Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Stitching small format vs using medium format  (Read 13825 times)
Gurglamei
Guest
« on: September 01, 2009, 05:07:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I currently use a Nikon D700 giving me 12 Mp on a full format Dslr. I bought the D700 waiting for the prise of the D3x to fall, and I see that it is approaching a more acceptable price range.

However, before I buy I really would like to know a bit about the difference in print quality of an image captured by a Hasselblad 50Mp camera and a stitched 50 MP image captured by stitching 3-4 images taken with a 24Mp Nikon D3x? Technically I find that the physiclal size of the sensor in the D3x is more or less exactly half the size of the Hasselblad, hence I guess they are about the same pixel size. Does this translate into same image quality provided the stitching is properly done?

The reason I am asking is that I find that my photography has changed over the years, and I find that I now almost exclusively use my Nikon D700 and 24-70 on a tripod to take stills of nature (not so much sweaping landscapes).  I have not done much stitching, however it seems to be a real option for my curent work. However, I guess I also could fairly easily adapt to a heavier and slower camera if it really gives me a much better print.  Having read about the drawbacks of MF in the recent articles here on LL, I am somewhat reluctent to buy a MF camera. The lack of weather sealing would be a serious drawback for my work and climate.

I own a 24 inch printer and donīt expect to print any larger than that on a regualar basis.


Comments appreciated.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 05:20:16 AM by Gurglamei » Logged
gmerrell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2009, 07:07:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gurglamei
I currently use a Nikon D700 giving me 12 Mp on a full format Dslr. I bought the D700 waiting for the prise of the D3x to fall, and I see that it is approaching a more acceptable price range.

However, before I buy I really would like to know a bit about the difference in print quality of an image captured by a Hasselblad 50Mp camera and a stitched 50 MP image captured by stitching 3-4 images taken with a 24Mp Nikon D3x? Technically I find that the physiclal size of the sensor in the D3x is more or less exactly half the size of the Hasselblad, hence I guess they are about the same pixel size. Does this translate into same image quality provided the stitching is properly done?

The reason I am asking is that I find that my photography has changed over the years, and I find that I now almost exclusively use my Nikon D700 and 24-70 on a tripod to take stills of nature (not so much sweaping landscapes).  I have not done much stitching, however it seems to be a real option for my curent work. However, I guess I also could fairly easily adapt to a heavier and slower camera if it really gives me a much better print.  Having read about the drawbacks of MF in the recent articles here on LL, I am somewhat reluctent to buy a MF camera. The lack of weather sealing would be a serious drawback for my work and climate.

I own a 24 inch printer and donīt expect to print any larger than that on a regualar basis.


Comments appreciated.

I have used the D3X and P45+ side by side for about six months now. The D3x is an amazing camera. It is everything a DSLR should be.  I have shot both cameras (Mamiya 645AFDIII/P45+) in the studio and shooting landscape. The MF is a bit of a pain to handle and set up not to mention big files. After comparing hundreds of files shot side by side, I think there is no comparison between the two when a large print is produced.

The MF files have a quality that is hard to explain. The detail is nothing short of amazing.They have an almost 3D look and feel.
When I travel I take both cameras usually and I have to take special care of the MF equipment. I always carry it in a Pelican case. The D3X is slung in my back pack where I can get to it quickly and easily.
There are times when I travel to landscape places where I can't take my MF for varying reasons,(Extreme conditions, not enough room, the quality isn't needed etc), but when I want to capture the absolute
best image I can get I always use the MF.

I hope this is some help without going into the technical aspects of the two formats.

Greg
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 07:25:48 AM by gmerrell » Logged
Gurglamei
Guest
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2009, 07:36:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gmerrell
I think there is no comparison between the two when a large print is produced.


Thank you, very interesting.  However, have you tried stitching images form the D3x and compared that with the P45 - I mean to get the same resolution on the image?

Christopher
Logged
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 642



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2009, 08:03:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I used to use Mamiya ZD camera for stitching with great results. The limitation was low ISO - sometimes in the wind and and dim light you do need to go higher. D700 is an easy winner in this case. Paired with prime Sigma 70mm F2.8 - the sharpest 35mm lens I own (and btw, it will blow away Nikon 24-70 in sharpness at any aperture setting in any corner and center - slrgear has a great review) it produces exceptional quality images. There is a slight difference due to AA, but outstanding sharpness of this lens is compensates for it 90%. D700 turns out to be very versatile for stitching. I use ZD when I am limited to a single frame shot. D700 and ZD have a similar large pixel size and pixel sharpness is comparable, files from both sharpen very very well.

Larger pixel size of D700 makes it less diffraction limited at higher apertures, paired with higher base ISO it is ideal for landscape stitching. Mirror lockup mode is also there;)
Logged

vjbelle
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2009, 08:22:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I have both systems and do a lot of stitching.  If you have very good lenses and good work flow a 21 to 24Mp stitched image will compare nicely with a 39 or 50Mp single shot image.  I can't stress enough that you must use the finest lenses possible.  This means either Zeiss or longer Canon/Nikon prime lenses.  

This also means that the software must be able to get every bit of detail out of the raw files - I only use Raw Developer.  The stitching software is also very critical - I only use PTGui and I've tried them all.  

Last but not least there is the cost factor.  At 1/3 the cost of a MFDB it may almost seem like a no brainer and at times it is.  There is however, to my eye, always an advantage that the MFDB has over stitched DSLR images.  Its not processed as much and has a cleaner look.  Whether or not this advantage outweighs the cost and weight differences only you can say.  I have printed 40 inch stitched images on my 9900 that are stunning.  I would certainly encourage you to explore  stitching before investing major amounts of money into a MFDB.  You can always rent a MFDB if you want to make comparisons.

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2009, 08:58:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Well executed stitched D3x images have the potential to be superior to single frames from MF digital backs, but the difference will only show in large prints.



You can stitch with both, but there are many good reasons why stitching with the d3x is a superior solution, I have listed up a few here.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....t=0#entry305674

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Gurglamei
Guest
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2009, 09:03:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, all your input is very interesting.

If I understand you correctly, there is only a marginal though noticable, increas in print quality when using the MF compared to stitching.  I donīt have much experience with stitching though. Yeah, prehaps I should just stay with the D700 for a while longer and try out how I actually perform and like the process. I guess this would give me both the chance to really make a stab at getting good at stitching and at the same time finding out if I really need all those pixels to create the prints I want. Finally, I could rent a MF system some time later and compare.

Since the quality of lenses has already been mentioned what focal lengths do you use for stitching? I can understand that a lens with distortion would be less suitable for stitching. The Sigma 70 2.8 macro was mentioned as a good candidate, and it really has a nice price and review.  I have the 200 f2 which gives really fantastic images, and I was sort of thinking of using this for the stitching on an eventual D3x or also the D700.  I am not familiar with the Zeiss linup. 200 mm intuitively sees a bit long for some images, and I would probably want a good smaller telephoto in addition to the 200mm I already have.

Do you use specialized stitching heads for your tripods? (Like really Right Stuff panoheads etc?)

Christopher

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6921


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2009, 09:32:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have some write up here: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...a-and-stitching

There are a lot of good comments on a posting I made on LL-forums: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=36973

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Gurglamei
Thank you, all your input is very interesting.

If I understand you correctly, there is only a marginal though noticable, increas in print quality when using the MF compared to stitching.  I donīt have much experience with stitching though. Yeah, prehaps I should just stay with the D700 for a while longer and try out how I actually perform and like the process. I guess this would give me both the chance to really make a stab at getting good at stitching and at the same time finding out if I really need all those pixels to create the prints I want. Finally, I could rent a MF system some time later and compare.

Since the quality of lenses has already been mentioned what focal lengths do you use for stitching? I can understand that a lens with distortion would be less suitable for stitching. The Sigma 70 2.8 macro was mentioned as a good candidate, and it really has a nice price and review.  I have the 200 f2 which gives really fantastic images, and I was sort of thinking of using this for the stitching on an eventual D3x or also the D700.  I am not familiar with the Zeiss linup. 200 mm intuitively sees a bit long for some images, and I would probably want a good smaller telephoto in addition to the 200mm I already have.

Do you use specialized stitching heads for your tripods? (Like really Right Stuff panoheads etc?)

Christopher
Logged

clawery
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2009, 09:36:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gurglamei
Thank you, all your input is very interesting.

If I understand you correctly, there is only a marginal though noticable, increas in print quality when using the MF compared to stitching.  I donīt have much experience with stitching though. Yeah, prehaps I should just stay with the D700 for a while longer and try out how I actually perform and like the process. I guess this would give me both the chance to really make a stab at getting good at stitching and at the same time finding out if I really need all those pixels to create the prints I want. Finally, I could rent a MF system some time later and compare.

Since the quality of lenses has already been mentioned what focal lengths do you use for stitching? I can understand that a lens with distortion would be less suitable for stitching. The Sigma 70 2.8 macro was mentioned as a good candidate, and it really has a nice price and review.  I have the 200 f2 which gives really fantastic images, and I was sort of thinking of using this for the stitching on an eventual D3x or also the D700.  I am not familiar with the Zeiss linup. 200 mm intuitively sees a bit long for some images, and I would probably want a good smaller telephoto in addition to the 200mm I already have.

Do you use specialized stitching heads for your tripods? (Like really Right Stuff panoheads etc?)

Christopher


Christopher,

I have shot with both the P45+ on a Phase One 645 and Cambo RS, as well as the Canon 5D to shoot panos.  I love my Canon for it's portability and speed, but can see a incredible difference when I shoot with the P45+.  The dynamic range and detail that the P45+ offer on the Cambo RS are unparalleled.  I will attach a 3 stitch shot (P45+ / Cambo RS) I did when Capture Integration hosted a workshop in Carmel with Ken Doo.  The great thing about the RS is that you can shift the digital back instead of the camera or lens.  It allows for much easier alignment and minimizes distortion.

If you would like the full size 720 MB file I can send you a disc if you like.  For download / upload reasons I'm only posting a small file.


[attachment=16347:Carmel_P...opy_copy.jpg]


Chris Lawery
__________________
Sales Manager, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 404.234.5195
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

RSS Feed: Subscribe[/font]

Logged
marcs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2009, 03:24:24 PM »
ReplyReply

You should rent both to see what format you prefer.  I can't emphasize this enough.

I did this myself earlier in the year, and even went so far as to make two (non stitched) 18x23 inch inkjet prints from a D3X and P65+.  The subject was landscape.

The overall tonality on the P65+ print was slightly smoother, but my eyes couldn't differentiate more than that.  I critically examined from 4-5 inches away as well as stood back a few feet for my analysis.

I only went with the P65+ b/c I make much larger prints.

MS
 

Quote from: Gurglamei
The lack of weather sealing would be a serious drawback for my work and climate.

I own a 24 inch printer and donīt expect to print any larger than that on a regualar basis.

Comments appreciated.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 03:27:38 PM by marcs » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2009, 05:16:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gurglamei
Thank you, all your input is very interesting.

If I understand you correctly, there is only a marginal though noticable, increas in print quality when using the MF compared to stitching.  I donīt have much experience with stitching though. Yeah, prehaps I should just stay with the D700 for a while longer and try out how I actually perform and like the process.

In all fairness, not every subject is easy to deal with with stitching, but in terms of quality, the truth be told, the opposite of what you write is true.

There is without any possible doubt a clear advantage in favour of stitching that can range from small to huge depending on print size and the amount of images you stitch. I have many 1.5 m wide pano prints that make Imacon scanned 4x5 look painfully soft. That is something that you will never get with a P45+ and the P65+ will not take you much closer, whatever our Phasone one friends claim.

The following link is a res down 60 megapixel pano (original is 6 times more) shot with a d3x and Zeiss 100 mm f2.0. I didn't use HDR techniques to achieve this result...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...720762/sizes/o/

Quote from: Gurglamei
Since the quality of lenses has already been mentioned what focal lengths do you use for stitching? I can understand that a lens with distortion would be less suitable for stitching. The Sigma 70 2.8 macro was mentioned as a good candidate, and it really has a nice price and review.  I have the 200 f2 which gives really fantastic images, and I was sort of thinking of using this for the stitching on an eventual D3x or also the D700.  I am not familiar with the Zeiss linup. 200 mm intuitively sees a bit long for some images, and I would probably want a good smaller telephoto in addition to the 200mm I already have.

The Zeiss 100 mm f2.0 is IMHO the best stitching lens around if you know what you are doing:

- best in class sharpness accross the frame (clearly outresolving the d3x sensor by a good margin at f5.6-f8),
- very little light fall off (close to none between f5.6 and f8),
- very accurate manual focus with live view (no AF lens can get close).

The 200 f2.0 is both a bit too long and much too heavy to use as a standard stitching lens. I do stitch quite a bit with a 300 f2.8, but it is pretty much limited to single row panos for a variety of reasons.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2009, 05:22:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: clawery
Christopher,

I have shot with both the P45+ on a Phase One 645 and Cambo RS, as well as the Canon 5D to shoot panos.  I love my Canon for it's portability and speed, but can see a incredible difference when I shoot with the P45+.  The dynamic range and detail that the P45+ offer on the Cambo RS are unparalleled.  I will attach a 3 stitch shot (P45+ / Cambo RS) I did when Capture Integration hosted a workshop in Carmel with Ken Doo.  The great thing about the RS is that you can shift the digital back instead of the camera or lens.  It allows for much easier alignment and minimizes distortion.
[attachment=16347:Carmel_P...opy_copy.jpg]

Chris,

Very nice image, but with all due respesct, how is this showing the DR capability of the backs? There is no detail whatsoever in the sky, any mid range DSLR could capture good details in these rocks if you give up on the sky, the rest is just about applying the right curve in PS.

Besides the 5D is far behind the best DSLRs in terms of DR.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Murray Fredericks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2009, 05:48:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the main argument here is that you tend to make prints no larger than 24inches. I can't see how you notice much (if any) difference between the systems with stitiched prints at this size.

I just had a a few large prints made for a corporate client through the 11000 series Epson running off a great rip. They were a mix of 5Dmk2 prints (stitched files) and MFDB (stitiched also). The prints were around 96 inches...

I asked the printer (he did not know in advance) which files appeared better to him (and he has one of the best eyes for this stuff of anyone I have worked with) and he chose the Canon files...

On the other hand, I have some 4m prints from stitched files from MFDB on exhibition at the moment and at that size the clarity, smoothness, tonality and crispness of the files is better than 8" x 10" IMO.

I think if you are enlarging to 24inches or to only say 48inches and stitching, I would only be purchasing a MFDB if I had money to burn and wanted to slow down the actual process of shooting images.

Cheers

Murray
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 05:49:29 PM by Murray Fredericks » Logged

vjbelle
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2009, 06:38:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I would only be purchasing a MFDB if I had money to burn and wanted to slow down the actual process of shooting images.

Cheers

Murray

Very, very good advice......

The OP was asking about the differences between a one shot MFDB file and a DSLR stitched file.  One of the things that is difficult for the poster to realize is that there is a 'real' difference in format dimensions (unless the MFDB file is cropped).  A stitched image is almost always elongated in one direction as compared to a one shot image.  I usually don't try to do very elongated images.  My preference is 2X1 or thereabouts (but that's just my preference).  That translates to an image of about 10,000 pixels by 5600 - my usual image.  Do you realize that to get to 40 inches at 360 ppi this image STILL has to be upsized?  There's lots of processing going on and lots of steps to make a really good pano.  But, to me, its really worth it and very gratifying.  

I shoot with the same lenses that Bernard shoots with.  The Zeiss 100 F2 is a superb lens.  I also shoot with a Zeiss 50 f2 Macro planar that is also very sharp.  Lenses and work flow are critical to a good pano.  

I have both systems (MFDB and DSLR).  I have shot pano's with both systems.  Yes there is a difference but NEVER worth the money - and the difference can only be seen side by side and even then not always discernible.  

Don't go spending any big bucks…. have fun and learn with what you have….. but for sure get yourself some good lenses and some decent pano gear.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 06:39:43 PM by vjbelle » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2009, 06:40:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Murray Fredericks
I think the main argument here is that you tend to make prints no larger than 24inches. I can't see how you notice much (if any) difference between the systems with stitiched prints at this size.

I just had a a few large prints made for a corporate client through the 11000 series Epson running off a great rip. They were a mix of 5Dmk2 prints (stitched files) and MFDB (stitiched also). The prints were around 96 inches...

I asked the printer (he did not know in advance) which files appeared better to him (and he has one of the best eyes for this stuff of anyone I have worked with) and he chose the Canon files...

On the other hand, I have some 4m prints from stitched files from MFDB on exhibition at the moment and at that size the clarity, smoothness, tonality and crispness of the files is better than 8" x 10" IMO.

I think if you are enlarging to 24inches or to only say 48inches and stitching, I would only be purchasing a MFDB if I had money to burn and wanted to slow down the actual process of shooting images.

Agreed.  

- Stitching is the only solution to go real big but that doesn't happen often for many people,
- Once you start stitching, all good enough systems look mostly the same (we all differ as to what is good enough),
- You might as well go for the cheaper solution, knowing that the DSLR will also enable you to shoot this during that same trip where you shot that.  

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
marcs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2009, 10:13:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I own the P65+ and the D3X with Zeiss glass (not limited to the 100mm F2) and have created large inkjets from both systems.  While the D3X affords much more versatility, at this point I disagree that a DSLR-fashioned 30x40 inch print (3+ vertically stitched captures required to match MF sensor size) will rival a MF non stitched print.  Sadly, I am not technical enough to provide a satisfactory answer but the tonality and liveliness of MF has something (more than just the lack of filter) magical.  Can someone help me out here with technical support?

Bernard or Murray, would you please explain to me how it is possible for a sensor 60% smaller (vertically stitched with the Zeiss 100mm f2) to rival a newer Phase One + back?  I want to be a believer, truly.  I dropped well over $50k on my last MF digital purchase.  But I think this may only work in limited instances (no movement in image, perfect shifting technique, perfect exposure blending, etc).  And how would one DSLR stitch in double rows?

Murray, please tell me what the subject matter was on your 96 inch corporate 5D2 print that your printer liked better.

Have a good evening everyone.  



Quote from: BernardLanguillier
In all fairness, not every subject is easy to deal with with stitching, but in terms of quality, the truth be told, the opposite of what you write is true.

There is without any possible doubt a clear advantage in favour of stitching that can range from small to huge depending on print size and the amount of images you stitch. I have many 1.5 m wide pano prints that make Imacon scanned 4x5 look painfully soft. That is something that you will never get with a P45+ and the P65+ will not take you much closer, whatever our Phasone one friends claim.

The following link is a res down 60 megapixel pano (original is 6 times more) shot with a d3x and Zeiss 100 mm f2.0. I didn't use HDR techniques to achieve this result...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...720762/sizes/o/



The Zeiss 100 mm f2.0 is IMHO the best stitching lens around if you know what you are doing:

- best in class sharpness accross the frame (clearly outresolving the d3x sensor by a good margin at f5.6-f8),
- very little light fall off (close to none between f5.6 and f8),
- very accurate manual focus with live view (no AF lens can get close).

The 200 f2.0 is both a bit too long and much too heavy to use as a standard stitching lens. I do stitch quite a bit with a 300 f2.8, but it is pretty much limited to single row panos for a variety of reasons.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 10:32:54 PM by marcs » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2009, 01:13:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marcs
I own the P65+ and the D3X with Zeiss glass (not limited to the 100mm F2) and have created large inkjets from both systems.  While the D3X affords much more versatility, at this point I disagree that a DSLR-fashioned 30x40 inch print (3+ vertically stitched captures required to match MF sensor size) will rival a MF non stitched print.  Sadly, I am not technical enough to provide a satisfactory answer but the tonality and liveliness of MF has something (more than just the lack of filter) magical.  Can someone help me out here with technical support?

Marc,

Are you comparing equal size files of equal FoV taken with equal focal length of lens at equal F stop? (The pixel size of the D3X is the same as that of the P65+).

If you are, and you still see a difference, I'd suggest the following reasons, because it's certainly an interesting question worth exploring. Never having used either a D3X or P65+, I perhaps shouldn't be commenting. However, I do know from personal experience with other cameras, that the RAW converter used can have a dramatic effect on factors such as vibrancy and sparkle etc, depending on how the presets have been designed and how they work in relation to certain models of cameras.

I was very disappointed when Adobe took over the RAW converter RSP. It was my favourite converter at the time, and I still have the last version of RSP, before take-over, installed on my system. This version works with my 20D and 5D RAW images, but not 40D or 50D of course.

Sometimes, there's no doubt in my mind that RSP produces a more pleasing result than the latest version of ACR with my Photoshop version of CS3E. I have gone through the exercise of trying to emulate in ACR the precise effect I get with RSP, and after a lot of stuffing around with various adjustments and trial and error, I find that I can get very close, but not exactly.

The last RAW converter I trialed was Bibble. I was surprised to find that it produced noticeably sharper results than ACR with my 20D and 5D files, a bit like the difference between having an AA filter and not having one, perhaps.

However, I soon noticed a trade-off. The extra bite in the image was due to less noise reduction. Even the lower mid-tones had more visible noise than the ACR conversion with all noise reduction (both luminance and color) at zero.

Again, after some stuffing around with the detail, sharpening, clarity and vibrance controls in ACR, I was able to fairly closely emulate the result of Bibble using ACR, but not exactly.

In the world of advertising, time is money. $50,000 is perhaps not a significant amount to pay, if one can save time in processing one's images and get a very pleasing result for the client because Phase One has tailored its Capture One software to produce outstanding results with its DBs.

Just my own observation and thoughts on the matter. I could be way out.

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2009, 01:40:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marcs
I own the P65+ and the D3X with Zeiss glass (not limited to the 100mm F2) and have created large inkjets from both systems.  While the D3X affords much more versatility, at this point I disagree that a DSLR-fashioned 30x40 inch print (3+ vertically stitched captures required to match MF sensor size) will rival a MF non stitched print.  Sadly, I am not technical enough to provide a satisfactory answer but the tonality and liveliness of MF has something (more than just the lack of filter) magical.  Can someone help me out here with technical support?

Bernard or Murray, would you please explain to me how it is possible for a sensor 60% smaller (vertically stitched with the Zeiss 100mm f2) to rival a newer Phase One + back?  I want to be a believer, truly.  I dropped well over $50k on my last MF digital purchase.  But I think this may only work in limited instances (no movement in image, perfect shifting technique, perfect exposure blending, etc).  And how would one DSLR stitch in double rows?

I have never said that 3 images from D3x could equal a single frame from a P65+. The back has slightly sharper pixels, and it probably takes 80MP from D3x image to capture the same level of detail, my view has always been that you probably need at least 6 in two rows with a proper pano head (like the Really Right stuff head I have been using).

One key aspect here though is the quality of the capture with the D3x. I find that only the most robust tripod, head and pano head (I have been using a Gitzo 5531s) have enough rigidity to ensure panoramic stitching withouth vibrations with the D3x. So yes, it requires a good technique and not to make any mistake. A P65+ is for sure an easier solution to use, if you have the cash and want to use it that way.

I find either C1 or Raw Developper to be needed to extract the detail and sharpen properlly D3x files, once this is done they get real close to back level pixel sharpness.

As far as tonality goes, could you please share images of a given subject shot with the 2 cameras? If you can provide the raw images of the d3x I'd love to see if I can get closer to what you see with your back.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Murray Fredericks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2009, 03:43:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marcs
I own the P65+ and the D3X with Zeiss glass (not limited to the 100mm F2) and have created large inkjets from both systems.  While the D3X affords much more versatility, at this point I disagree that a DSLR-fashioned 30x40 inch print (3+ vertically stitched captures required to match MF sensor size) will rival a MF non stitched print.  Sadly, I am not technical enough to provide a satisfactory answer but the tonality and liveliness of MF has something (more than just the lack of filter) magical.  Can someone help me out here with technical support?

Bernard or Murray, would you please explain to me how it is possible for a sensor 60% smaller (vertically stitched with the Zeiss 100mm f2) to rival a newer Phase One + back?  I want to be a believer, truly.  I dropped well over $50k on my last MF digital purchase.  But I think this may only work in limited instances (no movement in image, perfect shifting technique, perfect exposure blending, etc).  And how would one DSLR stitch in double rows?

Murray, please tell me what the subject matter was on your 96 inch corporate 5D2 print that your printer liked better.

Have a good evening everyone.

Marcs,

I own both systems and totally agree that MFDB has a different quality to DSLR. It's just that to actually make that extra quality apparent I have found that the files have to be pushed to their limits either through enlargement to huge sizes and or by pushing the limits of 'quality' (a very subjective term). For someone 'considering' either system I would say they are so close in terms of the final print that paying 10 times as much simply can't be justified...I always thought you should feel completely constrained by one bit of gear and clearly know how and why the planned purchase of new gear will alleviate that constraint before trading up.

I can't answer the technical questions properly but have relayed my experiences working with both systems - and yes, assume all proper exposure and stitching techniques were used.

I dropped the same $$ as you on a MFDB system and then bought the 5d2 when it was released. Horses for courses - but soon I realized that for my commissioned work, very few of clients could tell the difference between the results of both systems - in fact my clients seemed happier with the 5d2 images in general as:

 1. more images were produced on the shoot as it's faster to work with,

 2. the files required less work straight out of the camera for some reason (result - quicker post processing = cheaper) and

 3. The viewfinder was better in the 5d2 so the compositions were better in environments where shooting faster was essential ie when the client is watching the clock.  I also found myself more inclined to 'play' and take risks when I could see the shot quickly through the DSLR finder.

All that only applies to the situation where the client commissions the work.

When shooting my own work the MFDB is always used or the 8" x 10" because the work is usually printed quite large and aesthetic quality while not the point of the work can ruin a shot if it's not there. I am considering replacing the 8" x 10" all together with P65+  - but still not sure. Speed is really not an issue either.

The 96" prints were landscapes over a farm at dawn.

Also, don't forget the role of the rip in all this and the printer's workflow in general as well as choice of materials etc etc. So many variables and all of this is so subjective.

Cheers

Murray
« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 03:57:06 AM by Murray Fredericks » Logged

Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2009, 04:52:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray please don't even start on that FoV discussion again. We had that long enough on a differnet topic, we don't need it again.  
« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 04:52:19 AM by Christopher » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad