Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on April 11, 2008, 05:36:43 am
-
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium...G_THE_FUND.html (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Entries/2008/3/29_REBALANCING_THE_FUND.html)
The above is an interesting report comparing the virtues of the Canon and a P25.
It's interesting because the guy says some nasty things about the Canon and still got one.
I feel he raises many valid points, the upshot of which may be that the image quality of the devices is hostage to their practical usability, and to the distribution net.
Edmund
-
Interesting but maybe not surprising for anyone whose made the leap to MFDBs.
The one thing I would love someone test or review (from an earlier thread), is how the two platforms compare in low-light, long exposure situations, the major recognized flaw in the MFDB platform and a big issue for architectural shooters.
Murray
-
Am I the only one getting fed up of comparisons with Canons here? This is a medium format forum.
-
No, you aren't, but you dare to write it while I don't!
Thierry
Am I the only one getting fed up of comparisons with Canons here? This is a medium format forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188677\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Nope, you are not. I have the same feeling. Let's get over it. Let's all agree, the Canon is a much better solution than any MF solution
If that makes some people happy, fine...
-
Am I the only one getting fed up of comparisons with Canons here? This is a medium format forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188677\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graham,
I think discussing and looking for solutions to a very big flaw in the MFDB platform - the noisy and limited long exposures (by someone who encounters problem almost daily), is relevant to 'our' forum even if it involves 'lowering' ourselves to discussion of a mere DSLR..
Murray
-
Am I the only one getting fed up of comparisons with Canons here
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188677\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No!
I think discussing and looking for solutions to a very big flaw in the MFDB platform - the noisy and limited long exposures (by someone who encounters problem almost daily), is relevant to 'our' forum even if it involves 'lowering' ourselves to discussion of a mere DSLR.. smile.gif
That's missing the point a little bit...
-
There's also the people who currently use DSLRs who are trying to decide if the IQ advantages of MFDB are great enough to overcome the advantages of DSLRs regarding convenience, hand-holdability, shooting speed, low-light/high-ISO performance, etc. The best choice will depend on each photographer's needs and budget and the conditions under which he must shoot, and as such is not an inappropriate topic of discussion for the MF or non-MF forums. MFDB is a camera system, not a sacred cow.
-
Because many people do not own dMF systems, discussion of the merits/drawbacks is helpful. Since many of the owners of 35mm systems do not own dMF sytems and do not have easy access to them, the discussion is very helpful because conversely, many of the owners of dMF have extensive experience with 35mm systems.
That's why sites like pebbleplace.com are so helpful. That's why the discussion should continue in forums like this where people have experience. After X years of photography, the threads discussing P&S vs. 35mm are no longer helpful to me but I just skim them to see if I can add something useful to the discussion.
There's also the people who currently use DSLRs who are trying to decide if the IQ advantages of MFDB are great enough to overcome the advantages of DSLRs regarding convenience, hand-holdability, shooting speed, low-light/high-ISO performance, etc. The best choice will depend on each photographer's needs and budget and the conditions under which he must shoot, and as such is not an inappropriate topic of discussion for the MF or non-MF forums. MFDB is a camera system, not a sacred cow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The guy raises some interesting points, but the big problem with most of these types of reviews is that they are either-or "should I stay or should I go". As if enough review will somehow lead to finding the perfect system. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the various systems is essential, but should be done to chose the right tool for the job. I understand that money is an issue and many people can not own multiple systems. However the best professional craftsmen will have the right tools for the job (or will at least rent them when they need them).
John
-
PLEASE no more - make a forum category just for these comparisons...Digital MF is GREAT - it's expensive, it's big + heavy, it's slow and it produces magnificent images in capable hands. DSLR is also GREAT - it's cheaper, smaller and lighter, fast and produces magnificent images in capable hands. each tool has a place - most cant do it alone on DMF - it's not perfect, just like DSLR. END OF STORY.
-
Thierry, I hear there's an opening at Canon
Edmund
No, you aren't, but you dare to write it while I don't!
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188679\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
As a photographer with extensive experience with both 35mm and DB and currently owning both I can tell you this much.. 1.) they both have their merits and complement each other.. 2.) If you think 35mm is even close to a DB in file quality you obviously have not used DB, it's merits are elsewhere.
-
PLEASE no more - make a forum category just for these comparisons...Digital MF is GREAT - it's expensive, it's big + heavy, it's slow and it produces magnificent images in capable hands. DSLR is also GREAT - it's cheaper, smaller and lighter, fast and produces magnificent images in capable hands. each tool has a place - most cant do it alone on DMF - it's not perfect, just like DSLR. END OF STORY.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am with you - please let it be "end of story"
-
Well, I find this story of someone who exited from MFdb very interesting. More so than the endless discussions launched whenever someone hesitates whether he should enter MFdb.
Also interesting the part that says good things about Steve Hendrix
In fact, I think the executives at Leaf, Sinar, Phase, Mamiya and Hasselblad should have this "review" forwarded to them. And, you know, I actually like some of the guy's pictures.
Edmund
I am with you - please let it be "end of story"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I am with you - please let it be "end of story"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hate to be the last to comment but
If no one comments it will skip off the board..
That easy, really.
Just do not respond to the posts..
Snook
-
Or better yet, stay out of threads you don't find interesting, so that those who do find the topic interesting can find the information they have an interest in without having to wade through a bunch of arrogant pomposity. Some of you act like members of a 1960's-era Mississippi country club whining about women, blacks, and Jews wanting to become members.
-
Nope, you are not. I have the same feeling. Let's get over it. Let's all agree, the Canon is a much better solution than any MF solution
If that makes some people happy, fine...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i agree. but in fact for many things the canons are better, more practical ( and cheaper ) and for other things the mf backs are better. and this is what counts for me and i suppose for the other users of these backs ......
-
Or better yet, stay out of threads you don't find interesting, so that those who do find the topic interesting can find the information they have an interest in without having to wade through a bunch of arrogant pomposity. Some of you act like members of a 1960's-era Mississippi country club whining about women, blacks, and Jews wanting to become members.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point, Jonathan. You sometimes make them .
Photography is full of general statements such as, 'this lens is better, sharper etc than that, "this camera body or DB is better, sharper, produces creamier images etc. that that'.
Some of us want to know just how much better? Is it significant? How significant is it, and in what circumstances?
Is any apparent improvement in image quality due principally to the quality of the MF lenses used; or perhaps circumstances which allow for more accurate focussing; or perhaps it's the case that any apparent improvement is just due to the innate skill and artistic eye of the photographer being displayed in the MF image because successful photographers usually get the most expensive equipment available? To what extent does different post processing affect the result?
Just as police corruption is best not examined and reported upon solely by the police, such issues cannot reasonably be expected to be adequately resolved by MF users with invested interests to protect.
The problem is, I for one am not going to buy a terribly expensive set of MF gear, including DB, MF body and lenses, in order to make such comparisons.
I rely upon MFDB owners who also happen to own a 1Ds3 to make such comparisons, and as I've already written, that's a bit like expecting the Police Force to report on its own corruption.
-
Jonathan - totally uncalled for - it's nothing like that. thats really sick. this forum is really something else - going to pot one post @ a time including this one...
-
Sorry Jim,
But I have to agree with Jonathan on this forum.
I've only been registered with LL since December 2007 but have definitely come to the conclusion that there are a number of pompous people on this website.
Regards
Simon
-
how did this post get so snarky so fast?
In the spirit of "lets take the high road", can we pull back from the back and forth here, and just let posts be posts?
I'm not so fond of the DSLR/MF debate either, but it has a place. So let it be a thread, and just pass it by if you don't care....
There are very few good forums left about this stuff, and I'd like not to have to find another one.
OK?
Geoff
-
The story ends at different places for each of us. Horses for courses, but it is only by studying the form that we can guess at which nag to back. Reviews are our guide to the beasts performances so when there's hardly a neck between a couple of runners then a few tips from other riders don't go amiss. But at the end of the day a horse is only as good as the jockey.
DR of Canon 1D, 9.5 stops. DR of ZD back, 12 stops. I can live with it's other shortcomings to gain this advantage alone. End of story for me.
Justin.
-
... and did you ever ask yourself/check if you still have those 12 stops at the end and in your raw?
Best regards,
Thierry
DR of Canon 1D, 9.5 stops. DR of ZD back, 12 stops. I can live with it's other shortcomings to gain this advantage alone. End of story for me.
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Jonathan - totally uncalled for - it's nothing like that.
Then explain why when a "Post your MFDB work" thread is created, numerous MF film images are posted to the thread and nobody cares, even they are not MFDB. But when a few DSLR images are posted, there is an uproar, and the individual who posted the DSLR images was hounded until he removed them. Not because they lacked artistic vision, or were poorly executed technically, but simply because they were captured with a DSLR. The only exception to this is the DSLR images posted by James Russel, who has sufficiently godlike status (and deservedly so; his work is always excellent) that he is above criticism. Even after this broughaha, people have continued to post MF film images to that thread, and nobody cares. It's obviously anti-DSLR discrimination, even though the thread is supposed to be MFDB-only.
Then there's the attitude of many of the people toward the "MFDB vs DSLR" question. Anyone who wants to discuss the subject is criticized and persecuted like some sort of heretic, and any attempt to rationally discuss the technical differences between DSLR and MFDB RAWS unleashes a torrent of arrogant, condescending, rudeness. Much is made of the point that MFDB RAWs are sharper out of the camera, but nobody wants to discuss how much of an image quality gap might remain if the image processing settings for sharpening and contrast were adjusted to make each image the best it can be and then comparing, rather than insisting that they both be processed with identical settings. But attempting to discuss this prompts an even shriller level of personal attacks.
I currently shoot with DSLRs, but I'm interested in MFDB. If I am discharged from the Army and get a disability settlement, I may have a budget sufficient to buy a MFDB system. So I'm trying to educate myself about the relative advantages and disadvantages of each system, and separate solid facts from obvious format-fanboy fiction like "MF has a greater 3-D look over DSLR that is visible even in web JPEGs". I'm interested in the answer to questions such as:
To what degree can the per-pixel image quality difference between MFDB and DSLR be reduced by optimal processing based on the needs of the file? (more deconvolution-based capture sharpening for the DSLR file than the MFDB file, different amounts of local contrast enhancement / Clarity, etc.)
What is the photographically useful dynamic range of MFDB vs 1Ds-3 at ISO 100? ISO 400? ISO 1600?
What size of print is necessary for the difference between a 1Ds-3 and a P45+ to become noticeable, if both files are processed to be the best they can be? 4x6"? 8x10"? 16x20"?
and of course, the bottom line questions:
Do the advantages of MFDB (better image quality) outweigh the disadvantages (slower shooting rate, greater weight/bulk, less capable autofocus, and additional cost) for what I shoot, and the size of prints and files my clients typically need?
Can the purchase of a MFDB system be justified from a business perspective?
I realize that many of you have already decided the answers to these questions for yourselves, but there are many DSLR shooters besides myself that are considering adding MFDB to our set of tools. You all are whining about the high cost of MFDB systems and worrying about the long-term viability of the market; the best solution to that problem is to encourage more photographers to purchase MFDB systems. That will reduce unit costs by economy of scale, and reduce the likelihood of additional manufacturers from bowing out of the market. The best way to encourage more photographers to make the jump to MFDB is to encourage discussion about the relative merits of MFDB vs DSLR, not treat anyone who wants to discuss the subject like an idiot or a heretic. Treating people who aren't already in your club like the great unwashed is the best way possible to guarantee the death of medium format digital, or at least the continuation of limited selection and excessively high prices.
-
So I'm trying to educate myself about the relative advantages and disadvantages of each system, and separate solid facts from obvious format-fanboy fiction like "MF has a greater 3-D look over DSLR that is visible even in web JPEGs". I'm interested in the answer to questions such as:
To what degree can the per-pixel image quality difference between MFDB and DSLR be reduced by optimal processing based on the needs of the file? (more deconvolution-based capture sharpening for the DSLR file than the MFDB file, different amounts of local contrast enhancement / Clarity, etc.)
What is the photographically useful dynamic range of MFDB vs 1Ds-3 at ISO 100? ISO 400? ISO 1600?
What size of print is necessary for the difference between a 1Ds-3 and a P45+ to become noticeable, if both files are processed to be the best they can be? 4x6"? 8x10"? 16x20"?
and of course, the bottom line questions:
Do the advantages of MFDB (better image quality) outweigh the disadvantages (slower shooting rate, greater weight/bulk, less capable autofocus, and additional cost) for what I shoot, and the size of prints and files my clients typically need?
Can the purchase of a MFDB system be justified from a business perspective?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188922\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
The debate is basically one-way only because anybody on this forum can afford a used 5D or equivalent, so the question is just "should I get a DB in addition to the Canon". I don't think that any pro shooter who has to carry his own stuff can nowadays afford not to own a Canon for the cases when the speed is necessary - my P45+ can do one frame per 2 secs, this is clearly not tolerable for a pro in many situations.
Edmund
-
Jonathan,
I don't think there is one MF(DB) user acting and being the way you describe them to be. Most here are "educated" enough to not fall into the trap of being arrogant, condescending, rude or discriminating nor are there any negative critics or persecutions against those using a (d)slr camera.
Most of the MF users (digital or not) are still using (d)slr's.
The point is rather that these discussions and comparisons can never come to a conclusion with treads and words, nor is there one truth, since the only way to prove/show/demonstrate anything about differences/advantages and disadvantages concerning the 2 systems can be achieved only in a side-by-side comparison: and even then, better make sure to use the same (corresponding) lenses, at their same (corresponding) f-stops, etc ....
Other than this will (should) convince nobody.
Some MFDB users here (many I hope) have made these side-by-side tests and have compared under their own working conditions: from these they have made their conclusions and decisions. Some have reported these conclusions here. And they were criticized sometimes the same way for daring to see such big differences or for not seeing it. either way.
I don't understand why, if interested to make the jump to a larger format, one would not take the time to make one's own tests and conclusions, rather than starting sterile discussions. Yes, the advice from the ones using the tools are important, but should not and never be taken as being the truth. It is one truth among many: make your own truth by testing and working with it.
I think that is what many want to say here.
best regards,
Thierry
Then explain why ...
... or at least the continuation of limited selection and excessively high prices.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188922\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
..
and did you ever ask yourself/check if you still have those 12 stops at the end and in your raw?
Nope.
However, I know that in mixed lighting the ZD knocks the pants off the 30D, indeed, it produces a far better picture altogether (within the systems limits). How it compares with the 1D I can't say, but I know that the Mamiya has 22m pixels spread over a much larger sensor, and since pixel size is the main limiting factor in DR then that's good enough for me (I did come across the actual pixel size and if I recall correctly the ZD's are around 12microns across whist the Canon's are about 8 or thereabouts, but please correct if I am wrong, as I think I am.)
At the end of the day the Mamiya suits me far better than a dSLR, maybe that's because I just preferred MF over 35mm when shooting film and old habits die hard. Comparing camera and sensor specs to the n'th degree I am happy to leave to others, preferring to get on with the photography.
Another point, how can we say whether the Canon produces a better picture than a P25? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Many people consider this top photo- www.justinseye.com/subpage4.html to be the best on my site, it was taken on a mobile! Does this mean that Nokia make better cameras than Canon?
Justin.
-
Jonathan,
The debate is basically one-way only because anybody on this forum can afford a used 5D or equivalent, so the question is just "should I get a DB in addition to the Canon".
I agree. But that's still a question worth discussing. $30K+ is a significant investment for most photographers.
-
9 microns
(I did come across the actual pixel size and if I recall correctly the ZD's are around 12microns across whist the Canon's are about 8 or thereabouts, but please correct if I am wrong, as I think I am.)
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I don't mind telling people what made me invest in MFDB or where I think the differences between the 2 are, however I get the feeling on many occasions that the motif for the discussion is far from pure.
I often get the feeling that some people that are now using a DSLR want to have a confirmation they made the right choice by not choosing for a MFDB solution.
Again I have absolutely no objection to informing people that have a genuine interest in using MF solutions. I really hate the feeling that I am just passing my knowledge to be used in some sort of debate where there needs to be a sort of winner or to sooth somebody elses insecurity.
Now, you could easily say the same the other way round however I have not seen that many MFDB users ask for stuff that really proves the Canon is a lesser solution than MFDB to get confirmation of their choice. On the contrary most MFDB users I know use a 5D, 1DsMKIII, D300 or D3 alongside their MF equipment. I use a Nikon system along my MFDB simply because I cannot do everything with MF, some things are just safer to do with the Nikon.
Before buying a MFDB solution and doing a 30K+ investment I assume most people will testdrive it. They should. Information that is passed in these forums can be of help but in the end you should see it for yourself and make the comparisons for yourself. Determine for yourself if the difference is there for you and whether it is worth it to you.
As far as the recent works thread goes, I think a mosquito is being turned into an elephant about that remark.
-
I agree. But that's still a question worth discussing. $30K+ is a significant investment for most photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, we can try and pursue the same reasoning, then. Notice that this form of the question already sets us apart from 90% of the people out there: If I know that I already have a Canon, which are the cases where the MF would make a difference ?
And then a strange thing happens. You get to sharpen the question: A difference to who ? To me while composing and shooting ? To me while postprocessing the files ? To me while looking at my bank account ? To me when feeling my backache ? To the final client ? To the art director ? To my friends ? To my reputation ? To my dealer ? To my gallery ? To the company reps on this forum ?
Speaking for myself, I love MF file quality, I don't like the slow lenses, the heavy cameras and above all, I have learned to hate those parasitic dealers (the ones outside Atlanta). It's interesting that the Pebble blog makes the same points.
I'd say MF has good sides when you look at the imagery, and some bad sides when you try to create it.
Edmund
-
Well, we can try and pursue the same reasoning, then. Notice that this form of the question already sets us apart from 90% of the people out there: If I know that I already have a Canon, which are the cases where the MF would make a difference ?
And then a strange thing happens. You get to sharpen the question: A difference to who ? To me while composing and shooting ? To me while postprocessing the files ? To me while looking at my bank account ? To me when feeling my backache ? To the final client ? To the art director ? To my friends ? To my reputation ? To my dealer ? To my gallery ? To the company reps on this forum ?
For me, the most important factors are the shooting experience and the client's satisfaction with the final delivered image file or print. If I miss a shot because I'm waiting for the camera to clear the buffer or because the sync cable got snagged on a branch and unplugged, that's bad. And while file quality is an important factor in client satisfaction, there is a point at which it becomes overkill and further improvements are not going to increase client satisfaction or the price they are willing to pay for the job/file/print.
What I'd like to see is head-to-head RAW comparison between the 1Ds-3 and a MFDB, same subject, same composition (within the limits of the aspect ratio differences) with the following conditions:
*All the RAWs are about 1/3-stop from clipping according to Rawanalyze.
*ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600.
*Aperture selected so that DOF is the same in both images, or better yet, the scene is such that DOF and focus placement is not an issue.
*The scene has a table lamp or other fairly large bright object with detail so that it is challenging to capture the full DR of the scene.
*The scene has elements with fine detail in both the highlights (texture of lampshade) and deep shadows.
*Both cameras use high-quality prime lenses so that the capabilities of the cameras are being compared, not the lenses. The Canon 135 f/2L would be my preference for the 1Ds-3.
*All 10 RAW files are posted so that comparisons cam be made using the RAW converter and tools of one's own choice.
-
What I'd like to see is head-to-head RAW comparison between the
The only way your going to see anything like this that is relevent is to do it yourself and it will take an investment.
To test any camera in the style and genre you work is to pretty much do it in the worst conditions imagineable.
If you shoot 300 images a day, test it by shooting 1,000. If you post processes out small jpegs it batches in 30, do large tiffs in batches of 500, if you never change out of camera or sotware settings, then start moving the expsoure around +1 up to 2 stops and try to correct them.
Rename, edit, sort and move the images around in the software. Process images in the background why you shoot.
Do this on your primary AND backup computer.
If you work in bright sunlight, try shooting in a deep shaded area, with bounce light for fill, if you work with 400 watts of strobe pump it up to 2,000 watts.
Only under the most stressful, harsh, changing conditions will anyone know what works in a professional atmosphere.
All of these cameras and sensors can be scene specific. Some cross more territory than others, some are more affordable, some offer better service, some are more reliable but all of them take a learning curve that no review or microscopic examination of raw files is going to inform until you work in your specific genre under your specific conditions.
Pleasing a "client" is important, but remember the client usualy hires you for the highest level you can obtain, so pleasing yourself is really why you are in the room in the first place.
Basically, this conversation just rages on from year to year and quite honestly I've gotten caught up in it in the past, but it's just hyperbole and opinion until you try this yourself.
There are a lot of dealers that want to sell a lot of cameras and it won't take too long to find one that will let you demo any of this equipment to your satisfaction.
JR
P.S. and don't just try the most expensive item on the shelf. I think you'd be surprised how good some of the entry level cameras and backs compare.
-
Or better yet, stay out of threads you don't find interesting, so that those who do find the topic interesting can find the information they have an interest in without having to wade through a bunch of arrogant pomposity. Some of you act like members of a 1960's-era Mississippi country club whining about women, blacks, and Jews wanting to become members.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=188830\")
Classy comment there.
It's so simple:
- this is a medium format digital forum
- there are already may threads on this subject, so we don't need a new one
Just for you: [a href=\"http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting[/url]
-
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
It's so simple:
- this is a medium format digital forum
- there are already may threads on this subject, so we don't need a new one
I'm interested in finding out exactly what benefits a MFDB may offer over upgrading to the 1Ds3 from the 1Ds. Asking for specific information about MFDB vs 1Ds3 is an appropriate topic for this forum, since I'm looking for information regarding the capabilities of MFDBs. Furthermore, the specific info I requested has NOT yet been posted or discussed, since there has not yet been a RAW to RAW comparison posted between the 1Ds3 and any MFDB yet. So I'm not rehashing any of the comparisons that have already been posted and discussed to death. Your rude and inappropriate response reflects exactly the kind of country-club attitude that I objected to in the first place.
If discussing the relative merits of one camera system vs another bores you, that's fine; move on to a topic that interests you. But there's no reason for you or anyone else to inject snotty and sarcastic comments into a legitimate discussion of a topic that falls within the scope of this forum.
-
Jonathan,
take it easy.
You won't ever get a RAW here from both systems taken under the exact same conditions.
Make these RAWs yourself, and post your findings.
Best regards,
Thierry
I'm interested in finding out exactly what benefits a MFDB may offer over upgrading to the 1Ds3 from the 1Ds. Asking for specific information about MFDB vs 1Ds3 is an appropriate topic for this forum, since I'm looking for information regarding the capabilities of MFDBs. Furthermore, the specific info I requested has NOT yet been posted or discussed, since there has not yet been a RAW to RAW comparison posted between the 1Ds3 and any MFDB yet. So I'm not rehashing any of the comparisons that have already been posted and discussed to death. Your rude and inappropriate response reflects exactly the kind of country-club attitude that I objected to in the first place.
If discussing the relative merits of one camera system vs another bores you, that's fine; move on to a topic that interests you. But there's no reason for you or anyone else to inject snotty and sarcastic comments into a legitimate discussion of a topic that falls within the scope of this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Jonathan,
take it easy.
You won't ever get a RAW here from both systems taken under the exact same conditions.
Make these RAWs yourself, and post your findings.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
An opinion of an amateur. I just purchased a D300 with the 24-70 2.8. I also have a "low end" MFD system..Hassy 503CWD. I just took the D300 out this afternoon...Just a quickl eyeball comparison...The Hassie images still have "that something extra" compared the the Nikon.
-
You won't ever get a RAW here from both systems taken under the exact same conditions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why not? We already have RAW images from the P30, 5D and Canon G9 P&S, under fairly exact conditions, if you do a search. The P30, having more than double the pixel count of the 5D was clearly more detailed, and noise, in same size images appeared to be noticeably less because of the greater number of pixels, but at the pixel level, one for one, it probably (and maybe definitely) wasn't.
I think many of us understand, if you have a heavy investment in MFDB equipment, there's very little incentive to give the newcomer, the 1Ds3, a fair hearing. No one wants to shoot himslef in the foot, so to speak.
-
I think it is a very valid and meaningful comparison, since it generates so much traffic in these posts it must be of interest!!!! I would ask Mr. Reichmann to consider doing the comparison not for the sake of which is the ultimate camera but detailing the strengths and weakness's of both in image quality not features. Michael has both the 1DsIII and a P45+ so it would be state of the art DSLR vs state of the art MFDB. I'm interested in how big the spread is.
Marc
5D:
[attachment=6078:attachment]
P30:
[attachment=6079:attachment]
-
Marc
Pity that the pictures weren't the same scene and same time but even from you post might I dare suggest that the dark shadows on the 5D image might well have had an awful lot more detail if shot with the P45. Thats the big bonus of dFM, it doesn't give simply throw in the towel as soon as it sees a shadow, or should that be, doesn't see a shadow?
Justin.
-
Of course, the reason I asked for RAW is because it's difficult to tell how much of the difference between two rendered images is due to the RAW converter settings and the cameras themselves. If Michael would jump in and do something like the "ultimate shootout" he did between the original 1Ds and drum-scanned 6x7 a few years back that would be awesome, especially if he made the RAWs available for download.
-
Of course, the reason I asked for RAW is because it's difficult to tell how much of the difference between two rendered images is due to the RAW converter settings and the cameras themselves. If Michael would jump in and do something like the "ultimate shootout" he did between the original 1Ds and drum-scanned 6x7 a few years back that would be awesome, especially if he made the RAWs available for download.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=189163\")
I borrowed a 1Ds3 a couple of times for my own nutshell 1DS3 review.
[a href=\"http://techcomment.blogspot.com/2008/03/canon-1ds3-review-no-revolution-just.html]http://techcomment.blogspot.com/2008/03/ca...ution-just.html[/url]
I told my contact at Canon that the firm surely wouldn't dispute my finding that a 39MP camera captures better imagery than a 21MP camera, as all their ugrade marketing is based on that concept - there was loud laughter at the other end of the phone line
ROTFL
Edmund
-
Edmund, I read that article several days ago, and found it interesting and well-written.
-
Edmund, I read that article several days ago, and found it interesting and well-written.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Jonathan. The Pebble guy also has an interesting blog, with a different perspective, and the pix there are really nice.
I guess if you *already* have a Canon 1Ds3, the differential up from the 21MP is there but it's simply isn't worth the money or the hassle except for those who really want the utmost file quality (beauty, fashion, architecture).
However, if you have a working Canon solution which isn't good enough for the best work, then it might make sense to get a back ***instead of upgrading the Canon***.
Let me be clearer:
- You already have a 1Ds3, why buy a back ?
- You have a 5D with little trade in value and some lenses, then keeping the 5D another 2 or 3 years and buying a Mamiya or Hassy for stuff that needs hi-rez might make sense if you can find a good deal. The 5D won't stop working and you'll be able to buy a spare really cheap if it does. I think the 1Ds3 also has some hidden costs in lenses, some of your existing glass would need an upgrade.
It's possible that the MF guys will fight back with better sensors and better lenses soon to recreate a real advantage for their product; for now they are hostages to the camera systems they rely on which are fast getting outdated.
Edmund
-
Right now I have a 1Ds Mark I, and a 1D Mark II.
-
- You already have a 1Ds3, why buy a back ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do you keep asking when it's been answered so many times?
- maybe people need faster flash sync speeds
- maybe people need more dynamic range
- maybe people like to be able to push and pull an image more then Canon files can stand
- maybe people need more resolution
- maybe people prefer to work with waist-level or 45 degree finders
- maybe people need a digital solution for view cameras
- maybe people prefer the MF lenses
- maybe people prefer the colour and detail rendition
- maybe people prefer not to rotate the whole camera when shooting in portrait mode
- and believe it or not there are features which the Hy6 has which Canon does not, afaik, such as focus bracketing/focus trap
There could be more I can't think of right now.
Do you work for Canon?
-
Why do you keep asking when it's been answered so many times?
- maybe people need faster flash sync speeds
- maybe people need more dynamic range
- maybe people like to be able to push and pull an image more then Canon files can stand
- maybe people need more resolution
- maybe people prefer to work with waist-level or 45 degree finders
- maybe people need a digital solution for view cameras
- maybe people prefer the MF lenses
- maybe people prefer the colour and detail rendition
- maybe people prefer not to rotate the whole camera when shooting in portrait mode
- and believe it or not there are features which the Hy6 has which Canon does not, afaik, such as focus bracketing/focus trap
There could be more I can't think of right now.
Do you work for Canon?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's always been clear to me that a bigger sensor with more pixels delivers better 'ultimate' results, from a technical point of view.
If ultimate 'technical' image quality is the goal, I would never try to argue that a camera such as the 1Ds3 could compete with a P45+.
The interesting aspects of 35mm/DB comparisons are analogous to the comparisons between the Olympus 4/3rds system and 35mm. The advantages of the 4/3rds system in relation to full frame 35mm is analogous to the advantages of FF 35mm (the 1Ds3) compared to DBs, except the differences in format size between FF 35mm and DBs is less.
-
I don't think this kind of threads are getting better or less which is a shame.
I shot with the Leaf Aptus22 and the 1DsIII on the Proimaging side by side.
When later working on the files a few things were VERY clear.
1. The 1DsIII has noise in the backgrounds where the Leaf Aptus on ISO50 is totally clear.
2. The 1DsIII files are less defined in shadow areas and look more harsch than the Leaf files.
3. The 1DsIII files are showcasing weak reds
4. The 1DsIII files clipped MUCH quicker than the Leaf files
5. The 1DsIII files were less defined in very small detail like hairs and the iris of the eye
But whatever someone says you cannot compare the two.
I shoot alot with the 80mm f2.8 wide open on the Mamiya system and the files I get with that combo are stunning and I could not get the same result with the Canon system, which is absolutly logical because the total system is different, and I really don't understand why that is so hard to understand.
Of course when you need speed and high ISO the 1DsIII cannot be beat.
If you want absolute best quality, great dynamic range, sharpness, color, smooth graduates, noise free operation on very low ISO's, ISO25 or real ISO50
MF is the way to go.
There is ABSOLUTLY NO NEED or SENSE to compare a 1DsIII to a MF system, unless the MF system uses a 1.8-2.0 crop factor, or untill the Canon system will get a sensor twice as big.
Comparing Phase one to Leaf or Imacon that is worth the effort.
Now the only thing that is equal between MF and Canon is the MP count, and we all know that means nothing.
-
Now the only thing that is equal between MF and Canon is the MP count, and we all know that means nothing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not quite, Frank. It does mean something. Resolution tends to be equal, but DR favours the larger pixel.
In situations where DR is crucial, the DB with equal pixel count probably wins. But I'm not sure if it wins at high ISO.
The CMOS sensor has on-board processing for every pixel. Low level signals can be amplified before A/D conversion. I don't think this is the case for CCD sensors.
I would suspect that a Canon 1Ds3 would perform significantly better than a P21, or P25, in low light. Just how much better seems to be a trade secret.
-
Apples and Oranges.
Sorry, it's a discussion which was on this forum already many times, and always with the same conclusion.
You know how it makes me think ?
And don't get me the wrong way, I LOVE my DSLR and would NEVER trade it for a MF only system, I shoot both and know which one to use when.
But the whole thing is as follows.
As soon as the DSLR MP count reaches the MF MP count there will be stories about a MF killer.
Let me put it this way.
When a BMW and a Tractor are compared do you agree that it doesn't make sense ?
They both have the same Horsepower (well in my example they do ), they both have 4 wheels and they both can drive.
Well actually some people will say that this is a ridicilous example and they are probarbly the people that did not work extensivly with a MF system, or did so in the past.
When I shot with the 1DsIII I fell in love with it, it's a wonderful machine, it's great, the files are stunning and the resolution is great.
However when I put the 80mm f2.8 on my Mamiya/Leaf combi and I shoot a model wide open with natural light the files and LOOK I get with that combi cannot be made with a DSLR.
The f2.8 wide open RAZORsharp compared to the canon lenses wide open.
The sensor is twice as big so the field of view vs DOF are totally different from both systems.
Some people will say, get the 85mm 1.2 and put it on the canon and you will have the same results, I can say no.
First off I cannot get that much space between my model in a hotelroom.
Second the field of view is radical different, the compression of the scene is different, the DOF is different.
And third and maybe the most important factor I hardly ever shot my Canon glass wide open expecting razorsharp images, they were good (read very good on some lenses) but they were nowhere near as sharp as the MF lenses deliver.
As long as the sensor of a MF system is different from the DSLR there is no comparision possible.
Of course when you have to buy into a system you can now have high resolution DSLR's which equal the MF backs, but only on resolution.
People always use the high ISO as a difference and that is true.
But let me take that another route, did you ever shot your Canon on ISO25 ?
Do you know how important that can be for fashion/model photography ?
For me it's vital.
At the moment the fastest sync for flash is 1/125 (with the new leaf lenses for the mamiya AFD/III that will be more) and ISO25 gives me the oppertunity to shoot with full power studio strobes outside and still get a very nice shallow DOF.
For every point there is a counter point.
My opinion in short is that both systems are stunning and are really delivering for their market, however I did not choose MF for the MP's, I choose it for the DOF, lower ISO's and Dynamic range.
If Canon releases a 1DsIII with 12 stops dynamic range, REAL ISO25 and 22 MP's I will probarbly be in doubt in which to invest if I would have to start over again.
At that moment there is only one difference and that is sensor size.
And to be honest I even than think I would invest the money into a MF system.
I have to add that you would probarbly never (although I never say never) see me invest in a back with a crop factor smaller than my leaf aptus22 and when there is a full size MF back I will probarbly invest and buy that one when it's in my price range.
At the moment however it's like comparing a xxD with 22MP's with a 1DsIII with 22MP the sensor is different so the LOOK and FEEL of the pictures are different.
Everyone should have experienced that in the past when stepping up from a crop camera to a FF camera.
With MF systems the difference is even bigger (when using a appropriate back of course)
-
Some people will say, get the 85mm 1.2 and put it on the canon and you will have the same results, I can say no.
First off I cannot get that much space between my model in a hotelroom.
Second the field of view is radical different, the compression of the scene is different, the DOF is different.
And third and maybe the most important factor I hardly ever shot my Canon glass wide open expecting razorsharp images, they were good (read very good on some lenses) but they were nowhere near as sharp as the MF lenses deliver.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can't understand this, Frank. The relationship between focal length, crop factor, format size and F stop, is very clear. Some people may argue about subtle differences in the way things pan out in practice, but generally you can get a pretty close equivalence by making the appropriate adjustments.
Lens quality is another matter. Lens quality has always been a big issue in Photography.
-
Marc
Pity that the pictures weren't the same scene and same time but even from you post might I dare suggest that the dark shadows on the 5D image might well have had an awful lot more detail if shot with the P45. Thats the big bonus of dFM, it doesn't give simply throw in the towel as soon as it sees a shadow, or should that be, doesn't see a shadow?
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes the most noticeable differences I have seen are in the shadows and a smoothness the added resolution makes. Never the less I would still like to see a comparison of SOTA DSLR vs MFDB, is the margin between them decreasing, constant or increasing?
Marc
-
I have avoided this thread for three days because of the "train wreck" direction it was headed, but now it seems folks have calmed down to the point where some meaningful information may get ultimately shared.
I have shot MF digital for a while, but have never owned any of the HR digital backs, so my comments are relegated to my most current cameras to compare, the Mamiya ZD and 1Ds3.
Not wanting to repeat much of what has already been said, here are a few of my own observations:
First is re the MF "look": Yes, the 80 f2.8 lens on MF has a totally different look than an 85/1.2 on FF. Not even the same ballpark; the 80 on biggest MF is about an effective 55 FoV, yet the f2.8 aperture renders more like f1.4 in FF terms. Total DoF may be deeper on MF, but it clearly falls off to a smooth OOF rendering faster. And as pointed out, the MF 80's wide open are extremely sharp compared to most FF 50's at f1.4. IMO it is a pointless exercise to get into cropped MF frame with an 80/2.8 compared to FF with 85 -- anybody with a MF camera is going to mount a 140/150 (~ a 95 - 105), not crop the 80. If you compare a 140/150 f3.5 wide open to an 85/1.2 wide open at comparable FoV, the 85/1.2 will show shallower DoF at the PoF, but the overall look of the two images is surprisingly similar. Sidebar: I shoot with a Hassy 110 f2 lens on my Mamiya via an adapter which is about equivalent to a 75 on FF. Compared to the Canon 85/1.2 wide open, the Hassy 110 is significantly sharper at the PoF with DoF falling off *much* faster with the 110...
Noise: Go to 200 on my ZD back and you will see what looks like a lot of noise in the shadows, yet when printed to the same final size as an equivalent 1Ds3 at 200, the MF print is notably smoother.
MF has better tonal range and better color.
FF has higher ISO options, is more portable, faster frame rates, faster image reviews, better AF, better AE and better AWB. It also has broader selection of focal lengths both wider and longer, more zooms and more special-purpose lenses.
Weight and overall handling ease of a body with a prime are essentially a wash if compared to a pro-level FF camera like the 1Ds3. Obviously mid-level FF cameras like the 5D are much lighter in weight.
Other points of consideration: In MF, you have either focal-plane shutter bodies or leaf-shutter lens bodies. A body with a focal plane shutter can generally be adapted to use other manufacturers lenses. For example, I can mount and shoot with older Mamiya 645 manual lenses, Hasselblad F or CF lenses, several older generation 6x7 system lenses and even large format lenses if attached to a bellows. I am limited to a 1/125th flash sync speed with this system, a disadvantage in studio applications. On leaf-shutter lenses, you are generally limited to the lenses specifically designed for the camera body, but can gain flash synch speeds up to 1/800th second. Horses for courses...
Cheers,
-
deleted
-
I would think one could get a pretty good idea of the sort image quality difference between FF 35mm and DBs by comparing a Canon 40D (or the new 450D) with the Canon 5D, at base ISO.
Both cameras have a similar pixel count but the 40D is a smaller format with a smaller pixel pitch. The difference in format size, between the 40D and 5D, is only slightly greater than the difference in format size between a 1Ds3 and Mamiya ZD when the FF 35mm is cropped to the 4:3 format of the ZD. The 40D has a crop faxtor of 1.6 in relation to FF 35mm and FF 35mm has a crop factor of 1.5 in relation to the ZD.
Most photographers who use DBs seem to prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio. I don't think I've seen any comparisons between a 1Ds3 and P21 (or ZD) where the long side of the frames have been matched with respect to FoV, which would give the 35mm format a 1.33 crop factor in relation to the ZD.
When the heights of the frames are matched, the 1Ds3 becomes effectively an 18.7mp camera and the 1Ds2 a 14.8mp camera.
I don't own a Canon 85/1.2, but I do have the 50/1.4, the TSE 90/2.8, a 40D and a 5D body.
With a slight adjustment of shooting distance, I should be able to get a fairly close match using the 50/1.4 at full aperture with the 40D, and the TSE 90/2.8 at full aperture with the 5D. The differences in image quality between two such shots should be comparable to the differences that many MFDB users experience when they use FF 35mm with an 50/1.4 lens at f1.4 instead of a P21 with 80mm lens at f2.8.
Agreed?
-
Ray,
if you really want to compare FF 35mm with a DMFB then do compare it by taking such a camera and such a back. Period. You won't compare the same type of sensors in play with your test.
Thierry
I would think one could get a pretty good idea of the sort image quality difference between FF 35mm and DBs by comparing a Canon 40D (or the new 450D) with the Canon 5D, at base ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189330\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Well, I first want to say that I have gathered some valuable information from this thread and so thank you to the folks who have spent the time and posted a thorough rundown of their talking points between the two systems in question. It is really invaluable information coming form those who have used both systems extensively. So thanks again, I appreciate it.
-
I applaud John Black for his PebblePlace website, because it has better information than anything this dreadful forum will ever contain.
-
Ray,
if you really want to compare FF 35mm with a DMFB then do compare it by taking such a camera and such a back. Period. You won't compare the same type of sensors in play with your test.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No can do, Thiery. It's difficult enough and expensive to even compare a Nikon D3 with my Canon 5D, here in Brisbane. Last time I checked with the hire company, their priority was to fill the back orders for sales of the D3 before considering hiring out a camera. And the particular Nikkor lens I was interested, the 14-28/2.8 was not on the list for hire because of it's inability to take a protective filter (lens too bulbous).
There'd be no point in my comparing a DB with my 5D. I don't need to be convinced that a 21, 30, 45mp large format sensor produces technically higher quality images than a 12mp miniature camera.
-
Thiery,
It's true that such a comparison (between the 40D and 5D) could not reveal the differences between the CMOS and CCD sensors. Are these significant? Do we have any examples in recent camera models, of two sensors of the same size and pixel count, where such differences can be seen in their own right, isolated from other distracting effects?
One (perhaps more significant) difference between the two sensor types is the fact that DBs generally have no AA filter. Can we compare the significance of such different qualities; on the one hand the subtle effects of the nature of the CCD sensor compared to the CMOS sensor (at base ISO), as opposed to the subtle effects of the presence of (or lack of) an AA filter? Which consequence is greater?
As it happens, it is possible to have the AA filter removed from the 5D. However, I'm not going to go to that trouble and expense just for the purpose of getting a more valid comparison, but it would certainly remove one more qualitative difference between the two sensor types, leaving, as far as I can see, just the CCD versus CMOS issue, which might be a non-issue, at least at base ISO.
-
Thiery,
One (perhaps more significant) difference between the two sensor types is the fact that DBs generally have no AA filter. .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
AFAIK the only non DB camera with no AA filter as stock is the Leica M8 where depth behind the lens was paramount, as was image quality, YMMV as to which consideration came first. Certainly in my experience the sharpening required in post, for prints within each cameras native output, is very similar between the P20 and M8 and a lot different to the Canon 1Ds3 which is different to the 2 variant.
Your problems are compounded in comparing what may be subtle differences in the variations present between the types of sensor and the variations seen between different serial number examples of he same model/back where POV and lenses etc can be matched. Edmund for example has clearly shown major differences in performance in backs of the same model that have passed QC. That of course depends on the tolerances QC are applying to a pass. Not all backs are created equally a fact also seen, and frequently commented on, in lens QC discussions. Most commentators are happy when they find a lens which is on spec. it would be nice if one out of spec. on the good side of the distribution curve, could be found, the same for backs.
-
AFAIK the only non DB camera with no AA filter as stock is the Leica M8
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is also the Leica DMR, which uses a CCD sensor with no AA filter. You could then use the same Leica lens with the DMR and a Canon body.
In fact there was a large thread on FM with this very test. Guy Mancuso tested the DMR against a Canon 1DsII. He sold his Canon gear after that test.
-
There is also the Leica DMR, which uses a CCD sensor with no AA filter. You could then use the same Leica lens with the DMR and a Canon body.
In fact there was a large thread on FM with this very test. Guy Mancuso tested the DMR against a Canon 1DsII. He sold his Canon gear after that test.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Guy also then moved his whole practice to the M8.
Edmund
-
Guy also then moved his whole practice to the M8.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now, ie very recently, he has bought a Nikon D3.
And yes I had forgotten about the other Leica although perhaps I can get away with it by adding "in current production" to my assertion. It does however mean as you say the lens can be taken out of the equation.
-
Actually, Guy ended up not buying a Nikon D3. He bought a Mamiya ZD back. I'm not making this up -- it's in a couple of threads at the www.getdpi.com medium format forum.
Now, ie very recently, he has bought a Nikon D3.
And yes I had forgotten about the other Leica although perhaps I can get away with it by adding "in current production" to my assertion. It does however mean as you say the lens can be taken out of the equation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Edmund for example has clearly shown major differences in performance in backs of the same model that have passed QC. That of course depends on the tolerances QC are applying to a pass. Not all backs are created equally a fact also seen, and frequently commented on, in lens QC discussions. Most commentators are happy when they find a lens which is on spec. it would be nice if one out of spec. on the good side of the distribution curve, could be found, the same for backs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also returned my first Canon 5D within days of receiving it because I saw disturbing banding in the deep shadows in the first test shots I took, even at base ISO. The second copy was noticeably better.
As regards lenses, in the absence of real MTF charts applicable to the individual lenses, I find that all I can do is compare one lens with another. Today I picked up my Canon 50/1.4 which I'd sent in for calibration a few weeks ago. I sent the lens for calibration because one day I found during testing that the lens was marginally less sharp than my cheapest lens, the Canon 50/1.8 II which is less than 1/4th the price of the 50/1.4. It's difficult for me to know if the 50/1.4 is average and the 50/1.8 exceptionally good, or, if the 50/1.8 is average and the 50/1.4 is below par. Both lenses are sharper than my 24-105 zoom at 50mm.
Anyway, I'll be soon testing the 50/1.4 with my 40D using LiveView to get perfect focussing. I might as well shoot the same target with my 5D and TS-E 90/2.8 to get an idea of the magnitude of the differences between a 1Ds3 and ZD. The Mamiya ZD has an AA filter which is user removable, hasn't it?
-
Guy and I work together. He does in fact now shoot with the M8, D300 and ZD back on a 645 AFDII. He needed some longer-reach lenses for podium work, and file quality was not as important to him as focus speed/accuracy, hence the D300 and a few longer lenses. He still shoots the M8 for some product and location work, as well as personal artistic projects. MF digital, even entry level or earlier generation MF digital, blows away any DSLR for image quality, so he made that move for his product/corporate work.
The rest of the story: Both of us have been waiting for Leica to release the R10, assuming slightly larger than full frame sensor and AF, all with quality Leica glass and non-AA's sensor -- IOW mini medium format digital. However, I started doing the acquisition math and realized I could get a ZD outfit now for less than a similar R10 outfit would probably cost, so I made the move about 2 weeks ago. Took one look at the files and sold almost all of my Canon gear and bought up a bunch of Mamiya glass and a few specialized pieces of Hassy glass. Guy saw my ZD files while we were teaching our printing workshop in Carmel last week. Camera West hosted a private reception for our group he second evening, and happened to have a demo ZD outfit. Guy bought that demo unit instead of the D3 he was planning on picking up, sold some of the overlap M and Nikon glass and is in the process of building up his ZD outfit.
More of the story with images in the above referenced thread.
Cheers,
-
I have a Leica R9/DMR combo. The DMR is a very "special" digital device with its, let's say, own character. The lack of the AA filter is a big advantage in terms of sharpness per pixel over the usual bunch of high end DSLRs. The R9/DMR is a good studio and still subjects camera but not a very versatile DSLR compared to the Nikons and Canons. In this sense, I think it's closer to the philosophy of a MFDB. The quality of the files at 100, 200 ISO is really gorgeous but it decreases substantially at 400 and 800 (the inclusion of a 1600 Hi ISO option is just testimonial). The DR is also very good as far as I can tell. The Leica glass, needless to say, is incredible. Sometimes you get some strange green or magenta casts and the shadows noise could be an issue when processing the files with ACR: C1 and Flexcolor offer the best results (althogh I hate Flexcolor usabilty).
I can`t tell how the DMR compares with a 1DsMkII or 1DsMkIII. I've been thinking for some time about getting the 1DsMkIII (I have a lot of Canon L glass) instead of taking the MFDB route (too much money for me) but its "soft" file output is keeping me away from it. You can`t also use the Leica R WA lenses with the 1Ds due to mirror clearance issues.
-
As regards lenses, in the absence of real MTF charts applicable to the individual lenses, I find that all I can do is compare one lens with another. Today I picked up my Canon 50/1.4 which I'd sent in for calibration a few weeks ago. I sent the lens for calibration because one day I found during testing that the lens was marginally less sharp than my cheapest lens, the Canon 50/1.8 II which is less than 1/4th the price of the 50/1.4. It's difficult for me to know if the 50/1.4 is average and the 50/1.8 exceptionally good, or, if the 50/1.8 is average and the 50/1.4 is below par. Both lenses are sharper than my 24-105 zoom at 50mm.
Anyway, I'll be soon testing the 50/1.4 with my 40D using LiveView to get perfect focussing. I might as well shoot the same target with my 5D and TS-E 90/2.8 to get an idea of the magnitude of the differences between a 1Ds3 and ZD. The Mamiya ZD has an AA filter which is user removable, hasn't it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the Canon 50/1.4 is a very good preformer for its price. I use the 50/1.4 and the 24-70/2.8 L and I still find it better than de latter for a short margin.
The Mamiya ZD back has an AA filter that is user removable. I'm very interested about how it compares against the 1DsMkIII althogh I have mixed feelings about this back and this camera. The actual price of the ZD is really tempting but I prefer to wait and see for the release of the AFDIII and the new digital back. I'm still considering the Rollei Hy6 with a film back (thinking about a future migration to a MFDB).
The rest of the story: Both of us have been waiting for Leica to release the R10, assuming slightly larger than full frame sensor and AF, all with quality Leica glass and non-AA's sensor -- IOW mini medium format digital. However, I started doing the acquisition math and realized I could get a ZD outfit now for less than a similar R10 outfit would probably cost, so I made the move about 2 weeks ago. Took one look at the files and sold almost all of my Canon gear and bought up a bunch of Mamiya glass and a few specialized pieces of Hassy glass. Guy saw my ZD files while we were teaching our printing workshop in Carmel last week. Camera West hosted a private reception for our group he second evening, and happened to have a demo ZD outfit. Guy bought that demo unit instead of the D3 he was planning on picking up, sold some of the overlap M and Nikon glass and is in the process of building up his ZD outfit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This one is the next option. But, how much is going to cost the R10? How will it work with the actual manual focus lenses (in one of his last interviews Andreas Kaufman didn't totally clear out this point)?
-
Man this argument just won't go away. It's like the old Nikon (APS-C) vs. Canon (FF) debate that filled the ether prior to the advent of the D3,
SLRs and MF only 'compete' across a relatively narrow spectrum where portability, fps and ISO don't matter. Horses for courses.
No matter what systems you test; with equivalent lenses, the camera with the larger sensor and LARGER (not more, but larger) photocells will outperform the latter in terms of IQ (res, color, DR, smoothness, etc etc).
That said, a 24mm x 36mm 1Ds2 sensor could likely match a 36mm x 36mm CFV sensor, center image, with the same glass as both have 9um2 cells, but the SLR has an AA filter to overcome, not to mention the different manner in which CMOS and CCD 'draw'.
Then there is the issue that most sensors can deliver more than the vast majority of the same manufacturer's lenses can deliver, so unless you're sticking a premium (no, not Canon's BS "L" as in cough, 'premium', cough, but 'premium' as in exceptional tested performance) lens on the front (which in most cases would be from a third party anyway), of your uber-MP sensor DSLR, you're wasting money on the sensor anyway.
Nikon with the 14-24G is starting to get the picture, Canon (to name one), not so much. Leica and in most cases Zeiss have been there already - in designing (and pricing) for premium rendition from design day 1.
In MF and LF, Rodenstock and Schneider have gotten the message that people are moving from film on their bodies to MFDBs and it's time to cull the lens portfolio accordingly
FF DSLRs are now running into the same issue their APS-C brethern had; there are only so may photosites you can stick on a given mm2 of substrate before you have to hit the 'reset' button and start looking elsewhere for increased performance.
One can also see the same thing coming in MF - how many cells/mm2 can you fit on a CCD substrate before you hit the wall and have to either increase substrate size ($$$$)or, alter the substrate tech, or do like Hasselblad and build around tighter lens/sensor integration so that end-to-end manufacturing tolerances and/or firmware corrections/compensation can tighten the IQ chain?
Aaargh, time to get another coffee.
As an aside, the Jan-Feb '08 copy of Photo Techniques (available for download) has an interesting test of a 1Ds2 vs H2+P45 vs H3-39 vs Linhof+P45 that some might find interesting.
-
The Mamiya ZD back has an AA filter that is user removable.
To clarify: The ZD back comes with an IR-cut filter that is removable. You can purchase an OPTIONAL combo IR-cut/AA filter IF you need AA for your shooting application. This filter is spring loaded and snaps in and out without tools, so ostensibly you could shoot direct IR capture with this back as well. I am hoping to test that this week.
This one is the next option. But, how much is going to cost the R10? How will it work with the actual manual focus lenses (in one of his last interviews Andreas Kaufman didn't totally clear out this point)?
Those are the big questions and both unknown at this time. It's why I decided to go with what I did, since I can get it now...
-
Guy and I work together. He does in fact now shoot with the M8, D300 and ZD back on a 645 AFDII.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My error for which I offer apologies I had D3 not D300 in my head. My thoughts are running to the D300 for reach reasons.
My elderly (relatively) P20 still has a massive quality edge but the frame rate on the V is more in the frames per min range.
-
Hi,
One of the reasons that the 1.4 is more expensive then the 1.8 is the extra half stop of aperture. There is no reason that an 1:1.4 would be better than an 1:1.8 at medium apertures.
Larger aperture needs bigger lenses which actually also are a constraint on design. Higher price may make it possible to use more expensive glass which may be good for performance.
Everything in life is a compromise...
Best regards
Erik
I also returned my first Canon 5D within days of receiving it because I saw disturbing banding in the deep shadows in the first test shots I took, even at base ISO. The second copy was noticeably better.
As regards lenses, in the absence of real MTF charts applicable to the individual lenses, I find that all I can do is compare one lens with another. Today I picked up my Canon 50/1.4 which I'd sent in for calibration a few weeks ago. I sent the lens for calibration because one day I found during testing that the lens was marginally less sharp than my cheapest lens, the Canon 50/1.8 II which is less than 1/4th the price of the 50/1.4. It's difficult for me to know if the 50/1.4 is average and the 50/1.8 exceptionally good, or, if the 50/1.8 is average and the 50/1.4 is below par. Both lenses are sharper than my 24-105 zoom at 50mm.
Anyway, I'll be soon testing the 50/1.4 with my 40D using LiveView to get perfect focussing. I might as well shoot the same target with my 5D and TS-E 90/2.8 to get an idea of the magnitude of the differences between a 1Ds3 and ZD. The Mamiya ZD has an AA filter which is user removable, hasn't it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi,
Another question is how much of what is lost in the AA-filter that can be regained with optimal sharpening. AA-filters don't come cheap, so there is certainly some reason that they are used, and that reason is certainly not to save costs.
If you compare formats you need to do that with appropriate post processing which will not be the same for different sensors.
High resolution backs probably outperform the lenses at small (< f:11) apertures.
Best regards
Erik
To clarify: The ZD back comes with an IR-cut filter that is removable. You can purchase an OPTIONAL combo IR-cut/AA filter IF you need AA for your shooting application. This filter is spring loaded and snaps in and out without tools, so ostensibly you could shoot direct IR capture with this back as well. I am hoping to test that this week.
Those are the big questions and both unknown at this time. It's why I decided to go with what I did, since I can get it now...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189720\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi,
One of the reasons that the 1.4 is more expensive then the 1.8 is the extra half stop of aperture. There is no reason that an 1:1.4 would be better than an 1:1.8 at medium apertures.
Larger aperture needs bigger lenses which actually also are a constraint on design. Higher price may make it possible to use more expensive glass which may be good for performance.
Everything in life is a compromise...
Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's true that all good lenses tend have similar performance at F8 and I would not expect to see any significant differences between the Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 at apertures from F5.6 to F11.
However, when shallow DoF is required, the smaller format needs to be used at wider apertures. If the lenses that one happens to use for that smaller format all tend to have rather poor performance wide open, then one might tend to draw the false conclusion that the larger format, of similar pixel count, (the DB) is directly responsible for that significantly sharper result including this elusive sense of 3-dimensionality, simply because it's larger.
This principle can be demonstrated very graphically by the following MTF 50 charts I've copied from Photozone. They use an APS-C cropped format camera for testing purposes (the 8mp 350D I believe), so centre resolution is very relevant to the results one would get using a 1Ds3 which has the same pixel pitch as a 350D. However, the border resolution, as shown in magenta on the charts, would be much worse on the 1Ds3.
The really interesting points one can glean from these charts, are:
(1) The 50/1.4 at F1.8 and F2.8 is significantly sharper than the 50/1.8 at F1.8 and F2.8.
(2) The TS-E 90/2.8 (at F2.8) is significantly sharper than the 50/1.4 at F1.4.
Now, the significant point here is, if I were in a studio using my 5D to shoot glamour pics, using the TS-E 90 at F2.8, I would probably be fairly pleased with the results.
However, if I then switched to the 40D and placed the camera on the same tripod, shooting the same model from approximately the same distance, I would need to use the 50/1.4 at full aperture to get the same DoF.
I predict that the results would be awful with regard to sharpness of eyelashes (although the model might be pleased that her complexion imperfections were suitably disguised).
We have a situation here where, not only is the lens on the 5D significantly sharper at the aperture used, than the equivalent lens on the 40D at the equivalent aperture, but such a lens (the TS-E 90mm) would still give better results on the 5D even if it were not sharper, because the 5D has wider pixel spacing.
I can predict the results of such a comparison. However, I need to actually make the comparison in practice to get a handle on the significance of such differences on prints.
[attachment=6145:attachment]
-
How soon things change. 10 years ago medium format held a massive advantage over 35mm and there was not much to compare between them. The fact that we can even COMPARE a DSLR to a MFDB now in my opinion is simply amazing. The homogenizing effect we are seeing will continue until we no longer call it MFDB or DSLR it will be back to
Hasslebald
Mamiya
Canon
Nikon
etc. systems and thats where it will stop. The format issue being argued here is soon to be moot.
FWIW I think the Canon does a wonderful job vs MFDB's and it really comes down to style and familiarity rather than quality for 99% of the shooters out there that need this much resolve.
We're splitting some very fine hairs here gentleman
-
I agree...
also... I'm a little bothered when the discussion of dslr vs. mfd is left at that.... The 1ds3 has massive improvements in image quality over the 1ds2... so when the argument is not specific to the camera in question it has little significance. Also... many people compare dslr in camera jpegs to mfdb raw processed... again not fair.
if the user treats the 1ds3 like they do a mfdb, and with well chosen glass.... it's a kit hard to beat.
-
How soon things change. 10 years ago medium format held a massive advantage over 35mm and there was not much to compare between them. The fact that we can even COMPARE a DSLR to a MFDB now in my opinion is simply amazing.
No offense, but what everybody has been telling you here is that you CANNOT compare them, there is no contest, the MF backs blow the DSLR's out of the water on resolution, tonality and color. A 3 or 4 generation old Kodak 16MP DCS back mounted to a Contax 645 that was discontinued three years ago, will outperform a 22MP Canon 1Ds3 at comparable image ratios and ISO 100/200. I know you don't want to hear that, but everybody that's shot both is telling you it's the case. Where the DSLR's shine by comparison is where they've always shined, portability and focal length selection and with digital, you can add high ISO availability. End of story.
Re the AA filter --- YES IT MATTERS! IMO it is precisely what allows the 16MP Kodak back in my above example to outperform the 22MP Canon 1Ds3. What you notice when you shoot a camera without one next to a camera withone, is how much more "smeared" the color looks on the AA file. THere is also a relative lack of acutance, though adding some local contrast (clarity) can help, but not replace. I am equally sure this AA smearing is partly what allows for the higher ISO performance of the DSLR, the rest obviously is built in NR... FInally, most MF backs allow for turning on NR. However, if you do, you immediately notice a similar smearing to your color -- and associated loss of clarity -- in the MF file.
Cheers,
-
No offense, but what everybody has been telling you here is that you CANNOT compare them, there is no contest, the MF backs blow the DSLR's out of the water on resolution, tonality and color. A 3 or 4 generation old Kodak 16MP DCS back mounted to a Contax 645 that was discontinued three years ago, will outperform a 22MP Canon 1Ds3 at comparable image ratios and ISO 100/200. I know you don't want to hear that, but everybody that's shot both is telling you it's the case. Where the DSLR's shine by comparison is where they've always shined, portability and focal length selection and with digital, you can add high ISO availability. End of story.
Thats a laugher not an offender. FWIW I've been shooting MFDB since the original 6mp lightphase. You know... before the filter.. When you had to mount it on the front of the lens. Of course you did that too right? Or perhaps you were still playing with your Kodak Disc then? Dunno but its as foolish for me to say that absurdity about you as it is for you to assume I have no dig back experience. I've got tons.
My point was merely to say that in most cases we are now at a stage where only a very select FEW will even be able to tell the difference between a quality image from either system. The lines draw nearer whether you like to hear it or not and they are not so vast as you would like to believe.
For the record? I didnt buy a Mk3 either. I only shoot tethered and so far the USB aint cutting it so I'll wait and see what happens.
-
No offense, but what everybody has been telling you here is that you CANNOT compare them, there is no contest, the MF backs blow the DSLR's out of the water on resolution, tonality and color. A 3 or 4 generation old Kodak 16MP DCS back mounted to a Contax 645 that was discontinued three years ago, will outperform a 22MP Canon 1Ds3 at comparable image ratios and ISO 100/200. I know you don't want to hear that, but everybody that's shot both is telling you it's the case. Where the DSLR's shine by comparison is where they've always shined, portability and focal length selection and with digital, you can add high ISO availability. End of story.
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack -
If I speak English as I was taught over here in Europe, I'd say the back scores a victory on points against the SLR, assuming the referee is watching *very* carefully.
And by the way, yes I did my own tests.
Edmund
-
For some, the difference between "maybe yes" and "probably no" comes down to splitting hairs. For others the distinction is considerable...
-
A 3 or 4 generation old Kodak 16MP DCS back mounted to a Contax 645 that was discontinued three years ago, will outperform a 22MP Canon 1Ds3 at comparable image ratios and ISO 100/200.
Jack,
What aspect ratio is that 3rd generation Kodak 16mp back? If it's 4:3 and the 1Ds3 is cropped to the same aspect ratio, then we're comparing 18.7mp to 16mp, a pixel count difference which is negligible.
As a result of the wider pixel spacing of the larger format, it should deliver better results with lenses of a resolving power that is no better than that of the 35mm lens.
Add to the equation the additional crispness due to the lack of an AA filter and the possibility that the MF lenses at the apertures used in any comparison are also higher resolving than the equivalent 35mm lenses at correspondingly wider apertures, then I can believe that an old 16mp Kodak back will outperform a 1Ds3.
The issue here, for me at least, is not that the larger format might usually deliver better results. You'd expect it to. I'm interested in what factors contribute to this result and how significant each factor is.
We know for example that 35mm DSLRs are better at autofoussing. Presumably, anyone using a DB who wants the sharpest result will manually focus, perhaps with the camera tethered to a computer. Whilst autofocussing with 35mm might be generally good, is it as good as a manual focus? The fact that we now have DSLRs with LiveView would suggest that manual focussing is sometimes necessary for sharp results. I've certainly found that to be the case with my 40D.
When accurate focussing is not an issue, how would that 3rd generation Kodak back compare when the lens is set at F13, and the lens on the 1Ds3 at F8 with shorter focal length?
The necessity for an AA filter with the latest high pixel density sensors is a mystery to me. If Kodak could get away without one on its 14n, why should it be necessary to have one on the next generation of Sony 24mp 35mm sensors?
Perhaps the new Sony sensor will not have an AA filter. I hope not.
-
Well, Jack, I had a devil of a time trying to discover the dimensions of the sensor in the old Kodak DCS 16mp backs. All I could find on Kodak's website was 110x93x63.5mm. Must be another trade secret.
I should have tried the Luminous Landscape equipment reviews first, because there I found the actual aspect ratio of the 16mp Kodak DCS Pro Back (it's square) and the dimensions, 36.9x36.9mm.
Is this the 3rd or 4th generation Kodak back you are referring to (the Kodak DCS Pro Back discontinued in early 2004)?
If so, then I think it becomes very doubtful if a square format 16mp DB could equal the quality of a 21mp 35mm format camera, such as the 1Ds3, if the DB image were cropped to the same aspect ratio as the 35mm image.
Are you claiming that a 10.7mp DB image is generally superior to a 21mp 1Ds3 image? If so, I'd like to see the images, with full details including lens and F stop.
-
Hasslebald
Mamiya
Canon
Nikon
etc. systems and thats where it will stop. We're splitting some very fine hairs here gentleman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Splitting hairs or not, I am sure Thierry is not too pleased to see that you have left Sinar or leaf off this magic list of manufacturers who are part of a new dawn. As far as i can tell up take of the Hy6 has been deservedly good as Hasselblad have been a bit static recently!
-
Thanks Ed, to correct this "omission".
I had noticed it, but am used to such.
Best regards,
Thierry
Splitting hairs or not, I am sure Thierry is not too pleased to see that you have left Sinar or leaf off this magic list of manufacturers who are part of a new dawn. As far as i can tell up take of the Hy6 has been deservedly good as Hasselblad have been a bit static recently!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Here is a link to the Kodak site, for the 16mp pro back, yes it was square. 16mp.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/pro...ekn017518.jhtml (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/professional/products/ekn017518.jhtml)
The section that has the actual users guide is where you can see the actual dimensions.
Paul C
-
Sorry Thierry that "list" was not a future prediction list of the players who will still be in the game but just a quick point that the issue of "format" is one I believe is pretty much done and it will be the best system that wins our dollars regardless of its marketed design "format"
I've used Sinars in the past to shoot food and have nothing bad to say about them at all. Great systems.
-
That's alright, Dansk, no harm at all.
Best regards,
Thierry
Sorry Thierry that "list" was not a future prediction list of the players who will still be in the game but just a quick point that the issue of "format" is one I believe is pretty much done and it will be the best system that wins our dollars regardless of its marketed design "format"
I've used Sinars in the past to shoot food and have nothing bad to say about them at all. Great systems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Here is a link to the Kodak site, for the 16mp pro back, yes it was square. 16mp.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/pro...ekn017518.jhtml (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/professional/products/ekn017518.jhtml)
The section that has the actual users guide is where you can see the actual dimensions.
Paul C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was just surprised it proved to be so difficult to find out what I consider to be a very significant and basic specification, the size of the sensor. I didn't expect to have to download a 2.5mb pdf user guide in order to get such information. I'm still on a 56k dial-up connection .
A comparison between images from a 16mp Kodak DCS Pro Back and 1Ds3 images cropped to a square format, puts the 1Ds3 at a significant disadvantage.
The 21mp 1Ds3 image, after cropping, becomes effectively an image from a 14mp 24mmx24mm sensor. One would expect any 16mp sensor which is 36.9x36.9mm to produce at least slightly better results than a 14mp sensor of dimensions 24x24mm, especially when the larger sensor has no AA filter.
The difference in area between two such sensors (after cropping the 1Ds3) is about the same as the difference between the APS-C sensor and FF 35mm, just slightly less.
-
I was just surprised it proved to be so difficult to find out what I consider to be a very significant and basic specification, the size of the sensor. I didn't expect to have to download a 2.5mb pdf user guide in order to get such information. I'm still on a 56k dial-up connection .
A comparison between images from a 16mp Kodak DCS Pro Back and 1Ds3 images cropped to a square format, puts the 1Ds3 at a significant disadvantage.
The 21mp 1Ds3 image, after cropping, becomes effectively an image from a 14mp 24mmx24mm sensor. One would expect any 16mp sensor which is 36.9x36.9mm to produce at least slightly better results than a 14mp sensor of dimensions 24x24mm, especially when the larger sensor has no AA filter.
The difference in area between two such sensors (after cropping the 1Ds3) is about the same as the difference between the APS-C sensor and FF 35mm, just slightly less.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
In theory that should apply. When I compared my ZD ( dalsa chip 22 mp ) to my 1DsMKIII well the results posted on Dec 2007 showed me results that surprised me. The 1DsMKIII was so close to the ZD & now the Canon is being used more.
-
Theory only applies if the sensor technology is the same in both sensors being compared. But when you have different generations of sensors based on different technologies (CMOS vs CCD) made by different manufacturers, with different or no AA filter or microlenses, the only way to compare is with actual images, not theoretical extrapolations based on sensor area or pixel size or whatever.
-
Theory only applies if the sensor technology is the same in both sensors being compared. But when you have different generations of sensors based on different technologies (CMOS vs CCD) made by different manufacturers, with different or no AA filter or microlenses, the only way to compare is with actual images, not theoretical extrapolations based on sensor area or pixel size or whatever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If the means to do such comparisons are available, that is, you have the equipment, then of course you will get a more precise impression using the actual equipment rather than predicting what the outcome is likely to be using other equipment. That hardly needs mentioning .
But science is about predicting what the results will be. If you have knowledge about lens performance and your your sensor's size and pixel count, you (or perhaps I should say I) can get a pretty good idea of what to expect with the equipment you have'nt got.
I don't think that at base ISO the differences between CCD and CMOS, or the differences between slightly old technology and brand new technology, are going to be nearly as significant as sensor size, pixel count and lens quality.
One can get an fair idea of the subtle effects of removing the AA filter, from sites such as MaxMax and from the images and comments posted already on this forum.
I did some preliminary comparisons yesterday between my 40D with 50/1.4, and 5D with TSE 90/2.8. I needed to check out my 50/1.4 after receiving it back from calibration.
Sadly, from a distance of about 4 ft, my 50/1.4 simply isn't autofocussing accurately. I'll do more tests at different distances and different types of targets, but it looks as though this lens will have to go back again to Canon.
However, comparing the 40D and 50/1.4 at F1.4 with the 5D and 90/2.8 at 2.8, comparable apertures considering the 5D needed to be moved back from the tartget slightly, the results are pretty much as I predicted.
All focussing was manual, of course, and here the 40D has the edge because of LiveView. Despite this edge, the 5D/90mm combination produced clearly superior images at all equivalent apertures I tried, but the differences were greatest at equivalent apertures of F1.4 and F2.8. If I were in a studio shooting models, there's no way I would choose the 40D and 50/1.4 in place of the 5D and TSE 90.
PS.I didn't compare the 5D/TSE 90 at f16 with the 40D/50mm at f8 (that's for the next test ). However, I would predict that at these apertures the differences would be insignificant, just as I would predict that a 1Ds3 at f8 (using a good lens) would produce images on a par with a Mamiya ZD at f11 or f13.
-
of-course this is the most useful comparison i have seen here in LL. Thank you so much Ray for working and posting so hard for us marketing blinded fools.
-
of-course this is the most useful comparison i have seen here in LL. Thank you so much Ray for working and posting so hard for us marketing blinded fools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL
-
How soon things change. 10 years ago medium format held a massive advantage over 35mm and there was not much to compare between them. The fact that we can even COMPARE a DSLR to a MFDB now in my opinion is simply amazing.
Not really, though. When you consider the resolution lost compared to MF film.
MF film scanned at 3600 DPI would be more realistic. (65MP) Since good labs scan 35mm film at 3600DPI, why not apply the same standard to MF?
65MP is basically where real digital backs should be considered medium format. Yes, It's an enormous amount of extra data, but hold 35mm film and 6X6 side by side. It's an incredible difference in physical size, and so, therefore, it should also be for digital.
17MP is effectively a film replacement for 35mm. (equivalent to 3600DPI film scan almost exactly) 0.94 inches*1.42 inches. 3384*5112. Stretching this a little bit isn't close to MF. What it is, really, is 35mm film that's enlarged to 1.42X1.42, or about 5112*5112(25MP).
A 20MP DB is actually *slightly* better than 35mm film, which leads to silly comparisons like this article. It's a pseudo medium format that we've been tricked/marketed into believing is a replacement for 6X6 film, because technology hasn't caught up yet.
P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best. 2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)
~40MP that we have now is getting closer, though, and I expect to see 65MP true MF backs in about three years.
-
17MP is effectively a film replacement for 35mm. ...
A 20MP DB is actually *slightly* better than 35mm film
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There are many tests on the net comparing film with digital. So far, every one I have seen shows that 35mm film has approximately the same level of detail as 8-10MP. 17MP is quite an exageration. In fact a 22 MP digital back will beat 645 film and and 39MP back will beat 6x6 and 67.
-
Not really, though. When you consider the resolution lost compared to MF film.
MF film scanned at 3600 DPI would be more realistic. (65MP) Since good labs scan 35mm film at 3600DPI, why not apply the same standard to MF?
65MP is basically where real digital backs should be considered medium format. Yes, It's an enormous amount of extra data, but hold 35mm film and 6X6 side by side. It's an incredible difference in physical size, and so, therefore, it should also be for digital.
17MP is effectively a film replacement for 35mm. (equivalent to 3600DPI film scan almost exactly) 0.94 inches*1.42 inches. 3384*5112. Stretching this a little bit isn't close to MF. What it is, really, is 35mm film that's enlarged to 1.42X1.42, or about 5112*5112(25MP).
A 20MP DB is actually *slightly* better than 35mm film, which leads to silly comparisons like this article. It's a pseudo medium format that we've been tricked/marketed into believing is a replacement for 6X6 film, because technology hasn't caught up yet.
P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best. 2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)
~40MP that we have now is getting closer, though, and I expect to see 65MP true MF backs in about three years.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yeah, that bollocks. ive been looking back at my drum scanned 35mm stock shots, and the resolution is terrible compared to what im used to- 16, 21 and 22 mp files. so bad, that i have problems selling them as stock as my level of what is usable is so much higher now.
i also had to do a composite shot recently, and i had to comp in a person running like a grey hound in the middle of a grey hound race. the bg shot was a getty shot on 35mm, and i shot the guy at about the same distance with the 1dsmk2, and i had piles more resolution with digital.
paul
-
yeah, that bollocks. ive been looking back at my drum scanned 35mm stock shots, and the resolution is terrible compared to what im used to- 16, 21 and 22 mp files. so bad, that i have problems selling them as stock as my level of what is usable is so much higher now.
i also had to do a composite shot recently, and i had to comp in a person running like a grey hound in the middle of a grey hound race. the bg shot was a getty shot on 35mm, and i shot the guy at about the same distance with the 1dsmk2, and i had piles more resolution with digital.
paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not all about resolution..............
and as for your stock shots not being able to be sold alongside digital, that's just bollocks. Every month i look at my stock sales and every month the stuff shot on film far outsells my digital stuff. The thing is that all stock is starting to look the same with every man and his dog shooting with a Canon, or maybe a DB but not so much. This year i will be shooting much more with my Pentax 67 and less with my 1DS3.
-
Hi,
You may also consider the quality of the pixels...
3600 PPI may be a bit beyond what film can resolve, a bit depending of the definition of resolution. Scans from film allow much less sharpening then digital, because of the grain.
BTW, medium format film, 6x7, scanned at 3200 PPI, properly post processed is quite nice!
Best regards
Erik
Not really, though. When you consider the resolution lost compared to MF film.
MF film scanned at 3600 DPI would be more realistic. (65MP) Since good labs scan 35mm film at 3600DPI, why not apply the same standard to MF?
65MP is basically where real digital backs should be considered medium format. Yes, It's an enormous amount of extra data, but hold 35mm film and 6X6 side by side. It's an incredible difference in physical size, and so, therefore, it should also be for digital.
17MP is effectively a film replacement for 35mm. (equivalent to 3600DPI film scan almost exactly) 0.94 inches*1.42 inches. 3384*5112. Stretching this a little bit isn't close to MF. What it is, really, is 35mm film that's enlarged to 1.42X1.42, or about 5112*5112(25MP).
A 20MP DB is actually *slightly* better than 35mm film, which leads to silly comparisons like this article. It's a pseudo medium format that we've been tricked/marketed into believing is a replacement for 6X6 film, because technology hasn't caught up yet.
P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best. 2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)
~40MP that we have now is getting closer, though, and I expect to see 65MP true MF backs in about three years.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
of-course this is the most useful comparison i have seen here in LL. Thank you so much Ray for working and posting so hard for us marketing blinded fools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That quite all right, Rainer , but the main point of my comparison is that it's all in the lenses at the apertures used. The TSE 90 has an image circle big enough for a DB. It's a lens of comparable quality to the Canon 50/1.4 (and no doubt many MF lenses) but actually better at F2.8 than the 50/1.4 at F1.4.
For work with shallow DoF, MFDB has the advantage because the lenses used at wide apertures are either as good as (or better than) 35mm lenses at their equivalent, but wider apertures. MFDB also has the advantage because the 4:3 aspect ratio seems to generally suit studio work better than 35mm.
With landscape work where the 4:3 aspect ratio might be cropped to the 35mm aspect ratio or wider, and small apertures (f8-f22) are used used for extensive DoF, I would predict there is little advantage to the DB of similar pixel count to FF 35mm.
-
It's not all about resolution..............
and as for your stock shots not being able to be sold alongside digital, that's just bollocks. Every month i look at my stock sales and every month the stuff shot on film far outsells my digital stuff. The thing is that all stock is starting to look the same with every man and his dog shooting with a Canon, or maybe a DB but not so much. This year i will be shooting much more with my Pentax 67 and less with my 1DS3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
sorry, i didnt mean my older film images werent selling because they are film. they are, and mainly because i havnt shot much stock lately, and most of my getty stuff is film.
i was meaning that i feel guilty putting film forward to stock as i really think its not up to scratch. im meaning 35mm though, not 6x7 or 5x4 which is obviously very good.
i like film, and ive been shooting with my sinar 5x4 lately, but i think 35mm is a medium you use when you want grain as an effect, not resolution.
i picked up an older national geographic the other day and was amazed how grainy and low res it a lot of it was. the grain was nice, but grain is a limitation of the medium.
paul
-
sorry, i didnt mean my older film images werent selling because they are film. they are, and mainly because i havnt shot much stock lately, and most of my getty stuff is film.
i was meaning that i feel guilty putting film forward to stock as i really think its not up to scratch. im meaning 35mm though, not 6x7 or 5x4 which is obviously very good.
i like film, and ive been shooting with my sinar 5x4 lately, but i think 35mm is a medium you use when you want grain as an effect, not resolution.
i picked up an older national geographic the other day and was amazed how grainy and low res it a lot of it was. the grain was nice, but grain is a limitation of the medium.
paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190868\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fair comment Paul, i agree that 35mm film has its limitations, and as we both agree 6x7 & 5x4 film still have a place.
Gary.
-
Fair comment Paul, i agree that 35mm film has its limitations, and as we both agree 6x7 & 5x4 film still have a place.
Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Though I primarly work in commerce, I've never felt that a camera should be used primarly because it captured more detail, either film or now in digital.
Some cameras feel and work right for the moment and sometimes that moment has virtually nothing to do what is "right" or wrong.
There is beautiful work by Art Kane, Helmut Newton, Guy Bordin and Phillip Dixon that was primarly shot 35mm though all of those artists would work in different formats.
Consequently many of thier contemporaries shot with 10x8 and 2/14 square cameras.
For all of those artists in those times, it was more of an artistic interpretation of how they wanted to portray the world, rather than if more eye lash detail was available.
Sometimes it just happened to be the only camera they owned, so that was the camera format they used.
When I have time I love to go into the Leica Gallery on Broadway. There is always a collection of past work, usually photojournalists and it always has a ring of truth to it and a timeless look, though in close examination the focus is usually off, the detail wouldn't rival even a $400 dslr, though their is a charm and a look to those images have that today's uber sharp, maximum detail, perfect color, and highlights under 255 would never portray.
Maybe it's the availability of the web, or maybe it's just our obsession to prove what's right and what's wrong, but honestly to produce a beautiful image either moving or still, the camera matters but not in ways most of us think.
There is this exhaustive thread that rears it's head on all of these forums comparing 35mm to medium format and regardless of the replies, the downloadable raw files, the 100% crop comparisions of proof, the subject pops up again and again, to the point it actually is pointless to read the replies because they are just a mirror image of the same thread 2, 3, 4, 24 weeks prior.
I've held a camera in my hand most of my adult life and I can promise you that the only camera that matters is the one you feel good about.
The rest is just numbers on a chart.
JR
-
Well said James!
No need for this tread to continue.
Best,
WR.
-
James,
Did you actually read the thread as you seem to have taken my last comment in isolation and then given me a lecture in 'Art'. That was my whole point, film, Digital, 10x8, APS,Polaroid, what difference does it make. My reply to Paul was based on my non belief that all of a sudden 'stock' shots would not sell cos they had been shot on film, which we all know is ... ?? The reference to 6x7 and 5x4 was 'only' with regard to usability for stock as i shoot colour neg and stock houses will not accept it shot on 35mm.
My point which you seem to have lost judging from your reply, is exactly this, to discount film as a viable option on the basis of quality, ie too grainy compared to 'my lovely Phase files', is just nonsense.
I shoot film because of what i feel i achieve with it suits my vision of what i want better than i can achieve with my 1DS3, not anything to do with 'detail'.
Gary.
-
645 scan vs. 1Ds2 (http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/canon1ds/markii.html)
-
645 scan vs. 1Ds2 (http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/canon1ds/markii.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And yet another person who doesn't read the thread...
This forum kills me.
If detail is all i was after i would use my 1DS3 or rent a Phase. Please read the thread carefully and then offer something constructive.
Gary.
-
And yet another person who doesn't read the thread...
This forum kills me.
If detail is all i was after i would use my 1DS3 or rent a Phase. Please read the thread carefully and then offer something constructive.
Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I read the thread Gary. Since there are posts about film vs. digital, I posted a link. Am I going to be sent to my room?
-
I read the thread Gary. Since there are posts about film vs. digital, I posted a link. Am I going to be sent to my room?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190937\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes go to your room and write 100 times,
'Film vs digital was not the debate, Gary's comment was 'it's not all about resolution'.
Actually a little unnecessarilly aggressive from me 203, apologies!
Gary.
-
Gary, there are many posts in this thread to which I might be replying. Yours was not the one I chose to respond to.
-
Gary, there are many posts in this thread to which I might be replying. Yours was not the one I chose to respond to.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190943\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fair enough 203, just that the link hierarchy shows as a reply to me, but maybe not just to me, appologies!
Gary.
-
Though I primarly work in commerce, I've never felt that a camera should be used primarly because it captured more detail, either film or now in digital.
Some cameras feel and work right for the moment and sometimes that moment has virtually nothing to do what is "right" or wrong.
There is beautiful work by Art Kane, Helmut Newton, Guy Bordin and Phillip Dixon that was primarly shot 35mm though all of those artists would work in different formats.
Consequently many of thier contemporaries shot with 10x8 and 2/14 square cameras.
For all of those artists in those times, it was more of an artistic interpretation of how they wanted to portray the world, rather than if more eye lash detail was available.
Sometimes it just happened to be the only camera they owned, so that was the camera format they used.
When I have time I love to go into the Leica Gallery on Broadway. There is always a collection of past work, usually photojournalists and it always has a ring of truth to it and a timeless look, though in close examination the focus is usually off, the detail wouldn't rival even a $400 dslr, though their is a charm and a look to those images have that today's uber sharp, maximum detail, perfect color, and highlights under 255 would never portray.
Maybe it's the availability of the web, or maybe it's just our obsession to prove what's right and what's wrong, but honestly to produce a beautiful image either moving or still, the camera matters but not in ways most of us think.
There is this exhaustive thread that rears it's head on all of these forums comparing 35mm to medium format and regardless of the replies, the downloadable raw files, the 100% crop comparisions of proof, the subject pops up again and again, to the point it actually is pointless to read the replies because they are just a mirror image of the same thread 2, 3, 4, 24 weeks prior.
I've held a camera in my hand most of my adult life and I can promise you that the only camera that matters is the one you feel good about.
The rest is just numbers on a chart.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My thoughts exactly.
But there are a lot of people on here [and elsewhere] who love talking numbers far more than they love talking pictures and they will carry on talking numbers as long as they have fingers to count with.
-
-
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190950\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A picture well worth a thousand comments
Edmund
-
There are many tests on the net comparing film with digital. So far, every one I have seen shows that 35mm film has approximately the same level of detail as 8-10MP. 17MP is quite an exageration. In fact a 22 MP digital back will beat 645 film and and 39MP back will beat 6x6 and 67.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quote:
P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best. 2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)
*****
So, let's say it's 2400, then. That still nets you about 7MP(seems low but whatever) for 35mm, which everyone here will agree is about 35mm's actual "quality"(Bayer interpolation and anti-aliasing and color/saturation issues aside for now) I think it's higher, but let's go for 2400dpi. Slightly over 400DPI Dye sub, actually, so it seems to be a good compromise, given how the best d-labs currently operate. (they internally scan 35mm film at close to 2400dpi, IIRC)
That still nets ~30MP for MF as a bare minimum. It's just that much more physical area than 35mm film. Calling 20MP "MF" isn't really very accurate. So the cameras look like they are similar at 20MP. Big surprise...
-
Exactly!
Though I primarly work in commerce, I've never felt that a camera should be used primarly because it captured more detail, either film or now in digital.
Some cameras feel and work right for the moment and sometimes that moment has virtually nothing to do what is "right" or wrong.
There is beautiful work by Art Kane, Helmut Newton, Guy Bordin and Phillip Dixon that was primarly shot 35mm though all of those artists would work in different formats.
Consequently many of thier contemporaries shot with 10x8 and 2/14 square cameras.
For all of those artists in those times, it was more of an artistic interpretation of how they wanted to portray the world, rather than if more eye lash detail was available.
Sometimes it just happened to be the only camera they owned, so that was the camera format they used.
When I have time I love to go into the Leica Gallery on Broadway. There is always a collection of past work, usually photojournalists and it always has a ring of truth to it and a timeless look, though in close examination the focus is usually off, the detail wouldn't rival even a $400 dslr, though their is a charm and a look to those images have that today's uber sharp, maximum detail, perfect color, and highlights under 255 would never portray.
Maybe it's the availability of the web, or maybe it's just our obsession to prove what's right and what's wrong, but honestly to produce a beautiful image either moving or still, the camera matters but not in ways most of us think.
There is this exhaustive thread that rears it's head on all of these forums comparing 35mm to medium format and regardless of the replies, the downloadable raw files, the 100% crop comparisions of proof, the subject pops up again and again, to the point it actually is pointless to read the replies because they are just a mirror image of the same thread 2, 3, 4, 24 weeks prior.
I've held a camera in my hand most of my adult life and I can promise you that the only camera that matters is the one you feel good about.
The rest is just numbers on a chart.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I would like to add that the best camera is not only the one you feel comfortable with, but is really the one you have with you when photo opportunities show up.
I have something like a dozen or more cameras, different formats, and I start swearing for the lost image because they all rest at home when the photos ocurr before my eyes.
[attachment=6220:attachment][attachment=6221:attachment][attachment=6222:attachm
ent][attachment=6223:attachment]
-
Quote:
P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best. 2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)
*****
So, let's say it's 2400, then. That still nets you about 7MP(seems low but whatever) for 35mm, which everyone here will agree is about 35mm's actual "quality"(Bayer interpolation and anti-aliasing and color/saturation issues aside for now) I think it's higher, but let's go for 2400dpi. Slightly over 400DPI Dye sub, actually, so it seems to be a good compromise, given how the best d-labs currently operate. (they internally scan 35mm film at close to 2400dpi, IIRC)
That still nets ~30MP for MF as a bare minimum. It's just that much more physical area than 35mm film. Calling 20MP "MF" isn't really very accurate. So the cameras look like they are similar at 20MP. Big surprise...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just several posts above, somebody posted a comparison between 1DsII (16 Mp + AA) vs. 645 (considered a medium format), where the Canon easily outresolved the MF film. An 18-22 Mp MF back without AA will be even better. So, why is it not good enough to be called MF? (I know that resolution is not everything, I'm just replying to the particular technical point).
Igor.
-
Just several posts above, somebody posted a comparison between 1DsII (16 Mp + AA) vs. 645 (considered a medium format), where the Canon easily outresolved the MF film. An 18-22 Mp MF back without AA will be even better. So, why is it not good enough to be called MF? (I know that resolution is not everything, I'm just replying to the particular technical point).
Still, I suspect the lens on the 645 had a lot to do with it, since the film seems to have at least the same quality in terms of resolution. ie - those smallest "lines" are really several dots wide in the grain of the film. All that really proves is that the Canon has better optics. Not surprising, really.
Color balance and saturation and so on aside - the MF looks far more realistic, and I'm positive that post-processed/converted from raw to match, the digital output would take a noticeable hit. And, the Canon also shows obvious artifacts and such. Post-processed to look as "clean" as the film, it would take another hit to maximum resolution
It takes several "pixels" on a typical Bayer type sensor layout to get a single point of full 24 bit color data as well, so a better test would be to test black and white MF film versus black and white digital - so the interpolation software and AA filters and so on aren't aprt of the picture on the Canon.
He really should also compare it to a typical professional setup that uses a digital back. DB versus 120 film in the same camera.
-
I just rediscovered this thread after a few days' sojourn to the Gold Coast. How did this thread gravitate towards the film v. digital debate?
I hope it wasn't my comment that 'it's all in the lenses'. Yes, I realise there are other issues such as, color, hue, saturataion, contrast, brightness, dynamic range, noise and grain etc, which all have more to do with the camera, sensor, film and processing technique than the lens.
I was really addressing the subtle differences in the sense of DoF and 3-dimensionality that the larger sensor seems to offer. I get a sense that it's mainly due to the lenses, and possibly more accurate focussing.
Most of my shots fall into the landscape category. I tend to use f stops between F5.6 and F16 most of the time.
However, I've recently been exploring lens use at full aperture, mainly because my EF-S 17-55/2.8 actually is reasonably sharp at full aperture. My 50/1.4 also in 'not bad' ar F1.4. The problem lies in the focussing. I don't believe the Canon prosumer DSLRs are up to the job of precise autofocussing at such wide apertures.
It's no gimmick that Canon have recently introduced the LiveView feature on their cameras. It's actually needed because autofocussing is simply not precise at wide apertures.
I get a sense here, but I could be wrong, (I always have an open mind, ya know), that those who are promoting the advantages of MFDB are taking tack sharp, manually focussed shots of ladies' eye lashes, using a computer monitor to focus, and then comparing the shots with autofocussed 35mm.
-
I recently did a [non-scientific] comparative test of the 1DS3 versus a couple of medium format backs.
First I shot an A3 size mono page of a newspaper, with a fine detailed illustration and typical news column text on a Sinar P2 with a 100mm lens at f.8 and a 54H back (22 MP) in one shot mode, at 50 ISO. I then shot the same item on the 1DS3, with identical Bron lighting (though I had to dial the pack down a stop or so), with a 45 mm T/S lens, at f.8 and at 100 ISO.
I processed the Sinar file through Capture Shot, and the Canon raw file through ACR, and set their color neutrality with a QP card.
I viewed both files at 100% on a calibrated Eizo Color Edge monitor. The Sinar file seemed more even and neutral, and had a hint more clarity. Conversely, the Canon tiff seemed to be slightly elevated in its luminance across its upper mid range pixels - somewhat 'boosted' in its contrast. Also, there was color fringing around the edges of the typed newspaper text letters from the canon, which was not evident at all with the Sinar. The Sinar had an undeniable edge in image quality.
Next, in conjunction with Denis Montalbetti, I put the 1DS3 up against the ZD camera, and shot more typed material on white page at each cameras default ISO (100 and 50 respectively). We had a 120mm f.4 Macro on the ZD and the 85 1.2 L series on the Canon. The ZD file was processed with Raw Dev, and the Canon went through Lightroom. Again, in resolving fine text detail the Medium format clearly out performed the Canon.
In both tests the Canon was arguably being disadvantaged by the lenses that were used - though I had no 'better' lenses to draw on at time of testing.
Fine detail is critical for me in my work, which involves digitising paintings, rare books, and so on. Were I a portait photographer i would have no hesitation going for the 1DS3 - it is an exceptional camera, and very close to medium format in the quality it delivers. Its workflow capabilities are a dream. That said...I need that bit extra that MF delivers.
Nick
www.viewfinderdigitisation.com.au
-
I recently did a [non-scientific] comparative test of the 1DS3 versus a couple of medium format backs.
First I shot an A3 size mono page of a newspaper, with a fine detailed illustration and typical news column text on a Sinar P2 with a 100mm lens at f.8 and a 54H back (22 MP) in one shot mode, at 50 ISO. I then shot the same item on the 1DS3, with identical Bron lighting (though I had to dial the pack down a stop or so), with a 45 mm T/S lens, at f.8 and at 100 ISO.
I processed the Sinar file through Capture Shot, and the Canon raw file through ACR, and set their color neutrality with a QP card.
I viewed both files at 100% on a calibrated Eizo Color Edge monitor. The Sinar file seemed more even and neutral, and had a hint more clarity. Conversely, the Canon tiff seemed to be slightly elevated in its luminance across its upper mid range pixels - somewhat 'boosted' in its contrast. Also, there was color fringing around the edges of the typed newspaper text letters from the canon, which was not evident at all with the Sinar. The Sinar had an undeniable edge in image quality.
Next, in conjunction with Denis Montalbetti, I put the 1DS3 up against the ZD camera, and shot more typed material on white page at each cameras default ISO (100 and 50 respectively). We had a 120mm f.4 Macro on the ZD and the 85 1.2 L series on the Canon. The ZD file was processed with Raw Dev, and the Canon went through Lightroom. Again, in resolving fine text detail the Medium format clearly out performed the Canon.
In both tests the Canon was arguably being disadvantaged by the lenses that were used - though I had no 'better' lenses to draw on at time of testing.
Fine detail is critical for me in my work, which involves digitising paintings, rare books, and so on. Were I a portait photographer i would have no hesitation going for the 1DS3 - it is an exceptional camera, and very close to medium format in the quality it delivers. Its workflow capabilities are a dream. That said...I need that bit extra that MF delivers.
Nick
www.viewfinderdigitisation.com.au
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not think Canon makes a better lens than the 80 1.2..:+]
I agree wih all your findings.
I do test a lot in my studio but with the 1DsMII and P30..
The P30 clearly blows away my 1DsMII.
Just looking at the pictures from a little distance and you can see the P30 has a magical "3d" look or more volume from Highlight to Shadow..
Snook
-
I do not think Canon makes a better lens than the 80 1.2..:+]
I agree wih all your findings.
I do test a lot in my studio but with the 1DsMII and P30..
The P30 clearly blows away my 1DsMII.
Just looking at the pictures from a little distance and you can see the P30 has a magical "3d" look or more volume from Highlight to Shadow..
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Comparing a P30 with a 1Ds2 is a bit like comparing the 1Ds3 with the original 11mp 1Ds. One would expect the 1Ds3 to have the advantage. In addition, larger sensors are less demanding on lenses, and the lack of an AA filter on the P30 produces its own distinctive effect.
It's a mystery to me why MFDBs with pixel densities no greater than the latest DSLR 35mm cameras are preferred in part due to their lack of an AA filter, yet manufacturers of 35mm cameras still insist on providing an AA filter. Can someone explain why this is so?
The 10mp Olympus E3 sensor, roughly 1/4th the area of FF 35mm, has the pixel density of a 40mp FF 35mm or an 80mp DB, yet the designers of the E3 still considered it needed an AA filter. In fact the AA filter on the E3 appears to be surprisingly strong, resulting in rather soft RAW images, and many users of the 1Ds3 complain the AA filter appears to be rather strong resulting in images which seem to need greater sharpening than 5D images, for example.
-
It's a mystery to me why MFDBs with pixel densities no greater than the latest DSLR 35mm cameras are preferred in part due to their lack of an AA filter, yet manufacturers of 35mm cameras still insist on providing an AA filter. Can someone explain why this is so?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.
At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
-
David,
BRAVO
Simon
-
Maybe we could have some imagery to accompany this, just to make it clearer ?
Edmund
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.
At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Brilliant!
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.
At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.
At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hilarious and he deserves it! Well done David!!
Sean
-
Hilarious and he deserves it! Well done David!!
Sean
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
finally the quality of the discussion here meets the mf work shown in this forum congratulations !
-
Regardless of what one may think of Ray's postings, the last few responses have been quite childish and immature. Way to keep the discussion on-topic and intelligent, people.
-
What's with the hostility toward Ray? Unnecessary rudeness.
Regardless of what one may think of Ray's postings, the last few responses have been quite childish and immature. Way to keep the discussion on-topic and intelligent, people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Regardless of what one may think of Ray's postings, the last few responses have been quite childish and immature. Way to keep the discussion on-topic and intelligent, people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Internetz Lost Sense of Humour Depatment that way Mr. Wienke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.
At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought this was pretty damn funny personally and would have laughed just as hard if it were directed at me. It also sums it up pretty good too re: fine details
Still... Funny is funny
-
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.
At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LL post of the year!
Jonathan, as you seem to have missed the humour and I'd say on topic comments of this post, Ray recently did an amusing thread with phallic objects well to the fore.
-
Great reply. I actually laughed.
But for the techno-weenies out there, it's simply because the DBs have bigger(fatter) sensors and as a result have much better color saturation. Kind of like shooting with slower film, just in this case, you don't lose any "speed". DB looks more like film because it's capturing more information per location.
-
About the remark on portrait photographers.
For me (fashion/beauty) the MF system was choosen because of the larger sensor, a 1DsIII for me can never come close enough to switch.
What I can now do with DOF will never be possible the same way with a 35mm sensor because simply it's smaller.
I don't really care for MP's or detail, 1DsIII captures more than enough detail for everything expect maybe the very specialistic work.
For me it's in the lack of an AA filter (even more detail), bigger sensor, more dynamic range, real ISO25/50 that made me do the switch.
It's wonderful you can control the DOF with razorsharp endresults.
-
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.
At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see, David. So what you are implying here is that perhaps MFDB manufacturers are catering to the desires of a bunch of photographers who have lost their foreskin and feel more comfortable if the sensor in their camera also symbolically has no foreskin....err.. AA filter.
I was sort of hoping for a more technical explanation.
-
What I can now do with DOF will never be possible the same way with a 35mm sensor because simply it's smaller.
It's wonderful you can control the DOF with razorsharp endresults.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
This is one of the intriguing aspect of these comparisons between FF 35mm and DBs of merely double the area which, in terms of traditional format size differences, is not huge. We're talking about roughly a one stop aperture differenc for equivalent DoF.
Your comment in this respect would seem to be more apt in relation to a comparison between the APS-C format and FF 35mm. Both formats, by and large, use the same lenses, so the shallow DoF advantage of FF 35mm is usually very apparent. For example, there is no Canon EF-S equivalent of the 85/1.2, which would be an EF-S 50mm F/0.75.
I'm not familiar with the entire range of MF lenses available for DBs, but looking at the range of Mamiya lenses for 6x4.5 format, the equivalent focal lengths in 35mm have wider apertures by a degree which is greater than one stop.
For example:
Mamiya 55/F2.8 & Canon 35/1.4
Mamiya 80/F2.8 & Canon 50/1.4
Mamiya 120/F4 & Canon 85/1.2
Mamiya 150/F3.5 & Canon 100/2
I'd question whether the Mamiya 55/2.8 at full aperture is actually sharper than the 30/1.4 stopped down to F2, or, whether the 120/F4 at full aperture is sharper than the 85/1.2 stopped down more than 2 stops to F2.8.
However, I can appreciate there may be a problem with accurate autofocussing with these 35mm lenses, which is why we now have LiveView on the latest Canon DSLRs.
-
About the remark on portrait photographers.
For me (fashion/beauty) the MF system was choosen because of the larger sensor, a 1DsIII for me can never come close enough to switch.
What I can now do with DOF will never be possible the same way with a 35mm sensor because simply it's smaller.
funny, if this is so important for you why do flood the forum with boring stopped down images ?
-
funny, if this is so important for you why do flood the forum with boring stopped down images ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You seem to be very active in the MF forum defending the 1Ds III against MFD.
I suppose you're like a lot of 35mm users here: Just trust numbers, graphs and other's opinions but never actually used a DB.
-
deleted
-
You seem to be very active in the MF forum defending the 1Ds III against MFD.
I suppose you're like a lot of 35mm users here: Just trust numbers, graphs and other's opinions but never actually used a DB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
and you fight against canon where ever there is a little chance does his help your ego ?
-
I don't know what I ever did wrong to you but you really have to visit my work more often.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Anja_19_April_2008_workshop_(3_of_22).jpg)
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Kraggenburg_workhop_Roosmarijn_en_Anja_12_April_2008-109.jpg)
I find it strange that somehow a remark can not be treated with respect but with some kind of aggression, it's a shame I thought we were all adults ?
DOF control is important in some of my work, and sometimes not.
-
Nice reply Frank.
Much more polite than he deserved.
I am sure you know that almost everyone here appreciates your excellent and regular contributions.
Regards
Andrew
-
Ok......
I love sitting on the john reading LL on my iphone till my legs go to sleep, but.... I can't help but get bothered by the lack of civility in the last few months. And to be honest I'm thinking about not visiting anymore.
What is the issue in most cases is that wars are fought over middle ground. FF35 and MFDB have become very close in output quality if used right, and the only rational reason to choose one over the other ( if you have to make a choice ) is no different than it was in the film days... HANDLING and COST/ROI
To those of you reading/lurking these threads in hopes to make an informed decision on what camera to purchase, lease or upgrade to, here you go....
buy the best that you can afford!
if your just starting out or your money is tied up in student loan payments, gold, apple stock, x-wives or other vices besides photography..... 5D ( fantastic camera for the money )
if your photography biz is going well and your able to put 25% of your annual net into gear... 1ds3 ( a definite upgrade from the 5D or 1ds2 )
if your biz is going really well, wifes rich, won the lottery, just sold your apple stock, or just can't resist... MFDB ( it really does not get any better than this.... but the cost may only be worth it to you and not the viewer/client unless your making very large prints or to lazy to crop in camera )
BUT.... some photographers ( including myself ) have found that the creative freedom and ability to shoot in volume ( many frames per second with brackets ) with the 1ds3 has allowed us to have a better workflow for our style. I shoot everything from tabletop product ( 1ds3 tethered ) to available light series work ( fast primes )... all for ad agencies and commercial clients. A few years ago I would ask my clients if they wanted me to shoot with the big slow camera or the small fast camera, and they said " whatever you feel comfortable with ". I don't think I've pulled out the MFDB kit since I've had the 1ds3....
A note regarding older gear....
I don't like owning gear that is out of warranty and If my bag gets swiped or crushed my insurance company can't replace something that is not in current production. I like the fact that if my gear goes south, I can make a call and have the very same kit delivered overnight to my hotel.
Now I'm going to log off and shoot some bourbon cocktails for a book.
-
@Witz,
I also find that some people are responding way to agressive and without respect, something I find very important.
I think you are right on some cases.
I always tell people that the customers are more than happy with the 5D and 1DsIII resolution wise and quality wise.
I know for a fact that a LOT of adds, covers etc. etc. are shot with (don't laugh) 20D/5D/1DsII/D2X,D200 etc.
I have even seen some backstage videos were the photographer worked with a rebel.
The key is to know what you are doing and how to get the message over, when you know how to use your equiptment you can do cover shots with a Rebel or with a D40x.
Than why go for MF.
There lies the question and for me the big difference.
I shoot both systems on a daily basis (although the 5D is not used daily actualy).
The main difference for me is not in the MP count or in the detail, the 5D allready resolves more detail than my customer needs, I have shot billboard size banners with the 5D and 20D.
I'm a photographer that wants to deliver the very best I can, regardless of thinking about costs per shot.
The MF system gives me a more 3D (reel) look in my work.
The colors/dynamic range/graduates/fine detail/bigger sensor (DOF)/25 ISO gives me all that bit extra I want in my pictures.
And sometimes as a photographer you have to think economics and buy the 1DsIII or a 5D (we could even argue if the 1DsIII is necessary and I believe not for 95% of the work) but sometimes you also have to work for yourself, for me working with a MF system is closer to what I want and what I want to see when I browse online.
One can argue all you can about the sensor size not being important but I guess that those people simply never worked with both systems.
I use both and some assignments can only be done with the DSLR, and for me none must be done with MF.
However most ARE done with MF just because I PERSONALLY want to give that extra.
Having discussions online is good, but please keep it civil.
There are alot of people here you can learn from, don't scare them away.
LL is at the moment the only forum I will go into depth into this kind of discussions and take the time to type, please don't make that also dissapear.
-
Excellent post Frank -- and much more than this thread deserved...
specifically:
One can argue all you can about the sensor size not being important but I guess that those people simply never worked with both systems.
So when I hear folks claim they can estimate MFDB performance by comparing their 40D with one lens to their 5D with another, and then extrapolate their findings to a scientific certainty, it makes me want to vomit...
At the end of the day I am in the "this site is getting out of hand" camp...
Cheers,
-
Most professional photographers that I know who work commercially (including myself) use more than one format. There are many reasons for choosing a particular format, including resolution, shape of the image, depth of focus, whether or not there will be electricity available on the shoot, even the fact that subjects react differently to different types of cameras (I know I have mentioned this before). So the vehement argument for one format over another is pointless.
-
Excellent post Frank -- and much more than this thread deserved...
specifically:
So when I hear folks claim they can estimate MFDB performance by comparing their 40D with one lens to their 5D with another, and then extrapolate their findings to a scientific certainty, it makes me want to vomit...
At the end of the day I am in the "this site is getting out of hand" camp...
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think a lot of this back and forth comes from people that really don't do this for a living where they are required to shoot in different formats, or must explore the different formats to keep moving their work forward.
Yesterday I shot with the P30, p21 and Canon all for the same project all for different reasons.
I will not examine the pixels to death, or try to prove the Canon is superior to he Phase or vice versa. I will just edit and look for the right mage, process and build web galleries.
From my point of view, if you haven't worked under pressure with any equipment, then everything is just leisurely opinions and though they might have some validity, when the S___t hits the fan is when you know if some piece of equipment really is worth the investment.
Bottom line is I think the reason the medium format forums are somewhat dormant is because there is no ground breaking cameras of late. The new announcements are just derivatives of older product and the discussion is just the same discussions we had two years ago.
The HY6 is really a repackaged 6008, the Mamiya 3 a mamiya 2, the Hasselblad 3 just a hasselblad 2, the Canon 1ds3 a little different 1ds2. (lot of threes in that statement).
I personally think digital capture has settled down. Now it's more the standard than the oddity and most of the cameras and backs are good and stable, at least what I use (which is all I really know about), is good and stable.
It would be a different conversation if Canon had come out with a 24mpx, 645 proportion dslr and firewire tethering, or Phase, Leaf, whoever had a back that went to super clean 1000 iso and a great lcd and a great preview file, but they haven't moved in huge leaps, just small steps so the conversations we have reflect this.
Actually the tone I see on this forum is not that bad, but I do notice a lot of questions on how to get into medium format at lower prices. I think Phase and other makers know this, because when you see the p21+ crop $4,000 in price, I guess somebody thinks there is a market for this and I completely agree.
Yesterday out of 1,600 frames I shot about 1,200 of them with the P21+ on a Contax. I think the total buy in cost of that camera and back would be about $13,000 and though this is still twice the price of a top of the line dslr, it's 1/3 of the price of my first medium format back and camera, so maybe there is some improvement in this area.
Once again I personally think digital capture is in kind of a holding pattern and until something really ground breaking comes out like swappable iso sensors, or hand held preview devices, easy wi-fi, or a much steeper cut in pricing, I think most of us with just use what is available and keep working.
Still, don't think for a moment that brand wars, name calling and cat photos do not keep professinals away from this or any other forum, because they do.
Like it or not, we all are judged by the company we keep.
JR
-
Frank,
I have the same problem with some not keeping it civil and respectful. But do remember what has been said by some after some "uncivil" posts a few weeks back, concentrated at my person: the VAST majority of the members here are "civilized" and will tell it when it is going too far and putting those acting with disrespect back to the right place.
That is what happened here as well, and pretty fast.
Best regards,
Thierry
Having discussions online is good, but please keep it civil.
There are alot of people here you can learn from, don't scare them away.
LL is at the moment the only forum I will go into depth into this kind of discussions and take the time to type, please don't make that also dissapear.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
But do remember what has been said by some after some "uncivil" posts a few weeks back, concentrated at my person:
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Theirry,
Your really going to have to get over it.
Your on the payroll of a camera company, (nothing wrong with that) so true or not, good or bad, your always going to be out there and as much as the good information helps your company, the hard questions, even the poorly phrased are just part of going public.
Personally I don't mind some of the hard questions as long as they are kept relevent. I don't even care if someone does or does not like what I post, as long as it is the catalyst for new thought.
This forum needs a kick in butt and though I don't recommend a DP review style of response, there still is some room for disagreement.
JR
-
oh James, I am REALLY over this, believe me.
But I am a strong "believer" in respect: as long as it is said with respect anything can be said/criticized/asked. The contrary will ALWAYS makes me react, being on the payroll of a company or not, I am still a human being with my believes and behaviors.
Best regards,
Thierry
Theirry,
Your really going to have to get over it.
Your on the payroll of a camera company, (nothing wrong with that) so true or not, good or bad, your always going to be out there and as much as the good information helps your company, the hard questions, even the poorly phrased are just part of going public.
Personally I don't mind some of the hard questions as long as they are kept relevent. I don't even care if someone does or does not like what I post, as long as it is the catalyst for new thought.
This forum needs a kick in butt and though I don't recommend a DP review style of response, there still is some room for disagreement.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192494\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
@James,
As soon as there is a camera with a full frame (or a very small crop) MF sensor.
16 bits, Real ISO50 or 25, high dynamic range.
AND all the further specs from the 1DsIII in AF/ISO perfomance, handling etc.
I think we will be together at the line to buy it straight away
Although I still have to consider about the costs ofcourse.
We can all dream can't we ?
To be honest I'm with you on one point.
Seeing the state of the 5D/1DsIII etc. it's puzzling for me that there is no MF system that comes close to the handling, especially high ISO performance and AF of a DSLR.
I must say that I only tested the H3D and H2D before buying the Mamiya setup (which for me was a better choice) and not yet the Afi or Sinar but sometimes I really miss the AF speed performance of the Canon.
On the other hand we can of course just switch between cameras without a problem.
-
deleted
-
Bottom line is I think the reason the medium format forums are somewhat dormant is because there is no ground breaking cameras of late. The new announcements are just derivatives of older product and the discussion is just the same discussions we had two years ago.
Just as an aside this MFDB forum is about 1.5k posts from being the busiest forum on this site. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been around nearly so long as the number 2 forum.
Just passing through. I really only come here to initiate a cycle of self loathing by viewing the Recent Work thread.
-
and you fight against canon where ever there is a little chance does his help your ego ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually I'm not fighting anyone or anything (I also own Canon gear). I know my options and deeply trust my choices. And I don't need to defend anything against you.
I choose what I chose (MF) because it helps me to achieve my visions in a very natural way to me. My work is just connected to the way mf works and look. That's all.
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/20080429-01.jpg)
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/20080429-02.jpg)
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/20080429-03.jpg)
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/20080429-04.jpg)
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/20080429-05.jpg)
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/20080429-06.jpg)
Samuel
-
Samuel, I love the first landscape shot!
-
Samuel, I love the first landscape shot!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you!
-
There are many reasons for choosing a particular format, including resolution, shape of the image, depth of focus, whether or not there will be electricity available on the shoot, even the fact that subjects react differently to different types of cameras (I know I have mentioned this before). So the vehement argument for one format over another is pointless.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Also there is the fact that different cameras affect how you shoot. So you may choose a camera, simply for that reason alone.
-
What surprises me about threads like this where sincere questions are asked about format differences, is the apparent inability of professionals, who claim to use these different formats on a regular basis, to actually identify the causes of these perceived differences in image quality.
Nobody has yet answered my question as to why the best cameras for ultimate image quality, which are more often used by busy and demanding professionals, do not include an AA filter, whilst smaller format cameras with higher pixel densities (and therefore with presumably a lesser need for an AA filter) always have an AA filter.
The only certain advantage I see for the larger format is greater dynamic range as a result of larger photosites, (which should translate to smoother shadows and smother lower midtones), and the lack of an AA filter which should contribute to a slightly crisper result and perhaps also a smoother result due to the need for less sharpening.
For all I know, this mystical 3-D effect attributed to the additional size of the DB sensor, might be wholly due to the lack of an AA filter and nothing to do with sensor size.
Whilst there's a general trend for smaller formats to be worse for achieving a shallow DoF, this does not appear to be the case when comparing FF 35mm with cropped MF format. There are lots of 35mm lenses which are at least one stop wider/faster than the equivalent MF focal length.
My own comparison between the 40D with 50/1.4 at full aperture, and the 5D with TSE 90/2.8 at full aperture, resulted in a preference for the results from the larger format 5D. However, when I later repeated the test in different lighting (brighter lighting), I wasn't so sure. The results from both cameras seemed about equal. I re-examined the first results and concluded there was a very slight difference in focussing which, by chance, favoured the 5D shot in its general appeal. There was also noticeably greater contrast in the 5D image which gave the impression of greater accutance. This impression was not there in the second test in brighter lighting. I would deduce that the TSE 90/2.8 is better at bringing out lower contrast detail. In brighter lighting, the same detail on the same subject was of higher contrast and the advantage of the better lens was not so obvious.
This effect, by the way, can be very obvious when using a teleconverter, which inevitably reduces the quality of the lens. Photograph a low contrast subject, and the teleconverter often seems to offer little or no advantage. But photograph a brightly lit subject with high contrast detail, and that extra detail can be captured.
The other issue with my comparison was the 2 stop difference I used, partly because the focal lengths were not precisely matched and partly because the format size difference between the 40D and 5D is slightly greater than the difference between a DB and FF 35mm. Most lenses are noticeably better when stopped down one stop, and I'd expect the Canon 50/1.4 to produce better contrast at F2 than at F1.4.
At the risk of causing Jack Flesher to vomit, I might do the test again using the 50/1.4 at f2 and the TSE 90/2.8 at F2.8, although I would prefer to use a circumcised 5D which I think would provide a more accurate simulation of the benefits of the DB.
-
Perfectly stated John... Where is that "bowing down" smiley
-
I think the major issue here is that you only seem interested in testing and a scientific approach to 'why this' or 'why that.'
John,
That's simply not true. Only a small fraction of a percentage of my photos were taken for testing purposes. Since acquiring digital cameras, I've taken over 100,000 photos, but only a few hundred to test for lens sharpness, DoF, noise and dynamic range issues etc.
None of my testing is scientific. I don't use IMATEST or DCRAW and all my testing is directed towards getting useful information that's relevant in the field.
Most working photographers want to create great photos, meaning the content, style, creativity, and having that captured with great gear is certainly a plus.
Same for every photography enthusiast I would think, whether amateur or professional.
I am actually shooting a lot of jobs with my Aptus 22, not because the client needs big files but because the default color is more accurate, the tones are lovely, skin looks better without tons of post work and I just prefer the pace MF digital forces me into instead of slamming the shutter down on a Canon.
I understand that. Some people might prefer the Nikon D3 because it produces great in-camera jpegs. Other might prefer a particular RAW converter because it produces more pleasing results with less work. Apparently some photographers believe the 5D produces better skin tones than the more expensive 1Ds2, yet they are both the same format.
These are different issues to the one of fundamental quality related to format size.
You may enjoy all the testing and methodology of thinking about finding answers to many not very important questions in the grand scheme of creating photographic images, but most of the rest of us simply don't care. We shoot because the gear is only a means to an end not the end.
What makes you think I'm a gear head? In addition to some old film camera gear, I've bought only 4 inexpensive DSLRs in my life and own about 10 lenses that fit those DSLRs. The amount of gear I own and use is trivial compared with most professional photographers.
You might have noticed that I recently got beaten up in a thread on LL because I tried to argue that the 'camera doesn't matter'.
-
Hi
I have not posted for about a month, due relocation to Hong Kong and frank it is tiring posting much! I was also on travels in February and March, including photographing in India.
As an AMATEUR I have since about a year choosen medium format and given up on DSLRs. Why?
1. I wanted higher image quality than DSLRs (my experience D200, D50, ZD, Aptus 65). This does not only refer to pixels, but COLORS, CONTRAST, SHARPNESS.
2. I wanted to advance in FORMATS.
3. I do not like all high tech automation of DSLRs. Before digital I shot F100 and Fuji Velvia which was a slower than DSLRs to work with and which gave me incredibly beautiful image quality, although small.
1Ds Mk3 has equal numbers of pixels to Leaf Aptus 22 and ZD, but... there is difference in the quality of what you get in those pixels.
I went with the Leaf Aptus 65 (prior to it had ZD, which has problems). The Aptus 65 is actually lower priced than the 22, but a 44x33mm sensor. It is also newer technology sensor. Yes, it cost more than 1Ds Mk3, but I do not have a car...
Compared DSLRs I experience following photographic advantages with the Aptus 65;
1. The 6x7cm screen with its superb histogram and gray card capabilities is excellent tool.
2. Images that I jusdge as good on the 6x7 screen consistent look better (often very good!) when I open up at default settings in CS3 Camera RAW.
3. Colors, contrast and sharpness of files are superb compared to files from ANY other DSLR files (inlcluding of course D200 and other I have ever downloaded, also RAWs, from 1Ds Mk3 etc).
4. The fact that files look good when I open up with defaults in CS3 not only saves me time, but it is a great reward for my photography making me feel as I am back to joy of photography again.
5. With the Aptus 65 I feel confident to use also up to ISO 800. The little trick is that for an around a 30MP sensor the noise consists of small sized noise artifacts compared to an around 20MP camera, and by printing at reduced size the noise is not significant to disturb, actually film like.
I confess I did not read all posts in this thread in detail... Why get caught up in comparison DSLR vs. MFDB???
First and foremost DSLRs and MFDBs are different format, but also with MFDBs having some advantages from an amateurs eyes as listed by me in above. However, MFDBs are expensive and may not be the suited tools for all. It depends on our photoraphy and budget/affordability/life priorities. Clear though, apart from in very low light and sports, the state of art in MFDBs very clearly exceed DSLRs in image quality. Yes, more 3D both due to lack of IR and because of the LARGER FORMAT. How to quantify quality of MFDBs?? Not sure, how to quantify 35mm film vs. medium format film? Except... research lots of files and try out before you set your mind.
Would I be interested in getting a DSLR? In future maybe, **IF** they finally make one with simple interface and less automation, and with which I will can get really good colors, contrast, sharpness etc with compared to current Nikon (Sony) and Canon, e.g. a Fuji S8??... and one that not weigh too much. The IR filter is only one part in equation, but... frank at around 20MP what is point of an low pass filter???
MFDB helps me focus more on photography because it is slower and makes me plan better. Less automations also helps in that. The results are higher sucess ratio of shots and less time in computer after shots to correct them .
Ah, one more important advantage with medium format: THIS FORUM. Help and replies direct from professionals with much knowledge, not only on technical, but also extremely skilled at photography. Much thanks to all of you on my prior posts in this forum. The Aptus 65 works for me, the P30 is very excellent competitor, and I feel the quality I get in files from my 65 will keep me content for many many years .
Regards
Anders
-
I choose what I chose (MF) because it helps me to achieve my visions in a very natural way to me. My work is just connected to the way mf works and look. That's all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
sorry i cant see a vision or style in your images all i see are snapshots nothing connects them whether technical nor artistic but maybe this comes because we don't share the same faith.
-
sorry i cant see a vision or style in your images all i see are snapshots nothing connects them whether technical nor artistic but maybe this comes because we don't share the same faith.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You don't have to be sorry, for me...
P.S. You are very right. Like some said, a photograph is a "snapshot" of a moment in the history of humanity. I'm very glad you see my pictures as that.
-
So, any chance of us seeing any of your work csp? - Just so we can all see where we are going wrong, like....
...no, thought not.
-
Well.... it looks like we have a 'flamer' here with the initials csp...
Maybe if we ignore it... like a turd floating down a river... it will go away.
Here's hoping.
A
-
That's ways too much testing shots, Ray!
The real tests take place when you actually shoot images, for your pleasure, for clients, for other purposes, not by testing for testing.
Thierry
I've taken over 100,000 photos, but only a few hundred to test etc...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
What surprises me about threads like this where sincere questions are asked about format differences, is the apparent inability of professionals, who claim to use these different formats on a regular basis, to actually identify the causes of these perceived differences in image quality.
Nobody has yet answered my question as to why the best cameras for ultimate image quality, which are more often used by busy and demanding professionals, do not include an AA filter, whilst smaller format cameras with higher pixel densities (and therefore with presumably a lesser need for an AA filter) always have an AA filter.
Not quite always. Partly for reasons of cost, the Kodak SLR/n and SLR/c had no AA filter, and when operated at low ISO within their comfort zone, this did produce visibly sharper files but with quite a lot of color aliasing that could take a while to remove. I still use my old Kodak occasionally and it has somewhat sold me on non-AA filter cameras, as I upgraded to a Mamiya ZD.
Smaller format cameras are more likely to be purchased by less specialized users (ie joe public) for whom a weak AA filter is desirable.
Quentin
-
That's ways too much testing shots, Ray!
The real tests take place when you actually shoot images, for your pleasure, for clients, for other purposes, not by testing for testing.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry,
I know it is and I'm getting pissed off. I've got 10 Canon lenses. I could have had 11, but the 400/5.6 prime proved not to be even as sharp as my 100-400 IS zoom which has a reputation for being a bit soft at 400mm. Before getting a refund, it was sent in for calibration. After testing it again, I returned it for a refund.
My first copy of the EF-S 10-22mm, bought for my 20D, would not autofocus accurately at close distances. I returned it.
My Canon 50/1.4 proved not to be as sharp as the much cheaper Canon 50/1.8, but I learned about this only after thorough testing, after the warranty had expired, for the purpose of determining if there was any noticeable difference in sharpness at F5.6 and F8. I tested 3 lenses, all at 50mm. I figured I needed to know at which aperture my lenses are sharpest; a reasonable concern, wouldn't you say?
I also tested that 50/1.4 shortly after I bought it, at full aperture, at infinity, using autofocus. I now realise that I wrongly attributed the softness to a low MTF response. After recently sending in the lens for calibration, it's now reasonably sharp at F1.4 autofocussed at infinity, but way out when autofocussed at close distances. It looks as though this lens might not be capable of accurate autofocussing at both close distances and infinity.
I also have an autofocussing problem with my latest lens acquisition, the EF-S 17-55/2.8, but I'm not sure if it can be corrected.
There's no doubt in my mind, if I had any MFDB system that was capable of accurate focussing, perhaps in tethered mode, and I compared it with my 35mm gear at wide apertures in autofocus mode, I'd get a very strong impression that the MFDB was vastly superior in the 'shallow DoF' department.
I might even kid myself the superior results were due to the sensor size rather than more accurate focussing.
-
Smaller format cameras are more likely to be purchased by less specialized users (ie joe public) for whom a weak AA filter is desirable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quentin,
The 1Ds3 is not a camera likely to be bought by Joe Public, yet it seems to have a rather strong AA filter.
I don't recall hearing complaints from DB users along the lines that they were dissatisfied with their back because of time wasted trying to correct for aliasing artifacts, and had therefore sold their MF equipment and bought 35mm DSLRs.
But maybe there are a few dissatisfied DB users who are keeping quiet about this.
-
Samuel, I love the first landscape shot!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Isn't it beautiful? We've seen some really good photography on this thread; also check out the 'recent works' -- Graham has some stunning shots.
-
Ray, a bit of thoughts on the AA filter usage
You are totally correct that it seems that most of not all 35mm DSLR's have a built in AA filter (low pass). It's built into the sensor array at the time of manufacturing. Some of the Digital backs offer you a solution where you can either add an AA filter (such as Mamiya's ZD) or offer a software solution to offset the effect of not having an AA filter (such as Phase One's Morie plug-in).
Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony etc. all are using some form of AA filter on their chips. This IMO is because they would rather do this than have thousands' of users complain about issues like Morie and color aliasing (Christmas tree lights effect) on many if not all of their images. This would cause most of these users to then have to use post processing software and that's not what they intended the use of the these cameras for. I believe it's also an issue of simplification of manufacturing. You only need one chip for all the make of one camera, not a set of chips, one with AA on without.
Canon on the 1DS and above (can't speak to Nikon as I haven't used them for many years but will assume they are the same), all use a AA filter also. The effect on the overall image is the same as on the other types of cameras. The AA filter slightly blurs the image to reduce morie and color aliasing. These issues have been the main two concerns with Digital for years.
Morie, tends to show in all fabrics, and whenever a repeatable pattern is being shot.
Color Aliasing (Christmas Tree lights), not as well known about but can be just as bad. This is an effect mainly seen in finer detail parts of images. In outdoor work, very often shows up in tree limbs, areas of dense leaves, grass. It's my understanding that this is due to the design of the bayer pattern chips. This is why there was so much (and I hope still is) design around the Foveon chip.
Canon has a predetermined market that they are intending to sell the 1ds MKIII to. IMO after shooting the MKIII, they put a very intense AA filter on the chip. There has already been alot written on this. Some believe that the details can be brought back other don't. I personally would prefer to have them at time of capture and not have to work with software tools to bring the details back. Many also wrote early on that it would have been great if Canon had made two versions of this camera, one with a heavy AA filter for fashion/studio work and one with a lighter version of the filter for outdoor landscape work.
I feel that Until Foveon or someone like them comes out with a chip that reads the R, G, B on different chips, then color aliasing will be an issue that all companies have to deal with in some method. Morie is a different issue and I assume it will take either new chip technology or camera processing ability to resolve at time of capture.
The other solution is to remove the low pass filter from the chip by a 3rd party like MaxMax and the hotrod conversion. They are currently doing this on the 5D and you can go to their website and see the before and after images.
This will hopefully not been seen as a which is better MFDB or DSLR, just a bit more info to help answer your question as to why you see AA filters on certain types of cameras.
Paul Caldwell
-
Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony etc. all are using some form of AA filter on their chips. This IMO is because they would rather do this than have thousands' of users complain about issues like Morie and color aliasing (Christmas tree lights effect) on many if not all of their images. This would cause most of these users to then have to use post processing software and that's not what they intended the use of the these cameras for. I believe it's also an issue of simplification of manufacturing. You only need one chip for all the make of one camera, not a set of chips, one with AA on without.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul,
I understand this is the usual explanation, but it still doesn't sound quite right to me. I presume the new 12mp 450D also has an AA filter. Whether it's strong or weak, I don't know, but this degree of pixel density translates to 31mp on a FF 35mm sensor or 62mp on a 36x48mm DB. I believe most DBs don't even have microlenses, which also act as a mild AA filter on CMOS sensors which need microlenses.
The 5D was considered by some to be very close in resolution to the 1Ds2 because it had a weaker AA filter. The 1Ds3 with almost double the pixel count of the 5D needs, apparently, an even stronger AA filter. It doesn't quite make sense.
There is perhaps some validity to the argument that non-professionals cannot be expected to learn how to deal with moire issues. However, the argument that professionals would be more concerned about the effects of moire and more annoyed at the time and effort needed to deal with it, seems at least equally valid if not more valid.
I find it difficult to understand that anyone would be willing to spend $30,000 on a DB if moire issues were a pain in the arse.
-
I think people that buy a MF system are not scared by moire and can solve it.
I have to be 100% honest and say that Moire can be seen on app 10 shots in each session, however it NEVER ruined a shot for me and was always easily fixed.
However on a DSLR people will start complaining online and hurting the system because they simply don't know what moire is and how it's retouched.
See it as JPEG vs RAW.
There are more and more people claiming that JPEG is as good as RAW, and I think we all know that this is not true.
You can talk what you want but those people will say they see no difference what so ever.
So take away their AA filter and the forums will be full about the strange colordots, strange rings etc. that ruin their cat and dog shots.
I see the MF system as tool for professional photographers, it can give you that extra mile but you sure have to know how to use it.
A DSLR is VERY GOOD but it's full of foolproof options that will give you a good picture in 99% of the cases without photoshop. (I have seen moire on some 5D shots actually)
-
Sometimes moire is a real pain in the b*tt but for me it mostly occurs in product shots of clothing (fabric) which is easily solved by spending a little more on a multishot back
When MS is no option and you have used every trick in the book to prevent moire during the shoot you have to handle it in PP (mostly fairly easy sometimes a bit harder) but indeed that does eat up my valuable time which I would have preferred to spend in other ways.
I guess most other DB users that run into moire feel pretty much the same way?
-
On the money Paul
Color Aliasing (Christmas Tree lights), not as well known about but can be just as bad. This is an effect mainly seen in finer detail parts of images.
This effect is worse on Canon than Phase in my experience especially when back lit
-
FYI: there are 2 types of Moiré occurring:
- Luminance Moiré, also called "Pattern" Moiré
and
- Chrominance Moiré, also called "Colour" Moiré
Luminance Moiré is the one which we are confronted with when shooting e.g. a fabric, and happens when one shoots a regular structure on top of another regular structure (CDD is a regular structure). Luminance Moiré can basically happen also in images taken with the multi-shot technology.
Chrominance Moiré is typical of single-shot technology, and does not happen in a multi-shot image, unless the registration is not perfect. Chrominance Moiré is therefore the typical Moiré seen in images taken in 1-shot mode. It happens often (not always, but often enough), that when the colour Moiré is removed, appears then a Luminance Moiré which can very unlikely be corrected or taken away: the "sharpness" information being "stored" in the luminance information, one cannot simply "smear" to get rid of the Moiré, unless one take in account a loss of sharpness.
Thierry
-
I shoot a lot of fabric. Yes, with multishot you can have pattern moire but it occurs a lot (really a lot) less than with single shot.
Single shot moire with fabric is usually a combination of both pattern as well as color moire, the color moire is easily removed, solving the pattern moire means blurring a bit and loosing some detail.
Using MS on a clothing catalogue shoot means saving 8 to 16 hours of moire misery in my case.
-
Since we are talking about moire I thought I'd share a tip. The PhaseOne moire plug-in for Photoshop works on all files, not only digital backs. I've used it with great success on my Canon files.
-
EXACTLY, Dustback!
Thierry
I shoot a lot of fabric. Yes, with multishot you can have pattern moire but it occurs a lot (really a lot) less than with single shot.
Single shot moire with fabric is usually a combination of both pattern as well as color moire, the color moire is easily removed, solving the pattern moire means blurring a bit and loosing some detail.
Using MS on a clothing catalogue shoot means saving 8 to 16 hours of moire misery in my case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I think people that buy a MF system are not scared by moire and can solve it.
I have to be 100% honest and say that Moire can be seen on app 10 shots in each session, however it NEVER ruined a shot for me and was always easily fixed.
However on a DSLR people will start complaining online and hurting the system because they simply don't know what moire is and how it's retouched.
See it as JPEG vs RAW.
There are more and more people claiming that JPEG is as good as RAW, and I think we all know that this is not true.
You can talk what you want but those people will say they see no difference what so ever.
So take away their AA filter and the forums will be full about the strange colordots, strange rings etc. that ruin their cat and dog shots.
True, but look at this:
http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm (http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm)
I know which one I'd rather have. Side by side it is readily apparent that most of what DSLR users complain about with their lenses being slightly out of focus is really our brains seeing this filter in action and not liking the blurred effect.
The last shot with the D200 and that truck is really telling. The OEM setup looks like you dropped a full resolution setting compared to the bare sensor. And, I honestly don't notice the artifacts with scenery. I *do* notice the extra sharpness.
It would be interesting to see what this would do with the Fuji sensor, since it is rotated 45 degrees. The Foveon as well - I doubt the Foveon even needs any filter on the sensor.
-
Since AA filters cost money, one would think there would be an incentive in this very competitive market to offer a DSLR option with no AA filter.
Perhaps there's a perceived lesson in the failure of Kodak's 14n which manufacturer's will never forget. This was a cheaper camera than Canon's 1Ds. There was a later 14c version that fitted the Canon mount but the design was apparently not a market success. As I recall, the camera could not compete with the low noise of Canon cameras at ISO 400 and above.
Perhaps the failure of this design was principally due to its susceptibility to aliasing artifacts and high noise, and it's difficult to identify which was greater.
-
True, but look at this:
http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm (http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm)
I know which one I'd rather have. Side by side it is readily apparent that most of what DSLR users complain about with their lenses being slightly out of focus is really our brains seeing this filter in action and not liking the blurred effect.
The last shot with the D200 and that truck is really telling. The OEM setup looks like you dropped a full resolution setting compared to the bare sensor. And, I honestly don't notice the artifacts with scenery. I *do* notice the extra sharpness.
It would be interesting to see what this would do with the Fuji sensor, since it is rotated 45 degrees. The Foveon as well - I doubt the Foveon even needs any filter on the sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And as I said before THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL IMAGE. I posted a comparsion a time ago between the hot_rod 5d and the normal shot. AFTER capture sharpning nearly nobody could say which one was the one without AA. Now to go even further I did this and printed the image. I gave it to different artists and photographers here 0 out of around 20 people could see a difference. So sorry, the whole thing hot_rod is doing is making money and nothing more.
-
Since AA filters cost money, one would think there would be an incentive in this very competitive market to offer a DSLR option with no AA filter.
Perhaps there's a perceived lesson in the failure of Kodak's 14n which manufacturer's will never forget. This was a cheaper camera than Canon's 1Ds. There was a later 14c version that fitted the Canon mount but the design was apparently not a market success. As I recall, the camera could not compete with the low noise of Canon cameras at ISO 400 and above.
Perhaps the failure of this design was principally due to its susceptibility to aliasing artifacts and high noise, and it's difficult to identify which was greater.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
jeez are we still on this topic...
-
Since AA filters cost money, one would think there would be an incentive in this very competitive market to offer a DSLR option with no AA filter.
Perhaps there's a perceived lesson in the failure of Kodak's 14n which manufacturer's will never forget. This was a cheaper camera than Canon's 1Ds. There was a later 14c version that fitted the Canon mount but the design was apparently not a market success. As I recall, the camera could not compete with the low noise of Canon cameras at ISO 400 and above.
Perhaps the failure of this design was principally due to its susceptibility to aliasing artifacts and high noise, and it's difficult to identify which was greater.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why I get sucked into this I don't know, but honestly this is one silly conversation.
Ray, whatever your reasons are, if you really want to judge the merits of medium format, or any high end system, then I am sure you can find a reputable dealer to give you a spin.
All these words, all these questions to try to prove or disprove any theory just doesn't hold water, until you work with a sytem in a professional manner.
In regards to moire, you just absolutely wrong in your assumptions. Moire, pattern or color, is not a 300 lb monster just lying in wait for every medium format digital capture of a patterned men's suit, or a blue spandex top.
It can happen just as frequently on a aa filtered dslr as it can a medium format back.
The three best ways to catch moire is 1. know what you shoot and know how your camera will react to it, (this only comes from use and understanding). 2. Hand hold or move around, don't just lock down in one position. Moire can happen but usually not on every frame. 3. Tether. This is the most professional way to review any image and it's attributes.
Actually #3 is the reason the medium format backs work so well in professional production. You can easily see the image in all it's glory, good and bad, make the required adjustments and shoot with confidence. No camera lcd, even Nikon's great 920,000 pixel lcd will give you 1/10th of the information you will see on a computer.
Taking an aa filter off of a Canon or a Nikon won't produce the desired results of even an entry level medium format back, at least at lower isos and for the reasons mentioned.
As far as the Kodak FF dslr, that camera was flawed for a lot of reasons, not just because it didn't have an AA filter. The first offerings had bad sensors and wavy color response, centerfolding type effects, dead pixels a small buffer, firmware that was a work in progress and a cheap crappy body, all at the thought of producing a Canon killer at a bargain price. The Sigma made Canon mount copy of this camera was even worse and felt like a lego toy and by the time Kodak even got close to righting all the wrongs, they stopped production.
Still, it's not one single thing that makes a serious photographer try and appreciate different systems, it is the desire to produce unique images that are ever improving and until you work an image deep in photoshop, shoot in pressured production you probably won't understand this until you actually invest the time.
You seem to want to prove the emperor has no clothes when in reality, depending on how and what you shoot, there is validty in almost any professinal camera and format and it would take two pages to explain it, but I know because I own a lot of them and have used most of them.
JR
-
Ray, whatever your reasons are, if you really want to judge the merits of medium format, or any high end system, then I am sure you can find a reputable dealer to give you a spin.
All these words, all these questions to try to prove or disprove any theory just doesn't hold water, until you work with a sytem in a professional manner.
In regards to moire, you just absolutely wrong in your assumptions. Moire, pattern or color, is not a 300 lb monster just lying in wait for every medium format digital capture of a patterned men's suit, or a blue spandex top.
James,
I just don't operate that way, buying something on the basis of a dealer giving me a spin. I do my research and I know what I want before I walk into the shop.
I don't believe in magic and I don't expect to discover any unreported qualities by fondling and handling the equipment and taking a few comparison shots in a shop.
I think it's a tragic and primitive state of affairs, for example, that I always feel the need to test a lens before I buy it because of unpredictable quality control. The last two lenses I bought, the Canon 50/1.4 and EF-S 17-55/2.8, I didn't give a thorough test. It was just too difficult due to the chaotic conditions in the store, people wandering in and out. Both of these lenses have autofocussing problems despite both having been sent to Canon for calibration.
In regards to moire, you just absolutely wrong in your assumptions. Moire, pattern or color, is not a 300 lb monster just lying in wait for every medium format digital capture of a patterned men's suit, or a blue spandex top.
It can happen just as frequently on a aa filtered dslr as it can a medium format back.
Well, excuse me, I just didn't know that, James. I got the impression that AA filters were in place to slay the 300 lb monster.
Actually #3 is the reason the medium format backs work so well in professional production. You can easily see the image in all it's glory, good and bad, make the required adjustments and shoot with confidence. No camera lcd, even Nikon's great 920,000 pixel lcd will give you 1/10th of the information you will see on a computer.
Well, thanks for being so honest. That is a reason that is credible. I have no problems in understanding that a particular piece of equipment may lend itself better to a particular type of working environment, and I do appreciate that a LiveView screen contributes significantly to accurate focussing. The bigger the screen the better. A misfocussed shot at a wide aperture is useless.
-
So well said!
Thierry
Why I get sucked into this I don't know, but honestly this is one silly conversation.
Ray, whatever your reasons are, if you really want to judge the merits of medium format, or any high end system, then I am sure you can find a reputable dealer to give you a spin.
All these words, all these questions to try to prove or disprove any theory just doesn't hold water, until you work with a sytem in a professional manner.
In regards to moire, you just absolutely wrong in your assumptions. Moire, pattern or color, is not a 300 lb monster just lying in wait for every medium format digital capture of a patterned men's suit, or a blue spandex top.
It can happen just as frequently on a aa filtered dslr as it can a medium format back.
The three best ways to catch moire is 1. know what you shoot and know how your camera will react to it, (this only comes from use and understanding). 2. Hand hold or move around, don't just lock down in one position. Moire can happen but usually not on every frame. 3. Tether. This is the most professional way to review any image and it's attributes.
Actually #3 is the reason the medium format backs work so well in professional production. You can easily see the image in all it's glory, good and bad, make the required adjustments and shoot with confidence. No camera lcd, even Nikon's great 920,000 pixel lcd will give you 1/10th of the information you will see on a computer.
Taking an aa filter off of a Canon or a Nikon won't produce the desired results of even an entry level medium format back, at least at lower isos and for the reasons mentioned.
As far as the Kodak FF dslr, that camera was flawed for a lot of reasons, not just because it didn't have an AA filter. The first offerings had bad sensors and wavy color response, centerfolding type effects, dead pixels a small buffer, firmware that was a work in progress and a cheap crappy body, all at the thought of producing a Canon killer at a bargain price. The Sigma made Canon mount copy of this camera was even worse and felt like a lego toy and by the time Kodak even got close to righting all the wrongs, they stopped production.
Still, it's not one single thing that makes a serious photographer try and appreciate different systems, it is the desire to produce unique images that are ever improving and until you work an image deep in photoshop, shoot in pressured production you probably won't understand this until you actually invest the time.
You seem to want to prove the emperor has no clothes when in reality, depending on how and what you shoot, there is validty in almost any professinal camera and format and it would take two pages to explain it, but I know because I own a lot of them and have used most of them.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
If you are only concerned about the pixels then you are missing massive other components to the entire MF digital world.
I suggest you make the effort to go demo on your own or just lay off the topic. You are spinning your wheels endlessly otherwise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey! John, I didn't start this topic. I'm just expressing a few thoughts. Let me say straight away; I'm an amateur who sells the occasionbal photograph. I'm retired and I get my kicks from taking and making photographs rather than selling photographs. I'm interested in art and I like the challenges that photography poses.
It has an emotional appeal for me, probably because my father was an artist and life-long photography enthusiast. He used to teach photography night classes in Manchester in the U.K in the 1950's and 60's. I have dozens of odd sized negative glass plates of shots my father took of his school mates in the early 1920's, with his first camera at the age of 14 or 15, as well as thousands more he took during his life time, all preserved and meticulously catalogued.
I've had experience of demoing my own. I tried comparing a D3 with my 5D in Bangkok recently. I was unable to hire or borrow the camera for a day's shooting and had to make do with a few shots taken in the store. It was a very unsatisfactory and the results were inconclusive. I simply didn't have enough time.
I know from experience that thorough testing requires patience, a certain freedom from distractions and the sort of chaos one finds in the average store and the pressure of time.
As I've stated before, we're in the information age. One should be able to choose equipment from specifications if they are accurate. Camera reviews are supposed to be a check on the accuracy of such specifications.
So I'm going to sock it to you now. Rather than telling me to lay off the topic, how about you providing a competent comparison between a 1Ds3 and P21 or other back of similar pixel count. I haven't seen one yet.
Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.
You want me to back off in case you get embarrassed??
-
Ray,
it is really and only by testing it yourself, that you will find out what are the answers to your questions:
- if there is a difference (IQ, handling, workflow, etc ...) and where this difference is
- if this difference has any significance for you and your work.
I had actually proposed you to come and visit me in Bangkok, when you where in the North of Thailand, and would have loaned you my back and camera (and even lenses): so the opportunities are there, take it, Ray.
Best regards,
Thierry
I've had experience of demoing my own. I tried comparing a D3 with my 5D in Bangkok recently. I was unable to hire or borrow the camera for a day's shooting and had to make do with a few shots taken in the store. It was a very unsatisfactory and the results were inconclusive. I simply didn't have enough time.
So I'm going to sock it to you now. Rather than telling me to lay off the topic, how about you providing a competent comparison between a 1Ds3 and P21 or other back of similar pixel count. I haven't seen one yet.
Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling is some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.
You want me to back off in case you get embarrassed??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could it possibly be that a professional photographer actually knows more than a hobbyist, especially when it comes to what a discerning client finds acceptable? Could it be that being a professional photographer is more than just pushing the button and requires a combination of skills, creativity and technical knowledge? Could it be that someone who uses these tools to make a living knows more than someone that has a relatively casual acquaintance with photography?
Nah, what am I thinking? Its taking pictures, anyone can do it, right?
Yes, that was sarcasm.
I will now go back to actually working with photographers and real photos as opposed to reading specs and try to not get sucked into anymore of this.
-
That is a reason that is credible. I have no problems in understanding that a particular piece of equipment may lend itself better to a particular type of working environment, and I do appreciate ......................
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The thing that gets lost in these conversations in the equipment anyone choses, if it produces what you expect, (or better yet goes beyond your expectations), then it is credible.
I've had these exact conversations on and off line for 4 years and it all comes down to personal choice and the willingness to invest. Nothing more, nothing less.
I know photographers that loathed owning and working with medium format and others that can't stand any 35mm camera, where a few months later they buy one of each.
We all are searching and pushing for ways to improve out photographhy because if that wasn't true everyone would just continue with film and their old RZ's.
The camera shouldn't matter, but on the other hand it matters a great deal, especially since the camera is now the film and to some extent the lab.
I own Lecias, Nikons, Canons and Phase/Contax and not one of them will excactly do what the other does and not one of them will replace all the others, at least for me and the way I chose to work.
How you or anyone else choses to work is up to them, but to make rational, even irrational comments about what does and doesn't work, first you must make investment, have experience and show the results and the results have to be more than a 100% crop of a tree limb because beautiful photograpy has nothing to do with cropping a tree limb at 100%.
How you roll doesn't really change anything, or what you want doesn't mean that Nikon, Canon or Phase need to start reworking their assembly lines and sales network.
If you want to test everything until your eyes bleed, it's a free country, have at it, but finding that one lens is 10% softer than the other isn't tragic, it's just mildly annoyng. Tragic is 1 billion people forced to live on $1 a day.
I work in an industry where every project is treated like it's life and death, which from a distance seems silly.
In reality the investment required, the cost of production, the time limitations, the competition can make it very closely resemble a life a death situation. Those are the times you know what equipment is exactly right for a project and no photographer will go in an half ass the shoot, at least if they want to continue working.
If one camera, or light produces a 10% better image, a larger preview, then in those situations it's worth it.
This is where the conversation get's muddled. Unfortunatley Web conversation is a democracy where every person that writes a comment has the same validity as the person that responds and honestly in the real world this isn't the case.
This reminds me of an assistant that walked around and hourly said "I would never buy a 7 series, I would never buy a 4 million dollar Malibu home, I would never never buy a ....."
BMW and the real estate agent didn't care because they knew he wasn't their intended market.
JR
-
Ray,
it is really and only by testing it yourself, that you will find out what are the answers to your questions:
- if there is a difference (IQ, handling, workflow, etc ...) and where this difference is
- if this difference has any significance for you and your work.
I had actually proposed you to come and visit me in Bangkok, when you where in the North of Thailand, and would have loaned you my back and camera (and even lenses): so the opportunities are there, take it, Ray.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry,
You're a nice guy, and I'm a nice guy also. I should have made a point to visit you when I was in Bangkok, at least to say hello. But from a practical point of view, we were discussing comparisons involving a 1Ds3. I don't believe you had such a camera at the time. Right?
I'm very conscious of wasting people's time. When I was testing the D3 in the Nikon store, I was inwardly embarrassed by the fact that I knew it was very unlikely that I would buy this camera from the store. I never really believed that the D3 had as much as a 2 stop noise advantage over the 5D, but I had to be sure.
I was really just using them to confirm my own suspicions. I wouldn't like to do that to you .
-
Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I own DB & Nikon, I know several friends that own DB & Canons. For some reason none of us makes that comparison indeed. Most of us know when to use what so why should we? To satisfy your needs?
Quite frankly, my mind is never on how the D300 compares to the CF39 or the 384. I make the shots with the thing that IMO and with my way of working does it best, period.
Comparing the systems is a big waste of time, IMO naturally.
-
When we were shooting film, did we not always argue about 6x6 or 6x9 being much better than 35mm? When I shot 4x5 I kept telling my friends shooting only 35mm that they can never blow their negatives up to match mine. They still tried by using Pan-X and all kinds of "fine grain developer, playing with development time, using Leica Focotar enlarger lenses etc. At the end of the day, each format had it use and advantage.
I'm still not into MFDB but I know for a fact that the larger sensor without the AA filter will allow me to do certain things that even my 1Ds MKIII with the best L glass cannot do. The only way to feel a "format" is to shoot with the camera. In fact, despite my rather longish 36 or 37 years in photography, it still takes me about 4,000 frames before I'm intimate with the idiosyncrasies of each new DSLR I buy. It may be that I'm not as good as some other here but I doubt you can competently compare or evaluate a camera in a camera shop and walk out convinced that the camera is bad or good. Plain silly notion if you asked me.
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']Now, is my 4,000 frames way too many, may I ask some of you working pros? Thanks.[/span]
-
Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Might be something to do with the fact that we are all busy and totally BORED of this subject.
Next topic... please.
Jo S.x
-
Might be something to do with the fact that we are all busy and totally BORED of this subject.
Next topic... please.
Jo S.x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That might indeed be the case. But I, for one, am not going to buy a camera on the basis that any improvement in image quality cannot be demonstrated because such comparisons are too boring. If the matter is too boring, then it's not relevant. I'll stick with what I've got, thank you.
-
So I'm going to sock it to you now. Rather than telling me to lay off the topic, how about you providing a competent comparison between a 1Ds3 and P21 or other back of similar pixel count. I haven't seen one yet.
Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.
You want me to back off in case you get embarrassed??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think this gets at the crux of the problem here, you think that people are trying to make you believe for some reason that there DB's are better than your canon. I promise you no working professional cares whether his or her DB is better than someone elses canon. It really doesn't matter, people care how there images look for sure but to think we are all in this conspiracy to try and convince people who have never owned a DB that we see something of virtue in them is ridiculous and quite misanthropic.
I was just retouching a 5d file and you know what, it was sharper than a lot of my P21 file, it looked lovely, I could post that and that would be proof, the 5d is sharper than the P21 but then I looked at the other files from the 5d that weren't as sharp and the shadows were getting a bit noisy. You see thats how it is with the new cameras, there all really good, the differences are small, depending on light and how you shoot sometimes the advantages between cameras are reversed, you can't tell which camera is "best" from looking at one or even a bunch of tests. You have to go out and shoot these cameras on jobs, shoot hundreds of images and then, don't just look at files 100 percent on screen but look at prints and don't just examine them but step back and see how they make you feel and then try and figure out whether that feeling is helped by the attributes of the camera. Unfortunately this doesn't help armchair pundits, you want an easy answer, you want A vs B with a nice clear cut answer but it just doesn't work like that. Unfortunately that means that you do have to somehow get your hands on a costly DB for a good amount of time and shoot it and look at it with not just a technical eye but an artists eye too which some people cannot do and that is unfortunate but until you do that you DO NOT HAVE A VALID OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.
Sorry for the rant but I think this is a fundamental idea which is important to understand to prevent this otherwise valuable resource of a forum being taken down the plug hole into dpreview territory.
-
"Beautiful photography has nothing to do with cropping a tree limb at 100%" ...now there's a tagline!
-
You see thats how it is with the new cameras, there all really good, the differences are small, depending on light and how you shoot sometimes the advantages between cameras are reversed, you can't tell which camera is "best" from looking at one or even a bunch of tests. You have to go out and shoot these cameras on jobs, shoot hundreds of images and then, don't just look at files 100 percent on screen but look at prints and don't just examine them but step back and see how they make you feel and then try and figure out whether that feeling is helped by the attributes of the camera. Unfortunately this doesn't help armchair pundits, you want an easy answer, you want A vs B with a nice clear cut answer but it just doesn't work like that. Unfortunately that means that you do have to somehow get your hands on a costly DB for a good amount of time and shoot it and look at it with not just a technical eye but an artists eye too which some people cannot do and that is unfortunate but until you do that you DO NOT HAVE A VALID OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.
Sorry for the rant but I think this is a fundamental idea which is important to understand to prevent this otherwise valuable resource of a forum being taken down the plug hole into dpreview territory.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192921\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know, after reading that, I'm almost persuaded that Ken Rockwell was literally correct in his controversial article, 'The Camera doesn't matter'.
-
That might indeed be the case. But I, for one, am not going to buy a camera on the basis that any improvement in image quality cannot be demonstrated because such comparisons are too boring. If the matter is too boring, then it's not relevant. I'll stick with what I've got, thank you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ray, no one cares what you stick with.
move on please.
-
ray, no one cares what you stick with.
move on please.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No one cares!! I care. That's why I'm writing this stuff. Move on to what? Is there some pre-determined agenda here? You're not making any sense.
-
No one cares!! I care. That's why I'm writing this stuff. Move on to what? Is there some pre-determined agenda here? You're not making any sense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
great that you care, but please don't force it down our throats
this has been discussed to death in the older 1ds mk II thread and it's really old already.
people who aren't convinced by the 3rd page are not going to be convinced by the 6th page.
go take some photos or cook an omelette or make some money
-
No one cares!! I care. That's why I'm writing this stuff. Move on to what? Is there some pre-determined agenda here? You're not making any sense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes Ray, it's a conspiracy.
Every year the top 1,000 professional photographers in the world meet in the old Norad mountain hideout with Leaf, Phase, Sinar and Hasselblad and come to agreement how best to "trick" you into believing you need to throw away your 5d and drop 50 large on a Leaf HY6.
In fact Annie said the other day, "if only we could get Ray to buy a new camera, then my career would be complete".
Karl Lagerfeld responded, "screw this, I'm just going to buy this Ray person a new camera, but I urged him not to, because those custom collars were really cutting into the Kaiser's operating expense and well we all know Chanel has to watch the money they spend.
Yes Ray you've finally uncovered our plot.
Damn, now we're going to have to move next years meeting to the motel 6 at Disney World.
JR
-
Well, excuse me, I just didn't know that, James. I got the impression that AA filters were in place to slay the 300 lb monster.
The Leica R8/R9/Digital-Modul-R is the only 35mm dslr that hasn't an AA filter. It also has a CCD with big photosites and not a CMOS. The quality of the output at 100 and 200 ISO in combination with the Leica glass is really outstanding. I`ve rarely seen any moire in my Leica images, this occurs from time to time and under certain conditions we all already know. I've also seen some moire in my Olympus E-1 images, a camera that it's known for incorporating a very strong AA filter.
The new Leica R10 is not going to incorporate an AA filter. It will be a FF (or "bigger") dslr with, at least, 16 Mpx of resolution (this was the assumed minimal resolution two years ago so the final one will be probably higher). How will it compare with the current and new high resulution dslrs (1dsmkIII, D3x?, A900?) an some MFDB will be something interesting to see.
-
And as I said before THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL IMAGE. I posted a comparsion a time ago between the hot_rod 5d and the normal shot. AFTER capture sharpning nearly nobody could say which one was the one without AA. Now to go even further I did this and printed the image. I gave it to different artists and photographers here 0 out of around 20 people could see a difference. So sorry, the whole thing hot_rod is doing is making money and nothing more.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So the processing and filtering and such should be controlled by the manufacturer instead of under our control? I find that to be a hard position to support. And I don't know of any program that does sharpening that doesn't also alter the image in other negative ways. Photoshop is notorious for mangling raw files when it imports them, for instance.
I should be able to get that sort of result by default. Now, in a point and shoot camera, yes, I can see how all of that nanny-ware is a good thing. But for someone who does professional level work, it's actually a hindrance.
-
I own a 44" Epson printer (saved from the junkheap) and a postcard Canon printer. Both have their uses
Edmund
I own DB & Nikon, I know several friends that own DB & Canons. For some reason none of us makes that comparison indeed. Most of us know when to use what so why should we? To satisfy your needs?
Quite frankly, my mind is never on how the D300 compares to the CF39 or the 384. I make the shots with the thing that IMO and with my way of working does it best, period.
Comparing the systems is a big waste of time, IMO naturally.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
- Removed -
-
Gidday,
Come on guys trying to convince Ray on the image superiority of DBs over his precious Canons is like telling a born again Christian that God doesn’t exists.
Simon
-
Gidday,
Come on guys trying to convince Ray on the image superiority of DBs over his precious Canons is like telling a born again Christian that God doesn’t exists.
Simon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Less photography and more art, less art and more truth" (Robert Frank)
-
Ray, beside the sickness of this discussion and also leaving beside the fact that all this conversation is pointless and pathetic I'll try to help you out.
Because you refuse to try a DB for yourself, I just suppose you're afraid to see the truth with your own eyes. What would you do if you find out that a DB could be superior?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192994\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Samuel,
Your example shot looks quite sharp to me. It's what one might expect from a 20mp camera. The focussing is on a sunlit, contrasty part of the scene so focussing should be accurate. I get a sense there's an extra crispness to the image which a 1Ds3 might not be able to deliver, but of course we can't be sure about that due to the lack of suitable comparisons.
Since I don't own a 1Ds3, I can't show you a similarly sharp image, and even if I could, it wouldn't be conclusive. A proper comparison needs to be of the identical subject with accurate adjustment of aperture and focal length to maintain similar DoF and FoV with both cameras. Focussing should also be on the same precise spot in each shot, which means using the LiveView of the 1Ds3 (at 10x magnification) and tethering the DB.
It would also help if we had two sets of comparison, one with the 1Ds3 cropped to the DB aspect ratio and one with the DB cropped to the 35mm aspect ratio.
Processing of the two sets of images should also be different, as required, to get similar white balance, temperature, tint, color saturation etc. Special attention should be given to sharpening of the 1Ds3 image, since the presence of an AA filter requires this.
Of course, now I realise that you are all bored with this subject and were never interested in such matters in the first place and don't give two hoots as to whether or not a DB produces better images than a 35mm DSLR of similar pixel count since the real reason for your buying into such an expensive system is not to get any marginal increase in fundamental image quality compared with 35mm, but to get equipment which is more suitable for your working environment and style of shooting, I don't suppose we'll ever see such comparisons.
That's fine by me. I think I've got the message that any such improvement in fundamental image quality offered by the DB (of similar pixel count - it's always necessary to stress that) is just too marginal to bother with. It's just plain boring, pointless and pathetic.
-
Ray, beside the sickness of this discussion and also leaving beside the fact that all this conversation is pointless and pathetic I'll try to help you out.
Sorry, image looks oversharpened. look at white lines around teeth, then hair. Film would be smoother.
Anyway, all you who feel a dead horse is being beaten here: just don't read anymore, thats pretty simple isn't it??? And let others interested and who may have something positive or informative to say post away (and keep the smarmy comments for other deserving folks like your assistants or whomever is "lesser than thou"). There have been some valuable comments in the thread which wouldn't have occurred if you had your way. So, chill, don't read the thread.
Is there a problem with that scenario? Good.
There are many folks who have a hard time putting their hands on a $35,000 dollar rig for a sustained period of time who, at least initially, benefit from as much varied input as possible. Perhaps they are even younger and less well heeled. Who knows. Tolerance is a virtue, especially when you don't have to read or post in a thread. Getting the point???
Good. Now, as someone who has taught digital photography at university, shot 8x10" down through virtually every format, shot professionally for years from editorial to advertising, owns drum scanner and prints to more than 6 feet, owns a $15K digital rig, and for those arteests out there has a MFA in Photo, regularly exhibits work and could give a fcsk about boring commercial work, I humbly cede the stage to any person still interested in discussing the topic at hand.
P.S. if you are on the fence now, I would recommend waiting until the Photokina in the Fall where, who knows, some improvements in the MFDB might be announced. There is a real quandary for those who desire "large format" or medium format quality yet don't have a years salary to blow on the hardware. I agree with others that the way you work with the camera and the types of images it is suited for is more important than how sharp it renders eyelashes. I have shown 1dsmk2 images at 4 x 5 feet and they held up well (though they were not detail oriented images). For work reproduced in most magazines etc. the Canons have more that enough resolution - but there are aesthetic, technical and personal reasons why they might be ill equipped for certain work. I await a mature MFD system (probably the HY6) that I can purchase that I can swap the back onto my Alpa SWA when needed. But until then, I will continue to gather the obscure info that only those who are already long term shooters of medium format can provide.
Viva the stupid thread
-
Anyway, all you who feel a dead horse is being beaten here: just don't read anymore, thats pretty simple isn't it??? And let others interested and who may have something positive or informative to say post away (and keep the smarmy comments for other deserving folks like your assistants or whomever is "lesser than thou"). There have been some valuable comments in the thread which wouldn't have occurred if you had your way. So, chill, don't read the thread.
I agree. When I come across the sorts of comments in this thread, such as; sick, boring, pointless, pathetic etc., I just assume that the posters writing such comments are not only unable to address the fundamental issue under discussion, but they are actually afraid of the conclusions they might find if they were to address the issue.
Ad hominen attacks are the usual way out of such a predicament. Try to create the impression that you don't really care; that the issue is not worthy of your attention; that there are more noble issues at hand.
Sorry, image looks oversharpened. look at white lines around teeth, then hair. Film would be smoother.
The teeth do look oversharpened. I didn't notice that. However, to be kind to Samuel, the amount of sharpening depends on the intended print size. printed fairly small, say A3+, those white lines and halos wouldn't be noticeable, would they?
-
Leaf backs can only tether if the battery is removed and gets power from the firewire port. This makes it harder to swiftly go from tethering to portable. Phase backs can tether and still have the battery connected so pulling the firewire lets you keep shooting.
Interesting, I would not have expected that. The Sinar eMotion backs can also be unplugged and keep shooting. I just assumed they all worked this way.
-
Karl Lagerfeld responded, "screw this, I'm just going to buy this Ray person a new camera, but I urged him not to, because those custom collars were really cutting into the Kaiser's operating expense and well we all know Chanel has to watch the money they spend.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
lol !
You forgot this guy
(http://cs.wellesley.edu/~rds/rds04/projects/KillaRabbit/DV/mugatu.jpg)
-
Ray,
I got my Mamiya/Phase P45+back because I wanted better quality than what I had -1Ds2-. In my opinion I did get very significantly better color and file "thickness", and sharpness is better than the new 1Ds3 but not as good as it should be. I think Hassy and Sinar probably have better constructions and do better on sharpness.
Edmund
Of course, now I realise that you are all bored with this subject and were never interested in such matters in the first place and don't give two hoots as to whether or not a DB produces better images than a 35mm DSLR of similar pixel count since the real reason for your buying into such an expensive system is not to get any marginal increase in fundamental image quality compared with 35mm, but to get equipment which is more suitable for your working environment and style of shooting, I don't suppose we'll ever see such comparisons.
That's fine by me. I think I've got the message that any such improvement in fundamental image quality offered by the DB (of similar pixel count - it's always necessary to stress that) is just too marginal to bother with. It's just plain boring, pointless and pathetic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193224\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ray,
I got my Mamiya/Phase P45+back because I wanted better quality than what I had -1Ds2-. In my opinion I did get very significantly better color and file "thickness", and sharpness is better than the new 1Ds3 but not as good as it should be. I think Hassy and Sinar probably have better constructions and do better on sharpness.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
I imagine that comparing a P45+ with a 1Ds2 would be a bit like comparing a 5D with AA filter removed, with a 6mp D60.
The owner of this site, when reviewing the 10mp 40D, claimed it was very close to the 5D in image quality, perhaps even better depending on lens quality.
If the bigger sensor with more pixels does not provide noticeably better image quality than the smaller sensor with fewer pixels, then there's something seriously inadequate about the bigger sensor or the lens.
-
Ray,
I think the P45 fit/focus distance on the Mamiya body is the culprit here - I had two P45+ units that were so-so in sharpness (beating a 1Ds3, still), and a P45 repair loaner that was scary razor sharp.
Basically, when you get a digital back you buy a lottery ticket.
My experience with the high-end Canon bodies has been similar, but as they are complete integrated units Canon can to a degree recalibrate the auto-focus. Hassy and Sinar can do this too.
Edmund
Edmund,
I imagine that comparing a P45+ with a 1Ds2 would be a bit like comparing a 5D with AA filter removed, with a 6mp D60.
The owner of this site, when reviewing the 10mp 40D, claimed it was very close to the 5D in image quality, perhaps even better depending on lens quality.
If the bigger sensor with more pixels does not provide noticeably better image quality than the smaller sensor with fewer pixels, then there's something seriously inadequate about the bigger sensor or the lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ray,
I think the P45 fit/focus distance on the Mamiya body is the culprit here - I had two P45+ units that were so-so in sharpness (beating a 1Ds3, still), and a P45 repair loaner that was scary razor sharp.
Basically, when you get a digital back you buy a lottery ticket.
My experience with the high-end Canon bodies has been similar, but as they are complete integrated units Canon can to a degree recalibrate the auto-focus. Hassy and Sinar can do this too.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
I guess we have to accept that modern digital camera technology, or any mass production process, is not perfect.
The Apollo 11 mission to the moon almost didn't make the trip back. It was touch and go, although we didn't realise it at the time.
It's amazing that these digital cameras work at all. We just have to make the best with what we can get. I'm very happy with my 5D. If I get the adapter I ordered to fit the Nikon 14-28/2.8 to my 5D, I'll be even happier.
However, what I really want is a low noise 24mp FF 35mm camera, like the one Sony will soon release, but with no AA filter.
I think software can often compensate for the lower pixel resolution and dynamic range of the 35mm sensor (compared with DB). We have stacking options in CS3-E to reduce noise, image alignment for hand-held bracketed exposures to increase DR, and amazingly accurate stitching programs like Autopano Pro.
I'm really not keen on the MFDB approach. It's not just the cost of the back but the cost of the camera body and lenses which is off-putting.
I'm a believer in maximising my satisfaction for the money I spend. At the same time, I have no objection to wealthy people supporting the development of medium and large format digital photography. But it does seem like a very expensive pursuit akin to buying diamonds, fur coats and designer clothes.
Perhaps I'll search a bit for some 5D shots of sharp hair, eye lashes, teeth and lips. I've got a cross reference to phallic symbolism, but not the former.
-
- Removed -
-
Ray,
I think the P45 fit/focus distance on the Mamiya body is the culprit here - I had two P45+ units that were so-so in sharpness (beating a 1Ds3, still), and a P45 repair loaner that was scary razor sharp.
Basically, when you get a digital back you buy a lottery ticket.
My experience with the high-end Canon bodies has been similar, but as they are complete integrated units Canon can to a degree recalibrate the auto-focus. Hassy and Sinar can do this too.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
I don't understand this.
I've only owned Leaf and Phase digital backs but I can promise you both of those companies will bend over backwards to correct an issue, if it is in their control and as long as the dealers are in Atlanta they will stand by you to get it right, regardless of their profit margin or time investment.
In fact I was one of the people that identified the dropped and corrupt file issues of the 1ds2 and Canon was anything but transparent or helpful. I could write about 10,000 words on how wrong the corporate response was, but before doing so I would have to have my law firm sign off on the report.
If you really do have a loaner p45 that is superiior to your own p45 I can't help but believe the manufacturer won't make this right.
If anything that medium format can do that is beyond the standard dslr think is they understand that these are professional tools and getting it right is serious business.
JR
-
I'm really not keen on the MFDB approach. It's not just the cost of the back but the cost of the camera body and lenses which is off-putting.
I'm a believer in maximising my satisfaction for the money I spend. At the same time, I have no objection to wealthy people supporting the development of medium and large format digital photography. But it does seem like a very expensive pursuit akin to buying diamonds, fur coats and designer clothes.
All of these discussions about MFDB vs 35mm DSLR remind me that other ones taking place in the high-end audio forums... How good is a 10.000 euros Gryphon integrated amp vs a 2.000 euros Marantz? And how good is a 30.000 euros Audio Research/Krell preamplifier/amp combo vs the Gryphon? There will be always a lot of people expecting to read that the Gryphon is not-that-good and the difference between it and the Marantz are there for a very small margin or even not margin at all. Of course, there will be always some people treating others as virtually idiots for just dare to raise such a "boring, silly, pathetic, etc" question.
Of course, the real thing is that a 10.000 euros Gryphon sounds better than a 2.000 euros Marantz but not five times better... Just "better" with an advantage that will be relative if it has to move a pair of monitor speakers in a small room but that it will be more clear if it has to move a pair of 12.000 euros Nautilus 802D in a big room... But at the end I'm afraid that the real, definitive "importance" of these differences depends on how much money you can spend in this kind of things.
I can see that quality advantage of a MFDB image over a DSLR one but cannot accept the price jump on a rational or justfiable basis. I cannot understand why a Hasselblad H3DII can cost more than a Sony HDCAM broadcast video camera: it's totally stupid because the Sony represents a far more complex effort in terms of design and engineering than the Hassel.
You have a special "professional" support from a MFDB manufacturer that Canon or Nikon is not going to offer... Well, I wouldn´t expect less. When my 6.000 euros Musical-Fidelity SACD player unexpectedly "died" after two years and out of warranty and the guys at MF in England couldn't solve the problem they send me a brand new 6.000 euros KW-SACD in exchange for not cost at all... Well, I`m sure this wouldn´t be the same if I had a Marantz.
-
The only thing you're seeing is jpg compression.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wouldn't be so sure. Jpeg compression doesn't create halo's like around the teeth, it creates blocky patches. It is almost impossible to produce a digital image without sharpening because of the necessity for it and that most all development software has a baseline of sharpening built in. This is what accounts for the quick blow out in fine white detail as in hair.
Also did you noticed the color moire in the fabric detail in the black areas? Again, this isn't jpeg compression.
IMHO digitial images are often too brittle because of sharpening which has been applied. I remember how much the promotional images for the first digital backs with their ultra contrast and super sharp detail hurt my eyes. Smoothness of tonal transitions is vastly underappreciated. This is what sets apart a contact print from an enlargement. The march of modern imaging (in both photography and reproduction) has been one of ever increasing contrast and saturation and this is also true of our viewing media: lcd's are super sharp as opposed to crt's. Note that this is not necessarily always good in all cases. A couple of days ago I was at a benefit for an arts organization where I had donated a print and they brought in the Polaroid 20x24 camera with John Reuter running it with 2 assistants. Portraits on the spot for $3000 a pop. In looking at the prints I had an almost eery feeling: the prints were not sharp really but somehow they had extremely high resolution and smoothness.
In regard to tonality MFDigital is going to have and advantage over 35mm digital. I would love to see the difference in color and tonality that the multishot digital backs produce.
-
- Removed -
-
However, what I really want is a low noise 24mp FF 35mm camera, like the one Sony will soon release, but with no AA filter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193304\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Out of curiosity, why? What actual difference will it really make to your photography? Not having a go, just curious as to why you think this is what you needm to move on.
I have have seen lots of images in exhibitions or in books, magazines etc, that on a technical level are way below a DSLR when it comes to resolving detail, yet the images are still wonderful.
-
Out of curiosity, why? What actual difference will it really make to your photography? Not having a go, just curious as to why you think this is what you needm to move on.
I have have seen lots of images in exhibitions or in books, magazines etc, that on a technical level are way below a DSLR when it comes to resolving detail, yet the images are still wonderful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good question. I guess for a number of reasons. I use a 24" wide Epson 7600 printer. 12mp doesn't seem quite enough for a 23"x35" print when viewed close. At such a size, stitched scenes look better.
Nevertheless, two lenses are better than one. I'd expect that 3 overlapping 12mp images stitched to a resulting 24mp image would always look more detailed than a single 24mp shot. I'd also be happy with a 5D upgrade retaining the same 12m pixel count, but boasting new features such as LiveView, a faster frame rate and lower noise.... I mean significantly lower noise, not the 1/3 stop improvement of the D3 .
This new 24mp Sony sensor also appeals to me because I already have a few good Minolta-fit lenses that are not being used.
-
I am saddened that Mr. Russell has finally told the truth behind the conspiracy. And yes I have been one of those taken in. I am sad to say that I have joined the ranks of not finding the small sensor 35mm type as good as MFDB or maybe even MF film.
Alas had I only joined the ranks of Pixel Peeper instead of furthering my life as a professional photographer I would have been much happier. I don't even own a cat so photography of the cat whisker will not be available to me. Sad but true, I am certainly destined to Pixel Peeper Hell, only occasionally being able to photograph the text of a newspaper or cereal box.
See you at the Motel 6 and ask them to leave the lights on (iso and all that)
Yes Ray, it's a conspiracy.
Every year the top 1,000 professional photographers in the world meet in the old Norad mountain hideout with Leaf, Phase, Sinar and Hasselblad and come to agreement how best to "trick" you into believing you need to throw away your 5d and drop 50 large on a Leaf HY6.
In fact Annie said the other day, "if only we could get Ray to buy a new camera, then my career would be complete".
Karl Lagerfeld responded, "screw this, I'm just going to buy this Ray person a new camera, but I urged him not to, because those custom collars were really cutting into the Kaiser's operating expense and well we all know Chanel has to watch the money they spend.
Yes Ray you've finally uncovered our plot.
Damn, now we're going to have to move next years meeting to the motel 6 at Disney World.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I am saddened that Mr. Russell has finally told the truth behind the conspiracy. And yes I have been one of those taken in. I am sad to say that I have joined the ranks of not finding the small sensor 35mm type as good as MFDB or maybe even MF film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It's well known that the mere knowledge that something is expensive and supposedly of high quality is sufficient to produce pleasurable sensations. Tell someone the cheap wine they are drinking cost $50 a bottle, and the wine will likely taste better. Tell them the amplifier in the hi fi system is a $20,000 Mark-Levinson hybrid amplifier, and the music will likely sound better. The experience will likely be real. It's called the placebo effect.
Maybe the real reason DBs don't have AA filters is so the images can be distinguished from 35mm DSLR images. Without the tell-tale signs of moire, however slight, a P21 image would likely be indistinguishable from a 1Ds3 image.
(Just joking! Keep your shirt on! )
-
If you think I'm not telling the truth that's your problem man...
There's no white halos or moiré in my files.
Maybe you need higher quality jpgs to believe me? or tiff? I don't think small details will win your war against MF. Sorry.
Regarding my participation in this thread. It ends here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Samuel,
If you're going to demonstrate a point, it's always advisable to use the maximum quality jpeg compression, which is a compression ratio of about 3 to 1.
Below are examples of 100% crops of a 5D image using the Canon 24-105 zoom. The crop on the left has had only default sharpening in ACR of 25, 1 pixel radius and 25 detail. The crop on the right has had additional sharpening in Photoshop and has been deliberately oversharpened to bring out the halos.
[attachment=6414:attachment]
I see essentially no difference between the uncompressed tif and the jpegs. The halos are equally visible in both the tif and the jpeg crop of the oversharpened image, and equally invisible in both the tif and the jpeg crop on the left with default sharpening.
-
Ray?
You need to get out more - seriously.
-
Ray?
You need to get out more - seriously.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please, somebody pull the plug on this thread.
Raymond has had more than his 10 minutes of attention and it's a shame we can't just lift this whole thing and move it where it belongs to DP review or some stoner's blog titled, How To Screw Up A Jpeg.
I do have to admit that the two tongue photos are pretty funny.
JR
P.S. this is exactly what happens on the democratic web, where every voice has equal value.
It's a shame because this is the only public site that can address a lot of common interests among professionals, whether it be technique, or just maneuvering a career.
There is a lot of good relevant, even controversial topics that can be the catalyst of really thought provoking discussion.
The manufacturer's read this stuff and instead of a concise laundry list of what we really need to improve our art, this all gets moved to compare the tongues jpegs.
-
I do have to admit that the two tounge photos are pretty funny.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is it just me, or are all records now titled "Get out of my room, Parent!" while personal adornments scream "Get out of my face, Oldie!"
Edmund
-
The plug won't get pulled, sadly. There are Pixel Peepers out there and in these forums who make this their home and ruin most threads. We need a pro forum like SportsShooter (I am a member) where stuff like this does not happen quite as badly. Oh well!
At least the MFDB "Recent Works" thread has stayed fairly pristine. Those who have tried to play their game there have been shot down pretty quickly as we have seen. But it can't last forever, I am afraid.
Please, somebody pull the plug on this thread.
Raymond has had more than his 10 minutes of attention and it's a shame we can't just lift this whole thing and move it where it belongs to DP review or some stoner's blog titled, How To Screw Up A Jpeg.
I do have to admit that the two tongue photos are pretty funny.
JR
P.S. this is exactly what happens on the democratic web, where every voice has equal value.
It's a shame because this is the only public site that can address a lot of common interests among professionals, whether it be technique, or just maneuvering a career.
There is a lot of good relevant, even controversial topics that can be the catalyst of really thought provoking discussion.
The manufacturer's read this stuff and instead of a concise laundry list of what we really need to improve our art, this all gets moved to compare the tongues jpegs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The reason that threads like this become so long is that people keep visiting them in the hope that they'll eventually see a compent comparison between a 1Ds3 and a P21, or ZD, or even a P25. If the P25 image were cropped to the same aspect ratio as 35mm, it could be a fair comparison.
But it looks as though this will be yet another doomed thread with no conclusion and the issues raised will keep repeating themselves for ever more.
Fred Barnard coined the phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words' in 1927 and described it as an ancient Chinese proverb to impart a sense of authority and wisdom to the phrase.
However, when comparing a 1Ds3 with a DB of similar pixel count, one picture is not enough. We need at least 2 pictures; one from each camera. If we had two such pictures (taken with the impeccable and flawless technique that is second nature to you professionals) then maybe we could save 2,000 words.
However, I doubt it. Judging from the past attempts to provide such a comparison on this forum, I think two such images would generate at least 10,000 words. There'd be no saving at all. Perhaps we're better off with no comparisons .
-
If we get back to the link provided by Edmund in the first post, http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium...G_THE_FUND.html (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Entries/2008/3/29_REBALANCING_THE_FUND.html) , I cannot find any direct comparisons there either, just a lot of outrageous statement such as:
Do I like the Canon 1Ds Mark III? No. In consideration of its price and file quality relative to a Canon 1Ds Mark II, the Mark III is a under-performer. Adding insult to injury, the P25 kicks the 1Ds3’s proverbial butt. Frankly, I think the Canon 5D and Canon 1Ds Mark II put up a better fight. The Canon 1Ds Mark III requires copious amounts of sharpening and its dynamic range is about 2/3 of a stop less than the 1Ds Mark II’s.
Full-frame sensors such as the Canon 1Ds Mark III are years away from matching medium format sensors. If Canon continues to offer more megapixels while reducing pixel performance, this gap will only widen.
Fighting words, eh? Pity there are no direct comparisons. This notion that you need to take thousands of images over a considerable period of time in order to get a sense of the image superiority of one camera compared to another, has its place. It might be the best approach. Unfortunately, such an approach tends to muddle issues of personal shooting habits and working style, not only with regard to the way the equipment is used, but also with regard to the way the images are processed.
There is something very revealing about the comparisons made so far which have appeared on this site. They tend to give the impression that the photographer's subconscious took over as soon as he/she switched to the 35mm equipment, in order to ensure that the 35mm result was not good. There seemed to be a complete inability to get the most out of the 35mm equipment and use it as though that were the only camera available and one simply had to do the best job one could.
I'll give a few examples from memory. I might not have got all the details precisely correct, but from memory, the first comparison was between the 1Ds3, P21 and ZD.
No attempt appeared to have been made to match FoVs. They were way out. The same f stops were used on all cameras and the focussing was different.
The next comparison between the P21 and 1Ds3 displayed huge differences in the way the images had been processed. The P21 image was bright and contrasty and the 1Ds3 image flat and dull. The same f stop had been used for both shots (F13 from memory) thus depriving the 1Ds3 of the greater resolution the smaller sensor needs, whilst at the same time needlessly giving it greater DoF than the other shot.
In another example, the 35mm shot was of a lady's face showing her with incomplete make-up in poor lighting and with dull image processing. The DB shot was of the same lady fully made up, better lighting and the usual highlight glint in the centre of the pupil.
Since I know you guys are experienced photographers and not this incompetent, I tend to draw the conclusion that either your subconscious is at work protecting your conscious from unpalable truths, or you just don't give a damn.
On the other hand, it could simply be the case that, after many thousands of shots getting used to MF equipment, you are simply unable to make a sudden switch to 35mm. You need to take a few thousand shots first to get used to that 35mm equipment, or at least remember how it used to be.
-
If we get back to the link provided by Edmund in the first post, http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium...G_THE_FUND.html (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Entries/2008/3/29_REBALANCING_THE_FUND.html) , I cannot find any direct comparisons there either, just a lot of outrageous statement such as:
Fighting words, eh? Pity there are no direct comparisons. This notion that you need to take thousands of images over a considerable period of time in order to get a sense of the image superiority of one camera compared to another, has its place. It might be the best approach. Unfortunately, such an approach tends to muddle issues of personal shooting habits and working style, not only with regard to the way the equipment is used, but also with regard to the way the images are processed.
There is something very revealing about the comparisons made so far which have appeared on this site. They tend to give the impression that the photographer's subconscious took over as soon as he/she switched to the 35mm equipment, in order to ensure that the 35mm result was not good. There seemed to be a complete inability to get the most out of the 35mm equipment and use it as though that were the only camera available and one simply had to do the best job one could.
I'll give a few examples from memory. I might not have got all the details precisely correct, but from memory, the first comparison was between the 1Ds3, P21 and ZD.
No attempt appeared to have been made to match FoVs. They were way out. The same f stops were used on all cameras and the focussing was different.
The next comparison between the P21 and 1Ds3 displayed huge differences in the way the images had been processed. The P21 image was bright and contrasty and the 1Ds3 image flat and dull. The same f stop had been used for both shots (F13 from memory) thus depriving the 1Ds3 of the greater resolution the smaller sensor needs, whilst at the same time needlessly giving it greater DoF than the other shot.
In another example, the 35mm shot was of a lady's face showing her with incomplete make-up in poor lighting and with dull image processing. The DB shot was of the same lady fully made up, better lighting and the usual highlight glint in the centre of the pupil.
Since I know you guys are experienced photographers and not this incompetent, I tend to draw the conclusion that either your subconscious is at work protecting your conscious from unpalable truths, or you just don't give a damn.
On the other hand, it could simply be the case that, after many thousands of shots getting used to MF equipment, you are simply unable to make a sudden switch to 35mm. You need to take a few thousand shots first to get used to that 35mm equipment, or at least remember how it used to be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ray, you win, you win.
can you go away now.
-
I have a solution to all the madness, there needs to be a new forum section called "comparisons"
ANY discussion or actual comparsions between format sizes digital or film will take place there and ONLY there.
Any posts related to the above mentioned posted here or in another section will be moved to the new section or deleted.
anyone with me on this?
-
The reason that threads like this become so long is that people keep visiting them in the hope that they'll eventually see a compent comparison between a 1Ds3 and a P21, or ZD, or even a P25.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, the reason this thread is so long is because you keep adding to it! 40 posts from you so far in this thread alone...
Another vote here for deleting this thread.
-
No, the reason this thread is so long is because you keep adding to it! 40 posts from you so far in this thread alone...
Another vote here for deleting this thread.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't counted them, but 40 seems an exaggeration. What is clear is that there have been over 18,000 views of this thread, so it is reasonable to presume that there's considerable interest is a real and competently carried out comparison; something we've been denied so far.
-
ray, you win, you win.
can you go away now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dear me! It's not about winning. It's about getting accurate information. Don't you realise that? Winning is for the Olympics in Beijing this year.
-
I haven't counted them, but 40 seems an exaggeration.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now it's 42. Click on the number of posts in the main forum view and you will see how many posts have been posted by each member. You are clearly in the lead
-
Ray,
You are so determined in getting this comparison and so adamant in the way it should be done. Why don't you do it yourself instead of trying to press others in doing it for you?
Already several dealers/company representatives have offered to help you get the equipment.
If you spend halve the energy you spend in filling this thread you would have already had the comparison you are so insisting upon.
At least that would be a comparison exactly like you want it. No other one probably can come close to that.
-
Ray,
You are so determined in getting this comparison and so adamant in the way it should be done. Why don't you do it yourself instead of trying to press others in doing it for you?
Already several dealers/company representatives have offered to help you get the equipment.
If you spend halve the energy you spend in filling this thread you would have already had the comparison you are so insisting upon.
At least that would be a comparison exactly like you want it. No other one probably can come close to that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But I'm not the one one making the outrageous and possibly misleading claims. When I make claims that camera A or lens A is better than camera B or lens B, I back up such claims with carefuly conducted comparison images, displayed at maximum quality jpeg compression, so everyone is clear what I'm talking about and in what respect I believe camera/lens A is better and to what degree and significance.
You can't expect me to run around substantiating or disproving every ill-founded assertion that appears on LL.
-
I concur. Ray seems to have enough knowledge of photography to do such a comparison, he has thought about it, so he should do it and come back here with his results. Sell it to Shutterbug or some magazine.
We need a Canon vs. MF shootout anyway. It's the way things are done nowadays.I'd do it, but I'm not a good enough photographer for the results to be meaningful.
Edmund
Ray,
You are so determined in getting this comparison and so adamant in the way it should be done. Why don't you do it yourself instead of trying to press others in doing it for you?
Already several dealers/company representatives have offered to help you get the equipment.
If you spend halve the energy you spend in filling this thread you would have already had the comparison you are so insisting upon.
At least that would be a comparison exactly like you want it. No other one probably can come close to that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
A good photographer should also know the difference sensor size makes
The reason that for film I just bought a RZ67 Pro II, even bigger that 6x4.5
I will be using also digital with it ofcourse, but the main reason is to shoot larger negative for film.
The sensor size is KEY in this whole discussion as I pointed out many times.
As long as there is a difference you can't compare both systems.
It's as simple as that.
It's like comparing a tractor with a ferrari.
Put the tractor on the highway and it will drive but not as fast as the ferrari.
Put the ferrari on rough terrain and it will get stuck.
Horses for courses.
And if you know what to do with both systems they are BOTH unbeatable in their specialism.
That's why ALOT of pro photographers use both and don't do this kind of comparisions, it's no use as long as both systems are physically different.
This is the MF forum so this discussion is already been too long in different threads and keeps repeating itself, understand the fundamentals off photography and you know that both systems can't be compared.
Look at the numbers and pixelcount the can, but that's not photography.
Photography is getting a feel/look/photo not about MP's
-
del
-
O.K Ray, lets do it, no subjective "artistic" opinions, lets do a proper objective scientific test comparing a P21 to a 1ds mark 3.
Most importantly lets agree on a sound methodology, after a few botched attempts to show the difference in examples which have quite rightly, been questioned because of variations in USM settings, contrast etc.
Here's what I propose to be a scientifically valid methodology (please correct me if I'm wrong)
1st lets test the most basic parameter:
SHARPNESS:
To do this we must realize that we are not testing the sharpness of the lens (which lens would you choose for each device, which Fstop would you use and what focal length) we are testing the sharpness of the capture device. Oh hang on, you can't do that can you? canon lenses doesn't fit on a mamiya.
Right, so at the first basic hurdle we have failed. Next step, lets realize it's doomed to failure as an objective test before we start. No problem, lets just shoot the standard lens on each camera, shoot a subject that is exactly the same for each camera at the same f stop. We will process the files with exactly the same software to get fair results. whats that? Different files need different software to get the best results. O.k. we'll use our preferred software for each camera. We'd better standardise the amount of USM we put on though eh? Whats that, different devices need different amounts of it, s how much shall we use? Hmm, I think we've failed again.
And that is just the start of testing the most basic parameter. What I'm getting at Ray is that it really isn't possible to give you what you want, you want an objective scientific A vs B test which will give us the answers. You know what, I do to, it would make our lives so much easier but that life. It means that unfortunately you have to figure it out through your own experience. Another way you can do it, as I have done in the past, is to figure out who seems to know what they are talking about, see what they say, see what they use and why they say they use it and take that as a guide, use the equipment yourself for a while and then you will know and understand it and it's limitations and qualities and then, you can make your own mind up from a reasoned and understanding place.
-
But I'm not the one one making the outrageous and possibly misleading claims.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which claims are misleading and outrageous? Can you prove it?
-
Which claims are misleading and outrageous? Can you prove it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193554\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which claims? The ones I quoted at the top of this page from the blog that Edmund provided a link to, which is presumably the subject of this thread.
Of course I can't prove anything. I own neither a 1Ds3 nor a DB of any description.
-
Do you understand what I am saying in my post Ray?
-
O.K Ray, lets do it, no subjective "artistic" opinions, lets do a proper objective scientific test comparing a P21 to a 1ds mark 3.
Most importantly lets agree on a sound methodology, after a few botched attempts to show the difference in examples which have quite rightly, been questioned because of variations in USM settings, contrast etc.
Here's what I propose to be a scientifically valid methodology (please correct me if I'm wrong)
1st lets test the most basic parameter:
SHARPNESS:
To do this we must realize that we are not testing the sharpness of the lens (which lens would you choose for each device, which Fstop would you use and what focal length) we are testing the sharpness of the capture device. Oh hang on, you can't do that can you? canon lenses doesn't fit on a mamiya.
Right, so at the first basic hurdle we have failed. Next step, lets realize it's doomed to failure as an objective test before we start. No problem, lets just shoot the standard lens on each camera, shoot a subject that is exactly the same for each camera at the same f stop. We will process the files with exactly the same software to get fair results. whats that? Different files need different software to get the best results. O.k. we'll use our preferred software for each camera. We'd better standardise the amount of USM we put on though eh? Whats that, different devices need different amounts of it, s how much shall we use? Hmm, I think we've failed again.
And that is just the start of testing the most basic parameter. What I'm getting at Ray is that it really isn't possible to give you what you want, you want an objective scientific A vs B test which will give us the answers. You know what, I do to, it would make our lives so much easier but that life. It means that unfortunately you have to figure it out through your own experience. Another way you can do it, as I have done in the past, is to figure out who seems to know what they are talking about, see what they say, see what they use and why they say they use it and take that as a guide, use the equipment yourself for a while and then you will know and understand it and it's limitations and qualities and then, you can make your own mind up from a reasoned and understanding place.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In addition to these serious problems starting when trying to choose lenses for each system with exactly matching optical characteristics, there is also the fact that a well executed test takes lots of time and money. I would not dare to ask anyone else to spend their valuable time on such a task unless I was prepared to pay for it (let's say it takes one day to do the test carefully and the tester needs to have 30,000$ worth of equipment thus I would not personally sell that kind of test-day for less than 1000$ even if I was personally interested in the results). When combined with the fact that the results would be shot down and disputed, mutated, annihilated and beaten to death a million times and dressed with personal insults, I really don't wonder why we don't see more of these Canon-vs-mfdb shootouts.
Cheers,
J
-
Ah, the sweet smell of yet another thread gone South; antagonism and controversy... Ray is refreshingly predictable.
,
-
Totally agreed and again because of...
I have learned to pretty much ignore certain posters and maybe just glance at those posts with amusement, they don't add anything anyway.
So we could put this thread back on track by doing just that. Just a suggestion, I am not emotionally invested in it either way
Ah, the sweet smell of yet another thread gone South; antagonism and controversy... Ray is refreshingly predictable.
,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
1st lets test the most basic parameter:
SHARPNESS:
To do this we must realize that we are not testing the sharpness of the lens (which lens would you choose for each device, which Fstop would you use and what focal length) we are testing the sharpness of the capture device. Oh hang on, you can't do that can you? canon lenses doesn't fit on a mamiya.
You are creating unnecessary problems. You choose lenses of comparable quality within each system. You decide on the subject and artistic intent first, example, shallow DoF or extensive DoF, use exactly the same lighting for each shot, choose focal length and f stop to ensure that the FoV and DoF is the same for each shot, and focus exactly on the same spot in each shot using LiveView and/or tethered computer.
You might choose, for example, a 120mm lens at F4 for the P21 and the 85/1.2 at F2.5 or F2.8 for the 1Ds3. You might have to move the 1Ds3 back from the subject just a little further depending on which side of the frame the FoV is matched (vertical or horizontal).
Right, so at the first basic hurdle we have failed. Next step, lets realize it's doomed to failure as an objective test before we start. No problem, lets just shoot the standard lens on each camera, shoot a subject that is exactly the same for each camera at the same f stop.
Well, your methodology would certainly fail because what you do not do is use the same f stop when using the standard lens with each format. The f stop has to be adjusted in proportion to the sensor size. If you are matching FoVs of the short sides of the frame, then the f stop for the DB should be 1.5x numerically greater. If you are matching the FoVs of the long sides, then the f stop used with the DB should be 1.33x numerically greater.
We will process the files with exactly the same software to get fair results. whats that? Different files need different software to get the best results. O.k. we'll use our preferred software for each camera. We'd better standardise the amount of USM we put on though eh? Whats that, different devices need different amounts of it, s how much shall we use? Hmm, I think we've failed again.
No. What you do is process each file as though you had two different clients for each image who were going to pay you $20,000 for a large print. If the reds in the 1Ds3 image look a bit weak, make them stronger. If the 1Ds3 image looks as though it needs more sharpening, give it more sharpening. If the WB in the P21 image looks more natural, tweak the white balance in the 1Ds3 image till it looks right; use the eyedropper on a neutral area or open in Camera Raw and change the temperature, whatever it takes.
I don't see a major problem here. Quite often when I do soft proofing in Photoshop I have to re-work an image for a particular paper and profile, which sometimes means lightening it, brightening it, increasing saturation or reducing saturation of colors which are out of gamut. I usually have a duplicate of the previously processed image on the screen at the same time as a guide. Processing two images of the identical scene so they look as close as possible should not be too difficult.
-
In the concept of maybe getting this thread back on track, I will point out something that I have found very informative. And you will excuse for not having read every post in this thread.
We have two active threads with great examples, in MFDB we have "Recent Works" with some superb examples of MFDB photography and with some technical information.
And then over in Digital Cameras we have "Recent Works' dedicated to posting images in the 35mm format.
Going back and forth between the two lets you make your own decision about MFDB or 35mm digital. Now it does not specifically answer the question about the 1DsMkIII but it does allow you to look at the differences, if indeed you do see differences.
As for myself, I like MFDB but would like a 1DsMkIII. For me it is an issue of using the right tool for the right job and what I want my work to look like. There are a number of cameras and other things I would like to add to my inventory, but I do not have unlimited resources. I have a photography business to run and I need it to be profitable. And then means you can't just go around buying everything.
So for me, medium format is the most bang for the buck and it gives me the versatility and the images I want. Will I add a MkIII? Planning on it. And maybe a Leica M7 too
-
... and I would even do it for Ray, if somebody can provide me a 1Ds3, a 5D or whatever is wished to be compared!
Thierry
Already several dealers/company representatives have offered to help you get the equipment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I cannot find any direct comparisons there either, just a lot of outrageous statement such as...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=193498\")
Work on your reading skills...
[a href=\"http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Entries/2008/2/16_MEDIUM_FORMAT_VERSUS_CANON_AND_NIKON.html]http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium..._AND_NIKON.html[/url]
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium...5D_PART_II.html (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Entries/2008/2/17_MEDIUM_FORMAT_VERSUS_CANON_5D_PART_II.html)
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium...D_PART_III.html (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Entries/2008/2/24_MEDIUM_FORMAT_VERSUS_CANON_5D_PART_III.html)
-
... and I would even do it for Ray, if somebody can provide me a 1Ds3, a 5D or whatever is wished to be compared!
Thiery
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Suicidal?
Cheers,
J
-
Work on your reading skills...
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium..._AND_NIKON.html (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Entries/2008/2/16_MEDIUM_FORMAT_VERSUS_CANON_AND_NIKON.html)
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium...5D_PART_II.html (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Entries/2008/2/17_MEDIUM_FORMAT_VERSUS_CANON_5D_PART_II.html)
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium...D_PART_III.html (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Entries/2008/2/24_MEDIUM_FORMAT_VERSUS_CANON_5D_PART_III.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe you should work on your reading skills. This thread is about the 1Ds3 v MFDB. There's obviously no contest between a 5D and MFDB.
-
Ray, it is obvious that you are no longer interested in seeking the truth but simply to wish to win an argument which is a shame for you because if you come to these forums with the desire to seek answers and share wisdom you can become a more technically informed and better photographer.
It is valuable to always question the current wisdom on any subject but you have shown that you have no intention of trying to come to the truth of the matters in hand. You don't have any experience in what you are talking about and hence no real knowledge but you still whey in with authority.
I do consider your comments and attitude to be that of nothing more than a Troll.
-
Good question. I guess for a number of reasons. I use a 24" wide Epson 7600 printer. 12mp doesn't seem quite enough for a 23"x35" print when viewed close.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well duh! Normal people don't actually look at big images close up, in fact it's smaller images that will get more scrutiny and tend to fill a greater part of one's field of view for typical viewing distances. So I'd argue that you may actually need better quality for A3/A4/magazine than for poster sized mages.
Take a typical film poster or 6 sheet advertising piece and you'll find it's printed at 72dpi or similar and guess what it looks great. Unless you go so close you can't see whole image and then and only then will you realise the print isn't that detailed, but [span style=\'font-size:12pt;line-height:100%\']it doesn't matter,[/span] as it more than sharp enough for comfortable or typical viewing. You need to look at print from a normal viewing distance, not close up to make a valid judgement about whether quality is up to scratch.
-
That's true except in high-end art photography where people walk right up to a print and touch it with their little noses.
Edmund
Well duh! Normal people don't actually look at big images close up, in fact it's smaller images that will get more scrutiny and tend to fill a greater part of one's field of view for typical viewing distances. So I'd argue that you may actually need better quality for A3/A4/magazine than for poster sized mages.
Take a typical film poster or 6 sheet advertising piece and you'll find it's printed at 72dpi or similar and guess what it looks great. Unless you go so close you can't see whole image and then and only then will you realise the print isn't that detailed, but [span style=\'font-size:12pt;line-height:100%\']it doesn't matter,[/span] as it more than sharp enough for comfortable or typical viewing. You need to look at print from a normal viewing distance, not close up to make a valid judgement about whether quality is up to scratch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ray, it is obvious that you are no longer interested in seeking the truth but simply to wish to win an argument which is a shame for you because if you come to these forums with the desire to seek answers and share wisdom you can become a more technically informed and better photographer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193607\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dear me! Please point to the evidence that I'm no longer interested in seeking the truth and finding answers. On the contrary, it seems to me there are too many people paricipating in this thread whose main objective appears to be to hide the truth and heap ridicule on those who are seeking it.
I can't carry out the tests for you because I don't have the equipment, but at least I've advised you on the previous page how to take meaningful comparison shots, what apertures and focal lengths to use and how to approach post processing etc.
What more can I do? You want me to hold your hand as well?
-
Going back and forth between the two lets you make your own decision about MFDB or 35mm digital. Now it does not specifically answer the question about the 1DsMkIII but it does allow you to look at the differences, if indeed you do see differences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A typical example of muddled thinking. The images in the 35mm thread are probably largely taken by amateurs whereas the images in in the MFDB thread are presumably taken by seasoned professionals. The fundamental technical differences in image quality, where they exist, cannot be displayed in severely downsized and jpeg compressed form and even if they were able to be displayed using 100% crops, one needs identical subjects and lighting for such caomparisons to be meaningful, as well as a 1Ds3. This thread is not about 35mm v MFDB, but specifically the 1Ds3 v MFDB.
We're still back to square one here and the basic and obvious question, "Why do apparently competent professional photographers seem incapable of shooting the same scene with a 1Ds3 and making it look good, when they are given the chance to use a 1Ds3?"
-
That's true except in high-end art photography where people walk right up to a print and touch it with their little noses.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's very true. I have a 22"x33" print on the wall immediately behind (and above) a big, fat 34" CRT TV set, yet visitors, on seeing the print for the first time, will often walk up close, with their belly pressed against the TV screen, in order to appreciate the fine detail.
It's a pretty natural thing for people to want to view anything, including objets d'art, from different distances and angles. Large prints have the advantage of lending themselves to either close viewing or distant viewing. Small prints generally can be appreciated only from a relatively close distance. I prefer to have large prints on my wall.
-
A typical example of muddled thinking. The images in the 35mm thread are probably largely taken by amateurs whereas the images in in the MFDB thread are presumably taken by seasoned professionals. The fundamental technical differences in image quality, where they exist, cannot be displayed in severely downsized and jpeg compressed form and even if they were able to be displayed using 100% crops, one needs identical subjects and lighting for such caomparisons to be meaningful, as well as a 1Ds3. This thread is not about 35mm v MFDB, but specifically the 1Ds3 v MFDB.
We're still back to square one here and the basic and obvious question, "Why do apparently competent professional photographers seem incapable of shooting the same scene with a 1Ds3 and making it look good, when they are given the chance to use a 1Ds3?"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Hey Ray,
There is no conspiracy. I think you need to do this for yourself because you won't obscure the truth. Please show us the results because we need to know.
-
Hey Hey Ray,
There is no conspiracy. I think you need to do this for yourself because you won't obscure the truth. Please show us the results because we need to know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm afraid my hands are full, testing the equipment I already have. As a result of spending so much time on this thread, I have not yet thoroughy tested my Canon 50/1.4 for autofocussing accuracy at full aperture, although preliminary testing indicates it's way out.
Before sending the lens in for a second calibration, I feel I need to go through the rigmarole of photographing a ruler so I can have images to accompany the lens. A thousand words is not enough, apparently.
You can imagine, I'm not enthused with the idea of photographing a ruler. There are other things I'd rather be doing. Even participating in this thread is more interesting than photographing a ruler .
-
This thread was on the verge of becoming amusing when paranoia set in about dark hidden agendas and cosnpiracies. Now it is boring again. Wow, we must have a LOT of free disposable time to be engaged in this. Sorry, time´s up, have to go.
-
I find the attitude of some DB users in this thread just amazing. There seems to be a complete lack of intellectual curiosity and interest from some of them on a matter which I would have thought most photographers would find of great interest.
Let's recap what has happened here.
Edmund has brought to our attention an interesting article (blog) about the experiences of someone at Pebble Place website who sold his MFDB equipment (Mamiya 645 and P25 back) at a loss and bought a Canon 1Ds3 which he thought would be more useful, more versatile and suit his needs better.
Lo and behold, after making this rash decision, he finds that the 1Ds3 image quality is not a patch on the MFDB equipment he has just sold at a loss. Unfortunately, because he sold his MFDB equipment before making thorough comparisons, he is unable to show us any clear, graphical evidence of his reported sub-standard performance of the 1Ds3 in relation to his P25. All we have to go on are statemets such as the following:
When comparing the 1Ds Mark III files to the P25 back, the Canon looks horrible. There is no comparison. Thus, the Canon 1Ds Mark III is a transitional camera with a limited future at PebblePlace.
Now the first question that might occur to most people is, why did John at Pebble Place fall into the trap of buying a camera without thoroughly testing it first and without comparing it with what he already had?
Could the reason be that there simply aren't any competent comparisons between a 1Ds3 and P25 available because no-one's interested. It's just a plainly boring subject for all intelligent people and only of interest to those who like to see how far they can piss up a wall?
Another puzzle is, if the only comparisons available on the net are poorly executed and seem deliberately skewed in favour of the DB, is this not sufficient reason to thoroughly test the equipment oneself before buying (exchanging, trading in, whatever)?
Yet another puzzle is John's claim about the performance of the 1Ds3 compared to the earlier 1Ds2, as mentioned below. Does John really know what he's doing, I wonder. Does this not merit some discussion?
The 1Ds3’s dynamic range is noticeably less than the 1Ds2’s. In the 1Ds3 white paper Canon wrote the 1Ds3 had “similar” dynamic range (comparing to the 1Ds2). If it had been better, Canon marketing would have eagerly advertised any such improvements. So I knew “similar” really meant less, but how much less was an unknown. My unscientific guess is a ~1/2 stop less based upon highlights clipping faster and more often.
Finally, I have to wonder if it's wise to use MF lenses on a 35mm body.
Lens purchases are limited to Hasselbald CF series. I already have these, so there’s no new money going out the door - especially not on Canon lenses. These lenses can be mounted on the 1Ds Mark III, so the lens investment is leveraged.
The 1Ds3 images displayed on John's website are taken with a Hasselblad 110mm Planar. This might be a fine lens for MF format but not necessarily good enough for 35mm if tack sharpness is a concern, and it certainly appears to be a concern for John, as evidenced by the following statement.
Canon does a remarkable job of putting forth more megapixels which net less - less sharpness, less contrast, less pop, less what-ever. I have yet to see a 1Ds3 raw file in DPP that looked truly pixel level sharp. The P25 has redefined my idea of what sharp is. The 1Ds3 doesn’t have it! Not even close...
I've often wondered myself about the suitability of lenses designed for a larger format. Could this be the reason why John's 1Ds3 images are not as tack sharp as he had hoped they would be?
When the new high performance Digitar lenses with reduced image circle first appeared, they seemed to have amazing specs on paper, a really high MTF chart which was more impressive than any theoretical chart I'd seen from Canon.
Yet, when such lenses are adapted to fit 35mm DSLRs, the results seem to be rather underwhelming, from reports I've occasionally come across, although I can't offhand point to any of these reports. This is another topic worthy of discussion.
-
*
*
*
When the new high performance Digitar lenses with reduced image circle first appeared, they seemed to have amazing specs on paper, a really high MTF chart which was more impressive than any theoretical chart I'd seen from Canon.
Yet, when such lenses are adapted to fit 35mm DSLRs, the results seem to be rather underwhelming, from reports I've occasionally come across, although I can't offhand point to any of these reports. This is another topic worthy of discussion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi!
Can you remember if any of these people reporting underwhelming experiences have used 1Ds3 with LV with these lenses? Or is it the old problem of not being able to use scheimpflug and other technical movements accurately/effectively with the tiny dslr-viewfinder? Or perhaps the problems with the cheapest 28mm WA-Digitar which reportedly is nowhere near the performance of the 24mm or the Rodenstock-28 (which can not be used with a dslr)? I would like to know if you happen to come across those reports.
Cheers,
J
-
Hi!
Can you remember if any of these people reporting underwhelming experiences have used 1Ds3 with LV with these lenses? Or is it the old problem of not being able to use scheimpflug and other technical movements accurately/effectively with the tiny dslr-viewfinder? Or perhaps the problems with the cheapest 28mm WA-Digitar which reportedly is nowhere near the performance of the 24mm or the Rodenstock-28 (which can not be used with a dslr)? I would like to know if you happen to come across those reports.
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi!
The reports were not very recent and not really detailed reports, just secondary comments to some other issue. I don't recall any mention of shift movements being used. With 35mm DSLRs, shift movements have to be incorporated into the lens.
However, I find there's far too little information on such topics in general. If a manufacturer produces an outstanding lens, it's natural that others will want to use it, if possible, with there exisitng bodies. I find it curious that John at Pebbles Place considers the Hassy 110mm Planar to be so outstanding that he's prepared to sacrifice some of the auto functions when using it with the 1Ds3.
When the results are not as tack sharp as he thinks they should be, he criticises the 35mm body. I just get the feeling that maybe he doesn't really know what he's doing and needs a bit of help.
The fact that he compares a 5D with a P25 using each camera's standard lens at F8, tends to confirm this suspicion. If you were comparing a Canon G9 with a 5D, would you take each shot at F8? The difference in formats is more extreme, but the principle is the same. Smaller sensors need higher resolving lenses, or lenses used at higher resolving apertures. Using the G9 at F8 is like using the 5D at F32.
-
Hi!
The reports were not very recent and not really detailed reports, just secondary comments to some other issue. I don't recall any mention of shift movements being used. With 35mm DSLRs, shift movements have to be incorporated into the lens.
*
*
*
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As you very well know these lenses are made for view/technical cameras and as such any movements are incorporated in the camera/bellows (such as Cambo Ultima or X2pro when using a dslr) - not in the lens. Focusing these lenses is quite error prone when using a tiny viewfinder and sensor of a dslr. Thus it may not be very wise to judge the quality of these lenses based on dslr-use. Report back if you happen to find a valid commentary. Otherwise let's consentrate on other topics.
Cheers,
J
-
Thus it may not be very wise to judge the quality of these lenses based on dslr-use. Report back if you happen to find a valid commentary. Otherwise let's consentrate on other topics.
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Likewise to you. Report back if you come across any reliable commentary. In the absense of such reports we just have to use our own common sense. Brilliant Digitar lens which can be adapted to 35mm DSLR ... no firm reports of outstanding performance with 35mm body. Top of the line, highest resolving 35mm DSLR on the market; actual report in this thread of poor performance when used with Hassy lens.
No need to move on. Let's thrash out the matter in this thread. I'm not judging the quality of an MF lens based on DSLR use. I'm saying that my nous tells me that MF lenses which may be highly regarded on MF bodies may not perform well on 35mm bodies. Did you miss that point?
-
I haven't used MF digital backs yet but regarding a 1ds3 and sharp glasses I can share some experiences. With it's 6.5 um pixel width, the 1ds3 obviously needs excellent lenses to make it's theoretical 21 MP resolution usable.
http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/canon_1ds3_pics (http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/canon_1ds3_pics)
E.g. the Zeiss Distagon 21, Leica 28 (current model) and Leica 100 Apo-Macro lenses work very fine, while e.g. shift lenses like the Leica/Schneider 28 PC or worse the Canon 24 TS-E are outperformed by the sensor towards the shifted edges.
Generally I was a bit disappointed of the 1ds3:
- AA-filter is stronger than of 5d, more raw-sharpening is needed
- sharpness at high contrast details is good, but low contrast details are pretty much washed out by the camera internal electronics
- already at ISO 100 grey and darker grey areas show some color noise
- pics don't "pop" when opened as raw files, mid contrast is lower than 5D or Kodak DCS or MF backs, has to be pushed a bit in PS to get good result
IMO a good 20 MP+ 24x36mm sensor with no or weak AA-filter (and electronics that does no diminish resolution and quality) plus top glasses could match MF image quality in the 20-25 MP range but as long as there is no such camera it doesn't.
Hopefully at least the 5d2 will be more similar to the 5d and to AA-filter-free camera (backs) than to the 1ds3 regarding the mentioned aspects.
Christoph
-
Generally I was a bit disappointed of the 1ds3:
- AA-filter is stronger than of 5d, more raw-sharpening is needed
- sharpness at high contrast details is good, but low contrast details are pretty much washed out by the camera internal electronics
- already at ISO 100 grey and darker grey areas show some color noise
- pics don't "pop" when opened as raw files, mid contrast is lower than 5D or Kodak DCS or MF backs, has to be pushed a bit in PS to get good result
IMO a good 20 MP+ 24x36mm sensor with no or weak AA-filter (and electronics that does no diminish resolution and quality) plus top glasses could match MF image quality in the 20-25 MP range but as long as there is no such camera it doesn't.
Hopefully at least the 5d2 will be more similar to the 5d and to AA-filter-free camera (backs) than to the 1ds3 regarding the mentioned aspects.
Christoph
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Christoph,
Thanks for posting the comparisons. That Zeiss 21/2.8 seems a very fine lens; sharp to the edges and virtually no hint of color fringing which both the Leica 28 PC and Canon 24 TS-E seem to have plenty of.
The differences in resolution between the 1Ds3 and 5D are noticeable in lots of subtle ways, but not huge. It has me a little worried. If Canon give us a 16mp 5D upgrade, it won't mean much resolution-wise. I think I'd prefer an extra stop of DR.
A good lens is priceless. I hope Mark Welsh sends me soon the adapter I ordered for Nikon to Canon so I can start using that highly regarded Nikkor 14-28/2.8 .
Cheers!
-
IMO a good 20 MP+ 24x36mm sensor with no or weak AA-filter (and electronics that does no diminish resolution and quality) plus top glasses could match MF image quality in the 20-25 MP range but as long as there is no such camera it doesn't.
Christoph
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think we can expect the new Leica R10 to get there. More realistically, Sony have got Zeiss to design a lot of their new glass, I'm sure they have their reasons.
I just printed one of my first images from my Phase back in A2 size, prior to moving to really big prints for a show. Yes, the colors are "fat" and it has an element of 3D to it.
Edmund
-
I just printed one of my first images from my Phase back in A2 size, prior to moving to really big prints for a show. Yes, the colors are "fat" and it has an element of 3D to it.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe Adobe, in addition to the vibrancy and saturation sliders in Camera Raw, will eventually give us a 'fat' slider and a 3-D slider .
-
I think we can expect the new Leica R10 to get there. More realistically, Sony have got Zeiss to design a lot of their new glass, I'm sure they have their reasons.
I just printed one of my first images from my Phase back in A2 size, prior to moving to really big prints for a show. Yes, the colors are "fat" and it has an element of 3D to it.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In his last interview published in LFI magazine 03/2008 Mr. Kaufmann talks about the future of the R system: "The R is a beautiful camera but todays market gives preference to other products. I can assure you we have every intention of leaving a mark in the single lens reflex sector, but that's all I can say for now". The "official" roumorlogy "suggests" that the sensor of the upcoming R10 could be bigger than 24x36. Maybe this is what Kaufmann is talking about when he says something like "leaving a mark in the single lens reflex sector"... We'll see.
Sony has been collaborating with Zeiss for its professional compact camcorders from some time to now. I would like to see the 24 Mpx FF A900 not incorporating an AA filter but I doubt this is going to happen.
-
Maybe Adobe, in addition to the vibrancy and saturation sliders in Camera Raw, will eventually give us a 'fat' slider and a 3-D slider .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are absolutely correct Ray. Your 40D has the most detail of any camera out there today, and with the wealth of adjustability in raw converters you can replicate the look from any other sensor on color and tonal range, so you are already at the pinnacle of digital technology. Heck, you are probably so good at using them, you've figured out how to add several stops of DR and manufacture wider color gamuts than the 40D ships with! So as soon as everybody else wises up and figures these techniques out, the sales of pro-sumer DSLR's will skyrocket --- and MF manufacturers will be out of business because there is clearly no longer a reason for any of us to shoot with them! Guess it's time to unload all my MF gear before it's worthless.
Heading out to buy a 40D and learn these new processing techniques...
,
-
You are absolutely correct Ray. Your 40D has the most detail of any camera out there today, and with the wealth of adjustability in raw converters you can replicate the look from any other sensor on color and tonal range, so you are already at the pinnacle of digital technology. Heck, you are probably so good at using them, you've figured out how to add several stops of DR and manufacture wider color gamuts than the 40D ships with! So as soon as everybody else wises up and figures these techniques out, the sales of pro-sumer DSLR's will skyrocket --- and MF manufacturers will be out of business because there is clearly no longer a reason for any of us to shoot with them! Guess it's time to unload all my MF gear before it's worthless.
Heading out to buy a 40D and learn these new processing techniques...
,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know, I had abandoned the pusuit of posting anything much here lo these past few weeks, in the vain hope that folks would calm down, think before they write and generally get back to a normal way of life.
Seems that was a hope too vain indeed!
Anyway, for what it´s worth, the remark/question somewhere above relating to the use of MF optics on a smaller format than that for which they were designed is one to which there is a definite answer: lenses are designed to cover a specific format to their best compromise of performance parameters, the general reason that allows them to appear as if they produce superior print results is simply due to the lesser degreee of enlargement needed for any given final output. You simply can´t expect to use a 35mm section of a Hasselblad 6x6 negative, for example, and expect it to compare well at, say, 12x18ins with a full-frame top-grade Nikkor image of the same subject. It isn´t designed to do that. I know, having owned both system side by side and sometimes having had to utilise sections of 6x6.
As for the general feel of the thread, Last Man Standing would have been a better header.
I retreat to my bunker.
Rob C
-
Sorry, Jack, your quotation was unintentional: I hit the wrong button; told you I´d been away a while...
Rob C
-
Jack, let me know which ones you are selling
The use of Medium format glass on 35mm format has been covered many times. Mark Welch has put up one of the best data bases that I ever found and he has tested a lot of glass on Canon and possibly Nikon. Full frame sensors and the smaller APS sized.
In my own work, I use the 35mm Pentax p645 lens with a Zoerk adatper for shifting. This is just one of many ways to get more resolution without having to uprez. The Canon Lenses for shifting really don't allow enough new information on each shift, 10mm total counting overlap net usable 7 to 8mm of shift. The Zoerk allows 20mm of shift net usable 18mm in most cases. This has been with a 1ds MKIII or 1ds MKII, and previously 1ds MKI.
Results are good enabling large prints containing good details. It's just one of many solutions out there, but has worked well for me over the years.
Newer software solutions have come out, but I have stayed with the Zoerk, it works and I understand the workflow.
Paul C
-
You are absolutely correct Ray. Your 40D has the most detail of any camera out there today, and with the wealth of adjustability in raw converters you can replicate the look from any other sensor on color and tonal range, so you are already at the pinnacle of digital technology. Heck, you are probably so good at using them, you've figured out how to add several stops of DR and manufacture wider color gamuts than the 40D ships with! So as soon as everybody else wises up and figures these techniques out, the sales of pro-sumer DSLR's will skyrocket --- and MF manufacturers will be out of business because there is clearly no longer a reason for any of us to shoot with them! Guess it's time to unload all my MF gear before it's worthless.
Heading out to buy a 40D and learn these new processing techniques...
,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack,
Aren't you falling into the trap of 'mine is better (bigger) than yours'?
I didn't buy a 40D as a result of falling for all that nonsense about it having smoother tonality because of its 14 bit A/D converter and better quality shadows. I'm a pragmatic sort of guy. I bought the 40D because I came across a surprisingly good bargain price offer in Bangkok and because I thought the LiveView feature and fast frame rate of 6.5 per second would be useful, and because my 5D was in for repair at the time leaving me with just the 20D which I'd taken along as back-up on that trip. (I'll also admit to a little bit of technology lust coming into the equation ).
As it's turned out, the LiveView feature has become a headache (as well as educational) because it makes it so easy to pick up the slightest degree of misfocussing and has caused me to realise what a problem accurate focussing can be when lenses are used at wide apertures.
Surely you realise that I don't need to be convinced that bigger sensors with more pixels (or even an equal number of pixels) are better at least in some respects.
What I'd like to know is simply 'how much better?' and how significant is such improvement after the best processing practices have been applied to all images being compared, and what role does choice of lens and aperture have.
For example, if differences in detail are actually marginal, between say a 1Ds3 and P25, but in demonstrating such differences both cameras are used with their respective lenses at F16, then such small differences will be augmented to a degree where perhaps they appear significant.
I know that you know that most good lenses perform marginally better (sharper)at F11 than at F16 (and at F8 than at F11) due to less diffraction. However, such differences in resolution, accutance etc. might well be insignificant by themsleves. But add two insignificant factors and you get something which may be regarded as significant.
-
Jack,
Aren't you falling into the trap of 'mine is better (bigger) than yours'?
What I'd like to know is simply 'how much better?' and how significant is such improvement after the best processing practices have been applied to all images being compared, and what role does choice of lens and aperture have.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
By my calculations its somewhere between 2.573 millibars and and a bushel and a half. Assuming of course that we ignore the effect of the AD4 circuit breaker that most manufacturers use. The downside to the formula, however is that the flowback frequency jacktube constant has not been perfectly defined yet and most lens designs still use the outdated light modulation tests that are only accurate enough to measure in the order of 2-4 cappucinos.
Bottom line....you cant test and quantify till you, me and the rest of the world is blue in the face and the net gain will be in the order of the square root of zilch.
The flowers are in bloom, the trees are that great shade of spring green and I'm going to take some pictures this weekend. Don't forget to lock the door behind you if you're the last one out.
-
By my calculations its somewhere between 2.573 millibars and and a bushel and a half. Assuming of course that we ignore the effect of the AD4 circuit breaker that most manufacturers use. The downside to the formula, however is that the flowback frequency jacktube constant has not been perfectly defined yet and most lens designs still use the outdated light modulation tests that are only accurate enough to measure in the order of 2-4 cappucinos.
Bottom line....you cant test and quantify till you, me and the rest of the world is blue in the face and the net gain will be in the order of the square root of zilch.
The flowers are in bloom, the trees are that great shade of spring green and I'm going to take some pictures this weekend. Don't forget to lock the door behind you if you're the last one out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
By my calculations its somewhere between 2.573 millibars and and a bushel and a half. Assuming of course that we ignore the effect of the AD4 circuit breaker that most manufacturers use. The downside to the formula, however is that the flowback frequency jacktube constant has not been perfectly defined yet and most lens designs still use the outdated light modulation tests that are only accurate enough to measure in the order of 2-4 cappucinos.
Bottom line....you cant test and quantify till you, me and the rest of the world is blue in the face and the net gain will be in the order of the square root of zilch.
The flowers are in bloom, the trees are that great shade of spring green and I'm going to take some pictures this weekend. Don't forget to lock the door behind you if you're the last one out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I understand your skepticism, or should we call it cynicism?
The problem is, as I see it, we have neither bushels, millibars, square roots or even images to describe such differences. We're in Alice in Wonderland or Cloud Cuckoo Land, here.
-
I understand your skepticism, or should we call it cynicism?
The problem is, as I see it, we have neither bushels, millibars, square roots or even images to describe such differences. We're in Alice in Wonderland or Cloud Cuckoo Land, here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What a freakin boring thread...:+{
Get over it..
Snook
-
Exactly!
By my calculations its somewhere between 2.573 millibars and and a bushel and a half. Assuming of course that we ignore the effect of the AD4 circuit breaker that most manufacturers use. The downside to the formula, however is that the flowback frequency jacktube constant has not been perfectly defined yet and most lens designs still use the outdated light modulation tests that are only accurate enough to measure in the order of 2-4 cappucinos.
Bottom line....you cant test and quantify till you, me and the rest of the world is blue in the face and the net gain will be in the order of the square root of zilch.
The flowers are in bloom, the trees are that great shade of spring green and I'm going to take some pictures this weekend. Don't forget to lock the door behind you if you're the last one out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
What a freakin boring thread...:+{
Get over it..
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry! Your sincerity does not convince me. I don't even read threads that are not relevant to my concerns. Why does anyone need to know that you find this thread boring?
-
Ray, given that you own neither a 1Ds 3 or an MF system, why are you so concerned?
You've become a crashing bore on this subject, and appear to be taking the forum with you...
-
I've often wonder about the motives of poeple who find a need to read a boring thread and then tell people they find it boring.
If the topic doesn't interest you, then don't bother with it. Have you not got anything else more interesting to do?
-
I've often wonder about the motives of poeple who find a need to read a boring thread and then tell people they find it boring.
If the topic doesn't interest you, then don't bother with it. Have you not got anything else more interesting to do?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not necessarily true Ray..
Topic has been beaten to death and you keep bumping it up the forum...
This a MF forum... you want to know more about the 35mm world go post in there and or goto Dpreview.com.. might be down your alley.
A lot of info at that site.
Snook
-
On further thought, I recall there are situations where people are compelled to read boring material. That sometimes happened when I was at school in the U.K many years ago.
-
Not necessarily true Ray..
Topic has been beaten to death and you keep bumping it up the forum...
This a MF forum... you want to know more about the 35mm world go post in there and or goto Dpreview.com.. might be down your alley.
A lot of info at that site.
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a totally unreasonable attitude. The title of this thread contains descriptions of both 35mm format and MF format in equal proportions.
I'm a person of catholic tastes. I don't have any snobbery about format size.
-
It's like a train wreck. Hard to look away.
-
It's like a train wreck. Hard to look away.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't feel like a train wreck. I'm as placid and clear about my intentions, ideas and requests, as I was in my first post.
Discussions about image quality without any images to look at is a farce. My mind boggles that people would jump into such an expensive set-up as MFDB without doing serious testing and comparisons with what they already have.
If what they already had was MF film equipment, then they are excused. Those who shoot 35mm film will tend to upgrade to 35mm DSLRs, but those diehards who reckoned that 35mm DSLRs were not as good as MF film will wait for the MFDB with twice the sensor area of FF 35mm DSLRs and twice the pixel count.
No argument with that.
-
Please don't feed the trolls.
-
I don't feel like a train wreck. I'm as placid and clear about my intentions, ideas and requests, as I was in my first post.
Discussions about image quality without any images to look at is a farce. My mind boggles that people would jump into such an expensive set-up as MFDB without doing serious testing and comparisons with what they already have.
If what they already had was MF film equipment, then they are excused. Those who shoot 35mm film will tend to upgrade to 35mm DSLRs, but those diehards who reckoned that 35mm DSLRs were not as good as MF film will wait for the MFDB with twice the sensor area of FF 35mm DSLRs and twice the pixel count.
No argument with that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194632\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Ray seriously I do not want to come off so rude..:+]
To answer some of our question from my view.
I do not think anybody "jumps" into such expensive equipment as MFDB right off the start. Most guys Like myself (new I might add) have come from 35 mm Digital for sure I would think.
I actually started out photography at least 20 years ago with medium format and never liked 35mm at all.
But when the Digital world came a long there was really only one option (for me that is) and that was Canon which I have been using for the last 6-7 years more or less and still use it with my 1DsMII.
I think really that most guys if they can afford it should most definitely have both for sure.
The Image from my P30 really does blow away my 1DsMII and I see a big difference now as well as my clients.
I get a lot of my work blown up big and believe it is better having that better image and dynamic range for sure.
You often here the word 3D connected to the MFDB's and it is true.. they have more depth for sure in my opinion and that is really the only opinion that matters .. to me..:+}
In any case I always shot my canon like a MF camera and always shot everything in Manual and never above 100 iso which it really was never intended for..:+}
So sorry if my post came off to harsh at all and hope you make the right decision for sure.
I bought my P30 with ever even trying Medium format, but that was b/c where I live there was no way in heck to try or rent anything...
If you can obviuosly go try and rent something and try it out first..
Snook
-
The Image from my P30 really does blow away my 1DsMII and I see a big difference now as well as my clients.
I get a lot of my work blown up big and believe it is better having that better image and dynamic range for sure.
You often here the word 3D connected to the MFDB's and it is true.. they have more depth for sure in my opinion and that is really the only opinion that matters .. to me..:+}
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I imagine an upgrade from a 1Ds2 to a P30 would produce an obvious jump in image quality. A sensor with twice the area and almost twice the number of pixels has to be better. If I already owned a suitable 645 body with lenses to match, the P30 is probably the back I'd be considering. As it is, I have an old RB67 which is heavy and cumbersome and a few old Mamiya lenses which are probably pretty average.
For me, it's not just the initial expense of the back but the cost of a whole new system which makes MFDB prohibitively expensive.
The P21/1Ds3 comparison is interesting because the P21 back alone costs as much (or more) than the 1Ds3, then you still have to buy a camera body and lenses if you don't already have them. It seems the cheapest way of getting into MFDB is still considerably more expensive that a top-of-the-line 35mm DSLR and the resulting image quality possibly hardly better.
-
Ray,
That's a somewhat short sighted opinion on the cost of gear. I shoot profesionally and have a Mamiya AFD, 4 AF lenses, 3 ext tubes, 2 film backs, and a few small accessories all for about $3200 from ebay. Add that to what I paid for my Aptus 22 new (which I will kindly tell you offline) and I have a full MFDB kit for the cost of a 1DsIII and maybe 3 to 4 L lenses.
Funny thing with getting gear is that it requires almost as much creativity of managing expenditures as does great photography.
In no way do you have to spend $30K-50K for a kit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree .. I picked up my AFDII+ lens and the RZ and lens all from E-bay for a reasonable price..
The MFDB also have come down in price in the last 6 months since I bought my back.
Snook
-
I imagine an upgrade from a 1Ds2 to a P30 would produce an obvious jump in image quality. A sensor with twice the area and almost twice the number of pixels has to be better. If I already owned a suitable 645 body with lenses to match, the P30 is probably the back I'd be considering. As it is, I have an old RB67 which is heavy and cumbersome and a few old Mamiya lenses which are probably pretty average.
For me, it's not just the initial expense of the back but the cost of a whole new system which makes MFDB prohibitively expensive.
The P21/1Ds3 comparison is interesting because the P21 back alone costs as much (or more) than the 1Ds3, then you still have to buy a camera body and lenses if you don't already have them. It seems the cheapest way of getting into MFDB is still considerably more expensive that a top-of-the-line 35mm DSLR and the resulting image quality possibly hardly better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't feed the Troll.
-
Don't feed the Troll.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't feed the Troll and don't Quote the Troll. Please.
Don't bump this thread up. I should take my own advice
-
I don't feel like a train wreck.
No, but this thread is.
-
Ray,
That's a somewhat short sighted opinion on the cost of gear. I shoot profesionally and have a Mamiya AFD, 4 AF lenses, 3 ext tubes, 2 film backs, and a few small accessories all for about $3200 from ebay. Add that to what I paid for my Aptus 22 new (which I will kindly tell you offline) and I have a full MFDB kit for the cost of a 1DsIII and maybe 3 to 4 L lenses.
Funny thing with getting gear is that it requires almost as much creativity of managing expenditures as does great photography.
In no way do you have to spend $30K-50K for a kit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
You're right. I'm exaggerating the cost. It seems at long last that Mamiya has produced an adapter which allows the old, mechanical RB67 Pro S and Pro SD to be used with the ZD back. I'm not sure if that means it can also be used with a Leaf Aptus 22 back.
I think I saw a price of $500 for the HX702 adapter, so it seems I already have the means to get into MFDB for around the cost of a 1Ds3 without any further expenditure, and even less if I could find a second hand back.
However, before people start trying to offer their old backs to me at an irresistable price, I'm simply not convinced that old Mamiya lenses designed for 6x7cm format are going to be adequate.
From the MTF tests that Photodo made a few years ago, I noticed that some of the better lenses for 645 format were as good as some of the 35mm lenses tested; not quite as good as the best 35mm lenses, but pretty close. However, the lenses they tested for the next size up, 6x6 and 6x7, were all pretty average compared with 35mm. The Hassy 80/2.8 Planar, for example, rated worse than the Tamron SP 90/2.8 costing just a fraction of the price of the Hassy.
The only occasions I feel the need to test equipment is when I don't have the information to make a reasonable deduction as to its relative performance.
For example, I was very doubtful about the noise claims for the Nikon D3 at high ISO, so whilst in Bangkok recently collecting my 5D, which had just been repaired, I popped into the central Nikon shop which happened to be close to the Canon Repair Centre, and took a few comparison shots using the store's demo D3.
As I suspected, reports of the high ISO noise claims for the D3 are exaggerated. If we had standardised specs for noise and DR at each ISO setting, then such tests would not be necessary.
Another issue for me, is I'm an amateur who takes photographs primarily for interest. I'm certainly interested in playing around with equipment which produces better quality images than any camera I currently own, but I'm wary of falling into the trap of buying expensive equipment and then finding that I don't use it much because of other disadvantages such as portability and ease of use.
Any increase in image quality has to be set against other disadvantages. I bought the RB67 camera and lenses (second hand) because I was confident the image quality would be better than 35mm film. I didn't feel any need to carry out comparison testing first.
I'm also confident the RB67 with ZD or Aptus 22 back would produce at least marginally better quality images than my 5D, at ISO 100 at least. But my 5D is only a temporary benchmark. I already have a few Minolta-fit lenses and that new Sony 24mp sensor is looking very attractive.
As we all know, in the final analysis the camera doesn't really matter much. It's what you do with it that counts .
-
No, but this thread is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't see the thread as being a train wreck. It's just that some people are climbing out of the windows for some reason. As the saying goes, 'If the kitchen is too hot....."
[attachment=6540:attachment]