Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 55

Thread: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

  1. #1
    Senior Member Ed Hurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,095
    Post Thanks / Like

    MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Hello all,

    Many thanks to all of you who have helped with my questions so far.

    If comparing MF digital (e.g. the latest Phase backs and the latest H series bodies) with 35mm-style DSLRs such as Nikon D3 and Canon 1DSmkiii, how do they perform at ISO 200, 400 and 800 in terms of noise, detail and dynamic range? I know the resolution will be higher, but what about these other parameters?

    For my purposes, being able to shoot at 200 and 400 (and preferably up to 800) with confidence is important - and I wouldn't want to lose out on overall quality by stepping up to MF digital. My fear is that MF digital might only be worth it at very low ISOs...

    Any feedback very welcome!

    Best wishes and thanks in advance for your help.

    Ed

  2. #2
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    735
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Ed the H3DII-31 does incredibly well at iso 800. It is as good if not better than my 1DsmkIII in the noise dept. The overall image quality is much better with the MF as has been discussed. There will be a Phocus release soon allowing one to go to iso 1600. Obviously cannot comment on the noise issue at this iso. There are a number of examples posted on this board.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed HUrst View Post
    Hello all,

    Many thanks to all of you who have helped with my questions so far.

    If comparing MF digital (e.g. the latest Phase backs and the latest H series bodies) with 35mm-style DSLRs such as Nikon D3 and Canon 1DSmkiii, how do they perform at ISO 200, 400 and 800 in terms of noise, detail and dynamic range? I know the resolution will be higher, but what about these other parameters?

    For my purposes, being able to shoot at 200 and 400 (and preferably up to 800) with confidence is important - and I wouldn't want to lose out on overall quality by stepping up to MF digital. My fear is that MF digital might only be worth it at very low ISOs...

    Any feedback very welcome!

    Best wishes and thanks in advance for your help.

    Ed

  4. #4
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    There was a large thread showing the iso800 performance of the Sinar eMotion75LV, but I think it's been deleted. Anyway, I haven't seen better from any other back.

  5. #5
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Nothing will touch a Nikon D3 right now for high iso performance at 100% resolution. For the best high-ISO low light performance possible dSLRs are simply a better tool.

    But keep in mind though that the D3 is *only* 12 megapixels, so to compare it fairly (i.e. what amount of grain/noise appears in a equally sized print) to a digital back you would need to either upsize the D3 file to e.g. 32 megapixels or downsize the digital back to 12 megapixels. Comparing in this way the performance gap is greatly closed.

    Obviously I'm biased as hell towards Phase One (see my signature), but I will be happy to bet anyone on the board that Phase One will ship a P65+ with good ISO 1600 before the Hasselblad will go to ISO 1600, something they've promised now for a long time. Find some creative terms for it; something that causes embarrassment.

    I'd also bet that the ISO 1600 that comes out of the Hassy won't be as good as the ISO 1600 already present on the P30+, but that would be subjective to bet on.

    Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
    Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer
    Personal Portfolio

  6. #6
    jmvdigital
    Guest

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Theirry's posts about the 800 ISO on the eMotion can be found at Luminous Landscape still I believe.

    In any case, Ed, I can post any number of 400, 800, and 1600 images if you're interested in seeing crops. I have a P30+. The P30 and the H3DII-31 and the Sinar Hy6 65 all have micolenses, which improves their light gathering abilities (at the small sacrifice of detail and ability to use the back on a TC). The P30+ has a range of ISO 100-1600, whereas I believe most all other backs max out at 800.

  7. #7
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,251
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1025

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by foto-z View Post
    There was a large thread showing the iso800 performance of the Sinar eMotion75LV, but I think it's been deleted. Anyway, I haven't seen better from any other back.
    Graham, no threads have been deleted here. Old threads do die off after a period of inactivity and go into a dormant folder ---- these should however remain accessible via the search function. However, you may be thinking about a large thread where Thierry posted significantly --- that particular one was not debated here, but over on Luminous Landscape...

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  8. #8
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    The best medium format products for high ISO utilize the 31MP Kodak sensor. That includes for Phase One the P30+. I've compared this sensor to all other sensors at high ISO extensively and it is the best in my very firm opinion.

    The thing to remember about high ISO is that the shutter speed and the exposure itself are critical. Subjects not in motion that are exposed with plenty of light fare very well. Subjects in shadow, or with slower shutter speeds, not so well.

    I've attached an example from a Canon 5D. This shot was taken at 1000 ISO, but you can see looking left to right as the light changes how the noise and texture also change. This is much more apparent at the full size image. What I have seen from the 31MP sensors is very equivalent to Canon performance at 800 ISO or so.




    Steve Hendrix
    Phase One

  9. #9
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Graham, no threads have been deleted here.
    Good to hear, and I found a link to the thread:
    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    735
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Steve I remember you had some really nice iso 800 cat images taken with the Hasselblad H3DII-31

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix/Phase One View Post
    The best medium format products for high ISO utilize the 31MP Kodak sensor. That includes for Phase One the P30+. I've compared this sensor to all other sensors at high ISO extensively and it is the best in my very firm opinion.

    The thing to remember about high ISO is that the shutter speed and the exposure itself are critical. Subjects not in motion that are exposed with plenty of light fare very well. Subjects in shadow, or with slower shutter speeds, not so well.

    I've attached an example from a Canon 5D. This shot was taken at 1000 ISO, but you can see looking left to right as the light changes how the noise and texture also change. This is much more apparent at the full size image. What I have seen from the 31MP sensors is very equivalent to Canon performance at 800 ISO or so.




    Steve Hendrix
    Phase One

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    I would strongly recommend you conduct your own tests. take a CF card along to a dealer and pop off some images you can process at your leisure. Sometimes when you shoot to avoid overexposed highlights the shadows and contrast need to be bumped up considerably which can really affect the noise created.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by mark1958 View Post
    Steve I remember you had some really nice iso 800 cat images taken with the Hasselblad H3DII-31
    Mark, I knew you were going to get me on that.

    Unfortunately, I have lost all of those images....


    When I competed against the P30+, the high ISO results appeared to my eye to be at the same level.....and now, even better!

    The unit that I carry with me currently is a P45+, so I have not had an opportunity to shoot P30+ test samples at 800/1600 ISO, although I'm sure some of the participating dealers here could provide some.


    Steve Hendrix
    Phase One

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    735
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Well you showed me that photo in your office when I was in Atlanta for a meeting. I should have kept a copy to send back to you.



    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix/Phase One View Post
    Mark, I knew you were going to get me on that.

    Unfortunately, I have lost all of those images....


    When I competed against the P30+, the high ISO results appeared to my eye to be at the same level.....and now, even better!

    The unit that I carry with me currently is a P45+, so I have not had an opportunity to shoot P30+ test samples at 800/1600 ISO, although I'm sure some of the participating dealers here could provide some.


    Steve Hendrix
    Phase One

  14. #14
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by mark1958 View Post
    Well you showed me that photo in your office when I was in Atlanta for a meeting. I should have kept a copy to send back to you.

    Of course I still have it. But it's not my job to showcase products that I compete against. When I sold Hasselblad, I didn't show Phase One files and now selling Phase One I'm not here to show Hasselblad files.

    I hope to have some good examples soon, perhaps this weekend from the P30+.

    But the point to my post is that anyone looking for the best MFDB high ISO needs to center their search around products that utilize the Kodak 31MP sensor.



    Steve Hendrix
    Phase One

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    I would also say that high ISO performance can differ greatly based on subject matter. Some can look great when the high ISO is used in reasonably good light -- i.e. the shadows aren't completely black. This I think is where cameras like the D3 really blow away the competition in medium format digital -- their algorithms are much better at giving you a high ISO file that looks natural out of the camera. Minor shadow noise, black blacks, not much color noise or banding etc.
    To give you a more concrete example, I went out to shoot the northern lights last night, and I brought a D3 and the 54LV. The results from the D3 are fantastic, those from the 54LV were unusable. I know that the 54LV can make nice 400 iso files in moderate light, such as interiors or in brightly lit cityscapes, but at least for photographing true night it did not look good. I would bet that the 31mp backs will be much better, but I doubt they would be able to keep up with the D3 when it comes to real darkness.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Stuart, out of curiousity (I am strongly considering the 54 LV), could you give a little more detail on what you were doing with it that didn't work out?
    Carsten - Website

  17. #17
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    To give you a more concrete example, I went out to shoot the northern lights last night, and I brought a D3 and the 54LV. The results from the D3 are fantastic, those from the 54LV were unusable. I know that the 54LV can make nice 400 iso files in moderate light, such as interiors or in brightly lit cityscapes, but at least for photographing true night it did not look good. I would bet that the 31mp backs will be much better, but I doubt they would be able to keep up with the D3 when it comes to real darkness.
    That of course would depend on the ISO. I openly admit that nothing touches a D3 for high ISO performance. But if you're shooting the northern lights at night then you're on a tripod. In that scenario, nothing beats a P30+ or P45+ which can go to an hour long exposure (at base ISO) and remain clean.

    Every tool has its advantages and disadvantages :-).

    Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
    Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer
    Personal Portfolio

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    ISO 50, 30 seconds at f/2. I have been told to shoot at base ISO with as much light as possible for long exposures with medium format digital (I believe Thierry said this). I shot the D3 at ISO 400-800 at f/4 for 6-30 seconds and got much better results. I was not really expecting the 54LV to shine here, and it didn't, so I am not disappointed. It was not the right tool for the job. The D3 obviously is.

    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Actually Doug, a 1 hour exposure would look boring for the northern lights. They move constantly and if you don't have reasonably short exposures, you are just going to have a completely green sky with no apparent movement or streaking, as well as stars that are lines, not points. In this case, performance at high ISO matters, because you need to keep the exposures fairly short. Also, if you have an hour long exposure and an hour long black frame, you might get one shot on the night, maybe two. I shot 35 images in a fairly short period of time -- about an hour and a half. At 25 degrees and windy, that is another real consideration. But anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. Your point is VERY valid, and the same that I am trying to make -- the right tool for the right job. If you are looking for high ISO performance for keeping your shutter speeds up in interior work and conventional photography, I think there are MFDB that will serve you very well. If you are doing nighttime street work or astronomical work etc, you are probably better off with a DSLR.
    Last edited by Stuart Richardson; 30th October 2008 at 05:30.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Stuart, stunning shot. I wonder what ISO 100 would have done. In what way did the D3 shot look better?
    Carsten - Website

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    There was an image!
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  22. #22
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Stuart,

    Thanks for the primer on northern lights. Never seen them. Never shot them! Was very educational. I see exactly what you were saying now and agree completely.

    *sigh* stuck doing inventory.

    Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
    Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer | Personal Portfolio

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    There was an image!
    Erm, was that for me? There was only one image, so comparison was not possible
    Carsten - Website

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    That's what I meant. The 54LV did not make an image that I am comfortable posting. It was severely underexposed at 30 seconds, and it does not go over 30 seconds in use, so I did not post it. I could make a visible shot by pushing it 4 stops in post processing, but it looked horrible. For all intents and purposes, there was no image.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    That's what I meant. The 54LV did not make an image that I am comfortable posting. It was severely underexposed at 30 seconds, and it does not go over 30 seconds in use, so I did not post it. I could make a visible shot by pushing it 4 stops in post processing, but it looked horrible. For all intents and purposes, there was no image.
    Stuart, if it was underexposed why didnt you increase the iso-setting?
    I mean the recommendation to use low ISO only makes sense if there is enough light/exposure. did you also try to shoot at higher ISO and the results were unusable?
    Regards, Tom

  26. #26
    jmvdigital
    Guest

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Here are some 800 and 1600 crops from my 30+. Some are more impressive than others. As some folks have said, the visual results depend alot on the subject and lighting involved. Shadow areas with little detail end up looking the worst. An image with lots of light and detail look great.

