Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MFDB comparison link  (Read 3482 times)
favalim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« on: November 22, 2006, 09:32:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I've found this interesting Finland site where they compare lot of MFDB and other; if you know other of these kind of test please let us know.

Thanks

http://www.studiosamikulju.fi/playground/index.html
Logged
favalim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2006, 04:44:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Does anybody want to comment the test? It seems that the Aptus 22 is far better than the P25, what do you think?
Logged
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2006, 06:51:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I looked at it and my first reaction was that
it must be something wrong with the P25 pictures.

I do not have P25, but I have P30.

And I have tested P25, Aptus 22 and this is very far from my
test results.

They must have done something wrong, because the P25 pictures
just seem to be unsharp big time.

It does not reflect real life performance at all.

Willow
Logged

Willow Photography
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2006, 07:40:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I think they really missed focus on the P25.

Also, some of the pictures are 80% background. What's the point of that?

A nice idea, but disappointing execution.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
awofinden
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2006, 08:30:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think they really missed focus on the P25.

Also, some of the pictures are 80% background. What's the point of that?

A nice idea, but disappointing execution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Typical of these sort of tests, the only way to really get a feel for the charectar of a camera/back is to use it for a few weeks at least. A 1ds mark 2 used properly and properly handled in post will blow away a P25 or whatever else done badly and vice versa. The interesting thing is comparing what happens when things are done perfectly, and that takes weeks of use to figure out. The files I get out of my 1ds 2 now are completely different to what I got out of it when I first got it (better). Can't wait to get a P21 ordered when I get back from holidays though, it seems to hit a sweet spot for me.
Logged
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2006, 09:06:26 AM »
ReplyReply

The focus on the P25 files seems to be on the chart and not the model's face. With that said - I actually thought the P25 files looked better than the Aptus 22. The Leaf files looked "plasticy" IMO. The Canon files looked about a half stop under yet didn't look too bad. The Canon skin tones were magenta but that's what we've come to expect.

I'd like to see raw head shots from all of the cameras/ backs shot comparatively and then post-processed. My guess is with a little work you could make them look nearly identical.

Amazing when you think that the 5D can be had for about $2300 compared to the Aptus or Phase new at over $20k. When it comes down to brass tacks it's the lenses, viewfinder and the way each photographer prefers to work that makes the difference.

All these tests show (as usual) is how bad an un-post-processed digital file can look.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2006, 09:07:24 AM by bcroslin » Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
Eric Zepeda
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2006, 10:59:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Some of the difference may be that the Leaf file has a modified curve to it, courtesy of LC10, whereas the Phase file is a linear (unmodified) curve. Obviously, sharpness is another issue.

From the site:

No unsharpening. Colour(mode) was set to standard or neutral if possible and grey-balance was picked from the Gretag: s colorchart. If the program allowed I left the curve linear but in some programs that was not possible. (i.e. Leaf Capture 10)
Logged

pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2006, 11:29:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Some of the difference may be that the Leaf file has a modified curve to it, courtesy of LC10, whereas the Phase file is a linear (unmodified) curve. Obviously, sharpness is another issue.

From the site:

No unsharpening. Colour(mode) was set to standard or neutral if possible and grey-balance was picked from the Gretag: s colorchart. If the program allowed I left the curve linear but in some programs that was not possible. (i.e. Leaf Capture 10)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The effort is appreciated, but as has been pointed out, the execution is flawed (like most tests of this sort).

More importantly, this test is very dated. These type of testes are only good for a period of a month or so. Software plays far too important a role in image quality. And these tests are many versions ago. Image quality has changed significantly from Phase One, Leaf, Sinar and Hasselblad several times since these tests.

These tests do more to confuse than clarify - best intentions aside. It may not be easy, but when you're spending $20K - $30K, and hoping to use the product for 5-7 years, you have to test it yourself.

Ok, my wife is kicking me off now - Happy Thanksgiving everyone.


Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sami Kulju
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2006, 08:28:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I find it amusing that in this thread You are several times talking about a "TEST".

It is very clearly said in the pages that it is NOT a test or review.

Its also clearly said that method was very, very unscientific.

One reason why we spend the time to shoot these pictures was to just compare different cameras, MF-bodies and systems for our selves. How they handle, feel and would this suit ones work. In the end we make our living out of these things.

This session gave answers to many of us there and that time.

I.e. it is easy to think that upgrading a back/camera to next generation would automaticly deliver clearly better pictures. With HUGE difference to what one might have now.

Certainly resolution would in some cases be bigger, but in realworld use the difference would be minor if You print under 11"x16".

Also we all (we= ppl who were in studio at that time) agreed that all these cameras/backs (well, maybe the Lightphase is now really justa bit out) deliver quality that easily outperforms the needs we, and our customers have 99% of time.

Couple of comments after the session were reliefed like "My camera is doing fine, difference to next is minor so I can forget upgrading and just use what I have". Lots of smiling then.

Many comments here are also right, maybe playground site has served the use we had for it. It is very dated indeed (though we, who made this use the same cameras today that we used last spring).

And Yes - it might confuse people who are thinking to buy a new camera with more resolution etc.

Anyway, thanks for the comments

Sami Kulju
« Last Edit: November 24, 2006, 08:32:21 AM by Sami Kulju » Logged

Sami Kulju / Helsinki - Finland
www.studiosamikulju.fi
Eric Zepeda
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2006, 08:56:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Sami, it's still useful. As a comparison it's one of the few out there that spans so many models. I'm very glad you did it and took the time to make it available for the rest of us to benefit from.

Thanks again,

Eric Zepeda
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad