Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Aptus 22 vs 5DII  (Read 107880 times)

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #120 on: December 09, 2008, 03:31:24 pm »

Quote from: Snook
Surprise me in what respect?
Regarding bit depth, of course (the topic at the moment).
Logged
Gabor

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #121 on: December 09, 2008, 03:37:24 pm »

Quote from: dougpetersonci
making a dSLR with mid-tier electronics 16-bit won't necessarily improve the final quality towards the quality of a Digital back.

Panopeeper would be the expert on this so I'll let him explain further
This does not need any further explanation. Only one consideration: if someone thinks an 1Dsxx costs so much more than an xxD only because of the ruggedness and larger sensor, then one should read the respective white paper (I don't know any more where to find it) explaining the extra effort on the sensor chip.
Logged
Gabor

lisa_r

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #122 on: December 09, 2008, 06:29:26 pm »

Quote from: Panopeeper
I compiled a bunch of data, see in Excel form

Thanks for the info, however this chart is hard for me to make any sense of.
Maybe you would explain how to use it, or summarize the data therein.

Also, I don't see any MF backs on there. Am I missing something?
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #123 on: December 09, 2008, 07:23:28 pm »

Quote from: lisa_r
this chart is hard for me to make any sense of.
Maybe you would explain how to use it, or summarize the data therein
I decided to do that only in case someone asks for it. Well, you did. (Later I will expand the chart with explanation).

The noise depends on two factors:

1. the amount of captured and converted light, which becomes apparent for us in form of raw pixel values,
2. ISO gain,

The exposure duration too is a factor, but only with longer exposures (whatever "longer" means, it is not under one second; the sample images are always in fractional seconds).

Note: the noise does not depend on the color.

Noise is measured on smooth, unicolored, evenly lit spots as the standard deviation, which is an absolute value. That value can not be directly compared between cameras for several reasons; the simplest to think of is the bit depth. Thus the numerical range can vary widely, like {0-4096} or {0-16363}, or {128-3600} etc.

So, the raw (non-demosaiced) pixel values get linearly mapped on the uniform range of {0-255}; this step takes care of black levels and different saturation points; it can be seen as "normalization". The noise is then expressed as percentage of the standard deviation in the normalized intensity of the average pixel values of the selected "color channel" in the selected area. This is the NR column.

The amount of captured light is expressed in the "relative darkness" of the selected spot. This is very important, for the same degree of noise is much worse on a well-lit area than in the very shadows. The relative darkness too needs to be normalized (again, the average pixel values can not be compared directly between cameras, in many cases not even between ISOs of the same camera). The measure of the intensity is "dynamic range position", i.e. how many stops it is from "white" (from pixel saturation). This is the DR column.

The dynamic range of a certain camera at a certain ISO can be found by locating the noise level, which is deemed acceptable. Later I plan to create a "chart of noises" to illustrate, which noise level has what appearance (this is not equal to what one sees in Phoptoshop under the statistics on the Histogram panel). Here is an example for 19.9% noise; it happens to occur in an image from the 5D2 @ ISO 3200, in the 5.91st stop (in the green channel, but that plays no role):

5D2 noise sample

A camera is more noisy than another one (or the same one at another ISO) if the noise level is higher with comparable intensities, or the intensity is higher at comparable noise levels (the better camera reaches a certain noise level is on darker spots, right?).

The difference between two cameras or two ISOs can be quantified by looking for the same noise level.

Example: the Canon 40D shows noise level 15% at the 8th stop @ ISO 100 (the best ISO of that camera). The Nikon D3's best ISO is 200 (?); the 15% noise occurs at the 8.7th-8.9th stop, i.e. it beats the 40D by at least 3/4 stop.

Comparison between different ISO values of the same camera reveals the loss of DR incurred by the increased ISO gain. If the loss reaches one stop, then there is no point to use that ISO (except for JPEG shooters).

There are many contradicting value pairs in the chart, due to the less than ideal sample shots. For example Imaging Resources use color checker card and other charts, which look like a puppy had been playing with them and then the peed on them. (One does not see this in normal view.) The Nikon D3 values are the most reliable (measured on a Stouffer transparenvy wedge).
 
Quote
I don't see any MF backs on there. Am I missing something?
Yes, and so do I, namely raw images suitable for measurement.
Logged
Gabor

benP

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #124 on: December 12, 2008, 06:16:01 pm »

Quote from: John Schweikert
Rules: no bitching, if I didn't do something the way you want it, tough. Now on Mediafire for download. I have no desire to debate back and forth about the results. I'm sure the same results can be said for a 1DsIII and the top Sony/Nikon sensor DSLRs.

The zip file has a Leaf Aptus 22 .mos and a Canon 5DII .dng.

I ran both through Lightroom to equalize very basic settings. I made no extra sharpening other the what I use as a starting point.

I matched the size of items in the frames as best as possible to best represent what each can do. Single strobe for both shots. The image is just stuff from around the studio for color, detail and such.

Leaf Aptus 22 on Mamiya AFD/80mm 2.8 AF lens, mirror up, dark room (per MT's usual request) F16 at 1/90 (1/125 has a bit of shutter shadow). ISO 100

Canon 5DII with 50mm 1.8 AF lens, mirror up, dark room, F11 at 1/160. The 50mm is a decent lens and is no better or worse the Mamiya 80mm. ISO 100

The one stop aperture difference should appease Ray and others who insist that 35mm should be one stop open from MFDB to attempt to match depth of field. Both images show different amounts of moire and oddly almost the identical moire pattern in the fabrics, just one more pronounced.

Why did I do this. Who the hell knows. I was curious to know how these two cameras I own stack up and now I know.

I'll let others judge for themselves, but suffice to say, 35mm DSLRs have matured to equal the 18-22MP digital backs for print. Will I sell my A22? Not anytime soon. Have work coming up where I will use it and the images should benefit from the Leaf.

zip file of A22 and 5DII raws

Added: I forgot to mention, I have run a Macbeth chart for both cameras through the DNG Profile Editor to use in Lightroom for color calibration profiles. Most colors are surprisingly close which helps to equalize things.

I just realized the calibration profiles won't be of any use to anyone else, since those don't get imbedded. Well, I'll post jpegs at some point to show that color is quite close.

If anyone wants the calibration profiles I use for Lightroom/ACR, email me.



bring them into CS3 plus 3 stops

then look at grain structure, noise etc..

quite a difference


why F16 and F11 btw ? Is this some sort of new trend I should know about ?
I am not sure i've ever shot anything at F16 before in my entire life
Logged

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #125 on: December 12, 2008, 09:00:03 pm »

I've never shot anything at f/11 in my entire 35mm digital life.
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #126 on: December 12, 2008, 09:27:47 pm »

Quote from: Panopeeper
I decided to do that only in case someone asks for it. Well, you did. (Later I will expand the chart with explanation).

Just a simple question:
Do you actually work with or own a digital back?
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #127 on: December 12, 2008, 09:59:24 pm »

Quote from: T-1000
I've never shot anything at f/11 in my entire 35mm digital life.
Are you always satisfied with the DoF of wider apertures? What about landscapes from your feet to infinity?
Logged
Gabor

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #128 on: December 12, 2008, 10:00:33 pm »

Quote from: samuel_js
Just a simple question:
Do you actually work with or own a digital back?
No.
Logged
Gabor

jimgolden

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #129 on: December 12, 2008, 11:15:23 pm »

WOW - does anyone take photos anymore or just bicker about camera crap?!?
Logged

epatsellis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #130 on: December 13, 2008, 01:14:33 am »

Quote from: Panopeeper
Are you always satisfied with the DoF of wider apertures? What about landscapes from your feet to infinity?
With a scan back and a view camera, this has never been an issue for me, f11 works just fine (16-22 would be better, but sometimes you just need the light..)
« Last Edit: December 13, 2008, 01:15:07 am by epatsellis »
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #131 on: December 13, 2008, 02:19:30 pm »

Got the 5DMKII myself today and did a crop comparison although still in my opinion it's not possible to compare the two systems I did find most of the comparison shots from the digital backs to be very very soft and not what I see myself when I shoot.

So here a 100% crop, both STRAIGHT out of the cam, no sharpening applied:


More on my blog at www.doorhof.nl/blog under reviews.

And again, I still don't think you should compare a DSLR to a MF this way but I wanted to post something that at least was as sharp as I normally see my files.
Please keep it civil, that way it keeps interesting to post.
Logged

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #132 on: December 13, 2008, 03:02:10 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
Got the 5DMKII myself today and did a crop comparison although still in my opinion it's not possible to compare the two systems I did find most of the comparison shots from the digital backs to be very very soft and not what I see myself when I shoot.



More on my blog at www.doorhof.nl/blog under reviews.

And again, I still don't think you should compare a DSLR to a MF this way but I wanted to post something that at least was as sharp as I normally see my files.
Please keep it civil, that way it keeps interesting to post.
Thank you for posting it. I find it very informative and I actually think it is a proper test.
After all, you took the same picture, with two different cameras and that to me seems a valid real life comparison.
Now my question is, can the Canon file take more sharpening than the Leaf one, in order to match the same amount of acuity?
Honestly, I have no idea.
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #133 on: December 13, 2008, 03:12:57 pm »

Well, obviously there is no substitute for a large sensor (perhaps a larger one?). I have some doubt that the Aptus image would be better by sharpening. I could not wish anything sharper for myself and I prefer this unsharpened sharpness.
Logged
Gabor

ihv

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
    • http://www.flickr.com/ihv
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #134 on: December 13, 2008, 03:35:19 pm »

Definitely MF looks much better. It might be not so apparent in a small print but the MF has the edge.

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
Got the 5DMKII myself today and did a crop comparison although still in my opinion it's not possible to compare the two systems I did find most of the comparison shots from the digital backs to be very very soft and not what I see myself when I shoot.

So here a 100% crop, both STRAIGHT out of the cam, no sharpening applied:

More on my blog at www.doorhof.nl/blog under reviews.

And again, I still don't think you should compare a DSLR to a MF this way but I wanted to post something that at least was as sharp as I normally see my files.
Please keep it civil, that way it keeps interesting to post.
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #135 on: December 13, 2008, 03:38:11 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
So here a 100% crop, both STRAIGHT out of the cam, no sharpening applied:


If you keep doing this stuff your going to go blind Frank.

Now, not that it matters but right now there is an 8 page spread in Harpers Bazzar for one of the 4 highest end fashion retailers that I know is shot with a Canon and it probably has $80,000 in model fees alone.

(Personally I think this Harpers spread is over retouched, but that's to taste, not so much to camera or equipment)

Anyway, your comparison really doesn't give much unless you run these files through different processors, try c1 4.5.2 on the Canon files and you'll see a lot of differrence in sharpening.

Actually, I'm always amazed that everyone shows mfdb files to be sharper because I work for a handful of art directors that hate the oversharped look and equate that to digital.  In fact you can put up a Canon file and a mfdb file side by side and to a person this group will pick the Canon file saying it looks "less digital" whatever that means, though I guess they mean sharpness.

One way to really compare these cameras is to shoot a full length vertical cropped to approx 8 x 10.5 and then show the difference.  It's not huge but you will see more difference between medium format vs. the dslrs, though if you take it the other way and shoot a double truck horizontal, you'll see less difference as the 35mm file needs little cropping, the mfdb file needs more.

If you want to highlight the difference try hair, (especially blond hair) in the vertical, rather than black eyelashes.

The crazy thing is with all of these comparisions, your comparing a camera that costs 1/10th of the price of the Aptus (when new) and the difference is not that compelling if at all, depending on the genre, shot, client, etc.

Your also comparing a zoom to a prime which in my Canon lens experience the 70-200 is not the most stellar of lenses.  Try an 85 1.8 canon, or even their cheap 135mm lens or even better go with a sigma 70mm.

Then the difference is much, much less.

Still, given your shot, some different processing, no client will notice or care about the difference.

Only the retoucher will know for sure.



Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #136 on: December 13, 2008, 05:45:42 pm »

@BCooter,
You're 100% correct, that's why I always say you can't really compare the systems.
The reason I posted it is because I never saw a MF file in the comparisions that gave me what I see when I view a proper focused shot.
That's the one and only reason.

When I shoot on location I cary 2 cameras, the 5D (now MKII) and the 645AFD/III and they both get used.
The MF system for what suits that system and the DSLR for what suits that system.

For me as mentioned before both systems are totally different with each their strengths and weakenesses.

Even IF image quality would be equal in sharpness there still is enough reason to choose for MF over a DSLR OR... to choose a DSLR over a MF system.

I never understood the almost fights about it, I've bought the 5DMKII simply because I use my DSLR for some assignments and I want to give my customer the best possible.
I just love the weathersealing and I will play with the insane ISO range soon to see what it can bring.
It's a wonderful and exciting machine.
But I won't retire my MF anytime soon, not because it's sharper but because it gives me a different look/feel be it in shooting it or in the end result.

And yes it's sad sad world .........
Today I saw the pictures from Do (a famous dutch singer) who posed nude for playboy.
Several shots were not sharp but were soft due to movement (not softfocus), most people don't see it anymore let alone see the difference between one killer cam and another
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #137 on: December 13, 2008, 06:12:23 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@BCooter,


And yes it's sad sad world .........
Today I saw the pictures from Do (a famous dutch singer) who posed nude for playboy.
Several shots were not sharp but were soft due to movement (not softfocus), most people don't see it anymore let alone see the difference between one killer cam and another

I personally believe this is a good time for photography at least in the sense that we can shoot and capture images that were almost impossible in the past.

Yes digital has changed things, but as far as sharpness or movement, that's been around forever.  You don't have to visit too many galleries to look at the work of past masters and see movement, blur, missed focus or grain clumps the size of rocks.  It doesn't mean the photos aren't beautiful, it just means by todays standards if you put them on a monitor at 300% the forum noise would be a buzz kill.

I can just see what the responses would have been like.   "That Linhof with a Schnieder 12" lens and Pan-x just doesn't hold detail like my Deardorf with the 14" Ektar, and grain, these guys should always shoot AGFA pulled two stops in microdol."

Really beautiful photography has a lot less to do with the camera and a lot less about actual detail, but in the world of digital there really isn't that much difference between formats, not like from film and I'm not addressing detail as refering to the look.  A 645 frame vs. a 35mm frame isn't that much different, not compared to a 6x9, 4x5 or 8x10.  Then the difference in camera format really showed.

Same with "receptors".  Except for the Japanese they all come from just two companies and then every maker just rolls their own software for look, but in reality there really isn't that much difference.

So as far as it being sad, I think it's just the opposite.  

When I started I would have loved to have a n-90 to learn with, all that immediate feedback, no processing, no waiting two or three days to see the results.  The learning curve would have been moved up by years.

So if someone shoots with a Canon or a 50mpx hasselblad, if the talent is there, the subject and lighting are beautiful that is all that really matters.

Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #138 on: December 13, 2008, 06:18:28 pm »

amen to that.
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #139 on: December 14, 2008, 03:11:08 am »

Totally correct.
I always say:
A better camera won't make you a better photographer....
A better camera CAN make you a better photographer....
If you know what to do with it...

For me it's also not which is the better cam, it's which cam fits the idea/vision I have.
Or simply which cams works for that shot.

The remark about the customer won't see the difference on printed paper is a bit lame to be totally honest.
We could have also used that with the 8MP 20D, because really on a magazine print you can't see the difference.
But there's also something as postprocessing (my MF files can be pushed harder and need less tweaking), take for example color.
I still have to look more into this issue but with the 5D I could not get the skintones I get with the leaf, and I now balanced on the same whitebalance card and the leaf files are spot on and the Canon files ..... well they simply don't look the way the model looks, there's too much red.
Even when removing some it it's still not what I get with the Leaf, after 10-15 minutes I stopped, I will try to make a profile for the Canon in a few weeks if I have the time and see what happens than, but with the 5D I also made a profile and it still was not as pleasing as the Leaf files which are almost spot on.

The question is, will the viewer see that when you shoot a whole series of pictures....
Probarbly not, but I do and that's enough


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Up