Topic: Is the Canon 5Ds matching the qulity of medium format digital? (Read 6338 times)

kevs · « **on:** December 19, 2015, 09:29:26 pm »

Have any medium format owners run some test? Curious to hear, thanks!

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2015, 03:22:49 am »

Hi,

I don't own a 5Ds but I may still have some input on the issue.

The first point is that it depends on what lenses you use. Stellar lenses on the Canon may match decent lenses MFD. But there are stellar lenses for MFD, too.

The second point is which MFD? A small format 1.3X crop 50 MP MFD may have little advantage over the 50 MP 5Ds, but an 80 MP back on a technical camera with a good APO lens, that is a different story.

The third point is what are you evaluating? Regarding sharpness, I think the Canon will do quite OK if paired with an excellent lens. But clean deep shadows are not the forte of the Canon sensors.

My personal experience is with Sony A7rII and a Hasselblad 555/P45+ combo. That system is old, but a couple of the lenses are quite good. I would say that the Hasselblad/P45+ may have a small advantage when pixel peeping, but it would be hard to tell them apart in print.

A final point is that you can buy a 5Ds with an excellent lens for 8k$ (or even less) that doesn't get you a low end MFD back and it may be what you would pay for a high end Rodenstock HR wide angle. That said 8k$ buys you a Pentax 645z with one or even two decent quality lenses.

I have seen some comparisons of high end DSLRs with low end MFD, and I have the impression that the MFD systems had a small edge in the resolution area. But making objective comparisons may be very hard. It may be necessary to stop down an MFD system a bit more for equivalent depth of field. A high end DSLR may perform best at f/5.6, but a comparison my be at f/11.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: kevs on December 19, 2015, 09:29:26 pm

Have any medium format owners run some test? Curious to hear, thanks!

Ellis Vener · « **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2015, 08:10:10 am »

One thing people rarely discuss n these ne format vs. another discussion is the differences n focal lengths. The larger the format the longer the focal length for a given angle of view, and in my experience those difference contribute mightily to the "look" of photos shot with medium and large format cameras.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2015, 08:53:37 am »

Hi Ellis,

In my view, with the longer lenses we just get into that equivalence thing. Say I shoot 80 mm on the Hasselblad and 50 mm on my Sony, with the Hasselblad P45+. Would I shoot aperture 2.8 on the "Blad" than I would use f/2 on the Sony.

I don't have the 80/2.8 any longer, replaced my 50/4 and 80/2.8 with a 100/3.5 and a 60/3.5, but I can run a test with the 120/4 and the 90/2.8 macro :-)

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Ellis Vener on December 20, 2015, 08:10:10 am

One thing people rarely discuss n these ne format vs. another discussion is the differences n focal lengths. The larger the format the longer the focal length for a given angle of view, and in my experience those difference contribute mightily to the "look" of photos shot with medium and large format cameras.

kevs · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2015, 07:18:45 pm »

Thanks guys, well regardless of lenses, lets say, for example, the Canon 5Ds has the normal, non L, 50 or 85 1.8, which are pretty darn good lenses, I'd be curious how a similar focal length on any of the real good digital MFs print up side by side large, say above 40x50. And we can take color and Dmax out of the judgement... just sharpness without any uprez. Although, ok, I'll hear about shadow detail too...

gwhitf · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2015, 08:03:44 pm »

I'd put one of those Zeiss Otus lenses, or Sigma Art, on a 5DsR, and compare it to most any MF camera. Unless you're rezzing up instead of down, where your print is feet by feet. But then, the viewing distance will be much farther away, so that takes away the MF advantage.

Unless it's one of Doug P's special tripod cameras with amazing lenses.

Again, it all depends on what you shoot. Hard to generalize.

chrisgibbs · « **Reply #6 on:** December 20, 2015, 10:03:15 pm »

Quote from: Ellis Vener on December 20, 2015, 08:10:10 am

One thing people rarely discuss n these ne format vs. another discussion is the differences n focal lengths. The larger the format the longer the focal length for a given angle of view, and in my experience those difference contribute mightily to the "look" of photos shot with medium and large format cameras.

With the old 56x56 Blad and a 110/2 you got a beautiful portrait look, but the 85/1.2 on a 135 system came pretty close. These new "MF" systems are more like MF-APSC, and I'm not seeing any 110/2's equivalents for them. That begs the question: How far off is that 135 "look" running an 85/1.2 now?

orc73 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 21, 2015, 02:12:27 pm »

No.

I shoot both and it's not the same.
besides, keeper rate of sharp pictures from the hasselblad is far better.

35mm just does not seem to be made for this resolution. Lenses and AF is to inconsistent unless you have your subject at the very center of the frame.
Basically it's lighter and cheaper then MF, and more accessories available as well as service points.

I don't do lab tests, this is just how it compares in my personal daily life:
http://www.valentino-photography.com/comparison-medium-format-hasselblad-vs-canon-5dsr/

kevs · « **Reply #8 on:** December 21, 2015, 06:18:03 pm »

Was hoping for comparisons with 5ds, but alas, maybe none of the MF folks have that body yet.

NancyP · « **Reply #9 on:** December 21, 2015, 08:37:42 pm »

I think the most pertinent comparison might be 5DS/r with Pentax 645Z, each with a top quality lens of the camera manufacturer.

dwswager · « **Reply #10 on:** December 21, 2015, 09:55:30 pm »

Quote from: kevs on December 19, 2015, 09:29:26 pm

Have any medium format owners run some test? Curious to hear, thanks!

I guess my obvious question would be "In what way?"

In film days, 135mm lens resolved data more densely, but could no overcome the much larger area of MF onto which to output the data. But the real advantage was much smoother tonal gradations, a limitation of the medium.

Because of the expense and the advancement of data density for 135mm sensors, I have not tried MF digital. But I would expect the same effect is in play.

To me, every format typically has some aspect of uniquiness to it's "look".

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #11 on:** December 22, 2015, 03:56:11 pm »

Hi,

Diglloyd has published something like that, comparing the A7rII using a Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 with Pentax 645Z using the 25 mm ultrawide. According to Lloyd's test the A7rII came out on top.

I have seen some tests in a German periodical called C't and I got the impression that say Pentax 645Z or the corresponding Hasselblad still have a small lead over latest generation DSLRs.

I see a little bit the same when comparing my Hasselblad (V-series) gear to my A7rII gear, admittedly the Hasselblad lenses are old and I don't have all the greatest lenses from Sony/Zeiss. I would say that I would expect MFD to have a small advantage over 24x36 digital. Would that be visible in print? I doubt it very much, based on my experience.

But, put an excellent lens on a technical camera and an 80MP back behind and I think the MF advantage will be quite clear. Will it be visible in prints? Yes, if you print large enough and view close enough.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: NancyP on December 21, 2015, 08:37:42 pm

I think the most pertinent comparison might be 5DS/r with Pentax 645Z, each with a top quality lens of the camera manufacturer.

alba63 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2015, 06:08:14 pm »

Quote from: orc73 on December 21, 2015, 02:12:27 pm

I shoot both and it's not the same.
besides, keeper rate of sharp pictures from the hasselblad is far better.

35mm just does not seem to be made for this resolution. Lenses and AF is to inconsistent unless you have your subject at the very center of the frame.
Basically it's lighter and cheaper then MF, and more accessories available as well as service points.

I don't do lab tests, this is just how it compares in my personal daily life:

I neither shoot a Hasselblad nor the 5ds (I have the A7r II however), but looking at your jewellery shots, I remarked that you shot the Canon at ISO50. If nothing has changed in the Canon camp, you give away one stop of dynamic range from the already not too brilliant Canon DR which may be the reason the highlights look so harsh. F11 doesn't really help either... I saw a comparision shot of quite similar jewellery between the A7r II (with the excellent Sony macro 90mm) and a 4yo PhaseOne back and higher end lens. In that comparison the 50MP back had a slight edge in resolution (versus 42MP in the Sony sensor), but in terms of shadows (noise) and 1 or 2 other parameters, the Sony was better.
I do not want to claim that 35mm systems will - in real life - give equal quality as current MF systems, as larger generally means better in photography, but I believe that Canon's sensor no longer represent the state of the art in terms of sensor tech. They fell behind Sony/ Nikon on that front years ago and cannot or do not want to invest in new sensor tech. The 5ds is basically the same as the older ones, just more of it.
A few years ago I shot a "Low end" MF camera, the Mamiya ZD, and I was amazed about the results it gave me inside it's narrow sweet spot (ISO50-100). The way those larger lenses draw on a sensor twice the size of FF is just different, and that was a modestly priced 80mm AF lens by Mamiya.

In the end the question is mainly about price, convenience (including size/ weight) and speed. People decide based on the best compromise for their style of shooting and financial possibilities.

EDIT: The other video is here - A7r II versus IQ160 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12HI8gps4zA

kevs · « **Reply #13 on:** December 22, 2015, 07:13:30 pm »

I have to add that I don't shoot still life, but the Canon shot of the jewelry did look awful. So out of focus... I cannot see why a Canon5D shooting that was so bad -- unless is was blow up super super big.

TonyVentourisPhotography · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2015, 02:52:02 pm »

I use a P45 regularly. I have not yet used the 5Ds, but I do have a canon system, as well as an Olympus system. I find that the colors out of the P45 are much better than the canon system. Strangely I find my olympus comes a lot closer in color to the medium formats than the dslrs.

I shoot mostly with a cambo tech cam and wide lenses. I have a hasselblad system too. I find unless I need insanely sharp super high resolution...I almost prefer NOT shooting medium format for portraits. The retouch I end up doing on the higher detail files is rarely worth it depending on what the client is.

When it comes to my architecture clients though...I always use medium format. The 4/3 aspect ratio tends to give a nicer view in my opinion. I also can shift much further before I have any degradation of the image. The detail and..."life" in the image is nicer on the P45 than using canon systems. I had considered going to a 5Ds with 17 and 24 tse. I just can't shift past 9mm with the 24 on the canon. It always bothers me. I've had clients buy shots with 20mm of shift that looked better than the canon at 11mm with the right lenses.

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2015, 04:23:42 pm »

Quote from: orc73 on December 21, 2015, 02:12:27 pm

No.

I shoot both and it's not the same.
besides, keeper rate of sharp pictures from the hasselblad is far better.

35mm just does not seem to be made for this resolution. Lenses and AF is to inconsistent unless you have your subject at the very center of the frame.
Basically it's lighter and cheaper then MF, and more accessories available as well as service points.

I don't do lab tests, this is just how it compares in my personal daily life:
http://www.valentino-photography.com/comparison-medium-format-hasselblad-vs-canon-5dsr/

In your shots, the angle is not the same then the specular highlights and color are different.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #16 on:** December 25, 2015, 08:56:32 am »

Hi,

I don't have Canon 50Ds or a modern MFD camera. What I have shot today was a simple comparison between my Sony Alpha A7rII with the Sony 90/2.8G macro and my Hasselbld 555/ELD with my P45+ back and the Hasselblad 120/4 Macro Planar. Subject was something like 1.5-2 m away.

Processing is not identical, I tried to get the images as similar as I could.

What I can see the two images are quite close, at actual pixels.

Aperture f/8 was used on the Sony while the Hasselblad was used at f/11, in order to have similar DoF. I have not shot a WB card, so there are colour differences caused by white balance.

Raw files: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/P45+_vs_A7rII/

So, what do I see? Regarding resolution I think they are pretty close. For colour rendition check I would need that WB-card shot.

Best regards
Erik

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #17 on:** December 25, 2015, 05:05:07 pm »

The Sony image seems a bit sharper to my eyes.

Now, I would have used C1 Pro here since it is the converter recommended by both brands.

Cheers,
Bernard

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #18 on:** December 25, 2015, 07:14:54 pm »

Hi,

Yes, but I don't like C1, simply. Processing both images in C1 should give similar differences. Anyway, here is a C1 conversion of both images.

I would say that focusing is more optimal on the A7rII. I used 12.5X magnified LV. On the "Blad" I focused using a 3X loupe (total 9X magnification) and than did focus bracket +/- 5 cm. The original image was used.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: BernardLanguillier on December 25, 2015, 05:05:07 pm

The Sony image seems a bit sharper to my eyes.

Now, I would have used C1 Pro here since it is the converter recommended by both brands.

Cheers,
Bernard

KevinA · « **Reply #19 on:** December 29, 2015, 07:41:50 am »

Quote from: kevs on December 19, 2015, 09:29:26 pm

Have any medium format owners run some test? Curious to hear, thanks!

It depends I suspect on what you want to shoot and how you like to shoot it and how you output the final result.

Author Topic: Is the Canon 5Ds matching the qulity of medium format digital? (Read 6338 times)