Valid MF criticism or not?

[rethmeier]

One thing that people forget to mention,that you are forever cropping into the 24x36 format.
Less or none with the MFDB format!
That's my greatest dislike of the DSLR's.
Cheers,
Willem.

[nicolaasdb]

you know what...I completely forgotten about the crop factor....this was actually one of the major desisions to go for MF!

Ofcourse you can buy (for about $125) screens that will give you a 8x10 or square crop, but you lose about 5MP when you stick to this crop.

And I am not against MFDB.....I got one and like it a lot....and there is a difference....but in the end for my kind of work..is it worth it?? probably if you can afford it.

[rethmeier]

Nic,
I used to have and use a 10x8 camera and a 5x7 camera and a 4x5 and a 6x7 and a 35mm.
Now it's only a 5D and an eMotion-75LV.
A lot less gear in my books,
The cost involved with digital is just part of doing business these days.
Cheers,
WR.

[JeffKohn]

Recently there was a thread on DPREVIEW about the H3D39 compared to the 5D and there was one replier who did an upscaling of the 5D and claimed he could not see a difference......
Well ok what do you want to talk about than
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I presume you're talking about [a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=24588661]this thread[/url]? If so I find your comment puzzling, because I said nothing of the sort. Did you actually read the thread?

There's clearly a difference in the on-screen crops, and I have no doubt it would be noticeable in print. I said as much in the thread. I was a little surprised that the H3D shot needed as much sharpening, since it doesn't have an AA filter but I guess there's still the bayer filter to compensate for.

But really, comparing a 39mp image to a 12mp image I hardly think it's surprising the H3D wins. I have to wonder if there would still be such a large difference in resoluation between something like the Mamiya ZD and the upcoming Canon 21mp DSLR (or Nikon's rumoured high-megapixel FX camera that may come out next year).

[JeffKohn]

To answer the original question, here's an exercise:

Go to the DSLR manufacturers' websites, download some of the product shots of their flagship cameras and check the EXIF data....

Many of these are shot with digital backs, which is kind of like saying "we produce a great camera but we don't think it's good enough to produce its own marketing material..."

Have you found such examples on Canon's website? Maybe they don't shoot product shots with their own DSLR's, but I kinda doubt that they leave EXIF intact testifying to that fact. I spot-checked a few images on their website and they didn't have any EXIF at all (which is what I expected).

I don't think the mentioned file is truly bad, but to download a (badly compressed) jpeg that comes up tilted 90º, can only add to my "first know them, then talk about them" belief.

Canon has a history of posting really crummy sample pictures when they release a new model. Doesn't anybody remember the awful landscape images they posted from the 5D taken with a 17-40L lens? The corner were truly atrocious, and seemed to validate everything the Nikon defenders had been saying about why full-frame may not be better.

[Dustbak]

Well obviously Canon has learned from its mistakes. Only a few years ago they did leave the exif data on the images which is how people found out they didn't use their own cameras. Pretty soon after that they took out the exif data from pictures.

BTW. I found the Hasselblad 39MP CF does need a bit sharpening where my Leaf doesn't. That difference is also noticeable.

[Frank Doorhof]

@Jeff.
It was not your post, and not that thread, it was a smaller thread it did point to that thread I believe because I also read that one.

It was someone with little text, just claiming that after upsampling the 5D file looked as good or better.

I tried the search but could not come up with it, he did not post sample pics by the way.

[rethmeier]

Can we please move on?
For most of the time the new 1DsMkIII will have to be cropped for a single page or DPS.
A 33 or 39 MFDB will still give you a lot more real estate.
The new Canon and the new D3 from Nikon are super cameras and no MFDB camera will come
close for speed etc.(Not yet)
It's horses for courses and that why I use both!
Cheers,
WR

[nicolaasdb]

double page layouts need no crop in 35mm...they are almost right on...it is the MF that needs a crop   for double page layout (I think that is what you mean by dps, right?) MF images are to short if shot landscape and need to be cropped top or bottom. Isn't it always something! LOL

[rethmeier]

"double page layouts need no crop in 35mm...they are almost right on...it is the MF that needs a crop for double page layout (I think that is what you mean by dps, right?) MF images are to short if shot landscape and need to be cropped top or bottom. Isn't it always something! LOL"

Nic!
It depends on which magazine!
Still I would rather crop a file from a 33-39 MFDB!
Cheers,
Willem.

[rethmeier]

Nic!
Ook een oud model?
WR

[AndreNapier]

To me the biggest difference between MF and DSLR  is not what they do to an image but what they do to me. When I look through Rz's WLF I see a clear 3D layered set up and I compose with full awareness of the depth of field. I have the feeling of being present deep inside my image and it helps me to arrange it creatively. Looking through DSLR I am just an observer of a flat image, kind of like judging art of an oversize stamp in an album. Of course I understand that this is personal feeling based on my own lock of much experience with small finders, but the difference is SOOOOO huge. It is like going to a movie or watching it on 19" screen at home. In both cases you see the same production but each one of them leaves you with different impressions, feeling and creative thoughts.
It does not matter how many pixels will the next DSLR come with, for some of us we will never work the same with DSLR's as we do with larger mediums. ... and of course for others who are used to shooting with 35mm the sole amount of information found on a ground glass of a larger format camera might be as disturbing and as confusing.
Http://andrenapier.com

[Frank Doorhof]

I had a nice mail conversation with someone who echoes my thoughts (or I his).

DSLR's can do anything you want or need.
The difference however is what you want for yourself and as an artist.

When I look at napiers work I see alot pictures with an incredible depth to it, I think/hope they are shot with a MF system.
This is however something that most people won't notice or don't care about, it is however what you feel when making the shot.
I myself find that I'm much more inspired when I shoot with the MF system than with the DSLR which feels like a tool for work (and it delivers always).

For me as an artist it's the 3D look and DR that does it in quality, however the same shot can be made with a DSLR in 99% of the cases, but somehow to ME it than looks like a cheap imitation of what I intended.

That depth has pushed me towards the MF system and finally Leaf.
I had ALOT of shots on the web I admired and mailed some photographers what they used to get the incredible 3D look to the pictures, the ones who mailed back told me a MF system, with a few I came in contact and mailed a few times.
Almost all told me they used both DSLR's and MF.
Almost all told me that they used the MF for when it counted and personal projects and the DSLR when the job had to be done and get it over with.
The DSLR got their their pictures always without trouble, however the MF was for those personal projects and the projects that demanded the absolute best.

I think that is also the way it's supposed to be.
When you are in the market to earn money and want to shoot a billboard the 5D will do just fine, want to crop buy the 1DsIII.
But if you are like me also personally attached to the images and just plain love to shoot MF COULD be a wonderful step up.

Greetings,
Frank

[JeffKohn]

@Jeff.
It was not your post, and not that thread, it was a smaller thread it did point to that thread I believe because I also read that one.

It was someone with little text, just claiming that after upsampling the 5D file looked as good or better.

I tried the search but could not come up with it, he did not post sample pics by the way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry for jumping conclusions, I must have missed that one as the only 5D/H3D comparison I recall there was the one I posted in. I do recall Roman Johnston's comparison thread, but that was H3D versus D2x (and the D2x file looked so bad people were wondering if it might have been mishandled somehow).

[jimgolden]

"However, once the image is printed on a SWOP press or posted in an 8-bit sRGB web gallery the differences at the pixel-to-pixel level are moot"

"CMYK - the great leveler"

enduser is often the color house doing the pre-press and the printer...having worked in these environs for years, I saw what the operators did to 16bit RGB imagery, and it wasnt pretty...

[samuel_js]

For me as an artist it's the 3D look and DR that does it in quality, however the same shot can be made with a DSLR in 99% of the cases, but somehow to ME it than looks like a cheap imitation of what I intended.

This is exaclty the way I feel about MF. It's like the MF understands me as an artist. I'll get what I see (or very close) and I really enjoy the proccess of doing it.

[mcfoto]

Hi
The last few days I have been going in to Sydney photographing the APEC installations. I have been using the ZD, 35 & 55-110 zoom. I was going to take a tripod but my partner said  don't draw attention to yourself & she was right as the police told me to STOP taking pictures of the fence yesterday. What is so weird about APEC to me is it is way past "1984", blocked streets, 5km of fence, no go zones, portable jails......welcome to Australia!!!!!!!! Back to the ZD it is an amazing camera for this type of shooting & I keep the iso between 50-125. Fits into a small camera bag & is light weight. When I get my new lenses for the 5D I will take it as a second body. When my ZD gets a firmware upgrade then I will use the higher iso's.

[Ray]

For me as an artist it's the 3D look and DR that does it in quality, however the same shot can be made with a DSLR in 99% of the cases, but somehow to ME it than looks like a cheap imitation of what I intended.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah! But we haven't yet seen what the 1Ds3 can do, have we? As already mentioned, the 1Ds3 sample image on Canon's site is not truly representative.

Can someone also explain to me how a 2-dimensional photograph can produce a greater sense of 3-dimensionality when it's taken by an MFDB. Is it the extra resolution; the greater dynamic range? If not, is it perhaps the placebo effect of owning such an expensive piece of equipment? A sort of subconscious justification for such excessive expenditure.

Has anyone done a scientifically rigorous comparison, you know, a sort of double blind test? For example, comparisons of scenes where the dynamic range and extra resolution is not particularly significant, because of the nature of the scene, no really fine detail and no great contrasts etc.

[Frank Doorhof]

Hi,
It's in the sensor size.
When I switched from the 20D to the 5D I saw an increase in 3D look from my pictures.
When I shot with a Hasselblad I saw the same thing happen.
That's the reason I switched.

Some people will claim it's only the DOF and you can get the same result with a 1.2 lens or 1.8 on the DSLR but this is simply not true, even on f16 the 3D look from the MF is better.
HOWEVER it is very easily seen on the larger apertures.

Some examples done with the ZD by the way:
Take note how the subject is pushed clear from the surroundings instead of lokking 2D fixed to the surroundings.






Maybe it's the missing AA filter or microcontrast but I think it's the bigger sensor (larger circle of confussion) because I experienced the same from the 20D to 5D with exactly the same lenses.

Some people don't see it that's true but maybe that's their monitor.
I'm an ISF calibrator and know how the calibration of a monitor (and proper gamma/blacklevel) can affect the look of a picture. On all my setups (including projection) the MF files are just much more 3D.

It's not a placebo I'm afraid.
I saw the effect on the Hasselblad a while ago and have been trying to emulate the effect with my 5D and a 1DsII for almost 5 months and what ever I tried it was impossible, you can get a very nice 3D effect when EVERY element is carefully planned but when I made the switch to MF it was right on the money every shot.

[samuel_js]

Ah! But we haven't yet seen what the 1Ds3 can do, have we? As already mentioned, the 1Ds3 sample image on Canon's site is not truly representative.

Can someone also explain to me how a 2-dimensional photograph can produce a greater sense of 3-dimensionality when it's taken by an MFDB. Is it the extra resolution; the greater dynamic range? If not, is it perhaps the placebo effect of owning such an expensive piece of equipment? A sort of subconscious justification for such excessive expenditure.

Has anyone done a scientifically rigorous comparison, you know, a sort of double blind test? For example, comparisons of scenes where the dynamic range and extra resolution is not particularly significant, because of the nature of the scene, no really fine detail and no great contrasts etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 1Ds III still has a small sensor, same lenses, and smaller microns. I don't know exactly the size but more pixels in the same area means smaller pixels. That could result in maybe more noise in shadows, color rendition problems, etc... I'm not saying that the quality will be bad, but I doubt I'll be better tha the MKII or even close to MF.
I don't think a lot of people understand (specially thouse who don't use MF) that the resolution of the MKIII cannot make the pictures look like MF.  It's alot more, bit depth, sensor size, quality lenses, etc... Canon's pictures gets bigger and bigger but not better (in my opinion).

/Samuel