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!

MF High ISO Image Thread

LJL

New member
I think they need to send Guy a P65 Plus. Who said that. LOL
That could be the case, Guy, but that still does not answer the question about the posted shots looking so......um....uninspiring or convincing :rolleyes:

Not really looking to get into a debate about MR's techniques or whatever. The shots taken, processed and posted just do little to convince me (and a lot of others, evidently) that the Sensor+ technology is adding anything really that positive to the P65+. In good light, with good exposure, it may be the hands down king of the heap, but at the higher ISOs that are touted as a great new capability with it....not so much :thumbdown:

Now, if it really is the testing, processing and posting as the problem (which all have margins for error), that is a completely different story. But what was shot, processed and posted was normal "routine" shooting, by his own account, much like you were doing at that one event, and the P65+ with Sensor+ was not looking like it moved the ball down the field all that much. I am not expecting spotlessly clean, highly resolved, perfect ISO 1600-3200 shots, but geez, for $40K, it sure does not look impressive to me. As I said, the good light shots are a completely different issue. I just think Phase is over-reaching a bit here and hyping more than it is delivering with this Sensor+ tech they are pushing as the new best thing. Just my opinion.

But I will agree.....they should send you a back for some more serious testing for say a year or so....at least until the S2 is out and tested also :ROTFL:

LJ
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My thoughts exactly. I have not seen Michaels test yet and not to say he is not a capable tester by any means. Far from it but be nice to see some other folks doing this also. I read some of the comments on them and I am wondering about the Sensor Plus myself.
 
H

Howard Cubell

Guest
Not sure if it is just me or what, but the posted results are not terribly impressive. And if one goes into the discussion forum on LL, they will read a lot of the same sort of impressions....not a great showing, or results (after binning down to 15MP) that pale in comparison to almost any 16-25MP DSLR today.
I think we need some more looks at things, but the stuff MR posted is not really all that impressive. Actually, Guy's "pushed" shots with his P25+ look more acceptable than the P65+ with Sensor+ technology engaged at the higher ISO. I remain unconvinced at this point that Sensor+ is doing all that much. What do others see and think at this point?
LJ
I agree completely and was shocked at how poor the 1600 ISO crops on the LL looked. And those were from 15mp files. In response to such criticism, Michael Reichman responded quite brusquely that he and several others who had tested the P65 considered it the finest imaging device in history, and critical comments about image quality from those who had not personally tested the P65 were "gratuitous." Of course, the imaging quality at 60mp was not the issue at all, and nobody questioned it. It was a straw man. The real issue framed by his "review" of the Sensor Plus Technology was the quality of the 15mp files from the P65 at 1600 ISO, and his assertion that the Sensor Plus Technology was a "game changer." From what I saw in that article, if you compare the quality of 15 mp ISO 1600 files from the P65 with 25mp files from the D3X at 1600 ISO, the Nikon will blow them away. If that is a game changer, it is a very sad commentary on the state of technological innovation in the medium format digital marketplace.
 

LJL

New member
Howard,
You have summed it up nicely. I am beginning to think that expectations are being set too high for things that are just not there. In fact, it is beginning to look more and more like what we see in 35mm DSLR....you can have resolution (1DsMkIII, 5DMkII, D3x, A900) or you can have speed (fps AND ISO) with 1DMkIII and D3, but nothing yet to deliver both as satisfactorily. In MF, the split seems to be resolution capabilities (P65+, H3DII-50 and maybe -60 later, Leaf 60MP) and ISO capabilities on a more modest level (H3DII-31 seems to be looking very impressive at ISO 1600), but again, both in one is not seeming to work so well. (Not even going to think about fps for MF, as it is just not even close, nor should we really expect that, I guess.)

Marc (fotografz) has taken that approach with H3DII-31 and -39, with different uses as needed. I do that same thing now with 1-series DSLRs for speed versus resolution, as folks shooting Nikon see also with D3 and D3x, and I just do not see that changing all that much for a while. Would be nice, but honestly, it does not seem to be in the cards yet, despite what manufacturers are claiming and marketing at this point. If you need/want higher ISO performance, use a new DSLR and get over it. This notion of having it all is not quite baked yet, IMHO.

LJ
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
The crops that Reichmann posted don't seem bad to me, but they are also kind of useless for my application. It's been my experience that what high iso looks like in good light is totally different from what it looks like when you are actually using it -- in low light. It's one thing to have a nice, clean high iso file when you expose it fully and you are in good light. It is another to have a good looking high iso file when it is actually dark and your shadows are black, your highlights white, and your midtones on the dark side. This is a more realistic test -- photographing something at night, lit by either artificial light, the moon, or the last bits of daylight. In these situations the light source will be blown out, your shadows will be completely black, and the main area of the photo will be on the dark side, but must contain good detail. This is what I would like from medium format digital, but I have not seen it yet. It is what the D3 does so well. What you need is a sensor that can render clipped blacks with unobtrusive noise, no banding, while maintaining good color saturation, details in the midtones, and pure whites.

Anyway, those are the sorts of tests I would be interested in seeing -- I am not as interested in shooting at 1/500th and f/8 in moderate light levels, I am interested in getting a great image from the sensor when you are shooting at 1/4th and f/2.8 at ISO 3200.
 

LJL

New member
Stuart,
I agree with you here, with one exception. There are times when you need to jack up the ISO in order to preserve the shutter speed. In those cases, having a clean ISO 1600, for example may be important, as other details are going to be more visible also. I have run into this problem when shooting what looks like moderately decent light, but I needed a 1/640s shutter speed in order to freeze the action of the moving subject (horse jumping in an indoor arena with mixed lighting). In that case, the only control option I had was cranking ISO up to 3200 in my case, even at f2.8 aperture. That may not be the situation many face with MF shooting, but I can see it being a real issue with something as simple as people walking at dusk or dawn, waves lapping in the harbor, and other settings where one does need to freeze the action.

LJ
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
And that is the major issue as we saw in my first examples on this thread i needed that high shutter speed to stop runway movement. With MF shutter speed is a much more important issue than a lot of other things. I see the sensor plus as a real value with that purchase not sure i would make that my priority when making the P65 purchase or a future product but when your back is up against the wall and you need to pull something off this could be a lifesaver.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Well guys, I certainly agree, but I think that if the sensor can deliver in very low light situations, there is no question that it will do so in good light when you just need the shutter speed.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
This is a more realistic test -- photographing something at night, lit by either artificial light, the moon, or the last bits of daylight. In these situations the light source will be blown out, your shadows will be completely black, and the main area of the photo will be on the dark side, but must contain good detail. This is what I would like from medium format digital, but I have not seen it yet. It is what the D3 does so well. What you need is a sensor that can render clipped blacks with unobtrusive noise, no banding, while maintaining good color saturation, details in the midtones, and pure whites.

Anyway, those are the sorts of tests I would be interested in seeing -- I am not as interested in shooting at 1/500th and f/8 in moderate light levels, I am interested in getting a great image from the sensor when you are shooting at 1/4th and f/2.8 at ISO 3200.
This is exactly the test I personally ran last Friday.

I will be posting the results on CaptureIntegration.com this week.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
 

LJL

New member
Guy, I know you do not want to hear this, but if "your back is up against the wall", you put down the Phase, and pull a D3 or something from your bag with the appropriate lens and shoot with that. Taking a 60MP back, binning it down to 15MP just to pick up one stop seems foolish when you can just as easily and more effectively get a great file of similar size and excellent quality with 1-3 more stops. I know folks using MF really, really want to be able to shoot if everywhere and for everything, but there are some situations where they definitely are NOT the best tool for the job. Sorry if that sounds contrary to what some may want to believe. To me, a marginal ISO 1600 at 15MP binned down from 60MP is compromising too much of that 60MP quality one is paying for, and still not getting as much as could be had with a good DSLR that is capable of dealing with those higher ISOs. And for runway shooting, where you may be using a longer lens, the DSLR glass at 85-200mm is not going to be giving up much quality at all. Yes, the AA filter will require a bit more sharpening, but at least you will be able to hit the shutter speeds needed to get the shots you want without fighting the MF ISO hurdle and winding up with marginal shots, maybe slightly blurred because you still cannot get the shutter speed high enough. I have shot tons and tons of high ISO shots, in horrible light, and I am pretty confident that nothing in MF can touch what I can get from the DSLRs right now. For other shooting, the MF rigs mop things up over DSLR, but for high ISO, they are still sucking wind pretty hard and not crossing the finish line yet. If you really, really need to use MF under that kind of light, bribe the lighting tech to crank up the lights or strap on a powerful, high speed flash set-up and blast away. Pushing the ISO for marginal results on must have shots seems counterproductive to me.

LJ
 

LJL

New member
I know I know but what IF . LOL You don't have one. LOL
You pass on the back upgrade and get one? :thumbup: Or, you pick jobs that work better with the MF gear you have and shoot now? :D

Another heresy, I know, but I do not take some jobs that I know I cannot cover with my present gear to turn out the quality that I demand and is needed. (Probably why I am not getting any wealthier doing this :wtf:)

LJ
 
Top