Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 43757 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #180 on: March 07, 2013, 11:31:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you're right, T; having said which, some M film shooters used to look for older Leitz glass because they tried to achieve a different look to that possible from the modern lenses.

That's partly why so many photographic discussions don't really have anywhere to run: it depends on who is using what and for which ultimate purpose.

Rob C
Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 545


« Reply #181 on: March 07, 2013, 11:48:56 AM »
ReplyReply

some M film shooters used to look for older Leitz glass because they tried to achieve a different look to that possible from the modern lenses.

Some older Leitz glass suffered from quite large spherical aberration. While this reduces contrast, it can also give a kind of "glow" to the highlights of a picture, which looks very nice.

In the 19th century, some manufacturers like Pinkham & Smith hand ground portrait lenses for the same reason: increase spherical aberration. This can have desirable effects on depth of field, the rendering of sharp-unsharp transitions, the rendering of small skin blemishes, etc... Other quality than sharpness can be desirable in lenses.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #182 on: March 07, 2013, 12:08:54 PM »
ReplyReply

This is not intended to fan any format war.

I don't know if this is true, mainly because my experience with certain M mount lenses.  The Summicrons I have experience with never appeared flat, in fact are very close to Mamiya 7 images of the same subject matter.  The Zeiss ZM mount 28 2.8 has more contrast than any lens I've ever used.  In any format.  It is also one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used.

I think "flatness" is more a function of shooting conditions (lighting, focal length, F stop, distance to subject), the sensor, and any post work put into a file (or the default curve of film). 

This is why I stated you could take the lens format things so far. You are also comparing Leica optics which tend toward contrast anyway to Japanese optics that tend toward resolving power and two lenses from different formats. There is a whole sliding scale, which is why I said you can take things so far.

Oddly enough, you can see contrast difference in Erik's posts. Look at the marble pattern and it has a bit more pop in the Hasselblad image. I noticed this comparing a m4/3 lens with the same focal length of a CV 35mm lens--the m4/3 had more resolution and the 35mm had more contrast. This has nothing to do with lighting or such. It is an actual property of the optics.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #183 on: March 07, 2013, 01:09:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I think the statement the we can have either have high contrast or good resolution is an old myth. My guess is that it comes from old times when antireflex coating was rare. God resolution needed many lens surfaces, but using more surfaces resulted in more flare. Now days I don't think this applies.

I also don't think that it is not possible to make large format lenses with high resolution. It's just a question of cost. Larger formats were mostly used at small apertures and lens constructions were designed to reach optimum performance at the commonly used apertures. It would be possible to design better lenses, but the advantage would be negated by diffraction anyway. (I did not find pixel pitch data for the H3D-31, so I used H4D-31 data instead.)

Rodenstock's HR lenses have impressive MTF plots, if they are fake or real, I don't know.


When we compare a 36 MP Nikon D800 with a 31 MP Hasselblad we need to keep in mind that the Hasselblad's larger pixels make much less demand on the lens than the Nikon's smaller pixels. The enclosed MTF plot is calculated on a test shot from a 85/1.4 lens on Nikon D800E by Michael Reichmann. In this case we can see that this lens would transfer about 13% contrast at Nyquist limit on Nikon, would we put the same lens on the Hassy, it would transfer around 33%, because of the larger pixels. So if a Nikon D800E comes even close to the Hasselblad H4D-31 at the pixel level, it is quite an engineering feat! If we add that the D800 has OLP filtering and the Hasselblad does not the demand on the Nikon lens is even higher.

I have seen a paper from Schneider stating that MTF at Nyquist should be below 20% to avoid excessive moiré. This indicates that the 31MP Hasselblad would have problems with moiré but not the 36 MP Nikon.

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 01:12:25 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1110


WWW
« Reply #184 on: March 07, 2013, 01:29:37 PM »
ReplyReply

What I see a lot when I did my comparisons to the IQ 160 and 140 backs with my D800E is Nikon cannot handle the specular highlights anywhere near the bigger backs. That was pretty obvious outside the normal things we look for like micro contrast/ tonal range/color and such which the backs won those races. I still believe also the differences in sensors CCD and CMOS as they just handle data completely different. End of day no matter how I sliced the cheese and threw everything at those tests MF still won the game but Nikon has done a very nice job with upping its game. You have to give them credit for that. I think a Version 2 of this sensor or some more advanced technology would help it more no doubt but this VS that stuff I am so far over it that I dont read any of it anymore and just go about and getting work done. There are a lot of downsides which never get mentioned here on the Nikon and trust me its not perfect by any stretch. I use 5 different brands of lenses to get the best images i can from it and frankly that is not right Nikon cannot get a damn good wide angle out the door when a 500 dollar Samyang 14mm distorts like a banchee but is damn sharp. Clean up the distortion and its a damn nice lens. Really whats Nikons excuse , so hearing how great it is only half the story.

MF is a niche market for a select photographers that want to work in that medium regardless of costs, hassle and limitations. Good for those folks they like to work at getting the best they can from it. I loved the tech cam and it for me was a load of fun to shoot and after 40 years your looking for fun trust me. LOL

People love Leica M cams which is maybe the worst focusing, framing cams on the planet. But folks love shooting them and frankly I do too. The day these systems are perfect is the day humans wont be shooting them.
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #185 on: March 07, 2013, 01:32:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Fred,
I don't think so. I would normally scales the images so short size of the image would match, but in this case the image size are so close that I don't think it really matters, Nikon is 4912 and Hassy is 4872. Resizing affects image quality, BTW.
Best regards
Erik


But if you are making a visual comparison you need to match the scale at which the subject is displayed. This will also give a better indication of what a print will look like if it's printed very large.
Resizing will effect the quality slightly.

If you scale down a lot it helps, but if you scale just a little it makes either little difference or is detrimental.

In this case the Nikon was scaled down very slightly so no gain ...if anything a little loss as I also rotated the image so as to make the comparison
line up better.

IF you look very carefully at the animated gif you can see that one is sharper
than the other.... but only very slightly.

It's the Nikon one and it was shot with a 14 to 24mm zoom. Yes the 14 to 24 mm zoom is very sharp but that just adds to the advantages of
the Nikon and other 35mm systems. It would also explain why many architectural photographers are using 35mm DSLRs more and more.


  
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 04:21:55 AM by FredBGG » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #186 on: March 07, 2013, 01:40:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Guy,

I have great respect for your photography, but I'm pretty sure that you are given false information. Both CCDs and CMOS devices are linear, when they clip they clip.

My guess is that MFD tends to either underexpose by default, or that the raw converter is better at reconstructing lost channel data.

I can very well see that it is your practical experience that MF retains highlights better, but that is simply not feasible unless some cheating is involved.

On the other hand, some cheating is OK, it is really results that matters. Except, that there are some techy types like me who want to understand what is behind what we see...

Best regards
Erik

What I see a lot when I did my comparisons to the IQ 160 and 140 backs with my D800E is Nikon cannot handle the specular highlights anywhere near the bigger backs. That was pretty obvious outside the normal things we look for like micro contrast/ tonal range/color and such which the backs won those races. I still believe also the differences in sensors CCD and CMOS as they just handle data completely different. End of day no matter how I sliced the cheese and threw everything at those tests MF still won the game but Nikon has done a very nice job with upping its game. You have to give them credit for that. I think a Version 2 of this sensor or some more advanced technology would help it more no doubt but this VS that stuff I am so far over it that I dont read any of it anymore and just go about and getting work done. There are a lot of downsides which never get mentioned here on the Nikon and trust me its not perfect by any stretch. I use 5 different brands of lenses to get the best images i can from it and frankly that is not right Nikon cannot get a damn good wide angle out the door when a 500 dollar Samyang 14mm distorts like a banchee but is damn sharp. Clean up the distortion and its a damn nice lens. Really whats Nikons excuse , so hearing how great it is only half the story.

MF is a niche market for a select photographers that want to work in that medium regardless of costs, hassle and limitations. Good for those folks they like to work at getting the best they can from it. I loved the tech cam and it for me was a load of fun to shoot and after 40 years your looking for fun trust me. LOL

People love Leica M cams which is maybe the worst focusing, framing cams on the planet. But folks love shooting them and frankly I do too. The day these systems are perfect is the day humans wont be shooting them.
Logged

Chris Barrett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


« Reply #187 on: March 07, 2013, 01:43:11 PM »
ReplyReply



CB
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #188 on: March 07, 2013, 01:49:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't think that we need to have perfect comparisons. Why, because you can shot a slanted wedge and have much better comparison. Also, I don't think we need to adjust image size. Any small differences can be adjusted in post.

I would say that Jerome's test gives good info for anyone interested in buying an elder MFDB or a D800 and that the lenses are OK at large apertures. All that is good info.

Jerome also points out that Hasselblad's AF actually works.

