Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR  (Read 20332 times)
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2012, 08:48:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Boy, that Pentax 645D MKII is going to be an appealing camera!  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard


Is that what you use now, Bernard - a 645D? I knew you had gone ZD -> D3X some time back, but I noticed above that you said you "used to own" a D3X.

Are there any concrete details of a 645D MkII?

Ray
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781



« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2012, 08:59:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Stitching iPhone images to compete with a DSLR, or stitching DSLR images to compete with MF does present its own issues, though.

Stitching of camera phone images will give more resolution. However, the per pixel performance of the camera phone cameras is far inferior to that of dSLRs. To overcome that limitation of camera phones, one would have to collect more photons per individual image (one field of view) by stacking. This is not a pleasant situation to contemplate.

However, the per pixel performance of the better dSLRs is comparable or better to that of MFDBs (notwithstanding unsubstantiated claims by some), so stacking would not be necessary.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2012, 09:08:20 AM »
ReplyReply

But with a good CMOS implementation, that universality of Medium Format will be restored: "it works just the same as what you have, but the image is much bigger and hence better", as we used to say when snappers enquired about those curious big old cameras we toted around.

The Pentax 645D already seem interesting in that respect, because it has a CCD sensor that is made with a higher base ISO than other MFDB offerings and unless I am mistaking also a higher ISO capability than other MFDBs. Thus the Pentax differs and seem tuned more as DSLR, while other MFDBs are made for optimum image quality and file quality which is achieved at lower ISO and quality is higher than DSLRs.

It seems simple, different tools are made for different purposes. For high image quality, light is needed (low ISO). DSLRs and the Pentax are made to cover also opposing purposes.
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2012, 09:16:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I frequently find moire with a Leica M9, even with the less stellar Leica lenses like the 28/35/50 Tri-Elmar.

I occasionally find moire with a P65+ with Mamiya/Phase One and Rodenstock lenses.

I can't ever remember finding moire with a Canon 5D MkII or Canon 1Ds MkIII, even when using their best resolving lenses.

Doesn't that suggest that Leica and Phase One could offer higher pixel count sensors, where as Canon should concentrate on improving their optics? Or is it all about Canon's AA filters?

I often get moire with my 35 f1.4 and other Canon lenses, not as bad as a non AA filtered system, but it happens all the same.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7890



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2012, 10:51:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Is that what you use now, Bernard - a 645D? I knew you had gone ZD -> D3X some time back, but I noticed above that you said you "used to own" a D3X.

Are there any concrete details of a 645D MkII?

Nope, I have been using a D7000 for a few months. Excellent camera, great DR, clean files, a bit less sharp than the D3x at pixel level but very good still.

My intend is to get a d800 if the performance is at the level we can expect.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7327


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2012, 11:01:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My guess is that the Pentax is using microlenses. As it is an MF DSLR where the back cannot be removed it makes a lot of sense. That may give one stop advantage.

Best regards
Erik


The Pentax 645D already seem interesting in that respect, because it has a CCD sensor that is made with a higher base ISO than other MFDB offerings and unless I am mistaking also a higher ISO capability than other MFDBs. Thus the Pentax differs and seem tuned more as DSLR, while other MFDBs are made for optimum image quality and file quality which is achieved at lower ISO and quality is higher than DSLRs.

It seems simple, different tools are made for different purposes. For high image quality, light is needed (low ISO). DSLRs and the Pentax are made to cover also opposing purposes.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2012, 11:22:38 AM »
ReplyReply

My guess is that the Pentax is using microlenses.
Indeed Pentax is, along with the Leica S2 and a number of other DMF backs using 44x33mm sensors from Kodak. This is indeed good for about a doubling of QE, so a one stop shift up of the ISO speed range. Compare the QE on the spec. sheets for the 40MP 44x33mm KAF-40000 of the Pentax to its big brother, the 50MP 49x37mm KAF-51000, which shares the same "Kodak Truesense 6 micron pixel" design:
KAF-40000, 40MP 44x33mm
KAF-50100 50MP 49x37mm
The only reason not to use micro-lenses is problems with highly off-perpendicular incoming light, and this is only a problem near the corners of the full "645" frame, not within the smaller 44x33mm image rectangle.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 11:30:07 AM by BJL » Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2012, 11:35:03 AM »
ReplyReply

With CPS in the UK I get 3 day repair turnaround on my equipment, cheap prices for repairs in any case and it's free for pros. The equipment although far more complicated and sophisticated (compare a 1Ds3/D3x to a P1 DF) seems to not need the kind of dealer hand holding that MF equipment seems to need. Oh and you can afford to own backup, not just dealer loans or rental when your expensive back goes down. To champion dealer support as a MF plus is to ignore the inherent cost of that support and the need for that support in comparison to the 'lesser' systems.

MFD has many incredible advantages, I just ordered a DF system with an Aptus II-8, but we have accept the realities that superior IQ brings. The dealer argument is IMO a weak one which can backfire nastily the moment someone says 'but why should we need a dealer for all the reasons so often pushed hard by the vendors here, I never thought to need that kind of support for my Canon's that I could buy off ebay, just worked and when I knocked them the repair turnaround was faster and cheaper anyway'.

Reminds me of the arguments made so often to push the cheap Alien Bee lights. 'The customer service is just so incredible'. I have no doubt that it is but did no one stop and say 'I wonder why so many people needed customer service in the first place?'. I own 4 of their lights and know exactly why their customer service is good, it's cause you are going to need them...
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 11:39:11 AM by Ben Rubinstein » Logged

DennisWilliams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2012, 12:54:37 PM »
ReplyReply

12MP, 24MP, or 36MP  that 24mm x 36mm FF DSLR sensor  still delivers a 2 x 3 file and that is the ball game right there.
I may be the only person who even makes that particular distinction, or cares, so be it.  
Cropping to 6 x 7, 4 x 5 or square is brutal so unless you regularly see  and frame in 2x3  that 36MP file could lose up to 33%  to cropping.
Logged
Kagetsu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2012, 04:13:11 PM »
ReplyReply

12MP, 24MP, or 36MP  that 24mm x 36mm FF DSLR sensor  still delivers a 2 x 3 file and that is the ball game right there.
I may be the only person who even makes that particular distinction, or cares, so be it.  
Cropping to 6 x 7, 4 x 5 or square is brutal so unless you regularly see  and frame in 2x3  that 36MP file could lose up to 33%  to cropping.

You weren't the only one.
I still see it as an unusual move on Nikons part to go there with their D800 (if they do, I still can't believe this rumor... something tells me there's a catch), especially on the heals of their D4 announcement. D4x I could understand, but even then.

There was a few 'things' in the image after looking at it, but will hold out. I'm not entirely convinced it's everything it's cracked up to be.
Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2012, 04:23:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Gary

you should try our Hartblei Zeiss lenses on the HCam with 80 Mpix.
Here is a sample shot taken with a Leaf Aptus II12 R and our 2,8/80mm "T* Planar" with 4 degrees of tilt on HCam-B1:

http://www.hcam.de/downloads/Hartblei80mm_HCamB1_4degr_tilt_LeafA12.jpg

I did not perfectly get the angle (the right side was a bit out of focus compared to the left), it was only a fast test on my livingroom table, but you will see what you need to see.
And that´s not even our Macro.

regards
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781



« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2012, 05:50:36 PM »
ReplyReply

12MP, 24MP, or 36MP  that 24mm x 36mm FF DSLR sensor  still delivers a 2 x 3 file and that is the ball game right there.
I may be the only person who even makes that particular distinction, or cares, so be it.  
Cropping to 6 x 7, 4 x 5 or square is brutal so unless you regularly see  and frame in 2x3  that 36MP file could lose up to 33%  to cropping.

Quite true. But if you turn the camera 90 degrees and stitch 3 or 4 frames, the 2x3 format works out quite well.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3572


« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2012, 06:08:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quite true. But if you turn the camera 90 degrees and stitch 3 or 4 frames, the 2x3 format works out quite well.

Indeed, and with better optics. But one could also ask, why be such a square ...? Wink

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
craigrudlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2012, 08:20:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I find it interesting that we "learn to see" in a specific ratio.  After literally decades
of 35mm photography, essentially all the 2x3 ratio, I "see" images in that format
and almost never find the need to crop to square or other format.  (Granted, I am NOT
doing fashion or portrait photography, and I suspect that this is a major factor. )  In fact,
most square images or other ratios "look strange" to me.  I suspect that a year
with a different format would change this "attitude", but it is interesting to contemplate
how our brains "adapt and expect" to see in specific ratios.

Logged
stpf8
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2012, 09:07:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I use both:  Canon 1Ds III & IV, and Hasselblad H4D-40.  The two most significant features of the H4D-40 compared to the Canon are 1) dynamic range -- the first images out of that camera just floored me with the range of light they could accommodate; 2) complete integration with the Hasselblad Phocus software, something that just doesn't exist with the Canons; Phocus has been a slow learning process, but clearly it's a very important component of the system.  Each of my three cameras does something very well that the other two aren't nearly as good at.  Someday, hopefully, it will show up more frequently in my photographs (i.e., I'm the limiting factor).
Logged

Stephen Penland
www.stephenpenland.com
Roskav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2012, 03:40:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Just want to follow up on my last post which was a bit tongue in cheek.  There are some very interesting points here.. but what makes this discussion interesting is that .. this has been talked and talked over so many times... but now there is a slightly different flavor to it.  DSLRs have come so far in recent years they replicate many of the specs of digital backs that would have been produced 5 years ago.  What is more is that they offer much more functionality and versatility.  I won't re-hash all of the points that have been made except to mention one that Bernard made.  It's all very well slowing down and taking time to make your images... but it's nice to have the option of working fast if you need to. 
It boils down to money really... In the architecture photography market in this country you are looking at fees that are a fraction of what you would have been paid 4 years ago.  I'm not going to go into details but it's pretty bad.  There is no way you could invest in a MFDB system from scratch and hope to make it pay in the current climate. 
Also .. when on a job, I'm having to do it in half the time I would have spent on it before, just to make it viable as an earner.  I was doing a job at a house yesterday.. take a wide shot for example of a stairwell..  Set up lights... take maybe 10 shots and review each one to get camera in right position and angle.  Wait for an even bit of sun... Take four shots at different lens positions to make a stitcher shot....  (Each shot 10 seconds which means 30 sec interval between each shot)  Take four lens calibration shots  (each one may take two goes to get the right exposure)  You have all your post production after that.  The files when combined with the calibration shots are great .. they are just perfect to work from.... But on site this will have taken 20 minutes if you are running smoothly. 
If you are using a dslr with the right lens it will take you perhaps 5 minutes as you have much quicker feedback from your camera and it is easier to set it up with the viewfinder.  Add all of the shots you will need to take in a day and those extra 15 minutes per shot will come in very handy.  You might even have time for lunch!
I love working slowly .. taking my time... And I don't really feel I've done a building justice if I used a DSLR as I would always imagine how much better the shot would have been had I used the MFDB.  BUT I'm not really sure my clients care that much .. maybe they can't afford to care that much considering the climate. (economic climate!) 
I have two bags in the studio .. one has MFDB gear and one has DSLR gear... I find the DSLR bag is getting heavier with backups, lenses, speedlight controllers and speedlights (Thank you pocket wizard for making my life easier)  ... it is a better all rounder system especially taking the more recent video advances.  (wifi control ... how good is that?  I can stick a dsr on the end of a 7m tripod and review the shots on the ground .. when it's not windy!) 
Ok going off point ... over and out.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1283



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2012, 07:37:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I posted on another forum a comparision between the RAW files produced by another user shooting the same scene with:

- Nikon D7000
Iso: 100
nºf: 11
obturación: 1''
Objetivo: Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 36mm

- Phase One P25+
Cuerpo: Mamiya 645DF
Iso: 50
nºf: 22
obturación: 10''
Objetivo: Phase One 80mm f/2.8



I was only interested in the Dynamic Range test (i.e. noise test). As a side effect the level of detail could also be compared.
But don't look here for any conclusions about colour accuracy, or any other typical subjective perception ('my MFDB provides fantastic tonal gradation' and etc...).

To find out which sensor had more DR I obtained images representative of the RAW files so that no trick under the hood performed by the RAW developer could fool the results. This was achieved by a RAW development using DCRAW without any white balance (that's why the images look greenish), and no output colour profile conversion (that is way individual RGB clipping becomes representative of the individual RAW channels clipping):



Another highlight area, the MFDB was clipped in the G channel while the Nikon RAW data was intact in all three channels:


The conclusions are:
  • The Nikon shows less noise in the darkest areas and has no clipped information, while the MFDB is a bit noisier in the shadows and got its highlights clipped in the G channel. The verdict is that the Nikon D7000 has more dynamic range. Note the difference in resolution would play in favour of the MDFB when comparing the same output resolution, because noise would reduce statistically (not much however, 16Mpx vs 22Mpx).
  • Despite the noise, the level of detail achieved by the MFDB is higher. Note this depends not only on the sensor, but also on the lens used, aperture and manual focusing performed.

Regards
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 08:01:38 PM by Guillermo Luijk » Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2012, 04:55:15 AM »
ReplyReply

... what makes this discussion interesting is that .. this has been talked and talked over so many times... but now there is a slightly different flavor to it.  DSLRs have come so far in recent years they replicate many of the specs of digital backs that would have been produced 5 years ago.  What is more is that they offer much more functionality and versatility.

Hmpf... right?... wrong? Lets touch on the last one first, yes DSLRs offer more versatility because they are more general photographic tools, as compared to MFDB who are for LOW ISO or LOWER ISO and OPTIMUM IMAGE QUALITY at decent light. DSLR and MFDB are different TOOLS for different PURPOSES.

Now to touch on the first.... namely "specs of digital backs that would have been produced 5 years ago", we have a very good example test referenced here;

- Nikon D7000
Iso: 100
nºf: 11
obturación: 1''
Objetivo: Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 36mm

- Phase One P25+
Cuerpo: Mamiya 645DF
Iso: 50
nºf: 22
obturación: 10''
Objetivo: Phase One 80mm f/2.8


But uhh... is it not that P25+ has same Kodak sensor that the old P25 had, thus that (although it is a + back) it has a sensor that is around TEN YEARS OLD Huh?

To comment more about that comparison, was the DSLR using f/11 and P25+ f/22 Huh? Hmpf.

Come on gents, if you are really content and happy with latest DSLRs give it rest and enjoy them and please keep posting your great images instead. Yet for those few who are really looking for a higher image quality for lower ISOs it is worth to check out the 20, 28 and 33MP digital backs or even the newer higher spec backs. Postings of false information is misleading.

 Wink
Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1283



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2012, 05:06:41 AM »
ReplyReply

But uhh... is it not that P25+ has same Kodak sensor that the old P25 had, thus that (although it is a + back) it has a sensor that is around TEN YEARS OLD Huh?

Calm down Anders, I don't own a MFDB, and I don't own a D7000. This is just a test another user did and I borrowed his RAW files.
I have asked in this forum for MDFB files vs DSLR files to MFDB users and I never had a response, this was the first time I saw someone doing such a test. I got a lot of bla bla bla my MFDB gives fantastic tonal gradations and it cannot have less DR than a DSLR though, but no files.

On the other hand if that sensor is 10 years old or not is irrelevant, since that back is still on the market. Isn't it?.

Postings of false information is misleading.

False information? you'd better think a bit before typing wildly.

Regards
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 05:18:44 AM by Guillermo Luijk » Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2012, 05:15:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Calm down Anders, I don't own a MFDB, and I don't own a D7000. This is just a test another user did and I took his RAW files.
I have asked in this forum for MDFB files vs DSLR files to MFDB users and I never had a response. I got a lot of bla bla bla my MFDB gives fantastic tonal gradations and it cannot have less DR than a DSLR though.

Regards


Dont worry, all calm here  Smiley. Did not mean to pick on your test, but this constant DSLR vs. MFDB debate tend to evolve into constant argue DLSR reached MFDB which is BS if we consider first digital backs were around 6MP... not to mention current camera phones...  Albeit MFDB of 20MP and up do tend to have image quality exceeding DLSRs, though both are improving in technologies which is interesting. Indeed there are happy users of both camps! Grin
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad