Ray, you're not sharing knowledge, because you know nothing about MFD but what you read on the internet. That is leading to misunderstanding and a false ideas of what a MFDB can actually do in real life photography.
I'm done, really.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Samuel,
You might be done, but I feel I should reply for the benefit of others at least. It's not true that I know nothing of MFD apart from what I've read on the interent. I do have Michael's 'Measuring Megabytes" DVD containing RAW images of a variety of formats, including MF film scans, the P45 and very high resolution scanning backs. This was produced when the top 35mm DSLR was the 1Ds2 and included RAW images from the the 5D as well.
I also have an RB67 and a few Mamiya lenses sitting unused on a shelf. This was second hand gear I bought and used for a while before switching to DSLRs. I also have a Nikon 8000ED MF scanner which I used for scanning my 6x7 negatives and my main printer is the wide format Epson 7600. I generally prefer my prints to be fairly large (23"x35") when I hang them on my wall, so I can see them from a distance.
You can deduce from the above that I'm the sort of person who could be persuaded by any jump in image quality that one particualr format might provide. However, the issue here is not one of 35mm versus DB in general, but specifically about the differences between two formats of similar pixel count which differ in size by a relatively small degree.
When you consider the variety of different format cameras now available; the G9 with a sensor about 1/20th the size of 35mm; the 40D with a sensor less than 2/5ths the size of 35mm; the Olympus 4/3rds with a sensor about 1/4 the size of 35mm and the Nikon D2X with a sensor also about 2/5ths the size of 35mm; a DB with a sensor that is just twice the size of 35mm is perhaps not such a big deal.
The precedent already exists for smaller formats to equal the quality of slightly larger formats. When the D2X was released, careful and thorough comparisons revealed that image quality was at least on a par with the larger format 1Ds. There was no need to accept someone's word for it. Seeing is believing.
With such precedents in mind, including claims that the Olympus E-3 compares very favourably with the Canon 5D, one has to be rather suspicious of claims that a P21 produces better quality images than a 1Ds3, especially when no evidence supporting such claims is provided, by anyone. (I'm discounting here the amateurish and unprofessional comparisons, which are the only one's I've come across so far).
If anyone reading this has the time to take on this enormous and gargantuan task of comparing a P21 with a 1Ds3; anyone who has the patience to precisely match FoVs and the skill to use both formats in the way they should be used to achieve a particular artistic intent, which means using lenses that are the best for the format at apertures that provide equivalent DoF; anyone who has a sharp eye and the ability to precisely focus each camera on the same spot in the same scene which is subject to the same lighting conditions; then please do us all a favour and post the RAW images of such a comparison.
We shall then be in a better position to determine if such claims for the P21 are humbug or not.
