Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Leonardo Barreto on December 02, 2007, 06:21:44 pm

Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on December 02, 2007, 06:21:44 pm
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=25835108 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=25835108)

Interesting comparison test shoot by Ted_Pedersen at DPReview.com forum

The Mk3 seams to be reaching Digital Back territory in this demonstration...
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: samuel_js on December 02, 2007, 06:37:00 pm
Deleted
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Graham Mitchell on December 02, 2007, 06:45:37 pm
Quote
Man, the p21 is better in every aspect IMO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, the Canon is not bad, better detail than the ZD in this test, but the 18MP P21 clearly wins.
I assume the P21 would have better DR than the Canon too, but we can't tell without the RAW files.

Pity the test didn't include the more mainstream 22MP backs. The ZD is not the best benchmark.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on December 02, 2007, 07:05:37 pm
What about a P45 ? will there ever be a Mk4 at that level? if not, then that is the place for MF, that and better lenses. I'm sure Canon will come up with fine tuned optics to match the resolution.

This probably means that selling $30k backs will be possible but more difficult in the near future. We probably should see an all-out race starting Q1-08 with HY6, the open P1Mamiya system, 645 AFD III (not much change there) and a 2nd Generation ZD back? -- What ever happened to the ZD body? what about a ZD body type camera made by Phase? nah, that is Mamiyas Newton, so they probably don't even want to talk about it even dough the concept was good but had bad backmanship....

Quote
Yes, the Canon is not bad, better detail than the ZD in this test, but the 18MP P21 clearly wins.
I assume the P21 would have better DR than the Canon too, but we can't tell without the RAW files.

Pity the test didn't include the more mainstream 22MP backs. The ZD is not the best benchmark.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: amsp on December 02, 2007, 07:18:15 pm
I think the canon looks great and has its use, but the P21 still beats it, and it's only 18Mp. The P25 would beat it silly though. Even if they were comparable I wouldn't replace a P25 with a canon because of the horrible 35mm format, I much prefer 2/3. But like I said, they are different animals and shouldn't really be compared like this, I have a 1Ds & P25 combo myself and both have their uses.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: bcroslin on December 02, 2007, 07:20:03 pm
Sorry, but this test doesn't mean jack sh*! without raw files.

All a test like this shows is how biased photographers are towards the product they own.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jimgolden on December 02, 2007, 08:11:23 pm
Quote
What about a P45 ? will there ever be a Mk4 at that level?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

a 39MP FF35mm SLR? uh, thats one noisy SOB in my opinion...
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: mcfoto on December 02, 2007, 08:14:03 pm
Hi
Looking at the shutter speeds the PHASE is 1/30, Canon 1/25 & ZD 1/15. For starters they should have all been the same & higher like 1/125 second. Also process the ZD file through camera raw or RD and you will get a better result. I will be getting my 1Ds MKIII in a few days & I will compare my ZD camera to it. In a test keep your variables down & shutter speed should be the same & high enough to discount any camera shake.
Denis
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jimgolden on December 02, 2007, 08:22:14 pm
i agree w/ bcroslin on this one.

could present a significant challenge to unloading the remainder ZD SLR cameras tho...

I think LL MF forum users should get used to these kinds of posts tho, keep in mind the mk3
hasnt really gotten into most mass market hands yet.

and it is 22MP - it MUST be as good as a MFDB if it's the same MPs! - ha!
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jimgolden on December 02, 2007, 08:24:22 pm
"TYhanks, Ted...nice comparison....they all look about the same...so looks like the Canon is the one to get...just for convenience alone."

is this guy stoned?

I cant even get into this, my head ready to explode...haha

DPR kook filter on...
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: eronald on December 02, 2007, 08:37:45 pm
Well, at the moment I am starting to think that my P45+ outresolves the 80mm Mamiya lens. This makes it likely that a Canon with a good lens would come near a DB with an average one.

Edmund

Quote
"TYhanks, Ted...nice comparison....they all look about the same...so looks like the Canon is the one to get...just for convenience alone."

is this guy stoned?

I cant even get into this, my head ready to explode...haha

DPR kook filter on...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Mort54 on December 02, 2007, 09:00:02 pm
Quote
Well, at the moment I am starting to think that my P45+ outresolves the 80mm Mamiya lens. This makes it likely that a Canon with a good lens would come near a DB with an average one.
Hi Edmund. I think so too. And not just the 80, but also the 35 and 150, and for sure the 55-110. I don't own any of the other lenses so I can't speak for them. I also think the AFD shutter is letting the P45+ down - too much vibration, but probably to be expected from a big focal plane shutter. I've been ogling the Rodenstock HRs with their leaf shutters. I wish Phase/Mamiya would release the next round of info on their "new" leaf lenses.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jimgolden on December 02, 2007, 11:07:47 pm
to Edmund - I guess I should clarify that comment, I think all the files look very different - I D/L'd them and looked them over, even @ 50% they look different - 100% it's very obvious...

now why I did this, I dont know, it was what I was expecting...
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: 203 on December 03, 2007, 12:02:37 am
If you look at these files, full-size and smaller, you can see that the Phase (cropped sensor) is effectively closer to the subject. Therefore the test seems a bit loaded. Seems the tester should have either backed the Phase off a bit, or shot with a wider lens. So, of course the phase looks better when everything appears larger than in the other images...
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: mcfoto on December 03, 2007, 01:22:51 am
Hi
To ad further the scene is dull, low contrast so you cannot tell what the DR is like.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: EricWHiss on December 03, 2007, 01:43:06 am
I find a noticeable difference in color, color tonality and DR between the canon and the phase.  Just look at the tail lights of the cars, the yellows on the poles, and the reflections in the windows, the shadows under the cars and trucks.  The phase looks more 3D to me as well.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 03, 2007, 01:49:27 am
Quote
Yes, the Canon is not bad, better detail than the ZD in this test, but the 18MP P21 clearly wins.
I assume the P21 would have better DR than the Canon too, but we can't tell without the RAW files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


No, the P21 does not clearly win. Do you guys have blinkers, or what?  

This test is flawed as usual. When comparing equipment which you know beforehand is going to have a very similar performance, it's essential to get the methodology correct, which means being very careful about small factors which can tip the balance one way or another.

With these tests, no care has been taken to get the FoVs the same in all 3 shots.

I've done my best to crop the 1Ds3 and ZD images to the same FoV as the P21. I've then divided the file size by 3 to get the relative pixel counts for the 3 cameras.

They are, 17.23mp for the P21, 17.46mp for the ZD and only 14.47mp for the 1Ds3.

We're not here comparing an 18mp P21 with a 21mp 1Ds3, but an 18mp P21 with a 14mp 1Ds3. Taking that into consideration it's quite likely the 1Ds3 has the edge.

There are also other issues of methodology which should be mentioned because they have some impact on results at this degree of pixel-peeping.

(1) If RAW images cannot be provided then at least let's have maximum quality jpegs. Here we have 60mb files compressed to around 3mb.

(2) When comparing formats with different aspect ratios, it's useful to make two comparisons, one with equal FoV in respect of height and one with equal FoV in respect of width. That at least provides one with some useful information. For example, if the subject matter lends itself to a 2:3 aspect ratio, I might want to know if I should pull out of my bag the 1Ds3 or just continue using the P21.

If, in these tests, the FoV of the image heights had been matched, giving an advantage to the P21 and a disadvantage to the 1Ds3, we'd be comparing a 17.8mp 1Ds3 image with a 17.23mp P21 image; close enough to avoid quibbling.

(3) Choosing f11 for both lenses in this test sort of equalises lens quality. Photodo never tested lenses at f11 because they considered all lenses to be equally bad at that aperture. The fact that such a relatively small sensor that the cropped 1Ds3 image represents, can so closely match the quality of the P21 sensor which is about 3x the area (of the cropped 1Ds3 image), using a lens of very similar quality, seems quite remarkable to me.

Essentially, the smaller sensor with equal pixel count can only deliver resolution and detail equal to the larger sensor if it employs sharper lenses. We don't have MTF charts at f11 for the lenses used in this test, but it is possible the Canon 50/1.4 is marginally sharper at f11 than the Mamiya 80/2.8.

(4) A major problem in equalising lens quality in this way results from inequality of DoF. At f11, the 1Ds3 image must have greater DoF, yet in these tests, the most significant difference in resolution and detail between the 1Ds3 and the MF images is in the foreground where the 1Ds3 is clearly fuzzier than both the ZD and P21.

How can this be? Clearly focussing is not the same for all three cameras. The 1Ds3 shot must have been focussed at a more distant point. Yet another flaw in these tests.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: EricWHiss on December 03, 2007, 01:55:30 am
Quote
No, the P21 does not clearly win. Do you guys have blinkers, or what?   

This test is flawed as usual.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray you are right about the test not being rigid, but on the other hand its what we have so far.  I think a lot of your arguments about pixels and angle of view are valid in terms of assessing image sharpness and detail, but this is not going to change my view on color, tonality and DR.  

I definitely do not have my 'blinders' on because I'd honestly love it if a fast AF camera with high ISO performance could rival my MF camera. I'd sell it and buy the canon for sure. It will be a lot easier to use.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jimgolden on December 03, 2007, 02:08:29 am
Quote
The phase looks more 3D to me as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
oh no, here we go again...
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 03, 2007, 02:14:27 am
Quote
Ray you are right about the test not being rigid, but on the other hand its what we have so far.  I think a lot of your arguments about pixels and angle of view are valid in terms of assessing image sharpness and detail, but this is not going to change my view on color, tonality and DR. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
I agree it's what we have so far and based on these 3 highly compressed jpegs, I'd say it's a tie with the ZD having a slightly softer appearance perhaps due to differences in the RAW converter used.

As regards color and tonality, we've got a very sophisticated program called Photoshop for handling that.  

If the point you are making is that MFDBs produce a more satisfying result regarding color and tonality, out of the box so to speak, then that's a valid point. Why spend hours calibrating your camera and making fine adjustments in Photoshop if you can get the result you want more directly. But I don't think one can make such assessments based on these jpegs.

I take it as a given that the larger sensor will always deliver better DR at base ISO and that this greater DR will translate to better tonality in the lower mid-tones and shadows. However, in practice I think we can discount this because you MF guys rarely expose fully to the right, is that not so?  
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: samuel_js on December 03, 2007, 05:33:26 am
Deleted
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 03, 2007, 08:27:51 am
Quote
Could you guys forget the numbers for a moment and look at the pictures? Of course the speeds and apertures are not optimal, but all three losses from that, not only the canon. My H2 at 5,6 is much sharper than at 2,8... But this is what we have....

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Forget the numbers?? Forget the fact we're comparing a 17.23mp sensor of almost 2 1/2 times the size with a 14.47mp sensor, after cropping to the same FoV? Forget the fact that the 1Ds3 appears to be focussed at infinity whereas the P21 appears to be focussed at some hyperfocal distance producing a sharper foreground?

