Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon vs Phase  (Read 40134 times)
ronno
Guest
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2007, 10:22:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nobody seems to have commented on the differences in the texture of the dark fabric in the lower right.  I see much more color noise on the image in the left, and assume that it is the Canon, but . . . ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you bring down the exposure on the left image so it matches the right one, the noise disappears...
Logged
JeffVo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2007, 11:26:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Well more disclosure:  As many Guessed Left Canon 1ds ( which I still think produces the finest 100 iso shots of any canon.  The right P30+.  The Canon was sharpened 25/3 in PO and the Phase 0/0. Just goes to show what a big jump you get in baseline sharpness out of a phase and at 25/3 it was oversharp. knowbody wishes more than I that the Canon was as good, but it aint so. _j
Logged
nicolaasdb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2007, 11:39:52 PM »
ReplyReply

HUGE difference...
Logged
AndreNapier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 18, 2007, 12:25:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I am happy that I am done with Phase/h1 - oversize canon.
If this was the difference I would be shooting with Ds and donating the money to homeless children.
Do you guys even remember the drawing from 110mm Rz67?HuhHuhHuh??
Andre
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3635



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2007, 03:41:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

 Could you please send me the Raw files via www.yousendit.com ? I would like to apply my own profiles to show members of this forum. You just need to upload the files once, after that you can send a hundred people the link, which expires after a week.

 My email is edmundronald at gmail dot com

Edmund

Quote
Well more disclosure:  As many Guessed Left Canon 1ds ( which I still think produces the finest 100 iso shots of any canon.  The right P30+.  The Canon was sharpened 25/3 in PO and the Phase 0/0. Just goes to show what a big jump you get in baseline sharpness out of a phase and at 25/3 it was oversharp. knowbody wishes more than I that the Canon was as good, but it aint so. _j
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2007, 04:17:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Without having read any of the replies, just downloading the images and comparing, I'd say the one on the left is from the  Phase, simply because it's a more open image, better composed (you can see both eyes that are well lit) and a more pleasing skin tone. The image on the right seems to have that slightly reddish Canon hue. I'm viewing this on an uncalibrated laptop, but the hue differences should still be apparent.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2007, 04:17:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Hmm! Looks like I was wrong   .
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 04:21:11 AM by Ray » Logged
Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2007, 06:41:39 AM »
ReplyReply

* It would be interesting to know the shutter speed of the right hand frame, regarding mirror slap blur in the nose area. That area is hotter, and is obviously lit by ambient (sun), whereas the shadow area appears to be lit by strobe.

* It would be interesting to see that same scene shot, not using strobes, comparing the Canon to the H2 mirror slap, and then compare the sharpness. Using this particular comparison test, this implies that you must shoot every frame with strobe, with the H2, to get sharp files. Again, view the motion-blur nose area in the Phase file.

* It would be interesting to know the Input Profiles used on both files. If this guy is going to show a test, it's important that he knows how to process files. I assume the output profile, for the web, is sRGB.

* It would be interesting to do a test like this, and view the files at 100%, instead of how this is done.

* It would be interesting to see this test, P30+ versus the 1ds3, in December. This particular test, above, pits a first-generation Canon, (current street price, probably $2500), against the latest/greatest P30+, ($22-25k for the back alone, with no camera). I'd say the Canon 1ds held it own quite well, thank you.

* It would be interesting to see both of those files printed in CMYK in a magazine, at 175 line screen, to see if people could pick them apart. Or, on an Epson printer. I wonder how many people here make their living off of how their files appear on their monitors at home. I know I don't.

* It would be interesting to see this test, with the Canon run in DPP, and the Phase file run in CaptureOne. Also interesting to see both files run in Lightroom 1.2, apples and apples. You need DPP to squeeze every ounce out of the Canon file. (Or Lightroom, maybe). I never process Canon files in CaptureOne.

* It is a given that the CMOS in Canon will need additional USM or SmartSharpen, to compare to CCD in MF. No one argues that. But if the files are processed in 16bit, it's incredibly easy to apply the SmartSharpen to the Canon CMOS. Having done that, then view both files.

* It would be interesting to shoot a test similar to this, in the studio, with strobe, to eliminate mirror slap, and see what the file is really doing.

* Having said this, I own Phase P30+ and P21+ (and Canon 1ds2). I use the Phase/Contax 99% of the time, but it's due more to the camera than the Phase back. Yet, just because I'm a dick, I will try to show a test soon, where the Canon can clearly hold its own. It truly is not necessary for a young photographer, in today's economic climate, to be forced to buy medium format, in order to produce quality images for reproduction. Don't believe the hype.

* You guys sit here and ponder every morsel of shadow detail, as if real people would. I advise anyone to go to a Barnes and Noble, or a Borders, and watch people read a magazine. You think every person is sitting there, pondering the shadow detail of your images, and counting the pores and the resolution? No, they've already turned the page.

Just one opinion.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 06:54:26 AM by Mark_Tucker » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2007, 06:59:00 AM »
ReplyReply

The image on the left has a bit higher exposure (the blacks are not as dark, and the highlights are brighter), slightly lower contrast, and just a hair less sharpness. The only difference I see between the images that cannot be equalized during RAW conversion or in Photoshop is the motion blurring (mirror slap?) of the highlights around the dose in the right image. The exposure and global contrast mismatch can be fixed with small tweaks to the RAW conversion settings, and the left image's slightly lower local contrast and sharpness can be easily made to match that of the right without causing artifacting or halos.

Lower contrast out-of-the-box is actually a good thing; it means the camera is capturing a wider range of subject tones without clipping. You can always increase global and local contrast in post, but reducing it when you've already clipped something is a real PITA.
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2007, 07:01:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lower contrast out-of-the-box is actually a good thing; it means the camera is capturing a wider range of subject tones without clipping. You can always increase global and local contrast in post, but reducing it when you've already clipped something is a real PITA.


So, you mean to tell us that the Canon captures a wider range of tones and effectively has a larger DR than the P30 as well?

I can go along with people stating that with effort you can get the Canon files to a state very close to MFDB, certainly with the equalizers Internet en CMYK print. It takes a lot more work though which is not always economical for everyone. There is a limit on how far I can go along.

For me the differences between the 2 are very visible and people claiming otherwise either have no MFDB experience or have other ways of looking at IQ.

Sorry but a Canon is still a Canon. A different animal than a MFDB.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 07:07:38 AM by Dustbak » Logged
tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674


WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2007, 07:27:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Having read through this, I would have to say that this is not a bad effort by the 1ds, sure its not a real contender, but...like Mr Tucker said,(paraphrased) its a $2500 worth of old camera technology against an almost 10x more expensive state of the art digital back.
So yes, it will be interesting to see how the 1Ds3 will stack up against this MFDB.
I am sure MFDB has a lot more going for them, then whats at stake here, but still...

Mark - make sure you put up a big headline when you do post your test!!

thanks

Henrik

wishing I had a MFDB
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2007, 07:35:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
* It would be interesting to see that same scene shot, not using strobes, comparing the Canon to the H2 mirror slap, and then compare the sharpness.

A sample size of one for each camera would be useless. Take 20+ shots with each setup and you might start to get a useful indication.

You seem to feel that the Canon's PP put it at a disadvantage, but at the same time the differences between RAW processing programs is very small. That's really pixel peeping stuff. The difference between these images is far beyond PP workflow, imo.

Quote
* You guys sit here and ponder every morsel of shadow detail, as if real people would. I advise anyone to go to a Barnes and Noble, or a Borders, and watch people read a magazine. You think every person is sitting there, pondering the shadow detail of your images, and counting the pores and the resolution? No, they've already turned the page.

I shoot for my clients (mostly art directors), not the magazine readers. Some of the art directors are not critical of technical quality, others are. The ones who like to view the files on their own Macs DO notice the difference.

Finally, can you put a price on personal satisfaction?

Each to their own, of course.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 18, 2007, 07:48:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So yes, it will be interesting to see how the 1Ds3 will stack up against this MFDB.

Yes it will! The lenses will be the same, of course, and I believe Canon lenses will show their limitations with the 1Ds3 but we'll see soon enough...

One thing which these tests don't reveal is how well you can push the shadows in these files, which is an important feature in favour of the MFDB. I may do my own test soon pitting the e22 against a Canon 5D, and include some shadow pushing.

Finally, there are some tricks up MFDB's sleeve which Canon can't compete with, and vice versa, so the type of work will often dictate which platform is best.

I just made an adapter to be able to use my e22 on an old Arca Swiss 6x9 camera, and am really looking forward to having all those technical movements. This is a great plus for MFDB!
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 07:49:59 AM by foto-z » Logged

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

Posts: 223


« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2007, 07:49:30 AM »
ReplyReply

that right image is a mess. the left eyebrow, the skin behind the eyelashes, under the nose and in the upper lip . . . all kinds of wierd blue and purple. and the "mirror slap from hell" on the nose is amazing. that's about the worst lookng file i've ever seen out of a p30 + back.
Logged
Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2007, 08:37:26 AM »
ReplyReply

The only reason that this "35 vs MF" topic interests me, is because, on some level, I'd love to find ONE format that I could shoot most any people job. In the old days of film, you just carried 35 and MF and maybe even 4x5 to a job; it was much easier to do. But now, in this new age of battery chargers, firewire cables, knowledge of software, airline issues, etc, it sure would be nice to find ONE  system to do your work. The old adage "Horses for courses" thing worked fine in the old days, but in the new realities of Travel and Digital, for me, it just does not apply any more. The closest I've found, in medium format, for the work I do, is the Contax and P21+, due to the fast recycle of the back. It can do Lifestyle just fine. So the big upcoming question for me is: how does the 1ds3 Overall Experience compare to the Contax/P21+?

The hassle factor of the Contax/Phase is much higher than the Canon experience. Multiple batteries; heavier cases; temperamental syncing sometimes; it just requires more babysitting and patience, whereas the Canon is pretty much "slide the battery in, it lasts all day, and you just shoot the job".

Most of the time anyway, I end up rezzing DOWN even the P21+ files, for jobs, so the file size is plenty big, in P21 and in Canon.

The big question is how well will the new Canon tether. With the Phase, you just cram that FW400 cable into the back, and it's rock solid, and you forget about it. With Canon, it's constant fear, and lots of duct tape, and horrible tethering software.

Trust me, in the real world, (where i live), with proper care, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day. But I'm not an architectural guy or a still life guy or a product guy; for them, I'd reach for the P45 or the A75 most any day, without question.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 08:41:57 AM by Mark_Tucker » Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2007, 08:41:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With Canon, it's constant fear, and lots of duct tape, and horrible tethering software.

I never had a problem shooting tethered with a Canon and C1, fwiw, and I shoot tethered >95% of the time.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2007, 09:27:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So, you mean to tell us that the Canon captures a wider range of tones and effectively has a larger DR than the P30 as well?

Given the camera and RAW conversion settings used in this comparison, yes. Given the optimal camera and RAW conversion settings for the subject, not necessarily. It wouldn't surprise me if the MFDB captured more DR at ISO 100, but I think the situation would reverse at ISO 1600, and the Canon (Mark II or III) outperform the MFDB.

Shooting a pair of Color Checkers separated by a piece of foamcore, one lit about 3-4 stops brighter than the other, and the lightest patch of the most brightly lit one at level 250 or so with exposure set to 0 in the RAW converter would be a reasonably instructive way to test this.
Logged

sbernthal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2007, 09:32:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I never had a problem shooting tethered with a Canon and C1, fwiw, and I shoot tethered >95% of the time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe that Mark might have been referring to the very frequent FW cable disconnections with the Canons.

I can also testify that the Canon tethering software is very problematic, hangs very often and requires reboots. I've had this experience with several Canons and several laptops, so I'm pretty sure it's the software that sucks.

I use an old 1Ds now, mainly because it has a better FW socket than the 1Ds2 so it doesn't disconnect as easily and no duct tape is needed.

Regarding the two pictures, it is immediately clear to any Canon shooter that the left is a Canon, and of course it is much worse than the right - especially in skin tones that I couldn't bring the Canon image to the same tones as the Phase image, but also the lower resolution and noise problem on the Canon side.

However this is an extremely bad Canon example - it looks like someone tried to get the worse possible picture. If I got results like this, I would have no choice but to find another system a long time ago. A 1Ds+85/1.2 can give beautiful results with some care.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 09:34:26 AM by sbernthal » Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 18, 2007, 10:12:01 AM »
ReplyReply

At least add a curve to the left frame to have a similar appearance.
I added a curve in Ps in two seconds and came up with this.
I see a big difference between the two files though. I actually shoot most often with a macro 100 2.8 Canon on a 5D and it is quite a bit sharper than the other pic here. Still there is a difference that is outside of sharpness itself.
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #39 on: September 18, 2007, 10:25:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
* It would be interesting to know the shutter speed of the right hand frame, regarding mirror slap blur in the nose area. That area is hotter, and is obviously lit by ambient (sun), whereas the shadow area appears to be lit by strobe.

* It would be interesting to see that same scene shot, not using strobes, comparing the Canon to the H2 mirror slap, and then compare the sharpness. Using this particular comparison test, this implies that you must shoot every frame with strobe, with the H2, to get sharp files. Again, view the motion-blur nose area in the Phase file.

* It would be interesting to know the Input Profiles used on both files. If this guy is going to show a test, it's important that he knows how to process files. I assume the output profile, for the web, is sRGB.

* It would be interesting to do a test like this, and view the files at 100%, instead of how this is done.

* It would be interesting to see this test, P30+ versus the 1ds3, in December. This particular test, above, pits a first-generation Canon, (current street price, probably $2500), against the latest/greatest P30+, ($22-25k for the back alone, with no camera). I'd say the Canon 1ds held it own quite well, thank you.

* It would be interesting to see both of those files printed in CMYK in a magazine, at 175 line screen, to see if people could pick them apart. Or, on an Epson printer. I wonder how many people here make their living off of how their files appear on their monitors at home. I know I don't.

* It would be interesting to see this test, with the Canon run in DPP, and the Phase file run in CaptureOne. Also interesting to see both files run in Lightroom 1.2, apples and apples. You need DPP to squeeze every ounce out of the Canon file. (Or Lightroom, maybe). I never process Canon files in CaptureOne.

* It is a given that the CMOS in Canon will need additional USM or SmartSharpen, to compare to CCD in MF. No one argues that. But if the files are processed in 16bit, it's incredibly easy to apply the SmartSharpen to the Canon CMOS. Having done that, then view both files.

* It would be interesting to shoot a test similar to this, in the studio, with strobe, to eliminate mirror slap, and see what the file is really doing.

* Having said this, I own Phase P30+ and P21+ (and Canon 1ds2). I use the Phase/Contax 99% of the time, but it's due more to the camera than the Phase back. Yet, just because I'm a dick, I will try to show a test soon, where the Canon can clearly hold its own. It truly is not necessary for a young photographer, in today's economic climate, to be forced to buy medium format, in order to produce quality images for reproduction. Don't believe the hype.

* You guys sit here and ponder every morsel of shadow detail, as if real people would. I advise anyone to go to a Barnes and Noble, or a Borders, and watch people read a magazine. You think every person is sitting there, pondering the shadow detail of your images, and counting the pores and the resolution? No, they've already turned the page.

Just one opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Mark, why does this mirror slap blur just one small portion of the picture? Don't you think it should blur the entire (in focus) frame? Again, I think it's not a mirror slap problem.  
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad