Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: PMA round up  (Read 41585 times)

samuel_js

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2008, 02:12:47 am »

Quote
Despite botched attempts by MFDB supporters to demonstrate image quality improvements of a P21 image compared to a 1Ds3 shot of the same scene, it's clear to me that any such improvements are marginal at best. But the price difference is not marginal and the disadvantages regarding weight and convenience of handling are not marginal.
Am I right or am I right? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, as always in this MFDB matter, you are totally wrong!
We are no MFDB supporters, we are USERS. That's the big difference. You're only speculating and has never been able to show any real experience with MF. Actually most of the 35mm defenders like you here has never touched a MFDB. But there's people (like me) that can clearly see the quality improvement with a DB and that has a lot of experience with both systems.
Two more things:
1.- the price of a p21 is now lower than a 1dsMIII.
2.- there's never been botched attempts here, it's only a lot of blind guys around.

From a past botched attempt:
« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 02:14:35 am by samuel_js »
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2008, 02:23:02 am »

Quote
I still don't understand, woof75. Are you saying that the P21 is the best? Doesn't the P45+ deliver better results? If this is so, then shouldn't you be using the P45+ if you can't live with the second best?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,I have a mixed feeling about who you are. Some times I think you 're retired and your goal is to brake the posters record of this forum. But with post like this, I believe you're a 6 years old child who put a chair in front of the computer and and managed to use dad's logging to post in the forum.....
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10299
PMA round up
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2008, 07:28:17 am »

Quote
Ray,I have a mixed feeling about who you are. Some times I think you 're retired and your goal is to brake the posters record of this forum. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have no specific intention of breaking the posters record. I have a large number of posts because I've been here a long time. But you are right. I am retired. I have the freedom to do more or less what I want, within certain financial constraints. I have no barrow to push, no shares in any camera company and no allegiance to any particular brand of equipment.

But I do have an enquiring mind and I'm very suspicious of claims that cannot be (or are not) demonstrated.

I remember well the above botched comparison you've posted. No attempt was made to get the 1Ds3 image right with respect to levels, tonality and sharpening. Also, the same f stops were used with each camera. One really has to wonder if people know what they are doing when they compare different format cameras setting the lenses on the same f stop.

I mean, if you were on a job with the P21 using a 120mm lens at f11 and the camera malfunctioned so you had to start using the 1Ds3 with 85mm lens from the same position, would you continue using f11? If you were to, it's not surprising you would get the impression the P21 is marginally sharper with a slightly greater 3-D effect due to a noticeably shallower DoF.

Quote
But with post like this, I believe you're a 6 years old child who put a chair in front of the computer and and managed to use dad's logging to post in the forum.....

And I believe with a response like this, you've descended to a level of complete irrationality. Woof75 made the point that the reason he prefers a P21 over a 1Ds3 is because he can't live with the second best. I would that every 6 year old child knows the difference between better and best.

Here are the same P21 & 1Ds3 crops after a levels adjustment and a bit of contrast enhancement to the 1Ds3 image. Hmm! I think the 1Ds3 image really does have more 'pop'. The P21 image looks a bit bland by comparison   .

[attachment=5118:attachment]
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
PMA round up
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2008, 08:47:44 am »

Quote
2.- there's never been botched attempts here, it's only a lot of blind guys around.

From a past botched attempt:

Yes, that comparison was botched badly. With just a little bit of tweaking, the differences become minuscule, and mostly due to the fact that I only had a JPEG to work with instead of the original RAWs:

[attachment=5119:attachment]

Of course there are differences between camera systems. But that means that the optimal processing parameters for one camera are not the same as the optimum settings for another camera. As a result, any comparison using exactly the same processing parameters (sharpening settings, etc) is inherently flawed. Yes a MFDB is somewhat sharper straight out of the RAW converter. But when you process both the MFDB and the DSLR RAWs with settings optimized for each camera, the differences between the systems shink quite a bit.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 08:50:58 am by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PMA round up
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2008, 09:04:39 am »

Can I ask you MF doubters a question, why do you think people like me put up with the daily extra hassle of shooting MF if there really isn't a difference that counts for something for us?
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2008, 09:35:42 am »

Quote
Can I ask you MF doubters a question, why do you think people like me put up with the daily extra hassle of shooting MF if there really isn't a difference that counts for something for us?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's great.  I don't think the "just trust us" argument works with Ray.
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2008, 10:18:02 am »

Quote
Yes, that comparison was botched badly. With just a little bit of tweaking, the differences become minuscule, and mostly due to the fact that I only had a JPEG to work with instead of the original RAWs:

[attachment=5119:attachment]

Of course there are differences between camera systems. But that means that the optimal processing parameters for one camera are not the same as the optimum settings for another camera. As a result, any comparison using exactly the same processing parameters (sharpening settings, etc) is inherently flawed. Yes a MFDB is somewhat sharper straight out of the RAW converter. But when you process both the MFDB and the DSLR RAWs with settings optimized for each camera, the differences between the systems shink quite a bit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The only reason I posted here today is because I don't want you guys just to go away posting such a pile of false and unfounded information about what MF is. Just try for yourself first. That's the only thing you need to do before I take seriously any of your comments about this matter. And each time you spread this BS here I'll jump in to defend my medium because I use it and I know what it can deliver.
Done here with you.  
« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 10:19:26 am by samuel_js »
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
PMA round up
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2008, 10:39:45 am »

Quote
posting such a pile of false and unfounded information about what MF is.

Exactly what is false and unfounded about what I posted? I never said MFDB wasn't better than DSLR, just that when both are processed in such a way that they are the best they can be, the difference isn't as dramatic as some of the "comparisons" might lead one to believe. The reworked image I posted proves that. Are there still differences? Yes. Are the differences significant enough that they would be visible in the final print? That's another question entirely.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10299
PMA round up
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2008, 10:44:22 am »

Quote
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The only reason I posted here today is because I don't want you guys just to go away posting such a pile of false and unfounded information about what MF is. Just try for yourself first. That's the only thing you need to do before I take seriously any of your comments about this matter. And each time you spread this BS here I'll jump in to defend my medium because I use it and I know what it can deliver.
Done here with you. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Samual,
So why did you post a botched comparison to combat what you describe as a pile of false and unfounded information?

As I recall, in the thread that comparison first appeared, there were many DB users who agreed it was a seriously flawed comparison. Is this the best you can do?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10299
PMA round up
« Reply #49 on: February 13, 2008, 10:58:43 am »

Quote
Can I ask you MF doubters a question, why do you think people like me put up with the daily extra hassle of shooting MF if there really isn't a difference that counts for something for us?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you already have a pile of good MF lenses, that would be a good reason. When MFDBs not only have bigger sensors than 35mm but more pixels, that's a good reason. If you have clients who are impressed with really expensive gear or who are willing to pay higher prices because they know you are using very expensive gear, then that might be good reason. If the work flow using C1 appeals to you and is bettered designed for DBs than is ACR, that might be another reason. If you are used to using MFs rather than 35mm, that mght also be a contributing factor. To some extent we are all creatures of habit and might have difficulty getting the best results with a different format.

The issue here is about quality differences between 2 formats that differ in size by a degree which is significantly less than the size difference between the Olympus 4/3rds and 35mm.
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2008, 10:59:16 am »

Quote
Samual,
So why did you post a botched comparison to combat what you describe as a pile of false and unfounded information?

As I recall, in the thread that comparison first appeared, there were many DB users who agreed it was a seriously flawed comparison. Is this the best you can do?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think I'm convinced about the fidelity of your vision now...
My name is Samuel not Samual. OK?
Have fun with your theories.  
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10299
PMA round up
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2008, 11:09:06 am »

Quote
I think I'm convinced about the fidelity of your vision now...
My name is Samuel not Samual. OK?
Have fun with your theories. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm also convinced that you have no spirit of enquiry or desire to share knowledge. Most of us are here to learn something.

Are you seriously suggesting that a spelling mistake or the hitting of a wrong key by someone who is not a typist is an indication of faulty vision?
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
PMA round up
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2008, 12:26:02 pm »

Quote
I'm also convinced that you have no spirit of enquiry or desire to share knowledge. Most of us are here to learn something.

Are you seriously suggesting that a spelling mistake or the hitting of a wrong key by someone who is not a typist is an indication of faulty vision?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, you're not sharing knowledge, because you know nothing about MFD but what you read on the internet. That is leading to misunderstanding and a false ideas of what a MFDB can actually do in real life photography.

I'm done, really.
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PMA round up
« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2008, 12:44:41 pm »

Quote
If you already have a pile of good MF lenses, that would be a good reason. When MFDBs not only have bigger sensors than 35mm but more pixels, that's a good reason. If you have clients who are impressed with really expensive gear or who are willing to pay higher prices because they know you are using very expensive gear, then that might be good reason. If the work flow using C1 appeals to you and is bettered designed for DBs than is ACR, that might be another reason. If you are used to using MFs rather than 35mm, that mght also be a contributing factor. To some extent we are all creatures of habit and might have difficulty getting the best results with a different format.

The issue here is about quality differences between 2 formats that differ in size by a degree which is significantly less than the size difference between the Olympus 4/3rds and 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, I didnt have any MF equipment at all before I bought it especially to put a digital back on it, I got a back with the same number of pixels on it almost to my DSLR. I develop in lightroom so have the same workflow, I'm as used to 35mm as I am MF.
 I ask you again, why did I switch?
Logged

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
PMA round up
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2008, 06:26:42 pm »

wow....somebody please stop the madness...or at least do a search in this forum about DMF vs DSLR....i have yet to find anyone to not acknowledge a difference between the 2....anyone who has actually used both...sharpening jpegs does not prove anything...
and really....if you don't see the difference or the difference you see isn't worth the price difference or giving up ease of use, AF,.....GREAT! perfect....i have said many times here that i think the 5D might just be the best camera ever made....the quality it produces for the price is unheard of IMO! it would be hard to find an application where a 5D file would not be good enough or could not be tweaked and teased and retouched in post to produce a final product that should realistically be all one could ask for....i believe that..unfortunately i have also worked with and owened way too many DSLRs and DMF backs to know that it can be better and to know what i want from a file....
there is no magic bullet....
or maybe better said: there is a different one for everybody....a capture device for everybody....
the last back i owned was a P30 which i sold not too long ago...delivered perfect files..great...but honestly my work does not require 20x30 prints...ever....
a friend of mine shoots with the 5d and wanted something better....he was looking into the P30 but i told him t save some money and look into the P21....he loves it...he can shoot as fast as he is used to, the file quality is exactly the step up from what he was missing with the 5D and he does not need 20x30 files either....

there is a great review somewhere floating on the web...someone comparing a D3 with a 1dsMkIII....showing the difference in detail between the files..and the D3 files res'd up to the same size....funny....

a hassV with a square 16mpix back at 100 will provide a better file then a 1dsmkIII....but there is no way in hell i would want to shoot a wedding or sports or action or....with it....why would i? and the difference will be close enough that i probably won't drag it into the woods to shoot landscapes either....but it is  nice to have the option.....

btw: everything in this thread has been said before and i really urge everybody to just check it out for themselves..please....and then decide which is better for YOU....
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10299
PMA round up
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2008, 11:42:02 pm »

Quote
Ray, you're not sharing knowledge, because you know nothing about MFD but what you read on the internet. That is leading to misunderstanding and a false ideas of what a MFDB can actually do in real life photography.

I'm done, really.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Samuel,
You might be done, but I feel I should reply for the benefit of others at least. It's not true that I know nothing of MFD apart from what I've read on the interent. I do have Michael's 'Measuring Megabytes" DVD containing RAW images of a variety of formats, including MF film scans, the P45 and very high resolution scanning backs. This was produced when the top 35mm DSLR was the 1Ds2 and included RAW images from the the 5D as well.

I also have an RB67 and a few Mamiya lenses sitting unused on a shelf. This was second hand gear I bought and used for a while before switching to DSLRs. I also have a Nikon 8000ED MF scanner which I used for scanning my 6x7 negatives and my main printer is the wide format Epson 7600. I generally prefer my prints to be fairly large (23"x35") when I hang them on my wall, so I can see them from a distance.

You can deduce from the above that I'm the sort of person who could be persuaded by any jump in image quality that one particualr format might provide. However, the issue here is not one of 35mm versus DB in general, but specifically about the differences between two formats of similar pixel count which differ in size by a relatively small degree.

When you consider the variety of different format cameras now available; the G9 with a sensor about 1/20th the size of 35mm; the 40D with a sensor less than 2/5ths the size of 35mm; the Olympus 4/3rds with a sensor about 1/4 the size of 35mm and the Nikon D2X with a sensor also about 2/5ths the size of 35mm; a DB with a sensor that is just twice the size of 35mm is perhaps not such a big deal.

The precedent already exists for smaller formats to equal the quality of slightly larger formats. When the D2X was released, careful and thorough comparisons revealed that image quality was at least on a par with the larger format 1Ds. There was no need to accept someone's word for it. Seeing is believing.

With such precedents in mind, including claims that the Olympus E-3 compares very favourably with the Canon 5D, one has to be rather suspicious of claims that a P21 produces better quality images than a 1Ds3, especially when no evidence supporting such claims is provided, by anyone. (I'm discounting here the amateurish and unprofessional comparisons, which are the only one's I've come across so far).

If anyone reading this has the time to take on this enormous and gargantuan task of comparing a P21 with a 1Ds3; anyone who has the patience to precisely match FoVs and the skill to use both formats in the way they should be used to achieve a particular artistic intent, which means using lenses that are the best for the format at apertures that provide equivalent DoF; anyone who has a sharp eye and the ability to precisely focus each camera on the same spot in the same scene which is subject to the same lighting conditions; then please do us all a favour and post the RAW images of such a comparison.

We shall then be in a better position to determine if such claims for the P21 are humbug or not.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10299
PMA round up
« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2008, 12:39:26 am »

Quote
Ray, I didnt have any MF equipment at all before I bought it especially to put a digital back on it, I got a back with the same number of pixels on it almost to my DSLR. I develop in lightroom so have the same workflow, I'm as used to 35mm as I am MF.
 I ask you again, why did I switch?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Woof75,
You'll have to be more specific. Precisely which DB and which lenses did you find gave you a better result than which 35mm DSLR and lenses? I don't want to insult you and imply that you might not have done a competent comparison, but the fact is I don't know you. You don't know me either, which is why I always like to back up any claims I make about image quality with examples. Opinions are easy. Factual demonstration is not.

Another issue which is often glossed over or completely ignored is the difference in aspect ratios between the 2 formats. I suspect that this difference would have a greater effect than any other factor in tipping image quality one way or another. If you always find that you crop a 35mm image to a 3:4 format then you are effectively throwing away pixels and that would be one reason to use a camera with a 4:3 aspect ratio. For example, the P21 has an 18mp chip. Crop the 1Ds3's 21mp chip to a 4:3 aspect ratio and the 2 sensors have almost exactly the same pixel count.

However, crop the P21 to a 35mm aspect ratio and you end up comparing a 21mp sensor with a 16mp sensor. In these circumstances, I suspect the 1Ds3 would deliver slightly better results than the P21, something which is politely ignored by those claiming superior results from the P21.
Logged

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
PMA round up
« Reply #57 on: February 14, 2008, 01:23:04 am »

Quote
Woof75,

However, crop the P21 to a 35mm aspect ratio and you end up comparing a 21mp sensor with a 16mp sensor. In these circumstances, I suspect the 1Ds3 would deliver slightly better results than the P21, something which is politely ignored by those claiming superior results from the P21.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174757\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i am actually done with this as well...because it has all been said before and everybody has to make up their own mind and believe their own eyes....
i, personally prefer a P20 (not P21) file to any canon file....is the P20 better in all situations, hell no...but studio at 100 iso....i prefer it.....
and if i would print 25x35 prints i would either shoot with a P45 or probably/preferably with a 8x10....not that anything less would not be able to handle it, but for that size, those are thebest tools....
and i really do not want to see a 5D file res'd up to that size....or at least not within 6ft viewing distance....
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10299
PMA round up
« Reply #58 on: February 14, 2008, 01:51:15 am »

Quote
i am actually done with this as well...because it has all been said before and everybody has to make up their own mind and believe their own eyes....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most of us don't have the opportunity to believe our own eyes because the information is not shared. It's not a matter of it all being said before, although it's true if you repeat something often enough, some people will believe it.

If you can't demonstrate something, it's probably not true, no matter how many times you claim it is true.
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PMA round up
« Reply #59 on: February 14, 2008, 08:48:21 am »

Ray, really, what is in this for me? I'm starting to feel sorry for you, you've never even shot a digital back. I have shot both on a regular basis, I work for and have worked for most of the major magazines between New York and London, I'm represented by a major Chelsea gallery. I keep myself anonymous because a google search on my name would otherwise come up with every technical problem I've ever had, not exactly what you want a client to see.

Really, it takes a good eye to tell the difference, if you can't tell the difference then I have to question how good of an eye you have. If you see the difference and decide that you prefer a DSLR for whatever reason that may be then that is fine, I totally understand. But to not see the difference is quite telling. (Unfortunately the difference is more a question of tonality and feel rather than a simple pixel peeping phenomenon  so you do need a good eye to see it).
I'm done trying to educate you from a position of experience, maybe trying to was foolish of me.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up