Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PMA round up  (Read 31906 times)
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #80 on: February 14, 2008, 08:36:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It would be interesting but I suspect you know already why I haven't done this. I don't have the equipment and I can't hire the equipment. Photographic hire places in Brisbane don't seem to carry the latest equipment.

What gives you the impression I'm disbelieving everyone on the forum? I'm not the only one who thinks the image quality differences between a 1Ds3 and P21 are likely to be very small and inconsequential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I love it that you use the words "likely to be very small and inconsequential," someone who has never even used this stuff is telling an experienced pro who has used both systems extensively that.  Also, you didn't tell me why I and Mario Testino, Steven Miesel etc etc continue to use MF if a dslr would give the same results.  These people don't need a fancy camera to impress a client. Trust me, when you shoot all the time as a profession the novelty factor of using a big fancy camera has no bearing, you use the tool that will get the job done best most easily with the least shoulder ache possible. Sometimes thats a DSLR and sometimes it's MF.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #81 on: February 14, 2008, 08:46:29 PM »
ReplyReply

That's great.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #82 on: February 14, 2008, 08:52:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not spending my valuable time shooting brick walls for you Ray, I ask you again, why do I use it if I can't see a quality difference, why does Mario Testino use one, why does Mert and Marcus use one, these are  some of the best eyes in the industry, any chance they are seeing something that the almighty Ray doesn't see. (or hasen't seen because he doesn't even own one)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now I get it. It's a matter of 'follow the leader'. Use whatever the best talents in the industry use and you can't go far wrong. There's really no need for any equipment comparisons at all.

I've got no idea if Mario Testino has ever used a 1Ds3, has ever done any 1Ds3/P21 comparisons or what his views are on the subject.

If I wanted the best quality images that the current state of digital photography could provide, in a shooting environment where equipment weight and cost was not a major concern, I'd definitely be going for something like a P45+ with the finest Digitar or Rodenstock lenses that money can buy.

I've always been of the opinion that larger sensors have the potential to provide better quality images, all else being equal.

I was very interested to read recently on this site Edmund's report that he was getting very good results at ISO 1600 with his P45+ by underexposing 4 stops at ISO 100. I would also be interested in a comparison between such a P45+ shot and a 1Ds3 shot at ISO 1600. Larger sensors generally accommodate a larger dynamic range. If the DR of the P45 is measured at 12 stops (for example) compared to 10 stops for the 1Ds3, using the same standard of DR measurement, then there's an implication that the P45 could be underexposed 2 stops without producing greater shadow noise than the 1Ds3 does when correctly exposed. This might be an advantage of the larger format in circumstances where bracketing of shots (with the smaller format) is not practicable because of subject movement.

Now you are claiming that there are meaningful quality differences, that are not necessarily related to DR or resolution, that are so significant to you that you would buy into a different system, at presumably great expense, in order to get such improved quality.

Now, I just find it very odd that you are so reluctant (that everyone who might own the different systems in question is so reluctant) to share this wondrous joy you've experienced upon observing these differences.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #83 on: February 14, 2008, 10:15:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not the only one who thinks the image quality differences between a 1Ds3 and P21 are likely to be very small and inconsequential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i am sure you are not the only one and you are correct that the image differences between a 1ds3 and aP21 are small...how significant they are is a very personal decision and that is that....and again there is so much more to those tools then just image quality....

why are you asking for proof? i and many others know why they are using what they are using...why on earth should they have to proof anything to you? if you think that you find the right tool for you by reading about it, i think you are wrong....
also if you don't have any rental places around or places that sell the stuff where you live, there is obviously not a big photomarket either, so you probably don't need those tools anyway....if you just want them, just get them..mailorder....or are you just kicking tires forever...not in the market for a ds3 or a P21 anyway? so why are you doubting people's choices? why shoudl they shoot walls so you can get off?
edmund shoots a P45 at 4stops under at 100 and ,bla,bla,bla....isn't this supposed to be a photography forum? who cares! he wanted to get into DMF to shoot runway! i remember that discussion well! but he likes what he likes and makes his own tests......but really: shouldn't we talk about composition, tones, expression, maybe a little business?
if i write about something i have tested and experienced, you can read that, look at my work and say:BS! the guy has no clue! which really is fine with me....

i can tell you again that i was helping a friend of mine today (retouching, getting files ready, proof printing) for a story soon to appear in maxim magazine....shot with a P21 and we compared some files from the 5D and again...maybe the difference is small and insignificant to you, but it sure is very obvious to us....would the final file in the mag look different if he would have used the 5D for that shoot? maybe not, we probably could have tuned them to look just as good...but that is not the point....we looked at the proof prints....
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #84 on: February 15, 2008, 04:41:57 AM »
ReplyReply

My how rapidly the world turns! Last time I put my head over the parapet Mario Testino was shooting with a Pentax 67. Not to forget that Marco Glaviano shot his book Sirens of Costasmeralda (sic) on a Canon dslr...

But there you are, it isnīt only about quality and personal choice in the end, it gets mixed up with other peoplesī work flow too. I know several photographers of note who would have been perfectly happy to continue using their RZs or RBs had their clients not decided to save their own money by demanding files only.

The bottom line is that we are in a state of flux and much of what is happening includes the passing of more than one baby down the plug-hole along with the soiled water. The fact that photographers now have to have skills which once resided in process houses is not good news for photographers, it is just more unwanted responsibility way beyond that which a photographer needed to have. In my mind, a photographer is all about making pictures: the job ends with handing over the transparency or print. There is no reason on Earth that a great photographer should be expected to  be a great retoucher, that he should have to fight problems related to printing companies etc. It used to take long apprenticeships for those skills to be learned in their trades - how can anyone realistically expect the photographer to embrace them all? He doesnīt. He has to hire other people and expand his operating base and take on a whole raft of unsolicited problems, not the least of which is how to charge for the additional time the new way takes.

To fight over the value or otherwise of different systems of camera is really quite redundant. As has been pointed out already by several here, myself included, they are all different and it is an individual choice based on expectation and resources that governs the ultimate decision for model A over the rest.

On the other hand, perhaps thatīs what these forum debates are really all about: the last word. Sadly, you often get it because the other guy has simply given up on you as being a waste of time.

On the other hand, there is always Mr P who transfixes me with his short jabs: were I any good at lateral thinking I might just get to the meanings sometimes... but I love them even if I donīt always understand them!

No sunshine today; quite cloudy and a little cold. Just love the Med in winter when it sucks!

Rob C
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 04:44:41 AM by Rob C » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #85 on: February 15, 2008, 06:28:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
i am sure you are not the only one and you are correct that the image differences between a 1ds3 and aP21 are small...how significant they are is a very personal decision and that is that....and again there is so much more to those tools then just image quality....

why are you asking for proof? i and many others know why they are using what they are using...why on earth should they have to proof anything to you? if you think that you find the right tool for you by reading about it, i think you are wrong....

Why am I asking for proof? I would describe it more as evidence. We're talking here about the qualities of a visual medium; the qualities of a photographic image from two different styles and formats of cameras and there are no proper examples to demonstrate what's being referred to.

This thread began with the following statement from Woof75;

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.

Five pages later, all we have is a pile of words and one deeply flawed comparison. Dear me! What a debacle!

But never mind! It's no big deal for me. I have a natural curiosity about such matters because of my longstanding interest in Photography, but there's a limit to the amount of trouble and expense I'm willing to go to in search of such elusive and ineffable qualities.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #86 on: February 15, 2008, 07:23:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why am I asking for proof? I would describe it more as evidence. We're talking here about the qualities of a visual medium; the qualities of a photographic image from two different styles and formats of cameras and there are no proper examples to demonstrate what's being referred to.

This thread began with the following statement from Woof75;
Five pages later, all we have is a pile of words and one deeply flawed comparison. Dear me! What a debacle!

But never mind! It's no big deal for me. I have a natural curiosity about such matters because of my longstanding interest in Photography, but there's a limit to the amount of trouble and expense I'm willing to go to in search of such elusive and ineffable qualities.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No time for posting tests, they often don't show things anyway, ones sharper than the other, just sharpen the other more, see now that ones sharper. (but what does that do to the overall look and feel?) See you need to look at it not as a pixel peeper looking at jpegs but as an artist looking at big images on screens or prints with the eye of an artist. I wish it could be more easily digestible for all to see but you really need to use one of these things yourself.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2008, 12:03:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No time for posting tests, they often don't show things anyway, ones sharper than the other, just sharpen the other more, see now that ones sharper. (but what does that do to the overall look and feel?) See you need to look at it not as a pixel peeper looking at jpegs but as an artist looking at big images on screens or prints with the eye of an artist. I wish it could be more easily digestible for all to see but you really need to use one of these things yourself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I find that the over all look and feel of any of my big images on print or screen is largely dependent on the amount of processing I do. The finished image will almost always be very different in tonality, contrast, sharpness etc than the way it first appears in my RAW converter before any adjustments are made.

The idea that some subtle 'look' or 'quality' is going to survive the many adjustments I make and shine through, so to speak, to make it clear the original file was a P21 and not a 1Ds3, simply does not seem credible to me.

The few RAW files from Phase backs that I've looked at so far, initially have had a very different appearance to Canon files in ACR. For some reason the AWB (as shot) is very different. However, a simple adjustment of temperature and tint can remove 90% of that initial difference in appearance.

This argument you're presenting that it takes a fine artistic eye to discern these differences and that one either sees them or one doesn't, reminds me very much of the audio amplifier arguments that used to be common in the 1970's and 80's.

For a couple of decades or so I was fascinated with hi fi matters and used to read reviews in hi fi mags of the latest loudspeaker and amplifier designs. I have no trouble understanding lens MTF charts because I was already familiar with loudspeaker and amplifier frequency response charts.

One thing that used to puzzle me greatly were the claims by apparent experts in the audio field that differences in amplifier design were very audible. Even though two power amplifiers might have a similar RMS power rating, a similarly flat frequency response to beyond the limits of human hearing and similarly low harmonic distortion way below the threshold of human hearing, the expensive amplifier with an exotic design was often claimed to sound better.

Reviews of such amplifiers would often refer to a 'punchy' bass with lots of 'kick', or a 'sweet' treble, or a sense of 3-dimensionality that the cheaper amplifier just lacked. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't hear such differences. I could certainly hear major differences between 2 pairs of loudspeakers, but the subtle differences inherent in the different classes and desgns of power amplifiers escaped me. Provided the amplifiers had enough power to drive the speakers and were at least of reasonable quality, they all sounded alike to me.

Could it be I have defective hearing? Not likely, since I do (or did) play the piano.

Could it be that to hear such differences one needs above normal hearing, or golden ears?

Well, one day this was put to the test in a very thorough manner by one of the leading Hi Fi magazines of the day that seemed to specialize more in objective testing methods than some of their rivals. I suppose you could call them the Dpreview of the audio world.

They invited a number of leading audio experts to a listening session. All of them were chosen because they had avowed with great certainty that they could easily tell the difference between the sound of a valve amplifier, a hybrid valve/transistor amplifier, a Class A amplifier, Class C, MOS VFET and so on. These were guys who knew what they were doing; who had had years of experience in the audio industry. They were asked to bring along their favourite listening material and/or recordings they were particulalrly familiar with.

Now, I can't remember the precise details of the equipment used, but the loudspeakers and turntable would have been the best available. The amplifiers ranged from a $400 Pioneer model to a $10,000 Mark-levinson Valve/Hybrid amp the size of a small fridge. All the amplifiers were connected to the main speakers through a switching system so that at any given time whilst the music was playing, the amplifier driving the speakers could be changed. The listeners were never told which amplifier was in use at any particualr time.

The objective of the exercise was to identify the amplifier in use at any particular time. Do you think these experienced experts, so confident of their abilities, were able to do that? Not at all. The results were no better than tossing a coin. In fact they were slightly worse because the el cheapo Pioneer amp was confused with the expensive Mark-Levinson more than 50% of the time.

The reason I'm going to this trouble is to give a hint as to the sort of procedure that would be necessary to clear up this matter of the P21 versus the 1Ds3. Most of us can see subtle differences of hue, tone, temperature, saturation etc, otherwise we wouldn't be able to edit our images. Just a small touch of an adjustment curve makes a visible change. If you can't see the change, you're in trouble with regard to editing images.

What I would propose is that some competent photographer who owns both cameras, and a selection of good lenses for both cameras, does a thorough and careful job of shooting a still-life with both cameras, paying particular attention to precise matching of FoV, DoF and exact focussing on the same spot.

He then makes the RAW images available to anyone who's interested so they can process the images to the best of their ability. The processed images could then be made available in their original but equalised size, stripped of their EXIF information and metadata, and we could have a poll on which was which.

How does that sound? Too much trouble I'm sure, so we can continue to have these fruitless discussions about some mystical quality of DBs, only visible to the finely tuned artistic temperament.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2008, 12:58:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, I find that the over all look and feel of any of my big images on print or screen is largely dependent on the amount of processing I do. The finished image will almost always be very different in tonality, contrast, sharpness etc than the way it first appears in my RAW converter before any adjustments are made.

The idea that some subtle 'look' or 'quality' is going to survive the many adjustments I make and shine through, so to speak, to make it clear the original file was a P21 and not a 1Ds3, simply does not seem credible to me.

The few RAW files from Phase backs that I've looked at so far, initially have had a very different appearance to Canon files in ACR. For some reason the AWB (as shot) is very different. However, a simple adjustment of temperature and tint can remove 90% of that initial difference in appearance.

This argument you're presenting that it takes a fine artistic eye to discern these differences and that one either sees them or one doesn't, reminds me very much of the audio amplifier arguments that used to be common in the 1970's and 80's.

For a couple of decades or so I was fascinated with hi fi matters and used to read reviews in hi fi mags of the latest loudspeaker and amplifier designs. I have no trouble understanding lens MTF charts because I was already familiar with loudspeaker and amplifier frequency response charts.

One thing that used to puzzle me greatly were the claims by apparent experts in the audio field that differences in amplifier design were very audible. Even though two power amplifiers might have a similar RMS power rating, a similarly flat frequency response to beyond the limits of human hearing and similarly low harmonic distortion way below the threshold of human hearing, the expensive amplifier with an exotic design was often claimed to sound better.

Reviews of such amplifiers would often refer to a 'punchy' bass with lots of 'kick', or a 'sweet' treble, or a sense of 3-dimensionality that the cheaper amplifier just lacked. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't hear such differences. I could certainly hear major differences between 2 pairs of loudspeakers, but the subtle differences inherent in the different classes and desgns of power amplifiers escaped me. Provided the amplifiers had enough power to drive the speakers and were at least of reasonable quality, they all sounded alike to me.

Could it be I have defective hearing? Not likely, since I do (or did) play the piano.

Could it be that to hear such differences one needs above normal hearing, or golden ears?

Well, one day this was put to the test in a very thorough manner by one of the leading Hi Fi magazines of the day that seemed to specialize more in objective testing methods than some of their rivals. I suppose you could call them the Dpreview of the audio world.

They invited a number of leading audio experts to a listening session. All of them were chosen because they had avowed with great certainty that they could easily tell the difference between the sound of a valve amplifier, a hybrid valve/transistor amplifier, a Class A amplifier, Class C, MOS VFET and so on. These were guys who knew what they were doing; who had had years of experience in the audio industry. They were asked to bring along their favourite listening material and/or recordings they were particulalrly familiar with.

Now, I can't remember the precise details of the equipment used, but the loudspeakers and turntable would have been the best available. The amplifiers ranged from a $400 Pioneer model to a $10,000 Mark-levinson Valve/Hybrid amp the size of a small fridge. All the amplifiers were connected to the main speakers through a switching system so that at any given time whilst the music was playing, the amplifier driving the speakers could be changed. The listeners were never told which amplifier was in use at any particualr time.

The objective of the exercise was to identify the amplifier in use at any particular time. Do you think these experienced experts, so confident of their abilities, were able to do that? Not at all. The results were no better than tossing a coin. In fact they were slightly worse because the el cheapo Pioneer amp was confused with the expensive Mark-Levinson more than 50% of the time.

The reason I'm going to this trouble is to give a hint as to the sort of procedure that would be necessary to clear up this matter of the P21 versus the 1Ds3. Most of us can see subtle differences of hue, tone, temperature, saturation etc, otherwise we wouldn't be able to edit our images. Just a small touch of an adjustment curve makes a visible change. If you can't see the change, you're in trouble with regard to editing images.

What I would propose is that some competent photographer who owns both cameras, and a selection of good lenses for both cameras, does a thorough and careful job of shooting a still-life with both cameras, paying particular attention to precise matching of FoV, DoF and exact focussing on the same spot.

He then makes the RAW images available to anyone who's interested so they can process the images to the best of their ability. The processed images could then be made available in their original but equalised size, stripped of their EXIF information and metadata, and we could have a poll on which was which.

How does that sound? Too much trouble I'm sure, so we can continue to have these fruitless discussions about some mystical quality of DBs, only visible to the finely tuned artistic temperament.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Really all of these arguments are so silly when you've never shot a digital back. I'm sorry but your opinions really aren't valid.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #89 on: February 15, 2008, 01:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Really all of these arguments are so silly when you've never shot a digital back. I'm sorry but your opinions really aren't valid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

but yours is ^^
Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #90 on: February 15, 2008, 01:25:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
but yours is ^^
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes because I have used both extensively, really to continue the hifi analogy, it's like having an opinion on the sound of a hifi that you'd read about in a magazine. I mean come on.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #91 on: February 15, 2008, 02:00:33 PM »
ReplyReply

actually the one thing that everybody agrees on (every reviewer,...) is that one of the advantages of DMF files is that you can do A LOT more in post then with DSLR files before they start to fall apart...the extra pixel depth and higher DR and less noise (at base speeds) give you way more room to push and pull the files in every direction you want....

but i have also said here many times that a master retoucher can make almost ANY files look amazing....which is why annie can easily shoot canon and make huge prints....the retouching for one print costs more then a Dback! but that is not what i would consider the norm and we have to look at the files how they come out....

if i shoot a P20 with a good MF lens and happen to hit the focus right, i do not need any sharpening in post...none, nada....with the canon i can make a file appear as sharp by sharpening the file, but on close inspection and especially when res'ing up with will be obvious...

but really it seems like you want me or someone else here do the work so you can feel that you were right all along...because, again, who knows that you would see the difference if i did the test?

you comparison with hifi is interesting to me, because i used to work in a hifi store a long time ago...we sold mostly british manufacturers, and we never posted any specs like watts or curves...the motto was, come in, sit down, listen, if you like it and it is in your price range, buy it and be happy....who cares about the specs....we encouraged people to bring their own amps, speakers, turntables and their own music....nobody can tell you what SOUNDS better....or at least if someone tries, you should not listen.....did i ever look at mags and read reviews? sure....but it is like wine....taste it, some people have different taste....blind taste it...there will be a difference and sometimes the cheaper one is more to your liking!

it does not always came down to numbers and charts and specs...even if you buy a car, the most important thing is to take a seat and drive it around the corner...yes the features and specs are important but just like a 2 ton truck with 250hp will probably be slower then a 750kg 125hp mini, a 10mpix cellphone cam will be horrible compared to a 3mpix DSLR....

to add something else here....lenses: lens ratings, tests,...if you think about a lens as a brush that paints the light onto the sensor, there is no bad lens...there are all kind of optical imperfections but they actually, maybe add a certain look to your image...maybe a little soft glow, a little flair from a 50year old uncoated lens makes a great interpretation of a scene....which is really what photography is about....
i am not saying that distortions are always great and i only want imperfect glass, but it is all very personal and in the end it is the print that counts....
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #92 on: February 15, 2008, 02:51:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes because I have used both extensively, really to continue the hifi analogy, it's like having an opinion on the sound of a hifi that you'd read about in a magazine. I mean come on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175091\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Except you can email Ray a file that is representative of the output of the MFDB.  You can't email him an amplifier.  I think he is only concerned about the output of the MFDB.  (I also believe he has the collection of MFBD and other files that MR offered up for sale a while ago.)
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #93 on: February 15, 2008, 03:15:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Except you can email Ray a file that is representative of the output of the MFDB.  You can't email him an amplifier.  I think he is only concerned about the output of the MFDB.  (I also believe he has the collection of MFBD and other files that MR offered up for sale a while ago.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's funny but just looking at a couple of files doesn't do it, you have to look at many files. I'm really tired of repeating myself. Shall we all just wait for the review of the 1ds mark 3 that Michael will inevitably be doing.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #94 on: February 15, 2008, 03:47:42 PM »
ReplyReply

alright, brace yourself, here goes, I'll either show you what I'm talking about or I'll show the pointlessness of this kind of test, I guess it's win win. Now, neither of these eyes have been retouched, I converted both in my converter of choice, Lightroom, neither have been up or downsampled, both are at highest quality jpeg. I processed them both to be as sharp as I could without introducing artifacts, I converted to b & W to try and standardise the test as much as possible. Neither was shot with a tripod so not exceptionally sharp but you may see that the eye crop from the phase whilst not really being any meaningfull amount sharper has more sparkle and punch to it, the light is the same light, just in a slightly different place and yes different lights create different amounts of "sparkle". This comparison shows what I have seen on hundreds and hundreds of files. The eyes were taken pretty much at random from 2 different shoots. You may disregard this and say that I rigged it or you believe me when I say this is very indicative of what I see all the time. Your choice.
(I totally understand if people also say they prefer the canon file, thats a fair choice but you can't say there the same).
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #95 on: February 15, 2008, 04:41:17 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]

Yeah, I'll agree with that.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #96 on: February 15, 2008, 10:45:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
alright, brace yourself, here goes, I'll either show you what I'm talking about or I'll show the pointlessness of this kind of test, I guess it's win win. Now, neither of these eyes have been retouched, I converted both in my converter of choice, Lightroom, neither have been up or downsampled, both are at highest quality jpeg. I processed them both to be as sharp as I could without introducing artifacts, I converted to b & W to try and standardise the test as much as possible. Neither was shot with a tripod so not exceptionally sharp but you may see that the eye crop from the phase whilst not really being any meaningfull amount sharper has more sparkle and punch to it, the light is the same light, just in a slightly different place and yes different lights create different amounts of "sparkle". This comparison shows what I have seen on hundreds and hundreds of files. The eyes were taken pretty much at random from 2 different shoots. You may disregard this and say that I rigged it or you believe me when I say this is very indicative of what I see all the time. Your choice.
(I totally understand if people also say they prefer the canon file, thats a fair choice but you can't say there the same).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is a good example of why we need shots of exactly the same scene with exactly the same lighting, taken from exactly the same perspective using apertures that produce exactly the same DoF... exact as is humanly possible that is.

Lens quality should also be matched to ensure, for example, there is no obvious resolution fall-off in the corners or at the edges. The P21 is a cropped format whereas the 1Ds3 isn't. The 35mm lens ideally should also be a sharper lens than the MF lens. Smaller formats need sharper lenses for images to match those from a larger format.

All the examples comparing the P21 with the 1Ds3 I've seen so far indicate to me that the people behind the cameras either have no intention, no desire and no motivation to do a proper and fair comparison, or they don't have the skills required to do a proper and fair comparison.

Woolf75 has made a claim that there are good reasons to use a DB instead of a 35mm DSLR with similar pixel count. I would agree that there are indeed good reasons. I can think of a few. The availability of better lenses would be the first one that springs to mind. An MF lens does not have to be better in an absolute sense, ie. higher resolution in terms of lp/mm at a particular contrast. It can be merely as good as the 35mm counterpart and still produce sharper results because the pixel spacing on a P21 is wider. Whilst a 1Ds3 can record detail up to 60 lp/mm (approximately), the P21 needs to record detail only up to 40 lp/mm to produce the same picture resolution. It may be the case that the P21 has an advantage in the sense it can record greater than 40 lp/mm because it has no AA filter. This is also a factor that one might take into consideration when comparing formats. Some people seem to hate aliasing artifacts and some seem to like them, or at least tolerate them for the sake of a sometimes slightly crisper look.

The second reason that springs to mind is the greater dynamic range of the DB at base ISO. Even though one might not be shooting a particularly contrasty scene most of the time, the extra dynamic range allows for less concern, less anxiety, about achieving a full exposure to the right. With DR to spare, one can afford to underexpose a bit more with a DB. I think it would be true to say that the 35mm user's obsession with ETTR is due to the lower DR of that format.

I really don't understand the attitude of people like Woof75 who claim that DBs have a different look, it's as simple as that. You either see it or you don't. That seems to be a very unhelpul and uninformed attitude. This is not just about who's right and who's wrong, for me. It's about learning what are the causes for this 'different look'. Is it something that can be easily fixed with a few adjustments in Photoshop, or is it a quality deeply embedded in the DB file which cannot be emulated in a 35mm image either with or without expending a great deal of time?

Is it really perhaps due to the use of a better, more expensive MF lens? Could it be the case that the best 35mm lenses are really no sharper than the best MF lenses? These are the questions that need to be answered for us to learn something out of this exercise.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #97 on: February 15, 2008, 11:53:28 PM »
ReplyReply

The posts are getting even bigger these days.  I guess the real sign that there is nothing more to say is when it takes so long to say it.

Anyway.

Ray, the next time you're someplace that can rent a MFDB feel free to do so.  Let us know what you find.  While you're at it you can also look into Leica lenses and tell us what the Leica look is all about.  It has only taken people 50 years to come up with some theories on that one.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #98 on: February 15, 2008, 11:56:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The posts are getting even bigger these days.  I guess the real sign that there is nothing more to say is when it takes so long to say it.

Anyway.

Ray, the next time you're someplace that can rent a MFDB feel free to do so.  Let us know what you find.  While you're at it you can also look into Leica lenses and tell us what the Leica look is all about.  It has only taken people 50 years to come up with some theories on that one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

funny...you can take a wild guess what i am shooting with now.....
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #99 on: February 16, 2008, 12:07:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
but really it seems like you want me or someone else here do the work so you can feel that you were right all along...because, again, who knows that you would see the difference if i did the test?

True learning is always a case of finding out if you were right or wrong. I get the impression that there are some people here who simply don't want to find out if they are right or wrong. I've already explained, it would be extremely difficult, not to mention very expensive, for me to get hold of both a P21 and 1Ds3 to carry out thorough tests in a relaxed environment. There's no place where I live that hires out such equipment (although I'd have no trouble hiring a 1Ds or D2X) so I'd have to pay for the equipment first and then try to claim a refund on the grounds the equipment wasn't suitable. I have no MF body that fits a P21 (I don't believe my RB67 cuts it, but perhaps I'm wrong here) and no modern MF lenses. However, I do have a Mamiya Sekor C 65/f4.5; a Mamiya Sekor C 90/F3.8; a Mamiya Sekor C 180/F4.5 and a Mamiya Sekor C 360/F6.3. How these lenses rate in the general scheme of things I don't know, but considering a 36x48 sensor is a fairly substantial crop of 60x70mm and the fact that these are C lenses, I don't think I should be getting too excited. If I could find and fit a second hand P21 to my RB67 body, I would perhaps be interested, if the price was right, but given a choice between a second hand P21 and a future upgrade to the 5D or the upcoming Sony FF 35mm with a 24mp sensor, I might choose the latter.

Quote
you comparison with hifi is interesting to me, because i used to work in a hifi store a long time ago...we sold mostly british manufacturers, and we never posted any specs like watts or curves...the motto was, come in, sit down, listen, if you like it and it is in your price range, buy it and be happy....who cares about the specs....we encouraged people to bring their own amps, speakers, turntables and their own music....nobody can tell you what SOUNDS better....or at least if someone tries, you should not listen.....did i ever look at mags and read reviews? sure....but it is like wine....taste it, some people have different taste....blind taste it...there will be a difference and sometimes the cheaper one is more to your liking!

The point of the audio analogy was to demonstrate that it is possible for a bunch of 'so-called' experts to misconstrue what they are hearing; to get confused as to the true causes of the differences they either did hear or imagined they heard.

I wouldn't be surprised if in your store you also had different amplifiers hooked up to different loudspeakers so people were comparing entire systems. It seems to be a fact that the major differences in hi fi systems that people hear can be attributed to the quality of the loudspeakers, the design, shape and size of the listening room and the position of the listener in that room. When it comes to what you actually prefer, better quality or more expensive equipment does not always rule.

I'm reminded of an anecdote about the owner of a hi fi chain of stores who ordered a large number of custom made loudspeakers from a Taiwanese manufacturer. His specifications were that the loudspeakers should sound good when heard from a distance of about 6ft in a large room full of other electronic equipment, TVs and various white goods.

The manufacturer pointed out that such a design of loudspeaker would not sound good in the average domestic lounge. The owner of the store replied he didn't care. He was only interested in making sales.  

By the way, it's such a long time since I even held that RB67 in my hands, whilst looking just now at the description lenses I have, I cocked the shutter whilst playing around with the camera then wasn't able to release it. I remembered the shutter button had a lock on it but I still couldn't release the shutter. I don't like storing a camera with the shutter set so this was a bit of a worry. I searched for the manual, scratched my head, then realised I had the dark slide in place. Removing it solved the problem. I still have an unused film in that camera   .
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 02:13:31 AM by Ray » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad