Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 20-30 MP: Backs or DSLR ?  (Read 10675 times)
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2010, 12:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
It would be nice to imagine that photographers get judged by the quality of their photographs, so, does a good camera capable of producing good photographs make you a better photographer?

The only customer/client/agent/agency/gallery that has ever queried what formats or cameras I use was a camera manufacturer. Cameras don't make images, people do.

Worry less about image qualities and more about quality images.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2010, 12:25:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BartvanderWolf
Hi Guy,

Are you suggesting that aliasing is less of an issue on MF, or that since there are fewer images produced with MF the issue is less frequently encountered? I have difficulty understanding what you are actually saying.

Cheers,
Bart
If I got Guy's point, it seems to me that he is saying that the kind of "consumer" audience of the CaNikon would hate to have to deal with moire in PP even if they had a better IQ without AA filter. But I'm not sure either.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2010, 12:44:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban
The only customer/client/agent/agency/gallery that has ever queried what formats or cameras I use was a camera manufacturer. Cameras don't make images, people do.

Worry less about image qualities and more about quality images.

I'd like to take-up Klaban's post.

Well, yes what you say is 100% true, it has been said so many times and there is no doubt about it.

But yes, gear is important! It is. Equipment in general, and IQ is part of that chain is important. It is not crucial, it is not what makes talent, of course.
Talent is made with living, attitude, practise and others aspects that have nothing to do with cameras.

But cameras have something to do in the level of confort (organic) one experience his particular talent.
And, the amont of digihassles that can be avoided or not. Nothing more, but nothing less either.

My student camera was a Lubitel 6x6, and I was happy with that, I never complained about it.
I'd shoot with any thing, even a washing machine if it was possible. But a washing machine is made for washing,
and the plastic Lomo 6x6 was not made very much either for photography, despite I did 3meters B&W prints with it in the fine arts lab.

Now, I also like good gear. What do I call good gear? Something that I do not notice its presence because it is natural in my hands and that interferes
the less possible into the task.
What do I call good IQ ? A file that gives me room.

Nothing to do with the quality of a final image yes, but an important part of the chain in how you experience the overall process.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 01:51:04 PM by fredjeang » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2010, 01:06:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
But yes, gear is important! It is. Equipment in general, and IQ is part of that chain is important....

What do I call good IQ ? A file that gives me room.

Yes, equipment is important, but just to be clear, I use MFD largely for reasons other than the undeniable image qualities. Format/proportion, viewfinders that help me actually see and - as you have indicated - files that can be worked without breaking down. Above all equipment that helps me rather than hinders.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 01:08:57 PM by KLaban » Logged

bigalbest
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53



« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2010, 01:29:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bjanes
Those are nice shots, but a good dSLR could likely do just as well at 800 x 600 pixels. Those shots prove nothing.

I really wasn't trying to prove anything, just give an informed opinion. Take it however you will. I've never been one to stare at 100% images all day to pick my cameras since most of my pictures do not get printed any larger than 8X10. I like the H3DII's ability to produce strong images straight out of the camera without the need for color correction, sharpening or other adjustments that are common when dealing with 35mm digital files.

Check this out:



This second picture is a 100% crop. The detail is pretty good but not earth shattering...



This last shot is at 300% and really shows where the advantage lies with smooth transitions and way less noise than from even the best 35mm dslr's.



No this is not a scientific test comparing different cameras under the same conditions, just my opinion based on extensive testing and comparison.


Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2010, 01:42:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
If I got Guy's point, it seems to me that he is saying that the kind of "consumer" audience of the CaNikon would hate to have to deal with moire in PP even if they had a better IQ without AA filter. But I'm not sure either.


Yes it's two fold also. MF is CCD which AA filters are not needed. Now we may have to check with the scientist on this but from my understanding CMOS also needs to have a AA filter regardless of Moire which also help in noise area's. This we have to look into to get a proof positive answer but the point about Moire and 100's of thousands of users having to deal with a moire issue is something Nikon and Canon do not want to be involved in , so in essence they want to reduce it as much as possible to eliminate it. MF is targeted to a much smaller audience for one and also CCD is all that is used for MF.

Now some things to get answers that may also have reasons for being on MF only as well that may come into play. I don't want to answer them but here are some questions that put more on the reasons why things are like they are

CCD can be made in smaller runs and bigger sizes?

CMOS is controlled by mostly OEM manufacturers themselves. Ergo Canon ?

CCD only come in Kodak and Dalsa which are not OEM camera builders. Not a question we already know this. Kodak does not make 35mm sensors for themselves anymore.

CMOS requires AA filters for other reasons besides moire control, more in line with noise and higher ISO control?

There is no current CMOS chip bigger than 35MM FF ?

Cost much more to manufacture CCD in bigger sensor sizes and less yields. Not a question we know this one already

Obviously more questions on this but again I am not the scientist so rather not answer them and give the floor to someone more qualified in that area for sure.


Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2010, 01:43:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bigalbest
I really wasn't trying to prove anything, just give an informed opinion. Take it however you will. I've never been one to stare at 100% images all day to pick my cameras since most of my pictures do not get printed any larger than 8X10. I like the H3DII's ability to produce strong images straight out of the camera without the need for color correction, sharpening or other adjustments that are common when dealing with 35mm digital files.

Check this out:



This second picture is a 100% crop. The detail is pretty good but not earth shattering...



This last shot is at 300% and really shows where the advantage lies with smooth transitions and way less noise than from even the best 35mm dslr's.



No this is not a scientific test comparing different cameras under the same conditions, just my opinion based on extensive testing and comparison.
Actually, I agree that the color tone right out the box is what I expect it should be, and not the too much seen "velvia" remake from the default settings dslr.
But the most important IMHO is the 300% file. Yes, it is clear where the difference lays.
Thanks for sharing.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2010, 01:46:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban
Cameras don't make images, people do.
Cameras do make images, and even a painter cannot make an image without a brush or a stick, or something... but the best painters do not necessarily use the most expensive brushes.
Logged

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

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 13, 2010, 01:54:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: HarryHoffman
I tried the D3X against a 18mp P21+ and the files were very close, no clear winner whatsoever.
I would think a larger MF in the 22mp-30mp range would be much better especially one with a bigger chip
The used 22-  30mp backs are in a really great price range right now too


I have a D3X and a P40+
I love both of them. If the DF body would focus faster and have more focus points, I would sell the Nikon in a heartbeat. Till then I'll keep both systems
To all the MF only guys...go rent a D3X and give it a spin...it doesn't suck

Right now I would have to say the P1 lenses are much better. Bought an adapter for Mamiya to Nikon and am going to do some tests in the next couple weeks to see if this is the reality or at the least my reality.


Now see this is where forums go to shit in a hand basket and being a forum owner I know this all to well. Go back and read everyones post , not ONE person ever even brought up that a D3X sucked. See to me this is how forums fall apart and wars start by misleading comments that never surfaced. If anything 35mm was given many excellent comments on how good it is both functionally and ergonomically maybe the best out there along with huge systems parts. No one is saying don't shoot 35mm far from it. All I'm saying is IQ on many levels is better than 35mm. But as some have said it may not be what you want to shoot or does not fit your style or needs.

Now this was not meant to pick on you but a example how things spin out of control and there is simply no reason too. End of day you shoot what works for your needs. It's only gear what is between your two ears is what really counts.

BTW I am a big fan of Nikon and shot the D3X.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 01:58:59 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2010, 02:24:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes it's two fold also. MF is CCD which AA filters are not needed. Now we may have to check with the scientist on this but from my understanding CMOS also needs to have a AA filter regardless of Moire which also help in noise area's.

The decision of whether or not to use an AA filter has nothing to do with CCD versus CMOS. Any sensor with a bayer-filter array in front of it needs an AA filter, or you will get artifacts. And it's not just about moire, it's also about edge aliasing and color asliasing.  IMHO the real reason the MF manufacturers didn't use AA filters from the get go is because they're expensive to produce and the price goes up substantially as the surface area goes up.

non-AA images come straight out of the camera with a crispness and wow-factor that can initially be impressive. But to me the result looks too "digital". I'd rather use a well-designed AA filter and proper capture sharpening, personally.

It can be argued that in the case of something like the P65+, an AA filter isn't really needed because even if the lens still out-resolves the sensor, any aliasing artifacts are going to be on a very small level that won't show up in real world viewing. But if you're talking about a 36x48mm 22mp sensor, that's a different story.  

I certainly wouldn't turn down the chance to use a P65+, especially attached to a view camera. But I would choose the D3x over an MF-DSLR with 22mp back any day. The lesser backs aren't going to have any advantage in dynamic range or color depth, but they do have many disadvantages regarding lens selection, DOF, exposure times, ISO, lack of live-view, etc.


Logged

Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2010, 03:21:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Where's Ray when you need him?
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2010, 03:46:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
Cameras do make images, and even a painter cannot make an image without a brush or a stick, or something... but the best painters do not necessarily use the most expensive brushes.

I've been using cameras and paint brushes for more years than I care to remember. Believe me, they are dumb, completely fucking clueless without input from people.

I repeat images are made by people, not cameras.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3874


« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2010, 04:18:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Yes it's two fold also. MF is CCD which AA filters are not needed. Now we may have to check with the scientist on this but from my understanding CMOS also needs to have a AA filter regardless of Moire which also help in noise area's.

I'm not a scientist, but I was selling/advising about the use of Kodak scientific materials to the industry more than 30 years ago, so maybe that counts a bit. CCD or CMOS has nothing to do with the use of Optical Low Pass Filters (OLPF or anti-aliasing filers). It only has to do with sampled imaging with a regular sampling pattern.

It is common knowledge in Digital Signal Processing (DSP) circles that in order to avoid aliasing, one needs to low-pass filter the signal before it gets sampled. The only way to do that, is by fitering the high spatial frequency content that creates aliasing out. The problem with optics is that if we would completely eliminate the possibility of aliasing, we would also lose a lot of high frequency signal modulation, micro-contrast. Therefore most optical AA-filters are designed to only reduce the risk of aliasing, not eliminate it. Therefore the micro-contrast is reduced less, and can usually be restored quite well by proper (deconvolution) sharpening while eliminating most aliasing artifacts.

Noise reduction is not involved, but you probably referred to micro-lenses which are something different.

Quote
This we have to look into to get a proof positive answer but the point about Moire and 100's of thousands of users having to deal with a moire issue is something Nikon and Canon do not want to be involved in , so in essence they want to reduce it as much as possible to eliminate it. MF is targeted to a much smaller audience for one and also CCD is all that is used for MF.

I don't think anyone wants aliasing artifacts to spoil the fun. It just happens to be the case that manufacturers of larger sensor arrays don't include an AA-filter. That is not because they wouldn't help the image quality, but it's more about cost, and issues one may run into with oblique rays striking the OLPF at an angle and creating a longer travel path through the filter. Lenses for 35mm DSLRs are usually designed to have limited 'obliqueness' from the exit pupil (e.g. retrofocus wide angle lenses), which helps to reduce light fall-off, color cast, and spatially variant AA-filter effects. Probably the same reason Leica avoids using AA-filters, not for quality, but out of design necessity. So by avoiding the use of AA-filters, they save cost and avoid some other design challenges. The only thing left is to promote (spin) the lack of an AA-filter as a better solution. Unfortunately many fall for that marketoid speak. I'll repeat it once more, Aliasing is no good, but for larger sensor arrays one is stuck with the issue (just ask someone involved in shooting fabrics, or masonry, combed hair, or other periodically repetitive structured materials and lines, at an angle).

Quote
Now some things to get answers that may also have reasons for being on MF only as well that may come into play. I don't want to answer them but here are some questions that put more on the reasons why things are like they are

CCD can be made in smaller runs and bigger sizes?

CCD manufacturing is a smaller scale operation requiring dedicated machines. Lower volume and less synergy results in higher cost. CMOS production is a more common procedure (just like the zillions of memory chips that are produced with the same basic equipment) and thus is cheaper to do.

Technically there are some interesting differences between the resulting light sensitive sensor arrays. CMOS devices use much less power, and as a result don't get as hot as CCDs do. That helps in the battery consumption and reduction of thermal noise (especially at long exposures). CMOS devices have another interesting property that can be exploited for photography. The signal of each sensel, can be individually read-out, and it can be done multiple times (allows to reduce read-noise). CCD's off-load the signal destructively, in a bucket brigade type of flow, so a single poor performing sensel will influence all that follow. Hence a much lower yield in production, and higher cost.

Quote
CMOS is controlled by mostly OEM manufacturers themselves. Ergo Canon ?

Sony also produces CMOS sensors and there are others, but it may have to do with Canon's huge research effort and the resulting patent position. They are also manufacturers of the equipment needed for the production of sensors (e.g. wafer steppers).

There are no real size limits to either technology I know of, other than practical ones like cost/yield/and the need for stitching multiple structures due to photo-lithographic dimension limitations.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 04:23:54 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
HarryHoffman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2010, 05:33:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Now see this is where forums go to shit in a hand basket and being a forum owner I know this all to well. Go back and read everyones post , not ONE person ever even brought up that a D3X sucked. See to me this is how forums fall apart and wars start by misleading comments that never surfaced. If anything 35mm was given many excellent comments on how good it is both functionally and ergonomically maybe the best out there along with huge systems parts. No one is saying don't shoot 35mm far from it. All I'm saying is IQ on many levels is better than 35mm. But as some have said it may not be what you want to shoot or does not fit your style or needs.

Now this was not meant to pick on you but a example how things spin out of control and there is simply no reason too. End of day you shoot what works for your needs. It's only gear what is between your two ears is what really counts.

BTW I am a big fan of Nikon and shot the D3X.

Not trying to harsh your morning mellow Guy.

I don't think anyone would say the D3X sucked, which is why my tongue in cheek comment was supposed to be somewhat funny.

When someone asks how do you like your Corvette, I reply " it doesn't suck"

We are talking about camera's here, not cancer cures.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2927



WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2010, 07:12:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
does a good camera capable of producing good photographs make you a better photographer?
Doesn't make you a better photographer, but certainly might make the quality of your photography better, and I think this applies at multiple levels.  A NASCAR driver can get a lot more out my souped up mini-cooper than I can, but he's not running it in the next NASCAR race.

This thread is a little different than the typical dSLR vs MFDB, in that it is comparing older technology (22mp MFDB) to newer technology (21-24mp dSLR).  Here the question probably isn't about image quality as much because they will be somewhat comparable, so it's more about all of the other factors.

Personally I'm in the same camp as Guy ... images from my p25 from years past I still think are better than those from my current 21mp dSLR gear, especially because they seem to handle uprezzing better.  If I were choosing between the two, and maximum quality was my goal, I'd opt for MF, hoping that over time I can afford to upgrade to a 40 or 60mp back.  That's because my passion is now about landscape photography.  Were I still a wedding/portrait photographer, I'd opt for the dSLR.  PLenty of quality, resolution isn't nearly as important (unless you do a lot of large groups), and easier to handle, better zoom lens options.

Logged

evgeny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 481



« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2010, 09:05:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
I think I'll go for the 22mp backs and mount on the Contax..

I have a Contax 645 with lenses and like new Leaf 65 digital back with very low number of actuations for sell. I sold many items to Spain. My eBay score is 100%.
See details here http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=43387
I need to sell as a kit.
I can vary the minimum kit to slightly reduce the price.
Contact me, if you are ready to pay high grand.
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2010, 09:06:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: HarryHoffman
Not trying to harsh your morning mellow Guy.

I don't think anyone would say the D3X sucked, which is why my tongue in cheek comment was supposed to be somewhat funny.

When someone asks how do you like your Corvette, I reply " it doesn't suck"

We are talking about camera's here, not cancer cures.


No worries no one can harsh my morning on any forum. I was just making a point and BTW if you do find a cure for breast and lung cancer let me know . It would save my wife a third surgery Monday morning from having half her lung removed.
Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2010, 09:12:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
Doesn't make you a better photographer, but certainly might make the quality of your photography better, and I think this applies at multiple levels.  A NASCAR driver can get a lot more out my souped up mini-cooper than I can, but he's not running it in the next NASCAR race.

This thread is a little different than the typical dSLR vs MFDB, in that it is comparing older technology (22mp MFDB) to newer technology (21-24mp dSLR).  Here the question probably isn't about image quality as much because they will be somewhat comparable, so it's more about all of the other factors.

Personally I'm in the same camp as Guy ... images from my p25 from years past I still think are better than those from my current 21mp dSLR gear, especially because they seem to handle uprezzing better.  If I were choosing between the two, and maximum quality was my goal, I'd opt for MF, hoping that over time I can afford to upgrade to a 40 or 60mp back.  That's because my passion is now about landscape photography.  Were I still a wedding/portrait photographer, I'd opt for the dSLR.  PLenty of quality, resolution isn't nearly as important (unless you do a lot of large groups), and easier to handle, better zoom lens options.


Agree we are talking about P25+, Aptus 22 and H22 backs here and i would say the DSLR's are very close here but I would still give the edge to the these MF backs. That darn P25+ I had really did sing a different tune in image quality. On the same token though I am glad I moved up to the P40+ which has even better tonal range and DR. The funny thing is you don't really know how good these backs are until you go to print. I just got a Epson 7900 and been printing these images from all three backs i have had and man do you really see how amazing these prints are from them. Frankly I'm stunned by the quality of image on paper.
Logged

HarryHoffman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 13, 2010, 09:29:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
No worries no one can harsh my morning on any forum. I was just making a point and BTW if you do find a cure for breast and lung cancer let me know . It would save my wife a third surgery Monday morning from having half her lung removed.


Sorry to hear about your wife Guy....best wishes
Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 13, 2010, 10:07:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks appreciate that. Let's move on to the topic at hand though.


 I know a lot of folks are struggling in this exact area the 22mpx arena and what is the best choice. It really is a tough call MF is really nice but lets face it the big Canons and Nikons are pulling there weight for sure and both companies certainly have come to the plate to some degree on there lens designs as well. Ask me this two or three years ago and not sure i would give them that compliment.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad