Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 17tse compared with 23HR  (Read 36274 times)
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2009, 11:26:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Looking forward to when Michael reviews the Hartblei Cam with Canon 17mm and 24mm TSE-II lenses,

hopefully onto P65+ digital back.  Then, we'll see how good the Canon lenses really are.

Thank you, Rainer, for your comparison.
Logged

Guillermo
Christopher Arnoldi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2009, 12:01:28 PM »
ReplyReply

2 weeks ago I did a shot for a friend of mine, who is a graphic designer and has got a Canon 5D2 with a 17 TSE lens. I did my shot with my Sinarback 54H and a 24 mm Schneider Apo-Digitar.
First file is with the Sinar, second is with the Canon. The third file is a 100% detail; on the left side the Sinar file, on the right side the Canon file. Both are sharpenend with NIK RAW Presharpener at 50%.

The 4th file is a detail from the left side of the image. The Canon shows purple fringing, the Sinar not.
We did a few comparisons, but some of the Canon files were not really sharp. Focusing with the Canon is difficult.
Logged
brianc1959
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2009, 01:07:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: asf
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.

My 17TS sample also appears to be excellent, although I've only shot it with a 5D so far.  Lloyd Chambers has documented the only poor sample I've heard of, which had some left to right focus non-uniformity.
Logged
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2009, 01:28:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: brianc1959
My 17TS sample also appears to be excellent, although I've only shot it with a 5D so far.  Lloyd Chambers has documented the only poor sample I've heard of, which had some left to right focus non-uniformity.

There was a guy on FM who wasn't really happy and sold it, although he didn't document the problem, and I think the guy at the front of this thread has a copy which is okay, but not as good as Rainer's. In general they do seem to be very good, with just a few people being unhappy. Early after the release I heard a few people who were not, but as time passes the odds appear to be settling down a bit more in favour of the 17 T/S.
Logged

brianc1959
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2009, 01:37:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
There was a guy on FM who wasn't really happy and sold it, although he didn't document the problem, and I think the guy at the front of this thread has a copy which is okay, but not as good as Rainer's. In general they do seem to be very good, with just a few people being unhappy. Early after the release I heard a few people who were not, but as time passes the odds appear to be settling down a bit more in favour of the 17 T/S.


Thanks for the additional details.  I got my copy only a couple of weeks ago when Adorama received some new stock, so you may be right about the QC improving with time.
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2009, 01:40:10 PM »
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.
and i would hire the one who gives me 1.: the best perspective, 2. the best light.

i dont have issues with the prices cause i own both and of course my time isnt cheaper if i use the canon than if i use the artek.
i dont sell megapixels i sell images. i take which i think is more convenient and best for the job. thanks god i dont have client who asks me if i work with red dots, 16 imaginated bits or with whichever camera or resolution. most clients expect the best images i can make for them and this is what i try to do.
if i dont see sense for delivering 400% percent more resolution than ever needed i usually dont do and they even dont like to get 100 or 200mb files, on the other hand i am not shy to discuss if i can hire a helicopter or a truck crane or 10 helpers at the weekend if shades have to be opened or closed 10 times to get the right look, if ithink this will result in good and/or usefull images.

i dont want to be harsh, but doing such comparisons for me goes far beyond comparing prices/ megapixels,- although i wouldnt advise to photo students to invest/ lease a 50.000$ camera system which is in certain circumstances a bit better than a 10.000$ system.
i am pretty sure i will use both systems in the future, but i am glad that the 35mm had went so far, its so convenient to carry a small bag.

btw.:
copy the two files of the yellow house one over the other  and look at the geometrical distortion INSIDE the frame. than write again which camera ( i dont say which photographer ) u would hire. for me this is the strongest argument in favor of the 17TSE,- its so well corrected, and this pops up even more in the center than in the borders.


Quote from: CBarrett
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.


even in film days i used long lenses, with 35mm cameras too. there was a time where i really liked leica ....   .
i love the compressed look of details especially in larger buildings if using 100, 200, 300, 400 or even sometimes 600 mm lenses.


Quote from: JeffKohn
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.

the 23mm is the best in their wide angle range. better than the 28HR and also better than the ( slightly older ) 35HR design. especially its a bit better corrected than the 28HR.
sharp are all three at all apertures, even wide open.

Quote from: Huib
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. :-)


i would not like to have them, cause as said above i sell images not megapixels.


some long lens shots for CB. lens range here is ( in 35mm terms ) from 100 to 400mm :

[attachment=18408:091019_0...Dmk2_ret.jpg][attachment=18407:ht100.jpg]
[attachment=18402:Brandhor...dit_Edit.jpg][attachment=18404:o_hare_03.jpg]
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 02:02:17 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

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

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2009, 02:00:00 PM »
ReplyReply

My feeling is that people don't test as Rainer has shown - which is to say stopped down enough so the far edges of the IC remain sharp, exposed and processed properly.
It's not an easy lens to use. F8 and below will not be sharp with large shifts. You must focus using live view at 10x for optimum results.
Also if the tilt is not properly centered and locked the edges will have uneven sharpness.
Because it is so extremely wide, or should I say short, it will really test the cameras sensor alignment.

I have seen the green edge CA as the previous poster has shown, but only on dark objects that are very strongly backlit. Lightroom and C1 don't do as good of a job fixing this as DPP does.

This is a specific use lens, not a general wide. It's not AF and won't magically make photos better. It has a huge IC, but to take advantage of that it must be stopped down.

Mine is one of the first samples in NYC (got it in early Aug). It is as sharp as Rainer's when I use it properly. The other copy I know is exactly as mine. I'd still really like to see examples of poor QC 17's (and I'm not a canon fan per se - had to go through 5 45tse's before finding a good one, my 24-105 came to me new and uncentered, all the 24 tse vI I have used were marginal to iffy, my 24 tseII had a small problem that they corrected under warranty).
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6055


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2009, 02:18:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I think my personal "take home" from your comparison here (and some others in this and other threads) is not that there are no differences, but just how small the differences appear to be... to the point that they could be negated by a "margin of error", to borrow the term from the world of statistics, or even by the butterfly effect.

Given the inherent differences between the two formats, two types of sensors, lens sample variations, light and exposure variations, tripod vibrations, raw processor variations (even within the same raw processor, different sensors might require different default parameters) etc., etc., it is hard to argue that the visible differences stem from an inherent superiority of one format over another. It appears they can be rather explained by variations between two test shots... who knows, maybe a butterfly somewhere in the world flapped its wings, which resulted in tripod vibrations between the shots?  

Thanks for the review, btw.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2009, 02:31:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
i sell images not megapixels.


I appreciate Ranier's comparison because he wasn't really comparing to prove a point to anyone but himself.  He looked at one new system to see if it would work against his current system and reached his own conclusions which is the way it should be.

I can almost see the wheels turning in Ranier's brain*,  when he starts thinking about real world work.  Standing on a raining roof waiting or that one moment of sun and knowing he only has 12 seconds to get the shot he is obligated to shoot.  Thinking about how inexpensive it is to carry two dslrs, vs. two medium format backs and the ability to check focus in camera rather than on a laptop.  (*maybe that's not his brain maybe that's my brain).

Someday I would like to see a comparison between almost medium format and a dslr evolve to more than a few pixels on the edge, a bit of ca, or 10% difference in detail.

We've had these comparisons for 7 years, with the sans aa filter guys saying see, see it's sharper and the other guys saying see, see, it looks good, works faster and cost 1/4 of the other guys.

One guy always shows a lens sample that is sharp the other, shows one that is 10% softer and the comparisons go on.

I would love to see the same high pressured project shot twice with different systems, but I doubt if that will ever happen because whose gonna spend the money to do it twice?  I know I won't.

If digital photography is going to interfere in the taking photos for a living business, (and yes at this stage I don't use the term transformation, I use the term interfere), then I'd love to see one single company go all out and skip the incremental upgrade path and make something that rocks.

Why not a medium format camera with a huge lcd, in camera processing, all the lens in place (including tilt shifts) and the ability to to have live view and video in camera?

Why not a dslr, with real 3k or 4k video, and a way to easily add or take away the aa filter, depending on subject and lighting.

Why not something we haven't even asked for yet, that improves the art and the commerce for photographers, not just camera makers.

I know we're all different but when I go to work the one thing I notice between almost medium format and a dslr is with the bigger camera I spend a lot of time thinking about the bigger camera and it's process, with the smaller camera I spend more time thinking about what's in front of the lens.

Personally I don't think it's always a one camera world, for anybody  and as much as I believe the camera doesn't matter I find it's interesting that when I sit down to select images for self promotion, a large percentage of the images I select come from a Leica M8, which is even more surprising because I only shoot it 1/1000th of the time compared to my "commercial" cameras.

[attachment=18420:leicam8.jpg]

[attachment=18421:leicam8_2.jpg]
JR
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 02:55:01 PM by James R Russell » Logged

Murray Fredericks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 290



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2009, 02:58:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R Russell
thinking about real world work.  Standing on a raining roof waiting or that one moment of sun and knowing he only has 12 seconds to get the shot he is obligated to shoot.  Thinking about how inexpensive it is to carry two dslrs, vs. two medium format backs and the ability to check focus in camera rather than on a laptop.  (*maybe that's not his brain maybe that's my brain).

I have been shooting both Canon 5dmk2 and the Sinar/Alpa combo on the same jobs for a while. This year I gave away the Sinar completely for commissions because clients had consistently been 'selecting' final images from the 5d2 over the Sinar (only I knew the difference). I worked out that I just shot better and with the extra freedom of the DSLR and the files got where I wanted them to be in post much faster.
I am in the process though of buying a P65 with the sole purpose of replacing my 10x8 system which I had been using for the exhibition work. The only time I now feel the MFDB is 'needed' (warning loaded word) is for excessively large prints.

Quote from: James R Russell
Why not a medium format camera with a huge lcd, in camera processing, all the lens in place (including tilt shifts) and the ability to to have live view and video in camera?

Why not a dslr, with real 3k or 4k video, and a way to easily add or take away the aa filter, depending on subject and lighting.

Sounds like a RED (lets see if RED gets things right with their new releases...


Quote from: James R Russell
I know we're all different but when I go to work the one thing I notice between almost medium format and a dslr is with the bigger camera I spend a lot of time thinking about the bigger camera and it's process, with the smaller camera I spend more time thinking about what's in front of the lens.

Exactly -


We have reached a point where everything on the market is 'good enough' technically. We know the images will be sound on that level with any current system...I think that happened with the 1ds mk1




Murray
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 03:02:39 PM by Murray Fredericks » Logged

uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1005


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2009, 03:02:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Since the 1DsII (16mp) we all started hearing that D35 was aproaching its limits in resolution because its size. 5-6 years later Canikson are showing this limit is not even close. Technology is relentless. Without doubt (because of funds) Dslr's are advancing Five times faster than dMF. We can see that optics can be improve tremendously. New Features and bells&whistles are endless. Ergo will always be improved one step at the time.
At current pace D35 will probably catch up in IQ in very few years. In order for DMF to survive, someone has to figure it out how to come with more realisitic retail prices. If this is a deadend, then a breakthrought in sensor manufacturing must happen soon, otherwise I don't see much for DMF. Niche format of course, but how small can the niche get before it ceases to exist?
In the film days a pro 35 body used to cost 1K against the MF body costing 4K. Same with lenses and accesories of all kind. So it was a difference of 4X the price for 2X the image quality. Somehow, it worked just fine for everybody.
Now in digital the difference is 8X the price in exchange of 1.3X the IQ.

Everybody knows from my posts here and there that I'm always the first to chime in to say that I can usually see the difference between formats even from jpg's on the internet. But man, it is getting harder and harder to see by the hour!

thx f-r
Eduardo
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 03:12:40 PM by uaiomex » Logged
Pedro Kok
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2009, 03:51:48 PM »
ReplyReply

OT: Rainer, about the third image of your tele-lens series. It reminds me of the works of Sauerbruch Hutton, feature of the next issue of 2G. Am I right? What building is that? Would you share more images with us?


Cheers,
Pedro
Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2009, 04:16:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pedro Kok
OT: Rainer, about the third image of your tele-lens series. It reminds me of the works of Sauerbruch Hutton, feature of the next issue of 2G. Am I right? What building is that? Would you share more images with us?


Cheers,
Pedro


its the brandhorst museum in munich, the detail shot above was cover in architecture review.
following u see the back view, the front view u can see than  in 2g ( issue 52 ) .  
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 04:18:56 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2009, 05:03:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
its the brandhorst museum in munich, the detail shot above was cover in architecture review.
following u see the back view, the front view u can see than  in 2g ( issue 52 ) .  


If ever there was a building to confound anti-moire filters!  May I ask which camera you employed for this last shot?  And do you think the format had an impact on you being a bit out of square?

Then again, maybe I don't want to know the answer to that.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 05:06:42 PM by CBarrett » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8210



WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2009, 05:08:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: uaiomex
In the film days a pro 35 body used to cost 1K against the MF body costing 4K. Same with lenses and accesories of all kind. So it was a difference of 4X the price for 2X the image quality. Somehow, it worked just fine for everybody.
Now in digital the difference is 8X the price in exchange of 1.3X the IQ.

It is probably even more painful if you measure the gap in absolute terms...
- 3K$ in film days,
- 20+K$ now.

...or look at the price of the lenses...

...or relative to the usage that is reasonnably done with these equipments... a 5DII does basically everything better than MF used to... and the pages of the magazines have not become any larger.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 05:09:37 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
MarcusNewey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2009, 05:29:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok so it's been shown that the 17tse + a good canon sensor is so close to the quality achievable with a MF and good WA lens that, on IQ alone, it makes little sense for those on a limited budget to even consider going down the MF route when starting out.

My question is... [sorry wrong forum I know, but..] How much of a game changer is the 17 tse in the Nikon / Canon choice ?

Until a few months ago 24mm tse was the widest available for either, and by most accounts the MkI canon t/s weren't the greatest.
So for Architectural Photographers [AP's] that were using 35mm for most of their work before, were you happily getting by with the 24mm t/s and the 14mm normal lenses?
For AP's that mostly shoot MF, do you regularily get the 23mm out, and use it's shift capabilities? were you even considering 35mm as an option proir to the availabilty of the 17mm tse?

I currently shoot for Real Estate with a Nikon dx crop sensor and a 10-20mm WA. And prior to the 17mm tse my upgrade path on the route to higher end work was simple... get a FF Nikon with the 14-24 and save for the 24mm t/s.
Now it's not so simple, especially with all you MF AP's saying it takes a pixel peeping extravaganza to tell the difference. But I've got a whole bunch of Nikon gear that I've accumulated, and I'm generally happy with it too, until the 17tse the thought of switching never even occured to me.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 05:31:26 PM by MarcusNewey » Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2009, 05:39:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
If ever there was a building to confound anti-moire filters!  May I ask which camera you employed for this last shot?  And do you think the format had an impact on you being a bit out of square?

Then again, maybe I don't want to know the answer to that.

u are lucky this time, cause i used the arTek with e72 back and- if i remember well -the 28HR lens.
the format resulted too from the fact that left hand still the construction site was very visible,
but i adapted also in it the overall form of the building.

Quote from: MarcusNewey
My question is... [sorry wrong forum I know, but..] How much of a game changer is the 17 tse in the Nikon / Canon choice ?

Until a few months ago 24mm tse was the widest available for either, and by most accounts the MkI canon t/s weren't thegreatest.
So for Architectural Photographers [AP's] that were using 35mm for most of their work before, were you happily getting by with the 24mm t/s and the 14mm normal lenses?
For AP's that mostly shoot MF, do you regularily get the 23mm out, and use it's shift capabilities? were you even considering 35mm as an option proir to the availabilty of the 17mm tse?


Thoughts?

no, i did not consider it the last years.

although i worked with the early 35mm digital cameras, starting with the kodak 14n and slrn ( which were by far best cameras in the market in iso6 mode ) it was very complicate stitching images, using the zoerk adapter and e.g. the pentax 35af lens. it was only possible to use this set together with 4x5".
the older canon 24tse, nikon28 pc and leica/schneider 28pc have been too bad for me to use them,
i bought all wides which i could get and sold most after 3 days in ebay.
i got later an adapted olympus 24pc, this lens was a bit better.
first real good corrected ultrawide was the ( believe it or not ) sigma 12-24.
but hard to find a sharp sample and not enough resolution headroom to correct perspectives.
the kodak 35mm cams showed the typical color casts with shift lenses, as all aa-free sensors and most the kodak sensors.
in this days i created an action to invert white files in ps and to subtract the color info from the image, ( similar later stefan hess and me adapted this in brumbaer tools but automated ).

after the appearance of the schneider 24xl and a bit later the rodenstock 28HR mf was the way to go for serious and reliable digital architecture work, except that there were centerfolds, horrible and slow softwares for color cast corrections and complicate thought cameras for ground-glass composing as the alpas/cambos and so on.
i asked mr gottschalt to modify one of his cameras for my needs, adding a sliding back which was able to work with the new wide angle lenses.  
thanks to my friend stefan hess the completely nasty and incurable centerfold was cured, at least with the sinar 33mp sensors, and we created together the brumbaer workflow, which was the first more or less well thought batch workflow for architecture location shootings. this hard and software experiences resulted later  in the artek and in the architecture plugin from exposure.

so after that works for me it was not thinkable to do to serious architecture work with 35mm, mainly for the absence of usable lenses.  
i did not expect at all some new stuff in the class of these new tse lenses. the 35mm companies have had so many years time and never have felt enough market to make even better than mediocre shift lenses. all of them.
also i am afraid that canon will not bring out the tse lenses which still would be needed for a really usable architecture system. something like a 35tse, a new 45tse, a 60 tse and a new 90tse. if they will do that they will catch up the market, but its questionable if its big enough ( and if they think good enough ).
i heard the nikon 24pc is very good as well, but for me not wide enough for many situations.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 06:07:24 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

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

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2009, 05:44:40 PM »
ReplyReply

At MarcusNewey:

Really if you use Nikon and the 17 TSE is something you can't live without,it's very simple.

Just get a 5D2 body and a 17 TSE and keep the Nikon for the rest of your shots.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 05:46:08 PM by rethmeier » Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
Pedro Kok
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2009, 06:10:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
its the brandhorst museum in munich, the detail shot above was cover in architecture review.
following u see the back view, the front view u can see than  in 2g ( issue 52 ) .  

Thank you, Rainer. I'm looking forward to this issue ... and it'll surely be worth it.

Pedro
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 06:12:47 PM by Pedro Kok » Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2009, 06:22:44 PM »
ReplyReply

erased
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 06:23:36 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad