MF Frustration

[Mort54]

I'm trying to decide between a 1DsII and a MF system for future fine art landscape work. I'd like to print up to 20 x 24 on a regular basis, and maybe 24 x 30 on an occasional basis. I've read and reread and reread again all of Michael's articles on MF vs other systems. I've scoured this forum. I've compared files shot by others. I've compared other people's prints. And I'm no closer to being able to make a decision. The claims and counter-claims are just too inconsistent, the files and prints I've looked at aren't of the same subjects and are therefore difficult to compare, and some people (Michael in particular) seem to keep changing their opinions. It's very frustrating.

For example: The P25 IQ is clearly better than the 1DsII and challenges 4 x 5 film. P25 and 1DsII prints are difficult to tell apart up to 13 x 19. The 1DsII IQ competes with the P25 using Zeiss lenses on a Contax 645 as long as you use the best Canon lenses and techniques. Zeiss lenses on a Contax 645 are limiting the P25 and suck compared to Schneider lenses on a Cambo. The Zeiss lenses aren't limiting the P25 after all. Zeiss and Mamiya and Hassy lenses are just fine even up to 39 MP and it's very difficult to see any difference between them. Michael, my apologies for singling you out above. I really appreciate all of the reporting you've done on MF systems, and I've learned a lot from your reports. I know you've been reporting in good faith what you saw at the time you reported it, and that as one gains experience with a system, assessments can evolve and change.

OK, now that I've vented, I have some simple questions for the forum (simple questions, but I'm sure not so simple answers). And yes, I know I should run my own tests. I've been promised a Rollei 6008 AF system with some Schneider glass and a Sinar back in the near future. And I'm trying to line up some time with a Mamiya system. But this stuff takes time. And yes, I know that the 1DsII will soon be replaced with something better. But right now, no-one who knows is talking, so I have to compare with what's available today. So, here are my questions:

With what size prints do the advantages of 22 MP MF backs vs the 1DsII become apparent? At what size do the MF advantages make the print more SALEABLE? Yes, I know there are a million variables, but assume everything else is equal, except for the system used. You get to choose the camera and lens and 22 MP back. Please take into account not only resolution, but also smoothness of tonal gradations and shadow detail. Assume a low ISO. All I'm looking for are your informed opinions. It doesn't have to hold up in a court of law :-) We all love to give our opinions, so now's your chance :-)

For prints up to 24 by 30, am I going to see any SALEABLE difference in IQ using a 33 MP or 39 MP back over using a 22 MP back? How about smaller prints - 16 x 20 and 20 x 24? Now the same question, but this time comparing 33 MP and 39 MP backs against a 1DsII.

Thanks in advance for your opinions,
Hans.

[Camdavidson]

I'm trying to decide between a 1DsII and a MF system for future fine art landscape work. I'd like to print up to 20 x 24 on a regular basis, and maybe 24 x 30 on an occasional basis. I've read and reread and reread again all of Michael's articles on MF vs other systems. I've scoured this forum. I've compared files shot by others. I've compared other people's prints. And I'm no closer to being able to make a decision. The claims and counter-claims are just too inconsistent, the files and prints I've looked at aren't of the same subjects and are therefore difficult to compare, and some people (Michael in particular) seem to keep changing their opinions. It's very frustrating.

For example: The P25 IQ is clearly better than the 1DsII and challenges 4 x 5 film. P25 and 1DsII prints are difficult to tell apart up to 13 x 19. The 1DsII IQ competes with the P25 using Zeiss lenses on a Contax 645 as long as you use the best Canon lenses and techniques. Zeiss lenses on a Contax 645 are limiting the P25 and suck compared to Schneider lenses on a Cambo. The Zeiss lenses aren't limiting the P25 after all. Zeiss and Mamiya and Hassy lenses are just fine even up to 39 MP and it's very difficult to see any difference between them. Michael, my apologies for singling you out above. I really appreciate all of the reporting you've done on MF systems, and I've learned a lot from your reports. I know you've been reporting in good faith what you saw at the time you reported it, and that as one gains experience with a system, assessments can evolve and change.

OK, now that I've vented, I have some simple questions for the forum (simple questions, but I'm sure not so simple answers). And yes, I know I should run my own tests. I've been promised a Rollei 6008 AF system with some Schneider glass and a Sinar back in the near future. And I'm trying to line up some time with a Mamiya system. But this stuff takes time. And yes, I know that the 1DsII will soon be replaced with something better. But right now, no-one who knows is talking, so I have to compare with what's available today. So, here are my questions:

With what size prints do the advantages of 22 MP MF backs vs the 1DsII become apparent? At what size do the MF advantages make the print more SALEABLE? Yes, I know there are a million variables, but assume everything else is equal, except for the system used. You get to choose the camera and lens and 22 MP back. Please take into account not only resolution, but also smoothness of tonal gradations and shadow detail. Assume a low ISO. All I'm looking for are your informed opinions. It doesn't have to hold up in a court of law :-) We all love to give our opinions, so now's your chance :-)

For prints up to 24 by 30, am I going to see any SALEABLE difference in IQ using a 33 MP or 39 MP back over using a 22 MP back? How about smaller prints - 16 x 20 and 20 x 24? Now the same question, but this time comparing 33 MP and 39 MP backs against a 1DsII.

Thanks in advance for your opinions,
Hans.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hans, I wrestled with the same questions you have posted for quite a while.  I have several friends who shoot with medium format backs - a mixture of Aptus, Hassy/Imacon and Phase backs - everything from 11MP to 39MP.

I finally made the jump to a Phase back and can honestly state that their is a huge world of difference - in sharpness, clarity, depth-of-color and retained highlight detail plus no AA filter to degrade sharpness.

If you have a dealer(s) nearby - I would suggest renting a unit/camera - try the Aptus 65 (with the Leaf and Raw Developer software packages), a Hassy back with Flexcolor and a Phase P30 (with Capture One or with Raw Developer).  Apparently Adobe Lightroom can process the Aptus files.

I shot my first assignment with the Phase last week.  I was very pleased with the difference in quality - even though it was only a full page editorial portrait, I could see a difference.  My client was very pleased with the file.

The key is to try them.  I don't think a jump to 22Mp is worth it - you can really see the difference in the Aptus 65 and Phase P30.  A lot of this depends upon your style of shooting - for my editorial projects and annual report work - most likely I will continue to shoot the Canon kit.  For location portraits and my aerials - the Phase all the way.

Hope this helps.

[Don Libby]

Hans, I shoot landscape and nature images.  I started with a 1Ds then moved to the 1Ds II.  I just printed a pano of Avalanche Creek in Glacier National Park at 20x60 with great detail.  I printed this image both on paper and canvas and the amount of detail is stunning.  

That said, I just brought a Mamiya 645 AFD II and will be shooting along with the Mark II.  I don't have a digital back for the 645 but am strongly thinking of one.  Until then I plan to shoot film then scan into my system.  Since I do a lot of panos I also stitch them together so the end result is getting the image one way or the other into a digital format for final processing in CS2.

Why have I opted to go MF?  It wasn't that I am in anyway displeased with the Mark II, I just wanted to get a larger image orther than 35mm.  I feel that both of these cameras will work very well together in the future and will take both kits to Alaska next year.

You will not be displeased with the Mark II for either it's images or print sizes - again neither will you be displeased with going MF.

[MarkKay]

I have a 1DsmkII/5D, leaf aptus 65 back that I use with a Hassy H2 and 6x9 view camera with a mixture of rodenstock digital and schneider digitar lenses.

THe 1Dsmk2/5D  is a great system and in many respects there are times where the system itself is invaluable for me due to ease of use and ability to take it with me during my travels and I get great images.  Moreover, for fast moving action, there is no comparison.  However, I disagree with the premise that the images are similar in prints  up to 13x19.  I can clearly get more detail, better colors, and dynamic range using my aptus back in combination with my MF gear even in prints of the size mentioned.

 I also will add that while the Mamiya lenses that showed similar image quality in comparisons with the Hasselblad or other systems were done at f11.  It is my understanding that some of the mamiya lenses do not perform well at the wider apertures whereas I can state with confidence that the hassy HC lenses are almost as good wide open as when stopped down to f8 or f11. Something to keep in mind depending on what you will be shooting. However, the frustrating thing with the hassy system is the lack of a tilt or tilt shift system.

BTW I elected to take my 1DsmkII and 5D to Alaska this year.  There were several reasons.  I wanted to have lenses with  T/S ability, landscape and telephoto ranges for the varied types of shooting. I admit it was a family vacation so my shooting  time was limited.  I was able to get some very nice images including some panos made from stitched images. My only regret was not having more time.

Mark

Hans, I shoot landscape and nature images.  I started with a 1Ds then moved to the 1Ds II.  I just printed a pano of Avalanche Creek in Glacier National Park at 20x60 with great detail.  I printed this image both on paper and canvas and the amount of detail is stunning. 

That said, I just brought a Mamiya 645 AFD II and will be shooting along with the Mark II.  I don't have a digital back for the 645 but am strongly thinking of one.  Until then I plan to shoot film then scan into my system.  Since I do a lot of panos I also stitch them together so the end result is getting the image one way or the other into a digital format for final processing in CS2.

Why have I opted to go MF?  It wasn't that I am in anyway displeased with the Mark II, I just wanted to get a larger image orther than 35mm.  I feel that both of these cameras will work very well together in the future and will take both kits to Alaska next year.

You will not be displeased with the Mark II for either it's images or print sizes - again neither will you be displeased with going MF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Khun_K]

I'm trying to decide between a 1DsII and a MF system for future fine art landscape work. I'd like to print up to 20 x 24 on a regular basis, and maybe 24 x 30 on an occasional basis. I've read and reread and reread again all of Michael's articles on MF vs other systems. I've scoured this forum. I've compared files shot by others. I've compared other people's prints. And I'm no closer to being able to make a decision. The claims and counter-claims are just too inconsistent, the files and prints I've looked at aren't of the same subjects and are therefore difficult to compare, and some people (Michael in particular) seem to keep changing their opinions. It's very frustrating.

For example: The P25 IQ is clearly better than the 1DsII and challenges 4 x 5 film. P25 and 1DsII prints are difficult to tell apart up to 13 x 19. The 1DsII IQ competes with the P25 using Zeiss lenses on a Contax 645 as long as you use the best Canon lenses and techniques. Zeiss lenses on a Contax 645 are limiting the P25 and suck compared to Schneider lenses on a Cambo. The Zeiss lenses aren't limiting the P25 after all. Zeiss and Mamiya and Hassy lenses are just fine even up to 39 MP and it's very difficult to see any difference between them. Michael, my apologies for singling you out above. I really appreciate all of the reporting you've done on MF systems, and I've learned a lot from your reports. I know you've been reporting in good faith what you saw at the time you reported it, and that as one gains experience with a system, assessments can evolve and change.

OK, now that I've vented, I have some simple questions for the forum (simple questions, but I'm sure not so simple answers). And yes, I know I should run my own tests. I've been promised a Rollei 6008 AF system with some Schneider glass and a Sinar back in the near future. And I'm trying to line up some time with a Mamiya system. But this stuff takes time. And yes, I know that the 1DsII will soon be replaced with something better. But right now, no-one who knows is talking, so I have to compare with what's available today. So, here are my questions:

With what size prints do the advantages of 22 MP MF backs vs the 1DsII become apparent? At what size do the MF advantages make the print more SALEABLE? Yes, I know there are a million variables, but assume everything else is equal, except for the system used. You get to choose the camera and lens and 22 MP back. Please take into account not only resolution, but also smoothness of tonal gradations and shadow detail. Assume a low ISO. All I'm looking for are your informed opinions. It doesn't have to hold up in a court of law :-) We all love to give our opinions, so now's your chance :-)

For prints up to 24 by 30, am I going to see any SALEABLE difference in IQ using a 33 MP or 39 MP back over using a 22 MP back? How about smaller prints - 16 x 20 and 20 x 24? Now the same question, but this time comparing 33 MP and 39 MP backs against a 1DsII.

Thanks in advance for your opinions,
Hans.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was moving up from P25 to P45 on my Contax 645, I saw clear improvement on the file, so I guessed the Contax lenses held up well, all 9 of them. And certaily the file from either P25 and now P45 was visibly superior than my 1Ds MK2 which I have also ran over 40,000 shots. The P45 file allow a lot more room for manipulation and photoshop works that is important for my works for advertising. But, Canon has its own ground when you do need to shoot with available light with fast enough speed, I will not think twice and use just 1Ds MK2 for shots needing ISO 400 and above. Although fine art landscape is different, I will not surprise you will find the merit where or when 1Ds MK2 outshine medium format digital captire.
Also, Canon 1Ds MK2 beig a smaller format does give more depth of field when it is need under certain situation. I think both system complement each other.

[marcwilson]

hans..see my reply in your other thead.

Marc

[Carl Glover]

My main source of income is in the music business and of late I have been doing quite a few shots which are used on 12" LP sleeves; there's a bit of a revival going on...

There is a notable difference from my 1DS mkII files and the Rollei 6008/Sinar e22 combination. I crop quite a bit where necessary and have found the larger size of the MF digital file very useful - not to mention the excellent Zeiss/Schneider glass (it all helps).

The two systems complement each other very well in my experience.

[Morgan_Moore]

I'm trying to decide between a 1DsII and a MF system for future fine art landscape work
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wouldnt bother about file qualities I would concentrate on the phisical characteristics

I would go for MF if you care about these things..

The larger format of MF allows less depth of field for a given aperture and field of view - you subject will 'ping' out from the background

MF backs easily interchange onto view cameras allowing tilts shifts movements and accurate stiching without moving the lens

MF cameras are bright and lovely to compose your image in

SMM

[pss]

as usual with posts like this, you already know the answer to what is better....there are no confilcting reports that DMF is better...it is...the question is how much and if that extra is worth the extra price for you...and i am afraid nobody can help you with that....
i can tell you that i was never really happy with my kodak 14n or my canons (the last being the 1DsmkII)....DMF gives you better files, has little to do with resolution...IMO the P20 will give you a much better file and print then any DSLR (and i am pretty sure that includes unannounced future 12/14bit canons).....
the higher up you go the more resolution you get....the P30 (or hass h31 or soon pentax?) is the best way in....high res., no noise, fast and somehow affordable....yes the P45 will give you extra but you have to decide if that extra is worth almost twice the price.....
as fas as printing goes: you can't make up detail or fine transitions....i was always unhappy with DSLR because of shadow detail (especially coming from 120 neg film).....DMF backs will give oyu that detail and depth........

[Mort54]

Thank you everyone for your detailed replies. Marc, I caught your reply on my other thread as well.   The message I've taken from your replies is that the difference is visible even in smaller prints, not just prints bigger than 13 x 19. Paul, as you said, it's clear to me which is better based on the files I examined, but as you also said, the bigger question is how much better and whether that difference is worth the extra cost. I agree I'm the only one who can answer that. Hopefully the loaner 6008 will arrive soon and I can do some test shots and prints, which should help.

Thanks again,
Hans.

[Graham Mitchell]

Mort54, if you are shooting fine art and landscapes then I think the choice is clearly in favour of medium format. Canon has its place - mainly in low light or fast action shooting. In most other circumstances you will enjoy better image quality from a MFDB. It isn't just the extra resolution and better colour of the sensor, it's also the great lenses and large viewfinder which put the system ahead.

[narikin]

I have both systems - 1Ds2 and contax P45(+)

they are simply different beasts as many say here. do you take your landscapes backpacking across difficult terrain and working in bad weather? - then the 1Ds2 with its weather proofing makes sense.
or are you never that far from civilisation, and able to carry MF easily wherever, then thatr is a far better choice. It doesn't sound like you need a motordrive or autofocus or any of the other stuff thats on the Canon for the sports and press guys, so its really not designed for landscape.

another factor is format - happy with the 3:2 rectangle? I wasnt.
3:4 is far better for my work. cropping 3:4 into a 1Ds2 drops you down to 12-13Mp, and thats a lot less.

horses for courses

[mtomalty]

Hans,

As a point of reference,are you currently selling prints,in any size,as pieces of fine art?

If you are launching a new career in fine art sales,I think you may be placing too much
emphasis on the tools. I know it's probably not what you want to hear but content,for the
most part,is what is going to drive your sales.

If you intend to focus on primarily large format prints,say 30x40 and up,then your choice
of equipment would be more of a factor.

I use large and medium format film along with my 1DsMkll and have logged tons of time
with a host of backs (but,so far,have resisted the pressure to buy) and agree with those
who've posted before me that the differences are already evident that better detail,
sharpness,etc exists for most backs even at sizes as 'small' as 11x17.

Where the waters muddy,for most print sales I think,is whether your prospective clients
in your market  will notice,or consider,the differences.

I was involved in a gallery venture last year (that unfortunately failed due to reasons
other than content) and from the experience garnered I think it was very clear that
format and perceived quality,had next to no bearing on whether a print sold or didn't.
People,by and large,would react viscerally to an image and really only budget and their
individual space considerations would determine what size print they would choose.

I think you should make your equipment decision based more on which gear will most
easily allow you to capture the content you wish to without imposing additional restrictions.

In short,I think,it's pretty clear that any 22Mp back will outperform any CURRENT 35mm system
if fine detail rendering and sharpness are the principal criteria one is considering but I
don't believe the advantages will,neccessarily guarantee you better print sales.

That's what I keep telling myself :>))

Mark

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi there,

I use a d2x, Mamiya ZD and 4x5 film for landscape applications too.

- The d2x is IMHO best in class for panorama landscape applications thanks to the great image uniformity of DX lenses, larger DoF and reasonnably light weight for a pro body,

- The ZD does IMHO offer the best image quality/price ratio on the market today,

- 4x5 still delivers un-beatable image detail and the great advantage of enabling you to control DoF. The main deal breaker here though is the cost of shooting sheets, and lack of DR of slides compared to digital (especially compared to the ZD).

By the way, I have a small landscape exhibition on in Tokyo right know, and the images totaly stealing the show are the D2x panoramas...

Cheers,
Bernard

[jorgedelfino]

Hans,

As a point of reference,are you currently selling prints,in any size,as pieces of fine art?

If you are launching a new career in fine art sales,I think you may be placing too much
emphasis on the tools. I know it's probably not what you want to hear but content,for the
most part,is what is going to drive your sales.

If you intend to focus on primarily large format prints,say 30x40 and up,then your choice
of equipment would be more of a factor.

I use large and medium format film along with my 1DsMkll and have logged tons of time
with a host of backs (but,so far,have resisted the pressure to buy) and agree with those
who've posted before me that the differences are already evident that better detail,
sharpness,etc exists for most backs even at sizes as 'small' as 11x17.

Where the waters muddy,for most print sales I think,is whether your prospective clients
in your market  will notice,or consider,the differences.

I was involved in a gallery venture last year (that unfortunately failed due to reasons
other than content) and from the experience garnered I think it was very clear that
format and perceived quality,had next to no bearing on whether a print sold or didn't.
People,by and large,would react viscerally to an image and really only budget and their
individual space considerations would determine what size print they would choose.

I think you should make your equipment decision based more on which gear will most
easily allow you to capture the content you wish to without imposing additional restrictions.

In short,I think,it's pretty clear that any 22Mp back will outperform any CURRENT 35mm system
if fine detail rendering and sharpness are the principal criteria one is considering but I
don't believe the advantages will,neccessarily guarantee you better print sales.

That's what I keep telling myself :>))

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are absolutly right!

[Mort54]

If you are launching a new career in fine art sales,I think you may be placing too much
emphasis on the tools. I know it's probably not what you want to hear but content,for the
most part,is what is going to drive your sales.

Hi Mark. I'm certainly under no allusions that MF gear is somehow going to make me a "better" photographer. I outgrew that mindset many many years ago. However I am expecting whatever new gear I end up with to improve the fine detail in my landscape shots. I know what I like and the look that I'm shooting for. I currently shoot with a Nikon D2X, and while I love the camera, and will continue to use it for a lot of my stuff, I'm not getting the level of fine detail I want in larger prints.

Also, I'm certainly not putting too much emphasis on the tools. I've been an avid photographer for just over 30 years, starting in college. I know my strengths and weaknesses, and I know my gear's strengths and weaknesses. As I said in my initial post, I'm looking to do larger fine art prints, and for that I want finer detail than I can get with my current equipment. To ignore that fact would simply be hiding my head in the sand. My only question is whether I can get to where I want to get by staying with 35mm DSLRs (like the forthcoming 1DsIII), or whether I'll need to up the ante to MF.

I think,it's pretty clear that any 22Mp back will outperform any CURRENT 35mm system
if fine detail rendering and sharpness are the principal criteria one is considering but I
don't believe the advantages will,neccessarily guarantee you better print sales.

Yes, I agree. But I know what I like and what I want in a print. I've seen plenty of big prints from 35 mm gear that captured excellent subject matter, with great composition and exposure. But in general they looked a little soft, and that's a big turnoff for me, so much so that I generally don't print larger than 11 x 17 with my current gear. Whether it makes a difference to a prospective customer is important, but it's not as important to me as my own personal reaction to my prints. I'm not going to try to sell people something that I myself am not satisfied with. Right now I'm fairly satisfied with my work, as long as I don't print big. I get nice reactions from people looking at my stuff, and I've sold a few prints without really even trying. But I want to start printing bigger, and for that I want more fine detail. It's really that simple.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Whether it makes a difference to a prospective customer is important, but it's not as important to me as my own personal reaction to my prints. I'm not going to try to sell people something that I myself am not satisfied with."

Right on, my sentiments exactly, including the 11x17 upper limit (I think that is really pushing even a 13MP camera at that). When I want to shoot a decent larger print I reach for the view camera.

[mtomalty]

. But I want to start printing bigger, and for that I want more fine detail. It's really that simple.

With that in mind then I think a DB is in your future.

Eventually the 1DsMklll will hit the market (most credible rumors seem to think a fall release)
but it's still anybodys guess as to what the specifics will be and,for your particular need,how
fine detail renditiion will compare to a DB .

Rumors also continue to circulate about a new lens line that is in development that will be
needed to take advantage of a new sensor.

Mark

[Khun_K]

With that in mind then I think a DB is in your future.

Eventually the 1DsMklll will hit the market (most credible rumors seem to think a fall release)
but it's still anybodys guess as to what the specifics will be and,for your particular need,how
fine detail renditiion will compare to a DB .

Rumors also continue to circulate about a new lens line that is in development that will be
needed to take advantage of a new sensor.

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would not to start a rumor and I have no idea of the coming 1Ds MK3, I hope it will be coming, my 1DsMK2 is still work pretty good but I am sure a newer version will offer improvement.
I am kind of wondering why the makers don't want to look at the Rollei 3000 series, and with such platform, may be up-gradable sensor and more flexible lens design?  If Canon make such a system, still with the EOS electronic mount, but perhaps introduce a movement platform and bellow unit and with live view, it would be really nice. And it might be just a wishful thinking.

[Mort54]

Eventually the 1DsMklll will hit the market

Hi Mark. The rumored release of the 1DsIII this fall is the single biggest thing giving me pause on this decision. How much is good enough (rhetorical question)?

Hans.