9KGD7qKYlEAGr1qAVmOHR2NX6d7HamRCgu9tWKOER59pN7Z8R9CmIUZpMnbv3NzfYmeP1_w7VyEg/3.jpg?psid=1)
(https://1xzpta.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pDTH6qO0PoDFsZD3xZm2G-90ERxFh6fLmJ4kGQMHn58yb15XHGkRkDvI3BYlFtuzRR-mySwr7WfTtCy18_SY2Hh-GHs-WmGWkX67rc4oi70LDyv0pHhOBE7kNMVH-Z188uXZP4-43BmH7BYM3bAa4Aw/4.jpg?psid=1)
(https://qakqww.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pz1JFNVW4ApAJihAP5zTY5FK_WLTowdMJsNQN1nLDHMt25ev1T0ZDU-dgZ-sTBRHiDaw3pLK_IjHtSRcpYuj1VV_chRUU5C2EEhOPLU7q7fcz1m9Y66QEJgeDtEnWhP_KguZYuxwCuJ4DCP3M6VGjpA/iq280_le_en.jpg?psid=1)
-
Thanks voidshatter. Looking at those test shots I'm just glad I didn't go for an IQ280! I have to say that your long exposure work is exceptional. Despite the limitations of the digital backs used, the Rodenstock lenses really shine IMO - probably the main reason I'm still using MFD. There's an authority and 'look' to their rendering that can't be duplicated in FF35mm.
-
As a total aside, Void, I love the 260 of the Thames and Parliament. Here to me, I do see a bit more life in the "pixels", CCD vs CMOS. It's rare that I do see this in my work. But your 260 shot is smoother (I realize it's a longer exposure), but the transition of shadows in under the bridge are just more pleasing to me.
I was surprised that you received that much tilting on the 260, without a shift? That to me is a back calibration issue possibly. I only tend to see tiling with my 160/260 when I shift, and that is much more rare now since I moved to the 40mm HR-W. I do see microlens ripple also, but C1 with the LCC can remove 99% of that (on the Rodies), not so much on the Schneiders.
Still great shot, thanks for sharing and taking the time to produce the comparisons, I know how much time that takes.
You also have shown something I have noticed, the 260 often produces more noise in the LE mode with normal exposures, in the 1/60 to 1/250 range. I had hoped to see an improvement here due to the LE mode but the only place I really see much improvement is in shots that are 4 to 10 minutes long. Here it does make a big difference.
I have also learned to take a shot 1/500 after any long exposure with the 260 as this seems to clear out the registers and makes for a cleaner next exposure.
PS, most interesting comparison between the 280 and 260.
Paul
-
I was all set to upgrade my P65+ to an IQ260 when they were announced but the £4500 GBP ($7000 USD) price discrepancy US and UK dealers were being allowed to sell them for stopped me in my tracks. However, reading this thread now fills me with relief rather than remorse that I had felt towards P1. What would pain more if I had gone the IQ260 route is I get the impression that the CCD backs have probably reached their conclusion in the IQ2 series and will no longer get any more attention improving the IQ via firmware as earlier Phase backs seemed to get.
The tech camera is still king when it comes to IQ (pixel peeping) but also brings with it all other sorts of issues (LCC, fall off etc) and as the latest 5Ds and soon Sony might not bring the same pixel peeping joy, when in printed form I imagine the difference to my minimal. Until the MFD camp can offer bigger full frame sensors or significantly more resolution (80-100Mpix) I see no real technical advantage to an MFD system other than the joy of owning and using one. An earlier poster reported the vast difference they see in files shot with MFD yet claim not to be a pixel peeper, however to see those differences you really do need to study images very closely which by definition is pixel peeping turned up to 11.
When I look back at shots from my P65+ and tech camera lenses that I once thought the pinnacle of Image quality I see plenty wrong with the shots (aliasing, false detail, centre fold, LCC discrepencies, detail loss in shadows) that makes me realise this is one complete merry-go-round and just a total distraction from the important stuff - taking pictures.
-
Richard,
Thanks.
For shot 1, angle = -8.4 degrees
For shot 2, angle = -7 degrees
For shot 3, angle = -15.5 degrees
I've assumed that shot 2 was also shot in Fritton, in Norfolk, as per shot 1.
Unfortunately the results turn out to be unhelpful as we have a negative value for altitude for shot 1, even though the sun clearly is visible in the shot. Not sure why. Daylight saving time? Richard, could the timestamp be out by one hour? This would make sense given the time of year the shots were made.
EDIT: Sorry Atina.
Don't apologize! Why would you?!
Yes, I, just out of curiousity, tried to determine the same thing and came up with these results, of course. I presume that it is those times minus 2 hours?
Hi,
I don't think that either Torger, Edmund or me are astronomers. I would have liked to be an astronomer, but I am not bright enough for that. So I work on simulation software. Anders (Torger) is in software engineering, but he is working on the Raw Therapee software and he is also behind Lumariver HDR.
Best regards
Erik
Hi, Erik. :) Of course. I know that. However, the three of you love your charts, your curves, your semiconductor-physics talks so I presumed you all must know at least some physics and physics is ultimately mathematics. So perhaps you knew how to measure an angle of the Sun from a photograph. :) I was wrong?
-
Hi, no idea why shot 1 should be out - it's not daylight savings time in February in the UK. Of course, it is possible that the time on the back is wrong - I haven't checked it recently. Nonetheless, it still shouldn't a lot of post-processing to get decent colours in golden hour!
Richard,
Thanks.
For shot 1, angle = -8.4 degrees
For shot 2, angle = -7 degrees
For shot 3, angle = -15.5 degrees
I've assumed that shot 2 was also shot in Fritton, in Norfolk, as per shot 1.
Unfortunately the results turn out to be unhelpful as we have a negative value for altitude for shot 1, even though the sun clearly is visible in the shot. Not sure why. Daylight saving time? Richard, could the timestamp be out by one hour? This would make sense given the time of year the shots were made.
EDIT: Sorry Atina.
-
Have to agree with you here. I bought the IQ260 last year and went out on the first shoot literally the day they announced the IQ250! I was not pleased as it was obvious I was buying into old tech (hence the huge discount I was offered in the form of an £11k p/ex offer on a P45+).
Unlike many on here, I've only been using tech cams since 2012. There is one hell of a learning curve to get the best out of each system under different circumstances. There are all the strange foibles of lenses, backs and all the accessories to get to grips with. Then, after 3 years, I discover that I bought into the wrong system and should have bought an Arca Swiss RM3Di! Ah well, you live and learn. I'd get bored if everything worked perfectly...
I was all set to upgrade my P65+ to an IQ260 when they were announced but the £4500 GBP ($7000 USD) price discrepancy US and UK dealers were being allowed to sell them for stopped me in my tracks. However, reading this thread now fills me with relief rather than remorse that I had felt towards P1. What would pain more if I had gone the IQ260 route is I get the impression that the CCD backs have probably reached their conclusion in the IQ2 series and will no longer get any more attention improving the IQ via firmware as earlier Phase backs seemed to get.
The tech camera is still king when it comes to IQ (pixel peeping) but also brings with it all other sorts of issues (LCC, fall off etc) and as the latest 5Ds and soon Sony might not bring the same pixel peeping joy, when in printed form I imagine the difference to my minimal. Until the MFD camp can offer bigger full frame sensors or significantly more resolution (80-100Mpix) I see no real technical advantage to an MFD system other than the joy of owning and using one. An earlier poster reported the vast difference they see in files shot with MFD yet claim not to be a pixel peeper, however to see those differences you really do need to study images very closely which by definition is pixel peeping turned up to 11.
When I look back at shots from my P65+ and tech camera lenses that I once thought the pinnacle of Image quality I see plenty wrong with the shots (aliasing, false detail, centre fold, LCC discrepencies, detail loss in shadows) that makes me realise this is one complete merry-go-round and just a total distraction from the important stuff - taking pictures.
-
If I was only in MFD for image quality I would probably be out about now (not because MFD is bad, but because the competition is so good), but for me it's more about wanting to shoot large format and not having to mess around with film. I like using the Linhof Techno, and I like having flexible movements on all seven lenses I carry around in my backpack.
Due to my articles related to second hand MFD photography I often get asked for advice and I always say that don't do it only for image quality, and don't pay more than you think it's worth, or else you'll end up having to think the gear is greater than it actually is. It is what it is, it makes great images but the talk about "MF magic" is mostly just wishful thinking, and I don't want to pay too much for that. It's part because price are high in an absolute sense, but also because I can't get rid of that feeling I'm being ripped off when I pay a lot more for a thing than I think it's worth. I don't find any value or status in paying lots of money for something just because I can -- the prodcut I'm buying must deliver corresponding value.
Second hand market is good at showing what people really think this type of gear is worth. That it's not only about image quality you can see when Hassy H systems are sold real cheap while the CFV backs keeps a high second hand value, simply because many enjoy using a retro camera that looks kind of cool.
Tech cams are cool too, but if you use Rodies only because they're sharper and not because they provide movements I think it's a losing battle in the not-so-long-term. MFD will be a bit ahead, but when all reasonable systems can make great looking 60" inch prints it's all come down to a pixel peeping contest. I do enjoy pixel peeping like everyone else though, but there's a limit to how much I think it's worth.
-
Well said!
I get sick of new users and dealers spouting off how utterly amazing MFD is compared to the "lesser" formats. I've shot MFD for 14 years and tech cameras for 3 of those years and enjoyed every minute of it right up until recently when I sold it all. No real regrets but I don't think it has the IQ advantage it once had and newer smaller format cameras now offer real competition, especially when viewed in printed form.
I know I'll buy a MFD camera again in the future but it won't be for IQ reasons, just pleasure (and sometimes the pain) of shooting MF.
-
None of this back and forth blah blah of the usual post-page 2 nature is addressing the fact that canon is barely able to match up to the best of APSC and Full frame competition in terms of IQ,whithout even bringing up larger formats.
-
None of this back and forth blah blah of the usual post-page 2 nature is addressing the fact that canon is barely able to match up to the best of APSC and Full frame competition in terms of IQ,whithout even bringing up larger formats.
Gosh, I'm in real trouble then. I guess I'll need to refund all that money my clients continue to pay me for my inferior 1DsIII, 5dII or 6D images.
If only I had done them on a superior camera......
-
None of this back and forth blah blah of the usual post-page 2 nature is addressing the fact that canon is barely able to match up to the best of APSC and Full frame competition in terms of IQ,whithout even bringing up larger formats.
This is more of the same noise I hear from new MFD users all the time, still in their honeymoon period and understandably with a biased judgement. If you seriously think the differences between MFD and any modern smaller format camera is night and day then you are seriously doing something wrong in your technique. There are many great cameras available today all capable of amazing IQ and pledging your allegiance to one format (brand) is plain silly IMO.
-
None of this back and forth blah blah of the usual post-page 2 nature is addressing the fact that canon is barely able to match up to the best of APSC and Full frame competition in terms of IQ,whithout even bringing up larger formats.
Synn I had no idea image quality had everything to do with shadow recovery. Things like color (specially skin tone), and lens character apparently take a back seat to whatever DXO chart you subscribe to. Apparently my H4D-40 and Canon 5D3's are crap according to you.
-
Synn I had no idea image quality had everything to do with shadow recovery. Things like color (specially skin tone), and lens character apparently take a back seat to whatever DXO chart you subscribe to. Apparently my H4D-40 and Canon 5D3's are crap according to you.
Whenever I saw this kind of arguments I always asked for RAW files for a comparison to prove why something like a D800E cannot achieve the skin tone of a 5D3 or an H4D-40's. No Canon or CCD user has ever shared any RAW files to prove it. I guess this is just common sense so no Canon or CCD user needs to prove it. ::)
-
Hi,
Here are some samples with skin tone on P45+, with raw files: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/PortraitSamples/
On the other hand I don't feel my P45+ or MFD are superior, well, except that 39 MP is more than 24MP.
I only have P45+ images from this shoot, as I lent out my Sony Alpha 99 to the young ladies posing in the pictures, as they could not use their own DSLRs due to circumstances.
Best regards
Erik
Whenever I saw this kind of arguments I always asked for RAW files for a comparison to prove why something like a D800E cannot achieve the skin tone of a 5D3 or an H4D-40's. No Canon or CCD user has ever shared any RAW files to prove it. I guess this is just common sense so no Canon or CCD user needs to prove it. ::)
-
Hi,
Here are some samples with skin tone on P45+, with raw files: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/PortraitSamples/
On the other hand I don't feel my P45+ or MFD are superior, well, except that 39 MP is more than 24MP.
I only have P45+ images from this shoot, as I lent out my Sony Alpha 99 to the young ladies posing in the pictures, as they could not use their own DSLRs due to circumstances.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks! But I was asking for the same composition, same light condition, same time and location, same model etc. I also need to know the core post-processing procedures affecting the skin tone (i.e. excluding DB or texture, tone & color separation etc) for the claimed superior camera so that we can see whether it is possible for both cameras to achieve the same skin tone that makes 99% people hard to distinguish.
-
I will say that Sinn is pretty pro MF, but I did not get that he was talking up MF in his recent post.
To me it was more "why not compare this new Canon to the other full frame alternatives, namely the Nikon and Sony," albeit not in the most tactful way.
Why? Probably because it is universally accepted that the Nikon and Sony versions are better.
-
Hi,
Better is an interesting term. The way I see it Nikon and to a lesser degree Sony have two key advantages, namely higher DR at low ISO and resolution up to 36 MP. The resolution advantage turns around with the 5Ds, albeit it is possible that Nikon or Sony have new high resolution cameras on market before then 5Ds is available.
But, I don't think it is proven that image quality from Nikon is higher at medium to high ISO.
I know two photographers who have both Nikon D800 and Canon 5DIII and both use both systems.
Personally I shoot Sony and P45+ so, I have no pony in that race. I shoot normally base ISO and I am quite resolution friendly and a piece of DR is always welcome.
Best regards
Erik
Why? Probably because it is universally accepted that the Nikon and Sony versions are better.
-
Whenever I saw this kind of arguments I always asked for RAW files for a comparison to prove why something like a D800E cannot achieve the skin tone of a 5D3 or an H4D-40's. No Canon or CCD user has ever shared any RAW files to prove it. I guess this is just common sense so no Canon or CCD user needs to prove it. ::)
The Bayer filters are different for different cameras and I shoot Nikon and Canon side by side and also had a Phase One IQ160 for a year. They are all different and calibration does help each camera, but they will not be the same in real photos. I shoot mostly landscapes and I got very different colors from each of these cameras. Setting them to the same WB does not solve it. I can sometimes get close by changing WB manually to approach another photo. It's not in my opinion so that one is good and others from the same scene not good. They can be good each of them in their own rendering of the same scene.
Attached are two photos that I tried to match. The first is from the Phase One IQ160 and the second Canon 5D mkIII.
-
Hi,
Better is an interesting term. The way I see it Nikon and to a lesser degree Sony have two key advantages, namely higher DR at low ISO and resolution up to 36 MP. The resolution advantage turns around with the 5Ds, albeit it is possible that Nikon or Sony have new high resolution cameras on market before then 5Ds is available.
But, I don't think it is proven that image quality from Nikon is higher at medium to high ISO.
I know two photographers who have both Nikon D800 and Canon 5DIII and both use both systems.
Personally I shoot Sony and P45+ so, I have no pony in that race. I shoot normally base ISO and I am quite resolution friendly and a piece of DR is always welcome.
Best regards
Erik
I'm probably one of them :) More DR is definitely welcome in landscape photography and some other genres as well. Even though the Nikons have a much higher DR there are a number of examples I have come across that would benefit from blending of exposures. Attached is a screen shot from two exposures. The clean one is from the merged result which is 0EV and the right hand one with the noise is at -3EV. In other parts of the picture serious loss of resolution and noise is the result at -3EV. The Canon would me much worse, of course. But the point is to state that even with better DR there is still many shots out there where the DR is not high enough to get a clean and noise free picture. Clearly this is viewed at 1:1, but a very large print would reveal the lack of resolution and noise. The second attachment is the blended result.
I plan to get the Canon 5Ds R and I know I will need to blend exposures more than the Nikon, but it will be needed on both and for landscapes it's not really a big deal to do it.
-
The Bayer filters are different for different cameras and I shoot Nikon and Canon side by side and also had a Phase One IQ160 for a year. They are all different and calibration does help each camera, but they will not be the same in real photos. I shoot mostly landscapes and I got very different colors from each of these cameras. Setting them to the same WB does not solve it. I can sometimes get close by changing WB manually to approach another photo. It's not in my opinion so that one is good and others from the same scene not good. They can be good each of them in their own rendering of the same scene.
Attached are two photos that I tried to match. The first is from the Phase One IQ160 and the second Canon 5D mkIII.
If you shoot raw and shoot color passport then color calibration in post-processing would resuilt in nearly indistinguishable pictures between different cameras. This is true for portrait as well. For printing purposes e.g. magazines, you ought to calibrate the skin tone in accordance with some CMYK guidelines for specific races of people. My point is that you should be able to achieve the same color with virtually any decent camera that can shoot RAW.
-
I'm probably one of them :) More DR is definitely welcome in landscape photography and some other genres as well. Even though the Nikons have a much higher DR there are a number of examples I have come across that would benefit from blending of exposures. Attached is a screen shot from two exposures. The clean one is from the merged result which is 0EV and the right hand one with the noise is at -3EV. In other parts of the picture serious loss of resolution and noise is the result at -3EV. The Canon would me much worse, of course. But the point is to state that even with better DR there is still many shots out there where the DR is not high enough to get a clean and noise free picture. Clearly this is viewed at 1:1, but a very large print would reveal the lack of resolution and noise. The second attachment is the blended result.
I plan to get the Canon 5Ds R and I know I will need to blend exposures more than the Nikon, but it will be needed on both and for landscapes it's not really a big deal to do it.
Bracketing and blending is not always a viable option for me. For pixel peeping purposes alignment issues could be of a real problem. See more details here: link (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/53612-df-cmos-iq-backs.html#post627317)
-
If you shoot raw and shoot color passport then color calibration in post-processing would resuilt in nearly indistinguishable pictures between different cameras. This is true for portrait as well. For printing purposes e.g. magazines, you ought to calibrate the skin tone in accordance with some CMYK guidelines for specific races of people. My point is that you should be able to achieve the same color with virtually any decent camera that can shoot RAW.
Not the case! As I said, I calibrate all my cameras and of course shoot RAW as otherwise the calibration would not make sense using Lightroom.
-
Not the case! As I said, I calibrate all my cameras and of course shoot RAW as otherwise the calibration would not make sense using Lightroom.
If you make a custom DCP profile for two different cameras under the same light condition they will indeed match very well, voidshatter is correct in that. That is if you shoot portraits in a studio with the same flashes you can make two different cameras virtually indistingiushable from eachother. There are slight differences in metamerism and color separation, but it's generally negligible, as long as a camera can separate colors a profile can correct the color into any look you want.
