Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: John Schweikert on December 01, 2008, 04:44:49 pm

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: John Schweikert on December 01, 2008, 04:44:49 pm
---
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: arashm on December 01, 2008, 05:32:31 pm
Thanks
downloading right now
am
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: jimgolden on December 01, 2008, 06:04:11 pm
wow - better than I thought it'd be. AA filter creeps in to make a bit softer and color skews red (typical for 5D) but looks damn good IMO...

thx man
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: hauxon on December 01, 2008, 08:16:17 pm
Quote from: John Schweikert
Screenshot jpegs to show just how close the color is between the two when using calibration profiles from the Adobe DNG Profile Editor. While these could certainly be sharpened more, they're  just for color matching.

....images....

I do think there is a lot more 'richness' in the Aptus files. The Canon might get that with more massaging. The Aptus shadows are much better than the Canon shadows. That's one area I am disappointed with the Canon. Open the shadows on an ISO 100 5DII frame and it's just not as clean as I thought current sensors would be. A testament to the six year old Dalsa 22 sensor.

The less 'richness' might be the a result of using a $90 lens on the 5DII.  You would be getting more "pop" and better color when using a proper lens like the 50/1.2 L (but probably same sharpness).  Still very nice of you to do the test, the images are surprisingly similar considering how different the cameras are.   Now I would like to see competitive prices on those 'old technology' 22MP backs.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 01, 2008, 09:14:08 pm
Quote from: John Schweikert
I do think there is a lot more 'richness' in the Aptus files. The Canon might get that with more massaging. The Aptus shadows are much better than the Canon shadows. That's one area I am disappointed with the Canon. Open the shadows on an ISO 100 5DII frame and it's just not as clean as I thought current sensors would be. A testament to the six year old Dalsa 22 sensor.

John,
I also get the impression that the Aptus files have better shadows, which can be seen if one greatly lightens the darkest parts of both images using 'levels'.

But that's what one would expect with the larger format. As one moves up the scale from the smallest P&S to the largest DB, there's an increase in DR and a lowering of shadow noise at base ISO, with each increase in format size. I notice this even when comparing a modern Canon 50D with the 3 1/2 year old 5D. The 5D with a sensor area 2.6x that of the 50D, is significantly better in the shadows.

I don't see differences in richness of color being an issue. Isn't this why we have editing programs like Photoshop, and vibrancy sliders in ACR?

From my perspective, I see no significant IQ differences between the two images. In another scene where dynamic range and shadow noise were issues, I would prefer to use the larger format.

Thanks for doing the comparison. If you have the time, it would be interesting to see how the images compares at wide apertures, say F2 with the Canon lens and F2.8 with the Mamiya   .
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 01, 2008, 09:39:04 pm
Quote from: John Schweikert
Any preference of what part of the scene to focus on at the wide apertures? It's still setup and wouldn't take too long to do sometime tomorrow.

I guess any of the two bottles in the centre might be appropriate. The text should make it clear which system has the resolution advantage. My bet would be on the Aptus with Mamiya lens producing the better result   .
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: pss on December 01, 2008, 09:53:06 pm
there is never a way to make that perfect comparison....
maybe one can get that extra whatever/color/crispness with just a different developer....maybe a different lens gets a little extra...

i have owned both phase and leaf backs and have always considered the backs to be superior to the DSLRs.....not anymore...i agree that there is an extra crispness and DR in the newer higher rez backs that one just does not get in the DSLR files, but there is just so much more to photography then that....i can shoot at least 3 stops faster with my dsIII then with any MF system i have ever owned just considering how fast the lenses are and handholding...regardless...apples and oranges......

but it is just plain stupid to look at both these files and not be amazed by how much things have changed....how much was that aptus about a year ago? how much is that 5II now? how fast can it shoot, and it does HD as well? and it has a great screen on the back....

i really would love to see sales numbers for MF backs  for every month starting in 2008 going through jan 2009.....it cannot look good....

it would have been a lot more fun to see these files without labels.....
and i would love to see a 400 iso aptus file compared to a 1600 canon file.....
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: arashm on December 02, 2008, 12:44:33 am
it would have been a lot more fun to see these files without labels.....
and i would love to see a 400 iso aptus file compared to a 1600 canon file.....
[/quote]


To the OP
is that too much to ask for, if you have some time to spare in the studio?  
thanks
am
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Juanito on December 02, 2008, 01:12:45 am
Considering that the 5D is a fraction of the cost of the Aptus 22, the 5D looks pretty darn good. The Aptus shows better shadow detail and is sharper. If all I wanted was resolution, I'd sell my Aptus 22/Hassie combo and go with a 5D. A photographer I respect was going off about how the 5D MII looked way better than a MFDB file he compared it to. Don't know what file he was looking at but that's clearly not the case here.

John
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 02, 2008, 03:24:02 am
Thanks for the comparison, John.

A few comments:

1. The 5D2 shot is much lower exposed than the Aptus. I am not talking about the aperture and shutter but about the light gathered by the sensor. See the attached raw histograms.

Pls note, that ACR adds 0.4 EV to the 5D2 shot, so the difference appears less. This automatic adjustment is not visible on the "exposure" slider of ACR.

2. The spectral characteristics of the Bayern filters are vastly different (I assume the illumination was the same for both shots). This affects not only the noise but the colors as well.

3. The difference in noise is due to the lower exposure, which is partly due to the filters. See the third and fourth attachments: the red component on the black square is at the 5.47th stop from saturation, the noise is 5.6% in the Aptus image. The same area is in the 7.18th stop with the 5D2, the noise is 7.9%.

4. The 5D2 has much less noise at equal illumination of the sensel. See the last attachment: on another square, where the red is in the 5.36th stop, the noise is only 3.2%.

So, the question is, why the lower exposure of the 5D2 shot. Is the transmissivity of the 50mm f/1.8 lense so bad? Are the color filters so much more dense?

Added:

Darn, the attachments are different order than uploaded.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: gwhitf on December 02, 2008, 07:05:00 am
.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: archivue on December 02, 2008, 08:07:28 am
Aptus 22 is by far better at Iso25 or 50... so for a studio test, you should have use low iso settings.

I'm shure that for hight iso, the aptus isn't the way to go !

But i still raising money to buy an aptus for my architecturals shots...
A Canon body and tse lenses are far inferior to rodenstock digital lendes and a back !

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Conner999 on December 02, 2008, 08:22:47 am
Well said

I don't shoot a MFDB but the one thing that does jump out at me between the various shots is the greater sense of 'depth' or dimensionality (a.k.a. 3D effect) in the Aptus files.  You also don't notice the downsides of an AA filter  until you do such a side-by-side test.  

Quote from: gwhitf
A few months ago, I did a similar comparison as Mr. Schweikert has done, between my Contax/P30+ and my new 1ds3. I found pretty much the same thing, that in terms of resolution, the 1ds3 held its own just as well if not better, with proper processing. The test was done with strobe, on a tripod, locked down, in a methodical way. The only thing I'd recommend for John Schweikert is to not test with that gold-ring cheap 50 1.8. It's just not fair.

Yet, even after all this testing, I find that there's still something that says, "Screw all this testing", and simply choose the camera that you're the most comfortable shooting with, and working with. In the end, by the time you make a bad Epson print, even with ImagePrint or ColorBurst, or you give the file to the client for CMYK, all that pixel peeping on the monitor gets thrown out the window, and the field gets levelled. Nobody is going to pay you one red cent for the way that file looks on your monitor.

I would not pick a camera based on the cost. I would pick the camera that synced up with my spirit, and made me grab it and head out the door to shoot photographs. It truly could be as simple as that. Test all you want, but in the end, you'll know which one is right, even if it's an old wooden Deardorff with holders. If you're excited about what you shoot, you're going to find a way to squeeze every last ounce out of that file.

http://interviewmagazine.com/art/william-eggleston/ (http://interviewmagazine.com/art/william-eggleston/)

As affordable as the 5DII is, you truly could just "keep one in the glove compartment".
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: antonyoung on December 02, 2008, 08:52:10 am
Quote from: gwhitf
Yet, even after all this testing, I find that there's still something that says, "Screw all this testing", and simply choose the camera that you're the most comfortable shooting with, and working with. In the end, by the time you make a bad Epson print, even with ImagePrint or ColorBurst, or you give the file to the client for CMYK, all that pixel peeping on the monitor gets thrown out the window, and the field gets levelled. Nobody is going to pay you one red cent for the way that file looks on your monitor.

I would not pick a camera based on the cost. I would pick the camera that synced up with my spirit, and made me grab it and head out the door to shoot photographs. It truly could be as simple as that. Test all you want, but in the end, you'll know which one is right, even if it's an old wooden Deardorff with holders. If you're excited about what you shoot, you're going to find a way to squeeze every last ounce out of that file.

I think this is great post. Unfortunately a lot of the content of internet photo forums is just online pissing contests and misses the point of actually taking pictures. Because of the nature of my business, I have the choice of just about any camera gear I want to use when I shoot. I own a lot of medium format gear and a lot of Canon gear, but usually when I photograph it's with my G9, because I have a stronger bond with it than with any of my other gear- it's natural, feels right, and doesn't get in my way. Also because I always have it with me, and because in the end I like more of the pictures that I take with it than I do with my other cameras. Sometimes I feel guilty and break out the medium format (Mamiya AFD II when I do, because again that's what I bonded with), but usually I shoot with the G9.

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: rainer_v on December 02, 2008, 10:55:04 am
Quote from: archivue
Aptus 22 is by far better at Iso25 or 50... so for a studio test, you should have use low iso settings.

I'm shure that for hight iso, the aptus isn't the way to go !

But i still raising money to buy an aptus for my architecturals shots...
A Canon body and tse lenses are far inferior to rodenstock digital lendes and a back !

my personal believe is that this and studio are the future of mf digital. i cant see it in fashion.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: E_Edwards on December 02, 2008, 11:10:00 am
Quote from: rainer_v
my personal believe is that this and studio are the future of mf digital. i cant see it in fashion.


I also see digital backs as the domain of studio product photography, where you need to attach it to a view camera for the movements. Much as I like the fancy medium format cameras and top of the range Canon and Nikon, unfortunately they are no good to me in the studio.

I think digital backs should find their special niche, which I believe is the same niche they already had when they first started, i. e. attached to a view camera. They should concentrate on making them better for the studio photographer requirements (and for architecture or anywhere where a view camera with movements is needed).

They just cannot compete and will not be able to compete with the portability and practicality of the top DSLRs for people shooting.


Edward
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 02, 2008, 11:18:49 am
Quote from: Conner999
the one thing that does jump out at me between the various shots is the greater sense of 'depth' or dimensionality (a.k.a. 3D effect) in the Aptus files.
If anything, these two shots are the clear proof, that the 3D effect of MFDBs is a myth. The feeling of greater depth is the result of the different perspective caused by the shorter distance due to the wider FoV (the camera istself is more "in the scenery").
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: James R Russell on December 02, 2008, 11:26:21 am
Quote from: antonyoung
I think this is great post. Unfortunately a lot of the content of internet photo forums is just online pissing contests and misses the point of actually taking pictures. Because of the nature of my business, I have the choice of just about any camera gear I want to use when I shoot. I own a lot of medium format gear and a lot of Canon gear, but usually when I photograph it's with my G9, because I have a stronger bond with it than with any of my other gear- it's natural, feels right, and doesn't get in my way. Also because I always have it with me, and because in the end I like more of the pictures that I take with it than I do with my other cameras. Sometimes I feel guilty and break out the medium format (Mamiya AFD II when I do, because again that's what I bonded with), but usually I shoot with the G9.

In the film days I would tell clients don't specifically ask for a camera format because of the reproduction qualities.  Let us use a camera because of what it allows us to do or allows us a specific look.

Sure you could mount a Nikon F5 with a tilt shift on a 50lb majestic tripod and shoot it like a view camera or if you had a really great assistant you could shoot 4x5 film at a rate of about one frame every one and a half seconds, but usually those were more parlor tricks than anything else.

The real reason to use a 35-mm camera was for speed and spontaneity, medium format if your working slower, (like portraits) and or shooting static like studio fashion, beauty or large format or portrait and  still life.  Those reasons are pretty much valid today as we make the transition to digital, except that the dslrs offer about 3 stops higher iso than the medium format backs and at some point at higher iso the 35-mm cameras usually outperform the larger cameras in real detail.

It's funny.  In my NY space I have three  large 44" wide prints leaning against a wall.  They were shot with the original 1ds1 which was what . . . 11mpx.     Those three images have probably sold as many projects as any portfolio or website just because they are pretty and nobody asks if they were shot with a medium format camera, or a nikon, or canon or anything.  In fact if there are any comments from an art director it usually an assumption they were shot with film, probably because they were shot with continuous light and  are not overly sharpened.

I still have that original 1ds and from time to time use it because I love the colors and the look, though compared to the newer canons and nikons it seems almost bog slow.

Actually most people say they can't tell in print if an image is shot medium format or 35-mm but for most beauty and studio fashion I can usually spot medium format digital because it is overly crisp, overly detailed and to me gives the impression of digital.

Still, if this is about bonding with a camera, It's increasingly difficult to do that with digital, knowing in a year or so there will be a new, better, bigger, faster one tempting us to make that upgrade.  It's difficult not to look at all of these cameras as temporary.

For me I have and will continue to upgrade the dslrs, but in medium format I'll stay where I am because I don't see the real difference or advantage of going from 31mpx to 60 something mpx for an added $15,000.  In a way this holds true for even the dslrs because once Canon and Nikon opened the door to the same sensor in a body that costs 1/2 of the "professional" version many people will go to the lower priced option, if the sensor is the same.   In fact I think the biggest complaint of the new Nikon D3x in regards to price isn't that it costs the same as a Canon 1ds3, it's that it costs twice a 5d2 or a D700.  I think most people believe the next Nikon will have the same 24 mpx sensor at a reduced price in something like a D800 or whatever they call it.  

I think that's what has hurt the camera business more than anything, knowing that what you buy today is not something that you will necessarily be using in 3 years, definitely not 10, so why spend more for a more robust camera with incremental upgrades, regardless of format.

The lines are getting blurred between the 35-mm and medium format cameras, mainly because 35-mm covers so much territory and for commerce I think format size and framing dimensions is becoming almost irrelevant.  Now I shoot probably twice to three times the amount of horizontal images than I do vertical and I attribute that mostly to art directors working on horizontal pallets rather than a vertical sheet of paper.

As far as bonding, it's just hard to do knowing that in the world of medium format bonding usually means waiting (for a lot of things) and workarounds.  In the land of dslrs, bonding usually means a new one in a few months, or maybe a few years.  

To be truthful the camera I have "bonded" with more than any other is the leica and maybe I'm fooling myself and saying I'm not impressed by the red dot, or the mystique of the leica lenses . . . maybe I am.

The thing I love about the m-8 is I don't view it as a changing camera.  If it had twice the size or speed or mega anything I probably wouldn't care.  I also love the fact that what I see through the lens always looks a little different on the lcd.  Every frame is kind of like going to the lab where what you see through the viewfinder looks different on the contact sheet.  Still there is something nice about this camera kind of knowing that I won't be trading it in in a few years.    

It's also kind of nice not to see 3,000 of them hanging around tourist's necks in Times Square.

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Juanito on December 02, 2008, 11:37:49 am
From James:

Quote
It's funny. In my NY space I have three large 44" wide prints leaning against a wall. They were shot with the original 1ds1 which was what . . . 11mpx.

I'll add my own recent experience. I went out to lunch with an art director friend. Very experienced guy - he's hired photographers from Mark Laita to Jim Erickson. I was showing him some recent work - all as 12x18 prints. I had 5D MI images and my Leaf 22 images mixed in together. He picked out one of my 5D images and just marveled at the sharpness and detail of the print.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking - "What about these MFDB shots over here? Those are the ones with the sharpness and detail!" In the end, the client doesn't know or care what we shot with. In the sizes and resolution we're working in, extra pixels don't really matter. Pixelmongering is just a marketing ploy that is hopefully going to fade soon enough. It's the idea and execution that sells the work. The tools are just a means to an end and, for all our endless debate, don't matter nearly as much as we think they do.

John
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 02, 2008, 12:03:39 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
1. The 5D2 shot is much lower exposed than the Aptus. I am not talking about the aperture and shutter but about the light gathered by the sensor. See the attached raw histograms.

Pls note, that ACR adds 0.4 EV to the 5D2 shot, so the difference appears less. This automatic adjustment is not visible on the "exposure" slider of ACR.

Gabor,
Is this a criticism of ACR? I'm conceptually aware of the problems of defining the noise characteristics of a sensor using one particular converter. There is always the question, 'is this the best converter for this camera?'

When I open these files in ACR and hit the auto button, I get -0.24 EV and 'recovery' 3 for the Aptus file, and -0.40 EV and 'recovery' 6 for the 5D MkII file. They both appear to be reasonably well exposed to the right.

Whilst I appreciate the argument that ACR might not be getting the lowest noise from the 5D2, and might be misrepresenting the true exposure value, what can be done about it? You might be interested in the technical problems of precise analysis of sensor noise, but the practical photographer needs to use converters which are easy to navigate and produce pleasant results for either his/her clients or himself/herself.

Whilst I have an interest in these technical matters, I'm more orientated towards the practical implications. After all, it's the final image that counts, and that image is always of a particular size, on print, projector or monitor.

However, if your labours result in a better converter, then we will all benefit and you will presumably become rich, so best of luck     .
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 02, 2008, 02:12:18 pm
As long as the sensor is not the same size a comparision is not possible.
I have choosen MF for the bigger sensor.
Also there's no ISO50 (real ISO50) on the 5D, let alone ISO25 (ok that's only on the Aptus 22 at the moment but still).
Also there's no option for higher sync speeds what especially with fashion outside can be a BIG plus.

Oh,
And I'm also waiting for my 5DII, hopefully this week.
For me it's silly to choose between one format or the other, both have their uses.
When working with strobes I cannot think of one situation where I would PREFER the 5DII, when working with natural light (in the Netherlands) I think I will love the 5DII.

Resolution wise I think 22MP or 12MP is more than enough, but I would love to have 56MP.

The REAL problem I have with the 5DII and 1DsII is diffraction, I have seen samples of the 1DsIII where f5.6 was usable but f16 was destroying fine detail in clothing and eyelashes, I would in that case rather opt for 12MP's and less diffraction.
The reason I upgrade from the 5D is for me weathersealing, film option and higher ISO values, and lastly very lastly MPs.
I have as James mentions big prints that still originate from the 20D, and 5D that are from their viewing distance razor sharp.

It's an exciting time for photography, the only strange thing is that because the MPs are now almost the same or close to people are comparing two further totally different systems to each other.
Even if the sharpness or color was equal between both the 5DII will still not give me the combination of DOF and FOV that my MF system gives me (let alone the other differences).

A good photographer can make stunning work with every camera I believe.
It's just choosing the right tool for the job, and MF and DSLRs are like a hammer and screwdriver.
A hammer is used for a nail and a screwdriver for a screw.
Horses for courses


Again, loving both systems myself.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: RobertJ on December 02, 2008, 03:35:11 pm
Frank, the 5D2 is amazing at ISO 50, whether it's fake or not.  I have some sample files that were shot JPEG (unfortunately) at ISO 50 and ISO 100, and the one shot at 50 seems to be perfectly clean, and sharper than the ISO 100 image.  It reminded me immediately of the characteristics of the Leaf Aptus 75 at ISO 50.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 02, 2008, 04:33:49 pm
Quote from: T-1000
Frank, the 5D2 is amazing at ISO 50, whether it's fake or not.  I have some sample files that were shot JPEG (unfortunately) at ISO 50 and ISO 100, and the one shot at 50 seems to be perfectly clean, and sharper than the ISO 100 image.  It reminded me immediately of the characteristics of the Leaf Aptus 75 at ISO 50.

I love ISO50 on the 5D but reality is that it's a pulled ISO50, in other words you miss one step of dynamic range.
Because I can control my DR in the studio I always used the 5D on ISO50 in the studio because it's in the shadows incredibly nice.

When I switched to the Aptus 22 however I found that the shadows were much more detailed than the 5D, I hope the 14 bits of the 5DII will improve this.
But whatever the outcome the 5DII will always be my other camera, I'm just hooked at the way MF works and looks.

It's just so much fun to finally have a camera that will be so complete, when I'm on holiday I will now probarbly just carry the 5DII, on the other hand, I will probarbly miss the extra dynamic range of the leaf, so probarbly I will still travel with two cameras

Understand me correctly I will love the 5DII but I find it strange to compare the two systems, because they are both rather different.


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 02, 2008, 06:29:44 pm
Quote from: John Schweikert
Opening the 5DII file in DPP, Raw Developer and LR all show the exact same exposure level
1. You uploaded the DNG version of the 5D2 shot; I can't say anything to the DPP etc. interpretation. However, regarding the ACR interpretation, I found an important difference: the black point is 2 for the Aptus and 0 for the 5D2. This is not a small issue. I positioned the picker on a point in the black square (still in ACR). The resulting RGB is (39,40,44) with Blacks=0 and (35,35,40) with Blacks=2.

This not only increased the lightness of the 5D2 shot (i.e. reduced the difference caused ny the underexposure), but it increased the noise as well.

2. The 0.4 EV adjustment by ACR is applied to all 5D2 images, except to those shot @ ISO 500; then the adjustment is -0.6 EV  (incorrect "correction", nothing unusual from ACR). As I posted, this is not visible on the Exposure slider. This adjustment may cause apparent clipping[/i].

3. ACR is not good with Canon (nor with Nikon) images in the noisy region. That's a fact of life for now.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 02, 2008, 07:44:15 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
As long as the sensor is not the same size a comparision is not possible.
I have choosen MF for the bigger sensor
Earlier huge sensors meant huge pixel sites, cleaner image. This is not so any more. The size of the pixel sites of the MFDBs are now in the same range as the DSLRs, and the advance in technology made the smaller pixel sites quote competitive; the 5D2 is an excellent example for that.

The wide FoV remains an aspect, but that counts only with shorter lenses.

Another aspect is the AA filter - a two sided sword.

Quote
Also there's no ISO50 (real ISO50) on the 5D
Be cautious with that. ISO 50 is not relly the "half of ISO 100", neither on the 5D, nor on the 5D2. However, it is not fake in the sense as 3200 is on the 5D or 6400, 12800 and 25600 are on the 5D2.

You can get the least noise/greatest dynamic range @ ISO 50, but exposed about 0.5 EV higher than @ ISO 100, instead of 1 EV higher.

Quote
let alone ISO25 (ok that's only on the Aptus 22 at the moment but still)
If the Aptus 22 uses the same sensor as the Sinar em45 (they look similar), then there is no ISO 25, ISO 50, etc. All the ISO selections are only post processing directives.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 02, 2008, 10:10:48 pm


Quote
The REAL problem I have with the 5DII and 1DsII is diffraction, I have seen samples of the 1DsIII where f5.6 was usable but f16 was destroying fine detail in clothing and eyelashes, I would in that case rather opt for 12MP's and less diffraction.
The reason I upgrade from the 5D is for me weathersealing, film option and higher ISO values, and lastly very lastly MPs.
I have as James mentions big prints that still originate from the 20D, and 5D that are from their viewing distance razor sharp.

Frank,
Don't we all have problems with diffraction whatever the camera? Those who use a P&S such as the Canon G10 would experience very significant problems with diffraction at F8. Those who use the APS-C format will find that stopping down beyond F11 results in a noticeable softness, and likewise at F16 for the full frame 35mm DSLR.

If you need the sort of DoF that F16 provides with a 5D11, then maximum sharpness at the plane of focus is the trade-off. If you choose to use a DB instead, it's true that you could expect to get a slightly sharper image at F16, but you wouldn't get as much DoF. Are you claiming that a DB used at F22 gives you more detail in clothing and eyelashes than a 5D2 at F16?

Quote
A good photographer can make stunning work with every camera I believe.
It's just choosing the right tool for the job, and MF and DSLRs are like a hammer and screwdriver.
A hammer is used for a nail and a screwdriver for a screw.
Horses for courses

I agree with the broad sentiment here, but the analogy is a bit extreme   . Screwdrivers and hammers are not interchangeable. They are different tools in both name and function. However, a camera is a camera. I'm sure if you were on an assignment, lost your MF equipment and were unable to get a replacement, you could still do a pretty good job with a 5D2   .
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: mikemigs on December 03, 2008, 01:04:55 am
I looked at both files (.mos and cr2) in Lightroom.

Is it just me, or is the EXIF data panel showing the camera as a 5D, NOT MkII? The pixel dimensions even say 4368x2912 with is 12MP a la 5D.

OK, now I see that the .dng EXIF shows 5D MkII @ 5616x3744.

If the camera outputs only cr2, then I assume the .dng was made from the cr2, which means the .dng is from a 5D, not the 5D MkII???

Confused and tired - going to bed.

I appreciate if anyone can chime in in the morning and help me figure this out.

Thanks.

Mike.

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 03, 2008, 02:29:47 am
@John,
I did indeed test the ZD vs Aptus, but that was MF vs MF.
The first day I got the ZD I tested it against the 5D, to very soon find out that was an almost impossible task simply because the look and feel of the files were totally different.

When I get the 5DMKII I will do exactly the same test, not to prove how close the 5DMKII is to a MF system but simply to show the two next to each other.

The reason I posted this was not to claim MF is better or a DSLR is better.
It's simply to point out that both systems are totally different.
I think the comparision to a screwdriver and hammer is a correct one.

One can hammer in a screw, and one can turn arround the screwdriver and hammer in a nail.
But it's not an easy task.

When I look at some of the shots I made with the MF system I would not know how to replicate it with my 5D, especially the shots where I shot straight into the sun and still have a very shallow DOF, there are also shots with the 5D which I could not reproduce with the MF system.

The problem I have (well problem is a big word) is that somehow people only look at the files on color and sharpness, it's already clear that DSLRs are getting close in that segment, although even with these samples I still think the color and sharpness is lacking compared to the MF system but close enough seeing the huge price difference.
But when a photographer chooses for MF it often has a totally different reason, or at least it was for me. And that is often left out of the test completly.
People looking for a new camera will see the pictures next to each other and claim that one should be crazy if one would buy the MF system.

Back to the nail and screw.
Let's say you want to hang something and you can opt for a nail or a screw.
However the screw is four times the money of the nail, if the portret hangs you can't see a difference so why buy a four times more expensive screw ?
The reason could be that you need to rehang the portret twice or more each month, or that you sometimes need to change the depth of the screw to fit other frames.
In that case it's wise to invest more money for the screw instead of the nail which you will loose if you remove it from the wall.
I know it sounds like a weird comparision but I hope that you inderstand what I mean with it, the disadvantage of the written word is that you have to post something and hope the intention is coming over.

I'm using both systems and enjoy both immensly.

About the real ISO25/50 I have done testing in the past with the 5D and found that ISO50 was indeed costing me a stop of dynamic range, skies were blown out more easily than on ISO100. I don't really care if an ISO is pushed or pulled or what ever, the reason I give this point is that with Aptus I have not find any disadvatages of shooting at ISO50 or ISO25, but the files are a lot cleaner than ISO100, maybe it's the few extra stops of dynamic range or something else I really don't care to be honest, it's again the way you use your camera.

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Snook on December 03, 2008, 07:33:49 am
Just seems that all the guys who bought MFDB are trying to defend their investments..:+}
The 5DII is MF killer and 1DSMIII killer specially for those who do not print very large gallery prints...
I have been shooting a lot lately with 1DsMII and my P30 and for Catalogue and most magazine printing.. THERE is NO DIFFERENCE!!
The "Only" difference is the abuse the 16 bits takes in Photoshop and still shines over the Canon file which takes much less abuse!
The days are number for Medium Format...
S.


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 03, 2008, 11:12:06 am
Quote from: mikemigs
I looked at both files (.mos and cr2) in Lightroom
Did you find a CR2 file in that ZIP? I found only the DNG.

Quote
If the camera outputs only cr2, then I assume the .dng was made from the cr2, which means the .dng is from a 5D, not the 5D MkII???
And has been upresd in raw format to 5616x3744?

It IS a 5D2 raw file. Your Exif viewer is crap.

This is from the file, created by the camera, not by the DNG converter:

272 Model         Canon EOS 5D Mark II
306 DateTime    2008:12:01 14:52:35
315 Artist          John Schweikert Photography
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 03, 2008, 11:24:31 am
Quote
I don't really care if an ISO is pushed or pulled or what ever, the reason I give this point is that with Aptus I have not find any disadvatages of shooting at ISO50 or ISO25, but the files are a lot cleaner than ISO100, maybe it's the few extra stops of dynamic range or something else I really don't care to be honest, it's again the way you use your camera.
This forum (the MFDB) is the proof, that the more people spend on their equipment, the less they find it necessary to learn it.

The Dalsa sensor does not have different ISOs; thus higher ISO means simply underexposing. At low ISO you expose properly , so the image is cleaner. So simple.

The 5D's native ISO is neither 50 nor 100, it is around 70. The highest possible exposure is attainable @ 50, but it needs to be exposed "incorrectly" (half stop underexposed).
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 03, 2008, 11:48:44 am
@Panopeeper,
How do you mean the less they learn it ?
I know exactly what my equiptment does in which situation, what I don't care about is HOW the ISO range is achieved.
What I do care about is that I keep my dynamic range and that I get good shadow and highlight detail.
HOW that technical works is nice to know but has nothing to do with spending less or more.
It's more about where your interests lies. I love a good picture and I love equiptment, I however don't have to know how the pixels are turned and twisted inside the sensor. But I do know a little about it, don't get me wrong

I do think that some people are looking TOO MUCH at the technical parts and not at the pictures..... and most of those people are the ones buying the DSLRs and posting on forums that they are MF killers without working on a daily basis with both.

@Snook,
If you can't see a difference that's more your opinion, I used the 1DsIII next to the Aptus 22 and I could see big differences, especially when closing down to f16 on the 1DsIII and f22 on the Aptus22, the difference is not funny trust me.
The 5DMKII is probarbly a 1DsIII killer, MF will always have it's place.
Maybe not in the need for megapixels any more but it still delivers some things that a DSLR as of YET does not.
The question is, is this important for you as a photographer ?

For me it is.
I also don't have money to burn, and when I could sell my MF system for something just as good in the price range of the 5DMKII I would do in a heart beat.
However as mentioned so many times there is much more than comparing a test chart.
Both systems are different and have their own advantages and disadvantages, and as long as the sensor size is not equal they will never be the same.
But I'm repeating myself and that's not good

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: samuel_js on December 03, 2008, 01:05:41 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Panopeeper,
How do you mean the less they learn it ?
I know exactly what my equiptment does in which situation, what I don't care about is HOW the ISO range is achieved.
What I do care about is that I keep my dynamic range and that I get good shadow and highlight detail.
HOW that technical works is nice to know but has nothing to do with spending less or more.
It's more about where your interests lies. I love a good picture and I love equiptment, I however don't have to know how the pixels are turned and twisted inside the sensor. But I do know a little about it, don't get me wrong

I do think that some people are looking TOO MUCH at the technical parts and not at the pictures..... and most of those people are the ones buying the DSLRs and posting on forums that they are MF killers without working on a daily basis with both.

@Snook,
If you can't see a difference that's more your opinion, I used the 1DsIII next to the Aptus 22 and I could see big differences, especially when closing down to f16 on the 1DsIII and f22 on the Aptus22, the difference is not funny trust me.
The 5DMKII is probarbly a 1DsIII killer, MF will always have it's place.
Maybe not in the need for megapixels any more but it still delivers some things that a DSLR as of YET does not.
The question is, is this important for you as a photographer ?

For me it is.
I also don't have money to burn, and when I could sell my MF system for something just as good in the price range of the 5DMKII I would do in a heart beat.
However as mentioned so many times there is much more than comparing a test chart.
Both systems are different and have their own advantages and disadvantages, and as long as the sensor size is not equal they will never be the same.
But I'm repeating myself and that's not good

Frank, I completely agree and understand what you're saying. I have both, use both and see big differences as well as you.
The reason I stopped defending MF here is because I'm tired of hearing about these "MF killers" from people who don't even own MF, just judging an entire format for a few web samples.

The day MF users start seeing the same things,  It will be another story. But right now this is only pixelpeeper's wishes, cheap forum bs and gear head hypothesis. Nothing to do with real world work.

Have a nice day.


 
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Snook on December 03, 2008, 02:16:58 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Panopeeper,
How do you mean the less they learn it ?
I know exactly what my equiptment does in which situation, what I don't care about is HOW the ISO range is achieved.
What I do care about is that I keep my dynamic range and that I get good shadow and highlight detail.
HOW that technical works is nice to know but has nothing to do with spending less or more.
It's more about where your interests lies. I love a good picture and I love equiptment, I however don't have to know how the pixels are turned and twisted inside the sensor. But I do know a little about it, don't get me wrong

I do think that some people are looking TOO MUCH at the technical parts and not at the pictures..... and most of those people are the ones buying the DSLRs and posting on forums that they are MF killers without working on a daily basis with both.

@Snook,
If you can't see a difference that's more your opinion, I used the 1DsIII next to the Aptus 22 and I could see big differences, especially when closing down to f16 on the 1DsIII and f22 on the Aptus22, the difference is not funny trust me.
The 5DMKII is probarbly a 1DsIII killer, MF will always have it's place.
Maybe not in the need for megapixels any more but it still delivers some things that a DSLR as of YET does not.
The question is, is this important for you as a photographer ?

For me it is.
I also don't have money to burn, and when I could sell my MF system for something just as good in the price range of the 5DMKII I would do in a heart beat.
However as mentioned so many times there is much more than comparing a test chart.
Both systems are different and have their own advantages and disadvantages, and as long as the sensor size is not equal they will never be the same.
But I'm repeating myself and that's not good


Frank, I meant in Print..
Especially for Catalogue which is pretty bad usually.

I do see a difference on Screen and when I am retouching. The files hold up a lot better and everything (gradients) are of course smoother.

Where I live and I think a lot of people in the future will be more web based and all those megapixels are useless anyways.
I just did 4-5 Jobs that were for Web and several companies I work with are going more web base now and saving a lot of money on print and Paper.
We shoot a lot of people and then have them move just slightly and they put that into animation on the sites, which I think the RED camera will be great for in the future. Small web based Videos and Images. Not many megapixels are needed and they are already there.

I am talking about catalogue houses mainly and Jeans companies.
I am printing an exhibition here soon and have not printed anything,other than the Family or small 11X14 Print in Years!!
For my clients that pay most of my bills there is very little use for so many mega pixels even for Billboards that print a low DPI anyhow.

Again I see a difference but many will turn their heads and say they do not just to save 10-20K on a digital back.

If I was coming into the game now and with these hard economic times, I would be quite happy with a 5DII and all the best canon Glass. Actually the 24 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 100 macro, 135 f2 and you not going to notice that much difference.

Those shadows look much better from my P30 for sure. But also HIGH ISO for those tough situations is quite nice also.
The good thing is most can have both, which I probably will have when all the 5DII craziness is over..:+}

Snook
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: pss on December 03, 2008, 02:44:48 pm
Quote from: samuel_js
The day MF users start seeing the same things,  It will be another story. But right now this is only pixelpeeper's wishes, cheap forum bs and gear head hypothesis. Nothing to do with real world work.

not sure if you are reading other peoples posts....the point is that MF users are starting to see the same things....i am a MF user and have been for a long time and have always maintained that there is a difference...but in the last 5 years the differnce has gone from totally obvious to obvious to "there" to "barely there" to "i want to see a difference because i want to justify my investment" which is is really silly....
i know there still is a difference but well shot files from either system can look the same on paper....this has been said before but now it is a reality...the 5dII provides 98% of a MF file at 20% of the price, 1000% better high iso, features, handling...and it throws in some of the most exciting HD possibilities i have seen in a long time.....
i am not even sure anymore if i would use MF if i would shoot still life...maybe...
every photographer i know personally has sold their MF systems this last year....mostly for the simple reason that they did not use it anymore and they could still get good money for their stuff....

i wish i could get excited about any MF system announced or actually selling....none really listened to what people want and now people don't really want what they are offering.....

i think leica with their S announcement showed what we can expect from canon and nikon in the not so distant future.....
a canon 2ds with a 30x40mm sensor 16bit 30mpix with new lenses and the same af, speed, handling,high iso performance is on the horizon....maybe even in 2009....

anyone who still owns MF is probably using it, loving it and knows that it will always provide a great file within their workflow....which is great and really what it is all about.....
but even those people, how many of those people will buy another one this year? next year? that is why MF is dying....


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: TMARK on December 03, 2008, 03:02:02 pm
From where I'm sitting MFDB is no longer needed or even desired.  I sold my P30+ when I thought I could still get some money for it, and because I never used it.  It just sat around.  For editorial portraits I shoot 4x5 and 6x7 film, even 35mm film.  Low volume, usually have a little time to shoot, no one looking over my shoulder.  I like to shoot beauty with an MFDB, so I rent it, but this work dropped like a stone last spring.  For commercial work the Canon's work just fine.  The only people who complain are retouchers.

I do like the MF look, whatever the cause.  By look what I mean is I like the 80mm as a normal, a 50mm as a wide.  I like how quickly focus falls off, and I like how relatively sharp the in focus areas are.  When I need or want the look I shoot film or rent.

And yes, it is dying.  I do plan on getting another back when I can get a 54s for about $5k.  At $5k its a nice option to have to hang on my RZ and AFD cameras.  We'll see.  In teh meantime, I don't really miss my P30.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: samuel_js on December 03, 2008, 04:15:12 pm
I think the hole debate is too funny.
In which way are files from a 1dsIII or 5D better than a 6 years old 1Ds? They are bigger and with better high ISO but nothing else.
This debate should started back in 2002. But it starts now because the digital backs are almost the same as 6 years ago while the dslrs evolution to higher pixel count and nothing more.

People is bored with this zero evolution. MF and DSLr are only closer in file size (well...), nothing more.

If people is changing to DSLrs is because they like them better as tools or because they picked the wrong tool from start. It has nothing to do with file quality.

If you don't believe it just take a look at dpreview. I think it's amazing how this people do test after test and collect crop after crop of the same pictures of the same things and with almost no differences in quality. Just look at the quality of images from cameras 8 or 10 years old and modern cameras.
The difference is only pixels...

But as I said before, it's not my intention to defend Mf here anymore. I really don't care. I see what I see...
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Snook on December 03, 2008, 04:26:46 pm
Quote from: samuel_js
I think the hole debate is too funny.
In which way are files from a 1dsIII or 5D better than a 6 years old 1Ds? They are bigger and with better high ISO but nothing else.
This debate should started back in 2002. But it starts now because the digital backs are almost the same as 6 years ago while the dslrs evolution to higher pixel count and nothing more.

People is bored with this zero evolution. MF and DSLr are only closer in file size (well...), nothing more.

If people is changing to DSLrs is because they like them better as tools or because they picked the wrong tool from start. It has nothing to do with file quality.

If you don't believe it just take a look at dpreview. I think it's amazing how this people do test after test and collect crop after crop of the same pictures of the same things and with almost no differences in quality. Just look at the quality of images from cameras 8 or 10 years old and modern cameras.
The difference is only pixels...

But as I said before, it's not my intention to defend Mf here anymore. I really don't care. I see what I see...

You forgot one very important thing..
Dynamic Range/16Bit is different and very important...:+}

There is a difference, only most prints and publications will not show that difference..
Like someone said, The retouchers notice right away the difference.
I am retouching some files right now for a client of mine Everlast,They wanted me to really tweak the files and I have an notice a BIG difference tweaking P30 files and 1DsMII files. Cannot comment on 1DsMIII but just more megapixel there and maybe slightly better Dynamic range than the 1DsMII.

Any way you look at it, the Doom of the Mom and Pap Digital Back sellers are going to be History very soon. Forget it if Nikon and Canon come out with some type of Hybrid Medium format thing..

I am sure Mamiya/Phase and That special German maker that was supposed to make Lens are thinking twice right now as to what the future will behold.

Economically trouble times, The 5DII is a no brainer!!

Snook




Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: ixpressraf on December 03, 2008, 04:50:19 pm
I myself really believe that the 5dII will be a miracle camera, a 1ds3 was a wonder and the A900 certainly is the best camera ever made.... until you get into real photography. I shot 1ds3 and 5dmk1 in industrial environnements, factories and nuclear power reactors( as a back-up to my hasselbladH3dII 31Mp) and the results of all the dslr's where cr*p, unusuable. At this forum the only God's are fashion photographers and landscape/cityscape/people , but there are more sorts of photography. I do only industrial and advertising photography. I have been using hasselblad backs in these harsh environnements eversince my 96C 16Mp back( wich because of the iso 200 limit was a dog in use) and never got a even close image out of my 1Ds3 or 5D. (try it yourself under a mixture of sodium vapor, halogen, fluoressent, mercury.... lighting, common used mixed in a plant. No DSLR was ( until now, maybe the 5d2 or a700 or D3 will change the game) capable of getting decent files.
The other thing i do is advertising with a view camera ( at the moment a P2 digital with a 528 or 384 back on it). No replacement for that either in DSLR.
About testing: most tesing i have seen is done under unchaliging light situations, studio lights, perfect landscape etc. Lets do those tesing in environnements where a lot of pro's do work, and  i  am not referring to a well lit fashion shoot in a factory or so but real world situations where photographers ( who are apparently not visithing the LL) such as myself and thousends more are working in. In factory's i have my H3d standard set at ISO 800 and mostly underexpose one or two stops and still get better results as my 1Ds3. I make double spreads out of them, billboards etc....
The third thing about MF is : it's a completely different approach to photography, slower more carefull composing, other feel of image because of 3d eand lenses.
On the other hand i often us my dslr camera's because they have the advantage of speed and high iso, just as in the 90ies of last century.
Let's just use the wright tool for the wright job.
Rafaello di ixpresso.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: pss on December 03, 2008, 04:55:31 pm
Quote from: Snook
You forgot one very important thing..
Dynamic Range/16Bit is different and very important...:+}

There is a difference, only most prints and publications will not show that difference..
Like someone said, The retouchers notice right away the difference.
I am retouching some files right now for a client of mine Everlast,They wanted me to really tweak the files and I have an notice a BIG difference tweaking P30 files and 1DsMII files. Cannot comment on 1DsMIII but just more megapixel there and maybe slightly better Dynamic range than the 1DsMII.




the 16 bit MF backs always claimed where always up for discussion....i have never believed in numbers alone...the proof is on the printed piece in front of you...does not matter if it inkjet or analog or magazine....what matters if you get your point across....

i could always tell a 1dsII, 5d,....from any MF back.....i always thought it was the extra bits, the pixel depth....i always said the P20 beats any DSLR, pixelcount does not matter....

not so anymore....the 1dsIII has better DR imo then the P20 had, the transitions are at least as smooth...maybe tht is the 14bit?....the files still look different and the phase files seem to snap more, but all that can be changed in post....the p30 still provides better files, but the difference is so marginal and when lit carefully even that advantage disappears....

again, what really matters is what you like to shoot with and what gets your point across...

i talked to a photographer friend of mine yesterday, he shoots mainly portrait and just sold his phase back that he used with the RZ....we both agreed that a great addition to a kit right now would be a 4x5 (or even better 8x10) field camera....shoot a couple of sheets per session......totally different interaction with the subject and the quality is still hard to beat....and don't even get me started on how people react to a 8x10 polaroid.....
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: mikemigs on December 03, 2008, 05:00:36 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
Did you find a CR2 file in that ZIP? I found only the DNG.


And has been upresd in raw format to 5616x3744?

It IS a 5D2 raw file. Your Exif viewer is crap.

This is from the file, created by the camera, not by the DNG converter:

272 Model         Canon EOS 5D Mark II
306 DateTime    2008:12:01 14:52:35
315 Artist          John Schweikert Photography

@ Panopeeper and John Schweikert:

Here are screen shots from C1 Pro of both the CR2 and DNG files.
The CR2 says Canon 5D along with the camera's serial# and Firmware version. It also shows the exact pixel dimensions of the 5D at 4368x2912.
The DNG says Canon 5DMark II along with John's copyright info, but without the camera's serial# nor firmware version.

John. would you mind allowing us to download the actual CR2 file?

Thanks.
[attachment=10090:IMG_6616...reenshot.jpg][attachment=10091:IMG_0151...reenshot.
jpg]
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 03, 2008, 05:14:33 pm
As long as there are threads going on were the G10 is compared to a MF system I think that says all..........

I agree with Rafaello, forget the testcharts just work with the camera.
The system is indeed slower but gives you much more options.

Ok I do fashion but I also try to find the extremes of my systems (not all fashion photographers shoot flat lit subjects with strobes ), I've been shooting into the sun with strobes for some time now, but I could never do the things I do with the RZ, sync speed on 1/400 and ISO25 it's a real day to night with very shallow DOF.
Same goes for the jump photography, in the studio I can do jumps without a problem with both the DSLR and MF.
Change the situation to outside and again the option to compete with the available light is a wonderful addition, as is the 1/400 sync.

I think there are indeed alot of people selling their MF systems and with good reason.
Maybe it's the economics, maybe it's the work they do.
To be honest if I would only shoot high school seniors, weddings and the occasional portrait I would probarbly never upgraded to MF.
However especially in my free work I love to work on the edge, really push the pixels in photoshop sometimes and as mentioned before by others the files are just WAY more robust.

remarks about that when you push a file from the 5D you can get the same snap as a MF file that's nice.
But do we forget that when you push pixels arround we loose bits, or in other words the files will fall apart earlier ?
To be honest I love the fact that the files from the Leaf comes out razor sharp (no softening), very even in color and snappy.
The less I have to work on the files the more I like it......

In the end it all boils down to what fits a certain person and what fits the job.

The thing I find strange that nobody talks about is diffraction ?
Are you all shooting on f2.8 and f5.6 max ?
For beauty I often stop down to f22 and on the DSLR that would mean app f16. The files from the 1DsIII from what I have seen are not that pretty anymore at that aperture.
For what I do the DSLR complements the MF perfectly, when I look at my 5D files from the last year they are all shot below f5.6 and most are above ISO400.
It fills the gap that MF leaves perfectly, as it should.

I'm also a bit in dubio by this post, I pre-ordered the 5DMKII as soon as it was announced and I'm looking forward to it as a kid waiting for a new toy.
When you read some comments it's like if you love the 5DMKII you have to sell your MF gear
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 03, 2008, 06:27:51 pm
Quote from: John Schweikert
CR2 download for the same DNG file you have:
John, THIS file is not the same as the DNG you posted above. The issue is not the file number, but THIS one (the CR2) is 1/3 EV higher exposed than the DNG (even though the shutter and aperture are the same).

Hold on.

I downloaded a DNG in the package earlier with #148. This CR2 is #151. But Mikemigs posted a crop from a DNG with #151.

I'm afraid we are not talking about the same things. An excellent basis for measuring characteristics, right?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 03, 2008, 06:35:50 pm
I often see the discussion about 16bit depth.

If anyone thinks a Phase One with 16bit depth is superior to 14bit, plase post such a (16bit Phase One) file here and get prepared for some sobering moments.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: hauxon on December 03, 2008, 06:38:31 pm
The Canon 1Ds III has been around for more than a year now.  What is it with the new 5D that will turn things around?  For all of us the availablity and pricepoint of the new 5DII is great news but I fail to see what's really there to destroy the current MF business.  Now we can all have multimegapixel DSLR's with great ISO for low price, either as our main camera or as a backup for another one depending on what we do.  If the 5DII was to end MF photography the 1DsIII would already have done that.

I however think that MF has less option of growing than before since many that have been waiting fot the right price point to enter (or renter) MF photography will be satisfied by what modern 35mm DSLSR's are offering.

The MF business as we know it may however die with RED and Nikon entering it.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: rainer_v on December 03, 2008, 06:44:11 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
I think there are indeed alot of people selling their MF systems and with good reason.
Maybe it's the economics, maybe it's the work they do.
To be honest if I would only shoot high school seniors, weddings and the occasional portrait I would probarbly never upgraded to MF.
However especially in my free work I love to work on the edge, really push the pixels in photoshop sometimes and as mentioned before by others the files are just WAY more robust.

remarks about that when you push a file from the 5D you can get the same snap as a MF file that's nice.
But do we forget that when you push pixels arround we loose bits, or in other words the files will fall apart earlier ?
To be honest I love the fact that the files from the Leaf comes out razor sharp (no softening), very even in color and snappy.
The less I have to work on the files the more I like it......

In the end it all boils down to what fits a certain person and what fits the job.

The thing I find strange that nobody talks about is diffraction ?
Are you all shooting on f2.8 and f5.6 max ?
For beauty I often stop down to f22 and on the DSLR that would mean app f16. The files from the 1DsIII from what I have seen are not that pretty anymore at that aperture.

i think there are quiet a view members here shooting dslr`s who i would not see at all in the lo end corner you like to put them in....
aside this i dont like this class thinking too much.

diffraction behavor let me think about the new mf backs as well. i most certainly will go with one of the new hires backs, probably with the sinar/leaf back if it comes out. i am in a market corner where i can have sometimes good use for the higher resolution.
but even now with my 33mp back i notice diffraction limits very visible over f16,- with big prints this can show up visible.
although i dont have big problems with diffraction caused softness in single images,- ( because this kind of softness  allows very good upscaling ),- but on 8foot prints you certainly see the difference if a shot with a HR lens is done at f8 or if it is done at f22,- and it becomes very visible if this shots at different apertures hang on a wall side by side.
sometimes i have to stop down so much to get the dov i need for the motif ( this is not happening so rarely ), so i cant avoid to go beyond f11.
i wonder how much bigger will be the resolution difference with a 50+ mp back between the f8 and the f16 or 22 shot,- the 50+ back will not resolve more at f22 than the 33mp back but will resolve a lot more at f8. certainly there will appear new problems to be aware of .... ( anyway the world is for learning ).

aside this i am not unhappy that this 35mm - mf discussion in architecture is more or less useless. here are the lenses the limiting factor not the resolution or the bit depth.
i just hope that the mf makers will not dye, because many of us architecture guys really can need mf ad its advantages.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 03, 2008, 08:19:50 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
For beauty I often stop down to f22 and on the DSLR that would mean app f16. The files from the 1DsIII from what I have seen are not that pretty anymore at that aperture.

Frank,
This is worthy of more investigation. John has shown us shots from a 5D2 at F11 compared with an Aptus at F16, demonstrating there is essentially no image quality difference, yet you claim when both cameras are stopped down one more stop, image quality differences will appear and that the DB will look better in some significant way.

I can't understand why this would be the case. One advantage that the DB always has is its lack of an AA filter, which sometimes creates more work to remove moire patterns, but also seems to lend an extra crispness to the image, however slight.

However, at F22 I would imagine that the lens itself becomes an AA filter, reducing high frequency content as a result of diffraction. The DB would thus lose that small advantage due to its not having an AA filter, one would think.

The idea that MFDBs have useful features which may be lacking in 35mm DSLRs and which enable certain types of shots that would either not be possible with a DSLR, or would at least be more difficult, is not strange. I have no problem understanding that this would be a very good reason for using MFDB. If you need a flash sync speed faster than a 35mm DSLR can offer, then that's reason enough to use the MFDB in those circumstances.

I regularly switch between different format cameras when, in certain circumstances, one camera or the other has an advantage. For example, when shooting distant wildlife with a my longest telephoto, I would prefer to use the Canon 50D instead of my 5D because it effectively turns my 400mm lens into a 640mm lens, and I simply get a better result. I don't need to argue about it. The differences are clear and obvious and can be easily demonstrated.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 04, 2008, 02:21:15 am
@Rainier,
I try to be as clear as possible and it's a shame you did not get the meaning of my post.
I DONOT say that people not shooting with MF are amateurs or bad photographers.
I tried to say that it doesn't matter what you shoot for 99% of the assignments as long as you know how to use it, but that there are photographers out there that want the absolute best, even if it doesn't show up on print, and those are often the ones going for MF. Again I don't mean doing a better job, or having more passion for photography.

I think there are photographers out there shooting DSLRs that do a better job than some of the work I see shot with MF.
In the end it all boils down to the shot and the camera is just a tool to get there.
MF is just another tool than DSLR and if that fits the style/wishes of the photographer it can lift his/her work to another level.

In the end what I meant to say (so without putting anyone down) is that in my opinion MF and a DSLR are so different that comparing them is like comparing a G10 to a 5DMKII.
As pointed out a few posts before this on print the G10 can do a full magazine spread so why even bother buying a DSLR ?
I think everyone agrees that a G10 and a 5DMKII are totally different systems and that it's more than just seeing a print, it's also about getting that perfect workflow that fits the photographer,and also getting the shot in the situations you encounter the most, the G10 for example would never fit my style of shooting.
In the future the differences will become smaller and smaller but still there will be a difference, for me the biggest difference is the sensor size and it's advantages.
But what are advantages for me can be disadvantages for another.

Hope this explains it better ?


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 04, 2008, 02:32:00 am
@Ray,
It's a bit difficult for me to read your posts in which you point out differences when you still talk about a magnification factor when everyone knows (hopefully) that it's a crop factor.
Your 400mm is still a 400mm lens but it just crops out the center part.
Take the 1DSIII or the 5DMKII and you get similair results by cropping.....
In the end for wildlife it boils down to pixels, or in other words do we have enough to crop the small far away bird.

I agree when you compare a 12MP crop camera to a 12MP FF camera by the way (when the quality of both is about equal)

This is for a great part THE reason why I (and I think also others) choose the MF system.
the bigger sensors make it possible to use longer lenses which give a different look and feel to the shot than the same lens on a smaller sensor.

Don't take it the wrong way, but again the difference between crop and magnification factor is for me the whole thing the MF vs DSLR discussions boils down, if you really don't get the fact that a 50mm is a 50mm on a crop camera and on a full frame and on a MF but that on all these cameras the pictures are totally different you indeed can't see the difference between the systems.

Don't be offended, it's not meant to offend (disadvantage of the written word).
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: bcooter on December 04, 2008, 04:03:28 am
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
I think there are indeed alot of people selling their MF systems and with good reason.
Maybe it's the economics, maybe it's the work they do.
To be honest if I would only shoot high school seniors, weddings and the occasional portrait I would probarbly never upgraded to MF.
However especially in my free work I love to work on the edge, really push the pixels in photoshop sometimes and as mentioned before by others the files are just WAY more robust.

frank,

will all regards, somewhere you keep missing the point that the world's most famous living photographer is shooting with a Canon dslr and I don't think anyone would put AL in the league of high school senior photography.  few event photoraphers can afford a 4 story building in manhattan.

in regards to "free" work, how does that equate to affording a meduim format system, in fact how does "free" equate to affording any camera.

why are working photographers selling their medium format systems, it's simple, they are limited to low iso and/or slower or more controlled subjects and advertising, including high end advertising and in today's knee jerk advertising economy clients requires faster production and to some extent more lifestyle oriented imagery.  

this catagory is best served with a camera that reacts faster and NO it's not spray and pray, it's just a spontaneous look that requires higher iso, usually continuous or mixed light and a very fast reactive camera that will allow a photographer to produce the type of project that are  coming through on all creative briefs I've seen in the last 18 months.

I will keep my two medium format backs because they are paid for and  they will be used, but in the last 12 to 18 months they are used less and less and I feel will even be more marginalized in the next year.

understand I don't think any professional photographer that shoots for editorial and commerce wants to see any camera company or format go away, but medium format really needs higher iso and better lcds (and probably more useful autofocus) if they are going to continue to grow in the professional market.  the limits on low iso is probably the most limiting factor, the next is costs.

also keep in mind that regardless of the printing process or size, though expert post production and retouching nobody can tell the difference in the end product and I promise you even the medium format makers can be fooled.  does the box, the digital lab or a dozen other high end retouchers prefer a medium format file.  maybe, but once they're done nobody knows the difference and you can be sure that when it comes to working on the edge, Pascal Dangin who owns the box is on the real edge and they really don't care what format you deliver to them.

then again it looks like the bar is going to be raised again by the dslrs as this is from the canon rumors page on the next 1d (not ds) but 1d Mark IV.  true or not, it is very interesting and might give us some idea where Canon will go on the next 1ds series.

From canonrumorsdotcom

1dMarkIV

MP: 21.1 FF
ISO: 100-12800 (L:50 - H: 51,200)
Proc: Dual DIGIC IV
LCD: 3.5″ VGA LCD (Not sure about this)
FPS: 10fps
AF: 45 Point AF
AF: Face Detection
Feature: Various Crop Modes
Feature: LiveView with new AF
Feature: Movie Mode
Feature: Ergonomic Updates
Feature: GPS
Feature: Wifi
Feature: Dual CF & SD (4 total slots)
Announcement: Fall 2009
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 04, 2008, 04:37:40 am
bcooter, please reread my posts.
I CLEARLY state that SOME photographers will choose MF because it fits THEIR workflow/preference.
I never said you can't shoot with a DSLR or that DSLRs are not suited for high profile work.

I see alot of famous photographers shooting with MF, Canon, Nikon etc. all in the mix, look at Annie, I have seen her using Nikon, Leica, Leaf AFi, Canon and even in one session a Nikon and Leaf AFi (see the video on the profoto website), it's just that they know which camera gives them the look they want.
In the end whatever camera you use they are all tools to get the end result we have in mind.

Again it doesn't make a photographer a better one when he/she shoots with MF, a good photographer will choose the camera fitting the assignment.
And if he/she only has one camera no problem at all he/she will do just fine with that camera.

Again I never intent to hurt, put down or whatever negative to anyone, I just give my opinion for my personal workflow.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: yaya on December 04, 2008, 04:44:10 am
Profoto Pro-8 promo video (http://www.profoto-usa.com/news/press/pro8-leibovitz.asp) about 01:15 from the start

Yair
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: RobertJ on December 04, 2008, 05:09:52 am
LOL.  Annie Leibovitz doesn't know about what "look" she wants, or cares about the "look" that whatever camera, digital back, sensor size, or format may give her.

Someone hands her a camera... any camera... probably a camera that she barely knows how to use, or barely knows anything about, then she learns how to set the exposure, focus, and press the shutter button, and she takes her famous photographs without caring about the medium format look, or the next Canon or Nikon that will become a MF killer.  Whatever camera she's holding, she probably doesn't even know or care about how many megapixels it has, or how big the pixels are.

I'm almost positive this woman would have NO clue about anything we talk about in this forum...
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 04, 2008, 05:33:15 am
Quote from: T-1000
LOL.  Annie Leibovitz doesn't know about what "look" she wants, or cares about the "look" that whatever camera, digital back, sensor size, or format may give her.

Someone hands her a camera... any camera... probably a camera that she barely knows how to use, or barely knows anything about, then she learns how to set the exposure, focus, and press the shutter button, and she takes her famous photographs without caring about the medium format look, or the next Canon or Nikon that will become a MF killer.  Whatever camera she's holding, she probably doesn't even know or care about how many megapixels it has, or how big the pixels are.

I'm almost positive this woman would have NO clue about anything we talk about in this forum...


LOL and that proves that it's the photographer making the photo and not the equipment.
But I do think you sell Annie a bit short, she will probably know what she uses (or at least I hope)
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: gwhitf on December 04, 2008, 07:43:49 am
.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: thsinar on December 04, 2008, 09:03:44 am
The 14 years old Loral 4 MPx sensor is still in work in some place and still delivers some amazing results, with this limited resolution.
Years back, the Rado watch campaigns (4x3m) have been shot with backs having this resolution.

Thierry

Thierry

Quote from: gwhitf
Resolution is not everything. Not by a mile.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 04, 2008, 10:13:00 am

Quote
It's a bit difficult for me to read your posts in which you point out differences when you still talk about a magnification factor when everyone knows (hopefully) that it's a crop factor.
Your 400mm is still a 400mm lens but it just crops out the center part.

Frank,
Of course I know that   . But I never mentioned the word 'magnification'. You did. I wrote effectively turns my 400mm lens into a 640mm lens. The magnification comes later, as a result of the cropped image being comprised of a greater number of pixels.

If Canon were to produce a 35mm sensor with as many pixels as a P45 (ie. 39mp), then there would be no reason for me to use a 50D, assuming the 39mp DSLR had all the other features of the 50D, which it likely would have, and more.

Quote
Take the 1DSIII or the 5DMKII and you get similair results by cropping.....

Similar, but not quite as good. The 1Ds3 and 5D2 have the pixel density of the 8mp 20D. The 50D has 15mp, almost twice as many. The 5D image cropped to the 50D format has about 5mp.

But all this is beside the point. I was trying to give an example of a good reason for using a different format camera. In other circumstances I would use my 5D because of its lower shadow noise and smoother tonality. It simply gathers more light than a 50D.

Quote
Don't take it the wrong way, but again the difference between crop and magnification factor is for me the whole thing the MF vs DSLR discussions boils down, if you really don't get the fact that a 50mm is a 50mm on a crop camera and on a full frame and on a MF but that on all these cameras the pictures are totally different you indeed can't see the difference between the systems.

I do get the fact that a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens whatever camera it's fitted to. How could it not be? It doesn't magically change its name because you fit it to another camera. However, I don't see any special connection here to the differences between MFDB and 35mm. All different size formats require different focal lengths for the same field of view. Where you would use a 50mm lens with a 1Ds3 you would use a 75mm lens with a P25, stopped down one stop of course. The results should be approximately the same, except for any quality differences that exist between the two lenses. One lens might have a nicer bokeh. The other might simply be sharper. No two lenses are exactly the same.


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: bcooter on December 04, 2008, 11:08:26 am
Quote from: gwhitf
the Annie analogy,.................because it simply doesn't apply to 99.9% of us in the trenches.


I agree with you, though all of us have heard for years the justification for 22, 31, 39 now 60mpx is "I want to give my client the best".

we all do, that's the plan,  but for most of us finding a better model, stylist or location would go a lot further than 11 more mpx, or maybe our own version of Pascal's Box, whether it is do it yourself classes in a workshop  our outsourcing.

I also agree that nobody really cares what another photographer shoots with.   it's really not relevant and rarely an indication of anything.  

the scenario in camera sponsorship usually goes like this, photographer shoots a lifetime of film, later canon's or nikons in digital, maybe a few rental backs and then some company sponsors them to shoot something specific with their brand and links to their site.  

the point is at most levels, the clients don't care either.  they just want their shot and given the budget they would like the post work done by Pascal rather than the photographer.  the client that opens the conversation about file size of megapixels is the client you don't want to know.

what I think more than lenses, format or mpx, what would stop all this conversation is if someone would just rip the aa filter off a 5d2 or a 1dsMark III.

as far as costs, cameras, or format just use what you like, or can afford.  nobody really needs to justify anything.


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: gwhitf on December 04, 2008, 11:46:21 am
.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 04, 2008, 12:22:29 pm
@Ray,
That's why it's so difficult to do the conversation when someone doesn't understand what I (and probarbly others) mean.

When you shoot a 50mm on a FF DSLR it's not as simple as using a 75mm on a MF system.
The whole look will change.

Let's make it very simple.
MF systems make it possible to shoot portraits with a 200mm lens wide open and give you much less DOF than the same 200mm on a FF DSLR.
When you want to achieve this one could opt for a 300mm lens for example and use that on f2.8 (if possible) but still there is a different look, the 300mm will compress the scene different than the 200mm.

In other words.
Try to borrow a MF system and shoot with a 120mm lens a portrait.
Now change to a DSLR and shoot the exact same portret with a 120mm lens, see the difference.

Now do it your way.
Shoot it on MF with a 120mm lens and take a 75mm on a DSLR and shoot again the same portrait.
You will find that BOTH cameras will give you an unique look.
I don't say one is better or the other is worse.

I can just talk for myself and I absolutly LOVE the look I get from the large sensors, that's also the reason I still use the Aptus22 and am now seriously looking at the Aptus II 10, I would probarbly never invest in a crop of 1.3 for MF (although in the RZ I don't have a choice  yet.... would love a 6x7 digital back)


Don't try to get me on calculations, I post this very quickly so probarbly the mm's are wrong but you know what I mean.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: rainer_v on December 04, 2008, 12:45:33 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
Let's make it very simple.
MF systems make it possible to shoot portraits with a 200mm lens wide open and give you much less DOF than the same 200mm on a FF DSLR.
When you want to achieve this one could opt for a 300mm lens for example and use that on f2.8 (if possible) but still there is a different look, the 300mm will compress the scene different than the 200mm.

you are not right with this frank.
the 300 @ f4 with a 36x48mm sensor wont compress much different as a 200 @ f2,8 with a 24x35.
it would be exactly the same if the 200 would be on a 26,5x36 mm sensor. optical laws.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: ihv on December 04, 2008, 01:04:15 pm
It seems to me that due to brigther lenses actually the small format
has narrower DOF. For example: 35+85@1.2 vs MF+120@4
(comparing these focal lenghts in order to maintain the
same FOV, the same distance from the subject). Any reason
why this comparison is not valid?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: rainer_v on December 04, 2008, 01:20:26 pm
Quote from: ihv
It seems to me that due to brigther lenses actually the small format
has narrower DOF. For example: 35+85@1.2 vs MF+120@4
(comparing these focal lenghts in order to maintain the
same FOV, the same distance from the subject). Any reason
why this comparison is not valid?
yes. because this things follow optical laws.
some basic books about optics and photography dont fit bad into this discussions.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 04, 2008, 02:27:42 pm
@rainier,
I don't doubt your knowledge let me set that first.
What I meant to say is that even with the same or different lens choices there is a difference in the endresult (workflow).
For the same portret with the same lens you have to step closer to the model with a MF format, and thus rendering a different look.

It's hard to explain on a forum what is meant, and probarbly my example doesn't come over the way I intended.
What I'm trying to say is that with the bigger sensor and the lenses for MF you can achieve a different look than with a DSLR.

I did try some tests ,before I switched, with the 120mm macro on the 645AFD/III and a 85mm on the 5D and when comparing those shots there was a much more pleasant compression on the 120mm macro shot with the Mamiya than on the 85mm on the canon 5D.
With the MF system I can shoot at 210mm wide open (f4.5) and throw my background completly out of focus, standing in the same location with the 70-200L f2.8 I can not achieve that to this extend, I can throw it out of focus a bit but not as creamy as with the 210mm on the MF (distance model / background / photographer is the same).

The reason for this (or at least I thought it is) is that the focal length of 120mm is different than the 85mm and when standing at the same location there is a difference in behaviour, called it FOV or compression. Or at least that's my experience, but I could be totally wrong so if you can point me in a right direction I would love to read about it (one learns every day).

My simple conclusion was as follows.
When I shoot a person with a 200mm lens the DOF will fall off quicker than with a 135mm lens (same crop, FOV)
When we now replace the lenses for cameras one could say (or at least that is my conclusion) that we can now shoot with a person with a longer lens from the same distance and thus have a quicker fall off of focus and more compression.


Sample shot by the way with the background, this was by the way just a test shot so nothing special but I hope it explains it a bit:
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Marie_1_September_2007__(21_of_21).jpg)
This is shot at the narrowest part of the old studio and with the 5D I could not get the background and focus on the model like this, not even with the 70-200L f2.8 wide open (by the way could not shoot at 200mm with that lens due to space limitations). So I was limited to the same place on both cameras.
Hope this helps a bit with what I'm trying to say. (always difficult on a forum).
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Carsten W on December 04, 2008, 04:33:02 pm
Quote from: bcooter
what I think more than lenses, format or mpx, what would stop all this conversation is if someone would just rip the aa filter off a 5d2 or a 1dsMark III.

Has anyone tried this: http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm (http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm)
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 04, 2008, 05:02:21 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@rainier,
I don't doubt your knowledge let me set that first.
What I meant to say is that even with the same or different lens choices there is a difference in the endresult (workflow).
For the same portret with the same lens you have to step closer to the model with a MF format, and thus rendering a different look.

It's hard to explain on a forum what is meant, and probarbly my example doesn't come over the way I intended.
What I'm trying to say is that with the bigger sensor and the lenses for MF you can achieve a different look than with a DSLR.

I did try some tests ,before I switched, with the 120mm macro on the 645AFD/III and a 85mm on the 5D and when comparing those shots there was a much more pleasant compression on the 120mm macro shot with the Mamiya than on the 85mm on the canon 5D.
With the MF system I can shoot at 210mm wide open (f4.5) and throw my background completly out of focus, standing in the same location with the 70-200L f2.8 I can not achieve that to this extend, I can throw it out of focus a bit but not as creamy as with the 210mm on the MF (distance model / background / photographer is the same).

The reason for this (or at least I thought it is) is that the focal length of 120mm is different than the 85mm and when standing at the same location there is a difference in behaviour, called it FOV or compression. Or at least that's my experience, but I could be totally wrong so if you can point me in a right direction I would love to read about it (one learns every day).

My simple conclusion was as follows.
When I shoot a person with a 200mm lens the DOF will fall off quicker than with a 135mm lens (same crop, FOV)


When we now replace the lenses for cameras one could say (or at least that is my conclusion) that we can now shoot with a person with a longer lens from the same distance and thus have a quicker fall off of focus and more compression.


Sample shot by the way with the background, this was by the way just a test shot so nothing special but I hope it explains it a bit:
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Marie_1_September_2007__(21_of_21).jpg)
This is shot at the narrowest part of the old studio and with the 5D I could not get the background and focus on the model like this, not even with the 70-200L f2.8 wide open (by the way could not shoot at 200mm with that lens due to space limitations). So I was limited to the same place on both cameras.
Hope this helps a bit with what I'm trying to say. (always difficult on a forum).


 
you give lessons in photography and  don't even understand the basics - the relation between shooting distance, magnification, aperture  and focal length  WOW !  what you observe is correct but the conclusion you draw
in favor of mf is ridiculous , not everybody has limited studio space...
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: ixpressraf on December 04, 2008, 05:08:27 pm
It's strange that people who never shot MF think they know all about it. I think it is better to stop discussing these things and let everyone shoot the way they like. frank really knows what he is talking about and like him, i will continue to shoot MF because there will never be a replacement by a 35mm camera. This has never been when shooting film and will not be digital.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 04, 2008, 05:15:53 pm
Not everyone has unlimited studio space.
Yes I teach and I do understand the basics that's also why I try to explain what I see.
However when I saw your name I already knew what your response would be.

For me the discussion is closed when we can't just talk without turning to trying to hurt someones reputation.
With all due respect I love talking about photography and the discussions it yields and I believe one can learn from a healthy discussion but in the end this will only hurt people.

Maybe it's time also for me to just don't post anymore, a lot of the people I loved to see shots from and read their tips are also not posting anymore and that's a shame.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: E_Edwards on December 04, 2008, 05:27:14 pm
Whilst it's true that it may be easier to achieve this rapid decrease of depth of field with a digital back, frankly the usage of images such as these, (Frank's) with such extreme fall off, is quite rare in commercial applications, for instance, open Vogue and look at all the main top end advertisers of fashion, make up, perfumes and beauty. Nothing like this to be seen.


In fact, if anything it's the opposite, i.e. closing down to get good focus coverage of the model. I shoot commercial with 1DS2 and I find that for 3/4 length, I need to use an aperture of at least f8 with an 85 or 100 lens. Although I have medium format, which I use for product photography, I am not comfortable enough, or at least not as comfortable and free as shooting with the Canon. I get all the sharpness I need and more with the Canon (but I always focus manually, I find auto focus a waste of time) and the skin tones are really not any different to adjust as with a digital back. Sometimes I shoot higher ISO on purpose, so that the images are not so clean, sharp or digital looking. Sometimes a bit of imperfection gives the pictures something magical.

Edward
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: gwhitf on December 04, 2008, 05:35:03 pm
.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: epatsellis on December 04, 2008, 05:38:28 pm
I think Frank has a valid point, one that most people that have never explored larger formats discover. Each format, be it 6x4.5, 6x7 or larger (I prefer 8x10 for my "serious" work personally) has a certain "look" the jump from 24x36 to 6x4.5 for instance, means that while technically, the DOF characteristics will be identical for each f.l. , the fact that one moves closer for larger formats means that the DOF comparison is thrown out the window. Likewise, I shoot alot of my portraits with a 19" Red Dot Apo Artar on 8x10, a 480mm (+/-) lens on that large of a format renders totally differently than the same f.l. on smaller image formats. DOF is virtually non existant below f16-f22 in fact at most portrait distances (and btw, we're creeping up on close to 1:1 magnification as well).

If the relative distance between camera, subject and background doesn't change, then yes, perspective is the same, but in reality, they do change as the AOV changes, and we reframe to compensate, so everybody's right, if you want to look at the bigger picture.

Frank's strongest point is lighting, and intimately understanding and seeing it, if you've never looked at his work, you really should.


erie
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: E_Edwards on December 04, 2008, 05:40:14 pm
Quote from: gwhitf
I tested my 1ds3 today, to compare the apparent depth of field that I see in the viewfinder, versus what is rendered in the file. I've tested this before and it seems like digital has so much less depth of field than film, for some reason.

Today, I tested fstops, and to get sharp in my 1ds3 viewfinder, (viewing thru the 50 at f1.2), I had to stop down to f8 or even 11 to get the file focus depth to match the viewfinder depth.

1.2 viewing, versus f8 in the file. A massive difference.

So we can no longer say WYSIWYG about the viewfinder.

Test it yourself, you'll be shocked. Yet another reason to have a high quality LCD out in the field, if you're not shooting tethered.

Hell, maybe it's always been that way, even with film, but it was just too much trouble and time consuming to test it with film.

It may be to do with the fact that our brain is telling our eyes to correct or compensate, and we form a different impression of reality. I wonder what focal length our eyes are?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Snook on December 04, 2008, 05:40:48 pm
I just made some jiffy Pop PopCorn,
Because I love reading Arguments between Non Native English speaking/writing people on these forums..
Kind a get a kick out of it...
Just want to jump in an help them out.. Or give'em a Big-O-Bear Hug


Snook
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 04, 2008, 05:54:40 pm
@gwhtff
The remark on film could be debit to the fact that the sensor is 100% flat and film never is ?

Don't know about seeing the difference in dof through the viewfinder never saw that but will look at it now you point it out.
What could also change the appearence of dof through the viewfinder is the magnification factor of the viewfinder if there is any.
When for example compare the viewfinder of the 5d to the 1ds3 there is a difference and both are ff. That could ofcourse also be debit to the change you see.

I don't say it's exactly what you are meaning but it could be or part of it.
Any change in the optical path will have some influence on the results.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 04, 2008, 06:05:03 pm
Quote from: E_Edwards
I wonder what focal length our eyes are?

depends on thier diameter - have you got a big head ?

supposedly about 80mm 645 or 50-55 35FF

if bringing the viewfinder to you eye is no different from bringing a bit of cardboard with a hole in it then that lens has the same focal lenghth as the eye

-----

The DOF thing over sensor size - I am convinced there is a difference - trouble is you need to mesure 3 points not two

ie 50 35FF F2.0 may render A sharp and C has a CoC of N

and with an 80 645 F2.8 may give A sharp, C CoC of N

leading  people to beleive the look is the same

HOWEVER if you take a midpoint B the CoC will not be the same

What I find interesting with MF is that Even at 8 or 11 the background is still chucked lovely OOF

So you can get for a fashion pic 2/3 upright the clothes sharp, eyes sharp and background OOF WHILE still maintaining a sense of scale of the backgroung that would be rendered 'wrong' if one backed off with a longer lense on a 35FF to get the same drop focus

I did a blog here (http://213.120.106.237/smmcom/blogger.asp?blogid=15) some time ago

Check out the Hassy Blur even at F11

SMM

CoC = circle of confusion = 'blur' BTW
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: hauxon on December 04, 2008, 06:12:09 pm
Quote from: csp
you give lessons in photography and  don't even understand the basics - the relation between shooting distance, magnification, aperture  and focal length  WOW !  what you observe is correct but the conclusion you draw
in favor of mf is ridiculous , not everybody has limited studio space...

135mm@f/2.8 on FF DSLR and 210mm@f/4.5 on 645 is not the same.  FOV and DOF may be the similar but the f-stop is different, the lights act different, the oof area may render more pleasantly on his prime than the Canon zoom etc, a lot of variables come into play.  One thing I've sometimes thought about is if the amount of OOF is linear or in parabolic relation to the sensor size.  .....what I'm trying to say is that even if the in-focus area is the same, is it possible that the larger sensor makes the rate of OOF somehow steeper?

Best, Hrannar
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: James R Russell on December 04, 2008, 06:16:45 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@gwhtff
The remark on film could be debit to the fact that the sensor is 100% flat and film never is ?

Don't know about seeing the difference in dof through the viewfinder never saw that but will look at it now you point it out.
What could also change the appearence of dof through the viewfinder is the magnification factor of the viewfinder if there is any.
When for example compare the viewfinder of the 5d to the 1ds3 there is a difference and both are ff. That could ofcourse also be debit to the change you see.

I don't say it's exactly what you are meaning but it could be or part of it.
Any change in the optical path will have some influence on the results.

No.

There is an explanation by someone here about why the Canon ground glass has a different dof than the actual file. The same with the Nikon's.

I know I have tested it recently shooting background plates in china that we need to matte behind certain images, where the chinese letters are slightly in focus to tell they are chinese but out enough not to be readable.   If you look through the viewfinder what you can read at a certain focal point will not be readable on the lcd or the file.  What looks almost sharp in the viewfinder is still somewhat soft.

Now I don't know if my Contax's do this with the Phase backs but I know with Canon and Nikon that's the case.

Then again it really doesn't matter because at some point most of us know what F 1.2 vs. 2.8, 5.65, 8 etc  will pull into focus.

Frank,

I am a little surprised that you can't get the same blur with a Canon 85mm that you did with your medium format cameras.

This I have also tested with the Contax and nothing throws focus like the 85 1.2.  At the framing you showed you can almost pick which eyelash you want in focus with the Canon, with the NIkon 85 1.4 you can pick which eyelash and a half you want in focus.

Actually the only way I can get the type of 85 1.2 limited dof with the Contax is with the Hasselblad 110 2.0 lens wide open.





Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 04, 2008, 06:22:08 pm
Another thought on the DOF thing..

Humans have perception - how they expect things to look, also the size of background objects give scale

we are doing complex calulations

therefore one could argue that one should always use a 50mm lens and shoot from a distance that it is natural to see that object from

shooting a 50 on a 5.4 gives a wide view, shooting on a APS crops in close - but the perspective stays the same - natural and correct

This does not work however when one is close to an object, close enoungh for our two eyes to see significantly different views - at this point we do different calulations with our brains and feed a different perception to our concience

hense shooting a headshot on a 50 is not considered flattering

bizarrely famous baseball/soccer players may look wierd in real life because we 'know' them through extreme telephotos

S





Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 04, 2008, 06:26:54 pm
Quote from: hauxon
is it possible that the larger sensor makes the rate of OOF somehow steeper?

Best, Hrannar

exactly the rates of change are different - it might be possible to find two points on the different curves that intersect
but never three
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 04, 2008, 06:31:20 pm
Quote from: James R Russell
No.

There is an explanation by someone here about why the Canon ground glass has a different dof than the actual file.

I dont think this is correct

with a piddly little focusing screen one just cant see as much than at 200% on a monitor - we just cant see the blur as well in camera

the 85 1.2 can give less DOF than any MF but not the same DOF IMO

S
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: hauxon on December 04, 2008, 07:27:38 pm
Quote from: Morgan_Moore
I dont think this is correct

with a piddly little focusing screen one just cant see as much than at 200% on a monitor - we just cant see the blur as well in camera

the 85 1.2 can give less DOF than any MF but not the same DOF IMO

S

Using my 50mm f/1.2 lens (on 1DsII) I can often read letters or logos through the viewfinder that render totally out of focus in the captured image.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: juicy on December 04, 2008, 07:29:44 pm
Hi,
Chuck Westfall has something to say about dof and different focusing screens HERE. (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0804/tech-tips.html)


Quote from: gwhitf
I tested my 1ds3 today, to compare the apparent depth of field that I see in the viewfinder, versus what is rendered in the file. I've tested this before and it seems like digital has so much less depth of field than film, for some reason.

Today, I tested fstops, and to get sharp in my 1ds3 viewfinder, (viewing thru the 50 at f1.2), I had to stop down to f8 or even 11 to get the file focus depth to match the viewfinder depth.

1.2 viewing, versus f8 in the file. A massive difference.

So we can no longer say WYSIWYG about the viewfinder.

Test it yourself, you'll be shocked. Yet another reason to have a high quality LCD out in the field, if you're not shooting tethered.

Hell, maybe it's always been that way, even with film, but it was just too much trouble and time consuming to test it with film.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: gwhitf on December 04, 2008, 07:38:00 pm
.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 04, 2008, 09:55:33 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Ray,
That's why it's so difficult to do the conversation when someone doesn't understand what I (and probarbly others) mean.

When you shoot a 50mm on a FF DSLR it's not as simple as using a 75mm on a MF system.
The whole look will change.

Let's make it very simple.
MF systems make it possible to shoot portraits with a 200mm lens wide open and give you much less DOF than the same 200mm on a FF DSLR.
When you want to achieve this one could opt for a 300mm lens for example and use that on f2.8 (if possible) but still there is a different look, the 300mm will compress the scene different than the 200mm.

In other words.
Try to borrow a MF system and shoot with a 120mm lens a portrait.
Now change to a DSLR and shoot the exact same portret with a 120mm lens, see the difference.

Now do it your way.
Shoot it on MF with a 120mm lens and take a 75mm on a DSLR and shoot again the same portrait.
You will find that BOTH cameras will give you an unique look.
I don't say one is better or the other is worse.

I can just talk for myself and I absolutly LOVE the look I get from the large sensors, that's also the reason I still use the Aptus22 and am now seriously looking at the Aptus II 10, I would probarbly never invest in a crop of 1.3 for MF (although in the RZ I don't have a choice  yet.... would love a 6x7 digital back)


Don't try to get me on calculations, I post this very quickly so probarbly the mm's are wrong but you know what I mean.

Frank,
Well first let me say that it's a pity that some folks feel the need to resort to insults when when expressing a difference of opinion. I always try to be polite. I hope you learn to develop a thick skin   .

I understand that there can be subtle differences when using different lenses with different formats, even though one has attempted to equalise matters by changing F stop and focal length in proportion to differences in sensor dimensions.

These differences are also likely to be confused when comparing cameras that also have a different aspect ratio since one can't exactly match FoV to both sides simultaneously. One camera's image has to be cropped to the other's aspect ratio.

These rules, that one should change focal length and f stop by 1.5x when moving from 35mm to MFDB ( or 1.33x depending on which side of the frame the FoV applies to), are only guidelines.

The size difference between the Canon cropped format and full frame 35mm is actually greater than the size difference between 35mm and MFDB, but comparisons are easier because the aspect ratio is the same. MFDB users are not the only photographers who may use different formats from time to time. The same laws of optics should apply.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the focal length and F stop multiplier, when moving up from the Canon cropped format to full frame 35mm, is 1.6x, this figure is not always accurate with regard to DoF. For example, a 50mm lens at F4 on a Canon 50D should produce a very similar result to an 80mm lens at F6.3 on the Canon 5D. However, my own tests have indicated that the larger format 5D still produces a shallower DoF in these circumstance when shooting at fairly close distances, the sort of distances that might apply in a studio. To get the DoF looking very close with both cameras, I have to use F8 with the 80mm lens on the 5D, that is, a 1.6x multiplier for the focal length, but a 2x multiplier for the F stop.

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: pss on December 04, 2008, 11:32:57 pm
to me the real MF "look" starts at 6x7, 6x8, 6x9....6x4.5 or even smaller always looked pretty much like 35mm to me....

i am not into optical/technical data too much but i know that the only way to get the DOF of a 35mm 1.4 or 1.2 lens is to go with the fastest schneider lenses out there on rollei....

which brings up another point...has anyone here actually shot with a MF 2.0 lens? with a DMF back? relying on AF? straining your eyes to get focus manually? even at studio shoots at f8 i used to have an assistant sitting hunched over the C1 focus window....with the RZ i simply constantly focused and shot....you can imagine the ratio of in focus shots.....i am talking about in focus, not acceptable focus which can totally be handed off to clients because you are shooting 30mpix anyway and the thing will be printed 8x10 and nobody can tell the difference...
i shoot 1.4 and 1.8 with the canon and ever shot is crisp where i want it....and the background falls off beautifully....you just can't do that with  MF at least not with a decent success rate.....i was able to shoot MF with the gx680 handheld and get focus, but those lenses are slow as hell and that was a 6x8 finder....no DMF back is anywhere near there....

there was a thread here where someone said that the canon screens pretty much show 2.8...there are some other ones that show the faster f-stops more accurately..... in my experience it works fine, shooting tethered helps for critical oof areas....

anyone who shoots with pretty much any zoom and expects beautiful oof areas is kidding themselves....

there is a reason images made with leica lenses just look different...it is funny to me that in this forum everybody is so focused on the sensors and camerabodies, when the lenses really "draw" the image.....i don't want to get all artsy, but some of the old and (considering their horrible technical data) bad lenses draw amazing images....and some lenses really let you show what you want to show and let the background be as supportive to the whole composition just like you "saw" it in your mind or in reality....and zooms usually butcher that very aspect of imagetaking....i am not talking about corner to corner sharpness here....

i really don't think this thread is supposed to be like the old 35 vs MF threads, but it turns out like that.....
i think was is amazing is that at base speed the 5dII file can actually be compared to the aptus file.....there are differences, anyone in their right frame of mind would choose the aptus, but you have to consider EVERTHING else about both tools when looking at those 2 files as well....
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: gwhitf on December 04, 2008, 11:54:18 pm
.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 05, 2008, 02:32:26 am
Quote from Chuck westfall:
However, because of the design of the microlenses on the surface of the Ee-A, the depth of field shown through the viewfinder never appears be shallower than approximately f/2.8.

I think that supports what I posted about the change in the optical path and the magnification of the viewfinder.
But again I never looked at it because I did not notice it, I think when you run into it the problems it can indeed be frustating.
The thing that could also be debit to it is the CoC, when viewing to a viewfinder the distance + size of the image you see is different than on a monitor or print.
Think about printing a photo on 10x15cm and viewing it from 1 mtr or viewing a 50x70cm shot from a meter there is a big difference in what appears sharp and is soft. (I know the viewfinder is watched from a very close distance)
By changing the focus screen for a more matte one could have to do with the perceived contrast, our eyes need contrast to see depth.
Could be that it's something else, but this is what popped into my mind

@Ray,
I'm always trying to be honest and gentle and try not to step on toes, it's a shame that it's sometimes explained as that.
I'm just explaining what I see, and that there is no real simple formula to let a DSLR behave as a MF there is much more going on.

@James,
Thanks for the explanation, as mentioned in top of the test I never shot a situation as you describe and I can imagine it can drive you nuts.
On the 85mm 1.2L don't get me wrong I loved that lens, but the fall off at least for my eyes was completly different than what I'm getting with MF.
Not to say the Canon lens is bad or whatever it just looks different, and that's what I'm trying to explain all along
There is no simple way to compare the two systems because the sensor size is different.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 05, 2008, 03:51:43 am
hasselblad had a nice in deep article in V magazine about lens design differences and how they effect an image. i think this issue is online available,  very recommended.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: James R Russell on December 05, 2008, 04:05:35 am
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@James,
Thanks for the explanation, as mentioned in top of the test I never shot a situation as you describe and I can imagine it can drive you nuts.
On the 85mm 1.2L don't get me wrong I loved that lens, but the fall off at least for my eyes was completly different than what I'm getting with MF.
Not to say the Canon lens is bad or whatever it just looks different, and that's what I'm trying to explain all along
There is no simple way to compare the two systems because the sensor size is different.


The only lens that I use and own that gets close to the Canon 85 1.2 is the 110 F2 blad lens I stick on the Contax.

It does have a different look wide open but it's not that different than the 85 1.2 to the point I don't use it that much.  It's just a pain manually stopping down and honestly compared to the Canons I don't use the medium format backs that much period, they're just slow and complicated and the difference, once an image goes through heavy post, is so small it's not worth the slowness in shooting.

When the conditions are right medium format can produce a great look, but they require a lot of light, tethering and I find the session begins to get stiff.

To segway this into the color thread that's started I find all the digital cameras to have a different look and I shoot a lot of them side by side, Contax to Leica, Leica to Canon, Canon to Nikon.

Right now I am processing 19,500 files from all four systems and even in the same conditions and lighting they look different and require a lot of adjustments.

Under certain conditions each one has a place, but they all render different color and contrast and then there is just some things digital doesn't do well.

I just shot in the Moscow train station, models backlit wanting that pretty flare you get from film and with digital it's just different.  It's either blow out or softness or something but not that direct flare I use to get with film.  And this is not just with the Canons or Nikons as I've tried this with the phase and leaf backs also.

Also I find all digital cameras to be very sensitive to ambient color, the Canons and Nikons less so than the Aptus and Phase digital backs I have owned.  The canons can have their issues but so can the backs.

Shoot a digital back with hard light, like the profoto hard box and you will see a magenta banding on skin as it transitions from highlight to shadow.  My Aptus 22 did this more than the phase even less with the Canons but they all do it to some extent.  Consequently the Canons don't like shadow detail without pulling up clumps of noise, though a digital back, shot in continous light at high iso will also noise up in the shadow areas a great deal, to the point it takes a round of post work to fix it.

Also underexposing digital like we did film for that "look" is just difficult to do without a lot of post work and I find the post work in digital to usually be much more of a need rather than a want .

It doesn't mean film was perfect, but for a lot of subjects it was consistent and was kind of color dumb where it didn't see every bit of ambient color in the room.  

Actually, maybe film was just smart and was engineered for a look rather than the way digital seems to be engineered to be color perfect.  

I really would love for Kodak to go find those film guys that they probably layed off 5 years ago and hire them back to teach the sensor guys or the software guys how these sensors should perform, so we can build a cohesive look regardless of the ambient color or the light source.

Someone on one of these threads posted that Dubler link and his lighting and look is nice, but I found it interesting that he shot those images with an Olympus.  Maybe it's because some sponsor deal with Olympus as it is mentioned on his site, along with Epson, but the images looked good and that is all that matters.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 05, 2008, 04:43:10 am
Quote from: hauxon
135mm@f/2.8 on FF DSLR and 210mm@f/4.5 on 645 is not the same.  FOV and DOF may be the similar but the f-stop is different, the lights act different, the oof area may render more pleasantly on his prime than the Canon zoom etc, a lot of variables come into play.  One thing I've sometimes thought about is if the amount of OOF is linear or in parabolic relation to the sensor size.  .....what I'm trying to say is that even if the in-focus area is the same, is it possible that the larger sensor makes the rate of OOF somehow steeper?

Best, Hrannar


no,  the focus on sensor sizes is totally misleading. the  more important factors imho are  how (local) contrast  is rendered in the raw conversion process  and lens design.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Carsten W on December 05, 2008, 07:21:43 am
This has turned into a really interesting discussion for me. I don't have much knowledge about DoF characteristics, but do have some previous thoughts and observations on the matter. There was once a long and interesting discussion on FM about the different looks from different lenses. There are few MF guys over there, so it was mostly about various adapted lenses on Canons, and the discussion at some point turned to the different DoF look between Contax and Leica R lenses. Some preferred one, some the other, but trying to nail down the reason for the very visible differences was hard, for example on the Leica 180/2 and the Zeiss 200/2. In the end, we thought that the optical design characteristics tended to emphasize a very fast DoF roll-off on the Leica lenses, and a much more gradual roll-off for the Contax lenses, giving the Leica lenses their isolation ability, and the Contax lenses their greater feeling of 3D. The Canon lenses were all over the place, many with DoF like mud or broken glass, but a few, like the 85/1.2L looking quite beautiful (apart from the greater presence of CA).

I wonder if this is what is also going on with MF. I don't know if the look of MF is due to some optical characteristics in the physically larger designs, or if it has more to do with the optical design philosophies of the MF companies. I wonder if there are visible differences between the DoF looks of lenses from different companies, but for the same format size, similar to Leica vs. Contax on 35mm? I also wonder if the coming Leica MF lenses will look different than the M and R lenses?

Out of curiousity, James, you have mentioned the M8 as being one of your favorite cameras. Mine too. Which lenses do you prefer?

-

About the focusing screens and DoF, gwhitf, have you tried different Canon focusing screens and compared them? Have you tried a Brightscreen or Maxwell focusing screen and compared?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 05, 2008, 11:08:54 am
I have read the thread on FM, and participated.

The whole 3D look of a system has for some always been something weird or not excisting.
However when we look at how depth perception works it's maybe quite easy to explain.

To see depth we need good blacks, and good contrast.
To see more detail (more real) we would benefit from microcontrast and the lack of AA filters.

When we translate this to lenses a lens that is very lensresistant WOULD render better blacks and contrast.
A lens that is perfect would also render alot of microcontrast.

The thing I could not put together in this is that the lenses on the RZ67ProII are not that flare resistant but still have tremendous 3D quality.
Untill someone told me this was mainly due to the bellow focus, by using that system you can get a very simple/easy to build lens and have optimum quality.
Add with that, that on the RZ we only use the center part of the lens with digital (which is the best in terms of contrast and sharpness) and it's almost logical that the RZ renders more 3D like images than for example a 645AFD/III.

The nice things was that when I indeed bought the RZ67ProII it was indeed exact as told, but I have to be very carefull with lensflare, so I use a big lens hoods and flags in the studio, the lenses are more flare sensitive than the 645AFD/III or canon lenses.
When the flare sets in the 3D effect is totally gone.

But this a bit off topic......
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: lisa_r on December 05, 2008, 11:40:29 am
Quote from: gwhitf
I tested my 1ds3 today, to compare the apparent depth of field that I see in the viewfinder, versus what is rendered in the file. I've tested this before and it seems like digital has so much less depth of field than film, for some reason.

Today, I tested fstops, and to get sharp in my 1ds3 viewfinder, (viewing thru the 50 at f1.2), I had to stop down to f8 or even 11 to get the file focus depth to match the viewfinder depth.

1.2 viewing, versus f8 in the file. A massive difference.

So we can no longer say WYSIWYG about the viewfinder.

Test it yourself, you'll be shocked.

I think these issues are mostly solved by purchasing the $35 precision focusing screens Canon makes. They make the viewfinder slightly dimmer, but the focus snap is much improved. I use them in all of my Canons, and they work great - it's a very cheap solution. Read this:

Chuck Westfall:
That said, it is true that most standard focusing screens for modern SLRs such as the EOS 5D are designed to provide a reasonable balance between viewfinder brightness and manual focusing capability. The Ee-A standard focusing screen for the EOS 5D is bright enough (and accurate enough) for manual focusing under most lighting conditions with virtually any EF lens regardless of maximum aperture. However, because of the design of the microlenses on the surface of the Ee-A, the depth of field shown through the viewfinder never appears be shallower than approximately f/2.8. Therefore, when using a lens faster than f/2.8, the depth of field in the resulting photograph may be shallower than what's shown in the viewfinder if a working aperture larger than f/2.8 is selected. This effect can be readily seen when comparing the viewfinder image to the LCD screen during replay, if you take time to look for it.

If this is an issue for you, Canon offers an optional focusing screen called the Ee-S Super Precision Matte Screen. This focusing screen uses more powerful microlenses than the standard Ee-A screen, with the result that out-of-focus areas in the viewfinder are more accurate to the actual depth of field in the resulting image. This has the effect of making it easier to determine the exact point of focus during manual focusing, especially with high-speed lenses like the EF50mm f/1.4 USM or EF50mm f/1.2L USM. However, it also has the effect of making the Ee-S focusing screen noticeably darker than the Ee-A screen when using lenses with maximum apertures smaller than f/2.8. (No free lunch!)

In short, they make the apparent depth of field in the viewfinder look more narrow - thus more closely matching the actual depth of field of the fast lenses. They are only $35! Buy one.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Raphael on December 05, 2008, 12:36:20 pm
Tks for the hint Lisa, will get one soon.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: gwhitf on December 05, 2008, 12:47:29 pm
.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: lisa_r on December 05, 2008, 12:55:39 pm
Quote from: gwhitf
When you solve one thing by installing them, do you create another problem simultaneously?

Not that i know of. Just make sure to tell the camera which screen is installed (in custom functions)so the metering remains accurate.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: pss on December 05, 2008, 02:04:03 pm
Quote from: gwhitf
Yes, I own them all, even the square and 4x5 black-crop screens. I've got to check which screen is installed in what bodies right now. (I hope there's a marking!) Thanks for the reminder. I use the 85 and 50 so those "fast" screens seemed like appropriate purchase. The question is: When you solve one thing by installing them, do you create another problem simultaneously?

Also just realized, with the 1ds3, there is a CustomFunction IV-11, that forces you to specify which screen is installed. So to anyone else with this issue, make sure that is set properly too. Wish I'd never opened this can of worms.

do they make those more accurate screen with the 4x5 crop marks? i can't live without those anymore....
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: gwhitf on December 05, 2008, 02:22:38 pm
.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: paul_jones on December 05, 2008, 03:01:01 pm
Quote from: gwhitf
This is really splintering off, and I fear the wrath of the country of Estonia, but here is an email that just arrived, from someone very knowledgeable about Canon screens. (I thought the EEs was compatible with the 1ds3, appears it is not. But I did not have the EEs installed. For sure I won't install it now).

----

The "Ee" screens are not compatible with EOS-1 class cameras, so unless you've got an original 5D, you should sell them or return them for credit.

The screen with CIV on the tab is the Ec-C IV, which is intended for use with the 1Ds Mark III and 1D Mark III. If you install this one to your 1Ds Mark III, set C.Fn IV-11 to 0, the default. If you install the Ec-C III (the screen with CIII on the tab) to your EOS-1Ds Mark III, set C.Fn IV-11 to 1.

Hope that helps!


ive been trying to solve this problem as well, i regularly shoot at 1.2. i have been in touch with bill maxwell (the focusing screen people) to make up one. there options are- modify a 5d screen to fit a 1dsmk3 (he hasnt got a mk3 screen to try yet), make a plastic screen from scratch, or try and resurface a mk3 screen. i just have to send him a mk3 screen so he can see what the best option is.

paul
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: gwhitf on December 05, 2008, 03:29:23 pm
.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: JonRoemer on December 05, 2008, 03:58:03 pm
Quote from: gwhitf
I am testing mine now. Concern.

I have the original 1ds3 screen installed in both my bodies. It's marked by "CIV" on the screen, you'll need a magnifying glass.

Testing tethered at f1.2. If I focus at about four feet, it's sharp, but at 15 feet it's backfocused. So now what to do?

Let's not even talk about the CA at 1.2; I almost feel like these super fast lenses is stretching what's really usable. One thing if it's surveillance photography of John Gotti in a Little Italy alley, but quite another thing if you really need to depend on these things to be tack sharp.

The 1ds3 has custom focus tweak options in the custommenus, but when it's focusing differently at different distances, WTF?

So much to keep up with. Details, details.

And the focus not matching the actual file, depth of field, is very apparent with the original stock screen in the 1ds3. So be forewarned. Focus at what looks good, and then stop down two more stops!

Hey Gwhitf -> check this out Canon white paper (http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/2007/MARK%20III%20Suggested%20Settings%20121207/EOS1D_1DsMark_IIIoptimizingAFsettings_Final.pdf); pp. 13-15.  It goes over steps for doing the microadjustment.

I did this when calibrating my 16-35 II lens.  It's definitely easier to do tethered but don't worry about reviewing the results while you shoot.  You're going to want to review the files on a large monitor and compare them.  So, do tests at every setting, locked down, wide open and using the center focus point.  Either make notes or place a card in each shot with the settings or both (you can read the MA adj. settings in DPP (command - I on a file) but that's a pain.)  It's easier to take notes.  If you place a card in the shot remember that it won't be legible if it's too close to the camera.

Regarding no back focus close-up vs. having it further out, I don't know.  I do know that using MA helped on my 16-35 II at any focus distance.

If you do end up using the MA feature don't forget to copy it over to your other camera bodies.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: lisa_r on December 05, 2008, 07:37:11 pm
You guys are really confusing me now.

What's wrong with this??

http://www.adorama.com/ICASECS.html (http://www.adorama.com/ICASECS.html)

(this was yielded by searching "canon 1ds precision focusing screen" in google.)
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: EricWHiss on December 06, 2008, 02:06:42 am
Jumping into the fray here on the DOF discussion....   Image circle size ....  that's what affects the rate at which the lens changes from in focus to out of focus.  It's sort of related to format size since the image circle needs to be larger for different film sizes.  If you like math you can actually calculate this.  The larger the film plane (or magnification) the faster the object goes out of focus over distance.    Lots of variety in image circle size from lens to lens in any given camera mount.  I've read that certain lenses such as some Leica R lenses or the Rollei 150mm apo macro have bigger image circles than necessary for their format - and that also tends to make a lens nice and sharp edge to edge plus have lower distortion.  This might explain why one lens has a different apparent DOF and look than another even though its got the same length or max aperture.  There are other factors too such as low frequency contrast or how a lens renders OOF areas that will affect its apparent DOF.  

I'd agree with the poster who said the apparent DOF on the focus screen seems bigger just because of the small size of the screen/viewfinder.  Easy to check that by reducing your image on screen to a thumbnail....DOF seems to grow.

Regarding the Ees focusing screen - works like a charm for manual focusing.  I wish I could get something like this for my MF cameras.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 06, 2008, 02:18:07 am
Quote from: EricWHiss
Jumping into the fray here on the DOF discussion....   Image circle size ....  that's what affects the rate at which the lens changes from in focus to out of focus.  It's sort of related to format size since the image circle needs to be larger for different film sizes.  If you like math you can actually calculate this.  The larger the film plane (or magnification) the faster the object goes out of focus over distance.    Lots of variety in image circle size from lens to lens in any given camera mount.  I've read that certain lenses such as some Leica R lenses or the Rollei 150mm apo macro have bigger image circles than necessary for their format - and that also tends to make a lens nice and sharp edge to edge plus have lower distortion.  This might explain why one lens has a different apparent DOF and look than another even though its got the same length or max aperture.  There are other factors too such as low frequency contrast or how a lens renders OOF areas that will affect its apparent DOF.  

I'd agree with the poster who said the apparent DOF on the focus screen seems bigger just because of the small size of the screen/viewfinder.  Easy to check that by reducing your image on screen to a thumbnail....DOF seems to grow.

Regarding the Ees focusing screen - works like a charm for manual focusing.  I wish I could get something like this for my MF cameras.

It all boils down to the CoC
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: thsinar on December 06, 2008, 06:15:31 am
One remark/issue often forgotten: used CoC for DoF is related/dependent to observing distance of the final image/film/sensor. A larger printed image, a bigger display, a larger sensor have a longer optimal observing distance (agreed on 2 times the diagonal) than a smaller, thus the used/optimal CoC can be bigger on the larger image/display/sensor, for the very same DoF. If one now goes closer as this optimal observing/viewing distance, then the whole is not true any longer.

Thierry

Quote from: EricWHiss
Jumping into the fray here on the DOF discussion....   Image circle size ....  that's what affects the rate at which the lens changes from in focus to out of focus.  It's sort of related to format size since the image circle needs to be larger for different film sizes.  If you like math you can actually calculate this.  The larger the film plane (or magnification) the faster the object goes out of focus over distance.    Lots of variety in image circle size from lens to lens in any given camera mount.  I've read that certain lenses such as some Leica R lenses or the Rollei 150mm apo macro have bigger image circles than necessary for their format - and that also tends to make a lens nice and sharp edge to edge plus have lower distortion.  This might explain why one lens has a different apparent DOF and look than another even though its got the same length or max aperture.  There are other factors too such as low frequency contrast or how a lens renders OOF areas that will affect its apparent DOF.  

I'd agree with the poster who said the apparent DOF on the focus screen seems bigger just because of the small size of the screen/viewfinder.  Easy to check that by reducing your image on screen to a thumbnail....DOF seems to grow.

Regarding the Ees focusing screen - works like a charm for manual focusing.  I wish I could get something like this for my MF cameras.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: EricWHiss on December 06, 2008, 12:00:25 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
It all boils down to the CoC

Nope. Frank that's not correct.  Think about it ... the CoC is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the lens at all.  The lens is designed to project an image circle large enough to cover a certain sized film plane.    If you use film on the same camera with same lens the CoC might be one value, but if you switch to a digital back changing nothing else, you'd use a different CoC for decisions on what's the minimum aperture or biggest enlargement. People that are more finicky than others will choose a smaller value for CoC.    

The factor here in the rate at how quickly a lens goes from in focus to OOF is image circle.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 06, 2008, 12:27:38 pm
in this case I meant with the diiference in the viewfinder. Coc and dof are connected in the appearance of distance and size.
A small print viewed from the same distance as a large print will show a difference in dof. That could be what you see in the viewfinder as on screen.

The optical brightness also helps because our eyes are very sensitive for contrast.
It's just an idea of what could explain the dof issue mentioned in this thread with the viewfinder
But also between mf and dslr.
Read could.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: paul_jones on December 07, 2008, 04:17:20 am
Quote from: lisa_r
You guys are really confusing me now.

What's wrong with this??

http://www.adorama.com/ICASECS.html (http://www.adorama.com/ICASECS.html)

(this was yielded by searching "canon 1ds precision focusing screen" in google.)


only adorama seems to list this model screen working with a 1ds. on others sites, inc canon, this is for a 5d (thats how i remeber it- i spent a fair bit of time researching it a while ago).

i think its a typo.

paul
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: paul_jones on December 07, 2008, 04:24:06 am
Quote from: JonRoemer
Hey Gwhitf -> check this out Canon white paper (http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/2007/MARK%20III%20Suggested%20Settings%20121207/EOS1D_1DsMark_IIIoptimizingAFsettings_Final.pdf); pp. 13-15.  It goes over steps for doing the microadjustment.

I did this when calibrating my 16-35 II lens.  It's definitely easier to do tethered but don't worry about reviewing the results while you shoot.  You're going to want to review the files on a large monitor and compare them.  So, do tests at every setting, locked down, wide open and using the center focus point.  Either make notes or place a card in each shot with the settings or both (you can read the MA adj. settings in DPP (command - I on a file) but that's a pain.)  It's easier to take notes.  If you place a card in the shot remember that it won't be legible if it's too close to the camera.

Regarding no back focus close-up vs. having it further out, I don't know.  I do know that using MA helped on my 16-35 II at any focus distance.

If you do end up using the MA feature don't forget to copy it over to your other camera bodies.


i done this a few times since ive had my 1.2 50 and 1.2 85 with the mk3. those lenses really need it- they are way out without first doing it (my lenses were).

but lately i was finding that my far right and far left focus points were way out- but my center point was spot on (after my calibrating). so i took my camera to canon, luckly on its last month of warrantee, and they confirmed it was way out. the tech apparently spent an entire day calibrating each focus point one by one with a special canon chart.

but its very good now. its amazing ive lived for a whole year thinking i just get inconsitant focus with the canon when shooting wide.

paul
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Carsten W on December 07, 2008, 05:59:31 am
Quote from: paul_jones
only adorama seems to list this model screen working with a 1ds. on others sites, inc canon, this is for a 5d (thats how i remeber it- i spent a fair bit of time researching it a while ago).

i think its a typo.

paul

The Ee-series is for the Canon 5D, with the Ec-series being for the 1D/1Ds-series of cameras (at least from Mark II and up, perhaps even the originals). The -S screens are the ones for manual focusing, and showing more accurate depth of field in the viewfinder. I think the Ed-S is one of those typos which got propagated everywhere by copying on the internet. If you search for it, you will often see Ed-S in the title of the item, but Ec-S in the description.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Snook on December 09, 2008, 09:22:36 am
Wanted to jump in with a quick question:
Will  the Next 1DsM?? or the Next 5D??  have 16 bit?
Is it possible?

S.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: jani on December 09, 2008, 09:36:56 am
Quote from: Snook
Wanted to jump in with a quick question:
Will  the Next 1DsM?? or the Next 5D??  have 16 bit?
Is it possible?
Canon may know the answer to both the first question, nobody else can know for sure.

It certainly is possible to use 16 bits to encode the signal, but whether it has any useful purpose is again something that only Canon may answer.

The rest of us can only speculate.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 09, 2008, 11:36:19 am
Quote from: Snook
Wanted to jump in with a quick question:
Will  the Next 1DsM?? or the Next 5D??  have 16 bit?
Probably even the 14th bit is useless at the moment. More would be necessary only if Canon (or another DSLR manufacturer) changed to ISOless mode, like most MFDBs are working, thereby increasing the DR by two stops. Now, that would be great!
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Snook on December 09, 2008, 01:54:29 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
Probably even the 14th bit is useless at the moment. More would be necessary only if Canon (or another DSLR manufacturer) changed to ISOless mode, like most MFDBs are working, thereby increasing the DR by two stops. Now, that would be great!

Panopeeper, Sorry but why is it useless...?

Thank you
Snook

PS. I notice a Big difference between my 1DsMII files amd my P30 files when retouching. A Big difference that is. And I am pretty sure that is all to do with the 16 Bit..:+]

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: lisa_r on December 09, 2008, 02:11:03 pm
Is there anyone in the house who can measure DR of recent MF and Canon offerings and state what the differences are in terms of usable DR?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 09, 2008, 02:34:46 pm
Quote from: Snook
Panopeeper, Sorry but why is it useless...?

Thank you
Snook

Panopeeper is an ultra-tech when it comes to raw formats and signal processing. He can explain more, but I'm comfortable assuming he's saying that the encoding can only be as good as the signal. (warning I'm going to arbitrarily make up numbers to illustrate the concept). If the end-to-end signal (from capture to writing the final file and every material and mechanism inbetween) only accurately captures 3,000 shades of each color channel than 14 bit encoding will not be meaningfully better than 12-bit encoding.

In other words making a dSLR with mid-tier electronics 16-bit won't necessarily improve the final quality towards the quality of a Digital back.

Panopeeper would be the expert on this so I'll let him explain further.

Doug Peterson,  Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com)  |  Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 09, 2008, 03:01:47 pm
Quote from: Snook
why is it useless...?
More bit depth is useful if it represents finer transitions of light intensity between (near)adjacent pixels.

When I got my 40D, I made a really huge effort with targeted shooting, like slightly curved, very smooth surfaces, which created the finest transition. I wanted to "justify" the extra bits; no success. I have not seen anyone with a proof, that the more levels represent real transitions.

I did the same on a few 5D2 images, no success. (I did all that with non-demosaiced raw data.)

However, extreme adjustments (like brightness change by six stops) can show differences between 12bit and 14bit versions of the same image; thus I can't say the 13th bit is wortless. I always suggest using the max bit depth and avoiding lossy raw data.

If you happen to have a 14bit file (or any other, but not lossy), which you believe would suffer under lesser bit depth, upload it and I create you -1 and -2 (or more) bit versions in DNG format and you can experience with them.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 09, 2008, 03:07:15 pm
Quote from: Snook
I notice a Big difference between my 1DsMII files amd my P30 files when retouching
That is not surprizing; the question is, if you can qualify the difference (i.e. what exactly is different).

Quote
I am pretty sure that is all to do with the 16 Bit..
Please upload such a P30 raw file and I will surprize you. A contrasty one please.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Snook on December 09, 2008, 03:21:00 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
That is not surprizing; the question is, if you can qualify the difference (i.e. what exactly is different).

They just hold up MUCH better to abuse and under and over exposing, tweaking, Dodging and Burning etc...
actually in all aspects really.
Now that being said I have never worked on a 1DsMIII file yet either.

Please upload such a P30 raw file and I will surprize you. A contrasty one please.



They just hold up MUCH better to abuse and under and over exposing, tweaking, Dodging and Burning etc...
actually in all aspects really.
Now that being said I have never worked on a 1DsMIII file yet either.
Surprise me in what respect?

S.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 09, 2008, 03:29:23 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
Is there anyone in the house who can measure DR of recent MF and Canon offerings and state what the differences are in terms of usable DR?
I compiled a bunch of data, see in Excel form (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/NoiseAnalysis.xls)

However, the data re the 5D2 is very few and *very* unreliable; I did not have raw images suitable for accurate measurement. Unfortunately, the raw files provided by Imaging Resources are not really suitable either. The D3 data is based on Stouffer wedge shots, which offers the highest degree or reliability possible on this level (i.e. without special equipment).

What I can say re the 5D2 is, that the DR (maximal @ ISO 50 and 100) is about 1/3 lower than that of the D3 (maximal @ ISO 100 and 200); the difference vanishes with higher ISOs, @ 1600 I don't see any difference.

I can only compare the dynamic ranges; I don't give any absolute number, for that is the question of acceptance (how much noise one accepts). Typically, one accepts much more noise in low light situation than in ideal illumination.

I am waiting for the arrival of a Stouffer wedge myself, and then I will try to find a willing 5D2 owner (and others) in my area to make shots targeted towards noise/DR measurement.

Then I will update the Excel chart.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 09, 2008, 03:31:24 pm
Quote from: Snook
Surprise me in what respect?
Regarding bit depth, of course (the topic at the moment).
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 09, 2008, 03:37:24 pm
Quote from: dougpetersonci
making a dSLR with mid-tier electronics 16-bit won't necessarily improve the final quality towards the quality of a Digital back.

Panopeeper would be the expert on this so I'll let him explain further
This does not need any further explanation. Only one consideration: if someone thinks an 1Dsxx costs so much more than an xxD only because of the ruggedness and larger sensor, then one should read the respective white paper (I don't know any more where to find it) explaining the extra effort on the sensor chip.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: lisa_r on December 09, 2008, 06:29:26 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
I compiled a bunch of data, see in Excel form (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/NoiseAnalysis.xls)

Thanks for the info, however this chart is hard for me to make any sense of.
Maybe you would explain how to use it, or summarize the data therein.

Also, I don't see any MF backs on there. Am I missing something?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 09, 2008, 07:23:28 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
this chart is hard for me to make any sense of.
Maybe you would explain how to use it, or summarize the data therein
I decided to do that only in case someone asks for it. Well, you did. (Later I will expand the chart with explanation).

The noise depends on two factors:

1. the amount of captured and converted light, which becomes apparent for us in form of raw pixel values,
2. ISO gain,

The exposure duration too is a factor, but only with longer exposures (whatever "longer" means, it is not under one second; the sample images are always in fractional seconds).

Note: the noise does not depend on the color.

Noise is measured on smooth, unicolored, evenly lit spots as the standard deviation, which is an absolute value. That value can not be directly compared between cameras for several reasons; the simplest to think of is the bit depth. Thus the numerical range can vary widely, like {0-4096} or {0-16363}, or {128-3600} etc.

So, the raw (non-demosaiced) pixel values get linearly mapped on the uniform range of {0-255}; this step takes care of black levels and different saturation points; it can be seen as "normalization". The noise is then expressed as percentage of the standard deviation in the normalized intensity of the average pixel values of the selected "color channel" in the selected area. This is the NR column.

The amount of captured light is expressed in the "relative darkness" of the selected spot. This is very important, for the same degree of noise is much worse on a well-lit area than in the very shadows. The relative darkness too needs to be normalized (again, the average pixel values can not be compared directly between cameras, in many cases not even between ISOs of the same camera). The measure of the intensity is "dynamic range position", i.e. how many stops it is from "white" (from pixel saturation). This is the DR column.

The dynamic range of a certain camera at a certain ISO can be found by locating the noise level, which is deemed acceptable. Later I plan to create a "chart of noises" to illustrate, which noise level has what appearance (this is not equal to what one sees in Phoptoshop under the statistics on the Histogram panel). Here is an example for 19.9% noise; it happens to occur in an image from the 5D2 @ ISO 3200, in the 5.91st stop (in the green channel, but that plays no role):

5D2 noise sample (http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon5DMkII_MULTII03200_NoiseGreen.GIF)

A camera is more noisy than another one (or the same one at another ISO) if the noise level is higher with comparable intensities, or the intensity is higher at comparable noise levels (the better camera reaches a certain noise level is on darker spots, right?).

The difference between two cameras or two ISOs can be quantified by looking for the same noise level.

Example: the Canon 40D shows noise level 15% at the 8th stop @ ISO 100 (the best ISO of that camera). The Nikon D3's best ISO is 200 (?); the 15% noise occurs at the 8.7th-8.9th stop, i.e. it beats the 40D by at least 3/4 stop.

Comparison between different ISO values of the same camera reveals the loss of DR incurred by the increased ISO gain. If the loss reaches one stop, then there is no point to use that ISO (except for JPEG shooters).

There are many contradicting value pairs in the chart, due to the less than ideal sample shots. For example Imaging Resources use color checker card and other charts, which look like a puppy had been playing with them and then the peed on them. (One does not see this in normal view.) The Nikon D3 values are the most reliable (measured on a Stouffer transparenvy wedge).
 
Quote
I don't see any MF backs on there. Am I missing something?
Yes, and so do I, namely raw images suitable for measurement.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: benP on December 12, 2008, 06:16:01 pm
Quote from: John Schweikert
Rules: no bitching, if I didn't do something the way you want it, tough. Now on Mediafire for download. I have no desire to debate back and forth about the results. I'm sure the same results can be said for a 1DsIII and the top Sony/Nikon sensor DSLRs.

The zip file has a Leaf Aptus 22 .mos and a Canon 5DII .dng.

I ran both through Lightroom to equalize very basic settings. I made no extra sharpening other the what I use as a starting point.

I matched the size of items in the frames as best as possible to best represent what each can do. Single strobe for both shots. The image is just stuff from around the studio for color, detail and such.

Leaf Aptus 22 on Mamiya AFD/80mm 2.8 AF lens, mirror up, dark room (per MT's usual request) F16 at 1/90 (1/125 has a bit of shutter shadow). ISO 100

Canon 5DII with 50mm 1.8 AF lens, mirror up, dark room, F11 at 1/160. The 50mm is a decent lens and is no better or worse the Mamiya 80mm. ISO 100

The one stop aperture difference should appease Ray and others who insist that 35mm should be one stop open from MFDB to attempt to match depth of field. Both images show different amounts of moire and oddly almost the identical moire pattern in the fabrics, just one more pronounced.

Why did I do this. Who the hell knows. I was curious to know how these two cameras I own stack up and now I know.

I'll let others judge for themselves, but suffice to say, 35mm DSLRs have matured to equal the 18-22MP digital backs for print. Will I sell my A22? Not anytime soon. Have work coming up where I will use it and the images should benefit from the Leaf.

zip file of A22 and 5DII raws (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=8673055627cad2c691b20cc0d07ba4d24e8082e1cdfd7154)

Added: I forgot to mention, I have run a Macbeth chart for both cameras through the DNG Profile Editor to use in Lightroom for color calibration profiles. Most colors are surprisingly close which helps to equalize things.

I just realized the calibration profiles won't be of any use to anyone else, since those don't get imbedded. Well, I'll post jpegs at some point to show that color is quite close.

If anyone wants the calibration profiles I use for Lightroom/ACR, email me.



bring them into CS3 plus 3 stops

then look at grain structure, noise etc..

quite a difference


why F16 and F11 btw ? Is this some sort of new trend I should know about ?
I am not sure i've ever shot anything at F16 before in my entire life
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: RobertJ on December 12, 2008, 09:00:03 pm
I've never shot anything at f/11 in my entire 35mm digital life.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: samuel_js on December 12, 2008, 09:27:47 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
I decided to do that only in case someone asks for it. Well, you did. (Later I will expand the chart with explanation).

Just a simple question:
Do you actually work with or own a digital back?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 12, 2008, 09:59:24 pm
Quote from: T-1000
I've never shot anything at f/11 in my entire 35mm digital life.
Are you always satisfied with the DoF of wider apertures? What about landscapes from your feet to infinity?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 12, 2008, 10:00:33 pm
Quote from: samuel_js
Just a simple question:
Do you actually work with or own a digital back?
No.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: jimgolden on December 12, 2008, 11:15:23 pm
WOW - does anyone take photos anymore or just bicker about camera crap?!?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: epatsellis on December 13, 2008, 01:14:33 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
Are you always satisfied with the DoF of wider apertures? What about landscapes from your feet to infinity?
With a scan back and a view camera, this has never been an issue for me, f11 works just fine (16-22 would be better, but sometimes you just need the light..)
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 13, 2008, 02:19:30 pm
Got the 5DMKII myself today and did a crop comparison although still in my opinion it's not possible to compare the two systems I did find most of the comparison shots from the digital backs to be very very soft and not what I see myself when I shoot.

So here a 100% crop, both STRAIGHT out of the cam, no sharpening applied:
(http://www.htforum.nl/fotofrank/albums/userpics/10001/cropslc.jpg)

More on my blog at www.doorhof.nl/blog under reviews.

And again, I still don't think you should compare a DSLR to a MF this way but I wanted to post something that at least was as sharp as I normally see my files.
Please keep it civil, that way it keeps interesting to post.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: ziocan on December 13, 2008, 03:02:10 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
Got the 5DMKII myself today and did a crop comparison although still in my opinion it's not possible to compare the two systems I did find most of the comparison shots from the digital backs to be very very soft and not what I see myself when I shoot.



More on my blog at www.doorhof.nl/blog under reviews.

And again, I still don't think you should compare a DSLR to a MF this way but I wanted to post something that at least was as sharp as I normally see my files.
Please keep it civil, that way it keeps interesting to post.
Thank you for posting it. I find it very informative and I actually think it is a proper test.
After all, you took the same picture, with two different cameras and that to me seems a valid real life comparison.
Now my question is, can the Canon file take more sharpening than the Leaf one, in order to match the same amount of acuity?
Honestly, I have no idea.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 13, 2008, 03:12:57 pm
Well, obviously there is no substitute for a large sensor (perhaps a larger one?). I have some doubt that the Aptus image would be better by sharpening. I could not wish anything sharper for myself and I prefer this unsharpened sharpness.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: ihv on December 13, 2008, 03:35:19 pm
Definitely MF looks much better. It might be not so apparent in a small print but the MF has the edge.

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
Got the 5DMKII myself today and did a crop comparison although still in my opinion it's not possible to compare the two systems I did find most of the comparison shots from the digital backs to be very very soft and not what I see myself when I shoot.

So here a 100% crop, both STRAIGHT out of the cam, no sharpening applied:

More on my blog at www.doorhof.nl/blog under reviews.

And again, I still don't think you should compare a DSLR to a MF this way but I wanted to post something that at least was as sharp as I normally see my files.
Please keep it civil, that way it keeps interesting to post.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: bcooter on December 13, 2008, 03:38:11 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
So here a 100% crop, both STRAIGHT out of the cam, no sharpening applied:


If you keep doing this stuff your going to go blind Frank.

Now, not that it matters but right now there is an 8 page spread in Harpers Bazzar for one of the 4 highest end fashion retailers that I know is shot with a Canon and it probably has $80,000 in model fees alone.

(Personally I think this Harpers spread is over retouched, but that's to taste, not so much to camera or equipment)

Anyway, your comparison really doesn't give much unless you run these files through different processors, try c1 4.5.2 on the Canon files and you'll see a lot of differrence in sharpening.

Actually, I'm always amazed that everyone shows mfdb files to be sharper because I work for a handful of art directors that hate the oversharped look and equate that to digital.  In fact you can put up a Canon file and a mfdb file side by side and to a person this group will pick the Canon file saying it looks "less digital" whatever that means, though I guess they mean sharpness.

One way to really compare these cameras is to shoot a full length vertical cropped to approx 8 x 10.5 and then show the difference.  It's not huge but you will see more difference between medium format vs. the dslrs, though if you take it the other way and shoot a double truck horizontal, you'll see less difference as the 35mm file needs little cropping, the mfdb file needs more.

If you want to highlight the difference try hair, (especially blond hair) in the vertical, rather than black eyelashes.

The crazy thing is with all of these comparisions, your comparing a camera that costs 1/10th of the price of the Aptus (when new) and the difference is not that compelling if at all, depending on the genre, shot, client, etc.

Your also comparing a zoom to a prime which in my Canon lens experience the 70-200 is not the most stellar of lenses.  Try an 85 1.8 canon, or even their cheap 135mm lens or even better go with a sigma 70mm.

Then the difference is much, much less.

Still, given your shot, some different processing, no client will notice or care about the difference.

Only the retoucher will know for sure.



Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 13, 2008, 05:45:42 pm
@BCooter,
You're 100% correct, that's why I always say you can't really compare the systems.
The reason I posted it is because I never saw a MF file in the comparisions that gave me what I see when I view a proper focused shot.
That's the one and only reason.

When I shoot on location I cary 2 cameras, the 5D (now MKII) and the 645AFD/III and they both get used.
The MF system for what suits that system and the DSLR for what suits that system.

For me as mentioned before both systems are totally different with each their strengths and weakenesses.

Even IF image quality would be equal in sharpness there still is enough reason to choose for MF over a DSLR OR... to choose a DSLR over a MF system.

I never understood the almost fights about it, I've bought the 5DMKII simply because I use my DSLR for some assignments and I want to give my customer the best possible.
I just love the weathersealing and I will play with the insane ISO range soon to see what it can bring.
It's a wonderful and exciting machine.
But I won't retire my MF anytime soon, not because it's sharper but because it gives me a different look/feel be it in shooting it or in the end result.

And yes it's sad sad world .........
Today I saw the pictures from Do (a famous dutch singer) who posed nude for playboy.
Several shots were not sharp but were soft due to movement (not softfocus), most people don't see it anymore let alone see the difference between one killer cam and another
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: bcooter on December 13, 2008, 06:12:23 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@BCooter,


And yes it's sad sad world .........
Today I saw the pictures from Do (a famous dutch singer) who posed nude for playboy.
Several shots were not sharp but were soft due to movement (not softfocus), most people don't see it anymore let alone see the difference between one killer cam and another

I personally believe this is a good time for photography at least in the sense that we can shoot and capture images that were almost impossible in the past.

Yes digital has changed things, but as far as sharpness or movement, that's been around forever.  You don't have to visit too many galleries to look at the work of past masters and see movement, blur, missed focus or grain clumps the size of rocks.  It doesn't mean the photos aren't beautiful, it just means by todays standards if you put them on a monitor at 300% the forum noise would be a buzz kill.

I can just see what the responses would have been like.   "That Linhof with a Schnieder 12" lens and Pan-x just doesn't hold detail like my Deardorf with the 14" Ektar, and grain, these guys should always shoot AGFA pulled two stops in microdol."

Really beautiful photography has a lot less to do with the camera and a lot less about actual detail, but in the world of digital there really isn't that much difference between formats, not like from film and I'm not addressing detail as refering to the look.  A 645 frame vs. a 35mm frame isn't that much different, not compared to a 6x9, 4x5 or 8x10.  Then the difference in camera format really showed.

Same with "receptors".  Except for the Japanese they all come from just two companies and then every maker just rolls their own software for look, but in reality there really isn't that much difference.

So as far as it being sad, I think it's just the opposite.  

When I started I would have loved to have a n-90 to learn with, all that immediate feedback, no processing, no waiting two or three days to see the results.  The learning curve would have been moved up by years.

So if someone shoots with a Canon or a 50mpx hasselblad, if the talent is there, the subject and lighting are beautiful that is all that really matters.

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 13, 2008, 06:18:28 pm
amen to that.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 03:11:08 am
Totally correct.
I always say:
A better camera won't make you a better photographer....
A better camera CAN make you a better photographer....
If you know what to do with it...

For me it's also not which is the better cam, it's which cam fits the idea/vision I have.
Or simply which cams works for that shot.

The remark about the customer won't see the difference on printed paper is a bit lame to be totally honest.
We could have also used that with the 8MP 20D, because really on a magazine print you can't see the difference.
But there's also something as postprocessing (my MF files can be pushed harder and need less tweaking), take for example color.
I still have to look more into this issue but with the 5D I could not get the skintones I get with the leaf, and I now balanced on the same whitebalance card and the leaf files are spot on and the Canon files ..... well they simply don't look the way the model looks, there's too much red.
Even when removing some it it's still not what I get with the Leaf, after 10-15 minutes I stopped, I will try to make a profile for the Canon in a few weeks if I have the time and see what happens than, but with the 5D I also made a profile and it still was not as pleasing as the Leaf files which are almost spot on.

The question is, will the viewer see that when you shoot a whole series of pictures....
Probarbly not, but I do and that's enough


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 14, 2008, 03:36:24 am
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
So here a 100% crop, both STRAIGHT out of the cam, no sharpening applied:

What F stop did you use with each lens, Frank? I see no mention of this on your blog.

I find it difficult to believe that the unsharpened resolution differences between these two crops is entirely due to the AA filter. I've seen comparison images from a standard 5D and a hot-rodded 5D with AA filter removed. The resolution increase is much more subtle than the differences between these 5D2 and Aptus 22 crops.

Did you use Live View to focus the 5D2 shot? Did you use a one-stop smaller aperture with the 5D2?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Henry Goh on December 14, 2008, 04:01:16 am
Quote from: Ray
Did you use Live View to focus the 5D2 shot? Did you use a one-stop smaller aperture with the 5D2?

Ray,

would you be so kind to educate me why you would use a smaller aperture with the 5DII?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Henry Goh on December 14, 2008, 04:23:48 am
Frank,

IMHO showing both images w/o sharpening means nothing. This is because there is a need to compensate the 5DII file for the effect of AA filter so sharpening is needed for that file, don't you think?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 14, 2008, 05:12:49 am
Quote from: Henry Goh
Frank,

IMHO showing both images w/o sharpening means nothing. This is because there is a need to compensate the 5DII file for the effect of AA filter so sharpening is needed for that file, don't you think?


you are right but frank did not want to show how close they are all he wants is to proof that mf is so much superior. so everything what makes the canon looks less attractive is welcomed .

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 06:03:11 am
If you would take the time to read what I post instead of trying to bash me everytime you would have read that I love the camera and also said that with sharpening the 5dmkii looks wonderful.

However some people only read what they want to read
I use both systems and love both for the rest this is my last comment for a while I don't have the time to defend myself everytime I love a good discussion but that is almost impossible this way.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: benP on December 14, 2008, 06:07:27 am
regarding the two eye pictures


there is miles miles miles more detail in the MF image
forget sharpening....  you will never recover that detail in the canon image. not even close
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: thsinar on December 14, 2008, 06:18:26 am
Frank,

don't let yourself being pushed away. There will always be provocative comments in public, for you, for me and for others. One cannot please all but can help some, which is already fantastic. I think that people here can make their opinion and judge by themselves.

Best regards,
Thierry



Quote from: Frank Doorhof
this is my last comment for a while I don't have the time to defend myself everytime I love a good discussion but that is almost impossible this way.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Henry Goh on December 14, 2008, 06:24:28 am
Quote from: benP
regarding the two eye pictures


there is miles miles miles more detail in the MF image
forget sharpening....  you will never recover that detail in the canon image. not even close
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 14, 2008, 06:33:26 am
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
If you would take the time to read what I post instead of trying to bash me everytime you would have read that I love the camera and also said that with sharpening the 5dmkii looks wonderful.

However some people only read what they want to read
I use both systems and love both for the rest this is my last comment for a while I don't have the time to defend myself everytime I love a good discussion but that is almost impossible this way.


if you know better why do you publish this comparison ?  do you think you need do to leaf a favor ?  with some  sharpening applied for compensating  the aa filter and a slight different color setting in dpp the image would have been extrem  close right ?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 06:42:47 am
A bit too much sharpness but the files improve indeed after sharpening as mentioned before.
Today I took the 5dmkii to sleddog runs and it excells in those situations.

For what I do however the leaf gives me a better start and again the only reason I posted the crops was not to compare but more to show that mr when used correctly can give much sharper results than what I saw untill now.

Comparing the two systems is comparing apples to oranges and I happen to love both  so it's bs that I want the canon to  look worse I also paid for the canon and I would hate to throw away money.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Henry Goh on December 14, 2008, 06:48:10 am
Frank,

Hope you know I'm not bashing you.  I simply asked a question that struck me about the effect of AA filter and that such files will need sharpening.  I did the sharpening illustration on your files because someone commented that the level of details is miles apart.  I don't think so when both files are about the same resolution the level of details captured will be about the same.  Of course I would normally not sharpen skin this way and if any sharpening is needed, I would do it selectively.


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: yaya on December 14, 2008, 06:48:59 am
csp,

We very rarely see anything positive or meaningful posted by you let alone any of your work or identity to show that you are anything other than a sad bored person who finds joy in poking others' ideas and opinions. This is far beyond photography, art, technology or equipment.

Tomorrow morning try to wake up with a real smile, it doesn't hurt, honest!

Yair
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 07:02:41 am
henry don't worry I know
It's also exactly my opinion a liitle bit of sharpening goes a long way but also destroys some small detail but he there's a huge price difference that's why I'm very enthousiastic about the camera.

The problem is however with some people that it seems like you have to choose and otherwise are stupid/blind or biased.
I'm none as far as I know I just love both.
I know that when I work a bit wit a profile I can get closer but for me the leaf nails it straight out of the cam with very robust and dynamic files and I CLEARLY see more 3d in the of files but also according to some that does not excist.  

But again I see the both systems as a 28-75 and a 70-200 lens they complement each other and give you other options.
MF is not dead by a long haul untill the sensor sizes come close but hey than canon or nikon also make MF
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 14, 2008, 08:19:13 am
Quote from: yaya
csp,

We very rarely see anything positive or meaningful posted by you let alone any of your work or identity to show that you are anything other than a sad bored person who finds joy in poking others' ideas and opinions. This is far beyond photography, art, technology or equipment.

Tomorrow morning try to wake up with a real smile, it doesn't hurt, honest!

Yair



yes master - you only know what meaningful opinions are and i'm very sorry  that i can't praise mr.doorhof and leaf as you would like to.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 14, 2008, 09:00:10 am
Quote from: Henry Goh
Ray,

would you be so kind to educate me why you would use a smaller aperture with the 5DII?

Glad you are alert. I meant of course a one stop smaller f stop number. If the 5D2 was shot at F2.8 and the Aptus 22 at F4, that would explain why the Aptus shot would be sharper. Most lenses are sharper at F4 than at F2.8 and smaller formats with similar pixel counts need a sharper lens, or a lens used at a sharper aperutre, in order to record equally sharp results.

The thread begins with a comparison at F11 (for the 5D2) and F16 for the DB, demonstrating that resolution is about the same, as one would expect. Most lenses are marginally sharper at F11 than at F16 and full frame 35mm needs that extra lens sharpness in any comparison.

It's doubtful that a Canon zoom lens at F2.8 would be as sharp as an MF prime at F4, hence the clear loss of resolution. However, the shots from Frank don't appear to have a particularly shallow DoF, which is why I am asking what F stops were used.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 10:02:32 am
f16 vs f11
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: benP on December 14, 2008, 10:12:22 am
a very good example of how to completely ruin a picture


see how with the canon now EVERYTHING is sharpened
so whilst you have sharpened some of the details that perhaps needed to be sharpened
all the lovely softer areas are no longer soft
and you've actually sharpened the NOISE in the picture (loo top left)
the structure of the actual picture is now visible

the result ? A picture that has nothing to do with reality anymore. It has no subtely, no fathfullness and is a nasty digital abomination, a model who has leprosy


First rule of photoshop: Never use unsharp mask, you should sharpen using 'High Pass + degrain + transfer layer' or a specialist sharpen plugin

true detail isnt about just sharpening, its a subtle mixture of sharp and soft.. there is no magic filter or action to bring it back when its not there  
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: jing q on December 14, 2008, 12:19:39 pm
Quote from: T-1000
LOL.  Annie Leibovitz doesn't know about what "look" she wants, or cares about the "look" that whatever camera, digital back, sensor size, or format may give her.

Someone hands her a camera... any camera... probably a camera that she barely knows how to use, or barely knows anything about, then she learns how to set the exposure, focus, and press the shutter button, and she takes her famous photographs without caring about the medium format look, or the next Canon or Nikon that will become a MF killer.  Whatever camera she's holding, she probably doesn't even know or care about how many megapixels it has, or how big the pixels are.

I'm almost positive this woman would have NO clue about anything we talk about in this forum...

actually in her recent book she points out that when a new,better camera comes out she's always interested in trying it out
I'm sure she's less clueless than you make her out to be
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: bcooter on December 14, 2008, 12:22:00 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
However some people only read what they want to read

Frank,

I'm not sure if that is exactly true, but be realistic, if you post two images like this your going to get blow back and no disrespect meant but if you also put a camera companies logo on all of your photos your motives will be questioned, that's just a natural assumption and to continue the discussion saying yes you should sharpen an image to match, well sharpen it then you'll know.

Your also comparing a camera you've owned for a few hours next to a system you've worked with for years, so as you and most of us who understand digital know, it takes a while to learn each system and get the best out of it.

Regardless all of these comparisons are flawed, because unless you have a cosmetic contract how many people are hired to just shoot an eyeball.  Something full length and cropped to a page size is a better real world comparison.

It is also comparing primes vs. zoom and if you process a lot of files in a lot of different converters you will see so many differences in the 645 format and 35mm format that depending on the time, day, hour, shot, processor, client, subject, light, iso one will always look better, sometimes fractionally sometimes miles apart.

These comparisons and conversations go all around the houses, until the conversation turns sour and finally gets blocked.  (maybe that's the goal   But this one kind of surprises me because rather than show a clear superiority of one format to the other, they are both very close.

These format discussions are interesting but rarely equate to logic or use in the real world.  I have a friend that has a gig with a luxury fashion merchandiser, that runs monthly in every major glossy magazine, usually a large insert.   This photographers portfolio is 65% Canon files, 30% film, though the client demands he shoot medium format because they have a contract with a studio and a tech firm that has medium format.  He always complains, saying mf always looks to sharp so he brings his Canons to the shoot and shoots a few images of each setup for himself and the art director usually runs most of the Canon images, so a lot of this is down to visual taste, not scientific sharpness comparisons.

I think there is a lot of fear in the camera world of the 5d2 and even the new Sony because no longer are we comparing 15, 20, or 30 thousand dollar cameras next to $8,000 cameras but we're comparing them to what is essentially a $3,000 consumer camera and the results are almost too close to measure once the ink hits the paper.  I also know from experience that now that the dslrs are in the 20+ mpx range, even photographers who have made the medium format investment find themselves going to the dslrs much more often than they ever thought for all the reasons you can imagine, but mostly because it is just easier to get the shot and in today's advertising world the expectations on how many setups how muchroi a client demands is very, very high.

Regardless, nobody needs any justification on what type of camera they use if it produces the results and their happy.

Still, this is like comparing a $100,000 farm tractor next to a $10,000 Toyota except in this case the Toyota pulls a plow very well and also takes the family to church on Sunday.


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Carsten W on December 14, 2008, 01:09:25 pm
I think the relaxed sharpness in the MF shot is lost in that particular rendition of the 5D2 shot, which looks tense. It would surely look better with access to the original, but I do prefer the MF here, in all versions shown so far.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 14, 2008, 01:41:08 pm
Quote from: carstenw
I think the relaxed sharpness in the MF shot is lost in that particular rendition of the 5D2 shot, which looks tense. It would surely look better with access to the original, but I do prefer the MF here, in all versions shown so far.

Personally I like the Aptus pic

How does everybodies three-four year old computer/mobile phone stack up to current models

Isnt it great that a piece of historic kit -  three whole years old - older than YouTube - a lifetime in technology - still stacks up with the current stuff

My 22mp digiback has been great value at $5000 per year over those three years - I might even string it out to last six - ok Ill be off the pace with a piddling 22mp but who cares

What would I buy today ? - the Canon (or a P60whatever if I was a 3meter print guy - the p60 will look sharper than the canon no doubt)

--

Also I can clean the sensor on my MFDB which is a real bonus

S
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: ziocan on December 14, 2008, 02:15:19 pm
Quote from: benP
a very good example of how to completely ruin a picture


see how with the canon now EVERYTHING is sharpened
so whilst you have sharpened some of the details that perhaps needed to be sharpened
all the lovely softer areas are no longer soft
and you've actually sharpened the NOISE in the picture (loo top left)
the structure of the actual picture is now visible

the result ? A picture that has nothing to do with reality anymore. It has no subtely, no fathfullness and is a nasty digital abomination, a model who has leprosy


First rule of photoshop: Never use unsharp mask, you should sharpen using 'High Pass + degrain + transfer layer' or a specialist sharpen plugin

true detail isnt about just sharpening, its a subtle mixture of sharp and soft.. there is no magic filter or action to bring it back when its not there  
I agree that the 5dII sample sharpened did not turned out pretty.

But instead of using the 'High Pass + degrain + transfer layer', why not just using the "smart sharpen" filter on PS? It is a "de convulsion sharpener" as good as others plugs in. IMO.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: ziocan on December 14, 2008, 02:40:02 pm
Quote from: ziocan
I agree that the 5dII sample sharpened did not turned out pretty.

But instead of using the 'High Pass + degrain + transfer layer', why not just using the "smart sharpen" filter on PS? It is a "de convulsion sharpener" as good as others plugs in. IMO.
Frank thank you again for the comparison. I think is valid and correctly done.
It seems to me that most of the posters on this thread should have enough experience to see that what frank did was made properly and I do not get some of the comments.

first you compare two different systems on doing the same job, rightly for seeing how they perform. there is not apple to orange comparison. it does not really matter if one system is 5 times more expensive than the other. if you are comparing in order to see the the result, the result is only what matter. then is up to each individual to decide how much they want justify spending on their equipment.
even if frank used the leaf for years and the canon just for few hours, it does not matter, because we are talking of a 5d2 which, as ergonomics and capabilities, it is exactly the same camera as the 5d and Frank took that shot as good as it can get. If he used the 135mm f.2, which is the sharpest canon lens for that kind of photo, the difference with the 70/200 at f11 would have been almost invisible. Then, come on, the 5d is one of the easiest camera to shoot.
again, just looking at the samples, it was clear that they were correctly shot at at least f8/11, thinking that they may have been shot at f 2.8...... I'm sorry, but on portrait like that at f2.8 you do not get the eyebrow and the iris both in focus with those lenses.

you can sharpen the canon file to the finest you like, but you will be always be able to sharpen the leaf one as well, the difference may decrease, because the canon can take more sharpening than the leaf, but there always be difference. Personally I would not sharpen the leaf shot, and the 5d may be made to look almost a good with proper sharpening, but not quiet.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 14, 2008, 03:00:56 pm
Quote from: bcooter
Frank,

I'm not sure if that is exactly true, but be realistic, if you post two images like this your going to get blow back and no disrespect meant but if you also put a camera companies logo on all of your photos your motives will be questioned, that's just a natural assumption and to continue the discussion saying yes you should sharpen an image to match, well sharpen it then you'll know.

Your also comparing a camera you've owned for a few hours next to a system you've worked with for years, so as you and most of us who understand digital know, it takes a while to learn each system and get the best out of it.

Regardless all of these comparisons are flawed, because unless you have a cosmetic contract how many people are hired to just shoot an eyeball.  Something full length and cropped to a page size is a better real world comparison.

It is also comparing primes vs. zoom and if you process a lot of files in a lot of different converters you will see so many differences in the 645 format and 35mm format that depending on the time, day, hour, shot, processor, client, subject, light, iso one will always look better, sometimes fractionally sometimes miles apart.

These comparisons and conversations go all around the houses, until the conversation turns sour and finally gets blocked.  (maybe that's the goal   But this one kind of surprises me because rather than show a clear superiority of one format to the other, they are both very close.

These format discussions are interesting but rarely equate to logic or use in the real world.  I have a friend that has a gig with a luxury fashion merchandiser, that runs monthly in every major glossy magazine, usually a large insert.   This photographers portfolio is 65% Canon files, 30% film, though the client demands he shoot medium format because they have a contract with a studio and a tech firm that has medium format.  He always complains, saying mf always looks to sharp so he brings his Canons to the shoot and shoots a few images of each setup for himself and the art director usually runs most of the Canon images, so a lot of this is down to visual taste, not scientific sharpness comparisons.

I think there is a lot of fear in the camera world of the 5d2 and even the new Sony because no longer are we comparing 15, 20, or 30 thousand dollar cameras next to $8,000 cameras but we're comparing them to what is essentially a $3,000 consumer camera and the results are almost too close to measure once the ink hits the paper.  I also know from experience that now that the dslrs are in the 20+ mpx range, even photographers who have made the medium format investment find themselves going to the dslrs much more often than they ever thought for all the reasons you can imagine, but mostly because it is just easier to get the shot and in today's advertising world the expectations on how many setups how muchroi a client demands is very, very high.

Regardless, nobody needs any justification on what type of camera they use if it produces the results and their happy.

Still, this is like comparing a $100,000 farm tractor next to a $10,000 Toyota except in this case the Toyota pulls a plow very well and also takes the family to church on Sunday.

i'm sure mr. doorhof is total aware of all the points you have brought up. so the question remains why he had posted the comparison  in the way he did.  for me the answer is clear. i always wonder why all of this so called  "reviews"  have to be flawed in a certain way in favor of mf .  this is really sad  - yair  - if you listen , because it is done by purpose and it does serve nobody ! in the 22mpx class there is no need do go mf for quality if your work is offset printed, like it or not.  with better lenses than the old rz glass and higher resolution backs it is a different story.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 03:01:59 pm
ive shot with the 5d for 2 years and before that also canon so getting used to a system ??
What difficult at shooting a potrait in a studio if you can screw that up you can better take painting classes.
The leaf however I've only shot for about a year and the rz even shorter and with that camera you DO have to get used to it.

Fact remains that I love both the reason I have the Elinchrom and leaf brand on my shots has nothing to do with favoring but simply because I work closely with them and it's my way of thanking them.
Again the threads heads towards a you have to like one or another why don't people just look at the other parts ?

The 5dmkii cannot:
Drop to ISO 25
Sync higher than 1/125
Capture the same dynamic range

Mf cannot win on
High ISO
Fps
Speed

It's useless fighting over which is better it changes per situation and person it's that simple. IF the 5dmkii would be the same I would sell my mf system in a heartbeat but it isn't and probarbly never will be and most of all doesn't need to.  

Again the only reason for posting was that I did not yet see a comparison that I found fitting my view on the mf quality in the closeup of eyes a lot is seen especially in roundness of the eyeball details in the hairs skintone and structure.
But even if they were equal there so much difference in the systems.

But I'm repeating myself sorry.
I'll be using both as I've done.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 03:10:36 pm
@csp
Did you ever shoot with the "old" rz ?
I guess not because the lenses are about the best you can get.
Makes me even more wonder why you reply at all if you don't know what you're talking about let's see for example some of your work I don't hide behind a fake name.

My reviews are flawed in one thing. They are honest and always to the point but you don't have to agree of course.
Why no mf in the 22mp range ?
Did I miss the secret firmware upgrade from canon that lowered the ISO to 25 and raised the xsync to 1/400 ? And made the files 16 bits with a few stops more dynamic range.
Please mail me that and we both make a bonnfire of my crapy old mf garbage.  

Oh and when were busy let's also delete this whole board
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: lisa_r on December 14, 2008, 03:57:07 pm
I guess I don't see more real detail in one than the other. In Henry's sharpened version, I do see a lot of sharpened noise masquerading as detail in the MF image. But real detail?? This is just about neck and neck IMO. Anyway, none of my clients are looking at my images with a magnefying glass, jonesing for more detail. None of them. I use Canon, MF, and maybe that dreamy D3x soon...those D3x files look absolutely stunning to me.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/...p/d3/d3x-sp/en/ (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d3/d3x-sp/en/)

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/ca.../d3x/sample.htm (http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3x/sample.htm)
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 14, 2008, 04:18:14 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
Did I miss the secret firmware upgrade from canon that lowered the ISO to 25
Frank, if you believe that it is an achievement to have ISO 25, then you thoroughly misunderstood the way digital cameras are working. It is actually a disadvantage, a side-effect of the lack of microlenses and older sensor technology.

Quote
And made the files 16 bits with a few stops more dynamic range
1. the 16 bits do not contribute anything to the dynamic range,

2. your image with the Aptus 22 posted above contains probably not more than 14 bit depth,

3. some MFDBs, which produce 16bit depth looking data can use effectively only 14bit, like Phase One.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: pss on December 14, 2008, 04:52:55 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@cds
Did you ever shoot with the "old" rz ?
I guess not because the lenses are about the best you can get.
Makes me even more wonder why you reply at all if you don't know what you're talking about let's see for example some of your work I don't hide behind a fake name.

My reviews are flawed in one thing. They are honest and always to the point but you don't have to agree of course.
Why no mf in the 22mp range ?
Did I miss the secret firmware upgrade from canon that lowered the ISO to 25 and raised the xsync to 1/400 ? And made the files 16 bits with a few stops more dynamic range.
Please mail me that and we both make a bonnfire of my crapy old mf garbage.  

Oh and when were busy let's also delete this whole board


the 5dII syncs at 1/200, the dsIII at 1/250....the aptus does not shoot 16 bit and probably does not have THAT much more DR considering it is an older back....

i am not disputing in any way that the aptus will produce a better file at base iso.....but even besides the point that all these comparisons of on screen jpegs are just plain dumb.....anyone who has ever worked with any canon knows that sharpening needs to be applied to bring out some detail.....the canon files will never have that certain pop that ccd/no aa filter files have....
what is so many times called the 3D of MF, well check out the m8, those files look very 3D....and need no sharpening....
shooting with ANY canon zoom and comparing it to ANY mamiya prime is just asking for the test to be discredited....plain dumb....

frank: if you loooove the MF look so much, why do you even own a zoom? any canon prime blows any zoom out of the water......

or in other works....make the same comparison but shoot the aptus with a so-so copy of the 55-110 zoom on the af645  and the canon 100 macro on the 5DII (i know you will have to back up to get the same frame....) you get the idea....

which brings us to another problem....the 5D file cropped to 3:4 is only about 18mpix, so the aptus wins in resolution as well.....

another idea...shoot that model wide open with the aptus and with the 5DII and count eyelashes then....if you can get them in focus 1 out of 3 shots on the RZ....i know what i am talking about i used to shoot with phase and the RZ....

to anyone who NEEDS to see a true comparison....shoot the files, process them as good as possible and to your liking and make 16x20 prints and let 10 people choose.....if your work requires 11x14 only, throw in a file from the G10 as well...just for fun.....

and posting all your images with company logos does not look really fair either.....unless you are NOT getting paid....which brings up the question why on earth do you give these people free advertising that i have to look at when i go into an ad free forum?

i guess it comes down to this: would i want the aptus file to come out of the 5DII (or any other DSLR)? probably yes! but do i give up EVERYTHING else and pay a lot more? probably no......
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 04:58:27 pm
@Panopeeper,
It was meant with a bit of sarcasm.
About the 16 bits, I don't really care if the files are 14 or 16 bits, what I do care about is that I can push the Leaf files ALOT harder than the 5D and 5DMKII files.
Sometimes I photoshop natural sometimes I love to push the files arround.
Be it 14 or 16 bits, I think only Leaf/Dalsa can tell us that, but the leaf files are much sturdier.

For me the discussion is at an end, I said many times I love both and will not choose in this point in time, maybe in the future but even than I see the big advantage of the larger sensor, different FOV/DOF/CoC but hey according to some that can also be emulated....
I don't care anymore I will live in the stone age with my MF system and crappy lenses and also live in modern time with my 5DMKII.
My customers indeed don't see the difference, what they DO see is that I'm passionate about what I do, invest in getting better results and most of all deliver what I promise, whatever I use.

End of discussion, I'm way too much drawn into a fight I don't want to get involved in, it's like Nikon vs Canon and believe and nonbelieve, life's to short and there's too much to shoot (with either format)
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: snickgrr on December 14, 2008, 05:03:30 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
I guess I don't see more real detail in one than the other. In Henry's sharpened version, I do see a lot of sharpened noise masquerading as detail in the MF image. But real detail?? This is just about neck and neck IMO. Anyway, none of my clients are looking at my images with a magnefying glass, jonesing for more detail. None of them. I use Canon, MF, and maybe that dreamy D3x soon...those D3x files look absolutely stunning to me.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/...p/d3/d3x-sp/en/ (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d3/d3x-sp/en/)

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/ca.../d3x/sample.htm (http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3x/sample.htm)


I start a four day shoot tomorrow with a new client that wanted to know beforehand what I shot with.  Corporate office in Switzerland was not happy with the last photographer for a couple reasons, one of which is the quality of the file.  Corporate office in Switzerland wants a 600dpi file @ at least 50cm.  I say WTF! to my contact here; he's an employee of the company and he shrugs and says he's learned to just go along with their crazy ways.

Another potential new client last week wanted to know if I could deliver high enough files for the job.  I don't have that job yet but it sure is nice to throw around the numbers that MFDBs generate.

I shoot with a Leaf A75 by the way.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 14, 2008, 05:03:50 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@cds
Did you ever shoot with the "old" rz ?
I guess not because the lenses are about the best you can get.
Makes me even more wonder why you reply at all if you don't know what you're talking about let's see for example some of your work I don't hide behind a fake name.

My reviews are flawed in one thing. They are honest and always to the point but you don't have to agree of course.
Why no mf in the 22mp range ?
Did I miss the secret firmware upgrade from canon that lowered the ISO to 25 and raised the xsync to 1/400 ? And made the files 16 bits with a few stops more dynamic range.
Please mail me that and we both make a bonnfire of my crapy old mf garbage.  

Oh and when were busy let's also delete this whole board


honest, really ?   hope you get enough benefits for your kind of honesty ;-)   -  but let me ask you how much experience do you have with different mf systems. did you ever shoot other brands and formats like hasselblad, pentax,  bronica...  with different lenses ?  if not why can you say rz lenses are about the best you can get  ?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Carsten W on December 14, 2008, 05:08:38 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
Frank, if you believe that it is an achievement to have ISO 25, then you thoroughly misunderstood the way digital cameras are working. It is actually a disadvantage, a side-effect of the lack of microlenses and older sensor technology.

Lower ISOs improve the ability to finely measure the available light, by increasing the number of photons impinging on the photocell which can be counted (as long as the ISO setting is native). The addition of microlenses is not a pure benefit, but a compromise. The ability to use shift is compromised, but the sensitivity is improved, for example. Similarly, the lower native ISOs are not bad, but a compromise, and not everyone prefers higher ISO.

"Old sensor technology" is a meaningless qualifier until you state what you mean with that. Old is not necessarily equal to bad.

Quote
1. the 16 bits do not contribute anything to the dynamic range,

There is no causal relationship implied in the way Frank wrote it, but the greater the dynamic range, the greater the need for large bit-depth, to capture the subtle tonality between the ends of the range, and his grouping of these together makes sense. For every extra stop of dynamic range, you need one extra bit of bit-depth to capture the same fineness of tonality. The improvement of the results by increasing the bit-depth with the advancing technology is generally acknowledged, even by Canon, who recently switched from 12 to 14 bits. It is a question of diminishing returns, of course, but every little improvement helps, even if just a little, or seldom. Even if not all digital backs actually make use of or implement 16 bits, the general trend in that direction is helpful for high quality, and MF backs have advanced this particular technology, at least in recent years.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 05:15:39 pm
@pss,
Sorry did not read your comment when I posted my last one, but I would like to explain.

First off I'm not getting paid one cent by Leaf or Elinchrom.
However I do get a very good support from both companies and in a way it's my way of saying thank you and hopefully build to something in the future.

The xsync I have to disagree, when I shoot in the studio anything above 1/160 will give me the shuttercurtain in the picture, on the RZ shooting upto 1/400 does not.

As mentioned many times before it's the way you shoot and what you shoot that will give someone the reason to go to MF.
It's not about money, fame or being something magical.
It's a simple matter of what do you like to work with as a photographer and a MF system gives you SOME different options than a DSLR.

About lens choices, you seem to have missed that I have shot Canons starting at the 10D, 20D, 5D and now 5DMKII.
I was planning on switching to the MKIII 1Ds but compared it to the Mamiya + ZD and opted for the 5D and the Mamiya ZD, when I found out that the ZD was having too much problems for me I changed it to the Leaf and to be honest kept up with the DSLRs on a daily basis, in the 10 jobs I do 4 are shot with the RZ, 4 are shot with the 645 and 2 are shot with a DSLR, so I think I do a fair mix and match to be familair with all 3 systems.
When I used Canon only I owned about every lens they had that was interesting for me including the 135mm f2.0L and I tested the 85mm 1.2L for a while and although I loved it I did not buy it because I could not find the use for it at that time.

I can say with a big certaincy that on f11 in a studio setting the difference between the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the 135mm f2.0 is there but it's very minor.
And yess normally I don't like zooms but in the case of that lens it's an exception, as is the 105-210 on the 645.
The 55-110 you are absolulty right that lens is subpar according to me and I'm waiting as probarbly many on the 45-90.

Why 3 systems many ask ?
Simply put, they all give me different looks, personally I love the RZ, the way the camera operates and the quality of the glass is amazing.
The 645 I love on location, it's almost a DSLR and it handles quick and very accurate.
The DSLR I adore in difficult situation or when I need speed.

If I had to sell one system it would be almost impossible, I think that says enough about the difference and the way I approach my work.

If I can see the difference on print ?
Yes.
I do know that I've shot some photos on holidays and trips with the 645/leaf that I could not pull off with the 5D.
There is more dynamic range in the leaf, on trips I love to shoot grafity and street scenes. With the 5D I would blow out skies much easier than with the Leaf, so I have to travel with both systems, and believe me both me and my wife would love to travel just with the Canon

Please don't make the thread into a fight and name calling on not knowing how to use one system or the other, that's the easy way out.
We are all here to be respected and giving our own PERSONAL opinion, what is right for one can be wrong for another.
For what I do MF fits my demands as a glove, for some others there could indeed not be any difference they would be not wise to invest the extra money.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 05:22:44 pm
@Cps,

Yes I have shot with many different cameras, how about you ?

For me on MF:
app one day :
Hasselblad H2D 22MP
Hasselblad H3D 33MP
Hasselbald is not really my thing, sorry.

More than enough time to know what they do  :
Mamiya ZD
Mamiya 645AFD/II and III with film and Leaf Aptus 22/Leaf Aptus 7II
Mamiya RZ67ProII with film and Leaf Aptus22/Leaf Aptus 7II
Leaf AFi-7
Leaf AFi-7-II (beta)
Leaf AFi-10 (beta)

On DSLRs I don't even start.

So I think I can say that I experimented a "bit".
From everything I tried I love the 120mm macro on the 645AFD, and the 110f2.8 and 180f4.5 on the RZ.
The glass from the RZ is when I want to use the term "magical" but very hard to learn, the lenses are really problematic with flair but when you know how to use them they give you something in return I did not see in any other system that I experimented with.
The funny thing is that I changed the AFi-7-II back to all three systems, so on the AFi camera, on the 645 and on the RZ.
The AFi system itself was sharp and detailed, but the RZ gave me more 3D looking pictures, the 645AFD was left behind with a small margin.
So again, yes I have "some" experience otherwise I would not post here, I'm not stupid

Again, please enlight us with your work and show that you are more than 3 letters and alot of talk.....
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: pss on December 14, 2008, 06:45:27 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@pss,
The xsync I have to disagree, when I shoot in the studio anything above 1/160 will give me the shuttercurtain in the picture, on the RZ shooting upto 1/400 does not.

As mentioned many times before it's the way you shoot and what you shoot that will give someone the reason to go to MF.
It's not about money, fame or being something magical.
It's a simple matter of what do you like to work with as a photographer and a MF system gives you SOME different options than a DSLR.

About lens choices, you seem to have missed that I have shot Canons starting at the 10D, 20D, 5D and now 5DMKII.
I was planning on switching to the MKIII 1Ds but compared it to the Mamiya + ZD and opted for the 5D and the Mamiya ZD, when I found out that the ZD was having too much problems for me I changed it to the Leaf and to be honest kept up with the DSLRs on a daily basis, in the 10 jobs I do 4 are shot with the RZ, 4 are shot with the 645 and 2 are shot with a DSLR, so I think I do a fair mix and match to be familair with all 3 systems.
When I used Canon only I owned about every lens they had that was interesting for me including the 135mm f2.0L and I tested the 85mm 1.2L for a while and although I loved it I did not buy it because I could not find the use for it at that time.

I can say with a big certaincy that on f11 in a studio setting the difference between the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the 135mm f2.0 is there but it's very minor.
And yess normally I don't like zooms but in the case of that lens it's an exception, as is the 105-210 on the 645.
The 55-110 you are absolulty right that lens is subpar according to me and I'm waiting as probarbly many on the 45-90.


the sync is 1/250 with the dsIII....i would say that your wireless sync might be slower, but if you are using it with the RZ, then that can't be it....
the ZD's problem is that is does not have the files of the MF backs and none of the advantages of DSLR...so what's the point....

i had no intention of offending you in any way, i am just tired of these comparisons....the funny thing is i used to defend MF and its advantages in this and other forums....but that was when your aptus was compared to a dsII or 5D and even then people said the difference isn't worth it......times have changed and unless you shoot cars, food, stillife or just want to shoot the MF way, there really is no real reason to go MF anymore.....people read these pages and might think they will get a better print with MF.....it's just not the case anymore.....
yes the files are more massageable and are crisper to begin with, but in the end, the difference is very, very, very small.....

i still recommend to anyone to check it all out, but when you put all variables, all regular conditions and the expectable results and the price together, you walk out of the store with a DSLR.....
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 14, 2008, 06:50:07 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
f16 vs f11

Well, Frank, these results are certainly very interesting as well as puzzling. The initial comparisons from John Schweikert who started the thread, were taken at F11 and F16, demonstrating that resolution is very closely the same. You've now used the same apertures to demonstrate that resolution is quite different.
 
Whenever anomalies like this occur, the only way to get to the truth of the matter is to repeat the comparisons under different conditions with different lenses, using different F stops and different subjects etc.

The objections raised by some in this thread, that you cannot compare a zoom with a prime are not compelling in these circumstances because all lenses are likely to be the same at F16, zoom or prime, because the limiting factor in lens sharpness at that aperture is diffraction.

For the same reason, the lack of an AA filter in the Aptus is also not likely to be the cause of the DB's greater resolution because, at F16 diffraction will tend to play the role of an AA filter.

The obvious explanation for these results, Frank, is that you inadvertently used F16 with the 5D2 and F11 with the Aptus. Now I know that you have a reputation to protect, but we are all capable of making silly mistakes, so if you admit to this, I will not think the less of you.  

On the other hand, the reason could be that at such apertures the shutter speeds are slow and some slight movement of camera or subject just happened to occur at the time of the 5D2 shot.

Whatever the reason, more tests should be conducted to either confirm or refute these results. The last time I conducted camera tests was to determine how much extra resolution I could expect from a Canon 50D compared with a 40D. I chose a stationary and detailed target, manually focussed each shot using Live View at 10x magnification (which is like looking through a lens with 10x the focal length), used a tripod, remote cord and MLU, and took a hundred shots or more with different lenses at different apertures ranging from F2.8 to F16.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 07:07:31 pm
I used the ZD digital back not the camera.
I don't know about the syncs on cables, I only use radio triggers, with the Canon 5D I could barely shoot on 1/160 with the MKII the same.
The 1DsIII I only used in the studio so never experimented with higher syncs, I know the old 1Ds did higher.

I also don't mean disrespect but it's indeed a discussion that is talked about over and over, and with every new camera the discussion is there again.
It reminds of the digital projector vs CRT projector debate.
I was in the CRT camp
Every new digital projector was the new CRT killer, and alot of people did buy into that and bought it and were happy.
Also everytime a few CRT owners switched to digital with every new generation.
We switched ourselfs when JVC released the RS2/HD100, and will now receive the RS20 next week.

The CRT was still better on 2 issues (color and absolute blacklevel/detail) but it was beat on ALL other issues.

I think with MF it's a similair issue.
With every new DSLR release the image quality increases as does the pixel count, and more and more MF owners will sell their MF system simply because they have a list of pros and cons and when the pros are bigger than the cons they will switch.
I truely believe that MF is getting hit hard with the new DSLRs like the Sony Alpha900 and 5DMKII but there are still some pros for some users (including me) to choose MF.
I agree that when MF would be standing still probarbly alot of photographers will switch to DSLRs.

However they are not standing still, look at the AFi-10 for example, it's a big step forward in sensor size (full width 6x45) and it has a wopping 56MP resolution.

However I do agree that the price difference is huge, especially with the current economics.

The question however is and will always be why do some people drive an Opel, Volvo or a Rolls ?
They all bring you from A-B and in the Netherlands they all stand still most of the time due to traffic jams

The remark made a while ago in this thread that for 22MP there is no more reason to choose MF misses the point of the battle of the systems
It's not only about MP's it's much more.
If that counts for you is very personal, and I 100% agree that for most photographers it simply doesn't add up anymore, and they would rather work shorter times than invest in a system that in print probarbly will do the job just as fine.
You have to be aware however that there are also people that are a bit different, they want to go that extra mile and are willing to pay for it. They are not wrong/stupid or blind they are just looking at other things than MPs on paper.

It's like audio.
To go from a bad sound to a good sound is often twice the ammount of money, to go from good to very good is often 5x the money.
And to go the next VERY SMALL step is often again twice that ammount, the crop gets smaller and smaller towards the top, but there are still alot of people there.

I would just love to see that there is a bit more respect for those people who are hanging arround in the MEDIUM FORMAT DIGITAL BACKS AND PHOTOGRAPHY board
And I really don't mean you pps, I'm not easily offended and read all the posts very carefully.

By the way for fun I browsed some beginner forums today and there is a similair "fight" going on between P&S superzooms and DSLRs.
According to some the G10 has the quality of MF files and so there is no reason to buy a DSLR......
It makes you wonder ......................... no................ maybe all buy a G10 and get along

 
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 14, 2008, 07:10:25 pm
Quote from: carstenw
Lower ISOs improve the ability to finely measure the available light, by increasing the number of photons impinging on the photocell which can be counted (as long as the ISO setting is native)
If a well needs more light to reach its charge storing capacity than another well (of another sensor, of course), that is a sign of lesser efficiency. The reason for the microlenses is just to improve the efficiency, i.e. to utilize (convert into electric change) more of the infalling light. The presence of microlenses may impact other aspects, but then we leave the subject "ISO sensitivity".

Quote
Similarly, the lower native ISOs are not bad, but a compromise, and not everyone prefers higher ISO
Yes, it is obvious, that not everybody understands the issues. There is no problem with "higher ISO" but with "lower image quality", in form of more noise.

Quote
The improvement of the results by increasing the bit-depth with the advancing technology is generally acknowledged, even by Canon, who recently switched from 12 to 14 bits

The 12bit depth was an impediment, as the 5D has shown it. The 14bit depth is more than enough at the moment in the sense, that anything more is only fake, i.e. does not represent real gradations.

Quote
Even if not all digital backs actually make use of or implement 16 bits, the general trend in that direction is helpful for high quality, and MF backs have advanced this particular technology, at least in recent years
No present digital back makes use of 16bits, except perhaps the Sinar e75 (I am mentioning this exception only because I don't have suitable raw files to analyze this).
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 07:17:18 pm
@Ray,
You don't have to think less of me.
For MF I always choose one aperture smaller due to the larger sensor, so f11 on the 5DMKII and f16 on the Aptus.

Don't even think about movement, that looks totally different and when using strobes movement is almost out of the question unless you have some sort of shake syndrome.

Lenses do make a difference even stopped down, for fun just try a normal cheap zoom on the 5DMKII and compare that to the 70-200f2.8 or any other good lens.
The 5DMKII really DEMANDS a good lens. The 70-200f2.8L IS is however in my opinion one of the best lenses especially when closed down to f11.

The only problem that COULD be here is that diffraction is already kicking in.
With the 1DsIII it kicks in at about f8 in most situations, with the 5DMKII it could be the same problem.
However that for me would rule out the 5DMKII for studio work totally simply because for some work I want to use at least f11 preferable f16.
And on ISO100 I cannot get my strobes to go lower than f11 in that particulair light setup (rx1200 with a deep octa placed very close to the model)

But to be also totally honest towards the 5DMKII (and we have to be) when sharpening is applied and one takes into account the printsize for most work it's just a bloody good camera, even with diffraction, the f11 shot I posted here was something I would love to pay top dollar for 2 years ago, now it's here for less than 2500 euros.

However that was never my intend I placed the compare shot not to show the difference, I just wanted to show a well focussed MF shot of an eye which again I did not yet see in the comparisons.


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 14, 2008, 07:23:38 pm
@Panopeeper,
Just out of interest (I'm in no way an expert in this) did you ever measure the dynamic range of the MF systems compared to the DSLRs.

What I found out was that when I shot ISO50 on the 5D and I suppose also on the MKII is that I sacrifised about a stop or so in DR.
When I shot at a setting in between 100-200 I got for my idea the best DR, at ISO1000 it began to break down, above that I never took notice.

When I shot in California with the Leaf and 5D next to each other on ISO100 the Leaf clearly showed more detail in the shadows and in the sky which on the 5D was almost always blown out in the clouds.

Also when I drop the ISO on the Leaf I cannot see a difference in DR from ISO50-200 on ISO400 and ISO25 I have the FEELING that I lose about half a stop but I could be wrong, I never tested it but your post triggered my interest.

Would love to hear your opinion about it because you seem to be the man to ask and get a solid answer.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: BJNY on December 14, 2008, 07:34:21 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Panopeeper,
Just out of interest (I'm in no way an expert in this) did you ever measure the dynamic range of the MF systems compared to the DSLRs.
Frank, perhaps you can capture an evenly lit MacBeth Color Checker with both your Aptus and 5dII for Panopeeper
according to his exposure instructions The shot should be underexposed so much, that the black square is really black, let's say not higher than RGB=(3,3,3).
I offered, but was unable to during a hectic shoot.

Quote from: Panopeeper
No present digital back makes use of 16bits, except perhaps the Sinar e75 (I am mentioning this exception only because I don't have suitable raw files to analyze this).
Thierry, why not do the same and make a capture for Panopeeper?

Let's all learn, why not?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: thsinar on December 14, 2008, 07:48:42 pm
I have offered it to Gabor, some time ago, but as you unable, since my back is out on loan since a few months.

But I can say that Gabor is basically right that no MFDB makes use of the 16 bit, even if there IS a 16-bit A/D converter and 16-bit files generated.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: BJNY
I offered, but was unable to during a hectic shoot.


Thierry, why not do the same and make a capture for Panopeeper?

Let's all learn, why not?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 14, 2008, 08:01:57 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
did you ever measure the dynamic range of the MF systems compared to the DSLRs
No. I can measure it only if I get suitable raw files (I measure the raw channels). A raw image is suitable, if it contains spots, which are

1. smooth (not textured surface),

2. unicolored, though any color,

3. uniformly lit; this is the most difficult issue; for example curved surfaces are inherently not suitable,

4. dark, but very dark, three-four stops underexposed. There is no point to measure the noise on well-lit surfaces.

Though I received quite a few raw files from a dozen different MFDBs, those are not suitable for measurement.

Quote
What I found out was that when I shot ISO50 on the 5D and I suppose also on the MKII is that I sacrifised about a stop or so in DR
The 5D does not have any ISO 50. If you select ISO 50, the metering doubles the suggested exposure, but the shot will be made @ ISO 100. Of course this cause unexpected clipping, thereby reducing the dynamic range.

Quote
When I shot in California with the Leaf and 5D next to each other on ISO100 the Leaf clearly showed more detail in the shadows and in the sky which on the 5D was almost always blown out in the clouds
This is too vague; an analysis can be done only based on raw images.

Quote
Also when I drop the ISO on the Leaf I cannot see a difference in DR from ISO50-200 on ISO400 and ISO25 I have the FEELING that I lose about half a stop but I could be wrong, I never tested it but your post triggered my interest
Based solemnly on the sensor dimension in pixels (5344x4008), the Aptus 22 has the same sensor as the Sinar e54. If this is so, then I can say with certainty, that ISO 50 to ISO 400 are equal; the selection of the ISO creates only a remark in the metadata.

The set of raw files I received did not contain ISO 25, so I can't say anything to that. It is not impossible, that ISO 25 is different from the others. For example the P30Plus has real ISO 100 and 200, but 400, 800 and 1600 are the same as ISO 100; they induce pushing in the raw conversion.

In order to verify this, I need raw files with a full set of ISOs: the same scenery, same illumination, from tripod. Either all shots with the very same exposure, or decreasing exposure according to their ISOs.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: RobertJ on December 14, 2008, 08:05:17 pm
So this is the world vs. Frank Doorhof forum.  Wow.

Frank, that 70-200 2.8 IS isn't such a great lens.  In fact, it sucks.  It's popular because of the IS and the convenience, but it really sucks, IMO.  
There isn't just a small difference between the zoom and the 135L.  I think it's significant.

You should replace your 70-200 with the f/4L IS version.  It's MUCH better.  Or just use primes... especially when you do tests.  This test is more about the sweet RZ 110 vs. the crappy Canon 70-200, but I like the test anyway, so thanks for doing it.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 14, 2008, 10:05:12 pm

Quote
Don't even think about movement, that looks totally different and when using strobes movement is almost out of the question unless you have some sort of shake syndrome.

Then the only other issue left, Frank, is focussing. At F11 anf F16 one might think that focussing accuracy would not be an issue. However, you've got a full frame head shot here, which means you must have been fairly close to the subject. At close distances, focussing even at F11 can be critical.

Now, I don't want to impugn your photographic competence. That's not my intention. However, there has to be some rational reason why your results in this comparison are not only different to other reaults ( such as John's) but also defy rational expectations in general. Is this perhaps your Christmas present to all owners of DBs?

Quote
Lenses do make a difference even stopped down, for fun just try a normal cheap zoom on the 5DMKII and compare that to the 70-200f2.8 or any other good lens.

Yes. Of course! When statements are made that all lenses are equal at F8, or all lenses are equally bad at F11 (Photodo), it's understood that such comments refer to reasonably good lenses. Very cheap zooms are often sharpest at F16, so these are excluded.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: rainer_v on December 15, 2008, 02:25:54 am
double posted ...
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: rainer_v on December 15, 2008, 02:28:42 am
similar things have been true with the last generation of dslr and mf too. the upstep from 12 to 14bit is usefull if images are heavily treated in postpro, if not 12bit is enough. 12 - 16mp have been enough also for very good double page printing if the used lens is a good one.

i am just somehow surprised how intense is this discussion here now. maybe the bad economy has its part in it. maybe also that many of us are less cool and rational thinking about this ( and other things ) as we would like to do. so i had the thought that the attraction of mf is decreasing because the prices came down so much. you can get now a 22mp back for the same price than a 1ds3, including camera. couldnt it be that the 22mp back was more tempting when it costed three times more? how often i was reading here that you get what you pay for .....


in my shooting field things are different in any case .... here are the systems and the needs too different between 35mm and mf.
i dont think mf can be replaced at similar workflow and quality level from 35mm,- there are simply no lenses out which can be compared,- i wouldnt care less about the sensors.
but although this seems to be a fact which is not disputed by many people, some ( and not few ) are shooting architecture with 35mm systems too and make in postpro the necessary adjustments and corrections. in the lower end of the market this seems to be the majority of photographers ( for economic reasons but too for speed ), in the higher end the minority,- counting that many still work on 4x5" here.
equally how good will become the 35mm cameras in architecture and in certain ways of landscape shootings surely will remain a market for mf backs and systems, beside product and repro photography. this market could be bigger as it seems, cause many photographers here still shoot film,  they are just now on the jump to digital.  i hope it will be many enough that these system can be made by the manufactors.




Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 15, 2008, 03:52:26 am
@Ray,
Do I really have to defend myself that I did focus correctly ?
Please

@T-1000,
Maybe the other MF owners have given up, maybe I will also to defend myself for the choice for MF.
I don't think it's the world against me, I just find it surprising that I'm probarbly seeing something that others don't and I can't imagine that I'm the only one, but I guess I am.

About the lens, I have shot with the f4 on some occassions, especially when it was released there is on f11 very little difference but maybe I have a super copy of the f2.8IS and tested a bad copy of the f4.0, what I do find is that focusing on the f2.8 in the studio is much more accurate than the f4.0 and that's logical because the f4.0 gets a stop less light to focus but there will always be something that is done wrong, if it's not the wrong lens than it's a inproper focus

The only thing I then wonder why should I be able to manual focus the RZ and not be able to use AF with the 5DMKII ?
And most of all don't you think I shot several shots ?
And yes they were all equal.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Ray on December 15, 2008, 06:51:08 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Ray,
Do I really have to defend myself that I did focus correctly ?
Please

Frank,
In that case, I guess we owners of small format 35mm DSLRs will just have to accept that larger format DBs of similar pixel count really do have a resolution advantage   .

Did you try comparing images at a variety of different F stops, such as F5.6 with F8, F8 with F11 and F16 with F22? I tend to think that lenses do not become fully diffraction limited until F16 and beyond. With my 5D, which has a similar pixel pitch to the Aptus 22, I often see very little difference between F11 and F16, but F22 is always noticeably softer.

There's no getting away from the fact that larger formats will tend to produce sharper results with equal quality lenses. If you want equally sharp results with a smaller format of the same pixel count, you have to use a sharper lens, or at least the same lens at a sharper aperture.

If I want sharp eyelashes when shooting with my 5D, I'd choose F5.6. There'd be even more reason to use F5.6 with a 5D2.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 15, 2008, 07:21:26 pm
Quote from: Ray
If I want sharp eyelashes when shooting with my 5D, I'd choose F5.6. There'd be even more reason to use F5.6 with a 5D2.


And there the rub .. 5.6 on a DSLR you (almost) get both eyes sharp - a very different look to mf

The big camera images just look different - 3X the price - client noticing difference - unlikely - but a Rolls Royce isnt that much smoother than a BMW 750 - same price gap

Give frank a break - he shot a couple of pictures - he is not a scientist he is a photographer

Of course I can still clean the chip in my MFDB easier than with a DSLR and the dust spodges are half the size - now that makes a real difference to resolution..

why does every thread fall apart into "actual bit depth" sensel well/diffraction/mellisa colorspace clap trap ?

S






Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: jani on December 15, 2008, 07:59:10 pm
Quote from: Morgan_Moore
why does every thread fall apart into "actual bit depth" sensel well/diffraction/mellisa colorspace clap trap ?
It's because this is a web forum, not a web comic.

If it had been a web comic, we'd be falling apart into a broken love story instead, as every web coming that isn't about love stories is wont to do.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: shelby_lewis on December 16, 2008, 12:06:48 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
If a well needs more light to reach its charge storing capacity than another well (of another sensor, of course), that is a sign of lesser efficiency.

Actually, if we're going to be particular here then a well needing more light to reach it's charge storing capacity is only a sign of greater well capacity, not inefficiency.

... but I do get the gist of what you meant to say.  
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: pss on December 16, 2008, 01:11:56 am
Quote from: rainer_v
in my shooting field things are different in any case .... here are the systems and the needs too different between 35mm and mf.
i dont think mf can be replaced at similar workflow and quality level from 35mm,- there are simply no lenses out which can be compared,- i wouldnt care less about the sensors.
but although this seems to be a fact which is not disputed by many people, some ( and not few ) are shooting architecture with 35mm systems too and make in postpro the necessary adjustments and corrections. in the lower end of the market this seems to be the majority of photographers ( for economic reasons but too for speed ), in the higher end the minority,- counting that many still work on 4x5" here.
equally how good will become the 35mm cameras in architecture and in certain ways of landscape shootings surely will remain a market for mf backs and systems, beside product and repro photography. this market could be bigger as it seems, cause many photographers here still shoot film,  they are just now on the jump to digital.  i hope it will be many enough that these system can be made by the manufactors.

rainer...nobody argues that YOU would be better off with a DSLR....if i was shooting your stuff, tripod, movements a must, ultimate detail, long exposures and high end WA, without any need of high iso....of course there is only one way to go...
but moving objects, people,...
there will always be a market for DMF, but it was a very small market to begin with and it is getting smaller and smaller....

i think we have a certain responsiblity here......people read these posts, see the work and start believing things....
like the thread this guy started about (after 33 years of shooting!) wether he should get the DL28 or stick with canon DSLR....
i guess he finally wants to be able to get access to the elite club (where he can post images in the MF forum!!!!!)....and the prices are coming down....15000 for a body, back and lens is not bad at all! actually compared to 2500 it is.....

if frank wants to shoot RZ and DMF, that is great, really, have fun, that's what it is all about anyway, but please don't give people the illusion that they will get better results if they shoot a certain brand or with a toy in a certain price class.... that was true a year ago, it isn't anymore...
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: ixpressraf on December 16, 2008, 01:53:56 am
Strange thing is that never before that much back's are sold as at this year, at least here in Belgium. So there must be a lot of well doing photographers who do see the difference in image quaility and who like working with a medium format camera. There has always been and will always be a number of reasons to use both systems. The thing i do not get is why is it that important to some people to prove that the one camera system is better or less good???? Mostly people that even don't use both systems......
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: thsinar on December 16, 2008, 01:54:30 am
Paul,

I don't think that Rainer wanted to give the illusion that a certain brand or toy gives better results. He said it clearly, this is in "his shooting field" and for his needs and workflow.
I guess that is all what it is about, at least in this thread, to discuss and compare in the various fields of photography, and therefore I think his view is as valid as the one who says that he could not do his work with another tool as a 35mm format camera.

In fact, I remember Rainer having written and said many times about how good his 5D is for certain jobs he has done.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: pss
rainer... please don't give people the illusion that they will get better results if they shoot a certain brand or with a toy in a certain price class....
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 16, 2008, 02:01:27 am
Quote from: shelby_lewis
Actually, if we're going to be particular here then a well needing more light to reach it's charge storing capacity is only a sign of greater well capacity, not inefficiency.
This is correct, if "light" means that light, which has been captured in the well. However, the ISO specification refers to the illumination of the scenery, which transforms to the light leaving the lens inside the camera. When we look at this light, then a more efficient sensor reaches the capacity with less light than a less efficient one.

That was the gist of what I meant to say. I guess you understood it this way, I am posting it for others, who may not have understood the "gist".
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: samuel_js on December 16, 2008, 04:04:07 am
Quote from: pss
if frank wants to shoot RZ and DMF, that is great, really, have fun, that's what it is all about anyway, but please don't give people the illusion that they will get better results if they shoot a certain brand or with a toy in a certain price class.... that was true a year ago, it isn't anymore...

Well it is still true. Some people don't see the difference, that's the problem.

I completely accept that you don't see any difference. That's fine with me. But why don't you believe that there's actually people (like me) that use both systems and see better results with MFD every day.

I didn't want to enter this discussion again bu I feel offended. You are the blind guys not us. Stop trying to convince us!
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 16, 2008, 04:38:13 am

Quote from: samuel_js
Well it is still true. Some people don't see the difference, that's the problem.

I completely accept that you don't see any difference. That's fine with me. But why don't you believe that there's actually people (like me) that use both systems and see better results with MFD every day.

I didn't want to enter this discussion again bu I feel offended. You are the blind guys not us. Stop trying to convince us!

 
... i was always sure the case mf against 35mm  has more do to with faith than hard facts . some are creationists most not.  you praise the mf gear for what ever reason but i  think from a psychological standpoint  the motivation seems clear.  you defend lower or equal resolution backs bought at a very high price against a consumer camera i know that hearts.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 16, 2008, 04:42:42 am
Quote from: ixpressraf
Strange thing is that never before that much back's are sold as at this year, at least here in Belgium. So there must be a lot of well doing photographers who do see the difference in image quaility and who like working with a medium format camera. There has always been and will always be a number of reasons to use both systems. The thing i do not get is why is it that important to some people to prove that the one camera system is better or less good???? Mostly people that even don't use both systems......


 image quality ?  competition is in many cases a more realistic reason.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Carsten W on December 16, 2008, 05:02:09 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
This is correct, if "light" means that light, which has been captured in the well. However, the ISO specification refers to the illumination of the scenery, which transforms to the light leaving the lens inside the camera. When we look at this light, then a more efficient sensor reaches the capacity with less light than a less efficient one.

That was the gist of what I meant to say. I guess you understood it this way, I am posting it for others, who may not have understood the "gist".

A smaller bucket fills more quickly with water too. One might call that more "efficient", if one is so inclined, but it is not a useful thing to do so. Light travels in packets, and sensors count these packets. Smaller photocells need less packets to reach saturation, but as a consequence count less finely. At the limit, a photocell capable of reaching saturation with a single photon is not going to outperform very much in IQ. Anyway, this discussion has nothing, but really nothing, to do with actual photography, so I am going to stop here. There must be a technician's forum somewhere more appropriate for your discussions.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: rainer_v on December 16, 2008, 05:06:01 am
Quote from: pss
rainer...nobody argues that YOU would be better off with a DSLR....if i was shooting your stuff, tripod, movements a must, ultimate detail, long exposures and high end WA, without any need of high iso....of course there is only one way to go...
but moving objects, people,...
there will always be a market for DMF, but it was a very small market to begin with and it is getting smaller and smaller....

i think we have a certain responsiblity here......people read these posts, see the work and start believing things....
like the thread this guy started about (after 33 years of shooting!) wether he should get the DL28 or stick with canon DSLR....
i guess he finally wants to be able to get access to the elite club (where he can post images in the MF forum!!!!!)....and the prices are coming down....15000 for a body, back and lens is not bad at all! actually compared to 2500 it is.....

if frank wants to shoot RZ and DMF, that is great, really, have fun, that's what it is all about anyway, but please don't give people the illusion that they will get better results if they shoot a certain brand or with a toy in a certain price class.... that was true a year ago, it isn't anymore...

paul , since several years i dont get tired to post that in many publications i have mixed dslr shots with mf shots and that i have a hard job to tell the differences between them in prints. as i believe i was one of the first guys who made big architecture productions mixing 35mm digital with 4x5", created very very complicate workflows but got great results out of it. at that time with the kodak slr. later this gave me a lot of benefit in terms of "knowledge",- e.g. how to remove color casts with shift lenses. so together with stephan could appear the brumbaer tools in the way they worked,- and created the first time an acceptable and fast workflow for digital architecture photography .........

about 35mm : somtimes the 35mm lenses have been at or over their limit ( esp the very wides ) and that can become visible,rarely the sensor ( in my case 1dsmk2 and 5d ).
but- and this is what i wrote- IN MY FIELD of work i dont want to miss the mf backs, ofcourse together with a practical made camera,- as was my gottschalt and now the artec.
with the contax or with the sinar m i wouldnt like to shoot architecture as well as with the canons.


since long time i havent used my 5d, so if there will be no need for an actual work i will not upgrade  to the 5dmk2.
its probably a great camera, but the lenses will be the same and there is where i have the hassle for architecture.
i dont like the workflow ( for architecture ! ) and although for print work its not a big difference, for work which goes at the limit it is very unpractical or even unusable.
i do a lot of this "hiend" work at the moment for exhibitions. very big print sizes ( over 2 meters ) with very high dr. its simply much more practical to start this with mf files than with my 5d. maybe the new 35mm generation will be significant better now, but the lenses and the workflow are the same .............
one can argue theres no need for hiend tech .... the history show great photographs dont need highest technical levels... and so on. this might be true for some people, for me at the moment it is not. ( maybe next months i will use my g10 for this kind of work.... who knows, but at this moment i use for 98% of these stuff as well as for my arch. work my mf gear )
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 16, 2008, 06:55:47 am
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Cps,

Yes I have shot with many different cameras, how about you ?

For me on MF:
app one day :
Hasselblad H2D 22MP
Hasselblad H3D 33MP
Hasselbald is not really my thing, sorry.

More than enough time to know what they do  :
Mamiya ZD
Mamiya 645AFD/II and III with film and Leaf Aptus 22/Leaf Aptus 7II
Mamiya RZ67ProII with film and Leaf Aptus22/Leaf Aptus 7II
Leaf AFi-7
Leaf AFi-7-II (beta)
Leaf AFi-10 (beta)

On DSLRs I don't even start.

So I think I can say that I experimented a "bit".
From everything I tried I love the 120mm macro on the 645AFD, and the 110f2.8 and 180f4.5 on the RZ.
The glass from the RZ is when I want to use the term "magical" but very hard to learn, the lenses are really problematic with flair but when you know how to use them they give you something in return I did not see in any other system that I experimented with.
The funny thing is that I changed the AFi-7-II back to all three systems, so on the AFi camera, on the 645 and on the RZ.
The AFi system itself was sharp and detailed, but the RZ gave me more 3D looking pictures, the 645AFD was left behind with a small margin.
So again, yes I have "some" experience otherwise I would not post here, I'm not stupid

Again, please enlight us with your work and show that you are more than 3 letters and alot of talk.....

with experience i don't mean what camera you did hold in your hands at a trade show. i mean usage under professional conditions for at least some month.  i'm not surprised to read what you see with your  rz lenses. yes it is old glass with low contrast and flair problems nothing special.  but if you like the look it is ok but i never ever would call them the among the best  you can get lenses this is simply not true and wrong as many of you other fast judge statements.


you are the symptom  for a very sad development .  your openly and proud  liaison with leaf should  help  to look  professional and sell your workshops and books.  what you show here goes so much beyond a normal  brand loyalty.  you are a smart player in the game dealers and reps have set up here and you use it for your personal profit.  if you are really only interested in photography please stop this advertising campaign.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: samuel_js on December 16, 2008, 12:03:57 pm
Quote from: csp
... i was always sure the case mf against 35mm  has more do to with faith than hard facts . some are creationists most not.  you praise the mf gear for what ever reason but i  think from a psychological standpoint  the motivation seems clear.  you defend lower or equal resolution backs bought at a very high price against a consumer camera i know that hearts.

plas, plas, plas.
I wonder how you are so sure of something you can't even see.
Just praise the world about the enourmous quality od the 5D. You're the happy one thinking your 5D is delivering like a DB. Good for you.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: TMARK on December 16, 2008, 12:40:51 pm
Its funny reading these MFDB v. dslr threads now adays, what with the photography's future seamingly unclear, and the people in the industry making the most money are not photographers, but rather seminar givers, advice givers, portfolio reviewers, digital techs, retouchers, etc.  These threads always degenerate, revealing people's true concerns.  What I see is that people have much ill will towards the back makers and those who sell, service, promote or otherwise shill for them.  Seems to reflect a general low level anger people have towards marketing and hype.  There is also an amateur v. working pro thing going on as well.  People who don't make pictures for commerce for a living love the "image quality" of the mfdbs, while those shooting thousands of frames a day for the MAN value simplicity and a threshold quality that looks good printed offset.  Then there are the dslr napoleon complex guys out to prove that the IQ advantage of the MFDBs is a myth created and supported by the high cost. Then we have the techs.

The truthe to be found in this thread and others like it is that people are pissed, in general.  People are tired of being fed lines of (real or perceived) bullshit about the greatness of MFDBs, their "ease of use", their color response, the MFDB Look, the superiority/inferiority of [insert makers name here] lenses, etc.  It really is all bullshit.  I see people not calling it like they see it, trying to get some advantage by being brand loyalists.  These guys are like Al Queda, spontaniously created sleeper cells waiting to strike whenever Sinar/Rollei, Phase/Mamiya are questioned.  At least Frank pastes the logos on his posts, and to be fair to Frank, he only lauds his own stuff and stuff he tests.  The reps etc are OK with me, because we shouldn't believe anything they say, as they are trying to sell something that is expensive and unnecessary in the worst economy we've had in 30-60 years.  Whatever Frank is doing is much less offensive than that Foto-Z guy's unceasing, shrill Sinar/Rollei guarilla marketing.  I hope Sinar is paying him.  Otherwise its just pathetic.  I assume he isn't getting paid.  

This is why this forum is dying.  People come here with an agenda, and other people come here to challenge that agenda, which is, of course, their agenda.  It is rarely like the old days when people were sharing their experiences with the backs, work arounds, problem fixes etc.  Every once in a while something good is posted, but its mainly just crap.    With this post, I think I'm out of here.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 16, 2008, 12:59:45 pm
Quote from: carstenw
Anyway, this discussion has nothing, but really nothing, to do with actual photography, so I am going to stop here
If you are going to stop here anyway, then why do you post this inconsequential, irrelevant prattling before stopping?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Morgan_Moore on December 16, 2008, 01:09:43 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
If you are going to stop here anyway, then why do you post this inconsequential, irrelevant prattling before stopping?

because many long time users of this board want to read about photography not infinite arguments about the tedium that is analysing files at 500%

all this noise is driving us away

S


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Panopeeper on December 16, 2008, 02:01:21 pm
Quote from: Morgan_Moore
all this noise is driving us away
If all those "us" have such problems with reading comprehension, then then driving them away is not a loss.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 16, 2008, 02:04:30 pm
@Csp,
I shot with the AFi's for longer than a month, to be precise I did the beta test for the AFi-II so please take care with your assumptions they don't fit here.

I'm tired of my words being turned arround and twisted and used to slap me into something I do not.

YES I teach workshops, and we do that worldwide, anyone who ever attended a workshop can confirm that the workshops are solid and good.
YES I release instructional DVDs and they sell worldwide also there we do very well.
NO we don't advertise on the DVDs, we do thank 3 companies, but I'm totally independend when I want to sell my Leaf tomorrow I can without problem, I paid for it and I can sell it, I have no contract, agreements or whatsoever, I never received a cent for any promotional activity, except for a worldwide campaign in which Elinchrom used some of my shots.
I do have two logos on my photos and this is more a tribute and I see it the same as mentioned shutterspeed and aperture, in other words people know what I used to shoot the picture.
NO I'm not getting paid one cent by both Elinchrom and Leaf, to be totally clear I chose Elinchrom and Leaf myself when I tested them along other brands, AFTER I bought I came into contact with both Leaf and Elinchrom through my work in the workshops, in other words I'm not a brand shooter, I choose my brand and if they want to work together that's ok and it can benefit both parties.

What I do taste is a very strong dislike for what I do and what I post from 2-3 members here and the god honest truth is that I don't know why, I never played a foul game, if you read my posts again you can see that I bought a 5DMKII and praise the camera straight into heaven (read the review on my blog), however as mentioned many times before I use both systems and love both and I hate it when the MF is being shortcut by people that clearly haven't used it to it's full potential.

This forum always was a good place to discuss with real pros, many have left due to the works of a handfull of members that in the first place should not hang out in the MF board but in the DSLR forum, and again I ask you to show some of your work, you hide behind 3 letters without any link for people to find out what you do.....
I have a strong feeling that there is a reason for that....




maybe I should start asking money from Leaf
but than again I would probarbly never have posted here, because I was one of the parties involved
to be honest I would rather have the money
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: TMARK on December 16, 2008, 02:29:13 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
If all those "us" have such problems with reading comprehension, then then driving them away is not a loss.

You are driving me away.  I can generally read very well.  800 on SAT reading comp.  No homo.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: csp on December 16, 2008, 02:55:46 pm
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Csp,
I shot with the AFi's for longer than a month, to be precise I did the beta test for the AFi-II so please take care with your assumptions they don't fit here.

I'm tired of my words being turned arround and twisted and used to slap me into something I do not.

YES I teach workshops, and we do that worldwide, anyone who ever attended a workshop can confirm that the workshops are solid and good.
YES I release instructional DVDs and they sell worldwide also there we do very well.
NO we don't advertise on the DVDs, we do thank 3 companies, but I'm totally independend when I want to sell my Leaf tomorrow I can without problem, I paid for it and I can sell it, I have no contract, agreements or whatsoever, I never received a cent for any promotional activity, except for a worldwide campaign in which Elinchrom used some of my shots.
I do have two logos on my photos and this is more a tribute and I see it the same as mentioned shutterspeed and aperture, in other words people know what I used to shoot the picture.
NO I'm not getting paid one cent by both Elinchrom and Leaf, to be totally clear I chose Elinchrom and Leaf myself when I tested them along other brands, AFTER I bought I came into contact with both Leaf and Elinchrom through my work in the workshops, in other words I'm not a brand shooter, I choose my brand and if they want to work together that's ok and it can benefit both parties.

What I do taste is a very strong dislike for what I do and what I post from 2-3 members here and the god honest truth is that I don't know why, I never played a foul game, if you read my posts again you can see that I bought a 5DMKII and praise the camera straight into heaven (read the review on my blog), however as mentioned many times before I use both systems and love both and I hate it when the MF is being shortcut by people that clearly haven't used it to it's full potential.

This forum always was a good place to discuss with real pros, many have left due to the works of a handfull of members that in the first place should not hang out in the MF board but in the DSLR forum, and again I ask you to show some of your work, you hide behind 3 letters without any link for people to find out what you do.....
I have a strong feeling that there is a reason for that....




maybe I should start asking money from Leaf
but than again I would probarbly never have posted here, because I was one of the parties involved
to be honest I would rather have the money


it must be really hard to be so misunderstood ?  no, you don't come here to get attention for your business and you only  frame every shot you post here with a bunch of brand logos because you are so happy with your gear and a nice guy. this is pathetic, sorry.


Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Snook on December 16, 2008, 03:07:46 pm
Quote from: csp
it must be really hard to be so misunderstood ?  no, you don't come here to get attention for your business and you only  frame every shot you post here with a bunch of brand logos because you are so happy with your gear and a nice guy. this is pathetic, sorry.

I take the Fifth on the last post... 5th amendment that is!


Snook...
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Frank Doorhof on December 16, 2008, 03:08:29 pm
Not showing your work but blowing a big horn is I think pathetic.
I never hide behind a hidden agenda, and when someone wants me to explain I do, so what's so wrong about that ?

Now stop the madness and show us some amazing work, because judging by your remarks that must be stunning ?

@Snook,
Just grow up.


edit:
end of discussion for me, I already said it before but the fun is really gone now.
It's a shame another good forum bites the dust.
I rather spend my time where it should be earning a living.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: jani on December 16, 2008, 03:24:22 pm
I'm sorry to add to the off-topic posts here, but seriously, guys:

If you don't like someone's posting style, put them on your IGNORE list.

Don't leave the place just because a few posters are low on social skills, keep on contributing instead.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Carsten W on December 16, 2008, 04:12:40 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
If you are going to stop here anyway, then why do you post this inconsequential, irrelevant prattling before stopping?

Good grief, how can someone be so pompous and not explode with a limp *pop*?

I am going to remind everyone that to use the Ignore feature, you click on someone's name, choose "View Profile" and then choose the "Options" button, and choose ignore. Then you must confirm, but then, bliss. I have just used it, and can confirm that it works as intended. I realise that someone might use it on me, but such is life.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: samuel_js on December 16, 2008, 04:25:42 pm
Quote from: TMARK
The truthe to be found in this thread and others like it is that people are pissed, in general.  People are tired of being fed lines of (real or perceived) bullshit about the greatness of MFDBs, their "ease of use", their color response, the MFDB Look, the superiority/inferiority of [insert makers name here] lenses, etc.  It really is all bullshit.  I see people not calling it like they see it, trying to get some advantage by being brand loyalists.  These guys are like Al Queda, spontaniously created sleeper cells waiting to strike whenever Sinar/Rollei, Phase/Mamiya are questioned. At least Frank pastes the logos on his posts, and to be fair to Frank, he only lauds his own stuff and stuff he tests.  The reps etc are OK with me, because we shouldn't believe anything they say, as they are trying to sell something that is expensive and unnecessary in the worst economy we've had in 30-60 years.  Whatever Frank is doing is much less offensive than that Foto-Z guy's unceasing, shrill Sinar/Rollei guarilla marketing.  I hope Sinar is paying him.  Otherwise its just pathetic.  I assume he isn't getting paid.  

This is why this forum is dying.  People come here with an agenda, and other people come here to challenge that agenda, which is, of course, their agenda.  It is rarely like the old days when people were sharing their experiences with the backs, work arounds, problem fixes etc.  Every once in a while something good is posted, but its mainly just crap.    With this post, I think I'm out of here.

This forum is dying because of people like you. It's been like 6 months since I posted my last picture because the discussions about proffs or amateur forum, 35mm or mf are just too wild and meaningless.

This is a medium format forum and the people destroying it are just 35mm users which has discovered the holy grail with Canon and don't understand there's actually a lot of people here the actually love MF for a lot of reasosns. And we should have the right to discuss whatever we want without being assaulted all the time with their inexperience in this field.

Myself I've used (and own) several 35mm cameras and have owned most of the mf cameras and four digital backs. I know pretty well what I'm talking about. I'm actually planning my purchase of a new DB. Not a 5D really...

Now I have a big project that will be ready in May. I need to think about my music and my photography and for sure don't have time for this anymore.

So long.

 
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: TMARK on December 16, 2008, 05:07:36 pm
Quote from: samuel_js
This forum is dying because of people like you. It's been like 6 months since I posted my last picture because the discussions about proffs or amateur forum, 35mm or mf are just too wild and meaningless.

This is a medium format forum and the people destroying it are just 35mm users which has discovered the holy grail with Canon and don't understand there's actually a lot of people here the actually love MF for a lot of reasosns. And we should have the right to discuss whatever we want without being assaulted all the time with their inexperience in this field.

Myself I've used (and own) several 35mm cameras and have owned most of the mf cameras and four digital backs. I know pretty well what I'm talking about. I'm actually planning my purchase of a new DB. Not a 5D really...

Now I have a big project that will be ready in May. I need to think about my music and my photography and for sure don't have time for this anymore.

So long.

I think you have me confused with another member.  I had a P30+, I've been renting MFDB since 2004.  I rent Leaf mainly because one of my clients has an account with Fotocare, which only carries Leaf and Sinar.  I have a 54s on my AFd right now, even with its pathetic flash sync. I'm not questioning you at all.  You know you come off as an MFDB Franco?  Kind of Faci, no?

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: thsinar on December 16, 2008, 07:42:35 pm
Dear TM,

I feel directly concerned by your post, and as such feel it necessary to answer your allegations:

Quote from: TMARK
The reps etc are OK with me, because we shouldn't believe anything they say, as they are trying to sell something that is expensive and unnecessary in the worst economy we've had in 30-60 years.
Speaking for myself first, if you shouldn't believe all I say, then my role here is really put in question(s). Actually, and I have said it many times, with the risk of repeating myself and becoming boring, I DO NOT CARE being here or not and I could honestly be better elsewhere, with more fun and much less aggressive attacks against my person (not that I find your post aggressive). But I am staying, not because being asked by Sinar, I repeat it, but because I believe in something called "true and open information" in a non-biased place, IMO. This is not the case very often, to be able to speak freely without being censored.

If you believe that I (speaking about me, but I understand that other reps are pointed at as well) am trying to sell, then it is your absolute right. There are many others who do take the information I am able to provide here and can make use of it for whatever reason. I am not a "fan boy", like I was called recently, simply because I do not need Sinar. I am working for this company since more than 18 years now, I love my job and the people I have got to know all over the places and do appreciate what I have learnt from some of them at its just value. But I do not need it. If tomorrow it is over, than there will be other things to do, other things to learn, and my life will go on. I am not married with any company, if I feel it necessary to leave a forum like this one or another, then I will do it, without asking and waiting to get the OK (or not). I have actually done it, leaving another forum, and some here know the very reason of this decision. When I joined first this forum, 2 years back, I was not really aware what would be my role and how it would be perceived. With the time I have learned what it is, and I have come to appreciate it and to learn and evolve in this field where there is always something to learn.

I am asking nothing in return, and certainly not to buy the product I am speaking about. I am obviously glad if this is the case and if I could contribute to a sale, and that is absolutely understandable. But I couldn't care less and if I have sleepless nights, it is certainly not because somebody has bought something else or because I have not reached a "target" with my "sales pitch".

The only thing I could wish, is that one respects what is given and the persons for what they are, without the continuous attacks and aggressive words meant to destabilize those persons.

Quote from: TMARK
Whatever Frank is doing is much less offensive than that Foto-Z guy's unceasing, shrill Sinar/Rollei guarilla marketing.  I hope Sinar is paying him.  Otherwise its just pathetic.  I assume he isn't getting paid.

I can answer this without any problem: "foto-z" is not at all sponsored by Sinar, not in any way. I know Graham by means of email communication and he was featured (but not paid for) in one of our latest "Sinar Newsletter". I can also say, that we certainly not have a budget to sponsor photographers and have them speaking for us in return. So it must be pathetic for some, but I know that "foto-z" has never given any false information nor tried to convince anybody and that he knows the products he is using. If it can help somebody then I find it remarkable, if many think that he is simply here with an agenda, then it is fine too, for me.

Best regards,
Thierry
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: epatsellis on December 16, 2008, 08:13:14 pm
I will say that on this and other forums, Thierry has been more than helpful with mine and others questions and issues regarding Sinar (including advice of looking on ebay or buying used, when it makes sense), his behavior has been far and above what I would expect of any rep.

erie
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Wolfman on December 17, 2008, 03:42:24 am
I don't get it. We use the tools that get the job done and hopefully the images we produce with those tools make us and our clients happy. Period, end of story.
Why all the insulting?  If what you use is getting the job done, whether personal fine art or a commercial job, that's the bottom line.

Let's have discussions that help each other and advance our craft. Photography is gratifying and fun and a learning experience. Promote creativity and knowledge.... not venom toward each other. This is a great forum. Let's keep it that way. You disagree with somebody.... at least express it without being insulting. The rudeness is getting boring. Most people come here not expecting that kind of dialogue. It's a turnoff.
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: shelby_lewis on December 17, 2008, 09:29:36 am
Quote from: John Schweikert
Just gear, not a religion.

sums it all up...

John, I'm in Murfreesboro (you're still in Nashvegas, right) . Can we have coffee sometime? I'd love to pick your brain.
shelbylewis.com (http://www.shelbylewis.com)
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: bcooter on December 19, 2008, 12:27:54 pm
Quote from: epatsellis
I will say that on this and other forums, Thierry has been more than helpful with mine and others questions and issues regarding Sinar (including advice of looking on ebay or buying used, when it makes sense), his behavior has been far and above what I would expect of any rep.

erie

The medium format camera reps and dealers that visit this forum offer good service and response.  Yes they want to put a positive spin on their products, that's their job, but  you don't have to go far to find someone who hasn't received direct benefit from their public and behind the scenes contributions and I wish them all the best.

It doesn't alter the fact that you'd rather not have any discussion about fixing, learning, working with a new system.  It's preferable just to buy it and have it work as planned.

I believe the reason there is such intensity towards medium format is the companies have burned through all lot of good equity.

Name a medium format brand that doesn't continue to be late on delivery of software, hardware promised features and comes out of the box without issue?

It's doesn't mean the medium format companies don't have good intentions, or work hard to produce the best product they can but the fact remains a lot of users of medium format backs like the quality of the images, (under almost perfect situations) but won't  or can't continue with the workarounds and limitations.  Not when the dslrs are so close in quality for a fraction of the costs.

Honestly, I'm fascinated by most of these comparisons, because I don't see that huge of a difference.  If you want to prove that digital medium format is the preferred format, there are better ways to shoot examples.

Regardless,  because of the internet, forums and blogs all manufacturers and advertisers have to change the way they make, market and demonstrate their products.  The internet has made everything transparent.

This is an interesting article and applies to this thread.  (you need a NY Times account to read the article).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/magazine...ble-t.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/magazine/23roundtable-t.html?_r=1)

As the economy turns downward the rubber band will only stretch so far and most of us who have shot digital for any period of time have grown a little tired of the annoucements and upgrade cycle, not just from medium format but from everything in the digital domain.  In all fairness Canon has shipped cameras with their share of issues also (see focus, black dots, etc.).

Compared to film, sometimes digital is magic, but other times, it still seems like it's an evolving medium and in ways not that mature.  Talk to a dozen retouchers and get their res[onse on digtial capture and to a person they will tell you it takes a lot of correction and adjustments to get to the basics of where film capture begins.

I constantly read these replies where photographers justify their medium format purchase saying they want to give their client the best.  That's commendable and obviously, professional equipment is important, but if you want to improve you and your client's images, investing in better models, props, locations, and/or post production will go a lot further than adding 10 or 20 megapixels.

A great retoucher can level the format field in two hours.

Talent also goes a lot further than pure technique or capture device and stepping out and shooting a body of work that is different, or unique will move your photography forward a lot further than a camera format or brand.

http://current.com/items/76430062/in_the_frame.htm?xid=55 (http://current.com/items/76430062/in_the_frame.htm?xid=55)

Lately I've seen the client response to film vs. digital swing both ways.  Early on with digital capture you had to prove it was as good as film, then once it got a foothold and the labs started disappearing, commercial clients began to demand digital.  Today I see an attitude from AD's that as long as it's pretty, or unique or has a style they don't really care how you captured it, in fact most AD's would rather do their editing from a contact sheet that an electronic gallery.

Like all of us I think clients have become computer weary.

This is the time of year that every photographer becomes retrospective on how they work.  As I look back on 2008 I wonder how much easier I could have made my life if I shot certain projects with film vs. digital and in the next few days as it comes time to make a purchase, all those wonderful used film cameras start to look very attractive.

Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Streetshooter on December 19, 2008, 01:06:38 pm
Hey B Cooter,

Man you're a breath of fresh air. You bring a slice of sanity to this forum. Just don't stop posting here......


Merry Christmas to you !



Pete
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Alex MacPherson on March 31, 2009, 03:55:25 am
I am at a decision point right now.

I shoot mostly beauty and some fashion... mainly in the studio.

I have a Hasselblad H2 that I shoot some film with.

I want to upgrade my 5D mark i

The Leaf 54S is currently $6600     Do I get that
or get the 5Dmk ii and forget medium format digital entirely?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Dustbak on March 31, 2009, 04:10:44 am
Mainly studio? I would go for the 54s and shoot it tethered all the time. I do find it difficult since your way of making images is probably much different than mine. I can invest in a back use it and recoup my investment fairly quickly so if I did make a mistake I don't feel the pain so much. This way I have tried many different things before finally arriving where I am now and still there are some things I want to try  

I have been using the A17 for about 2 years and really loved that back (a smaller and slower version of the 54s). Rock solid tethered, nicely built. Indoors a great screen, outdoors the screen sucked but the histogram you will definitely fall in love with. I also lust for picking the white balance on the screen as I go. I know it is easy to fix that in post but there is something really comforting in seeing appr. the wanted/right colors during shooting. It (using a back like the Leaf) is such a different experience than using a DSLR.

Can't you rent or lend the 54s before committing to buy it?
Title: Aptus 22 vs 5DII
Post by: Snook on March 31, 2009, 07:21:26 am
Just studio??
I would go medium format. Otherwise the D3x is a no brainer...:+}
And I was a canon guy.
Snook