Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Anybody ever gone back to 35mm after MFD?  (Read 10549 times)
ghoonk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2012, 09:26:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Focus and recompose works just fine for me. I'd rather have a beautifully composed image than critically sharp shit.


I would argue that beautifully composed and critically sharp are not mutually exclusive. I work to get both in my shots.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 01, 2012, 01:44:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I work to get both in my shots.

You think I don't?

With a decent viewfinder I don't have to worry on either.
Logged

ghoonk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #62 on: April 01, 2012, 01:45:27 PM »
ReplyReply

see? Smiley
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2012, 01:46:31 PM »
ReplyReply

see? Smiley

No
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 02:17:04 PM by KLaban » Logged

Terence h
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 01, 2012, 02:57:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Nicolaas said it perfectly.
Logged

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

Posts: 5171


« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2012, 04:31:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I have noticed a quirk in this thread and some others: discussions of DMF vs 35mm digital that involve lots of "DMF is better than the Canon 5D" comments. There was a time when the 5D Mk II gave arguably the best image quality in 35mm, and at a great price, so maybe that lead many MF users to choose it as their 35mm alternative, but that time is past (since the arrival of the Nikon D3x and Sony A900). I for one am going to wait until some good photographers with DMF experience have put the Nikon D800 and D800E through their paces.

One question I look forward to: is it the aliasing effects and/or less smoothing at high contrast edges due to lacking an OLPF filter that leads to the enhanced "three dimensional feel" often artributed to MF? Some kind of enhanced accurance? I wonder just because one person has said the same of the D800E too.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 08:38:08 AM by BJL » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #66 on: April 02, 2012, 02:58:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I have noticed a quirk in this thread and some others: discussions of DMF vs 35mm digital that involve lots of "DMF is better than the Canon 5D" comments.

Depends what you mean by "better", but whatever, you'll certainly not hear that argument from me. I'd go as far as saying in many - perhaps most - situations the Canon/Nikon could be the better option.

Choose the camera/cameras that meet your needs and preferences and go make images.
Logged

Chris Livsey
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 307



« Reply #67 on: April 02, 2012, 02:26:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder just because one person has said the same of the D800E too.

Before it has started shipping  Undecided
Logged

Chris Livsey

http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7896


WWW
« Reply #68 on: April 02, 2012, 11:58:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

This "3D" experience is a bit underdefinied, IMHO. What does it mean, any samples with and without the "3D" effect?

Now, a larger sensor comes with some advantage. Any detail will be larger on the sensor surface, and magnification will be higher. The amount of contrast transferred by the lens is higher for larger details than for smaller ones. So for small details an MF lens will transfer more contrast.

Finally, the lack of AA-filtering will also keep more fine detail contrast. It will also induce fake detail, which may add to the perceived quality. A typical example may be that feathers on birds may have finer structures than the sensor may resolve. So the feather may essentially just be a gray mass. Now if the lens can transfer say 35% contrast at the pixel size some of that contrast will be reproduced as low frequency aliases, that is fake detail. So we see patterns in what would be gray mass.

Regarding the 5DII I would say it was a fine camera and still is. I don't know if the Sony Alpha 900 is a better camera as I own an Alpha 900 but not a 5DII. The Nikon D3X has better DR, and that may matter in some cases. I may add that it may be that the Nikon is simply better.

A very good comparison of MFD and Nikon 3Dx is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50977.0


Best regards
Erik


I have noticed a quirk in this thread and some others: discussions of DMF vs 35mm digital that involve lots of "DMF is better than the Canon 5D" comments. There was a time when the 5D Mk II gave arguably the best image quality in 35mm, and at a great price, so maybe that lead many MF users to choose it as their 35mm alternative, but that time is past (since the arrival of the Nikon D3x and Sony A900). I for one am going to wait until some good photographers with DMF experience have put the Nikon D800 and D800E through their paces.

One question I look forward to: is it the aliasing effects and/or less smoothing at high contrast edges due to lacking an OLPF filter that leads to the enhanced "htree dimensional feel" often artributed to MF? Some kind of enhanced accurance? I wonder just because one person has said the same of the D800E too.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 06:51:20 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1590


« Reply #69 on: April 03, 2012, 02:38:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Finally, the lack of AA-filtering will also keep more fine detail contrast. It will also induce fake detail, which may add to the perceived quality.

I don't get this not having an AA-filter, do people think color moire is a desirable feature? Do people think resolution of the MF sensors is so low that false detail on the pixelpeep level must be introduced? Here's a IQ180 shot, look at the fur in parts that are in focus http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/JacquelineMegaw.jpg

I find false colors to be more disturbing and worrying than pattern moire. AA-filter plus sharpening would have yielded better image quality for that picture. For small apertures I guess one can be saved by diffraction though.

Since we always tend to want mooore resolution I also find being without AA-filter rather tempting, I might actually choose D800E for landscape work, but rationally, not putting in an AA-filter is a signal processing error which produces artifacts. You would never consider do the same in audio for example. My guess is that "no AA-filter" has since the start become one with the "MF brand", people expect the aliased pixelpeep look so now it is hard to introduce a MF back with AA-filter, although it frankly is a better design.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 02:46:21 AM by torger » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2012, 08:52:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Do people think resolution of the MF sensors is so low that false detail on the pixelpeep level must be introduced?
Indeed, for me at least, even the recent D800 samples, with a mere 36MP and a "smear filter", offers resolution beyond almost any non-pixel-peeping purpose.
To be a bit dogmatic and simplistic, my big print strategy would be:
(a) Always print at high enough PPI to suppress any discretization effects; at least 200PPI+ for any prints that can be approached within a couple of feet. (camera pixels/inch, not up-sampled or DPI).
(b) If that means that the prints are not as big as you want, then get more real resolution, by upgrading to a sensor with more photosites, using a multi-shot back, stitching, or whatever.
But
(c) If you are serious enough to pay DMF prices, don't try to fake it with inadequate PPI plus an aliasing-induced increase in accutance.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad