Tariq Gibran wrote:
Ya, been using it for years and now the "Clarity" in Lightroom does a similar thing. This technique though will not completely replicate the 3D look of a good lens such as some of the Zeiss lenses. One of the main differences of using either of these techniques versus having a lens which inherently gives you true micro contrast is that the PP method sacrifices some shadow and highlight detail in exchange. A good lens keeps everything.
Agree. I'd say it even looks better with really GOOD lens. Just played with ZAs 1.4/85 and 1.8/135 last week-end. Despite they are not "True Zeiss", still very pleasing results...
Slightly off the main topic, but germane to the 'medium format back look' question: many DMR users, perhaps most vocally Guy Mancuso, opined that the Leica behaved like a mini MF back. It's interesting to compare these images (download the CR2s) showing how a 5D looks without the AA filter.
Some of the 'special' quality we see from the DMR, ZD and MF backs generally, can be attributed solely to the lack of (or weak) filtration. Note especially how tonal transitions are rendered more aggressively, contributing to that 'etched' look. This is doubtless one element that contributes to the sense of 'being there' created by high end gear.
It's also the signature property of Zeiss lenses, so the confusion is forgiveable!
If you want to see a significantly different "look" than that produced by a 5D (with AA filter), then check out the Better Light scanning backs and the great website. It gives you some idea of what a full frame, foveon-like sensor (24mm x 36mm) would produce on a 35mm camera. It would place much less stress on the 35mm lenses. You would be utilizing the full resolving ability of the lens rather than some Bayer pattern bastardized, reduced percentage of it. I hope market forces don't prevent us from ever seeing something like this. (I don't minimize the power of market forces -- see Sony betamax losing out to VHS). As soon as someone makes one, I'll be lining up to buy it. I hope it's NIkon or Canon because they both offer a lot of lens choices. Even a Nikon 1.1 conversion factor, foveon like sensor would be unbelievable. Even 10 megapixels times 3 colors would, I'd bet, rival even a 39 pixel bayer sensor for medium format cameras for resolution -- maybe not when conditions were perfect for the bayer sensor, but in real world applications, 90+% of the time, with the lenses and systems available, I'd bet the 10 megapixel (or 30 megapixel, however you want to label it) foveon-like, 24mm x 36mm sensor, would win out. Now hoping that someone produces a camera like this at $10,000 or less, and we'll see another revolution in quality.
It is possible to shoot low light / architectural / landscape shots with the ZD: it's just that there's a bit of a learning curve: you have to respect its limitations/ Here's something shot tonight: a 6 second exposure at ISO 100 at f4 (Zeiss Sonnar 180mm). Processing was with LR, with 50% luminance NR applied, hence the slight detail smoothing. There is also a little USM on the Lightness channel in PS, hence the slight jaggies. http://www.16-9.net/raw/cranes.jpg
And here's a 100% crop from the crane on the right: http://www.16-9.net/raw/cranes_100.jpg
There's cherry-red air traffic lighting on top of the crane and vivid green mercury vapour uplights, resulting in a cacophony of accent colours on the steels.
I agree with Tariq - show us the shadow detail in the foreground and perhaps a place where it is almost completely black. That shot in general is a perfect example of what I, at least, want to do. Not the crane part , but the amount of light, field of view, contrast between sky/foreground, time of day, length of exposure, etc. The crane extract part looks great!
What would be really cool - go back and do it with Velvia and we could compare. I know that is probably not practical...
For example, here is a pic of the Oracle buildings at sunset that I took last weekend. This was on E100G - not a high saturation film and I did NO color changes in PS. A 1degree tilt of the whole thing, a tiny tiny bit of levels, slight vignette removal and that is all.
httivals wrote:
Even 10 megapixels times 3 colors would, I'd bet, rival even a 39 pixel bayer sensor for medium format cameras for resolution
Come on, don't loose the ground.
For resolution, latest 4,7Mp Foveon compete with 10Mp crop DSLRs. 5D beats it hand-down. And ISO behavior of Foveons is far inferior to what discussed here about MF-backs CCDs.
Just note that to improve the gain in SD14 they had to put and array of micro-lenses on chip that acts as a week AA-filter. Some softness of SD14 images vs SD9/10 ones had been reported by several early users of the former.
Pham Minh Son wrote:
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...Show more →
I shoot a Leaf Aptus 22 and I get the same noise when shooting iso 100 in excess of 6-10 seconds . At iso 25-50 it is not as much of a problem . The zd uses a chip from Dalsa like the Aptus but they are a lower grade of chip .
AS far as shooting the ZD for weddings I think it would be a poor choice for anything other than formals .
Thanks for that, Eric: shooting a further series of test captures, it appears that the chief aggravating factor with the ZD's Dalsa chip is higher sensitivities rather than long exposures, though one compounds the other.
At ISO 125, anything over 4 seconds introduces a level of perceptible noise. It can be processed out, but it clearly rears its head as a problem at this point. From 6 seconds up, it becomes increasingly unacceptable and difficult to remove non-destructively.
However, at ISO 50, 10 second exposures are still clean. In fact, you can expose for as long as 20 seconds before you hit the level of noise present at ISO 125 / 4s.
Further tests revealed that more acceptable results are obtained by pushing the ISO 50 / 10s exposure by one stop in Lightroom than by shooting it at 20 seconds.
Whereas with a DSLR you would instinctively boost the ISO to avoid long exposure colour shifts and reciprocity problems, with the ZD you must do the opposite: winding down the sensor to its native sensitivity and gathering the light with wider apertures and longer exposures (ideally not exceeding 10s) to obtain that extra one stop headroom. And, for best results, if the scene is too dark for ISO 50 / 10s, push it in post rather than capturing it on location.
"Further tests revealed that more acceptable results are obtained by pushing the ISO 50 / 10s exposure by one stop in Lightroom than by shooting it at 20 seconds. "
Would you mind posting a picture that is processed like this? Do the shadows hold up?
Mark, I noticed elsewhere that you stated that you would be getting rid of the ZD back and buying a Canon 1Ds111. Just curious if that was in jest or not and if you are still planning on posting a review of this back. Sort of curious that Frank now has switched to a Leaf back after a few issues with the ZD back and now possibly your switching?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Mark, I noticed elsewhere that you stated that you would be getting rid of the ZD back and buying a Canon 1Ds111. Just curious if that was in jest or not and if you are still planning on posting a review of this back. Sort of curious that Frank now has switched to a Leaf back after a few issues with the ZD back and now possibly your switching?
Frank switched after only a couple of months after being such a fanboy of mamiya?
Well let's not overreact I'm still in the opinion for the money the ZD back will blow away anything else.
HOWEVER, as mentioned before I had a problem with the tethered shooting, this is 99,9% of my worflow so it had to be solved quickly. Mamiya did not react about this, except the usual stuff like it works here or there, just try more things.
I asked a few times to have them come over to the studio and let me see a working combination, but that never happened, at one point I'm done and I will upgrade to something else.
Remember the leaf is almost twice as expensive.
I'm lucky I could get the budget for that.
, but the amount of light, field of view, contrast between sky/foreground, time of day, length of exposure, etc. The crane extract part looks great!