Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: lance_schad on December 19, 2007, 01:01:28 pm
-
We just got done some preliminary testing of the 1DSMK3 compared to a few Phase One backs that we had on hand at the time. The images are all of the same subject. They were captured with the following systems:
P21 RAW Scene 1 -1/100 f16 ISO 100 120mm lens Mamiya 645 AFDII
P30+ RAW Scene 1 1/100 f16 ISO 100 120mm lens Mamiya 645 AFD II
P45 RAW Scene 1 1/100 f16 ISO 100 120mm lens Mamiya 645 AFD II
Canon 1DsMarkIII 1/100 f16, ISO 100 85mm
The images are available for download as tiff files linked from our current newsletter that can be accessed with the link below:
http://tinyurl.com/2kpsr7 (http://tinyurl.com/2kpsr7)
The Canon has some nice features and will fit certain market segments and have a place in some photographers arsenal besides a medium format system. As far as image quality goes we will leave it up to you to decide decide.
We will be doing more testing in the future, but this being holiday season and end of year time is tight. So please take a look at the files and feel free to send us any comments. These tests were done up in our Atlanta office.
Happy Pixel Peeping.
Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
305-534-5701 office
305-394-3196 cell
877-217-9870
www.captureintegration.com
lance@captureintegration.com
-
We just got done some preliminary testing of the 1DSMK3 compared to a few Phase One backs that we had on hand at the time. The images are all of the same subject. They were captured with the following systems:
P21 RAW Scene 1 -1/100 f16 ISO 100 120mm lens Mamiya 645 AFDII
P30+ RAW Scene 1 1/100 f16 ISO 100 120mm lens Mamiya 645 AFD II
P45 RAW Scene 1 1/100 f16 ISO 100 120mm lens Mamiya 645 AFD II
Canon 1DsMarkIII 1/100 f16, ISO 100 85mm
The images are available for download as tiff files linked from our current newsletter that can be accessed with the link below:
http://tinyurl.com/2kpsr7 (http://tinyurl.com/2kpsr7)
The Canon has some nice features and will fit certain market segments and have a place in some photographers arsenal besides a medium format system. As far as image quality goes we will leave it up to you to decide decide.
We will be doing more testing in the future, but this being holiday season and end of year time is tight. So please take a look at the files and feel free to send us any comments. These tests were done up in our Atlanta office.
Happy Pixel Peeping.
Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
305-534-5701 office
305-394-3196 cell
877-217-9870
www.captureintegration.com
lance@captureintegration.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, we have seen some differences already... but the theoreticism and charts will arrive soon....
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/p21_1DsIII.jpg)
Thank's for the files
-
The Canon 1Ds3 has the pixel density of a 20D. One wouldn't expect it to perform as well at f16 as a format double the size with wider pixel spacing. Small sensors need sharp lenses used at apertures that are not diffraction limited.
-
The Canon 1Ds3 has the pixel density of a 20D. One wouldn't expect it to perform as well at f16 as a format double the size with wider pixel spacing. Small sensors need sharp lenses used at apertures that are not diffraction limited.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can compare it against the P45, then, since the P45 and the 1DsIII are about the same pixel density (the 1DsIII is slightly higher, but not enough to make a difference). And besides, it is after all the systems you are comparing, so if one is softer than the other, for whatever reasons (diffraction effects or whatever), it still shows what the systems can do.
-
You can also rebuilt the 1DSIII until it is a P45, maybe that is the fairest comparison.
No kidding, I am all for tests in which you are just using bodies and comparing the results. This is also the way I photograph.
If I am photographing something I am not thinking about the fact whether my pixel-size or sensor-size is up to the task.
-
Dynamic range/contrast.
Change the curve of the Canon shot to make it darker and it will look better (much better), however blacks will be gone (no shadow detail).
That's what I see everytime when I change between the 5D and Leaf Aptus 22.
The MF backs have MUCH greater contrast range.
A large part of our perceived sharpness is in contrast .
The MF back file has MUCH more detail without a doubt but the contrast is for the me the thing that jumps out.
The letters on the 1DsIII file are very light compared to the nice dark version in the back.
While the black frame is on both dark.
-
As the evaluation of this comparison is obviously much the question of religious affiliation, I see the need to declare, that
1. I am a Canon 40D owner,
2. I don't care for the label on my camera (I carried my Zensa Bronica a decade long in a large Nikon bag, for that offered the best arrangement :-);
3. I don't intend to purchase any of the cameras involved in the test.
So, I am interested purely on the photographic/digital side of the comparison without any personal/emotional involvement.
I have several problems with the comparison.
1. I don't see, which Canon 85mm lens has been used. There are two of them, the 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.2L. I am afraid, that the 85mm f/1.8 has been used, which is a very good lens on a cropping camera, but it is ridiculous to put it on an FF, $7000 camera. The 85mm f/1.2L has a never version "for digital", and I don't believe, that the owner of the 1DsMkIII would put any other on his camera. Or, has the P45 been tested with a Coke bottle?
2. It is dishonest (though expectable between competitors) to present processed images. The processing (raw conversion) plays a huge role, and it is funny to say, "look, how bad the other image is, if I process it".
The raw images have to be presented, and let's see, who what can make out of them.
For a starter:
- the 1DsMkII image is much brighter than the P45, and the mid- to brighter areas (not only the highlights) are less contrasty. I adjusted a bit, and suddenly it looks very different , for example the structure of the stonework in the forground becomes visible, the "Visit" signe gets more clear
- the P45 image is strongly sharpened; in fact, it is over-sharpened for pixel peeping, while the 1DsMkII image is undersharpened (if at all).
So, put up those raws and see, what can be made out them (and where is is written in stone, that DPP has to be used, not another raw processor - since when is the raw processor part of the "system"?)
-
As the evaluation of this comparison is obviously much the question of religious affiliation, I see the need to declare, that
1. I am a Canon 40D owner,
2. I don't care for the label on my camera (I carried my Zensa Bronica a decade long in a large Nikon bag, for that offered the best arrangement :-);
3. I don't intend to purchase any of the cameras involved in the test.
So, I am interested purely on the photographic/digital side of the comparison without any personal/emotional involvement.
I have several problems with the comparison.
1. I don't see, which Canon 85mm lens has been used. There are two of them, the 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.2L. I am afraid, that the 85mm f/1.8 has been used, which is a very good lens on a cropping camera, but it is ridiculous to put it on an FF, $7000 camera. The 85mm f/1.2L has a never version "for digital", and I don't believe, that the owner of the 1DsMkIII would put any other on his camera. Or, has the P45 been tested with a Coke bottle?
2. It is dishonest (though expectable between competitors) to present processed images. The processing (raw conversion) plays a huge role, and it is funny to say, "look, how bad the other image is, if I process it".
The raw images have to be presented, and let's see, who what can make out of them.
For a starter:
- the 1DsMkII image is much brighter than the P45, and the mid- to brighter areas (not only the highlights) are less contrasty. I adjusted a bit, and suddenly it looks very different , for example the structure of the stonework in the forground becomes visible, the "Visit" signe gets more clear
- the P45 image is strongly sharpened; in fact, it is over-sharpened for pixel peeping, while the 1DsMkII image is undersharpened (if at all).
So, put up those raws and see, what can be made out them (and where is is written in stone, that DPP has to be used, not another raw processor - since when is the raw processor part of the "system"?)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We know it hurts, but this is the reality. Every test will show you the same results. But don't worry, we will be here waiting for your theories and explanations.
The whole comparison is like saying "I can't create a Picasso myself but show me one and I'll copy it".
-
I suppose if some of you guys were asked to compare 35mm with 8x10" format, you'd shoot a landscape with your usual f64 and then get confused because you couldn't find an f64 on the 35mm lens .
Here are a couple of crop comparisons of the foreground of the 1Ds3 shot, before darkening and after darkening, plus a bit of contrast enhancement.
The P21 is on top.
[attachment=4319:attachment] [attachment=4318:attachment]
-
this is the reality. Every test will show you the same results
Do you maintain a personalized reality, free of facts? Why are you afraid of a somewhat more objective comparison? No matter, what the result would be, that makes none of the cameras better, nor worse.
Most probably the top MFs are really better in certain settings, than the 1DsMkIII; it would be a shame otherwise. However, now the gap is probably smaller than before, which has only one serious consequence: new buyers have to thoroughly analyze if it is a good deal to pay several tens of thousands of dollars for the difference.
-
Here we go again... while I do not generally see the point of this comparison, because every camera is for different purpose and that is why I personally own both digital medium format and Dslr, I have to admit there is something strange going on with the 1ds MkIII on this test. I would like to see the original RAW files to be honest. I would not epect huge differences between a P21 and a MkIII, I mean there will most defenetally be differences but not this. Could we pease see the raws? I have seen other comparisons on the net that "proved" things differently, so we need the Raws to be more precise,
thanks,
George
-
Do you maintain a personalized reality, free of facts? Why are you afraid of a somewhat more objective comparison? No matter, what the result would be, that makes none of the cameras better, nor worse.
Most probably the top MFs are really better in certain settings, than the 1DsMkIII; it would be a shame otherwise. However, now the gap is probably smaller than before, which has only one serious consequence: new buyers have to thoroughly analyze if it is a good deal to pay several tens of thousands of dollars for the difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually the difference in price isn't that big anymore.
My opinions are based in total reality. I own a MFB and I know how they can perform.
I'll leave the rest of the thread for you guys. I have a flight to take in the morning. Spain is waiting...
Merry Christmas Everyone.
-
RAW files please...
-
i just posted this post in another forum, but i think i want it t be seen here too. ofcourse i like to work with mf and i see clearly the advantages for my work, but i dont think it serves anyone and even not any manufactors to create so much hype about the incredible clear advantage of mf, independent which back it is as long its mf. this is i.m.o. done with "tests" as this.
seeing the same crops than are showed here, let me think that the whole test seems to be - as so often - some marketing thing and little bit more.
the p21 ( and the other p files ) are sharpened and contrast treated, meanwhile the canon is not. sharpen the canon file, bring the crop to a similar size than the p files ( even upsampling does this job ), make some shadows/highlight contrast increasements in PS and the contrast and detail is not far from the p21 anymore,- where this things obviously have been done already.
its not a fair comparision and its not done with the goal to be fair..... or i am wrong herein?
found a nice link also in the net, and this one explains very well why i am not so good friend with the kodak sensors in general.
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Ha...H3D/index.html (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Ha...H3D/index.html)
since generations they show exactly the kind of flaws which are described and shown here in this test. it doesnt matter if a leica, kodak, p1 or hasselblad is around ,- this behavor is "kodak - sensor design " specific and i personnally dont like it. i prefere dalsa sensors therefor, although the 33mp sensor has lost some of the advantages ´the 22mp sensor yet has had ( but gained others as well so finally its an improvement not just in terms of resolution ).
about the canon 1dsmk3:
i think they made a great job,- although i will not buy one but wait for the 5dmk2 and doing what i already do:
shooting with my sinar backs.
-
my comment to those tests: not fair and one can get much more out of the 1 DSMKIII. Simply adjust the contrast and add some sharpening.
Thierry
-
hi Rainer,
absolutely in accordance with you!
Cheers,
Thierry
i just posted this post in another forum, but i think i want it t be seen here too. ofcourse i like to work with mf and i see clearly the advantages for my work, but i dont think it serves anyone and even not any manufactors to create so much hype about the incredible clear advantage of mf, independent which back it is as long its mf. this is i.m.o. done with "tests" as this.
seeing the same crops than are showed here, let me think that the whole test seems to be - as so often - some marketing thing and little bit more.
the p21 ( and the other p files ) are sharpened and contrast treated, meanwhile the canon is not. sharpen the canon file, bring the crop to a similar size than the p files ( even upsampling does this job ), make some shadows/highlight contrast increasements in PS and the contrast and detail is not far from the p21 anymore,- where this things obviously have been done already.
its not a fair comparision and its not done with the goal to be fair..... or i am wrong herein?
found a nice link also in the net, and this one explains very well why i am not so good friend with the kodak sensors in general.
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Ha...H3D/index.html (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Ha...H3D/index.html)
since generations they show exactly the kind of flaws which are described and shown here in this test. it doesnt matter if a leica, kodak, p1 or hasselblad is around ,- this behavor is "kodak - sensor design " specific and i personnally dont like it. i prefere dalsa sensors therefor, although the 33mp sensor has lost some of the advantages ´the 22mp sensor yet has had ( but gained others as well so finally its an improvement not just in terms of resolution ).
about the canon 1dsmk3:
i think they made a great job,- although i will not buy one but wait for the 5dmk2 and doing what i already do:
shooting with my sinar backs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I sharpened the P45 file and the Canon 1Ds3 file with USM, 300, .3, 0, and I prefer the image quality of the 1Ds3 over the P45. The Phase is kind of mushy. If I could get my hands on the RAW files, both files would look a whole hell of a lot better, and the P45 would do much better, but with these files, the difference between 39 and 21MP is surprisingly SMALL.
And I see you used DPP for the Canon file. Tsk, tsk.
-
my comment to those tests: not fair and one can get much more out of the 1 DSMKIII. Simply adjust the contrast and add some sharpening.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
as an owner of both an afd2/leaf back and a 1ds3, i have to concur with you....
interestingly enough, i have not felt compelled to do an image quality comparison: different tools, different strenghts and weaknesses...
the op also picked two dramatically different lenses with different optical qualities/characteristics for use in the comparison...if i were so moved to try to compare images from the two cameras, neither of the canon 85's would be my choice to shoot against the mamiya macro.
-
I think we all come to the consensus that not one product does everything. Look a carpenter has many different types of hammers, because you would not use a sledge to drive in a tack.
Yes you can also do some massaging to get the 1dsMK3 files to look closer to the Phase files, but that is time, when the Phase files look good right out of the chute without post. If you need extreme portability and fast frame rates, then you have no choice but to go DSLR.
Thats why we sell both solutions Canons and Phase One. There is no one solution. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and there is room for both in the photo world.
Have a happy holiday season.
L
Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
305-534-5701 office
305-394-3196 cell
www.captureintegration.com
lance@captureintegration.com
-
Yes you can also do some massaging to get the 1dsMK3 files to look closer to the Phase files, but that is time, when the Phase files look good right out of the chute without post
Plain BS.
-
Do you know what I see in this test?
- The mark III is a very good camera, and it produces a result that is very usable.
- DMF is still king of the hill: higher resolution, dynamic range, sharpness etc...
conclusion: The MkIII holds it's own, and is a good alternative for when DMF is not available, too expensive or unworkable (low light etc). The MK III is also a killer back-up for any MDF shooter.
I don't want to be arrogant, but doesn't that quite sum it up?
regards,
Mike
-
Do you know what I see in this test?
- The mark III is a very good camera, and it produces a result that is very usable.
- DMF is still king of the hill: higher resolution, dynamic range, sharpness etc...
conclusion: The MkIII holds it's own, and is a good alternative for when DMF is not available, too expensive or unworkable (low light etc). The MK III is also a killer back-up for any MDF shooter.
I don't want to be arrogant, but doesn't that quite sum it up?
regards,
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well said Mike. I use both systems and agree with your summing up.
Bill
-
Rainer, your link is broken.
Edmund
i just posted this post in another forum, but i think i want it t be seen here too. ofcourse i like to work with mf and i see clearly the advantages for my work, but i dont think it serves anyone and even not any manufactors to create so much hype about the incredible clear advantage of mf, independent which back it is as long its mf. this is i.m.o. done with "tests" as this.
seeing the same crops than are showed here, let me think that the whole test seems to be - as so often - some marketing thing and little bit more.
the p21 ( and the other p files ) are sharpened and contrast treated, meanwhile the canon is not. sharpen the canon file, bring the crop to a similar size than the p files ( even upsampling does this job ), make some shadows/highlight contrast increasements in PS and the contrast and detail is not far from the p21 anymore,- where this things obviously have been done already.
its not a fair comparision and its not done with the goal to be fair..... or i am wrong herein?
found a nice link also in the net, and this one explains very well why i am not so good friend with the kodak sensors in general.
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Ha...H3D/index.html (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Ha...H3D/index.html)
since generations they show exactly the kind of flaws which are described and shown here in this test. it doesnt matter if a leica, kodak, p1 or hasselblad is around ,- this behavor is "kodak - sensor design " specific and i personnally dont like it. i prefere dalsa sensors therefor, although the 33mp sensor has lost some of the advantages ´the 22mp sensor yet has had ( but gained others as well so finally its an improvement not just in terms of resolution ).
about the canon 1dsmk3:
i think they made a great job,- although i will not buy one but wait for the 5dmk2 and doing what i already do:
shooting with my sinar backs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
now let's compare a Rolls Royce with a Mercedes S550...both great cars but one (the 1st one) is 350K and the 2nd (merc) is "only" 130K......they are both great but there is a difference. Is the difference noticably? Yes. Can you live with a Merc? Yes
It is nonsense the compare them.
I work with both systems (A65 and MkII) and both serve a purpose. And yes if you work on the MkIII image you will be able to get it very close to the 45 image. I personally (but that is very personal) don't like the 45 images, because they look to digital to me!! The MkIII image was too light in the examples posted. BUT both images are pretty damn good!
-
Rainer, your link is broken.
Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=161848\")
[a href=\"http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/index.html]http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/index.html[/url]
-
The real problem of the 1DsMIII for me lies in the lenses. I have a nice colection of Canon glass that performed beautifully with the first 1Ds. When I upgraded to the MII then some of them perfomed less well due to the increased resolution, with added work in my sharpening routines, which will only get more picky with the MIII. Now, what sense does it make for me to upgrade to the MIII if my lenses are not up to the job? It would be like crippling the sensor. And to be clear I only own L lenses, except for the 50 1.4, which incidentally performs better than most of them.
So I wouldn't buy just the body, but a full kit of probably Leica or Zeis glass especially on the wide side (which many people here swear are way better than Canon glass. I don't know since I've never tried them on my canons). Under that premise it isn't that cheap to jump into the high mpx count by just buying a DSLR like the 1DsMIII.
-
Michael - can we just have a new forum where it's FF35 vs MFDB so we can get all those posts off the MF forum? PLEASE?
the outcome is the same every time
round and round we go
-
Good Idea!
-
The real problem of the 1DsMIII for me lies in the lenses. I have a nice colection of Canon glass that performed beautifully with the first 1Ds. When I upgraded to the MII then some of them perfomed less well due to the increased resolution, with added work in my sharpening routines, which will only get more picky with the MIII. Now, what sense does it make for me to upgrade to the MIII if my lenses are not up to the job? It would be like crippling the sensor. And to be clear I only own L lenses, except for the 50 1.4, which incidentally performs better than most of them.
So I wouldn't buy just the body, but a full kit of probably Leica or Zeis glass especially on the wide side (which many people here swear are way better than Canon glass. I don't know since I've never tried them on my canons). Under that premise it isn't that cheap to jump into the high mpx count by just buying a DSLR like the 1DsMIII.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not just the lens, it's the aperture used. Photodo, famous for their now-discontinued MTF testing, explained that the reason they never took the trouble to test the lenses at f11 is because they found that all lenses are equally bad at f11.
Perhaps that's a slight exaggeration, but certainly less of an exaggeration at f16.
By using f16 for all cameras in this test, one is ensuring as far as possible that all the lenses are equal, so in a sense this is a perfectly valid test for that purpose, ie. how does the 1Ds3 compare with sensors double the size when the lenses used are equal?
One could do a similar comparison between the latest Olympus 4/3rds camera, the E-3, and the 1Ds or 5D. Using a Zuiko lens at f16 would rob the lens of its resolution advantage compared with 35mm lenses, an advantage which it actually needs because the sensor is smaller.
It's a matter of simple mathematics that the smaller sensor cannot compete with the larger sensor (of similar pixel count) unless the lenses used with the smaller sensor are better, that is, have a higher MTF response at the same spatial frequency.
Now the differences in format size between the Olympus 4/3rds format and 35mm is greater than the difference between 35mm and the P21, so one would expect any comparison between 35mm and the 4/3rds system at f16 to be even more disastrous for the 4/3rds system.
-
It is impossible to conduct any test that will make everyone happy.
My company has reached the point where we have to let much of what is said on forums go in one ear and out the other. This is much easier said than done. I am not going to take time to argue on any forum about the merits of our test because simply, this was our test done for us. It was not to prove anything other than for us to gain knowledge from it. We share these images with you in hopes that we all may gain from the discussion that follows. I take strong offense to anyone who points a finger and accuses us of dishonesty or anything that shows lack of integrity. My company and I have built a strong reputation internationally in this photo market over the last few years and I challenge anyone to say otherwise.
To clear up the confusion let me state the following:
We are resellers of Phase One and of Canon.
We did absolutely nothing to these files other than process them in their native raw processor.
We chose DPP due to the fact that C1 pro 3.7.8 can not yet process the 1Ds MIII files.
We intentionally did not change any contrast or sharpening in these files so as to leave them as close to native as possible. Tweaking or modifications are up to you at your pleasure.
We chose the Mamiya camera since we had all three MF backs that day that were not rented or at a demo. From there we wanted to find fixed focal (non telephoto) lenses that matched aspect ratios to images sensors.
The Mamiya 120mm Macro and the Canon 85mm f/1.2 are two sharp lenses from each manufacturer and they fit the aspect ratio perfectly.
Again, no test is perfect.
However, if we were to venture out and shoot another test I would ask them to chose f/8 as a happy medium between each lens's MTF curve. We will remember this for future testing.
As for the "sales" statements by our new salesman Lance, we will remind him that he now works for Capture Integration and not Phase One. Our company lets products stand on their own merits where sales commentary is not necessary.
If anyone has any individual questions on these shots or has any suggestions for additional testing, please always feel free to contact myself or any of my personnel directly.
-
We intentionally did not change any contrast or sharpening in these files so as to leave them as close to native as possible
So the left image was not sharpened, correct? The halo must be a byproduct of the sensor.
-
However, if we were to venture out and shoot another test I would ask them to chose f/8 as a happy medium between each lens's MTF curve. We will remember this for future testing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm curious, Dave, as to the reasons why you would use the same f stop when shooting with diffrerent formats with equivalent focal lengths and fields of view.
If you were in the studio with a P21 with say 110mm lens and a 1Ds3 with 85mm lens, and you were photographing a model and wanted a certain fairly shallow DoF that required say f5.6 with the Mamiya 110mm lens, then wanted to see how the 1Ds3 would compare in this situation, it would be a mistake to use the 1Ds3 at f5.6, would it not? You wouldn't get the same shallow DoF with the shorter focal length from the same distance.
You would probably get a closer match regarding DoF by using the 1Ds3 at f4 in these circumstances.
-
I'm curious, Dave, as to the reasons why you would use the same f stop when shooting with diffrerent formats with equivalent focal lengths and fields of view.
If you were in the studio with a P21 with say 110mm lens and a 1Ds3 with 85mm lens, and you were photographing a model and wanted a certain fairly shallow DoF that required say f5.6 with the Mamiya 110mm lens, then wanted to see how the 1Ds3 would compare in this situation, it would be a mistake to use the 1Ds3 at f5.6, would it not? You wouldn't get the same shallow DoF with the shorter focal length from the same distance.
You would probably get a closer match regarding DoF by using the 1Ds3 at f4 in these circumstances.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah but Ray, then the exposure would be different as well. Do we change ISO to compensate and add noise? Add a ND Filter and thus more glass? Change shutter speeds?
We were just trying to keep as many variables consistent as possible. We were not trying worried about DoF since we were pretty much at ∞ anyway. But this is why no test is perfect.
-
Lance and Dave,
Just post the raw files - what's the big deal?
-
Ah but Ray, then the exposure would be different as well. Do we change ISO to compensate and add noise? Add a ND Filter and thus more glass? Change shutter speeds?
We were just trying to keep as many variables consistent as possible. We were not trying worried about DoF since we were pretty much at ∞ anyway. But this is why no test is perfect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah! I see. So what you are implying is that you might want to use a slow shutter speed with the P21 in order to get a blurred effect as the model tosses her head. Right?
Using the 1Ds3 at double the shutter speed would make this effect impossible.
Well, if that's the case, then you'd just have to use a neutral density filter with the 1Ds3 or reduce the intensity of the lighting. Using a neutral density filter would be easier, and I guess you professionals would use the best filters available. I would not complain if the artistic intention of the shot was explained and the reasons for using a filter.
-
I am not going to take time to argue on any forum about the merits of our test because simply, this was our test done for us. It was not to prove anything other than for us to gain knowledge from it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fine and dandy as far as that goes, but the moment you "publish" such a test publicly, you will be held up to public scrutiny–and if you don't want the scrutiny, don't publish...
If somebody, who actually SELLS the cameras, publishes a "test", then it's only natural for others to question both the test and the motives. If you can't handle that, I suggest you grow a thicker skin or get out of the business.
I don't know you, your company or Lance from Adam. But from the first post, the "test" seemed to beg to have all the shortcomings pointed out. The fact that you (since Lance hasn't bothered to return) seem to to have a bit of a short fuse, I'm not sure that posting such tests is in your best interest...you would be better off sicking to retail sales rather than independent testers...being an impartial tester is not for the faint at heart...and you might want to spend some time reading the flak that Michael gets (that should be a clue) and he couldn't care less what "others" might think.
See, that's what you should expect when you stick your head up...bugs in your teeth!
-
I would not complain if the artistic intention of the shot was explained and the reasons for using a filter
Artistic intentions have no place in camera comparisons. Not the photographers' but the cameras' abilities are of relevance.
Likewise, the abilities of the raw converters must not play any role. Everyone should "develop" the raw as good as one can and compare the result, if one can't compare the raw directly.
-
Artistic intentions have no place in camera comparisons. Not the photographers' but the cameras' abilities are of relevance.
Likewise, the abilities of the raw converters must not play any role. Everyone should "develop" the raw as good as one can and compare the result, if one can't compare the raw directly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can't agree, Gabor. Cameras are tools and the user needs to know what are their strengths and weaknesses. An artist needs to know what format or type of camera is best suited for a particular purpose he/she has in mind.
If the pros of one system are so negligible compared with its cons in relation to another system, then we need to know, and as far as I'm concerned that's what these comparisons are about.
That's why I take exception to testers trying to equalise all the parameters in an artificial manner which would not be in accordance with the way such cameras would be used in practice by real photographers trying their best to create an interesting image.
As for RAW converters, why should they not play any role? We're back to Jonathan Wienke's system of shooting his Dynamic Range Test Chart here where everything is reduced to the examination of the performance of a single pixel.
Surely we're talking about systems. If in the MFDB world the latest and best lenses are at least equal to the best 35mm lenses, across the board, then the reality is the 35mm format cannot compete in ultimate image quality to an MFDB with equal pixel count but double the sensor size. But it might excel in other areas, depending on the application and artistic intention.
We need to know what those areas are.
-
I'm curious, Dave, as to the reasons why you would use the same f stop when shooting with diffrerent formats with equivalent focal lengths and fields of view.
If you were in the studio with a P21 with say 110mm lens and a 1Ds3 with 85mm lens, and you were photographing a model and wanted a certain fairly shallow DoF that required say f5.6 with the Mamiya 110mm lens, then wanted to see how the 1Ds3 would compare in this situation, it would be a mistake to use the 1Ds3 at f5.6, would it not? You wouldn't get the same shallow DoF with the shorter focal length from the same distance.
You would probably get a closer match regarding DoF by using the 1Ds3 at f4 in these circumstances.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
I usually try to stay away from these endless arguments,
Dave and I had disagreements in the past on all kinds of levels and since he sells my competition I should not have any interest in defending his company or his motivation.
However, I would like to suggest that anyone who joins a conversation about this f stop or that DOF with regards to comparing the IQ of a good MF back to ANY 35mm DSLR, should first spend 10 minutes with a Mamiya 120mm Macro at f5.6-f16 and a good 17-39MP back at its native iso.
I honestly believe that your opinion and approach will change drastically after those 10 minutes and will give you a whole different perspective about the validity of your current arguments.
Like in any other field, there is theory and then there is practice. In my experience, practice directs theory and not the other way around.
Yair
-
However, I would like to suggest that anyone who joins a conversation about this f stop or that DOF with regards to comparing the IQ of a good MF back to ANY 35mm DSLR, should first spend 10 minutes with a Mamiya 120mm Macro at f5.6-f16 and a good 17-39MP back at its native iso.
I honestly believe that your opinion and approach will change drastically after those 10 minutes and will give you a whole different perspective about the validity of your current arguments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yaya,
That might well be the case, but your argument is not convincing. If theory is at odds with practice, specifically with regard to these DoF issues, then please elaborate. Give us some details.
I don't have the luxury of being in a candy shop where I can test all sorts of expensive and exotic equipment to my heart's content. I rely upon forums like this to get useful information on equipment which might suit my purposes.
I might add, if I had bought a 1Ds3 my first priority would not be to see how it performed at f16, although eventually I would get around to testing the camera at that aperture and comparing the results at f8 or f5.6.
-
There are at least 100 high-end Canons and die hard Canon owners for each MFD. In this fight no MFD has even any chance to get inside a ring. I hereby declare Canon undisputed and still Champion of the World, and now please everybody move back to their respective corners.
Next week featured fights:
Major League : Canon Vs Sony
Minor League : Phase Vs Hasselblad
Andre
Sorry for the humor but it is getting really hard to take this seriously by now.
-
Yaya,
That might well be the case, but your argument is not convincing. If theory is at odds with practice, specifically with regard to these DoF issues, then please elaborate. Give us some details.
I don't have the luxury of being in a candy shop where I can test all sorts of expensive and exotic equipment to my heart's content. I rely upon forums like this to get useful information on equipment which might suit my purposes.
I might add, if I had bought a 1Ds3 my first priority would not be to see how it performed at f16, although eventually I would get around to testing the camera at that aperture and comparing the results at f8 or f5.6.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
Many professional photographic dealers offer a "try before you buy" arrangement.
Buy A back and test it. And if it doesn't fit the purpose or does not fulfil that big promise, send it back.
You will then be able to post your results along with files that you have shot under any conditions that suited you, fair or not.
Yair
-
Here we go again... while I do not generally see the point of this comparison,
The post is intended to sell more MF backs, it's advertising and marketing pure and simple. One thing it does prove is that in general photography a P30 is at no disadvantage to a P45. If the Canon was as good as a P30 then the world would be a strange place indeed.
For somethings the Canon will be better than a P45 for others it wont. This test shot could of been done with a Betterlight then the Phase might of looked wanting. How you get the advantage of a P45 onto paper compared with a Canon is probably the biggest weak link in the quality chain (that and clueless designers).
Kevin.
-
I've owned both the canon 1ds mark 2 and the P21 and this test perfectly demonstrates the differences. I wish it weren't the case, the canon is a lovely camera to use, it's just not as sharp and doesnt have the latitude that the p21 has. Simple as that.
-
hi Rainer,
absolutely in accordance with you!
Cheers,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Me too people. Things also evolve continuously. I am currently using both formats (a 1ds and a P25) and one thing is for sure, that in a few years both will become out of date by some new tech Dslr or other format. Will that make these cameras bad in any way? I think not. We try to get the best we can for our demands and obviously our pockets. I remember those days I was taking pictures with an H5 !!! It now sounds like a joke and I clearly remember people with attitude claiming dslrs will never get there... what is wrong with them? I would never feel offended or anything like that if one said my x camera or system is no good, as long as I do the best I can with the right tools and those are the best of what I can afford. Its only electronics, no offense...
Happy holidays to all,
George
-
It's a matter of simple mathematics that the smaller sensor cannot compete with the larger sensor (of similar pixel count) unless the lenses used with the smaller sensor are better, that is, have a higher MTF response at the same spatial frequency.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Simple Mathematics" - isn't that an oxymoron ?
Edmund
-
Jeff,
Welcome back in the ring after your stint as a writer ! I see you are back at your fighting weight !
Every test reflects the abilities and intentions of those who set it up. It Capture Integration are willing to do one and show the results, they should be thanked nicely for the effort, maybe informed politely of procedural mistakes, but I don't think they need free psychological counselling from an unlicensed practitioner
I would like to thank Capture Integration for their work so far, and extend to all others an invitation to carefully criticize Capture's test process so future results become more informative.
Edmund
I don't know you, your company or Lance from Adam. But from the first post, the "test" seemed to beg to have all the shortcomings pointed out. The fact that you (since Lance hasn't bothered to return) seem to to have a bit of a short fuse, I'm not sure that posting such tests is in your best interest...you would be better off sicking to retail sales rather than independent testers...being an impartial tester is not for the faint at heart...and you might want to spend some time reading the flak that Michael gets (that should be a clue) and he couldn't care less what "others" might think.
See, that's what you should expect when you stick your head up...bugs in your teeth!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
It will be an ever continueing battle from people who like one and like the other.
But mostly from people who don't use both.
ALWAYS it's the lens, well lenses can make a difference, a huge one, but not THAT huge, trust me I have shot with Sigma, Tamron and the most expensive L lenses, there is a difference and a big one.
But to say a 85mm 1.8 is a joke on a 1DsIII is like saying you can't make a photo without standing on your head.
The 85mm 1.8 was one of my most used portrait lenses because it was RAZORsharp and had great contrast.
Remember you are stopping down, not shooting wide open.
Than the questions about aperture.
As yaya mentioned, there is NO comparision.
I have shot pictures on f8.0 with the MF system that my Canon could not pull of on f4.0, and I could not really shoot higher than f11 (max f16) on my Canon without SOME form of softening (not really bad but it was there).
With the MF system I shoot alot of my studio work on f16.
The results here mirror my experience.
If you WORK on a file from a DSLR you can get very very close, so for some people it's a nobrainer buy the DSLR.
However if you want the absolute best and NOT have to work on your files buy into the MF system, it's as clear as day.
The problem is that there are so many variables that you can go on fighting forever.
Just take pictures with both and see
-
i can tell that i use both and that i tried to get out the maximum in terms of quality of both systems. i owned or own kodak 14n + slr, canon 1ds1+2+ 5d, 22 + 33mp sinar backs, i have used for shorter periods much more tools and know how far i can come with 35mm, using adaequate lenses and postpro. therefor i resist myself so much if it is claimed that mf will jump in your eyes for its quality advantages. it will not.
i made big productions, reproduced worldwide and printed in any sizes, with my old kodak slr camera, using it with greyfilters @ iso6 and mixing it with 4x5" slides which i scanned on my scanmate5000 drumscanner. used the 4x5" for the right light and the kodak for the right light. this camera was a beast but absolutely comparable with the 22mp backs of this time in terms of DR and noise,- if used at its iso6 setting. not in terms of resolution ( if not stitched ) and less of workflow speed. at that times the schneider 24xl or rodenstock 28HR were not existing and i needed wideangles at most, so mf was not an option for me. ( i bought maybe 10 - 15 35mm WA lenses just to sell them immediately after, for too much moustache distortions ).
if i look at this images today i would not have any problem to publish them wherever i want in terms of quality.
i still regularely publish images shot with a ( good sample ) of the 12-24 sigma lens on the 5d. doublepage printed and mixed in publications with my rodenstock HR lenses and the 33mp backs its not possible to see the difference, ( if the image has not to be cropped ). not for my clients ( which could not be more demanding as they are ) not for the printing houses or magazins.
funny not? but thats my reality, which is a demanding one.
never the quantity of my output leads me, but the quality.
i just have to refer to sw tools as photoacute or photomatix. this are fantastic programs to tune cameras and even if its just a canon G9 , printing results can be absolute on top,- if someone knows to use and to postpro the files. of course i would not like to shoot my architecture or museum shots with the g9 ..... but i want to bring the things to a realistic level to help people to have clear ideas about this stuff.
ofcourse there are advantages of MF and they are huge, but i rarely find that people writing and knowing about the real ones..... instead hyping comparations and weighting them wrong or repeating blindly marketing bs about 16bits , dr, colors , moirees or not , sw correction of lenses , cf and how to make it disappear and other things more.
anyway i dont like also that this mf forum is so much flooded now by people who are not using this gear, just speculating teoretically. they really cannt see the advantages if they never tried out this gear and it bores to discuss so much up and down with them. and there is a clear tendency to defend the gear someone already owns, does not matter if this is a mf camera or a 35mm camera. so many of the discussions at the moment about this decision questions or comparisons are very boring for me. here i went in because i think its not help to publish comparisons which are made with purposes which seem to be to sell one think....
its just water on the mules of people who want to defend blindly their canon stuff they own.
but esp. the canon 1dsmk3 seems to me a great tool. on par with the 22mp backs in most respects,- but system immanent not available with the same lenses than this backs can be used. this is for me the biggest limitation, i need shiftable lenses and there are really immense differences between the 35mm stuff and the schneider or rodenstock lenses. i dont know much about the other mf lense because they live in the shade of my work. i own a contax with many lenses and newly use a sinar m as well,- but to be honest..... i never compared them seriously with my canon lenses ( as i never did with my leica stuff as well. i simply liked the leicas in the film days which are over for me ).
i usually take out the mf gear and the results are great. if i need i take out the 5d and the results are printably..... but of course the files are not on par with my sinar backs. i prefer 33 or 39 mp resolution also ...... and sometimes (!) i even need it. just smetimes.... but this times have paid my backs easily.
e.g. i just had last summer an unforseen exhibition. i had a large shooting in genebra and the client felt in love with the images and organized an exhibiton of 18 motifs of the shooting. all made in best quality in a size of 160x2,20mtr. i sold all 18 images and i hardly doubt that i could have done this with my 5d.
but on the other hand i am nearly sure that i would not make bad work with 35mm as well. using than the 1ds3, zoerk adapters with pentax lenses from 35 mm up. zoerk adapter with a mamiya 28mm lens, 24mm olypmpus shift lens, 12-24 sigma and some more and stitching and stacking a lot. unfortunately the system than wouldnt be so much cheaper ...... so why not to take the "real" stuff and work 100% faster and still better.
anyway. i am tempted to make some "free" production some time in the sooner future with my g9 using the sw i named above. just love this little camera.
at the moment i do the contrary. i shoot mines in south spain. all shots with sinar e75lv, gottschalt, contax and sinar m. all treated as HDR images, the resulting quality is incredible.
so i am afraid i will remain a little bit contradictorily.
[attachment=4325:attachment]
-
Wonderful shot.
I have never really looked at the marketing side of things, I do post them for people to point out difference.
The main reason for ME was pure own interest.
My customers couldn't care less I'm afraid, although it does help to show up with a different camera than the rest
The BIG plus for me is the bigger sensor and the depth I get in the pictures, I have always called this the 3D effect, the problem is that many people don't see it and only look at 100% crops or pixelpeep.
The second thing for me was dynamic range and the sharpness out of the cam.
During the workshops I shoot to a PC and students are amazed with the fact that I pull shadow detail out of the setups WITHOUT photoshop while their files (1DsII/5D/40D/D3 etc.) are blocked up.
Also the sharpness is something they immediatly see.
The 3D effect is hard to see in certain setups, but when you have the right light it's stunning.
I recently was in LA and did some personal shooting there in for example Joshua tree and the backparts of LA, I shot with both the 5D and the Mamiya + leaf.
Resolution wise both cameras are hardly seen apart on A2 prints, the leaf is more detailed but not as much as most would expect.
HOWEVER, when you look at the depth in the pictures, or better maybe the sense of being there again the MF system wins hands down.
It's easy to explain.
You can shoot with a 35mm a wonderfull wide angle like shot without the strange artifacts a 15-20mm will give you on the DSLR.
For portraits I love to use the 120mm macro for example, with the DSLR I was always stuck at 100-135mm (FF) to get the best results. And that gives a totally different picture than the 120mm on the MF system.
So to be short, there are differences.
The question is do you see them or do you need them.
To be honest PURE economical I think the MF system is for MOST appliances not a good choice, but I also want to have the feeling I'm getting the absolute best out of my sessions for myself and than..... well the choice is easy
-
"i can tell that i use both and that i tried to get out the maximum in terms of quality of both systems."
Rainer, this is an important point that you make. No one system can do everything all the time and people need to realise that.
"I just have to refer to sw tools as photoacute or photomatix. this are fantastic programs to tune cameras and even if its just a canon G9 , printing results can be absolute on top,- if someone knows to use and to postpro the files. of course i would not like to shoot my architecture or museum shots with the g9 ..... but i want to bring the things to a realistic level to help people to have clear ideas about this stuff."
"I just have to refer to sw tools as photoacute or photomatix. this are fantastic programs to tune cameras and even if its just a canon G9 , printing results can be absolute on top,- if someone knows to use and to postpro the files. of course i would not like to shoot my architecture or museum shots with the g9 ..... but i want to bring the things to a realistic level to help people to have clear ideas about this stuff."
That's another good point and I appreciate what you and the other professionals have done for us, teaching us and helping us learn, giving us tips. It has been very valuable for those of us who are about to enter the world of DMF photography.
"anyway i dont like also that this mf forum is so much flooded now by people who are not using this gear, just speculating teoretically. they really cannt see the advantages if they never tried out this gear and it bores to discuss so much up and down with them. and there is a clear tendency to defend the gear someone already owns, does not matter if this is a mf camera or a 35mm camera. so many of the discussions at the moment about this decision questions or comparisons are very boring for me. here i went in because i think its not help to publish comparisons which are made with purposes which seem to be to sell one think.... k....
its just water on the mules of people who want to defend blindly their canon stuff they own.
Your observations match mine. I don't know why people are like that. Perhaps some of it is defending the decision that they made not to get DMF; perhaps some of it is jealousy or envy. I think that it was Nickolaas DB who said something on the forum that having a high-rez DMF camera/back was like having a rolls royce or high end mercedes...and other people have compared them to porsche. Perhaps some people feel insecure about their non-DMF purchase(s) or their work and feel the need to defend not having a DMF camera? Or maybe they think that we are crazy for owning one or planning to buy one (in my case) and try to point that out, many times not in the most polite manner.
I am grateful to the photographers here, who have given me their advice and time. That is something that is priceless. I also thank them for the shots they have shared with me, taken with a high-rez DMF - they are amazing
but on the other hand i am nearly sure that i would not make bad work with 35mm as well. using than the 1ds3, zoerk adapters with pentax lenses from 35 mm up. zoerk adapter with a mamiya 28mm lens, 24mm olypmpus shift lens, 12-24 sigma and some more and stitching and stacking a lot. unfortunately the system than wouldnt be so much cheaper ...... so why not to take the "real" stuff and work 100% faster and still better.
but on the other hand i am nearly sure that i would not make bad work with 35mm as well. using than the 1ds3, zoerk adapters with pentax lenses from 35 mm up. zoerk adapter with a mamiya 28mm lens, 24mm olypmpus shift lens, 12-24 sigma and some more and stitching and stacking a lot. unfortunately the system than wouldnt be so much cheaper ...... so why not to take the "real" stuff and work 100% faster and still better. so i am afraid i will remain a little bit contradictorily. [/QUOTE]
Rainer, its ok to be contradictory about your tools and work -- that is what real life is like. We need different tools for different situations and you use whatever you think is best. Your website is a tribute to good photography with DMF. It speaks for itself. I was impressed by the shot that you posted, presumably from a mine in Spain. It was stunning and would make a great poster!
Kind regards,
Sean
-
This statement lacks thought.
...One thing it does prove is that in general photography a P30 is at no disadvantage to a P45. If the Canon was as good as a P30 then the world would be a strange place indeed.
For somethings the Canon will be better than a P45 for others it wont. This test shot could of been done with a Betterlight then the Phase might of looked wanting. How you get the advantage of a P45 onto paper compared with a Canon is probably the biggest weak link in the quality chain (that and clueless designers).
Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
If a 39 MP back without micro-lenses or anti-alias filter is in any way comparable to a 22MP dSLR then the lens mounted on that back must be a piece of junk. It's time the MF manufacturers gave us a better class of glass.
Edmund
-
If a 39 MP back without micro-lenses or anti-alias filter is in any way comparable to a 22MP dSLR then the lens mounted on that back must be a piece of junk. It's time the MF manufacturers gave us a better class of glass.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
there are fantastic glasses out. asidethe rodenstock and schneider which mayn cant use for shooting the wrong subjects ( anyway i am happy about that .... ) my contax lenses as well my sinarm lenses are really great. suppose the same bout hassy and ( most ) mamiya lenses ...
-
Ah but Ray, then the exposure would be different as well. Do we change ISO to compensate and add noise? Add a ND Filter and thus more glass? Change shutter speeds?
Yes . . . you change shutter speed. The 35mm lens should be two stops wider open to make allowance for the smaller format.
-
Yaya,
That might well be the case, but your argument is not convincing. If theory is at odds with practice, specifically with regard to these DoF issues, then please elaborate. Give us some details.
I don't have the luxury of being in a candy shop where I can test all sorts of expensive and exotic equipment to my heart's content. I rely upon forums like this to get useful information on equipment which might suit my purposes.
I might add, if I had bought a 1Ds3 my first priority would not be to see how it performed at f16, although eventually I would get around to testing the camera at that aperture and comparing the results at f8 or f5.6.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray ray ray. haven't we gone over this before.
spend less time on the internet with these forums and go try a camera
if you need some contacts on who to approach in Asia to try a medium format system, I"ll be happy to provide you with some.
-
I've invited him since a long time!
Thierry
if you need some contacts on who to approach in Asia to try a medium format system, I"ll be happy to provide you with some.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
This is my first post and is a bit of a rant, so please forgive me.
All this testing is useless. Only YOU can decide if a back/camera will meet your needs. YOU have to test the equipment in your workflow and under your tyoical shooting conditions.
The stark reality is that it doesn't really matter which system you use. It all comes down to how you work, how much you need to crop, and the final destination for your shots.
I shoot beauty for magazine publication, not for an LCD. The differences between the Canon and Phase backs, while very apparent on an Eizo and before any post work, disapears once the files are retouched and sent to print on a crappy web press somewhere in the midwest.
Case in point: I don't own a back. I rent two or three times a month, usually a flavour of Leaf and always on someone else's dime. I was shooting on location when the A22 I rented refused to talk to my AFd (turned out the AFd was the culprit). Half hour later still no love. I finished the shoot with my 1ds2 (which I own). I processed the files and sent them to the client and then the approved shots to the retoucher (who bitched about the Canon color and abrupt high contrast tonal transitions), and what do you know, they look as good as MFDB files in print. Not as large, sure, but for a full page in a mag they look just fine.
My advice: If you are a hobbiest, have at it. You have no ROI to think about and no overhead keeping you up at night. If you intend to make money, really look at your needs. Landscape, movements, etc. MFDB (or really, film) makes some sense. Fashion, street, commercial work outside of major markets, 1ds2 will be fine. For products and beauty, MFDB is becoming the norm. But remember, you don't have to BUY a back. Rent backs on the client's dime. Even $500 editorial jobs will pay for extensive rentals.
And for all the testers out there debating whether He-Man could beat the Hulk in a cage battle underwater, at night, in zero gravity, let me tell you how most photographers test gear. First, we id a problem with whatever we are using now. For me, on a 1ds2, it was DR, flat color and tonal gradations, and the time it took to fix these problems in post or the way it made me change how I light. I rented a Sinar 54m in 2003 and shot a model test. Problems solved: plenty of shadow detail, smooth tonal transitions, amazing color. I still have these images in my book. I did not shoot a parking lot, a brick wall, my cat (yes I have a cat), a step wedge or some goof ball from my Camera Club. I test gear as if I were shooting a job, which reveals more to me than any Step Wedge shot in 1/3 stop brackets. Food for thought. Enjoy
-
AMEN to TMARK!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You've got another Amen, here brother.
-
AMEN to TMARK!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i'll second that!!!
-
True, horses for courses
-
Every test reflects the abilities and intentions of those who set it up. It Capture Integration are willing to do one and show the results, they should be thanked nicely for the effort, maybe informed politely of procedural mistakes, but I don't think they need free psychological counselling from an unlicensed practitioner
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161938\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Uh, ok...thanks for the flawed and pretty much useless test guys...
There, that help?
The fact is that the original test is tucked nicely into a friggin' NEWSLETTER that one must scroll midway down the page to FIND...and then the post says "We've been testing the 1Ds Mark III and comparing it to the current line of Phase One Digital Backs. The full results will be posted to our website later this month when our newly revamped website launches." So, not only have they not posted the "results of the test" they're touting the fact that they WILL post the result, when they launch their new web site. Uh, huh...and that is a favor to the industry how?
All they did was shoot the same scene with 4 different cameras and process them at default. Ok, thanks for spending the pixels guys, but next time you might want to do it in a slightly more scientific manner and make the whole thing just a tiny bit LESS self-serving and not make people wade through an entire newsletter only to find that the FULL RESULTS OF THEIR TESTS will be posted "in the future".
As I said, I didn't know these guys from Adam...but I do now. And, I'm not impressed with either their test or the way they run their business. And while they may not need psych counseling, they sure could use a hand coming up with useful testing proceeders...and how to deal with the public.
-
I also agree with Mark and some others here. Seems this site is filled with the same 10 or so guys going at it about the same stuff in almost every thread. Bagning their heads against the wall pixel peeping. And nearly none of it has to do with making your images any better out here in the real world - where people print their images on paper.
I see people making references to dpreview etc. as if this banter is much better, but I am afraid it is usually not much better. (At least not lately.)
Still, I guess the idea is to talk about the backs in a forum called "Medium Format Digital Backs and Photography." But what about the "and Photography" part?
Where is there on the web to discuss photography in a less technically obsessed way? (read: less gear heads, more people actually interested in the IMAGE) With real commercial photographers? Anyone??
-
Well said Tmark !
(Schewe, is it really all that bad ? )
When I speak to my clients about cameras, megapixels, raws, color space or the medium format digital back vs. the new Canon 1DsIII they tend to change the subject or glaze over.
And who could blame them ?
-
Dave Gallagher and Capture Integration are well known in the industry.
Personally, I've purchased gear from them, rented backs and have called several times about Capture One and they always helped me.
I like them. I like their attitude. I like their ability to share information freely.
I am a happy customer and will continue to buy from them regardless of what is said on this forum or if someone knows or does not know them.
They are good people.
-
John and 203,
There is an invite only forum that is poplulated by the big boys in commercial photography (OK, not the Kleins and Meisels, but the big money commercial shooters). Discussions involve lighting, billing, bad clients, good MUA/Assistants/Retouchers, things that break, and some critique of editorial images. Too bad I've not been invited.
I have a new rant. I apologize in advance for the length, but I'm done for the year. I am usually quite constrained but I'm feeling all goofy now that I'm free for two weeks!
When film was King and Kodak employed all of Rochester, the would be and real scientists shot color charts, resolution charts, brick walls, testing testing testing like you see now a days on the web. These guys were usually very smart and somewhat articulate. The thing was, you only had to interact with these people at the film counter at Calumet where the discourse was civil due to the face to face nature of the interaction. You could also just run away from them as they blathered on about a fourth color layer being added to an obscure Fuji film only available in Japan. With digital, these same scientists and would be scientists are shooting test charts and step wedges, as well as legions of morons who really really like to take pictures of birds*, and posting their opinions and "findings" on the impersonal and isolating interweb, where there is no reality check. I swear its like an Aspergers syndrome support convention.
*(Disclaimer: I'm not knocking nature photography)
And as long as I'm ranting, the syntax used by the testers in discussing photography reads like a legal brief or a transcript of a Break Out Session at a chemical engineering convention. Example: Poster 1: "The Canon 85 1.8 USM is just as sharp as the 85 1.2 L USM at the same or similar F stop."
Poster 2: "Direct me to some proof, a suitable URL. Otherwise we cannot take your statement as valid".
Get over it! Photography is about mood and emotion. It is not linear. No proof is required. A soft image is not "invalid". A good image is one you remember, mainly due to the emoitional experience you had when you first saw it, regardless of shadow noise or if the print is a few points too magenta. Look at Sarah Moon's work. All emotion, Polaroid Type 55 film, out of focus, amazing.
OK, I can't stop myself. I think we may come to the point where the scientists and other amateurs have better gear than commercial photographers. I finished a corporate portrait shoot for an insurance company on Wall street and saw no less than two 1ds3s clutched tightly in the grubby little hands of some overly bundled tourist types overburdened by their big LowePro backpacks. They hunch to the ground, brace themselves for the shot of Trinity Chruch, take it, chimp, and walk away real fast like. I also note than some people on this forum do not appear to make a living from photography but have MFDB just the same. That's fine, but why? Ego? Anal perfectionism? I saw a guy at Prospect Park shooting an Afd2 with a Leaf 65. he told me he likes flowers and "image quality". I am jealous. Not afraid to admit it. I would like a 1ds3 and my very own Hy6 or AFi7 but I refuse to cary that kind of cost on a depreciating asset, as a business owner. Too much pressure to earn, what with a kid in private school, expensive health insurance, and crappy disability insurance. It irks me that some clown is looking at uninspired 122 meg 16 bit tiffs of a yellow belly sap sucker or a cliche street scene on his Dell while I'm too cheap to drop $8k on on a 1ds3, much less $12k for an A22. (I'm not that cheap, I did just buy some new lighting (Pro7A 2400, Pro7S 1200 and a D4 to replace my Pro6 Freeze packs and Acutes). The only camera gear I own are the 1ds2, 5D, RZ67, Afd, and Mamiya 7, and I feel I have too much crap. The Mamiya 7 is the only camera that doesn't earn its keep, but I keep it out of love.
I have no more jobs booked this year and am taking the wife and kid to France for two weeks. I'm taking a Mamiya 7 and 65mm lens and 20 rolls of 400nc. No chargers, no laptop, no cards or card readers. See you guys next year and don't let that chroma noise in that ASA 50 P45+ file you shot inside a changing bag then pushed 10 stops in C1 get you too down. I'm sure the next crop of backs is just around the corner!
-
TMARK, Many true words, but...
My advice: If you are a hobbiest, have at it. You have no ROI to think about and no overhead keeping you up at night. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, as amateur it is even worse, we have no money at all coming in from a camera. We also shoot less frames and with that in mind it is rather mindblowing amazing how much $$ good quality images from digital cost us compared to film did (and frank difficult only shoot film nowadays)...
Regards
Anders
-
Andres,
True, film outside of the major photo centers can be difficult and expensive to process. Here in NYC there are at least 7 labs that do good work between 24th and 17th Streets. There are many more labs around with which I have no experience, but I have heard good things.
But as an amatuer you have the ability to sell your ZD and still put food on the table and buy the kids their allergy meds and pay their $25k a year tuition. I have to squeeze every penny, keep overhead low, keep a positive cash flow.
Let me tell you a story: I started shooting in 1989. I was young and STUPID. I blew every penny I made and decided that the photo business was the problem, not my bad business habits. In reality, I over extended myself and didn't treat it like a business. I then went to law school, practiced law until I couldn't stand it, and went back to shooting, resolved to never let it happen again. Like in Gone with the Wind, Scarlet O'Hara swears she will never be poor again. It was just like that, but in New York, and I wasn't picking cotton or wearing a dress.
-
TMARK - MARKT - Welcome back
-
Toby,
I'm not Mark Tucker. I'd give my real name etc but clients will google your name when considering you for a job. being associated with forums is not all that good for your career, hence the mass requests to be "unregistered" by many of the pros who used to frequent LL, including Mark and Ron P.
-
Dave Gallagher and Capture Integration are well known in the industry.
Personally, I've purchased gear from them, rented backs and have called several times about Capture One and they always helped me.
I like them. I like their attitude. I like their ability to share information freely.
I am a happy customer and will continue to buy from them regardless of what is said on this forum or if someone knows or does not know them.
They are good people.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=162141\")
I can also vouch for Dave Gallagher and his integrity. I also have purchased gear from his company and had the pleasure of meeting Dave getting to know him better. Insinuating ill intention from his side is very offensive to me. Some of you guys are making certain that nobody will post any pictures on this or any other forum and that the only way you will be able to compare your camera to any DB will be if you purchase digital back yourself. I do not see it as a real possibility neither.
One thing that is alway omitted in all this discussions about DB vs DSLR is that most if not all medium format digital back users have extensive real life experience with with DSLR's cameras.
We all own it and use it as needed. Unfortunately the same can not be said about DSLR's users and their experience with high end digital backs since most of them consider themselves lucky if they had a chance to take couple shoots during Calumet open days. Slam Dave Gallagher for his attempt to show you the difference between the systems and stay happy forever after, but please remember that this is MFDB Forum and non of us comes to 35mm Forum to prove anything to you.
[a href=\"http://Http://AndreNapier.com]Http://AndreNapier.com[/url]
-
And which 35mm forum might that be?
-
Cameras Lenses and Shooting Gear
99% info about 35mm DSLR's
-
Cameras Lenses and Shooting Gear
99% info about 35mm DSLR's
And Canon G9 digicam, and Leica M8 and Olympus E-3 (4/3 format) and other things too, including occasional MF threads...
The whole point of this thread was to discuss a comparison between 1Ds-III and MFDB. Why are you surprised when such discussion happens? Do you feel threatened by the topic? If this topic bores you, read another thread.
-
And Canon G9 digicam, and Leica M8 and Olympus E-3 (4/3 format) and other things too, including occasional MF threads...
The whole point of this thread was to discuss a comparison between 1Ds-III and MFDB. Why are you surprised when such discussion happens? Do you feel threatened by the topic? If this topic bores you, read another thread.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=162175\")
You are right again. I feel threatened by the topic and the intention of my post was to prevent you to discuss comparison between 1DS-III and MFDB.
And you are certainly right that I am bored with this topic and by now angry with myself for wasting my time on this idiotic conversation. Do not forget to shot the lights off when the last working photographer leaves this forum.
[a href=\"http://Http://AndreNapier.com]Http://AndreNapier.com[/url]
-
J. Wienke:
Smart assed teenager or Aspergers suferer? My bet's on smart ass!
Not to put words in Andre's mouth, but I will anyway: this forum should be about photography and MFDB. For whatever reason, probably low sales volume and high price, information on MFDBs is not readily available on the web. Not many people own MFDB or use them extensively. So if you make a living as a photographer and have to use these klutsy and complex systems, it is nice to see that people in your shoes are suffering through the same problems and can offer advice and information that is relevant to your profession and that might enable you to avoid costly and reputation ruining mistakes. For these reasons resolution charts, step wedges, odd programs that analyze raw data without producing images, is not appreciated. Conversely, posts that cover the mundane, such as SK Grimes custom making a right hand grip for an RZ or whether to RAID or not, are valuable to our businesses. Comparing the ds3 to MFDB answers a question that most pros want to know: is the upgrade worth it? Is it at least reasonably comparable to the A22/P25/ZD/eMotion 22 or is it a a 1ds2 with five extra megapixels? That is why this thread is here, and that is why MFDB users look at it. Real world impact. That being said, the geeky and aggressive attitude displayed in some posts about f stops, and the disparagement of Capture Integration (who are well known and respected) is not useful. There is no deception or trickery: Most anyone considering a Phase back can figure out that there will be defraction on a 35mm sensor at f16. No big deal. Eventually most MFDB users will go to their dealer or a friend and try one on for themselves under whatever conditions suit them. That being said, this thread is relevent but the acusations and endless discussions of testing conditions is not helpful to most readers and clogs the net. Its like not searching before making a post asking a question, which I think you have discussed in the past.
Happy shooting with you Canon or M4 and stay safe this holiday. I'm serious. I worry about you guys over there.
-
J. Wienke:
Smart assed teenager or Aspergers suferer? My bet's on smart ass!
...
Comparing the ds3 to MFDB answers a question that most pros want to know: is the upgrade worth it? Is it at least reasonably comparable to the A22/P25/ZD/eMotion 22 or is it a a 1ds2 with five extra megapixels? That is why this thread is here, and that is why MFDB users look at it. Real world impact. That being said, the geeky and aggressive attitude displayed in some posts about f stops, and the disparagement of Capture Integration (who are well known and respected) is not useful.
I'll agree that the disparagement of the CI guys went a bit farther than necessary, but I think that the choice to use two substantively different RAW converters with radically different default settings and the choice to shoot the Canon at f/16 are substantive flaws in what otherwise would be an informative and useful comparison. And the railing against the existence of this thread and the not-so-subtle invitation for the non-MFDB shooters to go back to the "35mm forum" and quit bothering the real working photographers by Andre is no more well-mannered than the personal attacks made against the Capture Integration people.
Happy shooting with you Canon or M4 and stay safe this holiday. I'm serious. I worry about you guys over there.
Thanks. I never got an M4 though; we still had M16s until just before I was medevaced. While downrange, I used an Olympus SP-350, as carrying 40 lbs of Canon gear (2 bodies, 7 lenses, flashes, etc. in a Lowepro pack) was a bit much in addition to 35 pounds of body armor and attached gear (magazines, ammo, flashlight, camelback, etc) another 20 pounds or so for aid bag, (I'm a medic) plus weapon and miscellaneous other stuff.
BTW, I'm 37 years old. I have a son who's a teenager...
-
I’ve stayed away from even reading this thread till this evening, guess I was just bored, now I wish I hadn’t open it.
I’ve written a letter to Dave to first thank him for the interesting thread and remind to him that no good deed every goes unpunished.
I use MF for my landscape work and 35mm (currently 1Ds II) for nature (which includes wildlife), each has its own specific task. While not totally interested in the outcome of the test CI did (I’m already on the list to get the new III) I am nevertheless glad they did it.
It appears that some have decided to exercise creative reading in Dave’s response; it seems that he stated that his company sells both Phase One and Canon.
To clear up the confusion let me state the following:
We are resellers of Phase One and of Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It’s only natural that a company selling both the medium format and 35 mm systems conduct such a test. Was the test perfect? No but then no test ever is. Was it unbiased? I believe it was. Am I a client of CI? Yes, proudly and will continue to be.
One last question that I’ll ask and answer – am I tired of this entire thread?
Oh hell yes! I’ve got work to do so I’m gone.
don
-
To the egomaniacs, who are forced by their compulsive obsession disorder to read a thread, even though they have to throw up while doing so
1. yes, it is an MFDB forum, BUT the opening post was not about MFDBs but about the comparison between MFDBs and a 35mm camera,
2. to be sure, the same post was placed on the Digital Cameras, Backs and Shooting Techniques forum as well; in other words, the subject was intended for a broader layer of participants than this forum,
3. I don't think anybody has stated that the 1DsMkIII is better than any of the MF cameras in the comparision, not even that it were equal, so I don't know, by what the egomaniacs feel threatened,
4. the objections against the phony "comparison" were, that it amounted to a sales action but not an honest effort,
5. obviously incorrect, obfuscating statements like We intentionally did not change any contrast or sharpening in these files so as to leave them as close to native as possible did not help to dispers the objections,
6. the reluctance to post the raw files contributes to the bad feeling,
7. the reluctance of the egomaniacs to deal with the objections is telling on its own.
It is not surprizing, that the phony arguments based on the omnipotent superiority of some MF shooters against direct comparisons on a level field makes tem appear a bit arrogant.
-
I've known Lance for many years now. When I first began looking into digital backs (coming from 4x5 film) he helped tremendously in the process. I took over a year to make my decision and he never pressured me to make a move until I was ready. What made me trust Lance and his approach was that he put all of the available solutions in front of me (literally at my front door) and let me make the decision after testing one back against the other. Everyone has their comfort level or criteria for equipment. Lance was an informed assistant to the decision process. That's exactly what he's done here. Just putting the info out there so people can see what the options are. Obviously he makes a living selling this stuff but he does it in a way that is honest and thorough so you know exactly what you are getting and you always have a resource in him after the sale. On more than one occasion I got a return phone call from him within minutes while he was on vacation, and not about a sale, but about after sale tech support. Now that he has joined the well established Capture Integration team I'm sure he's going to help a lot of people make the right decision for themselves, whatever that may be. Now lets get back to making photographs!
-
everytime a dealer puts up some comparisons someone's going to say "oh this is a sales pitch.."
well I hope there are more sales pitches like these because from my experience most salesmen won't even give you examples to look at.
sorry to those 35mm people who feel like the people in this forum are arrogant and want to sound off on the superiority of MF....don't be so insecure. if you don't like what you see then don't read it. I for one enjoy the attitudes of the people here. maybe the other forums have a pixel peeping attitude, and this forum has a muddled unscientific "feeling" attitude, but I don't see people here going to the other forums and trying to force their ways of thinking on those forums.
-
sorry to those 35mm people who feel like the people in this forum are arrogant and want to sound off on the superiority of MF....don't be so insecure
Don't be ridiculous. The insecurity is radiating from those, who are afraid others may touch their domains cheaper than they did.
However, this is not the case. The real issue is not *if* the MF backs are better than the best 35mm cameras; the question is, *how much* they are better.
if you don't like what you see then don't read it
LOL, that's funny.
-
I appreciate Capture Integration's efforts to provide more information on the 1DsMK3 and MFDB files. I'm surprised to see the sour reception by some. I did not see the comparison as a sales gimmick at all, particularly since Capture integration sells BOTH Phase and Canon products.
I shoot with a Phase P30 and Mamiya---which I did not purchase from Capture Integration. Chris Lawry from CI was kind enough to spend quite a bit of time recently with me talking about the potential technical limits of the AFD and the newly released Mamiya lenses.
I'll be buying my Canon 1DsMK3 from Capture Integration.
-
Don't be ridiculous. The insecurity is radiating from those, who are afraid others may touch their domains cheaper than they did.
However, this is not the case. The real issue is not *if* the MF backs are better than the best 35mm cameras; the question is, *how much* they are better.
LOL, that's funny.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162216\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
actually that's funny...the very people who use these backs, I wouldn't hold it past them to pick up a holga to get the job done if the job needs a holga.
We need a crappy camera poll.
At the end of the day for all the talk many photographers look at each poster's work to determine how much importance to place on each person's words.
-
All this testing is useless. Only YOU can decide if a back/camera will meet your needs. YOU have to test the equipment in your workflow and under your tyoical shooting conditions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point! But this raises some very pertinent questions. Should all testing be useless? Need all testing be useless? Is it unavoidable that all testing be useless?
When testing different formats of equal pixel count with different lenses designed for the different formats, then any comparison of images is likely to be as much about a lens test as a sensor test.
With this purpose in mind, it would be helpful if the testers were to provide reasons for carrying out the test in a particular way. Then potential customers of the systems under test would have a clearer idea of which system might suit their needs better.
For example, in this test under discussion, if Capture Integration had given us full reasons for using f16 with both formats, then perhaps we could have had a more rational discussion as to the merits of this choice.
So far, I gather that the reason was to equalise shutter speeds. Am I the only one who has suggested the reason should be to equalise lens performance? If one is shooting a still-life on a tripod, there should be little need to equalise shutter speeds. Were the testers really worried that a bit of a breeze might have caused the foliage in the DB shots to appear more blurred than the foliage in the 1Ds3 shots. And if this were to occur, could it not still have occurred with equal shutter speeds because brezze is not a constant thing. It varies from second to second.
So points (1 & 2):
In this test, we used f16 for two reasons.
(1) to equalise shutter speed, just in case the viewer were to incorrectly attribute a slight blurring of foliage in the DB shots to sensor performance rather than subject movement.
(2) to equalise lenses, just in case the viewer were to incorrectly attribute any apparent differences in resolution to the use of a superior lens with one of the formats. As we all know, all lenses are equally bad at f16.
Now this approach would have been fine as far as it goes. If you only have time to take one set of shots under specific conditions, a choice has to be made.
But why underexpose the DB shots by 2/3rds of a stop (as shown in the metadata) resulting in a darker and more contrasty image and then not bother to adjust the levels of both images so the tonality, contrast and lightness appear the same? This is basic stuff when doing comparisons.
-
but I think that the choice to use two substantively different RAW converters with radically different default settings and the choice to shoot the Canon at f/16 are substantive flaws in what otherwise would be an informative and useful comparison.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162187\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is the problem due to the use of different RAW converters with radically different default settings or simply due to the fact the DB shots have a minus 0.67 exposure bias value. The DB shots were deliberately underexposed by 2/3rds of a stop.
-
Someone once said to me that if you're a Hasselblad MFDB fan, stay away from the LL. Now I can see why!
Frankly, I find this all faintly ridiculous.
In film days, no one would have dreamed of comparing a 35mm SLR with a medium-format or large format. And we all knew their respective strengths and weaknesses and just got on with it. Why the need to compare now? A decent MFDB setup costs about five times a decent DSLR ($30k vs. $6k?) Wasn't the ratio of SLR to, say, Sinar something similar? I think so. And, as has been pointed out above, you can't use Canon glass all the way up the line (the astonishing TSE 90mm being the exception!).
There is a now an obsession with a "Can't I get by with just using a DSLR?" mentality. That's really what this is all about. It's not just comparing pixels, it's also comparing the relative cost of those pixels.
As I see it, the nearer to 1:1 you shoot, the more you need the head-room, flexibility and control offered by medium-format digital backs, particularly so when attached to a camera with movements, such as a Sinar or whatever.
No manufacturer of small, high-end products that require very high resolution and critical focusing (bottles of perfume and cosmetics and jewelery are screamingly obvious examples) is going to take you seriously if you turn up with a DSLR.
Buy what you need and what you like and what you can afford. Don't bother trying to pretend that you're getting the same for a fifth of the price. You're not.
D.
By the way.......I used a hired 1Dslll on a shoot last weekend. I was shooting hotel interiors. Opening the files in ACR, I was immediately struck by the richness of tone as compared to the 5D (which I own). 14 bit definitely makes a difference. It is interesting to note that people rarely mention this obvious point of comparison when comparing DSLR to MFDB. I know I don't have to tell you this, but 16 bit isn't 2 bits more, it's 4 times(!) as much. That is almost certainly one of the reasons why the Canon shot at the beginning of this thread looks so different to the MFDB shot.
-
I am a Hasselblad back user. I don't have the idea Hasselblad gets more than its fair share of flak in comparison to the other back makers.
Every back maker has gotten flak, whether deserved or not. With the radical moves Hasselblad has made, it is only normal they get hit severely.
Leaf for instance has been been almost burned to the ground over their crappy software (amongst others).
Others have gotten critical remarks as well. IMO, there is nothing wrong pointing out the weak parts, the parts that need improvement, etc.. People should not be so sensitive about critique on their equipment, it is only equipment. It is way too often seen as some sort of personal attack. Being critical towards manufacturers keeps them sharp and hopefully will result in us having better tools.
In my film days (before '98) I already heard many 35mm users talk about their processing and dark room skills which would result in prints that are almost at par with the ones from MF. This has only intensified further with people on the side that bought 35mm trying to defend their choice as well as the other way around.
I have both and have noticed that most MFDB users have both and simply use the right tool for the job.
-
Dustbak,
See my edited post above. As I said on another thread, my Hassie is on the way and arriving end of January.
I will also be ordering a 1Dslll as I love the handling and I want to offer a two tier service. People will only get the Hassie when they pay for it and when I think they need it!
D.
-
Hi!
First of all I'd like to thank CI for making it possible to download fullres files.
Although when it comes to resolution it would have been more interesting to compare the Canon @ f6.3 - 8 and Mamiya @f10 - 13 and if possible to make the raws available and thus enabling people to use the raw conversion and sharpening parameters of their own choice, this is anyway an interesting comparison.
After playing with the files in PS, I must say that the 1Ds3 and the 85mm lens does very well in this comparison. Some additional sharpening and a bit of curves tweaking will get the Canon and P21 very close to each other.
Whether the original intention in this comparison is marketing or what ever, I don't really care because I don't believe anyone will make a buying decision based on one comparison seen in the web.
Relaxed Christmas to everyone,
J
-
Ok and now do the same tweaking with the MF files
As mentioned MANY times before it's not an issue of getting close resolution wise, they are totally different machines for different purposes.
-
As mentioned MANY times before it's not an issue of getting close resolution wise, they are totally different machines for different purposes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They're both cameras for taking pictures, aren't they?
-
That's were the problem lies, they are not.
If people would read instead of post I have explained already many time (and with me others) that because the sensor is much bigger you get a totally different feel/look of the picture, or in other words the files/results look different.
Ofcourse you can take pictures with both but they are different tools.
It's like my dentists says here is my new black and decker drill open wide.
I shoot sports as a hobby and fashion/glamour for my profession.
I would not think about taking my MF out for sports, the same as I would not use the DSLR anymore in the studio.
Sure both take pictures, but than you can also use the G9 from Canon, it also takes pictures.
-
That's were the problem lies, they are not.
If people would read instead of post I have explained already many time (and with me others) that because the sensor is much bigger you get a totally different feel/look of the picture, or in other words the files/results look different.
Ofcourse you can take pictures with both but they are different tools.
It's like my dentists says here is my new black and decker drill open wide.
I shoot sports as a hobby and fashion/glamour for my profession.
I would not think about taking my MF out for sports, the same as I would not use the DSLR anymore in the studio.
Sure both take pictures, but than you can also use the G9 from Canon, it also takes pictures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
..... right.
canon G9 :
[attachment=4357:attachment]
-
..... right.
canon G9 :
[attachment=4357:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great shot, Rainer. I'd want an image like that to be a good size print, at least 20x30 ish. And that's why we have to use 33/39 backs sometimes. Sure the G9, and most digital cameras can take a decent image with people like you pointing it and post processing it, but they won't go really big and hold up.
For me that's the only significant difference between MFDB and the 35mm Nikons and Canons. IMO, talk of better dynamic range, better colors, "3D" effect (that's a killer!), etc are all BS. I did some close up shots of cars on my 1DS2 and up to about 16x20ish they looked great (IMHO) but the client wanted them 2x3 metres. Whoops. Rather than lose the client through crappy, jaggy images I reshot on a 39 MFBD. Happy client, relieved photographer!
-
"3D" effect (that's a killer!), etc are all BS
That was a really good one; this is the same kind, who believes, that wide lenses have a different perspective than longer ones.
-
However, I would like to suggest that anyone who joins a conversation about this f stop or that DOF with regards to comparing the IQ of a good MF back to ANY 35mm DSLR, should first spend 10 minutes with a Mamiya 120mm Macro at f5.6-f16 and a good 17-39MP back at its native iso.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A lot of the so-called benefit of MF digital, IMO, is aliasing, something that not everyone considers desirable.
