Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PMA round up  (Read 33702 times)
DavidB
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2008, 04:12:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael, I strongly disagree with your assessment that lower pixel count digital backs are becoming irrelevant because the pixel count increases of digital SLR's. As you say earlier in your article, it's about time people stop worrying about pixel counts and start thinking about quality and in that regard digital backs give a very different look than a DSLR. A 22 MP DSLR is about as different from a 22MP digital back as a 16MP DSLR is from a back, it's not the pixel count that you get a back for (though it can be useful) it's the different look. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The way I read Michael's article was simply that the digital back market is likely to concentrate on 30+ Mp models.  I read the comment that "the 16 21 MP medium format back's raison-d'etre is no longer" from the p.o.v. of manufacturers, not the photographers.
You can argue back and forth as to the virtues of a 16 Mp back, but to me the point of the article was simply that we're not likely to see any new ones of these introduced!
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2008, 05:02:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please re-read my post, you haven't addressed my points at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which post are you requesting that I re-read? This one?

Quote
You say both images look very similar therefore you are admitting they are different, in my eyes this difference counts for a lot, simple as that. I actually use a P21 which is very similar resolution to my old 1ds mark 2 and the difference is still there.

I'll try re-phrasing my answer. No two cameras or two lenses or two RAW converters produce exactly the same result. If you happen to prefer the subtle differences you see in images from one particular model of camera with a particular choice of lens using a particular converter, compared to images of the same scene from another model of camera using a different lens and different converter, then that's understandable.

Apparently some professionals who do a lot of model shooting prefer the skin tones that the 5D produces to the more expensive 1Ds2. Why should this be? Would you suggest that this is evidence that fewer pixels are always better on the same size sensor?
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2008, 06:33:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Which post are you requesting that I re-read? This one?
I'll try re-phrasing my answer. No two cameras or two lenses or two RAW converters produce exactly the same result. If you happen to prefer the subtle differences you see in images from one particular model of camera with a particular choice of lens using a particular converter, compared to images of the same scene from another model of camera using a different lens and different converter, then that's understandable.

Apparently some professionals who do a lot of model shooting prefer the skin tones that the 5D produces to the more expensive 1Ds2. Why should this be? Would you suggest that this is evidence that fewer pixels are always better on the same size sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What I'm saying is it's not about the number of pixels. Db's and Dslrs are totally different technologies and of course they look different.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2008, 02:08:24 PM »
ReplyReply

if someone compares a 5D file to a P30 file and sees to difference other then added resolution, the question which tool to use should be answered! and i think this is where michael is absolutely correct...this is not about what i or someone else thinks provides 5-10% better quality at 5-10 times the price....canon/nikon will provide more quality and more resolution and the same or lower price much faster then the MF crowd can charge ahead....so the already very small difference (which already comes at a premium) is getting smaller....

and this is where the problem lies for DMF IMO: instead of trying to clearly separate themselves from the DSLR crowd, they are trying to steal the top few customers to come into their camp....i don't see that playing out to well for them....

factor in future software development (lens correction, noise removal,....) and it is clear to see that 99% of all customers (most of them can't see the difference now!) won't be buying!....

fact is that the new rebel combined with software solutions blows away any top end digital solution from 10 years ago....and i am not even going into speed or high iso....base iso file quality.....
so if the MF manufacturers cannot pull away in terms of clearly visible file quality, where are they in 5 years from today?
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2008, 11:28:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What I'm saying is it's not about the number of pixels. Db's and Dslrs are totally different technologies and of course they look different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They are not totally different technologies. They are similar technologies with differences. The differences include CCD with a greater fill factor as opposed to CMOS with on-board processing of individual pixels; a larger sensor with usually a greater number of pixels and availability of professional lenses which are also usually more expensive than their 35mm counterparts and simply better in relation to the wider pixel spacing of many MFDBs.

There's no doubt that the latest MFDBs can produce a better quality image than the latest 35mm offering, such as the Canon 1Ds3. Let's face it. If this wasn't true, you'd feel a right chump, wouldn't you, and it's not my intention to make you feel like a chump.

As the previous poster stated, it's really all about economics and handling ease versus image quality improvement. With film, there was a clear distinction between 35mm and MF. No-one could pretend that 35mm film was almost as good. You paid a substantial premium for MF equipment and in return you got something that was definitely heavier, more cumbersome to handle and very much lacking in the automatic features which were a standard feature of 35mm. But you also got a significant jump in image quality.

Despite botched attempts by MFDB supporters to demonstrate image quality improvements of a P21 image compared to a 1Ds3 shot of the same scene, it's clear to me that any such improvements are marginal at best. But the price difference is not marginal and the disadvantages regarding weight and convenience of handling are not marginal.

Am I right or am I right?  
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2008, 07:36:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

You haven't said anything that I disagree with at all. If you actually bother to read what I say, understand it and then reply you would realise that. Now concentrate and I'll try my best to make it as clear as possible for you, here goes:
You say with regard to the image quality of a P21 as compared to a 1ds 3 that: "improvements are marginal".
I agree with that and to me that marginal improvement means a lot too me, I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal. Also at risk of confusing you I will add that when you start pushing contrast, colour and tone the differences actually become quite easy to see, the MF files are far more malleable.  
As they say, seek first to understand then to be understood.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2008, 10:12:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,

You haven't said anything that I disagree with at all. If you actually bother to read what I say, understand it and then reply you would realise that. Now concentrate and I'll try my best to make it as clear as possible for you, here goes:
You say with regard to the image quality of a P21 as compared to a 1ds 3 that: "improvements are marginal".
I agree with that and to me that marginal improvement means a lot too me, I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal. Also at risk of confusing you I will add that when you start pushing contrast, colour and tone the differences actually become quite easy to see, the MF files are far more malleable. 
As they say, seek first to understand then to be understood.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I still haven't seen a review which shows these marginal improvement you are talking about.
Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2008, 10:50:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I still haven't seen a review which shows these marginal improvement you are talking about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
me neither, I've seen it for my own eye's.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2008, 11:18:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You say with regard to the image quality of a P21 as compared to a 1ds 3 that: "improvements are marginal".
I agree with that and to me that marginal improvement means a lot too me, I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I still don't understand, woof75. Are you saying that the P21 is the best? Doesn't the P45+ deliver better results? If this is so, then shouldn't you be using the P45+ if you can't live with the second best?
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2008, 11:25:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I still don't understand, woof75. Are you saying that the P21 is the best? Doesn't the P45+ deliver better results? If this is so, then shouldn't you be using the P45+ if you can't live with the second best?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, no P45 is only best if you are doing big prints, if you are printing around 11 *14 you just throw the extra resolution away. As I keep saying, it's not about resolution.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2008, 11:51:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually, no P45 is only best if you are doing big prints, if you are printing around 11 *14 you just throw the extra resolution away. As I keep saying, it's not about resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So I take it these differences are so subtle that they cannot be revealed on a monitor with maximum quality jpeg compression of 100% crops?
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2008, 12:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So I take it these differences are so subtle that they cannot be revealed on a monitor with maximum quality jpeg compression of 100% crops?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Who said anything about differences? I didn't, yet again, seek first to understand and then to be understood.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7969



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2008, 02:35:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You say with regard to the image quality of a P21 as compared to a 1ds 3 that: "improvements are marginal".
I agree with that and to me that marginal improvement means a lot too me, I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quote
Who said anything about differences? I didn't, yet again, seek first to understand and then to be understood.
It seems to me you did. You seemed to me to say "I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal." I am seeking to understand, but you are confusing me. "No difference" is certainly not the same as "marginally different". What are you trying to say?
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2008, 03:10:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It seems to me you did. You seemed to me to say "I can't live with second best even if the difference is marginal." I am seeking to understand, but you are confusing me. "No difference" is certainly not the same as "marginally different". What are you trying to say?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is getting confusing Eric, Ray was pointing out that I should really be using a P45 if I really cared about image quality in the absolute which I replied that the P21 was just as good when using smaller print sizes to which he replied with this:

So I take it these differences are so subtle that they cannot be revealed on a monitor with maximum quality jpeg compression of 100% crops?


To which I replied:

Who said anything about differences? I didn't, yet again, seek first to understand and then to be understood.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2008, 03:13:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I think we are getting a little of track, what I am saying is that the small image quality improvements of a DB are worth the pain of shooting MF. Also that the MF files stand up to more rigorous tonal and color manipulation than DSLR's. Is this so hard to understand and is it so controversial, do all the people who use DB's (including most of the very top pros's) just use MF to inconvenience themselves. I promise you I'd much rather shoot a canon.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2008, 04:17:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I still haven't seen a review which shows these marginal improvement you are talking about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

maybe it is time you actually trusted your own eyes!
IMO a P21 is better then any canon or nikon at base iso...i am talking about file quality, clarity, color, ability to be enlarged (rez'd up)...this is not even a question to me....
the question is if the difference in quality makes up all the deficiencies in handling, price, storage, speed, high iso shooting,.....this is something everybody has to find out for themselves and i owuld say that for 95% of all photographic application the choice is very clear...in favor of DSLR, regardless of the ultimate file quality....
Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2008, 04:20:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
maybe it is time you actually trusted your own eyes!
IMO a P21 is better then any canon or nikon at base iso...i am talking about file quality, clarity, color, ability to be enlarged (rez'd up)...this is not even a question to me....
the question is if the difference in quality makes up all the deficiencies in handling, price, storage, speed, high iso shooting,.....this is something everybody has to find out for themselves and i owuld say that for 95% of all photographic application the choice is very clear...in favor of DSLR, regardless of the ultimate file quality....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I totally agree.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2008, 08:22:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
maybe it is time you actually trusted your own eyes!
IMO a P21 is better then any canon or nikon at base iso...i am talking about file quality, clarity, color, ability to be enlarged (rez'd up)...this is not even a question to me....
the question is if the difference in quality makes up all the deficiencies in handling, price, storage, speed, high iso shooting,.....this is something everybody has to find out for themselves and i owuld say that for 95% of all photographic application the choice is very clear...in favor of DSLR, regardless of the ultimate file quality....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think everyone who might question the significance of the image quality differences between a DB and a 35mm DSLR of similar pixel count, is a person who really does trust his own eyes. It's because he trusts his own eyes and hasn't seen a demonstration of such differences that he becomes a bit skeptical of claims of quality differences.

There seems to be a dilemma here. People go to a lot of trouble comparing lens resolution. For example, should I get the Canon 17-40 or the Canon 16-35? The performance of different format cameras is scrutinised in great detail on review sites such as dpreview and compared. People often make all sorts of claims for the equipment they have just bought which on close examination prove to be either exaggerated or non-existent.

The new Canon 40D is a good example of what I'm referring to. It has lots of new and attractive features that don't exist on previous models, yet fundamental image quality is basically the same as the models it replaced. Despite 14 bit processing, shadow noise improvement is so marginal it needs to be viewed at 400% on the monitor to be seen. Resolution improvement is similarly marginal, yet some people like to kid themselves there is a definite an obvious image quality improvement.

When it is pointed out to such people that careful and thorough reviews have not discovered any significant image quality improvement, such people then resort to the 'color' defense argument. The 40D produces more natural and more accurate colors. The colors from the 30D really suck... and so on.

Now you don't need to convince me that a larger sensor will have a dynamic range advantage. That is the one quality factor which I wouldn't argue against because I've seen the difference. If I'm shooting a contrasty scene with some subject movement, when bracketing of exposures is not practical, I might prefer to use a 20mp DB rather than a 1Ds3. However, for scenes that are well within the DR capabilities of both cameras, I would expect any image quality differences to be either lens dependent or processing dependent.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 08:30:32 PM by Ray » Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2008, 12:11:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now you don't need to convince me that a larger sensor will have a dynamic range advantage. That is the one quality factor which I wouldn't argue against because I've seen the difference. If I'm shooting a contrasty scene with some subject movement, when bracketing of exposures is not practical, I might prefer to use a 20mp DB rather than a 1Ds3. However, for scenes that are well within the DR capabilities of both cameras, I would expect any image quality differences to be either lens dependent or processing dependent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

you are absolutely correct...the "better" the light, the less visible will the difference be....
i can tell you that the last DSLR i owened was the canon 1dsII and the reason i sold it was when, during a catalog shoot (very well lit), my rollei 6008 died and i had to finish the shoot with the canon...the direct comaprison between a rollei/phase P20/80mm schneider at 16mpix (cropped from square really only about 12-13mpix) and the canon/85 1.2 (not a bad lens at all) was eye opening....on the P20 file you could count the eyelashes, on the canon oyu could not see them....without sharpening on either....both files blown up to 20x30 made matters worse for the canon...eventhough the P20 ended up being a lower mpix count....
of course lenses matter...C1 was used on both....
ask anyone with a 5D and they will tell you that shooting full lenght is a pain, becuase it is really hard to focus manually and even if you are on, the microdetail just isn't there when you look at the eyes....on DMF back it's all there.....but you are right: canon lenses pretty much suck compared to most MF prime....
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7415


WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2008, 12:42:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The 5D would require significant sharpening due to the antialiasing filter. Comparing digital images with correct input sharpening seems to me like comparing apples and oranges.

Best regards

Erik

Quote
you are absolutely correct...the "better" the light, the less visible will the difference be....
i can tell you that the last DSLR i owened was the canon 1dsII and the reason i sold it was when, during a catalog shoot (very well lit), my rollei 6008 died and i had to finish the shoot with the canon...the direct comaprison between a rollei/phase P20/80mm schneider at 16mpix (cropped from square really only about 12-13mpix) and the canon/85 1.2 (not a bad lens at all) was eye opening....on the P20 file you could count the eyelashes, on the canon oyu could not see them....without sharpening on either....both files blown up to 20x30 made matters worse for the canon...eventhough the P20 ended up being a lower mpix count....
of course lenses matter...C1 was used on both....
ask anyone with a 5D and they will tell you that shooting full lenght is a pain, becuase it is really hard to focus manually and even if you are on, the microdetail just isn't there when you look at the eyes....on DMF back it's all there.....but you are right: canon lenses pretty much suck compared to most MF prime....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad