MF CMOS -- now it gets interesting

[Theodoros]

I don't understand what you want me to comment especially in the context of the present discussion.

All I am saying is that the new cmos backs will not have massively improved high iso compared to the present ccd backs. An educated guess is that the new technology gains about one stop sensitivity at the same sensor noise level. It is better than nothing, but it is not earth shattering.

We have people here complaining that iso 200 is the most they will use on their 50 mpix back (without micro-lenses) before the quality is degraded too much for their needs -> they will be able to use iso 400. Not more. We also have people who feel iso 800 is the max, they will use iso 1600, etc... The increase in noise level is going to be roughly one stop.

It is not much, especially when one considers that MF lenses are 2 to 3 stops slower than 24x36 primes.

Microlenses are a disease for use with technical or view cameras Jerome… this is a major aspect why most MFDB sensors are designed with out them… if they retain micro lenses on Cmos sensors, they won't be recommended for use on such cameras…. Their use will be restricted to what DSLRs do only difference being the sensor area.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Both IQ 280 and IQ 260 have micro lenses according to DALSA spec sheets, as far I know.

Best regards
Erik

Microlenses are a disease for use with technical or view cameras Jerome… this is a major aspect why most MFDB sensors are designed with out them… if they retain micro lenses on Cmos sensors, they won't be recommended for use on such cameras…. Their use will be restricted to what DSLRs do only difference being the sensor area.

[jerome_m]

Microlenses are a disease for use with technical or view cameras Jerome…

I know, but both Phase One and Hasselblad have backs with microlenses available and we don't know wether the cmos backs will have them or not.

[jduncan]

http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx

I don't know 50mp seems low. I guess it will be a 48x36 sensor. They should have target 72mpixels by using the same pixel density as the D800E, even more so if Sony it's the fab partner.  It don't make sense unless they have an other technology coming.

Let's wait and see.

Best regards,
J. Duncan

[Theodoros]

I know, but both Phase One and Hasselblad have backs with microlenses available and we don't know wether the cmos backs will have them or not.

True, but (as you said) they don't recommend them for use on such cameras…  Anyway, if Cmos sensors won't have micro lenses, their high Iso performance will be affected by (about) a couple of stops… in such case they will have considerable difference than current DSLR sensors, another thing to consider is what the base Iso will be… if it will be of 50 Iso, then High Iso will be affected negatively by another stop… If both are applied (i.e. no microlences & 50 Iso), then 6400 (or maybe 5000) of FF DSlrs, will look like 800 Iso on that (hypothetical) MFDB… that's not much different to current (modern) CCD sensors… is it?

[Theodoros]

Hi,

Both IQ 280 and IQ 260 have micro lenses according to DALSA spec sheets, as far I know.

Best regards
Erik

P65+ doesn't have any micro lenses on Erik, it would thus surprise me if P260 has any… I don't know about the 80mp sensor, but I guess it's the same with it… Traditionally, Dalsa avoided micro lenses, it was Kodak that had such versions of their sensors and those where mostly of 33x44 size.

[Iliah]

Well, using lossy compressed 11 bit raw may be not the most telling.

[hjulenissen]

I don't know whether trichromatic colorimetry based on a "standard observer" is such a good idea, after all people around the world have different eye colors and shoesizes, and one certainly shouldn't take it as the ground truth of perception. The original experiments on which colorimetry is based are very old.

Judging by the success of color reproducing products, one might dare to say that color reproduction is "good enough" for most people and most applications, just like stereo reproduction is "good enough" for most music applications. I believe that the experiments have been repeated and extended in later years. One might assume that if they were proven significantly wrong, that the standards would have been updated. The science is not typically carried out using side-by-sides of photographs of typical photographic content viewed at typical photography size/distance.

Certainly e.g. a 256-band reproduction of the "visible" spectrum could be more accurate. Using todays color technology, this would come at a considerable loss of luminance accuracy, though. I'd be interested to see such things in a fair side-by-side myself.

For my own humble photography, color is mainly an issue for certain man-made, strongly saturated colors.

-h

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I got that information from Ray "Ondebanks", he was much surprised when he found out, but he is quite sure about it.

Best regards
Erik

P65+ doesn't have any micro lenses on Erik, it would thus surprise me if P260 has any… I don't know about the 80mp sensor, but I guess it's the same with it… Traditionally, Dalsa avoided micro lenses, it was Kodak that had such versions of their sensors and those where mostly of 33x44 size.

[Enda Cavanagh]

Aaaaah. I'm a landscape and architectural photographer. Last time I checked a medium format camera that will vastly extend my exposure times (with out the BS of having to shoot a dark frame like with P1) would be HUGELY beneficial to me and any architectural and landscape photographer who uses a medium format back on a view camera is crying out for good quality live view. That would be like Manna from heaven for me. Especially in low light where it can take ages to compose the shot just at that time when you don't have ages to get the shot….why? because you can't take very long exposures so once light levels go to low you have to pack up and leave even if you have the most amazing dark blue sky post sun set! (Again forget the BS with dark exposures on P1. It would be like going to a good movie, than sitting in the cinema in the dark for the same time as the length of the movie before you can leave!). From the PR it looks like live view will only be achievable on phocus initially. Hopefully it will be on camera at some stage or at least via direct tethering of an iPad for increased portability.

Several photographers comment here about only such and such a photographer will only use it for x y z or there is no need for high iso without any understanding of photography outside their own hobbies/field. Believe it or not there other photographers who are crying out for high iso plus increased shutter speeds plus better live view.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Hjulenissen asked ColorChecker card comparisons, and I happened to have such shots made.

The reason I bought the P45+ is a bit complex. I was considering buying MFD for a long time if prices got reasonable, say getting MF equipment for something I used to spend on photographic equipment in two years. I was also curious to find out about MF, and have not found many raw shots. So buying an MFD was I way to try out. I have posted a lot of raw samples, there are now 103 IIQ files on my web site that are available for download.

I have also considered switching to Nikon for a while, but that would be a cost similar to the Hasselblad 555ELD/P45+ with five lenses. So I kept Sony and have now the Hasselblad as an alternative platform.  

The reason I keep the Hasselblad is that I like it and like shooting with it. I also find that it delivers real benefit in sharpness, not at the pixel level but definitively on the per image level.

On the other hand I don't see any magic bullet. I compare with what I have and that happens to be Sony.

I am not in any way unhappy with my P45+, it corresponds to my expectations, but I did not expect a magic bullet. The same applies to the Hasselblad camera, except that the camera is a bit nicer than I expected. The stuff delivers essentially what I expected no less but also no more. It delivers good sharpness. Colours are OK with LR5 after I made DCP-profiles.

One interesting observation I made was that Adobe Standard profile for the P45+ was decently accurate on the ColorChecker but yielded yellowish greens and bluish reds on some flower shots. A DCP profile fixed both of those issues. So I got decent colour out of the P45+ and LR5 with some effort. This shows that numbers don't tell the full story.

I may add that I am an engineer having photography as hobby and having some keen interest in image processing science, without in any way being an expert in that area. I am essentially a landscape shooter.

Best regards
Erik

Kids, let's not get too technical!

Erik, sometimes I wonder why you purchased the P45+ in the first place and why don't you sell it already. The A99 seems to be the perfect camera for you (The D800E and the A7R should also)

The Hasselblad and the IQ250 most likely won't have a "full frame" sensor from the looks of things. Smart money says the 50MP CMOS sensor is going to be 1.1x (36.8x49.1) or 1.3x crop (33x44 approx.), not an issue at all for most people though. Also being CMOS the sensor probably won't play well with wide angle tech camera lenses. Just like the A7R does not deal well at all with Leica M wide angle glass. (Rodenstock HR lenses should be ok, can't wait for tests!)

Also, one big question mark is the price point. A lot of folks here want the new Hasselblad (and IQ250) to be priced at Pentax 645D levels or close. Seriously doubt that is going to be the case although that would do WONDERS to increase the customer base of digital medium format.

Oh, and one more thing. The IQ250 will most likely be the better implementation of the 50mp CMOS sensor given PhaseOnes history of making the best of the sensors available and their trajectory of building very very solid backs with outstanding functionality (class leading for sure)  

[jerome_m]

True, but (as you said) they don't recommend them for use on such cameras…  Anyway, if Cmos sensors won't have micro lenses, their high Iso performance will be affected by (about) a couple of stops… in such case they will have considerable difference than current DSLR sensors, another thing to consider is what the base Iso will be… if it will be of 50 Iso, then High Iso will be affected negatively by another stop… If both are applied (i.e. no microlences & 50 Iso), then 6400 (or maybe 5000) of FF DSlrs, will look like 800 Iso on that (hypothetical) MFDB… that's not much different to current (modern) CCD sensors… is it?

What people fail to see is that iso 6400 or even 3200 on current FF DSLRs is pretty bad, when judged with the eyes of a MF shooter. I really have problems to resolve the gap between people who say that "iso 400 on their MF is already too noisy to be usable" and "iso 30 billions is possible on a cmos dslr".

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Pretty much my dream, too. That is the main reason I like live view.

Best regards
Erik

I dream of one of these complete with digital back and user friendly live view and no need for the finder.

A no nonsense, pocket-sized, user-friendly, travel, tech cam.

[Paul2660]

CMOS in a DSLR allows you to have the option to turn off long exposure dark frames, however in reality if you are shooting much longer than 5 minutes especially in warmer conditions +70 F, you will want to turn it on.  Canon and Nikon both tend to get very noisy very fast much past 5 minutes if leave the dark frame off.  You will start to see excessive stuck pixels, and what I call digital reticulation which are white spots finer than stuck pixels, but still in the image. 

I shoot at night a lot, but I am shooting in stacks and my longest exposure tends to be around 2.5 minutes.  You can run quite a while at these exposures without too many stuck pixels and excessive noise, also staying at iso ranges from 100 to 400. 

I doubt that MF will do much better, may be worse due to heat build up.  So that a dark frame may still be needed on exposures longer than 3 to 5 minutes. 

However you may be able to get by in the 1" to 30" range now, which with a IQ260/160 still requires a dark frame.

Paul

[Steve Hendrix]

"High ISO is not important for a Tech camera"

High iso is can be very important for a tech camera.  If you are an outdoor shooter and working with wind.  Many times I have shoot combinations to stop the movement of my subjects, trees, flowers, as I don't prefer blur.  

Actually the Tech camera may make this more an issue if anything since many of the lenses available are best used in the F8 to F11 range.  In low light, (cloudy, or grey winter day) it can be very hard to get 1/60 to say 1/125th of a sec at base ISO of 50 or even 100.  You need to stay in the same aperture range of F8 to F11, you have a CF on the lens which takes yet another 2 to 2/5 stops of light.  So having a useable high iso of say 400 or 800 would be a real plus for me.

You can just as easily get into the need for a ISO on a good day, with sunlight but still windy.  Many times on stream treks I will have great light, but 15mph to 20mph gusts.  Here again I am going to shoot a bracket for the water (slow) but try to stop the tree branches.  ISO 50 or 100 again won't get you to the shutter speed you need even pulling off the ND or CLPL I might have.   You need to be at 1/125 at least to stop the motion clean and this again needs around ISO 400 minimum.   ISO 400 on a current high MP Phase back can be tricky, even with the IQ260 in my experience.  Plus you get back to the issue of "is it really iso 400 or 800" due to the fact it's a CCD instead of CMOS.  

Sensor plus does a great job here i in creating a noise free file, but the overall loss in resolution is not something I want.  

