Leaf Aptus 22 / 1DsIII

[203]

Nice work Frank, this is very helpful.
Just wondering, how did you convert the Canon image?

Also, such a test with the 100 macro or 85 1.2 lens on the Canon would be great. (anyone want to volunteer??)
I don't have the Mark 3 yet, or else I'd do it myself.

Thanks!

[MarkKay]

I can do when i get back Mon or Tues

Nice work Frank, this is very helpful.
Just wondering, how did you convert the Canon image?

Also, such a test with the 100 macro or 85 1.2 lens on the Canon would be great. (anyone want to volunteer??)
I don't have the Mark 3 yet, or else I'd do it myself.

Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[mikemigs]

Hi
Have you tried the Canon 85mm 1.2L, that is an incredible lens.
Thanks Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes I have and I agree it's a great lens.

However, I was referring to Canon's wide lenses that need improvement, not their normals and teles.

[mikemigs]

The canon 70-200 and a  mamiya 120mm macro prime is not a totally fair comparison. I have been told the mamiya macro is perhaps their best optic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed - perhaps comparing the Mamiya 120 Macro to Canon 135mm would have been a better match.

After recently testing the 1ds MkIII, I believe that in the end, it comes down to this: you do not choose one camera body over another, but rather an entire system over another. For example, I was choosing between the 1ds MkIII vs. MF back, and I knew that I would mainly (but not exclusively) be using wide to normal lenses. After I notice that the Canon wide lenses (I used the 16-35 MkII and 24 f/1.4) were losing IQ at the corners compared to a Hasselblad HC 35mm (personal opinion), MY choice was clear, and decided on the P30 with H2 system. Every users mileage will vary. Just test the way YOU shoot.

[mcfoto]

Hi   Sorry this was for the ZD/1Ds3 thread.
Here goes round 2.Links are below:
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...E035A932B993C39
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...47E81FE5A03791E
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...E5126D62B70283D
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...427115175BAE2B3

This time the Canon was shot at iso 100 hand held on P mode.The ZD was shot at iso 50 hand held on P mode. I will try the 85 mm on the Canon this week. But for now this is my decision lens wise. The 70-200 4.0 IS lens is a beauty.
From what I see there isn't much in it between these two cameras file quality wise. The Canon view finder appears to be 50% larger than the ZD. Also it is at least a stop brighter & very clear compared to the ZD. I will still use the ZD camera. I am blown away with what Canon has done with this camera, this has been a big surprise for me! I used to shoot with my Canon EOS 1 most of the time when I shot film. Now this Canon 1DsMKIII will a big part in our future photography assignments. I think this camera will do damage to the MF market especially in the 22 mp sector. Believe me I love using the ZD & Aptus 22 but this new Canon has really surprised me!!! Please note these sample are samples only.
Thanks Denis

[Frank Doorhof]

What I find strange is your remarks on the viewfinder.
I never shot a ZD CAMERA but the viewfinder on my Mamiya 645AFD/II is larger than the canon viewfinder or at least equal, it was a dark setup

Whatever lens someone uses there will always be a remark that the wrong lens is used
I shot ALOT on the 5D with the 70-200 f2.8 IS L and also with the 135mm f2.0 and never bought the 135mm because the difference was too small to justify the money for the 135mm.

The difference I see here is no way EVER going to be debit to the lens, but as I mentioned before to the AA filtering in the 1DsIII also the reds are indeed totally different in the skin tones, a lens can't fix that.

[mcfoto]

What I find strange is your remarks on the viewfinder.
I never shot a ZD CAMERA but the viewfinder on my Mamiya 645AFD/II is larger than the canon viewfinder or at least equal, it was a dark setup

Whatever lens someone uses there will always be a remark that the wrong lens is used
I shot ALOT on the 5D with the 70-200 f2.8 IS L and also with the 135mm f2.0 and never bought the 135mm because the difference was too small to justify the money for the 135mm.

The difference I see here is no way EVER going to be debit to the lens, but as I mentioned before to the AA filtering in the 1DsIII also the reds are indeed totally different in the skin tones, a lens can't fix that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Frank
Have a look through the 1DsMKIII view finder it is like night & day compared to the 5D! This is another league. I also own the 5D which think is a classic camera for the price. I hope that the new Mamiya body improves the view finder. I am not kidding about what I see from this new Canon camera ( 1DsMKIII ), I was not expecting this! I have never shot with Nikon but there new D3 looks pretty amazing! I have been using MFD for 7 years now & this is a curve ball for me. I personally think the ZD camera or ZD back is really good & not far off the Aptus 22. There has been a lot of announcements in the past few months but Canon & Nikon have set the mark! MFD will move on but they ( Kodax & Dalsa ) have to increase the size of the sensor like a FF sensor. I have posted RAW files, the most pure form of a digital file. This weekend doing this test was an eye opener & caught me off guard!!
Denis

[alba63]

I have posted RAW files, the most pure form of a digital file. This weekend doing this test was an eye opener & caught me off guard!!
Denis

Hi Denis, thank you very much for the work and to make the files available. I have processed the files 0036 (Canon) and 5902 (ZD) in Lightroom which is the most convenient way here because the only converter I have that processes both.

My observations are:
1) Both can be processed - with some adjustments and WB corrections - in a way that they look very similar in 100% view, maybe I will print them later at 16x20 but I would be surprised to see a big difference, except of course FOV.
2) In lightroom it looks as if the ZD files were underexposed by roughly 0,6-0,7 stops, however +0,7EV doesn't bring up much noise.
3) DR: The scene seems not very challenging in terms of contrast and dynamic range but the histogram looks as if the Canon uses more of the spectrum than the ZD; which would mean that it has a bit less DR (which is what one would expect).
On the other hand, the darker shadows behind/ under the more distant rocks out in the water look a bit more mushy and flat than with the 1ds3 and it doesn't seem to me that there is more shadow detail than in the Canon. All in all the ZD files look flatter, more hazy than the Canon file.
I wonder how both cameras will do in contrasty light with shadow and sun at the same time.
4) Detail: Unprocessed the ZD is shaper which is predictable due to lack of AA filter, but it also takes hardly any additional sharpening before looking nasty. After the Canon file is sharpened I would say it is on par with the ZD file which is very good of course.
Also I observed that DOF seems a problem of the ZD: Due to twice the sensor surface the DOF is smaller therefore less areas are perfectly sharp. I guess for landscape shots you have to stop down to F16 in order to have everything really sharp. Which will most of the times prevent short shutter times (and ability to handhold).
A problem could also be the lenses. While at 50mm and upwards there is no problem in the Canon lens arsenal, the wide leses are certainly more critical.

thanks again,
Bernie

[MarkKay]

I have played around with these files as well and agree with most of what you have said.
 I would like to know what was the focus point. This is important because there will be varying apparent DOF even at the apertures used for these images. Also the Canon image seems to be alittle more soft at the left corner.. i do not remember the right side now. I am not sure if the more hazy look to the ZD files are due to their underexposure but as Bernie states in CS3 this can be bumped with little noise.

Hi Denis, thank you very much for the work and to make the files available. I have processed the files 0036 (Canon) and 5902 (ZD) in Lightroom which is the most convenient way here because the only converter I have that processes both.

My observations are:
1) Both can be processed - with some adjustments and WB corrections - in a way that they look very similar in 100% view, maybe I will print them later at 16x20 but I would be surprised to see a big difference, except of course FOV.
2) In lightroom it looks as if the ZD files were underexposed by roughly 0,6-0,7 stops, however +0,7EV doesn't bring up much noise.
3) DR: The scene seems not very challenging in terms of contrast and dynamic range but the histogram looks as if the Canon uses more of the spectrum than the ZD; which would mean that it has a bit less DR (which is what one would expect).
On the other hand, the darker shadows behind/ under the more distant rocks out in the water look a bit more mushy and flat than with the 1ds3 and it doesn't seem to me that there is more shadow detail than in the Canon. All in all the ZD files look flatter, more hazy than the Canon file.
I wonder how both cameras will do in contrasty light with shadow and sun at the same time.
4) Detail: Unprocessed the ZD is shaper which is predictable due to lack of AA filter, but it also takes hardly any additional sharpening before looking nasty. After the Canon file is sharpened I would say it is on par with the ZD file which is very good of course.
Also I observed that DOF seems a problem of the ZD: Due to twice the sensor surface the DOF is smaller therefore less areas are perfectly sharp. I guess for landscape shots you have to stop down to F16 in order to have everything really sharp. Which will most of the times prevent short shutter times (and ability to handhold).
A problem could also be the lenses. While at 50mm and upwards there is no problem in the Canon lens arsenal, the wide leses are certainly more critical.

thanks again,
Bernie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159443\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[mcfoto]

Hi
I decided to shoot on P with each camera as that is how I shoot my personal stuff anyhow. The other reason was my discussion with the Canon rep as he said there is no industry standard for iso 100 with digital. Here are two cameras with the same scene & the exposure with two different looking results. It could be LR as with RD I get great files with the ZD. I did notice shooting clouds the night before while the ZD has been giving me great exposures the Canon in the same metering mode was over exposed shooting the same sky. When I went to spot metering with the Canon the metering was much better. I was shooting into the sun in this situation. At the moment RD does not work with the 1Ds3 but I am sure it will soon. This has been discussed before on this form about the iso ratings of digital backs being different to each other. Back to these two cameras I still think the ZD has the edge @ iso 50 over the 1Ds3 but I was expecting a much greater difference. I think it was important to get out raw files instead of posting jpegs.
Denis

[mcfoto]

I have played around with these files as well and agree with most of what you have said.
 I would like to know what was the focus point. This is important because there will be varying apparent DOF even at the apertures used for these images. Also the Canon image seems to be alittle more soft at the left corner.. i do not remember the right side now. I am not sure if the more hazy look to the ZD files are due to their underexposure but as Bernie states in CS3 this can be bumped with little noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
I focussed on the pool edge with both cameras & you have to remember the 120 is manual focus & I did rely on the green light in the view finder.

Denis

[Frank Doorhof]

@Dennis,

I wrote that I find the viewfinder of the MAMIYA 645AFD/II not smaller than the 1DsIII.
The 5D viewfinder is MUCH smaller than that of the 1DsIII.

I never shot with the ZD CAMERA so I cannot comment on that one

[John_Black]

In regards to the viewfinder, do the ZD camera and the AFD II have the same size viewfinder?

[mcfoto]

Hi
In regards to the Mamiya view finder they could just make a brighter screen, maby have a third party make it for them like Beattie. link: http://www.display-optics.com/products_med...rmat_mamiya.htm
Denis

[John_Black]

If the AFD III rumors prove true, a brighter viewfinder sounds like an easy change.  I hope confirmation of the AFD III happens soon, along with a list of what's changing.

[mcfoto]

I am going to have to buy a 120mm Macro. That thing is CRAZY sharp on the Dalsa sensor.

I will say that the 1dsIII is a sweet camera.

Thanks for those samples. I can get so much more out of that than any test charts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
Thanks. Yes the 120 macro is an excellent lens both in sharpness & build quality.

[Anders_HK]

In regards to the viewfinder, do the ZD camera and the AFD II have the same size viewfinder?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159508\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John,

I have the ZD camera but a few weeks ago I played with the AFDII. The viewfinder of AFDII is pleasingly larger and brighter. Difficult to say by how much but I found it very attractive in comparison. Viewfinder on ZD camera though is still very large and bright but I come from F100, D200...

Regards
Anders

[espressogeek]

Thanks for posting these raw files. Anyone notice how you can crank the exposure to +4 in ACR and you get highlight warnings on the Canon file but not the ZD file? It is odd but on the shot with the green hills I prefer the look of the Canon but on the other shot I prefer the look of the Mamiya. On the model shot earlier in the thread I much prefer the look of the skin tones of the Aptus. I bought a 40d to replace my D200 for better high iso stuff and I don't like the skin tones of the Canon at all. I suppose this is their standard MO.

[BJL]

The MFD makers now have to move into the next generation of chips, like a FF sensor @ 50mp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, this is a comparison of the new 21MP Canon sensor to a previous generation 22MP MF sensor, so in that sense, the MF makers have already move on, to between 33MP (Dalsa) and 39MP (Kodak) in 36x48mm sensors. So I would say that for now MF digital still has a comfortable lead in resolution over Canon 35mm format, and probably 36x48mm is big enough to allow them to maintain that lead. I am not sure why you think they will need 50MP to stay ahead of Canon's 21MP, or why they would need a format larger than 36x48mm to stay ahead of what Canon achieves with 24x36mm.


P.S. In such a discussion of sensor performance (as opposed to suitability for use with particular lenses) I am a bit mystified that Canon's 24x36mm is "FF", yet Dalsa's and Kodak's 36x48mm sensors are apparently marked down for being "smaller than FF"!


P. P. S. I forgot to say: thanks Frank for the comparisons: I look forward to more if you get further access to a 1DsMkIII.

[alba63]

Well, this is a comparison of the new 21MP Canon sensor to a previous generation 22MP MF sensor, so in that sense, the MF makers have already move on, to between 33MP (Dalsa) and 39MP (Kodak) in 36x48mm sensors.

You are right, but the 33 and 39MP sensors are several times as expensive as the 22MP backs. A 22MP back and a 1ds3 are much closer in price, therefore the comparision makes sense and all those who have been waiting for an affordable MF back will also have a look at the 1ds3, scecially if they have Canon glass.

The question is also whether more resolution than 22MP is necessary or makes sense to someone. 22MP (or 21) will get you very far, but as several people have said already, the real important difference is not one of detail resolution.

regards, Bernie