[wim]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1287663205' post='3718']

I dont want to shoot foul, but really, looking at pints from my slides (yes, properly exposed slides, printed by a professional lab for an exhibition) I see fundamentally less dynamic range in them compared to professional prints of my 50d and 5d Mark II files. The Prints from the slides show however a more pleasing rendition of the brightest highlights. Its not that the prints from digital clip earlier (this was counteracted in raw processing) but their highlights seem less natural and less smooth than the analagoue prints (difficult to decribe).

[/quote]

Jenbenn,



IMO it honestly is a matter of adjusting one's processing to the new media. I found it took me about two years to get there, before I started to become really happy, and that was only after I discovered and bought Nik Software (Colour Efex and Silver Efex), because with those I could work as if I were working in the darkroom again, rather than struggle with the PS interface. Not cheap, but IMO worth every penny, cent, escudo or otherwise. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />



Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1287666945' post='3719']

Maybe I used the term 'dynamic range' wrongly - in a more general way meaning the rendition of highlights and shadows - not necessarily in absolute terms. Like I said, I'm no scientist, but as I understand it digital sensors - just like in audio A/D converters - have no 'headroom' (once they clip, it's gone). And to my eyes, there are very fine subtleties in highlights and shadows in film that are not rendered using a DSLR.



Looking at some old B&W prints I'm seeing an incredibly smooth tonal range in the greys which I have never managed to achieve with a digital camera.

[/quote]

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />.



I do think it is possible, as many pictures on the internet and those I've seen in print do show, but just as it is with film, you need to process both the negative (RAW) and the print (jpeg, for viewing or for print) the right way, which is different to the analog days. See my notes above <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[Steinar1]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1287671367' post='3725']

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



I do think it is possible, as many pictures on the internet and those I've seen in print do show, but just as it is with film, you need to process both the negative (RAW) and the print (jpeg, for viewing or for print) the right way, which is different to the analog days. See my notes above <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



I confirm the above comment! I have photgraphed with film for nearly 50 years and used to be a decent photographer. I converted to digital this fall and have good equipment, but it is taking me an enormous amount of time to learn to master the new software and camera <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> So much so that I still have no images that I can really say that I am proud of. But, I am getting there - slowly <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Kindly Vieux Loup

[lightisbeauty]

Over the last few days I've been reading your responses and trying to digest all the information and data. Thank you all for an hugely informative thread! Coincidentally this post by Ben Horton (http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/) went up two days ago and has been getting a lot of attention. The testing was far from scientific and the sample Canon images are presented on a much higher contrast scene than the Zeiss, which also shows green/purple fringing from CAs on certain edges.



Out of curiosity I checked and found that Photozone had in fact reviewed that lens and had shown the Zeiss to be not quite as strong optically as the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L.



Since its my understanding that medium format digital does not have AA filters, and has to have glass that can provide that native sharpness, wouldn't a lens designed for medium format theoretically be able to provide a higher quality image? Could it be that the AA on the FF and APS-C bodies work against the higher grade glass?

-Javier

[wim]

Hi Javier,

[quote name='Light Is Beauty' timestamp='1287975147' post='3766']

Over the last few days I've been reading your responses and trying to digest all the information and data. Thank you all for an hugely informative thread! Coincidentally this post by Ben Horton ([url="http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/"]http://photocinenews...to-zeiss-glass/[/url]) went up two days ago and has been getting a lot of attention. The testing was far from scientific and the sample Canon images are presented on a much higher contrast scene than the Zeiss, which also shows green/purple fringing from CAs on certain edges.



Out of curiosity I checked and found that Photozone had in fact reviewed that lens and had shown the Zeiss to be not quite as strong optically as the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L.



Since its my understanding that medium format digital does not have AA filters, and has to have glass that can provide that native sharpness, wouldn't a lens designed for medium format theoretically be able to provide a higher quality image? Could it be that the AA on the FF and APS-C bodies work against the higher grade glass?

-Javier

[/quote]

First of all, take Ben Horton's "review" with a pinch or salt or two. He doesn't seem to know all that much about optics. For starters, he compares pineapples and cucumbers, as primes should never be compared with zooms - zooms almost always fare a lot worse (exceptions being Canon 70-200 F/4L IS, 70-200 F/2.8L IS Mk II, Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8). IMO, it is actually amazing that the 16-35 does so well against the Zeiss 18 F/3.5, which says more about the Zeiss than about the 16-35L (and it happens to be a well known fact that the ZE 18 isn't really all that great compared to glass in the same category). I have tested a bunch of Zeiss lenses myself, excluding the 50 F/2, 35 F/2 and 25 F/2, and personally I don't like Zeiss glass - do note that this is what it is about in the end: do you like the rendering or not - cooler colours, a lot of light fall-off towards the corners, way, way more than the Canon lenses I use myself. The really good Zeiss glass are the 35 F/2, 50 F/2 and 100 F/2, especially the latter, the rest are bettered easily by good Canon glass if you ask me. But again, that is personal.



Zeiss glass is good, generally speaking, but they need to be compared to similar Canon glass, and those are equally good, some are silghtly better, and vice versa, it is that simple.



BTW, I personally happen to know a NatGeo photographer who uses Canon and Canon glass, those awful L-zooms, to great effect (and I am talking about the shorter lenses here), and I also know that several NatGeo photogrpahers uses Olympus 4/3 cameras and lenses.



Medium format lenses generally have lower resolution than 35 mm format lenses, so they would generally not provide higher image quality on dslrs. However, they are fun to play with, especially when used with TS-adapters (they have a much larger image circle after all). And no, the AA filters do not work agianst the higher grade glass, even though it seems that way. Without them, you actually get spurious resolution, details which don't exist, and moiré, which can't be cleaned up by software, whatever anybody says - after the fact this literally is impossible, because the original data (the actual light rays falling onto the sensor) are no longer available.



What a lot of people still don't understand, is that every digital image needs sharpening, and with AA-filters a little more than without one. However, when applied well you should get the same results as with out an AA-filter, minus spurious elements and moiré.



To (try and) keep a long story short: all world class glass, whether it is Nikon pro lenses, Canon pro lenses, Zeiss lenses, or Sony pro glass, is so good, you won't see a real difference in print, other than rendering characteristics. Anything else is PP skils, and for size, FF (better quality at large sizes). Lenses are better than they ever were before, and you won't be able to tell the IQ and optical differences apart when looking at any picture the size of, let's say, A4 prints, and smaller. The difference is really in the processing. I still have a few 60 cm X 90 cm and 40 cm X 60 cm prints on the wall, taken with the "lowly" 350D and 400D, with lenses like the 70-200 F/4L plus 2X extender, TS-E 24L (Mk I), and 100-400L, supposedly all not so great lenses or combinations. It is really in the end about the photographer, his or her vision, and the way that vision is worked out in the final picture. Anything that gets good or better grades here on Photozone in tests, essentially is a fabulous lens to take pictures with.



Kind regards, Wim

[PuxaVida]

When it comes to DR, I think one thing must be mentioned also: the RAW file type. I don't know how it is handled in Canon but in Nikon's models there's an option called "lossless compressed NEF". Some say that the compression does not have an effect on the IQ (like zipping a file and unzipping it), but some others (among them there are some RAW converter software engineers) say that the highlights are effected by the compression (loss in detail). The latter sounds reasonable to me. Thus, I use the "uncompressed" version. The file sizes are doubled but this is the price I accept to pay until I see no difference in my LCD screen between "uncompressed" and "lossless compressed".



Kind regards,



Serkan

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1288006901' post='3773']

When it comes to DR, I think one thing must be mentioned also: the RAW file type. I don't know how it is handled in Canon but in Nikon's models there's an option called "lossless compressed NEF". Some say that the compression does not have an effect on the IQ (like zipping a file and unzipping it), but some others (among them there are some RAW converter software engineers) say that the highlights are effected by the compression (loss in detail). The latter sounds reasonable to me. Thus, I use the "uncompressed" version. The file sizes are doubled but this is the price I accept to pay until I see no difference in my LCD screen between "uncompressed" and "lossless compressed".



Kind regards,



Serkan

[/quote]

Then it must not be lossless, and if that is true Nikon's naming is pretty wrong. We do know that RAW is not really "RAW" with Nikon, but I did not know that the compressed RAW is not lossless.



Canon does not offer a compressed RAW format. Hence the RAW files are pretty big (also always 14 bit). Canon also does not alter RAW data... RAW really is RAW.

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288013181' post='3774']

Then it must not be lossless, and if that is true Nikon's naming is pretty wrong. We do know that RAW is not really "RAW" with Nikon, but I did not know that the compressed RAW is not lossless.

[/quote]



Nikon claims that the IQ is not effected. But I doubt that (not that I pixel peeped and saw differences on screen, yet). But on the D700, the uncomressed option produces ~22-24MB files, while the "lossless compressed" produces ~10-12MB. And one more remark: the "uncompressed" option is only available in pro / prosumer bodies.

Canon does not offer a compressed RAW format. Hence the RAW files are pretty big (also always 14 bit). Canon also does not alter RAW data... RAW really is RAW.

Are you sure?... Maybe "Canon original RAW" stands for "Canon original RAW compression"...



Kind regards,



Serkan

[Guest]

[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1288079248' post='3783']

Nikon claims that the IQ is not effected. But I doubt that (not that I pixel peeped and saw differences on screen, yet). But on the D700, the uncomressed option produces ~22-24MB files, while the "lossless compressed" produces ~10-12MB. And one more remark: the "uncompressed" option is only available in pro / prosumer bodies.

[/quote]

A ratio of 22/10 is not even a trace of evidence that this may be lossy. The existence only in the higher end body may just mean that the algorithm is expensive in terms of processing and thus in terms of camera cost.

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='ThomasD' timestamp='1288083979' post='3784']

A ratio of 22/10 is not even a trace of evidence that this may be lossy. The existence only in the higher end body may just mean that the algorithm is expensive in terms of processing and thus in terms of camera cost.

[/quote]



Just to avoid misunderstanding: Do you mean that producing a pure raw data requires state of art algorithm for data processing? I'm not a sofware engineer, but developing a data compression algorithm which enables high compression ratio without a loss in IQ sounds more challenging...



Regards,



Serkan