The Big Shootout of 2016: Phase/Leaf/Pentax/Canon/Sony

[Chris Giles]

Interesting stuff. The A7rii should really be there, the D810 though, the res is a bit low for this test I reckon.

 

[Bryan Stephens]

If you shot the same rodies on a cambo Actus with A7RII the fight might be fairer.

I suspect that the sony sensor will hold up exceptionally well under these conditions, and really show its true potential.

After all, the sensor is only limited by the ability of the optics used on it.

 

[robmac]

Shame no one makes a M645 to Pentax 645 adapter (that I know of). A lens like the manual focus Mamiya 120/4 Macro on all bodies would be interesting... Also remove the glass from the equation (and following debate).

A strength (and a huge variable in such tests) of a camera like the Sony is the degree to which you can change the rendering SOOC given the sheer mix and volume of glass you can put on it from damn near anyone. Something possible, but to a much more limited degree, with Canon and Nikon. The sheer resolving power differences due to MP count are a given, the rest of the test results will be interesting to see.

 

[JeRuFo]

I think shooting all cameras with lenses that are likely to be used with them is the best option for a test like this. It is fairly uncommon to shoot 35mm with a Rodenstock HR lens, or any 645 lens for that matter, unless it is a cheaper alternative to a 35mm lens. Plus you run into all kinds of trouble with lenses not designed for specific sensors. Not too mention that you would get a different FOV with every camera.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Have to decide what your really testing for here , if it is a sensor test than using the same lens is the way to go. That cuts out that variable and there are a bunch here right out of the gate. Need to eliminate as many variables as possible. Now Given some of these sensors like the A7rII and the Phase back are coming pretty much from the same technology we are not going to see big DR differences or ISO differences. Obviously resolution will be greater in the Phase back. The hard part and I test a lot of gear is finding the correct default for each camera with sharpness , detail , clarity , noise all at there peak. Even though the defaults in C1 are very good there not always at the optimum level of extracting the most off the sensor. Frankly this is a tough test in many ways. Outside the detail area I think the most telling part of a test like this is the tonal range and separation of tones. Lets be real here they are all very good in many ways but to separate MF from 35mm you need to find those delicate difference that make MF what it is. I have been down this road with 5 backs myself and this is the area that with a good eye you can pick up those differences. Obviously the 100mpx back will blow everyones doors off with the ability for very large printing. The technology now with these CMOS sensors is MF has added a ton of new functionality so a lot of that well it can't do this or that is gone now. The field has leveled a lot on functions like live view for example so its really nice to see this in MF now. Now you have to remember spending 50 k is not a everyday shopping spree , you pretty much have to have that need and for a lot of folks in the scientific, museum , medical, aerial arenas the need is greatly there to gain as much detail as possible. This will do that but for working Pros the need will be less with exceptions of course. But its here now if you need it or you want to be a big gun and have one. I certainly would like to play with it. LOL

Whats funny is today is the 15th the middle of the month and I'm paying those monthly bills right now but just imagine cutting a 50k check for this it would be fun but than on the other hand i would be carted off to jail for writing a bad check. Now that would not be fun. LOL

 

[Pradeep]

................
Whats funny is today is the 15th the middle of the month and I'm paying those monthly bills right now but just imagine cutting a 50k check for this it would be fun but than on the other hand i would be carted off to jail for writing a bad check. Now that would not be fun. LOL

No, it wouldn't be fun at all Guy

Agree with you though, this is a difficult test. However, it would be the first I am aware of where the same subject has been photographed with different systems for all to evaluate.

Clearly the MF will score high on resolution and the benefits thereof. But the interesting part, for me certainly, would be by how much? What is the difference in real world usage between a 100MP MF back and a 42MP 35mm back.

Mind you, I am not talking about value for money or costs at all. If money were no object would one still go out and buy the MF back? Because then you also have to consider all the accouterments that need to go with it. So as much as it is about getting the best image it is also about the hoops and loops one needs to go through to get there.

I can see this thread will be a long one.....:chug:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Its not as great as one would think. Need to remember as well that you don't compare images in the real world . You shoot, you process and evaluate that single image not against anything else. Thats the real reality, is the MF overall better well sure it is going to be we all know that and why we buy them. But its not as great as some would think. I have done this test, never posted it but I certainly evaluated the differences and they are there but you better have a damn good eye to see it. Obviously detail is the huge plus for this back. so if you need it get in line to buy one. Im very neutral on all this , yea I have the Sony as my bulldog in the mix but thats what I need and happy as a can be with it. The cards just won't let me get back in MF but I did love it and it was fun. I am still a big cheerleader for MF and glad to see the progress but more important IT AIN"T DEAD. LOL

 

[Guy Mancuso]

No, it wouldn't be fun at all Guy

Agree with you though, this is a difficult test. However, it would be the first I am aware of where the same subject has been photographed with different systems for all to evaluate.

Clearly the MF will score high on resolution and the benefits thereof. But the interesting part, for me certainly, would be by how much? What is the difference in real world usage between a 100MP MF back and a 42MP 35mm back.

Mind you, I am not talking about value for money or costs at all. If money were no object would one still go out and buy the MF back? Because then you also have to consider all the accouterments that need to go with it. So as much as it is about getting the best image it is also about the hoops and loops one needs to go through to get there.

I can see this thread will be a long one.....:chug:

Im not so sure it will be a great one though as people tend to rip everything apart, stretch it out to make there points but in all cases forget about the real world. Ill never push a image 5 stops and if I do i best be looking for a new career because i would consider myself a piece of crap for getting myself in that situation. Thats just one scenario and there are tons to argue about. LOL

 

[JeRuFo]

There have been several tests of film vs digital, like this one from on landscape: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
which includes an IQ180 and the 36MP Sony sensor vs different film sizes and types.
8x10 is ofcourse still the highest resolution by quite a margin, even without the 'for the buck' part and that will stay that way. I hope some light will be shed by this test on how easy it is to get a workable file with good color from the various digital systems. Interpretation of the results can't be done by anyone else but the user based on their own requirements and he or she will want to have different variables tested which makes this an impossibly difficult test to conduct for a third party.

 

[Pradeep]

Its not as great as one would think. Need to remember as well that you don't compare images in the real world . You shoot, you process and evaluate that single image not against anything else. Thats the real reality, is the MF overall better well sure it is going to be we all know that and why we buy them. But its not as great as some would think. I have done this test, never posted it but I certainly evaluated the differences and they are there but you better have a damn good eye to see it. Obviously detail is the huge plus for this back. so if you need it get in line to buy one. Im very neutral on all this , yea I have the Sony as my bulldog in the mix but thats what I need and happy as a can be with it. The cards just won't let me get back in MF but I did love it and it was fun. I am still a big cheerleader for MF and glad to see the progress but more important IT AIN"T DEAD. LOL

Guy, I love my Sony too, realizing I have not touched my Canon in over six months since there was no wildlife to shoot.

What Phase has done with this new release is rejuvenated the MF market and rekindled the race for bigger and better sensors. The gauntlet has been thrown down. It will force Leica, Hassy, Pentax and maybe even Sony to get their act together and come up with their answer. It is getting better for the photographer in the end, since all this technology is bound to trickle down to a lower price-point eventually.

It is incredible what you can get for your money these days.

 

[Egor]

There have been several tests of film vs digital, like this one from on landscape: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
which includes an IQ180 and the 36MP Sony sensor vs different film sizes and types.
8x10 is ofcourse still the highest resolution by quite a margin, even without the 'for the buck' part and that will stay that way. I hope some light will be shed by this test on how easy it is to get a workable file with good color from the various digital systems. Interpretation of the results can't be done by anyone else but the user based on their own requirements and he or she will want to have different variables tested which makes this an impossibly difficult test to conduct for a third party.

Thats a very interesting comparison on the film vs digital. Yes, film can produce higher resolution than digital. I don't think it included scan backs like the early Phase One or BetterLight systems, which I went to 1st from 4x5 and 8x10 film. The problem with film is and was always that it was very time consuming operation, to say nothing of how hard it is to find decent E6 labs and such nowadays.
As a professional drum scanner operator for well over 25 years, I can say that cleaning, oil mounting, analyzing, drum scanning, un-mounting, cleaning the drum and maintenance on the scanner and again cleaning the transparencies takes a very long time.

I look forward to reviewing results of this test.
Especially Sony A7Rll vs IQ150/250 but it won't make a big difference in what we use now and how we use it for a long time.
It will get us to thinking about directions for 2-3 years down the road.

I have full confidence in Doug and DT to do a great job on this like they do on everything else

Thanks for doing this, Doug!

 

[Jon Warwick]

Many thanks for doing this Doug.

Simply given I am looking at getting into medium format digital, and given my background with Leica, a comparison with the Leica S would have been superb (but seems unlikely).

I showed my wife samples from both a Leica M240 and an S. "You can walk into the picture" with the S, came the immediate view of the very large 50" prints. Forget megapixels, there is a different look and tonality, obviously, in large prints from medium format.

I will look at the results from the Sony A7Rii, and assume the Leica does better than the Sony despite similar Megapixels (given larger pixel size, hence better acuity, and better lenses) so the Sony comparison will still be useful as a benchmark.

Thanks again!

 

[dougpeterson]

Helped by an equipment loan by Pradeep, we captured the following additions to the Massive Still Life Test on Friday after hours...

Cameras
- IQ3 50mp (previously we only had the Credo 40, Credo 50, IQ3 100mp, IQ3 80mp, IQ3
- Pentax 645Z DNGs with 55mm
- Pentax 645Z DNGs with 90 macro*
- Sony A7RII with 55mm Zeiss
- Sony A7RII with 24mm Zeiss
- Canon 5Ds R with 50/1.2

Tests completed:
- ISO sweep (even light)
- ISO sweep (contrasty light)
- Aperture sweep

I'll process and post these files early next week. We have a few more tests to complete Monday which will delay my ability to process, organize, and upload these files.

My apologies to anyone whose preferred camera was not included. There is no limit to the number of cameras, lenses, and variables I would have liked to test. We've worked some crazy hours since the release of the 100mp to do these tests while also keeping up with our normal day-to-day work. If you were hoping for a different camera or lens... Digital Transitions is always glad to host any test at our facilities in NYC and LA; we have an extensive range of Phase/Leaf gear, basic studio amenities (lighting, modifiers, stands, tripods, and computers) and are glad to have you bring whatever gear you'd like to make any comparison you'd like.

*The test set was based on a normal-length lens and the column on the copy stand used was not tall enough to reproduce identical framing with this longer-than-normal lens so it was cropped in a bit. We included it despite the tighter crop giving the Pentax an artificial advantage regarding resolution.

 

[eleanorbrown]

I agree about inclusion of the A7RII. I have that camera along with a Phase 65+ back on a Hassy, and I have done a few comparisons...not many but a couple.... and to be fair I would suggest using a top prime with the Sony... I have even done a comparison using the Otus 55 1.4 on the A7RII. .....eleanor

PS...just saw what cameras are included and I'm glad you will be using the 55 1.8 sony/zeiss. While it can't beat the Otus (which doesn't come in a sony mount anyway), it is an extremely goods lens on my A7RII. Looking forward to comparisons.

I would have thought the inclusion of the A7RII is essential. It is a class defining camera that uses very similar sensor technology as used in the new Phase One IQ3 100mp. I think its good enough to replace most digital MF, but is that a step too far? These very useful tests might determine that question. Also, no Hasselblad?

 

[Wayne Fox]

Cameras
- IQ3 50mp (previously we only had the Credo 40, Credo 50, IQ3 100mp, IQ3 80mp, IQ3
- Pentax 645Z DNGs with 55mm
- Pentax 645Z DNGs with 90 macro*
- Sony A7RII with 55mm Zeiss
- Sony A7RII with 24mm Zeiss
- Canon 5Ds R with 50/1.2

.

did I miss something? What was the camera/lens combo's tested for the digital backs?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

Your efforts are much appreciated. Hopefully, this images will improve our understanding some aspects of image quality and how those are affected by things like sensor size, pixel size and so on.

Also, a lot of thanks for sharing raw files.

Best regards
Erik

Helped by an equipment loan by Pradeep, we captured the following additions to the Massive Still Life Test on Friday after hours...

Cameras
- IQ3 50mp (previously we only had the Credo 40, Credo 50, IQ3 100mp, IQ3 80mp, IQ3
- Pentax 645Z DNGs with 55mm
- Pentax 645Z DNGs with 90 macro*
- Sony A7RII with 55mm Zeiss
- Sony A7RII with 24mm Zeiss
- Canon 5Ds R with 50/1.2

Tests completed:
- ISO sweep (even light)
- ISO sweep (contrasty light)
- Aperture sweep

I'll process and post these files early next week. We have a few more tests to complete Monday which will delay my ability to process, organize, and upload these files.

My apologies to anyone whose preferred camera was not included. There is no limit to the number of cameras, lenses, and variables I would have liked to test. We've worked some crazy hours since the release of the 100mp to do these tests while also keeping up with our normal day-to-day work. If you were hoping for a different camera or lens... Digital Transitions is always glad to host any test at our facilities in NYC and LA; we have an extensive range of Phase/Leaf gear, basic studio amenities (lighting, modifiers, stands, tripods, and computers) and are glad to have you bring whatever gear you'd like to make any comparison you'd like.

*The test set was based on a normal-length lens and the column on the copy stand used was not tall enough to reproduce identical framing with this longer-than-normal lens so it was cropped in a bit. We included it despite the tighter crop giving the Pentax an artificial advantage regarding resolution.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Some more information would be nice. Just some examples:

• Camera used
• How focusing was done and intended plane of focus
• Illumination used

Best regards
Erik

did I miss something? What was the camera/lens combo's tested for the digital backs?

 

[Chris Giles]

I'm surprised that the 50 1.2L was used for the Canon. It has known focus drift.

 

[JeRuFo]

I'm surprised that the 50 1.2L was used for the Canon. If has known focus drift.

I don't really see how that will affect the outcome of this test.

 

[Pradeep]

Doug, thanks so much for doing this. I am sure we are all eagerly awaiting the results.