Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mini Medium Format Shootout  (Read 28025 times)
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #100 on: November 20, 2010, 11:21:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Joseph, as you amply demonstrated, it is difficult to compare photos on screen from cameras with different megapixels, especially with regards to resolution.   Perhaps the authors of the article will explain their procedure for the crops included in the article.  Without an explanation, it's probable that some people will draw misleading conclusions when comparing the crops.  I suspect that this crop difficulty has much more influence on the perceived short comings of the Canon sample than does the choice of lens.

I also noticed that many of the photos have an embedded color profile for what appears to be Mark's monitor rather than sRGB, aRGB or ProPhoto.  Using a monitor profile seems like an unusual choice.  Perhaps the authors of the article could explain why they chose to use the monitor profile, or perhaps it was inadvertent. 
Logged

Dean Erger
darr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115



WWW
« Reply #101 on: November 20, 2010, 12:12:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmmm...

I do not know why all this cropping with a Canon compared to a P40+ has any relevance to the Pentax 645D.
Can we stay on topic?  Maybe a new thread addressing that isolated issue would produced many more comments and examples for the Canon users to compare.  Just a thought.
Logged

mgrayson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #102 on: November 20, 2010, 01:22:40 PM »
ReplyReply

It WAS in another thread, but was completely ignored there. Undecided

It is on-topic because a possibly valid proposition, e.g., the 645D is a great camera, is weakened by false supporting arguments. Now the whole article, which was almost certainly done in good faith, comes across as an exercise in self-justification.

Best,

Matt
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


« Reply #103 on: November 20, 2010, 04:35:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Matt, I don’t understand how the presence or absence of any report of the Canon affects the validity of the 645D/Phase comparison.  If Nick and Mark were to edit out all reference to the Canon, would the comparison of the MFD cameras then be valid?  Although you can suggest that Nick is motivated by self-justification that certainly wouldn’t be the case for Mark, who recently parted with considerable cash for the Phase. Oh, I forgot, it has already been pointed out that he unconsciously caused the Canon to perform poorly to reduce any cogitative dissonance over his Phase purchase.

Really this has gotten quite silly.  Two guys test their cameras as well as they can, take the trouble to write a report for our free enjoyment and they get skewered.
Logged
mgrayson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #104 on: November 20, 2010, 05:22:03 PM »
ReplyReply

It doesn't affect the 645D/Phase comparison. It does affect the credibility of the authors. That isn't silly or irrelevant. If an article displays either poor technique or outright bias in one area, doesn't that alter your opinion of the rest? It's sad because the rest of the comparison is so well done. By leaving out the Canon bashing they would have done this site a great service by enhancing its credibility.

And I did not suggest that the authors were motivated by self-justification. Please read what I wrote.
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #105 on: November 20, 2010, 06:17:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I can see why Michael gave up on the pixel-peeping reviews.  Smiley
Logged

Joseph Yeung
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #106 on: November 20, 2010, 07:54:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Matt, I don’t understand how the presence or absence of any report of the Canon affects the validity of the 645D/Phase comparison.  If Nick and Mark were to edit out all reference to the Canon, would the comparison of the MFD cameras then be valid?  Although you can suggest that Nick is motivated by self-justification that certainly wouldn’t be the case for Mark, who recently parted with considerable cash for the Phase. Oh, I forgot, it has already been pointed out that he unconsciously caused the Canon to perform poorly to reduce any cogitative dissonance over his Phase purchase.

Really this has gotten quite silly.  Two guys test their cameras as well as they can, take the trouble to write a report for our free enjoyment and they get skewered.


The point is not that they've stacked the deck against Canon.  The point is that the 645D and P40+ 100% crops in the articles are not 100% crops.  (More like 57%) They are useless for judging pixel quality.  If you take a 57% crop and take that as the pixel quality at 100%, you're massively overestimating the pixel quality of both the 645D or the P40+.  Forget the Canon.  For all we know the 645D could have been massively superior to the P40+, or the other way round, we just can't see it.  Of course, you could just take Nick and Mark's words for everything, in which case I don't know why they bothered to post any pictures at all.



"seen at 100% screen magnification..." the title bars in my Photoshop window are about 300% the size of this "100% crop" in each direction...

OK, this will be my last post in this thread until I hear back from Nick and Mark.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 08:16:24 PM by Joseph Yeung » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #107 on: November 22, 2010, 02:32:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm wondering if there was any capture sharpening done in this example. The 24-105 is not that soft. I downloaded the center example and imported into Lightroom and found that with a bit of capture sharpening the example was as crisp as the Leica (almost).

Either there was no capture sharpening at all or only the default sharpening which is very soft was applied. In the Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe Lightroom 3 tutorial there is an excellent video on capture sharpening. For anybody who have seen this, it is very clear that using either no or just the default capture sharpening will be missing a lot of details. I suspect that the 1Ds mkIII example was not properly done wrt. the capture sharpening.

For your information, all images were capture sharpened using Photokit Sharpener hi-res digital, leaving the contours and the pass through layers all at their default opacities.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #108 on: November 22, 2010, 02:40:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The lack of a blur filter improves apparent sharpness but can result in alaising. Why does Nikon go to the expense of using a blur filter (as does Canon and almost all other dSRL makers)? I understand that a blur filter would be prohibitively expensive for a MFDB, so it is really not an option there.

Regards,

Bill

The Leica M9 isn't MF, but it also has no AA filter. I think this is a matter of design philosophy (sizing-up the relative value of the trade-offs) and marketing. There are hardware and software approaches to this problem - when it occurs.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #109 on: November 22, 2010, 02:49:49 PM »
ReplyReply

For your information, all images were capture sharpened using Photokit Sharpener hi-res digital, leaving the contours and the pass through layers all at their default opacities.
One of the main differences between the MFs is the software they come with... If you were doing a comparative test between 400hp super-cars, would you insist on testing them all with mini tyres?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #110 on: November 22, 2010, 02:52:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Not so, just waiting for a response from the author(s), they are the only ones who know what really happened. The crops were undoubtedly screen captures, thus 100% crops, but it seems like the images shown in the essay were resampled further. That would make them less useful as comparison material, to put it mildly.

Yes, screen captures of the image magnified "a la Photoshop" to 100%. Because what emerges from this process is a JPEG which is then up-loaded to the internet, for sure there is much compression. Nonetheless, the impression you get from looking at the images on this web forum is reasonably similar in a comparative sense to the impression you get seeing the actual images on display at 100%. Not perfectly so, but decent enough to confirm what we told you in the text.

As for the 1DsMk3, i use it extensively with the Canon 24~105 L lens and I consider this lens to be FAR ABOVE average, as have other reviewers and users. We exercised our judgment about whether to include the FF stuff in an essentially MF review, and we decided on balance of the pros and cons to do it - some will agree that it has merit, while others will disagree - so be it. We have already been around this issue here, and in the article, so I really have nothing more to add on that matter.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #111 on: November 22, 2010, 03:09:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey! Joseph. Don't spoil the fun  Grin . These guys are still exited by possession of their new, expensive cameras.

Don't expect them to get too analytical and serious. Once you've splashed out a lot of dough on a really expensive system, there's a strange reluctance to be completely objective during comparisons with a much less expensive system.

But my expectations of you were better than this. You are supposed to be a seasoned professional photographer who can see objectively without personalizing issues using phoney psyc-101 non-insights. Obviously, despite the content and context of this article you remain completely clueless about the mindsets brought to bear on its research and preparation. Comments of this ilk don't belong on this website because they contribute NOTHING to learning and understanding, and this site and forum are meant to be about that.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #112 on: November 22, 2010, 03:23:45 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the main differences between the MFs is the software they come with... If you were doing a comparative test between 400hp super-cars, would you insist on testing them all with mini tyres?

In Photokit Sharpener "hi-res" is one category for all images above a certain resolution level as explained in the documentation. There is no received theory or practice about the merits or techniques of adjusting opacities for different sensor formats. The pixel pitch of a P40+ back is pretty much the same as the pixel pitch of a Pentax 645D sensor is pretty much the same as the pixel pitch for the 1Ds3, Leica's being larger but needing less sharpening out of the box than any of the others.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #113 on: November 22, 2010, 03:29:05 PM »
ReplyReply


I also noticed that many of the photos have an embedded color profile for what appears to be Mark's monitor rather than sRGB, aRGB or ProPhoto.  Using a monitor profile seems like an unusual choice.  Perhaps the authors of the article could explain why they chose to use the monitor profile, or perhaps it was inadvertent. 

The colour space of the original converted images is ProPhoto RGB.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #114 on: November 22, 2010, 03:33:53 PM »
ReplyReply

It WAS in another thread, but was completely ignored there. Undecided

It is on-topic because a possibly valid proposition, e.g., the 645D is a great camera, is weakened by false supporting arguments. Now the whole article, which was almost certainly done in good faith, comes across as an exercise in self-justification.

Best,

Matt

Did it occur to you that people may have other things pre-occupying their time rather than giving you 24/7 instant answers on a totally voluntary undertaking such as a web forum?

As for the pseudo-psyc 101, see my comment to Ray; but he's been around here for a long time; being a Newbie with 2 posts, maybe we can steer you into a more productive mode of participation on this forum.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #115 on: November 22, 2010, 03:49:47 PM »
ReplyReply

If an article displays either poor technique or outright bias in one area, doesn't that alter your opinion of the rest? It's sad because the rest of the comparison is so well done. By leaving out the Canon bashing they would have done this site a great service by enhancing its credibility.

And I did not suggest that the authors were motivated by self-justification. Please read what I wrote.


There was no "Canon bashing". The technique used for all the images was identical in terms of the approach used to maximize image quality from all the cameras used. I too was surprised by the Canon outcome, because I use this camera all the time regardless of that the fact that I own a Phase-One; there are all kinds of situations in which it makes more sense to use a DSLR than an MF. If you read the article to completion, you would have seen the comment in the conclusion about the kind of performance I expect - and normally get from the Canon. We had a choice of either including what we got in that particular session or leaving it out. We chose to objectively report on exactly what was achieved then and there, but publish a qualifier along with it. By the way, would you mind your revealing your name and your credentials to be making speculative comments about poor technique or bias?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #116 on: November 22, 2010, 03:57:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Glad you're back Mark. I was biting my tongue the entire week that you were away and while the kids had their say.

What is it about the net that allows what are likely otherwise civil adults to posture so aggressively?

Michael
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #117 on: November 22, 2010, 04:14:16 PM »
ReplyReply

In many ways the more relevant and more interesting comparison would have been between the Leica S2 and the Pentax.

There again I don't think it would be worth bothering, the differences in such a test would be minimal at 100% on screen and virtually invisible in print.
Absolutly! Those 2 cameras are natural competitors.


But now let's get serious for awhile.
And finally, I was thinking about that Pentax and I'm disapointed really.
-it doesn't cook
-it doesn't display my road on gps
-it doesn't have smile and sunset detection
-it doesn't integrate with my fancy I.phones, I.pods, I.pads, and does not have an apple logo anywhere
-it doesn't exists in pink color like the Kx
-it doesn't have a Lamborghini limited version
-and...it's cheap. Shocked

all that is not serious at all for such a brand.

Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #118 on: November 22, 2010, 04:41:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Glad you're back Mark. I was biting my tongue the entire week that you were away and while the kids had their say.

What is it about the net that allows what are likely otherwise civil adults to posture so aggressively?

Michael

An interesting question indeed, particularly about the underlying presumption. Inner self, outer self, what's the mask, what's the reality - not so clear. Perhaps requiring real names and full disclosure would help?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #119 on: November 22, 2010, 04:43:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Absolutly! Those 2 cameras are natural competitors.


But now let's get serious for awhile.
And finally, I was thinking about that Pentax and I'm disapointed really.
-it doesn't cook
-it doesn't display my road on gps
-it doesn't have smile and sunset detection
-it doesn't integrate with my fancy I.phones, I.pods, I.pads, and does not have an apple logo anywhere
-it doesn't exists in pink color like the Kx
-it doesn't have a Lamborghini limited version
-and...it's cheap. Shocked

all that is not serious at all for such a brand.



AH - at last! A breath of fresh air and a real perspective on the things that matter in camera design! Thanks Fred. :-)
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad