Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples  (Read 24039 times)
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« on: December 24, 2009, 08:07:07 AM »
ReplyReply

It's been a while since I've played with the big-chip cameras, and we got hold of a Hassey 31 and 39 for our Fashion/Portrait Shootout stories...  I was just processing files for the MFDB part, and just got blown away again, by this stuff.  Blog post here: AKA "There's no substitute for Horsepower!"

http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/MFDB-vs-DSL...sepower---.html

...I'll post the complete review later this week.
Logged

Ted Dillard
pcunite
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2009, 09:57:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Good grief! Have you not been reading LL the past couple of days? We get it! We know it! MFD is a better file. We understand that! Nobody denies that! I hope they all don't go out of business...
Logged
tbosley
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2009, 10:12:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Appreciate the brief review and I agree there is something different that is difficult to put an exact finger on.

While they are tools with different target audiences, when your using them in the same context then a side-by-side compare is necessary.

Maybe the lenses, maybe the FOV, CoC, bit-depth, raw processor, or even color rendering, but "it" is more than just pixel count.  Even amoung MFDBs I can tell my shots from the Leaf vs. others.

regards,
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2009, 10:21:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Compare the H files to the M8 files. Not 100%, not up rezed, just the look of processed tiffs. They are very similar on screen and on A4 sized prints. Same look. Maybe it's that Kodak CCD's all look alike at defaults.  Whatever it is, it's not just horsepower.

Quote from: teddillard
It's been a while since I've played with the big-chip cameras, and we got hold of a Hassey 31 and 39 for our Fashion/Portrait Shootout stories...  I was just processing files for the MFDB part, and just got blown away again, by this stuff.  Blog post here: AKA "There's no substitute for Horsepower!"

http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/MFDB-vs-DSL...sepower---.html

...I'll post the complete review later this week.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 10:23:27 AM by TMARK » Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2009, 10:56:23 AM »
ReplyReply

...
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 10:56:52 AM by Graham Mitchell » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2009, 11:14:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
Compare the H files to the M8 files. Not 100%, not up rezed, just the look of processed tiffs. They are very similar on screen and on A4 sized prints. Same look. Maybe it's that Kodak CCD's all look alike at defaults.  Whatever it is, it's not just horsepower.

Just curious, have you done this?  I'd love to see the results, we're working on the M9 testing...  should have some results soon.

@ pcunite- funny, that's what my Editor said too...  seems he wants some sleep.  
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 11:15:46 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2009, 11:17:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Comparing shots informally from my M8 and my Sinar e54LV I find them similar in sharpness and feel, perhaps, but there are still differences. The Sinar files have more subtlety in them, more tones perhaps. Perhaps this is due to the unusual compression scheme of the M8. I would be curious to see a more rigorous test between MF and the M9.
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2009, 11:42:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
Just curious, have you done this?  I'd love to see the results, we're working on the M9 testing...  should have some results soon.

@ pcunite- funny, that's what my Editor said too...  seems he wants some sleep.  

Not a formal compare-o, but I've seen thousands upon thousands of P30+ files and thousands of thousands of M8 files, and lots of H3d-31 files.  The images end up printed CMYK (less and less), on the web and mainly as stills in a motion project.  The M8 looks sharper out of the box, I guess because the 31MP Kodak chips have micro lenses and the smaller M8 chip gives deeper focus.  

The super sharp look is a little difficult with clients, because everyone wants (without articulating it) soft, natural, organic.  They want the vibe or mood of a piece to look like a French Romance movie from 1975, all washed and bleached out on Agfa, lots of flair, maybe even some grain, but I digress.  What they want is film without the wait, but that company stopped making peel apart film.

Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2009, 12:10:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Ted,
Thanks again for your work.

Just to follow up the 2nd topic in the thread.  A while back I compared the leica DMR, Phase p20 on 6008, and canon 5D.  The DMR and Phase p20 produced images that were similar to each other perhaps because they both shared Kodak CCD chips, but the Phase had more DR.  I think while a lot of discussions center on sharpness, DR is an important component for rendering real looking images.  

In your test I was able to pick out the hasselblad shot on the basis of DR alone even in a small size on screen.  I can't understand why this wouldn't also be visible in a print of any size.
Eric
Logged

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

Posts: 155


« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2009, 12:54:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I find these comparisons useful and interesting. Not only to show how 35mm has progressed in the last few years but to still see that MF still has that "something" that 35mm can't quite reach. Namely the price. Just kidding. MF still looks better to me, just not thousands better.

The problem with this test which to me is pretty useless  because all the images are lit differently, shot differently and cropped differently. Naturally the MF shot looks best here is because it was lit better (sort of) and looks like a bit of time was taken with it. The 35mm ones look like an after thought.


Oh well keep trying.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 12:56:04 PM by blansky » Logged
Theresa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2009, 03:36:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: blansky
Personally, I find these comparisons useful and interesting. Not only to show how 35mm has progressed in the last few years but to still see that MF still has that "something" that 35mm can't quite reach. Namely the price. Just kidding. MF still looks better to me, just not thousands better.

The problem with this test which to me is pretty useless  because all the images are lit differently, shot differently and cropped differently. Naturally the MF shot looks best here is because it was lit better (sort of) and looks like a bit of time was taken with it. The 35mm ones look like an after thought.


Oh well keep trying.

I don't know much, I spent a year or so using medium format and 4x5 years ago and the photos on my wall from back then still look better than any 35mm I have seen.  They are not big prints, 8x10 and 11x14 but the tonalities and the fine job I did making silver prints make them stand out compared with 35mm.  I have not seen any 35mm format film/sensor prints equal them.  Indeed, digital printing seems to have some limitations re. dynamic range (including micro dynamic) seems lacking.  But I really don't care anymore after reading the rants (all seeming from 35 format fans).  I will continue to shoot my 35mm full format dSLR (no not Canon or Nikon) and be satisfied that this is the best I can do and afford.  It all makes me glad I'm not a professional or even an amateur with an axe to grind.  I am also glad I could also choose a dSLR that is not NicCan, since I don't need the expensive pro support.  I will always have a preference for prints made from MF and LF and don't need to justify my liking it because of being able justify it commercially.  I am just an amateur and can appreciate something I no longer have access to.  I really appreciate this site because it does offer a perspective that isn't confined to one brand or format or another.  Its just about the print.  Are rants mostly the product of testosterone?  Perhaps that would explain it.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1005


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2009, 05:45:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Testosterone and imagination I'd ask.
Eduardo

Quote from: Theresa
I don't know much, I spent a year or so using medium format and 4x5 years ago and the photos on my wall from back then still look better than any 35mm I have seen.  They are not big prints, 8x10 and 11x14 but the tonalities and the fine job I did making silver prints make them stand out compared with 35mm.  I have not seen any 35mm format film/sensor prints equal them.  Indeed, digital printing seems to have some limitations re. dynamic range (including micro dynamic) seems lacking.  But I really don't care anymore after reading the rants (all seeming from 35 format fans).  I will continue to shoot my 35mm full format dSLR (no not Canon or Nikon) and be satisfied that this is the best I can do and afford.  It all makes me glad I'm not a professional or even an amateur with an axe to grind.  I am also glad I could also choose a dSLR that is not NicCan, since I don't need the expensive pro support.  I will always have a preference for prints made from MF and LF and don't need to justify my liking it because of being able justify it commercially.  I am just an amateur and can appreciate something I no longer have access to.  I really appreciate this site because it does offer a perspective that isn't confined to one brand or format or another.  Its just about the print.  Are rants mostly the product of testosterone?  Perhaps that would explain it.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2009, 12:42:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
It's been a while since I've played with the big-chip cameras, and we got hold of a Hassey 31 and 39 for our Fashion/Portrait Shootout stories...  I was just processing files for the MFDB part, and just got blown away again, by this stuff.  Blog post here: AKA "There's no substitute for Horsepower!"

http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/MFDB-vs-DSL...sepower---.html

...I'll post the complete review later this week.


Very nicely done. I think it shows pretty well, that the MFDB still has the edge, but it also shows how close 35mm has become. (close =! equal)
Logged

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2009, 07:05:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christopher
Very nicely done. I think it shows pretty well, that the MFDB still has the edge, but it also shows how close 35mm has become. (close =! equal)

Thanks Christopher...  you're right, it certainly does show that.  

I have this quirky test board I always shoot with everything, and I have shots from MFDBs starting from around 2000. (whoa, remember Y2K?  )  I picked up a Canon G9 a few years back and for yuks, shot the board...  I'd hold that file up against more than one Y2K vintage MFDB.  Seriously.  (Oh boy, if my editor reads this he's gonna want me to do a Head-2-Head on THAT one...  I better start looking for the files now.)

I was installing a Leaf system into a studio that had an old DCB II, they picked up a Canon 20D and a Leaf 22, I think it was.  We again were just goofing around, but we shot the DCB II against the 20D, and the 20D slammed the old "Brick".  

I've been of the opinion that, for a few years now, MFDBs have lost ground to the DSLRs, and they have, but the one thing I'm getting from this comparison is they still have a place in the arsenal... the trick is to know just where that place is.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 07:06:11 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2010, 09:15:32 AM »
ReplyReply

FINALLY!

...the last installment of the Fashion/Portrait shoot is up, with the Hassey comparisons and a full write-up.  (Jeesh, this editorial stuff is like giving birth!)  

Honestly, I was really shocked to see the aliasing- I shouldn't be, by now, but like I said, it's been a while.  I'd be realy interested in you  response, especially the "Mechanics of the Pixel" video.  (Is there some way to post that here?)

Here's the linky.
Logged

Ted Dillard
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2010, 09:41:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I speak daily with agency designers, those who spend their life in front of a computer to make advertisings, catalogues etc... from the pics they receive.
I can tell you that all say that, in preference order:  very happy when they receive drum scanned from LF, in second MFD, and ultimately 35mm FF.
They all regret that LF is less and less used.

Fred.
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2010, 10:13:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
FINALLY!

...the last installment of the Fashion/Portrait shoot is up, with the Hassey comparisons and a full write-up.  (Jeesh, this editorial stuff is like giving birth!)  

Honestly, I was really shocked to see the aliasing- I shouldn't be, by now, but like I said, it's been a while.  I'd be realy interested in you  response, especially the "Mechanics of the Pixel" video.  (Is there some way to post that here?)

Here's the linky.

Hey Ted,

Looks like you will have to rewrite it with an H4D40.



Thanks for the test.

David

Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2010, 10:17:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
Hey Ted,

Looks like you will have to rewrite it with an H4D40.



Thanks for the test.

David

...no rest for the wicked, as my grammy used to say...    

I've got a shoot lined up for mid-April, hope to used the 40 on that one...
Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2010, 10:20:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
I speak daily with agency designers, those who spend their life in front of a computer to make advertisings, catalogues etc... from the pics they receive.
I can tell you that all say that, in preference order:  very happy when they receive drum scanned from LF, in second MFD, and ultimately 35mm FF.
They all regret that LF is less and less used.

Fred.

Fred, seriously?

What market are you working in?  Around Boston there aren't any designers left that even know what film is...  much less 4x5. I'd LOVE to find a client who has creatives old enough to miss film...  
Logged

Ted Dillard
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2010, 11:21:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
Fred, seriously?

What market are you working in?  Around Boston there aren't any designers left that even know what film is...  much less 4x5. I'd LOVE to find a client who has creatives old enough to miss film...  
I could ask the same question to you.  
For example,
I spoke a week ago with one the best (and oldest) publicity designer in Madrid. They have a big japanese brand (start with T...) for south Europe market. She told me that just few years ago, they still received drumed scans from LF for their cars campaigns but since then all is MFD. The designers where "complaining" of the additional work they have to acheive in order to get the same quality, specialy when FF 35mm.
I've heard constantly these comments for steel objects.
We had an international light company that sent us before LF scans, now we have FF, and designers are complaining all the time since then.
I'm not a designer so I would walk with precautions in this terrain because it might be a "corporation attitude" . But what I report is the reality. Maybe in europe we are still outdated  

Fred.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad