SD9&Medium Format

[ChromeLight]

My comparison between the SD9 and 645 Medium Format has been posted on the http://www.sd9.org web site. The crops from my comparison are available on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/chromelight . You can either read the article then download the crops or view the crops then read the article. I don't think it matters much which way it's done.

 

[William Wilgus]

As you've stated the visual difference is significant. However, your tests certainly show that the SD-9 is a pretty capable camera. Thanks for providing this information to us.

Regards,

William

 

[ChromeLight]

My comparison between the SD9 and 645 Medium Format has been posted
on the http://www.sd9.org web site. The crops from my comparison are
available on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/chromelight . You can
either read the article then download the crops or view the crops
then read the article. I don't think it matters much which way it's
done.

The crops are now included in my article at http://www.sd9.org . There is no need to download them from my pbase account.

 

[David Hughes]

Thank you for this comparison. Very helpful. I too am running a series of tests, but the output is towards a digital frame. My findings are similar though less pronounced.

Appreciated the comparison very much.

david

My comparison between the SD9 and 645 Medium Format has been posted
on the http://www.sd9.org web site. The crops from my comparison are
available on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/chromelight . You can
either read the article then download the crops or view the crops
then read the article. I don't think it matters much which way it's
done.

The crops are now included in my article at http://www.sd9.org . There is
no need to download them from my pbase account.

 

[Laurence Matson]

Erik,

Thank you.

Your point about looking at the entire image carefully and fully is important. It is what Zone8 has been saying all along too.

Look forward to the next section.

Laurence

My comparison between the SD9 and 645 Medium Format has been posted
on the http://www.sd9.org web site. The crops from my comparison are
available on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/chromelight . You can
either read the article then download the crops or view the crops
then read the article. I don't think it matters much which way it's
done.

--
http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

 

[whiteOrangedesign]

Thanks so much for the comparison. I do have to ask though. Your SD9 image looks quite bad and not really the same quality I am used to seeing. The images I'm getting out of the camera are way sharper. I am also upsampling my images. I'm wondering if you had something wrong with the lens or camera or if it was just the compressed image online. It could have even been the upsampling. There is just almost no detail in that shot which is what the SD9 is known for.

My comparison between the SD9 and 645 Medium Format has been posted
on the http://www.sd9.org web site. The crops from my comparison are
available on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/chromelight . You can
either read the article then download the crops or view the crops
then read the article. I don't think it matters much which way it's
done.

--



http://www.whiteorangedesign.com/

 

[ChromeLight]

Thanks so much for the comparison. I do have to ask though. Your
SD9 image looks quite bad and not really the same quality I am used
to seeing. The images I'm getting out of the camera are way
sharper. I am also upsampling my images. I'm wondering if you had
something wrong with the lens or camera or if it was just the
compressed image online. It could have even been the upsampling.
There is just almost no detail in that shot which is what the SD9
is known for.

Hi. There is a big difference between fashion, product, portrait and landscape shots, the former requiring less resolution than the latter. I chose a landscape shot with an almost pure foliage content because it is the most challenging for an imaging system. (Think of the resolution you need to resolve all those pine needles one hundred yards away!) I think what you're seeing is that even 3.54 true color megapixels is not enough for landscape use for this particular type of shot. (I expect my tight field of view and street shots to be much more favorable to the SD9. Also, keep in mind that alough the crops may look quite different, the difference is not as apparent in the print. That's why I discourage people from making evaluations based entirely on lookinig at 100% crops.) Michael Richeman, of the Luminous Landscape web site, no longer uses his Canon 1Ds for landscape use. He has now moved up to a Contax 645 system with a Kodak 16MP DSC ProBack. So even the 1Ds was found a bit wanting in resolution for landscape use. However, your concern is noted. This weekend, when I take more comparison shots, I will attempt to broaden my comparison images.

I would encourage you to download the two large crops. Open both of them in Photoshop and view at print size. When you do that you'll see that the two crops don't look that much different.

 

[Laurence Matson]

Erik,

You are correct about the detail. However, there is a workaround that actually makes sense with the SD9 and most other digital cameras for that matter: stitching. Using good equipment, a steady tripod, and careful work in the digital lab, you should be able to surpass the quality of medium format. The latter is also capable of this, but the increased effort over digital, particularly scanning in all of the images perfectly, make it less practicable.

This does not negate the value of your tests. It is only a way for those that want to get much higher resolution.

Laurence

Thanks so much for the comparison. I do have to ask though. Your
SD9 image looks quite bad and not really the same quality I am used
to seeing. The images I'm getting out of the camera are way
sharper. I am also upsampling my images. I'm wondering if you had
something wrong with the lens or camera or if it was just the
compressed image online. It could have even been the upsampling.
There is just almost no detail in that shot which is what the SD9
is known for.

Hi. There is a big difference between fashion, product, portrait
and landscape shots, the former requiring less resolution than the
latter. I chose a landscape shot with an almost pure foliage
content because it is the most challenging for an imaging system.
(Think of the resolution you need to resolve all those pine needles
one hundred yards away!) I think what you're seeing is that even
3.54 true color megapixels is not enough for landscape use for this
particular type of shot. (I expect my tight field of view and
street shots to be much more favorable to the SD9. Also, keep in
mind that alough the crops may look quite different, the difference
is not as apparent in the print. That's why I discourage people
from making evaluations based entirely on lookinig at 100% crops.)
Michael Richeman, of the Luminous Landscape web site, no longer
uses his Canon 1Ds for landscape use. He has now moved up to a
Contax 645 system with a Kodak 16MP DSC ProBack. So even the 1Ds
was found a bit wanting in resolution for landscape use. However,
your concern is noted. This weekend, when I take more comparison
shots, I will attempt to broaden my comparison images.

I would encourage you to download the two large crops. Open both
of them in Photoshop and view at print size. When you do that
you'll see that the two crops don't look that much different.

--
http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/sd9_images
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

 

[Chris Lewis167065]

I am surprized to see that noone brought up the issue of lenses on this topic. Medium format fitted with a 80mm prime. Sigma with the 24-70 EX. I think a noteworthy discussion. A good EX prime would resolve significantly more than the 24-70 (from the looks of it, enough to make the comparison VERY close). Obviously this might not be a viable option with regards to resources.

 

[ChromeLight]

I am surprized to see that noone brought up the issue of lenses on
this topic. Medium format fitted with a 80mm prime. Sigma with
the 24-70 EX. I think a noteworthy discussion. A good EX prime
would resolve significantly more than the 24-70 (from the looks of
it, enough to make the comparison VERY close). Obviously this
might not be a viable option with regards to resources.

Understood; howerver, I've conducted tests (and I'll do so again perhaps this weekend) between the 24-70EX set at 50mm and the 50mm Macro lens. I saw basically no difference. That's why I went ahead with the 24-70EX. However, I'll see if I can rig a test between the 50mm macro lens and my 645 system. I'm quite happy to conduct different tests based upon input from people on these boards.

 

[whiteOrangedesign]

Yes, I viewed the full images before commenting. That's what made me concerned. It has nothing to do with the subject by the way. Sharpness is sharpness in any photo. I have lots of landscape shots and they are much sharper. They were taken with the same set up. I'll try to dig something up that is similar to the one you used in your test. If I can't find something then I'll shoot one this weekend. I hope your lens or camera isn't faulty. I just didn't think it was a fair test looking at the poor quality of the SD9 image. Also, I'm not blaming the photographer at all or saying I'm better or anything like that. Just pointing out that I have gotten much sharper results from the same set up. Even shooting without a tripod. Was it very windy that day? Maybe some of the blurriness is from that. How long was the exposure? Was it cloudy?

Hi. There is a big difference between fashion, product, portrait
and landscape shots, the former requiring less resolution than the
latter. I chose a landscape shot with an almost pure foliage
content because it is the most challenging for an imaging system.
(Think of the resolution you need to resolve all those pine needles
one hundred yards away!) I think what you're seeing is that even
3.54 true color megapixels is not enough for landscape use for this
particular type of shot. (I expect my tight field of view and
street shots to be much more favorable to the SD9. Also, keep in
mind that alough the crops may look quite different, the difference
is not as apparent in the print. That's why I discourage people
from making evaluations based entirely on lookinig at 100% crops.)
Michael Richeman, of the Luminous Landscape web site, no longer
uses his Canon 1Ds for landscape use. He has now moved up to a
Contax 645 system with a Kodak 16MP DSC ProBack. So even the 1Ds
was found a bit wanting in resolution for landscape use. However,
your concern is noted. This weekend, when I take more comparison
shots, I will attempt to broaden my comparison images.

I would encourage you to download the two large crops. Open both
of them in Photoshop and view at print size. When you do that
you'll see that the two crops don't look that much different.

--



http://www.whiteorangedesign.com/

 

[ChromeLight]

Yes, I viewed the full images before commenting. That's what made
me concerned. It has nothing to do with the subject by the way.
Sharpness is sharpness in any photo. I have lots of landscape
shots and they are much sharper. They were taken with the same set
up. I'll try to dig something up that is similar to the one you
used in your test. If I can't find something then I'll shoot one
this weekend. I hope your lens or camera isn't faulty. I just
didn't think it was a fair test looking at the poor quality of the
SD9 image. Also, I'm not blaming the photographer at all or saying
I'm better or anything like that. Just pointing out that I have
gotten much sharper results from the same set up. Even shooting
without a tripod. Was it very windy that day? Maybe some of the
blurriness is from that. How long was the exposure? Was it cloudy?

Hi, everything was shot on a sunny day at f/8, so from memory the shutter speed should have been about 125 or 250th of a second. Still, it's possible the wind might have blown. I just can't remember. Anyway, I'll be doing more tests this weekend. I want to thank everyone for their input.

 

[Michael McMurrough]

Well,

I was pretty impressed. Given that we're comapring a HQ medium format slide scan vs. the SD9s "interpolated to size match" image.

I feel that digital (consumer stuff, not pro backs) is just beggining to run neck in neck with 35mm, with the SD9 being one of the frontrunners. I'm not sure any of them, 1Ds included, are quite ready to duke it out with medium format.

Initially I thought the SD9 image looked soft also, but then I reviewed the methodology used to get there and felt that the SD9 actually performed quite well. Would a prime lens make a huge difference? Probably not, but it should help some. It takes a fair amount of interpolation to get to that print size and the SD9's 100 percent crops are gonna be soft. But at print size they look quite comparable. I found the color to be better with the medium format, but then, these were unadjusted images.

All in all, I thought it was a pretty cool comparision!

(There. I probably said some silly things that make me look like an idot, but I said them.)

Hi. There is a big difference between fashion, product, portrait
and landscape shots, the former requiring less resolution than the
latter. I chose a landscape shot with an almost pure foliage
content because it is the most challenging for an imaging system.
(Think of the resolution you need to resolve all those pine needles
one hundred yards away!) I think what you're seeing is that even
3.54 true color megapixels is not enough for landscape use for this
particular type of shot. (I expect my tight field of view and
street shots to be much more favorable to the SD9. Also, keep in
mind that alough the crops may look quite different, the difference
is not as apparent in the print. That's why I discourage people
from making evaluations based entirely on lookinig at 100% crops.)
Michael Richeman, of the Luminous Landscape web site, no longer
uses his Canon 1Ds for landscape use. He has now moved up to a
Contax 645 system with a Kodak 16MP DSC ProBack. So even the 1Ds
was found a bit wanting in resolution for landscape use. However,
your concern is noted. This weekend, when I take more comparison
shots, I will attempt to broaden my comparison images.

I would encourage you to download the two large crops. Open both
of them in Photoshop and view at print size. When you do that
you'll see that the two crops don't look that much different.

--



http://www.whiteorangedesign.com/

 

[centuar]

one of the worst comparision test I have ever seen.

My comparison between the SD9 and 645 Medium Format has been posted
on the http://www.sd9.org web site. The crops from my comparison are
available on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/chromelight . You can
either read the article then download the crops or view the crops
then read the article. I don't think it matters much which way it's
done.

 

[ChromeLight]

one of the worst comparision test I have ever seen.

Centuar,

What would you alter about the test?

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Yes, I viewed the full images before commenting. That's what made
me concerned. It has nothing to do with the subject by the way.
Sharpness is sharpness in any photo. I have lots of landscape
shots and they are much sharper.

But ... as I understand the test ... the pictures are upsampled
2x with bicubic ... so the SD crop is really at 200%.

Am I right?

Roland

 

[whiteOrangedesign]

Yes, and the part of my post that you cropped out stated that I also upsampled my images. I don't think it's the upsample that was the problem. The problem is that the image was blurry or lacking in detail to begin with. I'm trying to figure out why.

Yes, I viewed the full images before commenting. That's what made
me concerned. It has nothing to do with the subject by the way.
Sharpness is sharpness in any photo. I have lots of landscape
shots and they are much sharper.

But ... as I understand the test ... the pictures are upsampled
2x with bicubic ... so the SD crop is really at 200%.

Am I right?

Roland

--



http://www.whiteorangedesign.com/

 

[whiteOrangedesign]

Wow, I wouldn't say that. I think he did a great job and I really appreciate him doing this test. I don't know of any other test like this currently. My only fear is that something was wrong or happened with the SD9 when shooting and it made the results skewed.

My comparison between the SD9 and 645 Medium Format has been posted
on the http://www.sd9.org web site. The crops from my comparison are
available on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/chromelight . You can
either read the article then download the crops or view the crops
then read the article. I don't think it matters much which way it's
done.

--



http://www.whiteorangedesign.com/

 

[Zone8]

One great consideration is whether the photographer is content with showing his/her images on a monitor or in the production of prints. If the former, then lots of "adjustments" can be possible that will look OK onscreen, yet produce the most awful end prints. One specific instance lies with the excessive use of USM.

How is this related to tests, as such? Well, as mentioned by the original poster, actual prints of test results showed less difference than images when viewed on a monitor. I have posted, quite a few times over the months, that I also use medium format (6x9) and 5x4 film cameras and that I am quite happy to display prints from either AND from the SD9 alongside each other on the exhibition wall and to sell either to regular or new clients.

Of course, prints via 5x4 negs, if examined closely, will produce superior sharpness but from 6x9, the jury is out. The important point to make is that the quality of images from the SD9 can hold its own with all. If I print using a satin-finish paper, in colour, I can honestly report that resultant prints from the SD9 are on a par with those from the 6x9 and it's very difficult to distinguish them from colour prints via the 5x4 too. The 6x9 is an older Mamiya Press with high quality prime lenses, whereas my SD9 has the 24-70 EX zoom. That alone shows the superb quality from Sigma's EX range - even the zooms!

They are also, in all honesty, as good as (sharpness-wise) from the 5x4 if viewed at normal viewing distances and are not at all unacceptable when viewed at reading distance and compared to prints via the 5x4. An incredible performance when one considers that the 5x4 is some 38X larger (actual average image area). Quality-wise, tonally, there is no distinction, except to say the colour prints from the SD9 are, I feel, actually better than from film.

If I print on to art paper (which I mainly do, as I work predominantly in B+W) then I do not think anyone would be able to cross their heart and state which came from which source. The pictures are fine from all sources and I am, to be completely honest, quite amazed at the performance of the SD9, so much so that I seriously wonder if I shall be using either of the film cameras much, except perhaps for a few outings with the 5x4 when I require camera movements in my (mainly) landscape work and want to enjoy the experience! Mind you, I could perhaps use my darkcloth on the SD9

Every test produces some interesting results. Whether they are valid or not is open to comment but at least they will get the thought process and debate going. Me? I have given up tests and am happily getting on with producing pictures that please me because I'm the most important person when it comes to pleasing me with my own pictures. Ah yes, I used to be conceited but now, well, I'm perfect!

Zone8

 

[centuar]

It is not my intention to offend but ultimately it will.
I really have have to laugh about tests made to compare digital to analogue.
In two years of reading no one has made any real tests of substances.

The reason being if you look at any article written you will notice that the photos are invalid ,you have digital data from the camera and a scan from a negative or positive and that is called a valid comparison.

A valid comparison is to print the digital data and the analogue negative and then scan both prints together.

Second point I do own a sigma and have done enough tests myself to know the strength and weakness and every digital camera has them the the question what you can live with and what you can't and the price your willing to pay.

Fact is Sigma doesn't manufacture a digital lens, there lens are made for full frame 35 mm ,just think about it the sensor is exactly 1/3 the size of a 35 mm film. There zoom lens are hopeless with the Sigma SD9 and only a few F stops are usable. The only lens that can be used with the Sigma are the fixed lens but with a wider F stop range but still limited compared to full frame 35 mm if they were real digital lens like they claim this would not be the case.

Fact- if shooting with the Sigma using 1/15 to 1 sec exposures you have to use mirror lock up otherwise you will see noticeable movement, Sigma made a 3rd rate mirror mechanism that damn vibrates.

I'm talking about sharpness and resolution , you can't use the Sigma hand held and claim the images are sharp if you do you are plain blind.
Just try it and make a analogue comparison.

The sensor is equivalent to 10.5 mega pixels that is another fantasy it is equivalent to current 6 mega pixels cameras on the market.

Do the tests yourself if you get a chance example Fuji S pro2, Canon EOS-1D(11 mega pixels) and Sigma and blow them up to 50 X 70 cm prints. You will see how the sigma is better in some things than the Fuji and the canon is better than the both of them.

If you are going to compare the Sigma with 645 format then at least make sure you are photographing static objects and the same crop in either the width or the length and as close to the same lens factor , print the digital data and the negative on real analogue photographic paper then scan them both together and you will see there is no note worthy comparison.

You can't compare a 1st generation image with a 2nd generation image and call that a valid test as I mentioned no one has made a valid comparison as yet , I ask what has happened to logical thinking.

one of the worst comparision test I have ever seen.

Centuar,

What would you alter about the test?