Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?  (Read 34221 times)
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #80 on: September 25, 2012, 03:08:18 AM »
ReplyReply



It is very clear from this photo that it is exposed more in favor of the highlights. Just look at the total lack of detail in the ladies black pants.

Pure high dynamic range would produce more detail in the shadows and blacks.

Also the clouds are not particularly bright, and not the brightest parts of the scene, so easily within normal dynamic range performance.
If you look closely the woman's tops have areas that are brighter. So the clouds are not "pure dynamic range"...

Sorry, how can you judge DR based om a jpg Huh

As I know a jpg is the print and does not contain all info captured in the negative... unless it is processed to bring it out...
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 03:14:17 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #81 on: September 25, 2012, 06:54:30 AM »
ReplyReply

And another thing..

When it comes to evolution of products and that DSLRs are so much better..

Just look at the interfaces and displays on a D800, and a high end MFDB with touchscreen that are on pair with the Nikon Retina display and good menus and handling in opposite to d800 with 20 small buttons and rooted menus that goes deeper than the dwarf caves of LOTR..

On that level MFDS of today is so much more advanced than the current DSLR..

Also cleaning of a MFDB sensor seems much easier than cleaning a DSLR sensor, and that is a big plus for one that is out in the field and doing their work.. (The dust removal function on the D700 was a joke).

 Grin Grin
Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #82 on: September 25, 2012, 09:52:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred,
I'm still saying the Aptus 12 has more dynamic range than the D800E. You can pull whatever chart you want from DXO but you won't convince me until you can show me side by side images you took yourself or tests you did yourself under a scientific regimen.

Eric,

I think your reasoning is backwards here. You're calling on Fred to prove what is already proven (in one methodology) by DxO. What you should really be doing is calling on yourself to disprove it. Why don't you provide your own side by side images to do so? I'm not saying that it cannot be disproven, but I am highly skeptical...and the ball is in your court, not Fred's.

"I'm still saying" is not an adequate defence of your point.

Ray
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #83 on: September 25, 2012, 10:27:34 AM »
ReplyReply

And to address the original question...never used a D800, but I use a 5DII and an old square Kodak MFDB on a Mamiya 645AFD.

I mostly use the same medium format lenses on both, which could either be seen as levelling the playing field, or perhaps as skewing the playing field against the Canon - it might perform better with its own 35mm-format glass. But my MF lenses are no slouches either.

In good light, or with flash, I prefer the DB. Nicer colours; bigger sensor with bigger pixels and no AA filter, so crisper at the pixel level. And I do prefer square or 4:3 to the 3:2 format. I like that fewer things are button-LCD driven on the Mamiya; it uses more real switches. The viewfinders are pretty much a tie.

But in high ISO or long exposures or both, it's game set and match to the Canon.

I took the shot below the other night, with the 5DII. I don't think you can replicate it with any MFD system, past or present. A P30+ (with obligatory dark frame), 645D, or H4D-40 would come closest, if a suitably wide lens were available (18mm!). But this wasn't even pushing the Canon's abilities at all.

2 minutes, ISO 1600, Samyang 14/2.8 at f/4, AstroTrac.
No dark frame subtraction.
No high-ISO noise reduction.
In-camera jpeg with nothing more added than some contrast adjustment. I could process the RAW for better results.

Ray
Logged
S@W
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #84 on: September 25, 2012, 10:31:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe what I'll say will sound quite silly but ok, whatever:
I think that the D800 has more extreme dynamic range when the IQ180 (f.i.) has more range inside the extremes.
I see that like it is a staircase.
The D800 staircase is longer, starts from lower level and lead you to higher elevation.
The IQ180 dynamic range is like a smaller staircase but with more steps than the one of the D800.

When comparing both systems one a same scene taken at the same moment, I can see slightly more open shadow in the D800 files (without more blown highlihts).
But in that sort shots I also see less local contrast, flatter aspect in the zoommed picture of the D800.

Difference are weak and difficult to show on the net. They can easily be objectioned with appropriate raw convertion.
Generally, I find more easy to open up dark areas of the IQ files than bring the same pop / 3D effect/ natural local contrast of the IQ files to the D800.
But maybe I'm making a mess between dynamic range and local contrast although I believe there is an interaction between those 2 players.

Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #85 on: September 25, 2012, 10:34:33 AM »
ReplyReply


"I'm still saying" is not an adequate defence of your point.

Ray

Ray,
Well that's fair enough - give me a few days and I will re-run imatest with the stouffer transmission step wedge shots and post the results.  But I'm betting many people will still argue that d800 has better DR.     Actually there are a lot of people still arguing that Global warming is a hoax too.  Shocked
Eric
Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #86 on: September 25, 2012, 11:39:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, how can you judge DR based om a jpg Huh

As I know a jpg is the print and does not contain all info captured in the negative... unless it is processed to bring it out...

Anders

Actually a jpeg is in some ways a good way to see image quality. When a jpeg is created from a very nice clean file the jpeg algorithm
has a far higher original quantization to chose from. Also the jpeg compression set you high quality will not crush blacks in the manner that is clear in this image.
Jpeg compression will take out subtleties from an image, in particular from the data heavy color data, much less from luminance data. So there may have been more
color data in the black pants, but the jpeg is a good representation of the original file as far as dynamic range goes.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #87 on: September 25, 2012, 11:56:55 AM »
ReplyReply

And another thing..

When it comes to evolution of products and that DSLRs are so much better..

Just look at the interfaces and displays on a D800, and a high end MFDB with touchscreen that are on pair with the Nikon Retina display and good menus and handling in opposite to d800 with 20 small buttons and rooted menus that goes deeper than the dwarf caves of LOTR..

On that level MFDS of today is so much more advanced than the current DSLR..

Also cleaning of a MFDB sensor seems much easier than cleaning a DSLR sensor, and that is a big plus for one that is out in the field and doing their work.. (The dust removal function on the D700 was a joke).

Hmmmm lets see.

So with the dinky little D600 not only do you have full controls on the camera, but access to the lot over an inexpensive wireless connection allowing you to
use laptops, iPhones and tablets to control the camera, menues and review files. Really useful in the field if you have the camera in hash sunlight and can't see the screen and do not want to take the camera off the stand or a jib.

Regarding cleaning.... well there are a few things to consider. First of all when I shoot in the desert for example I have several cameras and their lenses stay on each of them for the whole shoot. No feasable with MF if you need several lenses for the shoot.

Also every time you remove the back from most MF cameras the body's rear focal plane shutter or curtain opens up letting dust into the body.
Then when you shoot the mirror blows this dust around and it gets on the sensor.

However you forgot one important fact. When comparing the dust issue with MF and 35mm dslr the size of the MF sensor is and advantage in some ways. While you have a larger area to clean the same piece of dust on a 35mm sensor will appear twice as big in the final image.

Another advantage MF has is that if damage is done during cleaning it is quicker and easier to change the glass surface infront of the lens. However that advantage is nullified by the exorbitant costs charged for service by at least Phase One.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #88 on: September 25, 2012, 12:08:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,
Well that's fair enough - give me a few days and I will re-run imatest with the stouffer transmission step wedge shots and post the results.  But I'm betting many people will still argue that d800 has better DR.     Actually there are a lot of people still arguing that Global warming is a hoax too.  Shocked
Eric


IF the dynamic range is better.. WHY DON'T MF manufacturers state so on their websites and demonstrate it.

Their sales are down, their budgets are drying up. If they had better dynamic range demonstrating this would
be good for sales, especially in scientific and research markets that have deep pockets.

Hasselblad used to have a direct comparison, but they don't do it anymore. There is just the old one buried deep on their site.
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #89 on: September 25, 2012, 12:43:18 PM »
ReplyReply

@ Fred,

Frankly, above three posts appear to indicate you do not at all understand MFD.

I have been shooting medium format digital since 2007; 20, 28 and now 80MP. As example, you want to make us believe you can read WHAT from a posted jpg of the raw file?HuhHuhHuh??

Both DSLR and MFDB are tools and there have been some frank interesting posts of other folks in above that actually have shot both.

Just my make of it...
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 12:45:40 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #90 on: September 25, 2012, 01:10:33 PM »
ReplyReply

@ Fred,

Frankly, above three posts appear to indicate you do not at all understand MFD.

I have been shooting medium format digital since 2007; 20, 28 and now 80MP. As example, you want to make us believe you can read WHAT from a posted jpg of the raw file?HuhHuhHuh??

Both DSLR and MFDB are tools and there have been some frank interesting posts of other folks in above that actually have shot both.

Just my make of it...

Fred has shot and owned both.

Regards,

TM
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #91 on: September 25, 2012, 01:37:58 PM »
ReplyReply

@ Fred,

Frankly, above three posts appear to indicate you do not at all understand MFD.

I have been shooting medium format digital since 2007; 20, 28 and now 80MP. As example, you want to make us believe you can read WHAT from a posted jpg of the raw file?HuhHuhHuh??

Both DSLR and MFDB are tools and there have been some frank interesting posts of other folks in above that actually have shot both.

Just my make of it...

I have been working with digital compression long before still photography even became digital. As well as photography I work with motion picture also as a visual effects supervisor. In visual effects access to data beyond what is readily visible in files is used very often.

I find it funny how when anyone brings up the limitations of MFD they are accused of not owning it, having used it and then personal attacks are made.

To tell you the truth I do not care that much what use of my posts are made by owners and die hard fans of MF make. For me it's more about
informing those considering what cameras to buy and sharing my experience that spans 30 years, most formats from film to digital. I have been working with very high end digital from the early days when a high end still digital suit like the scitex systems was $1,000 and hour. Clients include L'Oreal, Wella, Monteil, Revlon... clients where color is a very big deal and where budgets are not tight.

Anyway... while more and more tests show a closing gap the very MF manufacturers do not publish comparisons to back up their marketing claims.

While many here have a knee jerk reaction to DXO Marks results discrediting them and finding them even laughable
it is interesting to note that Phase One.. the maker of the best MFDB proudly posted the results of DXO Mark's testing of the IQ180
where it was awarded best sensor. Phase One did not question any of the results, yet fan boys do.... Wink

I have also stated repeatedly that there are still situations where MFD will produce a better result.
It is when reproduction of the image is with very high end inkjet printing to very large sizes and exhibited in a manner that
allows the viewer to view portions of the image very close up. Like landscape where the print is 5 foot across and you go up to it to view
portions of the image. Now i'm not disparaging this or trying to lower it to the level of pixel peeping. This is a very legitimate use..

As for fine art reproduction... if it is not a moving subject and 4x5 scanning digital back will produce better results, massive files even with oversampling.... though it will
be serious overkill for most uses.

Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #92 on: September 25, 2012, 02:00:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred has shot and owned both.

Regards,

TM

Yes, but that sure makes some of his posts even more strange. It seems he does not know or understand it, have not used it extensive, or at least not found use of it himself. Others do.

Same as he I believe it is fair to advise others and that seems is what others have done who shoot both. There are differnt uses, they are plain diffent tools. The big problem seems some folks seem to argue the blue for DSLR over MFDB which is plain nonsense.

It would be interesting to see some good MFDB shots of Fred, but so far I seen nada. Only film and claims.

As for MFDB marketing, I for one prefer how they market MFDB because DSLR seem to market new products very frequent and ask people pay full price to replace what they have. Leaf and others offer upgrade paths, and DHW even offer upgrade to bodies. My Leaf agent even answer phone on Sundays if I have question and need help. Yet, dslr or mfdb is about choice and different tools. It also depend on what we shoot.

The interesting read to someone like me who shoot only MFDB nowadays has been the posts of those who complement with D800 and how it and DSLR complement mfdb in their photography. Simple, different tools.

Best regaqrds,
Anders
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 02:03:16 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838


WWW
« Reply #93 on: September 25, 2012, 02:54:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, how can you judge DR based om a jpg Huh

As I know a jpg is the print and does not contain all info captured in the negative... unless it is processed to bring it out...

No Anders, you can accurately tell everything about the underlying raw file from a web-res JPG created from the default settings of a raw processor you may or may not be deeply familiar with.

It should be clear from the JPG below that I shot this with a black and white camera with 3-4 stops of total dynamic range. Look at the completely black shadows. I should really do these shoots with a camera with better dynamic range don't you think?


In addition since the default rendering choices of all raw processors are identical, the specific placement and rendering of deep shadows at default settings are a good and broadly reference-able way to judge the underlying quality and aesthetics of a camera system.

(taking my sarcastic hat off; doesn't look good on me)
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 02:57:33 PM by Doug Peterson » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #94 on: September 25, 2012, 02:55:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred,
Do you have any data on MFDB sales? I would have thought the opposite was the case.  I think I read that Phase had one of its best years last year and the S2 and Pentax are recent newcomers to the MFDB field and have had pretty good sales.    I think the only manufacturer that may have seen declines is Sinar.  But its only a guess.  

DSLR's have to look out for MFT cameras stealing their market share.  It's an interesting market.   It seems a silly argument to think that because MF makers don't publicize tests the DSLR DR must be superior.  They do list the DR in the data sheets but I guess that alone is not enough for you?   Its only the DLSR owners without MF (digital) cameras that seem to care at all about what is better.  There are many reasons to have both types of cameras.

Eric
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 02:57:11 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 2838


WWW
« Reply #95 on: September 25, 2012, 02:58:39 PM »
ReplyReply

In good light, or with flash, I prefer the DB. Nicer colours; bigger sensor with bigger pixels and no AA filter, so crisper at the pixel level. And I do prefer square or 4:3 to the 3:2 format. I like that fewer things are button-LCD driven on the Mamiya; it uses more real switches. The viewfinders are pretty much a tie.

Ray you aren't listening!

There are CHARTS that show how good the color is from each camera. You should not waste your time looking at actual images and judging the color for yourself. Just use the charts!

CHARTS!
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4122



« Reply #96 on: September 25, 2012, 03:02:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Doug,

 Nice shot, thank you for posting it. I think you could quit your day job Wink

Edmund


It should be clear from the JPG below that I shot this with a black and white camera with 3-4 stops of total dynamic range. Look at the completely black shadows. I should really do these shoots with a camera with better dynamic range don't you think?


In addition since the default rendering choices of all raw processors are identical, the specific placement and rendering of deep shadows at default settings are a good and broadly reference-able way to judge the underlying quality and aesthetics of a camera system.

(taking my sarcastic hat off; doesn't look good on me)
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #97 on: September 25, 2012, 03:03:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred has shot and owned both.

Regards,

TM

The only thing is clear is he has a great body of excellent work, probably better than most people here including myself.    It appears from his comments and pictures of his own that he shares that his experience with MF is mostly limited to film and not digital.  He undoubtedly has a lot to share however maybe better in other topics?
Logged

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

Posts: 1588


« Reply #98 on: September 25, 2012, 03:24:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I think one can conclude that the difference in image quality is small enough that it comes down to if you like the gear and workflow or not. If you like DSLR-style of shooting there's probably never any need to go MFD, to sacrifice the way of work for some slightly better image quality. But it can also be the other way around, that one would prefer the MFD way of work. Or you are some sort of connaisseur of subtile lens / image qualities which causes you to personally prefer one system over another and is prepared to pay up a lot of money for it even if you know that its only for yourself you are doing it.

But I certainly don't like MFD marketing FUD like Hasselblad is doing, claiming vast superiority over DSLR (=D800 these days) and implying clients would care.

Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #99 on: September 25, 2012, 03:41:20 PM »
ReplyReply

No Anders, you can accurately tell everything about the underlying raw file from a web-res JPG created from the default settings of a raw processor you may or may not be deeply familiar with.

It should be clear from the JPG below that I shot this with a black and white camera with 3-4 stops of total dynamic range. Look at the completely black shadows. I should really do these shoots with a camera with better dynamic range don't you think?


In addition since the default rendering choices of all raw processors are identical, the specific placement and rendering of deep shadows at default settings are a good and broadly reference-able way to judge the underlying quality and aesthetics of a camera system.

(taking my sarcastic hat off; doesn't look good on me)

Doug,

Really really truly awesome image!!! Any more???  Grin

I do not follow how you can tell the DR from a jpg, because you do not know what adjustments have been made to the RAW file. In a studio shot you also do not know what the DR of the scene was. In the posted image of the lady with black trousers you can guesstimate the actual DR of the scene, but... you cannot really know what adjustments using curves, black & white point and recovery was made to the RAW file.

Or what am I missing???

Best regards,
Anders
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad