Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: chiek on March 22, 2015, 11:54:18 pm
-
Just received. I heard It is only 4 bodies in worldwide.
Beta test version, so Don't load camera raw or c1pro. Only DPP in canon.
1st feeling is COOL , awesome image.
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/e93cd0f3c3ebd50653c5eb6e209305ea_large.jpg)
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/4a448294fecfb75fe48ae62609276db1_large.jpg)
-
Just received. I heard It is only 4 bodies in worldwide.
Beta test version, so Don't load camera raw or c1pro. Only DPP in canon.
1st feeling is COOL , awesome image.
Hi Chiek,
Congratulations with the opportunity. This is indeed COOL!
In case you want to share some image crops, an unsharpened DPP converted 16-bit TIFF crop in Adobe RGB would allow to do some really good sharpening to show what the camera and well focused lens are capable of. We have sofar only seen some official out-of-camera JPEGs with rather poor automatic sharpening, which doesn't allow to draw too many conclusions yet.
Looking forward to your findings.
Cheers,
Bart
-
1st test in studio.
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/59e9d958f6600bea91c80a684b4259ad_hd.jpg)
this link to download screen shot
https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.us.viewbook.com/59e9d958f6600bea91c80a684b4259ad.jpg?response-content-disposition=attachment&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=0SM65CZEDKVWR7WP26G2%2F20150323%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20150323T125435Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=92bcde69b21ca77bb6b85fb9f1906a4ab1ec69170bdbff6f0a2b62e2b999d43c (https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.us.viewbook.com/59e9d958f6600bea91c80a684b4259ad.jpg?response-content-disposition=attachment&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=0SM65CZEDKVWR7WP26G2%2F20150323%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20150323T125435Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=92bcde69b21ca77bb6b85fb9f1906a4ab1ec69170bdbff6f0a2b62e2b999d43c)
Just tested outdoor now. not develop yet.
-
Just received. I heard It is only 4 bodies in worldwide.
Beta test version, so Don't load camera raw or c1pro. Only DPP in canon.
1st feeling is COOL , awesome image.
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/e93cd0f3c3ebd50653c5eb6e209305ea_large.jpg)
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/4a448294fecfb75fe48ae62609276db1_large.jpg)
None can doubt that using the same lens on two different size sensors would provide the most significant test for them, but none would also doubt that the larger sensor is in significant disadvantage when compared to the smaller size sensor if the lens used is one designed to perform with DSLR FF sensors (35mm film equivalent). IMO, the test would be much more valid if a top quality MF lens is used to test both sensors (to avoid the possible poor performance of the lens designed for 35mm image area on MF's extra image area). Why not try a Contax 120mm f4 APO makro on both sensors via the JAS adapter (to be able to control aperture on both) and use C645 camera instead of the Hasselblad H? Surely this would be much more valid! ...This is obvious! ...Any other MF lens of good quality with stop down adapter would also do... Surely the camera to be used for testing should be one with focal plane shutter for the most valid test process.
-
Chiek, the Canon 100 L is good but please use f5.6 or max. f8 because any more closed aperture results in soft picture on pixel level with a 4 um sensor due to diffraction.
-
... Why not try...
Do it.
-
Do it.
Who? ...do you mean me to perform the "test"? ...I'm not interested to test any 50mp Canon (or other hi-res FF) sensor... I just commented on the process and the (obvious) false results it may end up with. Still surprised why you commented on two words though (that can have a million of other meanings) than projecting my whole argument... well... maybe not that surprised with you... :-*
-
Who? ...do you mean me to perform the "test"? ...I'm not interested ...
Then shut up.
-
Please keep civil. No need for rudeness.
Michael
-
Please keep civil. No need for rudeness.
My bad.
My inappropriate tone aside, I got to say I am irked by the usual tyre-kickers' smart-ass comments whenever someone invests considerable time and effort to do a test and share it with us. There is always someone to ridicule the test methodology, premise, equipment used, etc. It is what it is. The guy (OP) is using what he has at hand, but there is always someone who would use something else. Well, buddy, go ahead and use it yourself and show us. Show some respect for the OP efforts and willingness to share. We are all here educated enough to understand the limitations of whatever equipment and methodology is used and interpret the results accordingly. Polite suggestions, like Bart's and chrismuc's are welcome, of course, but asking the OP to use completely different equipment just to humor a tyre-kicker, who has no interest in doing anything similar himself, is a bit too much.
-
My bad.
My inappropriate tone aside, I got to say I am irked by the usual tyre-kickers' smart-ass comments whenever someone invests considerable time and effort to do a test and share it with us. There is always someone to ridicule the test methodology, premise, equipment used, etc. It is what it is. The guy (OP) is using what he has at hand, but there is always someone who would use something else. Well, buddy, go ahead and use it yourself and show us. Show some respect for the OP efforts and willingness to share. We are all here educated enough to understand the limitations of whatever equipment and methodology is used and interpret the results accordingly. Polite suggestions, like Bart's and chrismuc's are welcome, of course, but asking the OP to use completely different equipment just to humor a tyre-kicker, who has no interest in doing anything similar himself, is a bit too much.
None redicules anything here... all suggestions made are backed with reasoning ...but yours! :-* If you notice luck of reasoning or inacurate support please comment on that.... Choosing a couple of words that have nothing to do with the statement made, only shows empathy from your side... I suggest that you stop posting bold. 8)
-
One doesn't test a FF sensor against an APS-c one using an APS-c lens.... not even if the lens is of wide enough image area to cover a FF sensor (i've never seen this happening - only the opposite).... Why would one use an FF lens to "test" an MF sensor against a FF sensor then? Isn't it the same in analogy? :o It seems that some don't respect even that common sense and prefer to post bold as they do all the time... IMO these people are damaging the forum's reputation significantly and are responsible for the forum's lower appreciation with time. ??? Especially if they avoid the question set and are attacking the poster personally instead of the subject itself... :P Unfortunately for them, even logic has rules.... to an extend that is easy for one logical to recognize an attack that is paranoia oriented! ;D
-
Completely agree with you Theodoros. Your comments were constructive (and accurate) and didnt resort to name calling.
-
Completely agree with you Theodoros. Your comments were constructive (and accurate) and didnt resort to name calling.
How is it constructive to ask the OP to redo the test with a camera he doesn't have and a lens he doesn't have?
-
.... Why would one use an FF lens to "test" an MF sensor against a FF sensor then?..
Because we are testing the sensor at the pixel level?
-
Because we are testing the sensor at the pixel level?
That's right. If only the central area of the MF frame is being evaluated, there is no need for the lens to cover the entire MF frame. Generally, MF lenses resolve fewer line pairs/mm since they have to cover a larger frame area.
Bill
-
Because we are testing the sensor at the pixel level?
Yes, that is potentially correct. But are we sure the center resolving power of the Canon lens (being used) is equal to an MF lens? If someone can say with certainty, please do pipe in. I'm no expert. Pixel size, pitch, etc, do play a part.
That said, I was mostly reacting to you being a d##k. I (and many others I'm sure) are more likely to follow your logic if you do so in a calm and less reactive manner....ie, you'll catch more flies with honey...blah blah blah.
-
Yes, that is potentially correct. But are we sure the center resolving power of the Canon lens (being used) is equal to an MF lens?...
It doesn't have to equal MF lens at all. The point of the exercise is to use the same lens, projecting absolutely the same image (inside a center crop of course), thus leaving the only variable to be the sensor. Introduce another lens, and you are not testing just the sensor anymore, but a combination of lens + sensor. Not that such a comparison would not be valuable in its own right, but than we are talking about a different test.
...That said, I was mostly reacting to you being a d##k. I (and many others I'm sure) are more likely to follow your logic if you do so in a calm and less reactive manner....ie, you'll catch more flies with honey...blah blah blah.
That is ok (being called a d##k, that is). I used a foul language and should expect it in return. The thing is I know Theodoros from previous threads and PM exchanges (not necessarily adversarial). I know his logic, debate style, etc., and my comment was more of an expression of a friendly disagreement. Having said that, I can certainly understand how it can be perceived completely differently.
-
You're okay by me Siobodan. I'm sorry I (myself) was reacting to your initial post. Bar fights have started over far less. :)
-
I will test my H+HC50-110+CF-39MS and 5ds+24-70II in sweet spot aperture.
I think 5ds file is like some over unsharpmask ? It may be Anti-aliasing filter. Thats why I expect 5dsR.
39MS file is a slightly better than 100%~200% view. but nobody knows it. Only We wants it.
and I just want to know same lens and different sensor (39Mpx CCD and 50Mpx CMOS)
Definitely, It was disadvantage for Medium format but I want to know newer canon sensor.
That's all.
-
It doesn't have to equal MF lens at all. The point of the exercise is to use the same lens, projecting absolutely the same image (inside a center crop of course), thus leaving the only variable to be the sensor. Introduce another lens, and you are not testing just the sensor anymore, but a combination of lens + sensor. Not that such a comparison would not be valuable in its own right, but than we are talking about a different test.
True, but using a lens that is average may put the more resolving capturing device at a disadvantage since the lens may act as the bottleneck.
I don't think that the Canon 100mm macro is worse per sensor square mm than H lenses though, so there is probably no issue here, but the 100mm is still a pretty average lens relative to its 35mm counterparts according to lenscore.org.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bill,
I don't know if this is true any longer. Modern MF lenses can be seriously good, compare for instance the Zeiss 100/2.8 Macro Planar with Hasselblad 120/4. Top Zeiss 100/2.0, below Hasselblad HC 120/.
Now, MF-lenses are more expensive. It could be said that the Otus may be a better comparison.
Anyway, I am thankful for any good data, so Chiek's efforts and willing to share are much appreciated. I
Best regards
Erik
That's right. If only the central area of the MF frame is being evaluated, there is no need for the lens to cover the entire MF frame. Generally, MF lenses resolve fewer line pairs/mm since they have to cover a larger frame area.
Bill
-
That's exciting Chiek! Thank you for sharing some images and your opinions.
I'm very curious of course to see the comparison with the M/S too and also how the new canon performs when stopped down some. How is the DR on the new canon? Shadow noise?
-
Thanks,
I would suggest we need to having raw file support to make proper comparisons.
The lens you use is almost certainly a better performer at f/5.6 - f/8 than at f/13, and you would use a larger aperture on the Canon to get the same depth of field compared to the Hasselblad back.
In addition, the 5Ds has a OLP filter, a good thing in my view, but I would say it needs a bit more sharpening,
What I would try to do may be to use JPEG with no (or minimal) sharpening and than try to use a good sharpening tool like "FocusMagic".
Another observation. You would probably use the Hasselblad back with a longer lens, as the two cameras will give different crops. Image diameter on the CF-39 is 60 mm (I believe) while on Canon it is 43 mm.
Anyway, thanks a lot for sharing!
Best regards
Erik
1st test in studio.
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/59e9d958f6600bea91c80a684b4259ad_hd.jpg)
this link to download screen shot
https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.us.viewbook.com/59e9d958f6600bea91c80a684b4259ad.jpg?response-content-disposition=attachment&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=0SM65CZEDKVWR7WP26G2%2F20150323%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20150323T125435Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=92bcde69b21ca77bb6b85fb9f1906a4ab1ec69170bdbff6f0a2b62e2b999d43c (https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.us.viewbook.com/59e9d958f6600bea91c80a684b4259ad.jpg?response-content-disposition=attachment&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=0SM65CZEDKVWR7WP26G2%2F20150323%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20150323T125435Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=92bcde69b21ca77bb6b85fb9f1906a4ab1ec69170bdbff6f0a2b62e2b999d43c)
Just tested outdoor now. not develop yet.
-
Yes, that is potentially correct. But are we sure the center resolving power of the Canon lens (being used) is equal to an MF lens?
We can be, by measuring it.
In general though, and not specifically focusing on (pun intended) the high quality macro lens that the OP used, good quality 35mm FF lenses need to resolve more detail, because the image needs to be enlarged more for a given output size. It's also relatively easier to do so, because the image circle diameter is relatively limited. MF lenses on the other hand need to be corrected for a larger image circle, albeit with longer focal lengths, which constitutes another set of design limitations. Besides, MF images usually require less magnification, so resolution is of lower importance in design trade-offs.
Another factor is that most recent lens designs are specifically made for digital capture. That means different things on MF than on 35mm FF or smaller, due to differences in filterstack thickness/composition and which are part of the optical design parameters for modern lenses.
So it's best to actually measure resolution if one wants to compare performance in an objective way. But we have to assume that the OPs time with the camera is limited, so it may not be possible to conduct all tests one can dream of.
A quick and yet accurate assessment, both visually as well as quantifiably, can be done with my free resolution test chart (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13217). Accurate focusing is very important, the rest can be evaluated afterwards based on unsharpened Raw conversions (and Raw converters do also make a difference). The optimal aperture for the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is at f/4 or f/4.5 (see attachment), which is also in safe territory with regards to per pixel diffraction on smaller sensels.
Cheers,
Bart
-
HC50-110 set to 100 / 24-70II set to 70
ISO 100 F9, 1/160sec (fastest sync speed to 5ds)
Why f9 ? not F5.6~8 ?
Because of Studio Flash minimum output… Can't down it.
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/d3a6ba73fdca7d707e5a64369f10bb13_large.jpg)
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/7bcf75a2dc539a1234f9803e5a84a1b4_large.jpg)
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/22777d7fedcdbf265c15c31749f8eb83_large.jpg)
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/63f27bde9c19277f68a3b21328bc2fb1_large.jpg)
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/4f1e88fa447a2dcaaaf24e7c58cc1134_large.jpg)
very similar to 39Mpx single shot and 50Mpx 5ds
but definitely win 39Mpx multishot.
You can download 2560x1600, 100% images,
http://chiek.viewbook.com/5ds (http://chiek.viewbook.com/5ds)
-
Thx for the tests.
The 5DS shots look like they have some kind of color cast or maybe its a white balance / processing issue? The Hasselblad shots look much more neutral and nice.
-
The 5DS shots look like they have some kind of color cast or maybe its a white balance / processing issue? The Hasselblad shots look much more neutral and nice.
I don't touch anything.
Only my 30" monitor screenshot.
-
I don't touch anything.
Only my 30" monitor screenshot.
Hi Chiek,
Thanks for the tests so far.
It's unfortunately hard to compare resolution without knowing if the files were optimally sharpened (or not sharpened at all, so we can try ourselves). They will probably require quite different settings. I assume that the white balance was set with a neutral grey patch sampling.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bill,
I don't know if this is true any longer. Modern MF lenses can be seriously good, compare for instance the Zeiss 100/2.8 Macro Planar with Hasselblad 120/4. Top Zeiss 100/2.0, below Hasselblad HC 120/.
Now, MF-lenses are more expensive. It could be said that the Otus may be a better comparison.
Anyway, I am thankful for any good data, so Chiek's efforts and willing to share are much appreciated. I
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
The MTF graphs are difficult to interpret since the resolutions for the three sets of data are not shown. For MF a lower resolution may have been used since the images would need less magnification to achieve a given print size. As I recall, the resolutions are often appropriate for an 8 x 10 inch print (ISO A4) viewed at arm's length (~34 cm).
Regards,
Bill
-
I think the resolution is pretty even and any difference might be more about the lens, depth of field and processing. The default color looks nicer on the hasselblad for sure. At least with this setup. Which is in line from what I see with Canon bodies which really excel in mixed light situations but in the studio it is hard to get neutral color with them. The difference is not huge with the 5DS posted here so thats nice. Would like to see how the Canon 5DS handles more organic shapes like foliage.
-
thanks for sharing your results!
looks like the best photos so far with the Canon 5ds.
the 24-70 seems not up to the task for 50m pixels, for sure the 100L is better suited on the studio at least.
-
I think the resolution is pretty even and any difference might be more about the lens, depth of field and processing.
I think it's hard to already draw firm conclusions about resolution, because I can still see additional resolution in the Canon 5DS file that has not been used yet. It's also a bit premature to start additional processing based on the crops, because the crops seem to already have been sort of sharpened, so not the best basis for further postprocessing. Therefore, what would be needed is unsharpened files, preferably with some additional info (if not in EXIF), like shooting distance or magnification factor. Of course it would also help to have a good lens test at that shooting distance, although it may be possible to reverse engineer it a bit.
The f/9 diffraction pattern alone, together with the shooting distance, spans at least some 3.2 pixels in diameter in the plane of best focus. And that is without additional lens blur. Given that the diffraction pattern is already responsible for a significant portion of the Capture blur, that means that deconvolution sharpening will make a significant positive difference.
The default color looks nicer on the hasselblad for sure. At least with this setup. Which is in line from what I see with Canon bodies which really excel in mixed light situations but in the studio it is hard to get neutral color with them. The difference is not huge with the 5DS posted here so thats nice. Would like to see how the Canon 5DS handles more organic shapes like foliage.
The color rendering will depend a lot on the color profile used. Given that Canon specifically mentioned the improved color filters, it would also matter a lot which type of rendering (natural/faithful/etc.) is chosen in DPP.
Cheers,
Bart
-
great! thanks for the test!
I kind of like that you put the same lense on the sensor to compare. Otherwise it would be a lense comparison more so.
That brings us to the fact though, that Canon's weekness will be the lenses. None of the Canon lenses produced me sharp images wide open, and the focus was always a bit random for me(sorry I talk about 5dm2).
Hasselblads truefocus is the only autofocus so far, that delivers me consistent output then any Nikon or Canon. And the lenses are excellent.
This together with the better color and tone rendering was making it a far better system.
Maybe the 5ds will change some of those facts. I wouldn't mind to carry less weight and saving money in the same time :)
-
My 5D2 and the one which my friend Norman used, and one which a Canon used for some tests with me all had very random AF.
I think later models -and some earlier ones like the 1ds3 - are much better.
Edmund
great! thanks for the test!
I kind of like that you put the same lense on the sensor to compare. Otherwise it would be a lense comparison more so.
That brings us to the fact though, that Canon's weekness will be the lenses. None of the Canon lenses produced me sharp images wide open, and the focus was always a bit random for me(sorry I talk about 5dm2).
Hasselblads truefocus is the only autofocus so far, that delivers me consistent output then any Nikon or Canon. And the lenses are excellent.
This together with the better color and tone rendering was making it a far better system.
Maybe the 5ds will change some of those facts. I wouldn't mind to carry less weight and saving money in the same time :)
-
Hi Chiek,
Thanks for the tests so far.
It's unfortunately hard to compare resolution without knowing if the files were optimally sharpened (or not sharpened at all, so we can try ourselves). They will probably require quite different settings. I assume that the white balance was set with a neutral grey patch sampling.
Cheers,
Bart
True... the MF files will benefit further from optimum sharpening....
-
I think the resolution is pretty even and any difference might be more about the lens, depth of field and processing. The default color looks nicer on the hasselblad for sure. At least with this setup. Which is in line from what I see with Canon bodies which really excel in mixed light situations but in the studio it is hard to get neutral color with them. The difference is not huge with the 5DS posted here so thats nice. Would like to see how the Canon 5DS handles more organic shapes like foliage.
You think wrong... Res is with MF by an obvious margin... it's DOF that is different. Res (for MF) will benefit further with optimum sharpening.
-
Hi Bill,
You have a good point about the MTF curves, but all three pairs show 10/20/40 lp/mm. This is the way both Hasselblad and Zeiss present their data and it used to be somewhat of an European standard.
What I can see is that my Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses perform about on the same level as my DSLR lenses near the optical axis. I don't do tests in the corners as I don't have room for large targets.
This compares my Sony Alpha 16-80/3.5-4.5 zoom with my Planar 80/2.8. Both lenses are very sharp at the center. The plots here are lp/mm.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Test3/Plots/NoSharpening.png)
Corners on the Hasselblad lenses are a bit weaker, but they are still almost perfectly sharp in the corners on A2 prints.
This image was shot with a Distagon 50/4 at around f/13 a few days ago:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon50Details/Distagon50_crop_1_small.jpg)
This is a central crop:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon50Details/Distagon50_crop_2.jpg)
And this one is edge:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon50Details/Distagon50_crop_3_small.jpg)
I am shooting a Sony Alpha 99 at 24 MP and the Hasselblad with P45+ at 39MP, what I would say is that I don't see a significant difference normally between the two at any distance on A2, size which is what I normally print. At A1 I would say that the advantage of the P45+ is clearly visible. Im am 59, and wear progressive glasses and I am near sighted. A younger man person may have a different viewing experience.
I enclose the Zeiss MTF data for the Distagon 50/4 and for a Distagon 35/2.
I am not a Zeiss freak, but Zeiss has good and comparable MTF data for all of their lenses, so I like to refer to them.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
The MTF graphs are difficult to interpret since the resolutions for the three sets of data are not shown. For MF a lower resolution may have been used since the images would need less magnification to achieve a given print size. As I recall, the resolutions are often appropriate for an 8 x 10 inch print (ISO A4) viewed at arm's length (~34 cm).
Regards,
Bill
-
My 5D2 and the one which my friend Norman used, and one which a Canon used for some tests with me all had very random AF.
I think later models -and some earlier ones like the 1ds3 - are much better.
Edmund
What AF performance has to do with anything? It is obvious that Chiek has used MF with special care to have focus "dead" on the screw's head in the first images and the "line" of the tool's surface on the rest.... Only DOF is different and the superiority of MF (with the lenses used) is obvious. MF will further benefit (more than FF will) with optimum sharpening. DR is with MF too...
-
... Res is with MF by an obvious margin... Res (for MF) will benefit further with optimum sharpening.
Ok, will refrain from being confrontational, so a couple of genuine questions for anyone who understands those things better than I do:
1. Is it really possible to tell the difference on basically smooth surfaces, without any micro detail?
2. Where is that "obvious margin" obvious?
3. Isn't it the other way around, i.e., that Canon file would benefit more from optimum sharpening? It is Canon that needs to overcome blurring from OLP filter, thus an optimal sharpening would restore sharpness.
The attached file shows the area where I see more surface texture in the Canon file.
-
Ok, will refrain from being confrontational, so a couple of genuine questions for anyone who understands those things better than I do:
1. Is it really possible to tell the difference on basically smooth surfaces, without any micro detail?
2. Where is that "obvious margin" obvious?
3. Isn't it the other way around, i.e., that Canon file would benefit more from optimum sharpening? It is Canon that needs to overcome blurring from OLP filter, thus an optimal sharpening would restore sharpness.
The attached file shows the area where I see more surface texture in the Canon file.
You've missed the other files and kept the wrong one (that has obvious focus failure).... that's why! Try any other, there are another four there that suggest the opposite! ;) On the file you've chosen the MF image is "all over the place" on the whole frame (to the contra of the other four files)... ::) an experienced photographer like you should have understood that something has gone wrong with it.... Still... it's the one you chose! 8)
-
Hi Slobodan,
Comparing the zooms I guess I saw some advantage to the Canon. I got the impression that the Canon is a bit sharper than the Hasselblad. Now, DoF is a bit wider on the Canon and the Canon images are a bit cooler, while the Hasselblad images are or the warmer side. But, yes, I would say that the Canon 5Ds is sharper on all samples.
Comparing the Hasselblad MS versus single shot I feel there is a difference.
Si I would say that Canon 5DS > CF39 and CF-39MS > CF39, weather CF-39MS > 5DS, I wouldn't dare to say.
The sharpening question is interesting, it is always hard to know what is optimal sharpening.
Best regards
Erik
Ok, will refrain from being confrontational, so a couple of genuine questions for anyone who understands those things better than I do:
1. Is it really possible to tell the difference on basically smooth surfaces, without any micro detail?
2. Where is that "obvious margin" obvious?
3. Isn't it the other way around, i.e., that Canon file would benefit more from optimum sharpening? It is Canon that needs to overcome blurring from OLP filter, thus an optimal sharpening would restore sharpness.
The attached file shows the area where I see more surface texture in the Canon file.
-
You've missed the other files and kept the wrong one (that has obvious focus failure).... that's why! Try any other, there are another four there that suggest the opposite! ;) On the file you've chosen the MF image is "all over the place" on the whole frame (to the contra of the other four files)... ::) an experienced photographer like you should have understood that something has gone wrong with it.... Still... it's the one you chose! 8)
I chose that one as it is the only one in the single shot mode and has some surface texture to compare. Comparing with a multi shot mode introduces an unfair advantage, imho.
Funny that you, as an "experienced photographer" yourself have not brought to our attention that "something has gone wrong" with that particular shot in the tree posts preceding mine. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
-
Well.... now we know... New Canon sensor is better than than the CF-39MS (I also own)... and since my D800E is rubish when compared with my CF-39MS with the same lens attached on both at low ISO, (I use a JAS adapter and have all my Contax 645 lenses used on my Nikons too), I suppose that the Canon is so much better than the D800E (or any other) and from all MF backs to an extend that MF is already dead.... Good thing to happen.... I will be buying some more MF backs at next to nothing prices! ???
-
Only DOF is different and the superiority of MF (with the lenses used) is obvious. MF will further benefit (more than FF will) with optimum sharpening. DR is with MF too...
I guess we all see what we want to see from these pictures. ;)
A newly released camera with a yet unsupported chip in all but Canon's DPP that will no doubt see further optimisation with camera firmware and RAW conversion software against a very mature product at the peak of its output.
I'd say that's an excellent result from an AA filtered 35mm camera when compared to a single shot MFD back.
-
Hi,
One thing to keep in mind is that the new Canon 24-70/2.8 LII is a very good lens. Regarding the sensor it is widely presumed that it cannot match the Sony sensors used in Nikons regarding DR, but DR may not be the most interesting factor for all photographers.
I don't know about the Contax lenses, what I know is that some are newer designs than my Zeiss lenses for the V-series blad. But, I don't think the Zeiss lenses I have are sharper than my Zeiss zooms for the Sony, pixel for pixel.
Now, Chiek has done a good test, please has some respect for that. You may not like the outcome and other tests may give different results.
Best regards
Erik
Well.... now we know... New Canon sensor is better than than the CF-39MS (I also own)... and since my D800E is rubish when compared with my CF-39MS with the same lens attached on both at low ISO, (I use a JAS adapter and have all my Contax 645 lenses used on my Nikons too), I suppose that the Canon is so much better than the D800E (or any other) and from all MF backs to an extend that MF is already dead.... Good thing to happen.... I will be buying some more MF backs at next to nothing prices! ???
-
I guess we all see what we want to see from these pictures. ;)
A newly released camera with a yet unsupported chip in all but Canon's DPP that will no doubt see further optimisation with camera firmware and RAW conversion software against a very mature product at the peak of its output.
I'd say that's an excellent result from an AA filtered 35mm camera when compared to a single shot MFD back.
I'd say nothing and whenever had the opportunity trust my own judgement... I've seen so many posts on web from various sources that are "suspicious" and so much corruption happening that I trust my self only on how to invest my money.... Still, other than my judgment of my D800E being rubbish when compared to my CF-39MS back with the same MF lens used on both... It is also poorer when compared to important matters of photography with my other 16mp FF sensor Nikon too.... :o Heresy! ...heresy!
-
OK... I think it's about time to think why tests are irrelevant (as market proves) with peoples choices... A photographer uses his tools depending on the task... If I was after a new camera (which I'm not), I would first test it on the appliance that the tool is going to be purchased for... I would never test a D800 or other DSLR on stills because stills are (by far) best done with a Multishot back... I wouldn't test an MF back for hand held high iso photograpyhy... this is best done with an action camera... I wouldn't test an MF back to take "selfies" either (this is best done with phones)... I wouldn't test an underwater camera on landscapes... nor a view camera underwater...
i would simply "test" what interests me ....for the task that it interests me! Is it portraiture? I would then test it for portraiture.... Is it landscapes? ...I would then test it on that. Is it to photograph feathers texture or dollar bills? I would test it for feathers or dollar bills...
Now, second part is the aspect to be valued as to what would be important of the camera's performance to consider it.... I guess for art work (my main income) it would be analysis and accuracy.... I guess for landscapes, it would be tonality and DR... I guess for other It would be ...other! :-[ But still think that 99,99% of the tests I see have nothing to do with ....testing! ??? Heresy! heresy! ;)
-
I'd say nothing and whenever had the opportunity trust my own judgement... I've seen so many posts on web from various sources that are "suspicious" and so much corruption happening that I trust my self only on how to invest my money.... Still, other than my judgment of my D800E being rubbish when compared to my CF-39MS back with the same MF lens used on both... It is also poorer when compared to important matters of photography with my other 16mp FF sensor Nikon too.... :o Heresy! ...heresy!
Many love their Nikon D8XX others hate it, some think Sony are the Devil others the Messier. Phase One or Hasselblad, Alpa or Arca Swiss, Broncolor or Profoto, Gitzo or RRS, we all make decisions based on our own list of priorities. I don't think we should turn this topic into yet another format war but just appreciated the information freely given in order for us to form our own personal opinion of the rather excellent range of equipment currently available to us photographers.
-
True... the MF files will benefit further from optimum sharpening....
All files will benefit from optimal sharpening. However, the MF files will quickly get limited by their already high microcontrast and resulting aliasing artifacts. The small sensel pitch of the 5DS (and its AA-filter) will allow more sharpening before generating aliasing artifacts, but the sharpening requires some expertise because the capture blur is probably diffraction dominated in most cases, except for wide open aperture shooting situations.
Cheers,
Bart
-
5ds files, even no sharpen, are completely 50m pixels
I will post no sharpen/default sharpen a few days later because of my commercial job.
I will add various outdoor pictures in direct sunlight, too.
-
Cheik,
thanks for sharing the extra tests! The new Canon looks pretty nice actually.
I think in a test like this its quite hard to make a real comparison since even small differences in where the apex of the focus is between the two cameras may cause one to appear better than another. There will also be differences in the apparent DOF too between the formats. I've noticed in my own testing with really high count sensors, that the apex of the focus is readily seen. DOF is a convention that sort of falls apart when you pixel peep or use Imatest and try to focus on a chart with these high count backs/sensors.
-
All files will benefit from optimal sharpening. However, the MF files will quickly get limited by their already high microcontrast and resulting aliasing artifacts. The small sensel pitch of the 5DS (and its AA-filter) will allow more sharpening before generating aliasing artifacts, but the sharpening requires some expertise because the capture blur is probably diffraction dominated in most cases, except for wide open aperture shooting situations.
Cheers,
Bart
Well said
-
Legacy MF is becoming the less-pixels-less-DR solution.
I guess the sh*t will really hit the fan as soon as Sony release their next sensors, and program their anti-shake to do multi-shot.
Edmund
-
Legacy MF is becoming the less-pixels-less-DR solution.
I guess the sh*t will really hit the fan as soon as Sony release their next sensors, and program their anti-shake to do multi-shot.
Edmund
Yeah but I still like the MF look, but that's the kind of thing where either you see it or you don't. No point to get hung up on it. I also like the big viewfinder of MF. Actually I still like film too. Oh well, that's the great thing about 2015 - so many great choices. Now a photographer isn't forced to upgrade to the latest and greatest since so many cameras produce excellent IQ.
-
Hi,
On the other hand I think we are going to see more of Sony like sensors in MFD. Once MF and smaller formats use the same technology, the size advantage of the larger formats comes fully in play. Just as an example the Pentax 645Z has high ISO performance that only can be matched by speciality cameras and still has 50MP.
At an other side of the coin, smaller formats like 16 MP+ APS-C and 4/3 are good enough for the work most photographers do. Ctein says so and also Michael Reichmann.
Best regards
Erik
Legacy MF is becoming the less-pixels-less-DR solution.
I guess the sh*t will really hit the fan as soon as Sony release their next sensors, and program their anti-shake to do multi-shot.
Edmund
-
On the other hand I think we are going to see more of Sony like sensors in MFD. Once MF and smaller formats use the same technology, the size advantage of the larger formats comes fully in play. Just as an example the Pentax 645Z has high ISO performance that only can be matched by speciality cameras and still has 50MP.
Indeed, it would be great to have a 36x48mm version of the next gen Sony sensor at around 100 mp and 15 stops DR, but that's probably not going to happen unless Pentax decides that the 645Y uses one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I hope for 56×41 as far as the size is concerned.
That would allow to replace MF FF CCDs against CMOS i.e. little more market for Sony.
Indeed, it would be great to have a 36x48mm version of the next gen Sony sensor at around 100 mp and 15 stops DR, but that's probably not going to happen unless Pentax decides that the 645Y uses one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe that Sony won't care to make a different MF sensor in size than 33x44 cm... I say this because I also believe that Pentax is optimizing their lenses for 33x44 size, if they use a larger sensor, it will probably affect their Lens line and there will be a redesigned pentaprism viewfinder needed.
I also believe that if a larger image area sensor will appear, it will come from Cmosis.... The reason behind that is that Leica has obviously decided to have their own exclusive sensors and the Sinarback line of MFDBs to consider along with the S-series. I also believe that there will soon be a major reformation of the MF market depending on Hasselblad's survival. IMO, Leica needs an MF body and lenses as to "bridge" the use of Sinarbacks with the S-series. The Hasselblad H5X seems perfect for that, since it can both take a Sinarback on it and also have the H-lenses shared with Leica-S via the current Leica adapter.... It won't surprise me at all if Leica decides to invest on Hasselblad and integrate it on their group of companies.
-
Hi,
Could be or could be not. Leica's own lenses are also optimized for small sensor 45x30mm. The Pentax is originally a 645 design, so the older lenses are intended for the larger format.
Best regards
Erik
I believe that Sony won't care to make a different MF sensor in size than 33x44 cm... I say this because I also believe that Pentax is optimizing their lenses for 33x44 size, if they use a larger sensor, it will probably affect their Lens line and there will be a redesigned pentaprism viewfinder needed.
I also believe that if a larger image area sensor will appear, it will come from Cmosis.... The reason behind that is that Leica has obviously decided to have their own exclusive sensors and the Sinarback line of MFDBs to consider along with the S-series. I also believe that there will soon be a major reformation of the MF market depending on Hasselblad's survival. IMO, Leica needs an MF body and lenses as to "bridge" the use of Sinarbacks with the S-series. The Hasselblad H5X seems perfect for that, since it can both take a Sinarback on it and also have the H-lenses shared with Leica-S via the current Leica adapter.... It won't surprise me at all if Leica decides to invest on Hasselblad and integrate it on their group of companies.
-
Hi,
Could be or could be not. Leica's own lenses are also optimized for small sensor 45x30mm. The Pentax is originally a 645 design, so the older lenses are intended for the larger format.
Best regards
Erik
Leica is totally different than any other maker.... They do have a large sensor DSLR like Pentax does, but they also are an MFDB maker. They do have view cameras, but they luck an MF SLR platform to offer as a system with their backs... It looks natural (and obvious) that a "bridging" platform is needed... Hasselblad (Contax 645 too) does provide that platform and the lenses are fully dedicated (via Leica's adapter) to work on Leica-S.... Hence, it looks sensible if Hasselblad (given their financial position) will be a "target" for Leica. It would tighten research and development costs, it would attract more customers, it would widen offerings to customers and would increase the existing base market further... Such a decision (to add Hasselblad in the group of companies) would establish Leica as the undeniable leader for professional photography.
-
I believe that Sony won't care to make a different MF sensor in size than 33x44 cm... I say this because I also believe that Pentax is optimizing their lenses for 33x44 size, if they use a larger sensor, it will probably affect their Lens line and there will be a redesigned pentaprism viewfinder needed.
I also believe that if a larger image area sensor will appear, it will come from Cmosis. ...
I agree with part of this:
a) If Pentax stays with 44x33mm first, there _might_ not be enough volume for Sony to be interested in a larger "645 full frame" sensor
b) If Sony does not bite, a smaller scale fab-less custom sensor designer like CMOSIS might fill the gap for bigger CMOS sensors, just as it has for Leica. I take it that Leica works with CMOSIS rather than Sony because the latter is not interested, not because CMOSIS sensors are superior -- because they aren't; their sensors seem overall inferior to Sony's offerings.
But:
c) I am not sure that Pentax is so critical to overall DMF sensor volume; does anyone have relative sales volume numbers for the various MF products? Doug? Yaya? David?
d) Pentax has mostly kept its "645" lens line-up compatible with full 645 format, perhaps because it still caters to a loyal (mostly Japanese) market for using these lenses on its old 645 film cameras. For example, the Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8 is designed for full 645 format coverage, and thus is a moderate wide-angle design, despite its primary role being as a normal lens for 44x33mm digital format. See the Angle of View data at
http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_D_FA_645_55mm_F2.8_AL_(IF)_SDM_AW#!product-specs
The exceptions, covering only 44x33mm format, are just the two of seventeen "645" lenses at the site http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses that are designated "DA 645" as opposed to "D FA 645" or the old "FA 645": the 25/4 and 28-45/4.5.
-
I agree with part of this:
a) If Pentax stays with 44x33mm first, there _might_ not be enough volume for Sony to be interested in a larger "645 full frame" sensor
b) If Sony does not bite, a smaller scale fab-less custom sensor designer like CMOSIS might fill the gap for bigger CMOS sensors, just as it has for Leica. I take it that Leica works with CMOSIS rather than Sony because the latter is not interested, not because CMOSIS sensors are superior -- because they aren't; their sensors seem overall inferior to Sony's offerings.
But:
c) I am not sure that Pentax is so critical to overall DMF sensor volume; does anyone have relative sales volume numbers for the various MF products? Doug? Yaya? David?
d) Pentax has mostly kept its "645" lens line-up compatible with full 645 format, perhaps because it still caters to a loyal (mostly Japanese) market for using these lenses on its old 645 film cameras. For example, the Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8 is designed for full 645 format coverage, and thus is a moderate wide-angle design, despite its primary role being as a normal lens for 44x33mm digital format. See the Angle of View data at
http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_D_FA_645_55mm_F2.8_AL_(IF)_SDM_AW#!product-specs
The exceptions, covering only 44x33mm format, are just the two of seventeen "645" lenses at the site http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses that are designated "DA 645" as opposed to "D FA 645" or the old "FA 645": the 25/4 and 28-45/4.5.
Agree back, Pentax production volumes is the key for Sony's MF sensor productions... We have yet to see Cmosis newer designs, there is no Cmosis MF sensor yet for us to compare with Sony, furthermore, Leica is surely interested on going ahead for image quality and claims that they are self involved in the new sensors, the relationship with Cmosis is definitely not the same as the rest of the MF makers with Sony.
OTOH, Leica surely would want Sinar's future backs to use exclusive top performance sensors of their own and they will surely expand this to a (possible) new camera platform within the group of companies.
As of sales (availability of which I also agree that could help future thoughts), I doubt we can have reliable information... Leica's president claimed in an interview that they have 25% of the MF market with the S-series, I doubt that though, especially after P645Z's price...
My impression is that MF sales are dropping steadily year by year and the main reason for that is the shrinkage of MFDB share than the "large sensor DSLRs", where most pros use by sharing them between their MF cameras and their view/tech cameras... Many pros have decided to "stick" with their older backs that do the same as modern ones than investing on modern which they judge wouldn't add (or add little) to their work. I think that the Higher end MFDBs are mostly consumed by wealthy amateurs for fun/passion...
Image circle with Pentax is one thing... lens performance with larger sensors is another.
-
I can't see Pentax driving a full frame 645 CMOS 40 x 55 chip, all their current modern glass is designed around the 1:3 cropped sensor as I understand it. I can't see them coming out with another set of lenses for a full frame. I can see Hasselblad and Phase One working with Sony or Dalsa on a full frame, in fact with them it's not a question of if, but when. You can be assured that full frame 645 CMOS is coming, and most likely in a Phase One back, by 2016. Much sooner than Pentax. Sure the older Pentax 645 lenses will work, but they are dated and most likely able to handle the larger resolution, but again they might.
The larger question for me on a Phase back with a full frame CMOS is how the chip will be designed, i.e. will it allow better use of current tech lenses which are already strained in movements with the current 50MP chip (IQ150/250). A larger chip with same pixel design would have a denser pitch and thus I feel not work at all with the Rodenstock retro focus glass currently being use. Sure the Phase One/Mamiya/Schneider LS lenses will be fine and that may be the market that they are more interested in. Schneider has supposedly already stated that they are done with any future designs so they also may know what coming. This is also why I have followed the CMOSIS design that Lecia has as it seems like a nice compromise, but they have yet to take to a full 645 (digital) that I am aware and they also use a 3:2 ratio with their current DSLR's as I understand it not the 4:3 that traditional 645 uses.
Paul
-
I can't see Pentax driving a full frame 645 CMOS 40 x 55 chip, all their current modern glass is designed around the 1:3 cropped sensor as I understand it. I can't see them coming out with another set of lenses for a full frame. I can see Hasselblad and Phase One working with Sony or Dalsa on a full frame, in fact with them it's not a question of if, but when. You can be assured that full frame 645 CMOS is coming, and most likely in a Phase One back, by 2016. Much sooner than Pentax. Sure the older Pentax 645 lenses will work, but they are dated and most likely able to handle the larger resolution, but again they might.
The larger question for me on a Phase back with a full frame CMOS is how the chip will be designed, i.e. will it allow better use of current tech lenses which are already strained in movements with the current 50MP chip (IQ150/250). A larger chip with same pixel design would have a denser pitch and thus I feel not work at all with the Rodenstock retro focus glass currently being use. Sure the Phase One/Mamiya/Schneider LS lenses will be fine and that may be the market that they are more interested in. Schneider has supposedly already stated that they are done with any future designs so they also may know what coming. This is also why I have followed the CMOSIS design that Lecia has as it seems like a nice compromise, but they have yet to take to a full 645 (digital) that I am aware and they also use a 3:2 ratio with their current DSLR's as I understand it not the 4:3 that traditional 645 uses.
Paul
Agree in most, but Leica will inevitably come with a larger sensor... Even if they aren't investing on a new platform soon, they have the Sinarbacks to consider... lets not forget how important LV is with view/tech cameras....
-
Agree in most, but Leica will inevitably come with a larger sensor... Even if they aren't investing on a new platform soon, they have the Sinarbacks to consider... lets not forget how important LV is with view/tech cameras....
Good point, I always forget about the fact they have the Sinar backs and cameras now.
Paul
-
Good point, I always forget about the fact they have the Sinar backs and cameras now.
Paul
In fact I believe that they already do (work on a larger sensor). IMO they are smart enough to design a large sensor and then work on cropping it down to smaller formats than work on different sensors for each format they offer. Cropping down a sensor is much easier than expanding an (digital) image area. One only has to keep one basic design on such a case and only work on the existence or not, or the shape of microlenses to adapt the sensor's performance to optimum for different cameras... It's their choice of using 6 microns pitch on S-007 that leads me to think that this is the case.... It would lead to a high resolution large sensor, a 37.5 one for the S-series (announced already) and 24mp crop for the M series... All with minimum research and minimal possible cost involved for developing/producing.
-
I can't see Pentax driving a full frame 645 CMOS 40 x 55 chip, all their current modern glass is designed around the 1:3 cropped sensor as I understand it.
I also think it quite possible that Pentax will stay with the relatively less expensive 44x33mm format, but you are a somewhat wrong about its 645 lenses: looking at the 17 "645" lenses listed at http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses
- 13 are designated FA 645 or FA* 645 which I believe are "legacy" film era models, so covering the full 70mm image circle obviously,
- 2 are designated D FA 645, which are newer models "designed for digital" but also designed for use with 645 film camera and so covering that image circle, and
- 2 are designated DA 645, designed exclusively for digital cameras in 44x33mm format.
So perhaps the fairer conclusion is that Pentax has simply not done a lot of new "digital era" MF lens designs at all, so has not greatly committed itself to one digital format or another.
It probably comes down to how good the older film era lenses are:
- If a good portion of those "FA" lenses are good enough to compete when used with a more expensive "645 full frame" model, the Pentax system is ready;
- If instead not many of them are, leaving mostly just the two "D FA" lenses worth using with a larger sensor, then Ricoh is probably not going to make the massive investment in new lens designs needed to chase Phase One and Hasselblad into that larger format realm.
-
Indeed, and since I understand that they have stopped production of the 25mm f4, they may have only one lens not covering the legacy 6x45 size.
In fact it could be that they stopped prod of the 25mm f4 precisely because they realized the mistake they made working with a smallish MF sensor and wanted to avoid an APS-C like situation where customers refuse to move to larger size/ higher margin devices because of their investment in small image circle lenses.
Future will tell but to my eyes 44x33 is just too close to 24x36 to make sense in the long run. It very much feels like a tactical solution, which doesn't mean it has no value of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"So if it's just 44X33... seems like an awful waste of space".
Paraphrasing the great Carl Sagan.
:)
Indeed, and since I understand that they have stopped production of the 25mm f4, they may have only one lens not covering the legacy 6x45 size.
In fact it could be that they stopped prod of the 25mm f4 precisely because they realized the mistake they made working with a smallish MF sensor and wanted to avoid an APS-C like situation where customers refuse to move to larger size/ higher margin devices because of their investment in small image circle lenses.
Future will tell but to my eyes 44x33 is just too close to 24x36 to make sense in the long run. It very much feels like a tactical solution, which doesn't mean it has no value of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Guys, could we attempt and not hijack Chiek's thread, but just discus the test results?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
What I have seen from Chiek's tests I would say that both the multishoot and the 5Ds is sharper than the CF39 in single shoot. This observation was consistent in my observation for all image pairs I have viewed. This relates to the tests with zoom lenses on both cameras.
Plenty of variables, and I would really like to see raw files from the Canon.
Would I be a Canon shooter, I would preorder the 5Ds. Unfortunately I am not a Canon shooter but using Sony and Hasselblad V-series. So I am waiting for Sony to release a high MP camera with EFSC and a nice user interface, assuming something called A9.
Best regards
Erik
Guys, could we attempt and not hijack Chiek's thread, but just discus the test results?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just upload 4 files
5ds default sharpen / No sharpen
CF-39ms default sharpen / No sharpen
You can download this link, last 4 files.
http://chiek.viewbook.com/5ds (http://chiek.viewbook.com/5ds)
Remember, It's canon BETA version. so It may be changeable for improve functions.
5ds JPG file size is approx 20MB but 39ms(single/multi) JPG file is approx 4~5MB.
5ds developed from canon DPP4, CF-39MS from PHOCUS latest version.
Raw file sizes are similar (5ds : 56MB, CF-39MS : 54MB, CF-39MS multi : 198MB)
Why???
-
Just upload 4 files
5ds default sharpen / No sharpen
CF-39ms default sharpen / No sharpen
You can download this link, last 4 files.
http://chiek.viewbook.com/5ds (http://chiek.viewbook.com/5ds)
Thanks, I'll have a look.
Remember, It's canon BETA version. so It may be changeable for improve functions.
5ds JPG file size is approx 20MB but 39ms(single/multi) JPG file is approx 4~5MB.
5ds developed from canon DPP4, CF-39MS from PHOCUS latest version.
Raw file sizes are similar (5ds : 56MB, CF-39MS : 54MB, CF-39MS multi : 198MB)
Why???
Different JPEG compression/quality settings?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Chiek,
Thanks for the files. I looked at the unsharpened files id processed both trough ImageMagic. In this case I would say that the CF39MS (single shot) clearly wins.
Best regards
Erik
Just upload 4 files
5ds default sharpen / No sharpen
CF-39ms default sharpen / No sharpen
You can download this link, last 4 files.
http://chiek.viewbook.com/5ds (http://chiek.viewbook.com/5ds)
Remember, It's canon BETA version. so It may be changeable for improve functions.
5ds JPG file size is approx 20MB but 39ms(single/multi) JPG file is approx 4~5MB.
5ds developed from canon DPP4, CF-39MS from PHOCUS latest version.
Raw file sizes are similar (5ds : 56MB, CF-39MS : 54MB, CF-39MS multi : 198MB)
Why???
-
Hi Chiek,
Thnaks for the files. I looked at the unsharpened files id processed both trough ImageMagic. In this case I would say that the CF39MS (single shot) clearly wins.
Best regards
Erik
The CF39 definitely looks crisper at the point of focus and IMHO has cleaner blacks and better gradations. Has a bit of false color in the fine textures but shows them nicely.
The 5DS file looks smoother in regards to detail (maybe due to the low pass filter?) and the whites and blacks are not as clean plus gradations dont look as smooth as in the CF39.
This is pixel peeping for sure but hey that is what this test is about isnt it?
-
Different JPEG compression/quality settings?
Both files are maximum quality JPEG.
I think 5ds pictures are more larger Depth of Field than CF-39MS because of sensor size. so more information than out-focus.
and I don't to say that 5ds files are better. Just curious and Many peoples are interesting.
I have owned digital back since 2001. started from Dicomed field pro and Leaf, Phase1 and now MS back.
Definitely, High-end capture machines are better than mid level cameras.
but technology will change all, including our emotions.
-
It looks to me like the 5DS focus is off (back focused a bit) compared to the MFB.
-
Both files are maximum quality JPEG.
Yes, now that I've downloaded the files, I've inspected the JPEG settings with 'JPEGsnoop (http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html)', and that estimated the JPEG quality at well into the 98+ percent range for boht chrominance and Luminance, so it must be the amount of image detail compression that is possible.
I think 5ds pictures are more larger Depth of Field than CF-39MS because of sensor size. so more information than out-focus.
That could very well be a major part of it, and perhaps some differences in noise. There is also a bit of back focus on the Canon shot, it seems, so there is somewhat different detail in and out of focus.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There is also a bit of back focus on the Canon shot, it seems, so there is somewhat different detail in and out of focus.
Pefect enlarging live view focusing…
check attach screen shot.
-
Just received. I heard It is only 4 bodies in worldwide.
Beta test version, so Don't load camera raw or c1pro. Only DPP in canon.
1st feeling is COOL , awesome image.
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/e93cd0f3c3ebd50653c5eb6e209305ea_large.jpg)
(http://images.us.viewbook.com/4a448294fecfb75fe48ae62609276db1_large.jpg)
Hi thanks for sharing.
Could you do a test with :
1. A human (single shoot)
2. Something that has translucency (or transparency if you can't) (multi)
3. Something like fibbers and color to simulate art reproduction. (multi)
It will get funny when the Canon face the 645z.
Thanks.
-
It will get funny when the Canon face the 645z.
Thanks.
Any comparison with the 645z? :)
If I can swing a Japanese price that is roughly $1500 more than the 5DS R then it may be worth adding another system.
-
Any comparison with the 645z? :)
If I can swing a Japanese price that is roughly $1500 more than the 5DS R then it may be worth adding another system.
Look around this 5DSR impressions review (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-rA.HTM#GALLERY) and you'll find a number of studio test setups comparing the two. Needless to say, one look at how the two deal with fabrics at any comparable ISO level and you'll likely feel the need to get the 645Z, however the 5DS does allow you to gain access to the excellent 17/24TS-E and new 11-24mm lenses. Depending on how important really wide lenses are to you, the Z's non-shifting 25mm and not-as-wide 28-45mm may not quite cut it; personally I'm not a fan of fields of view wider than 24mm on small format.
-
Look around this 5DSR impressions review (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-rA.HTM#GALLERY) and you'll find a number of studio test setups comparing the two. Needless to say, one look at how the two deal with fabrics at any comparable ISO level and you'll likely feel the need to get the 645Z, however the 5DS does allow you to gain access to the excellent 17/24TS-E and new 11-24mm lenses. Depending on how important really wide lenses are to you, the Z's non-shifting 25mm and not-as-wide 28-45mm may not quite cut it; personally I'm not a fan of fields of view wider than 24mm on small format.
In other words the 5DS just more pixels to meet the pixel quota when DR for landscape is equally as needed?
-
In other words the 5DS just more pixels to meet the pixel quota when DR for landscape is equally as needed?
Maybe. Before I switched to using the 645Z I've been using Canon digital cameras since ~2005, and I can't say that I've ever been seriously bothered by a lack of DR for at least 95% of my shots. But how many people would be unhappy to own a $4000 camera anyway? Most of the photographers here and at other MF-centric forums are connoisseurs that really fret over these things, but I think you could honestly do most things you need with both cameras, and as I've said before, the Canon system has access to a larger and arguably more interesting selection of lenses.
Compared to the D810 or 5DSR, the Z is going to be cleaner at any ISO level, a bit sharper, and have greater color fidelity; it's up to you if it's worth going after these things at the cost of convenience.
-
Thanks for your insight.
As mentioned on the "Buying a 645Z in Japan (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=95388.msg816888#msg816888)?" thread the 645Z can be bought in Japan for less than $6,200 with sales tax. Without sales tax it can go even much lower than $5,700 depending where you shop. Less than $1,800 price difference could make one rethink if the premium between the two cameras is that much.
Yeah, adding a system will also incur the need to buy new lenses but that's a given.
Thus the appeal of Canon is that it is largely cost effective way to reach 50+MP to comply with client requirements, large prints, highly detailed prints and more ability to crop when you do not want to go through pixel interpolation.
-
Since you'll be doing your shopping in Japan, may as well take advantage of possibly getting some Pentax lenses on the cheap as well, at the very least most of the old film glass is capable of resolving the sensor by f/6.3~8. The FA 35mm, 55mm SDM, 120mm f/4 Macro and 150mm 2.8 are all easy recommendations.
-
You're okay by me Siobodan. I'm sorry I (myself) was reacting to your initial post. Bar fights have started over far less. :)
Which is why I stay out of bars and camera tests!
-
Which is why I stay out of bars and camera tests!
Ah, yes! But would you be able to resist a mermaid bar? :)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7632/17031557798_ea59b2fda1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rX2bLf)
Mermaid Bar (https://flic.kr/p/rX2bLf) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/people/20843597@N05/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8765/17219324585_3201d07146_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/seBxhD)
Mermaid Tips (https://flic.kr/p/seBxhD) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/people/20843597@N05/), on Flickr
-
Ah, yes! But would you be able to resist a mermaid bar? :)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7632/17031557798_ea59b2fda1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rX2bLf)
Mermaid Bar (https://flic.kr/p/rX2bLf) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/people/20843597@N05/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8765/17219324585_3201d07146_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/seBxhD)
Mermaid Tips (https://flic.kr/p/seBxhD) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/people/20843597@N05/), on Flickr
I dunno, a mermaid bar...sounds fishy.
;)
-
I dunno, a mermaid bar...sounds fishy.
;)
Nah...for a proper tip, you even get a kiss (a bit on the wet side, but still...) ;D :-*
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8744/17031557718_55c1fbd776_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rX2bJS)
Mermaid Kiss (https://flic.kr/p/rX2bJS) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/people/20843597@N05/), on Flickr
-
Hum... the Speedo googles kind of sink it for me... what's the Drowning Ratio anyway?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... what's the Drowning Ratio anyway?
Do not know for mermaids, but for patrons... pretty high. Just check the size of the cocktail glass (also serves as a tip jar - second photo)... enough to drown in it ;)
-
Do not know for mermaids, but for patrons... pretty high. Just check the size of the cocktail glass (also serves as a tip jar - second photo)... enough to drown in it ;)
There you go! ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some one has been to Sip N Dip .... It's the 'other' reason to go to Montana right?
-
In the link of multiple test images it is clear to me the CF39 has better separation of fine detail.
The new 100L is sharp/est(resolving power), the 180 is also very sharp. Sharper than the older 100Macro.
The Leica macro Elmerit R100 is sharper than both, well on par with the 180L. Its maybe just as sharp, but the Lieca has more contrast.These I base on tests I did some time back between the 180 vs the older 100 vs the LeicaR100
The Canon file is actually "warmer", less blue. Not colder...to my eyes Erik.
The Hass is "colder" with that ting of blue-purple-magenta.
The unsharpened Canon image shows the mix in separation on the pliers teeth. The contrasts start to mix. It can be lens perhaps?
If any of these are possible....100L or 180L, or if available the Lieca Macro El-R100...I would love to see a test with them vs a Shneider or Rod digitar/digital lens Macro on the CF39.
Thank you for the testing! Look forward to more if possible.
-
Chiek, now as Adobe released ACR 9 which allows to open 5Ds (R) files, could you please upload some 5Ds R raw files, then we also could "play" with them :-)
Thanks a lot for your valuable efforts!
Christoph
-
Chiek, now as Adobe released ACR 9 which allows to open 5Ds (R) files, could you please upload some 5Ds R raw files, then we also could "play" with them :-)
Hi Christoph,
I'm not sure if 'Chiek' is allowed to share Raws from his pre-production trial model. Apparently also sites like Imaging-Resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-rA7.HTM) had to remove their posted Raws (I downloaded a copy, and it converts as can be expected in ACR 9, and proper Capture sharpening does wonders).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Legacy MF is becoming the less-pixels-less-DR solution.
I guess the sh*t will really hit the fan as soon as Sony release their next sensors, and program their anti-shake to do multi-shot.
Edmund
Seems about right , for Nikon and Canon users we still have the issue with the lenses (Otus is Manual) but once that get solved it will get very interesting.
In the other hand, Sony do have the new line of Zeiss glass. Nikon in particular should be shaking like crazy too.
Best regards,
-
Legacy MF is becoming the less-pixels-less-DR solution.
I guess the sh*t will really hit the fan as soon as Sony release their next sensors, and program their anti-shake to do multi-shot.
Edmund
On the other hand, if one can't make anything worthwhile with legacy MF, they are not going to turn into an amazing artist with any of these new fangled cameras either.
@Chiek: Thanks for the comparison. Very enlightening.
-
we need IMAGES.Rela life IMAGES.
Everything else is hypothetical.
thanks
-
we need IMAGES.Rela life IMAGES.
Everything else is hypothetical.
thanks
Your real-life images are just hypothetical indications of what this camera can do in my hands. Thus we need to be hands on, every single one of us.
-h
-
Some new RAW and JPG files of the 5ds/r...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-rA7.HTM
-
Some new RAW and JPG files of the 5ds/r...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-rA7.HTM
Thanks for mentioning. Apparently also ISO 50 samples !
Downloading as we speak ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I feel like there is something wrong with me because I just don't care how many more blades of grass one camera can capture over another. Probably because as a component of an image, resolution generaly makes sweet fa difference wether the picture is any good or not and it doesn't earn me any more throwing more money at something that gets laughably called an upgrade.
Only people that spend stupid amounts on gear will ever bother to look for the difference and call it good or bad.
People will see what they want to see, whatever you see some smart arse will take you you are not looking at it properly.
-
I feel like there is something wrong with me because I just don't care how many more blades of grass one camera can capture over another.
Most people are missing the point that a denser sampling of the optical image, will boost the MTF response over the entire image. So it is not (only) about resolving more detail, it's about better image quality (and more resolution which allows better post-processing). Upgrading the sensor is like upgrading the lens at the same time.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Deleted
-
Only people that spend stupid amounts on gear will ever bother to look for the difference and call it good or bad.
People will see what they want to see, whatever you see some smart arse will take you you are not looking at it properly.
This is so sadly untrue. Why would you think your world of need and want is the only "de facto "?
There are people who want the resolution and the quality. The expression and often the client need demand this in some areas. There will be people always pixel peeping, and franking I thank them, and often include myself for my needs. It maybe the stupid amounts on gear or whatever it maybe, the blades of grass matter for some people.
-
I feel like there is something wrong with me because I just don't care how many more blades of grass one camera can capture over another. Probably because as a component of an image, resolution generaly makes sweet fa difference wether the picture is any good or not and it doesn't earn me any more throwing more money at something that gets laughably called an upgrade.
Only people that spend stupid amounts on gear will ever bother to look for the difference and call it good or bad.
People will see what they want to see, whatever you see some smart arse will take you you are not looking at it properly.
If I were shooting just for pleasure I think even 40mp would be fine, but others may consider the use of an 80mp back on a tech cam pleasure and a 40mp speed shooter as work. There's nothing wrong with you not seeing value in high resolution sensors, but that doesn't mean that they don't have value for those that need them for technical reasons, like being able to print images meters wide without stitching, having to stitch less or cropping heavily.
You should also never judge pixel count, at 51mp the 645Z is of middle-of-the-road in medium format resolution, but has superior ISO and DR to just about every stills camera as of today, even the 12mp A7S, despite having 2.5x the pixel density. It's not like you have to use all those pixels, as over-sampling has it's various advantages too, like compensating for the fact that color sensors still only capture 1/2 their resolution in green and 1/4 in blue and red, and also reducing the possibility of moire and other artifacts. Even at the same sensor size, a 50mp image sampled down to 22mp will be better every time than a native 22mp capture, assuming normalized performance isn't hampered, which judging by these early results shows that it hasn't - at least compared to other Canon cameras.
That cameras are sporting resolutions 2-3x the amount they would normally have 5-8 years ago while performing as good or better is a clear indicator that you just shouldn't look too much into paper specs, which with recent technological advancements is becoming less and less of an indicator of how the sensor really performs.