The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The P45+ and DR. And noise. And...

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
First off, no offense was taken by me at all. I have not had the back long enough to have even figured out how to properly process the files -- give me a month before you start bashing me or the back LOLOLOLOL!

I do respectfully disagree with Thierry (and apparently a few others) in that my first crop does not show as much fine details as Thierry's plant crops -- IMO it shows significant rendering of fine detail, look at the veins in the leaf -- and more fine detail than any of Thiery's plant crops did. Yes, it may be a bit brittle, but I used other than recommended settings to process it :)

Folks, we are all friends here, we're all in this together, and nobody is "bashing" anybody else's choices or equipment. The fact is any of these backs represent the pinnacle of digital imaging and we are all here in the spirit of learning more about them. And speaking for myself, I have a lot yet to learn -- compared to the more common digital cameras, MF is daunting :bugeyes:

I think Marc said it best in his post above -- ALL of these backs are very capable imaging machines and once mastered I am sure each will give similarly exquisite files. What is different is the UI of the backs themselves and the workflow of the processing software; this is probably where more of the discussion for the not-yet-committed should be focused. And for me, it would be of significant benefit to learn other settings folks are using for post processing their P files in C1 so I don't have to re-invent the wheel.

I'll also add this for the record so there is no misunderstanding. I could be and would have been happy with any of the current Leaf, Sinar, Hassy or Phase backs. I am primarily a landscape shooter, so easy UI on the back controls with gloves on, and climatic performance and dust and moisture sealing were probably the most significant deciding factors. Landscape is often done in very early or very late light, so long exposure capability was definitely a consideration. (Landscape just as often has a LOT of light in it, so the faster shutter speeds of a focal-plane shuttered camera were also a consideration, but this led to my choice of camera platform, not back.) Confidence in my dealer and dealer support was another significant factor, so choosing a dealer responsive to my questions and concerns was paramount. Comfort with the software was also considered, and I was at least familiar enough with C1 to hit the ground running with it. Lastly, simplicity of use -- not needing to keep the user manual handy in my bag -- was important too. At the end of all of this, my personal choice was Phase, but the pixel-level performance of each back was the least of my concerns as I knew they would all be capable of delivering superb quality once I mastered the unique workflow.

Stay tuned, more to come as I progress with this awesome tool!
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Jack,

That's fine, I respect your belief. Just FYI, I did not compare the details in the leaf or leaves of my sample: it is a fern which is almost veinless, with quite a "plastic" and structureless look (I think I shall send you a sample from my garden to be convinced :)), but with other parts of the images, like the stones on the floor, the water drops, the fine structure of the tree trunks, etc ...
So we disagree here, but nothing wrong with this.

Where I agree, is that there is not the same DoF as in your shot, due to the different focal length and aperture of course. So in this respect there is certainly more to see in your image.

And yes, Jack, all these high-end backs are capable to give outstanding results, here I do agree as well.

Best regards,
Thierry

I do respectfully disagree with Thierry (and apparently a few others) in that my first crop does not show as much fine details as Thierry's plant crops -- IMO it shows significant rendering of fine detail, look at the veins in the leaf -- and more fine detail than any of Thiery's plant crops did. Yes, it may be a bit brittle, but I used other than recommended settings to process it :)
 

mark1958

Member
Jack the one question I have is that the focus of the tree in the background just behind the green leaves appear to have different degrees of detail between the two shots. Since they were shot with the same aperture, I suspect slightly different focusing or could this be due to the NR applied even in the default processing mode?

So here you go with the ugly :D

This image was set up specifically as an ISO torture test. First the full image to give you the scale, then I'll explain the side-by-side crops:



Now for the details on this test. The main shot is ISO 100, 0.3 secs at f8, 80mm lens. For the high ISO, I went to 800 and used -1 EV, 1/50th at f8, then pushed in C1 +1 EV for an effective ISO 1600. Now to be honest, I expected the file to simply fall apart. But it didn't completely, and moreover it held together well enough to remain usable IMO. Not perfect for sure, but usable, especially keeping in mind the minute scale of detail you are looking at on this 100% crop. Also note that these were only processed in C1, though at slightly different settings for sharpening and noise, and NO 3rd party NR software run at all, which no doubt could do even better. The wind was blowing the ferns around, so there was some subject motion -- a real-life situation where the slow shutter speed versus higher ISO trade-offs needed to be considered. ISO 100 on left, ISO 1600 on right:



Cheers,
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Mark, it is probably C1 NR smearing the detail (L NR) and color -- again, I do not have enough experience to tell.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Here is I think a more comparable example to Thierry's, at least from a capture protocol standpoint. This was ISO 800 at 1/25th at f4 using my older version 3 Hassy 110 F lens, distance is about 4 meters -- pretty close to Thierry's 1/40th sec and f4-1/3 with a newer Rollei version of this lens.

Here is the full ISO 800 frame for reference with the approx 750 pixel detail area highlighted:



Here are side-by-side 100% detail views of ISO 100 on the left (1/4 sec at f4) and 800 (1/25th at f4) on the right.

Please note that I still do not have more than a rudimentary experience converting these PhaseOne files. Also note that I took the ISO 100 frame below just a few minutes earlier than the ISO 800 frame, yet the sun moved enough to alter the highlight hitting the leaf, so even these are not perfect comparisons. Thus, I think to do this test accurately and properly enough to draw a meaningful conclusion, we'd need a studio set with controlled lighting and have all cameras on hand to shoot the same image with the same lenses at the same exposures at all ISO's, complete with a McBeth chart in the image so noise levels in ALL colors and at all ISO's could be accurately compared. Anyway, I would still not draw any permanent conclusions since my own test is thusly flawed, so with those disclaimers here is my most recent side-by-side:



I feel the heat :ROTFL:
 

mark1958

Member
Jack why can't you hold that sun still :). I think this shows the iso1600 are decent but there is some loss of detail.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
No heat, Jack.

But: I did not use f4 1/3 but f5.6 at 1/40th.
;)

Thierry

PS: I think you agree now, that this shows a huge difference with your other sample. I do not speak here about details, but noise, artifacts and lack of micro-contrast.


Here is I think a more comparable example to Thierry's, at least from a capture protocol standpoint. This was ISO 800 at 1/25th at f4 using my older version 3 Hassy 110 F lens, distance is about 4 meters -- pretty close to Thierry's 1/40th sec and f4-1/3 with a newer Rollei version of this lens.
 

PSon

Active member
I did the comparison between the Rollei 110 and the Hasselblad 110 on the same digital sensor (Sinar 54H) and both are equally sharp with very high micro details. The Rollei has a little more CA than the Hasselblad version in the wide aperture range.

-Son
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
No heat, Jack.

But: I did not use f4 1/3 but f5.6 at 1/40th.
;)

Thierry

PS: I think you agree now, that this shows a huge difference with your other sample. I do not speak here about details, but noise, artifacts and lack of micro-contrast.
Oh how stupid of me, of course you did -- but I'm not going to re-shoot at f5.6 even though it might be sharper still :ROTFL:

And yes, I see a significant improvement in relative noise here.

Cheers,
 
T

thsinar

Guest
yes, exactly Son.

Thierry

I did the comparison between the Rollei 110 and the Hasselblad 110 on the same digital sensor (Sinar 54H) and both are equally sharp with very high micro details. The Rollei has a little more CA than the Hasselblad version in the wide aperture range.

-Son
 
T

thsinar

Guest
I hope you will, re-shoot at f5.6, otherwise how can we compare?!
:ROTFL:

Is it possible to have the full RAW of this shot?

Thanks Jack,
Thierry

PS: going to bed now. Will continue "arguing" with you tomorrow.
:ROTFL:


Oh how stupid of me, of course you did -- but I'm not going to re-shoot at f5.6 even though it might be sharper still :ROTFL:

And yes, I see a significant improvement in relative noise here.

Cheers,
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I did the comparison between the Rollei 110 and the Hasselblad 110 on the same digital sensor (Sinar 54H) and both are equally sharp with very high micro details. The Rollei has a little more CA than the Hasselblad version in the wide aperture range.

-Son
Thanks for the clarification Son. In practice, I actually find most of my Mamiya glass -- specifically the 55, 80, 150 and 210 AF lenses -- to be notably sharper than the Hassy 110. I like this Hassy lens for portraits and its ultra narrow DoF signature.
 

PSon

Active member
Thierry,
Normally I shy away from lens with CA but for some reason the Rollei 2.0/110 PQ really renders lovely bokeh that I even prefer more than my Hasselblad version despite it is a lens that can control CA better. I find my Hasselblad Zeiss lens and Contax 645 Zeiss lens are very similar in looks but the colors on the Rollei lens are special.

Best Regards,
-Son
 

PSon

Active member
Jack,
For portrait the 2.0/110 Planar is really special lens. I shot Mamiya lens as well as you know and the images are also razor sharp as you found out. I never compare the Mamiya lens with the Zeiss but I found the skin tone on the Zeiss 110 looks so real. Also on your leaf test you did not put on F5.6 which you are handicapping yourself; there is a major difference between F4 and F5.6 in term of resolution. LOL

Best Regards,
-Son
 
T

thsinar

Guest
I do absolutely agree with you on this. A jewel of a lens, IMO.

Best regards,
Thierry

Thierry,
Normally I shy away from lens with CA but for some reason the Rollei 2.0/110 PQ really renders lovely bokeh that I even prefer more than my Hasselblad version despite it is a lens that can control CA better. I find my Hasselblad Zeiss lens and Contax 645 Zeiss lens are very similar in looks but the colors on the Rollei lens are special.

Best Regards,
-Son
 

PSon

Active member
Speaking of colors, the Rollei 55 PC is amazing; very rich and natural colors.

Best Regards,
-Son
 

David K

Workshop Member
Jack,
I think this second batch of photos provides a much better insight into the higher ISO capabilities of your back which seem to me to be quite good. Glad to see you using that Hassy lens on your kit, it's a winner.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack,
Also on your leaf test you did not put on F5.6 which you are handicapping yourself; there is a major difference between F4 and F5.6 in term of resolution. LOL

Best Regards,
-Son
Yes, I know that is much better at f5.6 and 8, but honestly thought I remembered Thierry did his test at f4-1/3 and wanted to be as close as possible -- DOH, how stupid of me to not double check first :banghead:

Actually, a GREAT example if why I *hate* to do any kind of "testing" and publish the results -- too many ways for a simpleton like me to screw up! :ROTFL:
 

PSon

Active member
Jack,
I forgot to tell you that I find the Mamiya RZ67 optic systems to have extremely great edge sharpness even more than my Hasselblad lens but only on the edges. I find these lens to be great for Landscape works.

Best Regards,
-Son
 

David K

Workshop Member
Actually, a GREAT example if why I *hate* to do any kind of "testing" and publish the results -- too many ways for a simpleton like me to screw up! :ROTFL:
Amen... and it's got nothing to do with being simple. Almost doesn't matter what the test is... some folks are looking for something else or otherwise finding fault. Still, for better or worse, it's good to have them and it really does help folks make up their mind about which back works better for them.
 
Top