Comparing an SL image with the same shot from 15 years ago

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not for me. Professional ethics, international news photo contest rules, etc. etc. Borders (if any) have to be inherent to the process, not Photoshop pasties......

 

 

I agree with that. I do add borders but only for the sake of making a nice display on-line. I don't like faked rebates for digital captures unless it's well understood that they are simply stylistic adornments. 

[ramarren]

Your image has a deep composition, which really shows the benefit of the medium format 38mm focal length, whereas the posted images elsewhere in this post either show a flat plane or infinity plane composition. Here is where the medium format image shines. Cropping a 35mm image to mate to a square, medium format image doesn't take into account the distortions inherent in the wider, 35mm equivalent focal length, and I doubt the DoF can be made a match, as well. Could you imagine a close-in portrait taken with a 21mm lens, when compared to the same in an SWC? 

 

Further, what works as an equivalence in a composition that is shot straight-on, may not hold for a quarter-angle composition, as you have here. I just don't think opening the aperture on a 35mm lens will do the trick. DoF standards work on an 8x10" image, when viewed from 12 inches away. Focus fall-off between the two formats just aren't the same, which isn't evident on a shallow plane image. ... 

 

 

Leica SL + Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5

ISO 800 @ f/3.5 @ 1/640

 

• I tend to prefer flat planar images and deep DoF when shooting ultra-wide photos. But I do make use of limited DoF when I feel it appropriate to the subject matter, as in the above photo. 
• If the angle of view is the same, the perspective will be a function of distance, not focal length. If I shoot with the SEM15 cropped square at 5 foot and f/11, and repeat the shot with the SWC at the same distance and f/4-f/5.6, the two photographs will be just about identical in all respects. 

 

The SL set to square with a 16mm lens at f/4 cannot achieve DoF quite as shallow as the SWC can at f/4.5, but at my more usual settings for the SWC (f/8-11), I can achieve exactly the same DoF with the SL/16mm. The curves are very similar when the format and output to a 10x10 inch print are calculated, they're just shifted by a bias-offset rather than being different.

 

The shallow DoF of larger formats is today an often touted "superiority", forgetting that one of the advantages of 35mm that was often touted was its greater DoF at larger lens openings, enabling faster shutter speeds and photos in conditions impossible with larger format cameras. One of the reasons I love the SWC is that it is capable of extremely deep DoF at modest apertures (f/8 @ 13.3 feet is hyperfocal with 6.8 feet to infinity in focus on a 10x10 inch print) with that big negative, which in film days was the best way to make very large prints.

 

We don't need a big negative for large prints in the digital age, we need a lot of pixels, and the SL-square resolution is 16 Mpixel  (4000x4000) ... enabling a 13x13 inch image area at 300 ppi with no interpolation. That's plenty big enough for most of my photography. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[AndreasAM]

Thanks for the insights Godfrey.

Very instructive to read about the way you are translating the specific capabilities of the preferred "SWC-look" to the SL and the SEM 15 mm. It shows the amount of thought and preparation, but also your years of experience, which is going into the way you are making this digital work. 

 

It also explains for me the specifics in the compositions you are looking for, not set in stone of course. It learns me that setting yourself some preset technical "limitations" in this way can give you the brief in the field for very creative but disciplined work.

 

You know I like the work, question is now for me why?

Not so much why you bought the SL, we have the same glass to use it with. But why not keep using the SWC for this type of work? The SWC is still a jewel to work with, although slower than digital. 

Film is still available, the bulk to carry is the same (both around 1,4 kilo's), the cost of a decent scanner isn't the issue anymore I think, nor the developing.

Making this specific work requires also a state of mind in the field to see the opportunities. Difficult to mix with other work in one go. As you stated before it requires a lot of energy to get it right.

 

Is it the joy of the new SL and that it is now just possible to translate this kind of work to digital? Or are there other reasons for you?

Just curious......

 

And all this talk about the Hassie made me buy some 120 film again this morning.

[ramarren]

Well, I do still use the SWC when I have the time to and what its particular rendering and look, which is film for me. Film produces different image characteristics that I like a lot. But shooting 120 film takes a lot of time (shoot, process, scan, etc) and is somewhat costly (not counting cost of chemistry, it's at least sixty cents per frame exposed). When I go traveling, I have to carry a second camera and lenses to, so my kit is effectively double the size and weight.

 

The SL plus WATE, R50, and R90 is a reasonably sized kit that I can pursue a lot more things with because it is lighter, much more responsive, and much more versatile. Moving to digital saves a huge amount of time ... I struggle to get anything done given how little time I have these days ... not to mention a lot of money that film would cost. For what I'm working on and the size output I print, 16 Mpixel is plenty. 

 

A real 6x6 digital back would inspire me to use the SWC more because I like the way it shoots a lot. But I couldn't really afford it even if it were available. 

 

I'm not so hooked on precisely what camera I use, I'm hooked on the results I want to see. 

[AndreasAM]

Well, I do still use the SWC when I have the time to and what its particular rendering and look, which is film for me. Film produces different image characteristics that I like a lot. But shooting 120 film takes a lot of time (shoot, process, scan, etc) and is somewhat costly (not counting cost of chemistry, it's at least sixty cents per frame exposed). When I go traveling, I have to carry a second camera and lenses to, so my kit is effectively double the size and weight.

 

The SL plus WATE, R50, and R90 is a reasonably sized kit that I can pursue a lot more things with because it is lighter, much more responsive, and much more versatile. Moving to digital saves a huge amount of time ... I struggle to get anything done given how little time I have these days ... not to mention a lot of money that film would cost. For what I'm working on and the size output I print, 16 Mpixel is plenty. 

 

A real 6x6 digital back would inspire me to use the SWC more because I like the way it shoots a lot. But I couldn't really afford it even if it were available. 

 

I'm not so hooked on precisely what camera I use, I'm hooked on the results I want to see. 

 

 

I see the practical reasons, the speed of digital made me leave the film camera's in the drawer more also.

 

In all honesty, as I said before, I believe a 6x6 digital back won't happen in some years. No sensor maker is ready for it yet, let alone with a price which is marketable. 

My (slim) hopes are for a compact Mirrorless MF from Hasselblad at Photokina, with the sensor backs as now sold for the H6D, 100 and 50 Mb, possible with a fixed dedicated lens, ergo a digital SWC. Now a square format 40x 40 mm or a 33x33 mm with a 24 mm, could be interesting. Certainly when they have a pricepoint around that of an SL with lens in mind. The new CEO of Hassie wants to directly tap in this market share, he stated earlier.

 

I know the results of the print always matters in the end, but it helps when you can use a nice camera for it.......

I can't even look at a Sony for that matter.

[ramarren]

I see the practical reasons, the speed of digital made me leave the film camera's in the drawer more also.

 

In all honesty, as I said before, I believe a 6x6 digital back won't happen in some years. No sensor maker is ready for it yet, let alone with a price which is marketable. 

My (slim) hopes are for a compact Mirrorless MF from Hasselblad at Photokina, with the sensor backs as now sold for the H6D, 100 and 50 Mb, possible with a fixed dedicated lens, ergo a digital SWC. Now a square format 40x 40 mm or a 33x33 mm with a 24 mm, could be interesting. Certainly when they have a pricepoint around that of an SL with lens in mind. The new CEO of Hassie wants to directly tap in this market share, he stated earlier.

 

I know the results of the print always matters in the end, but it helps when you can use a nice camera for it.......

I can't even look at a Sony for that matter.

 

 

Do a 33x33 sensor with the same pixel density as the SL and you'll net a 30 Mpixel camera—that's an 18x18 inch print output with no interpolation at 300 ppi.

 

Put a 21-22mm f/2.8 lens on it with the same quality as the SWC and a Leica SL quality EVF, WiFi, Manual focus, aperture priority and manual exposure modes, etc...

 

My bank account will suffer. 

Edited June 5, 2016 by ramarren

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I was editing some images that I took last week in New York city, including some taken from the observation deck of the Empire State Building.

 

Then I remembered that I had taken some shots of the same view from the same location, 15 years ago.

 

2001: Hasselblad 205FCC 110mm (35mm equ 70mm) Planar lens, Fujichrome 100, 6x6cm tranny scanned in an Imacon Flextight scanner to 135Mb

2016: Leica SL, 24-90mm lens (at 68mm), 24 Megapixel sensor, ISO 100, DNG 42Mb

 

Both shot on a clear morning.  Both handheld.  Both similar field of view (about 70mm)

 

The Hasselblad body, lens and the Imacon scanner were arguably the best quality equipment ever produced for a portable film camera.  And, of course, the 6x6cm trannies have a much larger surface area than a 35mm sensor.

 

The Leica SL and 24-90 zoom is arguably current state-of-the-art for quality, portable, digital camera / lens.  Of course, the SL is streets ahead of the old film 'blads in terms of convenience and percentage of usable images.

 

But I was interested in seeing how things have progressed, IQ wise.  So, I used LR's compare feature to find the same portion of the image at 100%.  Then took a screenshot of the two side-by-side.

 

The Leica image is on the left, the scanned Hasselblad image is on the right.  After 15 years, we can see that the 35mm Leica has surpassed the scanned 6x6cm MF transparency in terms of resolution, colour and punch.  (and the New Yorkers have painted some of their water tanks)

 

Compare 2001-2016.jpg

 

And here is the Hasselblad scanned tranny from 2001:

 

PW-20870-01 -1Mb.jpeg

 

And the Leica SL image from 2016:

 

L1080667 -1Mb.jpeg

 

 

While I applaud your efforts in making this analysis, neither photo really impresses me.

And after clicking on each and seeing it larger with a black background, I like the Hassy shot better.  

Both files don't look adequately edited; so it is difficult to measures each's potential.

But the sky in the Hassy shot is more blue throughout the horizon, whereas it is washed out in the SL shot.

One point also worth noting is that, with the SL you are stuck with just one sensor...whereas with film you have a chinese menu of wonderful film stocks that span the spectrum of real to surreal...

To me, this is a HUGE advantage.

[Peter Walker]

While I applaud your efforts in making this analysis, neither photo really impresses me.

And after clicking on each and seeing it larger with a black background, I like the Hassy shot better.

Both files don't look adequately edited; so it is difficult to measures each's potential.

 

I apologize for my inadequacies.

 

 

Regards

Peter

http://www.peterwalker.com

[A miller]

I apologize for my inadequacies.

 

 

Regards

Peter

http://www.peterwalker.com

 

No apology needed.

In fact, it is lesser of two inadequacies, really.

At least it is apples and apples; it is just that neither apple is really ripe

Comparing edited versions would introduce a swath of variables, which would cause the comparison to breakdown even more, at least for people other than you.

[AndreasAM]

Do a 33x33 sensor with the same pixel density as the SL and you'll net a 30 Mpixel camera—that's an 18x18 inch print output with no interpolation at 300 ppi.

 

Put a 21-22mm f/2.8 lens on it with the same quality as the SWC and a Leica SL quality EVF, WiFi, Manual focus, aperture priority and manual exposure modes, etc...

 

My bank account will suffer. 

 

Well the Hasselblad's sensor is a 5.3x5.3 ūm (Sony??) and the SL is a 6x6 ūm. So the stats for printing will be a bit better, you have more pixels. With a 33x33 mm., it nets you 6200x6200 pxls.

I don't think the image quality will suffer much, compared to the SL, with a DR of 14 stops, a Central Shutter and Hassie colors. The phocus software will take care of all the distortions and CA, so there you have the Biogon quality on the doorstep. 

 

For such a, dreamed up, camera, they will be using all the parts already available, they will likely incorporate the existing design of the HCD 24 mm., perhaps a bit faster, then the existing 4.8, because it is fixed. The sensorback will also be fixed. The back has all the offerings you mentioned, they only need to acquire the quality EVF en mold it into something compact and good looking.

Something I trust Hasselblad with, I am sure. 

 

 

Now imaging going in the field with that beauty!!

But for today, I have my 903SWC in the bag with some fresh rolls of film. The sun is shining nicely, the canals are lush with trees, 17th century architecture is waiting, let's pretend...........and have some fun.

Edited June 5, 2016 by AndreasAM

[tobey bilek]

My MF is all gone years ago.   Convenience wins over any perceived image quality.   High iso is a hands down winner, perhaps not with Leica, but it is with Nikon.   I do some high iso work when video is being recorded for live broadcast and can not use flash.  There was never a 6000 speed film.  

 

The M8 & M9 files can be pushed 2/3 stops in post with really good quality.  That gets you to 1250 only.   CMOS sensors are less able,  but it does work for Nikon.   I am not trying a SL,  but someone can repot on this later.   Go to 100% and do NR at base iso,  then do the push.  Save the setting to apply to the image being pushed.  This seems to work in ACR and probably LR.

 

Still have  the Zone VI camera and modern lenses and a picnic basket full of holders.   Impossible to move with.

[AndreasAM]

My MF is all gone years ago.   Convenience wins over any perceived image quality.   High iso is a hands down winner, perhaps not with Leica, but it is with Nikon.   I do some high iso work when video is being recorded for live broadcast and can not use flash.  There was never a 6000 speed film.  

 

The M8 & M9 files can be pushed 2/3 stops in post with really good quality.  That gets you to 1250 only.   CMOS sensors are less able,  but it does work for Nikon.   I am not trying a SL,  but someone can repot on this later.   Go to 100% and do NR at base iso,  then do the push.  Save the setting to apply to the image being pushed.  This seems to work in ACR and probably LR.

 

Still have  the Zone VI camera and modern lenses and a picnic basket full of holders.   Impossible to move with.

 

 

Tobey,

 

Point taken about the limitations of high ISO performance and NR with current MF, be it film or digital. But developments are going fast in MF, getting closer to the 35 mm. technical capabilities. One scare is that the market is getting smaller for the few manufacturers left, making the price level not very competitive.

 

In this thread Godfrey and I were speculating about a compact UWA-capable MF CMOS Mirroless Camera. No current manufacturer is making anything like it yet.

The current Hasselblad's CMOS sensor is capable of 6400 ISO and is, when I have to believe the critics, very usable up till 1600/3200 ISO.  With 14 stops DR and 16 bit, there is lots of detail to be recovered in the shadows and low noise expectancy. So this development looks promising. If they could just preserve the advantages of the MF and not get lost in a Megapixel sensor race (Sony has the market and is the guilty one) with diminishing quality returns, especially for UWA. So bigger pixels!! 

 

If it is to be usable in the modern day and age, I concur, a much more compact camera is an requirement, more SL size like, but an quirky SWC size will do for me. 

For the moment the SL is also a very attractive proposition to fit the role for landscape and architecture photography, especially with all the glass (now even Canon T/S) available with the adapters. Only the amount of pixels leaves us a bit to be desired, but only if you want to print bigger.

 

This until somebody (Hasselblad, or a new generation Mirrorless Leica S?) surprises us at a Photokina. They promised a more compact MF solution, so we will wait and see........

Edited June 5, 2016 by AndreasAM

[ramarren]

Ah, the joy of equipment fantasy! I am happy with what I have now, thankfully, so most of these fantasies will remain just that even if something similar does appear in the flesh.

 

I'm not immune but I resist... 

[AndreasAM]

In my profession, fantasies can and must be the birthplace of something real and meaningful. At least I am in the position to turn them into reality. Outside my profession, I just have to be aware that speaking about these fantasies out loud, doesn't mean that those fabricating the goods will listen to me and give me want I want!!

 

The (technical) future is exiting and promising, makes you want to live longer and experience it all. I am not saying I will buy it all......

[Peter Walker]

By the way, if you want to see some more images that I shot with the SL on that same weekend in New York, I posted a new pages on my website:

 

http://www.peterwalker.com/manhattan2016.html

 

Regards

Peter

[rsmphoto]

Peter,

 

Apologies for going off topic a bit.

 

As it turns out, that unusual display of 5 American flags on The Plaza in one of your NYC shots was out specifically for a long planned photo shoot. We might well have crossed paths. Normally one would see a collection of flags including Indian and Saudi.

 

The final product below - a combination of approx. 10+ shots taken over a period of about an hour or so for various parts of the image - S 006 VE 30-90 @30mm.

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Peter Walker]

Peter,

 

Apologies for going off topic a bit.

 

As it turns out, that unusual display of 5 American flags on The Plaza in one of your NYC shots was out specifically for a long planned photo shoot. We might well have crossed paths. Normally one would see a collection of flags including Indian and Saudi.

 

The final product below - a combination of approx. 10+ shots taken over a period of about an hour or so for various parts of the image - S 006 VE 30-90 @30mm.

 

 

 

 

Hi Richard,

 

That's a really great shot.  I assume that it's a promo for the hotel.

 

You may have taken your photo a few hours earlier than mine.  According to the EXIF data, I shot the flags at 1:07pm on the 16th of May.  I'd been walking all morning and normally would have stopped shooting much earlier but the light was holding up so well on that day.  It was getting a bit harsh by then but the SL has so much dynamic range that, as long as the colours are still good, there's plenty of exposure tolerance in the capture.

 

Anyway, I really appreciate you arranging for the flags to be all identical because it adds so much value to my image.  Not that I have any objections to the Indian and Saudi flags but, for a photo essay on New York, a row of US flags was better...  

 

Regards

Peter

[JonRussell]

I'd like to suggest that to my eye, even with compression for the web to present these images, and as a long time user of first the SWC/M and now a 903SWC, I have to say that I prefer the 'look' of the old analogue film and scan. I'm lucky to also use high-end digital, and I love the results. But I'm amused how these comments digressed from a simple comparison of formats over time to a shared love affair with the Hasselblad SWC and the quite perfect lens, once referred to as the sharpest lens Zeiss ever made. Like all of you I love to create photographic images, and find that its never too much trouble to frame and focus on the glass, attach the magazine with Velvia 50 or similar, and watch the moment. None of the cameras involved in this discussion are for taking snapshots, though all of them can. Maybe one day I'll get tired of carrying the SWC around, but till then I'll use the weight of the lens to my advantage. I'm more interested in the feeling a great image can give me. In my student days, my first commercial work was learned and achieved using an Arca Swiss 10x8. So when I got my first SWC I thought it was comparatively miniature, but gave the best results possible. My other cameras are all M Series Leica. Considering a Monochrom.

[ramarren]

I'm with you, Jon. The SWC's rendering on film is simply "special" in ways that seem to defy logic and technology, and I doubt I'll ever let mine go again ... even if I only use it occasionally. It's simply a special camera in all kinds of ways. 

 

But a high-resolution digital camera nets me much more flexibility and usability, never mind the cost and processing-time reduction, so I seek to come as close to the SWC as I can. I don't know for a fact yet that what I get out of the Leica SL + Super-Elmar-R 15mm or Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm would be so greatly improved upon by the Hasselblad X1D (presuming an appropriate lens is delivered for it) as to be worth the (not inconsiderable) expense of buying another high-end camera and lens like that, but I am open to the possibility and might go that way if it is and fortune favors my finances. 

 

With respect to Peter Walker's two photograph comparison, well, they're both well done photographs. Which I like more depends on what eyes I'm looking at them with. The SL photo clearly has some improvements on measurable aspects of the image. Overall, they seem much a sameness to me, however, and I could easily choose one over the other on one day and reverse that on another day.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[CBM_Photo]

This may be subjective, but I always thought that different films had "personalities" Kodak and Ilford "looked" different, even within brands Delta and HP5 produce different results. More so for color, kodachrome and velvia were way different. You could look at a slide or a print and it was obvious what the film stock was. Kodak and Nikon fanboys might argue this one, but digital sensors are much more similar than very distinct. There aren't many digital cameras that produce should uniques images..The only real example I can think of, where you can immediately tell the different is the CCD sensor in the M9/ME v the CMOS sensors in the M240 or the SL..