H39MKII vs Canon 5DMKII image crop comparison

[eronald]

I've had the white band treatment
On the other hand, do a double spread, and suddenly the 35mm ratio looks much more useful. Not that I've been so lucky.

Good old Hasselblad square format was more democratic, I guess, you knew that you were going to chop, or get chopped, however you went. But that was before I ever published anything

As for the actual chopping, the fashion for tall tubular models with wiry arms and slim legs and no or fake boobs who look like a spider with four legs is a real issue for the photographers - either you have this pole standing to a side of the more or less empty frame, or you fold her up in some strange contortion, or well yes, you do chop. I can see it happening more and more in the magazines; maybe one day the fashion houses will revert to hiring normal-looking females again to present their image to the buyers. The way the dresses are cut for super-thin tubular creatures, it's no surprise that the only thing a fashion house can sell to the 30 year lady with money is a belt, shoes or a handbag.

Edmund

Let's say Franca Sozzani  decide to print that image on Italian Vogue, you will need to crop the canon shot 25% off, or they will print it with a white band on one side(very few magazines do that anymore). You hardly see ads printed on 24 by 36 ratio unless are spread of a magazine. If you shoot on location and you cannot stretch the background to your liking on post, you will need of framing the picture differently, unless you do not mind chopping whatever is on the edges.
I have yet to meet an art director on the entire world that love to deal with chopping hands, shoes or foreheads, because the photographers were shooting 35mm without taking care of the basic rule of leaving enough space for cropping.
To each his own.
cheers.

[Professional]

I did a test with 1Ds MarkIII and H3DII 39, the result was that H3D is the winner, but even with that i will keep using Canon for what it should be, and H3D is there nearby always for another job.

[hauxon]

Let's say Franca Sozzani  decide to print that image on Italian Vogue, you will need to crop the canon shot 25% off, or they will print it with a white band on one side(very few magazines do that anymore). You hardly see ads printed on 24 by 36 ratio unless are spread of a magazine. If you shoot on location and you cannot stretch the background to your liking on post, you will need of framing the picture differently, unless you do not mind chopping whatever is on the edges.
I have yet to meet an art director on the entire world that love to deal with chopping hands, shoes or foreheads, because the photographers were shooting 35mm without taking care of the basic rule of leaving enough space for cropping.
To each his own.
cheers.

 I don't have the Italian Vogue but a quick scan of my European magazines show that the majority is printed in A4 format (21x30cm).

[ziocan]

I don't have the Italian Vogue but a quick scan of my European magazines show that the majority is printed in A4 format (21x30cm).

Italian Vogue and all its child issues (Pelle, Sposa, Gioiello etc...) are 21 by 27.8 cm. Also europeans issues of Elle and Marie Claire are very close to that proportion.
Still you need to chop a bit to get the 24 by 36 ration in to those pages.  645 and 67 film, and digital MF are  the closest thing to that ratio.

[hauxon]

Italian Vogue and all its child issues (Pelle, Sposa, Gioiello etc...) are 21 by 27.8 cm. Also europeans issues of Elle and Marie Claire are very close to that proportion.
Still you need to chop a bit to get the 24 by 36 ration in to those pages.  645 and 67 film, and digital MF are  the closest thing to that ratio.

Ok, magazines come in various sizes and probably most high fashion ones in the 3:4 ratio.  But since we are discussing precious megapixels  being cut off by cropping we should remeber that a 300dpi full page print for 21 x 27.8 centimeters is 2480 x 3283 pixels or mere 8.1 megapixels.  So it doesn't matter if an image cropped from 21MP to 18MP.  And nor does it matter if the image is 18MP or 39MP.

Best, Hrannar

[Professional]

I am a large and high resolution junkie fan, the larger the better.

Those famous magazine don't work to print on magazines only, they print for walls, billboards, exhibitions/galleries,.... so in this case they always be sure they have the highest image quality to work for, and it is not harmful to use those highest image quality to print on magazines in about A4 or even A5 sizes, still amazing to look at.

[hauxon]

I am a large and high resolution junkie fan, the larger the better.

Those famous magazine don't work to print on magazines only, they print for walls, billboards, exhibitions/galleries,.... so in this case they always be sure they have the highest image quality to work for, and it is not harmful to use those highest image quality to print on magazines in about A4 or even A5 sizes, still amazing to look at.

I would be telling a lie if I told you I don't like resolution.   My point was only pointing out that loosing a few MP to cropping for a magazine is a non matter.  For billboards and exhibitions the aspect ration would normally not matter.  For comparing 135 and MF resolution is not the deciding factor anymore for most type of jobs.  

As I see it one would choose MF for the look and 35mm for speed.  I would probably also have a digital MF gear (I sold my lovely RZ67) if it wasn't so blooody expensive.