The P45+ and DR. And noise. And...

[thsinar]

Jack,

Yes, I was closer, obviously, at about 5 meters, may be even a bit less.

But this doesn't change anything significantly and isn't the reason for the problems shown with your samples.

Best regards,
Thierry

Thierry, how far away were you from your subject? I was about 10 meters at least form the leaf in the second image. I suspect you were a lot closer to your plant. I will try another plant in the coming week.

 

[PeterA]

Yeah the resolution in these mega-pixel Big Boys is pretty awesome....they like to be fed on a lot of light too.. Wost thing about this MFD caper is that really there are no technical excuses for shitty shooting anymore !!! LOL

 

[Jack]

Jack,

Yes, I was closer, obviously, at about 5 meters, may be even a bit less.

But this doesn't change anything significantly and isn't the reason for the problems shown with your samples.

Best regards,
Thierry

What problems do you see in the first shot of the clover?

Also, how does the Sinar hold up to images like that one; do you have any comparable extreme brightness range images to share?

 

[thsinar]

I don't know which 1st "clover" shot you mean, Jack. But the 100% details samples show all the same, a lack of details, micro-contrast and artifacts.
Do you have may be a part of the image in focus which can be shown at 100%?

As I can guess, the part of your first image in post N°1 which appears to be in focus is a bit more in the front of the 100% details shown with ISO 100 and 800. May be show a 100% detail of this part in real focus?

Thanks and best regards,
Thierry

What problems do you see in the first shot of the clover?

 

[Jack]

I don't know which 1st "clover" shot you mean, Jack. But the 100% details samples show all the same, a lack of details, micro-contrast and artifacts.
Do you have may be a part of the image in focus which can be shown at 100%?

As I can guess, the part of your first image in post N°1 which appears to be in focus is a bit more in the front of the 100% details shown with ISO 100 and 800. May be show a 100% detail of this part in real focus?

Thanks and best regards,
Thierry

No offense, but the very first post includes a 100% crop and is showing FAR more detail than any crop you have posted here. Look at the detail in the clover petals and the dead leaf in the first post. Show me something similar from the Sinar that you think is better; a small leaf at about 7 meters distance with your 80mm lens that shows more detail please. And if it includes as much range of light as that one of mine, so much the better

As for the side-by-side ISO 100 and 1600 crops being in focus, as I mentioned THE WIND WAS BLOWING so the parts at the focus plane are not sharp anyway -- I simply chose a part of the image that showed a range of tones and noise.

Cheers,

 

[Greg Seitz]

Jack,

You might try dialing down the noise sliders in C1. I've found they pretty much obliterate detail even on the D3 at higher ISOs. By the way, congratulations on your new back.

Greg

 

[EH21]

I can't imagine what distance could have to do with noise. But certainly it takes a little bit of practice with the phase files and C1 to figure out how to make them really sing. So far, however, I'd have to agree with BJNY. Those samples at least what you've posted look terrible in comparison to Thierry's Sinar sample.

I will say that Lance has provided me with ISO 800 p45+ samples which looked very good indeed so I know at least under certain conditions its possible. They did look better than what you've posted.

Jack the profile used can also make a difference - were you using the outdoor daylight or the product flash profile?

 

[thsinar]

Jack,

No offense, but the very first post includes a 100% crop and is showing FAR more detail than any crop you have posted here.

I did not mean to offend you, and you seem to take my remarks wrongly: I think we are all professionals and adults to be able to speak and discuss something, even if we don't agree. But you have to be honest and agree here that what is shown is simply not of good IQ.

Look at the detail in the clover petals and the dead leaf in the first post. Show me something similar from the Sinar that you think is better; a small leaf at about 7 meters distance with your 80mm lens that shows more detail please. And if it includes as much range of light as that one of mine, so much the better
As for the side-by-side ISO 100 and 1600 crops being in focus, as I mentioned THE WIND WAS BLOWING so the parts at the focus plane are not sharp anyway -- I simply chose a part of the image that showed a range of tones and noise.

First correction: I did not use a 80mm lens, but the Zeiss 110/f2.

But do you honestly think that there are no details in my sample?! In this case I guess that we don't have the same definition of what is details.

There are details in my samples: all the 100% details show sharpness, deep clean shadows and detailed highlights, with no painterly look and artifacts. I think everybody would agree to this (and has already). I think I have put enough 100% crops to show these details, with shadows going from deep black to whites, and in-between a tonal range and details everywhere, including in the deep shadows and in the highlights.

I have even put at disposal the raw DNG of this image, for download and for people to check by themselves. I don't think that from this DNG one can say that there are no details and no tonal range.

I am ready to believe that the P45+ can do better at this setting, but please don't compare this with my sample and say that you have more details: all parts of the image and details shown have a very strong painterly look, which implies for me that there was NR going on, and even a pretty strong one. I would really check your NR setting in C1: it MUST be on and set to nearly maximum.

As for the side-by-side ISO 100 and 1600 crops being in focus, as I mentioned THE WIND WAS BLOWING so the parts at the focus plane are not sharp anyway -- I simply chose a part of the image that showed a range of tones and noise.

Cheers,

You say that it was windy, but I can see some pretty sharp parts in the image: when you have a look at your first posted ISO 100 detail 100% you can easily see that the thin grass strands are exactly in the focus plane and sharp or sharper than the rest. Now look at the same detail with the ISO 800 and check what happens with these thin grass strands.

And to be honest, with the risk of being told to have a biased behaviour or an agenda here: I even think that the ISO 100 does not look good at all.

Jack: please check again your PP and what could have been going wrong or do this test again. I don't believe that this is the best one can get.

One further thing makes me think that something went wrong with your provided ISO 800 sample: you said that you had 1/25th at f8 with ISO 800: this seems pretty strange to me. Are you sure? What I mean, is that you should have a much shorter exposure time or smaller aperture (more closed) with this light conditions, IMO.

I have just shot some snapshots this afternoon with my Lumix 10 MPx at ISO 800 and 1600, on some very contrasty subjects: to get the perfect exposure I have to expose at 1/200 minimum at f8 (to under-expose like your sample, even 1/400).

Also in my eMotion 75 ISO 800 sample: I was shooting in the very early morning time, when the sun at the horizon, and my exposure was 1/40th at f5.6. From your image, its highlights and shadows, I deduct or guess that the sun was already high or at least higher than for my test, and thus much more light available. Yes the contrast may be 12 stops, so does my sample (measured with a spot-meter), but the quantity of light available was much less in my image. In fact I believe that your ISO 800 might in fact be over-exposed.

But please and again, don't take this as a bashing against you or a product. It is not. I am simply a professional who cannot say that what is shown is good.

Thanks and best regards,
Thierry

 

[fotografz]

Let's see, Jack has had the camera for 24 hours.

Give it some time. It takes weeks to sort out how to get the best from each back/software/shooting technique.

Irakly struggled with his Phase One P25 back for a week ... and couldn't even equal his old Kodak 16 meg back at first. That most certainly isn't the case now :thumbs:

I got my new CFV-II yesterday and popped off one shot in the backyard with the new 40 IF. See attached, right out of the camera.

Difference is that the light was nice, and I owned the CFV version 1, as well as have considerable experience with Flexcolor/Phocus as it relates to Hasselblad/Imacon backs.

 

[thsinar]

Sure Marc,

I understand this and I am looking forward to Jack's next files. I do certainly not mean to give a definitive judgement, but I can also not say that the quality is good, I would not seem to be responsible.

Best regards,
Thierry

Let's see, Jack has had the camera for 24 hours.

Give it some time. It takes weeks to sort out how to get the best from each back/software/shooting technique.

Irakly struggled with his Phase One P25 back for a week ... and couldn't even equal his old Kodak 16 meg back at first. That most certainly isn't the case now :thumbs:

I got my new CFV-II yesterday and popped off one shot in the backyard with the new 40 IF. See attached, right out of the camera.

Difference is that the light was nice, and I owned the CFV version 1, as well as have considerable experience with Flexcolor/Phocus as it relates to Hasselblad/Imacon backs.

 

[Graham Mitchell]

I really wasn't expecting to see such a different in ISO 800 performance. Either something is not working or set incorrectly, or this back really can't compete with the e75LV. The images are still usable, of course, but the artefacts from noise reduction are pretty extreme. Even the iso 100 file looks a bit 'brittle'. This is obviously not wind or distance-to-subject related either.

It would be nice to see a comparison of shots taken of the same subject with these different backs, if only to eliminate these kinds or arguments and make the differences plain to see. I'll be happy to do it if someone wants to send me the backs

 

[PeterA]

Give it a rest you guys..sheesh what a load...

 

[BJNY]

It would be nice to see a comparison of shots taken of the same subject with these different backs, if only to eliminate these kinds or arguments and make the differences plain to see.

Well, there is a chance of this happening at the Lighting Workshop.
I know Steve Hendrix is truly expert at use of Hasselblad, Leaf and Sinar.

 

[thsinar]

Dear Peter,

I do see nothing wrong here or a "load". It is simply a discussion.
May I refer to my thread and the questions asked, often sceptical ones, there are 7 pages of it and I have answered each single critic, negative or positive. Check it out.

Again: nobody is putting pressure on Jack, simply saying that something must be wrong.

Best regards,
Thierry

Give it a rest you guys..sheesh what a load...

 

[Graham Mitchell]

Give it a rest you guys..sheesh what a load...

Yes, here we are in a medium format digital forum, comparing the performance of digital backs. What were we thinking! Sorry, won't happen again

 

[fotografz]

Quite frankly, the "load" is that in terms of image quality ... in the same light, with the equipment/software in hands of those experienced with it, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, or if any, it's so miniscule that mere mortals couldn't tell the difference. The constant implication that there are major differences is simply marketing hype by dealers trying to hawk their wares.

Sorry, there are choices to be made in terms of operational and functional aspects to meet your specific needs, what lenses may serve you best, what software settings may get the best from your particular method of shooting ... but the basic performance of these backs is simply outstanding from all the MFDB makers ... and implying differently is a "load."

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well let's slow it down folks ,we all seen the P25 plus ISO files also and they are very good and it really comes down to software for a lot of the higher ISO stuff. I know i am getting very clean ISO 400 and very nice 800 files from my back. i would not think the P45 plus would be much different than that to be honest. If anything the P30 plus is rated even higher by a stop. No OEM is going to embarrass themselves and say they have higher ISO' when they don't. Even Hassy is saying it will have a higher ISO capability in there next Phocus upgrade. So it mostly is a matter of software. Let's face a few facts C1 has been around a long time and maybe longer than anyone else so this is nothing new as more improvements are released for all the back companies. Folks are sitting back waiting for Phocus to come around to the higher ISO's. To me this is all great stuff and best for us the end user. I think we need to keep some perspective on this stuff because in the end as the user is what counts and the software from each company will push each other to improve and at the end of the day that is what us end users want.

 

[David K]

It would be unfortunate for this forum if a legitimate and relevant discussion led to hard feelings among our members... and I can see where this could happen if we continue in this vein. I don't see anything offensive about the comments that Thierry has made and nothing that could be characterized as "hawking his wares". To the contrary, he has suggested that the Phase back is capable of better performance than shown in the example and that perhaps the test is flawed. As for Jack, he's anything but a fanboy of any brand, despite the fact he chose Phase, and at 6' 6" tall, he doesn't need defending by anyone

 

[David K]

One further thing with regard to this comparison. The 110 f/2 lens that Thierry used for his test shot is among the finest glass that I've ever owned. If you want to get a more level playing field I'd suggest using the 80mm on both kits.

 

[BJNY]

I agree Thierry's post couldn't be more respectful.