Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 39714 times)
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #220 on: March 08, 2013, 11:41:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred,

Be honest man, you got boner for Nikon and really, really, really, spend a lot of time trying to pounce on Phase.

IMO

BC

Hmmm... from one of my recent posts

The wifi implementation direct to iPad sending low res Full image and then tiles for zooming in
is a very smart approach. Minimal data is sent around saving battery and minimizing how much your optic nerve is exposed
to the wifi signal.... the antenna is really very very close to your eye. Smart to send just what the screen needs to display.
Efficient and a "fuel efficient" way to make it fast.

Nice work by Phase on this.

If I understand correctly it is not a substitute for tethering to save all raws to the computer or iPad.
However it is a very nice review tool. Particularly nice that it can send rating back to the camera.


Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #221 on: March 08, 2013, 01:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Guy and Yair,

Thanks for making that clear!

Best regards
Erik

I have adjusted all three of my Cambo mounted lenses through resetting the infinity scale. My 35 XL was off a great deal. I did it tethered and shot at infinity and never had a issue since with focus. Like Yair I rarely used any aids in focusing my tech cam. The IQ or Credo does help a great deal though with the 100 percent zoom and for the IQ which I had the focus mask also is a great aid. Arca uses a unique system and Alpa and Cambo are basically the same type of setups. Cambos you can adjust the the back though through the mounting of the back, there are four screws on each corner t make that adjustment . Never found the need for that though as checking each lens seemed a far better way to achieve excellent focusing. Adjusting the back is a generic adjustment one lens may need more or less and my reason for going to adjust each lens.
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #222 on: March 08, 2013, 01:30:56 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



Never saw it. Didn't seem to be an issue. I doubt you can really see a shift in color from Minolta cameras and Konica Minolta cameras in terms of their color rendering. I doubt what you read was anything more than speculation.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #223 on: March 08, 2013, 01:41:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Yair,

I don't know about Phase One AF or Mamiya AF but most AF systems can not achieve critical focus at large apertures. It also seems that a few people cannot achieve perfect focus with ground glass focusing either. I know that Diglloyd has problems with AF on all of Nikon D800E, Leica S2, Pentax 645D. This is not really about calibration, he found AF calibration does not really hep.

There are a large numbers of 645D and S2 user that come to a very different conclusion from Mr. Chambers. I do not think that he is the final word on cameras.

Quote
It seems that Alpa came up with a focusing system that allows the users to shim the backs, and several authors posted tutorials on achieving correct shimming, among others Mark Dubovoy (frequent author on LuLa). I don't think Alpa added the shimming option just out of vanity.

Mr. Dubovoy has written some very dubious articles showing he may not be a great person to have a final word either. As far as image plane tolerance, it is not a problem with focal length, but f-number. Also, I have seen shimming videos and many do not shim to infinity, but something closer, so an operator could be convinced the shims are required.

Quote
With live view you see the actual pixels when you focus, so you actually now that your point of focus is perfect.

Steve Hendricks indicated in a posting that photographers may be a bit tolerant on focusing errors.

Best regards
Erik

Naturally, what is "perfect" focus in a 3-dimensional space. As pixel resolution goes up, an operator can be fooled into thinking that focusing tolerances are going up as well. Unfortunately, it is more complicated than that.
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #224 on: March 08, 2013, 01:52:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I am still testing the H3D versus the D800 (not necessarily for this forum, I would do it for myself alone) and I tried to compare the bokeh of the two systems. This time I will not be criticised for using a zoom lens, but I will probably be criticised because the two focal length do not match  Roll Eyes I used the HC 80mm f/2.8 on the H3D-31 and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G on the D800. The pictures are taken from the same point: I took one camera from the tripod and mounted the other one in its place.

The whole set with the pictures is here. There are two tests, one with flowers and one with a tree.

As expected, the Nikon could get a smaller depth of field because of the much larger aperture (and also because the H3D cannot always use its largest aperture in bright light). The results as to bokeh, on the other end, are less convincing for me, see for yourself if you like them.

The colours are not quite the same, even if the pictures are treated by the same software (and for the flowers the light changed). I did not try to match the colour, I find the difference instructive. On the flower, the D800 focussed on the wrong object (in live view AF mode). I did not try to correct that (I find interesting that the H3D gives better results automatically) and it would not have been easy anyway (I could barely see the D800 screen under the sun, so manual focussing using live view would have been tricky). There is probably also a teaching in that.  Wink
On the tree, both cameras focussed on the same point (the lens cap).

People enjoying pixel peeping may download the full resolution pictures using the flickr menus. There is little point, since nothing is really sharp, but I know that some people will want it anyway.

Here an example with the flowers: f/4 on the Nikon versus f/5.6 on the Hasselblad (the pictures are clickable):




Here an example with the tree (same apertures):


Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #225 on: March 08, 2013, 02:30:37 PM »
ReplyReply

There are a large numbers of 645D and S2 user that come to a very different conclusion from Mr. Chambers. I do not think that he is the final word on cameras.
Well he has tons of examples to show. I guess that he shoots a lot at large apertures and tests the very best lenses. Anyway, problems with AF on Nikon and Canon are well documented. Myself, I am shooting Sony, and what I see is that LV is much more reliable than AF, but I mostly shoot at f/8 and that masks most AF errors.

I obviously cannot say about system I have not used, only report findings by others.

Check for instance this:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses

The latest generation of Canon lenses on latest generation Canon cameras seem to do very well.

Quote
Mr. Dubovoy has written some very dubious articles showing he may not be a great person to have a final word either. As far as image plane tolerance, it is not a problem with focal length, but f-number. Also, I have seen shimming videos and many do not shim to infinity, but something closer, so an operator could be convinced the shims are required.
I see your point.

Quote
Naturally, what is "perfect" focus in a 3-dimensional space. As pixel resolution goes up, an operator can be fooled into thinking that focusing tolerances are going up as well. Unfortunately, it is more complicated than that.
Hi, you mean focusing tolerances go down? Else it does not make sense.

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 02:58:02 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #226 on: March 08, 2013, 02:41:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for the samples. My Sony cameras have electronic viewfinders so I may have less problems with visibility of LV than you have. My old Sony Alpha did not have LV and that was the feature I felt I was lacking. I actually bought 3 cameras just because of LV.

The other observation I may have is that MF lenses can achieve short DoF at moderate apertures, most large aperture lenses have axial chromatic aberration, sometimes called LoCA or color bookeh. So smaller format lenses can give short DoF but color fringes is the price you pay. Zeiss has designed a new 55/1.4 Distagon that is free from color fringing at full aperture and they are very proud about it. http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/images/2013-0215-ZeissVideo.html

Best regards
Erik


I did not try to correct that (I find interesting that the H3D gives better results automatically) and it would not have been easy anyway (I could barely see the D800 screen under the sun, so manual focussing using live view would have been tricky). There is probably also a teaching in that.  Wink
On the tree, both cameras focussed on the same point (the lens cap).


Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #227 on: March 08, 2013, 02:53:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, you mean focusing tolerances go down? Else it does not make sense.

Best regards
Erik
Yes, down.
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #228 on: March 08, 2013, 03:01:42 PM »
ReplyReply

My Sony cameras have electronic viewfinders

Electronic viewfinders are what made me leave Sony after 26 years (starting with Minolta) and buy a D800.

The other observation I may have is that MF lenses can achieve short DoF at moderate apertures, most large aperture lenses have axial chromatic aberration, sometimes called LoCA or color bokeh. So smaller format lenses can give short DoF but color fringes is the price you pay. Zeiss has designed a new 55/1.4 Distagon that is free from color fringing at full aperture and they are very proud about it.

Indeed. People don't realise how important longitudinal chromatic aberration is (and spherical aberration as well). I wonder how the soon to be released SAL-50F14Z will compare to the 55 f/1.4 Distagon, BTW.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #229 on: March 08, 2013, 03:23:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The electronic viewfinder is a mixed bag. I like the live view, also virtual horizon and live histogram. But in bright light it is to dark.

Regarding the SAL 50/1.4 ZA I guess it is an old design, while the 55/1.4 is a Distagon design. It may be extra smart, today's sensors may not be able to handle light rays at high angles, so much of the large aperture is wasted: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

I tested a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4 I bought on Tradera (Swedish E-Bay) and it was very good except for flare and ghosting, I have also a Planar 120/4 incoming. The Sonnar 150/4 was about the Zeiss lens for Hassy according to Zeiss MTF graphs, the 180 being even better but I wanted a smaller one. The Planar 120/4 doesn't really impress in the MTF graphs at infinity but pretty good at close up 1:5, interesting to see what I will find. Those lenses can be bought very cheap.

Best regards
Erik

Electronic viewfinders are what made me leave Sony after 26 years (starting with Minolta) and buy a D800.

Indeed. People don't realise how important longitudinal chromatic aberration is (and spherical aberration as well). I wonder how the soon to be released SAL-50F14Z will compare to the 55 f/1.4 Distagon, BTW.
Logged

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

Posts: 414



WWW
« Reply #230 on: March 08, 2013, 03:41:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html

"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.

DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.

But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.

There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "

and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......

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: 7255


WWW
« Reply #231 on: March 08, 2013, 04:21:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Stefan,

The future is bright, but it is not here, yet.

Thanks for the link.

Best regards
Erik


Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html

"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.

DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.

But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.

There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "

and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......

Regards
Stefan
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 04:24:15 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1649



WWW
« Reply #232 on: March 08, 2013, 04:26:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh and for your information when I photographer Mr Bieber it was with a Canon.
Also why do you have it in for Bieber. He's a really nice kid, bloody hard worker and
entertains millions.

Bieber attacks A list celeb photographer with a canon ;-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/celebrity-news-video/9918848/Justin-Bieber-lashes-out-at-camerman.html
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #233 on: March 08, 2013, 05:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html

"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.

DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.

But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.

There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "

and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......

Regards
Stefan

Did anyone mention that photography is light dependent and light happens to be a particle and wavelength? And I really hope the price of storage and processing power goes down because you are getting huge files that really don't reflect the increase in quality.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #234 on: March 08, 2013, 06:09:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Price of storage and processing power is going down much faster than file sizes are going up, so file sizes are not really a concern of mine. I just upgraded from striped 2 Tbyte disks to single 4 Tbyte disks.

Best regards
Erik

Did anyone mention that photography is light dependent and light happens to be a particle and wavelength? And I really hope the price of storage and processing power goes down because you are getting huge files that really don't reflect the increase in quality.
Logged

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

Posts: 414



WWW
« Reply #235 on: March 08, 2013, 06:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Im sometimes really astonished how firm beliefs in "superiority of gear" are.
I really care not much about technology, the only interest I have is in the resulting image.
The way I get there are secondary........ if even that.

And if something is for certain: things change.

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
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #236 on: March 08, 2013, 10:59:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Im sometimes really astonished how firm beliefs in "superiority of gear" are.
I really care not much about technology, the only interest I have is in the resulting image.
The way I get there are secondary........ if even that.

And if something is for certain: things change.

Regards
Stefan

Huh Are you implying that other here are not interested in the image also?

You do understand as pixel pitch is reduced and the optics try to compensate for the increase in resolution, contrast falls--you can't maintain the amplitude of the frequency as the frequency increases. Pixels need photons and as the pixel size goes down, the few photons they intersect.

But from your same argument the technology does not matter, then change can be irrelevant. One thing I do know, the skill of the photographer will always be a greater factor in whether and image is successful than any technology that can be introduced.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #237 on: March 09, 2013, 12:28:22 AM »
ReplyReply


These types of Paparazzi are the scum of the earth..... I see them in Malibu quite often.
Actually there needs to be a new name for this video Paparazzi. They mob people even if they are out with their kids.

The Papparazzi of the past were another breed. They had taste and generally received smiles or theatrical pranks.

A while ago on a dangerous downhill road a so called paparazzi  was so damn intent of getting photos of Beibers car, even though Beiber was not there
that when asked to leave by a cop he ran straight for his car probably to grab a longer lens and hit by a passing car. The guy had even parked in a very dangerous place where it is illegal to park right on a blind corner. While it is unfortunate that he was killed he could have caused an even worse accident.

Anyway they are not all the same. The other day I was kitesurfing and a famous actor showed up to surf too.
Some paparazzi shoved kiters out of the way and did the same to the surfers. A couple of surfers put and end to that.
A little later another Paparazzi showed up and waved from way up on the bluff. The actor gave him a greeting wave and smile.
The guy shot his stuff without shoving his camera in anyone's face. The actors kids showed up and the Paparazzi kindly said Ciao.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #238 on: March 09, 2013, 12:31:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

If you reduce size, DoF will increase at comparable apertures and FoV. So larger apertures could be used and the lens can be optimized for those apertures. Some 4/3 lenses are very good, just to mention an example.

Now, as you point out elsewhere, light comes in quanta, called photons and the finiteness of their number and the number of photons a sensor can hold sets a limit to noise. Smaller sensors get noisier than larger sensors of equivalent design.

Stefan has one of those Nokia cell phones with 41 MP and Zeiss lens, here is some insight from that lens:
http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/03/05/nokia-808-pureview-carl-zeiss-science-of-making-the-perfect-lens/

My understanding is that it's five elements , all aspheric, using high refraction glass and probably also AD glass. The small size means that very expensive glass can be used. Also they can probably use molded or hybride aspherics for all elements. So small size makes it possible to use best available technologies.

Another thing is that new technology is first included in small sensor camera. A new technology is BSI (Back Side Illumination) that puts wiring and gates behind the silicon catching the photons. I don't know if it increase Full Well Capacity, though. An increase in FWC would be helpful with noise.

Best regards
Erik



Huh Are you implying that other here are not interested in the image also?

You do understand as pixel pitch is reduced and the optics try to compensate for the increase in resolution, contrast falls--you can't maintain the amplitude of the frequency as the frequency increases. Pixels need photons and as the pixel size goes down, the few photons they intersect.

But from your same argument the technology does not matter, then change can be irrelevant. One thing I do know, the skill of the photographer will always be a greater factor in whether and image is successful than any technology that can be introduced.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #239 on: March 09, 2013, 02:53:20 AM »
ReplyReply





That Bierber reacted as he did wasn't surprising: he had a gang of gorillas around him creating a shield no sane person would seek to break. How brave said kid would be if he found himself alone is another matter, ego or no ego.

The really surprising thing in all of this is why anyone would care about the antics of a person wearing the crotch of his pants in the wrong place. I can see it endearing, as in a baby with a soiled nappy, but for a 'youth'? But, having said that, the really, really surprising thing is that anyone in the world gives a damn about any of those people to the extent it becomes rewarding to snap a snap.

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad