Odd parallel between Nikon D700/D3 and Oly E-3

Since you obviously have more experience than Reichman on medium format backs I will give way to your superior real world experience.

Would you mind posting your medium format pictures v small sensor pictures so we can all learn from your better experince please?

I ask because, as shocking as this may seem to someone as practical as you, some people go on and on even though they have no experience whatsoever.

Thank you in advance.
--
Seeing is believing.

georgeorwell said:

hi i think you are right, but as you can see not all people are so
open minded to see this, who is to me very simple to understand...
many people see and interpreter the world from their cognitive cages

Click to expand...

You're a philospher (in a good way) I see.

Well, let's see what zulu40 has to offer from experience before we get too critical.

--
Seeing is believing.

rovingtim said:

Since you obviously have more experience than Reichman on medium
format backs I will give way to your superior real world experience.

Would you mind posting your medium format pictures v small sensor
pictures so we can all learn from your better experince please?

Click to expand...

I think you meant experience

since posting 13x19" images here would be rather wasteful of resources (however you are welcome to do the just that if that is what you consider) I have decided to illustrate why the MF image is less sharp than it might be.

Phase One P45 backs carry a 49.1x36.8 6.8 micron sensor without an AA filter. The requirements for good dof shooting are much more stringent than crop sensor or compact cameras, the image resolution is such that this isnt something one can fudge, it must be right. MR says that he focussed on the knot in the tree on the foreground, at a guess that is about 10 ft away.

Working through a dof calculator with the following data
Data: coc for a Phase One of .010, 70mm lens, F11.
at 10ft distance, near limit 9.36ft far limit 10.7ft DOF=1.38ft

as you can see, the Phase One has not a hope of getting much of that scene in focus. It is blessed with a hyperfocal distance of 142ft, and that is the only reason it renders any sort of image at all.

An F stop of F64, with focus at 16ft would give a focussed range between 9.83 and 32.2ft, which would cover the best of the scene. And at F3.2 (data by MR) the G10 covers a very similar range.

rovingtim said:

I ask because, as shocking as this may seem to someone as practical
as you, some people go on and on even though they have no experience
whatsoever.

Click to expand...

well now you know, and please at least check your figures before such a silly and wasteful challenge without the tongue in cheek condescending rhetoric. The entire issue was that of DOF all along, if you had any MF experience at all, or even if you took heed from the many comments by photographers in the first place, you would have recognised that from the beginning.

rovingtim said:

Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

no problem

I quote Reichman:

"...the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format,"

Funnily enough, they seem to have DoF covered. I'm puzzled why you're banging on about it.

You're proving what, exactly? That the Hass has a narrower DoF ... you mean just like Reichman says? So, your numbers mean ... what?

Moving on, this is what actually happened, in Reichman's own words:

"Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints from an Epson 3800 printer made on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk paper which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing print viewing box. This collection of seven people included experienced photographers, people from the commercial print industry, and other trade professionals. Between them there was at least 200 years of photographic industry shooting and printing experience.

In most cases I did not tell them what they were looking at, simply saying that I had been shooting with two cameras, and that they should divide the prints (about a dozen) into two piles – Camera A and Camera B. They were asked to judge resolution, accutance, colour reproduction, highlight detail, dMax, and any other factors that they wished to consider."

So, Mr Zulu, how do you explain the result, which was this:

"In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance."

Now, are you going to bring up your experience, or are you simply going to quote some more formulae at us all? You do realise that mathematics is simply a language which can be used to explain just about anything you want by using the right assumptions, don't you?

So, actual experience, or more numbers (which, if not rooted in experience, simply lead to lies, damn lies, and possibly even the horror of statistics)?

I leave to ball in your court.

--
Seeing is believing.

Kurt Petersen said:

Which previous posts were you referring to which compared the D700 +
24-70 and E3 + 14-35? Your posts only?

Click to expand...

the original post was comparing top end products ie E3 D3 D700 no mention of lower models or kit zooms i was only making a comparison of similar top end Lenses

Kurt Petersen said:

Sir Seth makes a perfectly valid point, which you wish to dismiss out
of hand. The best setup is not the same for everyone, and while you
as a pro wedding photographer can breeze into the venue with your
D700 setup in your wheelie camera bag, someone else may need to hump
their setup on their back up hill and down dale into the wilds. In
that sort of scenario the versatile, weatherproof and still high
quality E-3 + 12-60 setup is much more suitable, especially if you
want to carry a telephoto option with you also.

Click to expand...

In my posts i have clearly stated that the benefits of FF may be critical in some areas and i was stating what my needs were i never dissmissed any views as to weddding set ups using pro grade lesnes from both companies the weight savings would be of little real difference a couple of Kilos here or there , i do a fair amount of LF landscape photography throughout the mountains of Scotland so carrying 35mm gear is a doddle,

Kurt Petersen said:

Yes, if you want a top-pro setup with the fastest possible glass
reaching for that last 2% of possible performance there isn't much
difference in price and weight between an E-3 and D700 setup and the
D700 will likely come out on top, but the majority of E-3 users will
be using the 12-60 (duh, it usually comes bundled with the camera).
It will be considerably lighter and cheaper whilst offering greater
reach.

Click to expand...

well if we are looking for cheaper lighter options the d300 and 17-55 is still great quality and only 200g more than the e3 12-60 oh and in the UK it is the same price , and if you wish to compromise more there are of course lower end kit in both camps

Kurt Petersen said:

IMO the Oly 14-35 is not the sort of lens that will make it into many
Oly users bags.

Click to expand...

Maybe the bags of E-3 users?

Kurt Petersen said:

If you want that type of top pro performance you may
as well have gone the FF path in the first place

Click to expand...

Why dont tell me FF can have better performance

fldspringer said:

jim stirling said:

E3+14-35 weighs 1.75kg not exactly a
huge weight saving and an equally quality set up of D300 + 17-55
weighs in at 1.6kg and costs around £1800
Jim

Click to expand...

I'd say that's wishful thinking from a Nikon fan.

Click to expand...

Better high ISO IQ, faster fps, pro AF, larger VF and larger/better LCD for d300 whilst i believe that the 14-35 is a better lens at least at wide open settings the 17-55 is no slouch and in the UK the Nikon set up is around £1000 cheaper

rovingtim said:

I quote Reichman:

"...the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the
only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the
prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format,"

Funnily enough, they seem to have DoF covered. I'm puzzled why you're
banging on about it.

Click to expand...

as I pointed out, the only reason Phase One registers an image of any quality at all is due to the deep hyperfocal distance. This cannot disguise the fact that the in focus component of this image is a very narrow range. Is there something about this that you are unable to understand?

You might spend some time feeding the data given previously and by MR, into this neat little calculator
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

There is no question that the better part of this image is OOF, with just 1.38Ft in focus, which differs greatly from the G10 with some 22ft in focus. This is exactly where this thread began, the difficulty for a larger format to render an in focus image is compounded by the near proximity of the DOF for the focal length chosen. And this is also why, masters like Ansel Adams used F64 so often but with ever larger formats and ever greater distances.

rovingtim said:

You're proving what, exactly? That the Hass has a narrower DoF ...
you mean just like Reichman says? So, your numbers mean ... what?

Click to expand...

I want you to read this and understand it once. The only reason Phase One registers an image of any quality at all is due to the deep hyperfocal distance. This cannot disguise the fact that the in focus component of this image is a very narrow range, barely over 1 ft. That is 12 little inches.

rovingtim said:

Moving on, this is what actually happened, in Reichman's own words:

"Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry
professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of
13X19" prints from an Epson 3800 printer made on Ilford Gold Fiber
Silk paper which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing
print viewing box. This collection of seven people included
experienced photographers, people from the commercial print industry,
and other trade professionals. Between them there was at least 200
years of photographic industry shooting and printing experience.

In most cases I did not tell them what they were looking at, simply
saying that I had been shooting with two cameras, and that they
should divide the prints (about a dozen) into two piles – Camera A
and Camera B. They were asked to judge resolution, accutance, colour
reproduction, highlight detail, dMax, and any other factors that they
wished to consider."

So, Mr Zulu, how do you explain the result, which was this:

"In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between
13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39
Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got
more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no
clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance."

Click to expand...

This is really basic, and it is a repeat version of a con done some years ago

MR made a print of each image, trouble is, one of the images is not as good as it could be, it lives on its generous hyperfocal distance, and almost no part of it is actually within its narrow focus field.

Quite naturally, witnesses cannot tell the difference between the B grade MF image and the G10 image. On this basis this should not be testament to proving that the G10 is equal, near to equal, or superior.

It is a simple con, it is not even an original con, but it is a con nonetheless.

rovingtim said:

Now, are you going to bring up your experience, or are you simply
going to quote some more formulae at us all? You do realise that
mathematics is simply a language which can be used to explain just
about anything you want by using the right assumptions, don't you?

Click to expand...

You simply need to see that the MF image is almost entirely not in focus, you can try that for yourself here

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

rovingtim said:

So, actual experience, or more numbers (which, if not rooted in
experience, simply lead to lies, damn lies, and possibly even the
horror of statistics)?

Click to expand...

ok at this point, start being careful, I feel the need to warn you I wont be tolerating accusations.

I have used MF, and still have a Pentax 645, although I have not used it for some years, actually quite some years. I find digital has many more graces.

rovingtim said:

I leave to ball in your court.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

or if you use lenses so slow the FF advantage is lots.

My (fast, high quality) FF Nikon kit weighs and costs far more than
my (not fast, but still high quality) Oly gear.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Click to expand...

OLY E-3 890g cost £1115
Nik d700 1075g cost £1640
OLY 7-14 780g cost £1250
NIK 14-24 970g cost £1115
OLY 14-35 915g cost £1860
NIK 24-70 900g cost £1115
OLY 35-70 1650g cost £1460
NIK 70-200 1470g cost £1280
OLY 50 300g cost £380
NIK 105 720g cost £530

Nikon total price = £5680
Olympus total price =£6065

Nikon total weight =5.12 Kg
Olympus total weight =4.54kg

So on a kit containing four of the best lenses from each maker reaching from 14mm to 200mm { 35mm equiv} add a macro lens and a great camera you can save aprox one pound in weight buying Olympus and lose aprox £385
Jim

I've been following this discussion with some interest. First of all, a link to what all the arguing is over:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

It's rather incredible to believe that a compact could even be in the same league as MF at 13 x 19 inches, isn't it?

So, I decided to crunch some numbers. The G10 print would be around 240 PPI whereas the H2 print would be at around 400 PPI. A significant difference, but I don't think anyone could tell at that print size.

I also decided to convert the camera settings into 4/3 equivalents. The G10 was at 12mm f/3.5, which is equivalent to 27mm f/8 on 4/3. The H2 was at 70mm f/11, which works out to be equivalent to 25mm f/4 on 4/3.

I think it's fair to say that lens sharpness at their actual settings was not an issue. However, the DOF of the G10 was twice that of the H2. I don't know what the focal distance was, but it looks like it's fair to assume around 10 ft. Using the link given, http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html , this gives a DOF of 6.34 ft with a hyperfocal distance of 34.3 ft for the H2, and a DOF of 13.2 ft and a hyperfocal distance of 20 ft for the G10.

For the scene in question, this would, in my opinion, make a marked difference in how they appear, and Reichmann notes that this was a giveaway to many viewing the photos.

Still, the difference in DOF does not imply at all that the results would have been different even at the same DOF for this particular test. Nonetheless, it would be great if he could repeat the test where the entire scene was within the DOF of both systems.

In my opinion, it is reasonable to believe that the G10 is entirely capable of matching the H2 "well enough" for many non-trivial scenes (deep DOF tripod with moderate DR at base ISO and prints no larger than 13x19 inches), and this is the point Reichmann was trying to make, even if he botched the comparison a bit.

They are (as a set) a stupid buy (except the 7-14, which is in there because it is "fixed aperture") and miss the point.

Spec the D700 with completely unsuitable lenses and it is rubbish too.

"Correct" Oly system is

E3
7-14
12-60 (there is a case for 14-54MKII)
50-200
1.4TC
50 mCRO

"Correct" Nikon system is

D700
14-24
24-70
70-200
2TC
105 Micro

Both systems will produce excellent results, but the Nikon system is better in low light and has more exposure latitude. Oly system is nicer to use, lighter and cheaper. Also the Oly system goes to 400EFL with no converter, Nikon only to 200. With converters, 560 for Oly with no visible quality loss, Nikon to 400 with major quality loss.

I have all this equipment, and know it like the back of my hand. I've probably carried each several hundred miles on my back. I know which one hurts.

Just in passing, when you do the price comparison you should note that Oly have already done the stage one currency update, Nikon are about to rise 15%. Both will probabaly rise another 15% by the Summer.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Louis_Dobson said:

They are (as a set) a stupid buy (except the 7-14, which is in there
because it is "fixed aperture") and miss the point.

Spec the D700 with completely unsuitable lenses and it is rubbish too.

"Correct" Oly system is

E3
7-14
12-60 (there is a case for 14-54MKII)
50-200
1.4TC
50 mCRO

"Correct" Nikon system is

D700
14-24
24-70
70-200
2TC
105 Micro

Click to expand...

Correct for whom ,Louis ? i was comparing top end set ups covering a fairly wide range from 14-200 mm using fast fixed aperture lenses and the prices of Nikon gear have already gone up in the UK so perhaps if cheap and light are the "correct" set up then a d60+kit zoom would be the bees knees.
Jim

Louis_Dobson said:

"Correct" Oly system is

"Correct" Nikon system is

Both systems will produce excellent results, but the Nikon system is
better in low light and has more exposure latitude. Oly system is
nicer to use, lighter and cheaper....

Click to expand...

Yes, but Louis, we need to bear in mind that you have chosen two quite different systems. Effectively a mid range one v a high(er) end one.

I know you happen to own a number of these lenses you keep mentioning, but there are a whole multitude of different combinations that you could compare against and then your lighter and cheaper arguments don't necessarily hold up.

G.

Which is better, an E3 with 14-35 or a D700 with 24-70? Do you REALLY have to ask?

However, put the systems together I suggested, and they produce equal image quality, until you shoot in lousy light or drag the RAW sliders around to the extremes. But the Oly is way lighter, and I imagine a lot cheaper too (I can't be bothered to compare, there's no pockets in shrouds and I buy what I want, within reason).

The E3 is some kind of ultimate if low light is not an issue. The Nikon 35mm FF is some kind of ultimate if weight and size is not an issue.

Either can be made to look stupid if you screw them around with unsuitable lenses (although one might have them for special circs - I have some not very good Nikon primes for the odd occasion I want to use it without breaking my back, and I'd quite like, but don't have and won't be buying, the SHG lenses for the odd occasion I want to use the E3 in bad light).

Trying to make either camera do what the other does best is not a good comparison. And a D60 with kit lens will be soft and slow to use - yet another completely different compromise.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

jim stirling said:

Louis_Dobson said:

"Correct" Oly system is...

"Correct" Nikon system is...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jim stirling said:

jim sterling wrote:
Correct for whom ,Louis ?

Click to expand...

Systems should be compared on the basis of needs. There is no "correct Oly system" or "correct Nikon system" -- there is only the system that best satifies a particular person's needs, and those needs vary from photographer to photographer.

So you first need to spell out your specific needs, and then compare systems that fill those specific needs. You cannot make the generalization that one is better than another, because you cannot generalize what people's needs are.

"correct" in quotes. If you insist, you can make a low light 4/3rds system. But it won't be very good. If you insist, you can make a light Nikon 35mm FF system (I have one). But, guess what, it won't be very good.

Worth having if you already have one of those systems and would rather force it into a role it doesn't excel at rather than run two systems, but if your primary use is low light, avoid the E3, and if your primary use is hiking, avoid Nikon 35mmFF.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

and I think I have addressed that. They don't do the same job, and neither is "better". But I really would not want a D700 / Sigma UWA / 24-120 / 80-200 setup, nor an E3 7-14 / 14-35 / 35-100 system. I think each misses the strengths of their respective formats (although I'd happily have ALL of that kit to add to existing primary kit, for occasions when the primary stuff is wrong for the job).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Louis_Dobson said:

"correct" in quotes. If you insist, you can make a low light 4/3rds
system. But it won't be very good. If you insist, you can make a
light Nikon 35mm FF system (I have one). But, guess what, it won't
be very good.

Click to expand...

Olympus makes an outstanding low light system. With in-camera IS, if you want the deeper DOFs and don't fancy tripods, it will serve much better than the Nikon D700 system. On the other hand, if your main concern is noise and a fast shutter to mitigate motion blur, then the D700 system will serve you much better.

It's all about your specific needs. Generalizations are not useful.

Louis_Dobson said:

Worth having if you already have one of those systems and would
rather force it into a role it doesn't excel at rather than run two
systems, but if your primary use is low light, avoid the E3, and if
your primary use is hiking, avoid Nikon 35mmFF.

Click to expand...

Again, too general. There's not a huge difference between the size and weight of a D700, 14-24, and 70mm macro and an E3, 7-14, and 50mm macro -- both of which someone might consider ideal for hiking.

The point is that you need to be very specific with your needs before you compare. Depending on the specific needs, it's easy to show one system superior to the other for that particular use.

Generalizations just lead to endless arguments that serve no purpose.

I agree that when one actually comes to chose a specific system for a specific need then these vague principles often fly right out the window, as can be amply demonstrated by the fact that I am hiking with a D3 based system, and I'm quite happy with it (although the D700 would have been better if it had existed at the time). I have my reasons, and they make perfect sense.

However, the vague principles form the basis for an interesting, if ultimately pointless, discussion.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Louis_Dobson said:

I agree that when one actually comes to chose a specific system for a
specific need then these vague principles often fly right out the
window, as can be amply demonstrated by the fact that I am hiking
with a D3 based system, and I'm quite happy with it (although the
D700 would have been better if it had existed at the time). I have
my reasons, and they make perfect sense.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And those specific reasons should be made clear to people in discussions as to which system is better than which. And when it comes to IQ, it is my opinion that people are best served with example images rather than lens test charts. Mind you, I'm not saying that lens test charts are bad or useless, but the differences are often dragged so far out of proportion as to be utterly meaningless in terms of actual images, depending on the print size, standards, and expectations of the viewer.

Louis_Dobson said:

However, the vague principles form the basis for an interesting, if
ultimately pointless, discussion.

Click to expand...

I just see it as a source of endless bickering and flaming, often leading to insults and personal attacks. It would be nice if there were a little more relevant discussion and a lot less fanboyism with irrelevant comparisons.

Louis_Dobson said:

Which is better, an E3 with 14-35 or a D700 with 24-70? Do you
REALLY have to ask

Click to expand...

I dont have to ask i already know lol

Louis_Dobson said:

However, put the systems together I suggested, and they produce equal
image quality, until you shoot in lousy light or drag the RAW sliders
around to the extremes. But the Oly is way lighter, and I imagine a
lot cheaper too (I can't be bothered to compare, there's no pockets
in shrouds and I buy what I want, within reason).

Click to expand...

i dont agree 100%, even at lower iso settings the FF is better in DR and shadow noise though not a deal breaking difference and of course the e-3 can make stunning images in the hands of talented photographers

Louis_Dobson said:

The E3 is some kind of ultimate if low light is not an issue. The
Nikon 35mm FF is some kind of ultimate if weight and size is not an
issue.

Either can be made to look stupid if you screw them around with
unsuitable lenses (although one might have them for special circs - I
have some not very good Nikon primes for the odd occasion I want to
use it without breaking my back, and I'd quite like, but don't have
and won't be buying, the SHG lenses for the odd occasion I want to
use the E3 in bad light).

Click to expand...

I assume you mean that the Nikon primes are not so good wide open as stopped down a little lenses such as the 35mm F2, 50mmF1.4 and 85mm F1.8 deliver pretty good image quality and are light and relatively cheap , if i had an e-3 i would certainly go for the kit listed as though obviously lacking in sense lol the SHG lenses are the best available for the Olympus system

Louis_Dobson said:

Trying to make either camera do what the other does best is not a
good comparison. And a D60 with kit lens will be soft and slow to
use - yet another completely different compromise.

Click to expand...

For casual use the d60 and the new vr kit lens are not so bad especially if low light , high iso shooting is not important which seems to be the case
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15/page4.asp

Jim