Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared  (Read 34602 times)

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #40 on: December 03, 2007, 06:36:37 pm »

Quote
Whaddaya mean? All my tests are perfect.   
<snip>

However, there are factors which are not difficult to take into consideration. If you can do it, then why not do it?

Matching FoV is a very basic thing to do. Throwing away almost 1/3rd of a camera's pixels in the process of making a comparison is not merely 'not perfect' but a major blunder.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But Ray, how do you do a test that compares, say, a D2x with a 1.5 crop factor to a 1DS2? You match the fields of view, and:

- Somebody points out that you had to use a much longer, slower lens on the Canon, standing back further, which pushes one or the other of the lenses out of the prime exposure range and changes the feeling of depth;

-You crop the Canon to get the same FOV, which means the Nikon puts more pixels on the FOV, even though the Canon has more pixels in the sensor;

-You decide to take a shot of the same scene (not FOV) with the same lens using an adapter, to eliminate lens differentials, which means that the Nikon shoots a smaller piece of the scene with more noise, but, using only the sweet spot of whichever lens is chosen, while the the Canon shoots a wider chunk, more pixels overall, better noise, but with soft corners...

You get the idea. There has been no way to equalize the difference between cameras with different sensor sizes; there is always some aspect of the comparison that's "not fair." This may change as Nikon moves to FF -- but will remain in comparisons between MF and 35-based cameras.

So I remain with the conclusion that ONLY really good comparison is to figure out exactly what you're going to shoot in a high-quality, commercial photo, with known and controlled lighting, and then take a shot of that scene, with the best available lens, and the same with the other camera, and then to produce the images in the best possible commercial repro scheme (not one-off hand-printed photos.)

If you can't tell the difference at that point, then I would argue there is no difference. I also suspect that for most -- 98%? -- commercial purposes, a Canon 1DsIII put up against the P45, with appropriate post-processing, would pass the test. You couldn't tell the difference.

But without going to that extreme, I think there are all kinds of ad-hoc uncontrolled tests that will leave you a sense of the practicalities of a given system without perfect controls -- you simply note them when you make the test, and note that the tests should be taken with a grain of salt; and note that different photographers may have different needs.

There's a "we must have scientific controls" thought-stream on the net that suggests that anything that isn't perfect is totally unusable, total crap. Those people must be quite uncomfortable when they go to a hospital and find out that the doc wants to operate because, given the fifteen tests he's made, he's about 75% sure of what's going on...

JC
Logged

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #41 on: December 03, 2007, 07:22:42 pm »

Quote
..... because more and more "thinking" photographers will demonstrate how good work you can make with systems as the new canons     ( and probably soon the nikons ) can deliver.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hope so! Because I'm really tired of seeing the "well my normal model wasn't available so I ..." image of a poor fat house cat.
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

alba63

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2007, 08:51:14 pm »

Quote
I hope so! Because I'm really tired of seeing the "well my normal model wasn't available so I ..." image of a poor fat house cat.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For the time being, just have a look at this guy's personal review of the new Canon, I think it is quite well made:
[a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=25879224]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=25879224[/url] (link provided in there)

regards, Bernie
Logged

jing q

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
    • we are super
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #43 on: December 03, 2007, 11:17:35 pm »

love the canon but once you've touched the magic of a 33/39 megapixel back with its beautiful tonalities it's really hard to go back...
I'm wishing I had my back with me on a shoot I did yesterday...
Logged

Natasa Stojsic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2007, 12:02:20 am »

Every time I think about the 35mm vs MF, the first thing is affordability and the second of course quality. I have sold my 1Ds MkII with no regrets and from what I can see by testing new 1Ds MkIII
is I like it because it's getting closer to MF with million pixels and again it is affordable. However, I don't feel any regrets selling the Canon system so far because the pixel count may be there but the detail is still in the MF DB/box as far as I am concern.

Another good point about 35mm is that 35mm 21mp Nikon/Canon is in General Complete Camera because it can get close to every MF application and I can't say that if it was the other way around.

Regardless how ever we feel, I believe the current situation is the year of the latest 35mm format has to offer, but as soon as we have the year of next generation/the latest MF DBs has to offer, the 35mm vs. MF discussion will be over for another 4 or so years.

[span style=\'font-size:11pt;line-height:100%\']So enjoy it while it lasts[/span]
Logged
[span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2007, 02:06:40 am »

Quote
love the canon but once you've touched the magic of a 33/39 megapixel back with its beautiful tonalities it's really hard to go back...
I'm wishing I had my back with me on a shoot I did yesterday...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes this is possible. although i am not sure if i really need more megapixel than the actual 33 ....
but probably if it would be here i would take them. at least in my field this has ( sometimes ) some sense-
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2007, 02:35:14 am »

Quote
how do you do a test that compares[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To me real world testing is what matters.

Although this is the least scientific.

One needs to take YOUR/ONES conditions and just do a test.

My test situation is hand holding in miserable conditions (the only place my blad doesnt perform)

So that my blad only does 100ISO or is rough at 200 you are manking a trade off with shutter speed Vs DSLR that operate at 400ISO and have an extra stop of lense speed then camera shake will be part of the blad test result

Say the AF is fast slow and you do fashion the hit rate is part of the test result too

Take two cameras into a situation, use them and compare the results - that is a test

It is obvious to me that MF win on tripods and with strobe and DSLRs are ahead hand held in the murk

The question is 'where is the cross over'

Of course there are other specifics that individuals will care about..

-finance
-look/perspective
- easy cleaning chip !
-weight
-synch speed
-minimum ISO
-mas useable ISO
-burst rate/buffer

Etc

I think personal shootout in ones own conditions is the only method

S
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Hägar the horrible

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
    • http://www.andidietrich.com
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2007, 08:12:43 am »

So what could you to with one back/camera what you couldn't do with the other?
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2007, 09:35:19 am »

Shooting a concert with available darkness (ISO 1600, 1/50, f/2.8) Canon will get far more usable shots with IS lenses, fast autofocus, and far better high-ISO performance. In a studio with a static subject and strobes, a multi-shot MF back will do better. In other situations, it's a toss-up where familiarity with one system vs. the other and personal preference is more important than the camera system used, and a properly-skilled photographer could use either system and deliver results that more-than-meet the client's needs.

What do you shoot, and under what conditions?
Logged

Marsupilami

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2007, 09:39:48 am »

Quote
i think the resolution increase in comparation to the 1dsmk2 is bigger than the pure pixel count had let me to think. this can only mean that the aa filter is better and much weaker designed. this was the point i was most sceptical with the mk3 design,- but it seems so that canon was aware that they calculated the aa filter  too strong in their 1ds mk2 model,- ( therefor the 5d could render the same detail with less megapixels ).

the DR seems also to be excellent from the new mk3 .
the most impressive detail in the comparation above is the look in the blue channel .......


[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Seems like some other tester came to the conclusion that the AA filter is actually very strong on the 1ds MIII:
[a href=\"http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124]http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124[/url]

As I planned, I have to test this camera for myself and draw my own conclusions.

Christian
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2007, 10:31:55 am »

Quote
Seems like some other tester came to the conclusion that the AA filter is actually very strong on the 1ds MIII:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124

As I planned, I have to test this camera for myself and draw my own conclusions.

Christian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Huba ! Huba !

 

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2007, 11:51:57 am »

Quote
But Ray, how do you do a test that compares, say, a D2x with a 1.5 crop factor to a 1DS2?..........

You get the idea. There has been no way to equalize the difference between cameras with different sensor sizes; there is always some aspect of the comparison that's "not fair."

John,
The purpose of such comparisons is not to equalize the differences but to bring out the differences so people can see what the different formats have to offer and learn what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Any attempt to equalize differences results in the application of handicaps and unfair treatment to either one format or the other, which is exactly what Ted Pedersens's tests have produced. That doesn't mean his tests are worthless, however. I don't want him to feel too badly about this. In fact, I'd like to nominate him for an award on how not to test cameras of different format and aspect ratio.

How do you do it? Well, first let's deal with the difference in aspect ratios. It is a fact that some photographers prefer a 4:3 aspect ratio to the 35mm's 3:2, and some photogtraphers find the wider aspect ratio of 35mm lends itself more to landscapes and panoramic type shots.

With this in mind, any thoughtful, thorough and meaningful comparison must test for both of these strengths in the respective formats, which means two sets of tests, one in which the 35mm format is cropped to a 4:3 aspect ratio, reducing the camera from 21mp to 17.8mp, and the other in which the 4/3rds format is cropped to a 3:2 aspect ration, which reduces the P21 from 17.23mp to 15.36mp.

Now you might think it is very unfair to compare a 15.36mp P21 with a 21mp 1Ds3, but that's reality. If you are using a P21 and the subject calls for a 3:2 cropping, then that's all you're going to get, 15.35mp. Like-wise, if you're using a 1Ds3 and the subject calls for a 4:3 cropping, then 17.8mp is all you're going to get. It works both ways. There are differences and that is presumably why we are making the test, to see the effect of such differences. Attempting to equalise such differences renders the test useless.

Okay! Let's turn to the lens quality issue. It is a fact that any image from a camera is affected by both sensor and lens qualities. If you want to isolate the differences in the sensors as much as possible in order to compare sensors and not lenses, then the lenses should be as equal as possible in performance and Ted pedersen has probably done a good job here in equalizing lens performance by using the stop of f11.

But what's his purpose in doing this? Is he really bent on a scientific quest to confirm that a large sensor will deliver greater accutance than a smaller sensor of equal pixel count when both sensors are used with a lens of equal quality? (I'm referring here to resolution at a specific MTF. Larger sensors have less pixel density and therefore lower resolving capability in terms of lp/mm. If they have equal pixel count, then total picture resolution is potentially the same, depending on lens choice. However, with lenses of equal performance, the larger sensor is less demanding, ie. it accesses lower frequencies from the lens and such frequencies have a higher contrast.)

Once again, we want to know what are a camera's strengths and weaknesses. Using the smaller-sensor camera at the same aperture as the larger-sensor camera is another attempt to obscure the relative strengths and weaknesses of these two formats. What's the point in that? It seems quite senseless to me, except as a scientific experiment, which in this case couldn't possibly work because the rest of the comparison was botched.
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2007, 12:25:28 pm »

which does not sound and look too promising is this little review with images ....:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124#post2124


once the 5d came out i sold my 1dsmk2 because i hated its weigth and i could not see any detail increasement from the 13mp to the 16,7mp. further i liked much more the sharp aa filter of the 5d and did not liked at all the soft images which showed the 1dsmk2, without usm sharpening.
if this is the same with the 1dsmk3 now its dead for me, although looking so good in the first view.
than i prefer to wait for the 5d update, hoping that in this product line canon will go on with a weaker aa filter, which would mean that again a potential 17mp 7D camera would have the same detail than the stronger filtered 1dsmk3.
 the detail increasement in the comparation above is really not very much ....
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Marsupilami

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2007, 03:16:52 pm »

Quote
Huba ! Huba !

 

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hi Edmund !

Yes you are right, I am a big fan of Andre Franquin, but I do also like Marsupilamis in the wild (Australia is a great country for great pictures and I like to go there again because "Sorry, no Kangaroos in Austria")

Christian
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2007, 01:44:50 am »

Quote
With all that in mind, I'll still venture to say that there are real differences in color and DR that can be observed and which some have already pointed out.  Whether this is significant depends only on you or your clients.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
That may be true, but let's concentrate for a moment on the 'whether this is significant depends only on you' part of the above quote.

I believe it was you who started a long thread recently questioning the practice and need for ETTR with MFDBs. Some time later in another thread we had a few examples of seriously underexposed P45+ shots at ISO 800 from an apparently highly skilled and knowledgeable photographer by the name of Edmund who was surprised and disturbed to discover striations, banding and noise in the shadows of such underexposed images.

Now, it's pretty obvious to me that the larger pixels of DBs, in conjunction with their 16 bit A/D conversion and processing, are going to translate to greater dynamic range. This is especially true considering the differences between the CCD and the CMOS sensor. Even when the pixel pitch is similar, as it is comparing the P45 with the 1Ds3, the CMOS sensor has to make room for additional transistors at each photosite, as a consequence of which the actual light-gathering photoreceptor is smaller than it is on the P45.

So we could expect, even on a pixel-for-pixel basis, that the P45 would have greater DR than the 1Ds3, at base ISO. When you factor in, almost double the number of pixels that the P45 has (compared with the 1Ds3) the DR advantage of the P45 is enhanced even further, comparing equal size prints from each camera.

So there's no doubt, nor should there be any surprise, that the larger sensor will always have (potentially) a DR advantage.

However, when users of DBs start waxing lyrical about the smooth tonalities and extra DR from their MFDBs, I get just a little suspicious that maybe such people are using the same exposure techniques with their 35mm DSLRs as they use with their DBs.

It seems that owning a DB is a bit analagous to having more money or more food than you need. You can be relaxed about wasting it. If, however, you find yourself in a situation where you are a bit short of money or food and you continue with your former wasteful practices, then you are likely to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that you cannot get by with the smaller resources.

I would really like to see a comparison of identical scenes shot with a P21 and 1Ds3 demonstrating this extra rich tonality that you guys are convinced exists. Perhaps someone could provide 3 sets of tests as follows.

(1) The P21 with usual-practice exposure of wasting 2 stops of DR, compared with the 1Ds3 using the same technique of underexposure.

(2) The P21 with usual-practice exposure but compared with the 1Ds3 using best practice exposure for that format, ie. full exposure to the right.

(3) Both cameras using ETTR technique.

From such comparisons we might learn:

(1) if this rich tonality from DBs is actually achievable with 35mm simply by exposing to the right when using the smaller format.

(2) if the even greater tonality possible from DBs by exposing them to the right is actually apparent or needed, or is it merely overkill.
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2007, 07:14:50 am »

Deleted
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 01:55:35 pm by samuel_js »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2007, 11:53:24 am »

Quote
Ray, I feel like discussing how to drive with someone without driving lessons. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I understand your frustration, Samuel, but I'm the last one to argue that bigger sensors with more pixels cannot produce better quality images.

But understand my frustration. There are no proper comparisons. It's very easy for someone to post an image and claim, 'Isn't that nice! Look at the rich tones and sharp detail'. (Your image BTW doesn't show on my computer.)

People are doing this sort of thing all the time. Someone asks the question, is lens X really sharp. I've heard some bad reports about inconsistency. So someone else posts an image taken with their copy of the lens. 'Yes, my lens is very sharp. Look at this downsampled and highly compressed jpeg. Isn't that wonderfully sharp!'

You seem to have got the impression that I'm making some sort of general claim that FF 35mm DSLRs are for all practical purposes the equal of MFDBs. Not at all. I wouldn't be so silly.

But I'd like to know how the 1Ds3 compares with a camera like the P21.
Logged

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2007, 12:30:33 pm »

Quote
Eric,
That may be true, but let's concentrate for a moment on the 'whether this is significant depends only on you' part of the above quote.
.
.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hey Ray,
Yes it was me that started the Why ETTR thread and the conclusion of the thread was two fold. First camera RAW converters film curves work best with normal exposure - so if you practice ETTR then you need to use linear conversion and build your own film curve.  Second in many typical scenes the extra DR of the MFDB and the 16 bits gives us more latitude in terms of exposure that was not there with the DSLR.


Now as far as the rest of your request to see examples of underexposed files, I simply think that's not going to show anything.  Unless by underexposed 2 stops you really meant normal exposure and not ETTR.   But again this is all going to be subject to which RAW converter and curves used.

Well anyhow back to the point.... Ray I can see the color difference and in a compressed jpg so I'm betting I'll see a bigger difference working with RAW files.  My experience tells me this will also translate to the print (for the work I do which is mostly hopefully mostly art).   But once again if you can't see the difference and your clients can't see the diff then why bother?  

I don't question  (as Rainer has written) that in novice hands a MFDB may produce stinky results, beaten by even a digicam in a pro's hands.  So there's a range here - with the higher end equipment requiring not just money but also skill of the user.   One last thought on this.  Learning to see the differences in files is one of the most important ingredients in becoming a better photographer/artist for me. How else can one improve if you can't see the differences?

Eric
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2007, 01:24:46 pm »

Quote
Learning to see the differences in files is one of the most important ingredients in becoming a better photographer/artist for me. How else can one improve if you can't see the differences?

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's very true, Eric. But just as important as being able to see the differences is being able to understand what's causing the differences.

I find it a little disconcerting that as soon as a link to the images of this current test were posted, we had a number of DB owners claiming the P21 images were clearly superior to the 1Ds3 images. Such apparently was their need to have their preconceived notions confirmed, the fact that the methodology was seriously flawed seems to have escaped them.
Logged

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Canon Mk3,P21 and ZD compared
« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2007, 03:55:40 pm »

Hey, why do we not compare a picture of a P45+ cropped to 8 MP to an image from a picture with 12 MP from a Nikon D3. I bet the Nikons wins ^^

Sorry but this test is as pointless as this disscusion.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up