Phase One/ Mamiya special

[Mark_Tucker]

I'm asking about this on another thread actually. If you were shooting for your book, which I guess is 11 * 14

If that is your repro size, why not just a Canon? With proper 16bit import, and proper USM, the Canon is perfect. Unless there are other factors that you don't mention.

For me, I want to also print large on my Epson 9800; really large. Plus, there is sheer enjoyment from opening a portrait from the P45 and seeing three dimensional eyelashes. Would it make a difference in CMYK print at most common repro sizes, 99% of the time? Probably not.

If 11x14 is your target goal, keep your money in your pocket and wait a few more months for the next Canon, and then, if that's not enough, then spring for the medium format. Canon, in terms of workflow and related issues, is braindead easy compared to BS of medium format. Why did a hole?

[awofinden]

If that is your repro size, why not just a Canon? With proper 16bit import, and proper USM, the Canon is perfect. Unless there are other factors that you don't mention.

For me, I want to also print large on my Epson 9800; really large. Plus, there is sheer enjoyment from opening a portrait from the P45 and seeing three dimensional eyelashes. Would it make a difference in CMYK print at most common repro sizes, 99% of the time? Probably not.

If 11x14 is your target goal, keep your money in your pocket and wait a few more months for the next Canon, and then, if that's not enough, then spring for the medium format. Canon, in terms of workflow and related issues, is braindead easy compared to BS of medium format. Why did a hole?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I disagree, I've been using the canon for a year now and with carefull raw conversion and unsharp mask you can get it fairly sharp but you can't get that 3 dimensionality you talk about. ( I used to have a sinar 54M and I remember it). However, why do you need 39 mp for this dimensionality, the extra resolution is usefull for big prints, cutting down on moire and thats it. To dismiss the smaller res backs doesn't make sense to me.

[Mark_Tucker]

I disagree, I've been using the canon for a year now and with carefull raw conversion and unsharp mask you can get it fairly sharp but you can't get that 3 dimensionality you talk about.

It sounds like you've already made your decision. Go and buy it, and be done with it.

I do not care for the lower rez backs due to viewfinder crop. I shoot Contax, and you cannot afford to cut into the small viewfinder. The Canon viewfinder is larger than the Contax viewfinder, if you can imagine that. Even the P45 crops slightly into the Contax viewfinder; the others crop more.

Take your 35s. Find a dealer. Go and pitch camp at his shop for a half day and TEST THEM SIDE BY SIDE. That is the only way to know. Do not rely on me, or anyone else here, to advise you. It is a very personal choice, and the only way to arrive at an answer FOR YOU is to go and test. And make damn sure to shoot a lot of images when you test, and treat it like a job, then go home, process EVERYTHING, and then compare that factor too. It's the back end of MF that bites you in the ass; the post production. Also, much slower tethering. This list goes on and on. The only way to know is to test, and to test multiple days.

[awofinden]

It sounds like you've already made your decision. Go and buy it, and be done with it.

I do not care for the lower rez backs due to viewfinder crop. I shoot Contax, and you cannot afford to cut into the small viewfinder. The Canon viewfinder is larger than the Contax viewfinder, if you can imagine that. Even the P45 crops slightly into the Contax viewfinder; the others crop more.

Take your 35s. Find a dealer. Go and pitch camp at his shop for a half day and TEST THEM SIDE BY SIDE. That is the only way to know. Do not rely on me, or anyone else here, to advise you. It is a very personal choice, and the only way to arrive at an answer FOR YOU is to go and test. And make damn sure to shoot a lot of images when you test, and treat it like a job, then go home, process EVERYTHING, and then compare that factor too. It's the back end of MF that bites you in the ass; the post production. Also, much slower tethering. This list goes on and on. The only way to know is to test, and to test multiple days.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know about the shooting issues, I previously have owned a back for about a year and I have tested the new backs, there still good. I understand the viewfinder crop issue but this is quite different to what you were saying regarding the image quality of the lower res' backs.