However, if you then take those same profiles and shoot a landscape scene with a different illuminant, that golden light in your posted image for example, and adjust white balance to taste the different cameras will modulate the color differently so they will then not match, so you are correct too.
That is to make two different cameras (different color filters on the sensor) match up you need to make a profile for each lighting condition, ie not practical in landscape, but is for studio work.
-
If you make a custom DCP profile for two different cameras under the same light condition they will indeed match very well, voidshatter is correct in that. That is if you shoot portraits in a studio with the same flashes you can make two different cameras virtually indistingiushable from eachother. There are slight differences in metamerism and color separation, but it's generally negligible, as long as a camera can separate colors a profile can correct the color into any look you want.
However, if you then take those same profiles and shoot a landscape scene with a different illuminant, that golden light in your posted image for example, and adjust white balance to taste the different cameras will modulate the color differently so they will then not match, so you are correct too.
That is to make two different cameras (different color filters on the sensor) match up you need to make a profile for each lighting condition, ie not practical in landscape, but is for studio work.
Thanks. I use one profile for all my landscape work. I have not done a lot of testing with different profiles for landscape, but have shot a couple and saw some differences. But as you mention I did not find this practical to do.
-
Bracketing and blending is not always a viable option for me. For pixel peeping purposes alignment issues could be of a real problem. See more details here: link (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/53612-df-cmos-iq-backs.html#post627317)
I recently started a thread on blending here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=96947.0) and although I agree alignment can be an issue for the landscapes I'm shooting I have been able to use this method for all examples I had in my folders where I previously used HDR programs.
Some examples
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Landscapes-around-the-World/i-NvFNmsm/0/XL/_DSC6196-Edit-XL.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Landscapes-around-the-World/i-p58pFzD/0/XL/_T2A1329-Edit-XL.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Abruzzo/i-b7Cm3p4/0/XL/_B3A4581-Edit-XL.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Landscapes-around-the-World/i-PJDK5L4/0/XL/_MG_3089-Edit-XL.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Landscapes-around-the-World/i-smC2KJR/0/XL/_MG_1974-Edit-XL.jpg)
-
I'm probably one of them :) More DR is definitely welcome in landscape photography and some other genres as well. Even though the Nikons have a much higher DR there are a number of examples I have come across that would benefit from blending of exposures. Attached is a screen shot from two exposures. The clean one is from the merged result which is 0EV and the right hand one with the noise is at -3EV. In other parts of the picture serious loss of resolution and noise is the result at -3EV. The Canon would me much worse, of course. But the point is to state that even with better DR there is still many shots out there where the DR is not high enough to get a clean and noise free picture.
Hi Hans,
A small addition, the crops you showed were not extremely underexposed, but of a rather average brightness part of the scene (although -3EV is not something normally done unless to avoid highlight clipping elsewhere in the image). Nevertheless, we will almost always benefit from collecting more photons, even in the non-shadow regions (although shadows will benefit most). That's what one can see in the crops, more than a lack of sensor DR (except for the extreme total range). I do understand that the -3EV was to cope with total scene DR.
This indeed means that exposure bracketing, whenever practical, offers a benefit (regardless the Camera DR capabilities) also in mid-tones. That also illustrates a common misconception about HDR photography. It is not only to capture a wider range of brightnesses than the sensor can handle in a single exposure, it's more about collecting as many photons as possible, in all levels of scene brightness. The rest is tonemapping ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks. I use one profile for all my landscape work. I have not done a lot of testing with different profiles for landscape, but have shot a couple and saw some differences. But as you mention I did not find this practical to do.
I think that's the best method, and as far as I understand the established "best practice", you use one profile (a daylight profile) and tune white balance to taste. While accurate color is possible in a careful reproduction setup, it's impossible in landscape and it's not important either as we want to create subjective color anyway.
However the manufacturer profiles are generally huuuuugely subjective which means cameras seems to differ a lot more than they actually do, so making your own profile is a great way to "take command" of your color, and make it possible to switch both cameras and raw converters with less differences than it otherwise would be.
I think it's the better technique to start with a fairly neutral daylight profile (ie one you make yourself) and add your subjective interpretation of color in your own post-processing, ie sitting in the front seat instead of letting the manufacturer drive your color...
-
Hi Hans,
A small addition, the crops you showed were not extremely underexposed, but of a rather average brightness part of the scene (although -3EV is not something normally done unless to avoid highlight clipping elsewhere in the image). Nevertheless, we will almost always benefit from collecting more photons, even in the non-shadow regions (although shadows will benefit most). That's what one can see in the crops, more than a lack of sensor DR (except for the extreme total range). I do understand that the -3EV was to cope with total scene DR.
This indeed means that exposure bracketing, whenever practical, offers a benefit (regardless the Camera DR capabilities) also in mid-tones. That also illustrates a common misconception about HDR photography. It is not only to capture a wider range of brightnesses than the sensor can handle in a single exposure, it's more about collecting as many photons as possible, in all levels of scene brightness. The rest is tonemapping ...
Cheers,
Bart
I did not quite explain enough in that post (#103). The screen shot was from two pictures from a bracket sequence intended to protect the highlights and expose for the shadows as well. The screen shot was from Lightroom showing a compare between the merged result where what was shown was an entirely 0EV picture on the left hand side and a -3EV on the right hand side. The -3EV side had been calculated by the Lightroom Match Total Exposure function and came to 2,34. The editing of the two pictures from the bracket sequence was exactly the same with only the exposure setting in Lightroom different. The -3EV was at +1,82 and for the 0EV it was -0,52. Therefore you could see them very closely the same except for noise and loss in details. So in the merged image only the clipped parts from the 0EV was replaced by the content of the -3EV.
Again notice that this example was from the Nikon D800E. A Canon one would normally be much worse. Comparing a merged result from the Canon with a non merged result from the Nikon shows a huge advantage in IQ as it has collected so much more light (as you say). Given the method I'm now HDR software will very seldomly be used by me. Using Photoshop and the Lightroom adjustment of exposure to match two exposures I can now get an end result that looks exactly as if the camera magically could expose different strength of light differently. I'm just wondering when it would be possible to have a "shutter" per pixel so we can choose how much light to gather depending on the lighting in different parts of the image. Information from the sensor of the amount of light hitting different pixels could be fed to the RAW converter or could be calculated into what was stored in the RAW file.
That would for me be ideal landscape photography.
-
I think that's the best method, and as far as I understand the established "best practice", you use one profile (a daylight profile) and tune white balance to taste. While accurate color is possible in a careful reproduction setup, it's impossible in landscape and it's not important either as we want to create subjective color anyway.
However the manufacturer profiles are generally huuuuugely subjective which means cameras seems to differ a lot more than they actually do, so making your own profile is a great way to "take command" of your color, and make it possible to switch both cameras and raw converters with less differences than it otherwise would be.
I think it's the better technique to start with a fairly neutral daylight profile (ie one you make yourself) and add your subjective interpretation of color in your own post-processing, ie sitting in the front seat instead of letting the manufacturer drive your color...
Yes, that's basically what I do. I almost always adjust the WB for my landscape shots from the AWB coming from the camera based on what I like the picture to look like and then I adjust exposure, contrast, saturation and do local adjustments to get to the look I'm after. This depends a lot of which time of day the shot was taken and the emotional characteristic of the scene and what I'd like to say with the picture. So very subjective as you say. But I find that starting with a calibrated profile is much better than fight against a profile that looks wrong to me from the beginning. Sometimes the difference to Adobe Standard from the calibrated profile is not that much but at other times is much bigger.