Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras  (Read 61553 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #100 on: December 22, 2010, 02:18:47 pm »

Hi,

Mark obviously wants or needs very high image quality. For that reason he used 8x10" instead of 4x5", and the difference of the image quality was worth the extra cost and effort in his view. Now, he wants to achieve a similar quality in digital, using a sensor that has 20 times smaller surface area. To do that he needs to everything perfect. Not good enough but perfect.

Best regards
Erik

One of the major problems with his article is the use of words like "quality." It's like the word "fair" in political discussions. "Fair" almost always means what one particular person thinks is moral or right, and -- hard to believe! -- it almost always works out to that person's personal advantage. I don't want to accuse Mark of being unfair, but when he refers to quality, what does he mean? Sharpness in very large prints? Prints that can be used by a tiny market that demands super-sizing? How much advantage does a P65+ have over a D3x in a 19" print, which happens to be a pretty common size for people to put on their walls?

Or come at it from a different aspect of "quality." How many "famous" shots has Mark made -- famous in the sense of Moonrise, or Running White Deer, or Clearing Winter Storm? In fact, take the work of almost any famous film photographer. How many of those shots were made with cameras that could match the quality of a D3x. (Answer: very damn few. But the "quality" of those photographs doesn't have much to do with sharpness.)

It's necessary to remember that when he throws the word "quality" out there, he has his thumb on the scale. If you accept his definition of quality -- sharpness in large prints, irrespective of almost anything else -- then he is correct. MF is better. But that's a pretty trivial observation. I'd suggest that it's also a terribly limited definition of "quality." So limited, there's almost no point in most people even worrying about it. Or even considering it.


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #101 on: December 22, 2010, 03:14:41 pm »


Think Amsterdam: buy the prettiest you can afford; you're gonna get screwed anyway.

Rob C
Pretty much sums it up for me!! ;D
Logged

NikoJorj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1082
    • http://nikojorj.free.fr/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #102 on: December 22, 2010, 03:46:54 pm »

In fact, take the work of almost any famous film photographer. How many of those shots were made with cameras that could match the quality of a D3x.
Well, Moonrise over Hernandez and Clearing Winter Storm come to my mind...  ;D 
(I just verified in the "40 examples" : both shot with 8x10")

Of course, many iconic photographs of the last century were shot on 35mm, and some are iconic partly because of the blur (Death of a loyalist soldier, some HCB, Nick Ut's napalm girl...), but I don't think that the former two with their fine details would have the same impact shot on 35mm film of that time (or Ed Weston's shell, or...). Tools for uses (or do you say horses for courses?).
Logged
Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery

Jeff Kott

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
S2 - deadly accurate focusing?
« Reply #103 on: December 22, 2010, 06:40:11 pm »

I'm not trying to stir anything up, but I thought I would point out for those that haven't seen it that in testing the S2, Lloyd Chambers found consistent focusing errors, which conflicts with Mark's experience with the S2.

There's a short blurb part way down the page here:

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html

On a positive note, Lloyd thinks the S2 lenses are the best of any system.

Since Mark and Lloyd are both in N. CA, Lloyd has invited Mark to go shooting S2's together to demonstrate the focusing issues.  :)
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: S2 - deadly accurate focusing?
« Reply #104 on: December 22, 2010, 06:49:32 pm »

I'm not trying to stir anything up, but I thought I would point out for those that haven't seen it that in testing the S2, Lloyd Chambers found consistent focusing errors, which conflicts with Mark's experience with the S2.

Old news...if you had read the entire thread you would have noted reply #32 in the thread.
Logged

Jeff Kott

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
Re: S2 - deadly accurate focusing?
« Reply #105 on: December 22, 2010, 06:56:19 pm »

Old news...if you had read the entire thread you would have noted reply #32 in the thread.

My apologies.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #106 on: December 22, 2010, 07:38:08 pm »

Dealing with the latter first, real questions have been raised about the usefulness of DxO ratings. I just don't have time to dig all this up for you, but you can do your own research and examine the details. I don't pretend to know the truth of the matter, but the results in the JPEG you posted for the P65+ don't reflect the performance of that sensor based on other information. I won't say or respond to any more about DxO, because I have nothing more to contribute about it. I once thought it credible, but until the questions which have been raised are definitively resolved, the jury remains out. It's a laboratory construct which may be valid within the confines of the methodology and assumptions upon which it is predicated, but I believe the issues relate to the practical implications of the whole construct. Another thread would be more appropriate for re-opening a DxO discussion, in which I would be a keen spectator.

Mark,
I've also heard rumours, innuendo, statements of disbelief and even total dismissal of the accuracy of DXOMark results. But I've never seen any photographic comparisons which demonstrate such claimed inaccuracies or discrepancies.

You know, many of us who are concerned about such issues as dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio may not be scientists or engineers, but we probably appreciate and understand the basic principles of the scientific method. At least I do.

Claims that are not supported by clear evidence that can withstand critical examination should be dismissed by all fair-minded and impartial observers. 

What is surprising from my perspective is that a comparison between, for example, the D3X and the P65+ is very much simplified by the fact that both sensors have a similar pixel pitch. To compare same size images at the pixel level should therefore be a doodle.

To compare DR, for example, one could simply use the same focal length of lens at the same f/stop on each camera, shoot the same high-contrast, high-DR scene under identical lighting conditions, then crop the P65+ image to the same FoV as the D3X image (which should result in almost exactly the same file size), then compare shadow detail in the equal-size images.

If the D3X image were not able to display better detail in the shadows, and the deep shadows, then that could open up an interesting discussion as the the reasons why. It may be the case that the internal reflections of one or both of the lenses are placing a limit on the DR; or it may be the case that for practical, real-world situations, the DXO results are misleading, irrelevant or plain wrong, however you want to describe it.

Until someone provides these sorts of comparisons, we can't move forward on this issue.

Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #107 on: December 22, 2010, 07:51:35 pm »

Well, Moonrise over Hernandez and Clearing Winter Storm come to my mind...  ;D 
(I just verified in the "40 examples" : both shot with 8x10")

I doubt 8x10 film in the early 40s would match a D3x for either sharpness or resolution.

The point, though, was that defining photographic "quality" in terms of sharpness is spurious. 
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #108 on: December 22, 2010, 07:59:56 pm »

Mark,
I've also heard rumours, innuendo, statements of disbelief and even total dismissal of the accuracy of DXOMark results. But I've never seen any photographic comparisons which demonstrate such claimed inaccuracies or discrepancies.

You know, many of us who are concerned about such issues as dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio may not be scientists or engineers, but we probably appreciate and understand the basic principles of the scientific method. At least I do.

Claims that are not supported by clear evidence that can withstand critical examination should be dismissed by all fair-minded and impartial observers. 

What is surprising from my perspective is that a comparison between, for example, the D3X and the P65+ is very much simplified by the fact that both sensors have a similar pixel pitch. To compare same size images at the pixel level should therefore be a doodle.

To compare DR, for example, one could simply use the same focal length of lens at the same f/stop on each camera, shoot the same high-contrast, high-DR scene under identical lighting conditions, then crop the P65+ image to the same FoV as the D3X image (which should result in almost exactly the same file size), then compare shadow detail in the equal-size images.

If the D3X image were not able to display better detail in the shadows, and the deep shadows, then that could open up an interesting discussion as the the reasons why. It may be the case that the internal reflections of one or both of the lenses are placing a limit on the DR; or it may be the case that for practical, real-world situations, the DXO results are misleading, irrelevant or plain wrong, however you want to describe it.

Until someone provides these sorts of comparisons, we can't move forward on this issue.


Quite right.  DXO are engineering reports under controlled conditions.  They are clear about the methodology that is used in the tests and the results are there for everyone to look at.  What we don't have is how these results extrapolate to real life conditions.  I've long felt that such tests can be conducted (in fact Mark did participate in a recently posted test of the new Pentax MF and one of the Phase systems fairly recently with surprising results).  We are also held hostage to the particular camera makers and decisions that they make.  For example a particular DSLR may be optimized for ISO 200 and a MF to something else, lenses have an impact, etc.  I've seen lots of great images from members of LuLa via their websites and they use all different brands and formats of cameras.  There is no right or wrong choice of equipment as everything eventually comes down to who is looking through the viewfinder and capturing the image.  That being said, there are a number of us who want to know more about the science and engineering of the equipment we are using (I recall that within the past year the Leica M9 was mentioned as a great field camera for landscapes because of its accuracy and response; one might think all the MF users would junk their equipment and move to the Leica which is surely easier to carry and set up in the field).
Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #109 on: December 22, 2010, 08:43:50 pm »


If the D3X image were not able to display better detail in the shadows, and the deep shadows, then that could open up an interesting discussion as the the reasons why. It may be the case that the internal reflections of one or both of the lenses are placing a limit on the DR; or it may be the case that for practical, real-world situations, the DXO results are misleading, irrelevant or plain wrong, however you want to describe it.

Until someone provides these sorts of comparisons, we can't move forward on this issue.


I have done this, and the D3X does not have the superior shadow detail as predicted by the DXO measurements.

I did this test with the S2 and the D3X. Both have a 6 micron pitch I used a 70mm focal length on both cameras. I cropped to get the same FOV to compare apples with apples. Looking at the results on an EIZO243W, the Leica gives superior sharpness. As for DR, then I rate them about the same although the D3X has a certain smudgyness in the shadows that I cannot account for.

I take your point about scientific method etc but still, to me it's the results that count, not lab tests.

Before I'm accused of monitor pixel peeping I also made 20"x30" prints off both cameras and the S2 is superior for tonality and sharpness, and about the same for shadow details. Prints were made on an Epson 7900 on SemiGloss.

These are real world tests made using the best tools available to me. They do not support the DXO claims of 1-2 stop DR differences between the D3X, D7000 etc and the MFDBs although, to be scrupulously fair, there is no DXO data for the S2, I'm assuming it is mostly equivalent to the P65 as far as DR is concerned.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #110 on: December 22, 2010, 09:06:45 pm »

You put a great deal of weight on stitching a series of smaller frames versus using an MF frame (or two or three). Stitching of course is an option, but it deals only with the total pixel count in the image. As we all know, there is much more to sensor quality and image quality than pixel count. But even at the level of pixel count, my immediate reaction to these options was exactly that of Nick Rains: how much premeditation, time and effort do you want to put into a stitching approach pre and post capture, versus getting one or several MF captures containing all the pixels you'll ever need? Yes, the latter costs much more money as an investment, and the former costs a lot more time - perhaps even at the expense of getting the image, depending on conditions - and there is, for many people, a real time value to money. Over time, it all adds-up. I don't think the value of MF photography using the better of today's equipment (2010) is at all nullified by the stitching alternative, although stitching remains a viable and worthwhile option in many circumstances.

Mark,

Fair analysis indeed.

I mostly agree with you but would have agreed 100% if you had talked about "a perfect MF body". Indeed, I agree 100% that a perfect MF body that would be available at reasonable prices would indeed be a better base landscape camera than a DSLR + stitching. :) Now, how close are existing MF bodies from that perfect camera and how many images does a top landscaper shoot a year that would justify the cost?

A key point that was not even mentioned by Mark is the real resolution achieved over 100 frames. That is one of the main gaps between current MF and the perfect camera I was talking about. FX bodies will be within a few percent of the optimal every single time thanks to live view. I believe that many MF landscape shooters have been suffering from mis-focusing on many frames, the lower the light level the worst the issue. Our friends at Diglloyd have been reporting once more in the 645D review about how difficult it is to focus the body accurately on a plane subject (granted real world applications will be less impacting). The real world resolution of bodies without live view should probably considered to be 10 to 20% lower than the pixel count indicates. Beyond that, it might just be me, but I always was very frustrated when coming back from a shoot with my MF body to notice that half of the images shot with my 10.000+ US$ camera were not correctly focused. For me that frustration was a major problem.

I didn't intend to enter the MF vs DSLR debate (my point was only about stitching), but others have take the discussion there, so let's assume for a second that most stitching is done with DSLRs.

Regardless of the time t relevance of DxO, there is little denying that the improvement of pixel quality of FX is faster than that of MF. I don't believe having ever felt limited by the DR of my D3x while I did feel limited by both my former DSLRs and my Mamiya ZD. Leading photo publications like Chasseur d'Image and Photo in France have recently reviewed the 645D and found its DR to be in the same ballpark (or a little bit lower) than their current reference, the D3x. For what it is worth, these guys combined sell over 500.000 copies a month. Diglloyd similarly found the DR of both S2 and 645D to be inferior or similar to that of the D3x. If a gap remains in favour of MF it is small and closing. Considering that the MF bodies use sensors with photosites of the same size as DSLRs it only makes sense that DR is similar by the way (knowing that DSLRs use CMOS that are typically less noisy - noise defines DR). The only rationale for MF bodies to still have better DR is their higher price.

Together with the reduction of the gap between FX's resolution and the needs of most real world applications, I feel that many landscape photographers (few images, high quality focus) today are in fact best served by a high end FX body plus the stitching option that will enable them to reach whatever resolution is needed for those images that deserve a large print. I wouldn't have been shocked had Mark, after presenting in a fair way these different options, had reached the conclusion that he feels that the balance still leans towards the MF being the better option.

But a fair comparison there was not.

So, considering the overlook of all these factors, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the initial article is perceived as a plug for MF manufacturers disguised into a opinionated write up. For what it is worth, the only place I know where the relevance of DxO results is widely questioned is this very community with a strong presence of MF owners and sellers. You and I appear to belong to this category of people feeling that we owe to ourselve to own and broadcast a balanced view of things, but LL as a whole seems to be leaning more and more to a one sided view of things aimed at counterbalancing the rest of the world.

LL vs DPreview. LL says MFBDs have 6 stops more DR, DPreview says they have the same... so it must be around 3 stops, right?... :)

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 11:16:20 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #111 on: December 22, 2010, 10:54:29 pm »

I have done this, and the D3X does not have the superior shadow detail as predicted by the DXO measurements.

I did this test with the S2 and the D3X. Both have a 6 micron pitch I used a 70mm focal length on both cameras. I cropped to get the same FOV to compare apples with apples. Looking at the results on an EIZO243W, the Leica gives superior sharpness. As for DR, then I rate them about the same although the D3X has a certain smudgyness in the shadows that I cannot account for.

I take your point about scientific method etc but still, to me it's the results that count, not lab tests.

Before I'm accused of monitor pixel peeping I also made 20"x30" prints off both cameras and the S2 is superior for tonality and sharpness, and about the same for shadow details. Prints were made on an Epson 7900 on SemiGloss.

Nick,

70 mm on a D3x implies use of a zoom, since, AFAIK, Nikon does not make a 70 mm prime. Comparison of a very high quality Leica prime and a Nikon zoom is not really fair. The smudgyness in the Nikon could very well be due to veiling flare, which would be more likely with a zoom. Diglloyd used the 60 mm AFS Micro Nikkor on the Nikon D3x with his comparison to the S2 with the 70 mm Leica prime. In the view of the church yard in the shadows in Diglloyd's comparison, the Nikon had at least as good shadow detail. Of course, the processing could account for the differences. And of course, the S2 gives better overall results, as well it should considering the price differential and larger format.

What lens did you use on the D3x?

Regards,

Bill

« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 11:00:15 pm by bjanes »
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #112 on: December 22, 2010, 10:58:07 pm »

Duplicate post deleted
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #113 on: December 23, 2010, 12:06:27 am »

Hi,

I have done a comparison using Diglloyd's raw images from D3X and Leica S2 and looked at shadow detail. In my view there was no competition, the D3X was much better.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/LC_S2_D3X_Eval/DRCMP.jpg

Regarding the DxO data I had some conversation with Mark Dubovoy, and he says that the DxO data is actually very good but gets misinterpreted.

We had also some discussion on DR from a more technical viewpoint on this forums and had some discussion about the purported advantage of MF in DR. In my view DR is a technical term incorrectly used in the discussion. Mark Dubovoy has pointed out that he discusses DR with full texture. A probable explanation is that MF lenses transfer more contrast for small details. To begin with the details get larger (if same field of view is assumed). Mark also uses the best lenses available, which normally are primes. Those lenses may have less veiling flare.

Best regards
Erik


Nick,

70 mm on a D3x implies use of a zoom, since, AFAIK, Nikon does not make a 70 mm prime. Comparison of a very high quality Leica prime and a Nikon zoom is not really fair. The smudgyness in the Nikon could very well be due to veiling flare, which would be more likely with a zoom. Diglloyd used the 60 mm AFS Micro Nikkor on the Nikon D3x with his comparison to the S2 with the 70 mm Leica prime. In the view of the church yard in the shadows in Diglloyd's comparison, the Nikon had at least as good shadow detail. Of course, the processing could account for the differences. And of course, the S2 gives better overall results, as well it should considering the price differential and larger format.

What lens did you use on the D3x?

Regards,

Bill


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #114 on: December 23, 2010, 01:12:55 am »

I have done this, and the D3X does not have the superior shadow detail as predicted by the DXO measurements.

I did this test with the S2 and the D3X. Both have a 6 micron pitch I used a 70mm focal length on both cameras. I cropped to get the same FOV to compare apples with apples. Looking at the results on an EIZO243W, the Leica gives superior sharpness. As for DR, then I rate them about the same although the D3X has a certain smudgyness in the shadows that I cannot account for.

I take your point about scientific method etc but still, to me it's the results that count, not lab tests.

Before I'm accused of monitor pixel peeping I also made 20"x30" prints off both cameras and the S2 is superior for tonality and sharpness, and about the same for shadow details. Prints were made on an Epson 7900 on SemiGloss.

These are real world tests made using the best tools available to me. They do not support the DXO claims of 1-2 stop DR differences between the D3X, D7000 etc and the MFDBs although, to be scrupulously fair, there is no DXO data for the S2, I'm assuming it is mostly equivalent to the P65 as far as DR is concerned.

Nick,
Perhaps you would like to review your results after DXO have tested the S2. Until DXO have tested the S2 we can draw no conclusions about the accuracy or relevance of the DXO tests based upon your results at this stage.

You might be aware of this thread at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=48209.0 which I started in an attempt to explore the real benefits of DXO's claim of significantly improved DR for the D7000.

I ended up buying a D7000, and so far my test results show that it does indeed have the claimed 2 stops better DR than that of my Canon 50D which is of similar pixel count and format.

What I also discovered, which is what I expected would be the case, is that the differences in shadow detail in the 2 images get progressively less as one moves up from the deep shadows to the moderate shadows, and to the lower midtones.

When comparing shadow detail, it's very easy to get almost any result you like, depending on how deep the shadows are that you are comparing.

That thread on the DR of the D7000 got bogged down in confusion about what 1% grey represented on the DXO log scale, on the full SNR graphs. 1% grey sounds very dark, but the graphs are quite explicit that at 1% grey the SNR of the D3X is about 27dB, that of the D7000 about 26dB, that of the P65+ about 25dB, and that of the 5D2 about 24.5dB (at base ISO).

In other words, there's hardly any difference between the four cameras regarding DR at this level of shadow depth, although one might be able to detect a slight difference between the D3X and the 5D2. The 0.5dB difference between the P65+ and the 5D2 would definitely not be noticeable.

Having unwittingly compared shadow detail at this level of shadow depth, 1% grey as an input signal, one might then declare that the DXO results are wrong and that the P65+ has no greater DR capability than the Canon 5D2.

I'm sure you would not agree with such a conclusion, Nick.  ;D


Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #115 on: December 23, 2010, 03:30:05 am »

Bill, I used the 24-70G. Photozone.de show this as one of the sharpest lenses they have ever tested (even though its a zoom) so I thought it was a fair comparison.

It's amazingly sharp on a D3X, not quite as good as the 70mm Summarit, but still amazing. And its a zoom!
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #116 on: December 23, 2010, 03:37:43 am »

Ray, I shot the interior of a cathedral, St Stephens in Brisbane. It has as large a brighness range as I can imagine and both camera recorded full blacks in some areas. The D3X simply did not do a better job. I am satisfied with my results, both cameras are quite remarkable, it's just that the S2 is more remarkable.

I guess I am saying that lab tests that don't translate to the real world are nothing more than mere tests. I'd not base my spending strategy on lab test, rather my own experience with gear. Luckily I am in a position to get my hands on pretty much any gear I like, so I think my opinions are valid since they are based on actual field shooting.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #117 on: December 23, 2010, 04:08:31 am »

I guess I am saying that lab tests that don't translate to the real world are nothing more than mere tests.

Nick,
You're also saying that DXO haven't tested the S2 yet. For all we know at this stage, the DXO tests might show that the DR of the S2 is just as good as that of the D3X, in which case your results will confirm the accuracy and relevance of the DXO lab tests.

Can I persuade you to post some crops of the darkest shadows in that cathedral so we can see the difference, or lack thereof? Did you get an ETTR exposure with each camera that did not blow out the brightest parts of the stained-glass windows?

Cheers!
Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #118 on: December 23, 2010, 07:19:07 am »

You are not going to be fully satisfied as the interior is not as contrasty as I had first thought. These two images are the closest I can find to the exact same settings. I see that the S2 is slightly sharper and the there is slightly more definition in the black of the piano cover. What's interesting to me though is that the Nikon needed to be exposed 1.5 stops more to get the same visual density, even though the S2 has only  a 2/3 stop advantage on the base ISO. All LR3 settings are equalised between the two images, sharpening and NR is set to zero.

Update : I downloaded and looked at the file as you would see it and there is some jpeg artifacting in the piano cover black - this does not show on the original. The rest of the images show the relative differences reasonably well.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 07:21:44 am by Nick Rains »
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #119 on: December 23, 2010, 07:23:52 am »

Mark obviously wants or needs very high image quality. For that reason he used 8x10" instead of 4x5", and the difference of the image quality was worth the extra cost and effort in his view. Now, he wants to achieve a similar quality in digital, using a sensor that has 20 times smaller surface area. To do that he needs to everything perfect. Not good enough but perfect.
okay, but still he is wrong when he is stating only his particular choice of tools deliver the "perfect quality". Above I've adressed some points where he is de facto failing.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 07:25:56 am by tho_mas »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10   Go Up