Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Hasselblad mirrorless camera

Recommended Posts

5DSR vs. Phase One: 

In the end he says he might be able to replace his Phase One with the 5DSR (but will have to see). Thus not a huge difference in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
10 minutes ago, jcs said:

lol, those plots looked like something sampled from tests (which would be a good thing), and in any case the plot can be recreated from simple linear equations, which is what the equivalence equations predict as well. Regardless of math or plots, the real proof is real world tests, where the cameras are set up properly for equivalence.

The real proof comes from looking at an image and seeing the difference, I went out and found the math proof just to be shure it wasn't just because medium format lenses are better/different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, richg101 said:

give me a shout when you find a lens/sensor that will replicate my leaf afi-ii 10 and a 180mm/2.8

 

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7506/26997678725_133cd94b63_o.jpg

Cool photo; the DOF looks odd- starts abruptly then looks like Gaussian blur vs. typical bokeh. Looks like something I could create on my iPhone along with Snapseed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jcs said:

Cool photo; the DOF looks odd- starts abruptly then looks like Gaussian blur vs. typical bokeh. Looks like something I could create on my iPhone along with Snapseed.

Hahaha, oh lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nikkor said:

The real proof comes from looking at an image and seeing the difference, I went out and found the math proof just to be shure it wasn't just because medium format lenses are better/different.

What math proof? You posted a random 3D plot with no equations or description. How about real-world proof (again, must shoot with equivalence set ups and same exact shot in controlled conditions. Winging it here won't work)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jcs said:

What math proof? You posted a random 3D plot with no equations or description. How about real-world proof (again, must shoot with equivalence set ups and same exact shot in controlled conditions. Winging it here won't work)?

You don't seem to understand, I found the proof for something that was puzzling me, and I find it hilarious how people can't see the difference and act up all smart, that's the reason I don't share the proof. It's a sadistic way of humor, I know.

Enjoy some more snapseed blur.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

You don't seem to understand, I found the proof for something that was puzzling me, and I find it hilarious how people can't see the difference and act up all smart, that's the reason I don't share the proof. It's a sadistic way of humor, I know.

Enjoy some more snapseed blur.

 

You're right I don't understand. Isn't it best to seek truth and to learn and share to help others? Are you saying that your posts are just to mess with people and not to help or provide any value to others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jcs said:

You're right I don't understand. Isn't it best to seek truth and to learn and share to help others? Are you saying that your posts are just to mess with people and not to help or provide any value to others?

No, it's not to mess with people, I've been telling people openly and it good faith, large format is the way. But there are some people who feel attacked/threatened by the idea of it. That's totally ridiculous.

There even was this guy who made fake tests, with the same camera with the same fucking shot, and saying it was all different sized sensors ergo there is no difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zach Goodwin said:

See he's probably like this: say I say something out of the blue and it interrupts the flow of everything. He goes in and replies to that interruption to bring himself to the flow so that it goes back to said flow and said interruption is looked at as said interruption. He belongs in a straight jacket just like me, because he still has not recovered from realizing he is not the brand Nikor and is in fact his old name that starts with an A.

 

Playfully teasing you Nikkor.

Yeah but tease me with something sort of interesting, not about my alter ego but about cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

No, it's not to mess with people, I've been telling people openly and it good faith, large format is the way. But there are some people who feel attacked/threatened by the idea of it. That's totally ridiculous.

Well, if you feel that MF is the way, why not contribute helpful info and post real-world images (with cameras set up for proper equivalence) showing how you feel MF is superior to FF (and S35 etc.)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jcs said:

Well, if you feel that MF is the way, why not contribute helpful info and post real-world images (with cameras set up for proper equivalence) showing how you feel MF is superior to FF (and S35 etc.)?

 

I will for shure, I just need some time to develop the rolls that I have building up, but seriously JCS, go onto ebay and buy a mamiya rz67 or something similar, shoot some stuff with it, and come back. It's selfexplanatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jcs said:

Cool photo; the DOF looks odd- starts abruptly then looks like Gaussian blur vs. typical bokeh. Looks like something I could create on my iPhone along with Snapseed.

DOF does look odd.  As a general rule we're not used to seeing relatively wide shots from a distance that provide such shallow dof, and refined in focus areas. view in full size and you;ll see the point of focus was the text on the boat.  makes the front of the boat jump out.  I'm happy to send the mos file from the camera if you want proof that no added blur was applied!    every person who sees this image asks what lens was used.  I always feel bad trying to explain that no matter how much they spend on a lens for a full frame dslr they'll never be able to replicate the dof rolloff and fov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nikkor said:

I will for shure, I just need some time to develop the rolls that I have building up, but seriously JCS, go onto ebay and buy a mamiya rz67 or something similar, shoot some stuff with it, and come back. It's selfexplanatory.

I'd rent or buy a Phase One- as noted earlier in this thread I think it's the best camera available right now, though not because it's medium format-sized. I know a lot of people don't like math, however the equivalence math is very simple (basic linear math- can be done with a calculator), I've done the tests, others have as well, and sensor size by itself doesn't do anything magical: FF vs. S35 or MF vs. FF. Equivalence really needs very similar lens designs for both cameras for such tests. For example, Cooke vs Leica vs Zeiss vs Canon for Super35 produce very different looks. Clearly the sensor size isn't changing- the optics account for the differences.

If you feel that the math is wrong and all the links and tests I posted are invalid, you can provide counter proof with links or your own tests. Asking me to prove your point isn't how it's done via the scientific method- the burden of proof is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jcs said:

If you feel that the math is wrong and all the links and tests I posted are invalid, you can provide counter proof with links or your own tests. Asking me to prove your point isn't how it's done via the scientific method- the burden of proof is up to you.

It's up to me if I had the need to prove anything. But you know, the way I see it is that if you can't see the difference, why bother? The mamiya is gigantic, and if you don't get any pleasure out of it, it's just a pain in the ass. The phase one is just a slight crop of 645, 645 isn't that exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full frame https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7697/27662722381_982d10fc99_o.jpg

APS-C + SB Ultra https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7272/27737331565_423e3503be_o.jpg

 

now I'm gonna say that in order to view the differences you should download the full size files, and bring them into photoshop so you can flip from one layer to another.  the differences wont be apparent without.

 

The main thing is overall image quality.  shorter focal lengths just don;t deliver the same refined in focus areas - the point of focus on the aps-c shot is drastically harmed by the purple fringing.  Since the in focus area is less refined than the ratio between the in focus areas and the defocused area is greater- providing a greater level of 3d pop.  . but look at the defocus.  background looks about the same level of blur, but the blur level on the lens cap (circled) shows that the rolloff is different.  it's slight, but the difference is there.  this difference in rolloff is as far as I am aware dictated by circle of confusion of the different formats.  Lets assume we replaced the lens in shot with a human face, more of the face will be in focus with the full frame sensor area - due to the rolloff.  from the tip of the nose to the ears, the overall perceived rendering will show the entire overall face to be more in focus than with a wider lens.    the overall background blur will be the same, but the distances close to the point of focus will have a deeper useable dof.

 

 The point I'm making is that physics and available lenses give larger sensors the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comparison only shows that speedboosters aren't perfect, but they preserve the larger format quality of dof (the size of the blur doesn't change in size, except for some "field curvature?")

Personally I can't wait for a 645 mirrorless, just to order a custom speedbooster (because Biran Cardwell doesn't seem to see the importance of his own invention beside of giving m43 cheap fast lens options) to put pentax67 and hasselblad lenses on it and enjoy the ideal format. (larger formats are too perfect for my taste)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Your comparison only shows that speedboosters aren't perfect, but they preserve the larger format quality of dof (the size of the blur doesn't change in size, except for some "field curvature?")

yes, this is true.  but a speed booster is a focal reducer.  the ultra is a marvelous piece of glass and as a rule a basic 50mm f2 + speed booster ultra (creating a 35mm/1.4) will vastly outperform most true 35mm/1.4's.  Technically a sigma 35/1.4 will meet or exceed, but at the cost of losing all sense of soul and character.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, richg101 said:

 The point I'm making is that physics and available lenses give larger sensors the edge.

I think we all agree with that point- what we can do in the real world with available equipment is all the really matters vs. math and theory. If there was a business reason to use a Phase One, I'd use one. Their cameras systems are top notch (design, usability, and final image quality). Currently the 5D3 and 1DX II with fast lenses (especially the 85mm 1.2L and 135mm F2L) can create crazy shallow DOF (sometimes too shallow to be usable wide open).

Here's a test many don't realize they can try with any camera to better understand equivalence. Shoot with the same lens, change settings, then crop in post (images 3 and 4 from: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ )

Full Frame

A7S_FF_105mmF4.5_ISO_2000.jpg

Super 35 (cropped in post- same lens)

A7S_APS-C_70mmF2.8_ISO_800_PostCrop.jpg

Is there a difference? Sure, but so minor that the average person (client etc.) won't ever notice the difference. You can do this test with your MF camera, and crop to FF! Since you are using the exact same lens, only changing camera settings and cropping in post, lens and sensor technology will be identical. The only thing changing is effective sensor size. Try it! :)

Thus unless a client could clearly see the difference, why would a business invest in MF bodies and lenses? At the ultra high end, it's more marketing/appearances, and perhaps most importantly, Phase One for example does produce the highest megapixel professional/studio cameras(?) along with what looks like the best processing currently available. As noted in the link posted in this thread, the 50Mpixel 5DSR is very similar in quality to the 50Mpixel Phase One for ultimate image quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Why don't you try to redo your test with an object that is not pitch black and has some texture to it and interesting lighting coming from one side, you might get it.

I have provided evidence from my own work and made a good faith effort to find any online images or other evidence that shows that MF provides something not possible with FF- I'm seeking truth, wherever it may lead.  You have provided only words with nothing to back them up and no effort to do any actual work. The burden of proof is on you to prove that MF is in any way better than FF due to sensor size alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...