MF 16 bit files only marginally better than 35mm??
JimKarczewski
Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
So, I've seen online postings of all the popular 35mm cameras and their DR and I see that the 5DmkII is 11.86 (according to DxOMark) but I've been contemplating the purchase of a MF back for my Mamiya and all of those backs state 12 stops. I looked and one of the Phase one backs is 13.03 stops (40mp) but with the difference between 14 bit and 16 bit files (35mm vs MF) shouldn't there be more of a difference?
I mean, I thought one of the reasons of getting a MF is the TRUE 16 bit capture of files (among other things.) But with only 1 stop difference.. this doesn't make much sense. What am I missing???
I mean, I thought one of the reasons of getting a MF is the TRUE 16 bit capture of files (among other things.) But with only 1 stop difference.. this doesn't make much sense. What am I missing???
Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com
0
Comments
On paper, there shouldn't be too much of a difference between the D3s and the Pentax 645D when it comes to DR, but in side by side testing the extra detail captured in shadows by the MF gear was a big surprise to all of us.
Beg, borrow, hire a back for the Mam' and shoot with it and the 5DII together in high DR settings and compare the results - this is something you need to see with your own eyes and not rely on internet experts (most of whom will have never used MF gear in any shape or form).
www.warped-photography.com
Dynamic range is generally measured in terms of "stops" and the measurements are generally limited at the top by when highlight detail is obliterated and at the bottom when shadow detail is equaled by random sensor noise. Manufacturers are now somewhat sensitive to the reviewers measuring dynamic range and even RAW files will often have some noise reduction applied to the image data to improve the dynamic range numbers.
Since all color sensors have multiple color channels, dynamic range is also affected by white balance and the individual sensor's sensitivity at the particular white balance and the available color spectrum.
In other words, there is no singular dynamic range definition and no singular method of measurement. All of that makes comparisons risky between different reviewers and sources. As usual, you cannot depend on accurate data from the manufacturers unless they specify the exact methodology and you understand the differences between methodologies.
The downside to most medium format imagers is that random sensor noise ramps up very quickly with ISO. Dynamic range tends to suffer, but the Pentax 645D imager is remarkably still pretty good at ISO 1600. Add some software NR in post if you wish.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yes, MF is better in many respects. But not so much better that you'll see a difference more than 1% of the time, except in the hands of a truly gifted, experienced and skilled artist...
;-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I've never disagreed with a post more than this one - can't put it into writing just how wrong this is (and then there's that
www.warped-photography.com
Increasing the amount of bits used to record the image does not necessarily increase dynamic range. It's the ability of the chip to cope with a wide dynamic range.
If you list the pros and cons of medium format vs FF there's probably more pros and less cons for FF, even if you leave out cost.
Again, I'd disagree.
Anyone can pull up a number of reasons why one camera (whatever it is, compact, micro 4/3, FF ....etc) is better than another.
For me - Top of my list is image quality, resolution and clarity, colour rendition and dynamic range. After that it's "How big can I print this?" ..... everything after that isn't importnat for me and what I want to shoot - with that in mind, MF gets the nod and the wins with FF a distant second.
Cost - what's a D3s plus some some nice glass go for new? Won't be much less than a new H4D-31 or 645D, so cost isn't even that big an issue anymore if you're looking at that kind of budget to begin with.
The OP already has a Mamiya so I'm guessing he knows what MF is all about and the advantages it can give (and when FF might be a better option), but needs to suss out the dig' side of things. I'll just go back to "try one and see for yourself" until you've done that it's all just talk
As for increasing the number of bits - the number might not have much to do with DR, but the size of those pixels/bits sure does!!
When it comes to resolution and sharpness/clarity, bigger is better and it's that honking great big sensor making the difference, not the chip or the processing.
www.warped-photography.com
The Pentax 645D is able to recycle lenses from the Pentax 645 film series cameras and used copies of those lenses are not horribly priced.
All that said, a FF 135 format Canon, Nikon or Sony is still a major benefit for someone shooting crop cameras only. The benefit for vista landscapes, portraiture and studio work is tangible and mostly affordable if you go with the lower tier bodies or used bodies.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
In the end, I will probably be doing more landscape than anything with the MF body. However, I wouldn't rule out doing wedding formals (NO way I'd shoot the wedding itself with a limit like ISO 400, unless I chunked down $40 large for the new 80MP that can do ISO 3200 @ 20MP.)
It seems to me that MF are professionally used for high end fashion and commercial type work, in controlled environments. I'm sure it has an edge here, for what I do (weddings and portraits) the image quality, resolution and clarity of a 5D, never mind a MkII, are sufficient.
Other very important factors for me are:
- Continuous shooting speed (5D is fast enough, MF isn't)
- Ergonomics (MF too big and heavy)
- Range of fast quality lenses (not enough choice for MF, and even the primes are not very fast)
- High ISO performance (too poor in MF)
- AA filter, I don't want moire (some MF backs don't have this I believe)
- Reasonable file sizes that I can process quickly (makes a huge difference to my productivity)
The image quality on any modern DSLR is actually astounding compared to what was around 10 years ago, or course a MF might have an edge there, but except in a few specific markets, your clients wont see a difference IMHO.
Ziggy - correct about the 645D and the 'Blad H4D-40 using the same Kodak 40 Mpixel sensor (but only the 40 obviously, there are also 31 and 50 Mpixel backs using a different sensor). One way the 'Blads differentiate themselves is with True Focus system in the H4D series with in-built accelerometers remembering where you focused before recomposing.
Money no object - MF gear wins hands down for vista landscapes and studio work and with the prices dropping the gear is becoming more of an option for some.
Stuart - I've got to ask, have you ever used or had much epererience with MF gear, especially the newer breeds?
Without going into a long-winded post, a fair bit of what you've stated isn't an issue and is sterotypical misinformation based on the older, early MF digital backs.
If the gear you've got does the job and does it well - great
But don't write of MF and how much of a difference it can make based on heresay that mostly comes from people who haven't owned, or even used the gear they're prepared to bag as too big, too heavy, too noisy .....etc.
I don't want to come across as an overzealous MF fan-boy - but I have been shooting for over 20 years with 35mm film, MF film, DSLRs and now MF digital.
Whilst I'm no expert or big time pro - I think I've got a reasonable grasp on just how much of a difference there is between various systems and would hate for people to miss out on something due to old sterotyopes that are no longer valid.
www.warped-photography.com
On the other hand, won't you admit that PLENTY of MF digital cameras *ARE* purchased by gearheads who're just "compensating"...? (Just like plenty of D3X and any other DSLR's get purchased by the same ilk?)
And, as you mentioned, MF digital really only "wins" for landscapes or studio work, where print size and quality matter most. But that is only a small portion of photography, and the rest of the genres almost always points photographers in the direction of a good FX or even DX DSLR. Incognito photojournalism, often near zero EV light levels. Extreme telephoto action, often requiring a similarly extreme frame rate. Weight, size, and independence from power sources, miles from the nearest wall outlet...
;-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I'm not arguing that MF isn't better for landscapes and studio work, if money is no object, and my experience with using MF gear is much less than yours. However, you state that my points (which pertain to the wedding and environmental portrait work I do) are hearsay etc. So I thought I would check the facts, I've used a Hasselblad H4N31 as comparison to my 5D:
Weight: 5D 810g H4N 2.3kg
Continuous shooting: 5D 3FPS H4N 0.8FPS
File size: 5D about 12MB RAW H4N about 40MB RAW
ISO: 5D 1600 (3200 extended) H4N 1600
Best Standard lens: 5D 50mm 1.2 H4N 80mm 2.8
Best Portrait Lens: 5D 85mm 1.2 H4N 100mm 2.2
Fastest shutter speed: 5D 1/8000 H4N 1/800
Every one of these factors would have a negative impact on my photography, and cumulatively would more than outweigh the benefits of the MF camera for me.
These are facts from the Hasselblad website, and they seem to totally back up the points I made previously, so I'm not sure what it's got to do with stereotyping. And the 5D Mk 1 is a pretty old camera now.
Actually, from the people I've met it's usually ex-film lovers who want to use their old lenses from the film days and/or pro's who "need" that extra resolution rather than gear heads. The vast majority of gear heads I know are camera club members who feel the need to always upgrade (and Canon and Nikon provide plenty of opportunites there) and have the latest and greatest ...... you just can't afford to do that with MF gear.
All the "compensators" I know NEED to have the latest DSLR from their chosen brand and all their lenses NEED to have red or gold rings, or be L glass, any accessory should be titanium or carbon fibre and they never have the same camera for more than 12 months and that next upgrade is always what they need to get better shots.
I've got the 645D and one lens, a 2nd lens is on the way. The rest of my gear is old film stuff and my DSLR for when not shooting film was a 6.3 Mpixel K100D. I use Cactus radio triggers when everyone else uses pocket wizards and my tripod is a beat up, heavy, no name brand I bought 15 years ago. All the others (all 3 of them) that I know with MF digital gear are in much the same boat .... but maybe there's a lack of MF shooters around my parts and I've not met the typical MF shooter that you have
To landscapes and studio work I'll add natural light portraiture - MF rocks when it comes to that!! The rest of the stuff you've mentioned isn't easy with MF I'l grant you that - but also not impossible or as abysmally bad as some make it out to be. I guess that's my main gripe - I keep readin stuff like MF can't shoot sports, MF is useless in low light ....etc when that's not really true.
If it came across as arguing against your points as applicable to you - that wasn't the aim and apologies for that. I'm only adding to this in general terms and each and every person will be different.
As for your new points:
H4D-40 goes to ISO 1600 and weighs areound the same as the H4N
645D also goes to 1600 but weighs less than 1500g
On those two cameras the performance at ISO1600 isn't half as bad as most people make it out to be going off what people may have written about the early MF digital gear (that's the sterotype I mean).
It's certainly not as good as the current crop of pro DSLRs, but also by no means is the performance poor, or bad, as I keep reading elsewhere. That's the sterotyping I'm on about... I keep reading comments like "MF is hopeless in low light and the high ISO performance is rubbish" when this just isn't the case. Just because they can't go to 3200 or higher and are a bit noisier, doesn't = bad in my books, just not as good.
This was shot at ISO 1600, hand held at 1/13th of a second (no IS or VR) and the 18x24 print is crystal clear with no visible noise.
Speed:
645D will go to 1/4000.
Once thing a lot of people miss with the speed sterotype is that you can't directly compare 2.8 on a 645 format camera against 2.8 on a FF or cropped sensor DSLR. If someone is always using their favourite 1.8 lens and sees there's very little in the way of MF lenses under 2.8 they write MF off.
The DOF is much smaller on the MF gear due to the increased distance between sensor and optics and the DOF is much more controlable. 1.8 or faster on MF would be near on unusable, the DOF would be to small. With the extra sensor size, DR and resolution, what you can capture with a 2.8 on an MF camera easily competes with 1.8 or 1.4 lenses on smaller formats.
Size and weight. The 645D is a fair bit heavier than a 5D, but around the same as a D3 or 1D variant, especially with big stuff like L glass and battery grips hanging off them. The D3s was too tall to fit in my bag, the 645D is wider and the body a bit chunkier but fits in the bag nicely.
Fps on the 645D is actually worse, max of 1.1 fps and a scene with a lot of colour pushes the .dng or .pef raw files into the 50 Mb range - so that one rings true, but higher resolution will always increase file size and write speeds.
I'm not argueing that the 5D is worse or that you'd be better of with MF, or that anyone would be better off with MF over what they've got - the best camera is the one you've got.
But, I do shoot MF and when the rare MF conversation pops up I can't help but go into bat for the big guys and my comments are meant to be taken "in general" - not "well I've got a 645D and it's definitely better than your XYZ DSLR"
www.warped-photography.com
Warped, you don't have to test drive a bus to know it's not great for ducking up to the local high street to get some milk. Let's not get too precious about what credentials make an opinion count or not count.
Your point is clearly made, and taken. For some kinds of photography MF is worth another look now that new generations of the format are appearing. Your information is persuasive for those whose needs and interests MF can assist. I'm sure the "convertible candidates" have been taking note.
You originally wrote of your hope that the topic of MF might find a place at Dgrin. I hope it does too. I'd like to see lots of shots people are taking with MF, and hear about all their experiences, the successes, the problems, the solutions, stuff from that frontier.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix