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

[Dick Roadnight]

The medium format backs have a much larger sensor area and should be able to collect many more photons, but this does not fully translate into the observed results.

As I said above, and as you confirmed, See Figure 5a DR tends to increase with pixel size, MFBs have more pixels (= higher res) but the pixels are smaller, (giving less moire), so it is remarkable how good their DR is compared to cameras with larger pixels.  

[bjanes]

Are you a science? wow, you good

I love you

I will sale my h 50 and I will get 300 dollars camera. (I can't wait to do that)

They look much better, they are better.

No only the I love you, I'm in love with you.(are you in San Francisco)?

Now I know why Jack, say it, sir, yes, sir.

Happy saturday

Blas

Your humor escapes me, Blas   . Rather than sell your camera, it would be more productive for you to learn how to interpret the data in the context of a given photographic situation  . Do you need resolution? Use your H 50. Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice. You might consider the Nikon D3. If you need the highest DR, you could consider the D3x, but if tonal range is more important, your H 50 is not bad. If you want portability and reasonably good DR at base ISO, the G10 might be a good choice.

[bjanes]

As I said above, and as you confirmed, See Figure 5a DR tends to increase with pixel size, MFBs have more pixels (= higher res) but the pixels are smaller, (giving less moire), so it is remarkable how good their DR is compared to cameras with larger pixels.

You are not considering the large sensor area of the medium format camera, which can collect many more photons than a dSRL with the same pixel size. The pixel size decreases as the MP for a given sensor size increases, but the number of photons collected may remain about the same, so the SNR and DR may remain the same.  Read noise also enters into the equation, but as mentioned above, small pixels can have good read noise at low ISO.

[BlasR]

Your humor escapes me, Blas   . Rather than sell your camera, it would be more productive for you to learn how to interpret the data in the context of a given photographic situation  .  You might consider the Nikon D3. If you need the highest DR, you could consider the D3x, but if tonal range is more important, your H 50 is not bad. If you want portability and reasonably good DR at base ISO, the G10 might be a good choice.

Do you need resolution? Use your H 50. Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice.

Here is 800 with h 50,,I think I like it,,what about you?  even if you don't like it, tell me you do.  

Life is beautiful

Blas

[cmi]

Many have criticized the DXO results ... the DXO engineers have a thorough theoretical knowledge ...

I'd rather believe my own eyes than third opinion. Make up my own mind with the real thing, plain and simple. Really everybody who is talking here should tell his equipment. These who are arguing with DX0 numbers obviously don't use the systems they are talking about. Laughable, hilarious, for a real discussion. I know how a insightful technical discussion looks like. This here is NOT one. I don't have a clue about DR of these systems. But I don't throw DX0 numbers around pretending I have. Really guys just shut up and listen to these who can make an actual comparisation. I'm open to any result it just has to sound plausible and originate from own working experience. Ok maybe if a sensor engineer has his talk here that would be certainly insightful as well.

Happy DX0'ing

Christian

//ED:

You know guys this whole discussion is strange. I'm new here, I don't understand whats going wrong here. Theoreticians arguing with nothing but DX0 numbers and RAW graphs telling things contradicting common wisdom (Wich would not be bad in itself, but it's also not plausible enough to convince) and telling pros that their experiences are nothing worth because they are biased. And these pros who should KNOW IT BETTER remain mysteriously silent, except for some really pissed off ones. I wonder why this is.

I mean why could not just someone who has working experience with smaller and bigger sensor systems just describe the difference so it gets comprehensible? Is the DR difference big, is it subtle, which are the typical working situations where it really makes a difference, etc. etc.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice.

Here is 800 with h 50

Do you call ISO800 a 'high ISO'? don't make us laugh. When one talks about high ISO is when very low light is available for handheld shooting, and ISO needs to be raised to over 3200 to get a decent exposure and shutter. This is the application when a camera like a Nikon D3X will beat your H50.

But this doesn't mean the H 50 isn't a great machine, it was simply not designed for that situation. Please leave the penis contest and enter a serious discusion about DR.

PS: I like this 350D's shot at ISO800 (no NR needed nor applied) more than the corny Boston view  

[EricWHiss]

Do you call ISO800 a 'high ISO'? don't make us laugh. When one talks about high ISO is when very low light is available for shooting at high speeds, and ISO needs to be raised to over 3200 to get a decent exposure (not only in the camera but also in pp when lifting the shadows). This is the application when a camera like a Nikon D3X will beat your H50.

But this doesn't mean the H 50 isn't a great machine, it was simply not designed for that situation. Please leave the penis contest and enter a serious discusion about DR.

PS: I like this 350D's shot at ISO800 (no NR needed nor applied) more than the corny Boston view  

Is that at the Sophia Reina museum?  Was there once 10 years ago, remember it was quite nice.   Anyhow to me this image has a nice composition but looks flat and actually noisy at least in the sweater and hair.  Just in case you all are running out of things to discuss perhaps you should meld your DR topics into which format gives you better tonality and visual depth.  Medium format of course, but you won't know until you've debated that for hundreds of posts. What? Oh yeah, maybe no one will agree even then.   But its another component of the whole.   Tonality, 3D effect or visual depth and DR - a trio of related components that contribute to visual richness and palpability.  

[Guillermo Luijk]

Is that at the Sophia Reina museum?  Was there once 10 years ago, remember it was quite nice.   Anyhow to me this image has a nice composition but looks flat and actually noisy at least in the sweater and hair.  Just in case you all are running out of things to discuss perhaps you should meld your DR topics into which format gives you better tonality and visual depth.

This is the MOMA museum in NY, and the image is not noisier than Blas' corny night view. Not to mention this camera started to sell in Feb 2005 costing some 40 times less than Blas' H 50. I could pp it mode adequatelly to make it look better, but had no interest at all in doing it since I consider it just a test image.

[Panopeeper]

this image has a nice composition but looks flat
...
Tonality, 3D effect or visual depth and DR - a trio of related components that contribute to visual richness and palpability.

Eric, the so-called 3D effect is the result of the wider angle of view, where the MFDBs are in great advantage, particularly compared to APS-C cameras. However, if you used a wider angle of view, the composition would be very different. If you like this composition, then you would have to make the shot with a correspondingly longer lens, otherwise the woman's head would cover the entire lower back of the man. So, either the same composition or the 3D effect.

[bjanes]

Do you need resolution? Use your H 50. Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice.

Here is 800 with h 50,,I think I like it,,what about you?  even if you don't like it, tell me you do.  

Life is beautiful

Blas

Blas,

An excellent shot. Since you could have used a tripod at base ISO, I don't know why you used ISO 800.

[EricWHiss]

Eric, the so-called 3D effect is the result of the wider angle of view, where the MFDBs are in great advantage, particularly compared to APS-C cameras. However, if you used a wider angle of view, the composition would be very different. If you like this composition, then you would have to make the shot with a correspondingly longer lens, otherwise the woman's head would cover the entire lower back of the man. So, either the same composition or the 3D effect.

I was hoping you'd all get my joke!  

Thanks but your explanation isn't necessary and you'll note I did not ask for an answer or pose a question.

Rather I think its quite funny how you all can debate endlessly about the bits and bytes and what is better.  I was merely stirring the mud for you all since it seemed like you were running out of steam.

[skid00skid00]

You know guys this whole discussion is strange. I'm new here, I don't understand whats going wrong here. Theoreticians arguing with nothing but DX0 numbers and RAW graphs telling things contradicting common wisdom (Wich would not be bad in itself, but it's also not plausible enough to convince) and telling pros that their experiences are nothing worth because they are biased. And these pros who should KNOW IT BETTER remain mysteriously silent, except for some really pissed off ones. I wonder why this is.

I mean why could not just someone who has working experience with smaller and bigger sensor systems just describe the difference so it gets comprehensible? Is the DR difference big, is it subtle, which are the typical working situations where it really makes a difference, etc. etc.

Christian, let me explain.

There's a few -very- smart people posting in this thread.  They understand the physics behind digital imaging, and the physics doesn't allow for the percieved results of the MFDB owners.

A pixel can only do a very few things.  It can generate noise electrons, it can attempt to remove them, it can filter light, and it can count photons.  Then there's a few modifiers that work over larger areas-the AA filter (if it exists) blurs, and the lens reduces contrast, and focuses.

At this stage of the game, we expect most pixels to perform fairly equally.  And we expect the big, rich, engineer-laden manufacturers to lead by a small amount.

We also expect internet posters to love their own equipement, and to believe it's better than -our- equipement.  They are wrong, of course...  

As to my contribution to this thread, I'd like to restate what I've posted here in the past:  that -I- think the primary image quality enhancers in MFDB's are the closely-mimiced film tone curve (exemplified in those wonderful skin and cloud tones), and Bayer filter colors that IMHO let thru less light, but result in RAW data that's closer to color-correct / human eyes' response curves.

[cmi]

Thanks Skid,

I get what you say! Also your posts pointed me to one or two most interesting threads.

Christian

[BJL]

... wider angle of view, where the MFDBs are in great advantage, particularly compared to APS-C cameras.

Actually, I believe that APS-C, 35mm and even 4/3 all offer (non-fish-eye) lenses of wider FOV than is available in any current DMF or 645 SLR system. The shortest rectilinear lens focal lengths I know of are 7mm in 4/3, 10mm in EF-S and DX, 14mm in 35mm, 28mm in MF.

[Panopeeper]

I was hoping you'd all get my joke!

[Panopeeper]

Actually, I believe that APS-C, 35mm and even 4/3 all offer (non-fish-eye) lenses of wider FOV than is available in any current DMF or 645 SLR system. The shortest rectilinear lens focal lengths I know of are 7mm in 4/3, 10mm in EF-S and DX, 14mm in 35mm, 28mm in MF.

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. Of course, the consequence is, that not only MFDBs can achieve that 3D-look, although the widest DSLR lenses have strong geometric distortions at their wide end, and that changes the perception of the effect.

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

[Christopher]

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. Of course, the consequence is, that not only MFDBs can achieve that 3D-look, although the widest DSLR lenses have strong geometric distortions at their wide end, and that changes the perception of the effect.

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

The shortest lens for MFDB is the 23 from Rodenstock. Which should be around 14mm on a P65 in 35mm.

[Ray]

Do you need resolution? Use your H 50. Do you need good high ISO for available light photography? Your H 50 is a poor choice.

Here is 800 with h 50,,I think I like it,,what about you?  even if you don't like it, tell me you do.  

Life is beautiful

Blas

Blas,
I'm disappointed you have not shown us a 100% crop so we can really appreciate the noisy water. There's a hint of noise there at the much reduced size. However, if you were to show us the full size image, I'm sure the noise would be so great it could substitute for a Punk RocK soundtrack    .

[BlasR]

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

[Ray]

The shortest lens for MFDB is the 23 from Rodenstock. Which should be around 14mm on a P65 in 35mm.

On the slightly smaller backs, such as the P25 at 48x36mm, comparing FOV along the horizontal axis, the Digaron-S 23mm would be equivalent to 17mm.

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.

Would those qualities be worth the additional cost? In USD, I think the 5D2 + TS-E 17mm would cost around $6,000. A second hand P25 around $10,000? The Digaron-S 23mm around $6,500? A 645 body to hold it all, around $4,000? So one system costs $6,000 and the other $20,000.