Best regards
Erik

But if you are making a visual comparison you need to match the scale at which the subject is displayed. This will also give a better indication of what a print will look like if it's printed very large.
Resizing will effect the quality slightly.

If you scale down a lot it helps, but if you scale just a little it makes either little difference or is detrimental.

In this case the Nikon was scaled down very slightly so no gain ...if anything a little loss as I also rotated the image so as to make the comparison
line up better.

IF you look very carefully at the animated gif you can see that one is sharper
than the other.... but only very slightly.

It's the Nikon one and it was shot with a 14 to 24mm zoom. Yes the 14 to 24 mm zoom is very sharp but that just adds to the advantages of
the Nikon. It would also explain why many architectural photographers are using 35mm DSLRs more and more.


  
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #189 on: March 07, 2013, 02:08:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I think the statement the we can have either have high contrast or good resolution is an old myth. My guess is that it comes from old times when antireflex coating was rare. God resolution needed many lens surfaces, but using more surfaces resulted in more flare. Now days I don't think this applies.

It has nothing to do with flare. Since I have seen the effect myself in modern multicoated lenses, it is hardly a myth.

BTW, I did not say it was either/or. I stated, you cannot optimize a lens for both. That does not mean lens design cannot improve on both, but the qualities are mutually exclusive. When designing a lens, you take the format into consideration and so make design decisions based on that.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #190 on: March 07, 2013, 02:10:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Guy,

I have great respect for your photography, but I'm pretty sure that you are given false information. Both CCDs and CMOS devices are linear, when they clip they clip.

My guess is that MFD tends to either underexpose by default, or that the raw converter is better at reconstructing lost channel data.

I can very well see that it is your practical experience that MF retains highlights better, but that is simply not feasible unless some cheating is involved.

On the other hand, some cheating is OK, it is really results that matters. Except, that there are some techy types like me who want to understand what is behind what we see...

Best regards
Erik


Well capacity vs. noise floor?
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1110


WWW
« Reply #191 on: March 07, 2013, 02:10:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Guy,

I have great respect for your photography, but I'm pretty sure that you are given false information. Both CCDs and CMOS devices are linear, when they clip they clip.

My guess is that MFD tends to either underexpose by default, or that the raw converter is better at reconstructing lost channel data.

I can very well see that it is your practical experience that MF retains highlights better, but that is simply not feasible unless some cheating is involved.

On the other hand, some cheating is OK, it is really results that matters. Except, that there are some techy types like me who want to understand what is behind what we see...

Best regards
Erik


Technically your probably right. Maybe the differences that I see might be a size thing. Really can't put my finger on it but I have never seen a CMOS act like a CCD no matter what can I have shot. I had a lot if CCD sensors too not just backs. DMR,m8,m9. And even the DMR way back when compared to Canons 1DSii which I wrote a bible on there was a big difference and they where relatively the same size . DMR actually smaller. But back to specular highlights I think it's the bigger sensors ability and yes the color tonal range that handles it better even if they clip at the same point.

Science may say different and freely admit I'm not a science guy. It's all visual to me and my impressions. Maybe it's bad eyesight . Lol
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 02:13:04 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #192 on: March 07, 2013, 02:11:58 PM »
ReplyReply



CB

Thumbs up!
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #193 on: March 07, 2013, 02:27:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

CCDs are from Kodak or Dalsa. I don't know much about Dalsa but I know Kodak has been in photography for long.

I read about the Minolta/Konica merger. Minolta was a camera maker and Konica was a film maker. I have read that Konica and Minolta had very different priorities.

My guess is that some of the purported advantages of CCD over CMOS are coming from the companies behind CCD being involved with photography for a long time. I also think most of the differences come from the color grid array design and the way the images are processed.

Best regards
Erik



Technically your probably right. Maybe the differences that I see might be a size thing. Really can't put my finger on it but I have never seen a CMOS act like a CCD no matter what can I have shot. I had a lot if CCD sensors too not just backs. DMR,m8,m9. And even the DMR way back when compared to Canons 1DSii which I wrote a bible on there was a big difference and they where relatively the same size . DMR actually smaller. But back to specular highlights I think it's the bigger sensors ability and yes the color tonal range that handles it better even if they clip at the same point.

Science may say different and freely admit I'm not a science guy. It's all visual to me and my impressions. Maybe it's bad eyesight . Lol
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #194 on: March 07, 2013, 02:33:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I read about the Minolta/Konica merger. Minolta was a camera maker and Konica was a film maker. I have read that Konica and Minolta had very different priorities.

Konica was a camera manufacturer as well. It had a long history of manufacturing cameras. Konica is one of the oldest photographic companies in Japan, or used to be. As a former employee of Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, I had no idea that Konica and Minolta had different priorities.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #195 on: March 07, 2013, 03:56:20 PM »
ReplyReply

There are a lot of downsides which never get mentioned here on the Nikon and trust me its not perfect by any stretch. I use 5 different brands of lenses to get the best images i can from it and frankly that is not right Nikon cannot get a damn good wide angle out the door when a 500 dollar Samyang 14mm distorts like a banchee but is damn sharp. Clean up the distortion and its a damn nice lens. Really whats Nikons excuse , so hearing how great it is only half the story.

Nothing is perfect...

However I think it's safe to say that Nikon makes some very fine lenses and if we talk about wide angles the 14 to 24mm is quite exceptional.

Lets see how it compares to the Samyang you praise.



At 2.8 the Samyang looks like it has a fine stocking over the lens.



At 5.6 the Nikon has better contrast and resulting in better detail.

More full res examples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hhackbarth/with/7638840722/#photo_7638840722

Even considering the price difference the Nikon is a good deal being a 14 to 24 zoom that replaces three focal lengths and is infinitely more useful.

Being a zoom it does have CA in the corners, but that is correctable very well.

Also if we really look at this in a realistic manner with the Nikon you have both quality and more choice.

MF has no very wide zooms. No inexpensive options like the Samyang for a focal length someone needs , but cannot justify spending more.

If some things are not covered by Nikon but done well by say Canon you can buy both and still be far below the prices of MFD. Ultra wide TS lens for example.

There are also excellent Carl Zeiss lenses and a whole new line of ultra high end lenses coming from Zeiss with the 55mm already announced and shown.
Even with these being high priced they still come in below the cost of equivalent MF lens and back.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 06:10:36 PM by FredBGG » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1110


WWW
« Reply #196 on: March 07, 2013, 04:19:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Wrong better contrast only gives the appearance of better detail. Fred give it a rest I have had them both and the Zeiss 18 as well. For the money the Samyang is very good and at F8 down right outstanding. I have bunch I shot actually posted on GetDPI. What you failed to mention and what you probably don't know is the 14-24 has terrible focus shift. Why I sold it

For 500 it is really good that was the point.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html

Do us all a favor RUN YOUR OWN TESTS.

We have no idea how these things you post where actually shot or not and by who. I actually post images what a freaking novel idea that is of what I done.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 05:13:40 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #197 on: March 07, 2013, 06:15:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Wrong better contrast only gives the appearance of better detail. Fred give it a rest I have had them both and the Zeiss 18 as well. For the money the Samyang is very good and at F8 down right outstanding. I have bunch I shot actually posted on GetDPI. What you failed to mention and what you probably don't know is the 14-24 has terrible focus shift. Why I sold it

For 500 it is really good that was the point.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html

Do us all a favor RUN YOUR OWN TESTS.

We have no idea how these things you post where actually shot or not and by who. I actually post images what a freaking novel idea that is of what I done.


It's a little more than appearance, but even if it were isn't the appearance of an image what we look at?

Also the industry standard is based on MTF charts when it comes to measuring resolution and it is based on the resulting contrast between fine black and white lines.
Maybe I should have been more precise and written micro contrast.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #198 on: March 07, 2013, 08:59:10 PM »
ReplyReply

What you failed to mention and what you probably don't know is the 14-24 has terrible focus shift. Why I sold it

I am perfectly aware of focus shift on fast lenses and how much the 14 to 24 mm has.
Personally I find it blown out of proportion. Focus shift is there if you focus a 2.8 and shoot stopped down half way or more.
However the problem totally disappears if you focus with live view, something that is advisable for very wide lenses.
Also the focus shift is more when stopped way down when the depth of field is very very deep.

It is IMO no where near the problems of focus and recompose with wide angle lenses on MF. Hasselblad
found this to be a significant issue and went to great lengths to improve the situation with True focus.

« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 10:24:51 PM by FredBGG » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #199 on: March 07, 2013, 09:37:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What I read was that there was much discussion regarding color rendition between the the two groups of engineers.

Best regards
Erik


Konica was a camera manufacturer as well. It had a long history of manufacturing cameras. Konica is one of the oldest photographic companies in Japan, or used to be. As a former employee of Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, I had no idea that Konica and Minolta had different priorities.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad