Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Not worth it ?  (Read 30725 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #80 on: November 23, 2013, 12:19:14 am »

Hi,

The ISO thing is a bit of fake. Light consists of particles called photons. The arrival of photons is a stochastic process which gives a natural variation. So each pixel receives a number of photons that varies statistically. That variation is normally the square root of available photons.

A large pixel can typically detect around 60000 photons and a small one probably about 15000. Normally you can utilize the sensor fully around 100 ISO and exposing for highlights (ETTR). So at nominal ISO the SNR (signal to noise ratio) will be 244 and on the small sensor 122. Now if we got to 6400 ISO we only use the 1/64-th of the capacity of the pixels. So on the large pixels we would have SNR around 30 and on the small one around 15.

On raw files camera processing would play little role, although some camera manipulate raw files or have on chip noise reduction. The major part is here the raw processor, that can apply different amount of noise reduction.

One area where cameras differ is readout noise. CMOS sensors with on chip ADCs, Sony Exmoor, the Leica M (240) sensor by CMOSIS, most sensors on Nikons have low readout noise. The sensors on Nikon D4 and Canons have low inherent noise but noisy ADC-s, at low ISO they have relatively much readout noise, therefor shadows suffer (low DR), in mid tones readout noise matters little and image quality is very good. When Canons and D4 is used at high ISO the signal is amplified before the ADC, so readout noise goes down. This is the reason they perform that well at high ISO.

Best regards
Erik



I've shot the 1dx regularly next to the omd em-5 (what a silly name) and the results are virtually identical up to 1000 iso, depending on the post processing.

Then again for the same dof, 1.8 on a m43 camera is around 3.5 on a full frame camera, so you gain a stop on the smaller sensors.

I believe every digital camera starts it's magic softening techniques above 800 iso, regardless of format.   You either get detail and noise, or smoothness and less detail but you can't have both.

The 5d3 which is the king of the glass smooth look, has an overwhelming look of softness at any speed, so I guess it's what your looking for.  

Viewing on computer no noise images when enlarged to 100% or something that looks a little more organic.

The never go to print, never shot film crowd seems to like the smooth look, the know what film use to do photographer doesn't seem to care.

I've found lately commercial clients are all about the look, not the pixel count.


IMO

BC


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #81 on: November 23, 2013, 06:37:34 am »

I am not surprised at all, it is well documented that the D800 and D4 are very close at 3200 and that the D4 pulls ahead from then on.

It is also well known that the D4 and 1Dx are close at those high ISOs.

Cheers,
Bernard

When I posted this before the replies were akin to me being some kind of nutter. The 800 is obviously untouchable at anything.
Yet I know photographers that have the 800 and D4 and the 800 never comes out of the bag.
Logged
Kevin.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #82 on: November 23, 2013, 07:15:42 am »

Hi,

That may depend on those photographers not needing the stuff the D800 is good at. Resolution and dynamic range. There are a lot of things that may be better on D800, like FPS, AF, high ISO.

Best regards
Erik


When I posted this before the replies were akin to me being some kind of nutter. The 800 is obviously untouchable at anything.
Yet I know photographers that have the 800 and D4 and the 800 never comes out of the bag.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #83 on: November 23, 2013, 08:09:45 am »

When I posted this before the replies were akin to me being some kind of nutter. The 800 is obviously untouchable at anything.
Yet I know photographers that have the 800 and D4 and the 800 never comes out of the bag.

I highly disagree with this statement; the D800 is not the best camera for many things.  Really anything that involves technical shooting, from my point of view.  Also, once again, no access to leaf shutters, a big disadvantage for quite a few subjects and methods of shooting. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #84 on: November 23, 2013, 01:15:42 pm »

A large pixel can typically detect around 60000 photons and a small one probably about 15000.

The pixels in MF cameras are not much larger than the pixels of full frame cameras of the same generation. I use a Sony A900 and an Hasselblad H3DII-50. The two cameras use 6 µm pixels.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Pixel sizes, 35mm and MF cameras; shot noise vs read noise
« Reply #85 on: November 23, 2013, 01:57:03 pm »

The pixels in MF cameras are not much larger than the pixels of full frame cameras of the same generation. I use a Sony A900 and an Hasselblad H3DII-50. The two cameras use 6 µm pixels.
Yes, there is strangely almost no pattern of DMF using larger photosites than the classic "35mm" format of 36x24mm: it is 6.3 microns in Canon's highest resolution 36x24mm bodies, 6 microns in 24MP 36x24mm format; the same 6 microns in the recent 40MP, 50MP, and 60MP backs and the Leica S2, about 5.2 microns in the 80MP backs, 4.9 microns in the 36MP 36x24mm bodies.

