MF Digital Precision

[dfarkas]

Marc, I understand about expectations and compromises, but Tim has indicated that he is not interested in them, he just wants the absolute best results possible, and that means corners as sharp as the center. The S2 with lenses from Leica may achieve this. Given Leica's existing lenses, which are generally sharp from wide open, and in the case of the very wide angles, sharp when stopped down a little, I think it is not unreasonable to expect something great there. Yes, one might have to try a couple of copies. Leica is of course subject to the same physical laws, but it is in the nature of the company not to seek compromises, but to go all out, so the 24mm super wide, for example, I expect to be sharper (and more expensive) than the Mamiya and even the Hasselblad equivalents.

I agree with Carsten here.

We haven't seen any MTF charts from the 24mm f/2.8 yet, but if the 35mm f/2.5 CS is any indication of wide performance, I have no doubt that the 24 will be staggeringly sharp and even across the entire frame. I would also venture to predict that the 30-90 f/3.5 will be exceptionally good as well.

And remember Leica's repeated mantra that no s/w correction is necessary when you get the lens design right in the first place. Looking at the MTFs for the first four lenses, their claim seems to hold a measure of credibility. Obviously, results will count more than charts. Patience, grasshopper, patience....

David

 

[Jack]

I feel compelled to share this quote by Michael Reichmann taken from a similar thread on his LL forum:

"Joe's findings need to be taken with a grain of salt. This is not a universal finding.

For example, I have now worked with three different P65+ backs on two different bodies and with 6 different lenses, and my most critical analysis has not shown there to be any misalignment issues.

I'm not saying that Joe's findings aren't actual, I'm sure that they are, but they are not universal.

The reason that I wrote my latest article, published with today's date, is that I found that meticulous technique was as big a factor as anything else in ensuring optimum image quality.

What also needs to be mentioned is that Joe is one of the most critical people that you're likely to find when it comes to image analysis. What many people would accept as "just fine" Joe would reject as substandard.

And finally, it's only when you see what is actually possible, that you become critical of anything less.

Michael"

Here is a link to that thread: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33801

Here is a link to Michael's article about using MF DB's and meticulous technique. FTR, improper technique is where I believe the bulk of the problem lies with most folks who seem to have chronic issues with gear, though I can exclude Joe Holmes from this group and I suspect that other folks have been unlucky as well. As Michael indicated, Joe is indeed critical and I believe he additionally had a run of bad luck. Moreover, I know Joe knows proper shooting and testing technique and trust his results: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/mf-easy.shtml

 

[ptomsu]

Folks,

some new oil into the fire. And please understand that I am really new to MF digital photography, so my observations are those of a beginner. But I have some thoughts I wanted to share and see what you think especially those of you who are working daily with digital MF systems already.

Yesterday I had the chance to test a Phase One camera with P65+ back and 80, 28 and 150 D lenses. First impression - GREAT - especially if you walk around with this type of equipment you immediately become the star :angel: So far, this is the fun part everybody likes.

The representation who gave me the camera was very friendly, very supportive and very knowledgeable. Really enjoyed it and could think of working closely with them for support issues. The cam and the controls work nicely, actually the whole thing felt very much like my old Contax 645 back in the analog days. I also was impressed by the back and also by the lenses - in general. And of course the resolution, colors etc etc.

Now the less fun part. Once we had the whole session on the computer - of course in Capture One, which BTW I know pretty well from the past and started to like again - think I would need to work on a new workflow for digital MF photography anyway - we started to look into the pictures in more detail. 100% crop or even larger and then one could clearly see:

1) softer corners of the 28 (all relative, but clear to see)
2) CA in almost all pictures from all lenses (not too much but it is there).
3) Distortion of the 28 - could live with that one for landscapes of course, but also there.

Now of course one can correct all this by SW, it is just a few mouse clicks in C1 - but it actually has to be done for every picture.

How do you all handle this? Does digital MF photography mean that one has to spend this time after each session behind the computer in order to get best results? Will this be gone with Leica's S2 system, as they claim that they do everything correct already in optics and thus later need no SW corrections?

Not that I could not live with all that corrections, as changing from analog to digital MF workflow spares a lot of time anyway, but I would like to get your opinion if these corrections are necessary, will eventually go away with future SW or future systems, or if we are (I am) just hysteric as these types of picture failures were always there, but we start only now paying attention.

The answers are pretty important for me, as I have currently NO MF digital (or analog) solution, and I could wait buying one till the S System is on the market and solves maybe all these issues.

BTW - found an answer at least for me for my question WRT how many MP one needs for making 80" x 60" prints - definitely 37, or 39 MP are enough. I saw prints from 22MP backs and this convinced me I actually would not really need more than say 40MP, giving very high quality, which is definitely on par - or even better with what I could achieve with analog 6x6 and high end scanning.

So at least this is a first answer in the whole MF digital puzzle for me and YES, I could "survive" with a Leica S System - sorry for this arrogance here. And I would really do so, if you folks can convince me here, that Leica is going to make all of this digital MF photography easier because they need no (almost no) SW corrections. Their support is of course a different issue.

Waiting for your advise .....

 

[carstenw]

Peter, there are some of us who are convinced that Leica will pull off a good system with lenses sharp to the corner and minimal correction required, but speaking personally, I am convinced, but only for myself. I would never try to make someone buy based on my own conviction. We will definitely have to wait on this one.

If you decided to go with a Phase system, isn't there some way to automate these corrections?

 

[ptomsu]

Peter, there are some of us who are convinced that Leica will pull off a good system with lenses sharp to the corner and minimal correction required, but speaking personally, I am convinced, but only for myself. I would never try to make someone buy based on my own conviction. We will definitely have to wait on this one.

If you decided to go with a Phase system, isn't there some way to automate these corrections?

I am thankful for all opinions and inputs.

I will check how these corrections can be automated. Maybe also the new camera model coming this summer will do some of these corrections together with the back already in the camera - so corrected files would come out.

Anyway I am getting more and more interest about the Leica solution and more and more nervous about all the other existing solutions, the deeper I dig into all this MF digital "mess"

 

[carstenw]

I guess the big question mark is how well Leica executes. I think we are dealing with a re-born company under Herr Doktor Kaufmann, and that they are facing the true problems head-on, but I might only be deluding myself based on hope. For me the biggest worry is if they can get the basics right for the launch (optimistic), and if they can set up a service acceptable to pros (skeptical).

Removing one interface from the equation (digital back-camera), having no swappable viewfinders (think focusing screen), and having no legacy lenses to deal with can only help them get the tolerances under control, so they definitely have one leg up on the competition from the beginning. The slightly smaller sensor also helps here, for sensor alignment accuracy.

Personally I am beginning to reformulate my long-term path into MF digital. I wanted to get the Sinar eMotion 54LV, but once I discovered that it cannot do exposures long enough for me to do dusk HDR sequences, I wanted the P25+ or P30+.

Now I am thinking more and more that I will just pick up some older, cheaper 16 or 22MP back and use that for a while, and then eventually move to the S2. That will take some time, as the price will be quite forbidding, but I have nothing but time, not being a pro.

 

[KeithL]

1) softer corners of the 28 (all relative, but clear to see)
2) CA in almost all pictures from all lenses (not too much but it is there).
3) Distortion of the 28 - could live with that one for landscapes of course, but also there.

Peter

MFD doesn't have to be like this, but having said that the more pixels that are crammed on to the sensor the more likely it is that you'll see and have to deal with artefacts.

My own experience is - and keep in mind that I'm using a H3D11-22 so the 'pixel size' is larger than most - I've yet to experience CA, even when using the 28mm and even when turning off the Hasselblad DAC corrections. Watching the DACs correct for distortion is fascinating particularly when using the 28mm, yes, as you would expect plenty of distortion but beautifully handled by the corrections. The corrections also handle vignetting.

As I've said in a previous post I've yet to see any problem with the 28mm corners - I'm not sure if the DAC distortion corrections have an effect here - perhaps this is also a product of the fat pixels?

So there you go, as you will gather I'm a very happy bunny which is definitely an effect of the H3D11 and the incredible automatically applied DAC corrections!

Keith

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Peter, there are some of us who are convinced that Leica will pull off a good system with lenses sharp to the corner and minimal correction required, but speaking personally, I am convinced, but only for myself. I would never try to make someone buy based on my own conviction. We will definitely have to wait on this one.

If you decided to go with a Phase system, isn't there some way to automate these corrections?

Very simple process select one 28mm lens for example do the lens corrections or whatever you want right click on thumbnail copy adjusts than select all the ones you want and apply corrections to one or as many as you want. The Mamiya 28 actually has less lens distortion when viewing than the Hassy but they both are corrected very nicely in there software.

We keep talking the S2 and I don't buy any of it for a second with there 24mm lens or almost any other lens. I would rather bet on a turtle winning a race. Sorry no one is going to convince me there is no distortion or Leica is not doing the corrections internally in camera to the Raws. Folks they do that today with the M8. Your listening to marketing BS. This is STILL a retro focus design.

 

[carstenw]

Guy, I don't think anyone has claimed that there will be no distortion. What people want here is sharp corners, and not sharp for a lens of that focal length, but just sharp, period.

The corrections in the M8 are limited to cyan corner correction and vignetting, both just colour value changes limited to each pixel.

 

[fotografz]

Very simple process select one 28mm lens for example do the lens corrections or whatever you want right click on thumbnail copy adjusts than select all the ones you want and apply corrections to one or as many as you want. The Mamiya 28 actually has less lens distortion when viewing than the Hassy but they both are corrected very nicely in there software.

We keep talking the S2 and I don't buy any of it for a second with there 24mm lens. I would rather bet on a turtle winning a race. Sorry no one is going to convince me there is no distortion or Leica is not doing the corrections internally in camera to the Raws. Folks they do that today with the M8. Your listening to marketing BS. This is STILL a retro focus design.

Guy, C1 doesn't have a check box to automatically apply lens corrections?

In Phocus, I have it checked and leave it checked ... so it applies the correction to all lenses covered (28mm to 100mm). If I don't want it for certain shots, I select that shot and uncheck the DAC box.

Seems Phase could easily include that in a software update.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

As I said several times and actually Hassy from what I am told also is there file actually is a 30mm after the corrections. The same with Mamiya it is about a 30mm lens. The issue with both lenses is the curvature of the lens and Leica will have the same issue. There simply is no getting around this issue. Who said the Hassy and Mamiya are not sharp . I shoot this everyday and they are sharp but the extreme corners are not unless you make it about a 30mm lens. I am speaking of Mamiya here and don't want to assume to much on the Hassy. I will let David address that

BTW the M8 is doing more than that in camera there are micro lenses that gather light in the corners and also as Robert pointed out several times on the forums is effectively sharpening the corners. That I am not sure about and actually argued about

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy, C1 doesn't have a check box to automatically apply lens corrections?

In Phocus, I have it checked and leave it checked ... so it applies the correction to all lenses covered (28mm to 100mm). If I don't want it for certain shots, I select that shot and uncheck the DAC box.

Seems Phase could easily include that in a software update.

Yes in the lens corrections they could add some features here . You do have to select the actually lens in lens corrections. That should be automatic in my opinion. Once you select say the 28mm ( looking at it right now actually) than certain check boxes are automatic CA, Distortion and light falloff these adjustments are made when you pick that lens. The ones unchecked are Purple fringing,sharpness falloff and vignetting. Now i could check and slide things around than copy that and apply them to any amount I want which is pretty simple. But i agree the automatic lens selection should come up when that lens is in preview. Would save some time. or at least give us a master control in preferences or something.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

These are all uncropped . Someone said i was cropping to 30mm and that is not true anything I have showed here is full frame . First one is uncorrected and the second one is corrected for distortion , corner sharpness and such. Shot at F11

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You may see a slight barrel distortion correction but you almost have to watch it happen in the software. I 'm sure in Phocus you can see the same effect when it is being applied. i can show the bottom left corner also with and without the corner sharpening applied this is NEW for the 28mm in 4.7 and not in any earlier versions.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Here the extreme left corner without the corrections applied and with sharpness corner applied at a setting of 160. Which is not that aggressive. To me that is a major improvement. You decide for yourself. But I am finding this wasted energy over something that is a easy fix and at the end of the day is meaningless to most people. But that is me. Folks need to understand the concept of MF is . Forget 35mm completely out of your head it does NOT apply. This is large format thinking and shooting techniques

 

[Guy Mancuso]

For the record this is the P25 plus and not entirely FULL frame. The P65 plus obviously show a little more area of softness on the 28mm just as the P30 plus will show almost none because of the crop factor. This is at F11 no less and focusing is on the back side of the pool. Now not doing the math but a P65 with a 28mm is equivalent to about a 19mm, P25 and 45 it is a 21mm and the P30 it is a 23.5 mm lens. Now matter which back to eliminate it completely think around a 22.5 mm lens to 24mm somewhere in that range without doing corner sharpness should eliminate it. Given this wide of a lens i do not see it as a issue at all some may but even in 35mm there is maybe ONE or TWO lenses in the 21mm focal length that can give sharp corners at F11 but let's also realize a 35mm camera is two stops to the plus side so reality is F22 DOF. This is the issue with MF and Large format we are on different terms when it comes to F stops than anything in 35mm. This gets put on the side table all the time and that is something we keep forgetting about. I should have shot this at F22 to match a 21mm in 35mm at F11.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Hopefully that explains a lot of this and I would imagine the same is closely true for the Hassy 28. The only real lens other than this is for a tech camera at the moment and that is a Rodenstock 28mm and it is said to be very good but I do not now how good the corners are but given the curvature of the lens it may actually run into the same issues. The Leica 24mm obviously not out yet we can only guess but I am not putting money on it given the retro focus design.I'm not putting my money on that system at all actually, to me it's a passing thought that I will address next year if the system is capable. But the marketing on it is something I am really tired of hearing how great it will be. Folks I need visual proof. Not running my company on marketing hype. I like Leica we all know that but shut up and show us the money is my new motto.

And yes I need that second espresso. LOL

 

[fotografz]

Here are a quick couple of shots with the HC28 ... cropped tight to text area of a box.

One far left bottom corner (shows WA distortion) with the box bleeding right off both left edge and bottom edge (can't get into the corner more than that!) ... the other is a center of frame shot. Both then enlarged.

 

[ptomsu]

Thanks Guy for all this insight.

Indeed MF is a different beast and we should know that. I am aware of that and I am maybe in the very lucky situation that I do not have any of these systems right now and can choose from the scratch. So for me there are 2 fixstarters (Hassi and Phase ) and then there is the S System - maybe.

It finally will be also a price decision for me and of course availability and trust, as Leica as a company with their products has let me down very often - in several areas. And yes, maybe you are right and they do a lot of processing and correction already in the body of the S2 and not in external SW.

It was the post processing I saw yesterday first time for MF and it just cam to my mind that I would not like to do all these corrections manually, but decide for a certain lens which corrections to apply automatically and whenever a photo taken with that lens is imported, the SW applies these corrections automatically. It does not make any sense to me, if I prefer SW edge sharpening plus CA, then to do an individual select by photo.

But as I also mentioned, maybe this is a bit too hysteric and I should not pay too much attention.

Finally I was (am) very pleased with the results and I also learned one thing for sure - for the moment I can survive with 39MP and this makes back prices much more interesting - be it Hasselblad or Phase

Please continue commenting here, I am learning incredibly much from all of you!

 

[jlm]

LL had something on this as well