Dynamic Range and Medium Format
Posted 26/10/2009 - 08:39 - Helpful Comment
Link
"...It shows what is possible now..."
I'm afraid it does not! What it shows is a set of data supplied by measurement against a piece of software. The software was devised by people who needed a set of criteria in order to compose this software. To mention just one defect; there is no mechanism there for comparing sensors despite some of them being nearly three times the physical size of the others.
Leaving out the software, this is just the same endeavour that has appeared in photographic publications since photography began. And, just like all the rest it is fatally flawed by the very criteria needed to make it 'possible'.
Unfortunately, the only way to decide which system is the best, is the same as it's always been, namely, to do your own set of measurements and comparisons on actual images with your own vital criteria overlaid and carefully considered.
I'm afraid it does not! What it shows is a set of data supplied by measurement against a piece of software. The software was devised by people who needed a set of criteria in order to compose this software. To mention just one defect; there is no mechanism there for comparing sensors despite some of them being nearly three times the physical size of the others.
Leaving out the software, this is just the same endeavour that has appeared in photographic publications since photography began. And, just like all the rest it is fatally flawed by the very criteria needed to make it 'possible'.
Unfortunately, the only way to decide which system is the best, is the same as it's always been, namely, to do your own set of measurements and comparisons on actual images with your own vital criteria overlaid and carefully considered.
Posted 26/10/2009 - 09:41
Link
viewfinder wrote:
"...It shows what is possible now..."
I'm afraid it does not! What it shows is a set of data supplied by measurement against a piece of software. The software was devised by people who needed a set of criteria in order to compose this software. To mention just one defect; there is no mechanism there for comparing sensors despite some of them being nearly three times the physical size of the others.
Leaving out the software, this is just the same endeavour that has appeared in photographic publications since photography began. And, just like all the rest it is fatally flawed by the very criteria needed to make it 'possible'.
Unfortunately, the only way to decide which system is the best, is the same as it's always been, namely, to do your own set of measurements and comparisons on actual images with your own vital criteria overlaid and carefully considered.
Opinion appreciated."...It shows what is possible now..."
I'm afraid it does not! What it shows is a set of data supplied by measurement against a piece of software. The software was devised by people who needed a set of criteria in order to compose this software. To mention just one defect; there is no mechanism there for comparing sensors despite some of them being nearly three times the physical size of the others.
Leaving out the software, this is just the same endeavour that has appeared in photographic publications since photography began. And, just like all the rest it is fatally flawed by the very criteria needed to make it 'possible'.
Unfortunately, the only way to decide which system is the best, is the same as it's always been, namely, to do your own set of measurements and comparisons on actual images with your own vital criteria overlaid and carefully considered.
I have compared my APS-C images against my FF images, same field of view, same ISO, same subject and effectively, same light and my FF appears better? At 100% I also see more detail. That though is a different sensor and glass.
That is only my opinion of my kit though.
Surely the dynamic range measurement is valid?
So would you advocate disregarding magazine reviews?
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 26/10/2009 - 10:01 - Helpful Comment
Link
Yes, you can see more detail in FF for the simple reason that there IS more detail. A big chunk of film always bettered a smaller chunk of film for purely physical reasons and nothing that I have seen leads me to think that sesors are any less susceptible to the same truth.
However, it does seem true that the better 'Full-frame' systems can now equal the smaller MF film formats in 'general' image quality,...although, as we are saying it's subjective at best and according to individual photographers and even, individual subjects and resulting prints.
This is interesting about different formats, although, yet again it's just one mans view albeit a world class pro photographer of 40 years experience;
http://picasaweb.google.com/cjbroadbent/Formats?feat=directlink#
Explanation/commentary here;
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73585
Have a look at his gallery by clicking his username,..also have a look at his client list!!
....And yes, I always treat magazine reviews with extreme scepticism!
However, it does seem true that the better 'Full-frame' systems can now equal the smaller MF film formats in 'general' image quality,...although, as we are saying it's subjective at best and according to individual photographers and even, individual subjects and resulting prints.
This is interesting about different formats, although, yet again it's just one mans view albeit a world class pro photographer of 40 years experience;
http://picasaweb.google.com/cjbroadbent/Formats?feat=directlink#
Explanation/commentary here;
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73585
Have a look at his gallery by clicking his username,..also have a look at his client list!!
....And yes, I always treat magazine reviews with extreme scepticism!
Posted 26/10/2009 - 10:30
Link
Excellent link!
Down side of that is that he used an M8, I have just finished reading (web reviews) on the M9. and and and I want an M9. I DO NOT want to spend that sort of cash though. If I total up what I've spent in the last five years on cameras and glass, trying to get what may not be attainable, I'd cringe. So I don't! I was committed to buying a Pentax 645D when it was announced, now, I don't even consider moving towards MF.
Regards
Down side of that is that he used an M8, I have just finished reading (web reviews) on the M9. and and and I want an M9. I DO NOT want to spend that sort of cash though. If I total up what I've spent in the last five years on cameras and glass, trying to get what may not be attainable, I'd cringe. So I don't! I was committed to buying a Pentax 645D when it was announced, now, I don't even consider moving towards MF.
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 26/10/2009 - 10:48
Link
"...and I want an M9.."
.....Yeah,...well, welcome to the club..!!
The only thing is that when the secondhand M9's start to become within reach, there will probably be more and better FF dslr's about as they are gettign better all the time. Full-frame is the interesting area in my view as I don't see a future for APS-C for serious photographers,..and, i dont actually think the makers have ever really been behind it either since there are still few wide-angles and the viewfinders have never been developed properly by any one of the makers etc.
....Only thing is, I have always hated the 35mm (style) SLR and it's my least favourite camera type......
.....Yeah,...well, welcome to the club..!!
The only thing is that when the secondhand M9's start to become within reach, there will probably be more and better FF dslr's about as they are gettign better all the time. Full-frame is the interesting area in my view as I don't see a future for APS-C for serious photographers,..and, i dont actually think the makers have ever really been behind it either since there are still few wide-angles and the viewfinders have never been developed properly by any one of the makers etc.
....Only thing is, I have always hated the 35mm (style) SLR and it's my least favourite camera type......
Posted 26/10/2009 - 11:11
Link
Good read and totally on board with what the chap said.
My prints are few and far between, most of the stuff I do on commission or work is put on DVD or USB drives.
I question myself and what makes me happy, as I never get any feedback regarding image quality or technical issues.
I like cameras for all the wrong reasons. Getting good images is a sideline...
Regards
My prints are few and far between, most of the stuff I do on commission or work is put on DVD or USB drives.
I question myself and what makes me happy, as I never get any feedback regarding image quality or technical issues.
I like cameras for all the wrong reasons. Getting good images is a sideline...
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 26/10/2009 - 11:39
Link
For most of us the APS-C sensor is more then good enough, it's only when you make large prints where you will see the difference. That has to do with the whole format and not just the sensor I believe.
What viewfinder said about FF is true that we see most innovation in that but the sensor type is the same as in APS-C and often those innovation see there way into those camera with the new models after the introduction of the FF.
I'm sure we also had this discussion 4 years ago and I'm sure that todays APS-C are just as good as the FF sensors of that time so basicly APS-C is lacking 4 years or so behind the FF. Some here still shoot with cameras of 4 generations ago and are still more then happy with that and to be honest I don't see the difference here on the web.
What viewfinder said about FF is true that we see most innovation in that but the sensor type is the same as in APS-C and often those innovation see there way into those camera with the new models after the introduction of the FF.
I'm sure we also had this discussion 4 years ago and I'm sure that todays APS-C are just as good as the FF sensors of that time so basicly APS-C is lacking 4 years or so behind the FF. Some here still shoot with cameras of 4 generations ago and are still more then happy with that and to be honest I don't see the difference here on the web.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 26/10/2009 - 12:02
Link
Quote:
"Some here still shoot with cameras of 4 generations ago and are still more then happy with that and to be honest I don't see the difference here on the web".
I still use my istD. I consider it to have less noise than my K10D. "Some here still shoot with cameras of 4 generations ago and are still more then happy with that and to be honest I don't see the difference here on the web".
The K7 is a different kettle of fish, it strangely has what Pentax used to have and seem to have found again, I cannot put that into words.
Where is George when you need him?
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 26/10/2009 - 12:14
Link
Almost all of my work is for publication on the web or in print and I did a test a while back using my 645 and *istDS on a shoot, apart from a slightly 'filmy' look on the MF pictures there was nothing to choose between them on a computer screen. I really don't have much use for large prints which would tell a different story.
I've held onto the 645 kit for a while but that nice man, Chris at SRS, has now taken it off my hands and a new K20 might be here tomorrow. For my purposes a 14.6MP sensor will be much more useful than a 6x45 neg or transparency although I will miss the sheer physical presence of that big camera.
I dont think a FF (a term I quite dislike BTW) would offer me anything I don't already have.
I've held onto the 645 kit for a while but that nice man, Chris at SRS, has now taken it off my hands and a new K20 might be here tomorrow. For my purposes a 14.6MP sensor will be much more useful than a 6x45 neg or transparency although I will miss the sheer physical presence of that big camera.
I dont think a FF (a term I quite dislike BTW) would offer me anything I don't already have.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Posted 26/10/2009 - 13:17
Link
If you are only going to put stuff on the web then you don't even need a *ist, or any DSLR...any digicam will do. I use a lumix FX150 and only use 'half the pixels',..it makes superb files for the web that are more than adequate in every dept and people rave over the pix I send.
Posted 26/10/2009 - 13:29
Link
viewfinder wrote:
If you are only going to put stuff on the web then you don't even need a *ist, or any DSLR...any digicam will do. I use a lumix FX150 and only use 'half the pixels',..it makes superb files for the web that are more than adequate in every dept and people rave over the pix I send.
So you can put a range of lenses from fisheye to 1000mm on your digicam and have total control over your images, I must say I'm quite impressed.If you are only going to put stuff on the web then you don't even need a *ist, or any DSLR...any digicam will do. I use a lumix FX150 and only use 'half the pixels',..it makes superb files for the web that are more than adequate in every dept and people rave over the pix I send.
I prefer to think of my images as 'work' rather than 'stuff'
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Posted 26/10/2009 - 13:52
Link
Well I'm not happy for any of my work to be seen simply on someones screen, so it all goes out as large prints of sometimes carefully handled files for printing...
........I only put 'stuff' on the web......
........I only put 'stuff' on the web......
Posted 26/10/2009 - 14:46
Link
Hang on chaps....
A lot of my work, I never see. Some has had to be approved by the local ministry before it can be used, other is used or not used. As long as I get paid, it does not matter. I do think that large files/images allow a better crop factor.
I'm off over to Bahrain on Thursday and the K7 has to prove its worth at a Halloween party, daft thing is, I left the flashgun in the UK!!%##@@!@!
BUTTTTTT.... the 160 Ring flash arrives tomorrow (FEDEX have it now in town) so I am going to use that... needs must! Be interesting to see how it performs? Kids will think they are on Fashion TV.
Regards
A lot of my work, I never see. Some has had to be approved by the local ministry before it can be used, other is used or not used. As long as I get paid, it does not matter. I do think that large files/images allow a better crop factor.
I'm off over to Bahrain on Thursday and the K7 has to prove its worth at a Halloween party, daft thing is, I left the flashgun in the UK!!%##@@!@!
BUTTTTTT.... the 160 Ring flash arrives tomorrow (FEDEX have it now in town) so I am going to use that... needs must! Be interesting to see how it performs? Kids will think they are on Fashion TV.
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
6414 posts
17 years
link
It shows what is possible now. "Bang for buck" what would you buy?
This is not a push for Nikon. This is to show that today, we can get MF quality without selling the house, wife and Bentley.
The dynamic range is also commendable.
Regards