Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Comparing Apples to Grapefruit IQ180/D800E Crops  (Read 17856 times)
EgillBjarki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2012, 01:00:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Could this "creamy smoothness" look be due to the bigger sensor in MF backs compared to 35mm?

I recently sold my P30+ back. I did so because honestly, the difference was to small compared to the price difference. With 35mm I got lighter body, more lenses, speed, video and so on. The difference between MF and 35mm is much smaller now than it was in the past.

With that being said, I completely understand those who stick with MF. The DOF will always be more appealing with the bigger sensor.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 24, 2012, 01:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Miles Hecker has posted a comparison image with his Pentax 645D and a friends Nikon D3X. At that time it semt that the Pentax had better color. Question is, was it better or more correct? It's hard to know.

My understanding is that CGA may be more or less orthogonal, essentially meaning that the sensitivities of the sensels of different colors overlap less or more. I would guess that for natural color we need some overlap. The human vision has extensive overlap between M and L sensitivities, and I'd say we need overlap to reproduce some colors.

More orthogonal sensitvities may give better saturated color. I recall seeing characteristick curves for Velvia and those had very little overlap, while other films may have had more.

Best regards
Erik




I've heard that MF backs use better and more expensive color filters which helps with color rendering, but probably some of you will know if that's true or not. Either way, I'm still seeing better color tonality on my MFDB's.  Have a look at the flower shots on the post your nikon images section on the GetDpi forums - totally flat.  Even my old 2004 vintage phase p20 did better.


« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 01:08:56 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Tejpor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2012, 05:20:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Dear Marc, congratulations - finally a sensible comparison with no biased bulls**t.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5083


« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2012, 09:43:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Regarding the creamyness of images I'm thinking about two effects, which may actually contradict each other.

1) An MF back has a larger sensor area, so it collects more photons. This would reduce shot noise which would dominate in highlights.

2) MF backs seem to be adjusted to underexpose a bit, according to some interpretation of DxO measurements. That would reduce clipping in highlights, but also increase shot noise.
I agree on (1): dynamic range measurements relate only to parts of the scene getting so little light that sensor dark noise roughly matches or exceeds photo shot noise, and does not inform us about SNR in better lit parts of the scene, where photon counts are what matters.

On (2), be careful: What you and DXO and many others refer to as underexposure is in fact simply a valid choice to position metered midtones in the raw files further down from maximum level, while still placing them at higher numerical levels in the 16-bit format than happens with a DSLR with 14-bit ADC output. For example, where a DSLR with 14-bit output might place the midtones at level 500, about three stops below the maximum level of 4095, a DMF back with 16-bit output might place the same level at 1000, about four stops below its maximum level of 16,383.
So long at the default raw-to-JPEG conversion knows about this, it can map these respective ADC levels to an appropriate gamma scaled level in JPEG, say 118, and is no evidence of underexposure: it is just a different decision about how to use ADC levels to encode the information. And with the DR well under 16 stops, a midtone placement at four of even five stops below that maximum of 2^16-1 = 16,383 is still placing the dark noise floor above the quantization noise level, so this choice of quantization is not adding significantly to the noise in the digital signal.

As pointed out in other threads, some "ISO-less sensors" could always use the same analog gain, so that each stop increase in exposure index setting would half exposure level and so half the ADC level of the midtones, and then the "DXO sensitivity" would be the same for all settings! And that would be right in the sense that these would simply be measurements of the base sensitivity of the senosr itself: the minimum safely usable exposure index to avoid blown highlights due to overful photosites. The DXO calibration of the exposure index settings on cameras ("ISO settings") is misusing an ISO12232 definition that is intended to measure that base sensitivity of a sensor ("base ISO speed"), which refers to exposure levels that saturate the photosites.
Logged
cunim
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2012, 10:16:58 AM »
ReplyReply

To my eye and in these images, the Phase is far better than the Nikon.  So hard to know because the exposures, lighting at the moment etc. are not well controlled, but the look is very different.  I wonder if part of that is the elusive CCD vs CMOS difference. 

I would love to love the Nikon, but I just can't given what I have seen to date.  That said, I fully agree that the Nikon sets a new standard at its price level.
Logged
stevesanacore
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2012, 10:23:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Marc,

Thanks for the nice work in reviewing the Nikon. I was wondering what mount adapter you are using with the Leica R's? I know you can't just put an adapter on them like we can for Canon mounts.

Thanks.
Logged

We don't know what we don't know.
larkis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2012, 10:52:50 AM »
ReplyReply

With he IQ180, should the image of the 1:1 be twice the size as the nikon sample ? If you are changing lenses to match the FOV it's hard to see the resolving power differences between the two systems on the same scene. Could you shoot a test where each camera has the same field of view but only the image resolution is different and post 100% crops of each ?
Logged

My photography blog
http://blog.dominik.ca/
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2012, 01:00:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Marc,

Thanks for the nice work in reviewing the Nikon. I was wondering what mount adapter you are using with the Leica R's? I know you can't just put an adapter on them like we can for Canon mounts.

Thanks.

I sent the zooms to Leitax to have the Nikon adapters installed very high quality
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2012, 01:05:53 PM »
ReplyReply

With he IQ180, should the image of the 1:1 be twice the size as the nikon sample ? If you are changing lenses to match the FOV it's hard to see the resolving power differences between the two systems on the same scene. Could you shoot a test where each camera has the same field of view but only the image resolution is different and post 100% crops of each ?
I did both, one shot at 70mm and a nother Nikon shot at approx 45mm the 3 crops were approx a crop of my screen at 100% one to see pixel for pixel what the Nikon could do and one to see for a given fov what it could do.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
MikeYamin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2012, 04:16:12 PM »
ReplyReply

The D800E resolution looks great, but I have to admit that the IQ180 still has that subtle indication of depth that you only see in MF and larger formats. Maybe good processing can equalize the two, but if you compare the shots while looking at the building with the "P" on it and the ones on either side of it, you get a clear sense of which building is in front or in back of the others.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2012, 04:29:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I sent the zooms to Leitax to have the Nikon adapters installed very high quality
Marc

They can also ship the parts for those willing to change the mount themselves. I did it recently with the Leica 180 f2.8 APO and will do another round next week with the 280 f4 APO.

Fairly easy to do in fact if you have basic screw driver skills and don't mind manipulating delicate parts.  Wink

The better Leica R lenses will all become collector items, so it may be better not to throw away the original mount even if their value should end up being higher with a Nikon mount unless Leica decides to revive the R line up.  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1633



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2012, 06:03:42 PM »
ReplyReply

The D800E resolution looks great, but I have to admit that the IQ180 still has that subtle indication of depth that you only see in MF and larger formats. Maybe good processing can equalize the two, but if you compare the shots while looking at the building with the "P" on it and the ones on either side of it, you get a clear sense of which building is in front or in back of the others.

Are you sure that what you are seeing isn't just the effect of needing a longer focal length lens for the medium format format size) for the same angle of view ( if photos were shot from the same position?
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2305



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2012, 06:14:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you sure that what you are seeing isn't just the effect of needing a longer focal length lens for the medium format format size) for the same angle of view ( if photos were shot from the same position?
I don't know what the reason is, but I'd agree with Mike Yamin.  No question the IQ 180 is the better image here. The d800 image looks flat compared to the one by the IQ 180.  And it appears there are some big color differences too.
Logged

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

Posts: 1633



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2012, 06:47:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know what the reason is, but I'd agree with Mike Yamin.  No question the IQ 180 is the better image here. The d800 image looks flat compared to the one by the IQ 180.  And it appears there are some big color differences too.


For the approx $39,000 difference bulge in my wallet difference I can live with the "flatness".
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2012, 10:49:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

On the smaller scale I do the same. With digital we have fast development and there is often development that improves our picture making technique. I have in 8 yars had a Konica Minolta Dimage 7, and a Sony Alpha 100, followed by the Alpha 700, Alpha 900, Alpha 55 SLT and now Alpha 77SLT.

The cameras were not always bought for image quality alone. I bought the Alpha 55SLT because it had live view, which I needed for focusing. The reason I got the Alpha 77 SLT was better user interface (read more buttons).

That said, I guess that the Alpha 700 is the camera I made my best pictures with.

Best regards
Erik

Eleanor, how impulsive are you prepared to be?

Translation: how many cameras do you really want to collect?

;-)

Rob C
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2012, 11:18:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for publishing these images. To me it seems that the 70 mm lens is much better than the 45 mm. I also tried upscaling the 45 mm image to correspond to 70 mm (and resharpened). Se enclosed images.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

MikeYamin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2012, 11:21:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you sure that what you are seeing isn't just the effect of needing a longer focal length lens for the medium format format size) for the same angle of view ( if photos were shot from the same position?

I definitely think that adds to the look in a big way (maybe the only way?). Since MF inherently uses longer focal lengths to achieve the same angle of view from the same position, it will always be one step ahead in that respect. Another way of wording it that helps my understanding is that MF always allows you to be closer with a longer lens. Aside from stitching, there's no way to equalize that, and something like 4x5 takes the concept further still.

Even though it's a portrait and can't be directly compared to the images in this thread, here's a shot that really says "MF" to me: http://www.davideustace.com/photography/characterproject/files/page5-1008-full.html
The subject is clearly isolated and stands out from the background, but I can still count the boards on the broad side of the far building. Those subtle depth cues are something I only tend to see in MF shots.

For the approx $39,000 difference bulge in my wallet difference I can live with the "flatness".

Agreed! I'm just pointing out what I see.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 12:59:22 AM by MikeYamin » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2305



WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2012, 01:25:27 AM »
ReplyReply

For the approx $39,000 difference bulge in my wallet difference I can live with the "flatness".

Yeah but that's not what you'd actually pay if you were a smart shopper  Grin      Plus if you're working with it, you can deduct this from your taxes etc. so the price isn't exactly sunk.  The IQ 180 used for your comparisons - was it yours? Will you sell it now? 

Anyhow I don't mean to say the D800 isn't a fine camera, but I do believe there are areas like color and depth that the MFDB's still are superior.
Logged

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

Posts: 1722



« Reply #38 on: May 25, 2012, 01:35:03 AM »
ReplyReply

They can also ship the parts for those willing to change the mount themselves. I did it recently with the Leica 180 f2.8 APO and will do another round next week with the 280 f4 APO.

Fairly easy to do in fact if you have basic screw driver skills and don't mind manipulating delicate parts.  Wink

The better Leica R lenses will all become collector items, so it may be better not to throw away the original mount even if their value should end up being higher with a Nikon mount unless Leica decides to revive the R line up.  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard


Just so no one is lead astray!....
1. The Leitax Leica R to Canon adapters are easily installed because they install over the existing Leica mount. It took less than 5 minutes to convert my 35-70 4.0
2. The Leitax Leica R to Nikon adapters can be installed at home ONLY on Leica R Primes. Not too difficult but you have to remove the Leica mount, on some lenses remove the baffle and be careful not to displace the small ball bearing by adding a dab of silicon grease. The only cautions are to mark the Leica adapter and the Nikon adapter for proper registration and some baffles need a bit of work getting the cams trough the slots on the baffle. I modified the 100mm Macro and the 280mm 4.0 about 30 minutes of work for each.
3. The Leica R zooms must be sent back to Leitax for David to install the Nikon adapters (not the Canon adapters) because the disassemble/reassembly is a bit more complicated, I had him modify the 21-35, 28-90 and 80-200 4.0
I hope you are now thoroughly confused!
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2012, 01:37:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for publishing these images. To me it seems that the 70 mm lens is much better than the 45 mm. I also tried upscaling the 45 mm image to correspond to 70 mm (and resharpened). Se enclosed images.

Best regards
Erik

Same lens 28-90 R
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad