PIXSurgeon
Veteran Member
...Never like in this shot of yours:
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/image/53563860/original
Enjoy!
--
TIP: If you do not like this post, simply press the 'COMPLAINT' button. Mommy/Daddy are just one click away.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
5D vs 22mpix Mimaya ZD medium format back
- Thread starter Zena Marx
- Start date
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/image/53563860/original
Enjoy!
--
TIP: If you do not like this post, simply press the 'COMPLAINT' button. Mommy/Daddy are just one click away.
sergey1968
Veteran Member
that was shot with lowly Nikon 
Seriously though, I do see your point - there is nothing forbidden in letting highlights go - but we are talking technicalities not content here. Actually this specific burmese shot was exposed for highlights more or less (except sun reflection on the golden pagoda) and I pushed highlights off in postprocessing trying to open shadows. I would probably do it differently now - in more gentle way.
But anyway lighting range in this shot was just huge comparing to what was demonstrated earlier as example of Mamiya advantage.
And yes - looking at this picture almost 2 years after it was taken I remember that intense burmese midday sun - it's like nothing here in temperate climes.
--
Sergey
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/
http://www.photo.net/photos/SergeyUshakov
Seriously though, I do see your point - there is nothing forbidden in letting highlights go - but we are talking technicalities not content here. Actually this specific burmese shot was exposed for highlights more or less (except sun reflection on the golden pagoda) and I pushed highlights off in postprocessing trying to open shadows. I would probably do it differently now - in more gentle way.
But anyway lighting range in this shot was just huge comparing to what was demonstrated earlier as example of Mamiya advantage.
And yes - looking at this picture almost 2 years after it was taken I remember that intense burmese midday sun - it's like nothing here in temperate climes.
--
Sergey
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/
http://www.photo.net/photos/SergeyUshakov
Ghozer
Veteran Member
I'm now lusting over it too! Lusting is a bad thing for my wallet. I have the self control of a puppy.
Cheers,
Doug
http://www.doglesbyimages.com
--
Cheers,
Doug
http://www.doglesbyimages.com
This is amazing what you wrote, PIXSurgeon.
Please note that THE MORE the dynamic range of the camera -- > THE LESS contrasty the picture will look right out of the camera. It does not mean that there is no meat, beans or garlic in the picture -- it just proves the superior quality of the sensor+digital_engine system of the camera.
You can easily add contrast to that picture and achieve the necessary 3D effect, while your out-of-the-camera image with vivid contrast cannot be fixed into an evenly lit image (the quality of the human vision). Provided of course that the wider DR is supported with more bits of processing.
The reason I'm writing this is that I'm so disappointed with my clients who should be experts in graphic design -- and they blame me for providing them with the "non-yammy" pictures -- while I give them the right material for a quick and customizable adjustment to achiev whatever they want in their prints. Arghh..... ((
Please note that THE MORE the dynamic range of the camera -- > THE LESS contrasty the picture will look right out of the camera. It does not mean that there is no meat, beans or garlic in the picture -- it just proves the superior quality of the sensor+digital_engine system of the camera.
You can easily add contrast to that picture and achieve the necessary 3D effect, while your out-of-the-camera image with vivid contrast cannot be fixed into an evenly lit image (the quality of the human vision). Provided of course that the wider DR is supported with more bits of processing.
The reason I'm writing this is that I'm so disappointed with my clients who should be experts in graphic design -- and they blame me for providing them with the "non-yammy" pictures -- while I give them the right material for a quick and customizable adjustment to achiev whatever they want in their prints. Arghh..... ((
PIXSurgeon
Veteran Member
...And you will be even more, as soon as you read this..
...This is PURE non-sense. Without having access the details (or simply removing) the gamma corrections+TRCs plus a whole bunch of other adjustments performed at the digital-to-digital stage, a flatter image PROVES F-NOTHING!
Prime (and fresh example):
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/82888247/original
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/82888248/original
...Another prime example is the 1DMKIII, which, with a +0.3V-0.5EV advantage of effective DR at the digital-to-digital stage, natively outputs SUPER yummy/creamy mid-tones, with MORE contrast on that region. And this is "out of the cam", as you say.
If we could have access to a Fuji F30 raw output (which we can not, on its current shape and form), we could display very, very flat and low contrast images on screen, I can assure you.
When working with high DR images, it is VERY IMPORTANT that you can transfer crispness/vitality and brightness to the final output. Otherwise, it looks neutralized, unless such look is an integral part of your intended effect.
...L*I*S*T*E*N to your customers. There is a "cream-ness" point past which your customer will not care for any further adjustments, nor they will feel the need to do anything. And it is pretty general / widespread. Find out what that point is , and push your images with finesse.
Enjoy!
--
TIP: If you do not like this post, simply press the 'COMPLAINT' button. Mommy/Daddy are just one click away.
But that the 5D is being compared to a MF camera, and not just 35mm.
The 35mm film vs digital debate is over. Onward to the MF Film vs 35mm Digital debate!
Joo
--
http://www.daehwang.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/
The 35mm film vs digital debate is over. Onward to the MF Film vs 35mm Digital debate!
Joo
--
- Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.
http://www.daehwang.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/
Yamil R. Sued50621
Veteran Member
OK, let's look at that statement..
WHat digital back??
Imacon/Hassy??
Phase One??
Leaf??
Sinar??
What Resolution??
22MP??
39 MP??
Single Pass Only??
Single/Multi Pass??
Finally...
Why would you want to shoot at High ISO with a MF Back?? Get the right tool for the right job!! Most shooters that own MF Back would never even consider such a thing!!
Anastigmat wrote:
but the fact is that the medium format backs don't
WHat digital back??
Imacon/Hassy??
Phase One??
Leaf??
Sinar??
What Resolution??
22MP??
39 MP??
Single Pass Only??
Single/Multi Pass??
Finally...
Why would you want to shoot at High ISO with a MF Back?? Get the right tool for the right job!! Most shooters that own MF Back would never even consider such a thing!!
Anastigmat wrote:
but the fact is that the medium format backs don't
Yamil R. Sued50621
Veteran Member
Agreed, that was very stupid!!
what to compare??
Go against a Hassy H3D with the 22 MP back.
Oops, not really, they wanted the Mamiya to look good!!
FrankD7
Leading Member
Remember the look of HDR ??
No contrast, no shadows, unlimited highlights ??
THIS is the look in a lesser form you can get from a MF system, the dynamic range is HUGE compared to the DSLR, the first time you look at the shots you will indeed be remembered to HDR shots, with one big difference, there is a black point and a white point that clips, but it's MUCH wider than any DSLR on the market today.
I can give the shot a curve and make it more look like a DSLR shot but I don't want that, I love the range of the MF system.
Is that so hard to understand ?
No contrast, no shadows, unlimited highlights ??
THIS is the look in a lesser form you can get from a MF system, the dynamic range is HUGE compared to the DSLR, the first time you look at the shots you will indeed be remembered to HDR shots, with one big difference, there is a black point and a white point that clips, but it's MUCH wider than any DSLR on the market today.
I can give the shot a curve and make it more look like a DSLR shot but I don't want that, I love the range of the MF system.
Is that so hard to understand ?
I disagree. What was impressive is how well the 5D stood up.
No it's not. This is the basic conclusion from the lighting science. No intention to argue about this. You can keep your opinion.
I don't get the point here. You have two non-processed images with their processed inheritants. So what? Please explain...
SUPER yummy compared to what? Additionally, it would be valuable to this discussion to use exact terms here. When you speak about yummy mid-tones, you may be speaking about local contrasts, not about the overall contrast of the picture (and my original point concerned specifically overall contrast). Local contrasts, is known, depend on:
a) custom parmeters of the in-camera image processing;
b) overall quality of the sensor (not allowing bright pixels "overflow" onto the neighbors), which should excell in 1DMKIII no doubt;
c) lens, lens, lens...
Alas, I agree with you. My only point was that my customers were not outsiders, they are (should be by their title) image processing experts. Pushing "cream-ness" for them is a little embarrassing for me. (And should be for them). But it seems that I should run the same embellishing scripts for them as I do for plain people. )))
I do, though I do enjoy even more provable arguments, not just emotions.
Rick Knepper
Veteran Member
Look at the forest scene. Comparatively, the 5D looks like it was attacked by a pencil eraser in places. I know, complete hyperbole, but I'm feeling mischievious. I am not too familar with MF but I could see how you could characterize the 5D performance from that perspective. But in absolute terms, the Mamiya smokes the 5D.
By the way, after a simliar thread on Fred Miranda, the 16-9.net guy made the decision to sell his 1Ds mkII and most of his lenses and go for the ZD setup (unless he's changed his mind in the past week or so).
By the way, after a simliar thread on Fred Miranda, the 16-9.net guy made the decision to sell his 1Ds mkII and most of his lenses and go for the ZD setup (unless he's changed his mind in the past week or so).
FrankD7
Leading Member
I think alot if people didn't read my little test well.
The 5D stood VERY VERY well compared to the MF system.
HOWEVER the things that made ME switch were something a 35mm DSLR can probarbly never compete with.
1. Sensor size.
Bigger circle of confusions gives me MUCH better control over DOF and much much smoother transitions and depth.
2. Pixel quality.
The quality of the pixels is unsurpassed on the larger sensors.
3. Glass quality.
Although people will claim that the resolution charts prove otherwise the quality of the glass in combination with the sensor gives me much less colorfringing and CA than my best Canon glass.
4. Smoothness.
The incredible smoothness of the pictures due to the 16 bits or 14 bits (in this case) capturing AND the well executed DA convertors gives you much smoother skintones than the 5D, I would expect the 1DIII to be better in that department but what I have seen up untill now proves the D/A conversion is not there yet, skin tones are smoother than the 5D but still have some blotchiness.
5. No AA filter.
Look at a 100 % crop of small details and the 5D and other DSLR's look like a mess, the crop from the MF system is incredibly detailed.
With the 5D I always had to sharpen my pictures to get rid of the softness of the AA filter, with the ZD sharpening is not necessery anymore, when I use it it's a choice.
6. Real ISO50
For the Studio I shoot mainly on ISO50, with the 5D this meant I would loose about 1 stop DR which in the studio is workable.
However on location it's not, and the ISO50 is actually ISO100 on the highlights so there is no REAL ISO50, although the files are cleaner and more smooth it's not a real ISO50. With the MF system you get real ISO50 but also 64/80/100 etc.
7-8-9 Dynamic range, DR, DR.
Together with the depth of the shots, DR is the main reason I made the switch, the dynamic range is incredible compared to the DSLR's.
And last but not least there comes the resolution (10).
13MP's is more than enough for 95% of my work, so the test was not about that.
It's a shame alot of people only look at the crops and see little difference, well that's actually rather normal, however when looking at the quality of those pixels that's where the real difference is seen.
The 5D stood VERY VERY well compared to the MF system.
HOWEVER the things that made ME switch were something a 35mm DSLR can probarbly never compete with.
1. Sensor size.
Bigger circle of confusions gives me MUCH better control over DOF and much much smoother transitions and depth.
2. Pixel quality.
The quality of the pixels is unsurpassed on the larger sensors.
3. Glass quality.
Although people will claim that the resolution charts prove otherwise the quality of the glass in combination with the sensor gives me much less colorfringing and CA than my best Canon glass.
4. Smoothness.
The incredible smoothness of the pictures due to the 16 bits or 14 bits (in this case) capturing AND the well executed DA convertors gives you much smoother skintones than the 5D, I would expect the 1DIII to be better in that department but what I have seen up untill now proves the D/A conversion is not there yet, skin tones are smoother than the 5D but still have some blotchiness.
5. No AA filter.
Look at a 100 % crop of small details and the 5D and other DSLR's look like a mess, the crop from the MF system is incredibly detailed.
With the 5D I always had to sharpen my pictures to get rid of the softness of the AA filter, with the ZD sharpening is not necessery anymore, when I use it it's a choice.
6. Real ISO50
For the Studio I shoot mainly on ISO50, with the 5D this meant I would loose about 1 stop DR which in the studio is workable.
However on location it's not, and the ISO50 is actually ISO100 on the highlights so there is no REAL ISO50, although the files are cleaner and more smooth it's not a real ISO50. With the MF system you get real ISO50 but also 64/80/100 etc.
7-8-9 Dynamic range, DR, DR.
Together with the depth of the shots, DR is the main reason I made the switch, the dynamic range is incredible compared to the DSLR's.
And last but not least there comes the resolution (10).
13MP's is more than enough for 95% of my work, so the test was not about that.
It's a shame alot of people only look at the crops and see little difference, well that's actually rather normal, however when looking at the quality of those pixels that's where the real difference is seen.
Yeah, right!Hummm, I think people don't understand the review
It's NOT about the resolution.
It's about dynamic range, color, depth, and contrast.
I understood that this wasn't only about resolution.
Why the 100% crops, and uppressing for the dynamic range then?
M
--
Sorry for bad spelling!
400D
10-20
17-55 IS
30 1.4
430EX
FrankD7
Leading Member
upressing ?
100% crops are VERY important to see the quality of the captures.
But you know what, if you don't like it, don't read it....
100% crops are VERY important to see the quality of the captures.
But you know what, if you don't like it, don't read it....
Yes, especially the resolution, I don't see how the colors will come out, or the DR with comparing an UPRESSED (yes) 5D pic to an 100% crop of the other!?
And, yes I liked it, and read it!
M
--
Sorry for bad spelling!
400D
10-20
17-55 IS
30 1.4
430EX
Sorry, just realised that you and I aren't talking about the same comparison, there was another link with upressed pics, too many posts..
Ignore me..
M
Sorry for bad spelling!
400D
10-20
17-55 IS
30 1.4
430EX
Ignore me..
M
--
Sorry for bad spelling!
400D
10-20
17-55 IS
30 1.4
430EX
FrankD7
Leading Member
No problem than 
KAllen
Veteran Member
No I don't think they do blow highlights. I do have trouble with very clear bright days getting a 1DsmkII shot looking sunny and real. I have noticed that if you hit a auto button on any raw converter they tend to want to up the exposure. I found it better to often go the other way, bringing the highlights well in, then adjusting the highlights to where I think best, then adjusting everything else. I find the camera captures enough highlight and shadow, it's the a question of deciding how much to lose to make the image look good. I sometimes think histograms confuse the issue, showing there to be a lot of detail in things that don't matter, clipping either or both ends often does not lose anything important.
Kevin.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum