MF Digital Back vs 1Ds Mk II ($$$ - !!)

[RobertJ]

You raised many points.  I think my brain hurts though.  

So let me get things straight:

1.  As of now, you shoot film with the Contax, (and scan it).

2.  You're pissed off because the P25 costs 30 zillion dollars, compared to an 8,000 dollar 1Ds2 that contains 6 less megapixels than the P25, and in your mind, the Canon is a lot more flexible, since it's in a fast focusing, fast shooting, low noise, versatile 35mm body, and the idea of spending so much on a Medium Format Digital Back makes you sick!

3.  You believe professionals will run away from the prices of Medium Format backs and end up using Professional Canon bodies instead, and then Medium Format Digital Backs will go bye-bye.

"This is truly a  shame.  Think of all the  wonderful cameras that are as good as  dead.  Really.  Stop  and think.  All gone in another  year or  so."

I'm not so sure what you mean by that.  Which cameras are you referring to?  Call me stupid, but I'm confused.  Also, I'm not so sure that all we'll be left with is Canon.  Even if we were, quality control would remain the same as it is now - pretty darn good.  Also, I believe things work better than they ever did.  The technology we have is blowing everyone's minds - especially photographers, and it can only get better from here.  

Are you a professional?  What do you shoot?  I'd seriously like to know.  Or are you just a hobbyist who can't afford to spend money on a digital back, like MANY other people, including myself.  

In conclusion, I think this is another case of, "What if I buy this digital product now and it sucks in 6 months?  What's the point? Stupid digital..."

If this is how you feel, no worries.  Film is great.  Digital is the future, and the future is almost NOW.  The P25 is an amazing tool.  Canon makes a #### fine camera.  

T-1000

[Quentin]

For a technology in transition, $30k is not a sensible amount of money to pay to stay 12 months ahead of the pack, unless justified to satisfy client requirements (which it may be in some cases).

Even a 1Ds II is not necessarly the best choice.  A Kodak will most probably povide as good or better images in the right enviroment - not just my opinion, but also the view of this architectural photographer who has tried both, with the following shot taken with the SLR/n and (believe it or not) a hand-selected Sigma 12-24mm.  He has several similar shots from this combination on his site.  

http://www.tangential.de/_html-seiten/neu5.htm

I post this only to keep some sense of perspective (excuse the pun   ) lest we all run away with the idea that $30k backs and/or Canon dslrs, good no doubt as they are, are the only possible solutions out there.  They're not.

Quentin

According to Phase One and their dealers they are overwhelmed with orders for not only their new portable P series backs, but also their tethered H series backs.

It looks like they're going to be in a back order situation for some time. and Phase are the most expensive of the whole MF back gang.

Photography is a large complex industry, and to judge it from just one persons limited perspective is to miss the larger picture. Medium format digital is hot, regardless of the high prices, and competition continues to heat up. That's what the consolidations are all about, and competativeness is being fed by the entry of Mamiya with its ZD backs and body.

This is possibly the most exciting part of the digital industry right now and growing at a healthy pace.

Michael

[Sfleming]

**** Mamiya is perhaps on the way to being the Canon of the MF world. ****

Gee I hope you're right.  Hope they make an adapter for my  Contax too as I  ain't  switchin again.

Obviously  the  chip is not the thing  however.  It  seems  to be  more about  Canon's  Digic and  Phases  mysterious ability to make    chips  run cool.  If  Mamiya  can steal these  then they will be in business.  Bet they can't though.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Well I guarantee you it's saved ME money. I can shoot jobs at 645 quality that would not be economically feasible with film. So I've gotten more experience and done more work than I would have shooting film. This has benefited me and my clients. If you shoot fewer frames than I do, then obviously the economics work differently and film may be more economical. But there's enough people like me to keep the DSLR and digital MF back manufacturers solvent for the forseeable future, and that's why I do not buy into sfleming's "the sky is falling" mentality. As long as the top-end DSLRs and digital MF backs are frequently back-ordered and difficult to get without a long wait, convincing me that the digital back market is doomed and Canon will become the only viable photographic company is going to be a pretty tough sell.

[BJL]

Kodak's FFT CCD developmeny certainly started with high end stuff like military and scientific applications, but it seems that now their greatest revenue source for R&D is the bottom. The sensors for the Olympus E-300 and even the E-1 will clearly sell in far larger volumes than any digital back sensors, and these sensors use essentially the same technology as the bigger ones, except with improvements.

Yes, the sensors for the E-300, E-1 and also the Leica R digital back are technically more advnavced that the older, larger 16MP and 22MP MF sensors, with far better quantum efficiency, giving higher maximum usable ISO for the E-1 and Leica R back despite smaller pixel size. Progress like this will likely "trickle up" to future sensors in "near 645 format"

I conclude that Kodak's FFT CCD revenue sources at least are being "democratized" by the DSLR boom.

Anyway, I do not think that military and civilian satellite and aerial photography and other scientific CCD customers are going away anytime soon.

P. S. The Dalsa photo was not of a military sensor; it was a wafer of 24x36mm ("35mm format") sensors, probably the 11MP ones used in some digital backs.

[Quentin]

For pixel peepers everywhere, there is a comparison between the P25 and 1Ds II by Warren Roos and sample comparison images are up on Pbase.  

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/1dsmkii_vs_p25-h1_test

See also the thread on this subject on Rob Galbraith's forum.  

Quentin

[Delaunay]

Depends what your main work is.

As I told in some other posts, I believe a medium format camera with digital back is way better for use in the studio, but for all around work Digital SLR like Canons are far more practical and usefull.



You dont need a Canon to kill a fly.    

Choose your guns wisely boys!!!!

And apart from tech specificatios, I dont think digital backs offer much difference from Digi SLRs. I even prefer pictures from 1DS MK2 than from a V96C for exemple.

Is just that medium format is well suited for indoor work. Big live 6X6 screen to compose your picture with peace and time to think and work on the picture. No SLR can beat that!!! It's the only point why I would buy a digital back instead a Canon with 3 good set of lenses and maybe also a teleconverter...and a good macro lense. With that in hands there is no limit to your work. You can even do some studio work with a notebook image preview.

That's my opinion.

At dpreview.com I think, there is a comparision between V96C and 1DS MK2.
Its obvious that if you do few pictures and have time to treat it in PS you probably has more bit to work with. But then I hate the noise in V96C and I don't need all this image fike to work, specially with so much noise.

Maybe a 3rd part software could make a better job with V96C noise, I don't know. But the way it is, for me is hands down for Canon image.

[andybuk99]

i have only recently got into the digital side, i used to shoot on anything from 35mm to 10x8, now all my work is with a multi-shot eyelike back. until you see an image from one of these beasts you wont believe the quality of the files, yes for moving objects dslr is the way to go but for TRUE colour and ultimate definition multishot is the dogs danglies. i bought an s2 when it came out and decided that unless a client wanted an image digitally and quick i.e no time to scan i would use it but it quickly got stored in the cupboard.