Valid MF criticism or not?

[Dustbak]

How long before we get discussions about cell phones with 10MP rivalling the 5D in IQ?

[Frank Doorhof]

If you search you can find a review about that, and the cellphone won because of the price/quality

[feppe]

How long before we get discussions about cell phones with 10MP rivalling the 5D in IQ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hehe. Although tongue-in-cheek, that gets to the root of this discussion, at least for me. The Big Question is whether a ~22MP MFDB produces results which are enough to justify the high purchase price compared to a ~22MP dSLR. As has been showed, a fair and objective comparison of the quality is very difficult, even if we set up a true double-blind study.

Even if we were able to overcome those limitations - and people have presented promising ideas here -, it'll still be subjective. How much is a marginally more striking "3D-look," tighter DOF, slightly improved bokeh, or less noise in the shadows worth? The answer of course depends on the photographer. For me the bokeh and less noise is worth much more than a 3D-look or DOF. But is it worth the price of 2 or 3 dSLRs? As a "serious amateur," hell no. I could buy a complete pro-glass 22MP dSLR system, best printer, and a safari or a week-long LL workshop for that price. But if I was a pro, the cost of an MFDB would most probably not be an issue, and even a marginal improvement in quality - if it exists - would be worth it.

Now, if only MFDB manufacturers would embrace the idea that slashing their prices would open the whole serious amateur market to them. Although it would cut margins, it would also drive up sales dramatically, leading to a very possible positive net income increase... But that's another discussion.

[Frank Doorhof]

Well you can also look at it even more extreme.

I tested both the 1DsII and the 5D and bought the 5D.
I found the 5D to perform slightly better than the 1DsII on what I used (skintones)

With the 5D vs 1DsIII it's also a 4x price difference.
If people are willing to pay that who are now shooting a 5D.
There will be people paying 2x the price of the 1DsIII when they now shoot a 1DsII.

Hope that makes sense.

In audio terms.
When going from a 100.00 setup to a 200.00 setup it's often a more than twice improvement, however when going from a 10.000 setup to a 20.000 setup it's often in small gains and NEVER twice the performance.
Still there are alot of people upgrading.

[Mark_Tucker]

I just finished a Lifestyle job here in New York, last night. Shot it tethered to my P21+. I must say, the files are sweet and tight. And tethering to a Phase back seems so much more solid that tethering to the "sports camera Canon". Canon can talk all they want about challenging Medium Format, but until they improve the tethering conditions, and improve their tethering software, they're still a long way off.

There are endless facets to the topic of this thread. There is no "one best answer". You've just got to try them out til you find the one that fits.

What I will find interesting is how the P21+, (or the Leaf equivalent), will compare to the 1ds3. The P21+ shoots super fast; as fast as the Profoto packs turned down low. You never wait on it. The files are plenty big. It's about as close to a Canon experience as anything I've found. In the studio, tethered, it's very hard to beat. I've got mine mated to a Contax, and the lenses are scary good, even the wide 45 and 55.

When that Amazon thing leaked, the day before the Canon announcement, I read something somewhere, from Canon, that made some kind of mild challenge to "medium format in the studio". We'll see how well they fare, come December. But right now, for heavy duty studio work, that little P21+ is very very hard to beat. It's about as close to "the best of both worlds" as any solution I've found. And it delivers rock solid software, which is something that Canon can't even come close to saying.

Just one opinion. This might not apple to everyone.

[SecondFocus]

This is the Leaf aptus 22
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank...

Can I ask why you chose the Leaf Aptus 22 for example over the Leaf Aptus 65?

The trade off being 22 mpx and a full frame sensor as compared to 28 mpx and a smaller sensor. And the 22 is more expensive.

Thanks.

[Frank Doorhof]

I wanted a non crop back (or the smallest crop possible).
I LOVE to shoot wide open outside and the DOF with a full frame sensor is just stunning.

Also over here the Aptus 22 is cheaper than the 65

[Jonathan Wienke]

I find it interesting that in this discussion so far, shallow DOF seems to be presented as an always-preferable thing, when it's clearly not. Many landscapes, group portraits, product shots, and other images can benefit from fairly wide DOF. It certainly would be incorrect to say wider DOF is always better, but it is equally incorrect to say that narrower DOF is always better or "more artistic" or whatever.

And then there's the issue of low-light capability. Can any MFDB perform well shooting a concert or stage performance sans flash where ambient light is 1/60-f/2.8-ISO1600 and the action is fast and furious in terms of what the performars are doing and the distance to subject constantly changing? Can any MFDB match a Canon 1-series DSLR when it comes to accurately focus tracking moving subjects in such low light? I doubt it. Under such conditions, I'd venture that the 1Ds-II would outperform any MFDB currently made, and the 1Ds-III will do even better.

In a studio with proper lighting, I would expect the MFDB to do better than the 1Ds-III. But I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone can consistently distinguish between MFDB and DSLR images shot with equivalent DOF and perspective comparing web-resolution JPEGs or typical magazine pages in a blind comparison.

[Mark_Tuttle]

There is no "one best answer". You've just got to try them out til you find the one that fits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Truer words were never spoken.

Now, is someone going to finally buy a pitcher of beer at this table?

[nicolaasdb]

AND IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON...and we will never come to a conclusion.....it is almost like the US senate about the Iraq war! or healthcare or anything else they yap about.

[MarkKay]

THere is more certainty with the Iraq war than the conclusion under question here .. the only problem is there is only two people really in support of the war and they overrule the rest. Or at least I can say there is an overwhelming majority with the same or similar conclusion and they are overruled by two.

AND IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON...and we will never come to a conclusion.....it is almost like the US senate about the Iraq war! or healthcare or anything else they yap about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[AndreNapier]

I have to agree that this topic has nowhere else to go and no amount of examples is going to change  nobodies mind. We all use camera differently, we all see things differently. If one can not see the difference between DB and Dslr he does not need it. Last year during Expo I showed 15 exhibition prints 16x20  to Steve Hendrix and told him that just one was shot with Canon. He had no problem to pick it up. Chance for guessing was 1/15.
I am signing off. Enjoy your cameras.
Andre

[jing q]

I find it interesting that in this discussion so far, shallow DOF seems to be presented as an always-preferable thing, when it's clearly not. Many landscapes, group portraits, product shots, and other images can benefit from fairly wide DOF. It certainly would be incorrect to say wider DOF is always better, but it is equally incorrect to say that narrower DOF is always better or "more artistic" or whatever.

And then there's the issue of low-light capability. Can any MFDB perform well shooting a concert or stage performance sans flash where ambient light is 1/60-f/2.8-ISO1600 and the action is fast and furious in terms of what the performars are doing and the distance to subject constantly changing? Can any MFDB match a Canon 1-series DSLR when it comes to accurately focus tracking moving subjects in such low light? I doubt it. Under such conditions, I'd venture that the 1Ds-II would outperform any MFDB currently made, and the 1Ds-III will do even better.

In a studio with proper lighting, I would expect the MFDB to do better than the 1Ds-III. But I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone can consistently distinguish between MFDB and DSLR images shot with equivalent DOF and perspective comparing web-resolution JPEGs or typical magazine pages in a blind comparison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think as photographers we want to have the highest quality of the images we take
Even if it's just for a magazine I'm still going to use the highest quality files. When your pictures are side by side with other photographers' work, it's your name on the line

and regarding depth of field...it's not really a consideration for me.even though I'm not getting as much depth of field as when I was shooting with my 1Ds MkII, people still seem to prefer the MFDB image.
Good for you if the people you show can't distinguish between both images, but I can and I value my work enough to want to have the highest quality files for it and am willing to spend for it. Maybe I'm just too idealistic...

Sure the backs are way overpriced to me, but buying 3 1DsMkIIIs is not going to make an image that's of a higher quality than my Leaf.

(I'm still slightly on the fence regarding 33mp compared to 6x7 film...but definitely a big step up from the Canon)

To the doubters, I suggest you test it yourself, get a MF back and a Canon and test them side by side and do a nice large print and ask yourself which one you prefer. That's the easiest way to come to your own conclusions.

[uaiomex]

Well, I've read most posts in this thread and looked to all pics (I think).

My conclusions (yes, only my own):

Definetely, there is more quality in dmf over dslr

3D look is real. I've seen it in Leica's film blown to 8X10"

DMF shows 3D (not always) often. DSLR's not that quite and diminished.

Photographs here
To my eyes:

In the comparison between the 1DS-3 and DMF, DMF wins.
The eyelashes tips in 1Ds-3 are fuzzy. Those in DMF,  are not.

Frank's eye/eyelashes crop is a new benchmark for sharpness.
Andre's girl portrait, quite possibly the portrait picture with most 3D I 've seen.

Tucker, seems to me a very savy and professional photographer talking with honesty. I kept reading his posts with the hope to convince myself that dslr's are good enough to compete with dmf. Sorry, to say... not yet.  As the old saying goes: A picture tells more than a thousand words.

Eduardo

[samuel_js]

To conclude my participation on this thread...(again  ) I just have to say that I clearly see the advantages of medium format and that's the reason I choose this platform... I don't think is  sincere to say "I don't use MF bacause it isn't better", bacause to my eyes, it's at this point very superior. They should say: "I don't use MF  because I don't need it" or because "other type of camera is better for my job". Because the files.... well, we all have seen them here....

Have a nice weekend!  

[eronald]

Tucker, seems to me a very savy and professional photographer talking with honesty. I kept reading his posts with the hope to convince myself that dslr's are good enough to compete with dmf. Sorry, to say... not yet.  As the old saying goes: A picture tells more than a thousand words.

Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I don't understand why Mark is painting himself into that corner. Of course, he is a very very good photographer, and can get superb results with any camera.

Edmund

[Mark_Tucker]

My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---

I write all this in the spirit of hopefully assisting another photographer, who might get caught up in all the hype about medium format, when the Canon might just do just fine. We have to stop our old mindset of thinking of Canon as "35" and thinking of Hasselblad as "120", because now, they're clearly merging, in terms of file sizes. With proper sharpening and file prep, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day of the week, if your deal is CMYK reproduction. Yes, maybe the P45 or A75 will be a little tighter, but unlike many people on this board who are so insistent about the superiority of MF, the differences, after reproduction, or on an Epson print, can be quite small.

Just one opinion. TEST FOR YOURSELF, in your style, before you write the check. It's a drag to waste money. I should know.

[BlasR]

I have canon 1ds and I have H1 with p45+.  

 I love the canon for speed, just to go to bosque del apache, but other them that ,"hum"maybe to use the 400do for the moon or others animals

you can't say you going to istitch multiple frames together, with the Canon and look the same,as the p45+ and it's not going to be any different ,
is like night and day in favor of the p45+,

Well "cada loco con su tema"

BlasR

My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---

I write all this in the spirit of hopefully assisting another photographer, who might get caught up in all the hype about medium format, when the Canon might just do just fine. We have to stop our old mindset of thinking of Canon as "35" and thinking of Hasselblad as "120", because now, they're clearly merging, in terms of file sizes. With proper sharpening and file prep, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day of the week, if your deal is CMYK reproduction. Yes, maybe the P45 or A75 will be a little tighter, but unlike many people on this board who are so insistent about the superiority of MF, the differences, after reproduction, or on an Epson print, can be quite small.

Just one opinion. TEST FOR YOURSELF, in your style, before you write the check. It's a drag to waste money. I should know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[awofinden]

My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---

I write all this in the spirit of hopefully assisting another photographer, who might get caught up in all the hype about medium format, when the Canon might just do just fine. We have to stop our old mindset of thinking of Canon as "35" and thinking of Hasselblad as "120", because now, they're clearly merging, in terms of file sizes. With proper sharpening and file prep, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day of the week, if your deal is CMYK reproduction. Yes, maybe the P45 or A75 will be a little tighter, but unlike many people on this board who are so insistent about the superiority of MF, the differences, after reproduction, or on an Epson print, can be quite small.

Just one opinion. TEST FOR YOURSELF, in your style, before you write the check. It's a drag to waste money. I should know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is a little bit of a sad state of affairs when were looking for something that might "do just fine" for the sake of convenience. Also with regard to people who justify writing a check for a MFDB for personal work, have you forgotten that photography isn't just about economics?

[Morgan_Moore]

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

De ja vue .. [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12193&hl=]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=12193&hl=[/url]

but you still cant do 25ISO, 800th and flash with a canon

and a big chip DOES give less depth of field for a given aperture

S