Sinar Hy6 - List of all lenses fitting the camera

[nicolas claris]

A voyage into a metal structure…

The title says it all!
Shoot with Schneider AFD Xenotar 2.8/80 PQS lens, Sinar Hy6, Sinarback eMotion 75.

100 ISO - 1/18s - Tripod - If I remember well ƒ8 - I had liked a little less DOF (for the BG)

I invite you to click there and, while downloading, have a cup/glass of your prefered beverage…
Full image/full res

 

[BradleyGibson]

Looks good, would be interesting to see the same pic with a 39MP back. I like the details in the trees, but I dislike the blotchiness grass, but thats digital. Shouldn't matter when printed.

CU
Markus

I can definitely see JPEG compression artifacts in the grass--perhaps this is what you are seeing?

All, posting 100% detail crops as a .png (8-bits to save bandwidth) would avoid this and would still be viewable in-line in most every browser.

-Brad

 

[Eric Hiss]

Brad,
That's interesting and I actually was hoping someone would challenge my statement re C1 vs LR.
I'd be much happier if I could output the same result from LR so I'll have to try harder. In the file in question and several like it what I found was that I could get better detail on the leaves but loose other small things like the twigs even with the noise reduction turned off in LR. Also I get color fringes around the small details near the bright areas of the sky which can't be removed with the tools in LR. In C1 they are not there to begin with.

In this set of images I have several with electrical towers with wires on the hills in the far distance. In LR no matter what I do, the wires are lost and in fact the wires that tether the towers to the ground are only visible in C1 and not apparent in LR. That's why I have come to the conclusion that C1 is superior for detail.

What I haven't tried is a combination of LR and then a trip to PS for capture level sharpening and that might recover some of the lost micro detail. So I'll have to play with that.

Eric

With respect, I will have to disagree with the two of you on this one. As of version Adobe Camera Raw 4.3 (LR 1.3) I am no longer able to produce distinguishable results from C1 and LR/PS. For the record, I am using Zeiss CFE glass on a 39Mpxl back. I am able to get top-notch results much more quickly from C1 (and that is no small benefit), but if you are familiar with the myriad of controls that ACR offers, either product will render equivalent detail from Phase One backs, at least.

Two culprits of lost micro-detail are often ACR's Luminance and Color Detail sliders. By default, these are usually set too high, and cause smearing of fine detail like new growth in tree bark, fine hairs on leaves, etc. Setting them to lower values avoids loss of micro-detail in the original file.

It's also important no to confuse sharpening (acutance) with actual detail or resolution. ACR's sharpening tools are not intended (rightly or wrongly) to perform what Bruce Fraser has termed "creative sharpening" (what we all think of as traditional sharpening), but rather to perform a weak optimization of the raw, digitized image content. They won't default to giving you a visually pleasing sharpened image ready for screen display which can be annoying. These low-intensity sharpening settings often cause confusion as well.

So workflow-wise, I have no quibbles--with C1, it may be *easier* to get the ideal image, but either product is capable of delivering the best quality your back can deliver.

Best regards,
Brad

 

[nicolas claris]

…With respect, I will have to disagree with the two of you on this one. …

Hi Bradley
I may have said that this was and still is true with Canon 1DS, 1Ds2 and 1Ds3…

C1 cannot read the image made with the Sinar back…

Your point about the sharpening is true, as you may know, I run my own sharpening action in CS…

My point is not on the sharpness but on the real definition of the file at 100% export, with ACR it always seems to have micro artefacts…
I also don't like the way it renders the dark tones.

But you're fully right when you assert that

either product is capable of delivering the best quality your back can deliver

, provided that you know one or the other "by heart".

 

[nicolas claris]

Some more:
Morning light:

100 ISO - 1/18s - Tripod - If I remember well ƒ8

Afternoon light

Full crop

100 ISO - 1/45s - Tripod - If I remember well ƒ8

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

100 ISO - 1/18s - Tripod - If I remember well ƒ8 - I had liked a little less DOF (for the BG)

I invite you to click there and, while downloading, have a cup/glass of your prefered beverage…
Full image/full res

Hm, I'm not sure if the sharpening method used brings out the best in the image. The lower edge of the white beam in the top right shows stair-stepped jaggies, and the OOF background leafs show a disconnect between the leaf edges (too sharp) and their surface structure (OOF as expected). Maybe it's the result of a lacking Anti-Aliasing filter, or the camera's Raw converter, or post-processing sharpening, but the microdetail just doesn't look right to me. Not that it would matter much in print, but I expected someting else.

If you like, I wouldn't mind trying my sharpening tools on a totally non-sharpened PNG (in sRGB space) crop of that beam (top center edge of the image) and of the OOF leafs (lower left corner). Just a Raw conversion without any sharpening would be best, PNG will avoid compression artifacts which might be amplified in post-processing.

Lovely images otherwise, thanks for sharing.

Bart

 

[Eric Hiss]

Nicolas,
I agree with Bart and I'll add it looks very noisy for ISO 100.
Eric

 

[Eric Hiss]

Looks good, would be interesting to see the same pic with a 39MP back. I like the details in the trees, but I dislike the blotchiness grass, but thats digital. Shouldn't matter when printed.

CU
Markus

Markus,
I'm sure this is oversharpened and may have some jpeg artifacting, but I do believe there is some wierd blotch like stuff going on in the grass. Hard to explain what's going on here. I do know some of this is due to a color profile I used. Edmund Roland was kind enough to provide me with a color profile he made for a P45 back that I happen to like for landscape work. It's only drawback is that in some areas of saturated color there are some blotches - definitely this contributes to the grass issue but not sure its all of it. Maybe something else going on here.
Eric

 

[nicolas claris]

…If you like, I wouldn't mind trying my sharpening tools on a totally non-sharpened PNG (in sRGB space) crop of that beam (top center edge of the image) and of the OOF leafs (lower left corner). Just a Raw conversion without any sharpening would be best, PNG will avoid compression artifacts which might be amplified in post-processing.

Hi Bart

you'll get a link tomorow (office hours permitting ;-)

 

[Eric Hiss]

Forgot to mention that

The schneider AF 80mm f/2.8 lens is really pretty flare resistant.

 

[nicolas claris]

Ok Guys (Bart and Eric)

good hits!

So I went back to my computer this morning and Sinar CaptureShop derawtiser…

The results are much better (noise and sharp wise)

So I replace the files of the first image, both low and high res…

Let me know your comments…

Sometimes (sometimes only;-) I should listen more to Asher and do what he had said recently in another thread: "do your adjustment on a layer, forget it for an hour or so and then, when your eyes are less tolerant, lower your layer opacity…" Yes Asher! once more you're right, but this you can't do when you're under pressure…

BTW, the previous version of this image were processed with ACR…

 

[Eric Hiss]

Nicolas,
The areas I thought were noisy/messy were on the image with the wooden beams that you provided a 100% crop of. Can you update that one too?

Eric

 

[nicolas claris]

Hi Eric
Here they are, sorry I don't have much time to spent on it now, but still some improvements may be found… ;-)

100% crop:

 

[Eric Hiss]

Thanks Nicolas for posting that last updated image. You can definitely see the noise reduction at work. When I first looked at the updated one, I thought it had more detail (and was definitely cleaner) but it looks like the first one might have the same amount of information.

Color is different too. I notice this a lot between C1 and Lightroom renderings with my P20. I prefer the color from C1 so far. Looks more real somehow.

 

[nicolas claris]

I Eric

the difference of noise doesn't come from NR (I mean PP NR) but change of software to work with the DNG.
These were made with Aperture instead of ACR, which I definitively don't like or don't know how to use.
They are also some tricks that I keep - for now only- for me.

I do expect a lot for the soon upcoming eXposure from Sinar as their CaptureShop delivers very clean images (and sharp!) but have some feature missing or missing of precision in the WB tool (color wheel)…

Yes the color rendering is very dependant of the converter, but this is not a scoop! even with Canon files. Though less obviously.

I do love too the color rendering of C1 with Canon files (I still prefer C1 3.7.4 than 4, mostly for IQ despite the red line that appears on the longer side of 1Ds3 files)

 

[Eric Hiss]

Okay that's interesting you used aperture. I notice the image also looks brighter but they must have some built in noise reduction since the file is much cleaner. The rendering appears more brilliant but I think its curve just has more contrast.

 

[Markus Glück]

APO Xenar 300 Testshots

Hi,
I put some test shots with my new lens on Flickr.

They where done from my office window with tripod, 6008AF, MLU and Fuji Acros scanned with Epson V700, normal USM in PS:

Schneider APO Tele Xenar 300:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2397707029_d997e01806_o.jpg


Schneider APO Tele Xenar 300 + Longar:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/2398543108_1a432a1db0_o.jpg

a larger size (twice as big) is available on flickr (use link)

Focus was done with the AF on the Restaurant sign. f stop 11 if i remember correctly.

Best regards,
Markus

 

[Geoff Goldberg]

1.4 teleconverter

Does anyone know for which lenses the 1.4 Longar TX works on?

It works on the 180 2.8 just fine, but not the 90 Macro lens.

Others have said it worked on the 55 PCS, and the 80 f2, 2.8 and AF 80 2.8, and the 300 (from the above post).

but not the Zeiss 80 2.8, and generally not wide angle lenses.

Anyone know any more?

Geoff