Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras  (Read 56329 times)

tsjanik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #140 on: December 25, 2010, 07:09:36 pm »

Yes, so do I, but I can also think of many others that stitching will address much better than a single frame of MFDB, starting with the 2m wide print I have in front of me as I type this X-Mas answer.  ;)

This is the point I was trying to make.

Cheers,
Bernard


Of course MFDB can be stitched as well.  I'm learning to use a new camera while in Philadelphia for the weekend.  Attached is an email Christmas card I sent out made from two 40 MP images taken yesterday.  I just used PS CS3 on a five-year-old laptop.   The color gradations are quite compressed in the web version and the resolution in the original file is such that a decent 8x10 could be made of any of the tree silhouettes.  Quite amazing.
Happy Holidays to all.

Addendum:  Now that I have access to an adequate computer, I’ve added a crop of actual pixels (DNG/ACR, no sharpening, 869w); stitch used jpegs from the camera.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 05:23:04 pm by tsjanik »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13723
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #141 on: December 25, 2010, 07:46:52 pm »

This forums is else at same stage it seems; an argument from certain photographers with DSLR of that it is equal to MFDB and from select ones of that stitching is answer to all. Silly.

There are probably people feeling that way, but there are others who are just considering all the available options and picking the best one for the job, which sometimes means stitching with a DSLR or with a back. Not everybody cares about formats or brands.

Your applications might differ, but I have several 2m large panoramic prints sitting in my place that a single P65+ shot would have been clearly unable to do as well as stitching, by a very large margin (think bout the gap between your excellent Leaf back and a Canon S90... and double it). A P65+ stitch would have been an even better option in terms of convenience, but at a much higher price with no actual advantage in terms of final image. This is factual.

I don't see what is so hard to understand here, what you do doesn't define quality landscape photography more than what Mark does (and quality refers here to the technical aspects discussed in this thread), we live in a vast world where different people are trying to achieve different things. If you decide to write a piece telling the world what tools they should be using to take "good" pictures, it is wise to do it with a good knowledge of the available choices.

Photography is about taking pictures and using the best tools we see fit for the job and we can afford.

Ah... very good.... I am glad that we agree on this then, it didn't come across well in the rest of your post. :)

I personally see no reason to stick to pre-defined aspect images ratio and meager pixel counts when stitching can open many other doors. I certainly see no reasons to do so when more can be had for less money.

By the way, how are you experiments going with stitching on your Shen Hao? Have you managed to reach a satisfactory level of sharpness?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 25, 2010, 07:58:55 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #142 on: December 25, 2010, 09:07:04 pm »

A P65+ stitch would have been an even better option in terms of convenience, but at a much higher price with no actual advantage in terms of final image. This is factual.

Following is incorrect, assuming still speak ultimate image quality: "...no actual advantage in terms of final image."

By the way, how are you experiments going with stitching on your Shen Hao? Have you managed to reach a satisfactory level of sharpness?

Shen-Hao is keeper for 4x5 FILM use.  ;D I do not like MFDB on a view camera since tilts & swings complicate and I do not find much need for such on small medium format sensor. Nor do I find convenience in using sliding adapter with groundglass. That said the non digital Schneider 72XL and Rodenstock Sironar-N 150mm are tack sharp on 28MP MFDB sensor, more so than my Mamiya non D lenses.

Please refer to my prior post for all rest. In regards to Galen Rowell, I hold much respect for his images, many are truly superb. Different than large format shooters, but that is also what is part of the choice of gear, it leaves an imprint on the image.

Cheers,
Anders
« Last Edit: December 25, 2010, 09:14:13 pm by Anders_HK »
Logged

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #143 on: December 25, 2010, 09:11:58 pm »

double post
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13723
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #144 on: December 25, 2010, 09:36:08 pm »

Following is incorrect, assuming still speak ultimate image quality: "...no actual advantage in terms of final image."

This is where you depart from rationality.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10299
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #145 on: December 25, 2010, 10:28:50 pm »

Why stitch when there is a larger sensor which not only can do the job better in one shot with same (or near same) pixels but also with far better performance from the sensor than any DSLR have.

The answer is clear. The performance is simply not far better. It's marginally better. Far better is an 8x10 plate or 4x5 film compared with 35mm film. The lack of grain and the obviously smoother tonality on even a modest size print from 4"x5" film, is really striking. That's what I call far better.

The other issue is cost, weight and the general lack of flebility of the MFDB system. For some of us, the MFDB system just doesn't make the grade.

Nick Rains has provided an example, in reply #119, of the marginally sharper results one may get from a $6,000 prime lens on a $23,000 camera, compared with a $2,000 zoom on an $8,000 DSLR.

$10,000 worth of camera plus one lens, even though the lens is a good quality zoom, is too expensive for me, especially considering that the lens doesn't even have the benefit of that wonderful technology called Image Stabilisation.

I'd be looking at a 5D2 if I wanted to exceed the quality of the Leica S2.

The Leica S2 plus standard 70mm prime not only costs around $29,000, it weighs about 2.3Kg.

The Canon 5D2 with the new 100/2.8 IS Macro can be had for as little as $3,500 total, and weighs only 1.5Kg.

A good 100mm lens is likely to be at least as sharp as an ultra-super-quality 70mm lens, when the shots are taken from the same perspective. 3 or 4 or 6 stitched 5D2 images using the Canon 100/2.8 IS Macro should knock the socks off a single shot from the $29,000 Leica system with standard 70mm lens.

But don't let me discourage anyone from splashing their money in the search for marginal improvements.

I'm well-used to the marginal (and even dubious) improved sound quality from ultra-super-expensive hi fi gear. However, to appreciate any such improvements in sound quality, imagined or real, one doesn't have to place one's ear a foot away from a loudspeaker, whereas to appreciate the improved image quality of a print from an MFDB one does have to place one's nose a foot away from the print.  ;D


Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #146 on: December 25, 2010, 10:45:47 pm »

Everyone is still comparing stitched images to single shot MFDB captures. This is pointless.

Ray, yes, certainly you can do better than a single S2 shot with a 5D2 and a 100macro if you shoot 6 or 8 frames. The problem is that if I do the same with an s2 I'll maintain the quality difference so we are back to where we started.

The only meaningful comparison is for single frames.

The D3x that I used confirms my earlier points from older posts on the subject. The next level of IQ is incremental only. The law of diminishing returns comes into play and an extra few percent of IQ comes at a higher and higher cost.

On a per pixel basic the Nikon and the Leica can be almost indistinguishable. The S2 has more MP (and generally better lenses) therefore bigger prints can be made of the same quality. This small gain comes at a great cost.

All true. After that there is nothing to discuss because you must all make up your own minds about the 'value' of that extra quality step. There is no right or wrong here, just personal situations and opinions.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Jeff Kott

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #147 on: December 25, 2010, 10:52:22 pm »

When Galen Rowell first started printing digitally he had an exhibit at his (former) Emeryville gallery where his and Bill Atkinson's Lightjet prints were on display.  Bill Atkinson's prints were made from scanned MF film, Rowell's from scanned 35mm film.  Huge difference in image quality: tonality, highlight & shadow detail, "muddiness" and grainlessness.  The difference in composition and working style is equally unmistakable and IMHO both Atkinson and Rowell chose equipment best suited to their particular working styles.

It, of course, does not surprise me that there is a difference in print quality from different formats (AA used LF and GR used 35mm). What does surprise me is that the differences are clearly visible in prints that are 8 inches on the longest side.

It's pretty common for a reviewer to say that there is no difference between smaller format X and larger formats Y at print size Z. I'm starting to question those statements.

And again, I apologize for going off topic.
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4203
    • advantica blog
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #148 on: December 25, 2010, 10:54:17 pm »

To put it in perspective (of a Non Stitcher):

1 H4D-40 image = 7304 pixels in length. Full image printed at 300 dpi = 24”
1 P65 image = 8984 pixels in length. Full image printed at 300 dpi = 30”

1 H4D-40 image = 7304 pixels in length. Full image printed at 180 dpi = 40”
1 P65 image = 8984 pixels in length. Full image printed at 180 dpi = 50”


1 6x17 film frame, scanned at 1,600 ppi  – 10700 pixels. Printed at 300 dpi = 35”
1 6x17 film frame, scanned at 3,200 ppi  – 21400 pixels. Printed at 300 dpi = 70” (almost 2 m)
I had some 6x17 city skylines printed with RIP program at 10-12 ft / 3-3.5 meters in very good quality

1 Roundshot 220 frame using 300 or 400mm lens – max. frame length is limited only by the film length – typically 150-165 cm for a 220 roll.
Prints made on Roundshot enlarger -  30-50 ft/10-16.5 m depending on the lens in the enlarger). I think paper rolls used to come in 100 ft length.
Did I mention that if you stick to a Roundshot enlarger system and real silver-emulsion paper, no stitching is required?

I think, next year I might get adventurous and try some new tricks.
Bernard, how many frames (and what image size) did you use to make the 2m panorama, and which is your preferred stitching program?
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3382
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #149 on: December 25, 2010, 10:56:22 pm »


Why stitch when there is a larger sensor which not only can do the job better in one shot with same (or near same) pixels but also with far better performance from the sensor than any DSLR have.

What basis do you have for this assertion? Certainly, scientific measurements by DXO show that the Nikon D3x has better per pixel performance than the Phase One P65+ on the parameters that they measured. In a practical field test comparing the Nikon D3x with the much more expensive Leica S2 with the , Digilloyd concluded:

"On a per-pixel basis, the Nikon D3x image fares very well with this sharpening approach. The two cameras appear to have very much the same per-pixel detail."

If one does not mind a bit of stitching, the megapixel advantage of the Leica can be overcome. Of course, one can also Stitch with the Leica S2, but one does not spend $27,995 for the camera and another $5,995.00 for the Leica Summarit-S 70mm F/2.5 CS Aspherical CS Lens and then stitch images. The D3x costs $7,399.00 and the 60 mm AFS MicroNikkor costs $539.95 (all prices from Adorama).

Regards and a merry Christmas to all,

Bill
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11303
    • Echophoto
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #150 on: December 25, 2010, 11:41:09 pm »

Hi,

Just a few comments. An MF equipment doesn't need to be that expensive. For sure, I loved to have a P65+, but no one is giving me the money for that. I may be able to do with a Pentax 645D or a lesser Phase One, possibly refurbed. On the other P65+ is optimal for sure, having a small crop factor. I guess that I'm not really prepared to pay for either.

As long as pixel sizes are similar I would expect similar performance on a per pixel basis. At present I'd suggest that Nikon D3X is the best choice in DSLR, but unfortunately a fairly expensive one. For the Nikon there are quite few lens options, including manual Zeiss lenses which seem to be very good. Correct focus is possible using live view. Some of the Nikon lenses are outstanding. Canon 5DII is much more affordable but has less desirable noise characteristics. A few of the Zeiss lenses are also available for Canon.

No, I don't suggest that everyone should buy ZF lenses but some like the 100 macro and the 21/2.8 seems to be very, very good!

In APS-C the Nikon 7000D seems to be a champ.

Just turning the camera 90 degrees and stitch makes it equivalent to next size. (APS-C to FF), FF to cropped MF. Stitching is always a good idea when you want to maximize what you have.

- Gives about 2.25 times the pixels
- Doesn't use full image circle
- Expands your view

This article illustrates some of the aspects: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/44-things-to-do-with-multiple-images

Unfortunately, stitching is not always an alternative. It won't work in some cases like waves, but it can always be worth a try:

http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Gotland-Public/20100804-Gotland040000/973172722_FftRg-L.jpg

Stitching is of course applicable to all formats. It can also be automated with some gear costing a small fraction of MF gear. Bernard is right on that.

On the other hand, the way Mark Dubovoy works makes a lot of sense. He tries to find the best tool available for the job and tries to use it optimally. He obviously can afford it. The Alpa he has seems to be reasonable light weight and certainly more practical than the 8x10" equipment it would replace. The Leica is efficient, environmentally sealed and has some of the best lenses ever built. Auto focus on the S2 works well for Mark.

So:
- Mark has P65+ on Alpa and S2
- Bernard has D3X and uses a Zeiss 100/2.0 macro and stitching
- You choose a Nikon D7000
- I have Sony Alpha 900 and a Sony Alpha 55 so now I even have live view!

These are choices based on needs, preferences and what we can reasonably afford.

Best regards
Erik


The answer is clear. The performance is simply not far better. It's marginally better. Far better is an 8x10 plate or 4x5 film compared with 35mm film. The lack of grain and the obviously smoother tonality on even a modest size print from 4"x5" film, is really striking. That's what I call far better.

The other issue is cost, weight and the general lack of flebility of the MFDB system. For some of us, the MFDB system just doesn't make the grade.

Nick Rains has provided an example, in reply #119, of the marginally sharper results one may get from a $6,000 prime lens on a $23,000 camera, compared with a $2,000 zoom on an $8,000 DSLR.

$10,000 worth of camera plus one lens, even though the lens is a good quality zoom, is too expensive for me, especially considering that the lens doesn't even have the benefit of that wonderful technology called Image Stabilisation.

I'd be looking at a 5D2 if I wanted to exceed the quality of the Leica S2.

The Leica S2 plus standard 70mm prime not only costs around $29,000, it weighs about 2.3Kg.

The Canon 5D2 with the new 100/2.8 IS Macro can be had for as little as $3,500 total, and weighs only 1.5Kg.

A good 100mm lens is likely to be at least as sharp as an ultra-super-quality 70mm lens, when the shots are taken from the same perspective. 3 or 4 or 6 stitched 5D2 images using the Canon 100/2.8 IS Macro should knock the socks off a single shot from the $29,000 Leica system with standard 70mm lens.

But don't let me discourage anyone from splashing their money in the search for marginal improvements.

I'm well-used to the marginal (and even dubious) improved sound quality from ultra-super-expensive hi fi gear. However, to appreciate any such improvements in sound quality, imagined or real, one doesn't have to place one's ear a foot away from a loudspeaker, whereas to appreciate the improved image quality of a print from an MFDB one does have to place one's nose a foot away from the print.  ;D



« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 07:55:16 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11303
    • Echophoto
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #151 on: December 26, 2010, 01:43:23 am »

Hi,

Thanks for posting the image. Unfortunately the only difference I can see is that the Leica image is sharper. I certainly cannot see more shadow detail.

Just because you pointed out, rightfully, that differences may be lost on lesser monitors I downloaded the image and added fill light in camera raw. I still cannot see the Leica containing more shadow detail.

I'm not arguing about your findings on the S2, it's just that I'd suggest that the image you posted doesn't tell the story.

This image made from raw images from the "Diglloyd" site and used with Mr. Lloyd Chambers kind permission indicates that Nikon (to the right) has better DR.

My article is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images
and Mr Lloyds article is here: http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/index.html#LeicaS2

"Diglloyds" DAP site is for subscribers only, unfortunately. For anyone considering investing thousands of dollars in equipment that Lloyd Chambers has evaluated a subscription to DAP would be a good idea.

Regarding the Leica S2, Lloyd Chambers liked it very much, but couldn't get it to focus reliably. He also recently tried the Pentax 645D and found that camera excellent in handling. Regarding lenses the Leica S2 lenses were remarkably excellent while he found the Hasselblad lenses and the new 55/2.8 for the Pentax lacking. His opinion, not mine, but he has samples to prove...

Best regards
Erik

« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 02:03:29 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #152 on: December 26, 2010, 06:28:03 am »

I'm well-used to the marginal (and even dubious) improved sound quality from ultra-super-expensive hi fi gear. However, to appreciate any such improvements in sound quality, imagined or real, one doesn't have to place one's ear a foot away from a loudspeaker, whereas to appreciate the improved image quality of a print from an MFDB one does have to place one's nose a foot away from the print.  ;D
For music playback, a lot of the current gear performs at a level where proper blind tests cannot prove that they are changing the sound in an audible way. Thus, it seems natural to assert that it is audible "perfect" for the application of listening to music.

For photography capture, we add the creativity of image processing, editing and "putting your nose against a 2 meter wide print". This means that there will probably always be corner-cases where someone will be able to spot some difference (even though som might think that it is a irrelevant use-case).

-h
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13723
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #153 on: December 26, 2010, 09:25:38 am »

For music playback, a lot of the current gear performs at a level where proper blind tests cannot prove that they are changing the sound in an audible way. Thus, it seems natural to assert that it is audible "perfect" for the application of listening to music.

A good analogy can be attacked from several angles. For some reason, the part I like best is the similarity of the denial I am witnessing regarding the value of objective measurements. :)

Better late than never, I have recently understood that our world is in fact governed by the theory of measurement. Successful endeavors differ from others because they:
1. Identify the relevant measure - that quality that makes some woman go wild when they smell a rare flagrance, that rightness of tone making a wealthy audiophile spend 50.000 US$ for a unobtainium turntable arm or those clean shadows that enduce a quick orgasm to hardcore pixelpeepers,
2. Take a conscious decision to focus on this measure and to try to produce a product that will fare well against it,
3. Develop the technology generating this utterly precious quantity at reasonable cost,
4. Manage to measure/quantify it more accurately and reliably to validate the potential of the solution throughout a development cycle.

As we have seen, any technology advanced enough is often perceived as magic but people typically only like magic when they perform it themselves.  ;D

And there comes the denial. A Devialet D-Premier can definitely not sound as good as a 50.000 US$ Mark Levinson pair of class D mono-blocks although it does measure much better, a pair of Wilson Benesch A.C.T. C60 measuring nearly linear up to 50 Khz can of course not overdo Magico Q3s stuck at 25 and there is no way the DR of a DSLR could be in the same ballpark as that of a P40+ back.  ;D

This is just a little fun, but the high end audio analogy just works wonders!

Cheers,
Bernard

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #154 on: December 26, 2010, 10:48:48 am »

A good analogy can be attacked from several angles. For some reason, the part I like best is the similarity of the denial I am witnessing regarding the value of objective measurements. :)
...
This is just a little fun, but the high end audio analogy just works wonders!
I did not understand your post, but my position is that if it cannot be heard, cannot be seen, cannot be smelled, cannot be touched, then for all practical purposes, one may as well consider it as not being there. Anyone claiming that it clearly is there, that cannot sense it in any way, are probably victims to "the emperrors new clothes"-effect.

This is my position on God, my position on (a lot of) audiophile equipment, and photography equipment. When people can show me a sensible side-by-side where I (or anyone else) can spot the difference, fine and good. If they can not, why bother?

-h
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #155 on: December 26, 2010, 11:43:39 am »

I did not understand your post, but my position is that if it cannot be heard, cannot be seen, cannot be smelled, cannot be touched, then for all practical purposes, one may as well consider it as not being there. Anyone claiming that it clearly is there, that cannot sense it in any way, are probably victims to "the emperrors new clothes"-effect.

This is my position on God, my position on (a lot of) audiophile equipment, and photography equipment. When people can show me a sensible side-by-side where I (or anyone else) can spot the difference, fine and good. If they can not, why bother?-h



People can bother for one good reason: faith. It really can move mountains in some circumstances.

Rob C

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #156 on: December 26, 2010, 11:47:06 am »

People can bother for one good reason: faith. It really can move mountains in some circumstances.
that sums up the entire thread really good... including the initial article by Mark D.
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #157 on: December 26, 2010, 12:38:16 pm »

People can bother for one good reason: faith. It really can move mountains in some circumstances.

Rob C
I dont know enough about MF to claim that faith is the only reason to buy one. I would argue that since photography is a creative activity (not only objectively capturing a scene, or objectively playing back the contents of a CD), pretty much any real difference between two cameras or two cathegories of cameras _can_ be made into a significant difference for some kinds of editing and/or presentation. That makes it very hard to state that two cameras have equally good image quality, or that their image quality is good enough.

-h
Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #158 on: December 26, 2010, 04:35:51 pm »

I did not understand your post, but my position is that if it cannot be heard, cannot be seen, cannot be smelled, cannot be touched, then for all practical purposes, one may as well consider it as not being there. Anyone claiming that it clearly is there, that cannot sense it in any way, are probably victims to "the emperrors new clothes"-effect.


How do you measure the benefits of using finely crafted hardware that simply gives pleasure by its use? If you get pleasure from using a tool, then there's a reasonable chance that you will do better work with it.

Using a camera that really feels good, and with a control setup that you, personally, find efficient and pleasing, can lead to greater enjoyment of your craft. This is not something that you can measure.

I have been in this game long enough to be able to take reasonable images with pretty much any camera; in fact in many cases I have to do this when I review cameras that I don't actually like very much. When the differences we are discussing here become so subtle, then it's often down to the feel, design and ergonomics of cameras to make a difference. And, if you have an 'expensive' camera, who's to say that the simple fact of owning a 'premium' product does not lead to better images simply because you just really enjoy using it.

Photography is a fascinating hobby/profession because there is so much more to it than lab tests.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #159 on: December 26, 2010, 04:55:16 pm »


...................Of course, one can also Stitch with the Leica S2, but one does not spend $27,995 for the camera and another $5,995.00 for the Leica Summarit-S 70mm F/2.5 CS Aspherical CS Lens and then stitch images. The D3x costs $7,399.00 and the 60 mm AFS MicroNikkor costs $539.95 (all prices from Adorama).

Regards and a merry Christmas to all,

Bill

Hi Bill, thanks and compliments of the Season to you as well.

Actually, there is no reason NOT to stitch medium format images - it depends on what kind of image you are making. I did a pano of the Toronto sky-line from the water front. There is NO WAY I could have encompassed all that material in a single shot with a wide angle lens on a DSLR and achieved the image quality at the size and resolution I printed it (5 feet long at something in the range of 300 PPI). It is three stitched P40+ shots. The detail in this pano, down to the texture of the concrete exterior of the CN Tower quite some distance away is truly quite remarkable. And it was made with the Phase One 75~150mm zoom lens, at 150mm, f/8.

While here, I would like to address two points from Bernard:

Bernard, yes, I too have had very annoying focus experiences with MF. I'm still to determine whether this is pilot error or something to do with the inherent nature of the technology. It can be amazingly sharp or truly crappy. Secondly, I think all this discussion of stitching is a bit of a red-herring. The real issue here is native image quality, before you start stitching anything. Much of the discussion of native image quality seems fixated on DxO, DigiLloyd and numbers about DR and pixel pitch. As I've mentioend before, I think the problem with DxO may have nothing to do with DxO itself, but with how people use it to convey lab work into making photographs; as for DigiLloyd, as I've said beforfe, all due respect to him, but I just don't find that Leica stuff he posted credible based on what I've personally witnessed that camera can do (anyhow, if he and Mark Dubovoy get together for some real-world photography using that system it would be extremely interesting to see what they come up with - jury out; finally, the numerical stuff: from the perspective of scientific method, what can always come back to bite us in the derriere are the hidden aspects which perhaps can be more determinative than the more tangible ones we think we know something about. You know that dilemma of not knowing what we don't know about. If you sit through a session with the Chief Technologist of Phase One - well not quite as good as sleeping at a Holiday Inn Express because he compresses very complex stuff into an hour or two - but you may get the point - there is a helluva lot more to making and programming a sensor than the stuff being discussed in this Forum, and until we know what it is and how determinative it is compared with the stuff we are discussing, we're not going to resolve what's better based on what little we know about what goes INTO it. We're on safest territory talking about comparisons of what comes OUT under conditions that are as comparable as we can make them. And even then we can have trouble. So I listen carefully to Nick Rains in his description of the tests he's done, similar to the sensible procedure Ray describes.

Gosh we're up to post a hundred and what - anything really conclusive yet? Maybe it's time to get out those knitting needles after all. :-)
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Up