Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MF Digital newbie needs a little help please  (Read 10028 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 08, 2013, 10:15:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I am surprised about the P30+ EXIF saying bits per sample saying 8 8 8, but I just wouldn't care.

The approach you take to exposure is reasonable in my view.

Anders Torger made a good comparison of an older MF back, a Canon 5DII and a Nikon D7000. He has images to show.
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/photography/noise-test.html

Best way to find out is to do a practical test.

Best regards
Erik


Hi, sorry to get off track here. I am looking at a few raw files from a p30+ back. I have loaded them in raw digger and this time get the horizontal showing approx 60000. However when i go to the exif under bits ber sampel it says 8 8 8 ... wondering what this means and why not 16.

TO some of the most recent comments, i do apologise as i am not as technically learned in sensor technology and breaking it down. FOr my images, DR is important, thought i would say this means in the application of post processing. i.e. what can i get back from the raw files. With my 5d2, i expose way to the right, sometimes a little to far just because if it is a large DR scene i know the shadows will be gone if not. One of the qualities i am looking for is tonal smoothness in the highlights, as well as recoverable shadows, though highlight tonal graduation or smoothness (what ever you want to call it) is something of importance to me.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 11:39:56 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #61 on: April 08, 2013, 10:49:41 PM »
ReplyReply

What I was trying to say but was not understood is that, in photographic practice (as opposed to internet tests), it is much easier for me to get smoother highlights on my H3D than my D800. The reason is not that the DR of the sensor itself is higher (it is sufficient for both cameras), but that the camera meters are calibrated differently (I already adjusted the D800 meter down) and that Phocus is optimized for that task. Nikon apparently chose to optimize their cameras for better low light performance, it is an area they compete for.

Thew D800 offers a +/- 1 stop optimal exposure fine tuning in the setup menu independently for the three exposure metering methods.. Matrix, Center weighted and Spot.
On top of that there is a 5 stop exposure compensation that cam be done while shooting outside of the menu. This is a total of 6 stops adjustment and should cover any compensation you need to move exposures to the left or right of the histogram.

In theory, we should expose to the right. In practice, as opposed to theory, we tend to oversaturate a small range of pixels by doing so and don't notice them as they are too few to show on the histogram. These are the values needed for the smooth high tones that the O.P. is seeking.

It can be easy to miss a a small area of pixels that are oversaturate (clipped). However there is a handy way to check on the D800.
Review the photo on the LCD and display the histogram. Then zooming in on the image the histogram is calculated only on the zoomed in image
and it animates in real time as you move around on the image. I use this function a lot when shooting makeup with glossy or metalic eyeshadows.
It's great for any shots where there are small hotspots that you don't want to clip.
When the histogram is calculated for the zoomed in image the small areas become much more evident on the histogram.

Also if you go into highlight clipping warning mode (the one that flashes on and off) even the smallest clipping will be shown.   
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 11:21:14 PM by FredBGG » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 09, 2013, 12:00:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

A larger sensor has a small advantage in several respects. Potentially, that is correctly exposed to the right at base ISO a larger sensor will collect more photons and that will give smoother mid tones.

Regarding the 3D effect, it's often talked about but seldom obvious what is meant.

- It often means short DoF.  Focal lengths on MF are longer and that helps in that area. Smaller formats can use larger apertures but often run in problems with magenta/green fringes in slightly out of focus areas. MF lenses are often limited to f/2.8 and at that aperture the problems are much reduced.

- It may also mean microcontrast, the conrast between two adjoint pixels.  This would be higher on an MF lens of similar quality compared to 135.

- MF cameras don't have OLP-filtering. OLP-filtering is intended to reduce microcontrast in order to avoid aliasing (fake detail) and Moiré. Nikon D800E has a n OLP filter that is disabled.

- Zeiss lenses are said have a 3D look. I'm somewhat skeptical, having two Zeiss zooms for my Sony Alpha and also trying to use two older Hasselblad lenses (a Sonnar 150/4 and a Macro Planar 120/4). That said, the Hasselblad lenses are very good, impressive performance even on a 24MP APS-C DSLR.

A thread on DR: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=76997.0

Best regards
Erik

All those reviews do look good for the D800e, however it seems to be (and for some reason it really isnt picked up in these reviews) that the tonal grautions and "3d feel" is hugely apparent in the MF backs
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 12:08:40 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 09, 2013, 12:17:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

HDR may be helpful while you try to decide where to go. In the enclosed pair of images the left one is a HDR from three exposures and the right one from a single DNG image.

The cropped part shows that there is significant noise in the darks of the DNG image while the HDR holds good detail.

I make HDR using "Merge to HDR Pro" in Photoshop CS5, but save the image as a 32 bit TIFF and do tone mapping in Lightroom.

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 12:19:12 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

alosurdo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #64 on: April 09, 2013, 01:40:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks ERIK, im trying to stay away from HDR. In your 100% crop, there seems to be some serious artificating/banding in the sky towards the clouds and sun
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #65 on: April 09, 2013, 03:11:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Yes indeed, I prefer the DNG. Shooting into the sun is a major problem for digital, I don't think we get resolved for a long time. But, are you in need of eztended DR combining multiple exposures is a workable option.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 656


« Reply #66 on: April 09, 2013, 04:24:51 AM »
ReplyReply

- Zeiss lenses are said have a 3D look. I'm somewhat skeptical, having two Zeiss zooms for my Sony Alpha

You have a Sony Alpha camera and Zeiss lenses and you did not notice that the rendering is very different between these Zeiss lenses and older Minolta Lenses?  Huh
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 09, 2013, 05:51:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I mostly use medium apertures, never shoot wide open essentially. What I have found:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/74-zeiss-macro-planar-120-on-sony-alpha-99-with-an-arax-tilt-adapter
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/73-sonnar-150-cb-on-dslr-using-arax-tilt-adapter
(I found out the cause of flare on the Sonnar 150/4, I will update that article)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/72-zeissness


I have:

---- Often used in recent time ----
SAL 16-80/3.5-4.5ZA
SAL 24-70/2.7 ZA

SAL 70-400/4-5.6G
SAL 70-300/3.5-4.5G

Minolta 80-200/2.8G APO (black)
Minolta 100/2.8 Macro
Minolta 400/4.5G APO

---- Newly acquired ----

Hasselblad Zeiss Sonnar 150/4
Hasselblad Zeiss Macro Planar 120/4


---- Seldom used in recent times ----
Minolta 300/4G APO
Minolta 50/1.4
Minolta 20/2.8

I have obviously not tested each lens against each other lens but I don't see a lot of typical differences. The new Sony lenses have circular apertures and that shows in bo
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 06:01:47 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 656


« Reply #68 on: April 09, 2013, 06:37:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know what to say. The difference of rendering between the Zeiss and Minolta lenses is one of the major points of the Sony system. I can't use the CZ 24-70 and the 70-200G in the same shooting without noticing directly which pictures have been taken with which lens (and in that case it is a limitation). I own some lenses in pairs, for example the two 85mm f/1.4 or the 135 f/1.8 and the 135 STF, because I will chose one or the other depending on the subject.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #69 on: April 09, 2013, 10:31:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Two images one with the 80-200/2.8 other using the  24-70/2.8 ZA .





And here are two crops taken with a Zeiss macro Planar 120/4 and Sony SAL 70-400/4.5-5.6G



Image 1: Top Minolta 80-200/2.8 bottom SAL 24-70/2.8.

Image 2: Top SAL 24-70/2.8 bottom Hasselblad Macro Planar 120/4

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 10:38:00 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #70 on: April 09, 2013, 07:30:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is an interesting comparisson between an A900 with a Minolta Zoom vs a Hasselblad H 31 and a 150 prime.

http://www.dboyd.com/Photos_08/HasselbladvsSony/test@150mmvsBeercan/test.htm
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #71 on: April 09, 2013, 09:49:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks ERIK, im trying to stay away from HDR. In your 100% crop, there seems to be some serious artificating/banding in the sky towards the clouds and sun

There are some times where a couple of exposures used in subtle HDR can be very useful as well as VR II stabalization for hand held HDR.

Just a snapshot on a night hike with the dogs. High ISO, 24-85mm. Three shots used. 2 for the main image and 1 for the moon exposure.
No tripod exposures 1/8th and 1/4s or there abouts. The Image stabalization helped keep the two shots aligned. two out of 4 tries remained aligned.


Night Sky Over Cold Canyon
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 09:51:37 PM by FredBGG » Logged
alosurdo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #72 on: April 09, 2013, 10:34:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for everyones assistance.

I have decided to go for the Phase One 645DF and P30+ Back.

It should be arriving any day, hopefully i will be pretty happy thought all signs point to yes so far.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #73 on: April 09, 2013, 10:39:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I hope you find great satisfaction and that you share your experience!

Best regards
Erik


Thank you for everyones assistance.

I have decided to go for the Phase One 645DF and P30+ Back.

It should be arriving any day, hopefully i will be pretty happy thought all signs point to yes so far.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #74 on: April 10, 2013, 11:53:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Good stuff!

Best regards
Erik

There are some times where a couple of exposures used in subtle HDR can be very useful as well as VR II stabalization for hand held HDR.

Just a snapshot on a night hike with the dogs. High ISO, 24-85mm. Three shots used. 2 for the main image and 1 for the moon exposure.
No tripod exposures 1/8th and 1/4s or there abouts. The Image stabalization helped keep the two shots aligned. two out of 4 tries remained aligned.


Night Sky Over Cold Canyon
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad