Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sensor to Sensor  (Read 11464 times)
filmcapture
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2009, 01:33:33 PM »
ReplyReply

IMHO, this kind of comparison is totally useless. The angle of view, focusing distance, JPEG compression, judging IQ on a 8-bit LCD monitor and other factors have filtered out all of the advantages of MFDB (actually even some of Nikon D3). My 6MP Nikon D40 can do better than my Sinar 75LV on my screen, and I have files to prove it. But that's up to how I manipulated those files.
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2009, 01:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Also a D3x would have been better as well.
Same pixel size as the P65+(I think)
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2009, 02:09:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Of course we only see a small portion of the real data but some things are still interesting:

- the D3 has theoretically twice as large photosites but doesn't seem to offer additional highlight-range (quite the opposite)
- the Rodenstock has to "work harder" to deliver the same "pixel-performance" because the tighter pixel-pitch results in lower contrast for nyqist but still offers similar final pixel-sharpness (AA-filter?).

The D3x might have been an even more interesting comparison partner due to the similar pixel-pitch, also some playing with additional post-processing (recovering detail, over/underexposure etc.) would be cool.

But thanks for this comparison anyway and by the way: nice lounge chair  
Logged
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2009, 02:37:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
Thanks for posting these images - it takes a lot of courage to do this now as shortly the 35mm HDR armchair hypothetical stitch piranhas will swarm in to geek everything up.

There are regions in the image where the P65+ seems to have a noticeable advantage in dynamic range and tonality (and obviously resolution) and I think that will come through in even small prints as a more life like feel.  At least I might notice it.   That said the D3 is not too shabby!  Wonderful times to have these choices available.

It would be interesting if you would expose a bit more for the curtains, and then pull up the shadows. I would guess that the P65+ might start to pull ahead visibly then. Still, $35k difference is a lot of dough.

Do you have any experience of the A900 vs. the D3? The A900 at low ISOs is meant to have really good colours and detail.
Logged

CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2009, 02:40:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Yelhsa
Thanks for posting this Christopher.
Love the decor of that place... and I've got to say that P65 image really does look amazing.
Stunning quality.

There is no question about it, if I were going to spend 30 or 40 minutes working on creating an image - that's the camera system I'd want to be using, to record it in the end.

Cheers,
Ashley

Thanks, it's actually my living room.  The lounge chair was a gift from HB for orchestrating the conversion from film to digital shooting.  

And again, perhaps I wasn't clear enough... the angle of view, focusing distance and all optical factors are identical between the two shots.  

When I was considering purchasing the P65+, I setup a shot with the P45+, then I removed the back from my camera and replaced it with a demo P65+ and shot again.  This comparison is no different.  The D3, in essence, becomes a digital back attached to the Arca.

Nikon and Canon are always going to be nipping at the heels of the high end game and they're not too far behind.  This, however, in no way diminishes my satisfaction in purchasing a $45k system.  I want to start with the best files achievable and I'm willing to pay exponentially more to do it.  The stuff has almost paid for itself anyway.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1005


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2009, 02:53:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Alan, I indeed missed that. If the purpose of the test was to show resolution of pixel/area that's fine. Sensor to sensor. That's it, no more. I doesn't prove that the Nikon D3 is "close" to the P65+. So, what is going on here? Some reply posts before mine seemed to affirm otherwise, or to say: "The D3 is a just  a hair from the P65+"

"Nice test Chris! I can't see 35,000.00 worth of improved quality in the P65 file, can you? The Nikon, to me, looks a little crisper actually" Jim

Christopher:
"I did a similar test, comparing my P30+ to my 1Ds3 and came to the exact conclusion: a tiny bit of difference, but nothing that would ever show in CMYK, and nothing that couldn't be corrected for, in a tiny contrast adjustment and USM in DPP. I purposely don't want to do this test with my P45+ and my 5D2, because I want to keep my Hasselblad. I just don't want to see the true reality."

"Well I am not surprised at all. The main difference or benefit you get, is more resolution, which is only important for larger prints. Perhaps some smaller DR and color advantages, but these are certainly not worth the price. "
Christopher Hauser

Or maybe is a translation thing. English is not my native language.
Eduardo



 
Quote from: GBPhoto
You might have missed that both cameras are shooting through the same lens, from the same place.  The D3 is only showing a "crop" of the P65 sensor area.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 02:55:57 PM by uaiomex » Logged
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2009, 03:06:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: uaiomex
Thank you Alan, I indeed missed that. If the purpose of the test was to show resolution of pixel/area that's fine. Sensor to sensor. That's it, no more. I doesn't prove that the Nikon D3 is "close" to the P65+. So, what is going on here? Some reply posts before mine seemed to affirm otherwise, or to say: "The D3 is a just  a hair from the P65+"

"Nice test Chris! I can't see 35,000.00 worth of improved quality in the P65 file, can you? The Nikon, to me, looks a little crisper actually" Jim

Christopher:
"I did a similar test, comparing my P30+ to my 1Ds3 and came to the exact conclusion: a tiny bit of difference, but nothing that would ever show in CMYK, and nothing that couldn't be corrected for, in a tiny contrast adjustment and USM in DPP. I purposely don't want to do this test with my P45+ and my 5D2, because I want to keep my Hasselblad. I just don't want to see the true reality."

"Well I am not surprised at all. The main difference or benefit you get, is more resolution, which is only important for larger prints. Perhaps some smaller DR and color advantages, but these are certainly not worth the price. "
Christopher Hauser

Or maybe is a translation thing. English is not my native language.
Eduardo

I think the implication here is that for architecture, stitching can give quite good results, and for $35000, one might be willing to do a bit of extra stitching
Logged

cyberean
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2009, 03:10:46 PM »
ReplyReply

i can only see approximately $27,538 worth of improvement.
but certainly NOT $35k ...


Logged

check out the size of my sensor ...
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1005


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2009, 03:34:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh, oh! I missed that too.
Eduardo

Quote from: carstenw
I think the implication here is that for architecture, stitching can give quite good results, and for $35000, one might be willing to do a bit of extra stitching
Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2009, 03:42:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cyberean
i can only see approximately $27,538 worth of improvement.
but certainly NOT $35k ...


I don't care who you are...that was funny!
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2009, 03:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: infocusinc
I don't care who you are...that was funny!

Agreed!

But I thought it was obvious... the remaining $7462.00 is the cost of bragging rights (with value added warranty!)
Logged
aaronleitz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2009, 03:50:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Who cares about the camera stuff.

What I want to know is:
1) Is that your living room?
2) If so, do you get some sort of discount with Herman Miller?
3) If so, can you get me a discount too? ;-)

I want that Eames lounger!
Logged

CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2009, 03:53:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaronleitz
Who cares about the camera stuff.

What I want to know is:
1) Is that your living room?
2) If so, do you get some sort of discount with Herman Miller?
3) If so, can you get me a discount too? ;-)

I want that Eames lounger!


LoL.  Well, yes.  And I shoot for Herman Miller... I traded a day of photography for that red plywood chair and 3 Eames Storage Units.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 03:58:20 PM by CBarrett » Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2009, 04:59:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Check the Blue channel in both jpegs. The Nikon one is totally blocked which will, if not carefully separated, to a heavily blocked black separation in print, showing no detail in the shadow areas or in the sofa's fabric.

Look at both images' blue channel and see just how much more detail there's in the P65+ file...there's a BIG difference there.
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2009, 05:49:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Differences are a lot easier to see if you lay the two files over each other in photoshop and scale the Nikon image to same size - I think it was 141.6% or something.  Just line them up over each other and toggle on and off the top layer.  It's really easy to see the increase in DR both in highlights and shadows, tonality and detail.  Thanks to Christopher for the test and smartly using the same lens in the same position so this comparison is so easy.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 05:51:15 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
JdeV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2009, 06:25:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
I did this little test for two reasons:

  • I can
  • I'm a geek

Shooting on the Arca with the Rodenstock HR 70mm, P65+ vs D3 body.  The P65+ is smoother tonally with greater range (as I would expect) and feels sharper.  Everything shot to and processed through C1 Pro 5 with base settings.  This is purely a sensor test and for most, the issue of LF Glass vs T/S lenses needs to play into the equation as well.  The results are the same as always... if you can justify the extra $35k and this is the way you want to work, cool.  If not, you'll do pretty good with the alternative.


/word.

Interesting and just goes to prove a rather basic point. Medium format sensors offer more resolution but in itself why should this confer any other special magic? Because they are crazy expensive? Micro-tonality, more capacity to push the curves etc. etc. ...all bollocks.

Of course a sensor for any format can have strengths and weaknesses but there is nothing intrinsically special about the medium format ones. In fact most of them are old and a bit duff. (The 39Meg sensor in the P45+ and the H3D39 etc. and the 33 Meg Dalsa sensors were launched four years, or two generations of 35mm camera, ago. The 50 Meg sensor in the Hasselblad seems very similar in quality with just a bit more resolution. Resolution aside, at the moment only the P65+ is actually on a par with current 35mm technology...at base ISO).

However, if one is comparing sensors one needs to use appropriate software. The Nikon file would likely give you more dynamic range and sharpness if you put it through NX2. (Recent DPreview tests confirm this difference with the D300s processed in Camera Raw versus NX2). It's a bit unfair to use Phase software for both. A D3x file would offer more still than the D3.

If DXO Mark is to be believed the P65+ has a small edge over the D3x for colour and is inferior for dynamic range. Personally I have found that the P65+ can handle difficult mixed lighting better than the D3x, though in general the colour is just different rather than better. However, the D3x definitely has the edge for dynamic range. Also, even using Capture One 5 the P65+ is way more prone to black spots, inverted highlights, weird digital 'dust' artefacts etc. with night shots, even at 50 ISO. Of course it is crap for noise/shadow detail above 100 ISO even if it is marginally less crap than previous medium format sensors.

Finally, this is not to deride resolution. For the appropriate subject with relevant fine detail it's a marvelous thing. Which is why I will continue to rent but not buy the P65+.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 06:31:22 PM by JdeV » Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2009, 06:39:42 PM »
ReplyReply

And here we go again, anyone want's to guess how this topic stays open ^^ ?
Logged

CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2009, 06:46:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JdeV
However, the D3x definitely has the edge for dynamic range.


Hmm.... I'll believe that when I see it on my own machine.  Mind you, I'm so happy with the D3 that I'll be first in line to buy a D4x, but still don't expect to be putting the P65+ on eBay anytime soon.

Hell, even if the D4x is better than the P65+, I don't know that I could give up the view camera!

LoL
Logged
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2009, 06:54:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christopher
And here we go again, anyone want's to guess how this topic stays open ^^ ?


LoL...ok.... ok.... I'll stop.
Logged
JdeV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2009, 06:56:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
Hmm.... I'll believe that when I see it on my own machine.  Mind you, I'm so happy with the D3 that I'll be first in line to buy a D4x, but still don't expect to be putting the P65+ on eBay anytime soon.

Hell, even if the D4x is better than the P65+, I don't know that I could give up the view camera!

LoL

View cameras are way better than slrs for many things. That's a different matter from sensor comparisons.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad