Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Contax ND vs. DMR vs. 5DII vs. Contax 645 IQ180 :-)  (Read 9651 times)
chrismuc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


« on: December 29, 2012, 02:15:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Xmas was generous and brought me a wonderful IQ180 back for my Contax 645. And like mostly between Xmas and New Year there is some time for "meaningless" things, so I did a little comparison test between four digital cameras of the last decade to see if there is any progress in image quality :-)

The contenders:

2002: Contax N Digital (6 MP Philips CCD sensor w/ AA-filter, @ ISO25) + Contax N 100f2.8 Macro @ f8
2006: Leica R8 DMR (10 MP Kodak CCD sensor w/o AA-filter, @ ISO100) + Leica R 60f2.8 Macro @ f5.6
2009: Canon 5DII (21 MP Canon CMOS sensor w/ AA-filter, @ ISO 100) + Zeiss ZE 100f2 Macro @ f8
2011: Contax 645 IQ180 (80 MP Dalsa CCD sensor w/o AA-filter, @ ISO 50) + Zeiss Contax 645 140f2.8 @ f11

I tried to match the view angle and frame by choosing appropriate focal length lenses according the sensor sizes and f stops to roughly match the depth of field. All pictures from same tripod location but the height (respectively elevation) slightly different due to the different camera height.

I opened all raw files in ACR applied same sharpening 70/0.5 and automatic CA correction and cropped all images to the equivalent frame and to resampled to the resolution of the Contax N Digital.

So here is the 1 Million $ question: Which image is by which camera/sensor/lens combination?

Enjoy, Christoph

(first the cameras, next post the images)
Logged
chrismuc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2012, 02:18:25 PM »
ReplyReply

now the images

(all in ProPhoto RGB, I hope the colors are shown correct in the browser)
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1241



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2012, 03:09:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

My what lovely toys you have.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

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

Auckland, New Zealand
henrikfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708


« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2012, 04:12:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting and very difficult in web res.
But I like to compete Smiley. Here is my guesses:

A=Leica
B=IQ180
C=Contax N
D=5DIII

How many do I have correct?


Logged
Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2012, 04:19:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Henrik,
Did you peek?
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
henrikfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708


« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2012, 04:35:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Henrik,
Did you peek?

Joking? How could I peek?
Do you know the answers?
Logged
MarkoRepse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2012, 04:48:13 PM »
ReplyReply

These are fun! My analysis is the same as Henriks.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 04:50:12 PM by MarkoRepse » Logged
Go Go
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2012, 05:09:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Joking? How could I peek?
Do you know the answers?

EXIF viewer,
confirms it.

Great test by the way, well done.
Logged

henrikfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708


« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2012, 05:10:53 PM »
ReplyReply

EXIF viewer,
confirms it.

Great test by the way, well done.

So my guess is correct?
Logged
Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2012, 05:28:03 PM »
ReplyReply

So my guess is correct?
If the EXIF data is correct, your answers are correct. I sure could not tell without peeking, so you must have a really good eye, Henrik - way to go.
It was kind of a fun diversion - thanks Chris!

Ed
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
henrikfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708


« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2012, 06:46:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know how to find out this and I am just on my iPad. Just guessing from the look of the files.

Henrik
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5773


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2012, 07:03:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Apart from a magenta cast in B, they are all practically the same (no wonder, given they've all been reduced to 6 MPx). Would love if someone (Henrik?) would be so kind to point out the differences.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
woos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2012, 08:14:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Hah, I guessed right.

You can tell because A is nosier than the other files, for one.  Then C also has some grain but not nearly like A.  B and D look noiseless, but I thought D was the Canon file due to the red patch being more like a Canon-looking red, lol.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2012, 09:12:36 PM »
ReplyReply

First choice is easy.

A is the Leica due to the deeper depth of field due to the smallest sensor and the 60mm lens.
Also less Bokeh "chatter" in the Leica lens.

IF you look at the other three images under the elbow area of the out of focus sleeve you can see the ring like chatter in the bokeh
that is more typical of the Contax 140 and the Zeiss Macro 100mm designs.

Second choice
C is the Contax due to more dead pixels/dust. Same depth of field as the Canon.

Last choice was relatively clear.

Smoother diagonal lines for the Canon thanks to the AA filter. Slightly more recoverable highlight detail.

D is Canon

B is IQ180 due to more aliasing on diagonal lines (mostly due to down sampling) and a bit more color artifacting in the black plastic texture
of the color checker case (mild color moire). Slightly more recoverable highlight detail.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 09:51:23 PM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2012, 09:18:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Hah, I guessed right.

You can tell because A is nosier than the other files, for one.  Then C also has some grain but not nearly like A.  B and D look noiseless, but I thought D was the Canon file due to the red patch being more like a Canon-looking red, lol.

How do you know you guessed right?
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2012, 11:28:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Duhhh EXIF.... that would have saved me a lot of time... but less interesting
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 09:51:42 PM by FredBGG » Logged
chrismuc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2012, 01:57:58 AM »
ReplyReply

@ Simon
Thx, yes these are lovely toys & tools :-)

@ Henrik and Marko
Cool, you nailed it (w/o peeking at the Exif).

@ all
Thx for your attention!

I also examined that the DMR file with the 60mm lens has deeper depth of field.

I could not quickly match the colors/color cast of the leather jacket. I assume this also comes from the slightly different viewing angle  in camera height which I did not compensate.

Today I return to China (with Canon and Contax 645), the Contax ND and DMR stay in Munich, so this was the only moment to have all four systems at one place for such a quick test. The Contax ND file with that very early Philips sensor is stunning noise free at low ISO 25-50.

The detail capability of the IQ180 is nothing but stunning. Enclosed a crop of that file (this time in sRGB).
Logged
henrikfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708


« Reply #17 on: December 30, 2012, 04:55:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Apart from a magenta cast in B, they are all practically the same (no wonder, given they've all been reduced to 6 MPx). Would love if someone (Henrik?) would be so kind to point out the differences.

I was looking at the differenses in graduation in the colors and the DOF.
Also the B has much better highlights.

Really amazing how well the 6 mp looks against the new cameras.
Would be interesting to see a test like this with 6 mp Phase one compared to 80mp
with the same setup Smiley

The 140mp Contax is most likely the weaker lens of the 4.

Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


« Reply #18 on: December 30, 2012, 09:31:03 AM »
ReplyReply

The Contax N was such a nice camera and system.  The 645 too.  I had an even older 167MT 35mm with the Contax Zeiss lenses.

Come back Contax! Grin
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7327


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2012, 09:40:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Latecomer, but I ranked them:

1: D
2: B
3: C
4: A

In my view D was clearly best and A clearly worst.
Best regards
Erik
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad