Jon,
Thanks for your reply.
Like I pointed in my first post. It could be that the 5D pic is better exposed than that from the M3, but despite the latter one is 14bit, I see more 3D from the the 5D pic.
Actually, the first time I saw the 3D look, was 20 years ago from a fiber based 8X10 b&w picture shot with a Leica. But I had to admit in that time I already heard about this quality from german glass, and you know how the brain can fool you any time, about seeing something you expect or desire to see. The second time I experienced some 3D, was after printing for first time some 11X14" prints from Kodak Panatomic shot with my Nikon.
Later on, I bought my 500Cm and the quality blew me away. After sometime, I got used to the quality and never again thought about 3D. Well, until now.
Personally, I think the 5D is one damn good camera for the money. If it would turn out to be my last camera, I could live with that, but I doubt it. Since I bought my Epson 7600 printer 4 years ago, I love to print 24X30". I think this preference will last the rest of my life. So, I'm here crossing fingers and praying for dbacks to become under my reach. That is, at least a 22mp 36X48 sensor for under 10k usd. The Mamiya dback probably is the best thing that happenned to meduim formar since the world turned digital. Too bad for me, I am a waist level finder guy. So, for me is a CFV2 or something within the next 12 months, or a new Hy6 system in 2, 3 or 4 years.
Best
Eduardo
Apologies that my original supposition that the sensors in dslr's is only 8bit. This is wrong.
Certainly with 16bit backs the greater range of colours available should result in better tonal gradation, and a better impression to the eye of depth. While the human eye may not be sensitive to the infinite range of colours in any 'scene', the brain is very good at processing a limited range of colours from within the scene, using the centre of the eye.
I thought that the MF pics looked more 3d, partly because of having more colours, but also having better detail resolution IMO, than 35 mm. However, this could be explained also (or in combination) with any filtering (eg AA filtering) carried out by the camera. I understand that many MFDb's don't do this whereas 35mm does.
What do you think? I'm completely open to having any misconceptions corrected; I'm not new to photography, but I am a rank beginner when it comes to digital MF, and I'm trying to get up to speed as fast as possible.
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
