Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RAW files: 1Ds3 and Phase P30+  (Read 69287 times)
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #160 on: June 29, 2008, 06:33:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I will certainly have the coming D3x with a 14-24 and a 24-70 to be used for those situations
where my Hy6/75LV is not suitable.
Like those situations discussed previously.

Happy shooting

Cheers,
Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #161 on: June 30, 2008, 02:03:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The type of work most suited to 35mm style cameras does not go well with not having a AA filter, 35mm shooters often shoot greater quantities than MF shooters. If it's wedding photography dealing with moire will seriously restrict workflow.
I have to wonder whether wedding shooters make any signficant part of the target market for 21-24mp 35mm cameras. Most of the ones I've talked to are shooting with 5D, 1DMk2/3, or now the D3 with many anticipating the D700. They seem to feel 12mp is plenty, and they're more concerned about high-ISO, AF, etc. Most high-volume shooters don't want to deal with the filesize of a 20mp camera.

Quote
If the big Nikon came around without an AA it would kill the camera for the type of work it should excel at.
MF is MF it has advantages and disadvantages over 35mm, depending on what and how you shoot will determine wether the advantages or disadvantages come to the front.
I don't agree with that, at least not completely. I think the lines between which cameras should be used for which task are breaking down somewhat with Digital. The 1DsMk3 (and presumably forthcoming high-res Nikon and Sony bodies) have some overlap with the lower end of MF digital. These cameras seem aimed as studio, still life, and landscape users who choose to stick with 35mm format but still want more resolution.

Quote
If slower CCD and no AA filter fit with your photography then a MF is the way to go.
MF has more to offer than extra MP's, it is not however best suited to the type of work I do..... more the pity.
I'm a "serious amateur" who shoots landscapes and nature. Spending $40K on a top-of-the-line  MF digital kit is out of the question. I started considering entry-level MF when Mamiya broke the $10K barrier, but the more I researched and discovered the limitations not only of the ZD back but MF in general, I realized there was no way I could replace my current kit with MF; MF just isn't versatile enough. Maybe if I was a highly-paid professional I could justify using both (and paying an assistant to help me carry all that gear into the field). But as it stands I'm better off sticking with 35mm for now. I'd love to have a view camera and digital back but prices are going to have to come down more.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #162 on: July 01, 2008, 12:49:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Jeff, what are your issues with the image quality?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a fair question.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #163 on: July 01, 2008, 09:26:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not exactly sure what the point of the question is. If it's specifically about the 1DsMk3 (which I've not used, I shoot Nikon), I've already mentioned what I would like to see done differently in such a camera.
Logged

ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #164 on: July 01, 2008, 01:01:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(Panopeeper @ Jun 27 2008, 11:06 PM)
one of the most distinctive features of MFDBs is the higher dynamic range, which is mainly due to the different approach of reading the data


Quote
Does anyone know of a real side-by-side test which demonstrates this? Link? (I am not talking about anecdotal commentary, but an actual test with both cameras in the same room at the same time.) Just curious as to how much difference there is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


No, I haven't seen such testing, but it would be easy enough to do.  It needn't be done side-by-side, current DSLR's have been analyzed already.  Anyone with a MFDB they want tested should provide the following:

1. A pair of identical images of a colorchecker chart (GM is fine, others are probably OK too as long as the squares are big enough), slightly OOF and filling a large part of the frame; lens two stops down from wide open (to minimize vignetting but not to introduce dust bunnies); shot at the camera's base ISO (usually 100); metered properly.  The images should be shot in succession, waiting for the buffer to clear before taking the second one.  Tripod of course, fixed light source uniformly illuminating the target.  

2. Same as (1), but three stops overexposed relative to the metering for (1).

3. Same as (1) but three stops underexposed relative to the metering for (1).

I'm rather busy at the moment but would try to make some time for the analysis if RAW files were  hosted for download somewhere.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2008, 01:02:30 PM by ejmartin » Logged

emil
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #165 on: July 02, 2008, 12:56:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not exactly sure what the point of the question is. If it's specifically about the 1DsMk3 (which I've not used, I shoot Nikon), I've already mentioned what I would like to see done differently in such a camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought maybe he meant that with post processing and sharpening, what is the image quality concern with the 1DS3?
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #166 on: July 02, 2008, 11:02:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I thought maybe he meant that with post processing and sharpening, what is the image quality concern with the 1DS3?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204943\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, sure you can undoubtedly get great results with the 1DS3, but that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement. It seems most MFDB users like the fact that they don't an AA filter in front of their sensor; I don't see why that wouldn't be an attractive option for 20MP+ 35mm DSLR's.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #167 on: July 03, 2008, 02:50:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, sure you can undoubtedly get great results with the 1DS3, but that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement. It seems most MFDB users like the fact that they don't an AA filter in front of their sensor; I don't see why that wouldn't be an attractive option for 20MP+ 35mm DSLR's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You either have one or not, and both would need to be--or may need to be--processed to increase AA or decrease it. Or maybe I'm really not understanding the real detriment of the AA filer.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #168 on: July 06, 2008, 02:44:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, sure you can undoubtedly get great results with the 1DS3, but that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement. It seems most MFDB users like the fact that they don't an AA filter in front of their sensor; I don't see why that wouldn't be an attractive option for 20MP+ 35mm DSLR's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The hotrod 5D images at MaxMax show only a very marginal accutance or resolution improvement compared to images from the unmodified 5D. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that most DBs not only do not have an AA filter, but also have no microlenses.

Microlenses have a slight blurring effect like a weak AA filter. However, the CMOS sensor needs microlenses because the photodiode is relatively small compared with the pixel pitch.

I assume that the CCD photodiode is much larger within the photosite and therefore doesn't require a microlens to direct the incoming photons to the photodiode.

'No AA filter' plus 'no microlens' should add to a more noticeable difference than one sees in the hotrod 5D comparisons where only the AA filter has been removed.

I believe the P30 has microlenses. This fact could partly explain why the differences between the P30 and 1Ds3 are so marginal.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #169 on: July 06, 2008, 04:57:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Try shooting both systems on f22 and we'll talk more......
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #170 on: July 06, 2008, 12:01:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Try shooting both systems on f22 and we'll talk more......
Well, I don't have a 1DsMkIII, nor a P30+, but I wonder if one can demonstrate the change in sharpness between f/11 and f/22 with a P30+ on raw images.

This particular advantage of MFDBs has probably long gone, perhaps even became a disadvantage by now.

Update: I roughly recalculated it. It did not turn into a disadvantage, but the high-density MFDB sensors are reducing the advantage.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2008, 12:08:52 PM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #171 on: July 06, 2008, 12:19:27 PM »
ReplyReply

The 1DsIII becomes noticably softer at f8 which is to be honest very fast.
Maybe not if you shoot alot of outside portraits, but when working in the studio for stilllife or portraiture that CAN become a real problem.
Especially because on f8 it's very noticable but it already kicks in below that.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #172 on: July 06, 2008, 02:02:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 1DsIII becomes noticably softer at f8 which is to be honest very fast
That is certainly very fast. However, this is not normal. It depends on the lens as well.

I can't test it with the 1DsMkIII, but I did test it with my 40D; it has smaller sensels than the 1DsMkIII, i.e. the diffraction effect is larger. Using the 50mm f/1.4, which is probably the most common lens on Canons. The sweet spot is between f/5.6 and f/8; everything else is softer, of course, but that does not reflect diffraction on its own.

F/11 is close to equivalent, f/16 is noticable softer but acceptable for the purpose of DoF, and f/22 is too soft. Viewing the non-demosaiced image, I see about one pixel wide "blur" at the edges with f/22 compared to f/8. Very thin branches almost vanish, others get two pixels thicker with f/22.
Logged

Gabor
csp
Guest
« Reply #173 on: July 06, 2008, 02:24:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 1DsIII becomes noticably softer at f8 which is to be honest very fast.
Maybe not if you shoot alot of outside portraits, but when working in the studio for stilllife or portraiture that CAN become a real problem.
Especially because on f8 it's very noticable but it already kicks in below that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205961\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



this is simply wrong !  far more between 5,6 and 11 you get the higest quality possible
with most L lenses and a 1dsmk3.
Logged
skid00skid00
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #174 on: July 06, 2008, 07:28:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
this is simply wrong !  far more between 5,6 and 11 you get the higest quality possible
with most L lenses and a 1dsmk3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Funny, I can see the difference (and it's not as good) at f11, on my original 1Ds, with 8.8 micron pixels...

Maybe you are looking at out-of-cam jpgs, or incorrectly processing your RAW files?
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #175 on: July 07, 2008, 12:51:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Try shooting both systems on f22 and we'll talk more......
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank,
Why would I want to compare two scenes with a different DoF? From the time I first started posting in the MF section of the forum, I got a distinct impression that many MFDB users do not appreciate the fact that different size sensors require the use of different F stops.

To take a more extreme example to illustrate the point, do you think it would be sensible if I were to compare the 12mp Canon G9 P&S with the 12mp Canon 450D using both cameras at F8?

Matching vertical FoVs, the P30 should be stopped down approximately one stop in relation to the 1Ds3.

I don't believe the 1Ds3 would provide any more resolution than the 5D when used at F16. Likewise, I don't believe a P45 would provide any more detail than a P25 when both are used at f16 or F22.

Someone please do a comparison to prove me wrong   .
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #176 on: July 07, 2008, 01:20:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Funny, I can see the difference (and it's not as good) at f11, on my original 1Ds, with 8.8 micron pixels...

Maybe you are looking at out-of-cam jpgs, or incorrectly processing your RAW files?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You have to be specific when referring to such marginal differences; which lens at F11 compared to which F stop? At apertures wider than F11, lenses vary considerably in performance. Most seem to be sharpest somewhere between F5.6 and F8. A few really good lenses are sharpest at F4. Even fewer may be equally sharp at F2.8 and F8. However, when this occurs, the lens that's equally sharp at both F2.8 and F8 might not be quite as sharp at F8 as some other lenses which are not as good at F2.8.

It's generally considered true that all 'good' 35mm lenses will begin to show the effects of diffraction as one stops down beyond F8, but just how noticeable that difference is will depend on sensor size, the lens quality and the detail and contrast of the target. The resolution difference between F8 and F16 should be far more noticeable on the 450D than on the 1Ds or 5D, shooting the same target with the same lens from the same distance.

The extra pixels of the 1Ds3 are essentially wasted at F16. You should get just as sharp and detailed results with the 1Ds at that aperture.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #177 on: July 07, 2008, 01:32:36 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...p?t=6103&page=3

See reply 23
It's an extreme sample, but sort like stories have been appearing on several sites.
I tested a 1DsIII a while ago and also found that f11 was noticable softer that f8 and this was with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #178 on: July 07, 2008, 02:10:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...p?t=6103&page=3

See reply 23
It's an extreme sample, but sort like stories have been appearing on several sites.
I tested a 1DsIII a while ago and also found that f11 was noticable softer that f8 and this was with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank,
Makes sense to me. When I moved from the 8mp 20D to the 5D, I was surprised I could use F16 with minimal loss of resolution with the 5D. With the 20D I would hesitate to stop down beyond F8 because I knew there would be a trade-off. I'd be sacrificing sharpness for the benefit of additional DoF.

The 1Ds3 has similar pixel density to the 20D. Resolution (ie. lp/mm) does not care about sensor size, only pixel density or pixel pitch. The same principles that apply to the 20D will apply to the 1Ds3. Softening of the image will appear at the same F stops using the same lens.
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #179 on: July 07, 2008, 09:52:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Frank,
Makes sense to me. When I moved from the 8mp 20D to the 5D, I was surprised I could use F16 with minimal loss of resolution with the 5D. With the 20D I would hesitate to stop down beyond F8 because I knew there would be a trade-off. I'd be sacrificing sharpness for the benefit of additional DoF.

The 1Ds3 has similar pixel density to the 20D. Resolution (ie. lp/mm) does not care about sensor size, only pixel density or pixel pitch. The same principles that apply to the 20D will apply to the 1Ds3. Softening of the image will appear at the same F stops using the same lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Off the wall question here..
How does the 1DsMIII shoot tethered since it has no firewire now? Is it through USB Now and if so.. isn't that slower than Firewire and more problematic?
Just was wondering..
Snook
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad