Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: dynamic range MF vs. Canon?  (Read 4479 times)
ronno
Guest
« on: October 06, 2006, 02:14:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone care to comment on the actual increase in DR of their MF back compared to the Canons? How much better is it?

Thanks.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2006, 02:34:24 PM »
ReplyReply

i am sure someone will be able to give you a very detailed technical answer to this question...i doubt it will really tell you more then me saying: it is quite a bit better!
leaf lets you download tons of raw files, other makers are less open about their raw files...the problem is that the only way to really compare files is to shoot the same scene side by side with the cameras you want to compare...i know michael has his DVD for sale, which is great, but in my opinion tabletops don't really tell me that much about DR or shadowdetail or even color and skintone, all the things most important for me..resolution is secondary for some people (and a lot easier to capture and understand with numbers)...
anyway do yourself a favor and rent a MF back...don't worry about resolution...most backs have the same DR and color, some simply have bigger chips...if you are contemplating spending 20,000-35,000, a couple of hundred should not make a difference....call up a dealer, ask for a demo in the store, bring your DSLR, shoot the same setting, take the files home...compare...shoot the wall, shoot the sales person, shoot into a lightsource...compare...
any MF back will give you just about the same DR...the difference is very obvious...
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4217



« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2006, 04:24:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Go to the Leaf site and download their sample Raw files - they even open in PS. Look much better yhan Canon Raws to me.
I assume Phase and Hasselblad  have similar DR, of course skin tone, highlights etc may vary.

Edmund
Logged
damien
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2006, 05:43:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Edmund,

The magic of a P25 or P30 is in the depth of tonal detail. The H1 has the amazing primes and is lighter than the Canon. The sheer joy of using medium format and processing files with a vibrant organic quality inspires and fuels my continued enthusiasm in picture making. No spec sheet will ever tell you how it feels to use the kit.

Damien.
Logged

www.lovegroveportraits.com
www.lovegroveweddings.com
www.lovegroveconsulting.com
H1/P25 -35mm,80mm,100mm,210mm
Nikon D200 - 17-35,28-70,70-200VR all at f2.8
Canon 5D - 16-35,24-70,70-200IS all at f2.8
Ex Rollei 6008 kit, Hass V kit, Mamiya 645 pro TL kit.
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4217



« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2006, 05:56:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Edmund,

The magic of a P25 or P30 is in the depth of tonal detail. The H1 has the amazing primes and is lighter than the Canon. The sheer joy of using medium format and processing files with a vibrant organic quality inspires and fuels my continued enthusiasm in picture making. No spec sheet will ever tell you how it feels to use the kit.

Damien.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Beautiful description, Damien, Thank you for the Raw you posted !

Edmund
« Last Edit: October 06, 2006, 06:07:15 PM by eronald » Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2006, 06:11:40 PM »
ReplyReply

edmund...if the guy is a dealer, why would he lend you a back? i have never heard of any dealer lending anyone a back...a rental place rents out back, a dealer/rental place might give you a rental for free if you are a good customer, but i would note want to buy a back that has been out for a day with anyone! most of the dealers here in the us have one demo model in the store which they let you touch and maybe shoot with in the store (because they have to sell it as a demo from that point on)...see if the dealer will let you shoot a couple of frames with the back in the store and shoot the same frames witht oyur canon...take them home, see the difference...some older guys skin under neon light will look horrible...but it will look a lot worse with the canon!
if you are trying to say that the phase dealer has something to hide and therefor won't let you check out the back, you are simply wrong...nothing wrong with phase files at all...on the contrary:) you read what damien said...i can only agree...
if you could go on the old robg forums, you could read how my switch from canons to MF came about...i always felt there was something lacking...well, i found it where i thought i would...DMF backs...i can't go back to the canon anymore, as good as it is, it's just not there for me...
Logged

bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2006, 10:36:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does anyone care to comment on the actual increase in DR of their MF back compared to the Canons? How much better is it?

Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In my short experience with my Leaf Valeo I believe the files can take a bit more of a beating than the Canon files. I can generally get about a stop out of the Leaf files with no noticeable difference in pixel noise. I feel like the the Valeo is able to hold the highlights a little better as well. My only real problem is I often get blue and yellow noise in very hot highlights on darker skin but I'm able to eliminate it in the raw converter.
Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 527


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2006, 02:20:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does anyone care to comment on the actual increase in DR of their MF back compared to the Canons?

I get about a stop more dynamic range from a Phase One P25 than from a Canon 1Ds MkII or 5D, all using Capture One.

Below about A3+ there's rarely any meaningful resolution difference between a 22MP Phase One back and a Canon 5D. The differences are small viewed on screen at 100%, they're smaller still in print or in an inkjet. For handheld photography in ambient light camera shake and mirror slap normally mean there's no resolution difference at any print size.

The P25 gives smoother tonal transitions than my Canons. It's a subtle difference that's more relevant to some shots than others. It's at its best capturing the delicate transition from pale skin to a rosy cheek, or for capturing the subtle hues of ancient, mossy stone. However, there's many shots where frankly the image quality advantages of medium format digital is nugatory. I did a series of contemporary apartment interiors recently, all with HDR blending, I doubt the results would have been significantly different if I'd have used a 35mm DSLR rather than a medium format digital back.

I guess the point I'm making is that if your budget can't quite stretch to medium format digital you shouldn't feel that your photography is compromised. There are some advantages that medium format digital has over 35mm digital, but they're not really about resolution; they're subtle and subject dependent..
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2006, 03:38:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For handheld photography in ambient light camera shake and mirror slap normally mean there's no resolution difference at any print size. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Everyone should read and repeat that quote 100 times

Especially when Hassy Claim "(H2) makes .. high-end digital capture .. as easy as point-and-shoot."

MFDB give Bright view, narrow DOF and for some systems higher flash synch and camera movements (and marginally better files in optimal conditions) IMO
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2006, 11:31:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Gary brings up some great points.

My investment in MFD has more to do with my style of shooting then with the files. I never felt comfortable with the 35mm frame or the look of the lenses after discovering medium format. For years when my colleagues were raving about the new pro digital 35mm cameras with tiny sensors I went the other direction shooting medium format film and my work was the better for it. Two years ago I invested in a 1Ds MKII and shot with it for almost a year and honestly I hated the camera. I'm in no way saying it's a bad camera - on the contrary it's an amazing tool but I never felt comfortable with the idea of having paid 8k for a camera that could only "see" in 35mm. Totally neurotic but it started to affect my work. I sold the camera and picked up a 5D which I adore partly because it's small, light and the files are gorgeous but also because it's at a price point that makes sense to me. It's my "daily" shooter.

With the "switch" to a 5D I also starting shooting film again and became frustrated quickly with all the additional time I spent in front of a monitor spotting dust and tweaking color. I love the raw workflow and I can do things with it that I've never done with film. After some thinking I decided to pull the trigger and merge what has become the two most powerful forces in my photography - medium format and the raw workflow. I also just happened to get a killer deal on a Valeo so it made sense. I went with the Mamiya AFD and lenses that nearly match what I had with my Hasselblads. I truly feel like I now have exactly the right tool for my style of work. It's taken 3 years and enough camera purchases that I could have bought an Aptus 75 but it was a important process for me as a photographer.

So, which file has more dynamic range? Does it really matter? It's all about your style of work. The files out of the Canon's are so close to the MFD backs but they do not have the same look, the same crispness, the same feeling as medium format.

I believe someone much wiser than I on another forum used to regularly refer to it as "mojo."
Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
ronno
Guest
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2006, 11:36:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
but they do not have the same look, the same crispness, the same feeling as medium format.

I believe someone much wiser than I on another forum used to regularly refer to it as "mojo."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79438\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bob, thanks for the thoughtful reply. It looks like you shoot editorial and advertising. Do you feel the above differences in quality show in your final prints/magazine pages?  
Do you feel you could flip through Rolling Stone or Dub or SPIN and know which format was used for which image?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2006, 11:41:25 AM by ronno » Logged
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2006, 11:47:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bob, do you feel the above differences in quality show in your final prints/magazine pages?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It does but not for the usual reason I think some invest in MFD. Thankfully there's not a lot of "pixel peeping" here in the forum but I still feel like many photographers look at MFD in terms of CCD's and megapixels. For me, 22 megapixels is overkill and I size most of my Valeo images down to the equivalent of 13 mp. At that size it's hard to distinguish the files from my 5D.

What does distinguish them is the depth-of-field, sharpness and the quality of light through the glass - all dependent on the camera format and NOT the back. The other unquantifiable difference is my level of comfort "seeing" through the viewfinder of the 645 AFD.

I have a 13x19 print hanging in my office from a recent shoot and I can say honestly you wouldn't be able to tell if I shot it with the Valeo or the 5D.
Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2006, 05:58:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Go to the Leaf site and download their sample Raw files[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Where?  I don't see them, after about a hundred clicks around the site.  Searching for "RAW samples" turns up nothing.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4217



« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2006, 06:12:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Where?  I don't see them, after about a hundred clicks around the site.  Searching for "RAW samples" turns up nothing.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Go here:
[a href=\"http://www.leaf-photography.com/pages/raw_images.aspx]http://www.leaf-photography.com/pages/raw_images.aspx[/url]


I just wish that Phase would do the same. Why are photo companies so economical with imagery ?

Edmund
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad