Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: TorontoSam on November 21, 2010, 08:56:58 pm
-
Hi All,
This is my second post. So, again, nice to meet you all.
I am not a Pro at this time but used to shoot weddings many years ago. Currently, I am using an 1Ds3 and have a bunch of Canon lenses. As more quality is always welcome, I am thinking of going MF.
I take a lot of pictures of my children and do some landscape and travel pictures as well. As I have never owned a MF system before, I am not sure which one to get.
The features I need the most are the following:
1) Autofocus -- kids do move around a lot;
2) Portability -- as I can't use a tripod most of the time;
3) Low noise at high ISO -- good high ISO noise as I often need faster shutter speeds to freeze the kids in motion;
4) Long exposure -- as I like to have the capability of taking night shots and long exposure water shots;
5) System readiness -- able to expand on that system with lenses and accessories.
It seems that Pentax is a good choice as I think it may have the best AF; it is highly portabable and has bulb. However, it lacks a full line of modern lenses, especially tilt-shift, and other accessories. Pentax is substantially cheaper too than Hasselblad and Phase1;
Hasselblad is also good as it has many lenses to offer, plus tilt-shift, plus it is on sale now. I can get a H4D-40 with a 35-90mm for $1000 cheaper than a Phase1 P45+ 645AF with an 80mm. I know the Trufocus is good for non-moving objects. What about continuous AF tracking? Would I be able to track the kids running around?
Now, Phase 1. It is the most expensive of all. It does have all kinds of supporting lenses and accessories, especially Schneider lenses. Backs are highly interchangeable but I do not have another MF system to work with. Unless AF and other features/quality are much better than the H4D, I don't know if it would be my preferred choice.
Please help and try to provide some valuable feedbacks to help me choose. Thanks a lot.
Sam
-
Hey Sam,
Your wish list reads a lot like a "why I shoot 35mm" list, to be honest. In MF you sacrifice convenience and usability - and seriously so. The Pentax is the only system that comes close to meeting these criteria at the moment, but not strongly compared to 35mm. I suspect you will find any MF system far more aggravation than it's worth for your applications. Do you really need a 34x40 of your kids?
Also, this being only your third post, I haven't seen you naked yet, so I don't know whether you're sporting 26" biceps, but have you picked up an H4 with a 35-90? There's a reason they make hydraulic jacks to life transmissions. Just sayin'.
I can't imagine why you wouldn't be happy with a D3x. The have a full line of excellent tilt/shift lenses, strong AF, great low-light capability and a heck of a lot of megapixels.
Just my 2c.
Cheers, and happy shooting whatever you end up shooting with.
- N.
-
1. Why do you think Pentax has better AF than Hasselblad? Hasselblad has 'True Focus', undoing the need for the outer unreliable focus points. Do some research on that.
2. Cheaper? Depends where you live. EU - $9995. both. USA, $10,000 for Pentax $13,000 for H4D31 with 80mm lens.
And i agree with the previous poster, given your requirements, MF is not for you.
-
Nick, Thanks for your comment. I did seriously think about whether I should change over to MF from 35mm. With the 1Ds3, it is already one of the very best 35mm cameras (Maybe M9 can do better in certain aspects but nonetheless, it is not AF). I do believe it would be more cumbersome to use a MF, but I ain't sure by how much. I do not blow up huge prints all the time but I am greedy and always want the best possible quality just in case if I ever need to make large prints. Also, better image quality would also be more pleasing to your eyes on screen when you pixelpeep. Lol......... I haven't picked up the H4D yet. Thought I just want the forum members' opinions first.
Brendan, I know True Focus is very good from what I heard. However, I think it is only for focusing non-moving objects, such as focus first to the model's eye and do re-composition later but True Focus is not meant to be used for moving objects (please correct me if I am wrong). Pentax is indeed substantially cheaper if we are comparing the 40MP (or 39MP) lineups. You are right H4D-31 with 80mm is $13,999. However, in order to compare with a H4D-40, Pentax is cheaper. H4D-40 with 35-90mm or 80mm costs $19,999. Pentax costs only about $12,000.
You guys could be right, maybe MF is not for me.... But, I just want better quality images and maybe a new toy.
Sam
-
I suspect that none of the (other) members who have posted here have ever actually used an H4D-40, and are not aware how good they are at high ISO. (I have only used one in the studio at a demo event).
If you are an amateur, and you will not be using it all day, the weight will not be a problem, but Hassys are 4kg with the big lenses.
-
IMO, unless you need to print really big there is no reason to go MFD over a 1Ds or D3X.
I shot Phase One for 10 years but for the last two have been using 1Ds. There is very, little difference (when printed) at regular print/publication sizes between the two formats IQ wise. However there is massive differences in ergonomics and technology between the two formats. For me, the only reason I'm looking at MFD again is its ability to hook up to some nice LF gear for product and interior work I do. As you want a DSLR this will be no advantage to you.
I've decided to wait and see what the next bread of Phase One backs bring to the party before I invest (big bright HQ screen for proper use on LF gear please) but I'm not holding my breath.
Its great you are in a situation where you can buy a toy for this amount of money as people like yourself are probably the ones funding the MFD R&D departments rather than us poor pros. ;) However the last thing you want to do, toy or no toy is waste this kind of money out of lust rather than need. My advise would be to hire or at least have a demo of some kit as it might be an eye opener to see how behind the technology curve MFD SLR's are. Have you ever considered better lighting might be a better way to increase IQ than a better camera.
-
Dick & Gaswaz, Thank you for your comments. The Hasselblad dealer here has promised to let me try out the H4d-40 this coming weekend and the Phase 1 dealer may do a demo on the P45+ soon too. The only issue is with Pentax as I don't know when I can physically see or touch one. I totally agree that the 1Ds3 is already an excellent camera, ergonomic and performance wise. Maybe after the demos, I would just decide to stay where I am with the 1Ds3.
Occasionally, I go to friends' studios to shoot models. However, this is very occasional and I do not own any of the lighting equipment. I do have two Canon 580EX flashes. I do not set up studio lighting at home. Remember, kids do not like staying in front of backdrops..... I also like taking landscape as well. I thought as long as it is in an urban/semi urban area where it can be reached by car whether it is 2kg or 4kg, the weight may not bother me that much. I really like the 3D look on MF. When it comes to rurals, the 1Ds can be on duty.
Anyways, does anyone know if H4D and P1 can do any REASONABLE focus tracking (continuous AF) at all. Thanks again.
-
Anyways, does anyone know if H4D and P1 can do any REASONABLE focus tracking (continuous AF) at all. Thanks again.
H4D and P1 cameras will focus track ish but slowly and I'd use 35mm 95% of the time if motion tracking was the aim of the shoot. One big consideration is (especially with the older P45+) is the slow capture rate and also with MFD, the length of lime the viewfinder goes dark after exposure when following movement. Fluid controlled/planned movement then you have a good chance but random stuff like kids :-\ ???
-
I suspect that none of the (other) members who have posted here have ever actually used an H4D-40, and are not aware how good they are at high ISO. (I have only used one in the studio at a demo event).
If you are an amateur, and you will not be using it all day, the weight will not be a problem, but Hassys are 4kg with the big lenses.
I have no doubt that the HD4-40 will be within spitting distance of the 645D's high ISO performance, given that they run off the same chip. The problem with Hassy, for me, is the weight of the lenses. The leaf shutters are important for many professional applications, but add tremendous bulk to the glass. The cost of the glass is also staggering.
True Focus is an interesting technology, and solves a serious problem, but again, it's for static subjects much more than what Sam describes as his core uses.
Sam, I totally know what you mean about wanting more IQ, and especially about wanting a new toy :D :D
Sometimes mixing it up a bit helps our vision, too. I just wanted to try to help you avoid the disappointment every new digital MF user I know, including myself, feels when the reality of how challenging (and in so ways limiting) it is to get the full IQ bang from MF. In this respect, digital is very different from film.
I haven't found any MF that focus tracks competitively to modern dslrs.
- N.
ps. I would never, btw, recommend an M9 (or any other M) for convenience. Coupled RFs were a great way to focus a camera back in the 1940s. But compared to modern AF, they are a pain to use, and should be used only by people who really derive pleasure from relating to their camera the way one relates to a small RF. IQ is spectacular, but use is challenging. Try tracking a running child with one sometime!
pps. Since you sound serious, you should try to arrange to demo one. imho, The Camerastore is the best shop in Canada, so if you're close to Calgary, go in and tell'em I sent you. They carry the 'blads, and won't look down their noses at you.
-
Gaswaz & Nick, Thank you so much for your continuous assistance. Afterall, it looks like MF will not offer everything that I need (maybe not everything that anybody needs). Even if I go ahead with MF, I will still keep my 1Ds3. As a side note, I've been waiting for a long time for Canon to come up with the new 1Ds4 or alike but it still hasn't happened.
I paid so much for the 1Ds3 when it first came out. Therefore, the 645D is within my budget. The thing is, however, I would have to spend a great deal more on lenses and accessories. The biggest issue right now is I can't even get one. I sent an email to Pentax Canada last week asking them when the camera will be available in stores but they still haven't replied. The dealer in Toronto and The Camera Store also did not know the actual arrival date last week I spoke to them.
I live in Toronto and The Camera Store is out of my reach when it comes to doing a demo. As mentioned, I should have a chance to play with the H4D-40 this weekend. I'll see how it goes.
Good point with the capture rate being slow. I hope it is just the screen that goes black for a second but not the actual viewfinder. Don't worry, after reading everything you guys have said, I will not be too disappointed when I try out a MF as you have really lowered my expectation.
Don't worry Nick, I won't go with the M9 unless the S2 has a huge price drop. But then, it doesn't have ultrasonic dust removal..... It will be a pain to clean the sensor frequently in tight space.
-
Good point with the capture rate being slow. I hope it is just the screen that goes black for a second but not the actual viewfinder. Don't worry, after reading everything you guys have said, I will not be too disappointed when I try out a MF as you have really lowered my expectation.
Yes, viewfinder as there is a lot of mirror to move in MF DSLR's but it is perfectly livable with some practice.
Little youtube vid example of capture rate/viewfinder dark here (P65+ so faster than P45+)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKZe7M1h_G0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKZe7M1h_G0&feature=related)
I'm sure you won't be disappointed because these expensive cameras are great to use and the detail in a well captured file is amazing. Just not sure your expectations for a complete 1Ds replacement exists in MFD land yet, or ever will. :)
-
So I did this whole exercise a short while ago as I was travelling to Africa and wanted to bring back the highest quality images.
I went from Phase One to Hassey and Pentax. Basically on searching and doing loads of research one discovers:
1. the great sensor in the world at present is the P65+ closely followed by the Nikon D3X and D3s
2. Reliability of backs is questionable under extreme conditions, these babies are built for studio
3. if you are printing up to A3+ the difference between the two Nikon sensors is not really visible except "hair" seems to pop on the D3X
4. Flexibility and accessories for the Nikons are available and a lot more lens options.
So with all this in mind I decided to buy the D3s for flexibility, quality and adaptability. I will let you know how my trip goes but it was interesting that speaking to Nikon this was the Pro recommendation for my trip.
I think that the Phase One 65+ is a legend but needs the new DF camera from mamiya. The older AF camera the focus sucks.I still want the romance of using the MF however at those prices and the flexibility and weight I guess 35mm is still king in this area.
Just some info as you requirement and desire was so similar to mine, plus travel
-
Glad you found the right balance. Just for the sake of completeness, I will like point out that something.
You say:
1. the great sensor in the world at present is the P65+ closely followed by the Nikon D3X and D3s
We don't know that for sure. We don't have the DxO sensor ratings for any of the H4D series, I don't know why.
Also we have to keep in mind that the way P65+ achieve that ratings is by turning itself into a pretty expensive hight dynamic range 15Mpixel camera.
They guys at phase one did an extraordinary work with the pixel binding. But it's still pixel binning.
-
You are right, these figures can be played with its all maths. I discounted the Hassey HD -31 because of weight of the lenses.
The DXO figures are a start point, i think that for usability the Phase One was at the top, the Pentax is just not available in the UK and given I went from a D3 to D3s and saw the difference, I still fancy a nice MF one day.
But I agree figures can be cooked, but as the user just wanted some opinions I offered to decision flow, not faultless but a decision. LOL
-
Forget it. MF is good for high quality studio photography, on location work with flash and assistants, and landscape work.
The sensors are good, but the cameras are worse than 15 year old film SLRs.
Edmund
Hi All,
This is my second post. So, again, nice to meet you all.
I am not a Pro at this time but used to shoot weddings many years ago. Currently, I am using an 1Ds3 and have a bunch of Canon lenses. As more quality is always welcome, I am thinking of going MF.
I take a lot of pictures of my children and do some landscape and travel pictures as well. As I have never owned a MF system before, I am not sure which one to get.
The features I need the most are the following:
1) Autofocus -- kids do move around a lot;
No hope, MF doesn't do decent follow-focus.
2) Portability -- as I can't use a tripod most of the time;
MF weighs a ton and works best on a tripod due to the large mirrors
3) Low noise at high ISO -- good high ISO noise as I often need faster shutter speeds to freeze the kids in motion;
No MF camera has the high ISO quality of a pro Nikon or even Canon.
4) Long exposure -- as I like to have the capability of taking night shots and long exposure water shots;
Yes, here the appropriate MF is ideal.
5) System readiness -- able to expand on that system with lenses and accessories.
All the MF makers have decent systems, but none are as cheaply flexible (fast wides, TS, super-telephoto) as dSLRs.
It seems that Pentax is a good choice as I think it may have the best AF; it is highly portabable and has bulb. However, it lacks a full line of modern lenses, especially tilt-shift, and other accessories. Pentax is substantially cheaper too than Hasselblad and Phase1;
Hasselblad is also good as it has many lenses to offer, plus tilt-shift, plus it is on sale now. I can get a H4D-40 with a 35-90mm for $1000 cheaper than a Phase1 P45+ 645AF with an 80mm. I know the Trufocus is good for non-moving objects. What about continuous AF tracking? Would I be able to track the kids running around?
Now, Phase 1. It is the most expensive of all. It does have all kinds of supporting lenses and accessories, especially Schneider lenses. Backs are highly interchangeable but I do not have another MF system to work with. Unless AF and other features/quality are much better than the H4D, I don't know if it would be my preferred choice.
Please help and try to provide some valuable feedbacks to help me choose. Thanks a lot.
Sam
-
Forget it. MF is good for high quality studio photography, on location work with flash and assistants, and landscape work.
Written by someone who uses puts "Nikon" and "pro" in the same word!
A year or two ago the above quote was not far off... but have you ever used an H4D-40?
-
Hi Dick,
Some what arrogant comment to make Dick.
I’m a Pro and I use Nikon.
Cheers
Simon
-
Written by someone who uses puts "Nikon" and "pro" in the same word!
Another fan of "How to impress people and make friends ".
A year or two ago the above quote was not far off... but have you ever used an H4D-40?
Yes, I even posted comparison images D3x and H4D here.
Hello Dick -
IMHO, The HD40 is as good as it gets in MF, with focus that works and 1600 ISO that is usable in some contexts, however as I tried to state above it suffers like any other MF camera from a degree of kludginess which takes us back by 10 years to film SLRs.
- H4D has very good DR, beautiful "look", and will outresolve Nikon.
- H4D Focus worked well generally, but was inaccurate near infinity. But with Nikon you have LiveView to set up exact focus.
- 100mm lens I tested had nice Bokeh, but left angly diaphragm cutouts all over my images. Ugly. Nikon has round openings.
- ISO 1600 on new H4D40 is decent (not too noisy) but running out of shadow detail (fake ISO), Nikon D3x is still going strong.
- Phocus software is usable but not yet quite as perfected as C1. This matters because one gets stuck in front of the software for hours.
- Nikon Jpegs are really good, and the D-light shadow compensation is useful. This can matter if you're under deadline.
I'm not saying the Hassy is bad, in fact for MF it is very good, much more usable than my own Mamiya, it's just that the Nikon has had many more engineering hours going into their camera, and it shows.
In the end, the Nikon can get you a clean, very usable, well-focused shot in almost any setting and lighting, the H4D40 will get you a decent image most times, but only in a fairly static well lit situation will the sensor really show its full abilities. Of course, in a studio setting the H4D40 will beat the Nikon all the time. Just like a big truck will haul more freight than a pickup every day, but you don't park the truck in your driveway.
Let me ask the question in the other direction: Have you ever taken the time to set up a Nikon D3x for 14bit Raw, and really compared it to an MF camera? It won't win, but it sure will get close. Don't confuse the D3x with the Canon 5D2, these are different animals.
Edmund
-
IMHO, The HD40 is as good as it gets in MF, with focus that works and 1600 ISO that is usable in some contexts, however as I tried to state above it suffers like any other MF camera from a degree of kludginess which takes us back by 10 years to film SLRs.
- H4D has very good DR, beautiful "look", and will outresolve Nikon.
- H4D Focus worked well generally, but was inaccurate near infinity. But with Nikon you have LiveView to set up exact focus....
Edmund
Thank you.
You can, of course use live view with an H4D, tethered.
I thought that my H3D was hand, stand or flash... but the H4D is better.
The H4D-60 is not as good at high ISO as the H4D-40, but it is still usable hand-held in good ambient light with a 300mm.
-
Hi Sam,
I am also a newcomer in this Form. :)
And like you, I use now a Canon DSLR(5D) for my shoots. But I will switch over to the Pentax 645D, as fast as I can. I have bought 3 used 645 FA lenses(45-85, 80-160 & 120 Macro) in the last few weeks. I am waiting for the release of the camera in Germany since photokina, where I had the opportunity to take a few test shoots. One can you found here: http://www.imageload.net/view/31561-igp5524cr/ (http://www.imageload.net/view/31561-igp5524cr/) ISO 1600/f 5.6/ 1/100
The Pentax 645D is my first MF system. So I am much like you. Like me, I think the Pentax would suit you most.
Sorry for my English.
Sven
-
Hi Dick,
Some what arrogant comment to make Dick.
I’m a Pro and I use Nikon.
Cheers
Simon
Yes, perhaps... but it is nice that the forum generally take such remarks with good humor.
I see that your site says:
"We also have the latest Leaf Aptus 75 digital system consisting of 33 million pixels of incredible resolution"
So... it seems that you do not use Nikon for everything.
-
The H4D-60 is not as good at high ISO as the H4D-40, but it is still usable hand-held in good ambient light with a 300mm.
Sure, at 1/640th of a second. Below that it will not be critically sharp unless you are in rigor mortis.
And Dick, Simon is a skilled professional. The forum benefits from the participation of individuals such as him. If you wish to participate in these conversations, please govern yourself with the rule of courtesy.
- N.
-
The H4D-60 is not as good at high ISO as the H4D-40, but it is still usable hand-held in good ambient light with a 300mm.
Sure, at 1/640th of a second. Below that it will not be critically sharp unless you are in rigor mortis.
Yes... there comes a point where you have to use high ISO to get the compromise between noise, camera shake and DOF, and you you might not produce better picture than you could with a Point-and-shoot.
And Dick, Simon is a skilled professional. The forum benefits from the participation of individuals such as him. If you wish to participate in these conversations, please govern yourself with the rule of courtesy.
- N.
Yes, I appreciate Simon and his contributions here.
-
Yes... there comes a point where you have to use high ISO to get the compromise between noise, camera shake and DOF, and you you might not produce better picture than you could with a Point-and-shoot.
It should be clear that the sweet spot for this is currently FX bodies and will be DX bodies soon. Not only is the high ISO quality superior today, but the pace of improvement relative to other formats has been accelerating.
The reason is probably that the companies working on these have the technology and sell enough volumes to generate the funds needed to keep investing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If Pentax is able to scale their sensor-based stabilization technology up to the 645D, it will be an amazing advance. This won't solve the shutter vibration issue, but will sure help otherwise.
I found that the breeze was an issue with the 300mm lenses when out testing last week. (ugh)
- N.
-
Guys,
Thank you for all your ideas, warnings, comments and support for helping me to search for a MF camera. Your kind effort is much appreciated. Being a current 1Ds3 owner, I would like to share my findings and thoughts about the H4D-40. I am no professional writer. Nevertheless, here we go.....
Picked up the camera from the downtown dealer on Friday afternoon. Many thanks to the fine gentleman at the dealer for lending me the camera along with the 80mm and 28mm lenses. The camera did not come with a manual and I did not bother to look one up on the web. Also, I did not spend a lot of time to learn about Phocus. I will tell you why in just a minute....
Weight: The weight doesn't bother me as it is comparable to my 1Ds3 with a bigger lens. It is totally hand-holdable;
Ergonomics: Reasonably ok but not quite as good as the digital 35mm SLR's I have used. Still can't figure out how to change to P, AV, TV, etc.... Currently, the camera is set at Manual.
Image Quality: Excellent, if you have the correct settings. Tons of details. I did not shoot under studio lighting. I shot some pictures outside and some even with the Canon 580EX around my house. In case you are interested, the 580 actually works very well shoe-mounted with manual controls.
Autofocus Tracking: I am not a pro shooting inside a studio. I am very busy with my own non-photography related work. I just love to take pictures of my family and kids and want the best possible IQ. I also do landscapes and travel but being able to take pictures of the kids in random motion can definitely not be ignored. I regrettably have to tell you that focus tracking is very challenging. I just wasn’t able to get it right with much patience. That’s when I pretty much stopped learning more about the camera and Phocus.
True Focus: I have to be fair. True Focus is excellent. It really does its job right. What a great system! This is perfect for doing studio work.
White Balance: I just can't locate Auto WB. Maybe there is no auto WB. It is a pain for not having it. Maybe it is there just that I can't find it.
Others: Battery life is a bit short. With the current promotion happening in North America, I honestly think pricing is reasonable too.
I really hope that Hassy can do better with their AF Tracking. People will tell me that it is designed for studio use. However, if it can perform better AF Tracking, I can be sure they will sell more.
Conclusion: I like the resolution and built quality of the camera and lenses. It is perfect for doing models and products inside a studio. It will also be great for any non-moving objects such as landscape and travel. However, it is not all rounded like my 1Ds3. I cannot use it to shoot a soccer game of my kids. It would be perfect to have a camera with the Hassy resolution and 1Ds3 features. I guess now Pentax 645D will be my last hope with this MF dream. Thank you so much again for all your help.
Sam
-
Two questions...
1.) How big is your printer? To tell the difference between a 1Ds3 and a theoretically perfect camera will take a very large print. I'd guess that a 1Ds3 will saturate even a 17" printer (no way to tell the 1Ds3 from any possible "better" camera on a 16x24 from a normal viewing distance). The difference will start to become apparent with a 24" printer, but that is a floorstanding beast.
2.) Are you willing to wait 6 months for what Canon comes out with next? Nikon's (24.6 mp, but image quality that is even higher than that pixel count suggests) D3x has substantially better image quality than the 1Ds3 (especially if you're willing to use the 14-bit mode which slows the D3x down to 1.5 fps). Canon will replace the 3 year old 1Ds3 sometime in the next 6 months, and they will need to beat the (already 2 year old) D3x. I predict somewhere around 30-32 mp, with a full-speed (5 fps) 14 bit mode and the dynamic range of a D3x (which is as good as any but the very best medium format). Because of diffraction and antialiasing filters, that won't be QUITE the image quality of a 31 mp MF system, but it'll be right in between the D3x and 31 mp MF. The D3x already makes stunning 24x36 inch prints, so the new Canon almost certainly will as well (with the right lenses, a caveat that applies to any of the top "35mm" type cameras). At that point, you'd need a 44" printer the size of an upright piano to make a print that shows the difference between the "1Ds4" and medium format. There's at least one reasonably priced (by these rarified standards) 44" printer out there - Canon's own iPF 8300. I just bought one (haven't even gotten it fully set up yet), and the one big caveat is that the darned thing is literally the size and weight of a very ugly piano. Coming from a 24" printer, I was very surprised at how huge the 8300 is - I knew it was 6 feet long, but I had NO idea just how squat, stocky and sturdy it was. If you want a printer like that, it goes in its own room (fortunately, I have a spare bedroom it can live in)!
Unless you are willing to make the commitment to a 44" printer, the "1Ds4" will be plenty of camera for almost any purpose (and will have truly superb AF tracking). Even with a 44" printer, it should do pretty darned well. Note that a 40x60" print is so large that you can't easily mat around it - it has to be framed without border because mat board only gets to 40x60" (until you get to really odd stuff). Even with a 44" printer and a lot of landscapes that lend themselves to big prints, I'm sure that less than 10% of my printing will be 30x45, 36x54 and 40x60, simply due to the handling problems. My bread and butter print sizes will be 12x18, 16x24 and 24x36, any of which a "1Ds4" will handle just fine (I bought the big printer mostly for the ink cost savings, and only secondarily for the maximum print size, although 24x36 canvas wraps (which need extra image size) are a nice capability to have).
-
1.) ...The difference will start to become apparent with a 24" printer, but that is a floorstanding beast.
I have a 24" floor-standing beast, and I would regard 18* 24" @ 360 original cameras per print inch as the "native" print size, with 24 * 36" as another option.
2.)...you'd need a 44" printer the size of an upright piano to make a print that shows the difference between the "1Ds4" and medium format.
I am thinking I am about to get a 48Mpx MS, which should look good on a 44" @ 180 original camera pixels per print inch, when I can find the room and the budget for the 44" printer.
...and what is this "normal viewing distance?
...If people see a picture of mine, and they are drawn in to look at detail, I do not want the print to look awful when they put their reading glasses on.
Do not compare digital with film, or MF with small format ...compare your pictures with the one to three square meter old master oils of hundreds of years ago.
-
I cannot use it to shoot a soccer game of my kids.
For that purpose I'd get myself a D3S or a Sony SLT.
MF will make you lose a lot of shots due to unsharp focus.
What do you have from the superior quality of a MF system
when you won't be able to get proper focus in a heated sports
or other kid action situation? What about the low framerate of a MF Camera?
I believe you will most likely miss a lot of shots and
not get the quality you desire because you are going
to use the wrong tool.
"Horse for courses" I believe is the right proverb here.
Just my $ 0.02
Cheers
Chris
-
Dick,
The Old Masters did not paint with the complete detail of a photograph. I bet if we are talking pixels probably about 10mpx. They put the detail in where it was needed, not every leaf, blade of grass or nostril hair is recorded. The colour palette was used as much to convey detail as individual drawn detail. The impression of detail is huge but actual detail not as grand as you might think. Most of it is the "Wow" factor of it being nothing but a build up of paint by the human eye and hand, to portray light and shade, delicacy and boldness, mood and atmosphere in a convincing way such as has you are left wondering how did they do that?
That's how I see it.
Photography and Photographers like to think the more detail resolved the more real and better the picture is, hence 80 mpx. Which I think is fine if they bring more colour range, more subtle change to a picture, if it's just to count more leaves on distant trees I don't see the point. Who else but photographers and the socially challenged judge a picture on insane levels of detail?
Kevin.
-
Excuse me for adding my penny's worth. I know you said AF is important but for landscape, is it, especially with wide angles with a lot of DOF for a given f stop, and you want to be aware of where you are placing the point of focus anyway. Anyway, if you can accept that premise, try the ZE Carl Zeiss lenses with your 1Ds3 before committing to MF. I've just acquired a 35/2 and a 21/2.8 - absolutely brilliant, well at A2 at least. And BTW, the wavy distortion on the 21mm clears with one click in ACR.
-
I am not a pro shooting inside a studio. I am very busy with my own non-photography related work. I just love to take pictures of my family and kids and want the best possible IQ. I also do landscapes and travel but being able to take pictures of the kids in random motion can definitely not be ignored.
You might want to consider another lenses rather than another camera.
For landscapes and travel Zeiss ZE and Voigtlander APO-Lanthar lenses could give you a better image quality and different "look", while you could still have Canon USM lenses with fast AF to take pictures of the kids - and all that in one system.