    I have posted one split from Lightroom that shows ISO 400 and 1600, shot on a tripod. The detail is lost on the 1600 image, it looks a lot like I missed focus or something, but other scenes of this comparison show similar loss of fine detail at 1600. The truck and the spring are 1600. The spring is an old truck seat, and you can see the noise block up in those flat shadow areas, whereas the blue ford looks decent. The image of the Chevrolet badge is ISO 800. The single image crops here are all shot at f/2.8, so the lens is a bit soft to begin with.

    Shoot, it looks like the upload won't take that comparison shot full-size. I've uploaded it here: http://jmvdigital.com/temp/P130_400_1600.jpg
    Last edited by jmvdigital; 5th January 2010 at 15:01.

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    ah, okay, I thought that was the 54 LV image. Like Tom, I would be interested to see a high ISO image, in case you made one.
    Carsten - Website

  28. #28
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    JMV,

    We're big advocates of Lightroom and the ability in general for P1 raws to be opened natively in a variety of programs.

    However for long exposures or high ISOs the difference between Capture One 4.5 and any other program will be pretty significant. You might run those same images through c1 with color noise reduction around 45-55 and luminance noise reduction around 30. then bump clarity to 20 and sharpening radius up just a smidgen.

    If you do try that, post your results compared to Lightroom. We do this all the time in-house, but probably most people have not seen many such comparisons.

    Doug

    P.S. I assume that for Hassy, Sinar, and Leaf the same is true: the harder the sensor is working (long exposures or high ISO) the greater the difference between their own native developers and third party developers.

    Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
    Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer | Personal Portfolio

  29. #29
    jmvdigital
    Guest

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Doug, I can do that, but I just posted these images as "unedited". The Detail tab in Lightroom turned off (i.e., no color or luminance noise reduction, or sharpening), I also removed all corrections back to "as shot" for technical comparison.

    -J

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Tom -- I did not try it because, frankly, I was not testing, I was trying to make pictures. I was told to use the 54 at base ISO for long exposures, as the higher ISO's are just cranking up the gain (as far as I understand it). It did not appear to work, so I set it aside and worked with something that demonstrated to me that it could do the job. It is also very difficult to tell in the field if 54LV images are workable (the screen is not good enough), so I did not know that the images would not be salvageable. A look at the screen of the 54LV versus a look at the screen of the D3 was more than enough to convince me to just concentrate on the one that was working.
    Last edited by Stuart Richardson; 30th October 2008 at 11:16.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Edit: I will say that the images look a lot better when converted in eXposure. They are still not in the same league as the D3, but Doug is right here -- they look a lot better in their native software.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  32. #32
    Senior Member Ed Hurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,095
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Thanks to everyone - really helpful. God I love this site!

    With my pictures of moving trains, my most commonly used ISO in good light is 200 (because it allows me to use a fast enough shutter speed and still get reasonable DoF). Anyone got side-by-side comparison of noise on, say, a P30+ compared to a D3 at ISO 200? (Other similar comparisons would be appreciated too, of course :-))

    Many thanks,

    Ed

  33. #33
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed HUrst View Post
    Thanks to everyone - really helpful. God I love this site!

    With my pictures of moving trains, my most commonly used ISO in good light is 200 (because it allows me to use a fast enough shutter speed and still get reasonable DoF). Anyone got side-by-side comparison of noise on, say, a P30+ compared to a D3 at ISO 200? (Other similar comparisons would be appreciated too, of course :-))

    Many thanks,

    Ed
    Just remember when you are comparing 100% crops that the noise on a MFDB is not enlarged as much as with the D3. So if the noise looks the same or even slightly worse on the MFDB when comparing 100% crops, the MFDB will look less noisy in print. Hope that makes sense. People seem to forget this quite often.

  34. #34
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Phase backs USE C1 no question the noise is a ton better even at default. I tried this several times with LR and the difference is big. Not sure why but it is. I have not touched LR in months to be honest.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    Tom -- I did not try it because, frankly, I was not testing, I was trying to make pictures. I was told to use the 54 at base ISO for long exposures, as the higher ISO's are just cranking up the gain (as far as I understand it). It did not appear to work, so I set it aside and worked with something that demonstrated to me that it could do the job. It is also very difficult to tell in the field if 54LV images are workable (the screen is not good enough), so I did not know that the images would not be salvageable. A look at the screen of the 54LV versus a look at the screen of the D3 was more than enough to convince me to just concentrate on the one that was working.
    Stuart, I understand. The image you posted looks stunning by the way. Any chance you post some more.
    Regards, tom

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Thanks Tom, there are some more in the "fun pictures with Nikon" thread.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  37. #37
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by mark1958 View Post
    Well you showed me that photo in your office when I was in Atlanta for a meeting. I should have kept a copy to send back to you.
    Finally got around to doing some higher ISO shots today.

    There have been a number of proimising looking shots posted but where rubber meets the road for me is shooting people. The benefit here of being able to shoot ISO 800 effectively is I can maximize my shutter speed shooting live subjects. This was taken in late afternoon mixed sun/shade at a shutter speed of 1/125th and ISO 800 on a P30+ on Phase One 645 with the new 80mm Digital Lens. If I was restricted to ISO 200, or 400, I would be at 1/60th or 1/30th of a second, and getting a sharp image would be potentially compromised.

    What I have seen out of the P30+ at ISO 800 this weekend is as good or better than any digital back I have ever shot with. LIke I said before, for high ISO, the Kodak 31MP sensor is the top performer (for medium format digital).

    I should also point out that these were processed through Capture One Pro 4.5, and I believe that also makes a big difference.




    Steve Hendrix
    Phase One

  38. #38
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Steve,
    I think you make a valid point regarding high ISO shooting in decent light so that you can get a higher shutter speed. Typically, for me, that's NOT the reason I'm looking for high ISO... it's to capture a decent image in low light and therein lies the challenge. I inadvertently shot a bunch in good light at ISO 400 and only realized my oversight because I looked at the metadata in post. From the image I didn't notice the difference. I'll take your word, and those of others, that the 31MP Kodak sensor is the king of the road for high ISO. If I know I'm heading for low light I grab my Nikon D3 knowing it's the better choice of gear.

  39. #39
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    Steve,
    I think you make a valid point regarding high ISO shooting in decent light so that you can get a higher shutter speed. Typically, for me, that's NOT the reason I'm looking for high ISO... it's to capture a decent image in low light and therein lies the challenge. I inadvertently shot a bunch in good light at ISO 400 and only realized my oversight because I looked at the metadata in post. From the image I didn't notice the difference. I'll take your word, and those of others, that the 31MP Kodak sensor is the king of the road for high ISO. If I know I'm heading for low light I grab my Nikon D3 knowing it's the better choice of gear.
    The same would hold true if this was later in the day. I was shooting at f5.6, so let's say it was an hour or two later and I've got sun, but it's below the horizon and I'm at f5.6 and 1/8 second at 200 ISO. If I move to 800 ISO, I'm at 1/30th.

    For low, low light, say an interior with no flash, etc. then the D3 is king. But you can get very good results with the P30+. One of the keys is focus. In-focus areas that are exposed properly hold up very well. If I had a moving subject in low, low light (shutter speeds of 1/15th or less at 800 ISO) then the D3 is the correct tool for the job. But under most conditions at 800 ISO and for shutter speeds at 1/30th second or higher (or fast enough to minimize any blur) the P30+ is as good as anything I've seen and that includes 35mm (D3 excepted).


    Steve Hendrix
    Phase One

  40. #40
    Senior Member Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    111

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed HUrst View Post
    Hello all,

    Many thanks to all of you who have helped with my questions so far.

    If comparing MF digital (e.g. the latest Phase backs and the latest H series bodies) with 35mm-style DSLRs such as Nikon D3 and Canon 1DSmkiii, how do they perform at ISO 200, 400 and 800 in terms of noise, detail and dynamic range? I know the resolution will be higher, but what about these other parameters?

    For my purposes, being able to shoot at 200 and 400 (and preferably up to 800) with confidence is important - and I wouldn't want to lose out on overall quality by stepping up to MF digital. My fear is that MF digital might only be worth it at very low ISOs...

    Any feedback very welcome!

    Best wishes and thanks in advance for your help.

    Ed
    I have recently tested my P45+ at high ISOs, just for fun because I rarely need them for my landscape work.

    What I have found is that processing in LR2.1 gives unacceptable results - but processing in C1 4.5.1 gives extraordinarily good results with virtually no tweaking. Outdoor scenes at ISO 800 are perfectly usable. (I haven't yet tried "dark" indoor scenes.)

    I love the workflow of LR but for Phase high ISO shots I'll use their software - markedly superior. I shouldn't be surprised, I guess - if the manufacturer can't get the best out of their own back, it would be pretty sad!

    Bill

  41. #41
    jmvdigital
    Guest

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    I have to agree. After shunning C1 in favor of the LR workflow for a while, I've done some more indepth comparison's with C1 and LR with my P30+. The differences are significant and remarkable. Bar none, C1 produces far better results with the 30+ files, high ISO or not. The pixel structure, noise/sharpening, and color rendition are all far superior with C1.

    I have made the consolation to use C1 for processing my 30+ files, while continuing to use LR for asset management and editing of all image collection as a whole.

  42. #42
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Which version of LR? Adobe claims to have improved image quality since the earlier versions. Just curious. It always helps to mention the versions.

  43. #43
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    I know 1.1 and the Beta version 2 for sure after that I quit LR and actually going to take it off my machines
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  44. #44
    jmvdigital
    Guest

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Graham, I'm running LR 2.1 (latest and greatest). Are y'all interested in a direct comparison? I can provide that if anyone wants to see instead of read about the differences.

  45. #45
    Senior Member Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    111

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Here are some samples. The first shot is the full scene, selected not for its artistic merit (none!) but its very high dynamic range. Exposure was 1/2500 at f8 at ISO 800, the highest ISO for the P45+.

    The second is a 100% selection of the shadow area processed in C1 4.5.1. It was processed at C1 defaults with no other manipulation. (C1 does have different automatic defaults for each back and ISO, so it was presumably doing its very best!)

    The third is the same but processed in LR 2.1. It too was at LR defaults except I tried to get it looking better by moving the noise sliders. They made very little difference.

    The attached jpgs may not do the pic justice, but in a glossy print there is no noise visible in the C1 photo. For this sort of well-lit scene, ISO 800 is eminently usable, tho' you'd only need it if you forgot your tripod!

    Bill
    Last edited by Bill Caulfeild-Browne; 12th July 2009 at 17:22.

  46. #46
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,251
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1025

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Have to agree with C1 being the best current converter for *my* files, the P45+ and M8, however this does not mean it will be the best for *all* cameras. Nonetheless, like Guy I have removed LightRoom from my systems. If I should ever need/want the base Adobe converter, I have it available in CS4/Bridge.

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  47. #47
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,251
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1025

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Excellent example Bill, the difference in noise on the water and hull of the ship is quite remarkable.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  48. #48
    Member Clawery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    125
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Quote Originally Posted by jmvdigital View Post
    Graham, I'm running LR 2.1 (latest and greatest). Are y'all interested in a direct comparison? I can provide that if anyone wants to see instead of read about the differences.
    Justin,

    I would love to see the differences between LR and C1 and how your files look.
    Do you mind posting them?

    Chris Lawery
    Sales Manager
    [email protected]
    Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year

    877-217-9870 | National Atlanta / Miami
    404-234-5195 | Cell
    Sign up for our Newsletter | Read Our Latest Newsletter

  49. #49
    jmvdigital
    Guest

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    ISO 1600 on screen comparison. Be sure to notice the detail and shadows. The difference here is signficant. These are both adjusted in their respective programs to look good and match each other as best as possible.
    http://jmvdigital.com/temp/C1_LR.jpg

    ISO 100 for both below... notice the backpack fabric detail and color.

    Capture One (all defaults):
    http://jmvdigital.com/temp/C1.jpg

    Lightroom (required exposure adjustment to match, default noise/sharpening):
    http://jmvdigital.com/temp/LR.jpg

  50. #50
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

    Yup and you guy's thought I was just pulling your leg. LR just stinks with Phase files compared to C1.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •