Leaf Aptus 22 / 1DsIII

[Frank Doorhof]

Today one of my students took a 1DsIII with him.
I could not resist to take a few testshots.

This was done very quickly, one large softbox:

Mamiya 645AFD/II with Leaf Aptus 22 and Mamiya 120mm macro
Canon 1DsIII with 70-200 f2.8 IS L

With the mamiya I got a little bit more on the shot than with the Canon, but I think the example is still solid.

What I find (and what I expected).

Skin tones on the Leaf are better.
Fine detail is rendered much better especially in shadow areas like the eyelashes.
Also the leaf is sharper (probarbly due to the AA filter in the 1DsIII).
More feel of real texture in the skin (more depth )

I cannot say much more because I shot one portret.
Focus was on closest eyes for both cameras.

What I can say is that as a machine the 1DsIII feels great, the viewfinder is nice and large and the shutter is quiet compared to the Mamiya.

I will try to get a testsample from Canon to test some outside shots with flash etc.
But I think this is nice to already see the difference in fine detail.

Download the tiff from www.frankdoorhof.com/leaf1dsiii.tif

It will be there in about 5 minutes.

Greetings,
Frank

[routlaw]

No doubt about it Frank, the Leaf is better in every way... no comparison.

Rob

[Frank Doorhof]

Well not in every way

first that's too soon to say, you cannot judge dynamic range from this shot.

High-ISO, speed, longer lenses etc. the 1DsIII wins hands down.

However because all people seem to only stare at the MP count I thought let's just post only that first.
When I get one for a longer time I will do some more outside/dynamic range stuff.

For me the difference will always be there because the SYSTEM is different, you get a totally different look from MF systems and large format systems than from 35mm and vica versa ofcourse.

[MarkKay]

HI Frank.. Thanks for posting these.  I assume these were RAW converted using the same default settings?  
I agree with all of your points. I will say that I tried to agressively sharpen the Tiff file.  I need to play with it more and because i am traveling only on my laptop so may be hard to make a correct conclusion. When I equally sharpen, I find there are more artifacts in the Leaf file and although the detail in the Canon becomes better still not as good as the leaf aptus.  Mar k

I also wanted to say I think a good macro will always do better than the 70-200 but i do understand that there are limitations to what gear you might have to try.

Today one of my students took a 1DsIII with him.
I could not resist to take a few testshots.

This was done very quickly, one large softbox:

Mamiya 645AFD/II with Leaf Aptus 22 and Mamiya 120mm macro
Canon 1DsIII with 70-200 f2.8 IS L

With the mamiya I got a little bit more on the shot than with the Canon, but I think the example is still solid.

What I find (and what I expected).

Skin tones on the Leaf are better.
Fine detail is rendered much better especially in shadow areas like the eyelashes.
Also the leaf is sharper (probarbly due to the AA filter in the 1DsIII).
More feel of real texture in the skin (more depth )

I cannot say much more because I shot one portret.
Focus was on closest eyes for both cameras.

What I can say is that as a machine the 1DsIII feels great, the viewfinder is nice and large and the shutter is quiet compared to the Mamiya.

I will try to get a testsample from Canon to test some outside shots with flash etc.
But I think this is nice to already see the difference in fine detail.

Download the tiff from www.frankdoorhof.com/leaf1dsiii.tif

It will be there in about 5 minutes.

Greetings,
Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Frank Doorhof]

Well it was what I had on the camera at that moment

If you sharpen you should sharpen them not together.

The Canon files always need some sharpening to countereffect the AA filter.
The leaf files DON"T need sharpening.
When you sharpen the Tiff for the Canon the Leaf file will be WAY oversharpenend.
When you sharpen for the Leaf file .... there is no need

[MarkKay]

Framk  I know but the way the Tiff files were downloaded, I could not separate the images  so  I was sharpening the whole tiff file  before i had to run off.  i have now compared separately.  My point was to determine the most detail that could be extracted from each image.

Well it was what I had on the camera at that moment

If you sharpen you should sharpen them not together.

The Canon files always need some sharpening to countereffect the AA filter.
The leaf files DON"T need sharpening.
When you sharpen the Tiff for the Canon the Leaf file will be WAY oversharpenend.
When you sharpen for the Leaf file .... there is no need
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[mcfoto]

Hi Frank
When I look at both the Leaf has the edge but not by much. I will have to do a studio shot with the ZD & 1Ds3. The bit depth has really improved on the Canon. The MFD makers now have to move into the next generation of chips, like a FF sensor @ 50mp. From your our two tests with companies using the same sensor, Canon has really closed the gap. If this is what Canon can do with a CMOS sensor then I think the MFD makers should take a second look at CMOS too. Having been a loyal fan & user of MFD since my start into digital from 1999 ( Sinar 2x2 chip ) I am now going to start using my Canon on jobs now, maybe not all but from what I see Canon has done a hell of a job! Lets not forget about Nikon as they are back in the game with the D3.
Denis

[Frank Doorhof]

Without a doubt the Canon is great.
But you keep the difference in depth of field en FOV you get with MF.

[Sean H]

Frank,

(somewhat unrelated)

I just checked out some of the soccer shots on your website - they are amazing. You have a way of capturing not just the action, but also an expression on a person's face when they are thinking or concentrating. That is what makes your shots more interesting that what we normally see in the sports pages of newspapers.

I assume that those 'Sports' shorts were done with a fancy Canon (mark II)?

Sean

[Frank Doorhof]

Thanks,
They were done with the 5D.

[Sean H]

Without a doubt the Canon is great.
But you keep the difference in depth of field en FOV you get with MF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My computer finally downloaded the TIFF...the pictures are somewhat similar in quality. The Leaf one is sharper, but I confess that they are both nice pictures. Skin tones are slightly different. Unless I had the model in front of me I couldn't be sure which was a more accurate rendition, but both pictures are pleasing.

I like to do large pieces of my work. Because I use a D200 I am a bit restricted as to the size of enlargements. But I have been thinking about getting a  P30+ so I can make larger images and enlargements with fewer artifacts. With that camera,  I hope to be able to generate 1 metre x 1 metre or even 1 metres x 2 metres enlargements of natur photography (macro, landscapes, flora etc). Even though the Canon is a FF, I assume that enlargements might have visual 'issues' (pixelation or artifacts)? Have you ever done enlargements of the sizes that I have noted?

Thanks,

Sean

[Frank Doorhof]

We have done billboards with the 10D and 5D.
It's more the cleaness of the files that counts.

For FINEART print you will need alot of resolution indeed (viewing distance is closer).
I think that when you look at the crops the MF system will give you much more to work with with interpolation.

[Sean H]

We have done billboards with the 10D and 5D.
It's more the cleaness of the files that counts.

For FINEART print you will need alot of resolution indeed (viewing distance is closer).
I think that when you look at the crops the MF system will give you much more to work with with interpolation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for your advice! Very much appreciated.

Sean

[John_Black]

Thank you Frank.  I think shots like this are as good as any test because trying to normalize crop factors, FOVs, lens differences, etc - there's not a good way to make apples to apples.  IMO -

1)  Aptus has considerably more texture, it feels more real

2)  the hair on the 1Ds3 image is soft, whereas the individual strands on the Aptus are nicely defined

3)  the 1Ds3 images looks almost blown; the hot spots above the eye and right side have been problem areas for me with the 1Ds2.  one channel gets blown and fixing it in post is tricky due to color shifting.

4)  i've been trying to decide if the two images are exposed the same or not.  the skin is almost blown on the 1Ds3 image, but the shadow on the right side is very deep.  on the aptus image the skin looks about 1/3 stop less exposed, but the detail in the hair shadows is much greater.  very different tone curves.  

Based upon first impressions I feel the Aptus file has more detail and texture - it just seems like there is more there.  Different expressions too, so that may be effecting my opinion.  The Canon gets the image - but i do not like the coloring on Canon skin tones - red, red, red...  always the frickin' reds...  The reds bugged me with the 1Ds and 1Ds2, and now the 1Ds3 has even more reds and magentas.  

In the Aptus image the highlights aren't too hot and the shadows aren't too deep, the exposure is very relaxed and the light looks more natural.  Maybe that's a function of the added dynamic range in the Aptus back.

[Frank Doorhof]

I feel the same about dynamic range.
I did a very quick and dirty setup as mentioned before.

It looks like the Leaf does the setup with ease were the 1DsIII without being negative has a bit more difficulties.

Dynamic range is very different, I found that out when I switched from the 5D to the leaf, were I sometimes needed a small reflector I now don't use it anymore due to the better shadows of the leaf.

[H1/A75 Guy]

IDsIII looks to the red, is blown, and has less detail. But if it makes someone happy, I'm happy

David

[John_Black]

Dynamic range is very different, I found that out when I switched from the 5D to the leaf, were I sometimes needed a small reflector I now don't use it anymore due to the better shadows of the leaf.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159304\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's interesting.  Are talking about indoor or outdoor settings?  My pictures are during family outings, etc., so I don't have an "assistant" to hold reflector for me - though there are plenty times I wish I did.  Alot of times I crank up the fill flash to offset for not having a reflector.  It seems like a good idea at the time, but back home in front of the computer I regret doing so.  I like a very natural looking light -



Being able to use less fill would be nice.  My P25 should be here around next Thursday, so I hope to test things out that weekend.  After that we're off to L.A. for the holidays.  Most of the pix will be landscapes.

[mikemigs]

Wow - her lips are really chapped!  

Seriously though, I like the Leaf file more just because of higher detail (personal preference). I think the big difference really is in the lenses. MF glass seems to be consistently better across the range (from wides to teles) than DSLR glass, which are inconsistent in the wide end.

[mcfoto]

Wow - her lips are really chapped!  

Seriously though, I like the Leaf file more just because of higher detail (personal preference). I think the big difference really is in the lenses. MF glass seems to be consistently better across the range (from wides to teles) than DSLR glass, which are inconsistent in the wide end.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
Have you tried the Canon 85mm 1.2L, that is an incredible lens.
Thanks Denis

[MarkKay]

The canon 70-200 and a  mamiya 120mm macro prime is not a totally fair comparison. I have been told the mamiya macro is perhaps their best optic.

Wow - her lips are really chapped!  

Seriously though, I like the Leaf file more just because of higher detail (personal preference). I think the big difference really is in the lenses. MF glass seems to be consistently better across the range (from wides to teles) than DSLR glass, which are inconsistent in the wide end.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]