Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Downgrading my MF  (Read 13923 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7405


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2013, 01:55:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Marc has been very kind to share his experience. I looked into MFD before buying the P45+ and wrote an article about it: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts

Now, I have been shooting P45+ for three months and I still feel the above article stands correct.

My experience of the P45?

Was it a good investment? No!
Do I like it? Yes!
Do I get better image quality? Hmm...
Do I get better sharpness? Yes!
Do I get better DR? No!
Do I like it? Yes!
Would I do it again? Maybe!
Would I recommend it to a friend? I don't recommend things...

Best regards
Erik

I have a Canon 5DII, Nikon D800E and a Phase one IQ180/Cambo/Rodenstock Hr's
Go for the Nikon D800E and some first class lenses, I converted Leica R's to Nikkor mount and couldn't be happier!
Basically a MFDB in an SLR package!
Marc
Logged

pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2013, 06:51:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Well this has given me a lot to think about. It seems the Canon is not the best way to go, but rather a Sony A99 or Nikon D800e if I choose the DSLR. Personally I do really like the look of the Zeiss 24mm and 50mm lenses for Sony. Less sure about the EVF though.

It does also make me consider picking up an older Mamiya 45mm AF lens for the time being. Then I could upgrade the camera and lenses over time.

Or I pick up a Mamiya AFD II which does't seem all that expensive and a Phase One 80mm D lens. Adding the 45mm D later. Are there many improvements on the AFD II? Can mirror lockup be used in conjunction with the self timer? Does it have the same 30 second exposure limit of the AFD or is it upgraded to 60 minutes? I can't seem to find this info anywhere.

In all honesty what I want the most is a Hasselblad. The H3DII-31 is very attractively priced now and the Hasseblad lenses are easier for me to get. I love the H series camera bodies and feel the Hasseblad RAW files work beautifully in Lightroom.

The only thing holding me back on this is the complete lack of long exposure capability. It seems it can't even do a good 30 second exposure.

At the moment I've been shooting a personal seascape project. It's made good use of the long exposure capability of the P25+. (These are only quick drafts from exported JPEGS)








« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 07:05:47 PM by pjtn » Logged
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2013, 07:39:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Computer screens are around 100 DPI, so a 24 MP image on screen corresponds to a 100x150 cm print viewed from a close distance. So the difference you see is what you would see in a very large print viewed at close distance.

So if I wan't to compare a rough approximation to a print between the two cameras, I should resize to 60cm x 80/90cm, at 100ppi, and view at 100%?

If I do that, the difference between the two is extremely minimal when it comes to detail and sharpness. The 'look' and colours are very clearly different of course.
Logged
Paul Ozzello
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197



WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2013, 09:06:01 PM »
ReplyReply

So if I wan't to compare a rough approximation to a print between the two cameras, I should resize to 60cm x 80/90cm, at 100ppi, and view at 100%?

If I do that, the difference between the two is extremely minimal when it comes to detail and sharpness. The 'look' and colours are very clearly different of course.

A good way to setup up Photoshop to give you an accurate representation of print size is :

 - Determine the the ppi of your screen by dividing the width or height (use a ruler) of the screen by the corresponding resolution.
 - Determine the the ppi of your screen by dividing the screen resolution (for example width:1900 pixels) by the physical width of the screen (15 inches), gives 126 ppi.
 - In Photoshop enter this value under Preferences => Units & Rulers => screen resolution.
 - Set the image size and print resolution under Image => Image Size
 - With the zoom tool right click and choose Print Size

Paul
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 09:00:06 AM by Paul Ozzello » Logged

pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2013, 09:37:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks a lot Paul!

The sony looks quite good at 60cm tall. But of course the P45+ looks better. Not just in sharpness and detail, but somehow a bit more vibrant.

Of course I don't have a P45+ though. Looking at these images I can see quite how bad the aliasing is on my camera.
Logged
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1077


« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2013, 10:09:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I am currently using a Nikon d800. It produces a sharp file. The camera is a monster when it comes to capturing detail in the shadows--it never ceases to impress me. The files hold up well in heavy post. What I don't like about the d800 is the inelegant luminance response from about 200 up to 254. It's not subtle. The Sony a850 did a better job with highlights. As far as color, nothing beat the CF39-MS Hassey back that I've used. Those files are extraordinarily robust. The drawback with any MFDB system is the auto focus is not nearly as sophisticated, live focus is for tethered shooting in the studio (maybe the new Phase offerings manage okay in the field), forget about using an ISO setting two stops over base (the smaller sensor backs with micro lenses might stretch to 2.5 stops), and the lenses are expensive--especially when you head down the tech camera path using electronic shutters. But there is a certain look that a seven or eight-year old MFDB CCD chip offers. The midtones, highlights, rolloff, and color are better. The difference in sharpness between a P45+ and a Nikon d800 is moot. In fact, I've found that my pro Nikon lenses are far better than say the Hasselblad HC35, HC50 I, or either of the Mamiya 35mm AF or MF versions. The old Mamiya 50mm shift lens is pretty cool. The Mamiya 45 AF (non D) version is okay.

Every choice has it's pros and cons. For me, I need the versatility that a 35mm digital SLR offers. I've gone down the MFDB road before and love revisiting some of the files those systems produced--stuff that would not be possible with a 35mm dSLR (especially fine art reproduction). A very nice inexpensive camera that compares favorably to the old Aptus 22 back is the Sony a850. The full frame Sony is a great 24 MP camera, it has better than average dynamic range, terrific IQ, and the Zeiss glass is beautiful. It exhibits a smoother range of gradations in the highlights than the Nikon d800. The problem with the Alpha system is the lack of choices regarding lenses. The Zeiss 24-70 is special, and I've heard good things about the 16-35. I dropped Sony when it introduced the a99. That camera did not appeal to me on any level. I'll bet the image quality is about par with the a850 and a900 without the gorgeous optical finder. One nice thing about the a99 is that it has a very good live view capability whereas the previous FF Alphas didn't have live view.

As for Nikon lenses, the 14-24mm is in a class all of its own, especially in the studio where you are able to control lighting. The 24-70 f/2.8 is comparable to the Zeiss (the Nikon renders better sharpness along the far edges of the frame and the ACR lens profile corrects distortion and CA with a mere click), the Nikon 60mm macro lens is spectacular (far superior to the Sony), and the 70-200 f/4 VR is lightweight, portable, and optically superb; the AF is not zippy. I'd be curious to check out the new Nikon d610. My guess is that the tonal curve in the highlights is more nuanced than the d800.  

Doug Peterson offers sound advice: test out a range of systems to see what works best for you. It's worth budgeting up to $1,000 to do that, because once you commit to a system, $1K is trivial.

« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 10:46:42 PM by BobDavid » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4026



« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2013, 08:07:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Well this has given me a lot to think about. It seems the Canon is not the best way to go, but rather a Sony A99 or Nikon D800e if I choose the DSLR. Personally I do really like the look of the Zeiss 24mm and 50mm lenses for Sony. Less sure about the EVF though.

It does also make me consider picking up an older Mamiya 45mm AF lens for the time being. Then I could upgrade the camera and lenses over time.

Or I pick up a Mamiya AFD II which does't seem all that expensive and a Phase One 80mm D lens. Adding the 45mm D later. Are there many improvements on the AFD II? Can mirror lockup be used in conjunction with the self timer? Does it have the same 30 second exposure limit of the AFD or is it upgraded to 60 minutes? I can't seem to find this info anywhere.

In all honesty what I want the most is a Hasselblad. The H3DII-31 is very attractively priced now and the Hasseblad lenses are easier for me to get. I love the H series camera bodies and feel the Hasseblad RAW files work beautifully in Lightroom.

The only thing holding me back on this is the complete lack of long exposure capability. It seems it can't even do a good 30 second exposure.

At the moment I've been shooting a personal seascape project. It's made good use of the long exposure capability of the P25+. (These are only quick drafts from exported JPEGS)


The Mamiya AFDII body is a piece of s... , and I don't think the next ones are much better, although the Phase backs are superb at base ISO. The Mamiyas of that generation were doubtless good film bodies, but are not really designed for digital tolerances. My impression is the only decent *body* in current production and general use is the Hassy, although the zombified Contax and life-support Hy6 have a good rep, somehow they are disappearing from view. The good news is that older Hassies are fairly cheap.

As dSLRs go, the sensor structure determines rez, but the CFA is what determines color quality. The Sony Alpha 900 and 850 had a very good reputation in this respect.

Edmund

Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2013, 08:41:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the issue is any manufacturing tolerences such that a MFDB's sensor is too far from the film plane.  That was never a problem with the Mamiya AFd I and II.  I had bunches of them over teh years.  The issue with that series of cameras is that the digital interface and the hardware that runs it is very, very slow, at least for shooting people.  The shutter lag drove me nuts unless I was in a studio using it like a view camera.  The Aptus 22/75 and Phase P25/45 were slow backs by todays standards, and they were faster than the Mamiya didgital interface in the AFd1 and 2.  And you are spot on in writing that the AFD 1 and 2 were great film cameras.  They really are.

The H1 and 2 were much faster but the shutter shock was a bitch.  So it was a trade off:  a laggy Mamiya system or a faster H system but with shutter shake.  Solution:  DSLR for available light.  I never used, extensively, an H3 or better, and I never used an H with the mirror delay, so I can't comment.

the seascapes are mighty nice.

The Mamiyas of that generation were doubtless good film bodies, but are not really designed for digital tolerances.
Logged
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 460


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2013, 09:09:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the issue is any manufacturing tolerences such that a MFDB's sensor is too far from the film plane.  That was never a problem with the Mamiya AFd I and II.  I had bunches of them over teh years.  The issue with that series of cameras is that the digital interface and the hardware that runs it is very, very slow, at least for shooting people.  The shutter lag drove me nuts unless I was in a studio using it like a view camera.  The Aptus 22/75 and Phase P25/45 were slow backs by todays standards, and they were faster than the Mamiya didgital interface in the AFd1 and 2.  And you are spot on in writing that the AFD 1 and 2 were great film cameras.  They really are.

The H1 and 2 were much faster but the shutter shock was a bitch.  So it was a trade off:  a laggy Mamiya system or a faster H system but with shutter shake.  Solution:  DSLR for available light.  I never used, extensively, an H3 or better, and I never used an H with the mirror delay, so I can't comment.

the seascapes are mighty nice.


I read somewhere that PhaseOne is developing a new camera platform. It will retain compatibility with the mamiya lenses but it will be supposedly a new camera not just a refresh of the Mamiya 645.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4026



« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2013, 03:43:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I read somewhere that PhaseOne is developing a new camera platform. It will retain compatibility with the mamiya lenses but it will be supposedly a new camera not just a refresh of the Mamiya 645.

That rumor has a long beard. Maybe someone will finally send Seal Team 7 to take out the Mamiya AFD* production line once and for all Smiley
That camera is giving the otherwise excellent Phase backs lenses and software a bad rep.

Edmund
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7405


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2013, 03:50:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Yes, I heard that, too. I think it is pretty official. I also have the impression we may see some new sensors. Unfortunately I think new Phase One MFDBs are beyond my pay grade.

What I have noticed is that good photographers praise vintage sensors like P25. The later generation sensors are better, at least according to DxO who make scientific (that is reproducible) tests. It also seems that owners of D800/D800E are quite happy. I do not have experience with Nikon, just Sony Alpha 900, Alpha 99 and P45+, but according what I have read and seen it should be an interesting alternative.

Best regards
Erik


I read somewhere that PhaseOne is developing a new camera platform. It will retain compatibility with the mamiya lenses but it will be supposedly a new camera not just a refresh of the Mamiya 645.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4026



« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2013, 06:25:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I think a lot of people would benefit from using better software. Phase One's C1 can be really good, and also Canon's free DPP. Freeware RPP is also top-grade if you can live with its user interface.

In my experience, using better software is as good as a camera upgrade. Sadly, Lightroom is more of a one-size fits all with superb workflow than a tool that can really get the best out of every camera.

Edmund

Hi,

Yes, I heard that, too. I think it is pretty official. I also have the impression we may see some new sensors. Unfortunately I think new Phase One MFDBs are beyond my pay grade.

What I have noticed is that good photographers praise vintage sensors like P25. The later generation sensors are better, at least according to DxO who make scientific (that is reproducible) tests. It also seems that owners of D800/D800E are quite happy. I do not have experience with Nikon, just Sony Alpha 900, Alpha 99 and P45+, but according what I have read and seen it should be an interesting alternative.

Best regards
Erik


Logged
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 460


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2013, 07:05:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I think a lot of people would benefit from using better software. Phase One's C1 can be really good, and also Canon's free DPP. Freeware RPP is also top-grade if you can live with its user interface.

In my experience, using better software is as good as a camera upgrade. Sadly, Lightroom is more of a one-size fits all with superb workflow than a tool that can really get the best out of every camera.

Edmund


To get the best out of every camera you need something like THIS , we have one here where I work with THIS and they use it looking at THIS

I can take an image of the setup tomorrow.


Every software that process digital camera files needs to do THIS every single time and the algorithms vary. I mean you can push and pull sliders and settings in the software all over but deep down the algorithms and the programming is whats in there doing work. Those differ from software to software obviously.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 07:09:26 PM by Ken R » Logged
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2013, 09:25:16 PM »
ReplyReply

If it's possible for anyone to shoot a 30 second exposure on a Hasselblad H3DII-31 and send me the original file I would be very grateful. If the noise was within reason it wouldn't be a problem for me to stack multiple 30 second exposures to achieve an even longer exposure effect. That's how I did the seascapes above.
Logged
Bernd B.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2013, 06:52:45 AM »
ReplyReply

The H1 and 2 were much faster but the shutter shock was a bitch.  So it was a trade off:  a laggy Mamiya system or a faster H system but with shutter shake.  Solution:  DSLR for available light.  I never used, extensively, an H3 or better, and I never used an H with the mirror delay, so I can't comment.

the seascapes are mighty nice.


You nailed the shortcomings of both the Hasselblad H and the Mamiya AFD-PhaseOne DF.

But there is no shutter shock in the H. There never was one. The effect comes exclusively from the mirror slap.

Setting the mirror delay to 200ms (=0,2sec.) helps, but is very irritating when taking pictures of people. You miss the good moment.

But anyway, imho the H is a much better camera than the Mamiya AFD or the Phase DF. The biggest limit (finally the killing off reason) is the optical quality of the prism finder. It cannot be overcome by any superbright focussing screen, no matter what Phase reps tell you. There is too much information/sharpness lost in the optical path of the prism. There should be a complete redesign, which would make the camera bigger.

But I wished, there was a complete redesign of the Hasselblad H body, too, with the mirror slap eliminated.

Bernd
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 07:02:13 AM by Bernd B. » Logged
Bernd B.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2013, 07:01:51 AM »
ReplyReply

pjtn, what is your name ?

To keep it simple and to keep your money, buy a Mamiya AF 45mm and keep your P25+. You will even have money left for a Mamiya 35mm. When Phase really introduces a completely new body next year, go for one or buy an AF-DIII used for 800,- USD, then.

I have a D800 and a H3D39. Whilst my D800 is fantastic, pictures can never ever match the quality of the Hasselblad.

What is said here one highlight sensitivity of the D800 is also my personal experience. Never overexpose a picture. A digital back is much more robust concerning overexposure.

Just my opinion,

Bernd
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4026



« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2013, 08:34:02 AM »
ReplyReply

pjtn, what is your name ?

To keep it simple and to keep your money, buy a Mamiya AF 45mm and keep your P25+. You will even have money left for a Mamiya 35mm. When Phase really introduces a completely new body next year, go for one or buy an AF-DIII used for 800,- USD, then.

I have a D800 and a H3D39. Whilst my D800 is fantastic, pictures can never ever match the quality of the Hasselblad.

What is said here one highlight sensitivity of the D800 is also my personal experience. Never overexpose a picture. A digital back is much more robust concerning overexposure.

Just my opinion

Bernd

The story about a new Phase body just around the corner is a story which keeps getting told to customers, who then in reality get a new body eg DF. with some useful additions and the same base properties - no modern dSLR-like focus system, delay, mediocre finder, body tolerance possibly not matched to back within the few microns etc. I'll believe it when I see it. And by the way, yes I do think there is a reason why Hassy tune each body to each back, and why they have TrueFocus. Just like I do think that Phase's C1 is lightyears better than Lightroom when it comes to processing Phase files.

If you need a wide, just get an old Mamiya manual focus wide, there's a bunch of them out there really cheap. Or mount a Hasselblad V-mount 40 with a cheap chinese adapter. I used a Hassy 110mm F2 portrait lens on my Phamiya and the bokeh was the best I've ever seen.

Frankly, the ideal world would probably be an integrated Hassy body with Phase back and Leica lenses and Phase software - and in fact the Rollei Hy6 was pretty close to that with a modern body, Leaf back and german lenses. Which I guess is why Phase management killed it to keep the cheaper system to sell at a higher profit.

Edmund


« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 08:39:07 AM by eronald » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7966



WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2013, 08:56:43 AM »
ReplyReply

pjtn, what is your name ?

To keep it simple and to keep your money, buy a Mamiya AF 45mm and keep your P25+. You will even have money left for a Mamiya 35mm. When Phase really introduces a completely new body next year, go for one or buy an AF-DIII used for 800,- USD, then.

I have a D800 and a H3D39. Whilst my D800 is fantastic, pictures can never ever match the quality of the Hasselblad.

What is said here one highlight sensitivity of the D800 is also my personal experience. Never overexpose a picture. A digital back is much more robust concerning overexposure.

The only reason why this is true is because phaseone backs are calibrated to underexpose one stop at base ISO. The CCDs used by backs behave the same way as the CMOS of the D800, they are linear up to saturation. Hightlight headroom does not exist when true ETTR is applied.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4026



« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2013, 09:04:54 AM »
ReplyReply

The only reason why this is true is because phaseone backs are calibrated to underexpose one stop at base ISO. The CCDs used by backs behave the same way as the CMOS of the D800, they are linear up to saturation. Hightlight headroom does not exist when true ETTR is applied.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard,

 CMOS chips now use antiblooming circuits to create a shoulder.

Edmund
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 545


« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2013, 02:09:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I wished, there was a complete redesign of the Hasselblad H body, too, with the mirror slap eliminated.

There again, I don't get what the problem is about. The mirror of H cameras maybe noisy, but it is well damped. By direct comparison with a D800, the slap does not appear to be much stronger, even if the mirror is about twice as large. Then, of course, the camera has more inertia...
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad