Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: I would like to understand the MF look.  (Read 61698 times)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2013, 03:59:10 pm »

Dave (known as telecaster on this forum) has the best attitude of anyone.

Hah! Here's the kind of attitude my folks were more accustomed to putting up with...or in some cases not putting up with (see attached pic, taken by my dad while on vacation in Bar Harbor, Maine, late spring 1965). I was a whiny little brat, as all my cousins can and will enthusiastically affirm.

Quote
I'll bet his lens case looks kind of like that eggelston case of cameras.

Yep, kinda.   :D

Quote
I like his attitude so much if I had an extra boris tilt shift 35mm hartblei (the one made from the old Soviet stock pile) I'd send him one because I think it would make his day, because that lens is far from sharp, but even not used to throw focus is bloody beautiful.

A lovely lens, for sure, but best off in the hands of folks like yourself who know how to make it sing.   8)

My favorite lens at the moment is my Pentax's 150/2.8. It's responsible for a lot of the tonally rich & smooth, spatially crisp (but not clinical) prints I mentioned earlier in this thread. I liked it when I used it with film too, but if anything it's even sweeter on the 645D. Another one I really like right now is the Topcon (Voigtländer) 58/1.4 on m43 cameras via a Metabones SpeedBooster. Impressively sharp at the point of focus (which on Panasonic's GX7 can be placed literally anywhere in the frame) even wide open.

-Dave-
Logged

paratom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 201
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #61 on: December 02, 2013, 04:57:08 pm »

Hi Michael,
as someone using Leica S-system, Canon 5diii, Leica M and some other gear (m43 and dx sensor size) - almost always images from the S-system do surprise me in a positive way.
So I agree with your comments. Color is certainly one of the points, tonal graduations another one, sharpness is another one even though for me pixel sharpness is not the most important point any more.
Most comparisons focus on resolution and technical DR only, this is not the full picture.
Tom
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #62 on: December 02, 2013, 04:59:23 pm »

Depends on the size of the box:

Hi BC,

wow, that must be a McIntosh sound system in the background – unfortunately the background is out of focus ;-). Are the McIntoshs combined with Klipsch speakers or KEF? And where is the turntable? AND what kind of audio person placed the speakers so "great"?

If I see that tears are running down my cheeks. BTW, bokeh is great.

Best,
Johannes



This location was tough.  It was dark, had very little ambient light and to top it off, there was white dog (I assume dog) hair everywhere and I mean everywhere.  It looked like a snow storm when you walked through.

I shot this unplanned as we were breaking for lunch, I saw the subject across the room reading and saw the light on the chairs and said come here, shot it in about 10 frames.

Then everyone ate (obviously outside)

IMO

BC
Logged

larkis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293
    • My photography blog
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2013, 05:12:31 pm »


My favorite lens at the moment is my Pentax's 150/2.8. It's responsible for a lot of the tonally rich & smooth, spatially crisp (but not clinical) prints I mentioned earlier in this thread. I liked it when I used it with film too, but if anything it's even sweeter on the 645D. Another one I really like right now is the Topcon (Voigtländer) 58/1.4 on m43 cameras via a Metabones SpeedBooster. Impressively sharp at the point of focus (which on Panasonic's GX7 can be placed literally anywhere in the frame) even wide open.

-Dave-

I also like the 150mm 2.8. It's not a very sharp lens wide open but it has a nice look. This past weekend I have been getting silly with a few of my cameras and have noticed that the differences between how the files come in (besides absolute resolution and DOF) can be for the most part equalized by lightroom. For example here are 3 images from the GX7, 645D, and A7R with the white balance set to the same numeric value. The difference between how the sensor picks up the colours is different, especially on the skin tones. All in all the GX7 is the most fun to snap quick images with, the A7R has the best image quality to size ratio, and the 645D feels the most like a tuned tool out of the three. For example being able to use it with thick gloves on in winter is something the other two cameras simply can't do.

GX7 panasonic 20mm 1.7 pancake at f1.7:


645D with the 55mm 2.8 at f3.5:


A7R with the 35mm 2.8 (at f2.8):


Here are some 16x9 crops from the images white balanced to a colour checker passport for each camera, in addition there is a frame from a black magic pocket camera:

GX7:


645D:


A7R:


Blackmagic Pocket Camera with the 20mm 1.7 pancake at f 2.2:


And here are three taken in what I thought was better light on the 645D without any tweaks done to the colours of the original raw.





paratom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 201
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2013, 05:15:29 pm »

The comments about transition between focal plane and OOF areas mirror a lot what I believe as well.
I think the transition is more abrupt when using smaller sensors and smoother when using larger sensors.
For example when shooting FF an smaller with shallow DOF there is often an abrupt difference between one eye in focus and the other one out f focus.
Shooting the S with comparable DOF it does not look that abrupt.
And yes I sometimes I miss the Hy6 with the Sinar back I once had…even smoother.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #65 on: December 02, 2013, 05:27:59 pm »

Hi,

Interestingly, of the 16x9 crops I found the GX7 nicest.

Just a comment, 645Ds seem to be quite affordable now.

Best regards
Erik


I also like the 150mm 2.8. It's not a very sharp lens wide open but it has a nice look. This past weekend I have been getting silly with a few of my cameras and have noticed that the differences between how the files come in (besides absolute resolution and DOF) can be for the most part equalized by lightroom. For example here are 3 images from the GX7, 645D, and A7R with the white balance set to the same numeric value. The difference between how the sensor picks up the colours is different, especially on the skin tones. All in all the GX7 is the most fun to snap quick images with, the A7R has the best image quality to size ratio, and the 645D feels the most like a tuned tool out of the three. For example being able to use it with thick gloves on in winter is something the other two cameras simply can't do.


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #66 on: December 02, 2013, 05:30:19 pm »

The comments about transition between focal plane and OOF areas mirror a lot what I believe as well.
I think the transition is more abrupt when using smaller sensors and smoother when using larger sensors.
For example when shooting FF an smaller with shallow DOF there is often an abrupt difference between one eye in focus and the other one out f focus.
Shooting the S with comparable DOF it does not look that abrupt.
And yes I sometimes I miss the Hy6 with the Sinar back I once had…even smoother.


People here love these discussions about the MF look, and show masterful blur and focus transitions And then as someone pointed out, they go and dial up their flash, dial down their aperture, and shoot those nice sharp catalogues fashion images :)

Edmund
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 07:33:22 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1008
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #67 on: December 02, 2013, 06:04:04 pm »

The MF look for me is 6x6 (or larger) film.  MFD might as pointed out give more appealing images, better colors, etc but it is all very subtle and less pronounced in my opinion.  I like the simplicity of the cameras and the viewfinders which is why I shoot MFD but a very distinct and different digital MF look, it is stretching it a bit IMHO...
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #68 on: December 02, 2013, 07:04:08 pm »

Hi,

Two images, three processings.

Left: Sony Alpha 99, Lightroom 5.3

Center: P45+, Lightroom 5.3 (with my own DNGProfile)

Right: P45+, Capture 1

White balance on snowpatch on mountain side. In this case the colours are very different.

I also added another sample with similar crops. Both images had similar processing, both in LR 5.3. Left image Sony Alpha 99 and right image P45+.

Just to make clear, the P45+ images have better detail, they are sharper. That depends both on pixel size and 39 MP vs. 24 MP.

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 07:29:57 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look. (That sharpness thing)
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2013, 01:51:49 am »

Hi,

Sharpness also matters. Even if the P45+ I have has relatively large pixels (6.9 microns) and the Zeiss lenses I use are pretty old designs, the camera sensor combo has good sharpness at the pixel level. Actual pixel crops are usable. The lack of OLP filtering also helps.

The sharpness advantage may be lost in many applications, on screen and also in smaller prints but it is still there.


Below is full image and two actual pixels crop. P45+, Planar 80/2.8, processed in LR 5.

Best regards
Erik

« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 01:58:23 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2013, 01:58:41 am »

Erik, for these comparisons to be relevant, I believe the lens you used should also be provided.
Sensor resolution should hardly have any significance at this level of magnification.
After all we have a whole system MTF, and the look of the sharp/unsharp rendering is a lens feature, isn't it?
What I find very interesting is the difference between #2 and #3 on the top image at post #70.
A clear difference in sharpness between LR and C1.

Cheers
~Chris
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 02:03:14 am by Christoph C. Feldhaim »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2013, 04:06:51 am »

People here love these discussions about the MF look, and show masterful blur and focus transitions And then as someone pointed out, they go and dial up their flash, dial down their aperture, and shoot those nice sharp catalogues fashion images :)

Edmund


Edmund,

Shooting with flash full tilt has nothing to do with a fast lens and definately not a reason not to own one.



As I've said before cars, lenses and music can't be too fast, or too loud.  Well I guess lenses can be quiet.  Anyway.

I have a car that has over 400 hp, which for LA would seem wasteful given the fact that going 12 miles usually takes 45 minutes, but on the rare occurrence that I find a long empty road and they're are no drones, cameras, CHP, farm tractors, protected species and/or cell phone tattletales that drive rusted out Hondas, I'll take it up to 155.  No good reason other than I like to.

Now back to my flash.

IMO

BC

P.S.  Who is that guy with a stick and why does he have a stick?  Ok, never mind.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 04:10:06 am by bcooter »
Logged

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1733
    • Ink+images
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2013, 05:00:26 am »


Edmund,

Shooting with flash full tilt has nothing to do with a fast lens and definately not a reason not to own one.



As I've said before cars, lenses and music can't be too fast, or too loud.  Well I guess lenses can be quiet.  Anyway.

I have a car that has over 400 hp, which for LA would seem wasteful given the fact that going 12 miles usually takes 45 minutes, but on the rare occurrence that I find a long empty road and they're are no drones, cameras, CHP, farm tractors, protected species and/or cell phone tattletales that drive rusted out Hondas, I'll take it up to 155.  No good reason other than I like to.

Now back to my flash.

IMO

BC

P.S.  Who is that guy with a stick and why does he have a stick?  Ok, never mind.

And the same applies to those who want to try a little MF.

P.S. You missed bikes from your list and cheers for another sexy picture.  :)
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2013, 06:26:41 am »

Hi,

Those images are just screen dumps from LR's image comparison module. I guess it is accurate for color, but not for judging sharpness.  The P45+ images are Planar 80/2.8 at f/8 I think, the Sony image is 45 mm on a 24-70/2.8 ZA zoom, also at f/8. The P45 image has tighter crop. On the P45 i stitched two images to get the crop I wanted. One of the two images is shown. I often stitch on P45+.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, for these comparisons to be relevant, I believe the lens you used should also be provided.
Sensor resolution should hardly have any significance at this level of magnification.
After all we have a whole system MTF, and the look of the sharp/unsharp rendering is a lens feature, isn't it?
What I find very interesting is the difference between #2 and #3 on the top image at post #70.
A clear difference in sharpness between LR and C1.

Cheers
~Chris
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3289
    • Pieter Kers
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2013, 07:25:15 am »

....
Just to make clear, the P45+ images have better detail, they are sharper. That depends both on pixel size and 39 MP vs. 24 MP....

Best regards
Erik


I would like to see a comparison with the d800e + Zeiss Otus lens vs a medium format image with about the same lenstype.
My idea is that the MF have better lenses and/or more pixels that makes the difference in most comparisons.
With the d800e + Otus combination those two factors will be ruled out mostly.
I would not be surprised if the Otus images would be favourate.
(A nice test for LL?)
Logged

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2613
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #75 on: December 03, 2013, 11:46:46 am »

I would like to see a comparison with the d800e + Zeiss Otus lens vs a medium format image with about the same lenstype.
My idea is that the MF have better lenses and/or more pixels that makes the difference in most comparisons.
With the d800e + Otus combination those two factors will be ruled out mostly.
I would not be surprised if the Otus images would be favourate.
(A nice test for LL?)

Good idea, please share your results!   ;)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 11:57:56 am by EricWHiss »
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4169
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2013, 12:22:49 pm »

I would like to see a comparison with the d800e + Zeiss Otus lens vs a medium format image with about the same lenstype.
My idea is that the MF have better lenses and/or more pixels that makes the difference in most comparisons.
With the d800e + Otus combination those two factors will be ruled out mostly.
I would not be surprised if the Otus images would be favourate.
(A nice test for LL?)

Our office in NY is always happy to help host such comparisons. Usually they are done for the individual and never published (we've found over the years that by far the best test is your own hands on shooting, and not a equalize-everything lab test), but we have no objection to that direction.

You'd have to bring the Otus though :).

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #77 on: December 03, 2013, 01:17:30 pm »

I can see such a test be interesting, yet limited.
Why can't we have the D800e on the viewcam free from mix and match of lenses? Why introduce a variable that makes the difference. We all know how important and how different lenes can play in differnt types of light.

I have a few good lenes and a EF adapter (will need a EF to Nik adapter) and willing to test.
I respect others interest in such a test, but at least for me, I don't find apples vs orange comparisons useful for me. It only confuses me.

if you can't lock down the variables you can't make a consistent cup of espresso. Lock the variables, and just test the sensor, if that's your intention?

Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #78 on: December 03, 2013, 02:16:51 pm »

if you can't lock down the variables you can't make a consistent cup of espresso. Lock the variables, and just test the sensor, if that's your intention?




Not really; I'd imagine it's what each system can do on its own, and within its own possibilities.

Perhaps the only way to make decisions worth anything is simply to shoot the same subject on two systems, to produce two prints of about the same size - let's say A3 or A3+, just so that the obvious advantage of more pixels and a physically larger sensor doesn't get in the way.

If it's about 'look' then that's not the same as the concept of huge blow-ups; 'look' is also apparent, or is not, at smaller sizes of print. It certainly was with film.

Rob C

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #79 on: December 03, 2013, 04:51:32 pm »

What a bunch of over critical photographers think is not the deciding factor, what I would like to know is can the client see the difference, can the client  appreciate the difference, does the client pick the photographer with MF over the dslr?
That's what would sell me on the MF look.
Logged
Kevin.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11   Go Up