Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Aptus 22 vs 5DII  (Read 107847 times)

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #180 on: December 14, 2008, 07:23:38 pm »

@Panopeeper,
Just out of interest (I'm in no way an expert in this) did you ever measure the dynamic range of the MF systems compared to the DSLRs.

What I found out was that when I shot ISO50 on the 5D and I suppose also on the MKII is that I sacrifised about a stop or so in DR.
When I shot at a setting in between 100-200 I got for my idea the best DR, at ISO1000 it began to break down, above that I never took notice.

When I shot in California with the Leaf and 5D next to each other on ISO100 the Leaf clearly showed more detail in the shadows and in the sky which on the 5D was almost always blown out in the clouds.

Also when I drop the ISO on the Leaf I cannot see a difference in DR from ISO50-200 on ISO400 and ISO25 I have the FEELING that I lose about half a stop but I could be wrong, I never tested it but your post triggered my interest.

Would love to hear your opinion about it because you seem to be the man to ask and get a solid answer.
Logged

BJNY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1112
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #181 on: December 14, 2008, 07:34:21 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Panopeeper,
Just out of interest (I'm in no way an expert in this) did you ever measure the dynamic range of the MF systems compared to the DSLRs.
Frank, perhaps you can capture an evenly lit MacBeth Color Checker with both your Aptus and 5dII for Panopeeper
according to his exposure instructions The shot should be underexposed so much, that the black square is really black, let's say not higher than RGB=(3,3,3).
I offered, but was unable to during a hectic shoot.

Quote from: Panopeeper
No present digital back makes use of 16bits, except perhaps the Sinar e75 (I am mentioning this exception only because I don't have suitable raw files to analyze this).
Thierry, why not do the same and make a capture for Panopeeper?

Let's all learn, why not?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 07:38:26 pm by BJNY »
Logged
Guillermo

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #182 on: December 14, 2008, 07:48:42 pm »

I have offered it to Gabor, some time ago, but as you unable, since my back is out on loan since a few months.

But I can say that Gabor is basically right that no MFDB makes use of the 16 bit, even if there IS a 16-bit A/D converter and 16-bit files generated.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: BJNY
I offered, but was unable to during a hectic shoot.


Thierry, why not do the same and make a capture for Panopeeper?

Let's all learn, why not?
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #183 on: December 14, 2008, 08:01:57 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
did you ever measure the dynamic range of the MF systems compared to the DSLRs
No. I can measure it only if I get suitable raw files (I measure the raw channels). A raw image is suitable, if it contains spots, which are

1. smooth (not textured surface),

2. unicolored, though any color,

3. uniformly lit; this is the most difficult issue; for example curved surfaces are inherently not suitable,

4. dark, but very dark, three-four stops underexposed. There is no point to measure the noise on well-lit surfaces.

Though I received quite a few raw files from a dozen different MFDBs, those are not suitable for measurement.

Quote
What I found out was that when I shot ISO50 on the 5D and I suppose also on the MKII is that I sacrifised about a stop or so in DR
The 5D does not have any ISO 50. If you select ISO 50, the metering doubles the suggested exposure, but the shot will be made @ ISO 100. Of course this cause unexpected clipping, thereby reducing the dynamic range.

Quote
When I shot in California with the Leaf and 5D next to each other on ISO100 the Leaf clearly showed more detail in the shadows and in the sky which on the 5D was almost always blown out in the clouds
This is too vague; an analysis can be done only based on raw images.

Quote
Also when I drop the ISO on the Leaf I cannot see a difference in DR from ISO50-200 on ISO400 and ISO25 I have the FEELING that I lose about half a stop but I could be wrong, I never tested it but your post triggered my interest
Based solemnly on the sensor dimension in pixels (5344x4008), the Aptus 22 has the same sensor as the Sinar e54. If this is so, then I can say with certainty, that ISO 50 to ISO 400 are equal; the selection of the ISO creates only a remark in the metadata.

The set of raw files I received did not contain ISO 25, so I can't say anything to that. It is not impossible, that ISO 25 is different from the others. For example the P30Plus has real ISO 100 and 200, but 400, 800 and 1600 are the same as ISO 100; they induce pushing in the raw conversion.

In order to verify this, I need raw files with a full set of ISOs: the same scenery, same illumination, from tripod. Either all shots with the very same exposure, or decreasing exposure according to their ISOs.
Logged
Gabor

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #184 on: December 14, 2008, 08:05:17 pm »

So this is the world vs. Frank Doorhof forum.  Wow.

Frank, that 70-200 2.8 IS isn't such a great lens.  In fact, it sucks.  It's popular because of the IS and the convenience, but it really sucks, IMO.  
There isn't just a small difference between the zoom and the 135L.  I think it's significant.

You should replace your 70-200 with the f/4L IS version.  It's MUCH better.  Or just use primes... especially when you do tests.  This test is more about the sweet RZ 110 vs. the crappy Canon 70-200, but I like the test anyway, so thanks for doing it.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10208
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #185 on: December 14, 2008, 10:05:12 pm »


Quote
Don't even think about movement, that looks totally different and when using strobes movement is almost out of the question unless you have some sort of shake syndrome.

Then the only other issue left, Frank, is focussing. At F11 anf F16 one might think that focussing accuracy would not be an issue. However, you've got a full frame head shot here, which means you must have been fairly close to the subject. At close distances, focussing even at F11 can be critical.

Now, I don't want to impugn your photographic competence. That's not my intention. However, there has to be some rational reason why your results in this comparison are not only different to other reaults ( such as John's) but also defy rational expectations in general. Is this perhaps your Christmas present to all owners of DBs?

Quote
Lenses do make a difference even stopped down, for fun just try a normal cheap zoom on the 5DMKII and compare that to the 70-200f2.8 or any other good lens.

Yes. Of course! When statements are made that all lenses are equal at F8, or all lenses are equally bad at F11 (Photodo), it's understood that such comments refer to reasonably good lenses. Very cheap zooms are often sharpest at F16, so these are excluded.
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #186 on: December 15, 2008, 02:25:54 am »

double posted ...
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 02:29:43 am by rainer_v »
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #187 on: December 15, 2008, 02:28:42 am »

similar things have been true with the last generation of dslr and mf too. the upstep from 12 to 14bit is usefull if images are heavily treated in postpro, if not 12bit is enough. 12 - 16mp have been enough also for very good double page printing if the used lens is a good one.

i am just somehow surprised how intense is this discussion here now. maybe the bad economy has its part in it. maybe also that many of us are less cool and rational thinking about this ( and other things ) as we would like to do. so i had the thought that the attraction of mf is decreasing because the prices came down so much. you can get now a 22mp back for the same price than a 1ds3, including camera. couldnt it be that the 22mp back was more tempting when it costed three times more? how often i was reading here that you get what you pay for .....


in my shooting field things are different in any case .... here are the systems and the needs too different between 35mm and mf.
i dont think mf can be replaced at similar workflow and quality level from 35mm,- there are simply no lenses out which can be compared,- i wouldnt care less about the sensors.
but although this seems to be a fact which is not disputed by many people, some ( and not few ) are shooting architecture with 35mm systems too and make in postpro the necessary adjustments and corrections. in the lower end of the market this seems to be the majority of photographers ( for economic reasons but too for speed ), in the higher end the minority,- counting that many still work on 4x5" here.
equally how good will become the 35mm cameras in architecture and in certain ways of landscape shootings surely will remain a market for mf backs and systems, beside product and repro photography. this market could be bigger as it seems, cause many photographers here still shoot film,  they are just now on the jump to digital.  i hope it will be many enough that these system can be made by the manufactors.




Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #188 on: December 15, 2008, 03:52:26 am »

@Ray,
Do I really have to defend myself that I did focus correctly ?
Please

@T-1000,
Maybe the other MF owners have given up, maybe I will also to defend myself for the choice for MF.
I don't think it's the world against me, I just find it surprising that I'm probarbly seeing something that others don't and I can't imagine that I'm the only one, but I guess I am.

About the lens, I have shot with the f4 on some occassions, especially when it was released there is on f11 very little difference but maybe I have a super copy of the f2.8IS and tested a bad copy of the f4.0, what I do find is that focusing on the f2.8 in the studio is much more accurate than the f4.0 and that's logical because the f4.0 gets a stop less light to focus but there will always be something that is done wrong, if it's not the wrong lens than it's a inproper focus

The only thing I then wonder why should I be able to manual focus the RZ and not be able to use AF with the 5DMKII ?
And most of all don't you think I shot several shots ?
And yes they were all equal.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10208
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #189 on: December 15, 2008, 06:51:08 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Ray,
Do I really have to defend myself that I did focus correctly ?
Please

Frank,
In that case, I guess we owners of small format 35mm DSLRs will just have to accept that larger format DBs of similar pixel count really do have a resolution advantage   .

Did you try comparing images at a variety of different F stops, such as F5.6 with F8, F8 with F11 and F16 with F22? I tend to think that lenses do not become fully diffraction limited until F16 and beyond. With my 5D, which has a similar pixel pitch to the Aptus 22, I often see very little difference between F11 and F16, but F22 is always noticeably softer.

There's no getting away from the fact that larger formats will tend to produce sharper results with equal quality lenses. If you want equally sharp results with a smaller format of the same pixel count, you have to use a sharper lens, or at least the same lens at a sharper aperture.

If I want sharp eyelashes when shooting with my 5D, I'd choose F5.6. There'd be even more reason to use F5.6 with a 5D2.
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #190 on: December 15, 2008, 07:21:26 pm »

Quote from: Ray
If I want sharp eyelashes when shooting with my 5D, I'd choose F5.6. There'd be even more reason to use F5.6 with a 5D2.


And there the rub .. 5.6 on a DSLR you (almost) get both eyes sharp - a very different look to mf

The big camera images just look different - 3X the price - client noticing difference - unlikely - but a Rolls Royce isnt that much smoother than a BMW 750 - same price gap

Give frank a break - he shot a couple of pictures - he is not a scientist he is a photographer

Of course I can still clean the chip in my MFDB easier than with a DSLR and the dust spodges are half the size - now that makes a real difference to resolution..

why does every thread fall apart into "actual bit depth" sensel well/diffraction/mellisa colorspace clap trap ?

S






Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #191 on: December 15, 2008, 07:59:10 pm »

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
why does every thread fall apart into "actual bit depth" sensel well/diffraction/mellisa colorspace clap trap ?
It's because this is a web forum, not a web comic.

If it had been a web comic, we'd be falling apart into a broken love story instead, as every web coming that isn't about love stories is wont to do.
Logged
Jan

shelby_lewis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 82
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #192 on: December 16, 2008, 12:06:48 am »

Quote from: Panopeeper
If a well needs more light to reach its charge storing capacity than another well (of another sensor, of course), that is a sign of lesser efficiency.

Actually, if we're going to be particular here then a well needing more light to reach it's charge storing capacity is only a sign of greater well capacity, not inefficiency.

... but I do get the gist of what you meant to say.  
Logged

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #193 on: December 16, 2008, 01:11:56 am »

Quote from: rainer_v
in my shooting field things are different in any case .... here are the systems and the needs too different between 35mm and mf.
i dont think mf can be replaced at similar workflow and quality level from 35mm,- there are simply no lenses out which can be compared,- i wouldnt care less about the sensors.
but although this seems to be a fact which is not disputed by many people, some ( and not few ) are shooting architecture with 35mm systems too and make in postpro the necessary adjustments and corrections. in the lower end of the market this seems to be the majority of photographers ( for economic reasons but too for speed ), in the higher end the minority,- counting that many still work on 4x5" here.
equally how good will become the 35mm cameras in architecture and in certain ways of landscape shootings surely will remain a market for mf backs and systems, beside product and repro photography. this market could be bigger as it seems, cause many photographers here still shoot film,  they are just now on the jump to digital.  i hope it will be many enough that these system can be made by the manufactors.

rainer...nobody argues that YOU would be better off with a DSLR....if i was shooting your stuff, tripod, movements a must, ultimate detail, long exposures and high end WA, without any need of high iso....of course there is only one way to go...
but moving objects, people,...
there will always be a market for DMF, but it was a very small market to begin with and it is getting smaller and smaller....

i think we have a certain responsiblity here......people read these posts, see the work and start believing things....
like the thread this guy started about (after 33 years of shooting!) wether he should get the DL28 or stick with canon DSLR....
i guess he finally wants to be able to get access to the elite club (where he can post images in the MF forum!!!!!)....and the prices are coming down....15000 for a body, back and lens is not bad at all! actually compared to 2500 it is.....

if frank wants to shoot RZ and DMF, that is great, really, have fun, that's what it is all about anyway, but please don't give people the illusion that they will get better results if they shoot a certain brand or with a toy in a certain price class.... that was true a year ago, it isn't anymore...
Logged

ixpressraf

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #194 on: December 16, 2008, 01:53:56 am »

Strange thing is that never before that much back's are sold as at this year, at least here in Belgium. So there must be a lot of well doing photographers who do see the difference in image quaility and who like working with a medium format camera. There has always been and will always be a number of reasons to use both systems. The thing i do not get is why is it that important to some people to prove that the one camera system is better or less good???? Mostly people that even don't use both systems......
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #195 on: December 16, 2008, 01:54:30 am »

Paul,

I don't think that Rainer wanted to give the illusion that a certain brand or toy gives better results. He said it clearly, this is in "his shooting field" and for his needs and workflow.
I guess that is all what it is about, at least in this thread, to discuss and compare in the various fields of photography, and therefore I think his view is as valid as the one who says that he could not do his work with another tool as a 35mm format camera.

In fact, I remember Rainer having written and said many times about how good his 5D is for certain jobs he has done.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: pss
rainer... please don't give people the illusion that they will get better results if they shoot a certain brand or with a toy in a certain price class....
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #196 on: December 16, 2008, 02:01:27 am »

Quote from: shelby_lewis
Actually, if we're going to be particular here then a well needing more light to reach it's charge storing capacity is only a sign of greater well capacity, not inefficiency.
This is correct, if "light" means that light, which has been captured in the well. However, the ISO specification refers to the illumination of the scenery, which transforms to the light leaving the lens inside the camera. When we look at this light, then a more efficient sensor reaches the capacity with less light than a less efficient one.

That was the gist of what I meant to say. I guess you understood it this way, I am posting it for others, who may not have understood the "gist".
Logged
Gabor

samuel_js

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #197 on: December 16, 2008, 04:04:07 am »

Quote from: pss
if frank wants to shoot RZ and DMF, that is great, really, have fun, that's what it is all about anyway, but please don't give people the illusion that they will get better results if they shoot a certain brand or with a toy in a certain price class.... that was true a year ago, it isn't anymore...

Well it is still true. Some people don't see the difference, that's the problem.

I completely accept that you don't see any difference. That's fine with me. But why don't you believe that there's actually people (like me) that use both systems and see better results with MFD every day.

I didn't want to enter this discussion again bu I feel offended. You are the blind guys not us. Stop trying to convince us!
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 04:22:43 am by samuel_js »
Logged

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #198 on: December 16, 2008, 04:38:13 am »


Quote from: samuel_js
Well it is still true. Some people don't see the difference, that's the problem.

I completely accept that you don't see any difference. That's fine with me. But why don't you believe that there's actually people (like me) that use both systems and see better results with MFD every day.

I didn't want to enter this discussion again bu I feel offended. You are the blind guys not us. Stop trying to convince us!

 
... i was always sure the case mf against 35mm  has more do to with faith than hard facts . some are creationists most not.  you praise the mf gear for what ever reason but i  think from a psychological standpoint  the motivation seems clear.  you defend lower or equal resolution backs bought at a very high price against a consumer camera i know that hearts.
Logged

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #199 on: December 16, 2008, 04:42:42 am »

Quote from: ixpressraf
Strange thing is that never before that much back's are sold as at this year, at least here in Belgium. So there must be a lot of well doing photographers who do see the difference in image quaility and who like working with a medium format camera. There has always been and will always be a number of reasons to use both systems. The thing i do not get is why is it that important to some people to prove that the one camera system is better or less good???? Mostly people that even don't use both systems......


 image quality ?  competition is in many cases a more realistic reason.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Up