Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Medium Format Digital Vs. Large Sensor DSLR  (Read 16772 times)
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 534


WWW
« Reply #80 on: February 06, 2012, 02:44:01 PM »
ReplyReply


Eleanor,
If I'm staying out of Cap One and working in Lightroom/Camera Raw I've been using a combination of Brush tool or Gradient and picking a color opposite of the shift
in very low amounts (4-8) Generally does the trick but aggravating nonetheless and creates additional work.
As I'm up in Montreal, snow and ice is a reality for 4-5 months of the year so the M9 is proving to be a disappointment in this regard.
Unfortunately, i drank the 'M' Kool-aid and am having difficulty kicking the habit.

Keith,
Originally, the 28 2.8 asph  but has been dumped as it is near impossible to color cast correct in some situations despite being fantastically sharp and small.
The 28 2.0 is twice the price and twice the size but does not perform as well in a landscape application where f11-f16 might be needed for hyperfocal reasons.
Settled on the 24 2,8 asph. Much better colorcast response but still a nuisance. I've even seeing some cast with 35 2.0 and 50 2.0 but modest but, as Eleanor mentioned,
not apparent on many subjects/scenes- except where I live and shoot much of the time  Smiley

Spent the day printing out close to 30 17 x 22's of various tests between my M9 and my 5DMkll with 24 shift and a few Zeiss wide primes.
End of the day using the same sharpening routine and amounts (despite all the claims of sogginess due to anti-aliasing filter with 5D) there is absolutely
no apparent fine detail/sharpness advantage to the M9.  Form factor,yes.  Portability,yes but no sharpness advantage.  Ease of getting a wide file to print is easy advantage to 5D.

Anyhow, apologies to all for steering the thread away from the core Medium Format topic.

Mark
www.marktomalty.com




Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 611


WWW
« Reply #81 on: February 06, 2012, 03:36:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the tip.   I'm in Colorado half the year and right now surrounded by snow.  I did a lot of snow images last year with the M9 and have the magenta issue on some of them..especially the ones taken with my 35 cron much more so than my 50 lux. eleanor


Eleanor,
If I'm staying out of Cap One and working in Lightroom/Camera Raw I've been using a combination of Brush tool or Gradient and picking a color opposite of the shift
in very low amounts (4-8) Generally does the trick but aggravating nonetheless and creates additional work.
As I'm up in Montreal, snow and ice is a reality for 4-5 months of the year so the M9 is proving to be a disappointment in this regard.
Unfortunately, i drank the 'M' Kool-aid and am having difficulty kicking the habit.

Keith,
Originally, the 28 2.8 asph  but has been dumped as it is near impossible to color cast correct in some situations despite being fantastically sharp and small.
The 28 2.0 is twice the price and twice the size but does not perform as well in a landscape application where f11-f16 might be needed for hyperfocal reasons.
Settled on the 24 2,8 asph. Much better colorcast response but still a nuisance. I've even seeing some cast with 35 2.0 and 50 2.0 but modest but, as Eleanor mentioned,
not apparent on many subjects/scenes- except where I live and shoot much of the time  Smiley

Spent the day printing out close to 30 17 x 22's of various tests between my M9 and my 5DMkll with 24 shift and a few Zeiss wide primes.
End of the day using the same sharpening routine and amounts (despite all the claims of sogginess due to anti-aliasing filter with 5D) there is absolutely
no apparent fine detail/sharpness advantage to the M9.  Form factor,yes.  Portability,yes but no sharpness advantage.  Ease of getting a wide file to print is easy advantage to 5D.

Anyhow, apologies to all for steering the thread away from the core Medium Format topic.

Mark
www.marktomalty.com





Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1609



WWW
« Reply #82 on: February 06, 2012, 03:41:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Keith,
Originally, the 28 2.8 asph  but has been dumped as it is near impossible to color cast correct in some situations despite being fantastically sharp and small.
The 28 2.0 is twice the price and twice the size but does not perform as well in a landscape application where f11-f16 might be needed for hyperfocal reasons.
Settled on the 24 2,8 asph. Much better colorcast response but still a nuisance. I've even seeing some cast with 35 2.0 and 50 2.0 but modest but, as Eleanor mentioned,
not apparent on many subjects/scenes- except where I live and shoot much of the time  Smiley

Mark, thanks for the info.

Damn, that is bad news, the 28mm 2.8 was number one on my list. Compact, razor sharp, distortion free and expansive in the finder. Above all I wanted to go as wide as I could without the use of the additional finder. I wonder if there is variation between samples?

Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 ZM?

The plan was to buy an M9 with back-up of either the Sony NEX-7 or the Fuji X-Pro1 but it seems the closer I look the more problems I find.

There again, I'm not shooting snow.


« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 04:11:45 PM by KLaban » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1609



WWW
« Reply #83 on: February 06, 2012, 04:08:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess that the Sony and Zeiss lenses made for the NEX series are more tele-centric designs. That kind of design unfortunately also results in larger lenses.

Erik, the NEX native lenses are limited and not particularly exciting. The Zeiss E24mm f/1.8 ZA is interesting but simply isn't wide enough.
Logged

mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 534


WWW
« Reply #84 on: February 06, 2012, 06:19:01 PM »
ReplyReply


Keith,

Unfortunately, the 28 2.8asph is pretty well known among discriminating users to be a problem lens with color cast
From what I can gather the rear element is closer to the film plane than some other wides and taxes the system more.
The 28 2.0 asph is a better performer as far as color cast goes.

By circumstantial evidence seen on different forums it does appear there can be variation between individual lenses and bodies.
Some have problems. Others,not.  Some people with multiple bodies have seen more evidence of colorcast with one body vs. another using same lens.

Mark
Logged
jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 282


« Reply #85 on: February 06, 2012, 10:48:25 PM »
ReplyReply

The cat is out,  or maybe  I should say the first cat is out:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Nikon_D800_D800E_launch

Looks like it's not the  D7000 sensor scaled up. Resolution is  little   less than expected at 15.7mp DX mode.

I hope the resolution wars stops at 24MP dx, then MF could have a time to focus on other funcionality.

They promise a version with no AA filter.  Let see how it compare.

At  3000 US$ is a formidable competitor.

Best regards,
James
Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6916


WWW
« Reply #86 on: February 06, 2012, 10:57:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Increasing MP is not as bad idea as most people believe. One effect that we see is that Nikon for first time removes the AA-filter. I'd say it is a bit premature, but anyway the effects of both aliasing and AA-filtering are much reduced with decreasing pixel size.

Best regards
Erik


The cat is out,  or maybe  I should say the first cat is out:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Nikon_D800_D800E_launch

Looks like it's not the  D7000 sensor scaled up. Resolution is  little   less than expected at 15.7mp DX mode.

I hope the resolution wars stops at 24MP dx, then MF could have a time to focus on other funcionality.

They promise a version with no AA filter.  Let see how it compare.

At  3000 US$ is a formidable competitor.

Best regards,
James
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #87 on: February 07, 2012, 12:06:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Increasing MP is not as bad idea as most people believe. One effect that we see is that Nikon for first time removes the AA-filter. I'd say it is a bit premature, but anyway the effects of both aliasing and AA-filtering are much reduced with decreasing pixel size.

I cannot find any moire with these samples so far: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm

The kimono would be a great candidate to generate some but it was either removed well or was not present in the first place.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #88 on: February 07, 2012, 12:41:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd honestly would buy this 36 MP Nikon over any other exotic delicate unfinished product wich cast under x condition with x lens, more or less according to each camera (I like that!), or messy MD menus or whatever sort of serious uncurable issues...

As Keith pointed, the more you look into those configs, the more problem-dilemas you find. I've walked that path too and saw the same, specially when wide is required and ultimately abandoned the exoticness-size factor. We may not be young any more but you won't tell me that we can't carry 2 or 3 kg on field...

The current wave of the vintage-digital-remake is cool, marketingly clever, fun and distracting.
I don't think we precisely need the cool factor of shooting with something that looks like the same cam Bresson shooted the Paris's street lovers if it's not ready and reliable but only romantic unless we are retiree and have time for hassles.

Nikon so far has been released very stable hassle-free high performance cameras, (and free of major bugs) and those should work really well with absolute reliability, and oh yeah, with probably again the best low-light performance available.

Nota: sell well your M lenses to wealphy dentists, do yourself a favor: go on tour worldwide with the money of the sold M lenses and bring with you a real 2012 digital serious tool, like this Nikon for ex at 3000 euros...and forget about the AAAAAA filters and all the mystic. This Nikon doesn't have AA and doesn't look it moirés.



And I'm sure that we won't wait long before the MF vendors and gurus of the all solar system will jump and bark on the camera, because it's 36 MP, hey starts to smell a little burn doesn't it?, and has no AA: "this is crap, nothing to do with the MF equivalent" etc... you'll see.
 
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 02:01:12 AM by fredjeang » Logged
MarkoMijailovic
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



WWW
« Reply #89 on: February 07, 2012, 01:14:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm glad to see that this thread has gotten so many replies and caused debate on the subject.

Now that the D800 has officially been announced/released, I've gotta' say... I think this is the perfect camera for me and will definitely be calling my local dealer in the morning to reserve a spot.
For someone like myself who can't yet afford to go the medium format digital route, but still requires a very high quality image under controlled lighting situations and wishes to dabble in video, this is just perfect. If the noise performance is similar to that of the D700, which it's rumored to be, I really couldn't be happier- this would in fact be perfection defined. I hate reading all those posts on various forums bitching about it's lack of ISO expansion to 102,400 or 204k, etc, though I do understand some peoples need for that. I'm a relatively young guy (at 22) and have only recently started getting paid work so this comes in at a price point that's just right.

I was just about to cross to the Canon 5D MK II (literally tomorrow) as I've never been one to keep up with the latest technologies (heck, I've been shooting with a Nikon D90 up until this point, believe it or not!- check out my site) and thought it had everything I could ever want in a DSLR- 21mp, 1080 video, good noise performance, full frame, etc.. Now with this D800 I won't have to sell the great Nikon glass I've got, which I'll no doubt need and I'll only be spending a few hundred more dollars for it- seems like a decent deal and I won't be getting the 'itch' to upgrade for years to come. For studio, portrait and landscape photographers this is a godsend.

Couldn't be more thrilled about the time I chose to upgrade... Stars aligned perfectly, so to speak!
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #90 on: February 07, 2012, 02:12:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Increasing MP is not as bad idea as most people believe. One effect that we see is that Nikon for first time removes the AA-filter. I'd say it is a bit premature, but anyway the effects of both aliasing and AA-filtering are much reduced with decreasing pixel size.
As long as motion-blur and lense sharpness is held constant (and the scene really contains high-frequency detail to begin with).

If the lense is really sharp, there is no scene/camera movement at all, and what you are shooting can take advantage of many megapixels, then having no AA can cause aliasing no matter how many megapixels you have, and this aliasing can manifest itself at low frequencies (where it is more likely to be visible).

I still think it is really interesting to see a "mainstream" camera without AA. If customers are more happy without AA than with, I predict that other manufacturers will follow.

Looks like a really nice camera!

-h
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1609



WWW
« Reply #91 on: February 07, 2012, 02:54:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Keith,

Unfortunately, the 28 2.8asph is pretty well known among discriminating users to be a problem lens with color cast
From what I can gather the rear element is closer to the film plane than some other wides and taxes the system more.
The 28 2.0 asph is a better performer as far as color cast goes.

By circumstantial evidence seen on different forums it does appear there can be variation between individual lenses and bodies.
Some have problems. Others,not.  Some people with multiple bodies have seen more evidence of colorcast with one body vs. another using same lens.

Mark


Thanks again, Mark.

I'm going to have give myself a serious talking to and ask myself whether investing a five figure sum in Leica M is tantamount to insanity.

For the moment all plans are well and truly on hold!

Nikon D800E, anyone?
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6916


WWW
« Reply #92 on: February 07, 2012, 03:04:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The Sony A55 SLT I have seems to have very weak OLP filter. I have seen a lot of aliasing artifacts, both color and monochrome. The SLT is 16 MP APS-C, the same senor in full rame would yield 36 MP. There are other factors affecting aliasing/Moiré. If the fill factor is improved less aliasing will occour.

Hopefully we get som sample images in raw from both versions of the D800 soon.

Best regards
Erik

As long as motion-blur and lense sharpness is held constant (and the scene really contains high-frequency detail to begin with).

If the lense is really sharp, there is no scene/camera movement at all, and what you are shooting can take advantage of many megapixels, then having no AA can cause aliasing no matter how many megapixels you have, and this aliasing can manifest itself at low frequencies (where it is more likely to be visible).

I still think it is really interesting to see a "mainstream" camera without AA. If customers are more happy without AA than with, I predict that other manufacturers will follow.

Looks like a really nice camera!

-h
Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #93 on: February 07, 2012, 06:33:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Not bad image quality per the posted JPGs. For thos preferring DSLRs and/or planning to get it, ENJOY.  Wink

I cannot find any moire with these samples so far: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm

The kimono would be a great candidate to generate some but it was either removed well or was not present in the first place.

Cheers,
Bernard


@ Bernard,

FWIW when I stepped from 20MP ZD to 28MP Aptus 65 the worry of moire disappeared quick, and more so now with 80MP. With more pixels moire is less of a problem due to the finer resolution used to capture the fine patterns that may otherwise cause moire. It may well be that with D800E you would experience very rare moire problems or basically none at all depending on your subjects.

Best regards,
Anders
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #94 on: February 07, 2012, 06:50:35 AM »
ReplyReply

@ Bernard,

FWIW when I stepped from 20MP ZD to 28MP Aptus 65 the worry of moire disappeared quick, and more so now with 80MP. With more pixels moire is less of a problem due to the finer resolution used to capture the fine patterns that may otherwise cause moire. It may well be that with D800E you would experience very rare moire problems or basically none at all depending on your subjects.

Thks for the feedback.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #95 on: February 08, 2012, 12:57:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I pre-ordered the 800E yesterday.

I have wanted to go higher quality since my 1DsII days. But I had to quit serious work due to disability and closed my studio 5 years ago, so I could not justify a MFDB.  It hurts just to take photos of equipment I am selling for eBay!  Angry  (4 bad disks in my neck, 3 bad disks in my lower back, tear in my shoulder ...)

I was waiting for the 5D3.  I have a ton of great Canon glass, but I will do the switch if Canon doesn't announce the 5D3 before the 800 ships.

I used to print at 180 dpi at 18x27 non-rezzed on the 1DsII. I was happy with that for 75% of my work. For anything larger I have been using 4x5 film and scanning.

The 800 can print at 27"x40" at around 200-210 dpi.  I can live with that as a maximum print size if quality holds up as expected.  I hope the absence of the AA helps me tweak a little extra quality out of the system.  90% of what I shoot is ISO 100.

My plan is to find a younger photographer to collaborate with. I have a full Broncolor studio kit and 30 years of experience. But I can't do the physical work any more.

I had been looking at 22MP MF cameras and/or backs.  But it is nice to have the 35mm contained form factor and not have to struggle with some of the complexities of MF. I am selling off all of my 4x5 (6 camera kits) and MF film cameras now. (Mostly because I can't handle it physically any more, not because of the 800E.)  

I still have 2 Epson 24" and a 44" printer.  I like to proof at 24x36, I love big prints.
  
Still hoping Canon replies soon to save me from swapping out systems.  The 5DII is still a pretty decent camera after 3 years, so I expect the 800E or equivalent will suffice for most general purposes for 5 years.

Good times! I am very happy.

Michael
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #96 on: February 08, 2012, 01:24:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I pre-ordered the 800E yesterday.

I have wanted to go higher quality since my 1DsII days. But I had to quit serious work due to disability and closed my studio 5 years ago, so I could not justify a MFDB.  It hurts just to take photos of equipment I am selling for eBay!  Angry  (4 bad disks in my neck, 3 bad disks in my lower back, tear in my shoulder ...)

I was waiting for the 5D3.  I have a ton of great Canon glass, but I will do the switch if Canon doesn't announce the 5D3 before the 800 ships.

I used to print at 180 dpi at 18x27 non-rezzed on the 1DsII. I was happy with that for 75% of my work. For anything larger I have been using 4x5 film and scanning.

The 800 can print at 27"x40" at around 200-210 dpi.  I can live with that as a maximum print size if quality holds up as expected.  I hope the absence of the AA helps me tweak a little extra quality out of the system.  90% of what I shoot is ISO 100.

My plan is to find a younger photographer to collaborate with. I have a full Broncolor studio kit and 30 years of experience. But I can't do the physical work any more.

I had been looking at 22MP MF cameras and/or backs.  But it is nice to have the 35mm contained form factor and not have to struggle with some of the complexities of MF. I am selling off all of my 4x5 (6 camera kits) and MF film cameras now. (Mostly because I can't handle it physically any more, not because of the 800E.)  

I still have 2 Epson 24" and a 44" printer.  I like to proof at 24x36, I love big prints.
  
Still hoping Canon replies soon to save me from swapping out systems.  The 5DII is still a pretty decent camera after 3 years, so I expect the 800E or equivalent will suffice for most general purposes for 5 years.

Good times! I am very happy.

Michael

Good to see you animated and in this spirit Michael because I know from some of your post that you had hard times, like some other members here. That's the path.

You got the brain, if you add to it, enthousiasm-passion, the rest will follow.



Best.
Logged
Terence h
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #97 on: February 08, 2012, 01:27:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from Nikon regards the D800
"Compatible with AF NIKKOR lenses, including type G and D lenses (some restrictions apply to PC-NIKKOR lenses)"
That would be a major problem for a lot of people !
Logged

Terence Hogben. Durban. South Africa. http://www.terencehogben.co.za
Terence h
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #98 on: February 08, 2012, 01:35:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes PC lenses cannot be used with shifting and tilting with the D800.
The reason i originally got the Leaf was that i could use tilt and shift
versus the Phase One back i was looking at.
Surely this is going to stop a lot people from going this route and keep
going with MFD.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 01:47:15 PM by Terence h » Logged

Terence Hogben. Durban. South Africa. http://www.terencehogben.co.za
alan_b
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #99 on: February 08, 2012, 02:38:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes PC lenses cannot be used with shifting and tilting with the D800.
The reason i originally got the Leaf was that i could use tilt and shift
versus the Phase One back i was looking at.
Surely this is going to stop a lot people from going this route and keep
going with MFD.

This is incorrect.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/compatibility02.htm

Shows only that focus confirmation and metering do not work while shifting & tilting.  The same limits are described for D3 & D3x.

Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad