Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: eronald on August 19, 2007, 04:05:21 pm
-
It's an interesting question where the current backs place in performance against the medium rez but HI-DR and HI-ISO of the new generation of 35mm SLRs. The Canon 1DsII may be the first, but I would bet that Nikon and Sony have something similar in preparation.
Rumor has it that the 1DsIII has seen testing in a number of studios. Now that the NDA is clearly obsoleted by the very public leaks, maybe someone here who has seen images from the new equipment wishes to comment on that and ILLUMINATE OUR MF BACK BUYING DECISIONS !
Edmund
PS. The Amazon pages have been reposted here: http://Canon1Ds3.blogspot.com (http://Canon1Ds3.blogspot.com)
PPS. The Amazon pages are posted all over the net, including Engadget with its tens of millions of readers. This genie will not go back into the bottle.
-
It's an interesting question where the current backs place in performance against the medium rez but HI-DR and HI-ISO of the new generation of 35mm SLRs. The Canon 1DsII may be the first, but I would bet that Nikon and Sony have something similar in preparation.
Rumor has it that the 1DsIII has seen testing in a number of studios. Now that the NDA is clearly obsoleted by the very public leaks, maybe someone here who has seen images from the new equipment wishes to comment on that and ILLUMINATE OUR MF BACK BUYING DECISIONS !
Edmund
PS. The Amazon pages have been reposted here: http://Canon1Ds3.blogspot.com (http://Canon1Ds3.blogspot.com)
PPS. The Amazon pages are posted all over the net, including Engadget with its tens of millions of readers. This genie will not go back into the bottle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote
Eronald,
For the kind of images I need high resolution and crop-ability I really never considered 35mm film or 35mm dslr cameras a tool of choice. I like the bigger viewfinders and image size choices of medium format and large format. It's kind a like a Zen thing with medium format, so no matter how many megapixels you can pack into a 35mm DSLR, I will still prefer medium format for the real estate, feel and lens quaility. 35mm has its place for some things like pro sports, photojournalism in the streets and candid wedding photography. Medium format digital back prices will fall to a level where the average working photographer will be able to afford them eventually.
my 2 cents
db
-
I've been using a 1Ds MkII alongside a P25 for the past couple of years. In terms of pure resolution (when using broadly comparable optics) I've never been convinced that the P25 had a significant advantage over the 1Ds MkII, and I'd expect the gap to narrow to a vanishingly small margin with any MkIII as specified in your link.
However, resolution isn't the be all and end all of photography...at least I hope it's not! And the P25 does show superior tonal transitions and a sort of "filmic" smoothness to images that the 1Ds MkII sometimes lacks. Obviously any digital back also has the advantage that it can be fitted to a technical camera, which sometimes offers significant advantages over the Canon T&S range.
-
I'm also interested to hear the comparisons coming in the next few months. I'm sure there will be a lot of elitist MFDB posturing about the marginal superiority of a larger, brighter viewfinder, megapixels and "mine is bigger than yours" -syndrome. And I'm sure many 35mm format aficionados will commit plenty of hand-wringing about bit-depth, dynamic range and optics.
I have a feeling that this generation's 35mm format will be "better" in 99+% of situations, and that MDFBs continue to be best suited for those photographers who just have to have the best, no matter what the price and how marginal the improvement. But what do I know, I shoot a 30D and am happy with it - but would shoot a P45+ if it didn't cost twice what the Harley I'm planning to buy.
-
But what do I know, I shoot a 30D and am happy with it
Glad to hear it! They are different tools, simple as that. MFDB are smoother than DSLRs. DSLRs are faster and lighter, better AF. Both have a place and one can do what the other can not.
Have fun with the harley!
ken
-
I have a H2/P30+ and a Canon 5D.
I "hate" working with the P30+. It is big, it is slow,
it is very easy to miss focus because it is so narrow and only one focus point,
it is hard on battery, it is heavy to lug around with 5 lenses, it has big files that eat up disk space etc.
I love working with the 5D. It is everything I miss in the H2/P30+.
Most of the time I shoot with the P30+. Some times I get
frustrated and grab the 5D and shoot with a smile.
BUT when I get back on the computer and look at the result I
ALWAYS love the P30 result and "hate" the 5D result.
It is not only about the resolution, even if that also is a big difference.
It is everything about the picture - resolution, colors, transitions, shadows, bokeh,
highlights, skin, clarity, and how easy it is to retouch.
It is like the 5D is 10 mm "thick" and the P30+ 10 cm.
Many talk about a film like feeling. Yes, it is like film looking at the P30+,
and digital looking at the 5D.
P30+ is smooth and 5D is hard and ugly in comparison.
You can read all about the technical numbers, but you have to see it to understand it.
And I had a MkII and switched to 5D because I liked those files better.
Everyday I get frustrated working with the P30+, I try to remind my self that I will feel much better when I get back on the computer and see the results.
I also would love to see a Canon with P30+ ( or other similar MFDB ) quality.
But I do not think it will happen soon.
-
The new 1Ds mk3 not only has 21.1 MP but also color depth is increased to 14bit which is basically the same as MFDBs. This is a significant upgrade over previous Canon DSLRs and closes the gap even more with MF digital. Both RAW output is 16bit but capture 14bit.
Honestly, I wouldnt buy one of the sub 30mp backs. The Canon is still a fully integrated sealed system that is designed to be easy to use out of the box and trouble free out and about for 300,000 frames. High iso performance is superb, lens choice is extensive. Its basically a must have. BUT naturally if you can have afford a MF and you do very high end work that includes product photography and fashion then the MFDB is still the best although from reading these forums its still a sketchy solution
-
only time will tell.
second guessing anything at this point is fraught with danger.....
looking forward to playing with the new 1Ds3 for sure
Rob
-
Two 1Ds III threads in the medium format forum in one day. Both based on rumors.
Are you kidding me?
-
I have a H2/P30+ and a Canon 5D.
I "hate" working with the P30+. It is big, it is slow,
it is very easy to miss focus because it is so narrow and only one focus point,
it is hard on battery, it is heavy to lug around with 5 lenses, it has big files that eat up disk space etc.
I love working with the 5D. It is everything I miss in the H2/P30+.
Most of the time I shoot with the P30+. Some times I get
frustrated and grab the 5D and shoot with a smile.
BUT when I get back on the computer and look at the result I
ALWAYS love the P30 result and "hate" the 5D result.
It is not only about the resolution, even if that also is a big difference.
It is everything about the picture - resolution, colors, transitions, shadows, bokeh,
highlights, skin, clarity, and how easy it is to retouch.
It is like the 5D is 10 mm "thick" and the P30+ 10 cm.
Many talk about a film like feeling. Yes, it is like film looking at the P30+,
and digital looking at the 5D.
P30+ is smooth and 5D is hard and ugly in comparison.
You can read all about the technical numbers, but you have to see it to understand it.
And I had a MkII and switched to 5D because I liked those files better.
Everyday I get frustrated working with the P30+, I try to remind my self that I will feel much better when I get back on the computer and see the results.
I also would love to see a Canon with P30+ ( or other similar MFDB ) quality.
But I do not think it will happen soon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You nailed it. I have the above mentioned setup myself 5D and P30+ and I agree 100%. I love them both and shoot with the P30+ most of the time. When I need speed I go for the 5d. I would love to see the new canon get much closer to MF. Lets wait and see.....
ken
-
I'm not sure about the ZD anymore, faced with this new information. However, the issue of glass quality remains -- MF lenses are far superior in image quality. Will Canon or Nikon's lenses actually be able to do justice to that sensor, or is it just a case of Megapixel horse racing, like the 12mpx P&S cameras with lenses the size of beads.
It'll be an interesting week, with this now and with Nikon's announcement on the 23rd.
-
Canon needs a lot more than megapixels to make it an interesting choice for me.
The colour and shadows of the previous cameras was not that great. I don't believe the new sensor will be any better in that regard if it is based on the same technology. In fact, with smaller photo sites things could be noisier. I doubt the image quality will match the MFDBs.
No matter what Canon does with the body, there is still the issue of Canon lenses. There is still a tiny viewfinder (compared to my WLF), and no possibility of sticking the digital back on a view camera for technical movements. Flash sync is still stuck at 1/250 (compared to 1/1000 on some alternatives).
Interesting that this body is more expensive than the Mamiya ZD for fewer pixels. By the time you add the rumoured new L lenses to this body, the overall system will be significantly more than a Mamiya ZD with a selection of used lenses.
I doubt the new Canon will be any lighter or more compact than a Mamiya ZD.
Of course the high frame rate is the one big advantage of the Canon. That may or may not matter to the individual. My studio flash system can't recharge quickly enough for 5fps anyway. Which raises the question: how many sports photographers need 21MP? Who is this camera for? It isn't the best solution for any style of photography, but should be a very good all-rounder.
It is also a 3:2 aspect ratio, which you may or may not prefer to 4:3. Personally I prefer the latter. If you are doing a lot of landscape work you may prefer the former.
-
One has to consider that any pro-grade DSLR camera is going to be lightyears ahead of the ZD in operational ease-of-use, from its fast/big screen with live view to a wide variety of shooting options and tweaks. And myriad other refinements. Those things aren't free.
As another poster said, when the shooting's done, all you have are the images so you should opt for the best imagery; but conversely if shooting is too difficult you'll never get the images in the first place, so opt for the most able camera. ... This is why I carry a little P&S in my pocket in addition to thirty pounds of DSLR gear.
-
One aspect that I've always been curious about is exactly who "needs" MF. I understand that artists often do (people who are producing prints for sale), and people who shoot super-sized promotional posters. But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference? (This is a genuine question.) It would seem to me that image degradation in any printed application was be enough to obviate the minor differences between MF and DSLR. No?
JC
-
One aspect that I've always been curious about is exactly who "needs" MF. I understand that artists often do (people who are producing prints for sale), and people who shoot super-sized promotional posters. But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference? (This is a genuine question.) It would seem to me that image degradation in any printed application was be enough to obviate the minor differences between MF and DSLR. No?
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Firstly, in response to another comment above, this looks like more than a rumour. It looks like a real leak of correct information - the fact that Amazon.com pulled the page means something, presuming all that wasn't an elaborate hoax to begin with, but I suspect not.
I'm not so sure about a printing press, but my Epson 4800 sure is capable of picking up fine nuances in tonal gradation, and with more pixels of high quality, one has more flexibility to crop images while maintaining resolution and tonality. 14 bit should improve tonality over 12 bit depth, and with the new processor design one should expect (and hope) that noise will be better controlled by improved s/n ratio rather than just more suppression of image detail.
-
But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference?
I think this is a good question, and there are a few points I'd like to make:
- MFDBs generally have a much higher resolution. Think of a folded ad in a magazine which spans 3 pages. That's 63 cm assuming the page size is A4. To allow for bleed, you will probably need a 65cm wide image. A 22MP digital back has just enough resolution to cover this width. Higher resolutions will give you the freedom to crop, and a surplus of res. All else being equal, you could see the extra detail over a 1Ds2/5D image, especially if there is cropping.
- If you have to push the shadows, you'll get a better results from a MFDB, no question.
-
For Advertising the client is paying for the best and wants the best....They are shooting an ad that will run 30 feet and they think that they need a 31 or 39 mp back. That Dslrs are toys, maybe an art director has a 5D for in-house work. He is happy to see that you have a super expensive MF back, he knows that he has hired a serious photographer(true or not)....This photographer will get something that he can't get with his 5D. If you can't get the image, ie bad auto focus or frame rate then you don't' get the shot---BAD. If you shoot an AD and the agency requires minimum 22mp camera or higher then you shoot with a digital back and you get the job...There are many reasons to have BOTH. In my perfect world I would own the new canon 1DsMIII AND my P30+ That way I can shoot the big AD jobs as well as shoot the fast stuff and get sharp images.
I will save my pennies sit back and wait for the first professional review of a 22mp MF back and the Canon.
Ken
-
I am very happy with my (1month old) ZD Camera (not back) .
Before I had D200 and was awaiting D3x or 1Ds Mk III. Reading up ALOT I realized that there is a significant gap between image quality between any DSLRs and medium format digital. This is not only related to pixels, but the larger area of sensors. This gap will remain with the 1Ds Mk III, D3x and likely also 1Ds Mk IV and D4x unless any of these will have a more superior technology than the Bayer sensor.
The ZD, which is perhaps THE entry level medium format digital, will win hands down when comes to image quality because of more 3D, pop, greater depth and very impressive exposure latitude, issues relating to both the size of the sensor and to the larger format. For landscape and people living traditional lives as is my shooting, the ZD excels.
Interesting with the ZD is also that it was no more cost to move to the Mamiya system than it would have been to move to Canon. The camera itself cost me similar to what the 1Ds Mk III was advertised as. The ZD camera is also same weight as the 1Ds Mk III and the system with lenses is same weight in my bag. The slower system than a DSLR also slows me down to plan shoots more, yielding higher sucess ratio (also less time in PP due fewer shots). The large viewfinder also helps to get better shots. Add to this that actually the controls and menus are much easier on the ZD and frankly what I feel lightyears ahead of ANY dslr in operational ease-of-use, simply because there is less number of advanced auto features that gets in way for my photography and the controls and menus logic and make sense. My F100 did not have a display at all. To me the larger sensor is much to my preference than a larger display.
Granted, in spite of my thoughts above I am sure there are those who see preference for the 1Ds Mk III. It all depends on our prefernces in image quality and our shooting styles.
Regards
Anders
-
... But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference?
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Assuming that you shot a high end DSLR like the 1DsII or new 1DsIII vs. a medium format back, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two in a print ad. CMYK is the great leveler.
-
One aspect that I've always been curious about is exactly who "needs" MF. I understand that artists often do (people who are producing prints for sale), and people who shoot super-sized promotional posters. But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference? (This is a genuine question.) It would seem to me that image degradation in any printed application was be enough to obviate the minor differences between MF and DSLR. No?
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John, MF is not always only about the quality. I personally like MF cameras a lot. Big viewfinders, less coputerized feeling. Much more like a traditional camera.
-
Assuming that you shot a high end DSLR like the 1DsII or new 1DsIII vs. a medium format back, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two in a print ad. CMYK is the great leveler.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree most people probably do not see the difference.
But I am also pretty sure the DSLR have had a lot more post process
than the MFDB to look that good.
-
I agree most people probably do not see the difference.
But I am also pretty sure the DSLR have had a lot more post process
than the MFDB to look that good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to agree with you on that. There's a lot more work in terms of post processing, esp color and sharpness, using HDR to get better shadows, etc. Also, some of us have to resorted to 3rd party lenses like the Leica Rs and Zeiss to get the best out of the DSLRS. I have seen great P series shots coming straight out from C1 that didn't need post processing work. Clients are also more wow-ed by photographers with digital backs. And they usually don't say, "hey i have that camera too" when you are on a digital back.
That said, it's true CYMK levels the playing field by quite a lot, even for posters, etc.
Best
Wesley
-
I agree most people probably do not see the difference.
But I am also pretty sure the DSLR have had a lot more post process
than the MFDB to look that good.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=134268\")
This is no longer a rumor.
[a href=\"http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20070820_1dsmk3.html]http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pres...820_1dsmk3.html[/url]
14 bit data plus the "L" lenses will bring this camera very close to medium format with its own set of advantages or disadvantages. Maybe not quite the same - it is a different look after-all.
For my style of shooting, the Canon 1Ds cameras (and the Leica M8) work better for me. I tried MF and loved the quality of the P30 back. Fantastic files with great reproduction! However, I shoot aerials and people on location. With the MF back I was always waiting for it to catch up with me. The new Canon will give me greater bit depth (which will help in the highlights and shadows) plus the ability to shoot quickly in a fast moving turbine helicopter is a huge benefit to me.
You choose the tool that delivers for you. If MF is right for you - than go for it. If not, shooting with the new EOS is a strong alternative - for - certain styles and subjects.
I'm glad to see MF thriving. It pushes Canon to create products that help many photographers. When Canon pushes into MF territory (ie, higher than 18 MP) than the MF manufacturers are motivated to increase the speed and quality/workflow of their backs.
-
Perspective from 55 years photographing:
I think most comments pro the "DSLR will approach MF" neglect the primary difference; yes, size matters! :-)
EVentually (likely 4-6 microns) we will hit the limit of sensor technology (with a second round with Foveon like stacked sensors, so 3x possible). The noise will be there at a level anything but active cooling will have to live with.
Other than that, the scale moves for all systems; P&S wemt from 1-7 MP and hit a wall. 9MP cameras are not any better and 16 MP will be silly (esp given the quality of the glass.)
Speaking of glass, the wall for MF was thought at 22 MP but at 39 MP (I use P45 +) my Contax and Hasselblad glass is doing fine (though even the wonderful 40mm IF hassey struggles at high resolution, 100%)
The likely limits of L glass (and I use a 14 MP Kodak for C mount rather than a Canon) will be mid 20's, though I hardly ever use Canon (or Nikon) glass; Leica M and R are just so much better that the areguments are like trying to say a souped up Caddy is like a BMW or MB. I frankly don't think it is worth dbating. The market is against the mass produced products whether it is Patek vs Rolex even, or Canokin vs Zeicla (:-) need a good code for zeiss/leica!)
Full disclosure; I am a brand and quality bigot, and yes, I am in the enviable position of being able to offord the best (though not always; I had to buy my first Leica used!). I don't always buy the top end; for years I had a Detroit 'monster' to carry six passengers.
We make out choices in products, but claiming Canon/Nikon glass is as good Z/L seems just silly, as does claiming an SLR is going to 'catch' MF. They are two different worlds.
Now if you mean "at half the price, I will approach the file sized my media client require" you have a great argument.
One interesting consequence of the new 'race' is that BOTH 135 and MF, as well as LF are growing; new products (look at the handheld scanning backs etc) and yes, 22 MP may eventually be P&S. However, we don't have 12 cylinder pick ups and we are not likely to have Airbus 380 size Pipers, no matter how big they try to make it.
And guess what; to Graham's point, I often take my Contax 645 witrh 80mm instead of my Leica R (which has the form and fit of the EOS canons) because the Contax is easier in my hand (at almost 10" it IS a large hand!) and the balance is better
as is the glass
as are the MP
as are the files
as are the accessories
yes; size matters.
Best all
Victor
-
I read that the new 1Ds MkIII has a viewfinder with x0.75 magnification, which compares for example with x4.50 for the standard viewing hood on a V series Hasselblad.
I'm looking forward to upgrading my 1Ds MkII to a MkIII, it's a technical triumph that will certainly be the best possible solution for many photographic problems. But no matter how good it is I doubt I'll be abandoning medium format digital.
A great deal of my photography is simply about "seeing" (that's where the difference is usually to be found between my most successful shots and the also rans), when it comes down to it it's not about pixels or technology, it's just about the fact that I can "see" successful images a lot better at x4.50 than I can at x0.75.
-
I don't think it could have been or will be said better than what Victor wrote.
Here here.
-
I don't think it could have been or will be said better than what Victor wrote.
Here here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use P45 with Contax 645 and H3D39 and 1Ds MK2, they all well deliver for what they designed for (although I have some reservation with H3D39 but more on its operation and design of software and interface, not the final result), it hard to determine what's the best. It is depends on what will be needed for final output, sometimes you just don't need the MFD for something 1Ds MK2 can deliver the justified result. Coming to that, I do believe 1Ds MK3 will be a barrier breaking camera, not much for its resolution but the combination of speed, convenience and low noise - if it is close to 5D at high ISO or close to 1D MK3. The Canon lens may not be the very top performer, but most of time they are acceptable for a lot of application, for very critical applications, even most of the medium format SLR lenses are not good enough anyway.
-
now that the 1dsmkIII id finally officially announced...with the stats we all knew it would have....great....
it will still be 4 months before we can buy one....but the field looks pretty much the same:
the 30+mpix DMbacks won't be seriously challenged by this....if you need the extra quality and don't mind the hassle and paying a premium for a slight but noticeable margin the phase, hass, leaf sinars are still on top....
the ZD back is looking long in the tooth...hard to justify, i would not want to do a comparison at 100....for the same price (body, lens,..) the canon is the winner....
the 5D is still the best camera ever built...price/quality ratio still amazing...just saw a editorial portrait a freind of mine shot with the 5D, available light, 400/maybe 800asa...full page, crisp, no noise, great color....nothing compares...
live-view/3" display: if canon can do this for 8000 (with a body, 22mpix/14bit sesor, 45 af sensors,...thrown in) WHY can't i have that on my phase? or anything close to that? everybody should check out the live-view of the 1dmkIII (with the canon software tethered) and write phase, leaf, sinar, hass a letter...this is turning into a cruel joke....canon includes the best tethered solution, MADE for studio/stilllife/highest quality in a 8mpix camera...i guess just to show that it can....this alone is a reason to throw my P30 into the trash.....but then i see the files on my screen and everything is ok again.....
there is a line in the canon announcement of automatic correction for CA,...for canon EF lenses in the new software......very interesting.....
why i thnk the P30 beats the canon hands down: WLF/finderimage through RZ and filequality....someone else mentioned this here before: DMF files need a lot less post production and hold up a LOT better to adjustments....
-
Two 1Ds III threads in the medium format forum in one day. Both based on rumors.
Are you kidding me?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Medium format forum? Digital Cameras, Backs and Shooting Techniques. Not sure why that is reserved for "medium format".
Rumors? Hardly ... while the information slipped slightly early, it was pretty verifiable and of course is now very official.
From my perspective, the new Canon sounds great, and I'll be replacing my current 1Ds MK2. That being said, I'll still be using my H1/P45 90% of the time when I shoot. The difference is substantial in micro detail.
It's kind of like ordering a steak dinner, if they undercook it you can always cook it more, but if they overcook it ...
If I happen to shoot one of those rare images that I feel is exceptional, I would hate to limit what I can do with it because of the camera. I have several images that fit in that category ... great images relegated to never being anything more than a lowly 8x10 or 11x14.
-
Edited out by author
-
This is no longer a rumor.
http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pres...820_1dsmk3.html (http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20070820_1dsmk3.html)
14 bit data plus the "L" lenses will bring this camera very close to medium format with its own set of advantages or disadvantages. Maybe not quite the same - it is a different look after-all.
For my style of shooting, the Canon 1Ds cameras (and the Leica M8) work better for me. I tried MF and loved the quality of the P30 back. Fantastic files with great reproduction! However, I shoot aerials and people on location. With the MF back I was always waiting for it to catch up with me. The new Canon will give me greater bit depth (which will help in the highlights and shadows) plus the ability to shoot quickly in a fast moving turbine helicopter is a huge benefit to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's my thinking also.
If I had time these last couple of months I would of bought a MF system. The Canon alters my choice a bit, being able to shoot from 12mm to long tele in a helicopter is worth a bit.
The 14 bits might of closed the file quality gap with low pixel backs, I hope they have the AA filter spot on. If it delivers excellant 400+iso images that helps lens quality because I can then stop down a couple of extra notches.
Kevin.
-
If the 1DsIII has the same technology as the 1D III then it will still have 1.5 or more stops LESS dynamic range than most MF DB and the same will be said about smoothness of color rendering/tonal gradations. So in my opin even a 16 mp MFDB will still look better under some situations.
I'm sure it will be a great camera but I don't think its going to kill MFDBs.
-
If the 1DsIII has the same technology as the 1D III then it will still have 1.5 or more stops LESS dynamic range than most MF DB and the same will be said about smoothness of color rendering/tonal gradations. So in my opin even a 16 mp MFDB will still look better under some situations.
I'm sure it will be a great camera but I don't think its going to kill MFDBs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Having the ZD and reading of the 1D Mk III, I recall the ZD is said 12 stops and 1D Mk III is 9.5 stops. Is that correct anyone?
-
I'm inclined to agree with Anders (but then I would, as I too own a ZD camera . Great though the 1Ds III will be, perhaps we are in G7 v G9 territory, i.e. packing in more pixels to the 35mm frame adds little to actual image quality.
Perhaps more important for me is format shape. I much prefer the slightly squarer shape of medium format digital, just as I also prefer the shape of 4x5 and 8x10 film over 35mm film. In the studio, too many pixels at the edges of the frame will be wasted with the 1Ds III compared to MF digital
Quentin
-
Great though the 1Ds III will be, perhaps we are in G7 v G9 territory, i.e. packing in more pixels to the 35mm frame adds little to actual image quality.
................................
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, you've said "perhaps" - that's an important word to underscore - we won't know this until the camera is on the market and tested. Canon has much at stake in the eventual judgments about this camera.
-
I'm inclined to agree with Anders (but then I would, as I too own a ZD camera . Great though the 1Ds III will be, perhaps we are in G7 v G9 territory, i.e. packing in more pixels to the 35mm frame adds little to actual image quality.
Perhaps more important for me is format shape. I much prefer the slightly squarer shape of medium format digital, just as I also prefer the shape of 4x5 and 8x10 film over 35mm film. In the studio, too many pixels at the edges of the frame will be wasted with the 1Ds III compared to MF digital
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
absolutely right....after crop for 8x10 you will be left with 18mpix....from canon lenses....which showed their limits on the 1dsmkII and the 5D....
14 bit does make a difference.....4 times the color information as the 1DSmkII....4000 vs 16000 levels.....this makes a huge difference...especially in the shadows....
anyone who has looked at 1dmkIII files can tell that they are amazing...very smooth...great color....the 1Ds will be exactly the same, just more pixels for a bigger file.....
-
I'm sure it will be a great camera but I don't think its going to kill MFDBs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think any of the MF manufacturer are surprised or afraid of Canon 1Ds MkIII, of course as far as 35mm goes and its convenience we call it progress but MF manufacturers already have products that will put 1Ds MkIII where it belongs ( again not as far as convenience goes). So the game or rather topic Canon 1Ds MkIII vs. MF is expected because of our natural reaction towards 1Ds MkIII momentum, but that's all, nothing more and nothing less.
So I guess this will keep us going until the MF Momentum 2008 and we start over again.....
Regards
Caracalla
-
The new 1Ds mk3 not only has 21.1 MP but also color depth is increased to 14bit which is basically the same as MFDBs.
I thought the 1Ds series have always been 14 bit? ... If true there's still a significant difference between it and most MFDBs.
-
No, the 1D series have always been 14 bit, and if you do your sums you'll see that's not the same as MFDB's (except for the Mamiya)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not correct. The Canon 1Ds is 12 bit. That is stated in the spec sheet.
-
That's not correct. The Canon 1Ds is 12 bit. That is stated in the spec sheet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, yes, just went off to check and edited the post.
-
I have to agree with you on that. There's a lot more work in terms of post processing, esp color and sharpness, using HDR to get better shadows, etc. Also, some of us have to resorted to 3rd party lenses like the Leica Rs and Zeiss to get the best out of the DSLRS. I have seen great P series shots coming straight out from C1 that didn't need post processing work. Clients are also more wow-ed by photographers with digital backs. And they usually don't say, "hey i have that camera too" when you are on a digital back.
That said, it's true CYMK levels the playing field by quite a lot, even for posters, etc.
Best
Wesley
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not so shure.
I was in a book shop a few weeks back, I picked up a Joe Cornish or Charlie waite book (I can't remember which) it screamed 5x4, it wasn't even A4 size. I started picking up other books and comparing, it was soon obvious which where cheap digital, which were MF or even LF. I had never thought of comparing, the difference was like getting hit with a brick. I don't doubt someone has a set of formula that say at this size or that size you can't tel the difference, but I think of it like this, if going to press looses 15% of the originals quality, you need more quality to start with.
I have been wanting to test some MF backs, but I'm just to busy, I have been wondering about getting the new Canon as an upgrade to my 1DsmkII instead. The more I think of it and sum up what it has to offer and knowing this is the best Canon for a couple of years the more a top end back makes sense.
Kevin.
-
Not so shure.
I was in a book shop a few weeks back, I picked up a Joe Cornish or Charlie waite book (I can't remember which) it screamed 5x4, it wasn't even A4 size. I started picking up other books and comparing, it was soon obvious which where cheap digital, which were MF or even LF. I had never thought of comparing, the difference was like getting hit with a brick. I don't doubt someone has a set of formula that say at this size or that size you can't tel the difference, but I think of it like this, if going to press looses 15% of the originals quality, you need more quality to start with.
I have been wanting to test some MF backs, but I'm just to busy, I have been wondering about getting the new Canon as an upgrade to my 1DsmkII instead. The more I think of it and sum up what it has to offer and knowing this is the best Canon for a couple of years the more a top end back makes sense.
Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134834\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello Kevin,
I know exactly what you mean, I stand partially corrected. Those photography art books really have a way with high quality CYMK, and you are right, the LF images really pops. That said, I have learned that high end processes are used certain photo art books that will separate the wheat from the chaff. I am more familiar with publicity/ad CYMK process due to the nature of my work. I have written the post with reference to that area.
Best regards
Wesley
-
I would have to think this is a huge blow for Mamiya. This Canon practically best the ZD camera in just about every facet. For those contemplating that jump to MF, I have to believe this will make them wait a while. I blame the ZDs slow rollout. If they had been out a year (in North America), they would at least had a foothold but with Canon's announcement and shipment being relatively swift compared to the ZDs, Mamiya looks to take a loss. They don't have the marketing machine, reach, tech support or infastructure to compete let alone with the actual products.
I think the biggest improvement (outside of increased pixels) would be the 14bit upgrade. That alone should have the MF makers a bit concerned.
-
I may get my hands on a 1DsMKIII next week and will try to compare it to my H2/P30+.
-
I would have to think this is a huge blow for Mamiya. This Canon practically best the ZD camera in just about every facet. For those contemplating that jump to MF, I have to believe this will make them wait a while. I blame the ZDs slow rollout. If they had been out a year (in North America), they would at least had a foothold but with Canon's announcement and shipment being relatively swift compared to the ZDs, Mamiya looks to take a loss. They don't have the marketing machine, reach, tech support or infastructure to compete let alone with the actual products.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, if Mamiya needs to be concerned, think of Phase and Lead who sell backs very similar to the ZD at 2 or 3 times the price. They are those that should be concerned, not Mamiya.
All the people (including me) who have already purchased a ZD knew that Canon (and probably Nikon soon) would come up with 20+ MP options end 2007. There is zero surprise in the specs of the 1ds3.
I don't think that this Canon announcement is a blow at all. It would have been had Canon done its homework and come up with something really appealing like a 30MP DSLR. They didn't and that is IMHO in fact good knews for Mamiya.
I think the biggest improvement (outside of increased pixels) would be the 14bit upgrade. That alone should have the MF makers a bit concerned.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is the theory, but although I did search more than a bit, I am yet to find any convincing evidence that the 14 bits of the 1DIII resulted in practical advantages compared to the 12 bits of the 1DII. One guy at DPreview applied 60 (six-zero) adjustement layers in PS and saw a small difference...
We'll have to see how the 1dsIII performs in this area, but as we speak it appears to be at least unclear.
Regards,
Bernard
-
It would have been had Canon done its homework and come up with something really appealing like a 30MP DSLR.
..............I am yet to find any convincing evidence that the 14 bits of the 1DIII resulted in practical advantages compared to the 12 bits of the 1DII. One guy at DPreview applied 60 (six-zero) adjustement layers in PS and saw a small difference...
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard, before producing an 8000 dollar camera with the huge investment in research and plant tool-up implied therein, I would be truly very surprised if Canon had NOT "done their homework". I mean this isn't exactly a fly-by-night start-up company - they've been in the camera business for a while; don't ya think?
OK we agree on that (even before you answer! ), so what's the deal? I'd frankly be concerned about buying 30MP in a 35mm frame - sounds like an aweful lot of photosites to cram into a small space. Maybe the bleeding edge of the technology as it stands today simply says that the trade-off between resolution and pixel quality (noise etc) is optimized at 21 MP for a 24*36 sensor, full stop.
You story about the impact of bit depth is really an interesting one, but I'm not impressed by the 60 layers. In principle more bit depth MUST translate into smoother tonal gradations because there are more possible shades of grey per pixel, isn't it? So the added tonal depth will be there in the image file. The question then becomes whether our monitors and printers are blind to the difference between 12 and 14. You know the chain and the weakest link business. But who knows, monitors and printers two years from now may be able to render yet finer subtilities that escape us today. Then we can begin to ask at what point perfection is perfect...........
Cheers,
Mark
-
As I recall, the smallest photo sites used in current Canon DSLRs (including the just-announced 40D) are 5.7 microns (40D and XTi/400D). At this size a 24x36 sensor could go up to about 26.5 MP.
-
Well, if Mamiya needs to be concerned, think of Phase and Lead who sell backs very similar to the ZD at 2 or 3 times the price. They are those that should be concerned, not Mamiya.
All the people (including me) who have already purchased a ZD knew that Canon (and probably Nikon soon) would come up with 20+ MP options end 2007. There is zero surprise in the specs of the 1ds3.
I don't think that this Canon announcement is a blow at all. It would have been had Canon done its homework and come up with something really appealing like a 30MP DSLR. They didn't and that is IMHO in fact good knews for Mamiya.
That is the theory, but although I did search more than a bit, I am yet to find any convincing evidence that the 14 bits of the 1DIII resulted in practical advantages compared to the 12 bits of the 1DII. One guy at DPreview applied 60 (six-zero) adjustement layers in PS and saw a small difference...
We'll have to see how the 1dsIII performs in this area, but as we speak it appears to be at least unclear.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True. We'll have to wait, but I don't mind speculationg in the meantime....
The reason i single Mamiya out is if given the chance, I'm sure most photogs would choose the p30 over the Canon. It's a no-brainer (unless you need speed). I'm not convinced that given the choice of the Canon or ZD that the same photogs would jump for the ZD.
Obviously, we knew the 1DsIII was coming--especially after the 1DIII launch. Before we knew of the ugrades, the ZD just made sense. Digital MF at a fairly reasonable price. Had the jump from announcement to market been as short as Canon's, it would have beat it by a year and firmly established itself. It's a niche product--maybe even more so than Phase and Leaf. It can play with the big boys but it doesn't beat them in any category. With the Canon you have a camera that carries the strengths of the 35mm formats (speed, high ISOs).
Those, like you, who wanted to shoot MF again went for the ZD but there are a lot of folks, like me who's sitting on that fence wondering what camera to follow our 1DsII up with.
-
Those, like you, who wanted to shoot MF again went for the ZD but there are a lot of folks, like me who's sitting on that fence wondering what camera to follow our 1DsII up with.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Darnell,
I went for the Mamiya ZD camera body one month ago, coming from D200. I was actually waiting for D3x or 1Ds Mk III but realized the significant gap in image quality between DSLR and MF. I did lots of reasearch in my decision (granted it was lots of $$$ compared to my D200 or F100). In regards to image quality there is no doubt in my mind that the Mamiya will win hands down compared to the 1Ds Mk III. Nothing in the 1Ds specs shows different. Nor does any images I have seen from the 1D Mk III show different, and we can safely assume that the only difference in sensor is the size (the 1D Mk III being a crop of the 1Ds Mk III).
The Mamiya ZD has a complete different sensor twice as large and with large photosites. Add to that the different format.
This said, there are of course applications for which the 1Ds Mk III will be better. We have different needs and requirements in photography. For those applications the 1Ds Mk III is a great step forward (21Mp / 16Mp worth). The more pixels allow more detail at about same other image qualities compared to other DSLRs. Medium format is another ball game in image quality, unless a new technology would change that. Rumors are circulating of the Nikon D3... I not sure they will come close to Mamiya ZD even if smaller MPs, not even with D4! If they do... fine... the ZD is remains very lovely for high quality images, given that one find benefit in its other attributes. It is simply not only about pixels or even 14bit, as have been stated in several posts above.
It will be of interest to see an accurate test comparison in future. At low ISO, ZD hands down (it is replacement of my Velvia 50 ). For ultra wide, long reach, high ISO, the 1Ds Mk III. And... 1Ds Mk III for sports and wildlife, if one is willing to slow down to plan the shots at 5fps, and accept 1.0x instead of 1.3x and 1.5x.
As serious amateur and wanting a camera to last in image quality for long time, the ZD was and still remains the clear choice.
Regards
Anders
-
Bernard, before producing an 8000 dollar camera with the huge investment in research and plant tool-up implied therein, I would be truly very surprised if Canon had NOT "done their homework". I mean this isn't exactly a fly-by-night start-up company - they've been in the camera business for a while; don't ya think?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They have been in the business long enough to know where to stop their effort and still make money. Where they decide to stop their effort based on business considerations clearly doesn't mean meet my expectations as a potential customer.
OK we agree on that (even before you answer! ), so what's the deal? I'd frankly be concerned about buying 30MP in a 35mm frame - sounds like an aweful lot of photosites to cram into a small space. Maybe the bleeding edge of the technology as it stands today simply says that the trade-off between resolution and pixel quality (noise etc) is optimized at 21 MP for a 24*36 sensor, full stop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well I would not be concerned if it were agreed on that the 1dsIII is a camera targetting maxium image quality with a reduced scope of usage, namely focussing on low/medium ISO.
I am 100% sure that it is possible to design, produce and sell TODAY a camera with great 100 ISO image quality at 30MP (and OK 400 ISO) on a FF sensor. Extrapolating the resolution of a D2x to FF shows 28MP, and the per pixel image quality of the D2x at low ISO is still among the best although it is 3 years old (OK, DR could be better).
I don't understand why Canon is trying to make the 1ds3 a tool of all trades with very good high ISO capability. IMHO they are missing the target segment for the 1ds3. The 1dIII is there for those applications where users agree up front to compromise on image quality by using high ISO.
Now, the truth is probably that:
1. They don't have the lens technology it takes to produce wide angles that would benefit from 30MP,
2. They decided to settle at 21MP because it will enable them to sell us in 3 years the 30MP camera they could have produced today.
You story about the impact of bit depth is really an interesting one, but I'm not impressed by the 60 layers. In principle more bit depth MUST translate into smoother tonal gradations because there are more possible shades of grey per pixel, isn't it? So the added tonal depth will be there in the image file. The question then becomes whether our monitors and printers are blind to the difference between 12 and 14. You know the chain and the weakest link business. But who knows, monitors and printers two years from now may be able to render yet finer subtilities that escape us today. Then we can begin to ask at what point perfection is perfect...........
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am not saying that high bit depth isn't good, just that until now I haven't seen any evidence that the Canon implementation of 14 bits has any actual real world value. Until this is proven, 14 bits will remain a marketing tool to my eyes.
Will a display/output technology to be released in 2 years will be able to tap into this if we cannot see the hint of value today? Maybe, but I am not sold.
The value of 16 bits on MFDB can be seen easily with today's technology already, why would it be different with the 14 bits of Canon?
Regards,
Bernard
-
I don't understand why Canon is trying to make the 1ds3 a tool of all trades with very good high ISO capability. IMHO they are missing the target segment for the 1ds3. The 1dIII is there for those applications where users agree up front to compromise on image quality by using high ISO.
I don't agree,
In my work the camera needs to change from low to high ISO on the trot and still get good quality shots, I wouldn't want to start changing cameras when going from outside to in on a job.
I think what keeps me in full frame 35mm is the range of work that can be covered with the one system..
A couple of 1DSII's and a good range of lenses ticks a lot of boxes, while a much more expensive MF system and back is more limited.
Yes the quality of the MF system at lower ISO is stunning and yes I would like both, but all this stuff is so expensive now and I for one haven't noticed that day rates have gone up to match.
-
I don't agree,
In my work the camera needs to change from low to high ISO on the trot and still get good quality shots, I wouldn't want to start changing cameras when going from outside to in on a job.
I think what keeps me in full frame 35mm is the range of work that can be covered with the one system..
A couple of 1DSII's and a good range of lenses ticks a lot of boxes, while a much more expensive MF system and back is more limited.
Yes the quality of the MF system at lower ISO is stunning and yes I would like both, but all this stuff is so expensive now and I for one haven't noticed that day rates have gone up to match.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
David,
I am sure that there are many people like you around and that's perfectly fine.
It is just me who didn't quite understand the actual positioning of the 1ds3 until now I guess. I must have been mislead by the very question asked in this thread.
In fact, Canon with the 1ds3 has been for something universal, and there lies the fundamental answer to the initial question of this thread.
The 1ds3 is not trying to cover the market of those trying to get maxium image quality. It tries to satisfy a large pool of users with different needs.
It is much closer to a BMW 5 series than it is to a Porsche.
Regards,
Bernard
-
It is much closer to a BMW 5 series than it is to a Porsche.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Petrol or diesel ??
I must admit I'm finding the whole medium format thing a lot more appealing with the price you can get a ZD back for..
Maybe were moving back to the sort of prices where the average overworked underpaid shooter like myself can have both again..
-
They have been in the business long enough to know where to stop their effort and still make money. Where they decide to stop their effort based on business considerations clearly doesn't mean meet my expectations as a potential customer.
Well I would not be concerned if it were agreed on that the 1dsIII is a camera targetting maxium image quality with a reduced scope of usage, namely focussing on low/medium ISO.
I am 100% sure that it is possible to design, produce and sell TODAY a camera with great 100 ISO image quality at 30MP (and OK 400 ISO) on a FF sensor. Extrapolating the resolution of a D2x to FF shows 28MP, and the per pixel image quality of the D2x at low ISO is still among the best although it is 3 years old (OK, DR could be better).
I don't understand why Canon is trying to make the 1ds3 a tool of all trades with very good high ISO capability. IMHO they are missing the target segment for the 1ds3. The 1dIII is there for those applications where users agree up front to compromise on image quality by using high ISO.
Now, the truth is probably that:
1. They don't have the lens technology it takes to produce wide angles that would benefit from 30MP,
2. They decided to settle at 21MP because it will enable them to sell us in 3 years the 30MP camera they could have produced today.
I am not saying that high bit depth isn't good, just that until now I haven't seen any evidence that the Canon implementation of 14 bits has any actual real world value. Until this is proven, 14 bits will remain a marketing tool to my eyes.
Will a display/output technology to be released in 2 years will be able to tap into this if we cannot see the hint of value today? Maybe, but I am not sold.
The value of 16 bits on MFDB can be seen easily with today's technology already, why would it be different with the 14 bits of Canon?
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard, I see where you're coming from and there is much good sense there, but I also think any camera manufacturer is faced with a plethora of trade-offs that have to be finally configured into one package that meets a price point and a target market. For example, maybe putting 30 MP into 24*36 is doable, but has other implications that would have needed more time and money to work out - hard for us at the consuming end to know - we're not in their shoes. Also, as consumers we should not be totally dismissive of commercial objectives, because without that we would not have all this wonderful technology. I'll bet right within Canon - if it's an organization staffed with normal human beings - there must be all manner of debate between the engineers and the marketing people about what to market when. Such is life. In the final analysis as consumers we don't need to care about that. We can only just look at the offering, decide whether or not it's worth the price relative to our own "wants" and buy or not buy accordingly. For example, I'm still using the original 1Ds - greatr camera still and will continue to be - but that extra 11 MP, DIGIC III processor and other features sure make for a huge increase of technical flexibility and quality. MF is a whole other ball-game - new lenses, more reliance on a tripod, less flex with high ISO etc. SO my choice between them is back to the same old - trade-offs between money and what I want the camera for. I think Michael's essay on buying watches hits the nail on the head. No one item can be everything to everyone, nor will it be nothing to anyone.
-
Speaking as someone who uses both the 1DsII and Aptus 75, they are different tools with different uses.
Some of my work needs an LF look, and I can get that by shooting wide with the Aptus 75, Ebony and stitching up 60 megapixel files.
For most of my architectural work the wide angle lenses with the Aptus just trash the Canon 24mm TS-E. No contest. The difference can be seen on an A4 print. I find it amusing that Canon have responded to the criticism about the lack of wides with the production of a good 14mm. A lens wide enough to get a lot of people into trouble. Certainly not something I'd want to use day to day
Other work has to be done fast and the Canon is natural for it. I could use a 5D or the new 40D for some corporate work, completely adequate.
The Leaf colour generally beats the Canon colour in my experience. I'll be interested to see if the 1DsIII is better.
If I had the money I'd certainly get the 1DsIII and replace the 1DsII, even the minimal additionally resolution of 4Megapixel is worth having for some uses. I also like the idea of the sRAW's for some work. Eg: progress/site documentation photography.