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

[Professional]

Maybe my post is worthless or meaningful for many of you, but i look at Canon/Nikon DSLR shots at 100% on computer and also my Hasselblad H3DII-39 and i got blown away easily with my H3D and not with any of Canon/Nikon, i don't have Nikon D3X [just downloaded samples from the net] or 5D mkII, but i have 1Ds3 and 1Ds2 and 5D classic, and none of them wowing me against my H3DII, even i did a simple test [not sure if i said that here before] with my H3DII against my 1DsIII, the H3DII was the winner in term of sharpness, color, and contrast, so i dunno if i print how come that those 35mm DSLR can be amazing and maybe same as MFDB when in real tests the MFDB are the winner in most cases? I cropped many shots from Canon and Hasselblad, the hasselblad crops were the winners always over the Canon crops no doubt whatever i do, i know that may not get you any help or interested, but from what i see i love MF very much and i will always use it for what i can shoot with them and print at any size, i have also Epson 3800 and i print A2 [17x22/17x25] and planning to go larger [44" printer], so i think i should make whistles for how good those new current and upcoming 35mm DSLR, then tell me honestly what is the benefit and worth to get those MFDB if you prints large say up to 40" and all can be great good enough, what will make those MFDB an advantage over DSLRs then? and why they are so expensive in this case? i really couldn't get any honest truth answers anywhere because many trying to make those DSLRs as good as MFDB even in prints, and even some saying that DSLRs quality is better than MFDB like what they are doing with Nikon D3X against Hasselblad/Phase One DBs.

[Panopeeper]

Gabor: Why don't you summarize your general position regarding the topic along with some explanation? No graphs, don't try to prove at all, just state. Make it simple and commonly understandable. This would be most

LOL, you, tho_mas and Erik have thoroughly misunderstood my post. I have no interest in discussing the color reproduction by different cameras and raw converters, I don't even have the necessary knowledge either; for example I have not ever used the DNG Profile Editor yet.

I replied tho_mas in an earlier post, that the final colors depend too much on the raw conversion software and on individual profiling and it is nonsensical to judge a camera based on liking or disliking certain renderings. The other thread I linked to proves just that.

[Panopeeper]

...

I heard somewhere, that the Hasselblad H2763-XIV will feature capital letters, and the -XVIII even a new line key. Though such high-end professional equipment will certainly cost much more than a H3DII-39.

[Slough]

I heard somewhere, that the Hasselblad H2763-XIV will feature capital letters, and the -XVIII even a new line key. Though such high-end professional equipment will certainly cost much more than a H3DII-39.

   Something tells me you will be getting death threats from the Anti-Full-Stop Society. It always amazes me that someone can claim to be a skilled professional using very expensive equipment (so presumably well paid) and yet they express themselves in a semi-literate manner.

[Professional]

I heard somewhere, that the Hasselblad H2763-XIV will feature capital letters, and the -XVIII even a new line key. Though such high-end professional equipment will certainly cost much more than a H3DII-39.

I am looking for Phase one DB or large format, i got enough of DSLRs.

[cmi]

...and it is nonsensical to judge a camera based on liking or disliking certain renderings.

Fair, and thanks for the clarification! I was merely making my statement in comment to the post I cited, I was not following your earlier responses.

I would like to know your position regarding the whole thread, regarding the difference between 35mm and mfdb, and how do you arrive at your conclusion. Don't want to downtalk you! Just want to understand.

Christian





And Jeremy, I will have to live with that you or other people don't like what I post. Nevertheless, I have to say what I feel I have to say. The same goes for you, for everybody here.

[Panopeeper]

I would like to know your position regarding the whole thread, regarding the difference between 35mm and mfdb, and how do you arrive at your conclusion

Well, at the risk of sounding very strange: I don't have much opinion. I base my opinions on specific raw images, which are suitable for certain measurements, and I don't have many from MFDBs.

However, I do have a firm opinion regarding the OP's original question:

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology?

If one camera can capture a scenery with greater dynamic range than another camera, then the difference can be made visible on print as well; this is only the question of raw processing.

[cmi]

Well, at the risk of sounding very strange: I don't have much opinion. I base my opinions on specific raw images, which are suitable for certain measurements, and I don't have many from MFDBs.

However, I do have a firm opinion regarding the OP's original question:

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology?

If one camera can capture a scenery with greater dynamic range than another camera, then the difference can be made visible on print as well; this is only the question of raw processing.

Thanks Gabor, now I know your position. Thats completely fair and understandable.

[Ray]

Hi,

I downloaded the Canon 5DII image and the Hasselblad H3DII-50 image and printed both from Lightroom in A2 format on my Epson 3800. Settings: 480 PPI/Standard sharpening/Glossy. Paper: Ilford Smooth Pearl.

Observations:

- Not a lot of difference
- At short viewing distance (25 cm) the Hassy image has better detail
- At longer distance (80 cm) Canon looks better to me, probably because of better DOF and more snap
- It's quite obvious that digital processing plays a big role

I have corrective glasses and that plays a role.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
I presume you made an A2 print. At this size one would expect any print from a 50mp image to be noticeably sharper than one from a 21mp image, but again, the extra detail will have been exaggerated in this case due to an inappropriate F stop used for the 5D2 shot. Even with the 12mp 5D1, which has wider pixel spacing than either the H3D or 5D2, I would use F5.6 for a portrait if I wanted to capture sharp eyelashes. Why would anyone use F13 for a portrait with a DSLR?

Two major disinguishing features of an MFDB compared with a 35mm format DSLR are (1) shallower DoF, (2) sharper and more detailed images due to a higher pixel count. The choice of F13 for the 5D2 has merely exaggerated these differences and demonstrated that the photographer who took these shots is either being deliberately deceptive or just doesn't know what he's doing. He should have used F7.1.

There's another difference in the lighting which might explain why the 5D2 print has more pop. Both images were shot using the same shutter speed of 1/60th, yet the ISO chosen for the H3D was ISO 50 and for the 5D2 ISO 200. The difference between F11 and F13 is only 1/3rd of a stop. The highlights on the model's face are much brighter in the 5D2 shot.

This comparison is seriously flawed.

[Professional]

Erik,
I presume you made an A2 print. At this size one would expect any print from a 50mp image to be noticeably sharper than one from a 21mp image, but again, the extra detail will have been exaggerated in this case due to an inappropriate F stop used for the 5D2 shot. Even with the 12mp 5D1, which has wider pixel spacing than either the H3D or 5D2, I would use F5.6 for a portrait if I wanted to capture sharp eyelashes. Why would anyone use F13 for a portrait with a DSLR?

Two major disinguishing features of an MFDB compared with a 35mm format DSLR are (1) shallower DoF, (2) sharper and more detailed images due to a higher pixel count. The choice of F13 for the 5D2 has merely exaggerated these differences and demonstrated that the photographer who took these shots is either being deliberately deceptive or just doesn't know what he's doing. He should have used F7.1.

There's another difference in the lighting which might explain why the 5D2 print has more pop. Both images were shot using the same shutter speed of 1/60th, yet the ISO chosen for the H3D was ISO 50 and for the 5D2 ISO 200. The difference between F11 and F13 is only 1/3rd of a stop. The highlights on the model's face are much brighter in the 5D2 shot.

This comparison is seriously flawed.

Let's say we choose f5.6-f8, 1/125, ISO100 for both Hasselblad or any MFDB larger than 30mp and say Nikon D3X or Canon 5D2 or 1Ds3 and then print the results from both systems to A2 size or say A1, will be there a difference? which will be a winner?

[Ray]

Let's say we choose f5.6-f8, 1/125, ISO100 for both Hasselblad or any MFDB larger than 30mp and say Nikon D3X or Canon 5D2 or 1Ds3 and then print the results from both systems to A2 size or say A1, will be there a difference? which will be a winner?

Yes. The MFDB image/print will have a shallower DoF and will be more detailed at a sufficiently large print size. My point is, it's being deceptive to exaggerate such differences.

There are certain 35mm format primes that are sharpest at F4 and still very sharp at F2.8. If one uses F5.6 to F8 with the MFDB, one should use F3.5 to F5 with the full frame 35mm. The MFDB image should still be more detailed but at least the over all appearance of the shot will be very similar as a result of equal DoF and will therefore be more suitable for comparison purposes.

When comparing qualities in images, it's always sensible to remove as far as possible unwanted distractions such as differences in DoF, instead of exaggerating them. If one were to use the MF lens at F2.8 because the shallowest of DoFs was required for esthetic reasons, and the equivalent 35mm lens had a maximum aperture of only F2.8, then clearly there's a legitimate point to be made that the MFDB has a DoF advantage in such circumstances with such choice of lenses. However, I think it's probably generally the case that 35mm lenses tend to have wider maximum apertures than MF lenses. I don't believe there's any MF lens for portraiture which is as fast as the Canon EF 85/F1.2.

[Professional]

Yes. The MFDB image/print will have a shallower DoF and will be more detailed at a sufficiently large print size. My point is, it's being deceptive to exaggerate such differences.

There are certain 35mm format primes that are sharpest at F4 and still very sharp at F2.8. If one uses F5.6 to F8 with the MFDB, one should use F3.5 to F5 with the full frame 35mm. The MFDB image should still be more detailed but at least the over all appearance of the shot will be very similar as a result of equal DoF and will therefore be more suitable for comparison purposes.

When comparing qualities in images, it's always sensible to remove as far as possible unwanted distractions such as differences in DoF, instead of exaggerating them. If one were to use the MF lens at F2.8 because the shallowest of DoFs was required for esthetic reasons, and the equivalent 35mm lens had a maximum aperture of only F2.8, then clearly there's a legitimate point to be made that the MFDB has a DoF advantage in such circumstances with such choice of lenses. However, I think it's probably generally the case that 35mm lenses tend to have wider maximum apertures than MF lenses. I don't believe there's any MF lens for portraiture which is as fast as the Canon EF 85/F1.2.

Canon EF 85mm f1.2 is not a fast lens, but it is one widest aperture lens alongside with 50mm 1.2 [there was 50 1.0], but let's say you are shooting landscapes at almost f11 up to f22, both systems, ignore portraits, now which one will be better on print up to A0 this time or 40" wide?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My comparison was in A2 size. To put it simple:

When viewed at 25 cm the MFDB was the winner
When viewed at 80 cm the DSLR was the winner

Ray is right about this beeing a flawed comparison, but it's one of the few we have.

Best regards
Erik

Let's say we choose f5.6-f8, 1/125, ISO100 for both Hasselblad or any MFDB larger than 30mp and say Nikon D3X or Canon 5D2 or 1Ds3 and then print the results from both systems to A2 size or say A1, will be there a difference? which will be a winner?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I'm pretty sure that MFDB wins at 40" wide. If you shot f/22 on MFDB and f/8 on the DSLR it may be possible that the DSLR will win.

My article below discusses 60x90 cm prints, based on studio shots of flat target. Seems MFDB (2006 model) wins independent of viewing distance.

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...SomeExperiments

Erik

Canon EF 85mm f1.2 is not a fast lens, but it is one widest aperture lens alongside with 50mm 1.2 [there was 50 1.0], but let's say you are shooting landscapes at almost f11 up to f22, both systems, ignore portraits, now which one will be better on print up to A0 this time or 40" wide?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My comparison was in A2 size. To put it simple:

When viewed at 25 cm the MFDB was the winner
When viewed at 80 cm the DSLR was the winner

Ray is right about this being a flawed comparison, but it's one of the few we have.

The major difference I see in the A2 print at close range is that skin structure is more crisp. At longer distance the skin structure is less visible. The DSLR was probably at some disadvantage because of being stopped down beyond optimal aperture.

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It seems that image quality of the Canon 5DII and the 1DsIII is quite similar and I would suggest that the Nikon 3DX is also similar. If you feel that the MFDB images are crisper on screen at actual pixels that's just fine. An explanation may be that the MFDB doesn't have AA-filter, but also that the pixel pitch of your MFDB makes lesser demands on the lens than your DSLR.

What I have seen is that we can have large differences in image files but much smaller ones in actual print. One reason is that the back end of the process may rescale the image and sharpen for output. This process reduce differences.

In larger formats MFDB always wins, at least with optimal parameters.

Best regards
Erik

Maybe my post is worthless or meaningful for many of you, but i look at Canon/Nikon DSLR shots at 100% on computer and also my Hasselblad H3DII-39 and i got blown away easily with my H3D and not with any of Canon/Nikon, i don't have Nikon D3X [just downloaded samples from the net] or 5D mkII, but i have 1Ds3 and 1Ds2 and 5D classic, and none of them wowing me against my H3DII, even i did a simple test [not sure if i said that here before] with my H3DII against my 1DsIII, the H3DII was the winner in term of sharpness, color, and contrast, so i dunno if i print how come that those 35mm DSLR can be amazing and maybe same as MFDB when in real tests the MFDB are the winner in most cases? I cropped many shots from Canon and Hasselblad, the hasselblad crops were the winners always over the Canon crops no doubt whatever i do, i know that may not get you any help or interested, but from what i see i love MF very much and i will always use it for what i can shoot with them and print at any size, i have also Epson 3800 and i print A2 [17x22/17x25] and planning to go larger [44" printer], so i think i should make whistles for how good those new current and upcoming 35mm DSLR, then tell me honestly what is the benefit and worth to get those MFDB if you prints large say up to 40" and all can be great good enough, what will make those MFDB an advantage over DSLRs then? and why they are so expensive in this case? i really couldn't get any honest truth answers anywhere because many trying to make those DSLRs as good as MFDB even in prints, and even some saying that DSLRs quality is better than MFDB like what they are doing with Nikon D3X against Hasselblad/Phase One DBs.

[Professional]

Hi,

I'm pretty sure that MFDB wins at 40" wide. If you shot f/22 on MFDB and f/8 on the DSLR it may be possible that the DSLR will win.

My article below discusses 60x90 cm prints, based on studio shots of flat target. Seems MFDB (2006 model) wins independent of viewing distance.

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...SomeExperiments

Erik

Hi,

It seems that image quality of the Canon 5DII and the 1DsIII is quite similar and I would suggest that the Nikon 3DX is also similar. If you feel that the MFDB images are crisper on screen at actual pixels that's just fine. An explanation may be that the MFDB doesn't have AA-filter, but also that the pixel pitch of your MFDB makes lesser demands on the lens than your DSLR.

What I have seen is that we can have large differences in image files but much smaller ones in actual print. One reason is that the back end of the process may rescale the image and sharpen for output. This process reduce differences.

In larger formats MFDB always wins, at least with optimal parameters.

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

Thank you very much!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi

I actually tried to print the P45 image at f/22 from the LL shootout with the same settings and crop I used before. It is definitively less sharp than the f/8 version and it's pretty close to my Sony Alpha 900 image. I'd rate them

1) P45 f/8
2) P45 f/22
3) Sony Alpha 900 f/8

2) and 3) is pretty close.

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

I'm pretty sure that MFDB wins at 40" wide. If you shot f/22 on MFDB and f/8 on the DSLR it may be possible that the DSLR will win.

My article below discusses 60x90 cm prints, based on studio shots of flat target. Seems MFDB (2006 model) wins independent of viewing distance.

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...SomeExperiments

Erik

[Ray]

Canon EF 85mm f1.2 is not a fast lens, but it is one widest aperture lens alongside with 50mm 1.2........

What are you talking about? Fast means wide aperture because you can use a fast shutter speed. Did you think it meant fast autofocussing?

[Professional]

What are you talking about? Fast means wide aperture because you can use a fast shutter speed. Did you think it meant fast autofocussing?

Thank you very much, now you explained it better, but saying fast in general can't explain much, i am a noob and don't understand quickly.