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!

Backlight landscape photography realized - say no to silhouette

torger

Active member
Thanks for these interesting tests. It's a bit cruel to the CCDs at it shows the CMOS where in the aspects its most superior. Strong backlit scenes and long exposures are still quite narrow use cases for the typical MF photographer, but indeed it's very relevant for us landscape photographers.

Before getting too excited about Sony sensor shadow push capabilities I think one should consider tonality. Even if noise is low I think it looks like colors are dull, kind of brownish or otherwise going towards monochromatic, those pushed areas look like how old CMOS cameras rendered color, ie not that good. My guess is that there's too little signal (photons) captured to get good color. So what you still need is higher full well capacity, or non-linear response (which is coming by the way) so we can shoot with longer exposure times and capture more photons in the dark areas.

Meanwhile it can still be a good idea to use grad filters, to get better tonality in those shadows.
 

Ken_R

New member
Try the Rodenstock 40mm HR-W at f8, it's noticeably sharper at f8 than f11.

Thx for posting such an extensive DR test.
 

fmueller

Active member
Funny you should mention the Sony chip and tonality. I had a Sony A7r and sold it. It was a good camera and the 2 Sony lenses I bought for it (35 and 55) were very good but even though one could push the shadows it always looked "thin" to me which is perhaps what you have correctly named as a tonality problem. It was very good at a low ISO but as the ISO increased the file got "thin", in my estimation. Also the ability to push the shadows seems to encourage that which means a lot of photos are turning up with that extended HDR look which isn't to my taste either. The really big deal in the new CMOS backs is LIVE VIEW and long exposure. Now all we need are bigger chips that behave better with shifting.


Thanks for these interesting tests. It's a bit cruel to the CCDs at it shows the CMOS where in the aspects its most superior. Strong backlit scenes and long exposures are still quite narrow use cases for the typical MF photographer, but indeed it's very relevant for us landscape photographers.

Before getting too excited about Sony sensor shadow push capabilities I think one should consider tonality. Even if noise is low I think it looks like colors are dull, kind of brownish or otherwise going towards monochromatic, those pushed areas look like how old CMOS cameras rendered color, ie not that good. My guess is that there's too little signal (photons) captured to get good color. So what you still need is higher full well capacity, or non-linear response (which is coming by the way) so we can shoot with longer exposure times and capture more photons in the dark areas.

Meanwhile it can still be a good idea to use grad filters, to get better tonality in those shadows.
 

alvinjamur

New member
Very nice work/thread.
I've a background in DSP so kept smiling as I read all this.
This thread should be made a sticky!

BTW, ISO X on camera A is not the same as ISO X on camera B :

As u move up or down in ISO, the number of stops on either side
of it are usually not symmetric. Believe it or not, the translations
are non-linear (try getting a real square wave out of an electronic
circuit!). U can consider "BASE ISO" to be that ISO where there is
close to symmetric behavior in terms of response to stops and a
region where the noise floor is generally low (minimal variance).

- aLV
 

AreBee

Member
voidshatter,

Finally, with the help of the tilt-swing function (Scheimpflug principle) on the technical camera, and the really superior glass offered by Rodenstock HR series (in this case the 40mm HR), I am now able to defeat what I can get from the legendary Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art lens on the Nikon D800E!...

The Rodenstock 40mm HR lens was tilted by about 1 degree and focused at about 5 meters away. The Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art lens was focused at the bicycle. Each lens was shot at f/11...

As all can now clearly see, when the advantage of the technical camera (ultra high resolution glass) is combined with the Sony CMOS sensor (ultra high SNR and clean shadow), it is simply beyond what you can achieve with the 35mm format!
Not sure how I managed to miss this thread. Thank you very much for the time and effort you put into creating it.

I would just like to note that the above comparison of MF to 35mm has not been made on a like for like basis because the former utilises tilt whereas the latter does not, albeit I appreciate that from a practicable point of view it is what ultimately can be achieved that matters.

Frankly, I am astonished that, at the plane of focus for the 35mm setup, which is to say the bicycle and drain downpipe - the latter located virtually in the extreme corner of the frame - the difference between the two setups is, in my opinion, miniscule...and surely would be imperceptible in comparable prints.

Clearly the MF setup increasingly stands head and shoulders above the 35mm setup away from the plane of focus of the latter because of the application of tilt.

Thanks again.

Kind regards,
 
voidshatter,



Not sure how I managed to miss this thread. Thank you very much for the time and effort you put into creating it.

I would just like to note that the above comparison of MF to 35mm has not been made on a like for like basis because the former utilises tilt whereas the latter does not, albeit I appreciate that from a practicable point of view it is what ultimately can be achieved that matters.

Frankly, I am astonished that, at the plane of focus for the 35mm setup, which is to say the bicycle and drain downpipe - the latter located virtually in the extreme corner of the frame - the difference between the two setups is, in my opinion, miniscule...and surely would be imperceptible in comparable prints.

Clearly the MF setup increasingly stands head and shoulders above the 35mm setup away from the plane of focus of the latter because of the application of tilt.

Thanks again.

Kind regards,
a) For parallax-free stitching by movements (i.e. a lens with a large image circle is in a fixed position while a digital back is shifted), the IQ250 / IQ280 easily gets you into > 100 MP territory. It makes a noticeable difference for printing.

b) For single exposure shots where stitching is not applicable (e.g. long exposure with Lee Big Stopper), you are right the 35mm format is closing the gap. What I used here is the best 35mm lens in 35mm format (i.e. the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art) so no doubt it is very close to the 40HR. The Tamron 15-30mm and the Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art might raise the bar for the 50 MP Canon / Sony sensor in 35mm format. However what you want for a wide angle is usually shift capabilities, and for that purposes the corner sharpness of the Canon 17mm TS-E is still not as optically good as the Rodenstock HR.

Below shows the official sample image from Canon for the 5DS and the 17mm TS-E lens:

 

algrove

Well-known member
Funny you should mention the Sony chip and tonality. I had a Sony A7r and sold it. It was a good camera and the 2 Sony lenses I bought for it (35 and 55) were very good but even though one could push the shadows it always looked "thin" to mewhich is perhaps what you have correctly named as a tonality problem. It was very good at a low ISO but as the ISO increased the file got "thin", in my estimation. Also the ability to push the shadows seems to encourage that which means a lot of photos are turning up with that extended HDR look which isn't to my taste either. The really big deal in the new CMOS backs is LIVE VIEW and long exposure. Now all we need are bigger chips that behave better with shifting.
I felt the same, but attributed it to the Sony compressed 11 bit+? files.
 


I felt the same, but attributed it to the Sony compressed 11 bit+? files.
All current EVF Sony camera bodies (including the A7R) does a lossy compression on the RAW files out of the camera. There are only about 1700 levels for each channel (equivalence of 10.7 bits). If you operate on B-mode, turn on long exposure NR or continuous shooting or other stuff such like silent shutter etc then there are only about 1400 levels for each channel (equivalence of 10.4 bits).

The Nikon D800E RAW files are true 14-bit (full 16384 levels for each channel), and the IQ250 RAW files are true 16-bit (full 65536 levels for each channel).

Lightening up shadow in post processing would reduce saturation is basics of digital manipulation. As a personal opinion such color issue is just subjective emotions. A couple of years later when the current Sony CMOS sensor becomes out-dated, my generation of users might also insist that we like the color / look of Sony CMOS sensors. It's just personal faith of religion.
 

f8orbust

Active member
Interesting thread - not sure how I missed it previously - that Sony sensor is really quite something.

Someone predicts the death of MF every so often, but I wonder if it will be the cause of its own demise? I mean, if I had that sensor in a 54 x 40 sized chip @ 80MP, would I ever upgrade again? Probably not.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The Nikon D800E RAW files are true 14-bit (full 16384 levels for each channel), and the IQ250 RAW files are true 16-bit (full 65536 levels for each channel).
No, there are no "true" 16-bit cameras on the market. The IQ250 is simply 14-bit (just like Hasselblad and Pentax that use the exact same sensor), regardless of the A/D converter Phase wants to put in their backs.
 
No, there are no "true" 16-bit cameras on the market. The IQ250 is simply 14-bit (just like Hasselblad and Pentax that use the exact same sensor), regardless of the A/D converter Phase wants to put in their backs.
My definition of "true" is from the number of levels you can find in a RAW file, not technical details under the hardware hood. To have almost 65536 (i.e. 2^16) levels for each channel, I would assume that you would have to do interpolation from 14-bit to 16-bit, if you insist that the AD converter of the Sony CMOS sensor is 14-bit internallly. I am looking forward to your evidence to counter my hard evidence for 16-bit below:

 

AreBee

Member
voidshatter,

For parallax-free stitching by movements (i.e. a lens with a large image circle is in a fixed position while a digital back is shifted), the IQ250 / IQ280 easily gets you into > 100 MP territory. It makes a noticeable difference for printing.
Yes, I dare say it does.

For single exposure shots where stitching is not applicable (e.g. long exposure with Lee Big Stopper), you are right the 35mm format is closing the gap. What I used here is the best 35mm lens in 35mm format (i.e. the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art) so no doubt it is very close to the 40HR.
For single exposure shots this is nothing short of astonishing - consider the cost differential.

...what you want for a wide angle is usually shift capabilities...
Some do, others don't.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
My definition of "true" is from the number of levels you can find in a RAW file, not technical details under the hardware hood. To have almost 65536 (i.e. 2^16) levels for each channel, I would assume that you would have to do interpolation from 14-bit to 16-bit, if you insist that the AD converter of the Sony CMOS sensor is 14-bit internallly. I am looking forward to your evidence to counter my hard evidence for 16-bit below:

Well, all my iPhone photos are 16-bit because I can encode them that way. Of course, my iPhone can't actually produce 16-bit worth of data, but I guess that does not matter as long as I can get the numbers...
 
Well, all my iPhone photos are 16-bit because I can encode them that way. Of course, my iPhone can't actually produce 16-bit worth of data, but I guess that does not matter as long as I can get the numbers...
But it matters to me when a 645D can actually produce 11.4-bit worth of data, while a K5-IIs can actually produce 13.8-bit worth of data.

 

Shashin

Well-known member
But it matters to me when a 645D can actually produce 11.4-bit worth of data, while a K5-IIs can actually produce 13.8-bit worth of data.

Exactly. That is why my Phase p25+ even with its 16-bit A/D converter does not actually give me 16-bits of information, regardless of the level encoding. No camera gives 16-bits of information.
 

thrice

Active member
Yes yes everyone get samey looking CMOS sensors :) I'll sit back and enjoy the different look of my old inferior CCD.
 
Top