Canon 1DSMK3 test image compared to Phase Backs

[jing q]

everytime a dealer puts up some comparisons someone's going to say "oh this is a sales pitch.."
well I hope there are more sales pitches like these because from my experience most salesmen won't even give you examples to look at.

sorry to those 35mm people who feel like the people in this forum are arrogant and want to sound off on the superiority of MF....don't be so insecure. if you don't like what you see then don't read it. I for one enjoy the attitudes of the people here. maybe the other forums have a pixel peeping attitude, and this forum has a muddled unscientific "feeling" attitude, but I don't see people here going to the other forums and trying to force their ways of thinking on those forums.

[Panopeeper]

sorry to those 35mm people who feel like the people in this forum are arrogant and want to sound off on the superiority of MF....don't be so insecure

Don't be ridiculous. The insecurity is radiating from those, who are afraid others may touch their domains cheaper than they did.

However, this is not the case.  The real issue is not *if* the MF backs are better than the best 35mm cameras; the question is, *how much* they are better.

if you don't like what you see then don't read it

LOL, that's funny.

[Ken Doo]

I appreciate Capture Integration's efforts to provide more information on the 1DsMK3 and MFDB files.  I'm surprised to see the sour reception by some.  I did not see the comparison as a sales gimmick at all, particularly since Capture integration sells BOTH Phase and Canon products.  

I shoot with a Phase P30 and Mamiya---which I did not purchase from Capture Integration.  Chris Lawry from CI was kind enough to spend quite a bit of time recently with me talking about the potential technical limits of the AFD and the newly released Mamiya lenses.  

I'll be buying my Canon 1DsMK3 from Capture Integration.

[jing q]

Don't be ridiculous. The insecurity is radiating from those, who are afraid others may touch their domains cheaper than they did.

However, this is not the case.  The real issue is not *if* the MF backs are better than the best 35mm cameras; the question is, *how much* they are better.
LOL, that's funny.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162216\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

actually that's funny...the very people who use these backs, I wouldn't hold it past them to pick up a holga to get the job done if the job needs a holga.

We need a crappy camera poll.

At the end of the day for all the talk many photographers look at each poster's work to determine how much importance to place on each person's words.

[Ray]

All this testing is useless.  Only YOU can decide if a back/camera will meet your needs.  YOU have to test the equipment in your workflow and under your tyoical shooting conditions. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point! But this raises some very pertinent questions. Should all testing be useless? Need all testing be useless? Is it unavoidable that all testing be useless?

When testing different formats of equal pixel count with different lenses designed for the different formats, then any comparison of images is likely to be as much about a lens test as a sensor test.

With this purpose in mind, it would be helpful if the testers were to provide reasons for carrying out the test in a particular way. Then potential customers of the systems under test would have a clearer idea of which system might suit their needs better.

For example, in this test under discussion, if Capture Integration had given us full reasons for using f16 with both formats, then perhaps we could have had a more rational discussion as to the merits of this choice.

So far, I gather that the reason was to equalise shutter speeds. Am I the only one who has suggested the reason should be to equalise lens performance? If one is shooting a still-life on a tripod, there should be little need to equalise shutter speeds. Were the testers really worried that a bit of a breeze might have caused the foliage in the DB shots to appear more blurred than the foliage in the 1Ds3 shots. And if this were to occur, could it not still have occurred with equal shutter speeds because brezze is not a constant thing. It varies from second to second.

So points (1 & 2):

In this test, we used f16 for two reasons.

(1) to equalise shutter speed, just in case the viewer were to incorrectly attribute a slight blurring of foliage in the DB shots to sensor performance rather than subject movement.

(2) to equalise lenses, just in case the viewer were to incorrectly attribute any apparent differences in resolution to the use of a superior lens with one of the formats. As we all know, all lenses are equally bad at f16.

Now this approach would have been fine as far as it goes. If you only have time to take one set of shots under specific conditions, a choice has to be made.

But why underexpose the DB shots by 2/3rds of a stop (as shown in the metadata) resulting in a darker and more contrasty image and then not bother to adjust the levels of both images so the tonality, contrast and lightness appear the same? This is basic stuff when doing comparisons.

[Ray]

but I think that the choice to use two substantively different RAW converters with radically different default settings and the choice to shoot the Canon at f/16 are substantive flaws in what otherwise would be an informative and useful comparison.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162187\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is the problem due to the use of different RAW converters with radically different default settings or simply due to the fact the DB shots have a minus 0.67 exposure bias value. The DB shots were deliberately underexposed by 2/3rds of a stop.

[Dinarius]

Someone once said to me that if you're a Hasselblad MFDB fan, stay away from the LL. Now I can see why!  

Frankly, I find this all faintly ridiculous.

In film days, no one would have dreamed of comparing a 35mm SLR with a medium-format or large format. And we all knew their respective strengths and weaknesses and just got on with it. Why the need to compare now? A decent MFDB setup costs about five times a decent DSLR ($30k vs. $6k?) Wasn't the ratio of SLR to, say, Sinar something similar? I think so. And, as has been pointed out above, you can't use Canon glass all the way up the line (the astonishing TSE 90mm being the exception!).

There is a now an obsession with a "Can't I get by with just using a DSLR?" mentality. That's really what this is all about. It's not just comparing pixels, it's also comparing the relative cost of those pixels.

As I see it, the nearer to 1:1 you shoot, the more you need the head-room, flexibility and control offered by medium-format digital backs, particularly so when attached to a camera with movements, such as a Sinar or whatever.

No manufacturer of small, high-end products that require very high resolution and critical focusing (bottles of perfume and cosmetics and jewelery are screamingly obvious examples) is going to take you seriously if you turn up with a DSLR.

Buy what you need and what you like and what you can afford. Don't bother trying to pretend that you're getting the same for a fifth of the price. You're not.

D.

By the way.......I used a hired 1Dslll on a shoot last weekend. I was shooting hotel interiors. Opening the files in ACR, I was immediately struck by the richness of tone as compared to the 5D (which I own). 14 bit definitely makes a difference. It is interesting to note that people rarely mention this obvious point of comparison when comparing DSLR to MFDB. I know I don't have to tell you this, but 16 bit isn't 2 bits more, it's 4 times(!) as much. That is almost certainly one of the reasons why the Canon shot at the beginning of this thread looks so different to the MFDB shot.

[Dustbak]

I am a Hasselblad back user. I don't have the idea Hasselblad gets more than its fair share of flak in comparison to the other back makers.

Every back maker has gotten flak, whether deserved or not. With the radical moves Hasselblad has made, it is only normal they get hit severely.

Leaf for instance has been been almost burned to the ground over their crappy software (amongst others).

Others have gotten critical remarks as well. IMO, there is nothing wrong pointing out the weak parts, the parts that need improvement, etc.. People should not be so sensitive about critique on their equipment, it is only equipment. It is way too often seen as some sort of personal attack. Being critical towards manufacturers keeps them sharp and hopefully will result in us having better tools.

In my film days (before '98) I already heard many 35mm users talk about their processing and dark room skills which would result in prints that are almost at par with the ones from MF. This has only intensified further with people on the side that bought 35mm trying to defend their choice as well as the other way around.

I have both and have noticed that most MFDB users have both and simply use the right tool for the job.

[Dinarius]

Dustbak,

See my edited post above. As I said on another thread, my Hassie is on the way and arriving end of January.

I will also be ordering a 1Dslll as I love the handling and I want to offer a two tier service. People will only get the Hassie when they pay for it and when I think they need it!  

D.

[juicy]

Hi!

First of all I'd like to thank CI for making it possible to download fullres files.
Although when it comes to resolution it would have been more interesting to compare the Canon @ f6.3 - 8 and Mamiya @f10 - 13 and if possible to make the raws available and thus enabling people to use the raw conversion and sharpening parameters of their own choice, this is anyway an interesting comparison.
After playing with the files in PS, I must say that the 1Ds3 and the 85mm lens does very well in this comparison. Some additional sharpening and a bit of curves tweaking will get the Canon and P21 very close to each other.
Whether the original intention in this comparison is marketing or what ever, I don't really care because I don't believe anyone will make a buying decision based on one comparison seen in the web.

Relaxed Christmas to everyone,
J
     

[Frank Doorhof]

Ok and now do the same tweaking with the MF files

As mentioned MANY times before it's not an issue of getting close resolution wise, they are totally different machines for different purposes.

[Ray]

As mentioned MANY times before it's not an issue of getting close resolution wise, they are totally different machines for different purposes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They're both cameras for taking pictures, aren't they?

[Frank Doorhof]

That's were the problem lies, they are not.
If people would read instead of post  I have explained already many time (and with me others) that because the sensor is much bigger you get a totally different feel/look of the picture, or in other words the files/results look different.

Ofcourse you can take pictures with both but they are different tools.

It's like my dentists says here is my new black and decker drill open wide.

I shoot sports as a hobby and fashion/glamour for my profession.
I would not think about taking my MF out for sports, the same as I would not use the DSLR anymore in the studio.

Sure both take pictures, but than you can also use the G9 from Canon, it also takes pictures.

[rainer_v]

That's were the problem lies, they are not.
If people would read instead of post  I have explained already many time (and with me others) that because the sensor is much bigger you get a totally different feel/look of the picture, or in other words the files/results look different.

Ofcourse you can take pictures with both but they are different tools.

It's like my dentists says here is my new black and decker drill open wide.

I shoot sports as a hobby and fashion/glamour for my profession.
I would not think about taking my MF out for sports, the same as I would not use the DSLR anymore in the studio.

Sure both take pictures, but than you can also use the G9 from Canon, it also takes pictures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

..... right.

canon G9 :

[attachment=4357:attachment]

[stewarthemley]

..... right.

canon G9 :

[attachment=4357:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 Great shot,  Rainer. I'd want an image like that to be a good size print, at least 20x30 ish. And that's why we have to use 33/39 backs sometimes. Sure the G9, and most digital cameras can take a decent image with people like you pointing it and post processing it, but they won't go really big and hold up.

For me that's the only significant difference between MFDB and the 35mm Nikons and Canons. IMO, talk of better dynamic range, better colors, "3D" effect (that's a killer!), etc are all BS. I did some close up shots of cars on my 1DS2 and up to about 16x20ish they looked great (IMHO) but the client wanted them 2x3 metres. Whoops. Rather than lose the client through crappy, jaggy images I reshot on a 39 MFBD. Happy client, relieved photographer!

[Panopeeper]

"3D" effect (that's a killer!), etc are all BS

That was a really good one; this is the same kind, who believes, that wide lenses have a different perspective than longer ones.

[John Sheehy]

However, I would like to suggest that anyone who joins a conversation about this f stop or that DOF with regards to comparing the IQ of a good MF back to ANY 35mm DSLR, should first spend 10 minutes with a Mamiya 120mm Macro at f5.6-f16 and a good 17-39MP back at its native iso.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A lot of the so-called benefit of MF digital, IMO, is aliasing, something that not everyone considers desirable.

The native ISO of color digital cameras with bayer filters should optimally be about 160, and for B&W, about 250.  Anything less than that means that the camera is losing photons, and the capture could be much better, noise-wise, in that same format with the same pixel pitch.  Lack of microlenses is one reason for losing photons, and a contributor to aliasing intensity.  Hopefully, some of the photon loss common in MF digital is because of better color filters, for better color discrimination.  In a studio environment, or for static subjects shot from a tripod, there is enough light to get a good capture (noise-wise) at the lowest ISO.

In general, though, a low lowest ISO in digital is not a good sign!  It is good in film only because the grain is finer, and it takes longer to get enough photons to trigger a chemical change in the film because of the finer grain.  With digital, the equivalent grain is only related to pixels which are fixed, through a wide range of potential sensitivities, and the only reason for low native ISOs is inefficiency.

[Frank Doorhof]

I think it's a very bad sign to see the responses we are now getting.

Calling things BS that are clearly seen is I think showing no respect, and that is not something that should take place here on LL......

I'm for one that INDEED made the switch to MF for the 3D effect.
You can say it's BS as much as you want but it was something that IMMEDIATLY struck me even before dynamic range, pixels, bits etc.

If you don't see it, that's ok, but don't say it's BS.

[Panopeeper]

I'm for one that INDEED made the switch to MF for the 3D effect.
You can say it's BS as much as you want but it was something that IMMEDIATLY struck me even before dynamic range, pixels, bits etc.

Yeah, the curvature of the MF sensor chips does make more difference than the wide field of view, for sure.

[Frank Doorhof]

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.

But than again why do I bother to explain, you will find it BS anyway and that's a shame, 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.