Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 1DSMK3 test image compared to Phase Backs  (Read 76460 times)
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #240 on: January 01, 2008, 04:45:22 AM »
ReplyReply

@Dustbak,
I did not mean anything negative with it.
It all depends on the workflow someone uses.
I use 99% flash in my work and than it's very important and time saving for me (and the models) to have the exposure 100% correct at once.
If you would be doing still life or something else the histogram judgement would work fine of course.
Logged
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #241 on: January 01, 2008, 06:22:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I posted some macro images using the 1DsmkIII  with the leica 100mm 2.8 Apo elmarit Macro vs the Hasselblad H2  and 120mm HC lens with the aptus 65 digital back.  My results are shown in this thread.  In my opinion the leica lens is the highest resolving I have ever used on a canon DSLR and that is why i selected it for this test.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....36&#entry161136
There are a couple of important conclusions I have made from this test. If you disagree or find my logic flawed, i am happy to hear an opposing view. You can see by processing that I more agressively sharpened the canon file. In the end, while both images are close, I think the canon sensor image showed a bit more detail than the aptus back.  I then added equal amounts of sharpening to the posted files and found the aptus file could take more sharpening than the canon before the artifacts became very prominent.  If this is true, perhaps I need to go back and perform more aggressive sharpening to both files early on.  

However, i will say that there are so many other factors that contribute to IQ that are not measured by this particular test. Mark

Quote
Actually, I think the biggest downfall of the 1DsIII is not the sensor but rather the lenses.  I sure would love to see some tests with the 1DsIII with Leica or contax glass.  When you consider the pixel density and high ISO performance, their sensor is actually pretty darn good.  Using good lenses, the main differentiator will be DR and color.  When you think about it, to achieve twice as much detail you need not 2x pixels but 4x the pixels so even the p45 is only like 1.4 x better than the 1D3.  Color, DR and the magnification factor currently separate the platforms not pixels.  There's lots of argument about whether the magnification factor is real ( I think so) but I don't think anyone will argue about the differences in color or DR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 06:44:38 AM by MarkKay » Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372


« Reply #242 on: January 01, 2008, 07:09:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
@Dustbak,
I did not mean anything negative with it.
It all depends on the workflow someone uses.
I use 99% flash in my work and than it's very important and time saving for me (and the models) to have the exposure 100% correct at once.
If you would be doing still life or something else the histogram judgement would work fine of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


No offense taken. I was just wondering whether I could learn something that is useful to me, something that would;

1) Save time

or/and

2) Produce better results

Indeed I do still-life and product mostly. Only very rarely models and a little bit more often formal portraiture. I am very spoiled with the Aptus histogram which I believe is one of its best features together with the exposure indication. This I really miss with the Hasselblad, the Hasselblad just isn't that precise nor can it be judged as easily as the Leaf's.
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #243 on: January 01, 2008, 07:34:19 AM »
ReplyReply

although i am working nearly 100% with the histograms in addition with the overexposure warning of my emotion backs, its important to know that the histo (as well as the overexposure warning) works different if  the light temerature setting in the back is changed or custom made. this means the histo is as long accurate ( in case of the sinar backs ), as the light temperature is closed to 5500 kelvin, daylight or flash settings.
if the selected light temperature ( e.g. selected with pipette on a grey sheet after sunset) goes to a very high value or with warm tungsten lights to a very lo temp. , the overexposure warning is not more longer accurate, nor the histogram. it clips in this case way too fast and shows overexposed zones where they still are ok  in the raw data.
i do not know how other backs behave in this aspect, but i would suppose similar.
you should check it out,- because it can lead to exposures which are way "under".
in case of using custom made light temperature its usefull to meter independently or at least not to pay any attention to the back histogram and to its exposure warnings.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 08:52:01 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3571



WWW
« Reply #244 on: January 01, 2008, 12:53:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nothing sly or inaccurate about my insult. It couldn't be clearer that you either didn't read my post carefully, or you read it and mysteriously thought I had written something else.
Compounding your innacuracies, I see. Unlike you I do read posts carefully before responding. As demonstrated by your next 'point'.

Quote
Here's what I wrote:
[and you then quote a different part of post, that I was NOT responding to]
How anyone can interpret that as meaning I can't tell the differences in output between the D60, 20D and 5D beats me.
I was not commenting on the paragraph that you irrelevently requoted with regard to output, otherwise, that would have been the section that I quoted and replied to in my original reponse to your post? Wouldn't it?
Besides if you still think sensor size has nothing to do with how an image looks [not talking megapixel counts], then you are welcome to continue to be blind to the differences and the rest of us, with a fully functioning perception, will carry on seeing the differences. And let us not forget basic physics, where the image produced by larger sensors/film area is optically different for the same exposure settings comapred to smaller sensors/film area, regardless of what daft ideas you may have to the contrary.
However I do think the term '3D' is misleading.
Time permitting, I'll take some pictures on 2 differently sized sensors and see if people can tell the difference.

Quote
You should also have gathered from the lead-up to that post that I am referring to a certain quality that seems to be attributed (by DB owners) to the size of the sensor rather than the resolution of the sensor or total number of pixels.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And that's exactly the point [re the '3D-ness'] that I specifically quoted and was commenting on. Learn to read all the words in a post, including the quoted bit in context, before trying and dismally failing to be a smart alec.


I have very little patience with fools who cannot be bothered to read a post carefully and in context before agressively responding. Having a different opinion is fine, being lazily illiterate isn't. Sadly it seems LL is increasingly accumulating that sort of slack posting and sadly may end up being as pointless  to bother with as many other forums.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 12:57:36 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2426



WWW
« Reply #245 on: January 01, 2008, 02:03:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One other feature of the P45 which may help it achieve better than the 1.4x factor over the 1DsIII is the lack of an AA filter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes I definitely agree with you on that and let me add a bit more about the AA filter.  DOF is one of the concepts that will need to be revised with the digital age.  I mean when you have a decently sharp lens mated to a great sensor without AA filter, you can clearly see that rather than a region of focus, there is an apex of focus. We can now resolve the exact focus point a lot of the time, where as with film it was harder to see (perhaps because of grain).  I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why my canon gear got apparently bigger DOF than my Leica/DMR especially considering the leica has a 1.37 crop and mathematically should have slightly broader DOF if anything. Of course the leica DMR opened my eyes to the critcalness of accurate focusing and showed me just how sharp I could in an image, and now shooting with the Rollei/p20 has just confirmed all that.  I'm discarding the concept of DOF because its not really working so well with digital at least not in the same way. What's this got to do with the AA filter?  Well I have decided that the AA filter on the canon masks two important things - lens sharpness and the apex of focus.  That reduces overall sharpness of the image but increases the apparent DOF.  Well actually Canon's AA filter masks one other thing, their lenses, which also contributes to this effect.  Now don't go out taking pictures of rulers - this is just my qualitative observation.



Quote
I posted some macro images using the 1DsmkIII  with the leica 100mm 2.8 Apo elmarit Macro vs the Hasselblad H2  and 120mm HC lens with the aptus 65 digital back. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
Thanks for sharing these images helps a lot - I think we agree on the detail issue.  Do you also feel that the dividing lines between the 1Ds3 and MFDB is color accuracy/tonality and DR?

Eric
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3571



WWW
« Reply #246 on: January 01, 2008, 03:04:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
DOF is one of the concepts that will need to be revised with the digital age.  I mean when you have a decently sharp lens mated to a great sensor without AA filter, you can clearly see that rather than a region of focus, there is an apex of focus. We can now resolve the exact focus point a lot of the time, where as with film it was harder to see (perhaps because of grain).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nothing new with digital really. Some telephoto lens in the past has 'greater' DoF than others as they weren't so sharp to begin with. With the better lens we now have these days and better capture, with both film and digital, compared to the past, we are simply seeing as you have noticed, the difference in focus/out of focus more acutely than before and apparently less DoF, a natural progression really.
There's only even been a point of focus. DoF is just the acceptable area that's also sharp enough.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 03:06:04 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #247 on: January 01, 2008, 03:29:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you mean the circle of confusion.

This varies however with the printsize and viewing distances.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2426



WWW
« Reply #248 on: January 01, 2008, 03:29:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nothing new with digital really. Some telephoto lens in the past has 'greater' DoF than others as they weren't so sharp to begin with. With the better lens we now have these days and better capture, with both film and digital, compared to the past, we are simply seeing as you have noticed, the difference in focus/out of focus more acutely than before and apparently less DoF, a natural progression really.
There's only even been a point of focus. DoF is just the acceptable area that's also sharp enough.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fair enough  - but  manufacturers are working hard to introduce special "digital" optics that are sharper than their predecessors.  I do believe that digital photography will make more and more photographers aware of the above points as well as the need for more accurate focusing.   Clearly the MF camera makers will have to concentrate on developing better autofocus tools in the future.

Here's a technical question - does the size of the image circle a lens draws affect the transition over distance from the sharp focal point to OOF?
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8914


« Reply #249 on: January 01, 2008, 11:01:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have very little patience with fools ......[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

I also. I'll leave you with a definition of the Straw Man fallacy for you to contemplate, taken from Wikipedia.

Quote
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #250 on: January 01, 2008, 11:57:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm discarding the concept of DOF because its not really working so well with digital at least not in the same way.

If you calculate DOF using the pixel pitch of the sensor as your CoC value, you'll get a pretty accurate prediction of what DoF will look like at 100% on-screen in Photoshop, and in all prints where the image is not downsized to be printed.

http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photograph...calculation.htm
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3571



WWW
« Reply #251 on: January 02, 2008, 08:43:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I also. I'll leave you with a definition of the Straw Man fallacy for you to contemplate, taken from Wikipedia.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You misread my post, are rude and patronising and then come out with all sorts of ducking and diving rather than say, "ooops sorry, I read your reply a bit hastily."
The straw man line is irrelevent. You misread my post, had a hissy fit and wouldn't admit to your mistake and had the gall to say it was alll my fault as it was I that misread your post. I read posts online quite carefully before responding and reread it and any others it may reference to make sure I did not misunderstand. And if I did make an error in reading, I'd say 'Sorry, my mistake' and move on.  Whereas you're just using this pathetic dodging and weaving to avoid actually commenting on the photographic point in question - whether there is in fact an obvious optical difference between the cameras. Muppet!
« Last Edit: January 02, 2008, 08:55:40 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3571



WWW
« Reply #252 on: January 02, 2008, 08:47:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think you mean the circle of confusion.

This varies however with the printsize and viewing distances.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
CoC is just how you quantify/measure DoF. But as you say, it really depends on how output is sized and viewed, but if all those things are equal, if you have a sharper lens+capture medium then you have less apparent DoF.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #253 on: January 02, 2008, 09:59:08 AM »
ReplyReply

actually a single "plane of focus" is more appropriate. Regions still in DoF are actually out-of focus, but since our eyes can't make the difference with CoC not > to a certain diameter (depends on film/capture medium size, on output size and on observing distance): that's the resolving limit of our eyes/vision.

Thierry

Quote
There's only even been a point of focus. DoF is just the acceptable area that's also sharp enough.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2426



WWW
« Reply #254 on: January 02, 2008, 10:30:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
actually a single "plane of focus" is more appropriate. Regions still in DoF are actually out-of focus, but since our eyes can't make the difference with CoC not > to a certain diameter (depends on film/capture medium size, on output size and on observing distance): that's the resolving limit of our eyes/vision.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes Thierry, well said.  

But I'm wondering if there isn't something a little more going on with digital that pronounces the single point of focus and makes it stand out more than with film - I believe it has to do with the quantization effects of the sensor during capture, during processing and post work (sharpening, etc) and finally during display or print.   I mean take just the display for example. Why does a good LCD appear sharper than a CRT? Because the manufacturers provide discrete pixel cells with no bleed over to the next cell, or in other words a sharp pixel.  So take that concept and map it to the sensor or anything else that's digital and not analog.   Either somethings in the well or it isn't.  All fine for smooth gradations over OOF areas of the image but at an edge - either the edge ends on this pixel or the next one but it ends abruptly.  So my view is that this quantization makes the single point of focus stand out more distinctly in a digital workflow than in Film.  You can see this in print as well if you use a lightjet instead of a inkjet.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2008, 10:33:42 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
ynp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263


WWW
« Reply #255 on: January 02, 2008, 11:17:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
.
if the selected light temperature ( e.g. selected with pipette on a grey sheet after sunset) goes to a very high value or with warm tungsten lights to a very lo temp. , the overexposure warning is not more longer accurate, nor the histogram. it clips in this case way too fast and shows overexposed zones where they still are ok  in the raw data.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dear Rainer,
Thank you, very useful information re histogram and overexposure warning on eMotion backs. I noticed that phenomena and was sure that there was something wrong with my digital back.
Thank you for sharing.
Yevgeny
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #256 on: January 04, 2008, 01:59:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dear Rainer,
Thank you, very useful information re histogram and overexposure warning on eMotion backs. I noticed that phenomena and was sure that there was something wrong with my digital back.
Thank you for sharing.
Yevgeny
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would just like to add that this Post is BS.
I just got done Doing a whole days shoot with my new P30 and I am coming from the 1DsMII.
As a Portrait and fashion photographer I can tell you that the MFDB BLOWS away the Canon... and By far.
I will add more information as I shoot more but I was really impressed with the P30 compared to the Canon.
One important issue that no has mentioned here is the Highlights and the Highlight to Shadow transition is WAYYYYYY smoother with the P30.
Especially on faces of Models.. I always hated and had to work it in PS a lot on the Canon. The transition from Light to dark was always Bumpy and jagged.. Not on this Back.
It is smooth as butter.
Also the hightlights on peoples faces and body are WAYYYY smoother also.
I could not wait to get home and write this because as I was waiting to have a real life shoot with my new camera A small doubt entered into my head..
Not anymore.
My canon is going to sit on the shelf just like my Old Mamiya and Pentax did for so many years...:+}
Just thought some others would like to know.
Snook
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1251



WWW
« Reply #257 on: January 04, 2008, 02:17:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would just like to add that this Post is BS.
I just got done Doing a whole days shoot with my new P30 and I am coming from the 1DsMII.
As a Portrait and fashion photographer I can tell you that the MFDB BLOWS away the Canon... and By far.
I will add more information as I shoot more but I was really impressed with the P30 compared to the Canon.
One important issue that no has mentioned here is the Highlights and the Highlight to Shadow transition is WAYYYYYY smoother with the P30.
Especially on faces of Models.. I always hated and had to work it in PS a lot on the Canon. The transition from Light to dark was always Bumpy and jagged.. Not on this Back.
It is smooth as butter.
Also the hightlights on peoples faces and body are WAYYYY smoother also.
I could not wait to get home and write this because as I was waiting to have a real life shoot with my new camera A small doubt entered into my head..
Not anymore.
My canon is going to sit on the shelf just like my Old Mamiya and Pentax did for so many years...:+}
Just thought some others would like to know.
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Hi Snook,

Great to read that you have crossed over to the other side.

I've bee using a Aptus 75 for 2 years now on my Mamiya RZ IID, Mamiya 645AFDII and Sinar P2  and I am still amazed by its tonal qualities and resolution.

Most importantly my clients have as well.

I now only bring out the Nikon D2x when I need speed and agility.

Regards

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
Snook
Guest
« Reply #258 on: January 04, 2008, 02:43:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Snook,

Great to read that you have crossed over to the other side.

I've bee using a Aptus 75 for 2 years now on my Mamiya RZ IID, Mamiya 645AFDII and Sinar P2  and I am still amazed by its tonal qualities and resolution.

Most importantly my clients have as well.

I now only bring out the Nikon D2x when I need speed and agility.

Regards

Simon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Simon .. Thanks
Yeh it is really Amazing the tonality or transition..
I have not even shot any grey backgrounds yet but it should be amazing.
I noticed on the first shot. The transition on a girls cheak from lit to shadow was totally different than what I was used to seeing and retouching on the 1DsMII.
I also was using the RZIID.. quite a camera
It is going to take some getting use to..:+}
You have the same problem with it eating through batteries.. the little 6V one for the RZ body?
I just bought 40 batteries just in case..:+}
Snook
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1251



WWW
« Reply #259 on: January 04, 2008, 03:26:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Gidday Snook,

I've been using the Apus 75 on the RZIID with a Kapture RZ adapter plate and connected the back directly to the lens. In this set up I havent had a battery problem.

Just in the week before Xmas I got the Mamiya HX701 plate so I could use the back directly thru the camera.

Firstly it woudnt work when it was teether to the Mac because I was setting the leaf Capture 11 to Mamiya RZ.

When I changed it to Mamiya 645 it kicked into life.

I only found this out the Friday before Xmas. When I get back to the studio on the 14th Jan I will see how long the battery in the camera lasts as I put a fresh one on that Friday.

Cheers

Simon
« Last Edit: January 04, 2008, 03:26:59 PM by HarperPhotos » Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
Pages: « 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad