Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Frank Doorhof on December 08, 2007, 12:14:51 pm
-
Today one of my students took a 1DsIII with him.
I could not resist to take a few testshots.
This was done very quickly, one large softbox:
Mamiya 645AFD/II with Leaf Aptus 22 and Mamiya 120mm macro
Canon 1DsIII with 70-200 f2.8 IS L
With the mamiya I got a little bit more on the shot than with the Canon, but I think the example is still solid.
What I find (and what I expected).
Skin tones on the Leaf are better.
Fine detail is rendered much better especially in shadow areas like the eyelashes.
Also the leaf is sharper (probarbly due to the AA filter in the 1DsIII).
More feel of real texture in the skin (more depth )
I cannot say much more because I shot one portret.
Focus was on closest eyes for both cameras.
What I can say is that as a machine the 1DsIII feels great, the viewfinder is nice and large and the shutter is quiet compared to the Mamiya.
I will try to get a testsample from Canon to test some outside shots with flash etc.
But I think this is nice to already see the difference in fine detail.
Download the tiff from www.frankdoorhof.com/leaf1dsiii.tif
It will be there in about 5 minutes.
Greetings,
Frank
-
No doubt about it Frank, the Leaf is better in every way... no comparison.
Rob
-
Well not in every way
first that's too soon to say, you cannot judge dynamic range from this shot.
High-ISO, speed, longer lenses etc. the 1DsIII wins hands down.
However because all people seem to only stare at the MP count I thought let's just post only that first.
When I get one for a longer time I will do some more outside/dynamic range stuff.
For me the difference will always be there because the SYSTEM is different, you get a totally different look from MF systems and large format systems than from 35mm and vica versa ofcourse.
-
HI Frank.. Thanks for posting these. I assume these were RAW converted using the same default settings?
I agree with all of your points. I will say that I tried to agressively sharpen the Tiff file. I need to play with it more and because i am traveling only on my laptop so may be hard to make a correct conclusion. When I equally sharpen, I find there are more artifacts in the Leaf file and although the detail in the Canon becomes better still not as good as the leaf aptus. Mar k
I also wanted to say I think a good macro will always do better than the 70-200 but i do understand that there are limitations to what gear you might have to try.
Today one of my students took a 1DsIII with him.
I could not resist to take a few testshots.
This was done very quickly, one large softbox:
Mamiya 645AFD/II with Leaf Aptus 22 and Mamiya 120mm macro
Canon 1DsIII with 70-200 f2.8 IS L
With the mamiya I got a little bit more on the shot than with the Canon, but I think the example is still solid.
What I find (and what I expected).
Skin tones on the Leaf are better.
Fine detail is rendered much better especially in shadow areas like the eyelashes.
Also the leaf is sharper (probarbly due to the AA filter in the 1DsIII).
More feel of real texture in the skin (more depth )
I cannot say much more because I shot one portret.
Focus was on closest eyes for both cameras.
What I can say is that as a machine the 1DsIII feels great, the viewfinder is nice and large and the shutter is quiet compared to the Mamiya.
I will try to get a testsample from Canon to test some outside shots with flash etc.
But I think this is nice to already see the difference in fine detail.
Download the tiff from www.frankdoorhof.com/leaf1dsiii.tif
It will be there in about 5 minutes.
Greetings,
Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Well it was what I had on the camera at that moment
If you sharpen you should sharpen them not together.
The Canon files always need some sharpening to countereffect the AA filter.
The leaf files DON"T need sharpening.
When you sharpen the Tiff for the Canon the Leaf file will be WAY oversharpenend.
When you sharpen for the Leaf file .... there is no need
-
Framk I know but the way the Tiff files were downloaded, I could not separate the images so I was sharpening the whole tiff file before i had to run off. i have now compared separately. My point was to determine the most detail that could be extracted from each image.
Well it was what I had on the camera at that moment
If you sharpen you should sharpen them not together.
The Canon files always need some sharpening to countereffect the AA filter.
The leaf files DON"T need sharpening.
When you sharpen the Tiff for the Canon the Leaf file will be WAY oversharpenend.
When you sharpen for the Leaf file .... there is no need
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi Frank
When I look at both the Leaf has the edge but not by much. I will have to do a studio shot with the ZD & 1Ds3. The bit depth has really improved on the Canon. The MFD makers now have to move into the next generation of chips, like a FF sensor @ 50mp. From your our two tests with companies using the same sensor, Canon has really closed the gap. If this is what Canon can do with a CMOS sensor then I think the MFD makers should take a second look at CMOS too. Having been a loyal fan & user of MFD since my start into digital from 1999 ( Sinar 2x2 chip ) I am now going to start using my Canon on jobs now, maybe not all but from what I see Canon has done a hell of a job! Lets not forget about Nikon as they are back in the game with the D3.
Denis
-
Without a doubt the Canon is great.
But you keep the difference in depth of field en FOV you get with MF.
-
Frank,
(somewhat unrelated)
I just checked out some of the soccer shots on your website - they are amazing. You have a way of capturing not just the action, but also an expression on a person's face when they are thinking or concentrating. That is what makes your shots more interesting that what we normally see in the sports pages of newspapers.
I assume that those 'Sports' shorts were done with a fancy Canon (mark II)?
Sean
-
Thanks,
They were done with the 5D.
-
Without a doubt the Canon is great.
But you keep the difference in depth of field en FOV you get with MF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My computer finally downloaded the TIFF...the pictures are somewhat similar in quality. The Leaf one is sharper, but I confess that they are both nice pictures. Skin tones are slightly different. Unless I had the model in front of me I couldn't be sure which was a more accurate rendition, but both pictures are pleasing.
I like to do large pieces of my work. Because I use a D200 I am a bit restricted as to the size of enlargements. But I have been thinking about getting a P30+ so I can make larger images and enlargements with fewer artifacts. With that camera, I hope to be able to generate 1 metre x 1 metre or even 1 metres x 2 metres enlargements of natur photography (macro, landscapes, flora etc). Even though the Canon is a FF, I assume that enlargements might have visual 'issues' (pixelation or artifacts)? Have you ever done enlargements of the sizes that I have noted?
Thanks,
Sean
-
We have done billboards with the 10D and 5D.
It's more the cleaness of the files that counts.
For FINEART print you will need alot of resolution indeed (viewing distance is closer).
I think that when you look at the crops the MF system will give you much more to work with with interpolation.
-
We have done billboards with the 10D and 5D.
It's more the cleaness of the files that counts.
For FINEART print you will need alot of resolution indeed (viewing distance is closer).
I think that when you look at the crops the MF system will give you much more to work with with interpolation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for your advice! Very much appreciated.
Sean
-
Thank you Frank. I think shots like this are as good as any test because trying to normalize crop factors, FOVs, lens differences, etc - there's not a good way to make apples to apples. IMO -
1) Aptus has considerably more texture, it feels more real
2) the hair on the 1Ds3 image is soft, whereas the individual strands on the Aptus are nicely defined
3) the 1Ds3 images looks almost blown; the hot spots above the eye and right side have been problem areas for me with the 1Ds2. one channel gets blown and fixing it in post is tricky due to color shifting.
4) i've been trying to decide if the two images are exposed the same or not. the skin is almost blown on the 1Ds3 image, but the shadow on the right side is very deep. on the aptus image the skin looks about 1/3 stop less exposed, but the detail in the hair shadows is much greater. very different tone curves.
Based upon first impressions I feel the Aptus file has more detail and texture - it just seems like there is more there. Different expressions too, so that may be effecting my opinion. The Canon gets the image - but i do not like the coloring on Canon skin tones - red, red, red... always the frickin' reds... The reds bugged me with the 1Ds and 1Ds2, and now the 1Ds3 has even more reds and magentas.
In the Aptus image the highlights aren't too hot and the shadows aren't too deep, the exposure is very relaxed and the light looks more natural. Maybe that's a function of the added dynamic range in the Aptus back.
-
I feel the same about dynamic range.
I did a very quick and dirty setup as mentioned before.
It looks like the Leaf does the setup with ease were the 1DsIII without being negative has a bit more difficulties.
Dynamic range is very different, I found that out when I switched from the 5D to the leaf, were I sometimes needed a small reflector I now don't use it anymore due to the better shadows of the leaf.
-
IDsIII looks to the red, is blown, and has less detail. But if it makes someone happy, I'm happy
David
-
Dynamic range is very different, I found that out when I switched from the 5D to the leaf, were I sometimes needed a small reflector I now don't use it anymore due to the better shadows of the leaf.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159304\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's interesting. Are talking about indoor or outdoor settings? My pictures are during family outings, etc., so I don't have an "assistant" to hold reflector for me - though there are plenty times I wish I did. Alot of times I crank up the fill flash to offset for not having a reflector. It seems like a good idea at the time, but back home in front of the computer I regret doing so. I like a very natural looking light -
(http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Photographs/Pages/Hawaii_-_Big_Island_files/Media/XV9V9909/web.jpg)
Being able to use less fill would be nice. My P25 should be here around next Thursday, so I hope to test things out that weekend. After that we're off to L.A. for the holidays. Most of the pix will be landscapes.
-
Wow - her lips are really chapped!
Seriously though, I like the Leaf file more just because of higher detail (personal preference). I think the big difference really is in the lenses. MF glass seems to be consistently better across the range (from wides to teles) than DSLR glass, which are inconsistent in the wide end.
-
Wow - her lips are really chapped!
Seriously though, I like the Leaf file more just because of higher detail (personal preference). I think the big difference really is in the lenses. MF glass seems to be consistently better across the range (from wides to teles) than DSLR glass, which are inconsistent in the wide end.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
Have you tried the Canon 85mm 1.2L, that is an incredible lens.
Thanks Denis
-
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.
Wow - her lips are really chapped!
Seriously though, I like the Leaf file more just because of higher detail (personal preference). I think the big difference really is in the lenses. MF glass seems to be consistently better across the range (from wides to teles) than DSLR glass, which are inconsistent in the wide end.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
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!
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?action=download&ufid=2E035A932B993C39)
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...47E81FE5A03791E (http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=647E81FE5A03791E)
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...E5126D62B70283D (http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=AE5126D62B70283D)
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...427115175BAE2B3 (http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=0427115175BAE2B3)
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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]
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
In regards to the viewfinder, do the ZD camera and the AFD II have the same size viewfinder?
-
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 (http://www.display-optics.com/products_medium-format_mamiya.htm)
Denis
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can someone correct me if I read wrong..?
I see that the 1DsMIII comes with USB 2.0 on lt..
No firewire..
This must be a Typo?
CAn someone verify it and let us know how they are shooting tethered and how it works shooting tethered..
One step forward and 2 steps back??
Cannot be
Snook
-
Can someone correct me if I read wrong..?
I see that the 1DsMIII comes with USB 2.0 on lt..
No firewire..
This must be a Typo?
CAn someone verify it and let us know how they are shooting tethered and how it works shooting tethered..
One step forward and 2 steps back??
Cannot be
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Snook
Yes it is USB 2.0
This is post reply comment on this subject about 3 months ago on this form. This is a copy
(Aug 21 2007, 08:56 AM
QUOTE(Mark_Tucker @ Aug 21 2007, 08:35 AM)
I love the human brain's uncanny ability to justify bad design.
Doesn't it just give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to insert that FW cable, and you feel the entire FW port move up and down vertically, due to the constant downward pressure
*
As I said elsewhere, the USB on the 5D has proven to be VASTLY more reliable than the lame firewire in the 1Ds2/1D2 cameras in my studio. I have had to send the 1Ds2/1D2 cameras back for firewire port repair many, many times in the past few couple years.
The 5D's USB ports have been rock solid and plenty fast (I have 3 bodies which get daily tethered use) -- although they still need to be gaffered to the vertical grip so the cable does not come out...
Therefore I much prefer the USB option. Especially because in practice, the USB does not seem slower than Canon's firewire...
I.M.O.
-ron )
-
And for what it's worth, the 1Ds had a full size FW port whereas the 1Ds2 has the stupid mini FW jack. As for bandwidth Firewire 400 and USB 2.0 are the same.
-
And for what it's worth, the 1Ds had a full size FW port whereas the 1Ds2 has the stupid mini FW jack. As for bandwidth Firewire 400 and USB 2.0 are the same.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeh But Firewire to Firewire 800 is not the same.. Sorry.
I recently took some advice from a friend and got a 1DsMII to Fire wire 800 cable. Best thing I could have done. Had no more tethered shooting problems since and the pictures load in way faster!
Sorry but I DO like firewire and find it faster than USB by far. And I have had far less problems firewire connections than with USB.
Firewire is faster and I use firewire for ALL my drives also. Not USB.
In any case they should have had both options..
And are you comparing firewire and USB on a PC or a Mac? On a Mac firewire is Faster.
Snook
-
A 22MP back and a 1ds3 are much closer in price, therefore the comparision makes sense ...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=159644\")
I totally agree that this is a very relevant and useful comparison, especially with Mamiya offering the 22MP "645ZD" package at a price not far from that of the 1DsMkIII. I was only saying that I do not see a need for DMF to go to 50MP and "FF" just to stay ahead of 24x36mm format DSLRs.
DMF probably has other reasons to keep improving its sensors though. I recall Kodak hinting to Michael at going to something like 60MP in its next generation of MF sensors, which sounds like using the 5.4 micron pixel spacing of [a href=\"http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/SENSORS/name/KAF-8300_product]Kodak's 8MP KAF-8300 sensor[/url] in Kodak's 49x36.8mm format.
-
Leaf Aputs 22MP back and a 1ds3 are much closer in price
regards, Bernie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[span style=\'font-size:11pt;line-height:100%\']Can somebody confirm the price difference and availability? I thought the price of the A22 is around is $17,995 which is well over two Canon's 1Ds MkIII[/span]
In case Bernie's comment is accurate, I will gladly skip 1Ds MkIII and buy A22.
Perhaps Steve Hendrix and others can confirm the price difference!
-
[span style=\'font-size:11pt;line-height:100%\']Can somebody confirm the price difference and availability? I thought the price of the A22 is around is $17,995 which is well over two Canon's 1Ds MkIII[/span]
In case Bernie's comment is accurate, I will gladly skip 1Ds MkIII and buy A22.
Perhaps Steve Hendrix and others can confirm the price difference!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can get a used or refurbished one for Much less than what quoted. Not for the price of a Canon 1DsMIII.
However I think I just saw the other day an Aptus 22 for around 8,000 on ebay?
Check around you can find stuff for cheaper and now that the 1DsMIII is out many might want to change. Not sure 100% why but there will be.. Maybe some wedding Guys?
Snook
-
In case Bernie's comment is accurate, I will gladly skip 1Ds MkIII and buy A22.
Perhaps Steve Hendrix and others can confirm the price difference!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was referring to availability (very limited, it seems) here in Germany, Aptus 22 refurbished for slightly above 10k at Calumet, new for 14k - the 1ds3 is roughly 7k.
So, not close really, as you have to add the price for the camera really, but much closer than the lates 39MP generation of backs, which is above 20k.
Sorry if I gave the impression the Aptus 22 is as low as the 1ds3.
But the tasks a photogapher wants or needs to use his camera for may nevertheless make him choose the 1ds3. In studio maybe not, but if portability and flexibility is required... Battery life alone of the latest Canons and Nikons top DSLRs is amazing, they seem to give roughly 2000 shots per battery.
regards
Bernie
-
I'd like to know who is selling new 1DsIII cameras for $7K. $8K is the price in the US and on ebay I have seen them go as high as $10.5K
John, as I said, this is "here in Germany", so of course currency is Euro. Comparing prices between Europe/ Germany and the US has not always been easy, in the past prices were always much higher than in the US, only recently with the strong Euro they adapted prices most of the time, sometimes it is still as much in Euro as it is in Dollars in the US.
So again, 1ds3 is announced roughly 7k Euro here in Germany (hardly anyone has it yet).
Nevertheless what you say is true, sometimes the value of an item is falling during the time you wait for it being shipped to your house. This has happened to me recently. It's a question then of negociating with the dealer.
regards, Bernhard
-
Robert's Imaging for $7299. There's a waiting list.