IMO, the PhaseOne H20/P20 is still the most popular standard by which all is measured. And the H20 has been around for a while, it still amazes me. It was so far ahead of its time.

Given that, the breakthroughs that followed have been so incremental. That leads me to believe that this type of technology has pretty much been maxed out, so any huge leaps forward are going to have to be something totally different. Whether its Foveon, living tissue, or what, who knows?

I had the chance to observed the Foveon sensor of the sigma SD14 and I am very impressed. However, they got to make the chip bigger to compete. The SD14 is a very nice file but just not enough pixels and thus I could not wait any longer and went with medium format digital backs and the Phase One was one of them.

From first impressions, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the ZD is smoother at ISO50 than the 5D at ISO100. Despite its greater DR, the more aggressive colour noise makes pushing shadows much more troublesome than with the CMOS ship. As long as the exposure is right (in both senses), it won't be a problem . . . but it is not forgiving of underexposure.

Having said that, further comparative testing of RAW processors available for the Mac has been revealing: SilkyPix seems to have a clear advantage over the Adobe and Mamiya software. Lightroom is smooth but poor at detail extraction; PhotoStudio is accurate but noisy; SilkyPix combines the best of both. In particular, it has the same limpid, clean look and pure colouring that I associate with C1.

hubsand wrote:
Having said that, further comparative testing of RAW processors available for the Mac has been revealing: SilkyPix seems to have a clear advantage over the Adobe and Mamiya software. Lightroom is smooth but poor at detail extraction; PhotoStudio is accurate but noisy; SilkyPix combines the best of both. In particular, it has the same limpid, clean look and pure colouring that I associate with C1.

Any chance you could post an example that might show the differences between these processors that you are describing?

Lotusm50 wrote:
Any chance you could post an example that might show the differences between these processors that you are describing?

Yes, please. Since it is directly opposite to photozone RAW SW comparison (Adobe demosaicing being ~30% more resolving that SPx). And my experiments with ZD files also put ACR/LR very close to RSP as a Resolution Champ...

I think SilkyPix or Raw Developer are the best programs for the ZD files right now, but comparing SilkyPix and C1 with Canon files, C1 blows it away for detail. I love the SilkyPix program itself, however.

SilkyPix renders detail in the watercolor/painterly/mushy type of way, while C1 renders pure detail, both FINE edged and WIDE edged (from the files I've processed so far) with no watercolor mushyness.

It's really incredible how disappointed I am with the way LR/ACR and SilkyPix render files. Is this really the best they can do? Every program except C1 is adopting the painterly mushy look, it's driving me nuts.

I think it started with Raw Shooter Essentials, and though it was popular, and I enjoyed playing around with it, I could never use it, because it made my images look like plastic.

RobertP wrote:
I think SilkyPix or Raw Developer are the best programs for the ZD files right now, but comparing SilkyPix and C1 with Canon files, C1 blows it away for detail. I love the SilkyPix program itself, however.

SilkyPix renders detail in the watercolor/painterly/mushy type of way, while C1 renders pure detail, both FINE edged and WIDE edged (from the files I've processed so far) with no watercolor mushyness.

It's really incredible how disappointed I am with the way LR/ACR and SilkyPix render files. Is this really the best they can do? Every program except C1 is adopting the painterly mushy look, it's driving me nuts.

I think it started with Raw Shooter Essentials, and though it was popular, and I enjoyed playing around with it, I could never use it, because it made my images look like plastic.

Great details in your description here. Thanks!

Folks should also try the Raw Developer program. It is also a very good program that will convert most digital files as well. But if you have the chance to use Capture One it would attenuate your work flow problems significantly; their algorithm impressed me the most thus far and it is still the gold standard raw conversion application.

I always loved C1 but they don't support the MEF so now it's ACR from CS3 and I must say the results are for my eye pleasing.

I'm downloading the free silkypix now to test tomorrow.

I had an email from Phase this morning: there are no plans to add ZD support to any future version of Capture One.

I broadly agree with your assessment of RAW developers: only C1 roots out the fine detail without smearing it away. For Canon files, there's nothing to touch it in my opinion.

SilkyPix treats ZD files like C1 treats Canon files: Lightroom and PhotoStudio look mushy by comparison. Squinting through the green haze in the Raw Shooter demo, it appears potentially to rival SilkyPix, but you'd have to splash the cash to find out. Very enlightened demo policy at SilkyPix.

I've just taken the ZD on its first job this evening, as a backup/alternative to the 5D. Shooting in the post-twilight blue, exposures were 15 seconds at ISO 100 / f8. You would not believe the snowstorm of multicoloured confetti the image is strewn with. I shot two frames with the ZD and the 50mm Shift, and a single shot with the Canon 24-105 at 24mm / f8 / ISO200 for comparison. Fortunately they were only reconnaissance shots.

Whether this is a 'feature' of the ZD, or whether mine is faulty, Mamiya will be able to tell while the back is in their workshops to look at a red streak that appears on every frame . . . .

Sorry hubsand, that really sucks!

Frank, I have a feeling you might be running back to Lightroom after you try SilkyPix because of the fact that you shoot models.

I don't have a ZD, but with Canon files, I've been trying to get decent results with HAIR on people in SilkyPix, (eyelashes, eyebrows, and head of hair) but the hair on people's heads turn into mush, and the eyebrows and eyelashes turn into water color paintings.

But hey, it might be beautiful with ZD files.

SilkyPix never tempted me away from C1 for CR2s, but it's a different ball game with the ZD. Here are some screen shots at 100%: Lightroom left; SilkyPix middle; Mamiya PhotoStudio right. The SP shot was dev'd using the free version, which means we're comparing a JPEG with two uncompressed files . . . . making the already difficult job of leveling the playing field just about impossible. Unfortunately, the highlight recovery tool is disabled in the free version.

More from a different image: SilkyPix on the left; Lightroom on the right – screen captures at 200%.

Whereas the files above were as close as possible to being out-of-the-box default conversions, I've played with each file here with a view to getting the best quality each can deliver. The LR shot is CA-corrected; the free version of SilkyPix doesn't do CA. Auto-tone has resulted in an over-warm image from LR, whereas the SilkyPix shot (default colour) is spot on.

hubsand wrote:
Whether this is a 'feature' of the ZD, or whether mine is faulty, Mamiya will be able to tell while the back is in their workshops to look at a red streak that appears on every frame . . . .


I'm scared you got in same "feature" I faced year ago. Bought my ZD-body "demo" with nice discount, but after about 30 shots 50 to 80% of each frame came out black.

Got it replaced, but it took nearly 3 months (may be because of Russian logistics/Customs and lack of Mamiya reps in the market).

Hence no real problem with a replaced one (keep'n my fingers X)

Thanks for sample. Definitely SP deserve another try for ZD. May be I was too quick to throw it away year ago (though it had full-featured demo at that time with TIFF export).

One quick question though. What was your setting for "Clarity" in ACR? As mentioned by Jeff Shew (and my personal taste too) you'd better start with 30 and try up 50 and even 70 sometime.

Also could be worth to adjust sharpness in ACR since the new controls start a bit conservative...

Finally, try RawDeveloper. It was reported by MIke Reichman and some others as definite "par" to C1 (and even better for P45 at ots launch)

Here's the Lightroom shot redeveloped with Clarity = 85 (right) set alongside the original (Clarity = 20, middle) and SilkyPix free version (left)

Here's another interesting test: the same three apps asked to cope with the bonanza of multicoloured confetti produced at ISO 50 on a 15 second exposure. SilkyPix Free (left); Lightroom (middle), PhotoStudio (right). Samples shown at 100%. LR has all its noise reduction controls maxed out; PhotoStudio's NR was set to 50% (increasing it had no effect beyond blurring the image). SilkyPix' NR routines are not fully implemented in the demo version. Full testing will follow.

hubsand wrote:
Here's the Lightroom shot redeveloped with Clarity = 85 (right) set alongside the original (Clarity = 20, middle) and SilkyPix free version (left)

Interesting tests.

With the clarity adjustment in LR, it now looks much better (Capture One-ish?)compared to the watercolor mushy-liciousness of SilkyPix.

RobertP wrote:
Interesting tests.

With the clarity adjustment in LR, it now looks much better (Capture One-ish?)compared to the watercolor mushy-liciousness of SilkyPix.



That was kind of my suspitious thought... I had also found quite and extensive sharpening switched-on in my trial of SPix with no option to change it...

The multicolor confetti is not an isolated condition for the ZD back alone. It also exist in other digital back shooting long exposure longer than the back is capable. The ZD back is aimed at a certain market and the best niche for the ZD back is for wedding application since there images are like to be on location against strong sunlight and with flash for indoor. The dynamic range is much appreciated here. My P20 Phase One digital back also has the multi color confetti if you use it longer than 40 second exposure but the manual say only 10 second exposure and no longer. It looks that your ZD back can only handle less than 15 seconds which is what have been well documented with some of the other MFDs. No surprise data here.

-Son

Pham Minh Son wrote:
The ZD back is aimed at a certain market and the best niche for the ZD back is for wedding application since there images are like to be on location against strong sunlight and with flash for indoor. The dynamic range is much appreciated here.
-Son

Sorry, I don't think the small 11 frame buffer and then long wait for each additional shot before that buffer clears(15-30 sec. depending on card used?) would work for any wedding I have shot. Thats almost a guarantee to miss an important shot.

Folks that use the old Hasselblad camera to do wedding all the time without any problem before the DSLR became the system. Sometimes it is not about speed unless that is the photographer style; anticipation and knowing your job is the biggest challenge for most photogaphers. Robert White in the UK will tell you the success of their ZD sales for wedding photographers. Also fashion photographer such as Frank demonstrated how this digital back is used successfully. I believe testing is important but it requires the right application of the tool and not challenging it to something it was not meant to be challenged.

Edited by Pham Minh Son on Aug 12, 2007 at 09:25 AM GMT

Yes, and a Hasselblad user(which I am) can have many additional backs loaded with film to keep shooting. It would be extremely expensive to have many additional digital backs waiting would it not?

This buffer issue might not bother Frank and his particular style of shooting but most Fashion shooters I know shoot very fast and the buffer is a deal breaker. Even in the Film days, many backs were loaded and waiting so shooting could commence seamlessly. I know as I was the assistant loading those backs.

As I mentioned Robert White have sold the Mamiya digital sensors to many wedding photographers and they are successful in this regards. The advantage of using the medium format digital back is not to have mutiple back but to use them for highlight details that you are not getting with the other DSLR system. Most photographers now a day use 2 sytems such as the Leica M8 and a Canon DSLR 5D to get their job done in the fashion that they can. There is no one absolute solution; there are advantage and disadvantage of any digital systems but what can you do to make it works for you is the final results. You can come into the debate of auto focus versus manually focus camera and etc but the photographer who can make use of the tool that is available to him/her is a successful photographer.

My Point is only that, given the choice, most Photographers would prefer to use equipment which does not cripple their shooting in a fast moving situation. Don't the Phase One and Leaf digital backs have a greater buffer as well as offer the higher Dynamic Range? I guess you really do get what you pay for in the end when it comes to Digital Backs.

Now, I can see using something slow like the ZD back for the set up shots at a wedding and complementing it with a faster DSLR for the rest of the stuff. Thats probably what a lot of these guys are doing with the ZD back.