Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 61 of 61

Thread: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

  1. #51
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    MTF has nothing to do with why I switched from MFD to the D800. That decision was based on reliability of the electronics and mechanics. This whiz match of who's more technically challenged feeds trolls, and quite frankly I think that's what the OP wants.
    Last edited by johnnygoesdigital; 7th July 2013 at 08:18.

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    All a matter of subjective opinion.

    I switched from Nikon to Sony because I simply didn't care for the Nikon optical aesthetic look and feel ... and still don't. 24, 36 meg or even 50 meg is not relevant. The only D800 shots I've found remotely appealing where done with Leica R glass ... and I'm NOT going back to adapted manual focus lenses ever again.

    Besides, IMO Nikon still hasn't made a camera that can equal the out of camera color of the A900 which can be had for 1/3 the price of a D800.

    - Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    Agree on the A900, nice camera, especially with Zeiss lenses, but I don't mind adjusting the color to my liking as I don't often use the OOC color anyway. Too bad they don't still make the A900. Although this is a MF thread the comparisons keep coming... Subjective indeed...

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    However, I do not "subjectively" mix up my A900 with MFD ... even my S2 camera which is my main preferred camera for most color work.

    It isn't a matter of "technical comparisons" which you seem obsessed with. IMO, it is a matter of creative preference. Various combinations of sensors and lenses that provide some aesthetic look and feel that one may favor over another. I still like what the fat pixel backs produced when used on either a Contax 645, or a Mamiya RZ ... just something special about the look. 10 year old tech which is far more pleasing to my eye than anything I've seen clinically produced by a D800.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #55
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    To elaborate, I also tweak what the camera captures. When I say I like the OOC color, it means it requires less PP work to achieve the aesthetic look I'm after. I've found that the more PP you have to do, the more danger there is of the image looking manipulated. Of course that depends on the skill of the person doing the manipulation, yet who wants to work every image so much to get what you want, when there are solutions that deliver a much closer file OOC?

    For me, the lenses are main criteria. The sensor and output in concert with optics that produces an aesthetic that comes closest to what I am creatively after. Many people adapt lenses to a different camera to achieve that, which I also once did ... but as mentioned, I no longer am interested in that type exercise because it defeats the underlying purpose of a swift, mobile modern 35mm DSLR AF camera.

    When Leica first introduced the S2, I tested it and found that it wasn't ready for prime time. Once they tweaked the camera/sensor to work with the all new lenses, it came into its own in a big way. Very natural look and feel that other people then took note of.

    We all find our way ... and the only real comparisons are for ourselves and what we are creatively looking for from any given camera.

    - Marc

  6. #56
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    Just a side note. Color also has a lot to do with profiles and raw converters. One camera maybe awesome with a certain raw converter but look like crap with another. I've seen this more times than I can count. Testing everything when I got the D800 was pretty dismal when I tried all the raw converters until C1 came out with a profile for it. That's just one example. Phase products like Hassy products will always be better with there dedicated raw converters. IMHO Nikon and Canons own converters where never very good even with there own dedicated software. Color is a very flexible comparison among converters and also a very hard one to compare against each other. In most cases it will come down to user effort and time put into it. It's really hard to say one sensor or cam is better than another without finding the best converter for it. Having said that its also up to the OEM to build the proper internal profiles and algorithm of each body produced. There are a lot of variables here. Just look between what the same sensor in different brands produces. Sony and Nikon are a classic case of this using identical sensors in one or more of each others cams and look completely different from the profiles built into them.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #57
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Ray, so systemic MTF is not real? I have a book that tells you how to calculate it. I find it really hard to benefit from the lens output without putting a sensor in the way.
    Ah, you're right of course. I was neglecting the contribution of the pixel sampling grid to the systemic MTF. But I do regard that contribution (approximately) as a sort of top-hat windowing function - no effect on the MTF at low frequencies and then a sudden collapse in the MTF at spatial frequencies above the sampling frequency, other than nasty aliases. This is where I feel the MFD systems have the advantage. Within that window, what they deliver is either of a higher modulation than with smaller formats (comparing e.g. 4000 pixels of 9 microns to 4000 pixels of 6 microns in image height), or it is of the same modulation but there's just considerably more of it (comparing e.g. 6000 pixels of 6 microns to 4000 pixels of 6 microns).

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    And you are going to tell me that in a 100% crop of my 6um RX-1 image at f/11 is going to be different from my 6um 645D with a 35mm at f/11? I would argue the MTF is identical.
    No dispute with you there, Will - as long as the lenses are the equal of each other!

    I guess my original point, which we have strayed from due to my inaccuracy re. the systemic MTF, was that if you zoom out of that 100% crop to the full image, you would be getting a different picture with the 645D (a wider true angle of view). To get the same picture as the RX-1 (angle, composition, DOF) you'd need a 45mm lens on the 645D, and an f-stop of f/14. But it's a better quality picture because the 45mm image is magnified more than the 35 mm image falling onto the same size pixels. And even if both images are fully diffraction limited in the plane of focus, the better sampling and additional light capturedin the MFD case allows for better results in deconvolution processing.

    Ray

  8. #58
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    There's no big, linear MTF advantage just because you increase size. Aberrations scale with everything else, and while some are easier to suppress as size increases, others are more difficult. And aberrations are what causes MTF to drop. In fact, aberrations are often expressed in percentage of image height when discussing optical designs, because this makes them size-neutral. A bigger size requires an increase in DoF that imposes a geometric loss of light. The only benefit is sensitivity, which is why as you progressively increase sensor site size you increase image quality. At least up to 24x36, because current MFD equipment doesn't yield any sensitivity advantage like one sees going from a phone to a compact P&S to APS-C, and to 24x36. Then it kind of stops.

    The big difference is the target audience, not something inherently technical. MFD targets the studio photographer, where the key is hue neutrality. If a studio photographer wants a different skin hue they'll tell the makeup artist. If they want a different color background they swap out the backdrop. For a change in contrast, they adjust the lighting. They need a camera and lens which doesn't have any characteristic of its own to speak of. They need flat color response because they need to be able to mix and match hues and saturation levels; they need a fairly neutrally rendered face next to a highly saturated fabric. This is the market MFD caters to. There's no sensitivity benefit because the target market doesn't care - if you need more light you fix this by adding more light...

  9. #59
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    Some aberrations, especially those dependent on mechanical tolerance/precision limitations do not scale with size. They scale/vary by process/machine.

    And the idea that MFD is for studio shooters is definitely many years out of date. I don't know if it's the majority or just a large minority, but a huge chunk of our users do most of their shooting other-than-in-a-studio.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  10. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid


  11. #61
    Member pedro39photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: It's the MTF advantage, stupid

    For me one of biggest advantages of DMF its the big big viewfinder.
    The pleasure of composing before the picture its taken for me sometimes more important than the final picture file...

    And no sony A7R or Lumina 40MP phone can give me the same pleasure of composing in a beautiful large viewfinder...the passion of photography its not always the quality of the picture in the final, its touch of the tools and the process.

    If in the future if we have a smartphone with the same quality of my DMF we leave this camera systems? at home? i donīt think ...
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •