Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Aptus 22 vs 5DII  (Read 86788 times)
John Schweikert
Guest
« on: December 01, 2008, 03:44:49 PM »
ReplyReply

---
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 05:58:07 PM by John-S » Logged
arashm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2008, 04:32:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks
downloading right now
am
Logged
jimgolden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2008, 05:04:11 PM »
ReplyReply

wow - better than I thought it'd be. AA filter creeps in to make a bit softer and color skews red (typical for 5D) but looks damn good IMO...

thx man
Logged
hauxon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33



« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2008, 07:16:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
Screenshot jpegs to show just how close the color is between the two when using calibration profiles from the Adobe DNG Profile Editor. While these could certainly be sharpened more, they're  just for color matching.

....images....

I do think there is a lot more 'richness' in the Aptus files. The Canon might get that with more massaging. The Aptus shadows are much better than the Canon shadows. That's one area I am disappointed with the Canon. Open the shadows on an ISO 100 5DII frame and it's just not as clean as I thought current sensors would be. A testament to the six year old Dalsa 22 sensor.

The less 'richness' might be the a result of using a $90 lens on the 5DII.  You would be getting more "pop" and better color when using a proper lens like the 50/1.2 L (but probably same sharpness).  Still very nice of you to do the test, the images are surprisingly similar considering how different the cameras are.   Now I would like to see competitive prices on those 'old technology' 22MP backs.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2008, 08:14:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
I do think there is a lot more 'richness' in the Aptus files. The Canon might get that with more massaging. The Aptus shadows are much better than the Canon shadows. That's one area I am disappointed with the Canon. Open the shadows on an ISO 100 5DII frame and it's just not as clean as I thought current sensors would be. A testament to the six year old Dalsa 22 sensor.

John,
I also get the impression that the Aptus files have better shadows, which can be seen if one greatly lightens the darkest parts of both images using 'levels'.

But that's what one would expect with the larger format. As one moves up the scale from the smallest P&S to the largest DB, there's an increase in DR and a lowering of shadow noise at base ISO, with each increase in format size. I notice this even when comparing a modern Canon 50D with the 3 1/2 year old 5D. The 5D with a sensor area 2.6x that of the 50D, is significantly better in the shadows.

I don't see differences in richness of color being an issue. Isn't this why we have editing programs like Photoshop, and vibrancy sliders in ACR?

From my perspective, I see no significant IQ differences between the two images. In another scene where dynamic range and shadow noise were issues, I would prefer to use the larger format.

Thanks for doing the comparison. If you have the time, it would be interesting to see how the images compares at wide apertures, say F2 with the Canon lens and F2.8 with the Mamiya   .
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2008, 08:39:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
Any preference of what part of the scene to focus on at the wide apertures? It's still setup and wouldn't take too long to do sometime tomorrow.

I guess any of the two bottles in the centre might be appropriate. The text should make it clear which system has the resolution advantage. My bet would be on the Aptus with Mamiya lens producing the better result   .
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2008, 08:53:06 PM »
ReplyReply

there is never a way to make that perfect comparison....
maybe one can get that extra whatever/color/crispness with just a different developer....maybe a different lens gets a little extra...

i have owned both phase and leaf backs and have always considered the backs to be superior to the DSLRs.....not anymore...i agree that there is an extra crispness and DR in the newer higher rez backs that one just does not get in the DSLR files, but there is just so much more to photography then that....i can shoot at least 3 stops faster with my dsIII then with any MF system i have ever owned just considering how fast the lenses are and handholding...regardless...apples and oranges......

but it is just plain stupid to look at both these files and not be amazed by how much things have changed....how much was that aptus about a year ago? how much is that 5II now? how fast can it shoot, and it does HD as well? and it has a great screen on the back....

i really would love to see sales numbers for MF backs  for every month starting in 2008 going through jan 2009.....it cannot look good....

it would have been a lot more fun to see these files without labels.....
and i would love to see a 400 iso aptus file compared to a 1600 canon file.....
Logged

arashm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2008, 11:44:33 PM »
ReplyReply

it would have been a lot more fun to see these files without labels.....
and i would love to see a 400 iso aptus file compared to a 1600 canon file.....
[/quote]


To the OP
is that too much to ask for, if you have some time to spare in the studio?  
thanks
am
Logged
Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2008, 12:12:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Considering that the 5D is a fraction of the cost of the Aptus 22, the 5D looks pretty darn good. The Aptus shows better shadow detail and is sharper. If all I wanted was resolution, I'd sell my Aptus 22/Hassie combo and go with a 5D. A photographer I respect was going off about how the 5D MII looked way better than a MFDB file he compared it to. Don't know what file he was looking at but that's clearly not the case here.

John
Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2008, 02:24:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the comparison, John.

A few comments:

1. The 5D2 shot is much lower exposed than the Aptus. I am not talking about the aperture and shutter but about the light gathered by the sensor. See the attached raw histograms.

Pls note, that ACR adds 0.4 EV to the 5D2 shot, so the difference appears less. This automatic adjustment is not visible on the "exposure" slider of ACR.

2. The spectral characteristics of the Bayern filters are vastly different (I assume the illumination was the same for both shots). This affects not only the noise but the colors as well.

3. The difference in noise is due to the lower exposure, which is partly due to the filters. See the third and fourth attachments: the red component on the black square is at the 5.47th stop from saturation, the noise is 5.6% in the Aptus image. The same area is in the 7.18th stop with the 5D2, the noise is 7.9%.

4. The 5D2 has much less noise at equal illumination of the sensel. See the last attachment: on another square, where the red is in the 5.36th stop, the noise is only 3.2%.

So, the question is, why the lower exposure of the 5D2 shot. Is the transmissivity of the 50mm f/1.8 lense so bad? Are the color filters so much more dense?

Added:

Darn, the attachments are different order than uploaded.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 02:33:37 AM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2008, 06:05:00 AM »
ReplyReply

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 08:20:41 AM by gwhitf » Logged
archivue
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2008, 07:07:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Aptus 22 is by far better at Iso25 or 50... so for a studio test, you should have use low iso settings.

I'm shure that for hight iso, the aptus isn't the way to go !

But i still raising money to buy an aptus for my architecturals shots...
A Canon body and tse lenses are far inferior to rodenstock digital lendes and a back !

Logged
Conner999
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 471


« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2008, 07:22:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Well said

I don't shoot a MFDB but the one thing that does jump out at me between the various shots is the greater sense of 'depth' or dimensionality (a.k.a. 3D effect) in the Aptus files.  You also don't notice the downsides of an AA filter  until you do such a side-by-side test.  

Quote from: gwhitf
A few months ago, I did a similar comparison as Mr. Schweikert has done, between my Contax/P30+ and my new 1ds3. I found pretty much the same thing, that in terms of resolution, the 1ds3 held its own just as well if not better, with proper processing. The test was done with strobe, on a tripod, locked down, in a methodical way. The only thing I'd recommend for John Schweikert is to not test with that gold-ring cheap 50 1.8. It's just not fair.

Yet, even after all this testing, I find that there's still something that says, "Screw all this testing", and simply choose the camera that you're the most comfortable shooting with, and working with. In the end, by the time you make a bad Epson print, even with ImagePrint or ColorBurst, or you give the file to the client for CMYK, all that pixel peeping on the monitor gets thrown out the window, and the field gets levelled. Nobody is going to pay you one red cent for the way that file looks on your monitor.

I would not pick a camera based on the cost. I would pick the camera that synced up with my spirit, and made me grab it and head out the door to shoot photographs. It truly could be as simple as that. Test all you want, but in the end, you'll know which one is right, even if it's an old wooden Deardorff with holders. If you're excited about what you shoot, you're going to find a way to squeeze every last ounce out of that file.

http://interviewmagazine.com/art/william-eggleston/

As affordable as the 5DII is, you truly could just "keep one in the glove compartment".
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 07:29:21 AM by Conner999 » Logged
antonyoung
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2008, 07:52:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
Yet, even after all this testing, I find that there's still something that says, "Screw all this testing", and simply choose the camera that you're the most comfortable shooting with, and working with. In the end, by the time you make a bad Epson print, even with ImagePrint or ColorBurst, or you give the file to the client for CMYK, all that pixel peeping on the monitor gets thrown out the window, and the field gets levelled. Nobody is going to pay you one red cent for the way that file looks on your monitor.

I would not pick a camera based on the cost. I would pick the camera that synced up with my spirit, and made me grab it and head out the door to shoot photographs. It truly could be as simple as that. Test all you want, but in the end, you'll know which one is right, even if it's an old wooden Deardorff with holders. If you're excited about what you shoot, you're going to find a way to squeeze every last ounce out of that file.

I think this is great post. Unfortunately a lot of the content of internet photo forums is just online pissing contests and misses the point of actually taking pictures. Because of the nature of my business, I have the choice of just about any camera gear I want to use when I shoot. I own a lot of medium format gear and a lot of Canon gear, but usually when I photograph it's with my G9, because I have a stronger bond with it than with any of my other gear- it's natural, feels right, and doesn't get in my way. Also because I always have it with me, and because in the end I like more of the pictures that I take with it than I do with my other cameras. Sometimes I feel guilty and break out the medium format (Mamiya AFD II when I do, because again that's what I bonded with), but usually I shoot with the G9.

Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2008, 09:55:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: archivue
Aptus 22 is by far better at Iso25 or 50... so for a studio test, you should have use low iso settings.

I'm shure that for hight iso, the aptus isn't the way to go !

But i still raising money to buy an aptus for my architecturals shots...
A Canon body and tse lenses are far inferior to rodenstock digital lendes and a back !

my personal believe is that this and studio are the future of mf digital. i cant see it in fashion.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
E_Edwards
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2008, 10:10:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
my personal believe is that this and studio are the future of mf digital. i cant see it in fashion.


I also see digital backs as the domain of studio product photography, where you need to attach it to a view camera for the movements. Much as I like the fancy medium format cameras and top of the range Canon and Nikon, unfortunately they are no good to me in the studio.

I think digital backs should find their special niche, which I believe is the same niche they already had when they first started, i. e. attached to a view camera. They should concentrate on making them better for the studio photographer requirements (and for architecture or anywhere where a view camera with movements is needed).

They just cannot compete and will not be able to compete with the portability and practicality of the top DSLRs for people shooting.


Edward
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2008, 10:18:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Conner999
the one thing that does jump out at me between the various shots is the greater sense of 'depth' or dimensionality (a.k.a. 3D effect) in the Aptus files.
If anything, these two shots are the clear proof, that the 3D effect of MFDBs is a myth. The feeling of greater depth is the result of the different perspective caused by the shorter distance due to the wider FoV (the camera istself is more "in the scenery").
Logged

Gabor
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2008, 10:26:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: antonyoung
I think this is great post. Unfortunately a lot of the content of internet photo forums is just online pissing contests and misses the point of actually taking pictures. Because of the nature of my business, I have the choice of just about any camera gear I want to use when I shoot. I own a lot of medium format gear and a lot of Canon gear, but usually when I photograph it's with my G9, because I have a stronger bond with it than with any of my other gear- it's natural, feels right, and doesn't get in my way. Also because I always have it with me, and because in the end I like more of the pictures that I take with it than I do with my other cameras. Sometimes I feel guilty and break out the medium format (Mamiya AFD II when I do, because again that's what I bonded with), but usually I shoot with the G9.

In the film days I would tell clients don't specifically ask for a camera format because of the reproduction qualities.  Let us use a camera because of what it allows us to do or allows us a specific look.

Sure you could mount a Nikon F5 with a tilt shift on a 50lb majestic tripod and shoot it like a view camera or if you had a really great assistant you could shoot 4x5 film at a rate of about one frame every one and a half seconds, but usually those were more parlor tricks than anything else.

The real reason to use a 35-mm camera was for speed and spontaneity, medium format if your working slower, (like portraits) and or shooting static like studio fashion, beauty or large format or portrait and  still life.  Those reasons are pretty much valid today as we make the transition to digital, except that the dslrs offer about 3 stops higher iso than the medium format backs and at some point at higher iso the 35-mm cameras usually outperform the larger cameras in real detail.

It's funny.  In my NY space I have three  large 44" wide prints leaning against a wall.  They were shot with the original 1ds1 which was what . . . 11mpx.     Those three images have probably sold as many projects as any portfolio or website just because they are pretty and nobody asks if they were shot with a medium format camera, or a nikon, or canon or anything.  In fact if there are any comments from an art director it usually an assumption they were shot with film, probably because they were shot with continuous light and  are not overly sharpened.

I still have that original 1ds and from time to time use it because I love the colors and the look, though compared to the newer canons and nikons it seems almost bog slow.

Actually most people say they can't tell in print if an image is shot medium format or 35-mm but for most beauty and studio fashion I can usually spot medium format digital because it is overly crisp, overly detailed and to me gives the impression of digital.

Still, if this is about bonding with a camera, It's increasingly difficult to do that with digital, knowing in a year or so there will be a new, better, bigger, faster one tempting us to make that upgrade.  It's difficult not to look at all of these cameras as temporary.

For me I have and will continue to upgrade the dslrs, but in medium format I'll stay where I am because I don't see the real difference or advantage of going from 31mpx to 60 something mpx for an added $15,000.  In a way this holds true for even the dslrs because once Canon and Nikon opened the door to the same sensor in a body that costs 1/2 of the "professional" version many people will go to the lower priced option, if the sensor is the same.   In fact I think the biggest complaint of the new Nikon D3x in regards to price isn't that it costs the same as a Canon 1ds3, it's that it costs twice a 5d2 or a D700.  I think most people believe the next Nikon will have the same 24 mpx sensor at a reduced price in something like a D800 or whatever they call it.  

I think that's what has hurt the camera business more than anything, knowing that what you buy today is not something that you will necessarily be using in 3 years, definitely not 10, so why spend more for a more robust camera with incremental upgrades, regardless of format.

The lines are getting blurred between the 35-mm and medium format cameras, mainly because 35-mm covers so much territory and for commerce I think format size and framing dimensions is becoming almost irrelevant.  Now I shoot probably twice to three times the amount of horizontal images than I do vertical and I attribute that mostly to art directors working on horizontal pallets rather than a vertical sheet of paper.

As far as bonding, it's just hard to do knowing that in the world of medium format bonding usually means waiting (for a lot of things) and workarounds.  In the land of dslrs, bonding usually means a new one in a few months, or maybe a few years.  

To be truthful the camera I have "bonded" with more than any other is the leica and maybe I'm fooling myself and saying I'm not impressed by the red dot, or the mystique of the leica lenses . . . maybe I am.

The thing I love about the m-8 is I don't view it as a changing camera.  If it had twice the size or speed or mega anything I probably wouldn't care.  I also love the fact that what I see through the lens always looks a little different on the lcd.  Every frame is kind of like going to the lab where what you see through the viewfinder looks different on the contact sheet.  Still there is something nice about this camera kind of knowing that I won't be trading it in in a few years.    

It's also kind of nice not to see 3,000 of them hanging around tourist's necks in Times Square.

Logged

Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2008, 10:37:49 AM »
ReplyReply

From James:

Quote
It's funny. In my NY space I have three large 44" wide prints leaning against a wall. They were shot with the original 1ds1 which was what . . . 11mpx.

I'll add my own recent experience. I went out to lunch with an art director friend. Very experienced guy - he's hired photographers from Mark Laita to Jim Erickson. I was showing him some recent work - all as 12x18 prints. I had 5D MI images and my Leaf 22 images mixed in together. He picked out one of my 5D images and just marveled at the sharpness and detail of the print.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking - "What about these MFDB shots over here? Those are the ones with the sharpness and detail!" In the end, the client doesn't know or care what we shot with. In the sizes and resolution we're working in, extra pixels don't really matter. Pixelmongering is just a marketing ploy that is hopefully going to fade soon enough. It's the idea and execution that sells the work. The tools are just a means to an end and, for all our endless debate, don't matter nearly as much as we think they do.

John
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2008, 11:03:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
1. The 5D2 shot is much lower exposed than the Aptus. I am not talking about the aperture and shutter but about the light gathered by the sensor. See the attached raw histograms.

Pls note, that ACR adds 0.4 EV to the 5D2 shot, so the difference appears less. This automatic adjustment is not visible on the "exposure" slider of ACR.

Gabor,
Is this a criticism of ACR? I'm conceptually aware of the problems of defining the noise characteristics of a sensor using one particular converter. There is always the question, 'is this the best converter for this camera?'

When I open these files in ACR and hit the auto button, I get -0.24 EV and 'recovery' 3 for the Aptus file, and -0.40 EV and 'recovery' 6 for the 5D MkII file. They both appear to be reasonably well exposed to the right.

Whilst I appreciate the argument that ACR might not be getting the lowest noise from the 5D2, and might be misrepresenting the true exposure value, what can be done about it? You might be interested in the technical problems of precise analysis of sensor noise, but the practical photographer needs to use converters which are easy to navigate and produce pleasant results for either his/her clients or himself/herself.

Whilst I have an interest in these technical matters, I'm more orientated towards the practical implications. After all, it's the final image that counts, and that image is always of a particular size, on print, projector or monitor.

However, if your labours result in a better converter, then we will all benefit and you will presumably become rich, so best of luck     .
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad