Hi,
One point may be that Phase One has a new 16-bits file format for the IQ3-100MP. The old formats were actually 14-bit, blown up to 16 bit in conversion. I would call that a marketing truth, what would normally be a lye. My understanding is that Hasselblad file format was actually 16 bit, but only carrying 14-bits of data.
Also, Steve Hendrix of Capture Integration has confirmed that the old backs were 14-bits.
So, sixteen bitness of MFD was true marketing BS, until the arrival of the 100 MP backs.
But, very clearly, many MFD users find the MFD files superior compared to say Sony A7rII, how come? Why compare with Sony A7rII? Because it has similar MP and has very good DR. Nikon D810 has fewer MP and Canon 5DsR lacks the DR.
Some possible explanations:
- Different processing engines used. I don't know about Phocus, but Capture One applies both extreme sharpening and extreme noise suppression by default.
- It is feasible to assume that DSLRs are balanced to to be used in mixed/low light conditions. Artificial light is often rather low Kelvin and contains little blue. So a camera built for artificial light may be made sensitive to blue with reduced sensitivity in red. Shoot blue sky with a polariser and you may end up with very little signal in the red channel. I don't think MFD-s are balanced for shooting in candle light, but DSLRs are expected to do it and do it well.
- The larger sensor on he MFDs captures more light, which is beneficial for mid tone signal to noise ratio.
- On the other hand, MFDs and raw processors may tend to underexpose in order to protect highlights. Capture One's default gradation curve brightens the image about one stop. So, if you open the same image in say Lightroom and C1, Lightroom may be just great with no exposure compensation while C1 may need -1 EV or so. This is the case on C1/P45+, that is the only MFDB I own.
So, I feel there are a lot of variables.
Medium format devices can probably offer great image quality. But, the cause of that is probably not 16-bit files, rather:
- An advantage in sensor size that is beneficial with regard to noise and also MTF.
- Lenses may be better in many cases. Less sharpening may mean less noise.
- In the Capture One case we have a combination of extreme sharpening and extreme noise reduction, but C1 is good at suppressing both halo artefacts and aliasing artefacts.
So, there are a lot of variables involved.
Going full frame 645, MFD probably has a significant advantage at a significant cost. With 33x44 mm, I don't know. The new systems X1D and GFX deliver great image quality at a very decent price point. But, a very good workflow is needed to take care of it. A camera like the A7rII offers accurate and relatively efficient AF, sensor based shake reduction and the option to use any lens ever made on this planet.
No doubt, an IQ 3-100MP on a technical camera with a proper sample of a Rodenstock HR lens on a steady tripod will beat an A7rII. But, if you shoot hand held, image stabilisation may be more important than 100 MP combined with 15 EV of DR.
Horses for the courses…
Just to say, my experience with MFD is limited to the P45+ on a Hasselblad V system and checking out a lot of raw files from sites like DPReview, Imaging Resource, Digital Transitions and some files I got from Tim Ashley, Voidshatter and others.
Best regards
Erik
I meant that the GFX with their 14bit file gives me the same quality my IQ350 ("16bit" files) gave me. My IQ180 gives me more and my IQ180 gives me less.
Even though that my d800/810 had more dynamic range, I preferred the tones and colours of my "old" Iq180.
I hope that explains it a lot.
Besides that there are far more knowledgeable people around here who can explain that up until the 100Mp backs there was no native 16bit sensor.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk