Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?  (Read 17935 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #60 on: October 20, 2010, 06:03:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I would choose without hesitation the left image of Edmund's post.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3626



WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 20, 2010, 06:53:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I would choose without hesitation the left image of Edmund's post.

The left, needless to say, is the Nikon - with noise added on purpose Smiley

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 805


« Reply #62 on: October 20, 2010, 09:03:01 AM »
ReplyReply


How does this compare with the KAF-37500 in the Leica S2?

Edmund


I wish I could tell you!

Strangely, Kodak has not released a data-sheet for the KAF-37500 - at least, it's not on their website with all the others; and Google returns nothing but Leica & Kodak PR references.

Ray

Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3626



WWW
« Reply #63 on: October 20, 2010, 09:13:35 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems to be microlensed.

I know the Bayer filters have changed from earlier generation, especially the red one, which may help with the skin tone.

I assume H is filtering out UV with a cover glass, L have a UV filter built into each S lens.

Edmund

PS. I don't quite buy 2 stops. Maybe they have 1.5 over previous generations. Some speed has been lost via added pixel density.

I wish I could tell you!

Strangely, Kodak has not released a data-sheet for the KAF-37500 - at least, it's not on their website with all the others; and Google returns nothing but Leica & Kodak PR references.

Ray


Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #64 on: November 18, 2010, 02:54:48 AM »
ReplyReply

The S2 uses the very same sensor technology & architecture as the H4D40 and the Pentax 645D - there shouldn't be much difference in noise and dynamic range. Or something was done seriously wrong with the processing chain.

Claims such as "1 stop more sensitivity" with every generation are a little hasty, IMHO. Otherwise we would have ended up with noise-free ISO 3200 a long time ago...
ISO 800/640 looks acceptable with H4D40/S2/645D, while one stop beyond that hasn't much to with MF-quality anyway...
But I also don't buy claims of noise-free 20+MP-CMOS-cameras at this point.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 03:08:02 AM by georgl » Logged
Jay101
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #65 on: November 18, 2010, 03:25:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to all the contributions - going down a similar path to the original post so this is most useful
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 805


« Reply #66 on: November 18, 2010, 05:45:22 AM »
ReplyReply


Claims such as "1 stop more sensitivity" with every generation are a little hasty, IMHO.

Hang on - "with every generation" - who claimed that? No-one in this thread, anyway.

Progress in MFD sensitivity has been painfully slow. You can study the sensor datasheets down the years, or generations if you prefer. Microlenses give an instant boost of about 1 stop. That's as good as it gets really. Readout noise has only halved, gradually, in the past decade (and that's only for the best cases: several backs being made now are still close to the noise of the backs a decade ago). CMOS readout noise has come down far more rapidly.

But I also don't buy claims of noise-free 20+MP-CMOS-cameras at this point.

Depends on your threshold for "noise-free", but if you are happy with readout noise of around 2-4 electrons, Canon are already there at mid ISOs and Nikon's D3x is there even at somewhat lower ISOs.
The great thing is that we don't need to rely on claims - this has been empirically measured, and anyone with such a camera can repeat and verify the measurements for themselves.

I suspect that at this stage, with readout noise almost beaten, FPN and PRNU mark the last remaining frontier where high end CMOS DSLRs can make further genuine noise reductions in everyday photography. Calibrating out PRNU wouldn't push the ISO range any further - the impact would be more visible in finessing the already excellent smoothness of high-signal regions of the image. It might be argued that there is no perceptible need for this, but having reached the point of greatly diminishing returns on other sensor issues, the DSLR manufacturers will always want a new technical improvement to tout over their rivals.

Ray
Logged
Jozef Zajaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #67 on: November 29, 2010, 03:41:33 AM »
ReplyReply

The Phase one has the new grip coming out or already out. I tested it this weekend for 3 days straight. Feels very good. It also has the profot air system built in.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad