Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DXO now has MF cameras  (Read 31544 times)
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2009, 12:03:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bjanes
The Canon CMOS White Paper describes Canon's on chip noise reduction (see Noise Issues,  page 17 of the PDF). One should remember that the output of a CMOS chip is bits (digital), whereas the output of a CCD chip is voltage (Dalsa Paper). The output of a pixel in CMOS is voltage while the output of a pixel in CCD is an electron packet. Both of these outputs could be manipulated in the analog domain on chip.

Since CMOS chips have a digital output, any processing of data outside of the chip would have to be in the digital domain. Some NR is done on the chip, but further NR could be done to the raw data before it is written to the memory chip. It is difficult get this information out of the camera makers.

Bill

Thank you. What is done on chip is no noise reduction in the sense that every photographer understands it and is done in the analog domain. It is noise avoidance or removal however you want to put it, and is at the photosite level. Must be done for all CMOS, no need to be done for CCD and cannot be done in post in the raw converter.

Panokeeper describes this succintly in another thread and I'm not going to go about repeating the same things here.  http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....40&start=40

Yes, noise reduction in the classic resolution robbing sense, can be done in camera prior to writing out raw. Sony has been doing that and that created a big fuss on the internet. Now this can be switched off by the user and I believe that DxO where not stupid enough to leave it on when testing.

I'm sure MFDB marketing talk has misled Michael in believing that the raw output is not comparable. MFDB raw can be noise reduced in the raw converter in the same way dSLR raw can be noise reduced in the raw converter. I fail to see any difference.

( Also, not all CMOS chips have digital output, it depends whether one chooses to have on chip ADCs and whether one uses the on chip ADCs rather than external ones. But this is of no consequence to what we are discussing)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 01:12:09 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2009, 12:33:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tomcat
I noticed that they compared the absolute newest DSLRs against the 2006 era MF backs.  I'm sure the MF sensors have gotten better with time too.  But then again, Dxo only sells software for DSLRs, so I guess they need to make sure that DSLRs win.

How would their sales be negatively affected if the MFDB won? What % of their potential customer would buy a back do you think?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
michele
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 230


« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2009, 02:24:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Ok, maybe DxO is right about sensors... They have measured them in studio situation, with tables and test chart, but what about the AA filters? Did they test the sharpness of a digital back against a Nikon or a Canon or whatever? What about the possibility of using the full range of digital lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider?
Logged

stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2009, 03:41:16 AM »
ReplyReply

The old stuff yet again... To me it's very simple: I can't see much, if any, difference between P45+, H3D 39mk2, Canon 1DS3, Canon 5D2, Nikon D3x at print sizes up to about A2. BUT after that a really clear difference becomes apparent. The MFDB, whether Leaf, Hass or Phase all hold up much better. It's not hard to see why: if you have more pixels they can be blown up more.

I'm currently doing some stuff for an architect. He specified that his practice wants big prints for their office and he wants them to look good close up. No problem: I use MFD. If I use DSLR then I can go look elsewhere for work because my shots won't compare to the shots he already has on his wall. I know because I've done the comparison many times for my own decision-making process. I didn't want to spend an obscene amount of money for another camera system - I had no choice, if I want that level of work.

Please don't say that if you get DSLR exposure, etc just right it can be blown up to match MFD. It can't. Of course, there other reasons for working with a DSLR, eg high ISO needs, speed of taking shots, etc but if its big prints viewed fairly close you want (not billboards viewed from across the street) then a MFDB is a must.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2009, 04:57:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that nobody (including DxO) disagrees about the nominal resolution advantage and what this entails when compared to files from lesser resolution cameras when taken beyond their resolution limits (i.e. significantly uprezzed).

I think that all the fuss is about DxO's findings regarding other 'qualities' like SNR and DR which would indirectly indicate no advantage of the MFDBs vs some dSLRS when compared at the least common denominator (print wise). If they meaure the right things correctly, that is.

In this sense I think you post is in line with their findings.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 04:58:45 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2009, 06:42:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I think I will toss out my Leaf Aptus and go back to 35mm film again   , after all can't be different from MFDB either, can it??? After all must be about same as 4x5...

Serious, the truly pathetic is that nobody claim that a D3X, 5DII or whatever is equal in image quality to Canon G9 or the like, well... is it not?Huh... or did I miss something???    Though what folks do is pixel peeping, totally sold on pixels... even missing out on that and more so what is MF vs. 35mm based... Pick up any magazine and look at photos. 95% chance you will find countless photos of not very high image quality... both photographers and clients seeming sold on megapixels.

Will ignore the remaining in this thread based on the sheer stupidity in above post's claims of DSLR equalling MFDB, no offense to anyone... Perhaps (hold on to your seat)... I will even do something really WILD... such as go out and photograph!  

After all, is there any respectable MFDB forum anymore??? You know the way this one was a year or two ago, discussing with quality and substance and not sheer incompetence, pardon me??

Anders
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2009, 06:44:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r


Funny, indeed these look like could have been from a G9, but not a Leaf, Phase One or even ZD...  

Or... this? http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/  Sure beats the Dpreview link on D3X photos, but only if sensitive eyes will see...
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 07:03:58 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2009, 07:20:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
Will ignore the remaining in this thread based on the sheer stupidity in above post's claims of DSLR equalling MFDB, no offense to anyone... Perhaps (hold on to your seat)... I will even do something really WILD... such as go out and photograph!  

That reminds me of what my friend owning a Mark Levinson power amp weighting about 60kg was saying before he heard a Nuforce Ref 9 v2se for the first time.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2009, 07:28:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
Funny, indeed these look like could have been from a G9, but not a Leaf, Phase One or even ZD...  

This one too?



Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2009, 07:33:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
That reminds me of what my friend owning a Mark Levinson power amp weighting about 60kg was saying before he heard a Nuforce Ref 9 v2se for the first time.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, Show me images from a top of line DSLR that clear beats MFDB for landscapes, then we can speak. Before seeing is like before hearing... Have seen many images from latest top of line DSLRs... not just seeing but also speaking performance and nothing frank yet beats Aptus or the like at low ISO. And the DSLRs start off at higher than 50ISO too, which is not good thing for landscapes. All reminds me of when I was selling my D200 for the ZD and was near executed by believers of D200 following at Dpreview... sorry, I stand by my eyes until proven better. I could easily switch without loosing a $, also to D3X, but why? DSLRs are too many auto features. I did like my F100, excellent camera, albeit a tad heavy for 35mm.

Else, before shows, is like your friend... before they made Nuforce... perhaps D5X will feature a Foveon type sensor with far better colors than Velvia 50, 4x5 proportions and less automation like a real camera   .. then please serious do page me   . For now I recommend G10 to people that need high image quality... heck it even beats a G9  

That photo looks good for a Nikon sensor, but not many pixels as posted... and too digital clean and too neutral tones for my eyes... such as too much shadow detail such as many digital posts. Just giving my honest impression. Sorry, I do not like the color quite, that was problem with Nikon sensors for me before also although granted D3/D3X is much improved in this compared to D200, and from what I can tell from photos of DR. Yet, sorry, not like MF to my eyes. Perhaps I found what I like, and not worry   ... no problem, people are different. Film images impress me, perhaps that is why I like Leaf and Sigma images in digital? Sure, put many photos from both MF and DSLR and can be difficult to pick, yet it is more than that as a photographer, the files, systems... capture of images, ehhh... also the photographic part, that we all prefer and experience different. None of DSLRs will approach the F100 to me, MFDB and MF film does    exceed it... although miss Velvia colors in digital...
 
Anders
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 08:04:05 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2375


« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2009, 07:57:31 AM »
ReplyReply

What is it with people constantly trying to measure camera performances?    Like my d*ck is bigger than yours... oh wait under these circumstances I get really turned on and now mine is bigger again... etc.. These comparisons have nothing anymore as discussions since the outcome is fixed for most people and some even dare to make determined bold statements without even having experience beyond the window or an hour test drive of what they are talking about.

Obviously most modern DSLR's are way better than any current MFDB offering. I still like prefer working with my MFDB's most of the time even if the results are scientifically inferior to those of the mighty 5DII or D3X or even D700. It is my favorite tool to do a certain job, personal preferences are important, at least to me they are. I do feel I get better results that way even if science has proven me wrong.

Let me say it, I agree. DSLR's are way better than MFDB. Now if everyone can simply agree to that and have it out of the way I hope the majority of the threads will actually revert back to MFDB and photography instead of endless comparisons.

Now is there anyone that wants to trade their Aptus75, AFI7, P45+ or H3D50 for a 5DII/D3X/D700? I will be most happy to help taking them from you.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 07:59:04 AM by Dustbak » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4924



« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2009, 08:09:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Let's bring things back to reality, if I may.

For two weeks in January I shot with the Canon A900, Nikon Dx3 and P65+ in Antarctica. In all doing about 6,500 exposures. (The 5D MKII that we had for testing died on the second day of the trip).

I have now made some fifty 13X19" prints and about twenty 24X36" prints for an upcoming exhibition at my gallery. My comments are based on these real-world results.

Firstly, I can not see any difference whatsoever between the A900 and the D3x files, not at any print size, not at any ISO (I never shot at above 1600, and rarely at 800).

On prints up to 13X19" I can usually see the difference between the DSLR shots and the P65+ shots, but not always. In some cases it is moderately obvious and in a few is hugely obvious.

In print sizes above about 16X20" I can always see the difference. It is dramatic. Not just resolution (that's a given) but in terms of micro-contrast, smooth tonalities, and depth of colour rendition those amazing iceberg blues.

If someone wants to tell me that bumblebees can't fly, that's fine. Think what you wish. But I tell you that I have the stings to prove that they can, and the prints to demonstrate what I am saying.

Just drop into my Toronto gallery any time in the next few months and see for yourself. This is an open invitation. My money is where my mouth is.

The rest is simply chatter.

Michael





Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2009, 08:15:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Let's bring things back to reality, if I may.

For two weeks in January I shot with the Canon A900, Nikon Dx3 and P65+ in Antarctica. In all doing about 6,500 exposures. (The 5D MKII that we had for testing died on the second day of the trip).

I have now made some fifty 13X19" prints and about twenty 24X36" prints for an upcoming exhibition at my gallery. My comments are based on these real-world results.

Firstly, I can not see any difference whatsoever between the A900 and the D3x files, not at any print size, not at any ISO (I never shot at above 1600, and rarely at 800).

On prints up to 13X19" I can usually see the difference between the DSLR shots and the P65+ shots, but not always. In some cases it is moderately obvious and in a few is hugely obvious.

In print sizes above about 16X20" I can always see the difference. It is dramatic. Not just resolution (that's a given) but in terms of micro-contrast, smooth tonalities, and depth of colour rendition those amazing iceberg blues.

If someone wants to tell me that bumblebees can't fly, that's fine. Think what you wish. But I tell you that I have the stings to prove that they can, and the prints to demonstrate what I am saying.

Just drop into my Toronto gallery any time in the next few months and see for yourself. This is an open invitation. My money is where my mouth is.

The rest is simply chatter.

Michael

I find in my work the difference between a 1ds mark 2 and a P21 is quite marked, it often depends on what your shooting, the light, how you push contrast or not etc, for me and my style it's a no brainer for the P21. Now, at 13 *19 inch print size, do you think you could tell a difference between the P45+ and the P65+? And also, do you think the P65+ has a disadvantage when printing at 13 *19 because of the need to downsample as compared to say a P25?

Logged
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2009, 08:16:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
Bernard, Show me that images from a top of line DSLR that clear beats MFDB for landscapes,
Anders

After hearing what the owners of the D3x have to say about the files, I for one, am willing to try it. It appears to be a wonderful machine.
Measurements aside, what I like is the look of the files:

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_001b.jpg
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_004b.jpg
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_002b.jpg


Also, thanks Michael. About seeing differences on very large prints, does one have more impact that the other from normal viewing distances? IMO, that would be the reason to shoot with the backs, as opposed to merely being able to spot a difference at very close range...thanks again for your insight.

p.s. Micheal this trip seems to have produced some of the best images you have ever taken (from what I have seen)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 08:31:01 AM by lisa_r » Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2009, 08:31:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
Conversely Anders, you could show us some M.F. back landscapes which could not have been done with a DSLR such as the D3x...these challenges don't ever go anywhere useful. I have not handled the D3x, but most of the full-size files I have seen from it have been very, very good.

After hearing what the owners of the D3x have to say about the files, I for one, am willing to try it. It appears to be a wonderful machine.
Measurements aside, what I like is the look of the files:

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_001b.jpg
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_004b.jpg
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/...mg/pic_002b.jpg

Lisa,

I think Dustbak pointed out correct in his post, and also much indeed so Michael.

If you like above photos from D3X and as tool D3X works to your pleasing, then be happy. I think noone should conflict you on that. However, as a MF shooter I do not experience those photos as good image quality wize as I seen from MF... but lets keep away from that argument, it is far more than pixels I speak of. No, I will not post more. I know I am content for myself for many years still, and nor do I mind that you will be with a D3X.

The sensitivity of eyes can be different. This forum is titled: Medium Format Digital Backs and Photography. There has been enough of look my "DSLR" thing measures bigger... it is silly. Any camera is merely a tool. If you like the D3X, there is no point of comparing to MFDB. DxO are clear wrong in what their numbers come across to show. My eye though tells me I like MFDB and am also stepping into 4x5 film. Nothing wrong with that either.

Anders
Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2009, 08:36:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dustbak
Obviously most modern DSLRs are way better than any current medium-format digital back offering.
They are? And obviously so!? What makes you believe that? Let me guess: the latest DxOMark rankings?

-- Olaf
Logged
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2009, 09:03:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
On prints up to 13X19" I can usually see the difference between the DSLR shots and the P65+ shots, but not always. In some cases it is moderately obvious and in a few is hugely obvious.

What would you say are the characteristics within these images that reduces or increases the visible difference between MFDB and DSLR?
Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 375


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2009, 09:52:24 AM »
ReplyReply

The overall DxOMark score is obviously useless where medium format is concerned - by including low-light capability, they are testing something that the MF makers never CLAIM to provide. It would be like a car magazine testing the off-road capability of a Ferrari, or an audio magazine testing the home theater credentials of a two-channel tube amplifier, then including that in a bogus overall ranking. Even the individual numbers surprise me, and I think there's something wrong. I bought my D3x after careful evaluation against medium format, and even as a very happy D3x shooter, I don't believe that it has MORE dynamic range than a Hasselblad - prints just don't bear that out!

DxO claims that the D3x has about 1.5-2 stops more DR than most older DSLRs like the Canon 1DsII - fine, I believe that - I'm putting ink on paper that shows a whole bunch of extra shadow detail, and holding some extra highlights as well. I haven't shot another DSLR that does anywhere near as well. I don't believe DxO's absolute DR numbers on ANY DSLR, but their relative numbers seem pretty good (they are always optimistic by about two stops, but their 13 stop D3x has ~11, while their ~11 stop 1DsmkII really has 9).

Hasselblad claims about 12 stops of real DR, and I can see that in prints they showed me - the prints look like they have slightly broader DR than even a D3x, and much broader than older DSLRs. I don't have real-world experience, only tests in controlled situations, but I'm inclined to take Hasselblad's (and the other MF makers) claims pretty much at face value.

DxO comes in claiming that the Hasselblad has half a stop LESS DR than the D3x... That doesn't seem right (12+ stops for the Hasselblad seems fine, but when you subtract the 2 stops that DxO routinely overestimates by, 10+ stops doesn't seem plausible).

The only thing I can think of is whether MF might have much lower shadow noise than anything else? In that case, the absolute DR (until black clipping) that DxO measures might be much closer to real-world photographic DR than from other cameras - the 2 stop "DxO correction factor" might not be needed...

                                              -Dan
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2009, 10:40:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Wells
It would be like a car magazine testing the off-road capability of a Ferrari,

These dxo tests would mean very little if medium format had progressed to the usability of modern dslrs.  Now, I'm talking in the professional sense of going to work and shooting because the photographer MUST get the photograph rather than WANTS to get the photograph.  

What does matter is the dslrs get closer to medium format quality by the year and actually are producing imagery in a 35mm format that nobody ever thought was possible.

Actually all of this has less to do about digital and more to do with the actual physical size of the camera formats.  In a professional sense using film, 645 was never considered to be the pinnacle of medium format.  It was designed and marketed as a better image quality competitor to 35mm, not as a replacement for 6x6,  6x7, 6x9, 4x5 or 8x10 cameras.

And 645 was also marketed as the perfect format as it went almost directly to 8x10 print size and was closer to a Vertical printed page size than 35mm.

That too is changing as we now shoot more and more horizontals as most of the world is now working on a wide screen pallet.

In fact I currently shoot about a 4 to 1 ratio of horizontal compared to vertical.  10 years ago it was 10 to 1 in the opposite direction.


Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2009, 12:59:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I do not know you guys, but I can see the difference between a 31mp DB  file and a 21mp DSRL file printed at a3 size, not even mention if the DB is 39mp. It take a couple of sec to focus my eyes properly to image detail, but then there will be not doubt between which is which.

About 70% of fashion and portrait advertising on the world, is shot with Canon. If you go through  some well printed fashion magazine (ala Numero, POP, V, W etch) I can tell which is a photo taken with a DB and which one is a Canon. A part from the difference on crispiness, it is the poorer gradient of the skin tones that tells me immediately which one is a canon. I can see the same flatness on skin also on the Nikon shots at the Nikon web site that someone linked above. Especially the beauty shot ( appalling styling and make up by the way), probably because of the light as well, the image is very flat and pasty. To that pastiness it may contribute the lack of mid range contrast typical of some 35mm lenses. If you shot the same image with a 80mm mamiya, zeiss or hasselblad on 30mp back you immediately get more depth on the image. The difference will be like looking at a 35mm contact sheet next to a 6 by 6 made with an hassy on the old days.

Those that cannot discern these differences between images while working with their cameras, should stick to making between 30 to 50 posts a day on multiple photography web forums or looking at Doxo sites. Once you do that every day, when do you find the time to take photos properly and acquire real life experience?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 01:03:06 PM by ziocan » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad