Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tashley

Friday. Time for an outrageous comparison.

Recommended Posts

Actually, the 4x5 shot surprises me - I would have expected better.....

 

Sandy

 

I agree and the chrominance noise I find unacceptable. Is this a bad scan perhaps?

 

Woody Spedden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok....now let me see the samples of the large format shots you took handheld @ 1/4 sec. with the lens wide open.

 

Thats the main reason I shoot w/ a Leica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

Thanks for the responses so far all - and sorry for the sloppy technique but like I say, it's mostly about a bit of fun.

 

As for upresing, I typed 'bicubic sharper' meaning to type 'bicubic smoother' but actually, though I always use 'smoother' by default, I might have boobed here and used sharper by mistake. In any event if you look at the files as they come off the sensor, the Canon's generally need more sharpening than the M8s as you would expect, since it has an AA filter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon 5D and Leica M8, same type of comparisons. Canon lens was the 50mm f/1.2 and the Leica lens was the 50mm Noctilux. Both shots were done at f/4.0 and both cameras were set to 320 ISO. The one difference here is that I applied the 1.33 crop to the Canon image to even the playing field.

 

In the first set, the Canon image is on the left.

In the second set, the Canon image is on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, what have you done in lightroom ?

 

there are a ton of noise filters on the M8 shot by the looks of it

it almost looks like a photoshop "crayon effect" filter

 

Hi Rich,

 

Nope, noise filtering left at default. M8 files often go painterly when upresed IME - I've had threads about it before!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent,

 

A 35mm FF equivalent of the M8's 10.5MP Kodak sensor should have 18.6MP (at the same pixel density) ... the 5D holds up pretty well, especially when you consider it has 30% less pixel density, a AA filter in place ... well, a 5D combined with a 50/1.2L cost less than a Noct or the M8 alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Rich,

 

Nope, noise filtering left at default. M8 files often go painterly when upresed IME - I've had threads about it before!

 

Very true. They end up looking like a bad uprez with Genuine Fractals - posterized, watercolor look. I've seen the same effect with photoAcute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brent,

 

A 35mm FF equivalent of the M8's 10.5MP Kodak sensor should have 18.6MP (at the same pixel density) ... the 5D holds up pretty well, especially when you consider it has 30% less pixel density, a AA filter in place ... well, a 5D combined with a 50/1.2L cost less than a Noct or the M8 alone.

 

 

I agree. Like Tim said, one can draw any conclusions from this or none at all. I tend to go with the latter. Both the 5D and the M8 are doing what I need them to do for my work, so I'll just keep plugging away with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Rich,

 

Nope, noise filtering left at default. M8 files often go painterly when upresed IME - I've had threads about it before!

 

 

 

default includes some applied noise filtering though presumably ?

 

I don't use lightroom but if its anything like the Nikon software, the default setting does apply some horridly bad algorithms and you get the same effects... You had to turn it all off completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim - Welcome to the voodoo world of scanning. Your 5x4 looks poor to me, considerably worse than I would expect, and the reason could be any one or more of several variables.

 

I bet you hoped that after your 35 'lux experience that your testing days were coming to an end....... Your 5x4 camera focus plane could be out of coincidence with the film plane of the 5x4 sheet holder. Do not assume that all makes of sheet film holders present their sheets to the camera in precisely the same plane. The 5x4 sheet could have 'bowed' in it's holder, so being out of register. Wind could have caught the camera bellows causing art-wobble. Your tilts may not have been set at zero thus causing an unwanted plane of focus with the photograph. With the Wista do you need to check that the focus plane does not shift when everything lockable on the camera is locked solidly?

 

I never liked Provia, and if I had to use trannie I preferred Astia which is less harsh in it's colour and in it's highlight ceiling. You cannot tell how good your exposure is by looking at a trannie on a lightbox with a good loupe, but scanning will tell you - shame that 5x4 doesn't have a histogram at the taking stage. In your shoes I would be shooting colour negative film for it's extra exposure headroom, if 30"x24" is your intended print size you should have wonderful scans from 5x4 negative film - but beware of lousy professional scans because the wrong software is being used for 'negative' film.

 

I don't know the scanner you mention, but the worst scans I ever had were from professional scanning houses I tested, and each prided themselves on being the best in the city, and each badly scratched my test films.

 

The scanner used for your scan could be mis-registered. If your scan wasn't 'wet' scanned [for optimum scanning] it was either scanned flat [preferably in a glass sandwich to keep the film flat - and that process has it's own issues too] or in a film holder - and some film holders [don't get me started] are apallingly designed to not have a hope in hell of the film being flat whilst scanning. The film needed to be scanned at a high native 'scanning resolution' and preferably as a 16 bit file. An Imacon scan [which actually has a superb film holder], or a 'wet' scan might be informative with regard to some of the variables above.

 

Tim, there's more................. but as this is just a bit of fun; I think we should leave it there.

 

I really hope you get more out of your 5x4, and remember to sharpen the file. And I too was disappointed with the M8 example

 

Best wishes .................... Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see some 100% crops without the up-resing. Up-resed, NRd at default (often too heavy, especially on luminance noise, which should be left alone), then downsampled for web and converted to JPEG... that's a lot of processes.

 

That said, out of that batch, the M8 looks like the backward cousin of the family. It's just a terribly duff image compared to the others. I want to say you missed focus, but I wasn't there so I can't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim: maybe the M8 shot would have been better taken with a certain Tri-Elmar??

 

Hand on heart Paul, this was with a 35 cron certified as fully operational by the wise men of Solms. On a recently calibrated and blameless with every other lens body. At 1/1000th of a second on a tripod. Focussed with a 1.25 magnifier. And if you look at the whole file at 100% on screen, there is no other point that is in better focus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was the provia film 100F, 400F or 400X? Wet mounted for scanning? I am amazed you did not get a better scan from the provia, since it should get much more detail than any of the digital captures.

Besides, since you have the full images, which was closer to your perception of the subject?

 

Hiya,

 

It was 100F and dry scanned but they did charge me 40 quid so it must be good!

 

The closest to the subject is hard to say. The film shot is best, then the Canon then the M8 but really, that is only what one would expect!

 

:0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim - confused. Below are three versions of the same image (M8 + 75 apo cron hand held f4 @ 1/125th)

 

Original image

100% crop from version up-ressed in ACR to make a 4133x6144 25.4 MP file - so already a doubling in resolution.

100% crop from this image up-ressed by 200%. my maths gives out - but seriously big!

 

It doesn't feel anything nearly as bad as the image you got from the M8... What was you're final image size after the processing? Intrigued...

 

I have the feeling that something funny was going on with the re-sizing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes, $80 for a negative scan...

 

I'm surprised at the M8 image as well, especially the difference in the holes in the basket. The Canon has 3 pixels in each direction where the M8 has 2 and I wouldn't expect the M8 image to be so handicapped. The colour looks pretty awful as well. So there's something wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hand on heart Paul, this was with a 35 cron certified as fully operational by the wise men of Solms. On a recently calibrated and blameless with every other lens body. At 1/1000th of a second on a tripod. Focussed with a 1.25 magnifier. And if you look at the whole file at 100% on screen, there is no other point that is in better focus...

 

Tim: I was only slightly joking about the T-E; I know I've only had it a few hours, but so far I've nailed the focus every time, a better rate than I've had with any other lens I can think of. And it's very sharp, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I assume you've bought Tim's 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. I'm a big fan of this lens, happily have one of each version and I think it's a great pity it's no longer in production. It's a favourite lens when light's not in short supply.

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy