Ok, a few things first. I did not have all three cameras at the same time, hence the different light and weather conditions. I did shoot all three on clear afternoons.
also, like I said, I also used the 15mm Zeiss on the Nikon. Its a really good lens, probably one of the best you can use on a nikon but still the Rodenstock is in another league.
I have used the IQ160 on iso 50 but 100 is good also.
also, when you buy a lens for the Arca you buy it from Arca Swiss and it comes from them, mounted on their circular mount and with a calibration focus sheet. So they test the lens beforehand. I think its the same way with Alpa and Cambo. I dont think it was always like that with large format cameras.
The Arca rm3di is not a huge camera in the least even with the rodenstock lens which isnt the lightest or smallest wide angle available. The Arca factum is downright very compact.
You can use a technical camera handheld (no tripod) but I find it best with a tripod. The Alpa TC and Cambo WRS 400 are particularly small and lightweight and good for handholding. My Cambo WRS, IQ180, and HR40 t/s is pretty small and lightweight. My technical camera system is lighter than my DSLR system.
I think that's very much worth noting. Also, while the crops look good I'm blown away when I look at how small these crops are in the entire image. Great thread that's gotten little attention.
1- Different focal length between the D800E and the 160/645D. Why?
2- Different light conditions between each of the D800E - IQ160 - 645D, according to the shadow of the Sizzler (small sign), the difference is not few minutes to change camera but an hour or so! Why?
3- Different atmos conditions with flying flags v still flags.
4- Different atmos conditions with no clouds for the D800E and cloudy for the 160/645.
5- Different converters used. Why?
Don't you think that the result will be bias under such very different conditions?
These are my concerns, too. I'd suggest using a telephoto lens to do the test. A better approach would be using single lens on different body through an adapter.
1- Different focal length between the D800E and the 160/645D. Why?
2- Different light conditions between each of the D800E - IQ160 - 645D, according to the shadow of the Sizzler (small sign), the difference is not few minutes to change camera but an hour or so! Why?
3- Different atmos conditions with flying flags v still flags.
4- Different atmos conditions with no clouds for the D800E and cloudy for the 160/645.
5- Different converters used. Why?
Don't you think that the result will be bias under such very different conditions?
phuang3 wrote:
These are my concerns, too. I'd suggest using a telephoto lens to do the test. A better approach would be using single lens on different body through an adapter.
IMHO using different focal lengths to get the same FOV is the only meaningful way to compare camera systems. If you use the same lens and the same camera position, you don't get any valid results, just the two self-evident facts: 1) Higher pixel density resolves more absolute detail 2) When you use a smaller sensor on the same lens, you get lower MTF (per image height) in the center but are able to avoid any bad corners of a lens.
I am a little concerned about choice of apertures, they shoud be calculated for equal DoF.That will also mean equal diffraction when the images are enlarged to the same output size. Using F/8 both for the D800E and the IQ gives the IQ a diffraction advantage. Knowing my D800E, I will say that if you don't see a noticeable lower pixel level actuance at f/8 compared to f/5.6, you are either using a poor lens or not perfect technique.
hI,
Actually, I'm not sure anything needs to be proven here. A $ 34000 sensor is going to be better than a $ 9000 sensor which will be better than a $ 3000 sensor. but is it 10 times better ? cause I'll sweat 10 times as much to buy one !!
Similarly, a 60MP file is going to look better than a 39 MP file which will look slightly better than a 36MP file. The tonal variation, agreed, significantly different, but we all know that. So the point of this comparison is ....?
We might as well start comparing the IQ 160 to powershots... actually, here's something to read: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
The takeaway from that test is that something really needs to be proven. Sensor size and cost are not by far as important to image quality as technique and pixel count.
I would postulate that a 56 MP 35 mm sensor with the current sensor tech gives better image quality than the Pentax 645D.
alundeb wrote:
The takeaway from that test is that something really needs to be proven. ...
I would postulate ...
H.Lux wrote:
I see...
I could of course have said that if resolved detail is an important part of "Image quality", the Sony NEX 7 or the Nikon D5200 24 MP APS-C sensors are already proven to be better than the Nikon D4 16 MP FF sensor.
