Canon 1DSMK3 test image compared to Phase Backs

[jing q]

I suggest that all medium format back users stop adding anymore replies to this thread.let it die

[Frank Doorhof]

@Jing,
I think that is wise, I for one will not post comments anymore.

@Sean,
I have done most of his photography since 2004, for:
CD's, DVD's, Books, publications in magazines, posters, flyers, etc.
A highpoint were those banners for the Concertgebouw and a very special booklet he used for his travels with the Dutch Queen Beatrix, I'm especially proud on those as you can understand.

The banners were a surprise for me otherwise I would have rented a MF system for those, they picked a shot I did at that time with the 10D, but it held up very nicely due to the VERY low DPI they needed.

[Schewe]

I suggest that all medium format back users stop adding anymore replies to this thread.let it die
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kinda reminds me of the arrogance (or fear) of the guy I first worked for. A food shooter named Vince Masselli who did a lot of Better Homes & Garden food photography as well as commercial food shooting in Chicago in the late 70's & early 80's.

In those days, shooting food was something you did with tungsten lights and an old 8X10 Deardorf camera. That's just the way food used to be shot. So, I learned how to use an 8x10 and tungsten, but never really liked it. I much preferred 4x5 and strobe.

When I proved to Vince I could get sharper images from 4x5 (because of better DOF and strobe) he let me use what I wanted to use for shooting assignments I got. But, he stayed with 8x10 and tungsten. Why? Because that's what he knew how to use and was still convinced that 8x10 was best–even though I proved that 4x5 was plenty of resolution for reproduction (and actually reproduced better in print). He actually got pretty pissed off after BH&G actually asked for me to do a big holiday photo shoot because they like my stuff better.

What you choose to shoot with is far less important than the results of your final images...medium format vs DSLR is kinda like 8x10 vs 4x5. The end results, in the hands of a good photographer, will show very little relevance regarding the camera used when looking at the final image.

[John Camp]

What you choose to shoot with is far less important than the results of your final images...medium format vs DSLR is kinda like 8x10 vs 4x5. The end results, in the hands of a good photographer, will show very little relevance regarding the camera used when looking at the final image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would have edited this comment to say, "...when looking at the final image, except, perhaps, in hand-printed fine-art images," but that's just me. 8-)

JC

[Ray]

What surprises me is the reluctance of most of the DB owners posting in this thread to investigate and discuss the actual reasons why they appear to be getting better results with their expensive backs.

They seem to take every criticism as a personal insult.

[yaya]

What surprises me is the reluctance of most of the DB owners posting in this thread to investigate and discuss the actual reasons why they appear to be getting better results with their expensive backs.

They seem to take every criticism as a personal insult.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that real criticism (on any product), if it is to be taken seriously, can only be passed by people who have at least tried the product.

There are several things that digital backs do that can lead to better results overall - either IQ or a happier client.

* Mature, robust tethered workflow:
     - Large previews that appear quickly, this is extremely important for large commercial productions, either fashion/ beauty or still life.
     - Live view (on some models) that works on the largest monitor and allows for accurate      composition and focusing, especially on view cameras
     - Support for electronic shutters (Rollei) with full remote control over aperture (1/10 stop increments) and speed.

* High speed flash sync: some MF and LF lenses offer sync speeds of up to 1/1000; good for outdoors or for freezing motion in studio

* Wide angle solutions:
     - For architecture there is no question: many shooters that used 5X4 film before, got themselves a canon at some point, used it for 2 years and then moved on to a 22-39MP back with a 6X9 camera or a shift-style camera (ALPA, Cambo WD-S etc).
If you shoot wide angle and you need straight lines and sharp corners then there is no other way of doing it.

* Consistent colour: Many backs offer some kind of cooling, which translates to consistent colour when shooting a long, fast burst.

* Sensor cleaning: most backs are designed so that the sensor is sealed behind the IR filter and the IR filter is easy to clean - less retouching in post.

May be these points are obvious to those who own or use digital backs, which is why they don't bother explaining them to those who don't.

Then there's DR, DoF and all the other fun stuff that we all like to discuss again and again....

Yair

[Gary Ferguson]

i still regularely publish images shot with a ( good sample ) of the 12-24 sigma lens on the 5d. doublepage printed and mixed in publications with my rodenstock HR lenses and the 33mp backs its not possible to see the difference

I'm with Rainer.

I use a Linhof M679cs with Rodenstock digital lenses and a P45+. I also use whatever I'm carrying at the time, could be a 5D, could be a little Canon point and shoot. Like Rainer I shoot architectural, although Rainer seems to be at the top end of the trade where as much of my work is building trade supplies photographed on site for brochures!

And like Rainer I've seen plenty of my shots, taken with different cameras, mixed up together and then commercially printed four colour off-set. In almost every case it's impossible to identify the camera from the final brochure image quality. And I say that as someone who has thirty years experience, a degree in photography, and can pixel peek with the best of them!

So why bother with a large format camera? Architects and creative directors seem entranced to the point of infatuation with the Linhof, the wide range of movements sometimes are useful (generally in a practical rather than artistic sense, in crowded European cities a huge side shift can be the difference between being in the middle of a busy road or safely on the pavement), and very very occasionally the theoretical image quality advantage actually does show through in the finished job.

But let's be realistic, spending masses of time waiting for the right light with a Canon Ixus will usually yield better results than using a P45+ if a rigid schedule dictates when you press the shutter!

[cescx]

Yair, I agree with Ray in which it says, I even have a personal experience in that sense, almost dramatic.

But I will say more to you, to purchase a DB, is right now more, a political exercise, to guess as it is going to subsist, that a reason of quality of image. And in spite of seeing me forced to acquire, almost unavoidably, for reasons of market, two digital endorsements. I believe that they would have to apply the laws anti-trust, except Mamiya, since it is sure a factual agreement of sale prices.

On the other hand it is left also ignorance clear that you have, since the majority of reasons which you argue do not correspond to the DB, correspond to the used cameras, is just like to mount a 1DS3, in a technical camera.

What I hope, like many, is that the appearance of 1ds3, makes you reflect deeply, of your policies and your position towards the photographers. Since your manoeuvre margin, has been reduced to half.

[samuel_js]

What I think is pretty amazing is how we, medium format users, need to defend our experiences with 35mm philosophers and "photographers" that never touched  a MF camera or back. Actually, none of these defendors has ever posted their own images to prove their opinions with real photography. This is because most of you are PP and not photographers. You haven't worked (I don't say tested) with so many cameras and really don't understand how a medium format camera can be superior to us and why.
What you don't understand, Ray and the others here is that MF is not only about the results, MF is another way to think photography, is a different way to interact with your camera. Even if the 35mm cameras come close some day I don't see me changing my hasselblads or contax cameras against a canon. I own canons too, and they have their place.

And to close my participation here I'd like to say that when so many MF users in the world tells you that they see the improvement in image quality you should believe it and admit that the problem is simply that you don't see it, not that the improvement doesn't exist. And you should also respect what their eyes see instead of saying they need to purchase expensive mf digital backs to fulfill their ego.

This thread is a very sad example of what this forum is becoming.
This forum needs moderation, we MF users need to be able to talk freely about our questions (including comparisons to 35mm) without being hijacked be pixelpeepers without mf experience of any kind.

/Samuel

[amsp]

I'll only say this, I'm a professional and NOT some rich amateur with money to waste. I actually had to borrow most of the money to buy my P25, and I sure as hell wouldn't have put myself in debt if there wasn't an obvious difference between 35mm and digital backs. With that said, I do own a Canon too and make great photos with both.

[rainer_v]

I'll only say this, I'm a professional and NOT some rich amateur with money to waste. I actually had to borrow most of the money to buy my P25, and I sure as hell wouldn't have put myself in debt if there wasn't an obvious difference between 35mm and digital backs. With that said, I do own a Canon too and make great photos with both.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

but the interest seems to be incredible.
nearly 9.000 people have been reading this funny discussion .....
not a bad audience.

[Ray]

What you don't understand, Ray and the others here is that MF is not only about the results, MF is another way to think photography, is a different way to interact with your camera. Even if the 35mm cameras come close some day I don't see me changing my hasselblads or contax cameras against a canon. I own canons too, and they have their place.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I definitely sense a lot of insecurity here. I don't think you'll find any comment that I've made anywhere on the forum, ever, where I've suggested that larger sensors with more pixels will not produce better quality images. For me it's a given and something I would not argue against.

But we're talking here about 2 different formats with similar pixel count; 14 bit processing versus 16 bit processing; CMOS sensor, with all its inherent advantages, versus CCD sensor with all its advantages (whatever they are).

The differences are likely to be subtle and to reveal such differences, just for the sake of academic interest if nothing else, the comparison has to be done properly.

I haven't seen any properly done comparison yet where the 35mm camera (specifically the 1Ds3) is used in a competent manner. There's little point in harking back to comparisons that may have been done using the 11mp 1Ds.

I've also never seen a single comparison where the DB image has been cropped to the 1Ds3 aspect ratio, which of course gives a pixel count advantage to the 1Ds3. The methodology is always skewed to the advantage of the DB. Now that's a sign of insecurity if ever I saw one.  

[Ray]

I think that real criticism (on any product), if it is to be taken seriously, can only be passed by people who have at least tried the product.

My criticism is not of any specific product but of the methodology used in the comparison between products.

* Mature, robust tethered workflow:
     - Large previews that appear quickly, this is extremely important for large commercial productions, either fashion/ beauty or still life.
     - Live view (on some models) that works on the largest monitor and allows for accurate      composition and focusing, especially on view cameras
     - Support for electronic shutters (Rollei) with full remote control over aperture (1/10 stop increments) and speed.

There might be some useful features there which the 1Ds3 does not support, but I think a tethered workflow is not one of them.

* High speed flash sync: some MF and LF lenses offer sync speeds of up to 1/1000; good for outdoors or for freezing motion in studio

That certainly seems to be an advantage. I think the 1Ds3 has a maximum of 1/250 flash sync.

* Wide angle solutions:
     - For architecture there is no question: many shooters that used 5X4 film before, got themselves a canon at some point, used it for 2 years and then moved on to a 22-39MP back with a 6X9 camera or a shift-style camera (ALPA, Cambo WD-S etc).
If you shoot wide angle and you need straight lines and sharp corners then there is no other way of doing it.

Are you sure about that? I mean, no other way of doing it.

A couple of days ago I took the following architectural shot with my 5D and el cheapo Sigma 15-30mm zoom. The lines look pretty straight to me. Of course, this isn't a single shot but 3 shots at 15mm stitched with Photomerge in CS3 and pulled into shape with 'free transform' and 'warp'.

I show here the first of the 3 images, the resulting stitch and a 100% crop of the 88mb file (8 bit). If the image doesn't look quite finished it's because I'm cobbling this together on a poorly calibrated notebook.

[attachment=4386:attachment]  [attachment=4387:attachment]  [attachment=4388:attachment]

* Sensor cleaning: most backs are designed so that the sensor is sealed behind the IR filter and the IR filter is easy to clean - less retouching in post.

Automatic sensor cleaning is a feature of the 1Ds3. It's not a big deal.

* Consistent colour: Many backs offer some kind of cooling, which translates to consistent colour when shooting a long, fast burst.

I think heating issues are more of a problem with MFDBs. This is not an advantage but a fix for a disadvantage.

Then there's DR, DoF and all the other fun stuff that we all like to discuss again and again....

Again and again because we rarely do any serious testing.

[rainer_v]

i would not have many clients which would like to see curved lines if they should be straight.  probably you dont know what about i speak, do you?

[csp]

Yair, I agree with Ray in which it says, I even have a personal experience in that sense, almost dramatic.

But I will say more to you, to purchase a DB, is right now more, a political exercise, to guess as it is going to subsist, that a reason of quality of image. And in spite of seeing me forced to acquire, almost unavoidably, for reasons of market, two digital endorsements. I believe that they would have to apply the laws anti-trust, except Mamiya, since it is sure a factual agreement of sale prices.

On the other hand it is left also ignorance clear that you have, since the majority of reasons which you argue do not correspond to the DB, correspond to the used cameras, is just like to mount a 1DS3, in a technical camera.

What I hope, like many, is that the appearance of 1ds3, makes you reflect deeply, of your policies and your position towards the photographers. Since your manoeuvre margin, has been reduced to half.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

you are absolute right,

reading the list yair posted  (never miss a chance to do some marketing, right ?)  the question raised does he have any experience with the new nikon or canon at all ;-) seems not because - live view - is a joke with most mf solutions compared to what nikon or canon have implemented. and this holds true for most  of "his" points. when you play with the dsmk3 open minded you will see that canon has listened carefully especially to studio photographers .

[yaya]

you are absolute right,

reading the list yair posted  (never miss a chance to do some marketing, right ?)  the question raised does he have any experience with the new nikon or canon at all ;-) seems not because - live view - is a joke with most mf solutions compared to what nikon or canon have implemented. and this holds true for most  of "his" points. when you play with the dsmk3 open minded you will see that canon has listened carefully especially to studio photographers .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's right csp, whoever/ wherever you are...
Marketing is one of the things I do for a living and I for one am not ashamed of it nor do I feel the need to hide behind an alias so I can throw superficial swings whenever it feels good...

This section of the forum is dedicated to medium format DBs and photography and as someone who has got his fingers deep in the bowl mixing the ingredients of digital backs' design and manufacturing, I sometimes find myself in a situation where the best thing to do is to say "thank you for your time" and to walk away.

If a digital back is not the right tool for your shooting style, for your budget or for your state of mind that is fine. Just as much as a 35mm doesn't fit into some else's work.

Yes the new 35mm cameras are getting better and are offering more than they have ever done before and to say that they aren't listening will be a mistake;
But do they offer 1:1 Live Preview that fills a 30" cinema display at 6 fps? I think not....correction, I KNOW not.
Do they offer absolutely straight lines when shooting WA verticals and shifting up 15 or 20mm while still retaining conrers sharpness without showing CA? I think not....correction, I KNOW not.

Many of the reasons why photographers choose to shoot 5X4 or 8X10 over 35mm remain valid when debating DB Vs 35mm.

To claim that people who choose DBs do it for political reasons or that the new Canons/ Nikons can do equal things in the studio, is IMHO simply a twisted view of our reality.

Yair

[John Camp]

but the interest seems to be incredible.
nearly 9.000 people have been reading this funny discussion .....
not a bad audience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163013\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's why the forum shouldn't be moderated to exclude people who don't use MF backs. I shoot Nikons and an M8, and used to shoot an RZ, and I'm very curious about quality claims made for MF backs. If I sold all my M8 equipment, I could buy a Hassy & back, and I might do that someday, if I think the change is worthwhile -- which is why I read this forum. And that's why a lot of people read this forum.

Also, you won't catch me arguing that Canon and Nikon in their present state are absolutely as good as MF; the difficult part for many people is the question of whether N&C output is effectively as good as MF **after** repro by a high-speed press. For people in the early (low paid) stages of a photography career, this is a pretty critical financial question.

For amateurs like me, who have little interest in professional photography, the question of absolute quality (as produced on large home-based inkjet printers) is the intriguing aspect of the discussion.

JC

[TorbenEskerod]

xx

[amsp]

Dear Ray

Thank you so much for posting these images, at least now any professional architectural photographer knows your credibility. And after viewing your 100% crop I think any MF back users knows it as well.

I simply cant believe that I have spend my time seriously reading your post, I am getting depressed and realizing that life is just too short for reading and posting on this MF forum with guys like you on board.
T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

ROFL! Couldn't agree more  

[rainer_v]

erased.
it has not sense.