Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony A900 vs Hassy H3 vs Mamiya AFDiii  (Read 24733 times)
mhecker*
Contributor
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« on: October 31, 2008, 10:39:20 AM »
ReplyReply

An informal test by a working photographer of the 3 cameras.

See http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...sl=pl&tl=en

Full resolution 16 bit TIF's are available for download.   100-240MB each!    

I'll let the shots speak for themselves....
Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 811


« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2008, 10:45:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Brian Smith, who posts here sometimes, humorously, is your resident Sony Spokesman.

He might shed some light on this comparison. He also shoots the A75.
Logged
heinrichvoelkel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 357


« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2008, 11:27:36 AM »
ReplyReply

the hassy is the 39Mp and the mamiya the ZDII. it is all there in the text

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2008, 04:24:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, it's a pity I don't speak Spanish, Polish, Italian and so on because a lot of good stuff is written in languages unfamiliar to me.

Erik

Quote from: John Schweikert
Yes, I missed the tiny page numbers. All in the text and what lovely translational Google text it is: "In the comparable picture quality, Picture of the election system in practice decide the economic factors, as well as the requirements of customers." and so much more.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2008, 01:10:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have downloaded some of the images (the bearded man against dark background). I compared the images without knowing which one was which. In my view the Sony A900 image was preferable quality wise to the Hassy/P39.
 

Erik

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Well, it's a pity I don't speak Spanish, Polish, Italian and so on because a lot of good stuff is written in languages unfamiliar to me.

Erik
Logged

David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 940



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2008, 05:11:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Mmmmm... Interesting test especially with the colourful translation!  

I don't know what they did with the P30/AFD shot to get that big streak on the right hand side... did they not mount the back properly?  Can't think there would be any other reason which makes me wonder how used they were to these cameras.

I had a look at the metadata on the H3D shot.  Lens was listed as a CF110mm lens.  Not that this is a bad lens I just wonder why they didn't use an H lens?

Also they processed everything through Camera Raw.  I can't speak for Phase One but the quality of conversion is waaaay poor compared to using Phocus.  You can see that easily with the noise levels in the shadows.

Also I reckon they are about a stop under with the histogram being all bunched up to the left.

Looking at the Sony file it is pretty good!  I do note though there is absolutely nothing left in the blacks though.

So it would be nice to have the raw file and do a Phocus conversion and compare.  Would be interesting for the P30 as well.

Anyone speak Polish?  

Cheers on a rainy Saturday,



David

EDIT - Oh!  I see it was a ZDII so disregard what I said earlier re the P30.


« Last Edit: November 01, 2008, 05:12:45 AM by David Grover / Hasselblad » Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1032


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2008, 12:39:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
Mmmmm... Interesting test especially with the colourful translation!  

I don't know what they did with the P30/AFD shot to get that big streak on the right hand side... did they not mount the back properly?  Can't think there would be any other reason which makes me wonder how used they were to these cameras.


David

EDIT - Oh!  I see it was a ZDII so disregard what I said earlier re the P30.


Correct - let's make this perfectly clear that is a ZD file (which looks horrible) and Phase One was not part of this test.

Thanks for editing David.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2008, 03:20:24 PM »
ReplyReply



Yes, the MFDB makers do have to worry seriously about the a900 and the lenses available for it. This camera performes best at the same ISO values as most MFDBs do, making it a great studio- and controlled location camera. I do have an a900 myself with some of the best lenses available for 35mm and I have to confirm the findings of the comparison. Being a medium format photographer too (Rollei 6000 system) I can see only one way to go for the MFDB makers: full 6x6 (or bigger) sensors. Otherwise they'd better fold.
[/quote]

Very true.  Now that the Zeiss lenses are available for Canon's hi rez cameras as well, the game is REALLY changing.  Every time one of teh Japanese makers innovates, the advantages of MF erode further.

Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2008, 03:38:55 PM »
ReplyReply

The world is changing for the better in a very fast way as we can see.... A company that never produced a decent ccd ( at least not at canon, dalsa or kodak level) now introduced to the world a semi pro camera that has such an incredible image quality ( as said by some people) that we now can trow away or MF systems........
Do we really believe this or could it be that maybe it is just a hype of the moment?Huh The 1DsMk3 is also a capable beast but nowere near a H3d. I think it is more of what we have seen in the past: at the end size really matters.  
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2008, 05:06:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi All
I can only smile after reading this article. The most funny thing is that Mr Bonecki rent this equipment from us, and didn't  want assistant from our side because it is too expensive. Why they don;t ask me about doing the test Huh  I will do it for free and the test will be more reliable. I know this equipment inside and out. If a photographer does not read messages on the display and can not cope with the hardware. Let them do not write that it is equipment. ( They call to me during this session, because they connect the camera with newer firmware to computer with older software and start loading older ver. of firmware and they have problem with it ). In my opinion it is not professional.
 I can;t believe that the files of the Mamiya ZD is so bad. It is probably lack of knowledge.
Why they converting files to DNG?? Why they don't ask Hasselblad and Mamiya guys  to do the test ?? Who believe that A900 has a better dynamic range, better colors? Who believe that H3DII has bad display where colors are not correct ?? ( Everybody who has this camera in the hand know that is not a true) Who believe that Mamiya is so bad? At the end of this test: specialist of large format printer write  that MFDB is dead.  LOL
It is not professional. Clearly feel that it is advertorial.  It is so Polish...
Anyway - Believe me, we have good specialists in Poland too :-)

Design Freak

------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
------------------------------------

Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2008, 05:27:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
To David Grover:

Here is another comparison (from an owner of both systems) between a900 with Carl Zeiss zoom (24-75) and H1 with P30 and 80mm H-lens. IMO the Sony puts Hassy to shame. This time round the poster makes raw files of both tests available for download. Please show us what you can do in Phocus with both files to convince us of the superiority of the Hassy-Phase combo.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29852201

EPd

P.S.: PhaseOne reps are free to try their best with their own software as well, of course. I'm all eyes.

LOL
It's really nice... Do you know Hasselblad products? Probably you don;t know. We produce H3DII not P30, so why you ask us to do something in Phocus software ?? Phocus is our raw converter to processing hasselblad files. It makes sense to compare discontinue hardware ?? ( from 2 years ) Please note that camera is a tool like a car for a taxi driver. If you want to be a taxi driver, you probably buy big sedan or van not a supercar. MFDB give us maximum possible quallity in the studio. We use lowest possible ISO  ( 50, 100) and get the best quality. If you want to shoot with high iso you need nikon d3. Please compare a900 with H3DII at lowest possible ISO and look at 100% view...


Design Freak

-------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
-------------------------------------
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2008, 05:33:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
Every time one of teh Japanese makers innovates, the advantages of MF erode further.

Wake me up if Canikony every makes a 48x36mm or larger sensor, if they have 1/1000 flash sync or faster, if the dynamic range is 12 bits or higher, if the files are 16 bit or more, if there is fast and rock-solid tethering, if there is no AA filter, and if the lenses to cover those sensors are better than my Rollei lenses. Until then these comparisons are just putting me to sleep. No amount of pixels or HD movie modes or facial recognition features are going to change that!
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2008, 06:19:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
Here is another comparison (from an owner of both systems) between a900 with Carl Zeiss zoom (24-75) and H1 with P30 and 80mm H-lens. IMO the Sony puts Hassy to shame. This time round the poster makes raw files of both tests available for download. Please show us what you can do in Phocus with both files to convince us of the superiority of the Hassy-Phase combo.

Please go back and look again. There is something seriously and obviously wrong with the H1/P30/80mm results. He has just posted another shot with the 35mm lens, and this one is sharper and higher res than the A900 shot, as it should be (no AA filter, 31MP vs. 24MP, yadda yadda). One might well argue that the A900 is a hell of a lot of bang for the buck, that it is enough for many tasks, that it yields nearly as good results in many situations, that it is easier to use, possibly that it is more reliable, but it does not have higher IQ, and I don't believe that there is a lot more resolution to be had with the 35mm form factor than what the 1Ds3 and A900 give, whereas MF still has room, in case someone needs resolution. The A900 also has only 12 bits, so under heavy editing it might posterize. Time will show. It apparently also has some noise in the shadows, although I cannot confirm this, not owning one.
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2307



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2008, 07:05:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Graham,
Down load the files - the amazing thing is the level of detail is close in all three and actually if any of them stand out as being bad its the ZD file.   It's actually really impressive for the Sony.  Looks like all files were under exposed and you can see the lower amount of DR in the Sony, but it comes up big on color and detail.  To take away the color differences, I desaturated them all and compared again.  They all look pretty good, but probably my pick is then the Hasselblad, then the mamiya and then the sony, but I'd guess this is because of the lens character more than anything.  I do think the MF lenses offer a different look.  

Certainly there are other tests that might be able to show the strengths of the MF cameras - I'm guessing that with the tiny pixels on the Sony that anything with small apertures is going to suffer and probably most MFDB's are going to have about 2 stops more DR, maybe 3 so subjects with rich color or light extremes are going to be captured better - but I'm very impressed with the Sony.  Has anyone compared it to a 1Ds3?

Eric


Logged

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

Posts: 581



« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2008, 07:30:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
Why do the MF solutions in these different comparisons need so many excuses all the time? "Something must be wrong with the lens", "Something must be wrong with the focus", "Something must be wrong with the RAW conversion", et cetera. We have at least 5 official representatives of MFDB makers here in this forum, but none has convincingly shown so far that their offerings can simply win hands down from the Sony a900, without needing an entire team of factory technicians to make their product work.

This is very case-dependent. Look at how long it took Canon to even admit that the 1D mark III was not focusing right, and then only under pressure from Rob Galbraith. There is no general truth in such a statement. This guy happens to have an 80mm H lens which doesn't focus right. That has also happened to Zeiss and Sony.
Logged

design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2008, 08:26:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
Well, I do know Hasselblad's current offerings (and as I wrote I am an MF user myself), but I do not work with them. That's why I ask official Hasselblad people to take the RAW files and debunk the impression if it is wrong. Yes, I know that a P30 is a Phase One back. That's why I wrote the post scriptum. But all you can do is telling us that we need to invest another 45k euros and use it only in a well lit studio at lowest ISO and then we might see some win over a cheap 35mm DSLR. Not very convincing.

Why do the MF solutions in these different comparisons need so many excuses all the time? "Something must be wrong with the lens", "Something must be wrong with the focus", "Something must be wrong with the RAW conversion", et cetera. We have at least 5 official representatives of MFDB makers here in this forum, but none has convincingly shown so far that their offerings can simply win hands down from the Sony a900, without needing an entire team of factory technicians to make their product work.

We don't telling you that you must invest any money to anything.
 I wrote that we can;t process p1 files... and that I don;t see sense to test a900 and compare it with P30 that is from 2 years discontinue.
I think that H3DII is very easy to operate, especially with Phocus software. But we need to know basic things. If somebody work first time with equipment it is not good time to do the tests. Because he don;t know the equipment!!  ( Polish Sony Ambasador test comparing A900 with Hasselblad and Mamiya) Believe me, this equipment don;t need factory technicians to work. I don;t tell that A900 is bad, but telling people that it is better that 39mpix camera, that A900 have better dynamic range, reproduction of colors are better, that lenses are better.. It;s simply not true. I know this camera cost 2k Euro. If we get that quality for 2k Euro it;s very nice, but we can;t telling that in this fact this equipment is better.  


Design Freak
-------------------------------------
Work hard and be nice to people
-------------------------------------
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2008, 09:22:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ixpressraf
The world is changing for the better in a very fast way as we can see.... A company that never produced a decent ccd ( at least not at canon, dalsa or kodak level) now introduced to the world a semi pro camera that has such an incredible image quality ( as said by some people) that we now can trow away or MF systems........
Do we really believe this or could it be that maybe it is just a hype of the moment?Huh The 1DsMk3 is also a capable beast but nowere near a H3d. I think it is more of what we have seen in the past: at the end size really matters.  

  This is quite a statement.  All of Sony's APS-C CCDs have done very, very well in low to mid ISO applications, with Canon separating itself with high ISO.  I wouldn't imagine that high ISO situations are applicable in this discussion.

  About the A900, I wanted to point out that the camera gets another 1 EV of DR at ISO 160-200 over ISO 100, so this isn't the best we can see out of the A900, either.  Also, in regards to the A900 vs. P30 test, the Zeiss 24-70 lens being used is at f8, but it's optimum aperture is f4.  I'm not saying this stuff would make a drastic difference, but if we're gonna point out problems with the MFDB setups, we should point out this stuff with the A900, too.  


Logged
AndreNapier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2008, 10:26:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Since I am Polish myself I have read the entire article and its conclusions in the original version. I find it as bias as it can possibly be. The tone of the language further proves that there is an agenda here. By the way to me personally the results are a joke. Here in LL we all know that Sony is better  than any DB but still not as good as 5D.
http://AndreNapier.com
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2008, 11:14:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I really don't know why some of you guys have so much trouble with your methodology when comparing equipment. I've frequently got a sense of great irrationality in this process, where MFDBs are involved.

It's almost as though the act of spending $100,000 on a camera is itself an act of irrationality that carries over to all comparisons with other equipment that might be considerably cheaper but almost of equal quality.
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2008, 12:56:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
Graham,
Down load the files - the amazing thing is the level of detail is close in all three and actually if any of them stand out as being bad its the ZD file.

Hi Eric, I guess what I was trying to say is that it doesn't matter to me if the Sony has caught up to MFDB in the resolution game - there are other reasons why MFDB will be a better choice for some people. All I see are tests which compare resolution. Let's see some tests showing all other aspects of performance.

As for the price difference, the Sinar eMotion54 I use is now only €6K new. It's really not that much more than the Sony if you're a pro making your income from the camera for the next few years and you happen to need the advantages of a MF system.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 12:57:18 AM by foto-z » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad