Phase One XF Camera

[jjj]

I agree that there is little to no difference of look when infinite DoF can be achieved, but I believe most people who speak about MF look speak about the transition from sharp to un-sharp areas. They are typically not speaking about inifinite DoF applications.

I am well aware that 35mm has wider opening lenses that can generate a more limited DoF, but in my view this is not the only factor. The transition from sharp to un-sharp isn't exactly the same with a shorter focal length/wide aperture vs longer focal length/more narrow aperture and there are also technological considerations resulting from lenses design that generate some differences of look.

Technological aspects can include the shape of the glass elements, but also the manufacturing process. One interesting example of impact of manufacturing technology on look is the granular look of OoF circular highlights generated by my Otus 85mm f1.4 that seems to result from the grinding process used for the aspherical elements.

Different 35mm lenses of the same focal length can render such things differently [and same goes for any format].
I recall discussions about long lenses being used for sports photography and how one particular lens gave 'greater DoF'. It didn't, it simply wasn't as sharp therefore there wasn't the same amount of contrast between sharp and not sharp which made it's DoF look greater. I reckon it is that sort of lens variation that has a bigger effect on look of image than most people give credit for. Bokeh rendering would be another variable.

One interesting test would be to use various MF lenses on MF cameras and then the same lens also on 35mm cameras, so at least the lens variable would be ruled out.
Or maybe use a T/S lens on a MF camera.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

There is a certain thrill in capturing a great photo with a single shot. Like hunting. Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun 

[Isaac]

Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun 

No ;-)

[amolitor]

Thanks guys, I see that. Fashion/models seems like a perfect use case.

Sync at any speed using whatever strobes you already own, no fuss, resolution and sensor size for the look you want, with a moving/dynamic subject.

[uaiomex]

Stitching is more taxidermy than hunting. :-(
Still you get your trophy! :-)

Eduardo

There is a certain thrill in capturing a great photo with a single shot. Like hunting. Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun  

[BernardLanguillier]

Here's one for Bernard.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5642959506/world-s-highest-resolution-panoramic-image-is-stitched-from-70-000-images

Guys, note that I am not the one who brought up stitching in this thread and that my point was clearly that stitching isn't a perfect substitue for MF both in terms of adressable applications and - to a certain extend - look.

As far as look goes, although stitching does simulate well one key difference resulting from the use of longer focal lengths on MF, it doesn't compensate for the differences in lens construction, unless you use a MF lens on a 35mm body.

But I guess that what you write isn't as important as what people think you write. 

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guillermo Luijk]

Regarding the MF feeling in shallow DOF imagery, I have zero experience. However I could think that even when DOF is matched between two cameras differently sensor-sized, the blur profile could be different (more abrupt) in some of them as a function of the distance to the subject and this could be what observers call the MF "3D look".

I have used the clever Depth of Field Calculator by Max Lyons based on the Rayleigh equations to compare two cameras focusing a subject at 10m:

• FF camera (acceptable CoC=0,03mm), 50mm f/1,8
• Larger camera (twice as large, 4x surface) (acceptable CoC=0,06mm), 100mm f/3,6182

Both provide the same FOV and DOF=4m 50.66cm. What about the blurriness progression that defines this DOF? (blue line):



Looking at the figure, all parameters are perfectly scaled to the new sensor size (CoC): DOF, near focus distance, far focus distance, blurriness progression and diffraction (lower green line) all remain identical in the final image, so I find no reason to think a larger format should provide any difference in DOF look. The mythical MF look, if it exists, should come from the particular available lenses bokeh, having no explanation in the sensor size itself.

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

Very interesting Guillermo, thanks.

I guess that one unknown is how well this theoretical DoF simulation model matches actual lenses behavior.

Do we have experimental data to back up the model?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guillermo Luijk]

I haven't look for it yet and I cannot do them by myself. Perhaps someone has already done real world tests.

Regards!

[amolitor]

At a guess, at equivalent aperture on the open end, the MF lens will be better corrected, as a general rule, dollar for dollar. At the closed end diffraction limits come in to play later with larger formats.

If you're stitching, though, none of this applies. You are using a large sensor in a very literal sense when you stitch.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I wouldn't agree on those issues.

Let's assume that I am shooting with a Distagon 50/4 on my Hasselblad using my P45+ back. That will give me a 49x37 mm image with 39 MP.

Now, I can put the same lens on my Sony Alpha 99, mount the camera vertically and take three shots 23% overlap, this would give me a 49x36 image with 49 MP. Same perspective, same bokeh, but with less aliasing.

Now, I could replace that Distagon with an Otus, Sigma Art or some of the first class lenses and perhaps use with a 36 MP body.

In my shooting, I have not seen those magic differences. But could be I am less sensitive to those differences that may exist than others. In a case, I was showing two A2 size prints to three persons at our camera club and all tree picked the P45+ image. One felt that it was better composed another that it had more contrast. Another friend could not see a difference, nor could I. Making identical prints under uncontrolled conditions can be hard. In the case I mentioned the camera position was shifted slightly when switching between the systems. Weather was heavy overcast and I needed to apply significant local highlight compression in raw processing.

In general, I can see the resolution difference between my 39 MP P45+ and my 24 MP Sony when pixel peeping, but it pretty much disappears in A2-size prints. A1 size and up it is visible.

Sony lenses have round apertures and less green/magenta fringing in out of focus areas than the old (Zeiss) Hasselblad lenses I have. The new H-series lenses by Fujinon are better corrected. There are some "superachromats" from Zeiss for the Hasselblad, but I don't have any of those.

To say short. I would say that MF has an advantage resolutionswise on a single shot. But you could reproduce that image by stitching, using the same focal length or even the same lens. Obviusly, it is very possible to stitch MF images, too. I do it often, as I often stitch two three MF images instead of switching to a wider lens and crop.
 
Best regards
Erik

At a guess, at equivalent aperture on the open end, the MF lens will be better corrected, as a general rule, dollar for dollar. At the closed end diffraction limits come in to play later with larger formats.

If you're stitching, though, none of this applies. You are using a large sensor in a very literal sense when you stitch.

[Doug Peterson]

Just finished up our LA event. Very strong feedback from all the attendees.

We still have Phase One XF Events in NYC, Houston, Dallas, Boston, Philly, Chicago, D.C., San Fran, Miami, Denver, and Birmingham this month. Come look through the viewfinder and play with the AF and new features

[laughingbear]

There is a certain thrill in capturing a great photo with a single shot. Like hunting. Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun 

Nah, the single shot MF is like hunting with a .50cal Barrett, while stitching is like hunting with a longbow.

 

[Hans Kruse]

Very interesting Guillermo, thanks.

I guess that one unknown is how well this theoretical DoF simulation model matches actual lenses behavior.

Do we have experimental data to back up the model?

Cheers,
Bernard

You seemed very sure about your observations in the previous posts. Do you have examples to show the differences in look you referred to?

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Just finished up our LA event. Very strong feedback from all the attendees.

We still have Phase One XF Events in NYC, Houston, Dallas, Boston, Philly, Chicago, D.C., San Fran, Miami, Denver, and Birmingham this month. Come look through the viewfinder and play with the AF and new features

But is the Phase XF camera going to be any better than the Hasselblad HD4-50, which gets such amazing reviews on Amazon, go and check it out if you don't believe me  

Dave

[Fish_Shooter]

Is the body made by Mamiya, by Phase in Denmark or someone else?
Curious as well about the mirror design, for example, Rollei 6000 models had a trapezoidal mirror.  No pix of the front without a lens on it.
Cheers from Alaska!
Tom

[Wayne Fox]

There is a certain thrill in capturing a great photo with a single shot. Like hunting. Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun  

Interesting viewpoint.  I'm not sure where you arrive at this conclusion- maybe you don't stitch much. When I stitch the process is no different than when I use a single frame.  The composition and content have been determined, and the choice of a lens as well as the decision to stitch instead of a single shot is either to achieve higher resolution so large prints hold together, or because I do not have a focal length that will capture what I have chosen.

machine gun shooting certainly does seem the vogue with many in photography (not saying it's good or bad), such as wedding shooters, but I don't really associate stitching as such.  It's not like I shoot every thing I see and look for a composition later.

[BernardLanguillier]

Interesting viewpoint.  I'm not sure where you arrive at this conclusion- maybe you don't stitch much. When I stitch the process is no different than when I use a single lens.  The composition and content have been determined, and the choice of a lens as well as the decision to stitch instead of a single shot is either to achieve higher resolution so large prints hold together, or because I do not have a focal length that will capture what I have chosen.

machine gun shooting certainly does seem the vogue with many in photography (not saying it's good or bad), such as wedding shooters, but I don't really associate stitching as such.  It's not like I shoot every thing I see and look for a composition later.

Exactly, stitching is a slow way of shooting that is more akin to 4x5 than any other way of using a 35mm camera I know of.

It takes planning and thinking while a single shot can be a lot more spontaneous.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Looking at the figure, all parameters are perfectly scaled to the new sensor size (CoC): DOF, near focus distance, far focus distance, blurriness progression and diffraction (lower green line) all remain identical in the final image, so I find no reason to think a larger format should provide any difference in DOF look. The mythical MF look, if it exists, should come from the particular available lenses bokeh, having no explanation in the sensor size itself.

Hi Guillermo,

There is another, often overlooked, factor in play. The larger format requires a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view. The longer focal length (often easier to design with less aberrations) results in more on sensor magnification of the same scene features. This will result in those features having a lower cycles/mm spatial frequency on sensor, which will result in a higher MTF response, and in addition it can detect smaller features near the limiting resolution near the Nyquist spatial frequencies. The higher MTF response translates in more accurate/vivid contrast rendering, AKA the 3D-look, even if we match DOF by adjusting aperture and COC.

There are tools to help with achieving a similar effect, or (selectively) suppressing it. Topaz Labs Detail is a very effective one, with several additional image enhancement options. With their promised free updates for life, it's a much better deal than splashing out more money for hardware, although 'Detail' can also be used on images generated with better hardware ...

Cheers,
Bart

[tim wolcott]

Stitching allows you first and foremost to acquire the exact image you want to capture without using a wide lens that will push the scene away from you and most likely distort what you are shooting.  You need to think of it differently.  If you walk up to a scene and want to shoot it the way your pan thru the image.  This is what you are looking for.  Rarely do you ever see a panorama and pull out the lens it it sees what your eye sees in perspective and composition.

I use the IQ280 and still stitch, I stitch a lot.  I find that I get to move forward and backward and get to place the foreground exactly where I want to be in relationship to the background.  It makes for a perfect panorama.  I found that the stitching equipment out there is not really accurate enough and lacks perfect movements, so I after looking at the old Banquet cameras designed my own.  If you look at the old Banquet cameras and imagine using this camera with unlimited lenses and not change the angle of view you want to capture.  This is how to control the scene, so I designed it off that principal.  I get exactly what I want without distortion but I also gained more information in the image with better detail and precision.  We did this with film in the old days by using a scanner (Scitex).

Imagine it, this way the ability to shoot any composition with any lens without compromising the true you image you want to capture. This is why I carry 11 lenses.  Of course its always nice to create your vision in one shot but thats not usually the case.  Stitching allows you to have very little limitations when creating your photography.  This is why I use the Phase system also.  The less technology can rule your vision and productivity the better and more production you can achieve.

If you need proof and your coming to California you can see it at my gallery in Big Bear Lake, I think you will be amazed what you can get.  Or soon at Caesars Palace gallery when that opens.  Tim