Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format  (Read 37181 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #120 on: October 07, 2012, 02:33:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I get the impression that camera profiles handle distortion, vignetting and lateral chroma quite well, so I don't care so much about those aberration. What about sharpness/resolution/MTF?

Best regards
Erik


Distortion is quite pronounced at shorter focal lengths, but well corrected at 24.
Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #121 on: October 07, 2012, 04:50:09 PM »
ReplyReply

resolution is very good. stopped down to f8-11 its sharp till the corners. 
you are right, CA is not a problem, and the 24PC dont show much of it in any case.
no, i still havent tried the 14-24mm.


Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #122 on: October 07, 2012, 05:40:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I get the impression that camera profiles handle distortion, vignetting and lateral chroma quite well, so I don't care so much about those aberration. What about sharpness/resolution/MTF?

Best regards
Erik



Camera/Lens profiles do correct for distortion, vignetting and lateral chroma aberations, but AT A COST.

In particular resolution at the edges will suffer as you are shifting pixels around and doing scaling.

Remember correcting for pin cusion distortion involves distorting the image significantly at the edges.
If you are concerned about edge sharpness pre correction distortion should be kept in mind.

Camera/Lens profiles cannot preform miracles.

Here is what the corner of the 14-24 looks like before lens correction:

Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1247



WWW
« Reply #123 on: October 07, 2012, 08:12:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rainer,

I too am looking forward to Nikon bringing out 17mm PC-E lens.

Was disappointed when it wasn't unveiled at Photokina.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/27/nikon-patents-for-17mm-f4-tilt-and-shift-10mm-f4-16-30mm-f4-5-5-6-and-28mm-f1-4-lenses.aspx/

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



WWW
« Reply #124 on: October 08, 2012, 05:47:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred

Using a testtable of comparably small size to MTF superwideangles is a total misconception, if any informations shall be drawn from this, you would need to focus at least twice
maybe 3 times (center, medium range and corners), to compensate for the spherical sharpness plane of wideangles. This and only this would give informations about real imaging in 3 d objects/scenes.

The whole testing on websites and also at most standardization instances takes this wrong approach, a wideangle is not a repro lens, thus a flat field is not needed.

Photographers and people who refuse to believe blindly into these standard MTF results do testimages (Like diglloyd.com) and then tell what you can really do with this lens.

Regards
Stefan
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 09:49:25 AM by Stefan.Steib » 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
andre_m
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #125 on: October 08, 2012, 05:52:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe this is OT. I've rented the same 24mm PC from Calumet in August. The 10-pin connector of the D800 is too near to the lens. Shifting the 24mm PC in panorama direction using a remote control cable is limited on one side.
Haven't tried the 45mm PC. Remote control with my 85mm PC is no problem.

André
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 06:27:19 AM by andre_m » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #126 on: October 08, 2012, 04:08:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred

Using a testtable of comparably small size to MTF superwideangles is a total misconception, if any informations shall be drawn from this, you would need to focus at least twice
maybe 3 times (center, medium range and corners), to compensate for the spherical sharpness plane of wideangles. This and only this would give informations about real imaging in 3 d objects/scenes.

The whole testing on websites and also at most standardization instances takes this wrong approach, a wideangle is not a repro lens, thus a flat field is not needed.

Photographers and people who refuse to believe blindly into these standard MTF results do testimages (Like diglloyd.com) and then tell what you can really do with this lens.

Regards
Stefan



When you say flat field are you referring to focus plane.  I can think of quite a few uses other than repro work where a flat focus plane is quite important.

My main point though was that lens profiles are not magic. Corrections to distortion will result in resolution loss due to scaling and pixels being moved around.
If a lens is already a bit less sharp at the edges and has significant distortion the corrective distortion will reduce the sharpness that it already weaker than the center.

It seems too many people assume that distortion correction is at "no cost" and put too much faith in "fancy RAW converters"
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #127 on: October 08, 2012, 04:30:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Stefan,

Thanks for comment. Just want to say that it is quite common that subject in landscape shooting is at infinity. My understanding is that a lens with field curvature will not focus correctly at infinity at centers and corners simultaneously.

You have posted some pretty impressive images from Hartblei cameras, high end backs and Canon wide angles.

My understanding is that the Hartblei lenses are Zeiss MF lenses. When I looked at the MTF curves of Hasselblad lenses I have not been that much impressed. Take the Macro Planar 120/4 for instance: http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/cfi/Makro-Planar4_120mm_CFi_107884_e.pdf, it doesn't seem to be very sharp off center, but I got the impression that it is a highly regarded lens.

A more typical lens may be the macro Planar 80/2: http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/contax_645/planar2_80mm_e.pdf it has about 70% MTF at 20 lp/mm or lower on a large part of the field. But I got the impression that it is a pretty good lens.

One of the better lenses for DSLRs is the Sigma 70/2.8 DG Macro, that lens has around 85-90% MTF at 20 lp/mm over the entire field.

Neverheless, the Hartblei lenses seem to be very sharp according to Lloyd among others. What is your take and explanation?

Enclosed diagrams:

Top Sigma 70/2.8 DG Macro at 20 lp/mm measured at Hasselblad
Center Planar 80/2.0 (Contax 645 mount)
Bottom Macro Planar 120/4 (hasselblad mount?)

Best regards
Erik


Fred

Using a testtable of comparably small size to MTF superwideangles is a total misconception, if any informations shall be drawn from this, you would need to focus at least twice
maybe 3 times (center, medium range and corners), to compensate for the spherical sharpness plane of wideangles. This and only this would give informations about real imaging in 3 d objects/scenes.

The whole testing on websites and also at most standardization instances takes this wrong approach, a wideangle is not a repro lens, thus a flat field is not needed.

Photographers and people who refuse to believe blindly into these standard MTF results do testimages (Like diglloyd.com) and then tell what you can really do with this lens.

Regards
Stefan
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 04:55:14 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #128 on: October 08, 2012, 06:01:29 PM »
ReplyReply

When I looked at the MTF curves of Hasselblad lenses I have not been that much impressed. Take the Macro Planar 120/4 for instance: http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/cfi/Makro-Planar4_120mm_CFi_107884_e.pdf, it doesn't seem to be very sharp off center, but I got the impression that it is a highly regarded lens.
I think the "highly regarded" 4/120 macro is the Contax, not the Hasselblad version... isn't it?
-> Contax 645 lenses: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-objektive/service/downloadcenter/contax_645.html
-> Contax 4/120 macro PDF: http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/de/downloadcenter/contax_645/apo-makro-planar_t_4_120_ger.pdf

A more typical lens may be the macro Planar 80/2: http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/contax_645/planar2_80mm_e.pdf it has about 70% MTF at 20 lp/mm or lower on a large part of the field. But I got the impression that it is a pretty good lens.
on a P45 (6.8 microns pixel pitch) stopped down it's a sharp lens. At f8, f 11 and f16 it's also sharp enough to cover the image plane of the P45. Beside MTF charts and edge to edge sharpness it's above all a very nice lens (= nice look). It's sharp, yes, but I think it's particularly the look why people regard it as a "good lens".
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #129 on: October 08, 2012, 10:54:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for pointing out that the curves are coming from the Contax version of the lens. Hasselblad used to have MTF data for all the V-lenses, but they removed those data from their web site. The reason I wanted to discuss that lens is the relatively low MTF at 40 lp/mm and that I have the impression that it is a lens that is considered a good one. The Hasselblad curves were quite similar to the Contax version as far as I can recall.

The Nyquist limit on the P45 is 73 lp/mm. I would expect a lens, like the ones I referred to, to transfer very little contrast at 73 lp/mm.

The Nikon D3X has similar pixel pitch to the P45, so if a lens is sharp on the P45 it would also be sharp on the D3X, may be even a bit sharper (per pixel) as that camera only uses the central part of the image circle.

This also reminds me of the "great MFDB shootout" of 2006 when Michael Reichmann, Bill Atkinsson and Charlie Cramer tested their new P45 backs. Michael had his new HR Digaron (?) lenses, Bill H-series "Blad" and Charlie Mamiya but there was not so much difference. I would expected the Digaron to stand out but I cannot recall that it was clearly the case.

Best regards
Erik


I think the "highly regarded" 4/120 macro is the Contax, not the Hasselblad version... isn't it?
-> Contax 645 lenses: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-objektive/service/downloadcenter/contax_645.html
-> Contax 4/120 macro PDF: http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/de/downloadcenter/contax_645/apo-makro-planar_t_4_120_ger.pdf
 on a P45 (6.8 microns pixel pitch) stopped down it's a sharp lens. At f8, f 11 and f16 it's also sharp enough to cover the image plane of the P45. Beside MTF charts and edge to edge sharpness it's above all a very nice lens (= nice look). It's sharp, yes, but I think it's particularly the look why people regard it as a "good lens".

Logged

Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



WWW
« Reply #130 on: October 11, 2012, 09:15:36 AM »
ReplyReply

>>>>>>>>Hasselblad used to have MTF data for all the V-lenses, but they removed those data from their web site. <<<<<<<<

You will still find these Infos here:

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/service/download_center/hasselblad_cf.html

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
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #131 on: October 11, 2012, 01:46:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Stefan,

Thanks a lot for info!

Best regards
Erik


>>>>>>>>Hasselblad used to have MTF data for all the V-lenses, but they removed those data from their web site. <<<<<<<<

You will still find these Infos here:

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/service/download_center/hasselblad_cf.html

Regards
Stefan
Logged

Gandalf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #132 on: October 12, 2012, 12:52:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dustbak
"When the camera is tilted for composition, the point of maxi- mum sharpness falls just behind the eyes. However, the DOF is almost large enough to render the eye sharp making the difference hard to see. A camera movement closer or further away from the camera even as small as 1 cm will change the result and True Focus might not fully correct the focus.
"

I think that is really the issue of True Focus right there. If the combined movement if photographer and model is more than 10 mm it fails. If you move 5 mm and the model moves 5 mm, the shot is out of focus. If even one of you is mostly still, it is a godsend. This is why the discussion is so polarized -- there is no middle ground. It either works for you or it doesn't. If it does work for you, it can be the difference between being able to use MFD vs. confined to DSLR.

I think people also fail to realize that needs are different for each photographer. I'm in the process of evaluating a new camera system, and it has to be flexible because I'm not entirely sure where I am going as a photographic direction. I was all excited to get a D800 until I spent a little time with one and realized it is the feel and format of DSLRs that I dislike the most. The resolution is great. The color reproduction is less so. Against a new Credo there is no comparison. Against a 25-40 mp Aptus or P-series Phase back of somewhat more comparable cost the decision process isn't that easy. If you need leaf shutter lenses or need lens movements the decision is easy, but if those are only things that you would really like to have some of the time, it gets tough. Same with telephotos. If you need them, the choice is easy. If you use a short tele on occasion, the choice gets harder. Sure the D800 is a relative bargain, that is undeniable, the question is whether it works for you or not. And that is a question that I have had a hard time answering.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #133 on: October 12, 2012, 01:29:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

If you have the camera on tripod and change composition, I'm pretty sure the camera will shift, unless it is suspended at the nodal point.

Regarding color, I have some doubts. Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichmann seems to say that color can be adjusted pretty freely. Have you tried to build and tweak a DNG profile?

Alex Koskolov made a few raw files from Hasselblad 4D40 and Nikon D800E available and those include pretty good shots of an Xrite color checker. The Nikon was more accurate, at least when using LR4. Both were oversaturated the Hasselblad much more than the Nikon. I may be that the Hasselblad had nicer colors but the difference may have been a small difference in saturation.

Note: I rechecked Mr. Koskolovs files. It turned out that the color checker exposure had green channel clipping on the Hassy image, so I could not build profiles. The image looked perfectly good to me. Learning all time.

Best regards
Erik




I think that is really the issue of True Focus right there. If the combined movement if photographer and model is more than 10 mm it fails. If you move 5 mm and the model moves 5 mm, the shot is out of focus. If even one of you is mostly still, it is a godsend. This is why the discussion is so polarized -- there is no middle ground. It either works for you or it doesn't. If it does work for you, it can be the difference between being able to use MFD vs. confined to DSLR.

I think people also fail to realize that needs are different for each photographer. I'm in the process of evaluating a new camera system, and it has to be flexible because I'm not entirely sure where I am going as a photographic direction. I was all excited to get a D800 until I spent a little time with one and realized it is the feel and format of DSLRs that I dislike the most. The resolution is great. The color reproduction is less so. Against a new Credo there is no comparison. Against a 25-40 mp Aptus or P-series Phase back of somewhat more comparable cost the decision process isn't that easy. If you need leaf shutter lenses or need lens movements the decision is easy, but if those are only things that you would really like to have some of the time, it gets tough. Same with telephotos. If you need them, the choice is easy. If you use a short tele on occasion, the choice gets harder. Sure the D800 is a relative bargain, that is undeniable, the question is whether it works for you or not. And that is a question that I have had a hard time answering.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 01:48:09 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #134 on: October 12, 2012, 05:14:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I looked at  MTF curves and reread Diglloyd's article a few times. I specially looked at the 120/4 as I felt the MTFs curves were pretty low.

What is interesting that Lloyd found that the lens needs to be stopped down significantly, but it has a lovely rendition. He actually feels that the only lens which is similar is the Zeiss 100/2.

Hmm

Best regards
Erik

>>>>>>>>Hasselblad used to have MTF data for all the V-lenses, but they removed those data from their web site. <<<<<<<<

You will still find these Infos here:

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/service/download_center/hasselblad_cf.html

Regards
Stefan
Logged

kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 756


WWW
« Reply #135 on: October 12, 2012, 06:35:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I would also like to have a 17mmPCE lens from Nikon, but in the meantime i really enjoy the 14-24mm lens.

I think it is one of the best lenses Nikon has made and does not disappoint me on the d800E.
(the detail is a bit better with the 24mm PCE .)
the distortion at 24mm is almost none ( better then the PCE) and at 14mm very decent and well corrected in ACR.
Flare is the only mayor problem because of the massive front lens...
btw the only program that i know of that deals with PCE-lens distortion is PTlens..
 ( I am trying to get photo Ninja to deal with the chromatic aberration)
Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



WWW
« Reply #136 on: October 14, 2012, 10:49:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric

the Zeiss MF lenses that we use are somehow misrepresented by the shere numbers. If you read Lloyds test he also states this.
it is my experience that many lenses, especially from the MF range are totally misunderstood and should be looked at new from a digital point of view.
First- a larger imagecircle and the longer Flange Focal Distance result in chromafree and very low vignetting images. This kind of uniformity
is much more important than what people see in these MTF charts, which are valid only for flat repro situations which are not occuring in 99% of all images shot.
A final sharpening of very uniform and clean but not so sharp image will result in a better image than a pinsharp center with a lightfalloff with chromas in the edges and
uneven image character.

I see this proofed by many of our customer Photos who are more and more realizing that the current mainstream of lens"knowhow" totally misrepresents
the fact that some older lenses are also not so much prone to diffraction (many new lenses have their peak at open aperture which makes them nearly unusable
if you NEED to stop them down e.g. for product Photography where you just need this depth of field and struggle for every mm !)

This in combination with the special T* coating (7 layer-still best of all!) and a much denser blue channel (about 15-20%) gives the Zeiss glass this 3D look.

greetings from Germany
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
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #137 on: October 14, 2012, 11:01:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric

the Zeiss MF lenses that we use are somehow misrepresented by the shere numbers. If you read Lloyds test he also states this.
it is my experience that many lenses, especially from the MF range are totally misunderstood and should be looked at new from a digital point of view.
First- a larger imagecircle and the longer Flange Focal Distance result in chromafree and very low vignetting images. This kind of uniformity
is much more important than what people see in these MTF charts, which are valid only for flat repro situations which are not occuring in 99% of all images shot.
A final sharpening of very uniform and clean but not so sharp image will result in a better image than a pinsharp center with a lightfalloff with chromas in the edges and
uneven image character.

I see this proofed by many of our customer Photos who are more and more realizing that the current mainstream of lens"knowhow" totally misrepresents
the fact that some older lenses are also not so much prone to diffraction (many new lenses have their peak at open aperture which makes them nearly unusable
if you NEED to stop them down e.g. for product Photography where you just need this depth of field and struggle for every mm !)

This in combination with the special T* coating (7 layer-still best of all!) and a much denser blue channel (about 15-20%) gives the Zeiss glass this 3D look.

greetings from Germany
Stefan

I love the C and CF lenses on digital, especially on a Canon.  They have such a smoothness to the images missing from the modern ultrasharp mega 35mm lenses.
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 756


WWW
« Reply #138 on: October 14, 2012, 11:37:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I love the C and CF lenses on digital, especially on a Canon.  They have such a smoothness to the images missing from the modern ultrasharp mega 35mm lenses.

I agree the Zeiss have something special (i had two) - the only Nikkors that have this smooth and 3d look are the PCE-lenses and i like best the 45PCE in this respect.
Also their T* coating is so important- I must say Nikons nanocoating is a big step forwards.. ( I am not familiar with Canon Lenses)
really looking forward to see what Zeiss has to offer in 2013- ( must say i often like the light falloff of the Zeiss, makes images more dramatic..)
Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 902



WWW
« Reply #139 on: October 14, 2012, 12:52:46 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems too many people assume that distortion correction is at "no cost" and put too much faith in "fancy RAW converters"

Like Phocus. Those Fuji lenses made for hassleblad certainly benefit from the lens profiles, the chromatic abhoration at the edges was terrible on the 120 and zoom I used.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad