Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 8x10" vs 4x5" vs IQ180 vs ... Great test by Tim Parkin et al.  (Read 26813 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8024


WWW
« on: December 25, 2011, 12:15:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Here is some great research done by Tim Parkin and enthusiastic colleagues: http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/


This part of the test may be most informative: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html

If you want to compare the lesser cameras the slightly downsized image may be of interest: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

The test here goes into greater detail than I have seen before, definitively worth reading.

My own observations:

- Tim's tests indicates that Phase One P45 pretty well matches 4x5" Velvia

- The Sony A900 is clearly superior to Mamiya 7 with Portra 400. Pity that they have not tested with Velvia.

- 8x10" beats IQ180 weather Velvia or Portra 400

This is essentially in good agreement with some previous testing that indicated P45 equalling 4x5" and 20 MP DSLRs matching 67 on Velvia.

The bridge on top of ridge is worth checking out visible on Velvia but not really on IQ180, see enclosed images!
Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 09:56:52 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 810


« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2011, 01:48:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Excellent test, and interesting results. The advantage in the studio of 8x10 is very clear. In the field in that kind of wind the advantage appears to have been reduced.
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2011, 02:13:24 AM »
ReplyReply

This is fabulous work that to me clearly demonstrates films capability and goes a long way to debunk the previous testing.

Logged

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

Posts: 59


« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2011, 04:41:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Here is some great research done by Tim Parkin and enthusiastic colleagues: http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/


This part of the test may be most informative: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html

If you want to compare the lesser cameras the slightly downsized image may be of interest: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

The test here goes into greater detail than I have seen before, definitively worth reading.

My own observations:

- Tim's tests indicates that Phase One P45 pretty well matches 4x5" Velvia

- The Sony A900 is clearly superior to Mamiya 7 with Portra 400. Pity that they have not tested with Velvia.

- 8x10" beats IQ180 weather Velvia or Portra 400

This is essentially in good agreement with some previous testing that indicated P45 equalling 4x5" and 20 MP DSLRs matching 67 on Velvia.

Best regards
Erik


Thanks Erik, really appreciate the support - the comparisons between the different cameras are subjective but I thought it would help to show a side by side directly between the cameras you mention..





Personally I read the results differently but that's the good thing about a simple side by side. The results can be interpreted by the reader.

Tim

p.s. The reduction in resolution of the 8x10 in the field is, I think, more to do with diffraction than wind - otherwise specular highlights would have been smeared - only conjecture though.
Logged
timparkin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2011, 05:21:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's a link to the Nikon D3X, Mamiya 7, Canon 5Dmk2 comparison image as the forum resizes images

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mamiya7portra160-D3X-5D2.jpg
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8388



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2011, 05:41:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's a link to the Nikon D3X, Mamiya 7, Canon 5Dmk2 comparison image as the forum resizes images

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mamiya7portra160-D3X-5D2.jpg

In terms of detail, I would say Mamiya 7 >= D3x > 5DII. The mamiya seems more focused on the Hassy, while the D3x seems more focus on the note. I am not sure where the 5DII was focused. It seems similar to the D3x on the Hassy, but much worse on the note.

In terms of how clear the image is/DR, then it is clearly D3x >> Mamiya 7 > 5DII.

I believe that the D3x would probably be better in large prints due to the lack of noise.

For the other images, I would say 4x5 > P45 and also 8x10 >> 4x5 > IQ180.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 05:57:34 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
timparkin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2011, 05:57:27 AM »
ReplyReply


In terms of how clear the image is/DR, then it is clearly D3x >> Mamiya 7 > 5DII.

I believe that the D3x would probably be better in large prints due to the lack of noise.

For the other images, I would say 4x5 > P45 and 8x10 >> IQ180.

That sounds about right to me. One thing is clear from the print analysis is that extra resolution does not necessarily mean a sharper looking print. The Mamiya is a classic in this in that it outresolves the D3X quite substantially but does not look it at print sizes. I was mightily impressed with the Nikon D3X and the Nikon 24 tilt shift was substantially better than the Canon 24  TSEmk2 tilt shift that we had (which tallies with the copy I used to own but a colleague seems to have a sharp copy which I look forward to testing). I would say that the 4x5 and IQ180 are closely matches with mid res contrast going to the IQ180 but fine detail going to the 4x5. In blind print tests, the film was chosen mostly at small sizes (tonality I think) and people were split between 4x5 and IQ180 at large (40x50) print sizes. Some liking the clean look of the IQ180, others saying that it didn't look as 'real' as the 4x5. All but on of my 8 person sample chose the 8x10 Portra though at this large print size though. The sample was chosen from non-photographer family members so far - boring them to tears on christmas eve :-)

Tim

Tim
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8024


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2011, 09:56:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Tim,

Some more reflections:

The microscope images are very informative. On the IQ-180 then lens clearly has a lot of MTF at Nyquist, so we get aliasing instead of resolution smoothly going away with increasing frequency.

Without doubt, the 8x10" outresolves the rest.

If we compare the 4x5" there are some advantages and disadvantages to 4x5" compared to P45. The P45 obviously has different artifacts, regarding resolution it may sometimes resolve detail the 4x5" does not, check the hose in the right part of the image.

In my view the Alpha 900 holds up well in the enclosed image.

I may need to point out that I have tested my Alpha 900 against both Velvia and Ektar 100 on my Pentax 67. In my test it was quite even, but the A900 image was much easier to work with. For that reason I find it interesting to compare with your test. I also guess that the Mamiya has a much better lens than the one I had on my Pentax a 90/2.8. So I have a significant interest comparing your findings with mine.

My tests are here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

Seeing your results, it's fairly obvious that the best films give better and more detail on 4x5" compared to P45 and quite clearly the 8x10" beats IQ180 for quality.

Very obviously, when you compare the smaller sensors (135 FF) to large format the images fall apart.  I'd say that your tests also show that there is a lot of difference between different films.

Most of my testing was done using a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, which I believe is a decent CCD scanner, but my film images may have been handicapped by the scanner. One other point is affordability. With analogue the equipment is quite affordable especially if we can find used equipment. High end digital tends to be very expensive.

Best regards
Erik


Thanks Erik, really appreciate the support - the comparisons between the different cameras are subjective but I thought it would help to show a side by side directly between the cameras you mention..


Personally I read the results differently but that's the good thing about a simple side by side. The results can be interpreted by the reader.

Tim

p.s. The reduction in resolution of the 8x10 in the field is, I think, more to do with diffraction than wind - otherwise specular highlights would have been smeared - only conjecture though.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 10:20:42 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

PdF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



« Reply #8 on: December 25, 2011, 12:14:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Without multishoot camera (Hasselblad H4d 200ms) or multishoot back (Sinarback eVolution 86H), this test is incomplete.

For this kind of tests, the multishoot backs are generally at the top.

PdF
Logged

PdF
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2011, 12:28:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I was wondering about the multishot backs too - I know from my own testing that the 22mp backs (528CF) easily beat the 80mp Aptus with detail and DR.  This would be obvious in the studio tests, but of course none of your outside tests would work because of movement so it seems reasonable to leave the multishot backs out.  But absolutely no question they do significantly better than the 80mp backs and i'm wondering if they wouldn't give the 8x10's a run for the money in the studio tests.
Logged

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

Posts: 296



« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2011, 01:01:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Except that all multishoot backs users are able to use one-shot mode when shooting in which the movement occurs. Better yet, some do not hesitate to "sandwich" a 4 shots image with a 1 shot to enhance the best parts of the image.

The difference would be huge on images of banknotes and prehistoric Hasselblad !!!

PdF
Logged

PdF
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2011, 01:57:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Tim and colleagues,

this comparison was a lot of work. And I read everything form top to bottom without a stop. Very interesting, very helpful.

Peace on earth and elsewere
Johannes
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2011, 02:06:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for sharing the results with us. I was particularly curious to see the IQ180 v 5x4 film results. Resolution seemed to be neck and neck, with the digital winning overall with its better colour accuracy and noise.
Logged

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

Posts: 2451



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2011, 02:11:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Graham,
I saw the 4x5 as having more detail than the IQ180 - for example in the studio shot of the Nikon lens.     In some of the crops of the outdoors shots its less clear.  Overall, I note that some of the film is shot at ISO 400 ....  I'd hate to see the IQ180 at ISO 400.
Eric
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 05:11:40 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 474


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2011, 04:17:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I would still take my IQ180 over my 8x10 or 4x5.  The choice of my 13 lenses I carry, dynamic range, Color accuracy, ease of processing without using my Scitex scanner and cleaning for 6 hours each piece 8x10 film.  Then if you use a fluid gear driven stitching head you can accomplish images that cannot be achieved without any other camera.  No contest I used them all and will always take the IQ180 until something is better.  The dynamic range is what I like the most.  Unfortunately my 65 pound pack has not lightened, but no pain no gain.  But interesting results.  T
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2011, 04:32:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Graham,
I saw the 4x5 as having more detail than the IQ180....  and I'd hate to see the IQ180 at ISO 400 which is what the film was.
Eric


Are you sure you were looking at 5x4? Here is a sample of Velvia 5x4 v. IQ180. Btw, Velvia is ISO 50.

Logged

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

Posts: 866


« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2011, 04:40:09 PM »
ReplyReply

8x10" vs IQ180 comparison result was predictable.. but still I'm impressed by difference of the studio shots. Tim, thanks for your work!
Logged
timparkin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2011, 05:38:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I would still take my IQ180 over my 8x10 or 4x5.  The choice of my 13 lenses I carry, dynamic range, Color accuracy, ease of processing without using my Scitex scanner and cleaning for 6 hours each piece 8x10 film.  Then if you use a fluid gear driven stitching head you can accomplish images that cannot be achieved without any other camera.  No contest I used them all and will always take the IQ180 until something is better.  The dynamic range is what I like the most.  Unfortunately my 65 pound pack has not lightened, but no pain no gain.  But interesting results. 

As I said in my conclusions - if you can justifiably afford the IQ180 it is definitely a good choice. However, personally the 'flavour' of film, especially velvia, still gives me something I desire and also the dynamic range of the Portra's and the ability to shoot without grads is something that digital doesn't quite have yet. Saying that, I'll be playing with the IQ180 over the coming months to see just how far you can take it without grads. Don't forget that the scenic image was shot on Velvia without grads - that film has a lot more dynamic range than people give it credit for. Of course - using both would be perfect!
Logged
timparkin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #18 on: December 25, 2011, 06:11:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you sure you were looking at 5x4? Here is a sample of Velvia 5x4 v. IQ180. Btw, Velvia is ISO 50.



The 4x5 velvia shot isn't as sharp as the 4x5 portra shot but obviously it should be - I think wind affected this area. My estimate is that they are closely matched with some fine detail going to the 4x5 and the good contrast at slightly lower resolution going to the IQ180. The IQ180 would inevitably look sharper in prints but given some of the print tests we've tried, some people have said it doesn't look as 'real'. Obviously the comparison is a good way of choosing which rendering you prefer. I preferred the colour from Velvia and Portra but the differences are marginal and the IQ colour was perfectly acceptable. I would not that some of the fine colour handling by 4x5 velvia was better than the IQ180 - in the mosses comparison have a look at the following but look judge how natural each image looks and also how the colour separation is handled.



It's not simple choosing better or worse as they each have their own idiosyncracies..

Tim
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 25, 2011, 06:49:02 PM »
ReplyReply

The 4x5 velvia shot isn't as sharp as the 4x5 portra shot but obviously it should be - I think wind affected this area.

I just happened to pick that one image but all the samples lead to the same conclusion for me.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad