Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MFD @ 800 ISO  (Read 16390 times)
fraherim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« on: April 02, 2008, 02:28:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
I am looking for opinions on anyone shooting MFD at 800 ISO?  Which one would be considered the best at high iso's?   The quality of the Phase backs at lower iso's is familiar to me but  I am not sure of the quality at the higher settings.
Is the H3DII 31 in the same league as the P30+?
How does the  P25+ and P45+ hold up at 800?
Thanks,
Bob
Logged
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2008, 02:41:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi,
I am looking for opinions on anyone shooting MFD at 800 ISO?  Which one would be considered the best at high iso's?   The quality of the Phase backs at lower iso's is familiar to me but  I am not sure of the quality at the higher settings.
Is the H3DII 31 in the same league as the P30+?
How does the  P25+ and P45+ hold up at 800?
Thanks,
Bob
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

H3DII-31 @ ISO 800

Best I've seen from MFDB....*warning, clearly biased....

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=4696]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pe=post&id=4696[/url]


Steve Hendrix
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 04:23:50 PM by pprdigital » Logged

Steve Hendrix
DavidP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2008, 04:26:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I find the 400 iso with the 45+ to be not bad at all. But the 800 to be more for emergencies. I think it may depend on the subject, how well the exposure is and how much "post tweaking" you do.
I understand though that the p30+ has about a stop better quality across the board because of the micro lenses on the chip, so I would think I would look at one of those for better 800 iso quality.
I have not worked with the Hasselblad backs so I don't know how they are.
I think they use the same sensors though.
Logged
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2008, 05:09:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I find the 400 iso with the 45+ to be not bad at all. But the 800 to be more for emergencies. I think it may depend on the subject, how well the exposure is and how much "post tweaking" you do.
I understand though that the p30+ has about a stop better quality across the board because of the micro lenses on the chip, so I would think I would look at one of those for better 800 iso quality.
I have not worked with the Hasselblad backs so I don't know how they are.
I think they use the same sensors though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The equivalent sensors per model would be:

H3DII-39 = P45+
H3DII-31 = P31+
H3DII-22 = P25+

H3DII-39 uses the same 39MP sensor as the P45+. I don't know what the naming convention of the P backs refers to. The Hasselblad refers to the Megapixel count. The 31MP chips are definitely cleaner at least at 200 ISO and higher compared to the 22MP/39MP chips, in addition to the additional higher ISO rating.

Steve Hendrix
Logged

Steve Hendrix
fraherim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2008, 06:25:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The equivalent sensors per model would be:

H3DII-39 = P45+
H3DII-31 = P31+
H3DII-22 = P25+

H3DII-39 uses the same 39MP sensor as the P45+. I don't know what the naming convention of the P backs refers to. The Hasselblad refers to the Megapixel count. The 31MP chips are definitely cleaner at least at 200 ISO and higher compared to the 22MP/39MP chips, in addition to the additional higher ISO rating.

Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Steve,
I hear the H3DII 39 will max out at 800 after Phocus is released.  Is this true? How will the capture software change the back?   Is it a firmware upgrade? If so will the 31 them max out at 1600 ISO like the P30+?

Bob
Logged
fraherim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2008, 06:28:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I find the 400 iso with the 45+ to be not bad at all. But the 800 to be more for emergencies. I think it may depend on the subject, how well the exposure is and how much "post tweaking" you do.
I understand though that the p30+ has about a stop better quality across the board because of the micro lenses on the chip, so I would think I would look at one of those for better 800 iso quality.
I have not worked with the Hasselblad backs so I don't know how they are.
I think they use the same sensors though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
David,
Thanks for the info.
Will the P45+ give you a full res file at 800?  I hear that some Phase backs reduce the file size to get the extra ISO but I am not sure which models do this.

Bob
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 787


« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2008, 06:59:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I get totally usable files from my P25 at ISO800, it kinda looks like it's shot on film. Works just fine for available light editorial work.
Logged
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2008, 07:09:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Steve,
I hear the H3DII 39 will max out at 800 after Phocus is released.  Is this true? How will the capture software change the back?   Is it a firmware upgrade? If so will the 31 them max out at 1600 ISO like the P30+?

Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bob:

That is correct, although I don't think Phocus V1.0 will have that upgrade, possibly V1.1 or 1.2, etc. But yes, the H3DII-22/39 will go to ISO 800, the H3DII-31 will go to ISO 1600. This is my guesstimate. Hasselblad has stated they will enhance the ISO range with Phocus, but not with V1.0, so I am ballparking the prediction of when that will be implemented.

Eliminating noise always takes into account multiple considerations comprised of software/hardware, etc. Hasselblad has enabled (what I think is) a very significant improvement in high ISO performance in the past 12-18 months to the point where at one time, they were at the bottom in terms of that criteria, I now feel they are at the top. They did this through improvement in their software algorithm.

The H3DII series also swapped the internal fan for a heat sink, which reduced the internal operating temperature by 7 - 8 degrees. This also assists in their noise reduction. But Phocus will apparently take advantage of an even more improved algorithm, because it claims there will be improved noise reduction for legacy products with H1/H2 cameras, like the iXpress series and H1D, H2D, H3D series, which don't employ a heat sink. The H camera itself may be playing a role even with the fan-based systems in terms of cooling. Regardless of how they do it, the additional ISO stop (and additional stop of long exposure to 64 seconds) will be free via Phocus software update.

Steve Hendrix
Logged

Steve Hendrix
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3947



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2008, 09:44:29 PM »
ReplyReply

My first P45+ sample couldn't do decent ISO 400, the second is much better, but there are unpredictable image artefacts, eg bad columns (vertical white lines) in the images, and horizontal unevenness and streaking.

When I got my bacl I was hoping for good hi-ISO, and it would seem to be technically possible, but I now consider it's a matter of luck. I think we'll be there with the next upgrade. The P30+ is probably good at ISO 400 because thanks to the microlenses it's a 200 ISO native. On the other hand, if you're going to use a p30+ you might also consider a Canon - the distance in resolution is about one generation and color and skin tone are quite decent.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 09:50:57 PM by eronald » Logged

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

Posts: 1834


« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2008, 10:17:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The P30+ is probably good at ISO 400 because thanks to the microlenses it's a 200 ISO native. On the other hand, if you're going to use a p30+ you might also consider a Canon - the distance in resolution is about one generation and color and skin tone are quite decent.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What's this about the P30+?  You think the 1ds3 is pretty close?

T
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3947



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2008, 10:35:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What's this about the P30+?  You think the 1ds3 is pretty close?

T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd say there's one dSLR generation between the P30+ and the 1Ds3, just about.

The "look" advantage is less than for the larger P45, the sharpness advantage too because of the microlenses, however the digital back still has more pixels and better, but at high-ISO the Canon is going to catch up.

The dSLR has super-fast lenses, fast focus and superb finder. It's not such a simple equation and the Canon deserves to be looked at.

 The back wins in high-ISO shots because of the superbly retained highlights especially in bars and streets where you get nice colored lamps. On the other hand, the back has noisier pixels. And the MF body is so bad that you have trouble focusing, and the lenses are slow, slow, slow ...

 I haven't shot a single Canon frame on my own cameras (tested 1Ds3 were loaners) since I got my back, but there hasn't been a day when I haven't regretted my Canon 85/1.2 or haven't been angry at my back sample not being perfect.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 10:37:56 PM by eronald » Logged

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

Posts: 262


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2008, 10:56:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve - the ISO 800 image from the H3DII-31 is very impressive.  A friend received his ~Dec. and he is equally enthusiastic about the ISO 400-800 range.
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2008, 11:28:06 PM »
ReplyReply

ERonald,



I have a P30+ and I would have to disagree.

My opinion is entirely subjective, but I will say that you get better color from an F5 and 35mm Portra 160nc than from the 1ds3.  I would rather (and do) shoot editorial on film (645 afd, 6x7 RZ) than shoot with the ds3.  The P30+, again, in my opinion, has qualities that are unique to medium format (lenses, 4:3) and the dof effects from a larger sensor are real, so there is, how you say, the MF "look".  So unless the 1ds4 has a larger than 35mm frame, is 4:3, and takes mamiya and Hass V glass, I don't think Canon will ever catch up to the P30, A17 or P21.

As to iso, the P30+ is very similar to my 1ds2 at 1600.  More color noise, cleans up well in C1 or in noise ninja.  The pixel density masks much of the noise. At 400 there is virtually no noise to speak of, its like an A22 at 100.  

As to fast lenses, its all relative.  Fast for thin dof?  MF, even the P30, beats 35mm with 2.8, 1,9, and F2.  Fast for low light street shooting?  Well, mfdb are really not the best choice.  All that being said, if I shot sports or street or something like that I'd shoot a 5d or 1ds3 or D3.  But I don't.  This is not to take away from the 1ds3, its a great cam but it will never be a MFDB system beater for my work.
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2008, 12:05:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
ERonald,
I have a P30+ and I would have to disagree.

My opinion is entirely subjective, but I will say that you get better color from an F5 and 35mm Portra 160nc than from the 1ds3.  I would rather (and do) shoot editorial on film (645 afd, 6x7 RZ) than shoot with the ds3.  The P30+, again, in my opinion, has qualities that are unique to medium format (lenses, 4:3) and the dof effects from a larger sensor are real, so there is, how you say, the MF "look".  So unless the 1ds4 has a larger than 35mm frame, is 4:3, and takes mamiya and Hass V glass, I don't think Canon will ever catch up to the P30, A17 or P21.

As to iso, the P30+ is very similar to my 1ds2 at 1600.  More color noise, cleans up well in C1 or in noise ninja.  The pixel density masks much of the noise. At 400 there is virtually no noise to speak of, its like an A22 at 100. 

As to fast lenses, its all relative.  Fast for thin dof?  MF, even the P30, beats 35mm with 2.8, 1,9, and F2.  Fast for low light street shooting?  Well, mfdb are really not the best choice.  All that being said, if I shot sports or street or something like that I'd shoot a 5d or 1ds3 or D3.  But I don't.  This is not to take away from the 1ds3, its a great cam but it will never be a MFDB system beater for my work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I find all of these cameras, dslrs, medium format to be very scene and lighting specific.

Testing with lots of front and side light just about anything looks good, even at high iso, but then again it's doubtful anyone would intentionally shoot 800, or 1600 iso with studio strobe and a lot of fill.

Where I see at difference is in the times you really need high iso, dimly lit NY streets with soft fill, backlight on location with hmi and natural fill, wider apetures, slower shutter speeds, then the noise comes in.

In those instances even my 1ds2 shows a lot of noise in the shadows and not very pretty noise at that.  The D3, well at 1000 iso is pretty clean, though the color is sensitive and under tungsten I find all the medium format backs superior to the Canons, (though I haven't tried a 1ds3).

Even my past Aptus 22 was really nice at 400 iso, as long as I wanted the noise to be visable, though unlike the Canon it was pretty noise,  almost random and not clumps.

For commercial work, especially commercial fashion where there is a lot of backlight and wider apertures, the P30+ is good at 400, slightly challenged at 800 and I know nothing about 1600 as i've never tried it.

Keep in mind I said commercial work, where I know someone is going to be looking hard at the detail of a dress, or jeans.  

Also, all of these cameras show different results depending on the raw processor.

Right now I like the look of C1 v4, for the p30+ and my p21+.

Once again, all of this is subjective, but preparing for a shoot this week, I tested the P21+ (I hate writing that plus thing) vs. the p30+ at 800 iso and though 800 is supposedly the top iso for the p21, at 800 iso and underexposed slightly more than 1/2 a stop it cleaned up well as long as the image compression was set to large rather than small.

On small compression V4 handled the noise very abrutly, either too smooth and paintrly, or way too noisy.  One large compression v4 worked the p21 file like it was an entirely different camera.

Pusing it +.64 in v4 which I assume gives an effective 800 iso something closer to 1000, it was really nice, not smooth plastic clean, but more random film clean and actually something I would do even for commercial work.

I gotta stress, the difference at high iso between large vs. small compression is  very noticeable.

Still, this is subjective, but I like the p21 look at high iso because it's almost film like grain to me and not just deep chroma noise.

Then again I've always shot the phase backs slightly under and like the results better than the expose to the right scenario we read about.

This is not an offical company line, but a year ago one of the Phase people asked me how I exposed the file and I said slightly under and then opened it up in the processor and he replied yes, that is the way to do it.

That is not an offical statement and there could have been something lost in translation, but it works for me.

JR
Logged

billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2008, 12:19:25 AM »
ReplyReply

hi james
i have a P21 and Contax and process in C1Pro 3.7.8, what does this quote mean? is it only possible in V4? I will use V4 eventually, just waiting for pro to come out. I shoot fashion/lifestyle, lots of backlit at wide aperture.

"I gotta stress, the difference at high iso between large vs. small compression is very noticeable"





Quote
I find all of these cameras, dslrs, medium format to be very scene and lighting specific.

Testing with lots of front and side light just about anything looks good, even at high iso, but then again it's doubtful anyone would intentionally shoot 800, or 1600 iso with studio strobe and a lot of fill.

Where I see at difference is in the times you really need high iso, dimly lit NY streets with soft fill, backlight on location with hmi and natural fill, wider apetures, slower shutter speeds, then the noise comes in.

In those instances even my 1ds2 shows a lot of noise in the shadows and not very pretty noise at that.  The D3, well at 1000 iso is pretty clean, though the color is sensitive and under tungsten I find all the medium format backs superior to the Canons, (though I haven't tried a 1ds3).

Even my past Aptus 22 was really nice at 400 iso, as long as I wanted the noise to be visable, though unlike the Canon it was pretty noise,  almost random and not clumps.

For commercial work, especially commercial fashion where there is a lot of backlight and wider apertures, the P30+ is good at 400, slightly challenged at 800 and I know nothing about 1600 as i've never tried it.

Keep in mind I said commercial work, where I know someone is going to be looking hard at the detail of a dress, or jeans. 

Also, all of these cameras show different results depending on the raw processor.

Right now I like the look of C1 v4, for the p30+ and my p21+.

Once again, all of this is subjective, but preparing for a shoot this week, I tested the P21+ (I hate writing that plus thing) vs. the p30+ at 800 iso and though 800 is supposedly the top iso for the p21, at 800 iso and underexposed slightly more than 1/2 a stop it cleaned up well as long as the image compression was set to large rather than small.

On small compression V4 handled the noise very abrutly, either too smooth and paintrly, or way too noisy.  One large compression v4 worked the p21 file like it was an entirely different camera.

Pusing it +.64 in v4 which I assume gives an effective 800 iso something closer to 1000, it was really nice, not smooth plastic clean, but more random film clean and actually something I would do even for commercial work.

I gotta stress, the difference at high iso between large vs. small compression is  very noticeable.

Still, this is subjective, but I like the p21 look at high iso because it's almost film like grain to me and not just deep chroma noise.

Then again I've always shot the phase backs slightly under and like the results better than the expose to the right scenario we read about.

This is not an offical company line, but a year ago one of the Phase people asked me how I exposed the file and I said slightly under and then opened it up in the processor and he replied yes, that is the way to do it.

That is not an offical statement and there could have been something lost in translation, but it works for me.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186645\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2008, 12:32:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I want to ditto what some of the others have said.  I have been quite amazed at the Hasselblad H3DII-31  iso 800 images. Mark
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2008, 12:40:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
hi james
i have a P21 and Contax and process in C1Pro 3.7.8, what does this quote mean? is it only possible in V4? I will use V4 eventually, just waiting for pro to come out. I shoot fashion/lifestyle, lots of backlit at wide aperture.

"I gotta stress, the difference at high iso between large vs. small compression is very noticeable"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In other words there is a difference in visiable noise or noise reduction when the compression on the back is set to large IQ vs. Small IQ.

I can understand using 3.78 for tethering because it's the only choice and it's stable, but processing is easy in V4 and if you have 3.7 pro, v4 is free and   It takes  like about 2 minutes to learn, so it's really not a big leap and I find the colors especially skin tones way superior to lightroom and 3.78 for the Phase backs.

It also processes fast on intel machines.

V4 could use a few more features, but then again I don't really know right now if I need them.

maybe something like 3.78's color editor to clean up backgrounds but that is it.

JR
Logged

patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2008, 02:37:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
H3DII-31 @ ISO 800

Best I've seen from MFDB....*warning, clearly biased....

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pe=post&id=4696
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186508\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Steve,
very nice "cat" picture
I got very good results from a sinar emotion75 at 400 iso, then processed to DNG with Brumbear and in ACR pushed to +1, equivalent to 800 iso
No noise at all and highlight recovery worked very well.
I like it.
Maybe one day we get DSLR "ease" from our MFDB's ;-)
Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2008, 03:06:01 AM »
ReplyReply

As i do a lot of industrial photography in factories and bad lit laboratories my standard iso speed on my H3dII31Mp is 800 Iso and often I push speed up to 1600 or 3200 iso. The results are still much better than those from my Canon 5d. From the release of the flexcolor 4.xxx and upwards, High Iso is no problem anymore....
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3947



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2008, 05:05:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As i do a lot of industrial photography in factories and bad lit laboratories my standard iso speed on my H3dII31Mp is 800 Iso and often I push speed up to 1600 or 3200 iso. The results are still much better than those from my Canon 5d. From the release of the flexcolor 4.xxx and upwards, High Iso is no problem anymore....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The high ISO "noise" look of both backs I've had is really very good, giving interesting street and bar imagery at night. The problem with the P45+ samples I've seen (3) is they start to lose homogeneity at 400 ISO;  The problems may be due to an insufficient calibration, or bad software

Whether you have an  almost ok one or a bad one seems a lottery.

I guess the P30+ should be really good to at least 400, and if lucky do decent 800 as it is offset a stop due to microlenses. I tested some P30+ demo units prior to buying my P45+, and saw one good one and one bad one.

The sample variation of cameras under bad light is huge.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 05:31:08 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad