Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Want Need Afford  (Read 42238 times)

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #100 on: August 28, 2009, 02:26:23 pm »

Quote from: Ray
I always like to illustrate my point with a practical example. If you and I, Jeff, were hiking up Poon Hill in Nepal, to get the following dawn shot of the Himalayas, who would likely get there first, you with a P65+ (and paraphernalia) or me with a 5D2?

[attachment=16266:For_LL.jpg]

You sure?  You ever shoot with any of these systems?  My PhaseOne system  is only a few pounds heavier than the Canon system I take when shooting high end work.  Sure my Canon street setup is much lighter, but when doing landscapes there isn't much difference.  Most of the paraphernalia has to do with shooting not the system, and goes along with either system.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10333
Want Need Afford
« Reply #101 on: August 28, 2009, 08:22:18 pm »

Quote from: Schewe
I don't know...would the naked ladies be there too? What would they be carrying?

Actually, the Phase One 645 and a couple of lenses isn't really so much worse than a 1Ds MIII and a couple of lenses...yes, the 5D MII would be much lighter (a reason I often shoot candids with a Canon Rebel).

The point I was making (since it seems to have zoomed by your head) is that you use the tool that you need to use to get what you want out of an image. If you need a 3" x 4" image, you would be foolish to buy a P65+. If you need a 3' x 4' image, your 5D MII is gonna come up short compared to a P65+. And, if you don't get what you need because you can't afford it, I don't know what to tell somebody other than lower your expectations (and make smaller prints).


Jeff,
I would never argue that one should not try to use the best tool for the job, but I get the impression that many photographers would have an eye on a P65+ because they want one rather than need one.

There also seem to be some serious disadvantages to the MFDB system, such as a slow continuous frame rate, (less than one frame per sec with the P65+), reduced performance at higher ISOs (or reduced pixel count as an alternative) and shallower DOF at any given F stop (for same FOV), which is not always ideal for landscapes. (Not to mention poor autofocussing).

For example, in the above panorama of the Himalayas, how would you get both the ladies and the mountains sharp, using a P65+?  F22 at ISO 44 in the early hours of the morning?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 08:26:37 pm by Ray »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10333
Want Need Afford
« Reply #102 on: August 28, 2009, 08:44:05 pm »

Quote from: Wayne Fox
You sure?  You ever shoot with any of these systems?  My PhaseOne system  is only a few pounds heavier than the Canon system I take when shooting high end work.  Sure my Canon street setup is much lighter, but when doing landscapes there isn't much difference.  Most of the paraphernalia has to do with shooting not the system, and goes along with either system.

Wayne,
Doesn't lower base ISO for best quality, in conjunction with higher F stop numbers to get good DoF, make use of a tripod almost mandatory in most situations, with a P65+?
Logged

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #103 on: August 28, 2009, 09:38:42 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Wayne,
Doesn't lower base ISO for best quality, in conjunction with higher F stop numbers to get good DoF, make use of a tripod almost mandatory in most situations, with a P65+?

Well yes and no. On a real larger format camera yes, but than again you would tilt a little and everything would be in focus at an app. around f8

If you use the phase camera than you can always go to ISO 400 which is still really good.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10333
Want Need Afford
« Reply #104 on: August 28, 2009, 11:17:49 pm »

Quote from: Christopher
Well yes and no. On a real larger format camera yes, but than again you would tilt a little and everything would be in focus at an app. around f8

If you use the phase camera than you can always go to ISO 400 which is still really good.

At the true ISO 400 (actually ISO 360 which is described as ISO 800 on the P65+) the DR of the P65+ (at the pixel level) is 2.33 stops worse than that of the 5D2 at ISO 400, and 2.67 stops worse than the D3X at ISO 400 (actually ISO 337).

Allowing a one stop difference for equal DOF between 35mm and 645 format (in fact it's greater than one stop considering the expanded full frame format of the P65+), the difference in DR between the D3X at ISO 200 and the P65+ at ISO 400 (actually 360 and nominally 800) is an astounding 3 1/2 stops.
 
How does the P65+ fare with autobracketing of exposure? At 0.75 frames per second, I wouldn't feel too happy trying to increase that relatively poor DR at ISO 400 by merging to HDR. Too much movement to auto-align the images.

The Achilles' Heel of the P65+ (and all MFDBs) is the poor high ISO performance. It's not surprising that Phase One exaggerates their ISO ratings.

I mean, ISO 800 actually being ISO 360. That's ridiculous!

But I don't want to give the impression I am biased in any way about this issue. I recognise that there are a few situations where the P65+ will facilitate a better job than can be achieved using the best of the current DSLRs. Nevertheless, it's a high price to pay for those relatively few situations for many of us.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 11:21:51 pm by Ray »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #105 on: August 28, 2009, 11:40:23 pm »

Ray, where do you get these "true" ISO numbers from? Is that DxO data or from some other tests you've seen?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #106 on: August 28, 2009, 11:41:47 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Wayne,
Doesn't lower base ISO for best quality, in conjunction with higher F stop numbers to get good DoF, make use of a tripod almost mandatory in most situations, with a P65+?


mmm ... when shooting for the absolute highest quality and sharpest images, does it matter what camera?  I think a tripod is in order with either system - that's how I roll anyway.  I would have had plenty of depth of field for the image you posted since I would have left the women out.

Wonder why everyone judges what everyone else should "need" or "want" based solely on their own perspective?

Sort of reminds me of that famous Mythbusters saying

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"

The article is well written and spells it out ... we each have our own reality of Want, need and afford.  No reason to try and force everyone into the same reality we exist in.

I freely admit I have a p65 system because I can easily afford one and want one.  In my mind I need one because my objective whenever I'm shooting landscapes is very large prints ... 40" is a decent starting point.  No,  this "need" isn't related to financial well being at all, just a personal quest for quality - perhaps by some this means it really isn't a need.  If so ... I reject that reality and substitute my own
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10333
Want Need Afford
« Reply #107 on: August 29, 2009, 12:46:14 am »

Quote from: Wayne Fox
I would have had plenty of depth of field for the image you posted since I would have left the women out.


But you would you have also left the whole foreground out? The grass on each side of the photoshopped ladies is tack sharp in my panorama, taken with the now obsolete 5D Mk1.

Quote
I freely admit I have a p65 system because I can easily afford one and want one.  In my mind I need one because my objective whenever I'm shooting landscapes is very large prints ... 40" is a decent starting point.  No,  this "need" isn't related to financial well being at all, just a personal quest for quality - perhaps by some this means it really isn't a need.  If so ... I reject that reality and substitute my own


In that case, I would ask, what percentage of your landscapes do not lend themsleves to a stitching process? Having bought a P65+ system, I would expect that you would simply use it whenever possible and disregard the option that you might have had to get a similar, or even better result using a 5D2 and stitch for the print size required. Stitching is more work, and a single shot of equal quality to the stitched image may be preferred in terms of time saved in front of the computer. But at what expense!

There are many things that I could afford but simply don't buy because I can't justify the price in relation to my actual needs, and the estimated frequency of use of the equipment. I don't need a Ferrari to get around the place and do my shopping etc., and I'm not into car racing. But if I were into car racing, that's another matter.
Logged

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #108 on: August 29, 2009, 01:21:38 am »

Quote from: Ray
But you would you have also left the whole foreground out? The grass on each side of the photoshopped ladies is tack sharp in my panorama, taken with the now obsolete 5D Mk1.




In that case, I would ask, what percentage of your landscapes do not lend themsleves to a stitching process? Having bought a P65+ system, I would expect that you would simply use it whenever possible and disregard the option that you might have had to get a similar, or even better result using a 5D2 and stitch for the print size required. Stitching is more work, and a single shot of equal quality to the stitched image may be preferred in terms of time saved in front of the computer. But at what expense!

There are many things that I could afford but simply don't buy because I can't justify the price in relation to my actual needs, and the estimated frequency of use of the equipment. I don't need a Ferrari to get around the place and do my shopping etc., and I'm not into car racing. But if I were into car racing, that's another matter.

Whatever you want ray. I have a P65 and 5dMk2 and I know that I will always use the P65 if possible. I Only use the 5DMkII if it is very rainy or the light levels are so low that I would need a tripod but can't use one. (Out of what ever reasons.) If I had to use a 5DMkII for everything I would need to stitch 90% of every image, well you can do that and enjoy it I won't. I bought is because I enjoy working with it. I don't like to work with a small SLR and stitch up multiple images. I prefer working with a large format camera to a SLR System, I will probably sell my Canon System if there is a Leica M9.

I mean I am not saying these review sites are all wrong, but I mean take dpreview for example if you would judge the Sony a900 there you would think it sucks compared to a 1DsMk3 or d3x. I mean how can such a site publish crops which clearly show motion blur in the a900 crop samples ? I don't know how Dx0 tests all their data and I don't care. However I think you don't get the ISO results. Look at the H3D-50, Dx0 would say all ISO values from 50 to 400 are all only 50. That is true, that does not say how they act in real world. If what you think would be the case you couldn't even use a H3D in normal overcast situations.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #109 on: August 29, 2009, 02:11:46 am »

Quote from: Ray
But you would you have also left the whole foreground out? The grass on each side of the photoshopped ladies is tack sharp in my panorama, taken with the now obsolete 5D Mk1.

But if I shoot a scene like yours using stitching I have to use a longer lens to capture smaller segments to match the same FoV and pixel resolution in the final file.  I think the final "depth of field" between the two methods would be very similar - I vaguely recollect an article I read once which actually demonstrated they would be the same(although my 50+year old brain doesn't recollect things as well so it may have been some other point they were making). In fact, stitching is often touted as a way to decrease depth of field.   I found focus stacking is really pretty simple and effective.

Quote
In that case, I would ask, what percentage of your landscapes do not lend themsleves to a stitching process? Having bought a P65+ system, I would expect that you would simply use it whenever possible and disregard the option that you might have had to get a similar, or even better result using a 5D2 and stitch for the print size required. Stitching is more work, and a single shot of equal quality to the stitched image may be preferred in terms of time saved in front of the computer. But at what expense!

Don't know.  Heck, I stitch p45 files, and I"m sure I will take occasion to stitch p65 files.  But plenty of what I shoot would be challenging to stitch, and taking the time to use that workflow (extra time shooting, so maybe I miss another shot from a different angle), and as you mentioned all the extra time sitting at the computer doing the stitching when I could be doing something more interesting like playing golf or shooting ...

Hey ... I've been stitching since the 1Ds ... been there, done that, and it's a lot funner to not deal with it.

Nothing wrong with stitching 5dmk2 files.  Go ahead, knock yourself out.  You have your level of want, need and afford, I have mine.  They aren't the same, never will be and neither are right or wrong.  They just are. Don't make me live in your box ... I like mine.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10333
Want Need Afford
« Reply #110 on: August 29, 2009, 05:38:55 am »

Quote from: Wayne Fox
But if I shoot a scene like yours using stitching I have to use a longer lens to capture smaller segments to match the same FoV and pixel resolution in the final file.  I think the final "depth of field" between the two methods would be very similar - I vaguely recollect an article I read once which actually demonstrated they would be the same(although my 50+year old brain doesn't recollect things as well so it may have been some other point they were making).

Quite right. I wondered if someone would pick that up. I see you're alert today   .


Logged

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
Want Need Afford
« Reply #111 on: August 29, 2009, 08:58:09 am »

Quote from: Ray
Jeez, Jeff! How can you miss the point so much? Do you drink? (If you do, you're excused)

There can be no doubt whatsoever that a single P65+ shot will have superior resolution to a single D3X shot of the same scene, same FOV etc.

For those working in a studio producing poster size images of models flinging their hair, or any scene where significant movement takes place, the P65+ will reign supreme for very large prints.

However, the thread is about 'want-need-afford'. Landscape in particular tends to be a static subject. Therefore, if one needs a large panoramic poster, perhaps more often than not, the subject lends itself to a stitching process. If it does, then it seems superfluous to spend so much money on such an expensive, heavy and cumbersome piece of equipment as the P65+ with body and lenses.

I always like to illustrate my point with a practical example. If you and I, Jeff, were hiking up Poon Hill in Nepal, to get the following dawn shot of the Himalayas, who would likely get there first, you with a P65+ (and paraphernalia) or me with a 5D2?

[attachment=16266:For_LL.jpg]
... so if you  want or need three bear-breasted young ladies on a mountain top at dawn, and you can only get/find/afford one (or you only have one wife) stitching is clearly superior, even if you lug an H3D11-60 up the mountain!

If you thought hard, you could think of circumstances in which a steam traction engine would be preferable to a Ferrari.

I appreciate the benefits of pano, and I am thinking of re-taking a picture of a cornish harbour using cylinder pano stitching to get more of the "ampitheather" scene in.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2009, 09:00:51 am by Dick Roadnight »
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10333
Want Need Afford
« Reply #112 on: August 29, 2009, 10:54:46 am »

Quote from: MarkDS
Ray, where do you get these "true" ISO numbers from? Is that DxO data or from some other tests you've seen?

Mark,
From DXO data. Just place the cursor over any of the colored blobs and you get a read-out of the measured ISO plus the manufacturer's claimed ISO, as follows:

[attachment=16279:DXOMark.jpg]

It seems that most manufacturers exaggerate their ISO ratings, but not to this degree, surely.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2009, 10:57:10 am by Ray »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10333
Want Need Afford
« Reply #113 on: August 29, 2009, 11:33:23 am »

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
I appreciate the benefits of pano, and I am thinking of re-taking a picture of a cornish harbour using cylinder pano stitching to get more of the "ampitheather" scene in.


I take most of my photos during trips to exotic locations. One of my main regrets is not anticipating that stitching programs like the latest version of Autopano Pro would eventually be developed and make the whole stitching process not only easier but often faultless even with hand-held shots.

I struggled with those shots of the Himalayan Dawn. I carried a lightweight, travelling tripod with ball-head which is not ideal for taking shots for stitching purposes because a ball-head can move in all directions as one tries to swivel it around. I also attempted to bracket all exposures with MLU and remote cord. That would now be a breeze with the 5D2 and LiveView, but with the 5D1 the mirror has to be flipped, then pause, before each shot. Too much movement in the scene has taken place for a good merge to HDR.

Poon Hill is one of those places I'd like to revisit.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #114 on: August 29, 2009, 12:52:33 pm »

Quote from: Ray
I take most of my photos during trips to exotic locations. One of my main regrets is not anticipating that stitching programs like the latest version of Autopano Pro would eventually be developed and make the whole stitching process not only easier but often faultless even with hand-held shots.

I struggled with those shots of the Himalayan Dawn. I carried a lightweight, travelling tripod with ball-head which is not ideal for taking shots for stitching purposes because a ball-head can move in all directions as one tries to swivel it around. I also attempted to bracket all exposures with MLU and remote cord. That would now be a breeze with the 5D2 and LiveView, but with the 5D1 the mirror has to be flipped, then pause, before each shot. Too much movement in the scene has taken place for a good merge to HDR.

Poon Hill is one of those places I'd like to revisit.

Ray, yes thanks for the reminder of how DxO did this. I haven't been on their site for quite a while.

As for the panning technique, if you get a Really Right Stuff ballhead, you can swivel horizontally without any other movement. They also have other materials and instructions on their website for assuring the best possible fit when preparing a series of pan images.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #115 on: August 29, 2009, 02:51:12 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Mark,
From DXO data. Just place the cursor over any of the colored blobs and you get a read-out of the measured ISO plus the manufacturer's claimed ISO, as follows:

[attachment=16279:DXOMark.jpg]

It seems that most manufacturers exaggerate their ISO ratings, but not to this degree, surely.

Ray once again, they don't test what ISO they are they test what the real ISO is. I can only urge you to look at the H3D-50 again. You would see that all ISO are ISO 50 even 400. That still does noc change that ISO 400 on a H3D acts like ISO 400, even though it is not real. Same goes for phase.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #116 on: August 29, 2009, 06:09:51 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Quite right. I wondered if someone would pick that up. I see you're alert today   .

so you make an incorrect statement in defense of your personal viewpoint on stitching, and then you try and pass it off as though you knew it was incorrect when you made it, but you did it as some type of test?

gimme a break ...
Logged

Bill VN

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Want Need Afford
« Reply #117 on: August 29, 2009, 06:22:12 pm »

Wow, I didn't realize I would start a discussion that will not die. Maybe, it's time to fit a Canon scanner to the back of my 8x10.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Want Need Afford
« Reply #118 on: August 29, 2009, 06:36:08 pm »

Quote from: Bill VN
Wow, I didn't realize I would start a discussion that will not die. Maybe, it's time to fit a Canon scanner to the back of my 8x10.

Get a BetterLight scanning back. Less hassle (not as cheap though).
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Want Need Afford
« Reply #119 on: August 29, 2009, 08:10:38 pm »

Quote from: MarkDS
Ray, yes thanks for the reminder of how DxO did this. I haven't been on their site for quite a while.

As for the panning technique, if you get a Really Right Stuff ballhead, you can swivel horizontally without any other movement. They also have other materials and instructions on their website for assuring the best possible fit when preparing a series of pan images.

Mark,

A lot of ball heads have a panning axis, but for them to work properly one has first to adjust the legs so as to make the base of the ball head parallel to the ground. This can be a hassle. RSS does make the PCL-1 which one attachs to the ball head and then uses the ball head to level the PCL-1. The panning is done with the PCL-1. Does the RSS ball head to which you are referring have a feature that obviates the PCL-1?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Up