theSuede wrote:
What you need is stupid amounts of light, or the option to use very long exposure times. For architecture, and also for a lot of product work you need to stop down past F32 to make the moire go away. No, it is NOT "fixable in post-processing".
#1 I'm not sure where "stupid amounts of light" comes from but it's simply untrue.
#2 I would never shoot any MF lens past F22 as the diffraction will cause the image to go very soft (and yes in the process stop moire).
#3 Moire is very fixable in post, Hasselblad's Phocus software has an excellent moire filter.
Nick-T
nicktnz wrote:
#2 I would never shoot any MF lens past F22 as the diffraction will cause the image to go very soft (and yes in the process stop moire).
Split the difference and a get a nicer digital and medium format film. MF sensors have a long way to come and you may as well get a better one later....
You need stupid amounts of light to get "good" shutterspeeds in MF, since you need 1stop higher F-stop to get the same DoF. Simple as that. This is not a problem if you a) have no problem with shutterspeeds, can choose whatever you want, or b) can stack frames.
Both of those options kind of negates the main argument for MF, being able to shoot the scene in ONE quick exposure.
The lower actual DR in MF backs can be negated by stacking, or lots of downsampling - same here. Kind of negates the main pro- argument.
What moire filter actually does is lower the resolution of the camera, in post-processing. From a purely technical PoV you lose MORE resolution by doing this (but you can do it locally) than by using a proper AA filter. And I I would actually say that it's less work to use a stitching software than to use the HB software...
AA vs non-AA was demonstrated by Denoir quite recently, and the sample actually contained quite a lot of what deem to be the largest pitfall with AA-less cameras. Take a look at those; 5D2 to the right, scaled down to the same scale as the Leica M9. I DEFINITELY prefer the 5D2. Now I didn't pull much in ANYTHING, if you try something harder than this you get even worse results from the M9.
sboerup wrote:
so I'm very comfortable with what my 5D2 gives me for those projects, and the ne Canon TS-E lenses look phenomenal.
With the MF, I'd probably be stitching photos as well, granted I probably won't be using any TS lenses though . . .
No MF or TS expereince ... but with subject matter of architecture, the TS factor looms on my mind.
Also, the DOF variance (I do shoot M645 glass) TheSuede mentions is noteworthy. Both diffraction and DOF are about a 1 stop variance from 35mm glass, so it's a bit of a wash as you stop down ... but 1 stop of light is sitll 1 stop of light (which may not be critical for your application).
If the manufacturers of 35 mm sensors only would be able/willing to implement charge storage for ISO 25 sensitivity and increase the pixel count to around 40 MP...
Isn't the reason why MF sensors don't have AA-filters mainly the high cost of having the "reticle" made for them, which is used to produce the filters via photolithography? I may be completely off, but I seem to remember reading that for the low production runs of MF sensors it wouldn't be cost-effective to use AA-filters, or something along these lines.
I wonder if CCD's in scientific imaging instruments (any that use a Bayer matrix anyway) use AA-filters. It seems to be an essential part of the Bayer implementation to get "proper" output.
a D3X is at the high end of what a small format sensor can do, certainly better than your 5DMk2, but it's not as good as a modern MF back.
Herb....
sboerup wrote:
I'm curious on this statement, how you say the DR of the D3x will make the MF backs look like 2004 tech. From what I've seen and handled the MF backs have incredible latitude that no DSLR comes even close. Granted I've never touched a D3x file, but this just doesn't sound right.
I was using a Sinar e54LV (22MP) and comparing it to everything else I have tried, primarily Canon 5D, Leica M8 and Nikon D3, with a little A900 and 5DII thrown in, and the files of the Sinar were just gorgeous. It was hard work, the camera (Contax 645) or adapter misbehaved when setting exposure, it would occasionally crash, and overall, there was frustration there, but the results were just sooo nice when I nailed it.
Saying that the 5DII and other cameras have nicer results because there is less moire is like picking the boring, steady girl over the fun, flirtateous girl. There are arguments for it, but in the end, the 5DII just doesn't pull my ding dong but the Sinar did. I will have another one day, maybe a Phase One instead, since they supposedly play better with the Contax. Or another Sinar, and get a Rolleiflex or Hy6 for it. For now the Sinar had to go to finance a DSLR system, so I can keep up with my baby daughter.
theSuede wrote:
It gets even worse when you look a little closer:
Yes, but seriously, when do you look at a 200% magnification? When 100% crops are not enough then the pixel peeping has really gone overboard.
Anyway, you forgot about a very important thing - the RAW developer. Lightroom is notoriously bad at dealing with moire, while for instance Capture One is much better:
Default settings on both. Obviously C1 oversharpens the image, but the point here is that as you can see the moire is significantly reduced. This was by the way Capture one 5.1 - the newer 6.0 is supposed to be much better with M9 files.
I keep using Lightroom because there are other benefits to it and to be honest I have never been bothered by the aliasing you get on occasion. Yes you can find it if you keep studying the pixels under great magnification, but I've never found it to be a problem in practice.
denoir wrote:
I have never been bothered by the aliasing you get on occasion. Yes you can find it if you keep studying the pixels under great magnification, but I've never found it to be a problem in practice.
Well spoken. It can ruin shots, and I have had it happen, but it is so rare that it does, and the sharpness benefit to no AA filter is there in every shot.
sboerup wrote:
So are you happy with what it does? Are you only disappointed in the size/portability? It doesn't seem overly portable to me, but I don't think that will be a problem . . . yet.
It does what it's supposed to well. The only problem is the size and weight, but it's a big problem. Subsequently I almost never use it.
There is however perhaps an alternative - the smaller Gigapan epic 100 in combination with a Leica M9. It's smaller and from the M9 you get all the benefits of an AA-filter free CCD sensor. (I bought the Epic Pro before I got my M9 otherwise I would have gone with the Epic 100).
yeah, but that flirtatious girl is going to drain your bank account fast! !
I would probably rent/lease a 80MP back, rather than get on their fast depreciation track, where you have to keep paying them a chunk of money to upgrade to avoid the bit hit of the old back depreciating substantially.
