Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras  (Read 61558 times)

JohnBrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
    • http://www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #120 on: December 23, 2010, 08:28:23 am »

Wow, Nick, thanks for that comparison. The Leica did indeed get the blacks better. However, what impressed me was the red thingy hanging above the piano. The Leica image seems to have smeared the color whereas the Nikon is sharp and more defining. I find this thread fascinating, btw.

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #121 on: December 23, 2010, 10:16:55 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.

Nick,

I agree that the S2 image does have a better appearance, but the lack of sharpening places the D3x at a distinct disadvantage, as it has a blur filter and needs more sharpening than the S2, which does not have a blur filter. This topic is covered at some length in Diglloyd's review comparing the D3x with the S2. He found deconvolution sharpening with Richardson-Lucy to give the best results, but also suggested settings for ACR sharpening.

Nikon appears to use the ISO saturation standard to rate its sensors, whereas Canon and Phase One have lower measured ISOs as compared to the saturation standard (see DXO graph). With ACR the situation if further clouded by the use of a baseline offset, which is +0.5 EV for the Nikon D3, causing the image to be brighter. An image exposed for the highlights would be blown in the ACR histogram. One really has to look at the raw file with a program such as Rawnalize or DCRaw. Alternatively, one can look at the DNG with an EXIF reader. I don't know the offset for the D3x.

Regards,

Bill

Logged

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #122 on: December 23, 2010, 10:22:05 am »

Wow, Nick, thanks for that comparison. The Leica did indeed get the blacks better. However, what impressed me was the red thingy hanging above the piano. The Leica image seems to have smeared the color whereas the Nikon is sharp and more defining. I find this thread fascinating, btw.

Indeed. But if these are 100% crops (which I assume they are), you would have a hard time seeing any difference at all in the average size print.

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
40's era 8"x10" lens and film resolution limits
« Reply #123 on: December 23, 2010, 01:56:25 pm »

I doubt 8x10 film in the early 40s would match a D3x for either sharpness or resolution.
And the resolution of the LF lenses of that era sucked compared to modern lenses --- even compared to more recent lenses covering 8"x10" (which in turn are of lower resolution, in lp/mm, than good MF or smaller format lenses.) AA himself makes this clear with some comparisons in his books between his older lenses and newer Nikon LF lenses. Some people might be nostalgic about the wonders of old lenses, but not a gear-testing freak like AA as far as I can tell!

In summary: with the lenses and films of the 40's, one probably needed 8"x10" to get prints of "gallery size and quality", say 16"x20", because only about 2x enlargement was sustainable.

Anyway, much of the artistic excellence of images like "moonrise" and "clearing storm" shows up on even smallish reproductions in books; it is not predominately about the more recent obsession of many LF photographers with extremes of resolution and detail.
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #124 on: December 23, 2010, 02:41:01 pm »

I recently saw two AA prints at MoMA Sydney. One was Moonrise over Hernandez. The significant feature of the image is the the blocked shadows and the blown out highlights (the crosses) which are features of the image. In fact the top half of the image is black.

The other image was of trees. They featured blown out white strips down the one side of the trunks, once again a feature of the image. So much for exposing to the right.

The truth is you can make greate images with a wide variety of cameras. Having seen two HCB retrospectives I can say there are a lot of digicams that will give you equal quality to his images. What you won't get however is his eye for photography.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #125 on: December 23, 2010, 02:49:40 pm »

I recently saw two AA prints at MoMA Sydney. One was Moonrise over Hernandez. The significant feature of the image is the the blocked shadows and the blown out highlights (the crosses) which are features of the image. In fact the top half of the image is black.

The other image was of trees. They featured blown out white strips down the one side of the trunks, once again a feature of the image. So much for exposing to the right.

Well, with faults like that those images would never make into the Getty Images collection.
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #126 on: December 23, 2010, 05:00:43 pm »

Well, with faults like that those images would never make into the Getty Images collection.


As I quoted earlier in a different thread I found Getty Images watermarks on Atget images which are now in the public domain. So I wouldn't be surprised what was in the collection.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

Jeff Kott

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #127 on: December 23, 2010, 05:26:34 pm »

As a side note to this topic, I just received the Ansel Adams in Color book as an early Christmas present and was comparing the images to those in one of Galen Rowell's books.

I find the images in the AA book to be beautiful with great detail and tonality. In comparison, most of the images in GR's book seem a little unsharp and a little muddy, although the compositions are great.

So, what am I seeing? Is it the printer or the processing or is the difference that AA was using LF and GF was using 35mm?

I know we're all pixel peepers to some degree and I agree that there is a lot of great photography that is not technically great.  But, I'm looking at a real world example of how big an impact the technical stuff can have on the final impact of the image and it does make a real difference. And this is looking at images that are about 11 inches on the longest side.
Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #128 on: December 23, 2010, 07:30:57 pm »

Nick,

I agree that the S2 image does have a better appearance, but the lack of sharpening places the D3x at a distinct disadvantage, as it has a blur filter and needs more sharpening than the S2, which does not have a blur filter. This topic is covered at some length in Diglloyd's review comparing the D3x with the S2. He found deconvolution sharpening with Richardson-Lucy to give the best results, but also suggested settings for ACR sharpening.



True, and I considered sharpening both. it occurred to me that the extra native sharpness of the S2 would be interesting to see, that's all.

Prints from these files do look very similar in the shadows, which is a feather in the Nikon's (with zoom lens!) cap. However, the extra MP of the S2 also come into play and same size prints are that much better.

One thing I have found, and this is a warning to pixel peepers, if you don't have a really good monitor then you are simply not seeing 'into' the file correctly. The image I posted looks totally different on a cheap Viewsonic 24" compared to the finer pixel pitch on a MacBook Pro (with the new hi-res screen) and on an EIZO CG243W. The EIZO shows so much more shadow detail, as you'd expect from such an expensive monitor.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #129 on: December 23, 2010, 07:53:41 pm »

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.

Nick,
Thanks for taking the trouble to post these examples. It certainly appears that the S2 is the equal of the D3X regarding dynamic range. At normalised print sizes of full scenes with the same FoV, the S2 should therefore have slightly better DR than the D3X.

It will be interesting to see what the DXOMark results for the S2 will be. For all we know, its DR might be the equal of the D7000. Wouldn't that be remarkable!  ;D

However, from my perspective as the viewer, there are too many uncertainties in this comparison for the purposes of assessing DR. The highlights are clearly blown and there appear to be no deep shadows containing detail, only dark cloth with a low reflectance.

As I mentioned earlier, at a signal input of 1% grey (on the log scale) the Canon 5D2 has an SNR equal to the P65+, at the pixel level, according to DXOMark. It's only below that input level that the P65+ edges ahead of the 5D2.

The Nikon shot might be overexposed, for all the viewer knows, which creates another uncertainty. By the way, I don't see 2.5 secs exposure, as opposed to 1 sec exposure, being quite 1.5 stops greater exposure. 1.5 stops would be 3 secs for the Nikon. It's more like 1 & 1/3rd stops more, isn't it?

DXO rate the sensitivity of the D3X at ISO 78. Double that and it's very close to ISO 160. The Leica M8 has a DXO-rated sensitivity of ISO 151 at the nominated ISO 160, so it's quite conceivable that Leica in this case are spot on with their ISO 160 rating for the S2.

The additional 1/3rd of a stop exposure you gave to the D3X could be explained by the different T-Stops for the respective lenses used. Again, DXO come to the rescue. They've tested the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 and their results indicate the T-Stop at 70mm and F2.8 is approximately F3.2.

I can find no T-Stop results for the Summarit-S 70mm, but it might be reasonable to presume, because it's a prime lens and a very expensive lens, that the T-Stop is the same as the F/stop.

I'm not sure if one can presume that the T-stop at F11 (for the Nikkor zoom) will be F12 or F13 if it's measured as F3.2 at F2.8. Perhaps someone can advise me on that.

Merry Christmas!  ;D
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #130 on: December 23, 2010, 09:20:41 pm »

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



  I wonder if we could take your stitching recommendations another step?  After seeing so many of your beautiful landscape shots in remote locations, I can't help but wonder if you'd be served well by stitching images from a tiny camera like the NEX-5 (and adapted lenses,) since it would be an outrageously light and packable setup.

Logged

NikoJorj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1082
    • http://nikojorj.free.fr/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #131 on: December 24, 2010, 07:26:25 am »

Is it the printer or the processing or is the difference that AA was using LF and GF was using 35mm?
Yes, in the days of film differences were really showing bad - one must reckon that grain did help much.

I agree with your findings (and really love AA in Color BTW), and moreover obtained the same kinds of results in some Marc&David Muench (Primal Forces and Plateau Light) where images from 4x5", MF (harder to tell) and 35mm are mixed.
With an image size about 8" and fine printing, differences are really showing in the clarity of fine details and grain - even if I agree this is not a randomized, double-blind test as it should be (but in the Muench book at least, the camera used is only showed in the list of plates at the end), I'd say results are significant enough (at least to be mentioned in a forum thread ;D ).

I'd like to see such an exercise with digital : same photographer, same printing and image size, different camera format.
Logged
Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery

Graham Welland

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 722
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #132 on: December 24, 2010, 06:22:03 pm »

I find the images in the AA book to be beautiful with great detail and tonality. In comparison, most of the images in GR's book seem a little unsharp and a little muddy, although the compositions are great.

So, what am I seeing? Is it the printer or the processing or is the difference that AA was using LF and GF was using 35mm?

Slightly off topic:

I own a couple of Galen Rowell prints and have viewed many if his prints at his gallery in Bishop and I can attest to the fact that film grain is often very evident in some of his images. The emphasis was obviously on the composition and light with 35mm film grain being somewhat less important. In the case of AA's large & medium format images, at least the ones I've seen at his exhibitions, you really aren't aware of anything other than very fine B&W prints with no obvious film artifacts.
Logged
Graham

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
    • http://yayapro.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #133 on: December 25, 2010, 01:59:33 am »

Hum... with so much focus on using the right tool for the job I find the lack of mention of stitching surprising.
Stitching is clearly the only way to reach high resolutions, MFBD Added_for_clarification"single frames" cannot dream to even come close.
I understand that, just like 8x10 wasn't for everybody, stitching also isn't, but I still don't get why anyone looking into really high quality would do oneself the disservice of not stitching. This just doesn't make sense when looking at things in an objective fashion.

You can shoot a portrait with 8X10

You cannot practically shoot+stitch a portrait with a DSLR

You can get close or exceed it with a single shot MFDB (in quality, maybe in looks as well...)
Logged
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One - Cultural Heritage
e: ysh@phaseone.com |

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #134 on: December 25, 2010, 02:43:59 am »

You can shoot a portrait with 8X10

You cannot practically shoot+stitch a portrait with a DSLR

You can get close or exceed it with a single shot MFDB (in quality, maybe in looks as well...)

Agreed 100%, but we were speaking about landscape weren't we? :)

Cheers,
Bernard

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
    • http://yayapro.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #135 on: December 25, 2010, 03:12:25 am »

Agreed 100%, but we were speaking about landscape weren't we? :)
Cheers,
Bernard

I can think of quite few landscapes that can benefit from using a single shot camera
Logged
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One - Cultural Heritage
e: ysh@phaseone.com |

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #136 on: December 25, 2010, 04:03:45 am »

I can think of quite few landscapes that can benefit from using a single shot camera

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

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #137 on: December 25, 2010, 12:24:49 pm »

Mark Dubovoy wrote of what is in his experience best tool for his task. His landscape images with MFDB are highly impressive and some of best of digital high end art landscape photos made. There are others of course whos work are equally high end art landscapes e.g. Alain Broit. Douglas Dilde also have some indeed impressive fine art landscapes. Yup, those people shoot Phase One and Leaf digital backs. Sure, you can shoot landscapes with a DSLR too, same as Galen Rowel used 35mm film when fine art landscape shooters used 4x5 and larger. Where the images different, yes. Digital is a new media and there are few renowned landscape shooters who have managed to transition and still produce high end quality. The one I can think of who have done so is John Shaw, and he still shoot Nikon. Now why did these folks not choose to use stitching for most of their images? Perhaps simply because they not read this particular forum and read of what a complete miracle blessing it is to all sorts of photography??????  ;D Or simply because it is not the best tool.  ??? Perhaps they were not counting pixels but busy producing ultimate image...
 
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. That does not mean that it is not possible to shoot landscapes with DSLR, for anyone doing so please keep on doing it, and enjoy photography. Also check up on John Shaw.  :)

Probably all who shoot MFDB and large format film have also used DSLR or SLR. Yet, why do some of us use MFDB and medium and large format film? Simply because those are better tools (for us). It helps us get the image at HIGHER quality which is what we seek. Else we would all be shooting point and shoots and not have wasted our $$ on DSLRs even.

I did like and value Mark Dubovoys article. It was very well written and seems spots on what is best TOOL for fine art landscape photography nowadays is, albeit some shoot scanning backs he pointed out why in his preference he left that out. I was surprised to see the Leica S2 in article. His images with that one seemed like snaps and very pale to his landscape shots. However, check up some threads with photos from the S2 and see clearly what he meant of image quality.

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. Photography is about taking pictures and using the best tools we see fit for the job and we can afford. As Mark pointed out it also takes learning the tools. A better tool can also challenge you in squeezing extra to get that image quality. The high end MFDB are now 60-80MP, then why should serious shooters not use those or the high end 4x5 scanning backs of now nearly 200MP? And yes, unfortunate is that digital is expensive and ridiculous so, also DSLRs.

Personally, my 28MP Leaf Aptus MFDB is now three years old with me but still impress me with its image quality. Thus indeed it was a very good choice in tool for me for digital. And with what I gone through in over a period of two years prior in short term ownership of two Nikon DSLRs before (and faulty Mamiya ZD), I am frank happy I ditched Nikon and went medium format and Leaf MFDB. Thanks Leaf!  ;D

Cheers
Anders
« Last Edit: December 25, 2010, 12:28:22 pm by Anders_HK »
Logged

ndevlin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
    • Follow me on Twitter
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #138 on: December 25, 2010, 12:39:49 pm »

 +1. Well said Anders.
Logged
Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera        ww

telyt

  • Guest
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #139 on: December 25, 2010, 03:11:10 pm »

As a side note to this topic, I just received the Ansel Adams in Color book as an early Christmas present and was comparing the images to those in one of Galen Rowell's books.

I find the images in the AA book to be beautiful with great detail and tonality. In comparison, most of the images in GR's book seem a little unsharp and a little muddy, although the compositions are great.

So, what am I seeing? Is it the printer or the processing or is the difference that AA was using LF and GF was using 35mm?

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Up