If you want to search for an area in the image where the P21 produces a very marginally sharper result on huge size prints, you can do better than the crops you've shown.

How about the following 2 crops where even the softer ZD looks sharper than the 1Ds3?

[attachment=4112:attachment]  [attachment=4113:attachment]

In the first example above I tried applying a bit of sharpening. 150% at 1.5 pixels for the ZD, 100% for the P21 and 75% for the 1Ds3.

The second example is unsharpened as are the crops below which show identical detail in the P21 and 1Ds3 image and a noticeably softer result in the ZD.

[attachment=4114:attachment]

The 1Ds3 is not inferior in any way to the P21 in these tests considering how it's been handicapped by a flawed procedure.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: samuel_js on December 03, 2007, 08:38:29 am
Deleted
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 03, 2007, 09:01:22 am
Quote
Do you own a DB? I suppose this thread is gonna end like the famous DB vs 35 mm, "the 1ds is as good as the the digital backs", but in fact, most of those defendors has never tried one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Samuel,
I can't following your reasoning here. I haven't tried 99% of the various camera models, brands and formats on the market, as probably most readers on this forum haven't.

Does that mean I'm not capable of comparing the quality of 2 images side by side?

The only thing I'm defending here is my sense of objectivity and impartiality.

It is a fact that there are areas of these images where the P21 is marginally sharper and more detailed than the 1Ds3 image and that applies also to the ZD image although not to the same extent. If this wasn't the case, it would be a bit strange considering the P21 has a greater pixel count in relation to the same FoV, has a lens of probable equal quality and therefore should produce images of greater accutance since the larger sensor is accessing a lower resolution at a higher MTF, and significantly does not have an AA filter.

Merely the lack of an AA filter in the P21 could account for some of that marginally greater accutance on signs in the foreground.

It's not certain if different focussing is contributing to the resolution differences. I mention it as a possibility. However, it is a fact that a 1Ds3 at f11 will have greater DoF and even more so considering the the FoV of the 1Ds3 shot is slightly wider in these comparisons in both dimensions but particularly in length.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 03, 2007, 10:01:02 am
Just as a matter of interest, because the numbers must reflect on these comparisons, if the FoV in the short dimension had been matched between the P21 and the 1Ds3, we'd be comparing a 17.23mp P21 image with a 17.8mp 1Ds3 image. Such a comparison would favour the P21 because the 1Ds3 is a 21mp camera, but would still be fairer than the current comparison which matches a 17.23mp P21 image with a 14.47mp 1Ds3 image.

If we match the FoV along the longer dimension of each camera, we would in effect be comparing a 15.36mp P21 image with a 21mp 1Ds3 image, which of course gives the advantage to the 1Ds3.

We need to know how these cameras compare in these ways before any definite statement can be made about image quality.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: routlaw on December 03, 2007, 11:12:08 am
Thought you folks might be interested in looking at the blue channel in these two camera files given that these two seemed to be creating quite the heated debate.

Rob
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: routlaw on December 03, 2007, 11:15:54 am
Thought you folks might be interested in looking at the blue channel in these two camera files given that these two seemed to be creating quite the heated debate.

Rob[attachment=4115:attachment]
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 03, 2007, 11:32:36 am
Quote
WHO CARES!

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess all those who want the best tool for the job care as well as all those who are careful with their spending. The fact that differences may be hair splitting is useful to know, but you can't know that without first splitting the hairs.

The differences between the 1Ds MkII and the 5D were hairsplitting and people needed to know that in order to make an informed purchasing decision. Some folks were prepared to spend the extra money for the other advantages of the 1Ds2 such as greater ruggedness, better focussing, waterproofing etc. Others seemed to prefer the 5D, despite the fact it was a much cheaper camera, because it produced more pleasing skin tones.

My own view is, when comparing moderately different formats with the same pixel count, the quality of the lens is going to make the greatest difference.

The comparisons at the head of this thread are hoplessly biased and people need to be aware of this. One advantage of the smaller format is its capacity to deliver equivalent DoF at a wider aperture. In addition to the mismatch of FoVs in this comparison, the 1Ds3 should have been using f8 instead of f11 in order to match DoFs.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: samuel_js on December 03, 2007, 12:17:21 pm
Deleted
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: 203 on December 03, 2007, 12:22:02 pm
Quote
WHO CARES!

 That's fantastic. What's not great is the endless and pointless splitting hairs on resolution. Which is just only a part of the whole equation to any digital capture device.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Indeed. Good luck telling the difference between these cameras in print, fellows.

This is clearly a self-selected group of gear heads here...

By the way John, have you tried the Chromatic Aberration and other new tools in the latest versions of DPP? If so, do they not help with your 85 1.2 issue?

-best
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: routlaw on December 03, 2007, 12:31:36 pm
But look at the area with grass, where the P21 is blocked up with noise vs the Canon. BTW I don't own either camera or for that matter cameras from either company. I do agree with others on the thread the comparison and test left a lot to be desired. I doubt any of these differences would show up when you put ink to paper, be it offset press or high end inkjet.

Rob

Quote
Again, the blue channel only reveals more detail in the P21.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: EricWHiss on December 03, 2007, 12:54:58 pm
Because of the differences in lenses, and the differences in distance at which they were focused.  Same goes for the raw conversions and jpeg compressions.  

With all that in mind, I'll still venture to say that there are real differences in color and DR that can be observed and which some have already pointed out.  Whether this is significant depends only on you or your clients.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: alba63 on December 03, 2007, 01:00:59 pm
Things get much easier if people would just agree that in real life shooting the 1ds3 will come quite close to the MF backs - at least the backs up to 22MP. Everyone knows that the Canon has a smaller Sensor, an AA filter and will therefore have less sharpness, slightly less resolution, and less dynamic range.

However wondering how much of this difference translates in visible print quality, the real question will be how many shooters will prefer the Canon for much more speed + versatility, much lower ISO noise, faster AF, 10 times more lenses and a lower price etc.

Therefore "quite close" is probably all that Canon wanted it to be compared to the MF world.

it also seems a bit strange to compare the output of 3 cameras that cost 7k the cheapest, with the help of 2MB JPEGs?
The only one of the 3 I have shot was the ZD (SLR version) and looking at my few handheld quick shots they are yet far above anything I have shot with my 5d, in terms of sharpness and detail. Those were made with a cheap manual 55mm Mamiya lens.

Bernie
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Snook on December 03, 2007, 01:29:21 pm
Quote
Things get much easier if people would just agree that in real life shooting the 1ds3 will come quite close to the MF backs - at least the backs up to 22MP. Everyone knows that the Canon has a smaller Sensor, an AA filter and will therefore have less sharpness, slightly less resolution, and less dynamic range.

However wondering how much of this difference translates in visible print quality, the real question will be how many shooters will prefer the Canon for much more speed + versatility, much lower ISO noise, faster AF, 10 times more lenses and a lower price etc.

Therefore "quite close" is probably all that Canon wanted it to be compared to the MF world.

it also seems a bit strange to compare the output of 3 cameras that cost 7k the cheapest, with the help of 2MB JPEGs?
The only one of the 3 I have shot was the ZD (SLR version) and looking at my few handheld quick shots they are yet far above anything I have shot with my 5d, in terms of sharpness and detail. Those were made with a cheap manual 55mm Mamiya lens.

Bernie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Doesn't Sensor size and camera format have influence in anything? I thought the Bigger sensor size and Lens are going to be better on MFDB for sure? Or am I missing something?
Snook
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: John Camp on December 03, 2007, 01:36:12 pm
The attacks on the test conditions are silly -- there are no perfect tests, but that doesn't mean you can't reach a few conclusions. One conclusion I've reached is that none of the 35s, because of the trade offs between pixel count/pixel size/resolution/DR on one hand, and noise on the other, will ever be as absolutely good as the top MF backs with good lenses.

But so what? That's meaningless except for the tiny fraction of people who BOTH afford MF backs AND make their living from fine art prints. The evidence seems to be piling up that the end product for *most* commercial photography -- small- to medium-sized prints, magazine shots or web photos -- there is no discernible difference in the final product between shots with a camera like a 1DsIII and a P45.

There will, of course, be a visible difference in large, one-off, digital prints. But I would suggest that even that difference won't be particularly visible if you're doing photos for a store promotion (like Victoria's Secret, which uses poster-sized model shots in the windows) and the posters are printed on commercial printing presses of less than the highest fidelity.

There is, in fact, a practical aspect to all of this, and for those practical purposes, MF may have more and more difficulty proving that it is a desirable option vis-a-vis 35.

Of course, there are other aspects, like art directors who demand that the shots be done on MF, because they believe that they need the highest possible quality, even when the final product will be printed on toilet paper...

JC
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: rainer_v on December 03, 2007, 01:52:43 pm
Quote
The attacks on the test conditions are silly -- there are no perfect tests, but that doesn't mean you can't reach a few conclusions. One conclusion I've reached is that none of the 35s, because of the trade offs between pixel count/pixel size/resolution/DR on one hand, and noise on the other, will ever be as absolutely good as the top MF backs with good lenses.

But so what? That's meaningless except for the tiny fraction of people who BOTH afford MF backs AND make their living from fine art prints. The evidence seems to be piling up that the end product for *most* commercial photography -- small- to medium-sized prints, magazine shots or web photos -- there is no discernible difference in the final product between shots with a camera like a 1DsIII and a P45.

There will, of course, be a visible difference in large, one-off, digital prints. But I would suggest that even that difference won't be particularly visible if you're doing photos for a store promotion (like Victoria's Secret, which uses poster-sized model shots in the windows) and the posters are printed on commercial printing presses of less than the highest fidelity.

There is, in fact, a practical aspect to all of this, and for those practical purposes, MF may have more and more difficulty proving that it is a desirable option vis-a-vis 35.

Of course, there are other aspects, like art directors who demand that the shots be done on MF, because they believe that they need the highest possible quality, even when the final product will be printed on toilet paper...

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

well said.
.... but maybe its 44" long fineart toilet paper from hahnemuehle for real rich clients ....
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 03, 2007, 01:59:40 pm
Quote
The attacks on the test conditions are silly -- there are no perfect tests....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whaddaya mean? All my tests are perfect.  

The fact is, there are certain factors one has no control over, such as manufacturing QC variations between cameras and backs of the same model, differences in lens quality when comparing different brands and formats of cameras with different lenses of different focal lengths, differences due to the presence or lack of an AA filter and so on.

Such factors are difficult to take into consideration, although I believe the ZD does have an optional AA filter which I suspect was not used in this test.

However, there are factors which are not difficult to take into consideration. If you can do it, then why not do it?

Matching FoV is a very basic thing to do. Throwing away almost 1/3rd of a camera's pixels in the process of making a comparison is not merely 'not perfect' but a major blunder.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: samuel_js on December 03, 2007, 02:06:59 pm
Deleted
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: rainer_v on December 03, 2007, 03:24:15 pm
i think the resolution increase in comparation to the 1dsmk2 is bigger than the pure pixel count had let me to think. this can only mean that the aa filter is better and much weaker designed. this was the point i was most sceptical with the mk3 design,- but it seems so that canon was aware that they calculated the aa filter  too strong in their 1ds mk2 model,- ( therefor the 5d could render the same detail with less megapixels ).

the DR seems also to be excellent from the new mk3 .
the most impressive detail in the comparation above is the look in the blue channel .......

it seems so that there is zero or very little difference between the usable dr comparing the canon with the actual mf backs at lowest isos,- maybe the canon even wins here, this will depend also if streaks or bandings may appear, which usally will take some days or weeks till we "beta buyers" will find them, if not the canon will not only match most mf backs it will be even be better than the "lemons" which are sold from the wide production tolerances.

color profiling is a thing which should be done individualy in any case, with mf backs and with 35mm cameras,- its hard to say how successfulll this can be made, but lightromm is a great konverter to realise every desired "look".
in my opinion there is much less room for the mf manufactors now,-
which is a pity for me, because for architecture or studio photography the mf advantage is less caused by the sensor as by the available lenses,- which are not to be expect to become available in 35mm systems for the system immanent retrofocal constructions. also the step from 22 to 33/39mp is not so little, at least if the sharpest lenses are used as the rodenstock HR designs.

but there will be hard times for the HY6/ AFI, for phase/mamiya and for hasselblad,- the magic thinking in the mf 3d voodoo will not last forever, because more and more "thinking" photographers will demonstrate how good work you can make with systems as the new canons     ( and probably soon the nikons ) can deliver.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: RobertJ on December 03, 2007, 05:08:36 pm
The focus points are all different.  All of these tests are invalid.  Bleh.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: John Camp on December 03, 2007, 06:36:37 pm
Quote
Whaddaya mean? All my tests are perfect.   
<snip>

However, there are factors which are not difficult to take into consideration. If you can do it, then why not do it?

Matching FoV is a very basic thing to do. Throwing away almost 1/3rd of a camera's pixels in the process of making a comparison is not merely 'not perfect' but a major blunder.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But Ray, how do you do a test that compares, say, a D2x with a 1.5 crop factor to a 1DS2? You match the fields of view, and:

- Somebody points out that you had to use a much longer, slower lens on the Canon, standing back further, which pushes one or the other of the lenses out of the prime exposure range and changes the feeling of depth;

-You crop the Canon to get the same FOV, which means the Nikon puts more pixels on the FOV, even though the Canon has more pixels in the sensor;

-You decide to take a shot of the same scene (not FOV) with the same lens using an adapter, to eliminate lens differentials, which means that the Nikon shoots a smaller piece of the scene with more noise, but, using only the sweet spot of whichever lens is chosen, while the the Canon shoots a wider chunk, more pixels overall, better noise, but with soft corners...

You get the idea. There has been no way to equalize the difference between cameras with different sensor sizes; there is always some aspect of the comparison that's "not fair." This may change as Nikon moves to FF -- but will remain in comparisons between MF and 35-based cameras.

So I remain with the conclusion that ONLY really good comparison is to figure out exactly what you're going to shoot in a high-quality, commercial photo, with known and controlled lighting, and then take a shot of that scene, with the best available lens, and the same with the other camera, and then to produce the images in the best possible commercial repro scheme (not one-off hand-printed photos.)

If you can't tell the difference at that point, then I would argue there is no difference. I also suspect that for most -- 98%? -- commercial purposes, a Canon 1DsIII put up against the P45, with appropriate post-processing, would pass the test. You couldn't tell the difference.

But without going to that extreme, I think there are all kinds of ad-hoc uncontrolled tests that will leave you a sense of the practicalities of a given system without perfect controls -- you simply note them when you make the test, and note that the tests should be taken with a grain of salt; and note that different photographers may have different needs.

There's a "we must have scientific controls" thought-stream on the net that suggests that anything that isn't perfect is totally unusable, total crap. Those people must be quite uncomfortable when they go to a hospital and find out that the doc wants to operate because, given the fifteen tests he's made, he's about 75% sure of what's going on...

JC
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: EricWHiss on December 03, 2007, 07:22:42 pm
Quote
..... because more and more "thinking" photographers will demonstrate how good work you can make with systems as the new canons     ( and probably soon the nikons ) can deliver.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hope so! Because I'm really tired of seeing the "well my normal model wasn't available so I ..." image of a poor fat house cat.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: alba63 on December 03, 2007, 08:51:14 pm
Quote
I hope so! Because I'm really tired of seeing the "well my normal model wasn't available so I ..." image of a poor fat house cat.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=158034\")

For the time being, just have a look at this guy's personal review of the new Canon, I think it is quite well made:
[a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=25879224]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=25879224[/url] (link provided in there)

regards, Bernie
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jing q on December 03, 2007, 11:17:35 pm
love the canon but once you've touched the magic of a 33/39 megapixel back with its beautiful tonalities it's really hard to go back...
I'm wishing I had my back with me on a shoot I did yesterday...
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Natasa Stojsic on December 04, 2007, 12:02:20 am
Every time I think about the 35mm vs MF, the first thing is affordability and the second of course quality. I have sold my 1Ds MkII with no regrets and from what I can see by testing new 1Ds MkIII
is I like it because it's getting closer to MF with million pixels and again it is affordable. However, I don't feel any regrets selling the Canon system so far because the pixel count may be there but the detail is still in the MF DB/box as far as I am concern.

Another good point about 35mm is that 35mm 21mp Nikon/Canon is in General Complete Camera because it can get close to every MF application and I can't say that if it was the other way around.

Regardless how ever we feel, I believe the current situation is the year of the latest 35mm format has to offer, but as soon as we have the year of next generation/the latest MF DBs has to offer, the 35mm vs. MF discussion will be over for another 4 or so years.

[span style=\'font-size:11pt;line-height:100%\']So enjoy it while it lasts[/span]
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: rainer_v on December 04, 2007, 02:06:40 am
Quote
love the canon but once you've touched the magic of a 33/39 megapixel back with its beautiful tonalities it's really hard to go back...
I'm wishing I had my back with me on a shoot I did yesterday...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes this is possible. although i am not sure if i really need more megapixel than the actual 33 ....
but probably if it would be here i would take them. at least in my field this has ( sometimes ) some sense-
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 04, 2007, 02:35:14 am
Quote
how do you do a test that compares[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To me real world testing is what matters.

Although this is the least scientific.

One needs to take YOUR/ONES conditions and just do a test.

My test situation is hand holding in miserable conditions (the only place my blad doesnt perform)

So that my blad only does 100ISO or is rough at 200 you are manking a trade off with shutter speed Vs DSLR that operate at 400ISO and have an extra stop of lense speed then camera shake will be part of the blad test result

Say the AF is fast slow and you do fashion the hit rate is part of the test result too

Take two cameras into a situation, use them and compare the results - that is a test

It is obvious to me that MF win on tripods and with strobe and DSLRs are ahead hand held in the murk

The question is 'where is the cross over'

Of course there are other specifics that individuals will care about..

-finance
-look/perspective
- easy cleaning chip !
-weight
-synch speed
-minimum ISO
-mas useable ISO
-burst rate/buffer

Etc

I think personal shootout in ones own conditions is the only method

S
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Hägar the horrible on December 04, 2007, 08:12:43 am
So what could you to with one back/camera what you couldn't do with the other?
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 04, 2007, 09:35:19 am
Shooting a concert with available darkness (ISO 1600, 1/50, f/2.8) Canon will get far more usable shots with IS lenses, fast autofocus, and far better high-ISO performance. In a studio with a static subject and strobes, a multi-shot MF back will do better. In other situations, it's a toss-up where familiarity with one system vs. the other and personal preference is more important than the camera system used, and a properly-skilled photographer could use either system and deliver results that more-than-meet the client's needs.

What do you shoot, and under what conditions?
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Marsupilami on December 04, 2007, 09:39:48 am
Quote
i think the resolution increase in comparation to the 1dsmk2 is bigger than the pure pixel count had let me to think. this can only mean that the aa filter is better and much weaker designed. this was the point i was most sceptical with the mk3 design,- but it seems so that canon was aware that they calculated the aa filter  too strong in their 1ds mk2 model,- ( therefor the 5d could render the same detail with less megapixels ).

the DR seems also to be excellent from the new mk3 .
the most impressive detail in the comparation above is the look in the blue channel .......


[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=157985\")

Seems like some other tester came to the conclusion that the AA filter is actually very strong on the 1ds MIII:
[a href=\"http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124]http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124[/url]

As I planned, I have to test this camera for myself and draw my own conclusions.

Christian
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: eronald on December 04, 2007, 10:31:55 am
Quote
Seems like some other tester came to the conclusion that the AA filter is actually very strong on the 1ds MIII:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124)

As I planned, I have to test this camera for myself and draw my own conclusions.

Christian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Huba ! Huba !

 

Edmund
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 04, 2007, 11:51:57 am
Quote
But Ray, how do you do a test that compares, say, a D2x with a 1.5 crop factor to a 1DS2?..........

You get the idea. There has been no way to equalize the difference between cameras with different sensor sizes; there is always some aspect of the comparison that's "not fair."

John,
The purpose of such comparisons is not to equalize the differences but to bring out the differences so people can see what the different formats have to offer and learn what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Any attempt to equalize differences results in the application of handicaps and unfair treatment to either one format or the other, which is exactly what Ted Pedersens's tests have produced. That doesn't mean his tests are worthless, however. I don't want him to feel too badly about this. In fact, I'd like to nominate him for an award on how not to test cameras of different format and aspect ratio.

How do you do it? Well, first let's deal with the difference in aspect ratios. It is a fact that some photographers prefer a 4:3 aspect ratio to the 35mm's 3:2, and some photogtraphers find the wider aspect ratio of 35mm lends itself more to landscapes and panoramic type shots.

With this in mind, any thoughtful, thorough and meaningful comparison must test for both of these strengths in the respective formats, which means two sets of tests, one in which the 35mm format is cropped to a 4:3 aspect ratio, reducing the camera from 21mp to 17.8mp, and the other in which the 4/3rds format is cropped to a 3:2 aspect ration, which reduces the P21 from 17.23mp to 15.36mp.

Now you might think it is very unfair to compare a 15.36mp P21 with a 21mp 1Ds3, but that's reality. If you are using a P21 and the subject calls for a 3:2 cropping, then that's all you're going to get, 15.35mp. Like-wise, if you're using a 1Ds3 and the subject calls for a 4:3 cropping, then 17.8mp is all you're going to get. It works both ways. There are differences and that is presumably why we are making the test, to see the effect of such differences. Attempting to equalise such differences renders the test useless.

Okay! Let's turn to the lens quality issue. It is a fact that any image from a camera is affected by both sensor and lens qualities. If you want to isolate the differences in the sensors as much as possible in order to compare sensors and not lenses, then the lenses should be as equal as possible in performance and Ted pedersen has probably done a good job here in equalizing lens performance by using the stop of f11.

But what's his purpose in doing this? Is he really bent on a scientific quest to confirm that a large sensor will deliver greater accutance than a smaller sensor of equal pixel count when both sensors are used with a lens of equal quality? (I'm referring here to resolution at a specific MTF. Larger sensors have less pixel density and therefore lower resolving capability in terms of lp/mm. If they have equal pixel count, then total picture resolution is potentially the same, depending on lens choice. However, with lenses of equal performance, the larger sensor is less demanding, ie. it accesses lower frequencies from the lens and such frequencies have a higher contrast.)

Once again, we want to know what are a camera's strengths and weaknesses. Using the smaller-sensor camera at the same aperture as the larger-sensor camera is another attempt to obscure the relative strengths and weaknesses of these two formats. What's the point in that? It seems quite senseless to me, except as a scientific experiment, which in this case couldn't possibly work because the rest of the comparison was botched.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: rainer_v on December 04, 2007, 12:25:28 pm
which does not sound and look too promising is this little review with images ....:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124)


once the 5d came out i sold my 1dsmk2 because i hated its weigth and i could not see any detail increasement from the 13mp to the 16,7mp. further i liked much more the sharp aa filter of the 5d and did not liked at all the soft images which showed the 1dsmk2, without usm sharpening.
if this is the same with the 1dsmk3 now its dead for me, although looking so good in the first view.
than i prefer to wait for the 5d update, hoping that in this product line canon will go on with a weaker aa filter, which would mean that again a potential 17mp 7D camera would have the same detail than the stronger filtered 1dsmk3.
 the detail increasement in the comparation above is really not very much ....
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Marsupilami on December 04, 2007, 03:16:52 pm
Quote
Huba ! Huba !

 

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hi Edmund !

Yes you are right, I am a big fan of Andre Franquin, but I do also like Marsupilamis in the wild (Australia is a great country for great pictures and I like to go there again because "Sorry, no Kangaroos in Austria")

Christian
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 05, 2007, 01:44:50 am
Quote
With all that in mind, I'll still venture to say that there are real differences in color and DR that can be observed and which some have already pointed out.  Whether this is significant depends only on you or your clients.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
That may be true, but let's concentrate for a moment on the 'whether this is significant depends only on you' part of the above quote.

I believe it was you who started a long thread recently questioning the practice and need for ETTR with MFDBs. Some time later in another thread we had a few examples of seriously underexposed P45+ shots at ISO 800 from an apparently highly skilled and knowledgeable photographer by the name of Edmund who was surprised and disturbed to discover striations, banding and noise in the shadows of such underexposed images.

Now, it's pretty obvious to me that the larger pixels of DBs, in conjunction with their 16 bit A/D conversion and processing, are going to translate to greater dynamic range. This is especially true considering the differences between the CCD and the CMOS sensor. Even when the pixel pitch is similar, as it is comparing the P45 with the 1Ds3, the CMOS sensor has to make room for additional transistors at each photosite, as a consequence of which the actual light-gathering photoreceptor is smaller than it is on the P45.

So we could expect, even on a pixel-for-pixel basis, that the P45 would have greater DR than the 1Ds3, at base ISO. When you factor in, almost double the number of pixels that the P45 has (compared with the 1Ds3) the DR advantage of the P45 is enhanced even further, comparing equal size prints from each camera.

So there's no doubt, nor should there be any surprise, that the larger sensor will always have (potentially) a DR advantage.

However, when users of DBs start waxing lyrical about the smooth tonalities and extra DR from their MFDBs, I get just a little suspicious that maybe such people are using the same exposure techniques with their 35mm DSLRs as they use with their DBs.

It seems that owning a DB is a bit analagous to having more money or more food than you need. You can be relaxed about wasting it. If, however, you find yourself in a situation where you are a bit short of money or food and you continue with your former wasteful practices, then you are likely to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that you cannot get by with the smaller resources.

I would really like to see a comparison of identical scenes shot with a P21 and 1Ds3 demonstrating this extra rich tonality that you guys are convinced exists. Perhaps someone could provide 3 sets of tests as follows.

(1) The P21 with usual-practice exposure of wasting 2 stops of DR, compared with the 1Ds3 using the same technique of underexposure.

(2) The P21 with usual-practice exposure but compared with the 1Ds3 using best practice exposure for that format, ie. full exposure to the right.

(3) Both cameras using ETTR technique.

From such comparisons we might learn:

(1) if this rich tonality from DBs is actually achievable with 35mm simply by exposing to the right when using the smaller format.

(2) if the even greater tonality possible from DBs by exposing them to the right is actually apparent or needed, or is it merely overkill.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: samuel_js on December 05, 2007, 07:14:50 am
Deleted
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 05, 2007, 11:53:24 am
Quote
Ray, I feel like discussing how to drive with someone without driving lessons. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I understand your frustration, Samuel, but I'm the last one to argue that bigger sensors with more pixels cannot produce better quality images.

But understand my frustration. There are no proper comparisons. It's very easy for someone to post an image and claim, 'Isn't that nice! Look at the rich tones and sharp detail'. (Your image BTW doesn't show on my computer.)

People are doing this sort of thing all the time. Someone asks the question, is lens X really sharp. I've heard some bad reports about inconsistency. So someone else posts an image taken with their copy of the lens. 'Yes, my lens is very sharp. Look at this downsampled and highly compressed jpeg. Isn't that wonderfully sharp!'

You seem to have got the impression that I'm making some sort of general claim that FF 35mm DSLRs are for all practical purposes the equal of MFDBs. Not at all. I wouldn't be so silly.

But I'd like to know how the 1Ds3 compares with a camera like the P21.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: EricWHiss on December 05, 2007, 12:30:33 pm
Quote
Eric,
That may be true, but let's concentrate for a moment on the 'whether this is significant depends only on you' part of the above quote.
.
.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hey Ray,
Yes it was me that started the Why ETTR thread and the conclusion of the thread was two fold. First camera RAW converters film curves work best with normal exposure - so if you practice ETTR then you need to use linear conversion and build your own film curve.  Second in many typical scenes the extra DR of the MFDB and the 16 bits gives us more latitude in terms of exposure that was not there with the DSLR.


Now as far as the rest of your request to see examples of underexposed files, I simply think that's not going to show anything.  Unless by underexposed 2 stops you really meant normal exposure and not ETTR.   But again this is all going to be subject to which RAW converter and curves used.

Well anyhow back to the point.... Ray I can see the color difference and in a compressed jpg so I'm betting I'll see a bigger difference working with RAW files.  My experience tells me this will also translate to the print (for the work I do which is mostly hopefully mostly art).   But once again if you can't see the difference and your clients can't see the diff then why bother?  

I don't question  (as Rainer has written) that in novice hands a MFDB may produce stinky results, beaten by even a digicam in a pro's hands.  So there's a range here - with the higher end equipment requiring not just money but also skill of the user.   One last thought on this.  Learning to see the differences in files is one of the most important ingredients in becoming a better photographer/artist for me. How else can one improve if you can't see the differences?

Eric
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 05, 2007, 01:24:46 pm
Quote
Learning to see the differences in files is one of the most important ingredients in becoming a better photographer/artist for me. How else can one improve if you can't see the differences?

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's very true, Eric. But just as important as being able to see the differences is being able to understand what's causing the differences.

I find it a little disconcerting that as soon as a link to the images of this current test were posted, we had a number of DB owners claiming the P21 images were clearly superior to the 1Ds3 images. Such apparently was their need to have their preconceived notions confirmed, the fact that the methodology was seriously flawed seems to have escaped them.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Christopher on December 05, 2007, 03:55:40 pm
Hey, why do we not compare a picture of a P45+ cropped to 8 MP to an image from a picture with 12 MP from a Nikon D3. I bet the Nikons wins ^^

Sorry but this test is as pointless as this disscusion.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: EricWHiss on December 05, 2007, 04:11:49 pm
Quote
That's very true, Eric. But just as important as being able to see the differences is being able to understand what's causing the differences.

I find it a little disconcerting that as soon as a link to the images of this current test were posted, we had a number of DB owners claiming the P21 images were clearly superior to the 1Ds3 images. Such apparently was their need to have their preconceived notions confirmed, the fact that the methodology was seriously flawed seems to have escaped them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Your point is understood.  I have a more positive vibe on the good people reading and participating in the medium format forum.  My view is that they will do whatever it takes to achieve high quality images, whether it be opening the wallet, dropping plastic, or spending time to learn new technology and techniques.  I don't doubt that were the new canon to be compelling, most would not hesitate to trade their current set up for it (only after a short time of reconciliation).  So far though for me, I have only seen 1Ds3 images that fall short of my expectations for that camera so I don't plan on buying one.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 05, 2007, 10:44:09 pm
Quote
  My view is that they will do whatever it takes to achieve high quality images, whether it be opening the wallet, dropping plastic, or spending time to learn new technology and techniques.  I don't doubt that were the new canon to be compelling, most would not hesitate to trade their current set up for it (only after a short time of reconciliation).  So far though for me, I have only seen 1Ds3 images that fall short of my expectations for that camera so I don't plan on buying one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For such people, I can see no good reason to choose a small 21mp sensor instead of a large 39mp sensor. It only becomes an issue when the choice is between the 1Ds3 and cameras like the ZD and P21 which feature in this test.

It may well be the case that the combination of factors such as the lack of an AA filter, the availability of better quality MF lenses (at the resolutions required by the larger sensor) will produce results unachievable by the 1Ds3.

The purpose of tests such as this one is surely to determine how significant such factors are in view of the obvious advantages of the Canons with regard to ease of use, portability, low light capability etc.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jing q on December 05, 2007, 11:35:56 pm
Quote
That's very true, Eric. But just as important as being able to see the differences is being able to understand what's causing the differences.

I find it a little disconcerting that as soon as a link to the images of this current test were posted, we had a number of DB owners claiming the P21 images were clearly superior to the 1Ds3 images. Such apparently was their need to have their preconceived notions confirmed, the fact that the methodology was seriously flawed seems to have escaped them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Considering that I've seen 7 year old technology (kodak proback 16 megapixel files) which look better than my 1dsMkII I wouldn't be surprised.

Do you know what a bloody pain in the ass it is to set up cameras for testing?  It seems like there are a bunch of people who adamantly want to argue to feel better about themselves. You're just going to continue arguing your point anyway even if you're proven wrong.

I don't know about you but the way I find out whether I like something or not is that I go and test it myself.
In film days I don't go on forums and argue about whether a film is better based on some charts I see online. I buy a roll of film and shoot it myself and compare it for myself.

Why don't you go and test a digital back for yourself?
I'm sure you can find a dealer who'll be more than happy to let you try it out so you can save yourself the finger energy from all that typing arguments.

I am very sure that people who own digital backs have used DSLRs before. sheesh.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 12:50:09 am
Quote
Do you know what a bloody pain in the ass it is to set up cameras for testing?

Of course I do. Just a few days ago, the issue of MLU came up again. Despite the fact I am at present travelling in Thailand, I went to the trouble of printing out a Norman Koren test chart, taping it to the wall of my rented bedsitter, then spent a whole morning testing the effect of MLU on the 2 cameras I'm carrying, attached to my ultra lightweight Manfrotto tripod.

Because I was careful and meticulous with my testing, I learned something. With the 20D and standard 50/1.8 lens on this particular tripod, MLU serves no significant purpose at any shutter speed. However, with the 5D with same lens on the same tripod, there is a significant blurring of the image at 1/30th sec exposure without MLU enabled. When one comes across unexpected anomalies like this, then of course one repeats the test.

When it comes to testing camera equipment, the adage, "If a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well' is particularly appropriate. If a test is not carried out meticulously and with sound methodology, you end up not only wasting your own time but everyone elses who might be tempted to think you know what you are doing.

Quote
You're just going to continue arguing your point anyway even if you're proven wrong.

Absolutely not! You don't know me at all. Prove me wrong and I'll be the first to concede the point. But I'm not going to take a dive and throw in the towel.

Quote
In film days I don't go on forums and argue about whether a film is better based on some charts I see online. I buy a roll of film and shoot it myself and compare it for myself.

Exactly what I do. I'd love to have the opportunity to just whizz round the corner and borrow or hire or test in the store a P21, ZD and 1Ds3 and do a proper comparison myself, but I just don't have this opportunity in Chiang Mai. I doubt whether I'd even have the opportunity in Brisbane, Australia. There have been many occasions when I would have liked to have hired a particular Canon lens for a weekend to try out before making a decision to buy, but was unable to find any place in Brisbane that rented the particular lenses I was interested in. I usually have to buy the lens from a store and then return it if I'm not satisfied, which I've done a couple of times, but you can understand one does not become popular if one does that sort of thing too often.

The fact is, the internet is a tremendous resource for saving the consumer time. One cannot possibly test every camera that's available and it's impossible to test cameras that are not available because of one's location or other circumstances.

Quote
I am very sure that people who own digital backs have used DSLRs before. sheesh.

Of course they have, but not necessarily the 1Ds3. What's your point? You seem to be reducing the discussion to a black& white issue of 35mm DSLR versus MFDB.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jing q on December 06, 2007, 01:41:45 am
Quote
Of course I do. Just a few days ago, the issue of MLU came up again. Despite the fact I am at present travelling in Thailand, I went to the trouble of printing out a Norman Koren test chart, taping it to the wall of my rented bedsitter, then spent a whole morning testing the effect of MLU on the 2 cameras I'm carrying, attached to my ultra lightweight Manfrotto tripod.

Because I was careful and meticulous with my testing, I learned something. With the 20D and standard 50/1.8 lens on this particular tripod, MLU serves no significant purpose at any shutter speed. However, with the 5D with same lens on the same tripod, there is a significant blurring of the image at 1/30th sec exposure without MLU enabled. When one comes across unexpected anomalies like this, then of course one repeats the test.

When it comes to testing camera equipment, the adage, "If a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well' is particularly appropriate. If a test is not carried out meticulously and with sound methodology, you end up not only wasting your own time but everyone elses who might be tempted to think you know what you are doing.
Absolutely not! You don't know me at all. Prove me wrong and I'll be the first to concede the point. But I'm not going to take a dive and throw in the towel.
Exactly what I do. I'd love to have the opportunity to just whizz round the corner and borrow or hire or test in the store a P21, ZD and 1Ds3 and do a proper comparison myself, but I just don't have this opportunity in Chiang Mai. I doubt whether I'd even have the opportunity in Brisbane, Australia. There have been many occasions when I would have liked to have hired a particular Canon lens for a weekend to try out before making a decision to buy, but was unable to find any place in Brisbane that rented the particular lenses I was interested in. I usually have to buy the lens from a store and then return it if I'm not satisfied, which I've done a couple of times, but you can understand one does not become popular if one does that sort of thing too often.

The fact is, the internet is a tremendous resource for saving the consumer time. One cannot possibly test every camera that's available and it's impossible to test cameras that are not available because of one's location or other circumstances.
Of course they have, but not necessarily the 1Ds3. What's your point? You seem to be reducing the discussion to a black& white issue of 35mm DSLR versus MFDB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How about this, you go get a digital back and test it against a 1DsMkIII and post your results up online before you

You seem so keen on proving people wrong, so please prove your point by doing the test and sharing it with us instead of making these longwinded arguments based on a lack of practical information.

I make my points based on practical experience having used the cameras I've used.

You make your points based on assumptions seeing some web jpegs.

The ones here who use MFDB are aware of the pros and cons (you think we drop money on equipment for fun???) but you seem to want to keep comparing and comparing and comparing based on web jpegs are arguments about what makes a fair test.

Go and TEST a back for yourself and then you can showcase your knowledge of ETTR, fair camera tests, etc etc.
I'll be waiting for your posting. Where do you live? Do you want me to get you in touch with a dealer? I'm sure he'll be happy to let you try out a back.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jing q on December 06, 2007, 02:00:02 am
here's a rule of thumb
medium format backs of different brands generally have pretty similar quality when comparing similar sensor sizes and megapixel counts.
Differences in IQ are not huge, and differentiating points really depend on each person's needs (write speed, long exposure capabilities, etc)
It's pretty easy to compare digital backs because there are certain standard limitations and certain standard perimeters such as dynamic range (most backs are quite similar)
It's comparing granny smiths to fuji apples.
BUT
comparing MFDB with DSLR is a totally different ball game, they are so different it's comparing apples to oranges.
Now, I believe you CAN compare apples to oranges
but before you start comparing, you need to go and try it out and familiarise yourself with the pros and cons of MFDBs before

Maybe the reason why people can't see the extra tonalities and people discount the inherent sharpness of a MFDB image ("oh you can do local contrast sharpening in photoshop") is because they haven't acquainted themselves personally with that level of detail.
It's like strobe lighting, once you've used a Profoto it's hard to accept the light quality of a Speedlite. But if you've never used a set of Profotos  before then you have no prior experience with that kind of light quality and are less sensitive to the differences between the two.
It's like a good set of earphones, once you have heard a good pair you start to become more sensitive to nuances in sound quality. My great pair of earphones spoilt so in desperation I got a cheap pair from Best Buy and the music sounded like it was being played through a wall. Ask me a year back and I would have thought that was great quality sound (before I got my lovely high quality earphones)

I'm all for people testing stuff out.
I rather people test stuff out before making any judgements on products.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: free1000 on December 06, 2007, 02:36:59 am
Quote
 
It's like strobe lighting, once you've used a Profoto it's hard to accept the light quality of a Speedlite. But if you've never used a set of Profotos  before then you have no prior experience with that kind of light quality and are less sensitive to the differences between the two.
It's like a good set of earphones, once you have heard a good pair you start to become more sensitive to nuances in sound quality. My great pair of earphones spoilt so in desperation I got a cheap pair from Best Buy and the music sounded like it was being played through a wall. Ask me a year back and I would have thought that was great quality sound (before I got my lovely high quality earphones)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And you need clients trained to see the same thing as well...
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 05:48:39 am
Quote
How about this, you go get a digital back and test it against a 1DsMkIII and post your results up online before you

I've already explained this in my previous post. Did you not read it. There are no photographic stores in Chiang Mai, where I am at present, that carry either MFDBs or the 1Ds3. They would have to be ordered from Bangkok, if available there and I doubt the 1Ds3 would be available yet, and would have to be paid for in advance.

Quote
You seem so keen on proving people wrong, so please prove your point by doing the test and sharing it with us instead of making these longwinded arguments based on a lack of practical information.

I would like to very much, but did you not read my previous post. If I could rent these cameras for a few days, I'd do so, not to prove anyone wrong but simply to get at the facts and learn something. But naturally I'd rather someone else who already owns these cameras or who has easy access to them do a thorough comparison using sound methodology.

Your requests seem quite unreasonable to me.

Quote
The ones here who use MFDB are aware of the pros and cons (you think we drop money on equipment for fun???) but you seem to want to keep comparing and comparing and comparing based on web jpegs are arguments about what makes a fair test. 

Aware of what pros and cons of what equipment? Once again you seem to be reducing everything to a black & white issue of 35mm versus MFDBs as though all 35mm DSLRs are basically the same and all MFDBs are basically the same.  

Quote
I make my points based on practical experience having used the cameras I've used.

So do I. All the issues I've talked about here are based of years of practical experience with a number of different cameras including 35mm film, 35mm DSLRs, MF film and even small P&S digicams. I've been taking photos as an amateur, intermittently for 50 years. I've carried out numerous test on many of my lenses and equipment over the years, and I know how essential it is to get things right. Okay?
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: rainer_v on December 06, 2007, 06:10:31 am
Quote
I've already explained this in my previous post. Did you not read it. There are no photographic stores in Chiang Mai, where I am at present, that carry either MFDBs or the 1Ds3. They would have to be ordered from Bangkok, if available there and I doubt the 1Ds3 would be available yet, and would have to be paid for in advance.
I would like to very much, but did you not read my previous post. If I could rent these cameras for a few days, I'd do so, not to prove anyone wrong but simply to get at the facts and learn something. But naturally I'd rather someone else who already owns these cameras or who has easy access to them do a thorough comparison using sound methodology.

Your requests seem quite unreasonable to me.
Aware of what pros and cons of what equipment? Once again you seem to be reducing everything to a black & white issue of 35mm versus MFDBs as though all 35mm DSLRs are basically the same and all MFDBs are basically the same. 
So do I. All the issues I've talked about here are based of years of practical experience with a number of different cameras including 35mm film, 35mm DSLRs, MF film and even small P&S digicams. I've been taking photos as an amateur, intermittently for 50 years. I've carried out numerous test on many of my lenses and equipment over the years, and I know how essential it is to get things right. Okay?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158623\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

and all this is so important just now that you have to sit in your hotel and write your fingers bloody in chiang mai?
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 06:33:24 am
Quote
BUT
comparing MFDB with DSLR is a totally different ball game, they are so different it's comparing apples to oranges.

This should be no problem for experienced DB users who are, as you have already pointed out, familiar with the pros and cons of both formats.

I doubt that I would have any major problem.

A sturdy tripod, remote release and MLU if the shutter speeds are slow, is a basic requirement.

Accurate focussing on the same spot is another basic requirement.

Matching the FoVs of both cameras is another basic requirement.

If the aspect ratios are different, then matching the FoVs of both dimensions in separate sets of comparisons is a basic requirement.

If the sensors being compared are different sizes, then matching DoF is a basic requirement if the subject is 3-dimensional, otherwise parts of one image are going to be more OoF than the same parts in the other image.

Choosing the best lenses available for each format, within a range of equivalent focals lengths, is highly recommended.

I really can't see why there should be any difficulty for an experienced photographer.

Quote
Maybe the reason why people can't see the extra tonalities and people discount the inherent sharpness of a MFDB image ("oh you can do local contrast sharpening in photoshop") is because they haven't acquainted themselves personally with that level of detail.

I hardly think this likely. The availability of excellent stitching programs that often work flawlessly even on hand-held shots of close up subjects means that anyone with a budget, cropped-format DSLR can produce images that far exceed the detail you would get from a single P45 shot.

Same applies to DR. Nowadays you don't even need a tripod to get in excess of 12 stops of DR through bracketing exposures and merging to HDR.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 06:40:43 am
Quote
and all this is so important just now that you have to sit in your hotel and write your fingers bloody in chiang mai?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No. I'd be writing the same stuff if I were back in Australia. I'm not just on holiday in Chiang Mai. I'm retired. There is no pressure to rush around and see all the sights in 5 days before having to catch that flight back home to return to the grind mill. Okay!  
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: samuel_js on December 06, 2007, 06:51:09 am
Ray, it's time for you to go to bed. You have no idea of what you're talking about here. Your numbers just show your inexperience with medium format and as a photographer in general.

/Samuel
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Sean H on December 06, 2007, 07:10:35 am
Ok, having read through all four  pages of this post  I think that everyone has tried their best to help Ray with explanations. I am impressed with their patience --- you guys would make great teachers/professors. Everyone who has had a point to make, has made it. I'm not sure that there is much more that is productive and helpful, that could be said. Might I also suggest that reading some of the archived reviews, comments that Michael R has made might also be useful.

Hopefully, in the future, Ray will travel to a city where he can rent/experiment with a DMF (eg. Sydney, Singapore, KL or perhaps Bangkok come to mind).  I politely suggest that it is time to move on to another topic.


Sean
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: thsinar on December 06, 2007, 07:32:48 am
I have already invited at my place in BKK to test out backs: I have friends here working with all kind of backs, PO, H, Sinar.

I just need to be informed early enough.

Thierry

Quote
Hopefully, in the future, Ray will travel to a city where he can rent/experiment with a DMF (eg. Sydney, Singapore, KL or perhaps Bangkok come to mind).  I politely suggest that it is time to move on to another topic.
Sean
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158632\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 07:45:53 am
Quote
Ray, it's time for you to go to bed. You have no idea of what you're talking about here. Your numbers just show your inexperience with medium format and as a photographer in general.

/Samuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm glad I've got the sense not to believe you, Samuel. If my numbers show my inexperience then why aren't you explaining to me in what way my numbers are erroneous.

If the shoe was on the other foot and I had a digital back which I was convinced produced results that could not be matched by a 35mm DSLR of the same pixel count, I'd be showing you exactly how and why with maximum quality jpeg crops.

I wasn't born yesterday, ya know.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 08:03:35 am
Quote
Ok, having read through all four  pages of this post  I think that everyone has tried their best to help Ray with explanations.

God help us if those are your best explanations! (No offense meant, mind you. Should I be ducking for cover   ).

Quote
Everyone who has had a point to make, has made it.

Now how can you possibly know that, Samuel?

Quote
I'm not sure that there is much more that is productive and helpful, that could be said.

I agree. Now that I've clearly outlined the factors which should be taken into consideration when making such comparisons, there's probably not much more to add. Of course, there's always the possibility I might have overlooked something. I'm really far more modest that I might appear to be in this thread.  

Quote
Hopefully, in the future, Ray will travel to a city where he can rent/experiment with a DMF (eg. Sydney, Singapore, KL or perhaps Bangkok come to mind).  I politely suggest that it is time to move on to another topic.

For God's sake we're living in the 21st century, the age of computers and communication. You want me to make a special trip to Singapore just to compare a 1Ds3 with an MFDB of similar pixel count because no-one else is able to carry out a proper and thorough comparison.

C'mon, Samuel. Give me a break!  
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 08:52:09 am
Quote
Ray, please go away.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I shall, willingly and with joy if you can give me one good reason why I should? By a good reason, I don't mean, because I'm a PITA. That's not a good reason for anything.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Sean H on December 06, 2007, 09:06:14 am
Quote
God help us if those are your best explanations! (No offense meant, mind you. Should I be ducking for cover   ).
Now how can you possibly know that, Samuel?
I agree. Now that I've clearly outlined the factors which should be taken into consideration when making such comparisons, there's probably not much more to add. Of course, there's always the possibility I might have overlooked something. I'm really far more modest that I might appear to be in this thread.   
For God's sake we're living in the 21st century, the age of computers and communication. You want me to make a special trip to Singapore just to compare a 1Ds3 with an MFDB of similar pixel count because no-one else is able to carry out a proper and thorough comparison.

C'mon, Samuel. Give me a break! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158641\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Please read carefully (and think about) what we are posting. It was not samuel that made all those comments but me (Sean). Pay attention to what you read and leave Samuel alone.

Thanks,

Sean
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Sean H on December 06, 2007, 09:10:41 am
Quote
I have already invited at my place in BKK to test out backs: I have friends here working with all kind of backs, PO, H, Sinar.

I just need to be informed early enough.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That was really nice of you Thierry. Again, I think that we have done all we can do for this guy -- and I don't even have a DMF camera (well, not yet anyway). I would rather the nice people on this forum spend their time on more interesting and exciting issues.

Sean
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 09:16:54 am
Quote
Please read carefully (and think about) what we are posting. It was not samuel that made all those comments but me (Sean). Pay attention to what you read and leave Samuel alone.

Thanks,

Sean
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158658\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Okay! Sorry, but Samuel's comments were in the same vein so I think I'm excused on the grounds I'm not perfect and when I do occasionally make mistakes I admit it, unlike some.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 09:24:26 am
Quote
That was really nice of you Thierry. Again, I think that we have done all we can do for this guy -- and I don't even have a DMF camera (well, not yet anyway). I would rather the nice people on this forum spend their time on more interesting and exciting issues.

Sean
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
Again, I think that we have done all we can do for this guy --

Yes you have. You've made me feel quite competent. Thanks guys!   .

By the way, Thiery hasn't sent me an invitation to his BKK place. I don't even know the address so I couldn't gate-crash if I wanted to.

In any case, the test is not relevant to the topic of this thread which is not about comparing the latest DBs, but the latest FF 35mm DSLR with DBs of similar pixel count.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 11:25:59 am
Quote
Ray, if this thread is at all representative of your over 4,400 posts on this forum, then I can conclude that you have not provided any useful information to any person here.

This thread is exactly why we have lost some very talented and knowledgeable photographers, namely James Russell and Mark Tucker, from the forum. I am seeing less participation from very talented photographers like Andre Napier and Rainer and many more. I love seeing Graham using a Rollei with a digital back since few in the world seem to and I shot with Rollei years back and loved the camera system. I never would be exposed to such great photography from Andre and others if not participating here. The forum helps to bridge the world gap as well. Being in the US, I may not see their work in my day to day experience.

I am thankful that we get participation from digital back maufacturers and dealers on their own free will. They answer questions and keep our interests high in the gear we use or want to use. I don't want to lose their particitpation because the forum's quality declines.

Photography is art and craft, not test charts, endless and unsuccessful discussions that one camera/lens/software is better than another. People here are intelligent enough to make their own decisions that benefit their art, craft and business.

The fact that you feel you are “our saviour” in having tests done correctly means nothing. If you want to do tests correctly, get out of your hotel room and seek out the sources and needed tools to do so and stop saying that others need to do it for you. Or that we need to prove you wrong. You have yet to prove you are right. You mimic a typical patriarchal attitude that it’s your way and anybody else has to prove you wrong, yet you don’t prove you’re right.

You provide no access to who you are, what you do or did. You present no credibility, only an insane amount of time to waste to talk about nothing on this forum and possibly many more. You have spent five years here being anonymous except for your first name. That has no use to anyone. The fact that I can lookup someone’s website, see their work, see their clients, gives me more understanding than anything you can ever provide in your “tests” or lack of.

This MFDB forum has been a wonderful place to help other photographers with real world solutions and get the same help in return. That’s what it should be. Most of us are shooting for clients. We only have one chance to get it right on set. Software, camera/back combinations and more are all factors of what can go wrong or be wrong purchases for one’s own photography business. Clients don’t care that we we didn’t buy some camera because it’s more megapixels or better AA filter. They don’t give a shit. They want a talented person to make a photo shoot successful in every aspect.

I am not harping on anyone as a hobbyist or enthusiast, but keep in mind they have very little riding on photography, since it is for pleasure. When our photography is a business with real clients, real money, real creativity that will be put out in the world for many to see and companies to rely on for bettering their own businesses, what we don’t need on this forum is utterly useless drivel.

This may make you cringe but I heard from a fellow ASMP chapter member that Gary Fong shoots 3MP jpegs for the weddings he does. He’s one of the most successful wedding photographers or certainly it looks that way. He has found that practicality dictates higher res images are just unnecessary for his clients and the reproduction sizes they purchase for prints. That goes to show that people will use a piece of gear to their own unique needs not to some standard that relates to resolution charts, or this camera is better than that banter.

Have you really seen the work of some great currently working photographers. There is amazing work that is independent of resolution or what camera they use. Many still use film of all types. Were you endlessly testing film back in the day or complaining that people weren’t properly testing film?

I am a firm believer that balance is the best choice in life. Technical must be balanced with art and craft. There will always be exceptions to that. What I find to be the least helpful in photography is the far side of technical only. That is not photography; that is scientifically related.

To give you insight, I was an organic chemist for several years. Hated it, even though that was my college degree. I can’t stand darkroom work. Never liked it. The technical of digital comes easy to me and I have taught people and am usually the one many come to locally to ask questions. But when it comes to my work now, I want my photography to be an art, commercial art and craft. I am completely self taught along with great information from appreciated fellow photographers.

I feel most talented photographers here and beyond cyberspace seek the same.

I am done with this thread and look forward to threads where I can get useful info from fellow photographers and hope to provide something back. I hope this thread is closed so it doesn’t waste other people’s time and energy with no usefulness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John,
Most of what you've written above is a completely valid point of view. There are many people on this forum, and others not on this forum, who find these endless debates about technical matters; which camera has less noise; which lens is sharper; does 14 bit A/D conversion make a real world difference in Canon's latest models; do DB images really have a 3-dimensional effect that distinguishes them from 35mm etc etc, very, very tedious.

It might be because they have difficulty understanding the maths and physics or that they are simply not interested. Perhaps such discussions make their head hurt. I can only speculate as to the reason.

You are entitled to think I'm spouting drivel. I'm entitled to think I've provided sound guidelines on methodology in comparing cameras of different formats.

My philosophy on such matters is, my views are sufficiently right until proven (or demonstrated) as being wrong or inadequate. No-one has done this yet in this thread.
 
I'm not persuaded by verbal abuse, belittlement and disparagement. My definition of drivel is 'that which is incomprehensible'. I'm sorry you haven't understood what I've been saying.

As for talented people leaving the forum, the only good reasons I can think of is that they have either been the subject of verbal abuse and their pride is hurt, or they don't find the forum interesting.

I'm not in the habit of verbally abusing people and it seems a quite extraordinary request on your part to suggest that I should stop writing what interests me because some talented photographer might not find what I write interesting and leave the forum.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: rainer_v on December 06, 2007, 12:04:04 pm
erased for beeing tired.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jing q on December 06, 2007, 12:33:42 pm
Quote
John,
Most of what you've written above is a completely valid point of view. There are many people on this forum, and others not on this forum, who find these endless debates about technical matters; which camera has less noise; which lens is sharper; does 14 bit A/D conversion make a real world difference in Canon's latest models; do DB images really have a 3-dimensional effect that distinguishes them from 35mm etc etc, very, very tedious.

It might be because they have difficulty understanding the maths and physics or that they are simply not interested. Perhaps such discussions make their head hurt. I can only speculate as to the reason.

You are entitled to think I'm spouting drivel. I'm entitled to think I've provided sound guidelines on methodology in comparing cameras of different formats.

My philosophy on such matters is, my views are sufficiently right until proven (or demonstrated) as being wrong or inadequate. No-one has done this yet in this thread.
 
I'm not persuaded by verbal abuse, belittlement and disparagement. My definition of drivel is 'that which is incomprehensible'. I'm sorry you haven't understood what I've been saying.

As for talented people leaving the forum, the only good reasons I can think of is that they have either been the subject of verbal abuse and their pride is hurt, or they don't find the forum interesting.

I'm not in the habit of verbally abusing people and it seems a quite extraordinary request on your part to suggest that I should stop writing what interests me because some talented photographer might not find what I write interesting and leave the forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158699\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

talented people who used to contribute important information based on their practical information such as James Russel (who was abit long winded but importantly wrote based on their experience with their cameras and work!) are leaving because they have to sift through a whole load of garbage questioning by people who obviously feel like they need to prove some sort of technical point.

We didn't ask that you come here to "save" us with your technical knowledge that isn't grounded in practical usage. I'm amazed you have the gonads to post so much in a MEDIUM FORMAT subforum without ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with it.

You need to be aware of the people who make up this subforum are NOT the same kind of people from dpreview, which is what made this subforum such a bloody useful read. made up of alot of professionals (take a look at rainer's work,enough said). One single post of his has much more credibility than a whole bunch of yours. What are YOUR credentials to back up your posts???

It's not about hurt egos, it's just a bloody pain when people who actually have experience with the products they talk about and actual work experience get drowned out and forcefully questioned by some guys who want to act like camera technicians.

If you really want to act that way I suggest you join a DB company as a product tester and spokesman.

you say "I'm entitled to think I've provided sound guidelines on methodology in comparing cameras of different formats."
Then why don't you go DO IT and TEST the cameras instead of TALKING about it on a forum.
Don't give that bull response about how you can't get the camera in chiangmai and whatnots...australia especially!I know enough australian studios that use DBs!
If it will shut you up I'll be willing to let you test my back for an hour in Singapore next month.

do it, prove your point, and stop clogging our forums with your insistent questioning. Be proactive for once since it seems to bother you enough to post 4,400 times.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: thsinar on December 06, 2007, 12:48:00 pm
ALL are invited, from all origins and with all back brands, or even without MFDB, as long as he (she) is a photographer and we could share about it!

If I am at home from my business trips, anybody is welcome to ask my address by PM and have a drink together.

Thierry

Quote
By the way, Thiery hasn't sent me an invitation to his BKK place. I don't even know the address so I couldn't gate-crash if I wanted to.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: david o on December 06, 2007, 12:50:20 pm
Quote
ALL are invited, from all origins and with all back brands, or even without MFDB, as long as he (she) is a photographer and we could share about it!

If I am at home from my business trips, anybody is welcome to ask my address by PM and have a drink together.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

put lot of ice to cool everybody down....
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: thsinar on December 06, 2007, 12:56:35 pm
always available, and around the corner if more needed!

 

Thierry

Quote
put lot of ice to cool everybody down....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: stefan marquardt on December 06, 2007, 04:28:38 pm
deleted
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Christopher on December 06, 2007, 07:38:24 pm
I find it funny how people can talk so much crap, but on the other hand nothing new.

@Ray I think you have a very good point. This whole test is absolutly sensless. I mean do you people feel great about your 18MP DMF system is better than a 14MP DSLR crop ? I mean that is just sad.

Certainly a test is not only about numbers, but numbers are important.

Get a life and stopp defending a review which just is not correctly made....
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: samuel_js on December 06, 2007, 07:43:53 pm
Quote
I find it funny how people can talk so much crap, but on the other hand nothing new.

@Ray I think you have a very good point. This whole test is absolutly sensless. I mean do you people feel great about your 18MP DMF system is better than a 14MP DSLR crop ? I mean that is just sad.

Certainly a test is not only about numbers, but numbers are important.

Get a life and stopp defending a review which just is not correctly made....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And here we go.. another one that never touched a DB.
Welcome to the medium format forum. Keep reading and you'll learn a lot.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 10:29:10 pm
I find this turn of the thread quite interesting. It's giving me quite an insight into the mentality of some DB owners and the destructive effect that an excessive concern about invested interests can have on rational thought.

I get a clear sense here that even the possibility that a much cheaper and more versatile camera such as the 1Ds3 might be able to equal the quality of a P21 for all practical purposes and perhaps even exceed it (which I think is a real possibility if the P21 were cropped to the same aspect ratio as the 1Ds3), is sending some people into panic mode.

I see all the traditional defenses are up; bluster; irrelevant arguments; insults and disparagement; totally unreasonable demands that the critic go out and buy a DB for testing purposes and most absurdly of all claims that I am somehow responsible for a number of recent withdrawals from the forum by a few talented photographers with whom I've never even crossed words.

It really is a bizarre situation. I sometimes wonder if I had spent $30,000 on a DB, would I be so defensive about criticism. I doubt it. I'm too objective. A camera is not a staus symbol for me but a mere tool. I'm generally pleased with my Canon equipment. However, when another company starts offering what looks like a better alternative, I'm all ears. Nikon, and Olympus with their 4/3rds format and Zuiko lenses, now have alternatives that seem to be at least better in some respects than my Canon gear and I'm very interested, not so that I can defend my Canon gear to the death but to find out if these alternatives really would suit my purposes better.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jing q on December 06, 2007, 11:03:07 pm
Obviously typing long forum posts is not as unreasonable as approaching a dealer and asking to test a digital back

No wonder my mother warned me about the dangers of the internet...
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2007, 11:59:33 pm
Quote
Obviously typing long forum posts is not as unreasonable as approaching a dealer and asking to test a digital back

No wonder my mother warned me about the dangers of the internet...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You see what I mean. I've already explained about 6 times, there are no MFDB dealers where I presently am, in Chiang Mai, and even if there were, it is very unlikely the dealer would have a P21, and/or ZD, and a 1Ds3 sitting in his store.

I'd also be uncomfortable taking up someone's time (and it would take quite a while to do a proper comparison) when I have no intention of buying either a 1Ds3 or P21 because these cameras are too heavy for my style of shooting which involves visiting exotic locations and travelling light. I'll be waiting to see what the upgrade to the Canon 5D has to offer before making further camera purchases.

My interest in the comparison between the 3 cameras tested in this thread is purely academic.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: John_Black on December 07, 2007, 12:47:49 am
Quote
I'd also be uncomfortable taking up someone's time (and it would take quite a while to do a proper comparison) when I have no intention of buying either a 1Ds3 or P21 because these cameras are too heavy for my style of shooting which involves visiting exotic locations and travelling light. I'll be waiting to see what the upgrade to the Canon 5D has to offer before making further camera purchases.

But that's exactly what you're doing here.  And you go on to say, "when I have no intention of buying either a 1Ds3 or P21", so why should anyone bother to upload files for you???
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Caracalla on December 07, 2007, 01:26:04 am
Quote
I'd also be uncomfortable taking up someone's time (and it would take quite a while to do a proper comparison) when I have no intention of buying either a 1Ds3 or P21 because these cameras are too heavy for my style of shooting which involves visiting exotic locations and travelling light. I'll be waiting to see what the upgrade to the Canon 5D has to offer before making further camera purchases.

My interest in the comparison between the 3 cameras tested in this thread is purely academic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fair enough!!! However, I don't believe your primary interest is in MF DB even though you obviously devoted so much time here. So perhaps now it would be a good time to experiment with 35mm threads and decide accordingly.

As you already know 5D sounds good, so you are 5 steps ahead of everyone else here myself included and therefore you can achive more by focusing your attention to 35mm/5D environment.

Good Luck!
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 07, 2007, 01:42:25 am
Quote
But that's exactly what you're doing here.  And you go on to say, "when I have no intention of buying either a 1Ds3 or P21", so why should anyone bother to upload files for you???
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158853\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't expect anyone to upload files just for me or carry out a test just for me. Likewise, when I upload an image or a series of crops to demonstrate some photographic point on this forum, it's not for the benefit of one specific person on the forum but for anyone in the photographic community who might be interested, including those who are not members and just read posts.

The purpose of carrying out the tests at the beginning of this thread is presumably to be helpful to people who might be struggling with a decision as to whether or not buy to buy a ZD, or a 1Ds3 or perhaps a second hand P21, as well as to provide an interesting discussion point for those who have a general interest in such matters, whether or not they intend to buy such equipment.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 07, 2007, 02:08:40 am
Quote
Fair enough!!! However, I don't believe your primary interest is in MF DB even though you obviously devoted so much time here. So perhaps now it would be a good time to experiment with 35mm threads and decide accordingly.

As you already know 5D sounds good, so you are 5 steps ahead of everyone else here myself included and therefore you can achive more by focusing your attention to 35mm/5D environment.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's always been a good time (for me) to experiment with 35mm threads. I'm doing it on a continuous basis. This minor foray into the MFDB part of forum is extra curricula for me and if the thread was not in part about 35mm equipment I probably wouldn't have commented.

But it is very much about 35mm equipment and I imagine there are a lot of folks very interested in how the 1Ds3 compares with DBs of similar pixel count, which is why the test was so disappointing in view of its serious flaws in methodology.

Some of you guys, if you don't mind my saying, seem to be pretty narrow-minded. I happen to be interested in a variety of formats, including the Olympus 4/3rds system which, compared with full frame 35mm, is very analagous to the comparison between 35mm and MFDB. Both sets of comparisons involve the difficulty of dealing with different aspect ratios, and both include a comparison between sensors of significantly different sizes, except the difference in size between the Olympus 4/3rds and FF 35 is actually greater.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Caracalla on December 07, 2007, 02:49:35 am
Quote
It's always been a good time (for me) to experiment with 35mm threads. I'm doing it on a continuous basis. This minor foray into the MFDB part of forum is extra curricula for me and if the thread was not in part about 35mm equipment I probably wouldn't have commented.

But it is very much about 35mm equipment and I imagine there are a lot of folks very interested in how the 1Ds3 compares with DBs of similar pixel count, which is why the test was so disappointing in view of its serious flaws in methodology.

Some of you guys, if you don't mind my saying, seem to be pretty narrow-minded. I happen to be interested in a variety of formats, including the Olympus 4/3rds system which, compared with full frame 35mm, is very analagous to the comparison between 35mm and MFDB. Both sets of comparisons involve the difficulty of dealing with different aspect ratios, and both include a comparison between sensors of significantly different sizes, except the difference in size between the Olympus 4/3rds and FF 35 is actually greater.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Perhaps all of us are pretty narrow-minded in the circle of your comfort, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't find help here regardless of who you are listening/talking to.

I know you happen to be interested in a variety of formats, however obviously not in variety of MFDB formats.

Personally, I would narrow my interest to my affordable price range, my favourite format and basically start from there.

Good luck anyway!
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: KevinA on December 07, 2007, 03:06:45 am
Quote
It's always been a good time (for me) to experiment with 35mm threads. I'm doing it on a continuous basis. This minor foray into the MFDB part of forum is extra curricula for me and if the thread was not in part about 35mm equipment I probably wouldn't have commented.

But it is very much about 35mm equipment and I imagine there are a lot of folks very interested in how the 1Ds3 compares with DBs of similar pixel count, which is why the test was so disappointing in view of its serious flaws in methodology.

Some of you guys, if you don't mind my saying, seem to be pretty narrow-minded. I happen to be interested in a variety of formats, including the Olympus 4/3rds system which, compared with full frame 35mm, is very analagous to the comparison between 35mm and MFDB. Both sets of comparisons involve the difficulty of dealing with different aspect ratios, and both include a comparison between sensors of significantly different sizes, except the difference in size between the Olympus 4/3rds and FF 35 is actually greater.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was reading a comparison the other day between a Kodak 14n and Sigma, to compare they printed large prints then scanned the prints and published the results. At first I thought what a daft way to test, it probably shows the scanners capabilities more than the cameras. The more I thought about it the better idea appeared. Looking at stuff 100% on a computer screen to spot small differences is about as relevant as judging them by the screen on the back of the camera.
Worrying about was this focused there or different apertures on different formats with different lenses is pointless. The only question that needs answering is does it deliver what you need, which is more often what the client needs.
I hate scientific tests, they have little relevance to most photographers, so what if a camera on a heavy tripod at a certain aperture with the mirror up can produce beautiful results, if you work handheld at which ever aperture the light allows etc. You don't really test a camera until you have owned it and used it in anger for some time. All you can get from the internet is "does it look good enough to take a chance on" the test posted here shows that quite well and when we see more files from the mkIII we will build more of an impression. This test is but one sentence in a chapter, we will get more of the story as time moves on seeing a variety of images in differing situations. Complaining it should of been done like this or that will not tell anyone anything. Of course anyone is free to go and do a test the "correct" way anytime they like.

Kevin.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: rainer_v on December 07, 2007, 03:09:32 am
maybe michael will do us the favor to move this tread to the 35mm section whereto it belongs.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Natasa Stojsic on December 07, 2007, 03:11:41 am
Quote
maybe michael will do us the favor to move this tread to the 35mm section whereto it belongs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[span style=\'font-size:11pt;line-height:100%\']!!! I totally Agree !!![/span]
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 07, 2007, 04:12:11 am
Quote
... but that doesn't change the fact that you can't find help here regardless of who you are listening/talking to.

Caracalla,
Funny, that! And I thought all along I was trying to help you guys set up a proper comparison.  

Quote
Personally, I would narrow my interest to my affordable price range, my favourite format and basically start from there.

I'm retired. I'd be in pretty dire straits if I couldn't afford to spend $50,000 on an MFDB. I've already got a bunch of Mamiya lenses I bought with my RB67 some years ago.

It's not a matter of being able to afford the equipment but being able to justify the expenditure to myself on the basis of the likely usage and satisfaction I'd get from it.

In any case, the idea of restricting one's interest to equipment one can afford seems pretty weird to me. Are you suggesting one should not be interested in the performance characteristics of the Hubble Telescope on the grounds one can't afford to buy one?

Good Luck to you, too   .
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 07, 2007, 04:21:09 am
Quote
maybe michael will do us the favor to move this tread to the 35mm section whereto it belongs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why should a thread about the comparison of 3 cameras, two of which are MF and only one of which is 35mm, belong in the 35mm section?

Considering that the less invalid part of the comparison relates to the DBs which have roughly equal file size, equal DoF and equal aspect ratio although still not equal FoV, it would seem downright silly to dump this thread in the 35mm section.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 07, 2007, 04:37:17 am
Quote
The more I thought about it the better idea appeared. Looking at stuff 100% on a computer screen to spot small differences is about as relevant as judging them by the screen on the back of the camera.
Worrying about was this focused there or different apertures on different formats with different lenses is pointless.
Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158869\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You guys are having me on, right? You're pulling my leg. You don't really think like that, do you?

Okay! This is my last post in this thread. You can all go and celebrate.  
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: KevinA on December 07, 2007, 04:55:11 am
Quote
You guys are having me on, right? You're pulling my leg. You don't really think like that, do you?

Okay! This is my last post in this thread. You can all go and celebrate. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It was more of a support for you than a knock. Your comparison I think is relevant because it's not a scientific lab bench test, it shows you would most likely use the systems in that situation.

Kevin
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 07, 2007, 06:05:28 am
Quote
It was more of a support for you than a knock. Your comparison I think is relevant because it's not a scientific lab bench test, it shows you would most likely use the systems in that situation.

Kevin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. There have been so many bizarre comments in this thread, I'm having difficulty believing that some of these DB owners are being honest. They're entitled to have their fun, however.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: eronald on December 07, 2007, 07:58:57 am
I like the fact that a lot of people from different backgrounds come here. Tech and practice make a good mix. Let's keep it that way. Everybody welcome.

Quote
put lot of ice to cool everybody down....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Caracalla on December 07, 2007, 09:38:59 am
Quote
Caracalla,

Are you suggesting one should not be interested in the performance characteristics of the Hubble Telescope on the grounds one can't afford to buy one?

Good Luck to you, too   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Obviously you are shifting away with your Hubble Telescope example just to make your point, I could reply in the same fashion and make it sound related.  However, you have to admit that generally speaking you/others could be interested in Space Shuttle too as far as I am concerned and I'm sure you are not alone, but obviously what you/others can afford is what you/others are after and not what I/others/the guy next door own.

So, my comment was not about questioning your financial status, therefore I wrote "Personally"

I am sure sooner or later you are going to find the right tool for what you are looking for and by reading your previous comments/preference, I already know your Hubble Telescope example is out of question because it is a little heavy.  

Have fun, Good luck!!!
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Ray on December 07, 2007, 12:48:11 pm
Quote
...but obviously what you/others can afford is what you/others are after and not what I/others/the guy next door own.

So, my comment was not about questioning your financial status, therefore I wrote "Personally"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Caracalla,
I know I said I was quitting this thread, but I can't resist making a final comment which I think is significant. Unless one keeps an eye on developments in technology at the cutting edge, one might be unprepared to make a decision when such technology becomes affordable. Technological developments in general should be of interest to all intelligent people because they underpin our civilization and are the way forward.

Future developments in nanotechnology and artificial materials, initially applied to perhaps the telecommunications industry, will probably end up in lenses where the laws of diffraction are circumvented. Such lenses will be initially very expensive and only affordable by people who are plain wealthy or people who run photographic businesses and can amortise the cost.

I'm a firm believer in the economic principle of 'opportunity cost'. A wealthy person, by my definition, is someone who can buy whatever he/she wants on whim; a luxury house in Pattaya; a personal jet plane to fly there; any number of MFDB backs that take their fancy etc.

Most of us, if we're sensible, operate along the principle of 'opportunity cost'. My purchasing decisions run along the lines of, 'which is going to give me the greatest satisfaction?'....A luxury car and no DSLRs and lenses; or a modest car and a couple of DSLRs with lenses? A modest car, a couple of DSLRs plus a P45+ with a few Digitar lenses, but no second house in Chiang Mai or no 'round the world' trip?

This is the reality that most people are faced with. But how can one make such decisions unless one is thoroughly acquainted with the characteristic of the luxury car and the MFDB system which, with lenses, could cost as much as a luxury car.

How can anyone make sensible decisions as to which purchase will give her the greatest satisfaction (or for that matter, will improve his business opportunities) if he is not aware of the properties, characteristics and performance of such equipment?

Do you get my point?
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: jing q on December 07, 2007, 01:26:22 pm
Quote
But how can one make such decisions unless one is thoroughly acquainted with the characteristic of the luxury car and the MFDB system which, with lenses, could cost as much as a luxury car.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know, maybe by....
testing the equipment?
Obviously your idea of thoroughly acquainting include looking at charts but not physically handling and use equipment. Funny.

anyway, good bye and farewell. Stick to your word and keep it the last post.
Title: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
Post by: Leonardo Barreto on December 07, 2007, 02:21:10 pm
5,880 views since Dec 2 6:21pm

And all for just 3 images of an urban landscape...

Probably we are witnessing  one of the first battles of "The Back Killer" versus "The Digital" Back.


It is interesting how the same 3 images where perceived at DPReview -- a predominantly 35mm forum -- as opposed to here, at LL.

The images appear to be a source of pleasure for the ones thinking that "this is the end of the elitist $30k backs and the snub photographer owners", or "ahaa, the Canon is not going to get to us in MFland"

Some, have had enough of the immature competitive game. The solution is easy, just don't tune in to this radio station, after all we are only human, and humans have the tendency to convert everything in to a contest. We invented cars, we race cars; we have sale boats, we race them... horses, camels, race, race.. mountains? who can get to the summit first.

Now we have megapixel machines, so lets race them a little bit, no big deal.