which camera is best for low light & large prints?

[bigdan123]

I know there's a long debate the advantages of medium format backs, but I have a specific set up and I'm hoping for a bit of quick advice.

Shooting human talent inside, and I can't add more light, or slow the shutter, need the DOF of f/5.6
Current meter reading 1/100 sec, f/5.6 1600 ISO

Here's the rub, client wants big files for large advertising prints, bus banners, posters, etc 40" or larger

So given those requirements, what does the community suggest I rent?
Phase One P30+, P40+ P45+ or P65+,
Should I use the sensor plus mode or not? Under expose and Push?

Or would it be better to use the Canon 1Ds Mark III or 5D mark II given the high ISO and up-res for the large prints?
Shooting on Tuesday, please help ASAP.
Thanks
Daniel

[fredjeang]

Hi Daniel.

In your particular need, I would go 100% for a D3x.

Low light capability is impressive and above Canon on that matter.

Cheers.

[JdeV]

Low light can be perfectly usable if it is attractive light. If the light is unattractive I would insist on sticking some more light in or walk away from the job.

Use a Nikon D3x at F4 1/100sec and 800 ISO. It is the best there is at the moment for what you want. It is much better to shoot a stop wider than to go to ISO 1600.

24-70mm F2.8, new 70-200mm F2.8 and any of the long fast lenses. Don't even think about medium-format.

It sounds like you haven't used a D3x before. If this is the case, rent one tomorrow or Monday and practise all day with your focus technique. Use the centre button on the dial on the back to preview at 100%.

Use a tripod if you can.

Edit with Lightroom, Aperture or whatever you are comfortable with.

Process final selection of raw files with Nikon NX2. You could also use Raw Developer or Capture One.

[Dick Roadnight]

I know there's a long debate the advantages of medium format backs, but I have a specific set up and I'm hoping for a bit of quick advice.

Shooting human talent inside, and I can't add more light, or slow the shutter, need the DOF of f/5.6
Current meter reading 1/100 sec, f/5.6 1600 ISO

Here's the rub, client wants big files for large advertising prints, bus banners, posters, etc 40" or larger

Thanks
Daniel

The D3 is better in low light than the D3X, but lacks the res for large prints.

The Hasselblad H4D-40 and the H3D11-31 go to 1600, and would be worth considering if you can work with a tripod, but the DOF will suffer compared to small format.

edit: H4D-40 is was wrong

[Dale Allyn]

Dick mentioned it in his post, but I was going to comment that if you find f/5.6 in small format ideal for your situation, you will likely be shooting at around f/8 to achieve similar DoF (depending on which MFDB sensor crop is chosen). Perhaps something to think about in the equation.

[eronald]

Dick mentioned it in his post, but I was going to comment that if you find f/5.6 in small format ideal for your situation, you will likely be shooting at around f/8 to achieve similar DoF (depending on which MFDB sensor crop is chosen). Perhaps something to think about in the equation.

The D3x or 5DII will fare best in this situation. D3x has better focus, 5DII is ok too at f5.6. D700 and D3 will run out of pixels.

Edmund

[JdeV]

The D3 is better in low light than the D3X, but lacks the res for large prints.

The Hasselblad H4D-40 only goes up to 800 iso, but the H3D11-31 goes to 1600, and would be worth considering if you can work with a tripod, but the DOF will suffer compared to small format.

The D3 is not better below about 1600 ISO once you down-rez the D3x file to compare like with like.
In any case, at 800 ISO the D3x gives you way more detail than the D3 with perfectly manageable noise.

The H4D-40 and H3D11-31 are very inferior to the D3x at 800 ISO and I personally find the noise and horrible tonality make these cameras unusable above 400 ISO.

[JdeV]

The D3x or 5DII will fare best in this situation. D3x has better focus, 5DII is ok too at f5.6. D700 and D3 will run out of pixels.

Edmund

It is very hard indeed to get accurate focus in low-light with the 5DII.

[eronald]

It is very hard indeed to get accurate focus in low-light with the 5DII.

The D3x will focus fast and well in low light. The one problem is that it can fixate on high-contrast items behind a performer rather than on the performer's softer features.

Edmund

[stewarthemley]

The H4D-40 and H3D11-31 are very inferior to the D3x at 800 ISO and I personally find the noise and horrible tonality make these cameras unusable above 400 ISO.

JdeV, Have you tested the H4D40 at 800 against the D3x at 800 in the same conditions and using Phocus 2.5 to process the hass files? (That's a question - not a statement that you haven't) I have and was surprised to find that, if anything, I found the HD40 superior overall. The  H3D2-31 does not compare so well. Not surprising considering its age. Be interested to hear your response.

edit: I agree with your comment re the poor focus ability of the 5D2 in low light. The Nikon eats it alive.

[rethmeier]

The D3x will be clearly the favourite.
Why?
You get more depth of field and you can use VR lenses.

No VR lenses for MFDB

[JdeV]

JdeV, Have you tested the H4D40 at 800 against the D3x at 800 in the same conditions and using Phocus 2.5 to process the hass files? (That's a question - not a statement that you haven't) I have and was surprised to find that, if anything, I found the HD40 superior overall. The  H3D2-31 does not compare so well. Not surprising considering its age. Be interested to hear your response.

edit: I agree with your comment re the poor focus ability of the 5D2 in low light. The Nikon eats it alive.

You are right to pull me up and, to be fair, I've only used the H4D40 briefly alongside the D3x and not done systematic tests. What I observed were familiar issues (nasty tonality in deep shadows at high ISOs). Maybe I should test some more. The D3x only starts looking ugly around 1600. I am very familiar with the H3DII-31 and am uneasy using it at 400 ISO, never mind higher.

I have no particular dslr/medium format digital/film axe to grind but try to test and find out the appropriate equipment for the task at hand. I also completely recognise the superiority of colour, resolution and tonality of even the H3DII-31 over the D3x under appropriate conditions, (they are just very restricted).

[Doug Peterson]

I'm a huge advocate of medium format on this board and elsewhere (I'm the Head of Technical Services for a large Phase One / Leaf dealer) and I agree with the rest of the recommendations here. If you absolutely cannot add more light to the scene then 5DII or D3X will be your best bet. If you could add just another couple stops of light then the medium format systems will start to mop the floor, especially the P65+ which has unbelievable resolution/color/DR. But if you cannot add another stop or two of shutter, aperture, or ambient light then this is not an easy job for a medium format system. Is there no way for you to add more light? e.g. strobes through existing window-light, replacing existing lower watt bulbs with higher watt bulbs?

No matter which route you go you should be VERY interested in trying different raw converters as not all programs which can open your files will show them with the same quality; this is especially true for higher ISO shots. Capture One, LightRoom, Irrident Raw Developer, etc etc should all be on your list to run a file or two through to make your own conclusions.

That said you did ask, so I'll offer a couple options in medium format

In the Leaf/Phase product line the leading high-ISO cameras are the P30+ (1600ISO@31mp) and P65+ in sensor plus mode (1600/3200ISO@15mp). The 15mp from the sensor plus files are pixel binned prior to the raw file from a 60 megapixel sensor with no AA filter and compare favorably to a 22-24 megapixel dSLR in actual resolved detail, but you're looking for higher resolution not favorable resolution. We have a comparison on our website of the P40+ 10mp Sensor Plus files to the 5D2 at ISO800 - bare in mind when viewing that the P65+ Sensor Plus files are 50% larger.

We don't know about your subject/scene, but one strategy to think about would be shooting different "plates". If you're frame is mostly a static scene with people moving within it then set up on a tripod with a P65+ and shoot one plate of the overall static scene at 60 megapixels at ISO400* with longer shutter speed (highest of any digital back) and then with a simple button push you could shoot an ISO1600 plate at 15 megapixels with a longer lens to capture the people. Or you could lower the ISO and take one plate wide-open (subject in focus / environment OOF) and another plate with high enough aperture for the environment. I'd rather take single-frames than composite but the situation you're positing is not an easy one for any camera if your goal is top notch quality large prints.

*ISO400@60mp and ISO1600@15mp have very similar grain/contrast/color characteristics so the composite files would match

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

[jduncan]

The Hasselblad H4D-40 only goes up to 800 iso, but the H3D11-31 goes to 1600,

This is an error: The H4D-40 goes up to 1600.

[stewarthemley]

You are right to pull me up and, to be fair, I've only used the H4D40 briefly alongside the D3x and not done systematic tests. What I observed were familiar issues (nasty tonality in deep shadows at high ISOs). Maybe I should test some more. The D3x only starts looking ugly around 1600. I am very familiar with the H3DII-31 and am uneasy using it at 400 ISO, never mind higher.

I have no particular dslr/medium format digital/film axe to grind but try to test and find out the appropriate equipment for the task at hand. I also completely recognise the superiority of colour, resolution and tonality of even the H3DII-31 over the D3x under appropriate conditions, (they are just very restricted).

Hi JdeV

Well, I hope I didn’t pull you up too much – we agree on some things. The H3D2-31 is not that good over 400 and the H3D-39 isn’t either. I wouldn’t show either to a client without a specific reason. I agree, part of that is what happens in the shadows. Which is interesting because pushing the shadows at low ISO is one of the strengths of MFDBs. In my experience, Phase backs also suck at higher ISOs so that’s not an anti-Hasselblad point.

But I would recommend a test of the H4D-40. It’s a step forward from previous MFDB higher ISO results. It goes to 1600 and is useable at that level in certain (very limited) situations IMHO. And a final point of agreement: I have no axe to grind re any make of gear at any level. I’ll use whatever is best for the job. I’ve changed brands more times than I’ve had hot dinners – and I’m no skinny. Regards.

[Dick Roadnight]

This is an error: The H4D-40 goes up to 1600.

Yes...sorry,,, the H4D-60 data sheet I looked at compares it to the H3D11's not the H44-40!

[Steve Hendrix]

Hi JdeV

Well, I hope I didn’t pull you up too much – we agree on some things. The H3D2-31 is not that good over 400 and the H3D-39 isn’t either. I wouldn’t show either to a client without a specific reason. I agree, part of that is what happens in the shadows. Which is interesting because pushing the shadows at low ISO is one of the strengths of MFDBs. In my experience, Phase backs also suck at higher ISOs so that’s not an anti-Hasselblad point.

But I would recommend a test of the H4D-40. It’s a step forward from previous MFDB higher ISO results. It goes to 1600 and is useable at that level in certain (very limited) situations IMHO. And a final point of agreement: I have no axe to grind re any make of gear at any level. I’ll use whatever is best for the job. I’ve changed brands more times than I’ve had hot dinners – and I’m no skinny. Regards.

Really - you haven't found the H3D2-31 to be significantly better than the H3D-39? I found the H3D2-31 to be quite good at 400 and 800 and also the P31+ to be equally good. I agree about the shadows - if you're shooting higher ISO with an H3D2-31 or a P30+ (and presumably an H4D-40) the shadows won't react as nicely to pushing/pulling as captures at ISO 50/100, if that's what you mean.

But I wouldn't have any hesitation with a well exposed 400/800 (especially 400) capture from an H3D2-31 or P30+.


Steve Hendrix

[Guy Mancuso]

Just wanted to add info on the P40+ and this gig is what I would call a tweener since the restrictions on it are tough with regards to light BUT obviously if you have to go big than MF is going to be better but your going to fight ISO. On the P40+ you could actually go two ways although I have not fully tested it out but it does work good is actually shoot it in sensor plus which is only 10 mpx but you can uprez it in C1 at the raw processing stage back up about 150 percent with good results than go to print( this I have not tried is printing big like this). I would only do this if it just had to be ISO 1600 . Now if you can do ISO800 than you can go full rez 40 mpx and at ISO 800 it is really good with maybe a little extra noise control but you can go big with no problems. Not saying this is better in this situation over the D3X or something else in 35mm but it is at least a consideration. For myself I would do it since I own it and I would put it into play here. The other option and i have done it is the P30+ at ISO 1600 at full rez. Great results here and maybe the best highest full res ISO back there is in Phase. It does go to ISO 1600 with good results with maybe a little noise control could be the best option at the bigger print size.

This is a tough gig to do so whatever you chose I would be really confident in yourself and gear to pull it off.

BTW I would not touch this gig with anything in Phase gear that is NOT a D lens. In this case at 5.6 the 80 D would most likely be the best bet as you can still get some decent DOF if you are doing like 3/4 length shots. The best wide open lens in Phase is the 150D followed closely by the 80D. Now if you need and can go wider than the 45D is also very good and at 5.6 good on DOF but shooting people this maybe too wide. Obviously depends on what you are shooting but I am leaning on the 80D here back a little to catch the DOF. I should add if this is one person in the shot if it is two and they are offset you might be screwed. I should add the 80mm LS as well

[stewarthemley]

Really - you haven't found the H3D2-31 to be significantly better than the H3D-39? I found the H3D2-31 to be quite good at 400 and 800 and also the P31+ to be equally good. I agree about the shadows - if you're shooting higher ISO with an H3D2-31 or a P30+ (and presumably an H4D-40) the shadows won't react as nicely to pushing/pulling as captures at ISO 50/100, if that's what you mean.

But I wouldn't have any hesitation with a well exposed 400/800 (especially 400) capture from an H3D2-31 or P30+.


Steve Hendrix

Hi Steve

Just want to say first that  I respect the way you approach various forums with helpful advice and avoid an all-out sales approach. In the present climate that can’t be easy.

Re my views on high ISO stuff with the H3D2-31 vs 39: I didn’t word it as precisely as I should, sorry. My findings are of course only relevant to my needs and so should be taken with a large pinch of salt. YMMV is one of the best qualifiers – IMHO!

I tested them (and Phase) about two years ago and found the 31 better than the 39 by about a stop at 200 up. (as you know, the 31 goes to 1600 and the 39 to 800 after the ISO boost in firmware)  Significantly, I did my first tests in Phocus 1 but reworking the files in Phocus 2.5 I find both the 31 and 39 are almost a stop better. So now I would be able to use the 31 at 800 at a push and the 39 at 400 – both with some discrete NR, which I find Phocus is great at.

But I should stress that it would depend on the subject, the client and the brief. I have some personal stuff done on the 39, pushed two stops, cropped and blown up massively that I like almost better than anything else I’ve ever done, but that’s for me. I know because I’ve done it, that some of my architect clients would query the quality of 60” prints at 400 ISO from the 39. In that situation, like it or not, they determine what I’m happy with.

The HD4-40 is at least a stop better then the HD2-31 in Phocus 2.5, in my experience and with my requirements. And I find the shadows are substantially better. I would use it at 800 ISO with some NR in Phocus in certain situations, eg, shots of robots in a car factory, but not of a high-tech interior (which probably would be brighter/not moving anyway). And for, say some editorial stuff or a theatre photo call, 1600 might be okay. But because individual requirements vary so much it’s really difficult to say.

I hope the wording is less clumsy on this reply but right now (I’m working flat out in Japan, trying to avoid smokers and alcohol that’s offered every few minutes after 5.00 pm!) I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve clouded my views even more. Cheers. OTOH, maybe alcohol might help clarify things for me...

[Steve Hendrix]

Hi Steve

Just want to say first that  I respect the way you approach various forums with helpful advice and avoid an all-out sales approach. In the present climate that can’t be easy.

Re my views on high ISO stuff with the H3D2-31 vs 39: I didn’t word it as precisely as I should, sorry. My findings are of course only relevant to my needs and so should be taken with a large pinch of salt. YMMV is one of the best qualifiers – IMHO!

I tested them (and Phase) about two years ago and found the 31 better than the 39 by about a stop at 200 up. (as you know, the 31 goes to 1600 and the 39 to 800 after the ISO boost in firmware)  Significantly, I did my first tests in Phocus 1 but reworking the files in Phocus 2.5 I find both the 31 and 39 are almost a stop better. So now I would be able to use the 31 at 800 at a push and the 39 at 400 – both with some discrete NR, which I find Phocus is great at.

But I should stress that it would depend on the subject, the client and the brief. I have some personal stuff done on the 39, pushed two stops, cropped and blown up massively that I like almost better than anything else I’ve ever done, but that’s for me. I know because I’ve done it, that some of my architect clients would query the quality of 60” prints at 400 ISO from the 39. In that situation, like it or not, they determine what I’m happy with.

The HD4-40 is at least a stop better then the HD2-31 in Phocus 2.5, in my experience and with my requirements. And I find the shadows are substantially better. I would use it at 800 ISO with some NR in Phocus in certain situations, eg, shots of robots in a car factory, but not of a high-tech interior (which probably would be brighter/not moving anyway). And for, say some editorial stuff or a theatre photo call, 1600 might be okay. But because individual requirements vary so much it’s really difficult to say.

I hope the wording is less clumsy on this reply but right now (I’m working flat out in Japan, trying to avoid smokers and alcohol that’s offered every few minutes after 5.00 pm!) I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve clouded my views even more. Cheers. OTOH, maybe alcohol might help clarify things for me...

Hi Stewart

You bring up some important details - especially with regard to processing. I share your experience that several years advancement just in software has yielded significantly more flexibility with high ISO captures, certainly I've seen it with Phase One/Capture One and I'm sure the same can be said with Hasselblad/Phocus as well.

And I think I was speaking more generally - for sure the subject key, overall exposure and light source can have major effects on high ISO performance as you point out....actually with just about every product.

And thanks for your compliment. I'm happy to say that the "present climate" hasn't put any pressure on me to become more all out sales driven, because while it is a challenge to the industry, Capture Integration has continued to steadily set new sales marks each quarter from last year through the present. If anything, ideally I would be able to clone myself because there are barely enough hours in the day to keep up with what we're generating.

What does make my even handed approach a challenge is that I know pretty well all of the medium format products and how they compare relative to each other, and their strengths and weaknesses. But in a public forum there is a professional courtesy I believe. So even if I know Hasselblad through and through, strengths and weaknesses, I currently don't sell it, and try not to discuss it other than in an independent manner, especially on a public forum. In general, I believe in pointing out the strengths of a product. Other than objectively quantifiable limitations that are relevant to the discussion, I don't see the need to point out a competitors weaknesses in a public forum. If those attributes are important to the discussion, hopefully the party who is selling that product will frankly discuss any weakness that is brought up. It doesn't mean I don't slip up once in a while though.....human nature. But thanks for noticing. I try.


Steve Hendrix