Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Quick Dynamic range comparison - Leaf AFi-ii 12, CFii-39MS, Phase P20, Canon 5D2  (Read 9866 times)
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2398



WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2011, 10:45:55 AM »
ReplyReply

How come you are allowed to say about the K5 what I have been saying about the D3x for 2.5 years, and nobody calls you a DSLR troll?  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard


Actually that's another camera I wish I had to test with.  For my DSLR - I went Canon early on and started using my Leica and olympus lenses on it plus a few Canon so there became too much inertia to move over.  And the underwater housings get expensive for the D3X and 1DS bodies compared to the 5D2 so I just stayed with the canon, but my belief is that the D3X is better than the 5D2 for sure.  But the 5D2 is quite behind in many ways to the MFDB that I tested. 

Bernard did you compare the D3X to the Pentax 645D?

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2011, 02:26:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Also ISO 160 is lower noise than iso 100 on the 5DII
Logged

Marc McCalmont
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 855



WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2011, 02:30:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Also ISO 160 is lower noise than iso 100 on the 5DII

last time i said that on this forum i was told different and given a technical explanation as to why it isn't  Huh
i still use 160/320/640 as to my eyes the images are less noisy and pattern noise in the blacks is greatly reduced.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7327


WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 22, 2011, 03:39:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Miles Hecker did a comparison shoot of the P645 and the D3X. It was here on these forums, I cannot find it right away.

Best regards
Erik

Actually that's another camera I wish I had to test with.  For my DSLR - I went Canon early on and started using my Leica and olympus lenses on it plus a few Canon so there became too much inertia to move over.  And the underwater housings get expensive for the D3X and 1DS bodies compared to the 5D2 so I just stayed with the canon, but my belief is that the D3X is better than the 5D2 for sure.  But the 5D2 is quite behind in many ways to the MFDB that I tested. 

Bernard did you compare the D3X to the Pentax 645D?


Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3971



WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2011, 04:43:57 PM »
ReplyReply


It's all about what you are comfortable with.

IMO

BC

 Here in France ze french zey say: "Chacun son gut."

 I guess DR and ISO is the last frontier for still phtography, now that megapixels have multiplied obscenely.

Edmund 

Logged

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

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2011, 08:40:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Here in France ze french zey say: "Chacun son gut."

 I guess DR and ISO is the last frontier for still phtography, now that megapixels have multiplied obscenely.

Edmund  



Edmund,

There is more for the last frontier of digital; improved (pleasing) color palettes and finer color gradations, and highlight transitions... Those seems to me as no less interesting and as very hopeful with the Aptus/Afi-II 12 and IQ180 backs... possibly making them more on terms in those regards with... something called, ehhh... slide film.

Regarding comparing MFDB to DSLR for DR and more, is it not that the DSLRs are tuned different and with in camera algorithms to with noise reduction and more achieve high ISO and DR? While if we look at optimum image quality they do not win...

Horses for coarses, or what is the saying?

Regards
Anders
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



« Reply #46 on: May 23, 2011, 09:38:05 AM »
ReplyReply

 I exposed to get the #1 wedge as close to clipping as possible when the file was set to linear with no other adjustments.  I then imported all the files to Lightroom and reset curves in each file to linear, blacks and both color and luminance noise reduction all to zero.   I am sure that were I to use C1 for the phase files or phocus for the CF files I might get better results so this is just for a quick comparison.  Each step in the stouffer transmission chart is about 1/3 a stop, but more importantly how does each file hold up and how much can the files be lifted?

Eric,

Your results are quite informative, but how do you know that your files are fully exposed too the right. Lightroom and ACR use a BaselineExposure (see page 32 of the linked PDF). For my Nikon D3, the offset is +0.5EV. I have found that setting exposure to -0.5EV in ACR to compensate for the +0.5 EV offset and using a linear tone curve as you have done gives a reasonable approximation to the actual raw values when using a Stouffer wedge. Without the exposure adjustment, a proper ETTR exposure appears clipped. For many dSLRs one can use a program such as Rawnalize, DCRaw, or Iris to examine the raw data directly without white balance or a tone curve. I do not know is such a program is available for MFDBs.

Here is a D3 with a stouffer wedge fully exposed to the right as shown by Rawnalize and the ACR preview of the same file with default settings.





Some Phase One cameras such as the P65+ overexpose by a full f/stop to preserve highlight headroom as shown on the DXO ISO plots. I would imagine that the BaselineExposure would be +1 EV


Regards,

Bill
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2398



WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 23, 2011, 10:26:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bill,
Yes, good point to bring up.  I shot tethered to C1 for the Leaf AFi-ii 12, Canon 5D2, and Phase p20 and tethered to Phocus for the CFii-39MS.   I did notice the exposure differences in LR3 for the phase p20 but not the others.  

Thank you for the information on the Nikon.

Off topic a bit but do you know why ACR/Lightroom use exposure offsets?  And I'm not familiar with Rawnalize software so can you explain why in the chart you included the green histogram is ahead of the red and blue - what is that showing? Differences in sensitivity or Huh
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 10:31:01 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



« Reply #48 on: May 23, 2011, 11:01:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bill,
Yes, good point to bring up.  I shot tethered to C1 for the Leaf AFi-ii 12, Canon 5D2, and Phase p20 and tethered to Phocus for the CFii-39MS.   I did notice the exposure differences in LR3 for the phase p20 but not the others.  

Thank you for the information on the Nikon.

Off topic a bit but do you know why ACR/Lightroom use exposure offsets?  And I'm not familiar with Rawnalize software so can you explain why in the chart you included the green histogram is ahead of the red and blue - what is that showing? Differences in sensitivity or Huh

Eric,

Rawnalize was a freeware program published by GaborSch, who unfortunately has passed away as detailed on this link on DPReview. The green channel of to the right of red and blue, because the program shows the raw channels before white balance.

Here is the Adobe explanation for the use of exposure offsets. Personally, I do not think that they are a good ideal. You can determine the baseline offset by converting the raw file to DNG and then reading the BaselineExposure with an EXIF editor.

Regards,

Bill



Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 23, 2011, 12:51:48 PM »
ReplyReply

PRICELESS!!!

Because no MF shooter feels threatened by a Pentax K5. Whereas they do feel threatened by a top-end Nikon.

John
Logged
kimballistic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2011, 03:34:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe says:
Quote
Some [camera models] leave a significant amount of highlight headroom during a normal exposure. This
allows significant negative exposure compensation to be applied during raw conversion

Negative?  Wouldn't highlight headroom allow for significant amounts of positive exposure compensation before clipping highlights?  Or am I missing something obvious?

Thanks.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2779



« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2011, 06:40:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe says:
Negative?  Wouldn't highlight headroom allow for significant amounts of positive exposure compensation before clipping highlights?  Or am I missing something obvious?

Thanks.

It is a bit confusing, but if a camera allows 0.5 EV of headroom, it underexposes by 0.5 EV. To have a centered histogram and a normal brightness for the image preview, the camera or raw converter has to increase exposure by 0.5 EV. ACR then uses an BaselineExposure of +0.5 EV. If the image were fully exposed to the right, the highlights would appear clipped in the ACR preview and histogram. One can "recover" the highlights by using -0.5 EV with the ACR exposure slider.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
kimballistic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #52 on: May 23, 2011, 09:08:53 PM »
ReplyReply

It is a bit confusing, but if a camera allows 0.5 EV of headroom, it underexposes by 0.5 EV. To have a centered histogram and a normal brightness for the image preview, the camera or raw converter has to increase exposure by 0.5 EV. ACR then uses an BaselineExposure of +0.5 EV. If the image were fully exposed to the right, the highlights would appear clipped in the ACR preview and histogram. One can "recover" the highlights by using -0.5 EV with the ACR exposure slider.

I understand what you're saying, just not what Adobe is saying in their PDF.

Adobe says highlight headroom ("underexpose by 0.5 EV" as in your example) allows for "significant negative exposure compensation to be applied during raw conversion."  In other words that underexposed images allow for further underexposure in raw processing.  That doesn't make sense to me.  It is ETTR that allows negative exposure compensation, not AE metered images that by definition leave .5 EV headroom (as in your example).

Again, from Adobe's PDF:
Quote
Some [camera models] leave a significant amount of highlight headroom during a normal exposure. This
allows significant negative exposure compensation to be applied during raw conversion
Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #53 on: May 24, 2011, 12:30:00 AM »
ReplyReply

am i really the only one who is slightly turned off by the color of the MF samples compared to the canon? the sky? the trees! even worse in the crops....
i am with cooter, canon skintones make clients happy....
have been tempted by the d3x as well because of the DR, but then i come across one of my DMF or leica M shoots and remember spotting and dirt and that is that.....

the new phase 180 is the first back in a long time that actually interests me....8x10 quality for fun and clean and fast (enough) 20mpix at high iso sounds right...but i have a feeling the next canon will take care of that urge....and it really has been nice to not have any gear envy AND not spend silly money for 3? years now (since the 5dii came out....)
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2398



WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 24, 2011, 12:56:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Paul,
That's an interesting observation and probably a personal one.  I think Canon can get good skin tones mostly through their DPP software but having shot the images and seen the scene firsthand, I'd say the backs are more true than the canon. That said, true isn't always the most pleasing.  I'd take any of the backs over the canon myself (but am glad to have both for when I need good AF or high ISO).
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #55 on: May 24, 2011, 03:40:06 AM »
ReplyReply

am i really the only one who is slightly turned off by the color of the MF samples compared to the canon? the sky? the trees! even worse in the crops....
i am with cooter, canon skintones make clients happy....
have been tempted by the d3x as well because of the DR, but then i come across one of my DMF or leica M shoots and remember spotting and dirt and that is that.....

the new phase 180 is the first back in a long time that actually interests me....8x10 quality for fun and clean and fast (enough) 20mpix at high iso sounds right...but i have a feeling the next canon will take care of that urge....and it really has been nice to not have any gear envy AND not spend silly money for 3? years now (since the 5dii came out....)
+1
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #56 on: May 24, 2011, 03:59:06 AM »
ReplyReply

am i really the only one who is slightly turned off by the color of the MF samples compared to the canon? the sky? the trees! even worse in the crops....
i am with cooter, canon skintones make clients happy....
have been tempted by the d3x as well because of the DR, but then i come across one of my DMF or leica M shoots and remember spotting and dirt and that is that.....

the new phase 180 is the first back in a long time that actually interests me....8x10 quality for fun and clean and fast (enough) 20mpix at high iso sounds right...but i have a feeling the next canon will take care of that urge....and it really has been nice to not have any gear envy AND not spend silly money for 3? years now (since the 5dii came out....)

Yes the look of a file is a personal opinion.  Always has been, film or digital, motion or still.

Regardless, I've set up multiple tech stations half a dozen times.  One running my Contax and Phase backs the  second station the 1ds3.  (Actually now the third station the RED). 

Same light, same subject, best settings through the dedicated software, EOS utility for Canon, C-1 V3, V5, V6 for the P21+ and _30+.

Each time the client commented they liked the look of the Canon files.   

Now I've never had a client demand I shoot any still camera and they all defer to my judgement, but regardless that's the response that has covered editorial, lifestyle advertising, fashion, beauty and retail from 6 different art directors of all age ranges and experience.

I usually just go with the camera or back I feel is best and I'll admit I have an affection for the Contax, my current backs to me are kind of like a slow film that will look better later, or in  other words we're going to do a lot of work in post.   

The Canons I just see as an acceptable tool, but a very easy tool to use.  I can't really fall in love with the Canons like I do the Contax, but for a lot of work the Canon is just an easy fit, especially with today's schedule and using continuous lighting.

Now, I'll admit I don't have a clue what anyone means when they say "ultimate Image Quality".  I've probably read that phrase on this forum 1,000 times and from a professional standpoint don't get it.

If I need more dynamic range, that's my job to add fill light, or craft the scene.   If I need more resolution than 22 mpx, I guess I'll need to find new clients because nobody's asking.  If I need pleasing color I think that is very subject, scene, light depended, though the Canon out of the camera seems the closest.

But to be clear I don't see any professional digital camera as a certain format.   645 is a larger frame than 35mm but really not like the film days of 6x9, 4x5 or 8x10.  No, not anymore and I don't think clients do either.  They see the 27" monitor as the format, because that's what their looking at.

My 5d's I use for B camera video, though did shoot one editorial job with them as stills.  I do believe they produce a sharper file than the 1ds3.  Actually for the costs they're pretty amazing.

Now I recently saw some very nice raw files from a hd4 40 mpx hasselblad and it got me interested in the look especially the skin tones.  It is a camera I'll try soon, when our schedule permits.

IMO

BC
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2398



WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 24, 2011, 11:53:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting to read the praise for Canon 5d2 skin tones, because for me that's coming out of left field.   James and Paul, just curious - are you just talking about out of the box files?   Or are you doing your own profiles with X-rite color passport or Huh    I think for the phase backs the skin can sometimes be not right but they have the excellent skin tone tools - all you have to do is save it as a style...

No question the 5D2 is a great camera and huge value for the money.  I certainly like mine and do use it often, but its never my first choice.  One of my biggest objections to the canon has nothing to do with tech -  I just don't like the 3::2 format much. 
Logged

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

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #58 on: May 24, 2011, 12:00:00 PM »
ReplyReply

am i really the only one who is slightly turned off by the color of the MF samples compared to the canon? the sky? the trees! even worse in the crops....

The files are not white balanced.
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #59 on: May 24, 2011, 12:20:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting to read the praise for Canon 5d2 skin tones, because for me that's coming out of left field.   James and Paul, just curious - are you just talking about out of the box files?   Or are you doing your own profiles with X-rite color passport or Huh    I think for the phase backs the skin can sometimes be not right but they have the excellent skin tone tools - all you have to do is save it as a style...

No question the 5D2 is a great camera and huge value for the money.  I certainly like mine and do use it often, but its never my first choice.  One of my biggest objections to the canon has nothing to do with tech -  I just don't like the 3::2 format much. 


I usually use our 1ds3's instead of the 5d2 for still work.   The 3's have a usb lock on the body that is a lifesaver.

The 5d2's we use as B cameras for motion.

As far as color, I set it in camera and/or in dpp.

As far as medium format color, it's good, but with my backs the color is  too sensitive.   I set it in C-1 but on set if I want to show more of an exact look, we set a hot folder in lightroom where there is more adjustments per channel, at least easier adjustments per channel.

Now remember this is for client on set review not final processing.   For final processing we use different programs depending on subject, light etc. and for final processing, we usually use C-1 for Canon and Phase files knowing we will be doing a lot in photoshop.

I agree with the 3:2 crop, I don't like it much either though in todays world we shoot a lot more horizontal than we do vertical (for a lot of reasons) so 3"2 is less problematic than 4:3.  If it was all verticals 4:3 is much easier, but it's not a vertical world anymore, at least for our work.

So we keep one body with the standard 3:2 screen, one Canon with the 4:3 screen.  One is marked horizontal one camera vertical.  Seems silly but works.

Still given my choice and having enough light without worrying about shooting motion, I'd rather use our Contax'.   

But what I want and what I'm required to do are sometimes different.  With 14 models per day and 25 people on set every hour is a lot of money and a lot of imagery is required in still and motion and no longer do you hear "can you just shoot a little _________" (you fill in the blank video, vertical, horizontal, tight, wide etc.).

In fact I've found in the last few years if you ask a question like is this horizontal or vertical, tight or wide, full page or double truck, web or print, or outdoor, motion or still the answer is  . . . . yes.

IMO

BC
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad