MULTIPLE CMOS RUMORS......

[eronald]

Yes Edmund, people look at the price listing on B&H for Mamiya vs te competition, go back to the forums, listen to all the "buzzwords" and decide that all that extra cash is worth spending. That's exactly how it has worked for the thousands of people who have bought into the phamiya platform.

Don't you have it all figured out!

Synn,

 I believe this is the link you were looking for.

Edmund

[synn]

Synn,

 I believe this is the link you were looking for.

Edmund

perhaps.

Speaking of links, I am extremely curious to know how those ebay links are gonna magically make your currently non existent images better though. Keep me posted!  

[BernardLanguillier]

For the record, I am not saying that that Pentax or blad systems are shit. Rather, I am pointing out to the fact that phamiya works for the most number of folks because...

Except that you are mssing just a tiny detail... the sales data facts backing up your belief...

Reality can be a bitch.

Cheers,
Bernard

[synn]

Except that you are mssing just a tiny detail... the sales data facts back uping your belief...

Reality can be a bitch.

Cheers,
Bernard

Oh, "Bitch".
I thought you meant "Stitch", as that's what every other post of yours is about.
Where is your data countering my belief, sir?


It's funny how the two people with the most complaints about MF kits are the ones that don't even own one. Figures; most people who complain about the handling of Ferraris are teenagers who found their way to forums.

Carry on. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Oh, "Bitch".
I thought you meant "Stitch", as that's what every other post of yours is about.
Where is your data countering my belief, sir?


It's funny how the two people with the most complaints about MF kits are the ones that don't even own one. Figures; most people who complain about the handling of Ferraris are teenagers who found their way to forums.

Carry on. 

No complains about MF here. Great cameras and great photographic options to chose from. Another invention of yours.

If I recall, I laid my hands on a MF camera for the first time more than 30 years ago, a Rolleiflex. I then focused on 35mm for many years until I dived back into MF about 12 years ago with a Hassy H1. I then used 6x7/6x9/6x12 Horseman holders for 4x5. That was followed by a ZD MF digital camera and recently a Hassy 503cw.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ken R]

C'mon kids. Play nice. 

[eronald]

Speaking of links, I am extremely curious to know how those ebay links are gonna magically make your currently non existent images better though. Keep me posted!  

Synn,

 Here is the link again. It points to the very positive 645Z user reviews at B&H - every buyer review is at 5 stars.

This is a camera forum. People don't care about images, they care about gear and pixel peeping - or in your case Phase sales numbers.
  
Edmund

[jduncan]

I find it laughable that "controlling the forums" leads people to spend 5 figures on a sub par product. At some point of time, they do try it first hand and see if it works for them, you know? I am talking from first hand experience here.


No, I don't see it as McDonald's. Rather, I see it as $400 acer laptop owners passing snide remarks that a MacBook has the same parts that their laptop has. The sum is larger than its parts and that is why the phase ecosystem works for more people than the alternative.

For the record, I am not saying that that Pentax or blad systems are shit. Rather, I am pointing out to the fact that phamiya works for the most number of folks because there is no other manufacturer out there that has such a broad compatibility to the backs they offer as well as a lens line up that goes from $200 to $6000, almost all of them tack sharp.

Pentax and hassy only checks some of those boxes.

It's seem that I was unable to convey my point to  you. The implication that I object was the "voting with wallet proves superior quality".  The fact that a product sale more does not imply that the product is better.  You did not address the issue.  Here are somethings that are not relevant or do not falsify the argument:

1. The existence of quality products that sale more that lesser products  (this is not the subject) .
2. The existence of quality products that are more or less expensive that  lesser products.
3. The existence of better quality products that sale less than lesser products  (this is relevant but it will prove my point).

As you can see, your mac example (if we accept all the premises) is either irrelevant  (if mac sale more than generic PCs or Acer in particular) or will prove my point (if generic PCs or Acer in particular sale more computers than Apple sales Macs).

The other point I made is that it is true that Phase One is far better at marketing that  Hasselblad, also in terms of forum presense. That's a fact and it could blur even more the idea that more sales imply a better product.

That does not prove that Phase is not better, but the idea that Phase is far better than the other because  it sales more does not hold water.
I hope this time I make my point more clear, and I am sure that you will concede that this is the case that inferring better product from superior sales is a non sequitur.

Best regards,

[Jim Kasson]

Those sixteen bits are a marketing lie. To begin with Anders Torger has dissected the Phase One raw files and they are actually 14 bit. That is a good engineering choice however, as the files have only something like 13 bits of usable data. I can try to find a reference.

According to Anders, the Hasselblad files are actually 16 bits.

Erik, it's great to know that I have two more bits of noise on my Hassy than I'd have if I'd bought a P1.

Jim

[eronald]

The other point I made is that it is true that Phase One is far better at marketing that  Hasselblad, also in terms of forum presense.

Yes, the H forums are closed, so one never gets to see what their workflow advantages and issues might be.

On the good side, they don't astroturf here

Edmund

[synn]

It's seem that I was unable to convey my point to  you. The implication that I object was the "voting with wallet proves superior quality".  The fact that a product sale more does not imply that the product is better.  You did not address the issue.  Here are somethings that are not relevant or do not falsify the argument:

1. The existence of quality products that sale more that lesser products  (this is not the subject) .
2. The existence of quality products that are more or less expensive that  lesser products.
3. The existence of better quality products that sale less than lesser products  (this is relevant but it will prove my point).

As you can see, your mac example (if we accept all the premises) is either irrelevant  (if mac sale more than generic PCs or Acer in particular) or will prove my point (if generic PCs or Acer in particular sale more computers than Apple sales Macs).

The other point I made is that it is true that Phase One is far better at marketing that  Hasselblad, also in terms of forum presense. That's a fact and it could blur even more the idea that more sales imply a better product.

That does not prove that Phase is not better, but the idea that Phase is far better than the other because  it sales more does not hold water.
I hope this time I make my point more clear, and I am sure that you will concede that this is the case that inferring better product from superior sales is a non sequitur.

Best regards,

Fair enough and my point, right from the start is that at some stage of the buyer's initial research, the bullshit stops and the product had to live up to whatever hype marketing promises. For most of us, these are tools to create art and if they don't work as promised, it doesn't matter how many superlatives are showered on them.

Why did I choose a leaf? It's not because some dealer on a forum served kool-aid to me. In fact, I was pretty much set on getting a leaf even before I got to any forums. This is because when I researched during my purchase, I found that:

- the leaf backs are the ones with the best out of the box skin tones for my taste
- they offered the maximum mount options and the ability to change it to a Hasselblad mount if I wished so at some point
- the best display in the segment, which is important for someone who works untethered.
- the ability to use high shutter speeds for ambient light work and high speed flash sync with leaf shutters
- the ability to work in capture one pro
- faith in the company's long term future
- ability to use legacy lenses and high quality leaf shutter lenses as per my budget
- maximum compatibility with tech cameras, whenever I bought into one of those

Tell me if hasselblad or Pentax checks all those boxes, at any price point. I really don't care what the name on the back says. I do care what it does.

It doesn't matter how much advertising phase/leaf does. If none of those proof points where true, I wouldn't have considered my purchase. And I am pretty sure I am not the only one who did so (the fact that there are multiple phamiya dealers here doesnt matter one bit to me as I live half way across the world where they don't do busines).

I am pretty sure I am not the only one who made such a purchase decision based on the product's merits. It makes me sick to see some keyboard warriors on forums (not aimed at you, you know who they are) who can't shoot anothing worth mentioning pontificate about how they know better than those who actually use these things daily or how they know our real purchase motivations are better than we do ourselves.

This whole "phase is doing one big con" aura that some forumers show is absolutely pathetic. They don't tick all the boxes you have? Move on and get something that does. But stop telling the rest of us how we are walking around with kilos of hype in our bags and how the images we make don't exist.

Phase knows how to market an already good product? Good for them. Any company should be competent at that. Pentax and blad should fire their incompetent marketing departments, instead of blaming phase for doing their job right.

I really don't want to talk more on this topic. Such forum yapping is the domain of certain Ph.Ds who claim to have the power to think for the rest of us.

Good day.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Some folks feel it is very important to have two bits of extra noise.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, it's great to know that I have two more bits of noise on my Hassy than I'd have if I'd bought a P1.

Jim

[MrSmith]

"Phase knows how to market an already good product? Good for them"

phase marketing sucks and the imagery they use is poor compared to Hassleblad and Leica.
And bombarding me with emails from the 'image quality professor'? Who's bright idea was that?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My impression is that times are changing. We see the first generation of CMOS-based back, but they are all small sensor (44x33) mm and all use the same Sony sensor. The Sony sensor is much more integrated than the older CCD based sensors with analog digital conversion on sensor. That essentially means that Sony is much in control the analogue electronics.

It may be that Sony CMOS will be a dominant factor in MFD or they may not be. What will the acceptance be for CMOS, will customers prefer CCD over CMOS? No one knows. Will Sony produce larger sensors or will "full frame" MFD still be in the realm of CCD? Will DALSA make large CMOS? Many questions and few answers.

Best regards
Erik

After many years of creatively employing my Leaf Aptus-65 on both Sinar & Hassy platforms...it appears that upgrade time will soon arrive.

I'm soliciting input:....impressions...opinions...and such......from anyone interested in sharing.

By mid-2015 I will have met my used-budget-requirements, and will be seriously engaged in shopping.

What 80-mega-pixel backs do you like....dislike.....yearn-for....avoid....etc.....?

Do you have a used-back you want to sell....or know anyone who has one?

We can share publicly...or privately (PM)...as you wish.

I'll enjoy all your responses...offered with honesty and respect.

Warm regards,

Hank

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am a bit confused by the the recent developments of high ISO in MFD. The reason that CMOS is capable of high ISO is essentially low readout noise, which is essentially a capability to pull out data in the darks. When ISO is increased, exposure will be reduced, the very low readout noise makes it possible to increase "exposure" in development and still have a good image. CMOS readout noise may be 1/4 - 1/4 of CCD readout noise. That would make it possible to push 1-2 stops extra.

But, highlight noise is just depending on exposure, because it is essentially photon statistics. If we assume electron charges/square micron is about the same on CCD as on CMOS, underexposing say two stops would give similar amount of shot noise.

One area where it would be possible to increase ISO is quantum efficiency, but CCD is not terribly bad and it has an upper limit.

Sony sensors used to have some kind of on board noise reduction, that would be helpful with high ISO, but it could as well be done off the sensor.

So I am a bit skeptical about high ISO on CMOS.

Best regards
Erik

[JoeKitchen]

Synn,

 Here is the link again. It points to the very positive 645Z user reviews at B&H - every buyer review is at 5 stars.

This is a camera forum. People don't care about images, they care about gear and pixel peeping - or in your case Phase sales numbers.
  
Edmund

It seems lately the conversations on here always come back to the new almighty camera, the Pentax 645Z.  Amazing how fast the D800 fell from grace.  

I will say though that it looks like a nice camera.  From those that I have spoken to who have used it, they like it.  I also ran into a lifestyle/location guy that happened to have one on hand to look at a couple of weeks ago.  Feels nice, looks easy to use.  If you don't shoot ad work and are not bringing in those $10K+ per day jobs, the price is very attractive.  

Service is still lacking though.  The photographer that I ran into said that Pentax is upping their game when it comes to service, but he has not yet had any problems, so he really could not speak to how the service is.  (Lets hope it is truly better for those that have invested the money.)  

So if it works for you and you can create good imagery with it, who am I to criticize you.  

With that said though, it still does not compare to Phase or Hassy for two main reasons.  

First, it is not an open system, which means someone like me could never use it on a tech camera without giving up wide angles.  That kills it for me.  

Second, no leaf shutters, which greatly limits what you can do with lighting.  

This week is slow, so I rented a couple of modifiers I don't use and decided to have some fun.  I also decided I would do an 180 on my style, which means keeping ambient sunlight to a minimum.  First image today was to create a sunrise type feel with glowing orange light streaming into my kitchen.  Second image, mid-afternoon light coming into my kitchen that was a little more even.  First and second images I shot at ISO 50, f/8 and 1/30s.  This was just enough to light the wall across from my kitchen window, and it worked well.  Also, since I was shooting faster, I had my girlfriend step in for the shots, which was nice.  

Last image today was a night time moonlight feel.  To get the daytime exterior light to mimic night time, I had to alter the exposure to ISO 50, f/13 (right on the cusp of diffraction) and 1/500s.  (Of course there was some gelling involved to render the color correctly too.)

Having a leaf shutter that would sync at 1/500 was very helpful.  

Could I have gotten it with a max 1/125s sync speed at ISO 100?  I could have put a 3 stop ND filter on the lens, but I would have needed 8 times more juice going through my heads.  I could have also set up the shot and waited until sunset, but I would have had to been very sure of myself since the light changes so fast at sunset.  Taking time to access and readjust my strobes could have been too long and the shot would have been lost.  So yes, I could have created the image below without leaf shutters, but having leaf shutters made it a lot easier.  

So, if you want a camera that's easy to use, provides you with a great image, and you are not a control freak, the Pentax is great.  

But if you want a camera that puts no limits on your creativity, the Pentax does not do it.  

[Jim Kasson]

I am a bit confused by the the recent developments of high ISO in MFD. The reason that CMOS is capable of high ISO is essentially low readout noise, which is essentially a capability to pull out data in the darks. When ISO is increased, exposure will be reduced, the very low readout noise makes it possible to increase "exposure" in development and still have a good image. CMOS readout noise may be 1/4 - 1/4 of CCD readout noise. That would make it possible to push 1-2 stops extra.

But, highlight noise is just depending on exposure, because it is essentially photon statistics. If we assume electron charges/square micron is about the same on CCD as on CMOS, underexposing say two stops would give similar amount of shot noise.

One area where it would be possible to increase ISO is quantum efficiency, but CCD is not terribly bad and it has an upper limit.

Sony sensors used to have some kind of on board noise reduction, that would be helpful with high ISO, but it could as well be done off the sensor.

So I am a bit skeptical about high ISO on CMOS.

Minimum CCD read noise appears to be about 10 electrons: IQ180 = 13, P65+ = 12, P45+ = 8.5, M9 = 13, Leica S = 14.

Minimum CMOS read noise appears to be about 2 electrons: D4S = 1.3, D810 1.3, Sony a7R = 2.3.

So, 2 - 3 stops better for CMOS. We can talk about the possible reasons if you want to. Read noise appears to be coming down quite rapidly in CMOS.

Then there's switchable conversion gain, which you can do on CMOS. I don't know for sure about CCD, but I doubt it. That's gotten the a7S to 0.4 electrons read noise (according to my testing, a little of that may be due to raw processing -- for shame). If all CMOS cameras can get there, that would be better than 4 stops difference.

However, there is now the possibility of mixing CCD and CMOS on the same chip, which could be interesting -- for instance, on chip ADCs for CCDs.

Fundamentally, there doesn't have to be any difference in the way the light is captured between the two. The big difference is how it's read out: through a buffer (CMOS) or with a bucket brigade (CCD).

Jim

[eronald]

yes, but then there is the uniformity of the pixels to consider, ie various forms of pattern noise.

Edmund

Minimum CCD read noise appears to be about 10 electrons: IQ180 = 13, P65+ = 12, P45+ = 8.5, M9 = 13, Leica S = 14.

Minimum CMOS read noise appears to be about 2 electrons: D4S = 1.3, D810 1.3, Sony a7R = 2.3.

So, 2 - 3 stops better for CMOS. We can talk about the possible reasons if you want to. Read noise appears to be coming down quite rapidly in CMOS.

Then there's switchable conversion gain, which you can do on CMOS. I don't know for sure about CCD, but I doubt it. That's gotten the a7S to 0.4 electrons read noise (according to my testing, a little of that may be due to raw processing -- for shame). If all CMOS cameras can get there, that would be better than 4 stops difference.

However, there is now the possibility of mixing CCD and CMOS on the same chip, which could be interesting -- for instance, on chip ADCs for CCDs.

Fundamentally, there doesn't have to be any difference in the way the light is captured between the two. The big difference is how it's read out: through a buffer (CMOS) or with a bucket brigade (CCD).

Jim

[Jim Kasson]

...there is the uniformity of the pixels to consider, ie various forms of pattern noise.

Right you are. I've just begun exploring that.

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=7608
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=7638
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=7656

I will get to the CCD sensors. Do you have any opinion as to which sensor produces the uglier RN normalized for sigma?

Jim

[eronald]

Right you are. I've just begun exploring that.

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=7608
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=7638
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=7656

I will get to the CCD sensors. Do you have any opinion as to which sensor produces the uglier RN normalized for sigma?

Jim

Get the Apertus team to send you some "freshgrown" unprocessed raw files.
What is actually written into the external file is already heavily processed.

Edmund