Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 17tse compared with 23HR  (Read 35240 times)
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« on: December 05, 2009, 06:55:51 PM »
ReplyReply

following the former tread where MFHA posted a comparison, finally i wanted to find out for myself, at which point the canons with the recent shift lenses stands , compared to the top notch rodenstock HR lenses. i hate pixel peeping comparisons, but  in this case to see clearer where are the limits, it even made sense for me to try out some motifs side by side. my conclusion is similar than MFHA`s. i find the results more closed together, i dont have so much image degradation at the outer image zones than his photo shows. i have used for all shots f11. sample variation? unfortunately it exists independent from the manufactor and also of the price point and i think its just unacceptable.

i will go on in the next days comparing the 24tse,  ( also together with the 1,4extender )   against the rodenstock digital 45mm lens and the 45tse against the 60HR.
to read the tests together i post here the links to the other lens tests:
35 HR against the 24 TS-E :

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39887

what jumped at first in my eye is how good corrected the 17tse is. better than the 23HR, although the ALPA software plugin does a very very good job in correcting shifted lenses. image shows the uncorrected image version, followed by the alpa correction.
secondly the vignetting of the 17tse is stunning, to reach similar good results with the HR lens  white shadings have to be applied with the falloff correction, set at the offset point in eXposure of 50%.
i did not postad a comparison of the  sharpness of the 17tse to the 23HR at the left upper extreme corner, cause the result would be misleading. i shifted the 23HR a bit over its image circle and this caused to a degraded image at the extreme edge, normally the HR is extreme sharp even at the outer edges, i dont want to show this kind of artifact ( caused by my mistake )
for not giving a wrong impression of this outstanding lens. although i posted the outer edge to show that the 17tse still is very sharp even closed to  the end of its image circle.

dynamic range of the sensor seems to be very similar. maybe a half stop advantage for the sinar e75, but the canon recovers highlights with less prone to color casts, so they will end up with a similar range, the e75 wants to be exposed with more care for its more aggressive highlight clipping.

sharpness of both lenses is clearly limited by the sensors, so a P65 will resolve way more detail with the HR lenses and will disqualify the canon far more, but i dont see the point for which use are this extreme resolutions. even my very big prints which exceed 2 meters look very great with the e75, i have very little desire for needing more. maybe if the prices are affortable thats ok for me, but just now i dont want to spend so much money for a feature i dont desire that much.
the next generation of canons probably will come very close to the e75 with its 33mp, ofcourse it will not scratch the p65 or the aptus10.
color rendition is "cooler" with the e75, which i prefer, although the canon gives under even the worst light conditions still good colors, where it can happen that the e75 fails ( certain types of fluorescent lights mixed with tungsten ).
my conclusion: the e75 is sharper, but not that much ( this would look different as described with higher resolution sensors ).
i printed out with very good results the canon till A1, which is for working situations more than enough and i wouldnt care to upinterpolate with photozoom much bigger sizes ( not forgetting to add grain ).
handling of the canon is great for its live view with grid, but sharpness has to be checked very careful at 10x magnification, and battery consumption is high with the canon and live view. for a day of work one better goes with 4 batteries, meanwhile with the e75 rarely i need more than 2.
the artec handles great too for smooth composition on the groundglas, sharpness control is not necessary if the object and the lenses are well adjusted,-
the workflow with it is much more on the 4x5" side,- which may like architectural shooters who come from film, as i hope.

i sharpened the e75 with 150% and 0,4 radius and the canon ( a bit more for its AA filter ) with 200% and 0,5 radius.
all images taken with f11.

17tse, 12mm up, canon 5dmk2,
[attachment=18372:2_17TSE.jpg]



23HR, 12mm up, sinar e75lv, artek ,  distortion with ALPA plugin corrected
[attachment=18373:2_23HR.jpg]


23HR, 12mm up, sinar e75lv, artek , ( without distortion correction )
[attachment=18374:2_23HR_alpa.jpg]


crop, center detail, image at the bottom is the e75 with the 23HR, at top the 17tse
[attachment=18382:2_unten_23HR_crop2.jpg]


crop2 only the 17tse, left upper corner
[attachment=18377:2_17TSE_crop3.jpg]


image 2:
in this image i up-interpolated the 22mp canon  in photoshop to app. the same size than the 33mp e75 image,
to be able to compare a bit better the "Real" detail difference between the two systems.
i uprezzed the canon to the same horizontal size of 6666 pixels.
as in image 1 i sharpened the e75 with 150% and 0,4 radius and the canon ( a bit more for its AA filter ) with 200% and 0,5 radius.

17tse with the 5dmks
[attachment=18378:1_17tse.jpg]

23hr with the e75
[attachment=18379:1_23HR.jpg]

and two crops, one time from the left side to the right side, the image at the bottom is the 23HR again,
and the second image from top to bottom. in the brass at the botttom i.m.o. the sharpness diffeence is mostly visible.
right image is the 23HR.
[attachment=18380:1_unten_23H_crop1.jpg]

[attachment=18381:1_rechts...HR_crop2.jpg]
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 04:22:43 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2009, 07:45:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Cut it out, Rainer.  I had a very nice day with my view camera and you're ruining it!

: )
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2399



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2009, 07:49:26 PM »
ReplyReply

One can clearly see more 3D effect with the 23HR        -  

You know I'm mostly just kidding around with that comment - mostly!    

Thank for doing the tests and sharing your results.   The files are closer than I would have guessed.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2009, 07:50:39 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 671


« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2009, 10:04:20 PM »
ReplyReply

The 23 looks a little nicer, but if you never saw the images side by side the Canon looks better then I thought it would. I am evaluating if I am going to stay with my Leaf Aptus. It's been such an up hill battle with lines, color cast, lens falloff, ect.....  I am sick of all the time spent fixing what should have been fixed from the start.

I shoot a lot with the 24xl, but not sure the 17tse would offer the same coverage?
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2009, 11:17:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Excellent comparison Rainer.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2009, 12:35:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting comparison. The Canon images look very good, you clearly have an excellent copy of the 17 T/S.

I guess after a comparison like this, with its very close IQ results, the open question is when to use what. Do you always use the Canon because it is easier to work with, or do you always use the arTec because it is nicer (?) to work with, or do you use both, and if so, when do you use each? Do you move up to something larger, like a P65+? Can you see the extra resolution in a 2m print?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 12:36:16 AM by carstenw » Logged

uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2009, 01:10:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Rainer: Same here. I never thought the 17Ts would be THIS good despite all the raving reviews it has gotten. I knew I was going to get the 2 new TS's from Canon while I wait for the right time to jump to a digital back. Now, I don't know.
I'd love to see the TS 17 and 24TSII used with a 7D under such a fine comparo like the one you just did in order to see if these fine lenses are at their limit or not. If these lenses can show better pixel level resolution than this, I may never make it to DMF. The prices are unreal.
One question: Why does the 75 shows more noise?
Thanks so much for such enlighting post. I almost feel sorry for the digital back makers.
Eduardo
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 01:13:21 AM by uaiomex » Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 779


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2009, 03:00:35 AM »
ReplyReply

This is the beginning of the end! LOL
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 03:02:43 AM by rethmeier » Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2009, 03:57:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Great comparison Rainer, thanks. You're making me think hard about whether to continue with MF. I love the results from my Hasselblad but the new canon lenses look pretty amazing.

I have followed many of your posts and I feel you keep trying the canons to see if you can make them your main tool. I wonder, are you thinking of using the canons for just about everything?
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2009, 05:16:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
Do you always use the Canon because it is easier to work with, or do you always use the arTec because it is nicer (?) to work with, or do you use both, and if so, when do you use each? Do you move up to something larger, like a P65+? Can you see the extra resolution in a 2m print?

i am not sure if its easier to work with the canon, more the opposite. i like the ground-glass based work with the artec, i have more lenses and a more complete setup for it and i dont have experience to make whole jobs with the canon. i will try it out, but i am a bit careful in changing systems.

i am sure the extra resolution of the p65 is visible in such big prints, the question is if it has any useful impact to the image, means if it makes the image looking better.
u know that the viewing distance isn't the same as with smaller prints and that is even difficult to go so close to such big prints neing it even  only for interest. on the other hand, with some inches of distance ( really still very close ), an up-interpolated ( photozoom plus grain ) image from the emotion75 looks absolute stunning and no-one never showed any desire for having more details, so for what is it good? in this case the motif itself but also how it is rendered is by far more important than if you get more micro details in it or not.
of course i would have more room for cropping with higher resolution , but i rarely do it much.
on location work, which is most of my work, i dont want bigger files as i already have. i edit most of the time on my laptop, even i have two eizos which are sent behind me to my hotels , one is in us and one in europe. if i work with laptop on several layers i am not so keen on doubling the size of the files and so the time spent in editing.
it costs my nerves and my clients money, so if no-one needs what for i do? further i like a lot the workflow from the eXposure architecture plug in with its btach white file and vignetting correction, so very little interest ( no interest )  in changing here to C1.
the price deterioration is fast, so if its this time the same than the last years i prefer to catch my p65 in two years for $10.000 having two generations faster laptops too at that time.

the canon looks excellent, but it still is a bit inferior in terms of sharpness. i am not sure how the impact will be on such big print sizes.
it could be that there the e75 is minimum quality for this and everything else will get an un-appetizing look.  
so i havent decided what to do now, i will keep on trying and thinking.

one important point is dust. although the canon has this shaky sensor dust removement it dosnt work good enough. there always remain some spots which is very time consuming.
the e75 with the artek is an incredible good couple herein. sometimes i work several weeks (!!!) without one dust spot to remove or any sensor cleaning.
thats fantastic and  a big plus.

Quote from: pixjohn
The 23 looks a little nicer, but if you never saw the images side by side the Canon looks better then I thought it would.
i think its more the e75 which looks nicer for showing somehow colder colors, with less yellow in it.
if you layer the two images of the ugly yellow house, you will see how different is the distortion INSIDE the frame. the 23HR is much more rounded than the 17tse.
in the end i think the 17tse looks better than the 23HR, but the sensor of the emotion has advantages over the canon, but not in all aspects. ( highlight rendering ).
i prefer the less saturated deep shadows o f the canon.

Quote from: uaiomex
I'd love to see the TS 17 and 24TSII used with a 7D under such a fine comparo like the one you just did in order to see if these fine lenses are at their limit or not. If these lenses can show better pixel level resolution than this, I may never make it to DMF. The prices are unreal.
One question: Why does the 75 shows more noise?
Thanks so much for such enlighting post. I almost feel sorry for the digital back makers.
Eduardo
i bet that there is enough room for higher resolution sensors. i would estimate till 40 -60 mp for sure.
the saturation in the shadows is higher with the e75 ( which is a software question ). also i cant expose so heavy the highlights than with the canon and loose maybe one stop therefor. both together results in a bit higher noise level, but i dont care because the results look very good in regard of noise if used base iso.
but for sure there is no mf advantage ( see our 16bit legend here in LL ) over the canon.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 05:22:58 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2009, 06:46:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
i am not sure if its easier to work with the canon, more the opposite. i like the ground-glass based work with the artec, i have more lenses and a more complete setup for it and i dont have experience to make whole jobs with the canon. i will try it out, but i am a bit careful in changing systems.

Hmm, so if the arTec is easier to work with, and your system more complete, and you have more experience with the arTec to do every job perfectly, and the e75 gets you more resolution and generally better colours, and your laptop handles your existing workflow, then I guess my question reverses itself: why use the Canon at all, even if it is good?

Quote
i am sure the extra resolution of the p65 is visible in such big prints, the question is if it has any useful impact to the image, means if it makes the image looking better. u know that the viewing distance isn't the same as with smaller prints and that is even difficult to go so close to such big prints neing it even  only for interest. on the other hand, with some inches of distance ( really still very close ), an up-interpolated ( photozoom plus grain ) image from the emotion75 looks absolute stunning and no-one never showed any desire for having more details, so for what is it good? in this case the motif itself but also how it is rendered is by far more important than if you get more micro details in it or not. of course i would have more room for cropping with higher resolution , but i rarely do it much. on location work, which is most of my work, i dont want bigger files as i already have(...)

In this case, I can see only one reason for using the P65+: moiré. Do you spend a lot of time fixing moiré? If not, I guess there simply is no reason to get one.
Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2009, 07:09:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
Hmm, so if the arTec is easier to work with, and your system more complete, and you have more experience with the arTec to do every job perfectly, and the e75 gets you more resolution and generally better colours, and your laptop handles your existing workflow, then I guess my question reverses itself: why use the Canon at all, even if it is good?



In this case, I can see only one reason for using the P65+: moiré. Do you spend a lot of time fixing moiré? If not, I guess there simply is no reason to get one.

moiree is very very rare an issue with the e75. in the few cases i got it i shot a second shot with f22 or higher, which eliminates 90% of the
moiree for diffraction and layer it erasing the moiree zones.

why i bought them ?
well ... i use the canon for nearly every shot with long lenses for details and i was very interested in these new tse lenses,  so i bought them in a weak moment.
after they came i realized how good they are, i explained that i will explore for what i will use the canon in future and for what not.
there will be a lot of stuff where it will fit. e.g. i want to use them for moonlit shots of industry, i will use it for some travelling work,
but i will do after i made enough experience with it. so it can be too that i will use it much more in the future than i was planning, but its too early to state this.
at all this does not make the artek worse nor its workflow, but i want to show with this posting too that the canon is everything else than a 2.class tool.

most things come down for me to the workflow, so image composing, convenience of develloping the files,
weight and lens ranges will be the important facts which system will be with me on my work.
in any case the canon is a fantastic backup system, but i think i will use it much more.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 732


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2009, 08:01:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Reading this I think I will never use anything else but a 35mm SLR.
The D3x I have does a great job on architecture but also in the evening at 1600 to 3200 asa when I portrait musicians and artists at 1.4 if I like.

Using 4x5 inch in the past I am now at 1/2of the quality in one shot and shift-stiched at about that quality.

In the future things will only become better.
The only borders I see are the quality of the optics and the optical diffraction border.

On the first I can see Nikon and Canon bringing out better lenses than ever before that really address the 20+MegaPixell cameras;  on the latter I do not know at how many MP that border is reached but well over 30MP I guess.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 08:58:32 AM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
favalim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2009, 08:25:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rainer, thanks for sharing your test. I also use e75 on view camera and 1Ds MKII for details  (furniture and interior shots). Same as you I'm not a pixel peeping, I never look at the details at 100% because when I compare the Canon and the Sinar files I see a different world in terms of tonal gradation: the sinar's are much rounded and smoohness, more film like wich gives me more space using curve in PS.
Looking at your test my question is: do you find this new canon generation (starting from 5D MKII) has reached the MF performance about tonal gradation? do you still notice a gap between them? looking at this test I'm quite confused.

Thanks

Logged
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2009, 09:09:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
Very interesting comparison. The Canon images look very good, you clearly have an excellent copy of the 17 T/S.

Or he simply knows how to take a photo properly.

While many Canon lenses have sample variation that is unacceptable, these results are in line with mine, another photog I know, and every report and review I've seen.


Logged
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2009, 09:21:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: asf
Or he simply knows how to take a photo properly.

Being a great photographer does not give sharp corners. This was a comparison, so no funky stuff.

Quote
While many Canon lenses have sample variation that is unacceptable, these results are in line with mine, another photog I know, and every report and review I've seen.

You are reading more into my sentence than I wrote. His copy *is* great.
Logged

David Klepacki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2009, 09:26:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Rainer, thanks for the comparison.  However, I was not really impressed with the images from the 17tse.  If two photographers came to me, one presenting the images such as those here from the 17tse and the other photographer presenting images such as those here with the 23HR, I would hire the photographer who showed me the images that look like the ones from the 23HR and not the ones from the Canon.  The Canon images did not have enough snap to them, and I notice lack of fine details, probably due to the smearing of the AA filter.  Lack of details in an image often (subliminally) translates into lack of concern for detail by the photographer, which I think could hurt his/her reputation.

I guess it would come down to cost.  If it was a budget constrained job, where some quality could be sacrificed, then I guess I might buy the Canon-type results, but the work would have to be a heck of a lot cheaper.  How much less would you offer your services by using the Canon?  And, if my client's job was worth $$$$, there is no way I would risk losing such a job by buying the Canon images.
Logged
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2009, 10:17:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey Rainer, I was wondering about the "using Canon for long lens shots"... how long are you talking about?  I carry a 135mm as my longest lens for the Arca, but have used my 180 even on occasion.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2009, 11:03:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice comparison, and a little bit surprising. The 17 TS-E holds up quite well. Out of curiosity, how good is the 23 HR compared to other lenses in the HR lineup? As interesting as this comparison is, I'm wondering if the extremely wide FOV is stacking the deck in favor of the Canon, relative to the results you would get at more moderate focal lengths.
Logged

Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2009, 11:13:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Klepacki
Rainer, thanks for the comparison.  However, I was not really impressed with the images from the 17tse.  If two photographers came to me, one presenting the images such as those here from the 17tse and the other photographer presenting images such as those here with the 23HR, I would hire the photographer who showed me the images that look like the ones from the 23HR and not the ones from the Canon.  The Canon images did not have enough snap to them, and I notice lack of fine details, probably due to the smearing of the AA filter.  Lack of details in an image often (subliminally) translates into lack of concern for detail by the photographer, which I think could hurt his/her reputation.

I guess it would come down to cost.  If it was a budget constrained job, where some quality could be sacrificed, then I guess I might buy the Canon-type results, but the work would have to be a heck of a lot cheaper.  How much less would you offer your services by using the Canon?  And, if my client's job was worth $$$$, there is no way I would risk losing such a job by buying the Canon images.


There will be very,very view customers who can see this difference. How many customers are pixelpeeping with a 100% file?
I like to have these customers so I have a good excuse to buy a MF system. :-)
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad