Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > OPF Welcome Hall > Breaking News

Breaking News Updates, innovations, equipment: moderated!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 24th, 2011, 12:50 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,744
Default $31,387 gets you an 80MP Leaf Aptus, USB III

We knew about the camera in September 2010. The big news now is the reasonable price! The recently announced 80 MP camera is selling for the price that the previous Aptus II lead camera with 56 MP was selling for just months ago. So this is good value for money if one needs the extra resolution and have the money for such a fine machine!




Leaf Aptus-II 12

CCD Size mm: 53.7 x 40.3
pixels: 10,320 x 7,752
Resolution: 80 MP
Capture Rate sec/fr: 1.5
File Size MOS: 165 MB
MOS Compressed: 107 MB
TIFF 16-bit: 480 MB
8 bit RGB: 240 MB
8 bit CMYK: 320 MB
ISO Sensitivity: 50-800
Leaf SensorFlex Yes
Dynamic Range 12 f-stops


Read the Leaf Aptus news from the Phase One sitehere

To double the resolution one does not need to double the pixels as the lack of a filter to counteract moiré, is equivalent to some increase definition anyway. So this camera is likely more than double the resolution of the 5DII with a dynamic range of 12 f stops!

For my rare needs of higher resolution I can use LF and film. Still, I'd be so tempted to buy this more compact toy if I was just a little richer!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Last edited by Asher Kelman; January 24th, 2011 at 12:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 24th, 2011, 10:18 AM
Ken Tanaka Ken Tanaka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,301
Default

The new Phase One "IQ" backs, announced today, are more appealing to me. I think they'll come in 40, 60, and 80 mp sizes with top prices at around $30,000. Watch the video intro. It almost makes me want to trade my P65+! (Naw, not this year.)
__________________
- Ken Tanaka -
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 24th, 2011, 11:34 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka View Post
The new Phase One "IQ" backs, announced today, are more appealing to me. I think they'll come in 40, 60, and 80 mp sizes with top prices at around $30,000. Watch the video intro. It almost makes me want to trade my P65+! (Naw, not this year.)
Ken,

This is amazing! It seems that because Phase One is so small and the backs are built by hand, they can redo their models very fast. The new camera has a mode at 20 MP where by the ISO goes up to 1600! I see that the P65+ already did that giving ISO 3200 at 15MP. That's simply amazing. Binning is something Fuji has done in the past. I'm not aware that this was done previously on other MF digital cameras to increase ISO?

The back interface is so fluid and that screen is super large! How does it compare with your P65+? apart from the wonderful interface. The P65+ you have seems already pretty well a dream machine! Even with 15MP, at 3200 if it meets Phase One's standards, it might be as good as my 5DII at ISO 800. Besides it has a dynamic range of 12.5! One would need to have a side by side test with the new leaf model but they are in the same ballpark to allow for great RAW processing.

I know this is a price of a car, but it could be so great for my photography. I like the capability to have a mask for composing. I do a lot of building of images from different elements. This is not new, but not present on my more humble 5DII! Still, with live view on the 5DII I can do far better than a photographer deserves and should be content.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 24th, 2011, 04:00 PM
Georg R. Baumann Georg R. Baumann is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,482
Default

I am astonished at the somewhat small cache, image buffer. Ken's P65+ as well as the P40+ both have 1,3 GB if I am correct, the IQ80 has 1 GB.

I would have thought that here a 2 or even 4 GB buffer would come into play.

I guess the TIFF will be in the 0.5 Gig range now, which ain't a problem with 4 terabyte drives already turning mainstream, just the small buffer puzzles me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 24th, 2011, 07:36 PM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,421
Default

Georg,

It's because it's $31,387. With the larger cache its $31,492
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 24th, 2011, 07:54 PM
Ken Tanaka Ken Tanaka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,301
Default

The touch screen interface of Phase One's new IQ backs look like they'd be absolutely delightful. The P+ backs have a butt-simple control menu system but when it comes to image review they're pure Flintstones "Yabba Dabba Doo". Not really a big issue but it is an occasional annoyance that nearly any high-end consumer-grade camera kicks the ass of these backs in this department.

I suspect that image quality between the old and new would be essentially identical. (The P65+ also specs that dynamic range figure.) I really haven't found buffer size to be an issue, since I never machine-gun with the back.

Unless my dealer makes me a trade-in offer I can't refuse I don't see an IQ back in my immediate future. If I had nothing, however, I'd find it hard to resist the 40mp back.
__________________
- Ken Tanaka -
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 25th, 2011, 01:46 AM
Georg R. Baumann Georg R. Baumann is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alain Briot View Post
Georg,

It's because it's $31,387. With the larger cache its $31,492
ROFLMAO Nah, the larger cache is an optional extra for $ 4,825, but you get a discount, a special edition of color checker with a fluorescent Phase One Logo and your name on it (limited up to 10 letters only) comes for free.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 25th, 2011, 01:57 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka View Post
The touch screen interface of Phase One's new IQ backs look like they'd be absolutely delightful. The P+ backs have a butt-simple control menu system but when it comes to image review they're pure Flintstones "Yabba Dabba Doo". Not really a big issue but it is an occasional annoyance that nearly any high-end consumer-grade camera kicks the ass of these backs in this department.

I suspect that image quality between the old and new would be essentially identical. (The P65+ also specs that dynamic range figure.) I really haven't found buffer size to be an issue, since I never machine-gun with the back.

Unless my dealer makes me a trade-in offer I can't refuse I don't see an IQ back in my immediate future. If I had nothing, however, I'd find it hard to resist the 40mp back.
So far, I've seen 65% discount on the 80MP version, which leaves you with a mere $14,000 and a little more $$ to close the gap, based on a $40K price with a 3 yr service package from one retailer.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 25th, 2011, 02:02 AM
Georg R. Baumann Georg R. Baumann is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka View Post
The touch screen interface of Phase One's new IQ backs look like they'd be absolutely delightful. The P+ backs have a butt-simple control menu system but when it comes to image review they're pure Flintstones "Yabba Dabba Doo". Not really a big issue but it is an occasional annoyance that nearly any high-end consumer-grade camera kicks the ass of these backs in this department.

I suspect that image quality between the old and new would be essentially identical. (The P65+ also specs that dynamic range figure.) I really haven't found buffer size to be an issue, since I never machine-gun with the back.

Unless my dealer makes me a trade-in offer I can't refuse I don't see an IQ back in my immediate future. If I had nothing, however, I'd find it hard to resist the 40mp back.
Hi Ken,

long time no see, hope you are well over there!

Of course you have a sniper rifle there instead of a AA12 shotgun. I was also very astonished on that display when shooting with a P45+, loved the simplicity of the control menu though. Then again, honestly, I never used the display for anything but a quick histogram check.

Nice to see the P1 go further.

I found the god damn rubber flaps a pest, the never stayed in place easy. Looks like they got rid of that minor design flaw as well.

Best
Georg

P.S. Love the 'cold bones'!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 25th, 2011, 06:17 PM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,421
Default

I never found the menu on the P+ backs to be a problem. Agreed, they are basic, even 'primitive' relatively speaking, but they do what they are supposed to do. I actually find it amusing that cameras that are supposed to be 'simpler' to use, such as Canon's G series, actually have far more complex menus, with many features I never use.

That being said, the larger/better screen on the new P1 backs is a very nice improvement.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old January 25th, 2011, 06:20 PM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Georg R. Baumann View Post
ROFLMAO Nah, the larger cache is an optional extra for $ 4,825, but you get a discount, a special edition of color checker with a fluorescent Phase One Logo and your name on it (limited up to 10 letters only) comes for free.
You meant to say 'free' I am sure.

FYI, digital photography is free regardless after the first 20k.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old January 25th, 2011, 11:50 PM
scott kirkpatrick scott kirkpatrick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Posts: 403
Default To infinity, and beyond!!

I moved into a P45+, used on two vintage Hasselblad 500s, one an SWC this year, and am slowly getting the feel of what 39 MPixel, no AA, can do. I'm very familiar with the strengths and occasional problems of no AA from the M9, which still does the bulk of my work -- 40x60cm prints from a recent project made with the M9 were so good that the Phase back would not have helped and would have made it much harder to shoot. I do see the difference with an MFDB, just waiting the setting that can really take advantage. 80 MPixel is a natural next step from 39 MPixel, but I don't need it yet and am a little suspicious of the effects of reducing each pixel to a little over 5 microns in size. For me, it makes more sense to see the next step as replacing the somewhat fragile SWC (which has spent the past two months in Sweden under repair) with a light technical camera and a Rodenstock 35mm lens. I'm intrigued with the idea of MF wide angle as a street camera. Don't know if the ISO and f/stop limits would rule that out, but it seems worth trying.

scott
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old January 27th, 2011, 03:06 AM
scott kirkpatrick scott kirkpatrick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Posts: 403
Default Can we believe the DR specs on MFDBs?

Has anyone checked to see what the actual range between the lowest exposure to produce useful texture ahd the highest exposure with texture is on the newer DBs? And how far above middle grey the top is, how far below the bottom is? Those are more interesting numbers than the DR spec.

The spec is obtained by taking the number of electrons which a pixel can hold, dividing by readout losses and leakage (in a short exposure) and then taking the logarithm of that number with base 2 to report the result in exposure stops. Since most pixel designs hold 50-64K electrons, lose 8-16 electrons to leakage during exposure and readout, we get claims of 12 stops dynamic range. The CCD silicon reports a 16 bit result, and the low order 3-4 bits are just noise.

With the P45+ back on a Hasselblad 500C/M behind a Zeiss 80/2.8 standard lens, I see 9 stops range from highlights to deepest shadows. When I switched to a 120/4.0 Makro, I only got 7 stops, but I had forgotten to remove the UV filter, so my technique was not laboratory grade. In both cases, the end of useable highlights was about 3-4 stops above middle grey. This is with a Kodak CCD. Can anyone report how the Dalsa chips in the latest Phase backs or the new Kodak chip in the Leaf 80, perform?

scott
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old January 27th, 2011, 04:58 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
Has anyone checked to see what the actual range between the lowest exposure to produce useful texture ahd the highest exposure with texture is on the newer DBs? And how far above middle grey the top is, how far below the bottom is? Those are more interesting numbers than the DR spec.
Hi Scott,

Those are good questions, and there are many uninformed answers floating about on the internet. One source of information that has a good record of supplying verified information is the DxO Mark site.

Quote:
The spec is obtained by taking the number of electrons which a pixel can hold, dividing by readout losses and leakage (in a short exposure) and then taking the logarithm of that number with base 2 to report the result in exposure stops. Since most pixel designs hold 50-64K electrons, lose 8-16 electrons to leakage during exposure and readout, we get claims of 12 stops dynamic range. The CCD silicon reports a 16 bit result, and the low order 3-4 bits are just noise.
Correct. However, one has to distinguish between the engineering definition of Dynamic range (maximum signal devided by (mostly read-)noise floor, and how much of the noisy shadows one is willing to tolerate in practice. Until recently, most manufacturers were not able to really achieve 12 stops dynamic range (engineering definition) despite a 16-bit quantization of that 12-bit signal. The 16-bit quantization only increases the precision, most of it being noise. The accuracy remains limited by the maximum Signal to Noise ratio.

Only recently have we seen scores in excess of 12 stops effective DR (e.g. a Pentax K-5 with 13.61 stops DR).

However, the technical limitations of the sensor array are not telling the full story. Few people realise that lens quality (and inefficient lenshoods) and camera build quality can rapidly deteriorate the effective DR that one can capture (to something in the 8 or 9 stops range). So shooting technique and build quality of lens and body also matter a lot. And then there are other things that define quality, like color reproduction and handling ease, and not to mention the photographer's eye for composition/timing.etc. ...

Quote:
With the P45+ back on a Hasselblad 500C/M behind a Zeiss 80/2.8 standard lens, I see 9 stops range from highlights to deepest shadows. When I switched to a 120/4.0 Makro, I only got 7 stops, but I had forgotten to remove the UV filter, so my technique was not laboratory grade.
Bingo! There is more to dynamic range than sensor capabilities alone. We instinctively (and based on experience) know it, but we occasionally need a wake-up call.

Quote:
In both cases, the end of useable highlights was about 3-4 stops above middle grey. This is with a Kodak CCD. Can anyone report how the Dalsa chips in the latest Phase backs or the new Kodak chip in the Leaf 80, perform?
The concept of usable highlight room as a measure of DR is debatable. It depends on the ISO rating of the sensor, although in the particular case of the P45+ it is accurate at ISO 50 (48 effectively) and ISO 100 (95 effectively), but at higher ISOs the sensitivity remains the same and only the Raw data is pushed further in postprocessing (and highlight headroom increases due to underexposure). On the P65+ however, the ISO is overstated by a little over one stop from ISO 100 and upwards, thus seemingly giving another stop headroom but effectively underexposing by one stop. This can all be seen in the DxO data for the various sensor array they have tested so far, the manufacturers will usually not tell you that.

We unfortunately have to wait for the newest sensors to be independently tested, but I would be careful in trusting the manufacturer's claims, before getting credible confirmation from very knowledgeable testers (not just ones trying to justify their investment), or an update from the DxO data.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.

Last edited by Bart_van_der_Wolf; January 27th, 2011 at 10:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old January 27th, 2011, 09:30 AM
Ken Tanaka Ken Tanaka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,301
Default

What type of photographic work do you do, Scott?
__________________
- Ken Tanaka -
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old January 27th, 2011, 10:40 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,744
Default

Scott,

Thanks for pointing out the large loss in DR just having a filter or swopping the lens! I'm stunned but shouldn't be! What's your test setup?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post

With the P45+ back on a Hasselblad 500C/M behind a Zeiss 80/2.8 standard lens, I see 9 stops range from highlights to deepest shadows. When I switched to a 120/4.0 Makro, I only got 7 stops, but I had forgotten to remove the UV filter, so my technique was not laboratory grade. In both cases, the end of useable highlights was about 3-4 stops above middle grey. This is with a Kodak CCD. Can anyone report how the Dalsa chips in the latest Phase backs or the new Kodak chip in the Leaf 80, perform?

scott

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
..Bingo....

However, the technical limitations of the sensor array are not telling the full story. Few people realise that lens quality (and inefficient lenshoods) and camera build quality can rapidly deteriorate the effective DR that one can capture (to something in the 8 or 9 stops range). So shooting technique and build quality of lens and body also matter a lot. And then there are other things that define quality, like color reproduction and handling ease, and not to mention the photographer's eye for composition/timing.etc. ...



Bingo! There is more to dynamic range than sensor capabilities alone. We instinctively (and based on experience) know it, but we occasionally need a wake-up call.
Bart,

What about the choice of lens with the 5DII. If I use an EF 50 1.4 v. the 50 1.2 at f4 or f5.6 is there likely to be a difference in DR. What about going from the 70-200 L IS 2.8 v. I and the new version II? These are very important concepts for me. Of course the answer has to include say an ISO of 320 v. and ISO of 800 or 1600.

Lastly, is a Tiffen polarizing filter likely to have the same effect as an inferior lens in reducing DR or should one therefore get the most elite filters for that reason?

More than your likely range of immediate knowledge perhaps but still I'd like the gestalt of your feelings on this. Would I be able to teat this simply with Imatest™ which I have but have not setup. (Ashamed!!!)

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old January 27th, 2011, 12:46 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Bart,

What about the choice of lens with the 5DII. If I use an EF 50 1.4 v. the 50 1.2 at f4 or f5.6 is there likely to be a difference in DR.
Hi Asher,

That's hard to say without testing for the lighting conditions it is going to be used in. So, for the moment I can only look at generic MTF curves and they suggest that the 1.4 may be a bit more contrasty at these medium apertures. I do recall reading that the f/1.2 has good glare resistance, but I haven't tested that myself.

In any case, it is important to use a properly dimensioned lenshood, because any stray light entering the lens that is not going to add to the image forming itself, will deteriorate the image quality. The first thing to go is effective dynamic range (reduced overall contrast especially in the shadows), followed by ghosts of the entrance pupil.

Especially when it is known in advance that the lens is going to be stopped down, one can only benefit from a deep lenshood that might slightly vignet when the lens is used wide open. For this purpose, an adjustable lenshood, like the one from Lee filters, will add flexibility (although it might slow down the setting up for a shoot). Sometimes one can use a ready made lenshood intended for a different (longer focal length) lens, if the diameter is the same.

Quote:
What about going from the 70-200 L IS 2.8 v. I and the new version II?
Again from reading the MTF curves, I'd expect the version II to be significantly more contrasty (mainly at the longer FL end), and having talked with Nicolas about the difference between the two, he confirms it (he traded up to the version II, so he can tell from experience). Also his keeper rate due to better AF went up drastically. However, to accomodate a 70mm focal length (wide open at f/2.8) makes me suspect that the lenshood may be seriously under-dimensioned for the 200mm setting. Lenshoods with zooms are usually a serious compromise for the longer focal lengths (unless the front lens element sinks deeper with longer focal lengths).

Quote:
These are very important concepts for me. Of course the answer has to include say an ISO of 320 v. and ISO of 800 or 1600.
I understand only too well, the challenges rarely come alone. Well, boosting the ISO in Canon cameras will reduce the sensor DR. But that may be a somewhat moot point if the lens doesn't deliver enough contrast. However, the effects do add up (they actually multiply). That's why boosting 'exposure' in a Raw converter rather than with a higher ISO may also be beneficial.

Quote:
Lastly, is a Tiffen polarizing filter likely to have the same effect as an inferior lens in reducing DR or should one therefore get the most elite filters for that reason?
I never use a filter, unless it adds more than it destroys. Polarizers are the exception to a general rule, since they can achieve things that cannot be mimicked in postprocessing. However, they will also help destroy contrast by adding multiple air/glass surfaces. The light lost at each surface (some 2% per surface if uncoated) will end up somewhere where it isn't helping the image. Only high quality coatings can reduce the negative effects of glare cause by filters, but not eliminate the negative effects entirely. In fact they may introduce other effects like color casts across the field of view. So filters are a compromise, and they warrant even deeper lenshoods because the front surface is more at the front.

Quote:
More than your likely range of immediate knowledge perhaps but still I'd like the gestalt of your feelings on this. Would I be able to teat this simply with Imatest™ which I have but have not setup. (Ashamed!!!)
Testing is not a simple thing, even though Imatest makes it easier by removing some of the repetitive/boring and thus error prone tasks when evaluating tests. The tests themselves need to be well controlled in the first place. Not all that easy.

Imatest does have a specific procedure which allows to quantify the veiling glare characteristics of a lens, by adding a light trap at the end of a stepwedge, mounted in a bright field.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old January 28th, 2011, 04:05 AM
scott kirkpatrick scott kirkpatrick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Posts: 403
Default why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka View Post
What type of photographic work do you do, Scott?
I'm a physicist who has become over time a professor of computer science. I shoot for personal pleasure and to help out friends in various projects. Events, sports, travel, my (extended) family, a project on what Jerusalem was and is becoming, this building we've been struggling to finish for too many years (I think I'll put a lulu book together on that one). I find that sometimes when I have something to say I can say it best in pictures.

www.pbase.com/skirkp has most of the themes I have worked on since I went digital around 2001.

scott
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old January 28th, 2011, 04:24 AM
scott kirkpatrick scott kirkpatrick is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Posts: 403
Default camera testing as a science?

Bart and Asher --

Sometimes I am intrigued with how digital cameras are designed and engineered, e.g. how power management is being done -- I've actually had opportunities to teach that, and then really careful lab technique, averaged measurements, etc., are in order.

But for taking pictures I just want to know how to set the camera to get the results I am hoping for. My Leica lenses and shutters can be adjusted in half-stops. The Hasselblad leaf shutter only offers full stops. I have a few lenses on which the aperture setting has one-third stop resolution. But that's it. Comparisons that involve factors of less than 30% difference don't matter. I want to know where a lens's sweet spot is, how much headroom do I have before highlights clip or lose color accuracy, at what f-stop does diffraction reduce both contrast and resolution -- these are more important questions.

Imatest is a great tool. I've used it since its inception, since I knew Norm Koren when he was getting started. It does tell you a lot more then you need to know to take good pictures. Norm's original market was to be DSLR owners like himself who wanted to choose the best lenses. It has turned out that his business is now booming, helping engineers to evaluate tradeoffs in the camera functions of smart phones and highly integrated Point 'n shoots. DXO, which boils down multiple lens properties to single figures to help you decide what to buy, also meets a ready market but doesn't interest me very much.

scott
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old January 28th, 2011, 08:49 AM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
I want to know where a lens's sweet spot is, how much headroom do I have before highlights clip or lose color accuracy, at what f-stop does diffraction reduce both contrast and resolution.
Scott,

Bracket your exposures. That's it.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
News: Phase One Brings on Capture One 6 and Capture One Pro 6 Asher Kelman Breaking News 2 December 2nd, 2010 07:57 AM
Leaf continues with phase one Frank Doorhof Medium Format & Large Format Cameras 10 June 26th, 2009 01:25 PM
Leica and Phase One in bed in getting out the Leica S flagship! Asher Kelman Breaking News 1 September 23rd, 2008 08:58 AM
Phase One Tutorial Asher Kelman Breaking News 7 January 24th, 2008 03:59 PM
Microsoft and Phase One together? Brian Lowe Layback Cafe 3 October 29th, 2007 04:16 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:10 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!