As a follow up to what I feel was a questionable test between a P25 and a couple of Canon high resolution DSLRs ... I pitted my lowly 16 meg CFV-II against the current high meg DSLR champion ... the FF, 25 meg Sony A900 (mostly to see how good the A900 is, since I know what the CFV-II can do.) What I do know is that the Sony A900 produces better files than my now sold Canon 1DsMKIII ... can't speak for the new 5DMKII, as I've never used one.
The subject was a fried hard drive that I had just replaced in my old Mac G5. Lots of detail for pixel peeping. :bugeyes: Also a relatively flat surface to keep focus and DOF issues to a minimum when using MF lenses verses 35mm lenses.
Now mind you, the CFV-II goes in with a disadvantage because I framed to width of the rectangular subject matter, thus losing the remaining resolution of the square. So it's probably more like 11 or 12 meg CFV verses 25 meg Sony. If this had been a Phase One P25, the full 22 meg resolution would have been there to use ... or roughly twice the res of the CFV ... In other words, in this specific test, the P25 with the same pixel pitch as the CFV but more used area of the sensor, would most likely blow away the CFV.
Each camera was set to it's native ISO ... 50 for the CFV and 100 for the Sony. That point may be argued, but I believe native ISOs should be used for tests like this.
The CFV was mounted on a 203FE using a Zeiss 180/4CFi :thumbup: ... (a much better lens than the Zeiss 150mm used in the other test.) But the Sony wasn't sucking hind tit either ... I mounted the fabulous Zeiss 135/1.8 on it :thumbup: Both lenses were used in mid range f stops ( f/8ish give or take. )
Lighting was done relatively flat, 3/4 top down with a Profoto D4 and Pocket Wizards ... thus providing very consistent, even lighting pop-to-pop. Both cameras were on tripod and releases used.
Dual image shows the results with the Sony on top and the CFV on the bottom ... NOT an indication of ranking At this size they are visually almost identical.
Then there are two severe crops of the same area.
#1 is the CFV, #2 is the Sony A900. Note the background green areas where the paint bumps are more visible on the CFV shot .... and especially the texture in the area just below the black box. While this truly IS pixel peeping at an extreme considering the enlargement ratio, this is the stuff that adds up to an over-all impression of detail in full sized renderings.
However, what DID delight me is how well the A900 with the Zeiss optic did do. :thumbup: In actual practice this camera is quite able to produce stunning product work AND, I'm sure I'll get more out of the files once I live with the camera a bit longer. Plus, @ 1/3rd the price of the CFV outfit it's worth every penny as a versatile 35mm DSLR.
What the A900 can't do is be mounted on my Mamiya RZ or Rollei Xact2 like the CFV or any other MF back can.
Let ripping me a new one begin ...:ROTFL:
The subject was a fried hard drive that I had just replaced in my old Mac G5. Lots of detail for pixel peeping. :bugeyes: Also a relatively flat surface to keep focus and DOF issues to a minimum when using MF lenses verses 35mm lenses.
Now mind you, the CFV-II goes in with a disadvantage because I framed to width of the rectangular subject matter, thus losing the remaining resolution of the square. So it's probably more like 11 or 12 meg CFV verses 25 meg Sony. If this had been a Phase One P25, the full 22 meg resolution would have been there to use ... or roughly twice the res of the CFV ... In other words, in this specific test, the P25 with the same pixel pitch as the CFV but more used area of the sensor, would most likely blow away the CFV.
Each camera was set to it's native ISO ... 50 for the CFV and 100 for the Sony. That point may be argued, but I believe native ISOs should be used for tests like this.
The CFV was mounted on a 203FE using a Zeiss 180/4CFi :thumbup: ... (a much better lens than the Zeiss 150mm used in the other test.) But the Sony wasn't sucking hind tit either ... I mounted the fabulous Zeiss 135/1.8 on it :thumbup: Both lenses were used in mid range f stops ( f/8ish give or take. )
Lighting was done relatively flat, 3/4 top down with a Profoto D4 and Pocket Wizards ... thus providing very consistent, even lighting pop-to-pop. Both cameras were on tripod and releases used.
Dual image shows the results with the Sony on top and the CFV on the bottom ... NOT an indication of ranking At this size they are visually almost identical.
Then there are two severe crops of the same area.
#1 is the CFV, #2 is the Sony A900. Note the background green areas where the paint bumps are more visible on the CFV shot .... and especially the texture in the area just below the black box. While this truly IS pixel peeping at an extreme considering the enlargement ratio, this is the stuff that adds up to an over-all impression of detail in full sized renderings.
However, what DID delight me is how well the A900 with the Zeiss optic did do. :thumbup: In actual practice this camera is quite able to produce stunning product work AND, I'm sure I'll get more out of the files once I live with the camera a bit longer. Plus, @ 1/3rd the price of the CFV outfit it's worth every penny as a versatile 35mm DSLR.
What the A900 can't do is be mounted on my Mamiya RZ or Rollei Xact2 like the CFV or any other MF back can.
Let ripping me a new one begin ...:ROTFL: