Re: Putting things a little bit in perspective
Hi Jack,
I have used the P45+ in parallel with my Sonys for three years. Just to say, I am not stupid, I don't do pixel based comparison between sensors of different MPs (*). I have not done m 4/3 comparisons with MFD. What I have done was to compare systems I actually use. Not so many comparisons, perhaps half a dozen, and mostly I have done them on prints, too. But prints are hard to share over the internet.
Most of that time I was shooting Alpha 99 (24MP) mostly with the P45+ coming close second and an Alpha 77 (APS-C) being far third.
Normally I print A2 (16" x 23"), for practical reasons. I have also made some larger prints, typically 70cm x 100cm. But, most of my printing comes from the Sonys as I have limited wall space. That may change, though, as I may be invited to decorate a large wall space. It may be that quite a few P45+ images may be hung there.
Anyway, at A2 size I have not seen an advantage for the P45+ vs the 24MP Sony Alpha 99, with the naked eye. With a 5X loupe I could see the P45+ image was superior.
I have taken the "pixel peeping image" and made a 50% crop that I printed in A2 size, that corresponds to roughly 80cm x 120cm, 31"x47" or so.
Processing was essentially identical, both images developed in Lightroom CC 2015.6 using DCP camera profiles generated by DCamProf. (I copied all image processing settings from the P45+ image to the A7rII image, except WB and Camera Profile. After that I made the Sony A7rII image slightly warmer and decreased exposure 0.05EV.)
Viewed at say 1.2m distance, I would say the prints were near identical. There may be small differences in colour rendition, even if I would say colours were almost identical.
Viewed closer say 0.4-0.6m the central part was quite similar, very sharp in both cases. Off center the Sony was clearly superior, essentially offering a sharp image.
So, I would say that I would be happy to hang either on the wall, but for close inspection the Sony image is clearly superior.
Judging after a single copy of the lens may not be just, but I have trough three Distagons, the 40/4 CF FLE, the 50/4 CF FLE and the 60/3.5CF and all had a similar weakness. This can also be seen in Hasselblad's and Zeiss own MTF curves. The weakness of the 40/4 CF FLE was the probable cause that Zeiss developed the Distagon 40/4 CFE IF, I would guess.
Now, the images were processed in Lightroom, which I am aware is regarded to be the ultimate sin by Phase One users. But, Lightroom has been my workflow tool since it's inception. I did not find that Capture one worked well
for me for the versions I have tested.
Just to say, not everyone loves P45+ colour rendition. Tim Parkin and his friend Joe Cornish had serious issues with P45+ colour rendition, from a mail by Tim Parkin:
"I spoke with Joe about the P45 endlessly and he had a whole workflow to try to 'fix' the colour which all went out of the window when the IQ180 came in. He now does almost nothing to the files to get what he wants. It's definitely mostly grassy stuff but quite often skies and reflected colour that are problematic. Also shadows in geology can be an issue (I presume infra red effects as well).
They're not a problem for some subjects and an absolute nightmare for others. I can still 'see' Joe's P45+ files as long as they have some greenery in them (or sometimes from the sky). "
Joe Cornish is featured in some of the Phase One videos, like this one:
https://youtu.be/2KFCCw4YA-0
So, my experience differs from yours. What I could see in my pixel peeping is very obvious in decent size prints if viewed close. That is close, not extremely close. Close viewing, the Sony wins on knock out.
It is a good time to get feet wet in MFD as used backs have dropped to affordable price levels. Most Hasselblad lenses are quite affordable with the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE being on the expensive side. The Distagon 40/4 CFE IF is rare and priced in the "Otus range". Discussing strengths and weaknesses of different lenses is a good thing in my view, as all Hasselblad lenses are not created equal.
No doubt, the new H-series lenses are better with possible some exceptions.
Best regards
Erik
(*) The correct way to that in my view is to scale the image to a reasonable PPI for a give print size. What I have found that 180 PPI is a pretty good reference when viewed on screen at actual pixels.
Exactly, and that's the point you seem to be missing. At pixel comparisons, you will find m4/3 lens/cam combos that will beat mf/db combos. But when taken as a whole in an actual image you want to pay to have printed and hung, it's hard to beat the total impact the mfdb combo generates. I'll go out on a limb and say I've never made even one big print from my D810 and best glass that has the impact even my early P45+ prints do, let alone my 60 and 80 MP backs and mf do.
yeah it would, and if you compared it head to head with your 16-35/sony, you'd see more tonal smoothness, more subtle color gradations and probably an overall more pleasing print in general than the sony/canon combo. But you can't judge it well by comparing corners at actual pixel view.
Have fun,
