Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Large amount of P1 backs for sales  (Read 19425 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11867
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/

I am not really surprised by your findings. But it is not good that you needed to spend something like 30k$US to find out.

That's fine, I pretty much knew it.

The H6D-100c is a splendid camera for what it can do, but it has limitations, like all non mirrorless MF cameras.

This was OK when there was no credible alternative. Now with the GFX/X1D and the quality of the best DSLRs... it is becoming a real problem (in particular for P1 that has no other solution).

Cheers,
Bernard

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6452
    • My gallery on Instagram

Hi,

I would say that CDAF is accurate, with exception to focus shift related issues, but may need lenses built for CDAF.

I am not really surprised by your findings. But it is not good that you needed to spend something like 30k$US to find out.

Best regards
Erik

Video cameras focus when stopped down. Which may help explain why video is often sharp :)

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20043
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #142 on: May 17, 2018, 09:26:34 AM »

I would imagine that if the photographer can still adjust mentally backwards (older guys) to film, then using horses for courses, as with film, will still makes sense with digital format choices.

Keep MF for static shots and use the smaller cameras for action, such as fashion outdoors. If you are in a studio doing full-length shots of models, they will presumably have their toe marker, and so your shots should always be in focus unless you feel obliged to use very wide apertures for some mysterious, aesthetic purpose.

As ever, you get into trouble when you seek a one-for-everything solution because it's convenient, or because you simply can't pony up for more equipment.

Rob

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6452
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #143 on: May 17, 2018, 10:51:15 AM »

I would imagine that if the photographer can still adjust mentally backwards (older guys) to film, then using horses for courses, as with film, will still makes sense with digital format choices.

Keep MF for static shots and use the smaller cameras for action, such as fashion outdoors. If you are in a studio doing full-length shots of models, they will presumably have their toe marker, and so your shots should always be in focus unless you feel obliged to use very wide apertures for some mysterious, aesthetic purpose.

As ever, you get into trouble when you seek a one-for-everything solution because it's convenient, or because you simply can't pony up for more equipment.

Rob

Rob,

 Digital has much less DOF than film for some reason - actually it's an in-camera depth of focus issue rather than subject depth of field but who cares, and also diffraction effects mean that to get 100MP on crop you won't be able to go much past f5.6 which means that focus goes critical, and your lens had better be good. Essentially when you add in the MF format and the digital effect, F5.6 on an MF digital is the equivalent of F2.8 on 35mm film, or maybe F4 on an old school Hassy. Not so pleasant. So I guess you close down to F8, but you don't "really" get anything like F8 on 35mm. The good side is that somehow images look clearer.

Edmund
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 10:56:13 AM by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11172
    • Echophoto
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #144 on: May 17, 2018, 12:01:12 PM »

Hi,

"Digital" sort of eliminated "Film" from the equation.

Best regards
Erik


Rob,

 Digital has much less DOF than film for some reason - actually it's an in-camera depth of focus issue rather than subject depth of field but who cares, and also diffraction effects mean that to get 100MP on crop you won't be able to go much past f5.6 which means that focus goes critical, and your lens had better be good. Essentially when you add in the MF format and the digital effect, F5.6 on an MF digital is the equivalent of F2.8 on 35mm film, or maybe F4 on an old school Hassy. Not so pleasant. So I guess you close down to F8, but you don't "really" get anything like F8 on 35mm. The good side is that somehow images look clearer.

Edmund
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6263
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #145 on: May 17, 2018, 12:41:03 PM »

Digital has much less DOF than film for some reason ...  diffraction effects mean that to get 100MP ...
I think it is the 100MP that has less DOF, not inherently the change from chemical to electronic light detection. Meaning that the greater resolution/detail can lead to viewing larger and cropping more heavily (if just when panning and zooming on screen) and that magnifies the visibility of OOF effects. Along with 100% pixel peeping being so much easier and more common than the film-era equivalents of viewing prints and transparencies under a loupe.

And yes, as the amount of detail and "viewing size” goes up, the f-stop latitude between adequately limiting OOF blur and diffraction blur shrinks.

(Aside: as has been discussed often, this "sharpness latitude" is related to pixel count or resolution in the sense of line pairs per picture height, regardless of format size.)
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6452
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #146 on: May 17, 2018, 02:03:07 PM »

I think it is the 100MP that has less DOF, not inherently the change from chemical to electronic light detection. Meaning that the greater resolution/detail can lead to viewing larger and cropping more heavily (if just when panning and zooming on screen) and that magnifies the visibility of OOF effects. Along with 100% pixel peeping being so much easier and more common than the film-era equivalents of viewing prints and transparencies under a loupe.

And yes, as the amount of detail and "viewing size” goes up, the f-stop latitude between adequately limiting OOF blur and diffraction blur shrinks.

(Aside: as has been discussed often, this "sharpness latitude" is related to pixel count or resolution in the sense of line pairs per picture height, regardless of format size.)

BJL yes, all the above are known. But also the thickness of silver halide film, development effects, and in the case of black and white, possibly condenser enlarging had a sharpening effect. Film was a mature technology, with all that implies in terms of countless small "accidental" optimisations.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20043
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #147 on: May 17, 2018, 02:45:02 PM »

Edmund,

Yes, I understand that looking at your image at 100% or greater reveals shortcomings, but unless you are also printing at that massive size, it's basically academic.

I mentioned recently buying Italian Vogue and being dismayed at the stiffness of the little editorial that there was; it looked as if everything, editorial as well as advertising, had been shot in the same studio on the same monolithic 8x10 wooden camera - the wood of the camera echoed in the woodenness of the photographs. With human subjects the effect is awful, not as in filling one with awe and wonder, but with a certain revulsion and, as dangerous for fashion, of boredom.

Perhaps this isn't really a photographic problem but, rather, one of too many noses pressed against the monitor, looking at gigantic reproduction ratios when all you really want is an image 11.5 inches tall!

Anyway, it used to be perfectly possible to make massive hoarding pictures out of 135 format film... I remember the beauty of the Cacharel posters Moon made with Nikon cameras and even, in far more humble mode, my own 40x60 inch black/white fashion blow-ups that used to travel around the world as selling aids at exhibitions for knitwear company products, or in-store point-of-sale advertising.

It seems it just becomes exceedingly more expensive for working photographers to make the same photographs that they already could.

Rob
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 02:48:46 PM by Rob C »
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 700
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #148 on: May 17, 2018, 02:45:59 PM »

BJL yes, all the above are known. But also the thickness of silver halide film, development effects, and in the case of black and white, possibly condenser enlarging had a sharpening effect. Film was a mature technology, with all that implies in terms of countless small "accidental" optimisations.

Edmund

Yep, condenser, diffuser, cold heads. All made a significant difference. High acutance developers like Rodinal vs fine grain developers such as Promicrol also made quite a big difference. However the biggest difference is we looked at the image with a loupe or evaluated the neg in an anlarger. Acceptable sharpness was determined in a much less precise way. And if nothing was truly sharp we at least had the grain to give the appearance of something sharp.

Pixel peeping sharpness is much more critical than what appears sharp in a print and is much less important. I print so that’s what I care about  To me f8 depth of field on a 50mm lens looks pretty much as it always did.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20043
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #149 on: May 17, 2018, 03:07:03 PM »

Yep, condenser, diffuser, cold heads. All made a significant difference. High acutance developers like Rodinal vs fine grain developers such as Promicrol also made quite a big difference. However the biggest difference is we looked at the image with a loupe or evaluated the neg in an anlarger. Acceptable sharpness was determined in a much less precise way. And if nothing was truly sharp we at least had the grain to give the appearance of something sharp.

Pixel peeping sharpness is much more critical than what appears sharp in a print and is much less important. I print so that’s what I care about  To me f8 depth of field on a 50mm lens looks pretty much as it always did.



Yes, having cast aside my Internet conditioning on that refraction stuff, I tried my own 35mm or 50mm out at f11 and guess what: it gave me the DOF I wanted and looked quite normal to me. It really is the worry caused by computer viewing that makes people fearful of exploiting their optics as they might.

Looking on the bright side (as I like to pretend to myself that I always do), most of my virgin Tiff material looks a bit off if I go up to 100%, but as I make much smaller pictures in reality, the little sharpening that I try is sometimes dumped again because it just isn't doing anything other than lending the odd bright edge that I don't particularly want. Truth to tell, over-sharpened shots look worse than soft ones to me. That said, it can also be used along with "noise" to give a harsh effect that can be useful for some pix where you just want to create really heavy drama.

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20043
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #150 on: May 17, 2018, 03:09:55 PM »

Hi,

"Digital" sort of eliminated "Film" from the equation.

Best regards
Erik


Well yes, but that's hardly the point of why it was brought into the discussion.

Rob

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6263
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #151 on: May 17, 2018, 03:21:37 PM »

But also the thickness of silver halide film, development effects, and in the case of black and white, possibly condenser enlarging had a sharpening effect.
These all sound like factors that reduce the real-world MTF/sharpness/resolution of the exposed film and prints a bit below what spec sheets and MTF graphs say — and which thus somewhat increase the "perceived DOF", as judged roughly when looking as closely as the image's MTF/sharpness/resolution makes worthwhile.
Logged

DougDolde

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 188
    • Images of the American West
Re: Large amount of P1 backs for sales
« Reply #152 on: May 17, 2018, 06:33:43 PM »

Well...Phase One new iXM

I guess making the 1st 100MP BSI sensor camera has kept us busy  ;)

BR

Yair

That looks like an incredible aerial solution and in the end probably much cheaper than hiring a helicopter.   I'd hate to crash one, that would be a very expensive error
Logged

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322

I am not really surprised by your findings. But it is not good that you needed to spend something like 30k$US to find out.

Do you really think he bought a 30k medium format camera just to find out if it's as good as 35mm camera for doing 35mm camera sort of things?
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11867
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/

Do you really think he bought a 30k medium format camera just to find out if it's as good as 35mm camera for doing 35mm camera sort of things?


H6D-100c - hand held

The H6D-100c can in fact almost be used like a DSLR,... if you forget AF. ;)

I just hope that the H7D-150c will be a mirrorless solution with accurate AF accross the field and Auto-ISO (like the X1D).

Cheers,
Bernard

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322


H6D-100c - hand held

The H6D-100c can in fact almost be used like a DSLR,... if you forget AF. ;)

I just hope that the H7D-150c will be a mirrorless solution with accurate AF accross the field and Auto-ISO (like the X1D).

Cheers,
Bernard

Beautiful picture, Bernard.

There is no doubt in my mind that an H or an XF can be used handheld and as a walk around camera - I use one in the same way.

But no one is under the illusion that it can track a subject in fast motion, are they?

"It's not good you had to spend 30k to find out" is a very strange thing for Erik to say.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 06:04:48 AM by Bo_Dez »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11172
    • Echophoto

Hi,

Bernard found that AF is not accurate enough to achieve critical focus. That kind of issue is never mentioned on forums or in tests.

Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) has tested the Hassy some years ago and did not complain about focusing. That is more like an exception as he found AF-issues with most DSLR-type systems he tested.

Best regards
Erik


Do you really think he bought a 30k medium format camera just to find out if it's as good as 35mm camera for doing 35mm camera sort of things?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 08:19:10 AM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322

Hi,

Bernard found that AF is not accurate enough to achieve critical focus. That kind of issue is never mentioned on forums or in tests.

Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) has tested the Hassy some years ago and did not complain about focusing. That is more like an exception.

Best regards
Erik

No he didn't say that.

"...It is very rare to get more actual resolution with a 100mp back compared to a D850/a7RIII on anything that it not perfectly static..."
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11172
    • Echophoto

Hi Barnard,

I would assume that you can use magnified live view for accurate focus?

Best regards
Erik

That's fine, I pretty much knew it.

The H6D-100c is a splendid camera for what it can do, but it has limitations, like all non mirrorless MF cameras.

This was OK when there was no credible alternative. Now with the GFX/X1D and the quality of the best DSLRs... it is becoming a real problem (in particular for P1 that has no other solution).

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11172
    • Echophoto

Hi,

Bernard knows what he meant. My interpretation was that the AF-system was not accurate enough, could be wrong. I would assume that Bernard uses magnified live view for accurate focusing.

The X1D and the GFX use contrast detection on the sensor itself. That is accurate, unless focus shift is an issue.

Best regards
Erik


No he didn't say that.

"...It is very rare to get more actual resolution with a 100mp back compared to a D850/a7RIII on anything that it not perfectly static..."
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   Go Up