Just received 5ds and testing VS my CF-39MS in same lens conditions

[Theodoros]

Ok, will refrain from being confrontational, so a couple of genuine questions for anyone who understands those things better than I do:

1. Is it really possible to tell the difference on basically smooth surfaces, without any micro detail?

2. Where is that "obvious margin" obvious?

3. Isn't it the other way around, i.e., that Canon file would benefit more from optimum sharpening? It is Canon that needs to overcome blurring from OLP filter, thus an optimal sharpening would restore sharpness.

The attached file shows the area where I see more surface texture in the Canon file.

You've missed the other files and kept the wrong one (that has obvious focus failure).... that's why! Try any other, there are another four there that suggest the opposite!    On the file you've chosen the MF image is "all over the place" on the whole frame (to the contra of the other four files)...  an experienced photographer like you should have understood that something has gone wrong with it....  Still... it's the one you chose! 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Slobodan,

Comparing the zooms I guess I saw some advantage to the Canon. I got the impression that the Canon is a bit sharper than the Hasselblad. Now, DoF is a bit wider on the Canon and the Canon images are a bit cooler, while the Hasselblad images are or the warmer side. But, yes, I would say that the Canon 5Ds is sharper on all samples.

Comparing the Hasselblad MS versus single shot I feel there is a difference.

Si I would say that Canon 5DS > CF39 and CF-39MS > CF39, weather CF-39MS > 5DS, I wouldn't dare to say.

The sharpening question is interesting, it is always hard to know what is optimal sharpening.

Best regards
Erik

Ok, will refrain from being confrontational, so a couple of genuine questions for anyone who understands those things better than I do:

1. Is it really possible to tell the difference on basically smooth surfaces, without any micro detail?

2. Where is that "obvious margin" obvious?

3. Isn't it the other way around, i.e., that Canon file would benefit more from optimum sharpening? It is Canon that needs to overcome blurring from OLP filter, thus an optimal sharpening would restore sharpness.

The attached file shows the area where I see more surface texture in the Canon file.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You've missed the other files and kept the wrong one (that has obvious focus failure).... that's why! Try any other, there are another four there that suggest the opposite!    On the file you've chosen the MF image is "all over the place" on the whole frame (to the contra of the other four files)...  an experienced photographer like you should have understood that something has gone wrong with it....  Still... it's the one you chose! 

I chose that one as it is the only one in the single shot mode and has some surface texture to compare. Comparing with a multi shot mode introduces an unfair advantage, imho.

Funny that you, as an "experienced photographer" yourself have not brought to our attention that "something has gone wrong" with that particular shot in the tree posts preceding mine. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.

[Theodoros]

Well.... now we know... New Canon sensor is better than than the CF-39MS (I also own)... and since my D800E is rubish when compared with my CF-39MS with the same lens attached on both at low ISO, (I use a JAS adapter and have all my Contax 645 lenses used on my Nikons too), I suppose that the Canon is so much better than the D800E (or any other) and from all MF backs to an extend that MF is already dead.... Good thing to happen.... I will be buying some more MF backs at next to nothing prices!   

[gazwas]

Only DOF is different and the superiority of MF (with the lenses used) is obvious. MF will further benefit (more than FF will) with optimum sharpening. DR is with MF too...

I guess we all see what we want to see from these pictures.  

A newly released camera with a yet unsupported chip in all but Canon's DPP that will no doubt see further optimisation with camera firmware and RAW conversion software against a very mature product at the peak of its output.

I'd say that's an excellent result from an AA filtered 35mm camera when compared to a single shot MFD back.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

One thing to keep in mind is that the new Canon 24-70/2.8 LII is a very good lens. Regarding the sensor it is widely presumed that it cannot match the Sony sensors used in Nikons regarding DR, but DR may not be the most interesting factor for all photographers.

I don't know about the Contax lenses, what I know is that some are newer designs than my Zeiss lenses for the V-series blad. But, I don't think the Zeiss lenses I have are sharper than my Zeiss zooms for the Sony, pixel for pixel.

Now, Chiek has done a good test, please has some respect for that. You may not like the outcome and other tests may give different results.

Best regards
Erik

Well.... now we know... New Canon sensor is better than than the CF-39MS (I also own)... and since my D800E is rubish when compared with my CF-39MS with the same lens attached on both at low ISO, (I use a JAS adapter and have all my Contax 645 lenses used on my Nikons too), I suppose that the Canon is so much better than the D800E (or any other) and from all MF backs to an extend that MF is already dead.... Good thing to happen.... I will be buying some more MF backs at next to nothing prices!  

[Theodoros]

I guess we all see what we want to see from these pictures.  

A newly released camera with a yet unsupported chip in all but Canon's DPP that will no doubt see further optimisation with camera firmware and RAW conversion software against a very mature product at the peak of its output.

I'd say that's an excellent result from an AA filtered 35mm camera when compared to a single shot MFD back.

I'd say nothing and whenever had the opportunity trust my own judgement... I've seen so many posts on web from various sources that are "suspicious" and so much corruption happening that I trust my self only on how to invest my money.... Still, other than  my judgment of my D800E being rubbish when compared to my CF-39MS back with the same MF lens used on both... It is also poorer when compared to important matters of photography with my other 16mp FF sensor Nikon too....   Heresy! ...heresy!

[Theodoros]

OK... I think it's about time to think why tests are irrelevant (as market proves) with peoples choices... A photographer uses his tools depending on the task... If I was after a new camera (which I'm not), I would first test it on the appliance that the tool is going to be purchased for... I would never test a D800 or other DSLR on stills because stills are (by far) best done with a Multishot back... I wouldn't test an MF back for hand held high iso photograpyhy... this is best done with an action camera... I wouldn't test an MF back to take "selfies" either (this is best done with phones)... I wouldn't test an underwater camera on landscapes... nor a view camera underwater...

i would simply "test" what interests me ....for the task that it interests me! Is it portraiture? I would then test it for portraiture.... Is it landscapes? ...I would then test it on that.  Is it to photograph feathers texture or dollar bills? I would test it for feathers or dollar bills...

Now,  second part is the aspect to be valued as to what would be important of the camera's performance to consider it.... I guess for art work (my main income) it would be analysis and accuracy.... I guess for landscapes, it would be tonality and DR... I guess for other It would be ...other!  But still think that 99,99% of the tests I see have nothing to do with ....testing!  Heresy! heresy!   

[gazwas]

I'd say nothing and whenever had the opportunity trust my own judgement... I've seen so many posts on web from various sources that are "suspicious" and so much corruption happening that I trust my self only on how to invest my money.... Still, other than  my judgment of my D800E being rubbish when compared to my CF-39MS back with the same MF lens used on both... It is also poorer when compared to important matters of photography with my other 16mp FF sensor Nikon too....   Heresy! ...heresy!

Many love their Nikon D8XX others hate it, some think Sony are the Devil others the Messier. Phase One or Hasselblad, Alpa or Arca Swiss, Broncolor or Profoto, Gitzo or RRS, we all make decisions based on our own list of priorities. I don't think we should turn this topic into yet another format war but just appreciated the information freely given in order for us to form our own personal opinion of the rather excellent range of equipment currently available to us photographers.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

True... the MF files will benefit further from optimum sharpening....

All files will benefit from optimal sharpening. However, the MF files will quickly get limited by their already high microcontrast and resulting aliasing artifacts. The small sensel pitch of the 5DS (and its AA-filter) will allow more sharpening before generating aliasing artifacts, but the sharpening requires some expertise because the capture blur is probably diffraction dominated in most cases, except for wide open aperture shooting situations.

Cheers,
Bart

[chiek]

5ds files, even no sharpen, are completely 50m pixels

I will post no sharpen/default sharpen a few days later because of my commercial job.

I will add various outdoor pictures in direct sunlight, too.

[EricWHiss]

Cheik,
thanks for sharing the extra tests!  The new Canon looks pretty nice actually.   

I think in a test like this its quite hard to make a real comparison since even small differences in where the apex of the focus is between the two cameras may cause one to appear better than another.   There will also be differences in the apparent DOF too between the formats.      I've noticed in my own testing with really high count sensors, that the apex of the focus is readily seen.  DOF is a convention that sort of falls apart when you pixel peep or use Imatest and try to focus on a chart with these high count backs/sensors.

[Ken R]

All files will benefit from optimal sharpening. However, the MF files will quickly get limited by their already high microcontrast and resulting aliasing artifacts. The small sensel pitch of the 5DS (and its AA-filter) will allow more sharpening before generating aliasing artifacts, but the sharpening requires some expertise because the capture blur is probably diffraction dominated in most cases, except for wide open aperture shooting situations.

Cheers,
Bart

Well said

[eronald]

Legacy MF is becoming the less-pixels-less-DR solution.
I guess the sh*t will really hit the fan as soon as Sony release their next sensors, and program their anti-shake to do multi-shot.

Edmund

[EricWHiss]

Legacy MF is becoming the less-pixels-less-DR solution.
I guess the sh*t will really hit the fan as soon as Sony release their next sensors, and program their anti-shake to do multi-shot.

Edmund

Yeah but I still like the MF look, but that's the kind of thing where either you see it or you don't. No point to get hung up on it.  I also like the big viewfinder of MF.  Actually I still like film too.  Oh well, that's the great thing about 2015 - so many great choices.  Now a photographer isn't forced to upgrade to the latest and greatest since so many cameras produce excellent IQ. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

On the other hand I think we are going to see more of Sony like sensors in MFD. Once MF and smaller formats use the same technology, the size advantage of the larger formats comes fully in play. Just as an example the Pentax 645Z has high ISO performance that only can be matched by speciality cameras and still has 50MP.

At an other side of the coin, smaller formats like 16 MP+ APS-C and 4/3 are good enough for the work most photographers do. Ctein says so and also Michael Reichmann.

Best regards
Erik

Legacy MF is becoming the less-pixels-less-DR solution.
I guess the sh*t will really hit the fan as soon as Sony release their next sensors, and program their anti-shake to do multi-shot.

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

On the other hand I think we are going to see more of Sony like sensors in MFD. Once MF and smaller formats use the same technology, the size advantage of the larger formats comes fully in play. Just as an example the Pentax 645Z has high ISO performance that only can be matched by speciality cameras and still has 50MP.

Indeed, it would be great to have a 36x48mm version of the next gen Sony sensor at around 100 mp and 15 stops DR, but that's probably not going to happen unless Pentax decides that the 645Y uses one.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ihv]

I hope for 56×41 as far as the size is concerned.
That would allow to replace MF FF CCDs against CMOS i.e. little more market for Sony.

Indeed, it would be great to have a 36x48mm version of the next gen Sony sensor at around 100 mp and 15 stops DR, but that's probably not going to happen unless Pentax decides that the 645Y uses one.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Theodoros]

I believe that Sony won't care to make a different MF sensor in size than 33x44 cm... I say this because I also believe that Pentax is optimizing their lenses for 33x44 size, if they use a larger sensor, it will probably affect their Lens line and there will be a redesigned pentaprism viewfinder needed.

I also believe that if a larger image area sensor will appear, it will come from Cmosis.... The reason behind that is that Leica has obviously decided to have their own exclusive sensors and the Sinarback line of MFDBs to consider along with the S-series. I also believe that there will soon be a major reformation of the MF market depending on Hasselblad's survival. IMO, Leica needs an MF body and lenses as to "bridge" the use of Sinarbacks with the S-series. The Hasselblad H5X seems perfect for that, since it can both take a Sinarback on it and also have the H-lenses shared with Leica-S via the current Leica adapter.... It won't surprise me at all if Leica decides to invest on Hasselblad and integrate it on their group of companies.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Could be or could be not. Leica's own lenses are also optimized for small sensor 45x30mm. The Pentax is originally a 645 design, so the older lenses are intended for the larger format.

Best regards
Erik

I believe that Sony won't care to make a different MF sensor in size than 33x44 cm... I say this because I also believe that Pentax is optimizing their lenses for 33x44 size, if they use a larger sensor, it will probably affect their Lens line and there will be a redesigned pentaprism viewfinder needed.

I also believe that if a larger image area sensor will appear, it will come from Cmosis.... The reason behind that is that Leica has obviously decided to have their own exclusive sensors and the Sinarback line of MFDBs to consider along with the S-series. I also believe that there will soon be a major reformation of the MF market depending on Hasselblad's survival. IMO, Leica needs an MF body and lenses as to "bridge" the use of Sinarbacks with the S-series. The Hasselblad H5X seems perfect for that, since it can both take a Sinarback on it and also have the H-lenses shared with Leica-S via the current Leica adapter.... It won't surprise me at all if Leica decides to invest on Hasselblad and integrate it on their group of companies.