Valid MF criticism or not?

[Frank Doorhof]

@Mark,
Love your work, very creative and striking (just had to say this )

The reason I called up a billboard is to prove that as a tool you can use anything with 8 MP or more, billboards are VERY low DPI and you can shoot it with a 1DsII and crop

My portfolio is A2 printed on the 3800 and there I can really see a difference in the 5D shots and the Leaf aptus shots.
Not on a total look, but when you look at the structure of clothes and especially when looking at eyes in a 3/4 body shot it's VERY obvious.

However I don't know anymagazine that prints at the same resolution as the 3800 on A2
That's more the story I was trying to tell.
For WORK every good DSLR will never dissapoint.

[samuel_js]

“I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.”
 Socrates quotes (Ancient Greek Philosopher, 470 BC-399 BC)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

...

[Jonathan Wienke]

OK, based on the "dimensionality" and DOF of this image, let's see if the hi-fi conoisseurs here can correctly guess the camera format used to create this image, and for extra bonus points, the focal length and aperture of the lens used. All exif, including profile tag, have been stripped; if you want to look at it in PS, assign Gray Gamma 2.2.

Some interesting claims have been made, I'm curious to see if they can be substantiated by those making them.

[eronald]

Hand anybody on this forum a Canon 1Ds3 or a a 5D and the right lens, give them a type of job they have aready done before, and they will get it done.

I think the question isn't what you *have* to use, it's what you *like* to use

Edmund

[AndreNapier]

OK, based on the "dimensionality" and DOF of this image, let's see if the hi-fi conoisseurs here can correctly guess the camera format used to create this image, and for extra bonus points, the focal length and aperture of the lens used. All exif, including profile tag, have been stripped; if you want to look at it in PS, assign Gray Gamma 2.2.

Some interesting claims have been made, I'm curious to see if they can be substantiated by those making them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My best guess is Canon 5D, 50mm/1.4 @ 1.8 sec. cropped mostly on the left side from horizontal image.

Andre

[David Blankenship]

My best guess is Canon 5D, 50mm/1.4 @ 1.8 sec. cropped mostly on the left side from horizontal image.

Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My guess 35mm dslr with 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 lens  1/30 sec wide open and lit with portable strobe.

db

[psp]

This is a silly argument... one will never tell the difference looking at jpgs.

Shoot for a transit shelter or magazine - MF will, at the moment, always produce better results. All things being equal, do you really think a canon will produce quality files comparable to a multi-shot 39MP back on a view camera with Schneider optics? The difference is obvious and quite astonishing.

Shoot a billboard or transit shelter for an ad agency on a 10MP camera and that'll likely be the last job you get from them. Shoot it using a 39MP multi-shot with Schneider optics and they'll come back raving about the georgeous, sharp, detailed and wicked colour files.

That doesn't mean MF is best suited for all situations, nor DSLR is best suited for all situations.



Cheers!

[awofinden]

I've owned a Mamiya 645 AF with a P21 and a sinarback 54M, sinar p2, Nikon N90, canon 1ds mark 2, powershot s70 and I think any of them could have produced that shot with the right lens, film, light,  combination. If it were printed 8 * 10  then it would be different...  (I hope).

[Ray]

Jonathan,
It certainly doesn't have an MFDB look. I'd say you probably took this shot with a P&S digicam.

I don't think there can be any doubt that an MFDB like the P45 with a sensor size and pixel count double that of FF 35mm, coupled with one of the new Digitar lenses which appear to be better than most Canon lenses (perhaps all Canon lenses), will produce a clarity and sharpness that FF 35mm cannot match.

The question now being debated seems to be, is their some magical quality associated purely with sensor size that imparts a greater sense of 3-dimensionality to MFDB images? I doubt it.

[jjj]

OK, based on the "dimensionality" and DOF of this image, let's see if the hi-fi conoisseurs here can correctly guess the camera format used to create this image, and for extra bonus points, the focal length and aperture of the lens used. All exif, including profile tag, have been stripped; if you want to look at it in PS, assign Gray Gamma 2.2.

Some interesting claims have been made, I'm curious to see if they can be substantiated by those making them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have to say that I really do not care what camera it was taken on as it looks like an average snapshot that a parent may coo over and no-one else will give a second glance. Sorry, just my opinion. Besides, you can take an indifferent picture [like this one] with any camera and also a good picture with any camera - as long as you know how and when to use it. But different cameras will give different end results with the same subject. Some differences are significant, some quite subtle. Once again we have a single shot, which tells us nothing about anything really.
Apart from anything else, the lighting will have a major effect on the modeling and hence 3D-ness of any image. You could photograph the child with front lighting instead of side lighting and that will have a huge impact on the 'dimensionality' of the image
Would you expect an audiophile, even with excellent ears to tell what kit is used if you play an 128k mp3 through it esp. with no reference to any other equipment playing the same reference signal.
The only relevent/worthwhile test is for someone to post images taken with several cameras of the same subject with the same lighting, camera settings, perspective etc and then let people work out which is which.
I don't have a MF camera to hand. I rent one if I need one and won't be using one for a while as I'm working through images from several big jobs at the moment. So if anyone else can oblige.....

[awofinden]

I have to say that I really do not care what camera it was taken on as it looks like an average snapshot that a parent may coo over and no-one else will give a second glance. Sorry, just my opinion. Besides, you can take an indifferent picture [like this one] with any camera and also a good picture with any camera - as long as you know how and when to use it. But different cameras will give different end results with the same subject. Some differences are significant, some quite subtle. Once again we have a single shot, which tells us nothing about anything really.
Apart from anything else, the lighting will have a major effect on the modeling and hence 3D-ness of any image. You could photograph the child with front lighting instead of side lighting and that will have a huge impact on the 'dimensionality' of the image
Would you expect an audiophile, even with excellent ears to tell what kit is used if you play an 128k mp3 through it esp. with no reference to any other equipment playing the same reference signal.
The only relevent/worthwhile test is for someone to post images taken with several cameras of the same subject with the same lighting, camera settings, perspective etc and then let people work out which is which.
I don't have a MF camera to hand. I rent one if I need one and won't be using one for a while as I'm working through images from several big jobs at the moment. So if anyone else can oblige.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thats a very long post from someone who doesn't care.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Would you expect an audiophile, even with excellent ears to tell what kit is used if you play an 128k mp3 through it esp. with no reference to any other equipment playing the same reference signal.

That's pretty much the claim made by several people earlier in this thread, that the MFDB "difference" is so great that it is easily noticeable even in web-sized JPEGs. And let's just say I'm skeptical of that claim, for pretty much the reasons you mention.
 

The only relevent/worthwhile test is for someone to post images taken with several cameras of the same subject with the same lighting, camera settings, perspective etc and then let people work out which is which.

I agree, but I would alter that just a bit to say identical physical aperture size, so when the images are sized down to match each other that DOF is identical across the board.

I have no doubt that the increased resolution of a MFDB will make a significant difference when printed poster-sized, and that the additional bits per pixel make for smoother tonal gradations and allow for extra resilience when applying curves and other edits. I also believe that designed-for-MF-digital lenses have better resolution than not-necessarily-designed-for-digital 35mm format lenses. And (fairly) basic math shows that the larger the format, the easier it is to achieve shallow DOF.

But I'm very skeptical of the claim that such differences are easily discernible in properly processed web-sized JPEGs (600-800 pixel), or even printed typical magazine page size, for most subject matter.

[nicolaasdb]

8 PAGES!!!!

It is a fact that the MF backs produce better/higher quality images...it is a fact...you can't even argue this fact!!

The whole point is that after all the manipulation and the downsizing from 16bit to 8bit and the printing process...is it still visible? And it is...because if you start out with a better quality image, even after f'ing it up you will still have a good image in the end (this compaired to the same process you will put your 35mm thru!)

You don't have to be an audiophile to see the difference. BUT...IF YOU ARE A SHITTY PHOTOGRAPHER.......A 1 MILLION DOLLAR CAMERA WILL NOT SAVE YOUR IMAGE!! And if you can't get the shot with your MF....you will not get the shot!!! and you will not get paid! So you have to always make sure you get the shot!! and sometimes you got to give up quality (and luckily the quality you have to give up shooting with a Ds1MkII or a MF back (any manufacturer!!) isn't that big! IT IS VISIBLE!!.....but your client needs the shoot and if you can deliver with a 35mm he will take it......NOW with the 65s around the corner (and the P30+) we might be able to catch up in getting the shot with the MF (and again this only goes when you are shooting expressions, emotions in sport fashion beauty etc) when shooting landscape or product I would NEVER use 35mm...simply because there IS a difference!! and your tree is not going to go anyware, and neither is your lamp, keychain etc ( I am not trying to talk down on product or landscape photography!!! I wich I had the vision and the skills to shoot both!)

Just another of my 2 cents......

[EricWHiss]

I think DR is an important factor for getting the subject to pop out that hasn't been yet discussed in this thread.  MFDB sensors have more DR range than even the new canons by 1.5 stops maybe more.  That's the big reason I made the change to MF from 35mm.  Maybe this is less important for people or for images destined for B&W or maybe not?

The magnification factor is important too because it changes the rate at which things go from in focus to out of focus.  The bigger the film plane or sensor the quicker this happens.   I don't know the hows and whys but some lens designs differ and appear to have faster transitions than others.

Dunno if I can see DR differences in images resized and converted to 8bits for the web or not but it sure looks like I can at full rez. I thought I could see the diff between MF and 35 but maybe I can't?

[AndreNapier]

Two quick samples of the 3D from Aptus75s/Rz67 combo from my last shoot before vacation.
If this talk is still alive by Sunday I will shoot side by side with Canon and post the difference for these that still doubt it.[attachment=3168:attachment][attachment=3169:attachment][attachment=3169:atta
chment][attachment=3170:attachment][attachment=3171:attachment][attachment=3172:a
ttachment]

[thsinar]

I would be glad to see this anyway!

Thanks,
Thierry

If this talk is still alive by Sunday I will shoot side by side with Canon and post the difference for these that still doubt it.

[attachment=3168:attachment][attachment=3169:attachment][attachment=3169:attachm
ent][attachment=3170:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

It is a fact that the MF backs produce better/higher quality images...it is a fact...you can't even argue this fact!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is a fact. It is a fact that some MF backs produce better quality images than other MF backs. And it's a fact that some FF 35mm DSLRs produce better images than other 35mm DSLRs, especially if one of them has a better lens.

The thread began by trying to find out if the 21mp 1Ds3 could rival in image quality a 22mp MFDB, such as the Mamiya ZD which has a sensor twice the size.

I would say it mostly depends on the quality of the lens. For the smaller format to rival the quality of the larger format, with same pixel count, the smaller format needs a better lens. Not just one that is equally good but one which is higher resolving at the same MTF. You can't take a picture with just a camera body or just an MFDB, without a lens. Image quality is always a result of sensor performance plus lens performance (excluding artistic sensibility and technical prowess of course).

[paul_jones]

Two quick samples of the 3D from Aptus75s/Rz67 combo from my last shoot before vacation.
If this talk is still alive by Sunday I will shoot side by side with Canon and post the difference for these that still doubt it.[attachment=3168:attachment][attachment=3169:attachment][attachment=3169:atta
chment][attachment=3170:attachment][attachment=3171:attachment][attachment=3172:a
ttachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that would be good to see andrei. please use a 85 1.2 at 1.2 as a fair comparison to the rz67/a75/110 2.8 at 2.8.

i like the look of that fast rz lens. i just dont the look of my 100 2.2 hc.

i make no bones about the quality of medium format backs- but mainly because of the strength of the tone and colours of the files, not nessarly the sharpness (i use a p25- 22 mp). the canon just needs a little careful sharpening to keep up.

cheers paul

[Ray]

that would be good to see andrei. please use a 85 1.2 at 1.2 as a fair comparison to the rz67/a75/110 2.8 at 2.8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 85/1.2 is not particularly sharp at f1.2. Might be better at f2. Theoretically DoF should be closer at f2.

I can't find any MTF charts for the Z110/2.8. Is this a lens that is almost as sharp wide open as at f8?

[JeffKohn]

I don't think there can be any doubt that an MFDB like the P45 with a sensor size and pixel count double that of FF 35mm, coupled with one of the new Digitar lenses which appear to be better than most Canon lenses (perhaps all Canon lenses), will produce a clarity and sharpness that FF 35mm cannot match.

I don't think anybody in their right minds would disagree with you on that. But I think a more relevent question is how 35mm cameras such as the upcoming 1DsMk3 compare to the lower end of the MDFB range (such as the Mamiya ZD). Both cameras have about the same pixel count, both are supposedly 14-bit. The question is whether the larger photosites improve image quality to any signficant extent. I think one possible advantage would be dynamic range, but given the noise performance of the ZD I'm not sure that's a foregone conclusion. Of course there's also the matter of lenses. Canon isn't exactly known for stellar wideangle lenses, so it remains to be seen what kind of results can be achieved shooting wideangle shots with the 1DsMk3. I suppose using third-party lenses/adapters is an alternative here if you can live with manual focus.

The question now being debated seems to be, is their some magical quality associated purely with sensor size that imparts a greater sense of 3-dimensionality to MFDB images? I doubt it.

The folks claiming this seem to portrait photographers for the most part, who value shallow DOF. It's certainly going to be easier to get a shallow DOF with the larger format, due to the longer focal lengths needed for a given field of view. And maybe the MF lenses have better bokeh for whatever reason, I don't know.

But for some people, lack of DOF is a disadvantage, not a benefit. For landscapes, the goal is often to maximize DOF and it seems MFDB may be at a disadvantage here.