ISO1600 wrote:
I for one, like to be able to control my DoF. You simply cannot do that on M4/3 (i will not call it MFT), nor can you do it on DX. I don't shoot medium format because it is not as portable as 35mm/FX/FF. If it was, i would.
That's complete BS. You can certainly control DoF on DX or 4/3rds, you just can't get it quite as thin most of the time because you're giving up a stop or two of DoF for a given Field of View and aperture. Of course on m43 you can simply use cheap and ridiculously fast C mount lenses since a 50mm f0.95 has about the same DoF as a 100/2 on FF.
And MF? Well your average 645 SLR weighs less and is smaller (but more awkward) than a D3 or 1D series body.
edit: i don't feel that i quoted you out of context, because what i quoted is exactly what i meant to. You set up the test to be in favor of similar results. If you were to test them differently, you wuold get different results. That is where the "5D" look comes from. Shallow DoF.
Remember before the D3 came out? The "Canon look" was shallow DoF that we were getting with our bigger sensors. DX fans just didn't understand it.
Most of the 'Canon Look' was high-MP smoothness and low noise, not DoF. DoF effects are not a common effect outside of low-light work where it's pretty much a given.
Since my previous post a couple of days ago I have done some extensive testing. Even though it's not fair to G1 I have compared it with 5D, because that is what I use.
For reasons explained earlier in this thread I mostly shoot JPG, so that is what I used when comparing too. For G1 the settings are Dynamic Color Film Mode, Contrast -2, Sharpness -2, Saturation 0 and NR -2. I have adjusted AWB to Green +3 and Yellow +1. Now I find the colors in good light very pleasing and similar to 5D most of the time. The format was 3:2 and ISO 100 for all shots.
Note that all this is based on what I like or not. Others may not share/agree to my findings.
G1 is wonderful for objects close by, such as urban or nature details. Sometimes such photos turn out even better than what I get from 5D (mostly because the 20/1.7 has better MFD than my Canons, and for these shots the larger DoF helps too). Its B&W Dynamic mode is wonderful. No complaints there.
However, like I mentioned before, as soon as there is more distance to the subject, such as a landscape, cityscape or full body portrait, 5D is usually much better. My husband set up a blind test for me and tried his best to confuse me with large and small apertures etc. , but I picked 5D correctly every single time. There was no pixel peeping - just normal viewing on my 19" screen.
It was harder when the scene was evenly lit, but when there are both lighter and darker areas (doesn't have to be high contrast, but that makes it worse of course) the photos from G1 has muddy dull dark areas that I could spot right away. Then there's that slightly gritty look that I see but can't really explain in words.
I'm a bit disappointed now. Instead of convincing me that G1 isn't that much worse than 5D I have started to dislike the poor thing.
Sorry about the rambling, but since I had started talking about my concerns in this thread I thought I should follow-up.
I recall back in 2004-2006, having several discussions with other photographers and we all agreed that a big part of the obvious differences between the Canon and Nikon look at the time was DoF (and uhhhhh, decent sensors that weren't noisy at ISO 800).
Citing a f0.95 lens as a defense to M4/3 is exactly the kind of esoteric BS that i find hilarious. I've got a 50/1.4 AF Nikkor that outperforms it and cost me $120.
Also, most decent 645 and larger cameras, if any smaller or lighter than my D700 (not much, IIRC), are not anywhere nearly as capable or flexible of a system, which is why i shoot a D700. I think that is why most (true) enthusiasts shoot DSLRs, because of their balance of flexibility and capability. Yes, M4/3 is pretty damn flexible- but at this point in the game i would not give it any points for capability.
ISO1600 wrote:
I recall back in 2004-2006, having several discussions with other photographers and we all agreed that a big part of the obvious differences between the Canon and Nikon look at the time was DoF (and uhhhhh, decent sensors that weren't noisy at ISO 800).
Citing a f0.95 lens as a defense to M4/3 is exactly the kind of esoteric BS that i find hilarious. I've got a 50/1.4 AF Nikkor that outperforms it and cost me $120.
You do realize that your 501.4 isn't any more expensive than a half-decent 50/0.95 in C mount? And frankly, not any better either (It's average as fast 50's go, especially at wide apertures where you get DoF effects and the Nikkor 50/1.4 doesn't do particularly well) There's a lot of stupidly fast glass in C mount, f2 is considered slow there and ultra-fast 50's are very common in C mount. It's not until you start looking at 25mm or wider that lenses faster than f1 become uncommon or expensive.
And yes, DoF effects can be the most notable difference between the Canon's and the Nikons, when it was present (which just wasn't that often). That's because for most work there simply wasn't an obvious difference between the two. In most work the difference came down to the high-MP smoothness effect.
Also, most decent 645 and larger cameras, if any smaller or lighter than my D700 (not much, IIRC), are not anywhere nearly as capable or flexible of a system, which is why i shoot a D700. I think that is why most (true) enthusiasts shoot DSLRs, because of their balance of flexibility and capability. Yes, M4/3 is pretty damn flexible- but at this point in the game i would not give it any points for capability.
Your D700 has two things over a 645. Speed (as in fps) and AF. Most people need neither. And a 645 system offers capabilities that your D700 lacks, like the ability to switch between rollfilm, polaroid and digital, leaf shutter lenses (Full-power flash sync as high as 1/1600 with a 645DF, 1/800 with most other LS systems). The D700 is arguably more capable, but in a lot of ways it's LESS flexible.
I wouldn't say that I'm shooting for image quality (definitely not sharpness anyway), but I shoot more to "create art" (wow, that sounds really pretentious, sorry) than to capture and document. I wanted a smaller camera for when 5D is a bit too large and heavy to bring, but there are certain aspects of photos that I have now found that I'm sensitive to and I'm beginning to realize that MFT isn't for me. It'll probably be a source of frustration and it's better that I don't bring a camera at all, or drag along 5D with my smallest lens.
mawz wrote:
You do realize that your 501.4 isn't any more expensive than a half-decent 50/0.95 in C mount? And frankly, not any better either (It's average as fast 50's go, especially at wide apertures where you get DoF effects and the Nikkor 50/1.4 doesn't do particularly well) There's a lot of stupidly fast glass in C mount, f2 is considered slow there and ultra-fast 50's are very common in C mount. It's not until you start looking at 25mm or wider that lenses faster than f1 become uncommon or expensive.
And yes, DoF effects can be the most notable difference between the Canon's and the Nikons, when it was present (which just wasn't that often). That's because for most work there simply wasn't an obvious difference between the two. In most work the difference came down to the high-MP smoothness effect.
Your D700 has two things over a 645. Speed (as in fps) and AF. Most people need neither. And a 645 system offers capabilities that your D700 lacks, like the ability to switch between rollfilm, polaroid and digital, leaf shutter lenses (Full-power flash sync as high as 1/1600 with a 645DF, 1/800 with most other LS systems). The D700 is arguably more capable, but in a lot of ways it's LESS flexible. ...Show more →
1) The d700 has spot metering at each AF-point, true spot metering in general, better weather sealed than pretty much anything medium format.. the list is quite a bit longer than you indicate.
2) I can use rollfilm, polaroid and other presets on all my digital files thank you..
You oversimplify the differences and overplay the greatness of a analog medium format.
ulrikft2 wrote:
1) The d700 has spot metering at each AF-point, true spot metering in general, better weather sealed than pretty much anything medium format.. the list is quite a bit longer than you indicate.
2) I can use rollfilm, polaroid and other presets on all my digital files thank you..
You oversimplify the differences and overplay the greatness of a analog medium format.
I'll cop to the weathersealing, but Spotmetering is definitely available on 645 SLR's and I've found linking it to AF points to be a net loss, not a win, especially with high-point-count units like the D700's. The D700 has a few other toys that I've skipped (like the flash system), but so does MF. I was pretty much underplaying both sides of the argument here.
As to presets, they do an OK job of faking Polaroid's, but I've NEVER seen one do a good job of faking E-6, traditional B&W emulsions or even many C-41 films. If you want the look of a specific film, shoot it, don't try and fake in post.
defending film because it is film, or because of the look, is such a pointless argument in 2010. Buying/shooting/developing/scanning film is rapidly getting to be a very daunting and expensive task.
i shoot film because the film cameras are great fun to use. If somebody crammed a D700 sensor into a Nikon F, i would never EVER shoot a single roll again, as long as i lived. And yes, i do have a 35mm film frame tattoo'd on my wrist.
There is a very good reason why Oly recommends no lower F-stop than F/2, and for Pana to keep the lenses at F/1.7. The smaller (and thereby relatively "higher") cells of the 4/3 format actually can't do anything worthwhile with light arriving at the sensor surface at the angles that a F/1.4 lens gives. This is actually quite easy to prove empirically if you own both formats, and use adaptors with larger full-manual lenses with aperture control rings.
Try the F/1.4 lens at the 4/3 camera - first at wide open, and then at 1 stop down (F/2) and 2 stops down (F/2.8). Save the raw files.
Do the same, same lens mounted on a 5D (or any other FF/FX camera), or a Nikon D40 - also a very low MP/cm2 camera.
Use any available tool to check the raw-files. The FF/FX camera will show an almost perfect 1 stop difference between the files (if the aperture in the lens works as it should). The 4/3 camera will show less than 1 stop from F/2.8 to F/2, and considerably less from F/2 to F/1.4 - maybe 1/3Ev. If you have a F/0.95 lens nearby - by all means try it. You get NOTHING except more veiling flare by going from F/1.4 to F/1.0.... No increase in measured exposure.
But by the same reasons most smaller sensors also use a thinner and more transmissive colour filter array, so efficiency at smaller apertures is quite good - often better than the larger sensors per mm2. So the comparison of "equal DoF, equal angle of view" is very much in favour of the smaller sensor (smaller body, smaller lenses, smaller costs - and so on). At least until you start comparing colour hue accuracy. Here the smaller formats loose out very quickly, only at base ISO does the smaller sensors have any colour accuracy or colour spatial resolution worth mentioning. Accurate colour needs light, smaller sensors receives less light per F-stop-second.
i have tried this and it's not what i saw at all. shooting at f/1.4 and f/2 on a 4/3 camera and a nikon d1x (sorry i'm too poor to have a FF - though i considering getting a 5D or a850 as prices drop) at the same shutter speed i had to raise the f/2 shot 1ev to match the brightness of the f/1.4 shot. it's true that my 4/3 camera does not meter the change. in aperture priority it doesn't change the shutter speed from f/1.4 to f/2 - this just means i have to do the compensation myself -1ev for f/1.4 shots to get correct exposure. as a side note panasonic does make an f/1.4 lens and i've heard no reports of what you're talking about on 4/3 or µ4/3 with that lens. i believe the 20mm is most likely f/1.7 not f/1.4 to save on size and price.
theSuede wrote:
There is a very good reason why Oly recommends no lower F-stop than F/2, and for Pana to keep the lenses at F/1.7. The smaller (and thereby relatively "higher") cells of the 4/3 format actually can't do anything worthwhile with light arriving at the sensor surface at the angles that a F/1.4 lens gives. This is actually quite easy to prove empirically if you own both formats, and use adaptors with larger full-manual lenses with aperture control rings.
Try the F/1.4 lens at the 4/3 camera - first at wide open, and then at 1 stop down (F/2) and 2 stops down (F/2.8). Save the raw files.
Do the same, same lens mounted on a 5D (or any other FF/FX camera), or a Nikon D40 - also a very low MP/cm2 camera.
Use any available tool to check the raw-files. The FF/FX camera will show an almost perfect 1 stop difference between the files (if the aperture in the lens works as it should). The 4/3 camera will show less than 1 stop from F/2.8 to F/2, and considerably less from F/2 to F/1.4 - maybe 1/3Ev. If you have a F/0.95 lens nearby - by all means try it. You get NOTHING except more veiling flare by going from F/1.4 to F/1.0.... No increase in measured exposure....Show more →
mawz wrote:
I'll cop to the weathersealing, but Spotmetering is definitely available on 645 SLR's and I've found linking it to AF points to be a net loss, not a win, especially with high-point-count units like the D700's. The D700 has a few other toys that I've skipped (like the flash system), but so does MF. I was pretty much underplaying both sides of the argument here.
As to presets, they do an OK job of faking Polaroid's, but I've NEVER seen one do a good job of faking E-6, traditional B&W emulsions or even many C-41 films. If you want the look of a specific film, shoot it, don't try and fake in post. ...Show more →
I must say that I love spot metering at af-points, and i use 95% manual lenses, not having to meter centrally, and then meter-lock and recompose? golden!
When it comes to faking B&W, some people ask me which darkroom I use when they see my baryta-paper printed digital files.. So I'm not sure. Anyhow: if you get the look you want, that is what matters I guess.
Sebboh:
If you try this with modern very retrofocal lenses, the effect is diminished by a large margin. With a higher retrofocal effect, angle of incidence to the sensor diminishes (even the aperture edge relative angles) - you distance the exit pupil from the plane of focus (the sensor).
But as we are in the "ALT" section, my example was using a standard lens like the nearly symmetrical Takumar 50F/1.4 or any other standard wider "alt" lens. Wide large-aperture Leica M-lenses usually give the worst aperture-to-exposure ratios of all.
ISO1600 wrote:
IIRC, when using non-cpu lenses you don't have AF-point linked spot metering.
Just wanted to clarify this.... I thought when I use non-CPU lenses, I only have center point biased spot metering - correct? I don't think these older lenses allow for full matrix metering.
, but I picked 5D correctly every single time. There was no pixel peeping - just normal viewing on my 19" screen.