An unmanageablw workflow, as C1 doesn’t support Hasselblad files - some hacks are possible but not something I would want to use daily.
That might explain the slight improvement in sharpness of the metal areas, altho the concrete looks cleaner in the GFX image with no color noise. Also the shadows are noisier in the Hassie image.
I do see better colors in the metal region but that could be phocus secret sauce. Plus color can be tweaked in post.
That has to be an artifact of Raw converter as lenses don't change MTF that rapidly over the clear aperture. Any change is gradual unlike the patchy change you refer to.
I don't see that here.
I see more noise in the shadow areas of the Hassy file when pushed.
How about the corners? That's what usually separates a good lens from a mediocre one. The corners are sharper with more details in the GFX file esp on top left (by the exposed brick) and in the lower right and this is at F8. I can only imagine that difference will be amplified at wide open apertures along with vignetting and loss of DR from vignette correction.
and showing again, from a certain point onwards, it's mostly about the glass. I wish Fuji had more 110 caliber glass - as things are, my only GF remaining lens is the 30 TS (and upcoming 110 TS), I enjoy my Hasselblad and Rodenstock lenses much more on the 100MP sensor than any GF glass I've owned (all GF primes except the 55, and some zooms)) ) .
The Hasselblad lenses are the only ones quenching my lust for MF Zeiss Otuses - I loved those lenses in 35mm, if I didn't need 100MP for supersized gallery prints, I would still be in 35mm, happily shooting Zeiss + Voigtlander + GM glass !
Now that you mention I see this smearing. It cannot be the lens suddenly losing details over a small area. It cannot be the sensor. That leaves the RAW converter, or a small smear on the lens perhaps?What's going on in the area circled in red below?Nice! Now they are both identical in sharpness. If anything the one on right might be slightly ahead in sharpness on the metal section. The green blotchiness is still evident in the right image. The image on left is cleaner and less noisy. The shadow areas around the wooden beam are also cleaner in the left image. Overall the image on left is still cleaner and better rendered, IMHO.What about now ? I've matched the white balance settings, sharpening is identical for both files, exposure + 1 and shadows are pulled to the max (look both at the wooden beam and at the upper metal section) :
A related question; wouldnt a 120mm lens have a sight edge on a 110mm lens when comparing the same size crop on a sensor with same pixel resolution? That is assuming both photos were taken from the same distance.
--
https://blog.kasson.com
How about using LR for both? I understand one should use the most optimal workflow for each system to get the best results but if you have to compare two lenses I think you need to eliminate as many variables as possible.
You are talking about the corners of a 400% crop from the central area of an image shot at f8 from 20+ meters … so that argument makes no sense!That might explain the slight improvement in sharpness of the metal areas, altho the concrete looks cleaner in the GFX image with no color noise. Also the shadows are noisier in the Hassie image.
I do see better colors in the metal region but that could be phocus secret sauce. Plus color can be tweaked in post.
That has to be an artifact of Raw converter as lenses don't change MTF that rapidly over the clear aperture. Any change is gradual unlike the patchy change you refer to.
I don't see that here.
I see more noise in the shadow areas of the Hassy file when pushed.
How about the corners? That's what usually separates a good lens from a mediocre one. The corners are sharper with more details in the GFX file esp on top left (by the exposed brick) and in the lower right and this is at F8. I can only imagine that difference will be amplified at wide open apertures along with vignetting and loss of DR from vignette correction.
and showing again, from a certain point onwards, it's mostly about the glass. I wish Fuji had more 110 caliber glass - as things are, my only GF remaining lens is the 30 TS (and upcoming 110 TS), I enjoy my Hasselblad and Rodenstock lenses much more on the 100MP sensor than any GF glass I've owned (all GF primes except the 55, and some zooms
The Hasselblad lenses are the only ones quenching my lust for MF Zeiss Otuses - I loved those lenses in 35mm, if I didn't need 100MP for supersized gallery prints, I would still be in 35mm, happily shooting Zeiss + Voigtlander + GM glass !
)) ))) Look at the left side of the wooden bean, that is another pulled shadow!My aim was to find the best image creation setup for my images, not just a sterile / academic comparison of lenses. And using what I consider a less than optimal raw converter (LR) makes no sense, for me.
)I've made a available a larger area of the 400% crop, and there are multiple areas washing out - for me that is exactly a sign of the GFX file falling apart in post, at heavy magnification.Now that you mention I see this smearing. It cannot be the lens suddenly losing details over a small area. It cannot be the sensor. That leaves the RAW converter, or a small smear on the lens perhaps?What's going on in the area circled in red below?Nice! Now they are both identical in sharpness. If anything the one on right might be slightly ahead in sharpness on the metal section. The green blotchiness is still evident in the right image. The image on left is cleaner and less noisy. The shadow areas around the wooden beam are also cleaner in the left image. Overall the image on left is still cleaner and better rendered, IMHO.What about now ? I've matched the white balance settings, sharpening is identical for both files, exposure + 1 and shadows are pulled to the max (look both at the wooden beam and at the upper metal section) :
A related question; wouldnt a 120mm lens have a sight edge on a 110mm lens when comparing the same size crop on a sensor with same pixel resolution? That is assuming both photos were taken from the same distance.
Yes that makes no sense which is why I mention corner crops. That will separate the performance of both lenses unequivocally. Wide open is even better because at f8 most decent lenses become great. So comparing them at f8 makes little sense to begin with. Maybe do a comparison at f2.8 or f4, if you really want to convince yourself which one is better.You are talking about the corners of a 400% crop from the central area of an image shot at f8 from 20+ meters … so that argument makes no sense!That might explain the slight improvement in sharpness of the metal areas, altho the concrete looks cleaner in the GFX image with no color noise. Also the shadows are noisier in the Hassie image.
I do see better colors in the metal region but that could be phocus secret sauce. Plus color can be tweaked in post.
That has to be an artifact of Raw converter as lenses don't change MTF that rapidly over the clear aperture. Any change is gradual unlike the patchy change you refer to.
I don't see that here.
I see more noise in the shadow areas of the Hassy file when pushed.
How about the corners? That's what usually separates a good lens from a mediocre one. The corners are sharper with more details in the GFX file esp on top left (by the exposed brick) and in the lower right and this is at F8. I can only imagine that difference will be amplified at wide open apertures along with vignetting and loss of DR from vignette correction.
and showing again, from a certain point onwards, it's mostly about the glass. I wish Fuji had more 110 caliber glass - as things are, my only GF remaining lens is the 30 TS (and upcoming 110 TS), I enjoy my Hasselblad and Rodenstock lenses much more on the 100MP sensor than any GF glass I've owned (all GF primes except the 55, and some zooms
The Hasselblad lenses are the only ones quenching my lust for MF Zeiss Otuses - I loved those lenses in 35mm, if I didn't need 100MP for supersized gallery prints, I would still be in 35mm, happily shooting Zeiss + Voigtlander + GM glass !
There is no reason for one lens to record more tonal gradations than the other at f8 on essentially the same sensor, esp when both are capable of out-resolving the sensor. So I am not sure what you see there. I see more green blotchiness in the brighter parts of the Hassy image and that cant be added in post.Regarding colours that can be “tweakead in post” … you can’t add tonal gradations if they have not been recorded (you can tweak the 5 shades of recorded orange rust, but you can’t add the missing 50 shades
Again, that cannot be the lens unless it had a physical smear or defect in one of the elements. Full aperture polishing of modern lenses CANNOT create a localized zone that creates washed out detail in certain small sections of the image. Thats physically impossible to achieve in lens manufacturing. That artifact is coming from something other than a normal clean lens. A piece of dust or lint or something somewhere in the recording chain or an artifact of raw converter (I know nothing about raw converters).
while continuing with the same detailed texture in the Hasselblad files). That is for sure not clean vs noisy, that is washed out vs detailed
If this is happening, and it's not the result of something in post, then the lens is far from perfect.
And the before / after PP
blog.kasson.com
Thats completely understandable if you prefer one system over another for whatever personal reason, but if you are claiming one lens is better than the other, you have to conduct a controlled experiment to prove that.My aim was to find the best image creation setup for my images, not just a sterile / academic comparison of lenses. And using what I consider a less than optimal raw converter (LR) makes no sense, for me.
I want the best image processing package, and, for me, that is definitely x2d +xcd lenses+ Phocus! (Hasselblad, if you’re reading this, please contact me for promotion royalties