The native ISO of color digital cameras with bayer filters should optimally be about 160, and for B&W, about 250. Anything less than that means that the camera is losing photons, and the capture could be much better, noise-wise, in that same format with the same pixel pitch. Lack of microlenses is one reason for losing photons, and a contributor to aliasing intensity. Hopefully, some of the photon loss common in MF digital is because of better color filters, for better color discrimination. In a studio environment, or for static subjects shot from a tripod, there is enough light to get a good capture (noise-wise) at the lowest ISO.
In general, though, a low lowest ISO in digital is not a good sign! It is good in film only because the grain is finer, and it takes longer to get enough photons to trigger a chemical change in the film because of the finer grain. With digital, the equivalent grain is only related to pixels which are fixed, through a wide range of potential sensitivities, and the only reason for low native ISOs is inefficiency.
-
I think it's a very bad sign to see the responses we are now getting.
Calling things BS that are clearly seen is I think showing no respect, and that is not something that should take place here on LL......
I'm for one that INDEED made the switch to MF for the 3D effect.
You can say it's BS as much as you want but it was something that IMMEDIATLY struck me even before dynamic range, pixels, bits etc.
If you don't see it, that's ok, but don't say it's BS.
-
I'm for one that INDEED made the switch to MF for the 3D effect.
You can say it's BS as much as you want but it was something that IMMEDIATLY struck me even before dynamic range, pixels, bits etc.
Yeah, the curvature of the MF sensor chips does make more difference than the wide field of view, for sure.
-
What's your problem ???
The difference is very easily explained (but you need some basic knowledge about photography).
The sensor is bigger (twice as big).
When you don't change your position you can shoot the same FOV with a longer lens than with a 35mm camera.
This will DRAMATICLY change the way the photo looks.
First in DOF but also in distortion of the shot.
This is for ME the reason I switched you get wonderful results and great DOF control.
But than again why do I bother to explain, you will find it BS anyway and that's a shame, I miss the forum were we could discuss things with people who were open for a GOOD discussion not as mentioned before a will He-man beat Spiderman upside down under de Xmas tree.
-
What's your problem ???
The difference is very easily explained (but you need some basic knowledge about photography).
The sensor is bigger (twice as big).
When you don't change your position you can shoot the same FOV with a longer lens than with a 35mm camera.
This will DRAMATICLY change the way the photo looks.
First in DOF but also in distortion of the shot.
This is for ME the reason I switched you get wonderful results and great DOF control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you are forgetting Frank that the differences that exist between 35mm and MFDBs regarding the DoF effect with lenses of the same focal length is common hat to many of us folks who have never even used MFDBs.
Most people who only ever used 35mm film switched to cropped format DSLRs when they became available and affordable and had to contend with the different FoV and DoF one would get with lenses one had been used to using on 35mm film cameras.
During the past few years there have been hundreds of threads on this forum alone explaining the multiplier effect with regard to choice of focal length and its effect on DoF.
Just as an MFDB is a cropped 6x4.5cm MF film format, a Canon 20D or 40D is a cropped 35mm film format. The only difference being the 40D is cropped to a slightly greater extent than the MFDB.
If I want to get the same effect (same FoV and same DoF) with my 20D as I would get using an 80mm portrait lens on my full frame 5D, I have to use a 50mm lens and divide the f stop number by 1.6.
For example, where I would use f8 with the 80mm lens on the 5D, I would use f5 with the 50mm lens on the 20D, shooting from the same distance.
When using a 1Ds3 instead of a P21, you will get the same effect, shooting from the same distance if you use a lens of a shorter focal length and wider aperture.
The multiplier is slightly less, about 1.5 if you want equal FoV keeping the MFDB aspect ratio (ie cropping the 35mm format).
So, when comparing a 1Ds3 with a P21, if you are using a 120mm lens with the P21 at f11, you should be using an 80mm lens at f7.1 with the 1Ds3. You'll get the same effect fairly precisely shooting from the same position.
However, if you intend matching the FoVs in the longer dimension (cropping the P21 to the same aspect ratio as 35mm) then the multiplier becomes 1.33, which means you should be using a 90mm lens at f8 with the 1Ds3.
I think some of you guys might be attributing certain mystical qualities to the MFDB which simply don't exist.
-
huh... not again.
noone wants to make believe anyone who is working with 35mm that he has to go to mf.
you can ofcourse make great photography with 35mm g9s or 33mp backs, as you could before make great photographs with a leica nikon minolta canon olympus or even with a minox or as well with a hasselblad or with a 4x5" or with a 8x10".
stupid to convince a 35mm film shooter that he has to use 8x10" and stupid as well to discuss that you nearly never need prints larger than a4 and so the material waste from 8x10" is just crazy. also it can look well to blow up the 35mm shots to 2 meters, if the content of the shot is great. will look much better than to print a bad 8X10" shot to this size.
its boring to discuss here so many treads long with people who have not any experience with more gear than they own or at least heve never hold some hiend tools in their hands and which want now just to discuss if we ( mf users ) are a little bit crazy or not.
unfortunately this guys arent searching experience here in this forum, which i really like to share. this means time wasting for me and ruining this nice forum.
so i will stay away in future here from any comarison of other gear than mf and also discussion as "which advantage has to spent 40.00 0$ if you can shoot pictures with 500$ cams also".
without wanting to be too arrogant i want to say that i could do this till a certain degree but fortunately i dont need to do it, but from most of the discussion partners who defend here so much that its nonsense to spend so much money, i havent seen nothing of their work just (too) many words about the disadvantages of my gear.
emotion75lv with contax645 and 35mm lens:
[attachment=4359:attachment]
-
I think you are forgetting Frank that the differences that exist between 35mm and MFDBs regarding the DoF effect with lenses of the same focal length is common hat to many of us folks who have never even used MFDBs.
Most people who only ever used 35mm film switched to cropped format DSLRs when they became available and affordable and had to contend with the different FoV and DoF one would get with lenses one had been used to using on 35mm film cameras.
During the past few years there have been hundreds of threads on this forum alone explaining the multiplier effect with regard to choice of focal length and its effect on DoF.
Just as an MFDB is a cropped 6x4.5cm MF film format, a Canon 20D or 40D is a cropped 35mm film format. The only difference being the 40D is cropped to a slightly greater extent than the MFDB.
If I want to get the same effect (same FoV and same DoF) with my 20D as I would get using an 80mm portrait lens on my full frame 5D, I have to use a 50mm lens and divide the f stop number by 1.6.
For example, where I would use f8 with the 80mm lens on the 5D, I would use f5 with the 50mm lens on the 20D, shooting from the same distance.
When using a 1Ds3 instead of a P21, you will get the same effect, shooting from the same distance if you use a lens of a shorter focal length and wider aperture.
The multiplier is slightly less, about 1.5 if you want equal FoV keeping the MFDB aspect ratio (ie cropping the 35mm format).
So, when comparing a 1Ds3 with a P21, if you are using a 120mm lens with the P21 at f11, you should be using an 80mm lens at f7.1 with the 1Ds3. You'll get the same effect fairly precisely shooting from the same position.
However, if you intend matching the FoVs in the longer dimension (cropping the P21 to the same aspect ratio as 35mm) then the multiplier becomes 1.33, which means you should be using a 90mm lens at f8 with the 1Ds3.
I think some of you guys might be attributing certain mystical qualities to the MFDB which simply don't exist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Boooring......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz......
DC
-
Ray can you post a couple of portrait or product frames from your 20D/f5/50mm and 5D/f8/80mm showing these similiar FoV+DoF?
Thanks
Yair
-
I think some of you guys might be attributing certain mystical qualities to the MFDB which simply don't exist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are wrong.
The two looks MF and dslr ARE different
While I can see your basic argument it is too simplistic
It is to do with how OOF stuff gets and AT WHAT RATE
While one may be able to use a DSLR to get point A in focus and point B blurred same to the same circle of confusion of a MF once you throw in a point C - you will find that different recording areas cannot replicate each other
Typical
A - Eyes
C - body of subject (slightly behing the eyes)
B - background
If you are looking to get eyes pin, body acceptable and background blurred you will find for a given FOV this is doable with a MFDB and not with a DSLR
This tends to show in mid to full length portraits most clearly
And die hard MF users - mostly shoot mid to full lenght portraits for a living
SMM
-
The difference is very easily explained (but you need some basic knowledge about photography)
Let's see.
When you don't change your position you can shoot the same FOV with a longer lens than with a 35mm camera.
This will DRAMATICLY change the way the photo looks.
First in DOF but also in distortion of the shot
The DoF of the longer lens is shallower than that of the shorter ones. So much to the "basic knowledge about photography".
Or were you referring to 3D-like blur?
(I have not disputed and still do not dispute advantages of MF cameras, for example I mentioned just above the wider FoV; the distortion associated with extrem wide angles is a plague of the APS-C cameras.)
I miss the forum were we could discuss things with people who were open for a GOOD discussion not as mentioned before a will He-man beat Spiderman upside down under de Xmas tree
Is it difficult to grasp, that this thread is not about MF cameras but about a phony comparison between MF cameras and a 35mm camera and about phony arguments of egomaniacs?
-
xx
-
Is it difficult to grasp, that this thread is not about MF cameras but about a phony comparison between MF cameras and a 35mm camera and about phony arguments of egomaniacs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
let us see some work of you if it is phony or egomaniac as well .....
-
let us see some work of you if it is phony or egomaniac as well .....
This one is one of those. From my POV you can assume, that I can not tell apart a lens from a camera. Do you need a "higher autority" to evaluate arguments, can't you do this on their own?
-
??
-
I have been following this thread for a while and find it more than a little disturbing (please don't tell me to just move on and not read it!!). Its not the back and forth about DSLR and MFDB that I mind - that input and discussion is reasonable and necessary. But, the personal attacks towards Capture Integration are just way out of line and should be out of character for this board. I realize that some posters are friends, connected, pals and think that that relationship gives them certain rights to post whatever they wish. I, for one, think that personal insults and the self righteous claims to speak for the public and the industry and just a little over the top! I think its time to chill out a little and knock off the attacks on the Capture Group. I have found them to be more than honorable and don't deserve this type of personal criticism. Its one thing to criticize a testing methodology and another to take an attack on the integrity of the original poster.
Happy Holidays.....
-
This one is one of those. From my POV you can assume, that I can not tell apart a lens from a camera. Do you need a "higher autority" to evaluate arguments, can't you do this on their own?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Panopeeper,
With all due courtesy, your science is doubtless very good, but you are debating with photographers. And because you are too rigidly focused on the science, you are missing the issues which the photographers are debating.
Edmund
-
Edmund,
you were right not to have followed the thread in all detail. This thread was not about photographers, not about photos, not about cameras. It was about a comparison, which has been announced on two threads. A few of us felt, that the comparison was not honest or not professional and posted very specific objections.
Instead of dealing with the objections, some other participants turned the discussion into anything and everything but objective comparison of cameras, which in turn made me (and perhaps others) wonder, why the deflection was deemed necessary.
That's all this thread was (is) about.
-
Boooring......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz......
DC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Obviously! This why all atempts at comparisons between the 1Ds3 and an MFDB so far on this section of the forum have failed. The maths of these basic relationships between focal length, sensor size and DoF seems to have escaped you. Simply too boring.
You all might be very competent using your MFDBs. Your clients might demand that you use MFDBs and there's no doubt whatsoever that a larger sensor with more pixels is likely to deliver better image quality than a smaller sensor with fewer pixels, especially if the larger sensor has 16 bit processing and the smaller sensor 12 bit in-camera processing.
However, here the relevant comparison is between a camera system with 14 bit processing with a smaller sensor of similar pixel count, and a system with 16 bit processing with a sensor double the size and a different aspect ratio.
The differences are going to be small and because they are going to be small it is necessary to get things right in any comparison.
It's clear to me (crystal clear) that either one of the following two scenarios is likely to be true. (There may be others, but I don't want to insult you.)
(1) You are simply too busy as working professionals to do a proper comparison.
(2) You are not competent to do a proper comparison, perhaps because the basic maths is too boring.
Merry Christmas! No hard feelings, I hope.
-
Hi Rainer
You are absolutely right.
I used to shoot film from Olympus PEN to MF to 8x10 and choosing my gear to get the image look that I wanted.
NOW - I am still shooting film (mostly my pentax 67, (I shoot both Neg and Chromes)), but I also shoot digital now choosing between my P45+ and Contax/Cambo SWD OR my new Canon 1DsMK3.
Getting a 1DSMK3 does NOT want me to sell my P45 - they are both excellent tools and I will bring both on assignment.
Since this forum is a high-end amateur landscape forum, people might argue witch system outperforms the other (or gets close to one another) in endless discussions.
For a working pro it is pretty simple - you simply need both systems, so you can chose the right system for the right assignment. Just like we did in the old film days, nothing has changed we just have more options.
No need to argue – peace and love – I am done with LL
T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well said Rainer and Torben as well!
Merry Xmas
Willem.
-
(1) You are simply too busy as working professionals to do a proper comparison.
(2) You are not competent to do a proper comparison, perhaps because the basic maths is too boring.
I find another explanation more probably: they are not interested on the comparison. This is totally understandable; I would not be interested on a comparison of my camera with a P&S. (I was not interested on the result of this comparison either; only the methodology was interesting.)
The difference is only that I don't see any reason to make such disgraceful mental gymnastics to discuss away the weaknesses of the comparison.
-
Edmund,
you were right not to have followed the thread in all detail. This thread was not about photographers, not about photos, not about cameras. It was about a comparison, which has been announced on two threads. A few of us felt, that the comparison was not honest or not professional and posted very specific objections.
Instead of dealing with the objections, some other participants turned the discussion into anything and everything but objective comparison of cameras, which in turn made me (and perhaps others) wonder, why the deflection was deemed necessary.
That's all this thread was (is) about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
how about this. Read through the forums and get a sense of the kind of people who post here and a sense of how they talk and discuss things.
then make your point in a language that fits in with the culture of discussion here (it's the power of language, you adjust your tone to fit the environment if you want your point to come across better)
If you feel so strongly about the way the test was conducted maybe you can PM the threadstarter for further discussions and changes.
Coming into here and talking in such a bloody technical tone is like a firebrand right wing religious nut standing in union square shouting through a loudspeaker.
there are some really really good posts by people who actually use both sorts of cameras, and it's a real disfavor to see these people get frustrated with the forum because of all this sort of bickering. Somehow I never saw this sort of bickering before all this firebrand technical righteousness appeared...
-
I find another explanation more probably: they are not interested on the comparison. This is totally understandable; I would not be interested on a comparison of my camera with a P&S. (I was not interested on the result of this comparison either; only the methodology was interesting.)
The difference is only that I don't see any reason to make such disgraceful mental gymnastics to discuss away the weaknesses of the comparison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I am definitely interested in a comparison between a good P&S and my 5D or 20D. I think there may be certain circumstances where a G9, for example, might produce a better quality image, and those are precisely the circumstances where I've recently been doing a lot shooting, low-light shooting at high ISO and wide apertures without flash.
In such circumstances, DoF is almost always compromised. Perhaps most of the time that doesn't matter, but I would like to find out how a G9 at f2.8 and ISO 100 compares with a 5D at f13 and ISO 1600, without the aid of a flash. Both cameras have a similar pixel count.
-
QUOTE
When you don't change your position you can shoot the same FOV with a longer lens than with a 35mm camera.
This will DRAMATICLY change the way the photo looks.
First in DOF but also in distortion of the shot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DoF of the longer lens is shallower than that of the shorter ones. So much to the "basic knowledge about photography".
Were do I say otherwise ??
I say you shoot the same FOV (Field of View) with a LONGER lens than with the 35mm camera.
In other words you can shoot with a 120MM what with a 35mm DSLR you have to shoot with app a 65-70MM.
This gives you a TOTALLY different look and indeed a much shallower DOF, that's what I have been posting all along, so I don't know were you missed that ?
Let's make it a bit more graphical:
Hasselblad H2 with Imacon back:
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/13_Maart_Pro_imaging_beurs_Zaza-2.jpg)
Same lightsetup 5D:
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Zaza_pro_imaging_2007_13_Maart_00047.jpg)
Hasselblad:
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/13_Maart_Pro_imaging_beurs_Zaza-39.jpg)
5D
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Zaza_pro_imaging_2007_13_Maart_00042.jpg)
Don't just look at crops etc.
Look at the curves and sense of depth, the Hasselblad files look for me on my monitor (and print) simply much more round.
-
For a working pro it is pretty simple - you simply need both systems, so you can chose the right system for the right assignment. Just like we did in the old film days, nothing has changed we just have more options.
T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hallelujah!
Finally, someone said it like it is. This is precisely why, by the end of next month, I will own both a 1Ds Mklll and a H3D Mkll 39 MS. I don't think I will need another camera for a long time after that.
I have clients who demand and need what the MF can offer (I currently shoot Sinar 4x5 for them) and, on the other hand, I do NOT want to be carrying around a €30k camera when I don't have to. Hence the Canon (I already own a 5D) Also, I LOVE the handling of the Canon. I used a loan one on a shoot in London last week. Wonderful!
Frank, nice pics and the three-dimensionality of the MF shots is screamingly apparent to me.
D.
-
Hallelujah!
Finally, someone said it like it is. This is precisely why, by the end of next month, I will own both a 1Ds Mklll and a H3D Mkll 39 MS. I don't think I will need another camera for a long time after that.
I have clients who demand and need what the MF can offer (I currently shoot Sinar 4x5 for them) and, on the other hand, I do NOT want to be carrying around a €30k camera when I don't have to. Hence the Canon (I already own a 5D) Also, I LOVE the handling of the Canon. I used a loan one on a shoot in London last week. Wonderful!
Frank, nice pics and the three-dimensionality of the MF shots is screamingly apparent to me.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is to me too, even on an iPhone's screen
-
This gives you a TOTALLY different look and indeed a much shallower DOF, that's what I have been posting all along, so I don't know were you missed that ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, you weren't addressing this comment to me, Frank, but I'll answer it anyway.
The larger format does have the advantage of being able to deliver a shallower DoF. This is not a peculiarity of only MF backs. It cuts across the whole range of different formats.
Those who use P&S cameras struggle to get a shallow DoF under any circumstances. The highly regarded G9 with 12mp on a sensor about 1/20th the area of a 5D, produces about the same DoF at f2.8 as the 5D at f13. There's absolutely no way you could get the same shallow DoF with a G9 as you would commonly get with a 5D at f8, never mind f2.8, shooting from the same distance for same FoV.
MFDBs with a sensor of 48mmx36mm have approximately a one stop advantage regarding shallow DoF with lenses of the same aperture. If you think you are getting a shallower DoF with a 120mm lens on a P21 at f2.8 than you would get with an 85/1.2 on a 1Ds3 at f2, then it's probably because your 120mm lens is 'effectively' sharper at f2.8 than the 85/1.2 is at f2.
If you have been comparing MFDBs of a higher pixel count than the 35mm full frame, then it's almost certain that the resulting image from the DB will be sharper at the plane of focus, which also has the effect of augmenting shallowness of DoF.
If your argument is, MFDB images look better because the available MF lenses are 'effectively' better, sharper etc. than their 35mm counterparts, then that's another point that might well be true and is more likely to be the real reason why you think you always seem to get better results with DBs.
Notice I write 'effectively' better. An MF lens could be equal to a 35mm lens regarding MTF response at various resolutions. However, the larger sensor is less demanding on the lens.
To properly test your opinions on this matter, we would need to properly select lenses for the comparison to ensure that the 35mm sensor was accessing its higher resolution needs at the same MTF as the MFDB sensor.
Put simply, if a 22mp 35mm camera is to equal the performance of a 22mp DB, then the 35mm lens not only has to be one stop faster but about 30% sharper.
-
frank,
the sample images you have posted are symptomatic for the canon versus mf discuss. instead of doing a comparison in a fair way you try to mislead. why should a canon image shot with a zoom - 140 mm @f11 look similar to an image taken with mf a 80mm @ f8 ? every novice in photography understands what makes the difference but you claim some magic mf quality this is ridiculous.
the reason going mf is in most cases only to get a competitive advantage and has nothing to do with needed image quality. but it seems nobody wants to say the truth here. how big are your images printed regularly ? i bet 95 % is around A4 so 6mp would be enough, you will not get much more information through an offset press. but the real problem i see is that the colleges who use mf are not very demanding. mf had become an innovation free zone. the only progress i see over years is more pixels this should make you think.
christian
-
frank,
but it seems nobody wants to say the truth here. how big are your images printed regularly ? i bet 95 % is around A4 so 6mp would be enough, you will not get much more information through an offset press.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes we are hiding the true here.
if buying a mf back you have to sign befor a contract which tells you what you can post in future and what not. this details you describe is 1 of the things we are not allowed by the manufactors to say in public. its a shame. how you found it out?
...... and what you think about if someone can make some hot money with the 5% which are bigger than A4?
-
Ssssttt......
Next to that we are all just 'pathological cash burners', I love to spend a lot of money for nothing.
I have been reading this thread with sadness. It appears there is an atmosphere developing where it is 35mm DSLR only users vs MF (and most of the time 35mm DSLR) users. Not sure whether it is because MF-users are 'egomaniacs' or because DSLR users have low self esteem.
Naturally every test can be manipulated or flawed or performed better depending on the desired outcome.
If you don't like the way a test has been performed; Do it yourself the way you think it is supposed to be done! If you cannot or don't want to go through the effort of doing so, maybe a bit more respect and patience towards those that do take the effort.
I am done with comparing, no Canon for me....
I will continue to use Nikon for the moment (next to MF)
-
How much longer is this madness going to continue?
Everyone needs the correct tool in their kit to meet the specific need; much like a surgeon going to a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel. MF suites my needs for landscape much the same way that 35mm meets my needs to shoot wildlife.
What say we start respecting each other again much the same way as if we were in actual face to face contact and stop the petty bickering.
Happy Holidays! And a very Merry Christmas .....
don
-
I have been shooting my D3 for a couple of weeks now
I think there is a fine line between the cameras and that line is getting finer
Tests of this nature are useless IMO - no disrepect to tht OP
--------------
For me starting from scratch it would be a fine line between a 22mp and a 1DS3
People need to do thier own calculations
MP TIMES bright view TIMES lens look TIMES clean chip TIMES flash synch etc
DIVIDED BY
COST times MIN HAND HOLD SPEED times WIDEest APerture * AFACCURACY etc
= buy what you want
===========
There is space for practical debate about specific uses and experiences but IMO this is a waste of space and causing bad vibes
On a tripod MF is better
-------------
With an H1 and a SLRN/D80* I got the H1 out of the bag 90% of the time,
With the D3 and the H1 it has been 80% D3
In the summer it will probably go back to 70% H1 (flash synch low ISO)
In the studio it will stay 90% H1 but I did use the D3 in the studio last week - shooting kids
If I had canon not nikon the shift would be even wilder towards Canon
An my mate just had an Xmas baby - D3 at 3200 - in the dark 15th sec- gave me some pictures that will have great personal value but dont stand any pixel peeping at all
I wouldnt have bothered with any other camera
I will say i'm digging the AF on the D3 and correct focus always resolves more
whats your percentage??
SMM
* the SLRN is great res for most apps but the chip is filthy and the batteries always flat
-
Would you believe my percentage of shots where I have the focus exactly where I want it is abnormally high with mf MF? (even kids but whenever the lights go dim or action is going faster I will grab the DSLR).
Good to hear the D3 is wonderful. I have passed and chosen to use the D300 for now. I would love to have the FX sensor in the package size of the D300. That would be a no-brainer. Now, I find the D3 too big while I like the size of the D300.
For going incognito I also have been eye-balling the M8 but been blocking that thought so far. How many systems can one person have.
-
Would you believe my percentage of shots where I have the focus exactly where I want it is abnormally high with mf MF? (even kids but whenever the lights go dim or action is going faster I will grab the DSLR).
Good to hear the D3 is wonderful. I have passed and chosen to use the D300 for now. I would love to have the FX sensor in the package size of the D300. That would be a no-brainer. Now, I find the D3 too big while I like the size of the D300.
For going incognito I also have been eye-balling the M8 but been blocking that thought so far. How many systems can one person have.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wouldnt do any ManFocus with a Crappy little DLSR viewfinder
I dont really AF with the H1 with the Crappy centrepoint AF
The D3 is not wonderful - the files are beaten IMO by even the SLRn - but it takes nice pictures fast feels SAFE and PRODUCES for less demanding clients - and has fast workflow
I have many gripes with the D3 - but this is not the place for them to be aired
For incognito I dont reckon the M8 is it - a P+S with live view etc is the one
How many systems? - well in film I had contaxT2, NikonF5 and Mmiay ProTL = three
S
-
stay cool rainer, did i say that it is wrong to have a business advantage with mf ? no, i also think the higher resolution of some mf backs can be beneficial but what some here do is to cover this business thing with myths, faith and technical BS. most advertising jobs end on a press smaller than A4 high or low end so from a technical standpoint there is not much of a difference if the file comes from a 10mp dslr or a 39mp back beside all the claims here.
-
Yeah the centerpoint AF of the H is kind of useless. DoF is most of time so thin you cannot AF and recompose without having your focal plane shift to a place where you did not intend to have it.
I have redirected AF to the AE button. I use it as a rough focus guide (when I think about it).
-
Morgan,
I hate auto-focus as it rarely is where I want it to be.
Using the 1Ds Mk3 last week, I was able to use the new 5x and 10x magnification feature, in conjunction with the selective framing device (it allows you to move a small white frame on the LCD to any point you like and then enlarge that portion of the image x5 or x10) and focus manually using a loupe. Just like on a 4x5! Worth the upgrade on its own for me.
csp,
Are you seriously implying that the likes of the high end ads (in particular, shots of small objects such as perfume and jewelery) in glossies such as Vogue could be achieved using a DSLR?
Apart from other considerations, the attenuated nature of the DSLR frame invariably requires cropping. It is rarely used as is. That results in a lot of pixels going to waste.
D.
-
Morgan,
I hate auto-focus as it rarely is where I want it to be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is one of my D3 gripes
The D3 has the Live view zoom thing too - which would be excellent on a tripod
but I aint going to be using a D3 on a tripod
Seeing that live view on the D3 makes my 54LV feel like an antique
The canon3 would gain another step for dark interiors on a tripod Versus a 22mp
It is factors like that that count - not pixel peeping IMO
The didgiback guys need to sort thier Live view out - there are better compacts
If Nikon could sandwhich two of thier 11mp chips toether, double the rear screen size and release it in a open platform back that also fitted an F6 I would bite thier arm off..
S
-
How large my works get print ?
And welcome to the "dark" side.
-
Are you seriously implying that the likes of the high end ads (in particular, shots of small objects such as perfume and jewelery) in glossies such as Vogue could be achieved using a DSLR?
Apart from other considerations, the attenuated nature of the DSLR frame invariably requires cropping. It is rarely used as is. That results in a lot of pixels going to waste.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
im a photo assistant/ [emerging] photographer. I mostly only assist celebrity portrait people, but I do work with one still life guy every now and then, mostly bc he was one of Avedon's assistants and has good stories and knows how to light anything really well. not trying to sound all cool that i am with the celebrity photos, just saying that bc its "better known photographers" who cant have a screw up under their name and not some guy shooting for carpenters world [really great photo director there..] One of his major clients is Vogue, and we only shoot with a 1ds mk 2. we will do double page spreads with it.
also in december alone, i was on 2 vogue shoots and 1 mens vogue shoot. all portraits/fashionable portraits. 2 of shoots were done with a canon 35mm and the third with a canon and Mamiya RZ with film...
-
How large my works get print ?
[snip]
And some billboards, covers, centerspreads, magazine work, A0 posters for concerts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162736\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, the odds are those banners were reproduced by the printer from a lower resolution file–regardless of what you sent them. Large reproduction is usually done with very course output resolution. A point & shoot could be used if it was sharp (or even not, if the effect was right).
My largest image repro we a banner that was 32' x 96' (yes, feet) and the output file size was 58MB, RGB. The printer requested a file that was 32" x 96" @ 32 pixels/CM. That means the final output resolution was an effective 2.6 pixels/CM. And the printers said this was for the HIGH QUALITY output...they usually don't print that high.
Course, the intended viewing distance was from the other side of the Atlanta Olympic Stadium. I understand the printer thought the added resolution was wasted.
How high your resolution may be is only an attribute of the file...it doesn't say anything about the quality of the image nor its value to a client.
-
That's what I posted (please read carefully).
The large banners from Wibi were done with a 10D.
It's not about the resolution/pixels it's about the QUALITY of those pixels.
And MF gives you (at least at this moment in time) a much more solid file to work with.
PLUS, the better control of DOF, and that is very important for what I love to do.
-
That's what I posted (please read carefully).
The large banners from Wibi were done with a 10D.
It's not about the resolution/pixels it's about the QUALITY of those pixels.
And MF gives you (at least at this moment in time) a much more solid file to work with.
PLUS, the better control of DOF, and that is very important for what I love to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
when I saw his pictures on your site, I assumed that they were for the piano player's personal use or a gift for his family or something similar. I had no idea that they'd be blow up to such a large size for his concerts. To my pleasant surprise, the posters look very good.
Sean
-
That's what I posted (please read carefully).
The large banners from Wibi were done with a 10D.
It's not about the resolution/pixels it's about the QUALITY of those pixels.
Almost any 10 or 12MP P&S camera can make a better image than a crop from the 10D of the same physical focal plane size, with he same focal length lens and exposure. The more pixels you have in an image, the less their individual quality matters. There are some issues with viewing fine, deeper noise up close, but nothing that can't be made to emulate larger pixels, and better. For example, if you downsample 2-micron pixels to emulate 8-micron pixels, you have negated all negative aspects of an AA filter, and almost completely eliminated Bayer artifacts.
And MF gives you (at least at this moment in time) a much more solid file to work with.
"Solid file"? Is that some kind of metaphysical talk?
PLUS, the better control of DOF, and that is very important for what I love to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, part of the problem with FF DSLRs is that they are mostly Canon, and Canon doesn't have very sharp wide-open fast wide lenses. You can always put a Leica or Contax lens on a FF Canon, though.
-
I don't think it's a coincidence that the RG medium format forums went nuclear at this same time of year a few years ago.
This thread is starting to glow. Let's hope it doesn't take the entire board with it when it blows.
(in all seriousness, step away from the keyboard and have a happy holiday.)
-
I suggest that all medium format back users stop adding anymore replies to this thread.let it die
-
@Jing,
I think that is wise, I for one will not post comments anymore.
@Sean,
I have done most of his photography since 2004, for:
CD's, DVD's, Books, publications in magazines, posters, flyers, etc.
A highpoint were those banners for the Concertgebouw and a very special booklet he used for his travels with the Dutch Queen Beatrix, I'm especially proud on those as you can understand.
The banners were a surprise for me otherwise I would have rented a MF system for those, they picked a shot I did at that time with the 10D, but it held up very nicely due to the VERY low DPI they needed.
-
I suggest that all medium format back users stop adding anymore replies to this thread.let it die
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kinda reminds me of the arrogance (or fear) of the guy I first worked for. A food shooter named Vince Masselli who did a lot of Better Homes & Garden food photography as well as commercial food shooting in Chicago in the late 70's & early 80's.
In those days, shooting food was something you did with tungsten lights and an old 8X10 Deardorf camera. That's just the way food used to be shot. So, I learned how to use an 8x10 and tungsten, but never really liked it. I much preferred 4x5 and strobe.
When I proved to Vince I could get sharper images from 4x5 (because of better DOF and strobe) he let me use what I wanted to use for shooting assignments I got. But, he stayed with 8x10 and tungsten. Why? Because that's what he knew how to use and was still convinced that 8x10 was best–even though I proved that 4x5 was plenty of resolution for reproduction (and actually reproduced better in print). He actually got pretty pissed off after BH&G actually asked for me to do a big holiday photo shoot because they like my stuff better.
What you choose to shoot with is far less important than the results of your final images...medium format vs DSLR is kinda like 8x10 vs 4x5. The end results, in the hands of a good photographer, will show very little relevance regarding the camera used when looking at the final image.
-
What you choose to shoot with is far less important than the results of your final images...medium format vs DSLR is kinda like 8x10 vs 4x5. The end results, in the hands of a good photographer, will show very little relevance regarding the camera used when looking at the final image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would have edited this comment to say, "...when looking at the final image, except, perhaps, in hand-printed fine-art images," but that's just me. 8-)
JC
-
What surprises me is the reluctance of most of the DB owners posting in this thread to investigate and discuss the actual reasons why they appear to be getting better results with their expensive backs.
They seem to take every criticism as a personal insult.
-
What surprises me is the reluctance of most of the DB owners posting in this thread to investigate and discuss the actual reasons why they appear to be getting better results with their expensive backs.
They seem to take every criticism as a personal insult.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that real criticism (on any product), if it is to be taken seriously, can only be passed by people who have at least tried the product.
There are several things that digital backs do that can lead to better results overall - either IQ or a happier client.
* Mature, robust tethered workflow:
- Large previews that appear quickly, this is extremely important for large commercial productions, either fashion/ beauty or still life.
- Live view (on some models) that works on the largest monitor and allows for accurate composition and focusing, especially on view cameras
- Support for electronic shutters (Rollei) with full remote control over aperture (1/10 stop increments) and speed.
* High speed flash sync: some MF and LF lenses offer sync speeds of up to 1/1000; good for outdoors or for freezing motion in studio
* Wide angle solutions:
- For architecture there is no question: many shooters that used 5X4 film before, got themselves a canon at some point, used it for 2 years and then moved on to a 22-39MP back with a 6X9 camera or a shift-style camera (ALPA, Cambo WD-S etc).
If you shoot wide angle and you need straight lines and sharp corners then there is no other way of doing it.
* Consistent colour: Many backs offer some kind of cooling, which translates to consistent colour when shooting a long, fast burst.
* Sensor cleaning: most backs are designed so that the sensor is sealed behind the IR filter and the IR filter is easy to clean - less retouching in post.
May be these points are obvious to those who own or use digital backs, which is why they don't bother explaining them to those who don't.
Then there's DR, DoF and all the other fun stuff that we all like to discuss again and again....
Yair
-
i still regularely publish images shot with a ( good sample ) of the 12-24 sigma lens on the 5d. doublepage printed and mixed in publications with my rodenstock HR lenses and the 33mp backs its not possible to see the difference
I'm with Rainer.
I use a Linhof M679cs with Rodenstock digital lenses and a P45+. I also use whatever I'm carrying at the time, could be a 5D, could be a little Canon point and shoot. Like Rainer I shoot architectural, although Rainer seems to be at the top end of the trade where as much of my work is building trade supplies photographed on site for brochures!
And like Rainer I've seen plenty of my shots, taken with different cameras, mixed up together and then commercially printed four colour off-set. In almost every case it's impossible to identify the camera from the final brochure image quality. And I say that as someone who has thirty years experience, a degree in photography, and can pixel peek with the best of them!
So why bother with a large format camera? Architects and creative directors seem entranced to the point of infatuation with the Linhof, the wide range of movements sometimes are useful (generally in a practical rather than artistic sense, in crowded European cities a huge side shift can be the difference between being in the middle of a busy road or safely on the pavement), and very very occasionally the theoretical image quality advantage actually does show through in the finished job.
But let's be realistic, spending masses of time waiting for the right light with a Canon Ixus will usually yield better results than using a P45+ if a rigid schedule dictates when you press the shutter!
-
Yair, I agree with Ray in which it says, I even have a personal experience in that sense, almost dramatic.
But I will say more to you, to purchase a DB, is right now more, a political exercise, to guess as it is going to subsist, that a reason of quality of image. And in spite of seeing me forced to acquire, almost unavoidably, for reasons of market, two digital endorsements. I believe that they would have to apply the laws anti-trust, except Mamiya, since it is sure a factual agreement of sale prices.
On the other hand it is left also ignorance clear that you have, since the majority of reasons which you argue do not correspond to the DB, correspond to the used cameras, is just like to mount a 1DS3, in a technical camera.
What I hope, like many, is that the appearance of 1ds3, makes you reflect deeply, of your policies and your position towards the photographers. Since your manoeuvre margin, has been reduced to half.
-
What I think is pretty amazing is how we, medium format users, need to defend our experiences with 35mm philosophers and "photographers" that never touched a MF camera or back. Actually, none of these defendors has ever posted their own images to prove their opinions with real photography. This is because most of you are PP and not photographers. You haven't worked (I don't say tested) with so many cameras and really don't understand how a medium format camera can be superior to us and why.
What you don't understand, Ray and the others here is that MF is not only about the results, MF is another way to think photography, is a different way to interact with your camera. Even if the 35mm cameras come close some day I don't see me changing my hasselblads or contax cameras against a canon. I own canons too, and they have their place.
And to close my participation here I'd like to say that when so many MF users in the world tells you that they see the improvement in image quality you should believe it and admit that the problem is simply that you don't see it, not that the improvement doesn't exist. And you should also respect what their eyes see instead of saying they need to purchase expensive mf digital backs to fulfill their ego.
This thread is a very sad example of what this forum is becoming.
This forum needs moderation, we MF users need to be able to talk freely about our questions (including comparisons to 35mm) without being hijacked be pixelpeepers without mf experience of any kind.
/Samuel
-
I'll only say this, I'm a professional and NOT some rich amateur with money to waste. I actually had to borrow most of the money to buy my P25, and I sure as hell wouldn't have put myself in debt if there wasn't an obvious difference between 35mm and digital backs. With that said, I do own a Canon too and make great photos with both.
-
I'll only say this, I'm a professional and NOT some rich amateur with money to waste. I actually had to borrow most of the money to buy my P25, and I sure as hell wouldn't have put myself in debt if there wasn't an obvious difference between 35mm and digital backs. With that said, I do own a Canon too and make great photos with both.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
but the interest seems to be incredible.
nearly 9.000 people have been reading this funny discussion .....
not a bad audience.
-
What you don't understand, Ray and the others here is that MF is not only about the results, MF is another way to think photography, is a different way to interact with your camera. Even if the 35mm cameras come close some day I don't see me changing my hasselblads or contax cameras against a canon. I own canons too, and they have their place.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I definitely sense a lot of insecurity here. I don't think you'll find any comment that I've made anywhere on the forum, ever, where I've suggested that larger sensors with more pixels will not produce better quality images. For me it's a given and something I would not argue against.
But we're talking here about 2 different formats with similar pixel count; 14 bit processing versus 16 bit processing; CMOS sensor, with all its inherent advantages, versus CCD sensor with all its advantages (whatever they are).
The differences are likely to be subtle and to reveal such differences, just for the sake of academic interest if nothing else, the comparison has to be done properly.
I haven't seen any properly done comparison yet where the 35mm camera (specifically the 1Ds3) is used in a competent manner. There's little point in harking back to comparisons that may have been done using the 11mp 1Ds.
I've also never seen a single comparison where the DB image has been cropped to the 1Ds3 aspect ratio, which of course gives a pixel count advantage to the 1Ds3. The methodology is always skewed to the advantage of the DB. Now that's a sign of insecurity if ever I saw one.
-
I think that real criticism (on any product), if it is to be taken seriously, can only be passed by people who have at least tried the product.
My criticism is not of any specific product but of the methodology used in the comparison between products.
* Mature, robust tethered workflow:
- Large previews that appear quickly, this is extremely important for large commercial productions, either fashion/ beauty or still life.
- Live view (on some models) that works on the largest monitor and allows for accurate composition and focusing, especially on view cameras
- Support for electronic shutters (Rollei) with full remote control over aperture (1/10 stop increments) and speed.
There might be some useful features there which the 1Ds3 does not support, but I think a tethered workflow is not one of them.
* High speed flash sync: some MF and LF lenses offer sync speeds of up to 1/1000; good for outdoors or for freezing motion in studio
That certainly seems to be an advantage. I think the 1Ds3 has a maximum of 1/250 flash sync.
* Wide angle solutions:
- For architecture there is no question: many shooters that used 5X4 film before, got themselves a canon at some point, used it for 2 years and then moved on to a 22-39MP back with a 6X9 camera or a shift-style camera (ALPA, Cambo WD-S etc).
If you shoot wide angle and you need straight lines and sharp corners then there is no other way of doing it.
Are you sure about that? I mean, no other way of doing it.
A couple of days ago I took the following architectural shot with my 5D and el cheapo Sigma 15-30mm zoom. The lines look pretty straight to me. Of course, this isn't a single shot but 3 shots at 15mm stitched with Photomerge in CS3 and pulled into shape with 'free transform' and 'warp'.
I show here the first of the 3 images, the resulting stitch and a 100% crop of the 88mb file (8 bit). If the image doesn't look quite finished it's because I'm cobbling this together on a poorly calibrated notebook.
[attachment=4386:attachment] [attachment=4387:attachment] [attachment=4388:attachment]
* Sensor cleaning: most backs are designed so that the sensor is sealed behind the IR filter and the IR filter is easy to clean - less retouching in post.
Automatic sensor cleaning is a feature of the 1Ds3. It's not a big deal.
* Consistent colour: Many backs offer some kind of cooling, which translates to consistent colour when shooting a long, fast burst.
I think heating issues are more of a problem with MFDBs. This is not an advantage but a fix for a disadvantage.
Then there's DR, DoF and all the other fun stuff that we all like to discuss again and again....
Again and again because we rarely do any serious testing.
-
i would not have many clients which would like to see curved lines if they should be straight. probably you dont know what about i speak, do you?
-
Yair, I agree with Ray in which it says, I even have a personal experience in that sense, almost dramatic.
But I will say more to you, to purchase a DB, is right now more, a political exercise, to guess as it is going to subsist, that a reason of quality of image. And in spite of seeing me forced to acquire, almost unavoidably, for reasons of market, two digital endorsements. I believe that they would have to apply the laws anti-trust, except Mamiya, since it is sure a factual agreement of sale prices.
On the other hand it is left also ignorance clear that you have, since the majority of reasons which you argue do not correspond to the DB, correspond to the used cameras, is just like to mount a 1DS3, in a technical camera.
What I hope, like many, is that the appearance of 1ds3, makes you reflect deeply, of your policies and your position towards the photographers. Since your manoeuvre margin, has been reduced to half.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you are absolute right,
reading the list yair posted (never miss a chance to do some marketing, right ?) the question raised does he have any experience with the new nikon or canon at all ;-) seems not because - live view - is a joke with most mf solutions compared to what nikon or canon have implemented. and this holds true for most of "his" points. when you play with the dsmk3 open minded you will see that canon has listened carefully especially to studio photographers .
-
you are absolute right,
reading the list yair posted (never miss a chance to do some marketing, right ?) the question raised does he have any experience with the new nikon or canon at all ;-) seems not because - live view - is a joke with most mf solutions compared to what nikon or canon have implemented. and this holds true for most of "his" points. when you play with the dsmk3 open minded you will see that canon has listened carefully especially to studio photographers .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's right csp, whoever/ wherever you are...
Marketing is one of the things I do for a living and I for one am not ashamed of it nor do I feel the need to hide behind an alias so I can throw superficial swings whenever it feels good...
This section of the forum is dedicated to medium format DBs and photography and as someone who has got his fingers deep in the bowl mixing the ingredients of digital backs' design and manufacturing, I sometimes find myself in a situation where the best thing to do is to say "thank you for your time" and to walk away.
If a digital back is not the right tool for your shooting style, for your budget or for your state of mind that is fine. Just as much as a 35mm doesn't fit into some else's work.
Yes the new 35mm cameras are getting better and are offering more than they have ever done before and to say that they aren't listening will be a mistake;
But do they offer 1:1 Live Preview that fills a 30" cinema display at 6 fps? I think not....correction, I KNOW not.
Do they offer absolutely straight lines when shooting WA verticals and shifting up 15 or 20mm while still retaining conrers sharpness without showing CA? I think not....correction, I KNOW not.
Many of the reasons why photographers choose to shoot 5X4 or 8X10 over 35mm remain valid when debating DB Vs 35mm.
To claim that people who choose DBs do it for political reasons or that the new Canons/ Nikons can do equal things in the studio, is IMHO simply a twisted view of our reality.
Yair
-
but the interest seems to be incredible.
nearly 9.000 people have been reading this funny discussion .....
not a bad audience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163013\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's why the forum shouldn't be moderated to exclude people who don't use MF backs. I shoot Nikons and an M8, and used to shoot an RZ, and I'm very curious about quality claims made for MF backs. If I sold all my M8 equipment, I could buy a Hassy & back, and I might do that someday, if I think the change is worthwhile -- which is why I read this forum. And that's why a lot of people read this forum.
Also, you won't catch me arguing that Canon and Nikon in their present state are absolutely as good as MF; the difficult part for many people is the question of whether N&C output is effectively as good as MF **after** repro by a high-speed press. For people in the early (low paid) stages of a photography career, this is a pretty critical financial question.
For amateurs like me, who have little interest in professional photography, the question of absolute quality (as produced on large home-based inkjet printers) is the intriguing aspect of the discussion.
JC
-
xx
-
Dear Ray
Thank you so much for posting these images, at least now any professional architectural photographer knows your credibility. And after viewing your 100% crop I think any MF back users knows it as well.
I simply cant believe that I have spend my time seriously reading your post, I am getting depressed and realizing that life is just too short for reading and posting on this MF forum with guys like you on board.
T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ROFL! Couldn't agree more
-
erased.
it has not sense.
-
I realised if you click on the user's nickname it brings you to the user's info
from there you can click "Ignore User"
does that make a person disappear from my online experience forever?
-
Is this dpreview I am reading or actually the LL MFDB forum?
My god, soon enough we will have comparisons between mobile phone cameras and DB's
Maybe I should start a comparison between my bicicle and my car as it would have the same relevance as what i have been reading here!!!
Marc
-
A couple of days ago I took the following architectural shot with my 5D and el cheapo Sigma 15-30mm zoom. The lines look pretty straight to me. Of course, this isn't a single shot but 3 shots at 15mm stitched with Photomerge in CS3 and pulled into shape with 'free transform' and 'warp'.
doesn't look too straight to me... at least that's a demonstration of earth curvature...
May be it would worth it to open a few new forum
- "I shoot 35mm because I don't see the point to shoot MF"
and
- "ETTR is the way to go"
just to keep those war out of here
Merry Christmas if possible
-
Dear Ray
Thank you so much for posting these images, at least now any professional architectural photographer knows your credibility. And after viewing your 100% crop I think any MF back users knows it as well.
I simply cant believe that I have spend my time seriously reading your post, I am getting depressed and realizing that life is just too short for reading and posting on this MF forum with guys like you on board.
T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some of you guys just don't seem to be able to focus on the issue at hand, do you.
I present an image taken with a Sigma zoom, hastily put together on a notebook since I'm at present travelling, in order to suggest that the perspective and warp controls in Photoshop might be able to take the place of the role of a shift lens, the use of which might not necessarily be such a significant advantage of the larger sensor.
Instead of pointing out the curved lines in the image which you think should be straight, we just get a heap of scorn from you.
Below is a single shot of the same scene, taken from a slightly greater distance. Would you mind pointing out where are the curved lines that you think should be straight. The branches of the tree, perhaps?
[attachment=4393:attachment]
-
Some of you guys just don't seem to be able to focus on the issue at hand, do you.
I present an image taken with a Sigma zoom, hastily put together on a notebook since I'm at present travelling, in order to suggest that the perspective and warp controls in Photoshop might be able to take the place of the role of a shift lens, the use of which might not necessarily be such a significant advantage of the larger sensor.
Instead of pointing out the curved lines in the image which you think should be straight, we just get a heap of scorn from you.
Below is a single shot of the same scene, taken from a slightly greater distance. Would you mind pointing out where are the curved lines that you think should be straight. The branches of the tree, perhaps?
[attachment=4393:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am sorry Ray but the altered image is really a big sloppy mess. It looks stretched distorted even if you look individually structures and definition of the trees, it just doesn't look right period. I mean you just can't hide the fact that you are arguing here with some of the top photographers especially in Architecture.
One thing is for sure though, IF YOU TOOK AND SPEND ENOUGH OF YOUR EFFORT/ENERGY WITH MF BACK like you are doing with 35mm PERHAPS USING MF 28mm MAMIYA OR........ YOU WOULD SURELY AND EASILY BE CONVINCED THAT YOU ARE WAISTING TIME, OR IN OTHER WORDS PERHAPS DOING THE EVERLASTING 35mm RESEARCH WHICH I FIND TO BE FAIR CONSIDERING YOUR GOALS AND YOUR web PERSONALITY.
-
I am sorry Ray but the altered image is really a big sloppy mess. It looks stretched distorted even if you look individually structures and definition of the trees, it just doesn't look right period. I mean you just can't hide the fact that you are arguing here with some of the top photographers especially in Architecture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163163\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This was as far back as I could get with a 15mm on 35mm format. As a matter of interest, is there a 20mm shift lens available for MFDBs that could take in this scene?
-
This was as far back as I could get with a 15mm on 35mm format. As a matter of interest, is there a 20mm shift lens available for MFDBs that could take in this scene?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course there is: 24mm XL Schneider Lens that you can put on a number of Tilt Shift Cameras: Alpa, Cambo etc..... and end up with SUPERIOR RESULTS
-
good morning ......
i take this tread as some exercise in patience and so i go on.
I will not speak again about the curvature in your ( Rays ) stitched 15mm shot, resulting from panorama stitching in PS, because Ray obviously dont see it,- but believe me , torben and the others here, that its there and not a "mf shooters konspiration" to defend our expensive gear.
You can see attached a temple shot with the 35HR and the eMotion75.
No postpro in this image, just some slight sharpening.
Also you can see a crop of this image,-
and you can compare the rendering of the highlight, specular highlights and of the shadow noise to your own crop.
Ray, to make this "crop comparison" easy i posted your crop again, hoping you will not accuse me for copyright violation to get some money for your mf back or your 1ds3.
but you can write your next essay in which you might say that you have allready said that you monitor hasnt been kalibrated.
[attachment=4395:attachment]
[attachment=4397:attachment]
[attachment=4398:attachment]
why dont you go once again to one of this amazing temples and look after a little bit illumination?
dont post. dont try to shoot pictures nor to argue. meditate.
-
That's right csp, whoever/ wherever you are...
Marketing is one of the things I do for a living and I for one am not ashamed of it nor do I feel the need to hide behind an alias so I can throw superficial swings whenever it feels good...
This section of the forum is dedicated to medium format DBs and photography and as someone who has got his fingers deep in the bowl mixing the ingredients of digital backs' design and manufacturing, I sometimes find myself in a situation where the best thing to do is to say "thank you for your time" and to walk away.
If a digital back is not the right tool for your shooting style, for your budget or for your state of mind that is fine. Just as much as a 35mm doesn't fit into some else's work.
Yes the new 35mm cameras are getting better and are offering more than they have ever done before and to say that they aren't listening will be a mistake;
But do they offer 1:1 Live Preview that fills a 30" cinema display at 6 fps? I think not....correction, I KNOW not.
Do they offer absolutely straight lines when shooting WA verticals and shifting up 15 or 20mm while still retaining conrers sharpness without showing CA? I think not....correction, I KNOW not.
Many of the reasons why photographers choose to shoot 5X4 or 8X10 over 35mm remain valid when debating DB Vs 35mm.
To claim that people who choose DBs do it for political reasons or that the new Canons/ Nikons can do equal things in the studio, is IMHO simply a twisted view of our reality.
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yair, it is never good when arrogance and business interests meet, this often results in a shift of perception. be sure i know my business and technic but what separates us is that i create and sell images and you are a hard working employee in a marketing department so it is kind of strange that you want to tell me what can be done with a camera in a studio or not. believe me i´m aware of the limitations of both systems so please don't paint the mf world to bright . this board is the proof for what does not work and there is much to read. but to be honest i see one limitation with dslr's as with any other integrated (mf) solution. the mirror box can get in the way if you like or need extreme movements but to this point you can use a canon without dealing with lens casts or other ugly mf phenomenon. beside this point i don't know what could not be done in studio with a ds !
why you focus so much on architecture photography is also beyond my understanding given that the market is rather small and it is nothing what could not be done by any talented professional with the right equipment.
to even slightly suggest that there is a similar relation between 8x10 and 35mm as there is now between a below 6x4,5 mf chip and 35mm sensor tells only what marketing trumpet you blow. in the early 90's when better E-6 films are brought to the market a lot of people and fashion shooters moved from mf (6x6/6x4,5) to 35mm when they discovered that there was almost no difference in resolution ( a3/300 scans). but they did get better contrast and much more keepers because of af and at this time improved 35mm lenses. what finally convinced many was that printed nobody could see a difference and in years i never ever had one college telling me he sticks to 6x4,5 because of the so much better 3d look, better dof or other imaginary BS. other the reason to use 4x5 and larger this was never questioned because here you could of course see a difference.
at the end i see we should spend more and more money on equipment which does not have any visible impact on the quality of our printed work but is in the interest of the industry. this is in fact what i would call a twisted view of reality.
digital means photography for the rich only. what sad world
c
-
hi Rainer,
May be you should tell Ray where this temple is: Ayuthaya, 80 km north of Bangkok.
Thierry
good morning ......
i take this tread as some exercise in patience and so i go on.
I will not speak again about the curvature in your ( Rays ) stitched 15mm shot, resulting from panorama stitching in PS, because Ray obviously dont see it,- but believe me , torben and the others here, that its there and not a "mf shooters konspiration" to defend our expensive gear.
You can see attached a temple shot with the 35HR and the eMotion75.
No postpro in this image, just some slight sharpening.
Also you can see a crop of this image,-
and you can compare the rendering of the highlight, specular highlights and of the shadow noise to your own crop.
Ray, to make this "crop comparison" easy i posted your crop again, hoping you will not accuse me for copyright violation to get some money for your mf back or your 1ds3.
but you can write your next essay in which you might say that you have allready said that you monitor hasnt been kalibrated.
[attachment=4395:attachment]
[attachment=4397:attachment]
[attachment=4398:attachment]
why dont you go once again to one of this amazing temples and look after a little bit illumination?
dont post. dont try to shoot pictures nor to argue. meditate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
good morning ......
i take this tread as some exercise in patience and so i go on.
I will not speak again about the curvature in your ( Rays ) stitched 15mm shot, resulting from panorama stitching in PS, because Ray obviously dont see it,- but believe me , torben and the others here, that its there and not a "mf shooters konspiration" to defend our expensive gear.
You can see attached a temple shot with the 35HR and the eMotion75.
No postpro in this image, just some slight sharpening.
Also you can see a crop of this image,-
and you can compare the rendering of the highlight, specular highlights and of the shadow noise to your own crop.
Ray, to make this "crop comparison" easy i posted your crop again, hoping you will not accuse me for copyright violation to get some money for your mf back or your 1ds3.
but you can write your next essay in which you might say that you have allready said that you monitor hasnt been kalibrated.
[attachment=4395:attachment]
[attachment=4397:attachment]
[attachment=4398:attachment]
why dont you go once again to one of this amazing temples and look after a little bit illumination?
dont post. dont try to shoot pictures nor to argue. meditate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good morning to you Rainer. I think you might need some of that patience in order to get your comparisons right.
Your 100% crop is a much larger crop than mine so therefore it's quite likely to be more detailed. I hope you don't mind my posting your image next to mine showing the cropped areas in red.
When I look at my crop, what I'm seeing on my 12" wide laptop screen is what I would see standing about 12" from a 50"x42" print of the entire image.
[attachment=4400:attachment]
I've also shown below our two crops at equal size and area. What lens did you use? I used an $800 Sigma zoom on a 12.8mp camera. My shots were all hand-held also.
[attachment=4401:attachment]
If you are ever thinking of comparing a 1Ds3 with one of your DBs, give me a call and I'll help you get things right.
-
Of course there is: 24mm XL Schneider Lens that you can put on a number of Tilt Shift Cameras: Alpa, Cambo etc..... and end up with SUPERIOR RESULTS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I should certainly hope so, considering the expense of that lens and those cameras. However, with the 48x36mm sensor of the Phase backs 24mm would not be quite wide enough, would it!
-
Dear csp,
as a "hard-working employee" of a sales dpt. of one of the MF manufacturers your comments are also somehow "aimed" at me, and I feel it necessary to answer and defend Yair and myself.
I doubt there is any "marketing" speaking here, but rather the experience of many years (I guess Yair is in the field since a few as well) encounters with and feedback from real professionals all over the world, and in my case the previous experience of being myself a professional photographer. These encounters and speaking with those photographers have given us some inside-view of what professionals think and why they choose one system or another or why this gear fits their needs better than another. In any case, be sure of that, we meet also professionals who owe 35 dslr cameras, so we are getting the feedback from this side as well.
I have been one of the first to say, at the beginning of this particular tread, that the comparison done was unfair and that it was possible to get a much better quality out of the 35 dslr in question. This being said, I am also well aware of the real advantages and where lies the "superiority" of a high-end back like a MFDB, when it is in the hands of somebody able to use it, and they are many (able to use it).
I wish to make clear that my words do not imply or suggest that YOU are not able to use such a gear (nor Ray). But again, this is our experiences and our encounters with professionals all over the world, our own experiences with "our" gear/products in many hours of handling and tests.
We are not just here to give you marketing talks and/or to sell our products, nor to make the MF world looking (only) bright. If my role as an employee would be to BS day after day and sell a product which I was not convinced to be a good product giving high quality results, then I would certainly be working at another place. I think some honesty and true words can also be found in the mouth of sales or marketing employees who have the passion of photography.
Best regards,
Thierry
yair, ... you are a hard working employee in a marketing department so it is kind of strange that you want to tell me what can be done with a camera in a studio or not. believe me i´m aware of the limitations of both systems so please don't paint the mf world to bright . this board is the proof for what does not work and there is much to read. b beside this point i don't know what could not be done in studio with a ds !
why you focus so much on architecture photography is also beyond my understanding given that the market is rather small and it is nothing what could not be done by any talented professional with the right equipment.
at the end i see we should spend more and more money on equipment which does not have any visible impact on the quality of our printed work but is in the interest of the industry. this is in fact what i would call a twisted view of reality.
digital means photography for the rich only. what sad world
c
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
yair, it is never good when arrogance and business interests meet, this often results in a shift of perception. be sure i know my business and technic but what separates us is that i create and sell images and you are a hard working employee in a marketing department so it is kind of strange that you want to tell me what can be done with a camera in a studio or not. believe me i´m aware of the limitations of both systems so please don't paint the mf world to bright . this board is the proof for what does not work and there is much to read. but to be honest i see one limitation with dslr's as with any other integrated (mf) solution. the mirror box can get in the way if you like or need extreme movements but to this point you can use a canon without dealing with lens casts or other ugly mf phenomenon. beside this point i don't know what could not be done in studio with a ds !
why you focus so much on architecture photography is also beyond my understanding given that the market is rather small and it is nothing what could not be done by any talented professional with the right equipment.
to even slightly suggest that there is a similar relation between 8x10 and 35mm as there is now between a below 6x4,5 mf chip and 35mm sensor tells only what marketing trumpet you blow. in the early 90's when better E-6 films are brought to the market a lot of people and fashion shooters moved from mf (6x6/6x4,5) to 35mm when they discovered that there was almost no difference in resolution ( a3/300 scans). but they did get better contrast and much more keepers because of af and at this time improved 35mm lenses. what finally convinced many was that printed nobody could see a difference and in years i never ever had one college telling me he sticks to 6x4,5 because of the so much better 3d look, better dof or other imaginary BS. other the reason to use 4x5 and larger this was never questioned because here you could of course see a difference.
at the end i see we should spend more and more money on equipment which does not have any visible impact on the quality of our printed work but is in the interest of the industry. this is in fact what i would call a twisted view of reality.
digital means photography for the rich only. what sad world
c
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
c (or is it csp?),
I usually try to avoid judging or criticising people whom I have not met in person or at least that I have got some knowledge of their background . I say usually because it is not always easy to swallow such intelligent remarks.
Specifically I won't pass judgement on a photographer without knowing or seeing his/ her work.
Most shooters I know that work digitally are quite happy with this medium and tend to leave the discussion about E-6 in the 90's to those late hours down the pub.
I am not trying to tell you anything but as Thierry kindly suggested, I'd much rather carry on showing these differences to REAL people with REAL names in REAL studios on REAL assignments.
Yair
-
Some of you people need the following
Get out and shoot more and F(&^ what anybody thinks
Get a hobby
Get a women
or all the above
-
After testing my back for a while, I'm convinced that the image quality is potentially better than that of my Canon, color is much better, but the Mamiya and 80mm really could be improved upon. My 39 MP system will beat a 22MP Canon, but it could be better in an absolute sense.
I think digital MF is a work in progress, while Canon and Nikon are playing at the top of their game.
Edmund
-
Right Eronald.
The new 1Ds3 is having problems (for some)* showing a true IQ advantage over its predecessor. I think we will have a MarkIV with 16bit and a few more mp's, but that would be about the end of the 2 year cycle (average) for digital 35mm and APS.
A 16bit, 27mp MkIV will certainly and dangerously aproach current DMF sensors, but by then the new crop of 48X48 and 56X42 sensors will be selling. Then, DMF will dust d35 forever
* I can see a real improvement from the 5D, even over the net.
Eduardo
After testing my back for a while, I'm convinced that the image quality is potentially better than that of my Canon, color is much better, but the Mamiya and 80mm really could be improved upon. My 39 MP system will beat a 22MP Canon, but it could be better in an absolute sense.
I think digital MF is a work in progress, while Canon and Nikon are playing at the top of their game.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Right Eronald.
The new 1Ds3 is having problems (for some)* showing a true IQ advantage over its predecessor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's probably because of two things:
1) Canon wide lenses aren't sharp enough, especially wide-open and/or in the corners to take advantage of 21MP FF. Put a 180mm macro or a 300mm f/2.8 on and see what happens. Or a Leica (or other HQ wide lens) lens with an adapter.
2) An extra 4.4MP going from 16.7MP to 21.1MP is not very significant compared to going from, say, 0.6 MP to 5 MP. A better way to compare is to look at the square root of the ratio of pixels; sqrt(22.1/16.7) = 1.124, or a 12.4% increase in resolution. Incremental, but not monumental. That results in more je ne se quoi, than it does in "Wow!".
The mk3 does have much lower pixel read noise at high ISO. At low ISOs, the pixel-level noise has not improved as much, except for weaker line noises in the deep shadows.
-
@Eduardo,
Please read the whole thread (I know it's a lot).
Even a 33MP 16 bits Canon DSLR will not equal MF backs.
The bigger sensor is were the most difference lies.
I do agree that with a Crop MFback were the sensor dimensions are getting close to FF 35mm I would also opt for the DSLR due to flexibility.
I choose the Leaf Aptus22 because I wanted to have the biggest sensor possible I could afford, I could get a crop sensor for less with a higher MP count but that would for me make no sense and I would have bought the 1DsIII.
There is more ofcourse like DR, No AA filter etc. but the size of the sensor is what will ALWAYS keep the comparision between 35mm DSLR's and MF backs (with the large sensors) something that makes them 2 seperate beasts.
-
There is more ofcourse like DR, No AA filter etc. but the size of the sensor is what will ALWAYS keep the comparision between 35mm DSLR's and MF backs (with the large sensors) something that makes them 2 seperate beasts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just like the differences between the Olympus E-3 and FF 35mm, Frank? Or haven't you been following those threads?
The sensors in Phase backs have double the area of 35mm. FF 35mm has about 4x the area of an E3 sensor.
It's all in the lenses. Zuiko lenses are generally better than 35mm lenses. The way forward for Canon now is to develop better lenses to match the increasing pixel density of its sensors.
-
I saw an incredible boost in my pictures when I switched from the 20D to the 5D, the pictures were more 3D and much more "real".
When I switched to MF it was an even bigger jump forward.
I think that lenses can still perform very well, people are talking about 1:1 resolution but they forget that you need much more pixels than 1:1 to really capture a scene, for example for audio we need at least 44.1 Khz to make a sound sound natural, although most people don't hear above 15K.
This is called the nyquist factor.
When we look at lenses I THINK that the same rule applies.
So if you outperform your lens on a 1:1 pixel ratio there will still be more detail than people think.
I do STRONGLY believe however that especially on cameras like the 5D/1DsII/1DsIII the lensquality is much more important than on a 4MP camera.
But I do not believe you are outperforming the glass with a 22MP sensor, but I could be wrong.
But the better glass, the better the picture that stands without a doubt.
Some people however claim that lenses can only perform up untilll XX megapixels, but that story has been going on since as long as I know.
The 1DsII would outresolve any lens, and now that the 1DsIII is here you can see a big boost in detail even with lensen like a Tamron 28-75 which shows alot more on the 1DsIII than on my 5D
Let alone the real good and exotic glass.
People however have to learn to not only look at the paper with specs, real life is so much different. That's the reason I don't respond much more in this thread, everything has been said.
-
Frank:
I've read most posts already and I completely agree with you. I'm not equalizing 35 with MF, IQ likewise. "Dangerously aproaching" means mainly, it will erode more and more from dmf sales.
This is bad and good.
For the good part, Nikon and mainly Canon are providing pretty stable and reliable cameras that can do most things mf cameras can at a price range where most photogs around the globe can afford without a mortgage.
For the bad part, if this happens, lower number of mf sales will keep prices high or even will increasing them.
As for me, in order to save some money, for years I've bought from US vendors, first by fax, now online. This means I need to buy pretty reliable tried&true equipment, on this department, digital 35 is light years ahead of mf digital gear. So, currently I am considring investing in 1DsIV and 3 top notch quality primes. Not cheap either, but it will allow me to offer my clients a better product yet. I could do it within reasonable spending without the lacerating, painful, bleeding spending of going medium format. On top of that, maybe in a few months we'll have a 5D successor "dangerously aproaching" the 1Ds4 image quality.
Color lens casts, centerfold issues, tethered shooting problems, close systems&open systems, back compatibility, clumsy software, etc, etc, etc, have put me off in the last months, after seriously considering through all this year to jump to medium format digital, I think I'll pass for the time being.
Best everything for 2008 to all
Eduardo
-
That's looking at : Paper.
When you look at real good photographs you will still see a much more profound difference than what I have seen so far in tests.
As mentioned before I have travelled recently with the 5D and Leaf Aptus 22 and shot almost everything with the Leaf for the simple reason that even on my laptop screen the MF files looked so much better in depth and feel of being there.
The fun thing is that we made a small book in which we mixed the shots of the 5D and with the Leaf on normal sized prints, my mother (no photographer) picked out the leaf shots as being special, when I asked her why ?
she said, with those shots I have the feeling of being there were the other pictures look flat, not bad but more flat.
Maybe I got the depth thing from my mother
But it's fun that she commented on it.
-
As mentioned before I have travelled recently with the 5D and Leaf Aptus 22 and shot almost everything with the Leaf for the simple reason that even on my laptop screen the MF files looked so much better in depth and feel of being there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
Perhaps a similar comment could have been made by someone travelling with a Canon D60 and a 1Ds which has almost double the pixel count and a sensor 2.6x the size.
Unless these mysterious qualities you refer to are due largely to the lack of an AA filter, one might expect that owners of a 5D could claim the same additional depth, reality and 3-dimensionality when comparing 5D images with those from a 40D or Olympus E-3.
There has to be a reason why you are getting this MF effect. If it's entirely due to sensor size, then the same effect should be apparent if one goes down a couple of format sizes. Remember also, the difference in sensor size between a 40D or E-3 and FF 35mm is greater than the size difference between FF 35mm and MFDB sensors.
-
Well I never said otherwise ???
When I switched from the 20D (1.6) to the 5D (FF) I saw a huge jump in image quality but also in depth. When chaning to MF it's the same PLUS all the extra things like 16 bits, DR, no AA etc.
So like I said before for me a large part is in the sensor size that sets the systems apart.
You can NEVER get the same FOV with a FF 35mm camera you get with the MF system, and visa versa offcourse that's why it's comparing apples and oranges.
-
Well I never said otherwise ???
When I switched from the 20D (1.6) to the 5D (FF) I saw a huge jump in image quality but also in depth. When chaning to MF it's the same PLUS all the extra things like 16 bits, DR, no AA etc.
So like I said before for me a large part is in the sensor size that sets the systems apart.
You can NEVER get the same FOV with a FF 35mm camera you get with the MF system, and visa versa offcourse that's why it's comparing apples and oranges.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's something here that doesn't seem quite right, Frank. Having myself used a 6mp D60, an 8mp D20 and and a 12.7mp 5D, I have not been struck by any extra sense of reality or 3-dimensionality from the 5D.
The differences I notice are basically higher resolution and more detailed images from the 5D; a necessity to use f16 with the 5D instead of f10 or f11 that I would use with the D60 or 20D for the greatest DoF without noticeable or significant sacrifice of resolution and detail; a shallower DoF with the 5D at the same f stop which gives the 5D a slight advantage when shallowness of DoF is sought, and a wider FoV with the same lenses.
I simply don't understand your comment that you can never get the same FoV with a FF 35mm as you would get with a 36x48mm sensor. Are you referring to differences in aspect ratio? If so, you simply have to crop one format to the same aspect ratio as the other and use the appropriate lens.
For example, the widest FoV you would normally get with 35mm would result from use of a 12mm lens. If you crop the 35mm format to the same aspect ratio as a Phase DB, you'd need to use an 18mm with the Phase back.
I'm no expert on the range of MF lenses avbailable, but the widest Digitar lens with the smaller image circle ideal for the 48x36mm format seems to be 24mm.
If you want the same horizontal FoV that 35mm can give you with a 12mm lens, then you need a 16mm Digitar lens with reduced image circle.
It looks to me as though MFDBs are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to maximum FoV.
-
I think digital MF is a work in progress, while Canon and Nikon are playing at the top of their game.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
An interesting point.
However, if in (say) four years time, pixels were 2 microns wide instead of the current 6(ish), wouldn't that rewrite the rule book? (And I'm speaking as an MFDB advocate.)
As regards sensor size, Hassie and the like have quite a way to go before they use up the space available to them. i.e. 6x6cm.
D.
ps....what MFDB system are you using?
-
When you crop you can, but why would you crop ???
That's the whole reason to go to a bigger sensor.
Heck when I crop enough I can emulate my cellphone with my 5D.....
This is not going anywhere.
Just mount a 35mm on a medium format back and shoot, and you will NEVER ask these questions again
You will not even have to compare it to the DSLR with a 17-20mm
-
When you crop you can, but why would you crop ???
That's the whole reason to go to a bigger sensor.
Heck when I crop enough I can emulate my cellphone with my 5D.....
This is not going anywhere.
Well, it is going somewhere. We've just learned that you don't crop. I frequently crop my images. Landscapes often require a wider aspect ratio than portraits. I crop for the purpose of creating a more pleasing composition regardless of the size of the sensor.
Just mount a 35mm on a medium format back and shoot, and you will NEVER ask these questions again
You will not even have to compare it to the DSLR with a 17-20mm
Not sure I understand your point here, Frank. Are you saying that a 35mm frame on a medium format back is good, or not good? Some of the first DBs, up to around 16mp, were 35mm format with MF lenses, weren't they. It must have been very difficult to get a wide FoV.
-
It amazes me that the DB vs 35mm digital is constantly debated........most "photographers" couldn't get a nice image with a snap shot camera....so what does it matter that your image has more depth??? So you can see even better that the images suck??
Seriously.......stop debating and get your ass back behind your camera's (whatever kind it is) and train your EYE!!!!
Just had to vent this before 2008 starts. I see a lot of very badly/poorly composed/lite and retouched images on these forums! Why not start a tread with some quality images??
-
Well to answer both questions.
Try this with a 17mm on a DSLR ?
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Marie_buiten_strand_28_Juni_2007-4.jpg)
No retouching to straighten lines.
-
Well to answer both questions.
Try this with a 17mm on a DSLR ?
.
-
Well, I can't make anything else from it.
This is shot with a 35mm on the Mamiya.
-
Seriously.......stop debating and get your ass back behind your camera's (whatever kind it is) and train your EYE!!!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm trying to train my eye to discern these subtle qualities of extra reality and 3-dimensionality attributed to the larger sensor. There's nothing like a properly conducted comparison to bring out such differences, but they seem to be in short supply.
-
Well, I can't make anything else from it.
This is shot with a 35mm on the Mamiya.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You could probably straighten the horizon just a touch. Good job you weren't using a 25mm on the Mamiya (is there one?). The shot could have been quite unflattering.
-
By the way, Frank, this is a good example of the use of f22 with MF. You can use it without resolution falling noticeably. That's not possible with 35mm and with a cropped format 35mm, f22 would produce a very soft result.
On the other hand, you wouldn't need to use f22 with the smaller format to get the same DoF. F14-16 would be sufficient with FF35mm and f10 or 11 with a 20D.
-
And don't get me wrong, the written word is often more harsh than meant.
1. HOW can you judge difraction on a webformat picture ??
You are right that difraction is less with the MF system without a doubt, but on webformat ??
2. F22 is used to keep the sky/sun from blowing out, not for DOF.
I could understand the question when the sun is not in the frame, but here I think it's quiet obvious.
3. There is a 28mm for the Mamiya but I hardly use my 35mm (had to look for this shot ) so 28mm is not my choice, however I know the lens and it's straight in the geometry so also that lens would give me a good picture.
Whilst on the 35mm a 15mm will give me funky distortions and a curved horizon.
Remember that a 35mm is still a 35mm lens but with more space arround it, just like a 50mm still is a 50mm on a CROP camera and on a FF camera.
It's behaves exactly the same, but you get a crop.
4. Even f22 on the DSLR would not give me this picture, you really need ISO50 to get this effect and as far as I know there is NO DSLR with a REAL ISO50.
All are exposing the highlights on ISO100.
Again don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you.
But you are giving me the idea (and maybe also others) that the equiptment I use is better due to:
Commercial brainwashing, placebo effect.
OR
Marginally better than a DSLR, not economical feasable etc.
While in practice and what I have been posting all along they are two different systems with TOTALLY different results for different situations.
-
1. HOW can you judge difraction on a webformat picture ??
You are right that difraction is less with the MF system without a doubt, but on webformat ??
Frank,
F22 is included in the metadata in ACR. I merely raise the issue because some of you DB users seem to have forgotten that smaller formats require larger apertures. I'm not of course referring to you .
There is a 28mm for the Mamiya but I hardly use my 35mm (had to look for this shot ) so 28mm is not my choice, however I know the lens and it's straight in the geometry so also that lens would give me a good picture.
Whilst on the 35mm a 15mm will give me funky distortions and a curved horizon.
Remember that a 35mm is still a 35mm lens but with more space arround it, just like a 50mm still is a 50mm on a CROP camera and on a FF camera.
It's behaves exactly the same, but you get a crop.
That's quite true. I've used my Sigma 15-30 zoom on my D60 and 20D and it is effectively cropped to a 24mm lens. If you could fit the lens to an MF camera with 48x36mm sensor, at 15mm the zoom would be like an 11mm lens (in 35mm terms)but with horrible vignetting.
However, since it is possible to get reasonably good 12mm lenses for 35mm, I think one would have to say that regards a wide FoV, 35mm has the advantage.
Would you be able to take the following shot with an MFDB, for example? I sure would appreciate the extra detail that an MFDB could give me, but alas! I don't think your widest wide angle lenses are quite wide enough.
This is another shot at 15mm with a cheap lens and a measly 12.7mp. I've shown a 100% crop plus the area it occupies in the image. On my laptop, the crop represents a 36"x24" print of the full image.
As you will gather, I like messy scenes. I did some perspective correction to the verticals in PS but not much. If a few parts look as though they are leaning a bit, they actually are .
[attachment=4457:attachment] [attachment=4458:attachment] [attachment=4459:attachment]
-
...
As you will gather, I like messy scenes. I did some perspective correction to the verticals in PS but not much. If a few parts look as though they are leaning a bit, they actually are .
[attachment=4457:attachment] [attachment=4458:attachment] [attachment=4459:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray just one observation I have to say looking at your picture: looks very digital
If you still keep on pixel counting and what a 35mm can do in extremes situations youll'never face the real issue of 35mm: it's not at the same level of MFDB in 3D effect, colour fidelity, very good wide angles etc.
-
The calculation is also off I'm afraid.
A 15mm on 35mm is about equal to a 30mm on a MFDB (roughly).
But than as mentioned before it's not comparable because of a totally different FOV and DOF.
That's one of the reasons why the MF system is great for wideangle work, we don't have to work with all the nasty distortions you get from the smaller sensors.
That said I would love to do some portrets with a LARGE format cam, I think that would turn out even more that feel of reality.
-
Ray just one observation I have to say looking at your picture: looks very digital
If you still keep on pixel counting and what a 35mm can do in extremes situations youll'never face the real issue of 35mm: it's not at the same level of MFDB in 3D effect, colour fidelity, very good wide angles etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, actually with an MF back the extreme shadows would have more detail. That is one of the unexpected benefits of the format compared to my previous Canon equipment, if you want I'll document it with some images. Whether it's worth dragging MF or even EOS-1 around is another question, frankly if my Leica worked reliably I'd consider it a much better candidate for travel images.
Edmund
-
Would you be able to take the following shot with an MFDB, for example?
[attachment=4457:attachment] [attachment=4458:attachment] [attachment=4459:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
Coincidentally I am just back from photographing in Angkor Wat over Christmas, arriving back early last Wednesday morning after three days waking up at 4.30 am for early morning light.
No I could not have taken that shot, because different season. So what? My Mamiya 24mm fisheye was awesome in Angkor though...
Let me tell you, this was my second time there. First time was with a crappy D200 that I did not like (yes, I know other people like and rave of that cropped one, not me). Now I had ZD and Mamiya 7ii with Velvia and Astia and honest much better enjoyed my time. Medium format unlike DSLR has brought back a joy to photography for me. It is not about gear, but about seeing and better image quality.
I honest find arguing between crop sensor DSLR and FF as lame as between DSLR and MF. Horses are for courses and it is individual what we enjoy. If you cannot see the differences and enjoy what you have, just be happy!
How many pages in this thread now???? Enough.
Regards
Anders
-
The calculation is also off I'm afraid.
A 15mm on 35mm is about equal to a 30mm on a MFDB (roughly).
But than as mentioned before it's not comparable because of a totally different FOV and DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163818\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A double-FF MFDB is 48*36; a FF "35mm" is 36*24.
The diagonals are 60 and 43.3, a ratio of 1.39:1, or 21mm for a 15mm equivalent.
The short sides are 36:24, or 1.5:1, or 22.5mm for a 15mm equivalent.
The long sides are 48:36 or 1.33:1, or 20mm for a 15mm equivalent.
None even close to 30mm.
Are many of the MFDBs greater than 48*36mm?
-
Ray,
Coincidentally I am just back from photographing in Angkor Wat over Christmas, arriving back early last Wednesday morning after three days waking up at 4.30 am for early morning light.
No I could not have taken that shot, because different season. So what? My Mamiya 24mm fisheye was awesome in Angkor though...
Let me tell you, this was my second time there. First time was with a crappy D200 that I did not like (yes, I know other people like and rave of that cropped one, not me). Now I had ZD and Mamiya 7ii with Velvia and Astia and honest much better enjoyed my time. Medium format unlike DSLR has brought back a joy to photography for me. It is not about gear, but about seeing and better image quality.
I honest find arguing between crop sensor DSLR and FF as lame as between DSLR and MF. Horses are for courses and it is individual what we enjoy. If you cannot see the differences and enjoy what you have, just be happy!
How many pages in this thread now???? Enough.
Regards
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163822\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Anders those are some really NICE shot's you have done there..
Congrats!!
One question. are those the Velvia or the ZD and did you do any post to them.. they look really great.
Snook
-
Anders those are some really NICE shot's you have done there..
Congrats!!
One question. are those the Velvia or the ZD and did you do any post to them.. they look really great.
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Did I miss something or are the photos you are talking about the ones Ray posted taken with his subpar 5d and sigma lens?
-
Hummm, I missed the different aspect ratio.
Too fast
It's indeed app 22mm for 35mm
-
Ray just one observation I have to say looking at your picture: looks very digital
I don't see this as a problem. All digital images look digital to me including all the DB images presented in this thread. All film images also look film-like to me. The digital look is closer to reality in my view. I don't think the appearance of grain on surfaces that one knows are smooth (like a baby's bottom) add to a sense of reality, although it might be appropriate for a particular arty effect.
Your impression of a 'digital' effect might be due to slight oversharpening.
it's not at the same level of MFDB in 3D effect, colour fidelity, very good wide angles etc.
Getting an outstanding wide-angle lens for Canon cameras seems to be a problem but not so much of a problem if one is prepared to spend the sort of money that a modern Digitar lens costs.
Color fidelity is not really a problem for me. If it was, I'd calibrate my cameras in ACR with a Gretag McBeth chart. I don't get many assignments to produce Dulux Paint color charts .
The 3-D effect seems to me to be largely created by light and shade, shallow DoF and sharp lenses. There's a thriving art industry in Chiang Mai that specialises in improving the photograph. Any night of the week you can see dozens of artists in the Night Bazaar, studiously copying photos with charcoal pen and brush, exaggerating the qualities that contibute to an enhanced 3-D effect.
-
Ray, actually with an MF back the extreme shadows would have more detail. That is one of the unexpected benefits of the format compared to my previous Canon equipment, if you want I'll document it with some images. Whether it's worth dragging MF or even EOS-1 around is another question, frankly if my Leica worked reliably I'd consider it a much better candidate for travel images.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
Yes, I would expect a DB to give me more detail in those shadows and less noise.
However, with a static subject like that, shadow detail does not have to be a problem. One can bracket exposure or use fill flash. I think I might have bracketed exposures with that shot but just used one of the shots for this quick demonstration processed on my laptop. I came across the image on my LaCie 100GB pocket hard drive which I'd used on my previous trip to Angkor Wat over a year ago. I haven't yet deleted the images on that drive. I picked up a second 200GB pocket drive for this trip. When I've filled that I'll start deleting the images on the other drive.
-
There are in my opinion two more reasons to buy a MF Back. If you have to deal with art directors or customers directly (at the shoot) it is always good to have the best equipment on the planet. It is certainly most of the time possible to make similar shots with cheaper equipment, but it is always better to have a better camera than the daughter of the art director so to speak. Yes this is about prestige, about the same thing why bank manager drive big cars. (a small car would bring them from A to B also, but...). Second, if you have big companys for your customers you will hopefully get also paided accordingly. So you have a good income - it is not wise to sit on the money and pay premium tax, investing in your photo business is better I think so a MF Back might be a wise investment. So for me this would be two more good reasons to buy a MF back, apart from the better quality you can get. As mentioned earlier this depends on your motivs. A sport photographer wont be happy with MF (horses for courses).
In this discussion I found some intersting parts. The danger is, that a non pro to often gets the impression that a MF Back will make him a better photographer. While the camera influences the outcome a good picture is a good picture no matter what camera was used. For myself the only MF camera which would change my kind of work in a positive way would be something like a digital mamiya 645 with waist level finder (I worked with that camera a lot) as the waist level finder forced me to a slower approach and therefore better composition (nature and travel) But to take 30 K equipment on journeys to chile or namibia plus a digital SLR for wildlife/fast shooting - for me too heavy and too much money to burn. And also even my Canon L lenses sometimes have to be calibrated after a rough journey, I dont know if a MF is better or worse in regard of durability out in the field (at least Hasselblad H I find too big, too heavy and reports of lenses falling apart do exist). But certainly give me a cheap lightweight MF digital system and I buy it immediatly (I know I am dreamin). Thats the bad part of digital MF. MF with film was also possible for amateurs, as the cameras were not too expensive and the film costs were as high as you did want them. But if you are seeking the ultimate quality in landscape shots, there is still large format with cameras like Toyo field or similar. Cheap equipment compared to MF digital, movements, superb quality but cumbersome to use. While some people try to defend their SLR cameras I simply say what is often the simple truth: I can not afford a digital MF So I have to do with my Canon Gear with some curses about the wide angle lenses and try to make the best out of it.
Happy New Year and keep on shooting !
Christian
[attachment=4460:attachment]
-
Here's a 1Ds MKIII file from my little back yard testing studio. I'm very happy with how good it looks. Highlights and resolution are very close (but obviously not equal) to my Aptus 22.
http://www.bobcroslin.com/1ds.html (http://www.bobcroslin.com/1ds.html)
Have a happy new year everyone.
-
I actually prefer MF for probably the least important part - the aspect ratio and larger viewfinders. I much MUCH prefer the 4:3 ratio and find my compositions are spot on with MF and a lot of PITA work with 35 (when cropping). I also work slower and seem to focus more with MF. So I guess it's not just an IQ issue for me although with MF, I also feel like in an emergency, I can crop, pull shadows etc. so there's an additional comfort level. Really though, how long has this thread been going???
-
Here's a 1Ds MKIII file from my little back yard testing studio. I'm very happy with how good it looks. Highlights and resolution are very close (but obviously not equal) to my Aptus 22.
http://www.bobcroslin.com/1ds.html (http://www.bobcroslin.com/1ds.html)
Have a happy new year everyone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163879\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thanks for the cr2 file. looks very good.
-
thanks for the cr2 file. looks very good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163905\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What you guys using to open the 1DsMIII file?
Thanks
Snook
-
What you guys using to open the 1DsMIII file?
DPP opens them and does a great job with the conversions.
btw - forgot to mention that I shot the test image with a 70-200 f4 at 70mm. I'm finding that the lenses are definitely the weak link. My 24-70 had to be dialed to -3 in the focus adjustment to get a sharp image.
Definitely has me wondering what Zeiss glass would do on the 1Ds MKIII.
-
Edmund,
Yes, I would expect a DB to give me more detail in those shadows and less noise.
However, with a static subject like that, shadow detail does not have to be a problem. One can bracket exposure or use fill flash. I think I might have bracketed exposures with that shot but just used one of the shots for this quick demonstration processed on my laptop. I came across the image on my LaCie 100GB pocket hard drive which I'd used on my previous trip to Angkor Wat over a year ago. I haven't yet deleted the images on that drive. I picked up a second 200GB pocket drive for this trip. When I've filled that I'll start deleting the images on the other drive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes! I did bracket the shot. The scene above (Ta Prohm) was 0.8 secs at f16. Below is a 100% crop of the same area from a 2 sec exposure of the same scene, plus a 200% crop of an area in shadow which has been lightened.
I've also got another shot at 3.2 sec exposure showing more shadow detail, but some idiot walked right across that area in shade at the far end of the scene, right in the middle of the exposure.
This 200% crop viewed on my laptop set to a resolution of 1280x800, is representative of a print approximately 6ft x 4ft, far bigger than I'm capable of printing. My printer is the 24" wide Epson 7600.
Now this 200% crop is understandably a bit blurry. However, if I were printing the image this size, I think GF or some of the interpolation algorithms in Qimage would do a better job. I quite like the slight painterly effect that GF produces.
[attachment=4491:attachment] [attachment=4492:attachment]
-
http://www.bobcroslin.com/1ds.html (http://www.bobcroslin.com/1ds.html)
Wow! That file even made my Mac Pro chug
Thanks for posting
-
Bob,
Does your 1Ds3 image look underexposed in DPP?
I'm getting the impression from ACR it could take as much as an additional stop of exposure for a full ETTR.
[attachment=4493:attachment]
-
Wow! That file even made my Mac Pro chug
Thanks for posting
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hehe, my P45+ makes me wish for a faster notebook computer.
Edmund
-
Bob,
Does your 1Ds3 image look underexposed in DPP?
[attachment=4493:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Out of the ~14,256 RAW levels available in the RAW, only the quarter's specular highlights and a couple little spots here and there make it into the the top 1.67 stops.
Max is 7284, and there is very little above 4300. IOW, this could have been exposed a stop more without losing specular highlights, or a 1.67 stops more with only some speculars lost (but not in the blue channel, so a good converter could have reconstructed them).
Judging by the grey card (combined with Canon's tendency to have 1.2x - 1.25x the stated ISO), however, I would say that it is properly metered for true ISO 100, so one stop ETTR would have been a true ISO 50, and 1.66 stops of ETTR would result in a true ISO 32.
-
That certainly seems to be an advantage. I think the 1Ds3 has a maximum of 1/250 flash sync.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=163020\")
Does no-one read manuals or brouchures as it's been possible to shoot at higher shutter speeds with Canons + Nikons for years now? As long as you have a compatible flash.
Here's a link for those who want to know how to use their cameras at higher sync speeds
[a href=\"http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/view.asp?articleID=1026]http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/view.asp?articleID=1026[/url]
-
There's something here that doesn't seem quite right, Frank. Having myself used a 6mp D60, an 8mp D20 and and a 12.7mp 5D, I have not been struck by any extra sense of reality or 3-dimensionality from the 5D. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You didn't notice the difference between the cameras. You are a photographer I assume as you are on here, are you not? Just looking through the viewfinder, it's blindingly obvious [one would think!] how different and how much better the world looks, when using the larger sensored 5D as compared to the very similar 20D. But then I shoot wide open more than I do at f16 like you do, so we take very different images.
It's the same thing as when using 35mm film over digital imaging [ignoring the recording medium quality], but in movie terms it's decribed as being more cinematic as opposed to being more 3D.
-
Does no-one read manuals or brouchures as it's been possible to shoot at higher shutter speeds with Canons + Nikons for years now? As long as you have a compatible flash.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not really the same "flash", though. High-speed sync does not do a lot of what you expect flash to do, like illuminate the entire frame at the same time, for a very short period of time. With high speed sync, the flash pulses while the slit between the two curtains slowly slides over the sensor. If you look closely, the pulses are not even in intensity, and moving subjects can become overlapped strips of different moments in time. The guide number drops to ridiculously low values in high-speed sync mode, too, especially with high shutter speeds.
It is no substitute for the real thing; It's just a weak auxilliary pulsing lamp during the entire ambient exposure period.
-
Judging by the grey card (combined with Canon's tendency to have 1.2x - 1.25x the stated ISO), however, I would say that it is properly metered for true ISO 100, so one stop ETTR would have been a true ISO 50, and 1.66 stops of ETTR would result in a true ISO 32.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=164046\")
John,
It appears that Canon is now providing greater accuracy of ISO labelling, at least with the 40D.
I'm not sure about the 1Ds3. However, there's a comparison between the 5D and the 1D3 at Outback Photo which shows in ACR the 5D histogram more to the right with the same exposure in shots of the same scene.
[a href=\"http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_1d_MkIII/1d3_5D_S5.html]http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipm.../1d3_5D_S5.html[/url]
[attachment=4495:attachment] [attachment=4496:attachment]
-
You didn't notice the difference between the cameras. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course I did. But my comments were in reference to the differences in the images from the cameras and specifically in respect of qualities such as 3-dimensionality.
Please try to read what I actually write, jjj, and not what you think I might have written.
-
Lightmeters should be calibrated for your camera/lens/ISO that you use.
When you use it out of the box it's almost 100% sure you will NOT get a correct exposure.
For my Leaf I have calibrated for (from the top of my head)
ISO25 -8
ISO50 -6
ISO100 -4
ISO200 -6
ISO400 -5
Could be a little wrong (don't have it here).
This settings will give me a perfect exposure on all ISO's.
But that's with the 120MM macro, when I use the 150mm I have to counteract app 2/10th.
-
Lightmeters should be calibrated for your camera/lens/ISO that you use.
When you use it out of the box it's almost 100% sure you will NOT get a correct exposure.
For my Leaf I have calibrated for (from the top of my head)
ISO25 -8
ISO50 -6
ISO100 -4
ISO200 -6
ISO400 -5
Could be a little wrong (don't have it here).
This settings will give me a perfect exposure on all ISO's.
But that's with the 120MM macro, when I use the 150mm I have to counteract app 2/10th.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
That's an interesting complication; the opacity of lenses affecting the true ISO rating. Are you referring here to the calibration of a stand-alone lightmeter or the camera's built-in light meter?
For me, the built-in light meter of Canon DSLRs is sufficient.
-
the build in lightmeter is almost perfect, but that's because it's behind the glass
When you use a lightmeter for studio work or outside you should calibrate that to the camera and used ISO/lens.
It's very easy to do, on my last DVD I did a small video on it.
In short you have to take a REAL 18% graycard with a gray and white patch.
Measure the light on the card to for example f11.
Set the camera on f11 and take the shot.
Go to your RAW convertor and make sure EVERYTHING is zero'd.
Now select the white/gray patch the graypatch should be deadcenter.
If not, calibrate your meter and start at step one.
Do this for ALL ISO's you use and the lens you use the most, to make sure check other lenses.
It sound like alot of work but if you realise that with flash you often use one ISO setting (for me 50 or 25) and probarbly one or two lenses for studio work it's all done in a minute or 5.
-
Frank,
How useful is that when your camera only allows you to set aperture & shutter speed in halve stops and ISO in full stops?
I use my meter only to be able to determine ratio between light sources within a composition. For all other metering I guestimate and use the histogram which is off but at least I know by how much (my main camera doesn't have any metering).
It is not the work that I would not be willing to do but am I really missing out on something?
-
John,
It appears that Canon is now providing greater accuracy of ISO labelling, at least with the 40D.
I'm not sure about the 1Ds3. However, there's a comparison between the 5D and the 1D3 at Outback Photo which shows in ACR the 5D histogram more to the right with the same exposure in shots of the same scene.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That doesn't mean anything. The brightness of a conversion is totally arbitrary, in an absolute sense.
-
Of course I did. But my comments were in reference to the differences in the images from the cameras and specifically in respect of qualities such as 3-dimensionality.
Please try to read what I actually write, jjj, and not what you think I might have written.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did read what you wrote and seeing as I was specifically talking about the image produced by each camera, maybe you really shouldn't talk about my ability to read. Besides, you slyly used your own illiteracy to insult me innacurately, simply to sidestep the fact that you cannot tell the difference between the camera's output, whereas it's damn obvious to me and many others. Just because you cannot tell there's a difference, doesn't mean there isn't one. Just like a colour blind person may not distinguish between red and green.
-
That's not really the same "flash", though. High-speed sync does not do a lot of what you expect flash to do, like illuminate the entire frame at the same time, for a very short period of time. With high speed sync, the flash pulses while the slit between the two curtains slowly slides over the sensor. If you look closely, the pulses are not even in intensity, and moving subjects can become overlapped strips of different moments in time. The guide number drops to ridiculously low values in high-speed sync mode, too, especially with high shutter speeds.
It is no substitute for the real thing; It's just a weak auxilliary pulsing lamp during the entire ambient exposure period.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It may not be exactly the same type of exposure, but you are still able to shoot at much higher syncs than people keep innacurately say you cannot. Which was the point in question.
And if you are shooting fill, you don't always need a massively high guide no., especially if you are using wide apertures, which is when you'd also need the high shutter speed to balance.
I've used this very useful feature and it's worked with no problems.
-
@Dustbak,
VERY VERY important.
With digital it's very important to have a correct exposure, you have a limited range and you have to fill the bits as good as possible.
Or in other words I never fix my exposure in photoshop I try to get it 100% correct in my setup.
Now technical.
You can set your camera in 1/3 of an fstop.
HOWEVER it register much more accurate, that's normal.
In other words if you have to dial in a -0,8 compensation it would mean that if you measure f11 you will actually have to set your camera at app f9.0 that's a big difference.
Also you can set your lights (if you have a good setup) in 1/10th.
Normally you decide what DOF you want and set your lights for that.
So if I want f11 I will set my camera on f11, and now adjust my lights for f11.
if I set my lights on f8 8/10 I will underexpose, if I set the lights on f11 I will get a perfect exposure.
THAT IS, when the meter is calibrated.
There has been more discussions about the need to set your lights in 1/10th of an fstop whilst the camera can only be set on 1/3.
This in my opinion is a lack of knowledge of how things work, they think the wrong way arround (I mean this with no disrespect by the way ).
even if your camera could only be set in full stops it's still important to set your light in 1/10th stops.
Not to get for example f8 9/10th but to get EXACTLY f11.
Let's say that you set your camera on a full stop.
Let's say you set the meter for full stop measurement.
Set the camera on f11.
Measure the light and the meter says f11.
However your exposure is way off.
That's correct.
It can be f8.6 or even f11.4 both rounded off to f11.
So it's important to set your meter to 1/10th and your lights to 1/10th
Only than you can know exactly that your exposure is 100% right, every time.
sorry for the long explanation.
-
I never have to fix my exposure either in PS (at least not a lot) and don't do the elaborate calibration of my exposure meter.
My mostly used camera can only be set in full stops in shutter and halve in aperture stops (full in ISO again).
I do admit I know what most lenses do and where to adjust but again I usually don't have to adjust more than 1/2 stop in PS and am mostly within the 1/4 stop range. I also set my lights (use Elinchrom as well) in 1/10th which can make a difference indeed.
I take a couple of shots to evaluate on the histogram and adjust my lights accordingly with 1/10th increments.
The ratio between the lights I measure with the meter. Yes, I could be wrong in the range of tenths but does that really matter? IMO, not because vary the distance a little bit and your having different ratios. I settle for ball park and while shooting tethered I can always adjust if I don't like what I see.
Maybe to get it exactly there I could get a meter that can be calibrated (I currently use Minolta V and F which cannot be calibrated if I am not mistaken). I will give it a go one day but it is not very high on my list to be frank
-
I did a test today of the 1Ds3 vs. my Phase P45+/Mamiya. The MF solution won by a decent margin, although the 80mm Mamiya lens could clearly be improved upon.
Both products make good photos. The finder of the 1Ds3 is much improved on the old 1Ds2 finder, mirror return is *snappy*, the color is good, there is a lot of resolution there but a little of the 1Ds2 "plastic wrapping" effect is still there on skin.
The 1Ds3 is a spectacular product, which might still be improved as regards image quality in daylight. The Phase backs need a better camera than the Mamiya to give their best. Maybe Phase could put one of their sensor inside a Canon, and we'd have the best of both worlds ?
Edmund
-
I did a test today of the 1Ds3 vs. my Phase P45+/Mamiya. The MF solution won by a decent margin, although the 80mm Mamiya lens could clearly be improved upon.
Both products make good photos. The finder of the 1Ds3 is much improved on the old 1Ds2 finder, mirror return is *snappy*, the color is good, there is a lot of resolution there but a little of the 1Ds2 "plastic wrapping" effect is still there on skin.
The 1Ds3 is a spectacular product, which might still be improved as regards image quality in daylight. The Phase backs need a better camera than the Mamiya to give their best. Maybe Phase could put one of their sensor inside a slightly enlarged Canon ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Edmund,
Mamiya are coming out with a new 80mm lens I've been told in the first quarter of 2008. I am also looking forward to the new Mamiya/Phase camera body plus there new leaf shutter lenses.
Regards
Simon
-
I did read what you wrote and seeing as I was specifically talking about the image produced by each camera, maybe you really shouldn't talk about my ability to read. Besides, you slyly used your own illiteracy to insult me innacurately, simply to sidestep the fact that you cannot tell the difference between the camera's output, whereas it's damn obvious to me and many others. Just because you cannot tell there's a difference, doesn't mean there isn't one. Just like a colour blind person may not distinguish between red and green.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nothing sly or inaccurate about my insult. It couldn't be clearer that you either didn't read my post carefully, or you read it and mysteriously thought I had written something else.
Here's what I wrote:
The differences I notice are basically higher resolution and more detailed images from the 5D; a necessity to use f16 with the 5D instead of f10 or f11 that I would use with the D60 or 20D for the greatest DoF without noticeable or significant sacrifice of resolution and detail; a shallower DoF with the 5D at the same f stop which gives the 5D a slight advantage when shallowness of DoF is sought, and a wider FoV with the same lenses.
How anyone can interpret that as meaning I can't tell the differences in output between the D60, 20D and 5D beats me.
You should also have gathered from the lead-up to that post that I am referring to a certain quality that seems to be attributed (by DB owners) to the size of the sensor rather than the resolution of the sensor or total number of pixels.
-
.
.
.
Maybe Phase could put one of their sensor inside a Canon, and we'd have the best of both worlds ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, I think the biggest downfall of the 1DsIII is not the sensor but rather the lenses. I sure would love to see some tests with the 1DsIII with Leica or contax glass. When you consider the pixel density and high ISO performance, their sensor is actually pretty darn good. Using good lenses, the main differentiator will be DR and color. When you think about it, to achieve twice as much detail you need not 2x pixels but 4x the pixels so even the p45 is only like 1.4 x better than the 1D3. Color, DR and the magnification factor currently separate the platforms not pixels. There's lots of argument about whether the magnification factor is real ( I think so) but I don't think anyone will argue about the differences in color or DR.
-
That doesn't mean anything. The brightness of a conversion is totally arbitrary, in an absolute sense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164192\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wasn't looking only at the brightness of the image but how far the histogram was from the right with all other controls in ACR at zero. The 5D image requires a +0.33 EC adjustment to bring the histogram just short of touching the right vertical, producing a value in the brightest part of the image (the centre of the white GM patch) of 252, 250, 240.
The 1D3 image, which also looks darker in the ACR default position, requires a +0.67 EC adjustment to bring the histogram to the right, producing an almost identical value in the centre of the white GM patch of 252, 250, 242.
Since we already know from dpreview tests (and probably other tests that you are aware of) that the 5D ISOs are 1/3rd of a stop understated, the above comparison would tend to suggest that the 1D3 is now accurately stating ISO values, as is the 40D.
This result might not be conclusive. However, if ACR is the preferred RAW converter, it would seem that users of the 1D3 should generally be exposing scenes 1/3rd of a stop more (with the same lens at the same aperture and same ISO setting) than they would with a 5D, for a full ETTR.
[attachment=4515:attachment] [attachment=4516:attachment]
-
When you think about it, to achieve twice as much detail you need not 2x pixels but 4x the pixels so even the p45 is only like 1.4 x better than the 1D3. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's true. However, it's better if the increase in pixel count does not result in an increase in pixel density. This is the advantage of the larger sensor. The P45 has double the pixel count of the 1Ds3, but similar pixel density. From the same quality lenses the P45 should therefore deliver a sharper result that really is pretty close to 1.4x the resolution (of the 1Ds3).
Imagine what would happen if Canon were to produce a 39mp 35mm sensor. With current Canon lenses the increase in resolution would fall far short of 1.4x, just as I suspect the increase in resolution of the 1Ds3 compared with the original 1Ds is short of the 1.4x figure.
-
That's true. However, it's better if the increase in pixel count does not result in an increase in pixel density. This is the advantage of the larger sensor. The P45 has double the pixel count of the 1Ds3, but similar pixel density. From the same quality lenses the P45 should therefore deliver a sharper result that really is pretty close to 1.4x the resolution (of the 1Ds3).
Imagine what would happen if Canon were to produce a 39mp 35mm sensor. With current Canon lenses the increase in resolution would fall far short of 1.4x, just as I suspect the increase in resolution of the 1Ds3 compared with the original 1Ds is short of the 1.4x figure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One other feature of the P45 which may help it achieve better than the 1.4x factor over the 1DsIII is the lack of an AA filter. I very rarely feel the need to sharpen my P45 shots, or if I do, it's only by a very small amount. One of the things I'd dearly like to see Canon and Nikon do is offer an optional AA filter. Some shooters obviously need an AA filter, but others certainly don't.
-
@Dustbak,
I did not mean anything negative with it.
It all depends on the workflow someone uses.
I use 99% flash in my work and than it's very important and time saving for me (and the models) to have the exposure 100% correct at once.
If you would be doing still life or something else the histogram judgement would work fine of course.
-
I posted some macro images using the 1DsmkIII with the leica 100mm 2.8 Apo elmarit Macro vs the Hasselblad H2 and 120mm HC lens with the aptus 65 digital back. My results are shown in this thread. In my opinion the leica lens is the highest resolving I have ever used on a canon DSLR and that is why i selected it for this test.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....36&#entry161136 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21645&st=0&p=161136&#entry161136)
There are a couple of important conclusions I have made from this test. If you disagree or find my logic flawed, i am happy to hear an opposing view. You can see by processing that I more agressively sharpened the canon file. In the end, while both images are close, I think the canon sensor image showed a bit more detail than the aptus back. I then added equal amounts of sharpening to the posted files and found the aptus file could take more sharpening than the canon before the artifacts became very prominent. If this is true, perhaps I need to go back and perform more aggressive sharpening to both files early on.
However, i will say that there are so many other factors that contribute to IQ that are not measured by this particular test. Mark
Actually, I think the biggest downfall of the 1DsIII is not the sensor but rather the lenses. I sure would love to see some tests with the 1DsIII with Leica or contax glass. When you consider the pixel density and high ISO performance, their sensor is actually pretty darn good. Using good lenses, the main differentiator will be DR and color. When you think about it, to achieve twice as much detail you need not 2x pixels but 4x the pixels so even the p45 is only like 1.4 x better than the 1D3. Color, DR and the magnification factor currently separate the platforms not pixels. There's lots of argument about whether the magnification factor is real ( I think so) but I don't think anyone will argue about the differences in color or DR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
@Dustbak,
I did not mean anything negative with it.
It all depends on the workflow someone uses.
I use 99% flash in my work and than it's very important and time saving for me (and the models) to have the exposure 100% correct at once.
If you would be doing still life or something else the histogram judgement would work fine of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No offense taken. I was just wondering whether I could learn something that is useful to me, something that would;
1) Save time
or/and
2) Produce better results
Indeed I do still-life and product mostly. Only very rarely models and a little bit more often formal portraiture. I am very spoiled with the Aptus histogram which I believe is one of its best features together with the exposure indication. This I really miss with the Hasselblad, the Hasselblad just isn't that precise nor can it be judged as easily as the Leaf's.
-
although i am working nearly 100% with the histograms in addition with the overexposure warning of my emotion backs, its important to know that the histo (as well as the overexposure warning) works different if the light temerature setting in the back is changed or custom made. this means the histo is as long accurate ( in case of the sinar backs ), as the light temperature is closed to 5500 kelvin, daylight or flash settings.
if the selected light temperature ( e.g. selected with pipette on a grey sheet after sunset) goes to a very high value or with warm tungsten lights to a very lo temp. , the overexposure warning is not more longer accurate, nor the histogram. it clips in this case way too fast and shows overexposed zones where they still are ok in the raw data.
i do not know how other backs behave in this aspect, but i would suppose similar.
you should check it out,- because it can lead to exposures which are way "under".
in case of using custom made light temperature its usefull to meter independently or at least not to pay any attention to the back histogram and to its exposure warnings.
-
Nothing sly or inaccurate about my insult. It couldn't be clearer that you either didn't read my post carefully, or you read it and mysteriously thought I had written something else.
Compounding your innacuracies, I see. Unlike you I do read posts carefully before responding. As demonstrated by your next 'point'.
Here's what I wrote:
[and you then quote a different part of post, that I was NOT responding to]
How anyone can interpret that as meaning I can't tell the differences in output between the D60, 20D and 5D beats me.
I was not commenting on the paragraph that you irrelevently requoted with regard to output, otherwise, that would have been the section that I quoted and replied to in my original reponse to your post? Wouldn't it?
Besides if you still think sensor size has nothing to do with how an image looks [not talking megapixel counts], then you are welcome to continue to be blind to the differences and the rest of us, with a fully functioning perception, will carry on seeing the differences. And let us not forget basic physics, where the image produced by larger sensors/film area is optically different for the same exposure settings comapred to smaller sensors/film area, regardless of what daft ideas you may have to the contrary.
However I do think the term '3D' is misleading.
Time permitting, I'll take some pictures on 2 differently sized sensors and see if people can tell the difference.
You should also have gathered from the lead-up to that post that I am referring to a certain quality that seems to be attributed (by DB owners) to the size of the sensor rather than the resolution of the sensor or total number of pixels.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And that's exactly the point [re the '3D-ness'] that I specifically quoted and was commenting on. Learn to read all the words in a post, including the quoted bit in context, before trying and dismally failing to be a smart alec.
I have very little patience with fools who cannot be bothered to read a post carefully and in context before agressively responding. Having a different opinion is fine, being lazily illiterate isn't. Sadly it seems LL is increasingly accumulating that sort of slack posting and sadly may end up being as pointless to bother with as many other forums.
-
One other feature of the P45 which may help it achieve better than the 1.4x factor over the 1DsIII is the lack of an AA filter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I definitely agree with you on that and let me add a bit more about the AA filter. DOF is one of the concepts that will need to be revised with the digital age. I mean when you have a decently sharp lens mated to a great sensor without AA filter, you can clearly see that rather than a region of focus, there is an apex of focus. We can now resolve the exact focus point a lot of the time, where as with film it was harder to see (perhaps because of grain). I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why my canon gear got apparently bigger DOF than my Leica/DMR especially considering the leica has a 1.37 crop and mathematically should have slightly broader DOF if anything. Of course the leica DMR opened my eyes to the critcalness of accurate focusing and showed me just how sharp I could in an image, and now shooting with the Rollei/p20 has just confirmed all that. I'm discarding the concept of DOF because its not really working so well with digital at least not in the same way. What's this got to do with the AA filter? Well I have decided that the AA filter on the canon masks two important things - lens sharpness and the apex of focus. That reduces overall sharpness of the image but increases the apparent DOF. Well actually Canon's AA filter masks one other thing, their lenses, which also contributes to this effect. Now don't go out taking pictures of rulers - this is just my qualitative observation.
I posted some macro images using the 1DsmkIII with the leica 100mm 2.8 Apo elmarit Macro vs the Hasselblad H2 and 120mm HC lens with the aptus 65 digital back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
Thanks for sharing these images helps a lot - I think we agree on the detail issue. Do you also feel that the dividing lines between the 1Ds3 and MFDB is color accuracy/tonality and DR?
Eric
-
DOF is one of the concepts that will need to be revised with the digital age. I mean when you have a decently sharp lens mated to a great sensor without AA filter, you can clearly see that rather than a region of focus, there is an apex of focus. We can now resolve the exact focus point a lot of the time, where as with film it was harder to see (perhaps because of grain).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nothing new with digital really. Some telephoto lens in the past has 'greater' DoF than others as they weren't so sharp to begin with. With the better lens we now have these days and better capture, with both film and digital, compared to the past, we are simply seeing as you have noticed, the difference in focus/out of focus more acutely than before and apparently less DoF, a natural progression really.
There's only even been a point of focus. DoF is just the acceptable area that's also sharp enough.
-
I think you mean the circle of confusion.
This varies however with the printsize and viewing distances.
-
Nothing new with digital really. Some telephoto lens in the past has 'greater' DoF than others as they weren't so sharp to begin with. With the better lens we now have these days and better capture, with both film and digital, compared to the past, we are simply seeing as you have noticed, the difference in focus/out of focus more acutely than before and apparently less DoF, a natural progression really.
There's only even been a point of focus. DoF is just the acceptable area that's also sharp enough.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fair enough - but manufacturers are working hard to introduce special "digital" optics that are sharper than their predecessors. I do believe that digital photography will make more and more photographers aware of the above points as well as the need for more accurate focusing. Clearly the MF camera makers will have to concentrate on developing better autofocus tools in the future.
Here's a technical question - does the size of the image circle a lens draws affect the transition over distance from the sharp focal point to OOF?
-
I have very little patience with fools ......[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also. I'll leave you with a definition of the Straw Man fallacy for you to contemplate, taken from Wikipedia.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
-
I'm discarding the concept of DOF because its not really working so well with digital at least not in the same way.
If you calculate DOF using the pixel pitch of the sensor as your CoC value, you'll get a pretty accurate prediction of what DoF will look like at 100% on-screen in Photoshop, and in all prints where the image is not downsized to be printed.
http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photograph...calculation.htm (http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/dof_calculation.htm)
-
I also. I'll leave you with a definition of the Straw Man fallacy for you to contemplate, taken from Wikipedia.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You misread my post, are rude and patronising and then come out with all sorts of ducking and diving rather than say, "ooops sorry, I read your reply a bit hastily."
The straw man line is irrelevent. You misread my post, had a hissy fit and wouldn't admit to your mistake and had the gall to say it was alll my fault as it was I that misread your post. I read posts online quite carefully before responding and reread it and any others it may reference to make sure I did not misunderstand. And if I did make an error in reading, I'd say 'Sorry, my mistake' and move on. Whereas you're just using this pathetic dodging and weaving to avoid actually commenting on the photographic point in question - whether there is in fact an obvious optical difference between the cameras. Muppet!
-
I think you mean the circle of confusion.
This varies however with the printsize and viewing distances.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
CoC is just how you quantify/measure DoF. But as you say, it really depends on how output is sized and viewed, but if all those things are equal, if you have a sharper lens+capture medium then you have less apparent DoF.
-
actually a single "plane of focus" is more appropriate. Regions still in DoF are actually out-of focus, but since our eyes can't make the difference with CoC not > to a certain diameter (depends on film/capture medium size, on output size and on observing distance): that's the resolving limit of our eyes/vision.
Thierry
There's only even been a point of focus. DoF is just the acceptable area that's also sharp enough.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
actually a single "plane of focus" is more appropriate. Regions still in DoF are actually out-of focus, but since our eyes can't make the difference with CoC not > to a certain diameter (depends on film/capture medium size, on output size and on observing distance): that's the resolving limit of our eyes/vision.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes Thierry, well said.
But I'm wondering if there isn't something a little more going on with digital that pronounces the single point of focus and makes it stand out more than with film - I believe it has to do with the quantization effects of the sensor during capture, during processing and post work (sharpening, etc) and finally during display or print. I mean take just the display for example. Why does a good LCD appear sharper than a CRT? Because the manufacturers provide discrete pixel cells with no bleed over to the next cell, or in other words a sharp pixel. So take that concept and map it to the sensor or anything else that's digital and not analog. Either somethings in the well or it isn't. All fine for smooth gradations over OOF areas of the image but at an edge - either the edge ends on this pixel or the next one but it ends abruptly. So my view is that this quantization makes the single point of focus stand out more distinctly in a digital workflow than in Film. You can see this in print as well if you use a lightjet instead of a inkjet.
-
.
if the selected light temperature ( e.g. selected with pipette on a grey sheet after sunset) goes to a very high value or with warm tungsten lights to a very lo temp. , the overexposure warning is not more longer accurate, nor the histogram. it clips in this case way too fast and shows overexposed zones where they still are ok in the raw data.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dear Rainer,
Thank you, very useful information re histogram and overexposure warning on eMotion backs. I noticed that phenomena and was sure that there was something wrong with my digital back.
Thank you for sharing.
Yevgeny
-
Dear Rainer,
Thank you, very useful information re histogram and overexposure warning on eMotion backs. I noticed that phenomena and was sure that there was something wrong with my digital back.
Thank you for sharing.
Yevgeny
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would just like to add that this Post is BS.
I just got done Doing a whole days shoot with my new P30 and I am coming from the 1DsMII.
As a Portrait and fashion photographer I can tell you that the MFDB BLOWS away the Canon... and By far.
I will add more information as I shoot more but I was really impressed with the P30 compared to the Canon.
One important issue that no has mentioned here is the Highlights and the Highlight to Shadow transition is WAYYYYYY smoother with the P30.
Especially on faces of Models.. I always hated and had to work it in PS a lot on the Canon. The transition from Light to dark was always Bumpy and jagged.. Not on this Back.
It is smooth as butter.
Also the hightlights on peoples faces and body are WAYYYY smoother also.
I could not wait to get home and write this because as I was waiting to have a real life shoot with my new camera A small doubt entered into my head..
Not anymore.
My canon is going to sit on the shelf just like my Old Mamiya and Pentax did for so many years...:+}
Just thought some others would like to know.
Snook
-
I would just like to add that this Post is BS.
I just got done Doing a whole days shoot with my new P30 and I am coming from the 1DsMII.
As a Portrait and fashion photographer I can tell you that the MFDB BLOWS away the Canon... and By far.
I will add more information as I shoot more but I was really impressed with the P30 compared to the Canon.
One important issue that no has mentioned here is the Highlights and the Highlight to Shadow transition is WAYYYYYY smoother with the P30.
Especially on faces of Models.. I always hated and had to work it in PS a lot on the Canon. The transition from Light to dark was always Bumpy and jagged.. Not on this Back.
It is smooth as butter.
Also the hightlights on peoples faces and body are WAYYYY smoother also.
I could not wait to get home and write this because as I was waiting to have a real life shoot with my new camera A small doubt entered into my head..
Not anymore.
My canon is going to sit on the shelf just like my Old Mamiya and Pentax did for so many years...:+}
Just thought some others would like to know.
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Snook,
Great to read that you have crossed over to the other side.
I've bee using a Aptus 75 for 2 years now on my Mamiya RZ IID, Mamiya 645AFDII and Sinar P2 and I am still amazed by its tonal qualities and resolution.
Most importantly my clients have as well.
I now only bring out the Nikon D2x when I need speed and agility.
Regards
Simon
-
Hi Snook,
Great to read that you have crossed over to the other side.
I've bee using a Aptus 75 for 2 years now on my Mamiya RZ IID, Mamiya 645AFDII and Sinar P2 and I am still amazed by its tonal qualities and resolution.
Most importantly my clients have as well.
I now only bring out the Nikon D2x when I need speed and agility.
Regards
Simon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Simon .. Thanks
Yeh it is really Amazing the tonality or transition..
I have not even shot any grey backgrounds yet but it should be amazing.
I noticed on the first shot. The transition on a girls cheak from lit to shadow was totally different than what I was used to seeing and retouching on the 1DsMII.
I also was using the RZIID.. quite a camera
It is going to take some getting use to..:+}
You have the same problem with it eating through batteries.. the little 6V one for the RZ body?
I just bought 40 batteries just in case..:+}
Snook
-
Gidday Snook,
I've been using the Apus 75 on the RZIID with a Kapture RZ adapter plate and connected the back directly to the lens. In this set up I havent had a battery problem.
Just in the week before Xmas I got the Mamiya HX701 plate so I could use the back directly thru the camera.
Firstly it woudnt work when it was teether to the Mac because I was setting the leaf Capture 11 to Mamiya RZ.
When I changed it to Mamiya 645 it kicked into life.
I only found this out the Friday before Xmas. When I get back to the studio on the 14th Jan I will see how long the battery in the camera lasts as I put a fresh one on that Friday.
Cheers
Simon
-
On Rz67 ProII and A75S, I am still on the original battery I put on 4 months ago into new Rz body.
I shoot 3-4 days a week 500 images a day. I do not see any battery loss at all. My experience with Rz is one 6V battery every 6 months. My set up in LC11 in on RZ.
Andre
-
On Rz67 ProII and A75S, I am still on the original battery I put on 4 months ago into new Rz body.
I shoot 3-4 days a week 500 images a day. I do not see any battery loss at all. My experience with Rz is one 6V battery every 6 months. My set up in LC11 in on RZ.
Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could it be a phase one thing?
I have the adaptor Plate from Phase One 645 to RZ...
They say it is the plate...:+} That is supposedly consumes juice even when the Back is not on.
I will post how long they last to, but was warned my many that it goes through Batteries like there is no tomorrow..:+}
I have gone through 2 batteries just shooting to try the new Back.. But I think they were on the shelf to long...
I just put a new GP alkaline battery in and we'll see how long it last.
Not to mention the fact that it is a pain to have to take apart the RZ with grip and winder just to put a new battery in. Hope it does not happen during an important shoot...
Snook
-
Hi Snook,
Wow going through 2 batteries that quickly doesn't sound good.
I haven't experienced that before. Maybe it might be a good idea to invest in the Mamiya HX701 adapter for you RZ11D.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5027...ck_Adapter.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/502724-REG/Mamiya_212_107_RZ_Digital_Back_Adapter.html)
Cheers,
Simon
-
Unfortunately it has something to do with the Mamiya plate, I believe.
The connector that connects the back to the body in the plate drains the the 6v battery. So you have to take it off once your done shooting. In the film days it would last me six seven months like Andre said. But he is on an Aptus with the Mamiya made Dead plate for H series backs. (dead because it has no electronics). I have the same plate and use the Phase back with a One shot Cable and it seems to be lasting.
The Mamiya made one has electronics in it. I think there is some weird communication issue there. The only thing I can think of.
Quite a jump in file quality huh?!
-
I will add more information as I shoot more but I was really impressed with the P30 compared to the Canon.
One important issue that no has mentioned here is the Highlights and the Highlight to Shadow transition is WAYYYYYY smoother with the P30.
Especially on faces of Models.. I always hated and had to work it in PS a lot on the Canon. The transition from Light to dark was always Bumpy and jagged.. Not on this Back.
It is smooth as butter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Part of the difference may be the fact that the 16-bit data of the P30 forces converters to work in a higher bit depth, so the conversions don't suffer from posterization due to multiple mathematical manipulations in the conversion process (of course, cameras with 12-bit RAW could be promoted to this level of precision as well). The P30 certainly doesn't have any electrical noise and photon-collection reasons to be better than the 1Dmk2 at the pixel level at ISO 100. It does have more pixels, though, by a good margin, and probably has better lenses, too, hence a finer texture.
-
I just got done Doing a whole days shoot with my new P30 and I am coming from the 1DsMII.
As a Portrait and fashion photographer I can tell you that the MFDB BLOWS away the Canon... and By far.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course it does. Who has ever claimed in this thread or any other thread on LL that 30mp does not 'blow away' 16mp on a sensor half the size. Even if the sensors might be equal on a per pixel basis, as John Sheehy claims, 30mp has to be better than 16mp, especially if it has 16 bit processing instead of the 12 bit of the 1Ds2.
The more useful aspect ratio of the P30 for portraiture also increases the difference because once you've cropped the 1Ds2 image to the 4:3 aspect ratio of the P30, you're actually comparing 30mp with about 14mp. No contest surely.
Another Straw Man .
-
Having shot with a borrowed 1Ds3 a couple of weeks ago and noticed the HUGE difference in the smoothness of tone between its 14bits and my 5D's 12bits, I should hope that with 4 times as many bits as the 1Ds3 (and 16 times as many as my 5D) *any* decent MFDB should look far better.
The 1Ds3 really is a quantum leap up from the 5D in every respect. I expect my 39Mp MS to be at least the same again.
D.
-
I recently purchased a 1Ds III and a buddy of mine tested his against his Phase back. (a P30)
The results were shockingly good. The Canon with an L lens compared quite favorably to my friends Zeiss glass. Granted, the file sizes were different, the overall sharpness of the Canon file was very impressive and I doubt that you would see much difference in CMYK magazine reproduction. In large prints, I believe you would, but for everyday commercial or editorial work, Canon seems to have hit the market with a tool that is easy to work with, reliable and affordable for many pro shooters.
I don't' want to stir up the Medium Format is better pot, I'm just posting my observations. I've shot with the 1Ds II since it was released and was not happy with the files. The 1Ds III is a much better camera. You can see the difference in the highlights and shadows. I have also owned and shot with several medium format backs. There is a difference with the Phase and Leaf backs. The Canon 1Ds III is a fantastic system and everything works well together. That is critically important for location shooters.
Russell
-
I recently purchased a 1Ds III and a buddy of mine tested his against his Phase back. (a P30)
The results were shockingly good. The Canon with an L lens compared quite favorably to my friends Zeiss glass. Granted, the file sizes were different, the overall sharpness of the Canon file was very impressive and I doubt that you would see much difference in CMYK magazine reproduction. In large prints, I believe you would, but for everyday commercial or editorial work, Canon seems to have hit the market with a tool that is easy to work with, reliable and affordable for many pro shooters.
I don't' want to stir up the Medium Format is better pot, I'm just posting my observations. I've shot with the 1Ds II since it was released and was not happy with the files. The 1Ds III is a much better camera. You can see the difference in the highlights and shadows. I have also owned and shot with several medium format backs. There is a difference with the Phase and Leaf backs. The Canon 1Ds III is a fantastic system and everything works well together. That is critically important for location shooters.
Russell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe Closer... But NOT there by far yet..:+}
My opinion after shooting the Canon for 7 years..:+}
It may be getting closer which I agree, but it is not there yet and the shadows are what speaks for it better than anything..:+}
Snook