Canon 1DSMK3 test image compared to Phase Backs

[Ray]

What's your problem

The difference is very easily explained (but you need some basic knowledge about photography).
The sensor is bigger (twice as big).
When you don't change your position you can shoot the same FOV with a longer lens than with a 35mm camera.
This will DRAMATICLY change the way the photo looks.

First in DOF but also in distortion of the shot.

This is for ME the reason I switched you get wonderful results and great DOF control.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you are forgetting Frank that the differences that exist between 35mm and MFDBs regarding the DoF effect with lenses of the same focal length is common hat to many of us folks who have never even used MFDBs.

Most people who only ever used 35mm film switched to cropped format DSLRs when they became available and affordable and had to contend with the different FoV and DoF one would get with lenses one had been used to using on 35mm film cameras.

During the past few years there have been hundreds of threads on this forum alone explaining the multiplier effect with regard to choice of focal length and its effect on DoF.

Just as an MFDB is a cropped 6x4.5cm MF film format, a Canon 20D or 40D is a cropped 35mm film format. The only difference being the 40D is cropped to a slightly greater extent than the MFDB.

If I want to get the same effect (same FoV and same DoF) with my 20D as I would get using an 80mm portrait lens on my full frame 5D, I have to use a 50mm lens and divide the f stop number by 1.6.

For example, where I would use f8 with the 80mm lens on the 5D, I would use f5 with the 50mm lens on the 20D, shooting from the same distance.

When using a 1Ds3 instead of a P21, you will get the same effect, shooting from the same distance if you use a lens of a shorter focal length and wider aperture.

The multiplier is slightly less, about 1.5 if you want equal FoV keeping the MFDB aspect ratio (ie cropping the 35mm format).

So, when comparing a 1Ds3 with a P21, if you are using a 120mm lens with the P21 at f11, you should be using an 80mm lens at f7.1 with the 1Ds3. You'll get the same effect fairly precisely shooting from the same position.

However, if you intend matching the FoVs in the longer dimension (cropping the P21 to the same aspect ratio as 35mm) then the multiplier becomes 1.33, which means you should be using a 90mm lens at f8 with the 1Ds3.

I think some of you guys might be attributing certain mystical qualities to the MFDB which simply don't exist.

[rainer_v]

huh... not again.

noone wants to make believe anyone who is working with 35mm that he has to go to mf.

you can ofcourse make great photography with 35mm g9s or 33mp backs, as you could before make great photographs with a leica nikon minolta canon olympus or even with a minox or as well with a hasselblad or with a 4x5" or with a 8x10".
stupid to convince a 35mm film shooter that he has to use 8x10" and stupid as well to discuss that you nearly never need prints larger than a4 and so the material waste from 8x10" is just crazy. also it can look well to blow up the 35mm shots to 2 meters, if the content of the shot is great. will look much better than to print a bad 8X10" shot to this size.

its boring to discuss here so many treads long with people who have not any experience with more gear than they own or at least heve never hold some hiend tools in their hands and which want now just to discuss if we ( mf users ) are a little bit crazy or not.
unfortunately this guys arent searching experience here in this forum, which i really like to share. this means time wasting for me and ruining this nice forum.
so i will stay away in future here from any comarison of other gear than mf and also discussion as "which advantage has to spent 40.00 0$ if you can shoot pictures with 500$ cams also".
without wanting to be too arrogant i want to say that i could do this till a certain degree but fortunately i dont need to do it, but from most of the discussion partners who defend here so much that its nonsense to spend so much money, i havent seen nothing of their work just (too) many words about the disadvantages of my gear.

emotion75lv with contax645 and 35mm lens:

[attachment=4359:attachment]

[doncody]

I think you are forgetting Frank that the differences that exist between 35mm and MFDBs regarding the DoF effect with lenses of the same focal length is common hat to many of us folks who have never even used MFDBs.

