1DsIII vs Digital backs

[KAP]

I have to agree with you on that. There's a lot more work in terms of post processing, esp color and sharpness, using HDR to get better shadows, etc. Also, some of us have to resorted to 3rd party lenses like the Leica Rs and Zeiss to get the best out of the DSLRS. I have seen great P series shots coming straight out from C1 that didn't need post processing work. Clients are also more wow-ed by photographers with digital backs. And they usually don't say, "hey i have that camera too" when you are on a digital back.

That said, it's true CYMK levels the playing field by quite a lot, even for posters, etc.

Best
Wesley
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not so shure.
I was in a book shop a few weeks back, I picked up a Joe Cornish or Charlie waite book (I can't remember which) it screamed 5x4, it wasn't even A4 size. I started picking up other books and comparing, it was soon obvious which where cheap digital, which were MF or even LF. I had never thought of comparing, the difference was like getting hit with a brick. I don't doubt someone has a set of formula that say at this size or that size you can't tel the difference, but I think of it like this, if going to press looses 15% of the originals quality, you need more quality to start with.
I have been wanting to test some MF backs, but I'm just to busy, I have been wondering about getting the new Canon as an upgrade to my 1DsmkII instead. The more I think of it and sum up what it has to offer and knowing this is the best Canon for a couple of years the more a top end back makes sense.

Kevin.

[wesley]

Not so shure.
I was in a book shop a few weeks back, I picked up a Joe Cornish or Charlie waite book (I can't remember which) it screamed 5x4, it wasn't even A4 size. I started picking up other books and comparing, it was soon obvious which where cheap digital, which were MF or even LF. I had never thought of comparing, the difference was like getting hit with a brick. I don't doubt someone has a set of formula that say at this size or that size you can't tel the difference, but I think of it like this, if going to press looses 15% of the originals quality, you need more quality to start with.
I have been wanting to test some MF backs, but I'm just to busy, I have been wondering about getting the new Canon as an upgrade to my 1DsmkII instead. The more I think of it and sum up what it has to offer and knowing this is the best Canon for a couple of years the more a top end back makes sense.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134834\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Kevin,

I know exactly what you mean, I stand partially corrected. Those photography art books really have a way with high quality CYMK, and you are right, the LF images really pops. That said, I have learned that high end processes are used certain photo art books that will separate the wheat from the chaff. I am more familiar with publicity/ad CYMK process due to the nature of my work. I have written the post with reference to that area.

Best regards
Wesley

[wilburdl]

I would have to think this is a huge blow for Mamiya. This Canon practically best the ZD camera in just about every facet.  For those contemplating that jump to MF, I have to believe this will make them wait a while. I blame the ZDs slow rollout. If they had been out  a year (in North America), they would at least had a foothold but with Canon's announcement and shipment being relatively swift compared to the ZDs, Mamiya looks to take a loss. They don't have the marketing machine, reach, tech support or infastructure to compete let alone with the actual products.

I think the biggest improvement (outside of increased pixels) would be the 14bit upgrade. That alone should have the MF makers a bit concerned.

[Willow Photography]

I may get my hands on a 1DsMKIII next week and will try to compare it to my H2/P30+.

[BernardLanguillier]

I would have to think this is a huge blow for Mamiya. This Canon practically best the ZD camera in just about every facet.  For those contemplating that jump to MF, I have to believe this will make them wait a while. I blame the ZDs slow rollout. If they had been out  a year (in North America), they would at least had a foothold but with Canon's announcement and shipment being relatively swift compared to the ZDs, Mamiya looks to take a loss. They don't have the marketing machine, reach, tech support or infastructure to compete let alone with the actual products.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if Mamiya needs to be concerned, think of Phase and Lead who sell backs very similar to the ZD at 2 or 3 times the price. They are those that should be concerned, not Mamiya.

All the people (including me) who have already purchased a ZD knew that Canon (and probably Nikon soon) would come up with 20+ MP options end 2007. There is zero surprise in the specs of the 1ds3.

I don't think that this Canon announcement is a blow at all. It would have been had Canon done its homework and come up with something really appealing like a 30MP DSLR. They didn't and that is IMHO in fact good knews for Mamiya.

I think the biggest improvement (outside of increased pixels) would be the 14bit upgrade. That alone should have the MF makers a bit concerned.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is the theory, but although I did search more than a bit, I am yet to find any convincing evidence that the 14  bits of the 1DIII resulted in practical advantages compared to the 12 bits of the 1DII. One guy at DPreview applied 60 (six-zero) adjustement layers in PS and saw a small difference...

We'll have to see how the 1dsIII performs in this area, but as we speak it appears to be at least unclear.

Regards,
Bernard

[Mark D Segal]

It would have been had Canon done its homework and come up with something really appealing like a 30MP DSLR.

..............I am yet to find any convincing evidence that the 14  bits of the 1DIII resulted in practical advantages compared to the 12 bits of the 1DII. One guy at DPreview applied 60 (six-zero) adjustement layers in PS and saw a small difference...

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard, before producing an 8000 dollar camera with the huge investment in research and plant tool-up implied therein, I would be truly very surprised if Canon had NOT "done their homework". I mean this isn't exactly a fly-by-night start-up company - they've been in the camera business for a while; don't ya think?

OK we agree on that (even before you answer!  ), so what's the deal? I'd frankly be concerned about buying 30MP in a 35mm frame - sounds like an aweful lot of photosites to cram into a small space. Maybe the bleeding edge of the technology as it stands today simply says that the trade-off between resolution and pixel quality (noise etc) is optimized at 21 MP for a 24*36 sensor, full stop.

You story about the impact of bit depth is really an interesting one, but I'm not impressed by the 60 layers. In principle more bit depth MUST translate into smoother tonal gradations because there are more possible shades of grey per pixel, isn't it? So the added tonal depth will be there in the image file. The question then becomes whether our monitors and printers are blind to the difference between 12 and 14. You know the chain and the weakest link business. But who knows, monitors and printers two years from now may be able to render yet finer subtilities that escape us today. Then we can begin to ask at what point perfection is perfect...........

Cheers,

Mark

[madmanchan]

As I recall, the smallest photo sites used in current Canon DSLRs (including the just-announced 40D) are 5.7 microns (40D and XTi/400D). At this size a 24x36 sensor could go up to about 26.5 MP.

[wilburdl]

Well, if Mamiya needs to be concerned, think of Phase and Lead who sell backs very similar to the ZD at 2 or 3 times the price. They are those that should be concerned, not Mamiya.

All the people (including me) who have already purchased a ZD knew that Canon (and probably Nikon soon) would come up with 20+ MP options end 2007. There is zero surprise in the specs of the 1ds3.

I don't think that this Canon announcement is a blow at all. It would have been had Canon done its homework and come up with something really appealing like a 30MP DSLR. They didn't and that is IMHO in fact good knews for Mamiya.
That is the theory, but although I did search more than a bit, I am yet to find any convincing evidence that the 14  bits of the 1DIII resulted in practical advantages compared to the 12 bits of the 1DII. One guy at DPreview applied 60 (six-zero) adjustement layers in PS and saw a small difference...

We'll have to see how the 1dsIII performs in this area, but as we speak it appears to be at least unclear.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True. We'll have to wait, but I don't mind speculationg in the meantime....
The reason i single Mamiya out is if given the chance, I'm sure most photogs would choose the p30 over the Canon. It's a no-brainer (unless you need speed). I'm not convinced that given the choice of the Canon or ZD that the same photogs would jump for the ZD.

Obviously, we knew the 1DsIII was coming--especially after the 1DIII launch. Before we knew of the ugrades, the ZD just made sense. Digital MF at a fairly reasonable price. Had the jump from announcement to market been as short as Canon's, it would have beat it by a year and firmly established itself. It's a niche product--maybe even more so than Phase and Leaf. It can play with the big boys but it doesn't beat them in any category. With the Canon you have a camera that carries the strengths of the 35mm formats (speed, high ISOs).

Those, like you, who wanted to shoot MF again went for the ZD but there are a lot of folks, like me who's sitting on that fence wondering what camera to follow our 1DsII up with.

[Anders_HK]

Those, like you, who wanted to shoot MF again went for the ZD but there are a lot of folks, like me who's sitting on that fence wondering what camera to follow our 1DsII up with.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Darnell,

I went for the Mamiya ZD camera body one month ago, coming from D200. I was actually waiting for D3x or 1Ds Mk III but realized the significant gap in image quality between DSLR and MF. I did lots of reasearch in my decision (granted it was lots of $$$ compared to my D200 or F100). In regards to image quality there is no doubt in my mind that the Mamiya will win hands down compared to the 1Ds Mk III. Nothing in the 1Ds specs shows different. Nor does any images I have seen from the 1D Mk III show different, and we can safely assume that the only difference in sensor is the size (the 1D Mk III being a crop of the 1Ds Mk III).

The Mamiya ZD has a complete different sensor twice as large and with large photosites. Add to that the different format.

This said, there are of course applications for which the 1Ds Mk III will be better. We have different needs and requirements in photography. For those applications the 1Ds Mk III is a great step forward (21Mp / 16Mp worth). The more pixels allow more detail at about same other image qualities compared to other DSLRs. Medium format is another ball game in image quality, unless a new technology would change that. Rumors are circulating of the Nikon D3... I not sure they will come close to Mamiya ZD even if smaller MPs, not even with D4! If they do... fine... the ZD is remains very lovely for high quality images, given that one find benefit in its other attributes. It is simply not only about pixels or even 14bit, as have been stated in several posts above.

It will be of interest to see an accurate test comparison in future. At low ISO, ZD hands down (it is replacement of my Velvia 50   ). For ultra wide, long reach, high ISO, the 1Ds Mk III. And... 1Ds Mk III for sports and wildlife, if one is willing to slow down to plan the shots at 5fps, and accept 1.0x instead of 1.3x and 1.5x.

As serious amateur and wanting a camera to last in image quality for long time, the ZD was and still remains the clear choice.

Regards
Anders

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard, before producing an 8000 dollar camera with the huge investment in research and plant tool-up implied therein, I would be truly very surprised if Canon had NOT "done their homework". I mean this isn't exactly a fly-by-night start-up company - they've been in the camera business for a while; don't ya think?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They have been in the business long enough to know where to stop their effort and still make money. Where they decide to stop their effort based on business considerations clearly doesn't mean meet my expectations as a potential customer.

OK we agree on that (even before you answer!  ), so what's the deal? I'd frankly be concerned about buying 30MP in a 35mm frame - sounds like an aweful lot of photosites to cram into a small space. Maybe the bleeding edge of the technology as it stands today simply says that the trade-off between resolution and pixel quality (noise etc) is optimized at 21 MP for a 24*36 sensor, full stop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I would not be concerned if it were agreed on that the 1dsIII is a camera targetting maxium image quality with a reduced scope of usage, namely focussing on low/medium ISO.

I am 100% sure that it is possible to design, produce and sell TODAY a camera with great 100 ISO image quality at 30MP (and OK 400 ISO) on a FF sensor. Extrapolating the resolution of a D2x to FF shows 28MP, and the per pixel image quality of the D2x at low ISO is still among the best although it is 3 years old (OK, DR could be better).

I don't understand why Canon is trying to make the 1ds3 a tool of all trades with very good high ISO capability. IMHO they are missing the target segment for the 1ds3. The 1dIII is there for those applications where users agree up front to compromise on image quality by using high ISO.

Now, the truth is probably that:

1. They don't have the lens technology it takes to produce wide angles that would benefit from 30MP,
2. They decided to settle at 21MP because it will enable them to sell us in 3 years the 30MP camera they could have produced today.

You story about the impact of bit depth is really an interesting one, but I'm not impressed by the 60 layers. In principle more bit depth MUST translate into smoother tonal gradations because there are more possible shades of grey per pixel, isn't it? So the added tonal depth will be there in the image file. The question then becomes whether our monitors and printers are blind to the difference between 12 and 14. You know the chain and the weakest link business. But who knows, monitors and printers two years from now may be able to render yet finer subtilities that escape us today. Then we can begin to ask at what point perfection is perfect...........
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am not saying that high bit depth isn't good, just that until now I haven't seen any evidence that the Canon implementation of 14 bits has any actual real world value. Until this is proven, 14 bits will remain a marketing tool to my eyes.

Will a display/output technology to be released in 2 years will be able to tap into this if we cannot see the hint of value today? Maybe, but I am not sold.

The value of 16 bits on MFDB can be seen easily with today's technology already, why would it be different with the 14 bits of Canon?

Regards,
Bernard

[David Anderson]

I don't understand why Canon is trying to make the 1ds3 a tool of all trades with very good high ISO capability. IMHO they are missing the target segment for the 1ds3. The 1dIII is there for those applications where users agree up front to compromise on image quality by using high ISO.

I don't agree,
In my work the camera needs to change from low to high ISO on the trot and still get good quality shots, I wouldn't want to start changing cameras when going from outside to in on a job.

I think what keeps me in full frame 35mm is the range of work that can be covered with the one system..
A couple of 1DSII's and a good range of lenses ticks a lot of boxes, while a much more expensive MF system and back is more limited.

Yes the quality of the MF system at lower ISO is stunning and yes I would like both, but all this stuff is so expensive now and I for one haven't noticed that day rates have gone up to match.

[BernardLanguillier]

I don't agree,
In my work the camera needs to change from low to high ISO on the trot and still get good quality shots, I wouldn't want to start changing cameras when going from outside to in on a job.

I think what keeps me in full frame 35mm is the range of work that can be covered with the one system..
A couple of 1DSII's and a good range of lenses ticks a lot of boxes, while a much more expensive MF system and back is more limited.

Yes the quality of the MF system at lower ISO is stunning and yes I would like both, but all this stuff is so expensive now and I for one haven't noticed that day rates have gone up to match.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

David,

I am sure that there are many people like you around and that's perfectly fine.

It is just me who didn't quite understand the actual positioning of the 1ds3 until now I guess. I must have been mislead by the very question asked in this thread.

In fact, Canon with the 1ds3 has been for something universal, and there lies the fundamental answer to the initial question of this thread.

The 1ds3 is not trying to cover the market of those trying to get maxium image quality. It tries to satisfy a large pool of users with different needs.

It is much closer to a BMW 5 series than it is to a Porsche.

Regards,
Bernard

[David Anderson]

It is much closer to a BMW 5 series than it is to a Porsche.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Petrol or diesel ??  


I must admit I'm finding the whole medium format thing a lot more appealing with the price you can get a ZD back for..

Maybe were moving back to the sort of prices where the average overworked underpaid shooter like myself can have both again..

[Mark D Segal]

They have been in the business long enough to know where to stop their effort and still make money. Where they decide to stop their effort based on business considerations clearly doesn't mean meet my expectations as a potential customer.
Well I would not be concerned if it were agreed on that the 1dsIII is a camera targetting maxium image quality with a reduced scope of usage, namely focussing on low/medium ISO.

I am 100% sure that it is possible to design, produce and sell TODAY a camera with great 100 ISO image quality at 30MP (and OK 400 ISO) on a FF sensor. Extrapolating the resolution of a D2x to FF shows 28MP, and the per pixel image quality of the D2x at low ISO is still among the best although it is 3 years old (OK, DR could be better).

I don't understand why Canon is trying to make the 1ds3 a tool of all trades with very good high ISO capability. IMHO they are missing the target segment for the 1ds3. The 1dIII is there for those applications where users agree up front to compromise on image quality by using high ISO.

Now, the truth is probably that:

1. They don't have the lens technology it takes to produce wide angles that would benefit from 30MP,
2. They decided to settle at 21MP because it will enable them to sell us in 3 years the 30MP camera they could have produced today.
I am not saying that high bit depth isn't good, just that until now I haven't seen any evidence that the Canon implementation of 14 bits has any actual real world value. Until this is proven, 14 bits will remain a marketing tool to my eyes.

Will a display/output technology to be released in 2 years will be able to tap into this if we cannot see the hint of value today? Maybe, but I am not sold.

The value of 16 bits on MFDB can be seen easily with today's technology already, why would it be different with the 14 bits of Canon?

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard, I see where you're coming from and there is much good sense there, but I also think any camera manufacturer is faced with a plethora of trade-offs that have to be finally configured into one package that meets a price point and a target market. For example, maybe putting 30 MP into 24*36 is doable, but has other implications that would have needed more time and money to work out - hard for us at the consuming end to know - we're not in their shoes. Also, as consumers we should not be totally dismissive of commercial objectives, because without that we would not have all this wonderful technology. I'll bet right within Canon - if it's an organization staffed with normal human beings - there must be all manner of debate between the engineers and the marketing people about what to market when. Such is life. In the final analysis as consumers we don't need to care about that. We can only just look at the offering, decide whether or not it's worth the price relative to our own "wants" and buy or not buy accordingly. For example, I'm still using the original 1Ds - greatr camera still and will continue to be - but that extra 11 MP, DIGIC III processor and other features sure make for a huge increase of technical flexibility and quality. MF is a whole other ball-game - new lenses, more reliance on a tripod, less flex with high ISO etc. SO my choice between them is back to the same old - trade-offs between money and what I want the camera for. I think Michael's essay on buying watches hits the nail on the head. No one item can be everything to everyone, nor will it be nothing to anyone.

[free1000]

Speaking as someone who uses both the 1DsII and Aptus 75, they are different tools with different uses.

Some of my work needs an LF look, and I can get that by shooting wide with the Aptus 75, Ebony and stitching up 60 megapixel files.

For most of my architectural work the wide angle lenses with the Aptus just trash the Canon 24mm TS-E. No contest. The difference can be seen on an A4 print.  I find it amusing that Canon have responded to the criticism about the lack of wides with the production of a good 14mm. A lens wide enough to get a lot of people into trouble. Certainly not something I'd want to use day to day

Other work has to be done fast and the Canon is natural for it. I could use a 5D or the new 40D for some corporate work, completely adequate.

The Leaf colour generally beats the Canon colour in my experience. I'll be interested to see if the 1DsIII is better.

If I had the money I'd certainly get the 1DsIII and replace the 1DsII, even the minimal additionally resolution of 4Megapixel is worth having for some uses. I also like the idea of the sRAW's for some work. Eg: progress/site documentation photography.