Topic: Canon 1DSMK3 test image compared to Phase Backs (Read 107679 times)

Andy M · « **Reply #120 on:** December 23, 2007, 07:05:04 am »

Quote

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is to me too, even on an iPhone's screen

Ray · « **Reply #121 on:** December 23, 2007, 07:38:31 am »

Quote

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 ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, you weren't addressing this comment to me, Frank, but I'll answer it anyway.

The larger format does have the advantage of being able to deliver a shallower DoF. This is not a peculiarity of only MF backs. It cuts across the whole range of different formats.

Those who use P&S cameras struggle to get a shallow DoF under any circumstances. The highly regarded G9 with 12mp on a sensor about 1/20th the area of a 5D, produces about the same DoF at f2.8 as the 5D at f13. There's absolutely no way you could get the same shallow DoF with a G9 as you would commonly get with a 5D at f8, never mind f2.8, shooting from the same distance for same FoV.

MFDBs with a sensor of 48mmx36mm have approximately a one stop advantage regarding shallow DoF with lenses of the same aperture. If you think you are getting a shallower DoF with a 120mm lens on a P21 at f2.8 than you would get with an 85/1.2 on a 1Ds3 at f2, then it's probably because your 120mm lens is 'effectively' sharper at f2.8 than the 85/1.2 is at f2.

If you have been comparing MFDBs of a higher pixel count than the 35mm full frame, then it's almost certain that the resulting image from the DB will be sharper at the plane of focus, which also has the effect of augmenting shallowness of DoF.

If your argument is, MFDB images look better because the available MF lenses are 'effectively' better, sharper etc. than their 35mm counterparts, then that's another point that might well be true and is more likely to be the real reason why you think you always seem to get better results with DBs.

Notice I write 'effectively' better. An MF lens could be equal to a 35mm lens regarding MTF response at various resolutions. However, the larger sensor is less demanding on the lens.

To properly test your opinions on this matter, we would need to properly select lenses for the comparison to ensure that the 35mm sensor was accessing its higher resolution needs at the same MTF as the MFDB sensor.

Put simply, if a 22mp 35mm camera is to equal the performance of a 22mp DB, then the 35mm lens not only has to be one stop faster but about 30% sharper.

csp · « **Reply #122 on:** December 23, 2007, 11:05:22 am »

frank,

the sample images you have posted are symptomatic for the canon versus mf discuss. instead of doing a comparison in a fair way you try to mislead. why should a canon image shot with a zoom - 140 mm @f11 look similar to an image taken with mf a 80mm @ f8 ? every novice in photography understands what makes the difference but you claim some magic mf quality this is ridiculous.

the reason going mf is in most cases only to get a competitive advantage and has nothing to do with needed image quality. but it seems nobody wants to say the truth here. how big are your images printed regularly ? i bet 95 % is around A4 so 6mp would be enough, you will not get much more information through an offset press. but the real problem i see is that the colleges who use mf are not very demanding. mf had become an innovation free zone. the only progress i see over years is more pixels this should make you think.

christian

rainer_v · « **Reply #123 on:** December 23, 2007, 11:30:54 am »

Quote

frank,

but it seems nobody wants to say the truth here. how big are your images printed regularly ? i bet 95 % is around A4 so 6mp would be enough, you will not get much more information through an offset press.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yes we are hiding the true here.
if buying a mf back you have to sign befor a contract which tells you what you can post in future and what not. this details you describe is 1 of the things we are not allowed by the manufactors to say in public. its a shame. how you found it out?

...... and what you think about if someone can make some hot money with the 5% which are bigger than A4?

Dustbak · « **Reply #124 on:** December 23, 2007, 11:51:24 am »

Ssssttt......

Next to that we are all just 'pathological cash burners', I love to spend a lot of money for nothing.

I have been reading this thread with sadness. It appears there is an atmosphere developing where it is 35mm DSLR only users vs MF (and most of the time 35mm DSLR) users. Not sure whether it is because MF-users are 'egomaniacs' or because DSLR users have low self esteem.

Naturally every test can be manipulated or flawed or performed better depending on the desired outcome.

If you don't like the way a test has been performed; Do it yourself the way you think it is supposed to be done! If you cannot or don't want to go through the effort of doing so, maybe a bit more respect and patience towards those that do take the effort.

I am done with comparing, no Canon for me....

I will continue to use Nikon for the moment (next to MF)

Don Libby · « **Reply #125 on:** December 23, 2007, 12:40:17 pm »

How much longer is this madness going to continue?

Everyone needs the correct tool in their kit to meet the specific need; much like a surgeon going to a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel. MF suites my needs for landscape much the same way that 35mm meets my needs to shoot wildlife.

What say we start respecting each other again much the same way as if we were in actual face to face contact and stop the petty bickering.

Happy Holidays! And a very Merry Christmas .....

don

Morgan_Moore · « **Reply #126 on:** December 23, 2007, 12:59:11 pm »

I have been shooting my D3 for a couple of weeks now

I think there is a fine line between the cameras and that line is getting finer

Tests of this nature are useless IMO - no disrepect to tht OP

--------------

For me starting from scratch it would be a fine line between a 22mp and a 1DS3

People need to do thier own calculations

MP TIMES bright view TIMES lens look TIMES clean chip TIMES flash synch etc

DIVIDED BY

COST times MIN HAND HOLD SPEED times WIDEest APerture * AFACCURACY etc

= buy what you want

===========

There is space for practical debate about specific uses and experiences but IMO this is a waste of space and causing bad vibes

On a tripod MF is better

-------------

With an H1 and a SLRN/D80* I got the H1 out of the bag 90% of the time,

With the D3 and the H1 it has been 80% D3

In the summer it will probably go back to 70% H1 (flash synch low ISO)

In the studio it will stay 90% H1 but I did use the D3 in the studio last week - shooting kids

If I had canon not nikon the shift would be even wilder towards Canon

An my mate just had an Xmas baby - D3 at 3200 - in the dark 15th sec- gave me some pictures that will have great personal value but dont stand any pixel peeping at all

I wouldnt have bothered with any other camera

I will say i'm digging the AF on the D3 and correct focus always resolves more

whats your percentage??

SMM

* the SLRN is great res for most apps but the chip is filthy and the batteries always flat

Dustbak · « **Reply #127 on:** December 23, 2007, 01:09:07 pm »

Would you believe my percentage of shots where I have the focus exactly where I want it is abnormally high with mf MF? (even kids but whenever the lights go dim or action is going faster I will grab the DSLR).

Good to hear the D3 is wonderful. I have passed and chosen to use the D300 for now. I would love to have the FX sensor in the package size of the D300. That would be a no-brainer. Now, I find the D3 too big while I like the size of the D300.

For going incognito I also have been eye-balling the M8 but been blocking that thought so far. How many systems can one person have.

Morgan_Moore · « **Reply #128 on:** December 23, 2007, 01:14:25 pm »

Quote

Would you believe my percentage of shots where I have the focus exactly where I want it is abnormally high with mf MF? (even kids but whenever the lights go dim or action is going faster I will grab the DSLR).

Good to hear the D3 is wonderful. I have passed and chosen to use the D300 for now. I would love to have the FX sensor in the package size of the D300. That would be a no-brainer. Now, I find the D3 too big while I like the size of the D300.

For going incognito I also have been eye-balling the M8 but been blocking that thought so far. How many systems can one person have.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wouldnt do any ManFocus with a Crappy little DLSR viewfinder

I dont really AF with the H1 with the Crappy centrepoint AF

The D3 is not wonderful - the files are beaten IMO by even the SLRn - but it takes nice pictures fast feels SAFE and PRODUCES for less demanding clients - and has fast workflow

I have many gripes with the D3 - but this is not the place for them to be aired

For incognito I dont reckon the M8 is it - a P+S with live view etc is the one

How many systems? - well in film I had contaxT2, NikonF5 and Mmiay ProTL = three

S

csp · « **Reply #129 on:** December 23, 2007, 01:20:00 pm »

stay cool rainer, did i say that it is wrong to have a business advantage with mf ? no, i also think the higher resolution of some mf backs can be beneficial but what some here do is to cover this business thing with myths, faith and technical BS. most advertising jobs end on a press smaller than A4 high or low end so from a technical standpoint there is not much of a difference if the file comes from a 10mp dslr or a 39mp back beside all the claims here.

Dustbak · « **Reply #130 on:** December 23, 2007, 01:20:23 pm »

Yeah the centerpoint AF of the H is kind of useless. DoF is most of time so thin you cannot AF and recompose without having your focal plane shift to a place where you did not intend to have it.

I have redirected AF to the AE button. I use it as a rough focus guide (when I think about it).

Dinarius · « **Reply #131 on:** December 23, 2007, 01:37:17 pm »

Morgan,

I hate auto-focus as it rarely is where I want it to be.

Using the 1Ds Mk3 last week, I was able to use the new 5x and 10x magnification feature, in conjunction with the selective framing device (it allows you to move a small white frame on the LCD to any point you like and then enlarge that portion of the image x5 or x10) and focus manually using a loupe. Just like on a 4x5! Worth the upgrade on its own for me.

csp,

Are you seriously implying that the likes of the high end ads (in particular, shots of small objects such as perfume and jewelery) in glossies such as Vogue could be achieved using a DSLR?

Apart from other considerations, the attenuated nature of the DSLR frame invariably requires cropping. It is rarely used as is. That results in a lot of pixels going to waste.

D.

Morgan_Moore · « **Reply #132 on:** December 23, 2007, 01:53:02 pm »

Quote

Morgan,

I hate auto-focus as it rarely is where I want it to be.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is one of my D3 gripes

The D3 has the Live view zoom thing too - which would be excellent on a tripod

but I aint going to be using a D3 on a tripod

Seeing that live view on the D3 makes my 54LV feel like an antique

The canon3 would gain another step for dark interiors on a tripod Versus a 22mp

It is factors like that that count - not pixel peeping IMO

The didgiback guys need to sort thier Live view out - there are better compacts

If Nikon could sandwhich two of thier 11mp chips toether, double the rear screen size and release it in a open platform back that also fitted an F6 I would bite thier arm off..

S

Frank Doorhof · « **Reply #133 on:** December 23, 2007, 03:08:22 pm »

How large my works get print ?

And welcome to the "dark" side.

a_krause · « **Reply #134 on:** December 23, 2007, 10:01:27 pm »

Quote

Are you seriously implying that the likes of the high end ads (in particular, shots of small objects such as perfume and jewelery) in glossies such as Vogue could be achieved using a DSLR?

Apart from other considerations, the attenuated nature of the DSLR frame invariably requires cropping. It is rarely used as is. That results in a lot of pixels going to waste.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

im a photo assistant/ [emerging] photographer. I mostly only assist celebrity portrait people, but I do work with one still life guy every now and then, mostly bc he was one of Avedon's assistants and has good stories and knows how to light anything really well. not trying to sound all cool that i am with the celebrity photos, just saying that bc its "better known photographers" who cant have a screw up under their name and not some guy shooting for carpenters world [really great photo director there..] One of his major clients is Vogue, and we only shoot with a 1ds mk 2. we will do double page spreads with it.
also in december alone, i was on 2 vogue shoots and 1 mens vogue shoot. all portraits/fashionable portraits. 2 of shoots were done with a canon 35mm and the third with a canon and Mamiya RZ with film...

Schewe · « **Reply #135 on:** December 23, 2007, 11:55:14 pm »

Quote

How large my works get print ?
[snip]
And some billboards, covers, centerspreads, magazine work, A0 posters for concerts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162736\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the odds are those banners were reproduced by the printer from a lower resolution file–regardless of what you sent them. Large reproduction is usually done with very course output resolution. A point & shoot could be used if it was sharp (or even not, if the effect was right).

My largest image repro we a banner that was 32' x 96' (yes, feet) and the output file size was 58MB, RGB. The printer requested a file that was 32" x 96" @ 32 pixels/CM. That means the final output resolution was an effective 2.6 pixels/CM. And the printers said this was for the HIGH QUALITY output...they usually don't print that high.

Course, the intended viewing distance was from the other side of the Atlanta Olympic Stadium. I understand the printer thought the added resolution was wasted.

How high your resolution may be is only an attribute of the file...it doesn't say anything about the quality of the image nor its value to a client.

Frank Doorhof · « **Reply #136 on:** December 24, 2007, 03:07:54 am »

That's what I posted (please read carefully).

The large banners from Wibi were done with a 10D.
It's not about the resolution/pixels it's about the QUALITY of those pixels.

And MF gives you (at least at this moment in time) a much more solid file to work with.

PLUS, the better control of DOF, and that is very important for what I love to do.

Sean H · « **Reply #137 on:** December 24, 2007, 10:06:01 am »

Quote

That's what I posted (please read carefully).

The large banners from Wibi were done with a 10D.
It's not about the resolution/pixels it's about the QUALITY of those pixels.

And MF gives you (at least at this moment in time) a much more solid file to work with.

PLUS, the better control of DOF, and that is very important for what I love to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank,

when I saw his pictures on your site, I assumed that they were for the piano player's personal use or a gift for his family or something similar. I had no idea that they'd be blow up to such a large size for his concerts. To my pleasant surprise, the posters look very good.

Sean

John Sheehy · « **Reply #138 on:** December 24, 2007, 12:28:18 pm »

Quote

That's what I posted (please read carefully).

The large banners from Wibi were done with a 10D.
It's not about the resolution/pixels it's about the QUALITY of those pixels.

Almost any 10 or 12MP P&S camera can make a better image than a crop from the 10D of the same physical focal plane size, with he same focal length lens and exposure. The more pixels you have in an image, the less their individual quality matters. There are some issues with viewing fine, deeper noise up close, but nothing that can't be made to emulate larger pixels, and better. For example, if you downsample 2-micron pixels to emulate 8-micron pixels, you have negated all negative aspects of an AA filter, and almost completely eliminated Bayer artifacts.

Quote

And MF gives you (at least at this moment in time) a much more solid file to work with.

"Solid file"? Is that some kind of metaphysical talk?

Quote

PLUS, the better control of DOF, and that is very important for what I love to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, part of the problem with FF DSLRs is that they are mostly Canon, and Canon doesn't have very sharp wide-open fast wide lenses. You can always put a Leica or Contax lens on a FF Canon, though.

bcroslin · « **Reply #139 on:** December 24, 2007, 12:59:54 pm »

I don't think it's a coincidence that the RG medium format forums went nuclear at this same time of year a few years ago.

This thread is starting to glow. Let's hope it doesn't take the entire board with it when it blows.

(in all seriousness, step away from the keyboard and have a happy holiday.)

Author Topic: Canon 1DSMK3 test image compared to Phase Backs (Read 107679 times)

csp

csp