Most people who only ever used 35mm film switched to cropped format DSLRs when they became available and affordable and had to contend with the different FoV and DoF one would get with lenses one had been used to using on 35mm film cameras.

During the past few years there have been hundreds of threads on this forum alone explaining the multiplier effect with regard to choice of focal length and its effect on DoF.

Just as an MFDB is a cropped 6x4.5cm MF film format, a Canon 20D or 40D is a cropped 35mm film format. The only difference being the 40D is cropped to a slightly greater extent than the MFDB.

If I want to get the same effect (same FoV and same DoF) with my 20D as I would get using an 80mm portrait lens on my full frame 5D, I have to use a 50mm lens and divide the f stop number by 1.6.

For example, where I would use f8 with the 80mm lens on the 5D, I would use f5 with the 50mm lens on the 20D, shooting from the same distance.

When using a 1Ds3 instead of a P21, you will get the same effect, shooting from the same distance if you use a lens of a shorter focal length and wider aperture.

The multiplier is slightly less, about 1.5 if you want equal FoV keeping the MFDB aspect ratio (ie cropping the 35mm format).

So, when comparing a 1Ds3 with a P21, if you are using a 120mm lens with the P21 at f11, you should be using an 80mm lens at f7.1 with the 1Ds3. You'll get the same effect fairly precisely shooting from the same position.

However, if you intend matching the FoVs in the longer dimension (cropping the P21 to the same aspect ratio as 35mm) then the multiplier becomes 1.33, which means you should be using a 90mm lens at f8 with the 1Ds3.

I think some of you guys might be attributing certain mystical qualities to the MFDB which simply don't exist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Boooring......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz......

DC
 

[yaya]

Ray can you post a couple of portrait or product frames from your 20D/f5/50mm and 5D/f8/80mm showing these similiar FoV+DoF?

Thanks

Yair

[Morgan_Moore]

I think some of you guys might be attributing certain mystical qualities to the MFDB which simply don't exist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are wrong.

The two looks MF and dslr ARE different

While I can see your basic argument it is too simplistic

It is to do with how OOF stuff gets and AT WHAT RATE

While one may be able to use a DSLR to get point A in focus and point B blurred same to the same circle of confusion of a MF once you throw in a point C - you will find that different recording areas cannot replicate each other

Typical

A - Eyes

C - body of subject (slightly behing the eyes)

B - background

If you are looking to get eyes pin, body acceptable and background blurred you will find for a given FOV this is doable with a MFDB and not with a DSLR

This tends to show in mid to full length portraits most clearly

And die hard MF users - mostly shoot mid to full lenght portraits for a living

SMM

[Panopeeper]

The difference is very easily explained (but you need some basic knowledge about photography)

Let's see.

When you don't change your position you can shoot the same FOV with a longer lens than with a 35mm camera.
This will DRAMATICLY change the way the photo looks.

First in DOF but also in distortion of the shot

The DoF of the longer lens is shallower than that of the shorter ones. So much to the "basic knowledge about photography".

Or were you referring to 3D-like blur?

(I have not disputed and still do not dispute advantages of MF cameras, for example I mentioned just above the wider FoV; the distortion associated with extrem wide angles is a plague of the APS-C cameras.)

I miss the forum were we could discuss things with people who were open for a GOOD discussion not as mentioned before a will He-man beat Spiderman upside down under de Xmas tree

Is it difficult to grasp, that this thread is not about MF cameras but about a phony comparison between MF cameras and a 35mm camera and about phony arguments of egomaniacs?

[TorbenEskerod]

xx

[rainer_v]

Is it difficult to grasp, that this thread is not about MF cameras but about a phony comparison between MF cameras and a 35mm camera and about phony arguments of egomaniacs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 let us see some work of you if it is phony or egomaniac as well  .....

[Panopeeper]

let us see some work of you if it is phony or egomaniac as well  .....

This one is one of those. From my POV you can assume, that I can not tell apart a lens from a camera. Do you need a "higher autority" to evaluate arguments, can't you do this on their own?

[rainer_v]

??

[vjbelle]

I have been following this thread for a while and find it more than a little disturbing (please don't tell me to just move on and not read it!!).  Its not the back and forth about DSLR and MFDB that I mind - that input and discussion is reasonable and necessary.  But, the personal attacks towards Capture Integration are just way out of line and should be out of character for this board.  I realize that some posters are friends, connected, pals and think that that relationship gives them certain rights to post whatever they wish.  I, for one, think that personal insults and the self righteous claims to speak for the public and the industry and just a little over the top!  I think its time to chill out a little and knock off the attacks on the Capture Group.  I have found them to be more than honorable and don't deserve this type of personal criticism.  Its one thing to criticize a testing methodology and another to take an attack on the integrity of the original poster.  

Happy Holidays.....

[eronald]

This one is one of those. From my POV you can assume, that I can not tell apart a lens from a camera. Do you need a "higher autority" to evaluate arguments, can't you do this on their own?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Panopeeper,

 With all due courtesy, your science is doubtless very good, but you are debating with photographers. And because you are too rigidly focused on the science, you are missing the issues which the photographers are debating.

Edmund

[Panopeeper]

Edmund,

you were right not to have followed the thread in all detail. This thread was not about photographers, not about photos, not about cameras. It was about a comparison, which has been announced on two threads. A few of us felt, that the comparison was not honest or not professional and posted very specific objections.

Instead of dealing with the objections, some other participants turned the discussion into anything and everything but objective comparison of cameras, which in turn made me (and perhaps others) wonder, why the deflection was deemed necessary.

That's all this thread was (is) about.

[Ray]

Boooring......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz......

DC
 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Obviously! This why all atempts at comparisons between the 1Ds3 and an MFDB so far on this section of the forum have failed. The maths of these basic relationships between focal  length, sensor size and DoF seems to have escaped you. Simply too boring.

You all might be very competent using your MFDBs. Your clients might demand that you use MFDBs and there's no doubt whatsoever that a larger sensor with more pixels is likely to deliver better image quality than a smaller sensor with fewer pixels, especially if the larger sensor has 16 bit processing and the smaller sensor 12 bit in-camera processing.

However, here the relevant comparison is between a camera system with 14 bit processing with a smaller sensor of similar pixel count, and a system with 16 bit processing with a sensor double the size and a different aspect ratio.

The differences are going to be small and because they are going to be small it is necessary to get things right in any comparison.

It's clear to me (crystal clear) that either one of the following two scenarios is likely to be true. (There may be others, but I don't want to insult you.)

(1) You are simply too busy as working professionals to do a proper comparison.

(2) You are not competent to do a proper comparison, perhaps because the basic maths is too boring.

Merry Christmas!  No hard feelings, I hope.  

[rethmeier]

Hi Rainer

You are absolutely right.

I used to shoot film from Olympus PEN to MF to 8x10 and choosing my gear to get the image look that I wanted.

NOW - I am still shooting film (mostly my pentax 67, (I shoot both Neg and Chromes)), but I also shoot digital now choosing between my P45+ and Contax/Cambo SWD OR my new Canon 1DsMK3.

Getting a 1DSMK3 does NOT want me to sell my P45 - they are both excellent tools and I will bring both on assignment.

Since this forum is a high-end amateur landscape forum, people might argue witch system outperforms the other (or gets close to one another) in endless discussions.

For a working pro it is pretty simple - you simply need both systems, so you can chose the right system for the right assignment. Just like we did in the old film days, nothing has changed we just have more options.

No need to argue – peace and love – I am done with LL

T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said Rainer and Torben as well!
Merry Xmas
Willem.

[Panopeeper]

(1) You are simply too busy as working professionals to do a proper comparison.

(2) You are not competent to do a proper comparison, perhaps because the basic maths is too boring.

I find another explanation more probably: they are not interested on the comparison. This is totally understandable; I would not be interested on a comparison of my camera with a P&S. (I was not interested on the result of this comparison either; only the methodology was interesting.)

The difference is only that I don't see any reason to make such disgraceful mental gymnastics to discuss away the weaknesses of the comparison.

[jing q]

Edmund,

you were right not to have followed the thread in all detail. This thread was not about photographers, not about photos, not about cameras. It was about a comparison, which has been announced on two threads. A few of us felt, that the comparison was not honest or not professional and posted very specific objections.

Instead of dealing with the objections, some other participants turned the discussion into anything and everything but objective comparison of cameras, which in turn made me (and perhaps others) wonder, why the deflection was deemed necessary.

That's all this thread was (is) about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

how about this. Read through the forums and get a sense of the kind of people who post here and a sense of how they talk and discuss things.
then make your point in a language that fits in with the culture of discussion here (it's the power of language, you adjust your tone to fit the environment if you want your point to come across better)
If you feel so strongly about the way the test was conducted maybe you can PM the threadstarter for further discussions and changes.

Coming into here and talking in such a bloody technical tone is like a firebrand right wing religious nut standing in union square shouting through a loudspeaker.

there are some really really good posts by people who actually use both sorts of cameras, and it's a real disfavor to see these people get frustrated with the forum because of all this sort of bickering. Somehow I never saw this sort of bickering before all this firebrand technical righteousness appeared...

[Ray]

I find another explanation more probably: they are not interested on the comparison. This is totally understandable; I would not be interested on a comparison of my camera with a P&S. (I was not interested on the result of this comparison either; only the methodology was interesting.)

The difference is only that I don't see any reason to make such disgraceful mental gymnastics to discuss away the weaknesses of the comparison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I am definitely interested in a comparison between a good P&S and my 5D or 20D. I think there may be certain circumstances where a G9, for example, might produce a better quality image, and those are precisely the circumstances where I've recently been doing a lot shooting, low-light shooting at high ISO and wide apertures without flash.

In such circumstances, DoF is almost always compromised. Perhaps most of the time that doesn't matter, but I would like to find out how a G9 at f2.8 and ISO 100 compares with a 5D at f13 and ISO 1600, without the aid of a flash. Both cameras have a similar pixel count.

[Frank Doorhof]

QUOTE
When you don't change your position you can shoot the same FOV with a longer lens than with a 35mm camera.
This will DRAMATICLY change the way the photo looks.

First in DOF but also in distortion of the shot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DoF of the longer lens is shallower than that of the shorter ones. So much to the "basic knowledge about photography".

Were do I say otherwise ??
I say you shoot the same FOV (Field of View) with a LONGER lens than with the 35mm camera.
In other words you can shoot with a 120MM what with a 35mm DSLR you have to shoot with app a 65-70MM.

This gives you a TOTALLY different look and indeed a much shallower DOF, that's what I have been posting all along, so I don't know were you missed that ?

Let's make it a bit more graphical:

Hasselblad H2 with Imacon back:


Same lightsetup 5D:


Hasselblad:


5D


Don't just look at crops etc.
Look at the curves and sense of depth, the Hasselblad files look for me on my monitor (and print) simply much more round.

[Dinarius]

For a working pro it is pretty simple - you simply need both systems, so you can chose the right system for the right assignment. Just like we did in the old film days, nothing has changed we just have more options.

T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hallelujah!  

Finally, someone said it like it is. This is precisely why, by the end of next month, I will own both a 1Ds Mklll and a H3D Mkll 39 MS. I don't think I will need another camera for a long time after that.

I have clients who demand and need what the MF can offer (I currently shoot Sinar 4x5 for them) and, on the other hand, I do NOT want to be carrying around a €30k camera when I don't have to. Hence the Canon (I already own a 5D) Also, I LOVE the handling of the Canon. I used a loan one on a shoot in London last week. Wonderful!

Frank, nice pics and the three-dimensionality of the MF shots is screamingly apparent to me.

D.