Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?  (Read 51130 times)
Jim2
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« on: September 11, 2009, 09:00:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm currently shooting landscape as a hobby, hoping that one day I can sell the ones I consider great. I'm currently using 1ds3 and have been wondering about whether to get an MFDB + view camera. The MFDB would give me a higher res and the view camera would give me better Dof on grand scheme type of shots.

- I'm wondering whether I should wait for 1ds4, hoping it would have a higher resolution + better DR (if that's even possible?) and use either the Canon TS lens or Cambo X2

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology? I'm using a Canon ipf6100 printer at the moment but the future might offer us better printing technology too.

I guess this is all technical and at the end of the day a nicely captured shots with 1ds3 would be quite nice too and I know a few professional landscape photographers who sell their photos for a living use 5d2.

Thanks for your input / comments / advice / suggestions / thoughts.
Logged
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1079


« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2009, 10:11:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Unless you've got loads of time and money, keep the Canon 1DS III and take a pass on the view camera/medium format back idea.  If you're really interested in gaining depth-of-field for landscape work, invest in the new Canon 17mm and/or 24mm tilt shift lenses. You can extend dynamic range by blending layers in Photoshop (process one layer for highlights and the other for shadows). If you are under the impression that a medium format back will automatically improve your ability to market and sell fine art prints, think again. Especially if you've got no track record selling fine art photography.
Logged
Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2009, 11:51:31 PM »
ReplyReply

If you have money to burn, get the digital back. If you don't, concentrate on making great images. Once your great images start bringing in money to the point that you have the money to burn, then get the digital back.

MFDB is great, but it's not going to make you any more money or make your photography any better.

John
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2009, 05:18:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BobDavid
Unless you've got loads of time and money, keep the Canon 1DS III and take a pass on the view camera/medium format back idea.  If you're really interested in gaining depth-of-field for landscape work, invest in the new Canon 17mm and/or 24mm tilt shift lenses. You can extend dynamic range by blending layers in Photoshop (process one layer for highlights and the other for shadows). If you are under the impression that a medium format back will automatically improve your ability to market and sell fine art prints, think again. Especially if you've got no track record selling fine art photography.
Photoshop HDR is not much use... but can be improved with photomatrix.

Have you any experience of producing large quality prints from MDF and failing to sell them? ...do you know what a large, quality print looks like?

I appreciate that a MFB will not turn a 3rd rate photographer into a good photographer, and that you need to use a tripod and lock the mirror up to get the benefit of the res.

MDF is not for everyone, and is not cost effective for everyone, but please bear in mind that this forum is supposedly for helping people who appreciate the benefits of MDF get the best out of their investments.

I do not want to get a track record of trying to sell 3rd rate small format pictures (like the other 10,000 hopefuls) so I am not going to try to sell anything until I have my view camera working, and I can supply stunning 24" * 34" pictures @ 360 original camera pixels per print inch.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2009, 06:11:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting question, and one that bugged me for a long time.  Finally, when I was working at EP Levine in Boston, I did a test.  I normally would take a camera and make some test shots and print them as big as I could stand, to show what each camera was capable of, but for this test I took two cameras, a big DSLR and a big digital back, shot the same shot with them, and then printed an 11x14 print- the best quality print I knew how to make.  

I got much the same result as what I got once with 11x14 prints made in the darkroom from different film formats- specifically 120 vs. 4x5.  There was a difference in richness, tonal range and what I can only describe as acutance in the two.  It's almost an emotional response, I'd be hard-pressed to back it up with test data, but there was a difference visible to everybody who saw the prints.  Alone, the prints both looked great.  Side-by-side, there was a difference.

I know it may not be realistic, but because it has so much to do with personal taste and perception I'd really encourage you to see for yourself.  Rent a digital back if you can, and shoot one of your favorite subjects with both- make prints, don't just peep.  Your answer will be undeniable.  At the least, insist on doing a test at the dealer.
Logged

Ted Dillard
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2009, 08:22:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
...for this test I took two cameras, a big DSLR and a big digital back, shot the same shot with them, and then printed an 11x14 print- the best quality print I knew how to make.

I got much the same result as what I got once with 11x14 prints made in the darkroom from different film formats- specifically 120 vs. 4x5.  There was a difference in richness, tonal range and what I can only describe as acutance in the two.  It's almost an emotional response, I'd be hard-pressed to back it up with test data, but there was a difference visible to everybody who saw the prints.  Alone, the prints both looked great.  Side-by-side, there was a difference.
One problem is that it is difficult to get retailers to lend you £30,000 worth of kit if you are not an established professional photographer, and if you are a landscape photographer it is difficult to take any useful test shots at you local camera shop.

Most people are of the opinion that you need to print at least 24" (from single shot) to see the difference in res, and the P65 + and H3D11-60 compare to 10 * 8, not 5*4.

One question one might ask... how does a 24 Mpx DSLR picture (taken with a camera with an Anti-Aliasing filter) compare to one taken with a 22Mpx digital back or an 18 Mpx M9?

MFBs are not better just because the digiback unit is detachable from the mirror unit!

...and photography is like Hi-Fi audio - to get a good end result, with good tonal range, res, etc you need to get everything right, and use good equipment and good technique at every stage.

If fine art prints is your market, then some might suggest that you would not get the best out of a 60 Mpx digiback if you do not spend £5,000 on something like an Epson 7900 and a Colorburst RIP.

Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2009, 08:26:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Ted,

Thank's a lot for good info. I still feel that I would ask about sharpening. A DSLR needs more sharpening than an MFDB due to the AA-filter and probably also because of the optics. What is your view on this?

It would be a great service to the community if we had some comparison images to download.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: teddillard
Interesting question, and one that bugged me for a long time.  Finally, when I was working at EP Levine in Boston, I did a test.  I normally would take a camera and make some test shots and print them as big as I could stand, to show what each camera was capable of, but for this test I took two cameras, a big DSLR and a big digital back, shot the same shot with them, and then printed an 11x14 print- the best quality print I knew how to make.  

I got much the same result as what I got once with 11x14 prints made in the darkroom from different film formats- specifically 120 vs. 4x5.  There was a difference in richness, tonal range and what I can only describe as acutance in the two.  It's almost an emotional response, I'd be hard-pressed to back it up with test data, but there was a difference visible to everybody who saw the prints.  Alone, the prints both looked great.  Side-by-side, there was a difference.

I know it may not be realistic, but because it has so much to do with personal taste and perception I'd really encourage you to see for yourself.  Rent a digital back if you can, and shoot one of your favorite subjects with both- make prints, don't just peep.  Your answer will be undeniable.  At the least, insist on doing a test at the dealer.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2009, 08:54:08 AM »
ReplyReply


Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

Regards.
Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2009, 10:00:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jim2
I'm currently shooting landscape as a hobby, hoping that one day I can sell the ones I consider great. I'm currently using 1ds3 and have been wondering about whether to get an MFDB + view camera. The MFDB would give me a higher res and the view camera would give me better Dof on grand scheme type of shots.

- I'm wondering whether I should wait for 1ds4, hoping it would have a higher resolution + better DR (if that's even possible?) and use either the Canon TS lens or Cambo X2

Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology? I'm using a Canon ipf6100 printer at the moment but the future might offer us better printing technology too.

I guess this is all technical and at the end of the day a nicely captured shots with 1ds3 would be quite nice too and I know a few professional landscape photographers who sell their photos for a living use 5d2.

Thanks for your input / comments / advice / suggestions / thoughts.


Hi

You can take good photos with any camera, basically. However, if your eye is sensitive... then there is no contest: MFDB over DSLR. Many with latest 24MP dslrs appears to argue themselves blue in these forums over that theirs are the equal to MFDBs, and likewise some folks who jump from latest to latest, no matter format. That is actually a good thing, because it means many used medium format gear can be bought used for plain bargains! Yet there are pros that use 22MP MFDBs for a reason: image quality. There are indeed pros that use DSLRs for a reason: quick and easy, more not required.

I shoot landscapes and travels as a serious hobby, and I am frank tired of the digital upgrade race, that in fact is one reason to go with a MFDB and stay with it. I use Aptus 65 28MP MFDB on Mamiya 645 for serious in digital. It is about as simple as DSLR, but less technology to get in my way, thus more focus on image. I am also experimenting with my Aptus on my Shen-Hao, not for greater DOF but for panoramic. Actually, as compared to maximizing all in focus, I find it more interesting to have ability of a more shallow DOF than 35mm sized sensors because that gives more dimension to an image. MFDB gives you that ability, or when I wish... to step down for large DOF. The clear downside with MFDB is that a true wide such as Mamiya 28mm is $$$, and likewise a technical "digital" camera is $$$ as also digital large format lenses. For my Shen-Hao I use SHARP traditional film lenses, such as Schneider 72XL and Rodenstock Sironar-N 150. Tentative they appear as sharp as my Mamiyas, although I am still experimenting... You can buy such off Ebay for bargains and less than latest Nikkors. I honest do not find much need for tilt for my 44x33mm sensor, except in limited cases. More so, I do not comprehend why one would need it on Canon 17mm and 24mm, except for purpose to minimize DOF.

Per my experience, picking up medium format, one learns more of photography instead of latest auto everything techniques, and that is a good thing. Personally I am happy I made that move the other year.  

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 10:12:15 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
Jim2
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2009, 10:11:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

Regards.
So I guess "we" (as in we in general) need to settle this first. Whether the DR in MFDB is actually better. Phaseone claims 12 - 12.5 stops. What's canon's DR does anyone know?

If the DR are the same then the only thing left are resolution and sharpness. Sharpness would highly depend on lens and perhaps the tilting / scheimpflug principle which can be solved with either something like Cambo X2 / Arca M2 or Canon's TS lens. It leaves only resolution which the 35mm camp will eventually catch up perhaps at least to 40 - 50MP level.

Realistically, how many photos does one need to sell to actually use the proceeds to pay for an MFDB? Gosh.... at $1000 a photo you'd need to sell 20+ of them - not an easy task for a starting photographer since they won't have a gallery, won't have the reputation / name, the sales channel is not as established. It might take a year or two to sell that many photos for a no name photographer?

I guess the same consideration goes with images taken using MFDB  Thankfully I am not making my living from photography. I am just thinking whether it's a wise / good use of money in terms of whether it would actually make a difference in the results. Yes I understand that basic techniques such as using a solid tripod, mirror lock up (on a dslr), cable release are all essentials before worrying about what kind of camera / sensor one has.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 10:13:03 AM by Jim2 » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2009, 10:22:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Guillermo,

I'll probably agree with you on the DR issue. What I feel is that both you and me have a background in engineering and probably have some sort of preference for things that can be measured and quantified. There is also a lot of mythology surrounding photographic equipment, like the case is with high-end audio.

On the other hand, experienced photographer like Michael Reichman and Ted Dillard say that there is a definitive visual difference even on quite small prints but sort of straggle with describing the differences. Cicrocontrast and tonality is mentioned and those terms are not really well defined to me.

A third factor is that everything we do in digital involves a lot of processing. Demosaicing and color interpretation in "raw"-conversion, followed by capture-sharpening, tonality adjustment and finally sharpening for output. It is not possible to create a level playing field. We would really need to have optimal processing for both images, and what's optimal is in the eyes of the beholder.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

Regards.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2009, 10:24:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jim2
Realistically, how many photos does one need to sell to actually use the proceeds to pay for an MFDB? Gosh.... at $1000 a photo you'd need to sell 20+ of them - not an easy task for a starting photographer since they won't have a gallery, won't have the reputation / name, the sales channel is not as established. It might take a year or two to sell that many photos for a no name photographer?
In the UK I have never seen a good, big high res picture (MFB or pano), and I think that if I walked into any gallery with a few, they would take me seriously and allocate wall space.

I think that in the USA there are landscape photographers using serious cameras like 10 * 8s and putting quality pictures into galleries - can anyone confirm?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8206



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2009, 10:57:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
I do not want to get a track record of trying to sell 3rd rate small format pictures (like the other 10,000 hopefuls) so I am not going to try to sell anything until I have my view camera working, and I can supply stunning 24" * 34" pictures @ 360 original camera pixels per print inch.

Somebody getting a bit of P65+ induced vertigo?

Phaseone should inform the owners about the risks...  

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 8206



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2009, 11:07:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
You can take good photos with any camera, basically. However, if your eye is sensitive... then there is no contest: MFDB over DSLR. Many with latest 24MP dslrs appears to argue themselves blue in these forums over that theirs are the equal to MFDBs,

Those guys remind me of the Nuforce owners who keep claiming that their Ref9V2 SE at 3,500 US$ are as good as 15,000 US$ Krells.  

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2009, 01:16:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would say that there are some discussions about sharpness. There are several approaches:

1) Studies of the resolution of the human eye, which normally give about one minute of arc resolution. This is consistent with the pitch of the rods in the foeva of the human eye.
2) Statements that 400 PPI images are sharper han 200 PPI to the eye

Add to this that we now that aliasing (or false resolution), which actually is an artifact, can enhance prception of sharpness.

By the way, resolution is a very bad measure of sharpness. Edge contrast, sometimes called acutance is much better related to our impression of sharpness.

I would recommend this presentation from Zeiss on the issue: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-and-perception

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Jim2
So I guess "we" (as in we in general) need to settle this first. Whether the DR in MFDB is actually better. Phaseone claims 12 - 12.5 stops. What's canon's DR does anyone know?

If the DR are the same then the only thing left are resolution and sharpness. Sharpness would highly depend on lens and perhaps the tilting / scheimpflug principle which can be solved with either something like Cambo X2 / Arca M2 or Canon's TS lens. It leaves only resolution which the 35mm camp will eventually catch up perhaps at least to 40 - 50MP level.

Realistically, how many photos does one need to sell to actually use the proceeds to pay for an MFDB? Gosh.... at $1000 a photo you'd need to sell 20+ of them - not an easy task for a starting photographer since they won't have a gallery, won't have the reputation / name, the sales channel is not as established. It might take a year or two to sell that many photos for a no name photographer?

I guess the same consideration goes with images taken using MFDB  Thankfully I am not making my living from photography. I am just thinking whether it's a wise / good use of money in terms of whether it would actually make a difference in the results. Yes I understand that basic techniques such as using a solid tripod, mirror lock up (on a dslr), cable release are all essentials before worrying about what kind of camera / sensor one has.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 02:08:29 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2009, 02:38:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
In the UK I have never seen a good, big high res picture (MFB or pano), and I think that if I walked into any gallery with a few, they would take me seriously and allocate wall space.

I think that in the USA there are landscape photographers using serious cameras like 10 * 8s and putting quality pictures into galleries - can anyone confirm?

There are hundreds of photographers shooting landscapes quite well with 8 *10 cameras, scanning backs, P65's etc etc, producing perfect prints, good image quality is just the very start of it.
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2009, 03:20:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).

Of course resolution, sharpness, being able to use great lenses,... is another story. But regarding DR, just look at the sensor your camera has.

That's simply not true. You're judging based on dX0s numbers. I've judged it (as well as many many people on this forum) in the real world.

This can be settled in just a few minutes when you shoot both formats. Underexpose or overexpose both systems by 3 stops and then push/pull the image back into place. This test is dead-easy to run and judge, but obviously anyone shooting an expensive system should be expected to expose properly, so alternatively, use each camera for a scene with extraordinary range of lighting and then try to pull in both highlights and shadows.

The difference is obvious and undeniable. We're happy (for free) to open our gear closet for your own hands on testing in Atlanta or Miami, a discounted rental anywhere in the US, or in person at the upcoming Oregon GetDPI.com workshop (at which they'll be at least one of just about every high-end dSLR as well as Phase and Leaf digital backs).

You are 100% right that much more than just pure sensor size determines the DR (though it is a major component). However, at every step in the image chain a high-end back like a P65+ puts more emphasis on quality and less on speed or price than does a D3X.

To answer your question: is the difference of DR on  MFDB vs 35mm dSLR dicernible in print?
  - IF your scene contains a lot of DR and
  - IF your goal is to show detail deep into the shadows and highlights*
  - THEN yes; absolutely it will

*many many fantastic landscapes have been created with large areas of pure white and detail-less black; this is a style choice. If your style is to model after these high-contrast landscapes with small DR than you don't need the DR of a DB (though you'd still benefit from the better lenses, more flexible usage, body-based tilt/shift, tonal smoothness, and resolution).

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2009, 03:23:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GLuijk
Higher DR on MFDB is a myth that serves well to MDFB sellers. DR depends on the overall quality of the sensor, not only on its size. Do some DR comparisions in DxO Mark and you will see the Nikon D3X's DR is higher than that found on any MDFB (Phase One, Hasselblad or Leaf).
...
Regards.

You'd think so from looking at just the numbers, but when you compare the files there's a pretty big visual difference between even my old P20 and my new canon 5DII.    Having really appreciated your work with the zero noise software I believe your technical abilities but in this case you may need to look carefully at side by side prints before making such a statement or stating that differences in DR is a myth.

Besides the sensor differences (CMOS vs CCD) and other file processing, there are differences in magnification factors between DSLR and MF systems that affect the look and feel as well as the differences in lens systems.   You simply cannot compare something esthetic just by looking at numbers and the DXO numbers do not compare well between MFDB and DSLR because the MFDB files are treated differently in post - for example the black frame subtraction happens on the computer instead of the camera.  

I recently shot a job (granite sculptures for an installation) with both the 5DII and my Rollei 6008/p20.   The 5DII actually even has more pixels and I cropped the p20 to a rectangle but the p20 files had more depth and realness to them - which was even clearer in print (8x10) than on screen.  The 5DII allowed me to take some video and shoot some higher ISO images so I was glad to have both systems.

Going back to what others have stated - I wouldn't expect a change in gear to help you sell more prints.   But I do feel there is a difference.


Regards,
Eric
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 03:24:08 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2009, 04:14:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

That may depend a little bit on how DR is defined. The normal (technical) definition of DR is SNR = 1, and normally the read noise is considered. Read noise seems to be lower on CMOS and the technology Canon is using, so by this definition Canon get high DR-rating because of their low read noise.

Now, noise in normal photography is not dominated by read noise but noise resulting from the poisson distribution of photons. That essentially means that you need to collect about perhaps 100 photons on average to acceptable noise levels. In the first case:

DR = maximum electrons / read noise

and in the other case

DR = maximum electrons / (read noise + 100)

This will be something like 3-5 stops less than the first value. It's quite clear that having larger sensels have two advantages:

1) They collect more photons so they need less exposure to achieve good statistics
2) Bigger sensel can hold more electrons which increases dynamic range

This is a very short explanation and not a scientific one.

For a good explanation check:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail//do...el.size.matter/

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...oise/index.html

Best regards
Erik




Quote from: dougpetersonci
That's simply not true. You're judging based on dX0s numbers. I've judged it (as well as many many people on this forum) in the real world.

This can be settled in just a few minutes when you shoot both formats. Underexpose or overexpose both systems by 3 stops and then push/pull the image back into place. This test is dead-easy to run and judge, but obviously anyone shooting an expensive system should be expected to expose properly, so alternatively, use each camera for a scene with extraordinary range of lighting and then try to pull in both highlights and shadows.

The difference is obvious and undeniable. We're happy (for free) to open our gear closet for your own hands on testing in Atlanta or Miami, a discounted rental anywhere in the US, or in person at the upcoming Oregon GetDPI.com workshop (at which they'll be at least one of just about every high-end dSLR as well as Phase and Leaf digital backs).

You are 100% right that much more than just pure sensor size determines the DR (though it is a major component). However, at every step in the image chain a high-end back like a P65+ puts more emphasis on quality and less on speed or price than does a D3X.

To answer your question: is the difference of DR on  MFDB vs 35mm dSLR dicernible in print?
  - IF your scene contains a lot of DR and
  - IF your goal is to show detail deep into the shadows and highlights*
  - THEN yes; absolutely it will

*many many fantastic landscapes have been created with large areas of pure white and detail-less black; this is a style choice. If your style is to model after these high-contrast landscapes with small DR than you don't need the DR of a DB (though you'd still benefit from the better lenses, more flexible usage, body-based tilt/shift, tonal smoothness, and resolution).

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Logged

gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2009, 06:11:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
This can be settled in just a few minutes when you shoot both formats. Underexpose or overexpose both systems by 3 stops and then push/pull the image back into place. This test is dead-easy to run and judge, but obviously anyone shooting an expensive system should be expected to expose properly, so alternatively, use each camera for a scene with extraordinary range of lighting and then try to pull in both highlights and shadows.

If you have a meter, and an LCD, (even a shitty Phase One LCD), and you can't get any closer than three stops, then you've got some much bigger issues in your life, and maybe you ought not own either system. Maybe you oughta go back to that Minolta 101, take a class, and start from scratch.

So you call this "real world"? Miss your exposure by three stops and then try to save the job in the software?

Put a 5D2 and a Phase back side by side -- the only way you're gonna miss your exposure by three stops is with the horrible-rendering Phase One LCD quality, because maybe everything from 200 to 255 gets rendered pure white with that Phase LCD, or you're looking at it in bright sun, and the whole LCD turns metallic.

Come on, Doug, you gotta do better than this to sell your product. The old "miss it by three stops real world argument"?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad