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!

MFDB Performance at higher ISOs

Stuart Richardson

Active member
That's what I meant. The 54LV did not make an image that I am comfortable posting. It was severely underexposed at 30 seconds, and it does not go over 30 seconds in use, so I did not post it. I could make a visible shot by pushing it 4 stops in post processing, but it looked horrible. For all intents and purposes, there was no image.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
That's what I meant. The 54LV did not make an image that I am comfortable posting. It was severely underexposed at 30 seconds, and it does not go over 30 seconds in use, so I did not post it. I could make a visible shot by pushing it 4 stops in post processing, but it looked horrible. For all intents and purposes, there was no image.
Stuart, if it was underexposed why didnt you increase the iso-setting?
I mean the recommendation to use low ISO only makes sense if there is enough light/exposure. did you also try to shoot at higher ISO and the results were unusable?
Regards, Tom
 
J

jmvdigital

Guest
Here are some 800 and 1600 crops from my 30+. Some are more impressive than others. As some folks have said, the visual results depend alot on the subject and lighting involved. Shadow areas with little detail end up looking the worst. An image with lots of light and detail look great.

I have posted one split from Lightroom that shows ISO 400 and 1600, shot on a tripod. The detail is lost on the 1600 image, it looks a lot like I missed focus or something, but other scenes of this comparison show similar loss of fine detail at 1600. The truck and the spring are 1600. The spring is an old truck seat, and you can see the noise block up in those flat shadow areas, whereas the blue ford looks decent. The image of the Chevrolet badge is ISO 800. The single image crops here are all shot at f/2.8, so the lens is a bit soft to begin with.

Shoot, it looks like the upload won't take that comparison shot full-size. I've uploaded it here: http://jmvdigital.com/temp/P130_400_1600.jpg
 
Last edited:

carstenw

Active member
ah, okay, I thought that was the 54 LV image. Like Tom, I would be interested to see a high ISO image, in case you made one.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
JMV,

We're big advocates of Lightroom and the ability in general for P1 raws to be opened natively in a variety of programs.

However for long exposures or high ISOs the difference between Capture One 4.5 and any other program will be pretty significant. You might run those same images through c1 with color noise reduction around 45-55 and luminance noise reduction around 30. then bump clarity to 20 and sharpening radius up just a smidgen.

If you do try that, post your results compared to Lightroom. We do this all the time in-house, but probably most people have not seen many such comparisons.

Doug

P.S. I assume that for Hassy, Sinar, and Leaf the same is true: the harder the sensor is working (long exposures or high ISO) the greater the difference between their own native developers and third party developers.

Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer | Personal Portfolio
 
J

jmvdigital

Guest
Doug, I can do that, but I just posted these images as "unedited". The Detail tab in Lightroom turned off (i.e., no color or luminance noise reduction, or sharpening), I also removed all corrections back to "as shot" for technical comparison.

-J
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Tom -- I did not try it because, frankly, I was not testing, I was trying to make pictures. I was told to use the 54 at base ISO for long exposures, as the higher ISO's are just cranking up the gain (as far as I understand it). It did not appear to work, so I set it aside and worked with something that demonstrated to me that it could do the job. It is also very difficult to tell in the field if 54LV images are workable (the screen is not good enough), so I did not know that the images would not be salvageable. A look at the screen of the 54LV versus a look at the screen of the D3 was more than enough to convince me to just concentrate on the one that was working.
 
Last edited:

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Edit: I will say that the images look a lot better when converted in eXposure. They are still not in the same league as the D3, but Doug is right here -- they look a lot better in their native software.
 

Ed Hurst

Well-known member
Thanks to everyone - really helpful. God I love this site!

With my pictures of moving trains, my most commonly used ISO in good light is 200 (because it allows me to use a fast enough shutter speed and still get reasonable DoF). Anyone got side-by-side comparison of noise on, say, a P30+ compared to a D3 at ISO 200? (Other similar comparisons would be appreciated too, of course :))

Many thanks,

Ed
 

Graham Mitchell

New member
Thanks to everyone - really helpful. God I love this site!

With my pictures of moving trains, my most commonly used ISO in good light is 200 (because it allows me to use a fast enough shutter speed and still get reasonable DoF). Anyone got side-by-side comparison of noise on, say, a P30+ compared to a D3 at ISO 200? (Other similar comparisons would be appreciated too, of course :))

Many thanks,

Ed
Just remember when you are comparing 100% crops that the noise on a MFDB is not enlarged as much as with the D3. So if the noise looks the same or even slightly worse on the MFDB when comparing 100% crops, the MFDB will look less noisy in print. Hope that makes sense. People seem to forget this quite often.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Phase backs USE C1 no question the noise is a ton better even at default. I tried this several times with LR and the difference is big. Not sure why but it is. I have not touched LR in months to be honest.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Tom -- I did not try it because, frankly, I was not testing, I was trying to make pictures. I was told to use the 54 at base ISO for long exposures, as the higher ISO's are just cranking up the gain (as far as I understand it). It did not appear to work, so I set it aside and worked with something that demonstrated to me that it could do the job. It is also very difficult to tell in the field if 54LV images are workable (the screen is not good enough), so I did not know that the images would not be salvageable. A look at the screen of the 54LV versus a look at the screen of the D3 was more than enough to convince me to just concentrate on the one that was working.
Stuart, I understand. The image you posted looks stunning by the way. Any chance you post some more.
Regards, tom
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Well you showed me that photo in your office when I was in Atlanta for a meeting. I should have kept a copy to send back to you.
Finally got around to doing some higher ISO shots today.

There have been a number of proimising looking shots posted but where rubber meets the road for me is shooting people. The benefit here of being able to shoot ISO 800 effectively is I can maximize my shutter speed shooting live subjects. This was taken in late afternoon mixed sun/shade at a shutter speed of 1/125th and ISO 800 on a P30+ on Phase One 645 with the new 80mm Digital Lens. If I was restricted to ISO 200, or 400, I would be at 1/60th or 1/30th of a second, and getting a sharp image would be potentially compromised.

What I have seen out of the P30+ at ISO 800 this weekend is as good or better than any digital back I have ever shot with. LIke I said before, for high ISO, the Kodak 31MP sensor is the top performer (for medium format digital).

I should also point out that these were processed through Capture One Pro 4.5, and I believe that also makes a big difference.




Steve Hendrix
Phase One
 

David K

Workshop Member
Steve,
I think you make a valid point regarding high ISO shooting in decent light so that you can get a higher shutter speed. Typically, for me, that's NOT the reason I'm looking for high ISO... it's to capture a decent image in low light and therein lies the challenge. I inadvertently shot a bunch in good light at ISO 400 and only realized my oversight because I looked at the metadata in post. From the image I didn't notice the difference. I'll take your word, and those of others, that the 31MP Kodak sensor is the king of the road for high ISO. If I know I'm heading for low light I grab my Nikon D3 knowing it's the better choice of gear.
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Steve,
I think you make a valid point regarding high ISO shooting in decent light so that you can get a higher shutter speed. Typically, for me, that's NOT the reason I'm looking for high ISO... it's to capture a decent image in low light and therein lies the challenge. I inadvertently shot a bunch in good light at ISO 400 and only realized my oversight because I looked at the metadata in post. From the image I didn't notice the difference. I'll take your word, and those of others, that the 31MP Kodak sensor is the king of the road for high ISO. If I know I'm heading for low light I grab my Nikon D3 knowing it's the better choice of gear.
The same would hold true if this was later in the day. I was shooting at f5.6, so let's say it was an hour or two later and I've got sun, but it's below the horizon and I'm at f5.6 and 1/8 second at 200 ISO. If I move to 800 ISO, I'm at 1/30th.

For low, low light, say an interior with no flash, etc. then the D3 is king. But you can get very good results with the P30+. One of the keys is focus. In-focus areas that are exposed properly hold up very well. If I had a moving subject in low, low light (shutter speeds of 1/15th or less at 800 ISO) then the D3 is the correct tool for the job. But under most conditions at 800 ISO and for shutter speeds at 1/30th second or higher (or fast enough to minimize any blur) the P30+ is as good as anything I've seen and that includes 35mm (D3 excepted).


Steve Hendrix
Phase One
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Hello all,

Many thanks to all of you who have helped with my questions so far.

If comparing MF digital (e.g. the latest Phase backs and the latest H series bodies) with 35mm-style DSLRs such as Nikon D3 and Canon 1DSmkiii, how do they perform at ISO 200, 400 and 800 in terms of noise, detail and dynamic range? I know the resolution will be higher, but what about these other parameters?

For my purposes, being able to shoot at 200 and 400 (and preferably up to 800) with confidence is important - and I wouldn't want to lose out on overall quality by stepping up to MF digital. My fear is that MF digital might only be worth it at very low ISOs...

Any feedback very welcome!

Best wishes and thanks in advance for your help.

Ed
I have recently tested my P45+ at high ISOs, just for fun because I rarely need them for my landscape work.

What I have found is that processing in LR2.1 gives unacceptable results - but processing in C1 4.5.1 gives extraordinarily good results with virtually no tweaking. Outdoor scenes at ISO 800 are perfectly usable. (I haven't yet tried "dark" indoor scenes.)

I love the workflow of LR but for Phase high ISO shots I'll use their software - markedly superior. I shouldn't be surprised, I guess - if the manufacturer can't get the best out of their own back, it would be pretty sad!

Bill
 
Top