Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Some more P45+ samples (in raw)  (Read 4475 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7251


WWW
« on: September 10, 2013, 01:22:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I posted some more images here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples3/

The images below are two pairs of roughly comparable outdoor shots with Hasselblad V and Sony Alpha 99:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/

All images are available as full size JPEG and raw and are mostly intended for those interested about finding out about MFD image quality.

Best regards
Erik

Logged

pedro39photo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2013, 04:09:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Erik, we love pixel peeping !!!
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2013, 06:07:21 PM »
ReplyReply

+1
Thanks
Eduardo

Thanks Erik, we love pixel peeping !!!
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2013, 12:24:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

MFDB_vs_DSLR2 page updated with a new pair of images (aspen with autumn leaves):

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
Logged

Paul Ozzello
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2013, 11:24:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

MFDB_vs_DSLR2 page updated with a new pair of images (aspen with autumn leaves):

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

I think your comparisons would work better as animated gifs Wink

Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2013, 02:28:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't know. GIFs use pseudocolor but no JPEG-type compression, so they are good to compare sharpness but not color.

The idea is that anyone interested can download the raw images and make their own opinion. Even a used P45+ is not exactly cheap, you get something like 2-3 Nikon D800E for the price, so getting some images to play with can be quite useful. I made two prints of crops corresponding to about a 70x100cm prints and it was not a lot of difference between my Sony Alpha 99 and my Hasselblad V series with the P45+. OK, I can tell them apart, the P45+ is a tiny bit sharper viewed at 25cm. Greens are a bit more yellow on the P45+. Much less difference than I would have expected from pixel peeping.

Best regards
Erik



I think your comparisons would work better as animated gifs Wink


Logged

uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2013, 03:25:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik, this is one degree away to be comical. Thanks for the files and comments. Very helpful. You don't know how much good you do to my soul.
Eduardo

Hi,

"the P45+ is a tiny bit sharper viewed at 25cm."
Best regards
Erik



Logged
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2013, 04:56:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, I downloaded the images and looked at the iiq files in C1Pro7 and all files on LR5.

The P45+ files do look softer. I think lens diffraction is in play. Did you shoot at f16? Either that or the lens quality and focusing is not up to snuff.

I could see for a fact that on the P45+ shot with the high peaks in the background and the wooden shack in the foreground the lens was focused on the foreground grass and flowers. That made everything else behind that much softer. On the Sony shot everything is more in focus. Also on the P45+ shot the light changed and all the foreground is in shadow (which could be brought up easily) and in the sony shot that same area is perfectly lit. That makes a huge difference.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5527



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2013, 05:10:07 PM »
ReplyReply


... I could see for a fact that on the P45+ shot with the high peaks in the background and the wooden shack in the foreground the lens was focused on the foreground grass and flowers. That made everything else behind that much softer. On the Sony shot everything is more in focus...

Probably DOF difference between formats, not focusing issue.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5527



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2013, 05:17:28 PM »
ReplyReply

... mostly intended for those interested about finding out about MFD image quality.

Erik, I think you are risking the fate of the guy who overheard medieval scholastic philosophers' attempts to determine, theoretically of course, the number of teeth in a horse, and dared to suggest to just open the horse's mouth and count. They beat the crap out of him for being so unsophisticated. Challenging dogmas with empirical results is always a risky proposition Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2013, 10:22:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Well,

I guess a bit of both. DoF is limited with a 40 mm lens. I wanted the flower in the foreground to be sharp and have a decent depth of field. My focusing accuracy is not perfect, either.

You cannot have it all, sharp foreground and sharp background. If you stop down to much diffraction takes a bit of the sharpness. The lens I used was the Distagon 40/4 FLE (not the IF version) that seems to have a lot of field curvature.

I would suggest checking out sharpness on the flower in the foreground. Also keep in mind that the P45+ has a lot more pixels. You would need to upres the Alpha 99 image a bit to match the P45+.

I would say that testing for sharpness is best done in lab conditions, you can check the results and redo until satisfied. These samples are more ad hoc shots. Light is also changing.

Best regards
Erik


Probably DOF difference between formats, not focusing issue.
Logged

Paul Ozzello
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2013, 11:19:40 PM »
ReplyReply


If you stop down to much diffraction takes a bit of the sharpness.


I think you should do some further tests; the effects of diffraction are usually minimal compared to improper focus. Focus using the hyperfocal distance and stop down an extra 2 stops. From many years of experience shooting CF lenses diffraction has never been an issue. I recently spoke to a Hasselblad technician that seemed to think so as well stating that none of the CF lenses were ever diffraction limited.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2013, 12:10:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It is not about persuasion or challenging dogmas, but I have not seen a lot of raw images of MFD especially not comparable images. I like to share the experience, information and results I have.

My take really is that there is a significant advantage of 39 MP MFD over 24MP full frame digital, but I see it mostly as a resolution advantage. Looking at color and DR is another issue. I am pretty sure that my Sony Alpha 99 is more accurate in color rendition (on ColorChecker) but it may be that the P45+ has more pleasant color. Checking DR is complicated by the fact that the histogram on the P45+ is not very reliable while the Alpha 99 is pretty good, so P45+ tends to underexpose about one stop, but you never know. Capture 1 applies a "film curve" as default, so it brightens the image.

If the image is correctly exposed to the right the Alpha 99 given cleaner shadow detail than the P45+. Now, the Alpha 99 may be assisted by lens flare, I normally use it with zoom lenses which have many elements. The Sonnar 150/4 contains 5 elements in three groups while the 70-400/4-5.6 18 elements in 12 groups, many more air to glass surfaces in the latter.

It has been suggested that you rent equipment for a few days, and find out. I had the P45+ for three months now, and I have still not found out.

What I have seen so far is that the P45+ has a resolution advantage with the V-series Hasselblad. That advantage is quite visible under correct pixel peeping condition (resizing to common size and adequate sharpening) but I am not sure it is relevant in prints. Well, if you print large enough and view close enough it will certainly show.

The Hasselblad is fun to shoot but a bit slow. The Sony is more like a tool that does the job. More often than not I make just one exposure with the Sony, thanks live view and excellent exposure metering. I really mostly shoot from tripod, by the way.

Best regards
Erik




Erik, I think you are risking the fate of the guy who overheard medieval scholastic philosophers' attempts to determine, theoretically of course, the number of teeth in a horse, and dared to suggest to just open the horse's mouth and count. They beat the crap out of him for being so unsophisticated. Challenging dogmas with empirical results is always a risky proposition Wink
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2013, 03:25:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Regardless of what marketing would have us think, those resolutions are fairly similar to start with anyway.

If you need something significantly better, stitching is, and has been for years, the only option.  Wink

When the second hand betterlight back I purchased finally clears customs in Tokyo, I may do some comparisons with the D800 and stitches. I am pretty sure that the D800 will come on top from a pure image quality standpoint, but we will see.  Wink

I have managed to put together for a reasonable price a very nice portfolio of top notch second hand LF lenses in apparent like new condition (Schneider Super-Angulon 72mm f5.6 XL, Fujinon SWD 90mm f5.6, Rodenstock APO-Sironar Digital 150mm f5.6, Rodenstock APO-Sironar S 210mm f5.6 and Nikkor M 300mm f9). It will be interesting to see how they perform and whether focusing on my Ebony 45SU is accurate enough to be able to tap into their potential. As a side comment, all these lenses combined cost me only just a bit more than the price of a new Hassy HC 80mm f2.8 according to the new Hasselblasd price list (http://photorumors.com/2013/09/26/hasselblad-lens-price-increase-coming-on-october-1st/).  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 03:30:09 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2013, 03:31:48 AM »
ReplyReply


Hi,

I often stitch on the blad, not for resolution but for field of view...

Best regards
Erik

Regardless of what marketing would have us think, those resolutions are fairly similar to start with anyway.

If you need something significantly better, stitching is, and has been for years, the only option.  Wink

When the second hand betterlight back I purchased finally clears customs in Tokyo, I may do some comparisons with the D800 and stitches. I am pretty sure that the D800 will come on top from a pure image quality standpoint, but we will see.  Wink

I have managed to put together for a reasonable price a very nice portfolio of top notch second hand LF lenses in apparent like new condition (Schneider Super-Angulon 72mm f5.6 XL, Fujinon SWD 90mm f5.6, Rodenstock APO-Sironar Digital 150mm f5.6, Rodenstock APO-Sironar S 210mm f5.6 and Nikkor M 300mm f9). It will be interesting to see how they perform and whether focusing on my Ebony 45SU is accurate enough to be able to tap into their potential. As a side comment, all these lenses combined cost me only just a bit more than the price of a new Hassy HC 80mm f2.8 according to the new Hasselblasd price list (http://photorumors.com/2013/09/26/hasselblad-lens-price-increase-coming-on-october-1st/).  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2013, 06:14:59 AM »
ReplyReply


It has been suggested that you rent equipment for a few days, and find out. I had the P45+ for three months now, and I have still not found out.



Then that is how one knows it is close between those two in landscape situations no doubt about it. The Sony produces a very pleasing file indeed.

That is why I stretched out by budget a bit and went with the 60MP IQ160 and Arca/Rodenstock lenses. The first exposures confirmed that it destroys any DSLR I have used (that includes the D800E with zeiss glass and the 14-24mm and the Canon DSLRs with the best lenses also).

I think the P45+ shines in very long exposures from what I have seen and obviously in the studio. The PhaseOne/CaptureOne tethered workflow is also superb.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5527



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2013, 09:22:08 AM »
ReplyReply

.... The first exposures confirmed that it destroys any DSLR...

Care to demonstrate it for us?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2013, 12:46:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I cannot speak of IQ160 and Arca/Rodenstock vs. D800E, as I own neither. What I can see is that the P45+ is much better in resolution and microcontrast than my Sony Alpha 99. On the other hand, I completely fail to note the difference in say 30x40" prints (based on crops). I have found out some things I can recognise like better sharpness on edge detail, and yellowish greens on the P45+. So if I look for known factors I can tell them apart, but just looking at arbitrary detail I really can't.

The IQ160 has 60 MP and the Nikon D800E has 36, I would expect this difference to be clearly visible, at least with very good lenses. Going from 36 to 60 MP is a similar step as going from 24MP to 39MP, and the Rodenstock lenses are said to be very good (I presume we are discussing HR lenses). The question is of course if the extra resolution matters, but it will certainly not hurt!

The enclosed crops are from my Sony Alpha 99 / P45+ comparison, P45+ on the right. Very easy to see the difference, but I would say it is not very visible in 30"x40" prints.

Best regards
Erik


Then that is how one knows it is close between those two in landscape situations no doubt about it. The Sony produces a very pleasing file indeed.

That is why I stretched out by budget a bit and went with the 60MP IQ160 and Arca/Rodenstock lenses. The first exposures confirmed that it destroys any DSLR I have used (that includes the D800E with zeiss glass and the 14-24mm and the Canon DSLRs with the best lenses also).

I think the P45+ shines in very long exposures from what I have seen and obviously in the studio. The PhaseOne/CaptureOne tethered workflow is also superb.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 01:02:49 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1376


« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2013, 02:43:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Comparing resolution is fairly easy, in fact the only aspect of image quality that medium format is still undoubtly superior at. There are other more subtle factors but they are more debatable.

To me the creative process of using a tech camera (of the flexible kind) is more important than superior image quality, although adequate resolution for fairly large prints is still important to me. And if I did feel like the files from my 33 megapixel back and schneider digitar lenses would be significantly inferior to recent DSLR gear I'd probably stress for an upgrade although I don't really need it for my work, it's just the sickness of comparing with what "everyone else has got" which I'm not immune to :-). For now I'm pleased with the quality though.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 02:51:44 PM by torger » Logged
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2013, 06:33:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Comparing resolution is fairly easy, in fact the only aspect of image quality that medium format is still undoubtly superior at. There are other more subtle factors but they are more debatable.

To me the creative process of using a tech camera (of the flexible kind) is more important than superior image quality, although adequate resolution for fairly large prints is still important to me. And if I did feel like the files from my 33 megapixel back and schneider digitar lenses would be significantly inferior to recent DSLR gear I'd probably stress for an upgrade although I don't really need it for my work, it's just the sickness of comparing with what "everyone else has got" which I'm not immune to :-). For now I'm pleased with the quality though.

Yeah, in that crop example I see a difference too. Subtle but it is clearly there.

The Rodenstock HR lenses (I have the 40 and the 70) are really amazing and take the backs (I presume any back) to another level in regards to resolution edge to edge. Also like mentioned the technical cameras offer something different in regards to workflow in the field. The tilt capability helps a lot in getting the proper depth of field with the large medium format sensors. I have a lot of shots that would have been really mediocre had I used a medium format slr instead due to the limited depth of field. With the Arca I can use the lens at an optimum aperture, f8, and get very large depth of field by using tilt. This is a huge asset in Landscape and studio use. With the smaller medium format sensors like the one in the Leica S, the Pentax 645D and the P40/IQ140 it is not as necessary although it helps but with the larger sensors of the 50-60-80mp backs I honestly believe it is critical to have. I think that applies to the P45+ also.

I had not used medium format in basically ten years and back then it was with film (6x7) which I felt was a touch smoother in the depth of field transitions from focus to out of focus. (film grain helps). High resolution medium format digital sensors make it very obvious when focus and or technique is not perfect.

What I have found with my phase back is that im loving the tech camera workflow but I really like the color depth and malleability of the files. The shadow detail and color fidelity in the shadows is superb. I also love the fact that I can still make a great 30x40" print even when I significantly crop the image.

I now im looking for a printing solution that can fully do justice to those files. THIS looks like a good product 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad