Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony A900 vs Hassy H3 vs Mamiya AFDiii  (Read 27013 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7900


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2008, 01:39:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would suggest that the comparisons we see are valid. I don't think they are tweaked. A couple of test pictures cannot evaluate all aspects of an imaging system. In my thinking there are essentially two approaches to testing:

1) Shoot real scenes with the equipment and find out if you like it or not.
2) Construct artificial scenes to evaluate different aspects of imaging and evaluate with some kind of standardized methods.

I have downloaded a couple of the images discussed on this forum, and I'd suggest that I can see a definite advantage regarding sharpness for the A900. We need to keep in mind that it's not just the body, the lenses are much cheaper than Hassy lenses, at least when aperture is taken into account.

I'd suggest that the sharpness advantage I see on the A900 is probably more related to lens performance than sensor performance and possibly focusing issues. Attaining perfect focus is known to be very difficult.

Erik


Quote from: Ray
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

design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2008, 05:18:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: AndreNapier
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

Thank you Andre
Excellent summary,I am not able to write this better.
   
I'm going to take a few photos...

Best regards,

Design Freak

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

Best regards,
DF

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

Posts: 1696


« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2008, 11:50:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Processed them both in Capure One 4.5.1 - looks quite different.
ACR is not the ideal converter for Phase DBs from my point of view.

Both without sharpening (no further color adjustments; just white balance); crop from center

A900
[attachment=9400:DSC00191.jpg]

H/P30
[attachment=9401:CF015373.jpg]
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 11:51:15 AM by tho_mas » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2008, 12:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
If Capture One is the ideal converter for Phase DB's, why do I still see the same color artifacts and also white specks this time? (Apart from the very mushy look.)
you should address these questions to Phase One ;-)

as to the color artifacts there seems to be more than just moiree.
I don't have artifacts like these with my P45 (though moiree periodically).
as to the "mushy" look it's easy to adjust everything like you want it to look like...
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 12:23:27 PM by tho_mas » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2440



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2008, 12:36:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Shooting an albeit older phase p20 myself, there is no question in my mind that phase software will yield the best conversion for phase backs - however I find that the older 3.79 version is still better for some types of images and one of the areas its better at than LR/ACR is the color artifacts in small detail areas.

Eric

Logged

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

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2008, 12:48:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I didn't think the images were that close, and without providing raw files for download the whole workflow is thrown into question.
Logged

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

Posts: 1696


« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2008, 01:00:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
however I find that the older 3.79 version is still better for some types of images and one of the areas its better at than LR/ACR is the color artifacts in small detail areas.
Here's the H/P30 file again out of V3:
[attachment=9402:CF015373_v3.jpg]
And with a little color noise reduction:
[attachment=9403:CF015373_v3_cn.jpg]
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2008, 01:08:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tho_mas
Processed them both in Capure One 4.5.1 - looks quite different.
ACR is not the ideal converter for Phase DBs from my point of view.

Both without sharpening (no further color adjustments; just white balance); crop from center

A900
[attachment=9400:DSC00191.jpg]

H/P30
[attachment=9401:CF015373.jpg]

hi thomas,
i dont believe that the phase file is not sharpened. ofcourse i dont have doubts that YOU havent applied usm, but in this case it seems as p1 adds as default usm to its files as soon it realises ( in exif )  that a phaseone file is converted.

i applied to the sony file 250% 0,5 usm in photoshop. it looks decent sharpened with this setting without any oversharpening effects at 100% pixelpeep view.
if i apply the same to the p30 file it looks very oversharpened. to all unsharpened mf- raw files i know its possible to apply small radius sizes 0,3-05 in a 200% - 250% amount without showing any oversharpening artefacts, something seems to be wrong here with the "unsharpened" p30 file.
if i apply app. 90% 0,5radius to the p30 file it seems to be the maximum which it can get without oversharpened look.
but in this case the a900 file looks smaller but similar sharp. shadows are similar ( if raised up ),- unfortunately with an edge for the sony.
further are the color artefacts in the p30 files everything else than pleasing, and look like a not very good bayer processing algorythm- they are not (only) the result of the absent aa filter.

sony with 250% 0,5 radius
[attachment=9408:DSC00191...50_0_5_2.jpg]



P30 with 250% 0,5 radius
[attachment=9410:CF015373...d250_0_5.jpg]



P30 with 90% 0,5 radius
[attachment=9409:CF015373...ed90_0_5.jpg]
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 01:34:39 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2008, 01:33:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
i dont believe that the phase file is not sharpened. ofcourse i dont have doubts that YOU havent applied usm, but in this case it seems as p1 adds as default usm to its files as soon it realises ( in exif )  that a phaseone file is converted
Hi Rainer,

I don't know. Actually I doubt that the Phase One software guys are smart enough to code something like that in that buggy piece of software...
When I compare the P30 shot from V3 and V4 I think there is something wrong with the conversion of the P30 in V4 (might be just as well my fault).
I V3 there is always some sharpening applied even with the sliders set to zero as long as you don't disable sharpening on ouptut in the preferences (with all cameras).
But I disabled sharpening on output both in V3 and V4 here ...
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2008, 01:36:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tho_mas
Hi Rainer,

I don't know. Actually I doubt that the Phase One software guys are smart enough to code something like that in that buggy piece of software...
When I compare the P30 shot from V3 and V4 I think there is something wrong with the conversion of the P30 in V4 (might be just as well my fault).
I V3 there is always some sharpening applied even with the sliders set to zero as long as you don't disable sharpening on ouptut in the preferences (with all cameras).
But I disabled sharpening on output both in V3 and V4 here ...
looks as they tweaked their software  to get most sharpness as possible and they didnt care the price they pay with artefacts.
the p30 file looks very bad for me,- but sharp.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2008, 01:38:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I suspect that the Phase Software does a similar trick with noise reduction, which causes all sorts of problems when doing side by side comparisons with other digital backs. There's no level playing field.
Logged

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

Posts: 1696


« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2008, 01:47:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
looks as they tweaked their software  to get most sharpness as possible and they didnt care the price they pay with artefacts. the p30 file looks very bad for me,- but sharp.
as it is the same chip as that of my P45 ... to me it looks quite bad, too. Overall.
But that's always hard to tell if you don't know about the conditions.
Logged
Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2008, 04:04:53 PM »
ReplyReply

mhecker
Despite all the naysayers on this thread, it should come as no surprise to members of this forum that the A900 has nearly closed the gap with MFDBs. All they need do is read MR's comparison of the Canon G10 to his Hassy (albeit under ideal conditions) to realize that Sony's accomplishment was inevitable. Even the A900 has some shortcomings (e.g. high ISO noise). I would have thought that the professionals who own MDFBs would not react to your data the way amateur fanboys do on other sites. Progress is to be expected.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2008, 04:29:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kenneth Sky
Progress is to be expected.
Probably soon with the A900 itself. The A700 was getting better and better from firmware 1.0 to 4.0 now. I think the next A900 firmware update will adress color noise in high ISO.
If you consider that you "save" about two f stops in ISO according to the anti shake chip (actually you shoot at ISO400 when the 1DsIII or 5DII is set to ISO1600), consider the great ZA and G lenses and consider the really outstanding viewfinder... the A900 is by far the most interessting DLSR currently from my point of view.

Logged
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2008, 05:20:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
perhaps the reviewer was biased (I think it to be very likely), but whatever his bias was, .

I think his bias  is pretty clear by way of his signature


"Jacek red Bonecki
Polish film, photographer, journalist and television producer.
Honorary Ambassador of Sony. "
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2008, 06:10:38 PM »
ReplyReply

The "official" rep from Sinar has nothing to say. Why should I have to intervene or justify myself regarding such a comparison? I prefer making such tests myself, or knowing that all shooting parameters and factors are the same, IF I feel like wanting to compare. I do never throw conclusions from a test when I have not seen/done it myself.

Whatever the conditions of the test are, the A900 file looks good, but I know also that I have seen better results coming out of a 16 MPx old back.

On the other side, and this has been said by many, there is much more than just comparing what has been compared here. And what has been said by Rainer and Graham is exactly the same experience I have myself (sharpening/NR)

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: EPd
And what I find more worrying is that the official representatives (who are always jumping in by droves when their reputation is at stake) keep very, very quiet this time.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 06:11:32 PM by thsinar » Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1143


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2008, 09:46:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
Thierry,



It was nice of you to chime in, but I was actually more aiming at the representatives whose products are at stake here: Hasselblad and Phase One (just let's forget about the Mamiya input since anyone can see that the unit is defective). David Grover complained that he needed RAW files. Now that these are available I would like to hear his further comments. Also, if there is something to say about the bad artifacts of the Phase One back I would like to hear someone knowledgeable to provide some antidote. In the Polish comparison Steve Hendrix hastened to say that Phase One had nothing to do with it, but now that Phase has something to do with the other comparison and leaves a very bad impression we don't hear from him anymore. Sometimes the MF threads here on LL seem to be completely salesmen driven, but when some rational comments from them would be wished for (as in this case) they keep silent. It's what some governments do as well: just refrain from any comments and everything will blow over one day. I wish Michael would make a separate sales representatives corner where we all could go if we needed them, but that the other threads would be kept clean from their littering. At least they wouldn't have to excuse themselves for not showing up in threads like these.



EPd


Well, my only interest was in clarifying whether Phase One was part of the test or not. In one of the tests, there was a Mamiya ZD, which was referred to as Mamiya AFDIII, and some assumed it was matched with a Phase One back. That's really my only interest. The reason that is so is because if I sell someone a product that I believe offers superior image quality, I would not prove it by a 1 shot example, especially without raw files. As far as the file itself goes, I pulled the raws into Capture One and I see nothing to criticize, except that I think that 80mm HC lens has been dropped because the right side is significantly softer than the left. I'm referring to files CF015369 and CF015371.

To be clear, I have never criticized image quality from 35mm DSLR's. I've shot with them enough myself, and many (in fact most) of my medium format customers also shoot 35mm on occasion, so I know what they are capable of and they are very good and certainly offer good bang for the buck. I would also say that over the course of many jobs with different subject matter, lighting situations, and post capture treatment, there is no question medium format provides superior quality (except for high ISO, of course, but even then it depends on which DB). That said, in many situations 35mm is quite close and obviously the majority of the market think it's close enough, and also the price is right.

Despite that, most photographers who shoot medium format digital do not wish to part with their MF cameras and shoot exclusively 35mm. They do wish medium format would step up its evolution (and I have the same hope), but generally they are not willing to accept the lower, though acceptable, quality of 35mm and they value the positive aspects of shooting medium format above and beyond image quality - large bright viewfinders, film shooting options, technical or view camera options, high-performance lenses, optimized tethered workflow, and so on.

I've done the same type of comparison tests between 35mm and medium format. Often the results are pretty close, as in these posted tests. Sometimes, 35mm is significantly lacking. I've had these results pointed out to me by my customers as well. So, yeah, it's one shot and one type of shot, and the Sony seems to hold up pretty well in this shot (without looking at the Sony raws). But it doesn't convince me that over many jobs, the P30 is not going to be superior in nearly all if not all of them.


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

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 03, 2008, 01:11:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EPd
Thierry,

It was nice of you to chime in, but I was actually more aiming at the representatives whose products are at stake here: Hasselblad and Phase One (just let's forget about the Mamiya input since anyone can see that the unit is defective). David Grover complained that he needed RAW files. Now that these are available I would like to hear his further comments. Also, if there is something to say about the bad artifacts of the Phase One back I would like to hear someone knowledgeable to provide some antidote. In the Polish comparison Steve Hendrix hastened to say that Phase One had nothing to do with it, but now that Phase has something to do with the other comparison and leaves a very bad impression we don't hear from him anymore. Sometimes the MF threads here on LL seem to be completely salesmen driven, but when some rational comments from them would be wished for (as in this case) they keep silent. It's what some governments do as well: just refrain from any comments and everything will blow over one day. I wish Michael would make a separate sales representatives corner where we all could go if we needed them, but that the other threads would be kept clean from their littering. At least they wouldn't have to excuse themselves for not showing up in threads like these.

EPd

Forgive me but it was the weekend.    

Ill look for the RAW files and see whats what.

As Steve says I have absolutely no criticism of 35mm systems.  I don't see any reason why I would.

Best,


David


Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 03, 2008, 01:20:50 AM »
ReplyReply

@ EpD..

As design_freak explained these are files from a P30 - Phase One.

They cannot be processed in Phocus as this is Hasselblad software for our H3D, CF, CFV etc etc.  When I 'complained' (I would rather say asked) if there was raw files I was referring to the original test.

Others have made a few exports from Capture One and I would assume they would be far more experienced than me in using this software.

If they happen to shoot with an H3D31 I will gladly stick my oar in.  I believe it would be 'littering the thread' (to quote) if I was to make comments on a product which is not mine.

Best,



David
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 02:44:58 AM by David Grover / Hasselblad » Logged

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

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2008, 02:08:40 AM »
ReplyReply

steve:
i would like to hear something about my thoughts i wrote above about the default sharpening of p30 files in p1 and the strong bayer artefacts the cropfile shows.
thanks...
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 02:56:27 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad