Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18   Go Down

Author Topic: Valid MF criticism or not?  (Read 106552 times)

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #40 on: August 31, 2007, 05:47:00 pm »

Thanks, Andre, that's about what I thought - probably not wide enough for interiors.
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

yaya

  • Guest
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #41 on: August 31, 2007, 06:16:07 pm »

To answer the original question, here's an exercise:

Go to the DSLR manufacturers' websites, download some of the product shots of their flagship cameras and check the EXIF data....

Many of these are shot with digital backs, which is kind of like saying "we produce a great camera but we don't think it's good enough to produce its own marketing material..."

I don't think the mentioned file is truly bad, but to download a (badly compressed) jpeg that comes up tilted 90, can only add to my "first know them, then talk about them" belief.

Yair
Logged

sundstei

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #42 on: August 31, 2007, 06:26:05 pm »

Quote
Go to the DSLR manufacturers' websites, download some of the product shots of their flagship cameras and check the EXIF data....

Many of these are shot with digital backs, which is kind of like saying "we produce a great camera but we don't think it's good enough to produce its own marketing material..."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thats just a silly statement  

Canon or whoever else of DSLR manufacturers hire photographers to take the photos. What equipment the photographer happen to have in his studio is irrelevant.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6638
    • My gallery on Instagram
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #43 on: August 31, 2007, 06:36:52 pm »

Quote
Thats just a silly statement   

Canon or whoever else of DSLR manufacturers hire photographers to take the photos. What equipment the photographer happen to have in his studio is irrelevant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And what about the example shots in those selfsame brochures ? Are they just taken off some royalty-free site ?

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

sundstei

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #44 on: August 31, 2007, 06:41:53 pm »

Quote
And what about the example shots in those selfsame brochures ? Are they just taken off some royalty-free site ?

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What are you talking about? Yair specifically statet that several of the PRODUCT photos where shot with DBacks (probably because they were taken in a product photography studio equipped with a viewcamera).

I dont believe neither him nor me suggested the example photos were shot with something other then the manufacturers own cameras.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 06:42:51 pm by sundstei »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10143
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #45 on: August 31, 2007, 09:18:27 pm »

The frustrating thing about threads like this is we just don't get any direct comparisons demonstrating the superior qualities of MFDBs, where each shot in the comparison has been expertly processed without bias and in accordance with the best methodology and practice for the respective formats.

It would be very strange if a large-photosite, 39mp image were not superior in some way to a small-photosite, 16mp or even 22mp image.

But it would be interesting to see just how significant the differences are, at base ISO. At high ISO I guess there would be no contest. The Canon would blow the MFDB out of the water   .
Logged

SecondFocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • SecondFocus
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #46 on: August 31, 2007, 09:20:23 pm »

Quote
Hi,
Try to shoot a graybackground with a spot, in other words a gradiant.

I bet everyone will see the difference in 12-14-16 bits.

I have switched from the 5D to the Mamiya ZD back and now the leaf and the gradiants are stunning with the Leaf (16 bits) were ALL other solutions did not did very well

Also in skintones the 16 bits is clearly seen, the skin is much smoother and more detailed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By the way Frank, the report on your blog about the 5D, ZD and Leaf is excellent and very helpful. I have pointed a number of people to it who have consistently not grasped the difference between MFD and the 35mm mega megapixel race.
Logged
Ian L. Sitren
[url=http://SecondFocus.co

Mark_Tucker

  • Guest
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #47 on: August 31, 2007, 10:28:48 pm »

Quote
I don't think the mentioned file is truly bad, but to download a (badly compressed) jpeg that comes up tilted 90, can only add to my "first know them, then talk about them" belief.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Totally agree, Yair.

When you read that Canon White Paper that was just released, related to the 1ds3, and you really look at the specs on a camera like that, and you truly appreciate what an incredibly advanced machine that all of these cameras are, (including the digital backs), you realize that it's all one step short of pure magic, that human beings designed these things, and can manufacture them in bulk, to such amazingly tight tolerances.

When you really look at that 1ds3 White Paper, you could almost imagine it having a NASA logo on it, and selling for a hundred grand apiece. Truly, an outstanding accomplishment, shooting five frames a second, and having all that stuff operating a fractions of a second, all in sync. (And then, you see people shooting pictures of their cat with them, and then having the nerve to complain about 12 bits versus 16 bits).

And then, you see that lame sample that Canon's marketing department issued, related to a camera that's now touting 22MP, and then the sample is shot at 1.8, where almost nothing is in focus, and you can only surmise that there are about a thousand brilliant minds designing the camera, and one stoner mind that's marketing the camera. Who in their right mind would issue a sample shot at f1.8? And why not a pure RAW file, that most anyone could download and test in DPP? Why a JPG?

Either there's one guy in the marketing department, totally clueless, or else Canon's still working on the camera, and finessing the firmware to get it right, and they don't want to issue anything shot at f11 or so.

Whatever the case, it's truly strange behavior on their part.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 10:37:11 pm by Mark_Tucker »
Logged

Mark_Tucker

  • Guest
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #48 on: August 31, 2007, 10:30:48 pm »

deleted.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 10:35:07 pm by Mark_Tucker »
Logged

sundstei

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #49 on: September 01, 2007, 02:27:34 am »

Quote
It would be very strange if a large-photosite, 39mp image were not superior in some way to a small-photosite, 16mp or even 22mp image.

But it would be interesting to see just how significant the differences are, at base ISO. At high ISO I guess there would be no contest. The Canon would blow the MFDB out of the water   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In theory, shouldnt the "large-photosite 39mp image" also be better in high ISO? This is a statement that is always used in the 5D vs APS-C format cameras. Hence the assumption that the larger sensor and photosites automatically deliver superior image quality seem to be somewhat flawed.

Of course we all know the reality to be that at higher ISO the digibacks look like crap
Logged

nicolaasdb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
    • http://
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #50 on: September 01, 2007, 02:32:30 am »

I am using a leaf 65 and a ds1MkII.....tested the phase 45 and 30 backs and the Leaf 75....I shot the exact same girl in exactly the same light with a leaf and a ds1mkII...the next day did the same with another girl and the 45 back.....did slight color corrections and printed large 13x17 prints on a epson R2400......hung them on my wall and tried to find the differences...and let me tell you...they are so close that I doubted if it was worth it spending 20+ K plus camera equipment/lenses on a MF digital back!

I did anyways...need to do the "smoke and mirrors BS" to make the clients understand why they are paying so much money!....but honestly (and I am speaking as a commercial fashion/beauty/body photographer) I still don't feel that the difference is that great that is it worth it paying thru the nose!! for a mf system especially now that the ds1mkIII is on it's way!

and don't start about billboard size images (had them in times square and on sunset) with my ds1mkII and they looked great!!

complaining about colors, and sharpness...and noise??!? come on!! everything is manipulated in lightroom and photoshop anyways! But what do I know.

I like to shoot with my 65...but LOVE to shoot with my ds1mkII....light, fast focusing, even faster shooting (never mis a moment)...BETTER focussing!! and an image can be great, but when it is out of focus and ment to be sharp...you can't use it..not even when it is 24bit or higher!
« Last Edit: September 01, 2007, 02:37:29 am by nicolaasdb »
Logged

MarkKay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 587
    • http://markkayphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1305161
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #51 on: September 01, 2007, 02:43:16 am »

I could not agree more.  I did not say anything when i saw that example image but equally perplexed and confused.   I would prefer a raw image as well but perhaps the current version of DPP does not support the new RAW images or maybe the Canon folks do not trust anyone else to do the  appropriate conversion--- but then after what they left us for the one example--- geez
Quote
And then, you see that lame sample that Canon's marketing department issued, related to a camera that's now touting 22MP, and then the sample is shot at 1.8, where almost nothing is in focus, and you can only surmise that there are about a thousand brilliant minds designing the camera, and one stoner mind that's marketing the camera. Who in their right mind would issue a sample shot at f1.8? And why not a pure RAW file, that most anyone could download and test in DPP? Why a JPG?

Either there's one guy in the marketing department, totally clueless, or else Canon's still working on the camera, and finessing the firmware to get it right, and they don't want to issue anything shot at f11 or so.

Whatever the case, it's truly strange behavior on their part.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #52 on: September 01, 2007, 03:00:57 am »

@Nicolaas,
Try a shot with a model standing outside, you will see a HUGE difference.
First in DOF, the DOF of the MF is stunning, shooting on F8 and a normal portrait lens (150-200mm) will give you great DOF and issolate your model like a DSLR will do on much larger apertures.
Also watch for dynamic range which is much greater.
AND the 3D look of the picture.

I have shot several sessions with the ZD back and now with the Leaf Aptus22 and even with the normal shots I take during the workshops to show the students the depth and roundness of the models is MUCH more apparent than on the 5D.

If the customer sees the DIFFERENCE is something else, I know that since I started shooting MF my customers do complement me on the 3D look of the images which is weird because before they never did


@secondfocus.
Thanks so much, I got alot of heat on those reviews (especially from DSLR people) but also alot of positive remarks, thanks again.
Logged

paul_jones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
    • http://www.paulrossjones.com
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #53 on: September 01, 2007, 03:13:43 am »

Quote
I am using a leaf 65 and a ds1MkII.....tested the phase 45 and 30 backs and the Leaf 75....I shot the exact same girl in exactly the same light with a leaf and a ds1mkII...the next day did the same with another girl and the 45 back.....did slight color corrections and printed large 13x17 prints on a epson R2400......hung them on my wall and tried to find the differences...and let me tell you...they are so close that I doubted if it was worth it spending 20+ K plus camera equipment/lenses on a MF digital back!

I did anyways...need to do the "smoke and mirrors BS" to make the clients understand why they are paying so much money!....but honestly (and I am speaking as a commercial fashion/beauty/body photographer) I still don't feel that the difference is that great that is it worth it paying thru the nose!! for a mf system especially now that the ds1mkIII is on it's way!

and don't start about billboard size images (had them in times square and on sunset) with my ds1mkII and they looked great!!

complaining about colors, and sharpness...and noise??!? come on!! everything is manipulated in lightroom and photoshop anyways! But what do I know.

I like to shoot with my 65...but LOVE to shoot with my ds1mkII....light, fast focusing, even faster shooting (never mis a moment)...BETTER focussing!! and an image can be great, but when it is out of focus and ment to be sharp...you can't use it..not even when it is 24bit or higher!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i agree. i was shooting with my canon and h1/p25 side by side on quite a few jobs, but when the pressure got up, or the light fades i tend to reach for the canon. the p25 was sharper by a nose out of the camera, but the canon files sharpen up nicely in shop.
the times when the p25 out did the canon by a conciderable margin is when you are shooting high contrast situations, like back lit stuff- there is quite a lot more information in the highlights that the 1dsmk2.
but canon seems to have been listening to its users, 14 bit files will be a world of improvement over the 12, but i doubt there will be the same level of difference between 14 and 16bit.
the highlight recovery (i hope) will improve things as well.

i also find the look of the canon lenses (the fast ones - ie 1.2 85, 50) a lot nicer than even the 100 2.2 on the hassy.

right now, im not sure what im going to invest in next in medium format. but a couple of days ago i quite happly bought three new canon lenses- with none of the apprehension of buying the h1 lenses.

paul
Logged
check my new website
[url=http://www.pau

sundstei

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #54 on: September 01, 2007, 03:17:07 am »

Quote
I could not agree more.  I did not say anything when i saw that example image but equally perplexed and confused.   I would prefer a raw image as well but perhaps the current version of DPP does not support the new RAW images or maybe the Canon folks do not trust anyone else to do the  appropriate conversion--- but then after what they left us for the one example--- geez
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, the reason is pretty simple: right now there is no software that can convert the 1DsIII files. Later when software is available, they should provide RAW files for download.
Logged

phila

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 324
    • www.philaphoto.com
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #55 on: September 01, 2007, 05:15:41 am »

Quote
  ...or else Canon's still working on the camera, and finessing the firmware to get it right, ...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This appears to be the case Mark. I posted this on the DSLR forum a couple of days ago rather than here, but as it is relevant:

Some user info via [a href=\"http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_1DS_MkIII.html]http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_1DS_MkIII.html[/url]

"The firmware is still being tweaked, and testers get regular visits from a Canon rep to install new firmware and take detailed reports on problems/issues/performance. Some of the comments I've received (in no particular order)

Liveview focussing works a treat - people doing product work are loving it
Good lenses are showing their benefits, but others are not as bad as some had expected
The highlight tone priority is ideal for anyone working outside on sunny days :-)
People are using DPP to process the RAW files for the time being, although many are converting to DNG for further work.
Some of the amount of extra dynamic range that can be pulled out of the 14 bit files still needs some software tricks, but expect some pretty interesting results when the various specialist raw processing software vendors get to work.
Overall colour accuracy is a definite improvement over the 1Ds2, particularly noticeable in reds/skintones
The amount of fine detail visible suggests that a relatively weak (compared to 1Ds2) AA filter is in use. The improvement looks more than would be expected from the 16->21 MP increase.
The improved viewfinder really shows if you have to go back to using a 1Ds2
At A3 sizes(and above) prints and large glossy magazine images look noticeably better than the MK2
High ISO noise performance is much better (than the Mk2) with less chroma noise and better detail.
At 100 ISO there has been the suggestion of a bit more shadow noise - not visible in real work, and perhaps more suited to 'Angels on a head of a pin' arguments on DPR ;-)
Unless you are working in a very well lit studio environment the P25 MF back is easily matched, and a P45 can be bested if the lighting is not optimal."

yaya

  • Guest
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #56 on: September 01, 2007, 05:16:15 am »

Quote
Thats just a silly statement   

Canon or whoever else of DSLR manufacturers hire photographers to take the photos. What equipment the photographer happen to have in his studio is irrelevant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As silly as it may sound, we also hire photographers to take the product shots for us and we always make sure they use Leaf backs for these shots.

This is quite a basic practice in our industry and is called trusting your product.

Yair
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #57 on: September 01, 2007, 07:41:22 am »

I couldn't agree more, Yair.

Kind regards,
Thierry

Quote
As silly as it may sound, we also hire photographers to take the product shots for us and we always make sure they use Leaf backs for these shots.

This is quite a basic practice in our industry and is called trusting your product.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
[email protected]

sundstei

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #58 on: September 01, 2007, 09:52:38 am »

Quote
As silly as it may sound, we also hire photographers to take the product shots for us and we always make sure they use Leaf backs for these shots.

This is quite a basic practice in our industry and is called trusting your product.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Canon (or other manufacturers) do not have a camera for shooting small product photography. You should know this...

It would be silly for Canon/Nikon to limit the photograhers to use some kind of special setup for making photos of their products.




By they way.. talking about image problems on the Canon and its "terrible" example file. I generally have a lot less problems with my canon files then my Aptus files. I still cant get the two halves of the image on my Aptus 75 to have the same exposure on normal fashion photos. According Cedric [email protected] this is "correct", "can only be corrected in LC" and "This is worse when it comes to the Kodak sensor". Nice solutions.

You might trust in your own products (you get paid to do so) but i dont (..and i have to pay for it).


SveinErik
« Last Edit: September 01, 2007, 09:53:59 am by sundstei »
Logged

Mark_Tucker

  • Guest
Valid MF criticism or not?
« Reply #59 on: September 01, 2007, 09:52:48 am »

Quote
As silly as it may sound, we also hire photographers to take the product shots for us and we always make sure they use Leaf backs for these shots.

This is quite a basic practice in our industry and is called trusting your product.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yair,

Before you start getting too righteous about "trusting your product" and being fully truthful and forthcoming, lest I remind you that you yourself approve those ads in PDN that shows the Leaf LCD fully stripped-in and faked, even when you have the clear option to show the product as it truly is.

So before you go grabbing your crotch about your advertising practices, let's factor that one in there. But obviously, we've covered this territory before.

You see that CyndiLauper-ish woman on the LCD in the PDN ad, and then the potential customer picks up the actual camera and sees the quality of the REAL LCD, and boy, what a surprise that must be.

But I've beaten this dead horse with you long enough. But you walked right into that one...

Hope you're doing well.

MT
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18   Go Up