Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?

[Ray]

3200 iso?  I do not want it free.

100% it's beautiful, I think to beautiful here you got 200%   so what do you think about the noise now Ray( please tell me is the best you ever seeing)

I think the hassy is the best.

Money I spend in the H 50 ?  Bank have money so is good to spend it, anyway if I die today my wife(she is to beautiful) will get marry again, in the next men will spend my money so I will spend all now.

The day I die, I will ask for a dollar to get some water, even so, I have to much to do so I can't die now.

Back to camera, anyone like to get the h 50?  ISO 800 is the best of the best, better then any other camera  So go for the hassy forger about 35mm.( I hope hassy pay me for that)  

Blas wow

Blas,
The noise doesn't look too bad. As long as you're happy with your camera. 50mp is a lot. You should get some stunning photos with that camera.

However, it's a bit too heavy for me. 2.3Kg with standard lens? That's almost as heavy as my Canon 50D with 160-640mm zoom (35mm equivalent)!! And that frame rate of one per second. I don't think I could live with that. I guess I'm now totally spoiled by all the wonderful features of 35mm and APS-C DSLRs   .

[Christopher]

Blas,
The noise doesn't look too bad. As long as you're happy with your camera. 50mp is a lot. You should get some stunning photos with that camera.

However, it's a bit too heavy for me. 2.3Kg with standard lens? That's almost as heavy as my Canon 50D with 160-640mm zoom (35mm equivalent)!! And that frame rate of one per second. I don't think I could live with that. I guess I'm now totally spoiled by all the wonderful features of 35mm and APS-C DSLRs   .

Well if I use Rodenstock and Schneider lenses I won't use a 20Mp back .... at least it would be a 30Mp back. Plz what are 2.3Kg ? I often go hiking for hours witha complete weigth of 12 to 15 kg, well Ok I am probably a little fitter and younger than you are ;-)

[Jim2]

3200 iso?  I do not want it free.

100% it's beautiful, I think to beautiful here you got 200%   so what do you think about the noise now Ray( please tell me is the best you ever seeing)

I think the hassy is the best.

Money I spend in the H 50 ?  Bank have money so is good to spend it, anyway if I die today my wife(she is to beautiful) will get marry again, in the next men will spend my money so I will spend all now.

The day I die, I will ask for a dollar to get some water, even so, I have to much to do so I can't die now.

Back to camera, anyone like to get the h 50?  ISO 800 is the best of the best, better then any other camera  So go for the hassy forger about 35mm.( I hope hassy pay me for that)  

Blas wow

I actually like the noise pattern on this image!

[Jim2]

Blas,
The noise doesn't look too bad. As long as you're happy with your camera. 50mp is a lot. You should get some stunning photos with that camera.

However, it's a bit too heavy for me. 2.3Kg with standard lens? That's almost as heavy as my Canon 50D with 160-640mm zoom (35mm equivalent)!! And that frame rate of one per second. I don't think I could live with that. I guess I'm now totally spoiled by all the wonderful features of 35mm and APS-C DSLRs   .

2.3kg is LIGHT!! Is this including the lens and camera body?

[tho_mas]

I accept this if you say so; I don't know what the widest is on MFDBs, and I don't know the cropping factors either. However, this is not relevant from the 3D aspect. My claim is, that the so-called 3D effect is nothing else but the wide angle view of certain sceneries.

I've once compared the A900 of a friend with my DBs. Including a comparision of a 35mm crop of the P45 - i.e. both cameras with the same focal length but the P45 cropped to the format of the A900. The P45 crop still showed that "3D-look". My guess is that this is one of the things were the lack of an AA filter makes a difference but also the clean blacks and very fine transitions in dark tonal values of the DB files. Maybe the effect is also visible with a M9 compared to any other FF camera?

[bjanes]

It's very frustrating discussing this topic over and over with people who seem intent to win an argument based only on numbers when the answers are easy to see with your own eyes.  If you only had both cameras at your disposal you would clearly see that MFDB have big advantages in "usable" DR at base, while DSLR have advantages at higher ISO settings.    Many are quite misinformed about DR and why many cameras come up with high DR but low usable DR.  
Please read here: http://www.imatest.com/docs/dynamic.html#dr

I used this software to compare DR of my Leica DMR against a canon 1D3.  The canon had 12.7 stops DR according to the standard definition, while the leica had 12.6 stops - so the canon won right?  But using the imatest guidelines for "usable"  DR - see the other values in the charts top right - the Leica won by almost two stops. While the canon 1d3 had 12.7 stops according to definition (and probably close to what DXO is measuring)  it only had a little more than 8.5 usable @ the .25 ratio, and actually in the most stringent measurement only 6.6 stops of DR.  The Leica had not dropped as much from the max and was still showing 10 stops of DR at the .25 ratio measurement.    While I haven't taken the time to test my new Canon 5DmkII or my P20, I can see side by side shots show the P20 has a fair bit more usable.  What I'm saying is that while DXO measurements may be accurate according to definition they are not usable for photographers an only present an idealized case which is not good for photographers.  Better measurements can be made and the cameras do not compare the same!  

Now when I said I did my own testing, I hope you believe I was really testing!  It's a lot of work to do this right and the results only confirm what I was seeing.  Now I just trust my eyes.

[attachment=16575:Stouffer...7_Step_2.jpg]

Your Imatest DR results are not as definitive as you would like us to believe. I note that you did your tests on JPEGs, which means the original raw file must have been rendered to a JPEG by some conversion software, and the settings in this software (black point, tone curve, possible NR, etc) may affect the results. Here are Imatest plots for my Nikon D3 rendered into a 16 bit TIFF by ACR with default settings, ACR with a linear tone curve, ACR with a linear tone curve and with NR by Noiseware, Nikon NX with the Standard Picture Control, and by Imatest's own raw conversion. Which is the correct result?

ACR Default:
[attachment=16724:ACR_def.png]

ACR linear tone curve:
[attachment=16725:ACR_Lin.png]

ACR linear tone curve & Noiseware:
[attachment=16726:ACR_Lin_Noiseware.png]

Nikon NX with Standard Picture Control:
[attachment=16727:NX_Std.png]

Imatest conversion:
[attachment=16728:Imatest.png]

[Doug Peterson]

It would be interesting to see what quality advantages a P25 system with the Digaron_S 23 F5.6 would have compared with the Canon 5D2 with TS-E 17mm F4. Everything is matched for easy comparison; same pixel count, same equivalent FL of lens, and same DoF using F5.6 with the Digaron and F4 with the TS-E. All that would differ would be the amazing 3-dimensional quality of the P25 shot and that extra crispness due to its lack of an AA filter.

Ray: I can't tell with you; are you just trying to create fun arguments?

P25/Rodenstock-23mm-HR compared ot a 5D2/17mm-TS is not a fair comparison. It wouldn't even be close.

Don't get me wrong the 17mm TS is a great dSLR TS lens (and I'll be the first to point out that the 5DII with TS lens would be easier/faster to use). But a Canon 17mm TS is not even close to a digital series large format lens.

As an indirect example please see the comparison we ran of the Schneider 35mm and HC35mm. The HC35mm is 1) not as wide (easier lens design) as the Canon 17mm  2) is a great 35mm MF SLR lens  3) isn't built to shift (easier lens design). Even using the same sensor (P45+ with both) the comparison is night and day.

Now imagine that test with the lower DR, less crisp (AA filter) 5DII, and the much harder optical design of a wider, tilt-shift lens. Then add a bit of shift (otherwise why use a TS lens?). Posting such a test would be a cheap shot. These two solutions are in entirely different classes.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe

[EricWHiss]

Your Imatest DR results are not as definitive as you would like us to believe. I note that you did your tests on JPEGs, which means the original raw file must have been rendered to a JPEG by some conversion software, and the settings in this software (black point, tone curve, possible NR, etc) may affect the results. Here are Imatest plots for my Nikon D3 rendered into a 16 bit TIFF by ACR with default settings, ACR with a linear tone curve, ACR with a linear tone curve and with NR by Noiseware, Nikon NX with the Standard Picture Control, and by Imatest's own raw conversion. Which is the correct result?

ACR Default:
[attachment=16724:ACR_def.png]

ACR linear tone curve:
[attachment=16725:ACR_Lin.png]

ACR linear tone curve & Noiseware:
[attachment=16726:ACR_Lin_Noiseware.png]

Nikon NX with Standard Picture Control:
[attachment=16727:NX_Std.png]

Imatest conversion:
[attachment=16728:Imatest.png]

One thing you have clearly shown us is that there are measurable differences in output depending on what RAW conversion software is used.  This is one of my strongest points and I've been stating that the people not including that (especially the proprietary software like C1 for Phase or Phocus for Hasselblad) are not getting complete results useful in comparing different cameras. Thank you for illustrating that point with data.  

You'll note that my tests were done long ago even prior to the D3's release or Imatest adding function to convert RAW's.   1st  thing is I did a real test, not just shoot pics of a balcony. 2nd I did the test post processing because this is how the images will end up in most cases.    This satisfied me.  You're free to design whatever test you feel is important for yourself and if using ACR and/or noiseware in your workflow then it would make sense to include that in the tests.    

Actually you probably could use this same method to uncover how much better the different RAW software programs are at conversion.  Imatest could evaluate DR, color accuracy, detail from the same RAW file run through different converters.   That could help uncover how much better a Phase digital back gets by using their software instead of using dcraw or ACR or whatever, which is another point of mine.  MFDB makers mostly rely on final processing in computer instead of in camera like DSLR's.  Would be great to know just how much measurable differences there are....    

If you have time that would be great to find out.....

[BJL]

I don't know what the widest is on MFDBs, and I don't know the cropping factors either.

Btw, the EF-S 10-22mm is 16mm in comparisons.

SO why did you both to make th clam of superiority over APS-C in particular?

Btw, the EF-S 10-22mm is 16mm in comparisons.

Yes, I was assuming that you know how to make FOV comparisons between the formats whose WA options you were comparing.
Here are all the conversions of diagonal FOV for the widest SLR lenses I know of for the various formats.
4/3 7mm -> 14mm
EF-S 10mm -> 16mm
DX 10mm -> 15mm
35mm 14mm -> 14mm
Mamiya 28mm with 645 film or full 645 sensor (some day), 17mm
Hasselblad 28mm, limited to 39x49m format, 19mm

[Doug Peterson]

Mamiya 28mm with 645 film or full 645 sensor (some day), 17mm

A P65+ w/ 28mm = 18.0mm w/ FF dSLR
Film w/ 28mm with film = 17.4mm w/ FF dSLR

Moreover the Mamiya viewfinder has 100% coverage with the P65+; so what you see is what you get.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe

[snickgrr]

I mean for heaven's sake, if a photographer does not connect to images with his/her soul regardless of capture, pixels, processing, bits, DR, then go do something else, go argue which table saw cuts bubinga wood better in the south during 60% humidity inside a workshop with a freud 80 tooth fine laser cut blade.

To highjack this thread because it needs it.

I have Forrest blades on my saws.  Funny though you should bring this up as I'm contemplating a switch back to custom furniture making...something I did for living a long long time ago.  I've always said that from a creative satisfaction standpoint I could do either photography or woodworking and be happy.  

The switch thinking is coming from a couple different directions.  The state of the professional photography tells me I'm in a dying profession.  What I do, slow contemplative studio still life, is on it's way out...soon.  And secondly there might be an opportunity for probably a year long job of doing furniture for a local dude with lots of money.  So I'm trying to decide...push the two studio camera stands, the NorthLights, the C-stands, etc, etc to the side and cover them up and pull out the entire furniture shop I have tucked away and let the dust fly.

[Panopeeper]

SO why did you both to make th clam of superiority over APS-C in particular?

1. The "proofs" of the 3D effect I have seen demonstrated, that it is mainly the question of the perspective, which can be achieved with wide FoV (pls same me from explaining, that the perspective does not depend on the focal length; I am the one, who is explaining that to others).

2. Look around related forums, like DPReview to find out, how widely the EF-S 10-22mm and the Nikon 10-24mm DX are used. Not much, because:
a. f/3.5-f/4.5,
b. expensive,
c. too wide at their long end for a general walk-around lens,
d. not useful with FF (many APS-C owners are dreaming about upgrading to FF at some time).

Beside, they don't offer the quality at their wide end, which could be compared to MFDB samples.

Notwithstanding all the above, this is not an important aspect. My claim stays, that the angle of view is decisive; of course, if that is not coupled with high quality image, then there is no point to compare them. On the other hand, panoramas, mosaics do demonstrate, that the same "3D effect" can be achieved with DSLRs.

[EricWHiss]

To highjack this thread because it needs it.

I have Forrest blades on my saws.  Funny though you should bring this up as I'm contemplating a switch back to custom furniture making...something I did for living a long long time ago.  I've always said that from a creative satisfaction standpoint I could do either photography or woodworking and be happy.  

The switch thinking is coming from a couple different directions.  The state of the professional photography tells me I'm in a dying profession.  What I do, slow contemplative studio still life, is on it's way out...soon.  And secondly there might be an opportunity for probably a year long job of doing furniture for a local dude with lots of money.  So I'm trying to decide...push the two studio stands, the NorthLights, the C-stands, etc, etc to the side and cover them up and pull out the entire furniture shop I have tucked away and let the dust fly.

Thanks for the diversion and I think you've touched on a point there.  Good luck with either direction you choose.
btw -  I've got all my stone carving stuff covered up in my studio.... but its no where near as commercially viable as furniture making.

[snickgrr]

Thanks for the diversion and I think you've touched on a point there.  Good luck with either direction you choose.
btw -  I've got all my stone carving stuff covered up in my studio.... but its no where near as commercially viable as furniture making.

Thanks.

On the other hand....Having been a commercial photographer since 1982 my mind thinks in those realities.  Never gave much thought to the Art side of things.  A few years ago one of my wine clients who also happens to be on the board of a fairly prestigious art foundation urged/pushed/cajoled me to apply for an artist in residence there.  I spent nearly two years shooting and developing a new language for me for the application.  To counterpoint the rigidity of the commercial side my proposal was rooted in the Taoist thought of Wu Wei.  My application went in April this spring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

I don't have a chance in hell of getting it as there are literally thousands of applications that come in from around the world for approx 40 artist in residences per year.  It would be nice though to be sequestered away living within a community of like minded people whose talents are in painting or music or dance......or stone sculpture.

[pcunite]

All this debating by people without a PHD in physics. Read this report.

Quote:
The factor that limits the low ISO performance of DSLR's turns out to be the limited dynamic range of the ISO amplifier and ADC components downstream from the sensor, and not the sensor itself; the analysis leading to this conclusion also leads to a simple proposal for recovering an extra two stops of dynamic range from current DSLR's.

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te....html#pixelsize

[JeffKohn]

1. The "proofs" of the 3D effect I have seen demonstrated, that it is mainly the question of the perspective, which can be achieved with wide FoV (pls same me from explaining, that the perspective does not depend on the focal length; I am the one, who is explaining that to others).

I don't think it's the wide angle FOV/perspective that causes the supposed 3D look. Up until recently the widest MF lens was 28mm wasn't it? Even the Rodenstock 23mm is not that wide compared to some of the options available for 35mm (14mm for instance).

I think this 3D-ness is a combination of no AA filter and more-easily attained shallow DOF (due to using longer lenses for a given FOV). It's a valid point if you like shallow DOF, but not so much if you tend to shoot with lots of DOF.

[Chris Livsey]

I want everyone to go look at these images:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=311707
because these are gorgeous architectural photos ON FILM with a 6x6 camera. That is architectural photography that is emotionally moving to view. I would buy a huge print of the second one to hang on my wall.

I have to thank you for that pointer, that is what it is all about.

[Ray]

Well if I use Rodenstock and Schneider lenses I won't use a 20Mp back .... at least it would be a 30Mp back. Plz what are 2.3Kg ? I often go hiking for hours witha complete weigth of 12 to 15 kg, well Ok I am probably a little fitter and younger than you are ;-)

True. 2.3Kg is easily managed, even by an old codger like me. But that's the Hassy with just a lightweight, standard, fixed-focaL-length lens. I never go travelling with just a single prime lens.

[Ray]

Ray: I can't tell with you; are you just trying to create fun arguments?

P25/Rodenstock-23mm-HR compared ot a 5D2/17mm-TS is not a fair comparison. It wouldn't even be close.

Don't get me wrong the 17mm TS is a great dSLR TS lens (and I'll be the first to point out that the 5DII with TS lens would be easier/faster to use). But a Canon 17mm TS is not even close to a digital series large format lens.


__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe[/font]

In that case, the comparison would be excellent for you. The new Canon TS-E 17mm, from all accounts I've seen is sharp at full aperture, has very low chromatic aberration, has excellent edge and corner resolution when not shifted to extremes, and appears to be one of the best wide-angle lenses that Canon have made to date.

If the Rodenstock is so much better, let's see the comparison. It would be illuminating.

But please don't make the comparison using a P45+ or P65+. We all know that sensors with a higher pixel count produce higher resolution images. Even a Canon G10 can produce a sharper, more detailed image than a 6mp or 8mp DSLR. The P25 would be a good choice for a fair comparison. I know it's now fairly old technology, but that magical DB quality always existed, didn't it   .

[Guillermo Luijk]

I read the ASMP architectural user group daily and so few even own a digital back. Most own DSLRs, most use tilt/shifts. Some are now using the new Canon T/S lenses and the images their clients are getting will be very high quality and more than enough.

The same applies to a little arquitectural photography forum in which I participate (I think I'm the only amateur there). There are 2 guys using MFDB's, and the rest (with the most reputated publishers among them), mostly use Canon 5D2 or 1Ds MKIII and Nikon D3X with TS lenses.

BTW this afternoon I tried my 24mm TS-E II for the first time. First impression is that not being able to focus with a Live View I'm probably losing the perfect focus this lens deserves.

Sample image at max shift (Canon 5D + Canon 24mm TS-E II @f/11):


Torres Blancas by Sáenz de Oiza, Madrid

Funny how PS aliased the top of the building after rescaling.

And 100% crops (left in max shift area with detail, and right is centre-left detail):

.

Light equipment, great detail, zero CA, nearly zero distortion (it was not worth to correct it). Few people needs today a MFDB IMO.
DR was no problem either since I systematically bracket to get 100% noise free images even in deep shadows, better than any one-shot MFDB can achieve.

Regards