But perhaps a better way to look at the effect of photon counting on visible noise is full well capacity normalized to "photons per image", which with recent sensors seems roughly proportional to sensor area, despite the differences in sensor technology. There is where I expect a larger sensor to have better noise properties at low exposure index (”ISO speed") and over most of the range of photographically interesting tonal levels within the image. On the other hand, modern CMOS sensors with lower read noise can win in the very darkest parts of the image, say 11 or more stops below the highlights, and in not so extremely dark parts of the images made at higher exposure index.

In other words, what Erik says about "midtones" is probably also true all the way down to fairly deep shadows, when exposing for long enough to make good use of the available well capacity.
Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #86 on: November 23, 2013, 02:02:58 pm »

I highly disagree with this statement; the D800 is not the best camera for many things.  Really anything that involves technical shooting, from my point of view.  Also, once again, no access to leaf shutters, a big disadvantage for quite a few subjects and methods of shooting. 

Sorry.
I was being sarcastic :-)
Logged
Kevin.

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Pixel sizes, 35mm and MF cameras; shot noise vs read noise
« Reply #87 on: November 23, 2013, 03:31:50 pm »

But perhaps a better way to look at the effect of photon counting on visible noise is full well capacity normalized to "photons per image", which with recent sensors seems roughly proportional to sensor area, despite the differences in sensor technology. There is where I expect a larger sensor to have better noise properties at low exposure index (”ISO speed") and over most of the range of photographically interesting tonal levels within the image.

In this you are implicitly implying that two pictures, one taken by a 24x36 camera and one by a digital full frame medium format camera are printed at the same size. You are also implying that this size is huge, because the difference should not show on tiny prints. There is nothing wrong with this hypothesis, I just want to make clear what we are talking about.

(edit: replaced "full frame" by "medium format", which is what I intended to write)
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 03:00:36 am by jerome_m »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Pixel sizes, 35mm and MF cameras; shot noise vs read noise
« Reply #88 on: November 23, 2013, 06:45:58 pm »

In this you are implicitly implying that two pictures, one taken by a 24x36 camera and one by a digital full frame camera are printed at the same size. You are also implying that this size is huge, because the difference should not show on tiny prints.
I mostly agree.

On the first point: the only IQ comparisons that make the slightest bit of sense to me are ones between images viewed at the same size: same-size prints, or same size on-screen. Take away that constraint and I can prove that any camera is vastly better than itself and do it by comparing prints of the same file: just make one print big enough to show some flaws, and another small enough to hide them!

On the second point: maybe not huge, but at least reasonably large, and not going to your opposite extreme of "tiny" (there are many other options in between!). After all, we are talking about rather expensive and bulky cameras, so the interesting image quality comparisons are with the images displayed big enough to reveal the advantages over the numerous smaller, lighter, cheaper alternatives.


P. S. [put this in the wrong place before, didn't I?] a 36x24mm format camera is the same as what some people still strangely call a "digital full frame camera", so I presume you mean "36x24mm versus the various larger so-called medium formats", which is the comparison I was talking about.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2013, 09:20:44 pm by BJL »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Pixel sizes, 35mm and MF cameras; shot noise vs read noise
« Reply #89 on: November 23, 2013, 09:10:05 pm »

MF reminds me of this really high maintenance gal whom we all went out with when younger - you know, the one who was really really hot, and really high strung, and demanded you take her to all these very very expensive places, and then each time you would nurse her moods in the hope she would get drunk but not too drunk, and if you managed all of that, then she would be a lot of fun :)

Turns out that for most of us she was ... an interesting time in our life, but not worth it in the end.

I'm sure someone here will explain it all in terms of photons etc, and James will find an ironic quote by some guy like Kierkegaard that sums it all up, but that's my feeling in plain english.

Edmund


I mostly agree.

On the first point: the only IQ comparisons that make the slightest bit of sense to me are ones between images viewed at the same size: same-size prints, or same size on-screen. Take away that constraint and I can prove that any camera is vastly better than itself and do it by comparing prints of the same file: just make one print big enough to show some flaws, and another small enough to hide them!

P. S. a 36x24mm format camera is the same as what some people still strangely call a "digital full frame camera", so I presume you mean "36x24mm versus the various larger so-called medium formats", which is the comparison I was talking about.

On the second point: maybe not huge, but at least reasonably large, and not going to your opposite extreme of "tiny" (there are many other options in between!). After all, we are talking about rather expensive and bulky cameras, so the interesting image quality comparisons are with the images displayed big enough to reveal the advantages over the numerous smaller, lighter, cheaper alternatives.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2013, 09:53:31 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #90 on: November 24, 2013, 12:54:53 am »

Hehe  Edmund,
Please have a seat on the couch and tell us about your childhood.  :)

For me, that was the Leica's and the Ducati's.  5 months to repair a lens? 4 months to put a button back on a DMR?  Forget it! Finally out from under the spell. Once I found Rollei, I never looked back.  DSLR's don't have the viewfinder, ergonomics, leaf shutters,  or sync speed. It's not just about pixels. 

I think everyone should go find some old family photos from 50 years back or older and put them next to a print made from the latest and greatest DSLR.  It's crazy how those old photos will have all this depth and presence to them and how flat the DSLR images will look.  Try it!    There is no substitute for sensor/film size.   MF has the advantage of size.  It's different.  I'd like to see bigger and bigger sensors.
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #91 on: November 24, 2013, 02:09:07 am »

Hi,

I don't think so, not that I have a lot of family photos 50 years old, but I don't think images where that good at that time.

I also feel that the look of the images is 99% processing and 1% camera. I listened to a discussion with Michael Reichmann and Ctein. Ctein said that the 4/3 camera was good enough compared to the Pentax 67 he used before, he said it offered MF quality. I had a Pentax 67, too, so I know about scanning Velvia.

In the old times larger formats were frequently used. Those cameras were often stopped down to f/16 or even more. The lenses were probably differently corrected, possibly with a more pleasant bokeh than todays lenses.

Best regards
Erik


I think everyone should go find some old family photos from 50 years back or older and put them next to a print made from the latest and greatest DSLR.  It's crazy how those old photos will have all this depth and presence to them and how flat the DSLR images will look.  Try it!    There is no substitute for sensor/film size.   MF has the advantage of size.  It's different.  I'd like to see bigger and bigger sensors.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 02:23:54 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
my family archives of film photos have nothing on what modern gear gives
« Reply #92 on: November 24, 2013, 11:48:22 am »

For me, that was the Leica's ... Finally out from under the spell. Once I found Rollei, I never looked back.
This I can agree with; the limitations of film made the advantages of medium format over the 36x24mm  "compact format" clear in even moderate sized prints. And if I indulge my desire to return to dark-room dabbling, it will be with second-hand medium format, not a far more expensive Leica system.
But this ...
Quote
I think everyone should go find some old family photos from 50 years back or older and put them next to a print made from the latest and greatest DSLR.  It's crazy how those old photos will have all this depth and presence to them and how flat the DSLR images will look.  Try it!
I _have_ tried it, and totally disagree: by every standard I care about (which does not include massive, intrusive, unnatural yet allegedly artistic OOF effects, obviously) I find my family archives of prints and slides from 35mm and even medium format (lots of contact prints from a Brownie!) disappointing apart from their historic, emotional significance; I vastly prefer the results I can get from my 4/3" format gear.

P. S. Actually, I am old enough that I can go back almost 50 years with my own photographs, to using a Pentax K1000 with just a 50/1.7 lens and a mix of monochrome and color film for some years. Not to disparage those photos, but there is nothing in those albums that makes me think I am losing anything by leaving that gear in my closet when I go out photographing. (For me, f/1.7 was solely for focusing and for overcoming the limitations of low ISO film, not to add "depth and presence" by blurring parts of the image that were sharp when I looked at the actual scene.)
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 11:59:41 am by BJL »
Logged

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #93 on: November 24, 2013, 01:43:16 pm »


I was suggesting to look back 50 years to get back past all the 35mm family snaps with cheap 35mm cameras with drugstore processing - I'm thinking MF film or LF film done with the better cameras of those days if you want to compare to the better cameras of today.  But anyhow this is the problem with comparisons.  So many of the qualities of an image are personally interpreted.  After you get into digital photography and used to zooming in on image, you might take on a bias towards that being the critical part of an image.    So I meant to stand back, not use a lupe, and look at the prints.  To me the differences are quite obvious - but then I don't get hung up on sharpness.  Certainly film has some advantages in tonality still, but I think the biggest differences have to do with the larger format used.   

And getting back to this thread, I do think MF has that advantage over 35mm just like 35mm has it over the mobile phones.  The perception of depth seems to be tied to format size used in capture.  I'm interested to see bigger and bigger digital sensors - with not necessarily more pixels.
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #94 on: November 24, 2013, 02:01:37 pm »

I was suggesting to look back 50 years to get back past all the 35mm family snaps with cheap 35mm cameras with drugstore processing - I'm thinking MF film or LF film done with the better cameras of those days if you want to compare to the better cameras of today.
OK, I guess your family and mine were doing photography differently 50 years ago! Mine was using a decent 35mm film camera with Kodochrome mailed in to Kodak for development, and before that a Brownie with B&W film. Maybe your talk of "MF film or LF film ..." is thinking back to formal family photos taken by professionals? In that case, too many other factors are varying in the comparison, like the competence of the photographer, time taken to arrange the posing and lighting ...
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #95 on: November 24, 2013, 02:03:57 pm »

An 80 MP 4x5" one shot back with long exposure for tech cameras as a scanback replacement....
Probably I'd not live long enough to earn the money needed to buy such a thing.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #96 on: November 24, 2013, 02:15:08 pm »

Hi,

Bigger pixels alias, produce fake detail. In my view there are advantages to large sensors but pixels should be small. To avoid aliasing the sensor must outresolve the lens! This is sort of fact in sampling theory.


Best regards
Erik



And getting back to this thread, I do think MF has that advantage over 35mm just like 35mm has it over the mobile phones.  The perception of depth seems to be tied to format size used in capture.  I'm interested to see bigger and bigger digital sensors - with not necessarily more pixels.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 03:41:52 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #97 on: November 24, 2013, 09:40:57 pm »

Bigger pixels alias, produce fake detail. In my view there are advantages to large sensors but pixels should be small. To avoid aliasing the sensor must outresolve the lens! This is sort of fact in sampling theory.

Erik,
I think you are stuck in a trap.   ;)   Let's call it the Engineer's trap.    The contents: Idea / composition, look, color, and feel are what most people experience in an image. Most people don't see what they don't know to look for.   Now that you know about fake detail, moire, aliasing, CA or whatever you tend to look for it - the engineers trap.  But don't forget about the content - how it feels to you - or at least don't' forget how other people view the images anyhow :)  What's the point of sweating over details that other people will overlook?

I'm coming at this discussion from the angle of what tends to enhance the perception of an image by a general viewing audience, and my experience has been that the larger the sensor, the better the feel or perception of depth is.  It's hard to quantify but its there at least to me. 

 
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #98 on: November 24, 2013, 10:42:30 pm »

"The question is asked in ignorance, by one who does not even know what can have led him to ask it."
(Kierkegaard).

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #99 on: November 24, 2013, 11:10:11 pm »

Eric: Erik was talking solely about your comments apparently in favor of fewer, bigger photosites, and pointing out that this can lead to visible, undesirable consequence; moiré and other aliasing artifacts. His explanations in terms of aliasing might be engineering mumbo-jumbo to you, but the visible consequences exist regardless of the viewer's engineering knowledge.

The far more dangerous "engineering trap" is the one where people use the per pixel engineering measure of "dynamic range" as an indication of how well a sensor handles scenes of high subject brightness range, without reference to pixel count, print PPI, dithering, downsamping and such -- leading to the widespread but mostly false belief that having fewer, bigger photosites on a sensor of the same size improves the visible quality of the final displayed image of such scenes by improving its "DR".

P. S. I would bet on the usage of
(a) good prime lenses,
(b) at typically higher f-stops, and
(c) the lower degree of enlargement of the image produced by the lens used to get a print of a given size
as the dominant reasons why images from MF cameras are in some ineffable way preferred to images from smaller formats like 36x24mm by many people such as yourself.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up