Paul Caldwell

This is spot on - I agree and consider ISO an important factor for outdoor capture. To my way of thinking, the relevance of ISO is shutter speed. And from that standpoint, any situation where I can need a higher shutter speed brings the ramifications of the ISO setting into play. This goes double for higher megapixel capture devices.

Examples attached from a recent mid day test shoot.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

[Enda Cavanagh]

I hope you're right and I'm wrong. 49x37 is however a size that was only used by Kodak, seems odd that they'd match up the same.

Why would that be odd. The 49 x 37mm sensor size is the most familiar size to medium format users. Definitely more than the 44 x 33 or the newer full frame sensors. Surely the fact that photographers are familiar with a size makes it a sensible choice. Would a full frame sensor 54 x 41mm cmos sensor also result in the huge color cast issues as on the 54 x 41mm ccd sensor with wide angle Schneiders? Would a 49 x 37mm cmos sensor be free of these same issues as is with the same sized ccd. If so than it is another reason to stick with a 49 x 37mm cmos sensor size. Schneider would also breath a sigh of relief because they ain't bringing out any retrofocus wide angle replacements to the 28mm and 35mm lenses anytime in the further.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The camera I was considering mostly was the Hartblei HCam, which has a motorized sliding back, right now I have settled a Hasselblad Flexbody which I happen to own.

Now, I just have find out how to transport two DSLRs, a Hasselblad 555, the Flexbody and 10 lenses on a regular flight.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, I'm sure the advent of CMOS MFD backs brings our dream a step nearer.

[Theodoros]

What people fail to see is that iso 6400 or even 3200 on current FF DSLRs is pretty bad, when judged with the eyes of a MF shooter. I really have problems to resolve the gap between people who say that "iso 400 on their MF is already too noisy to be usable" and "iso 30 billions is possible on a cmos dslr".

What you state is correct from your POV and most… There are photographers though, that sometimes creating some (or more) grain is intentional… I do that a lot (as you've probably seen from my page which I sign with in OPF), sharpness or noiseless is not always the path to good photography, there are other aspects that matter more… You still are right however, "clean" has different meanings for users of different equipment, it all depends on where one sets his "standards" and with what reference he does so… Another thing to consider is what I call "noise quality" which has to do with possible "mimic of film behaviour" or with "artefacts" presented in the image… A third thing is of course how much detail is retained with noise development (something that many ignore) and thus how much information loss there is in the image…

[jerome_m]

What you state is correct from your POV and most… There are photographers though, that sometimes creating some (or more) grain is intentional… I do that a lot (as you've probably seen from my page which I sign with in OPF), sharpness or noiseless is not always the path to good photography, there are other aspects that matter more…

I sometimes add some grain to my images. What I object to is actually noise over-reduction which gives an ugly watercolour effect.

[LKaven]

Waiting with great interest to see the particulars on the new CMOS sensor.  A difference in readout strategies would spell a difference in expected results.

If this is an Exmor sensor (column-parallel, on-chip slow readout), then I'd expect thermal noise to be an issue at handheld shutter speeds and high gain settings, especially after the use of live view.  Full readout is relatively slow despite parallelism, and frame rate likely to top out at 2.5 fps.  But engineering dynamic range at base ISO would likely exceed 15 stops by DxO metrics.

If this resembles the D4 sensor (on-chip fast readout, multiplexed column readouts, 24 channels), then there would be some limit on dynamic range at base ISO, but that limit would not be severe.  You have the benefit of on-chip readout, but the noise issues surrounding fast readout.  Thermal noise, however, would be very low.  (13.5-14 stops DR)

If this resembles the D3/D700/D3s sensor (fast readout, off-chip high quality A-D, 12 channels), similar to the earlier Canon sensors, then dynamic range is severely limited at base ISO.  Optimal read noise levels come around ISO1600.  The A-D is high quality, but low-level signals need to be routed off the chip and quickly.  Thermal noise would be extremely low.  (13 stops of DR)