Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Medium Format Digital Cameras and Backs
Thread started 06 Dec 2014 (Saturday) 10:03
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

How much better is MedFormat digital?

 
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,147 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 3 edits done in total.
Dec 06, 2014 10:03 |  #1

Now that POTN/AMASS has a forum for medium format digital, I thought I'd provide some message traffic for the nascent forum! I need to justify my new title bestowed upon me by Pekka!

I have been keeping a table of camera sensor size and resolution for FF and APS-C cameras for a long time. I decided to update that table with Hasselblad and other medium format digital cameras and digital back add-onsn offered in 2014, with some slightly older models included for reference to compare against the current products.

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/camerares2014_zpsc3158017.jpg

The reader needs to keep in mind that optics is a very important factor in resolution...one CANNOT assume that a 40% pixel resolution in one direction will necessarily result in 40% better detail resolution. For example, if we double the pixel count on APS-C cameras, from 8Mpixel (350D) to 15Mpixel (50D), we see detail rise only 34% (2640 vs. 1835 LP/PW) with the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

With 15Mpixel FF body, photozone.de published tests of 70-200 f/2.8 IS vs. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens shows relatively comparable performance at 3444 vs. 3469 LW/PH (line widths per picture height), a measure of detail content within the frame delivered by the two generations of 70-200 f/2.8 lens. If we put the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens on both 50D and 5DII -- both 15Mpixel cameras -- photozone.de tests show that the 5DII provides 41% better detail content using the same lens, in spite of having 20% less pixel density on sensor (FF=3469 vs. APS-C=2460 LW/PH) simply because the FF sensor has more total area to capture what the lens can deliver per millimeter at the focal plane! Size matters...look at the number of lines which can be theoretically resolved by a sensor, after it has been enlarged to fill a 16x20 print (Column J)

As hobbyists or even professionals, we have to consider cost of equipment -- unless we are independently wealthy. Is the cost differential of medium format digital 'worth it' compared to the performance increase we see? Dunno, until photozone does LP/PH measurements on medium format. That ultimately is a question which has a different answer for each of us. The pursuit of performance with medium format digital (vs. FF 135 format) is a whole lot different now than when we did an analysis of the advantages of medium format film cameras vs. 135 film decades ago, due to the cost increase with size of format.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,418 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Bay Area, CA
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by bobbyz.
Dec 07, 2014 09:33 |  #2

Would be nice to add Sony sensor 35mm cameras into the table. Canon sensors are way behind IMHO irrespective of how many pixels. The question is how good medium format is compared to Sony. And for that also nothing would beat real pictures in different scenarios. Just my opinion.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Moscow
Dec 07, 2014 10:49 |  #3

bobbyz wrote in post #17318130external link
Would be nice to add Sony sensor 35mm cameras into the table. Canon sensors are way behind IMHO irrespective of how many pixels. The question is how good medium format is compared to Sony. And for that also nothing would beat real pictures in different scenarios. Just my opinion.

Can't argue with that, some simple tests I've done comparing my 5D2 and 645Z had the new camera just blow it away in every aspect... ISO100 is utterly clean and can be pushed 4-5 stops easily, ISO12800 is fairly clean and looks just like film when converted to B&W, 51Mp is more than enough for anything, and very forgiving shutter actuation means I can hand-hold at 2x focal length.

The lenses I have are all nice and sharp, but I haven't done any in-depth testing, just that they are all fairly capable. I wish I had the new lenses for testing, but I fear for my bank account, it already took a grievous blow.


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,147 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 10 edits done in total.
Dec 07, 2014 12:25 |  #4

bobbyz wrote in post #17318130 (external link)
Would be nice to add Sony sensor 35mm cameras into the table. Canon sensors are way behind IMHO irrespective of how many pixels. The question is how good medium format is compared to Sony. And for that also nothing would beat real pictures in different scenarios. Just my opinion.

Done!

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/camera_res_2014_zpscd56cce7.jpg

I maintain, however, that Sony's advantage seems NOT to be inherent to the sensor, but in their noise handling processing, according to test results seen on DPReview. After all, Nikon uses the Sony sensor and Nikon is not lauded as much as Sony for noise. Simply look at DPReview tests with noise processing turned Off, and compare Sony and Nikon and Canon. Any 'advantage' shrinks down to scarcely an advantage. Let's give credit where credit is due, NOT to perceived but not valid technology advantage of the chips.

DP Review summarizes that...


•for Dynamic Range "The a7R performs nearly identically its little brother the a7, or the Nikon D800 and Canon EOS 5D Mark III full frame SLRs."

•for noise, "The a7R's JPEG noise is in-step with the Nikon D800 and Canon EOS 5D Mark III through about ISO 3200. At that point, the two dSLRs (Nikon vs. Sony) start to break away, with the a7R remaining very low. If you look at the color patches, you'll see why: Sony is pouring on the noise reduction. The only time any obvious noise shows up on the a7R is in the blue patch at the top ISO of 25600."


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Joined Apr 2014
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by CRCchemist. 4 edits done in total.
Dec 09, 2014 20:03 as a reply to Wilt's post |  #5

This is what I have long wondered, but it had been disputed by many people.

There is a technique using a program called FIJI to apply a Fast Fourier Transform to a Canon sensor image, that virtually eliminates all pattern noise -- down to the level of the Sony and Nikon cameras. That allows you you to extract the same amount of dynamic range and detail that the Sony and Nikon cameras have from an image taken by a Canon camera that is suffering from noise at low ISO and has been boosted several stops in development software.

Anyway, I'm just confirming what you said. The advantage of Sony doesn't appear to be intrinsic to the sensor, it seems to be due to the algorithms that Sony programs into their chips that manipulate the image before it is saved as a RAW file on the memory card.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Gaarryy
Goldmember
Gaarryy's Avatar
Joined Sep 2010
The Colony-- texas
Dec 09, 2014 20:06 |  #6

CRCchemist wrote in post #17323670external link
This is what I have long wondered, but it had been disputed by many people.

A member here who goes by KirkT, who happens to excel at image processing, showed me a technique using a program called FIJI to apply a Fast Fourier Transform to a Canon sensor image, that virtually eliminates all pattern noise -- down to the level of the Sony and Nikon cameras. That allows you you to extract the same amount of dynamic range and detail that the Sony and Nikon cameras have from an image taken by a Canon camera that is suffering from noise at low ISO and has been boosted several stops in development software.

Anyway, I'm just confirming what you said. The advantage of Sony doesn't appear to be intrinsic to the sensor, it seems to be due to the algorithms that Sony programs into their chips that manipulate the image before it is saved as a RAW file on the memory card.

Do you have any links or more information that can be shared on the FIJI? It would be interesting to read


---------------Camera, Lens, Flash stuff.. but still wanting more

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,222 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Dec 09, 2014 20:18 |  #7

I'm interested as well. All I could find is this.
http://fiji.sc/Image_I​ntensity_Processingexternal link


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
pyrojim
Goldmember
1,882 posts
Joined Jan 2010
San Jose, CA
Dec 10, 2014 01:37 |  #8

Applying some exotic techniques, such as the FFT, even with careful application are techniques for image processing. The method released in the open source software is at most as good as commercial applications only because houses like adobe or phase one have teams of PhD's in the required areas working on the problem :/

However, its really (expletive) cool that a forum member has had their hands in this! Signal processing is some awesome stuff, and I am only exposed to it through my work in time series(statistics, yuck!).


The question is still "how much better is medium format digital" Look at the image samples posted on GetDPI...


Hopefully we can get some medium format images posted in a medium format image thread on this forum :)


To be direct: how much better is medium format digital than 35mm digital? strictly in terms of image quality, they are not even close. Models wearing contact lenses quickly become a problem with medium format digital at 22 megapixels... is there makeup dust where it doesn't belong? the list goes on and on, as do the headaches and the desire for mimosas on a shoot...

and 22 megapixel backs were cool 10 years ago...


PhaseOne H25
Camera agnostic

LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Joined Apr 2014
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by CRCchemist. 25 edits done in total.
Dec 10, 2014 17:41 |  #9

Yes guys... here is the website for FIJI:

http://fiji.sc/Fijiexternal link

You will have to takes some time to read the manual if you really want to understand the full potential of FIJI, but you can program some actions to automate everything for what you want to do. You'll see that it would be rather simple to write a program that can do this automatically. However, this quick procedure only takes 5 minutes to do manually.

Here is a quick step-by-step procedure to turn your Canon EOS camera images into Sony Alpha quality images (i.e. low noise at low ISO when the image brightness has been increased several stops):

Your task is to suppress a pattern of noise lines that run both vertically and horizontally in an image.


1. Open the noisy image from the Canon camera in FIJI (if there is no color to the noise (there usually isn't), then optionally convert the image to the Lab color space, and apply the FFT to the "L" channel only, don't apply the process to the "a" or "b" channel - however you don't have to do this in the Lab color space and this procedure will work well in RGB or CMYK either way).
2. Open the Process >FFT>FFT menu item in FIJI. The image will be processed with a fast fourier transform.
3. Save the resulting image as a TIFF or JPEG. It will be a grayscale image with stars, crosses, lines, or dots, depending on the noise pattern you're trying to eliminate.
4. Open the FFT image you saved from Fiji in Photoshop. If the contrast is low, then apply a "Levels" adjustment to increase contrast of the FFT image so you can see the white dots, stars, crosses or lines easier.
5. Once you have the image open, make a new transparent layer above it and paint on the transparent layer in black on the areas of the FFT image that you ultimately want to suppress. The areas you want to suppress will be white spots, crosses, stars, or lines. Use a very small and a very soft brush to paint the dots, stars, crosses, or lines black.
6. Once you have all of the lighter star/cross/dot areas painted out in black, put a blank layer between the FFT image and your painted transparent layer.
7. Fill this new layer with white.
8. Now your paint brush marks are composited onto a white background (white reveals, black conceals). It should look like a white image with all of the black marks that you created.
9. Save this black-and-white composite image as a new TIFF or JPEG image. We're going to designate this as the FILTER image.
10. Open the composite filter image we just saved in Photoshop in Fiji.
11. Open the original noisy image in Fiji (the one you used to make the FFT in the first place in step 1).
12. Click on the original noisy image.
13. Create the custom filter by choosing Process>FFT>Custom Filter
14. Select the black-and-white composite filter image that we saved in Photoshop (we are using the Process>FFT>Custom Filter menu item on the original noisy image that you're trying to fix and designating the filter image you just made in Photoshop as the filter).
15. The noisy image will now have the Fast fourier transform filter applied to it, then Fiji will apply the filter to the resulting fast fourier transform, and then an Inverse fast fourier transform will be applied. The filter you created should eliminate the pattern noise you saw.
16. If there is still lingering noise, then just repeat step 2 on the cleaned-up image to see if you missed a few spots. Open up your FILTER image in Photoshop and add some additional black marks where they need to be placed. Then continue with step 10.


Once you see that this basically replicates the low ISO image quality of the Sony Alpha 7, you'll have a little chuckle to yourself the next time you hear of a Sony owner spending thousands of dollars on a little Sony camera with a Metabones Canon lens adapter when you can do the same thing with free open-source software and your Canon EOS camera.

Regarding the quality difference between Medium Format Digital and 135 Format Digital cameras, there is quite a big image quality difference between the Hasselblad 120mm HC Macro f/4 paired with a Hasselblad H3D and an 85mm f/1.2L II paired with a Canon 5D III. The Hassy brings out EVERY LITTLE DETAIL in your subject. It's incredible actually. Medium format still has a place in the photographic world, it just needs to come down in price a bit more.




LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,418 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Bay Area, CA
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by bobbyz.
Dec 13, 2014 21:31 |  #10

Can we get some sample shots from canon and then with this fiji to show the sony like improvements.

2nd, can we see some medium format shots comparing to Nikon/Sony sensors? Without that, I would care less.

To me number of Phds mean nothing. I have worked with number of double Phds in the valley. Really intelligent folks, but company and products still struggle. Look at Adobe and Fuji sensor in LR. Now look at the single guy (irridient developer) making better conversions that Adobe.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Joined Apr 2014
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by CRCchemist.
Dec 14, 2014 05:52 |  #11

If I had the time, I'd do that for you. But I don't because I'm too busy. If the pattern noise is a problem for you, then this will be easy for you to prove to yourself since I took all the guesswork out of how to do it.

If the pattern noise isn't a problem for anything you've ever done, then you aren't looking for a solution to the problem so you don't have to do it yourself to discover that you now possess the solution!

bobbyz wrote in post #17330980external link
Can we get some sample shots from canon and then with this fiji to show the sony like improvements.

2nd, can we see some medium format shots comparing to Nikon/Sony sensors? Without that, I would care less.

To me number of Phds mean nothing. I have worked with number of double Phds in the valley. Really intelligent folks, but company and products still struggle. Look at Adobe and Fuji sensor in LR. Now look at the single guy (irridient developer) making better conversions that Adobe.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Moscow
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by Kolor-Pikker.
Dec 14, 2014 08:42 as a reply to bobbyz's post |  #12

You can see comparisons between the D810 and Pentax 645Z at Pentax forums review of the Z, but I only have a 5D2 (which has notorious pattern noise), so at best I can make a comparison between it and the Z. I also use FIJI but never for noise reduction, it's just too much time to do each shot, and all my good shots wouldn't have benefitted anyway.


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,147 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by Wilt.
Dec 14, 2014 13:44 |  #13

bobbyz wrote in post #17330980external link
Can we get some sample shots from canon and then with this fiji to show the sony like improvements.

2nd, can we see some medium format shots comparing to Nikon/Sony sensors? Without that, I would care less..

The problem is the (small) number of photographers who HAVE ACCESS to a Medium Format Digital AND a Nikon/Sony dSLR, and have them at the same time so the same subject can be shot virtually simultaneously with BOTH. for a meaningful comparison!

So-called comparisons of different subjects taken on totally different occasions is comparing an unripe Apple to a half ripe Orange


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,418 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Bay Area, CA
Dec 15, 2014 16:12 as a reply to Kolor-Pikker's post |  #14

I am not too concerned about noise. In studio env, most of us shooting at lowest ISO. For the test 5dmk2 vs 645Z would be nice to see the detail difference. I know between 36MP Sony sensor and 22MP canon is a big difference.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
chris_holtmeier
Goldmember
chris_holtmeier's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
Omaha
Dec 22, 2014 13:46 as a reply to Wilt's post |  #15

Plenty of MFD photographers have a 35mm system of some sort. I shoot a Phase One, but also have a 5DmkIII.

My brother owns an A7. What kind of comparison shots do you want?



https://www.facebook.c​om/FotonFoto (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

12,210 views & 6 likes for this thread
How much better is MedFormat digital?
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Medium Format Digital Cameras and Backs


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00194 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is hallor
880 guests, 458 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016