Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: MF vs 1Ds3  (Read 142406 times)

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #120 on: April 22, 2008, 02:19:32 pm »

Quote
Just several posts above, somebody posted a comparison between 1DsII (16 Mp + AA) vs. 645 (considered a medium format), where the Canon easily outresolved the MF film.  An 18-22 Mp MF back without AA will be even better.  So, why is it not good enough to be called MF?  (I know that resolution is not everything, I'm just replying to the particular technical point).

Still, I suspect the lens on the 645 had a lot to do with it, since the film seems to have at least the same quality in terms of resolution.  ie - those smallest "lines" are really several dots wide in the grain of the film.  All that really proves is that the Canon has better optics.   Not surprising, really.

Color balance and saturation and so on aside - the MF looks far more realistic, and I'm positive that post-processed/converted from raw to match, the digital output would take a noticeable hit.  And, the Canon also shows obvious artifacts and such.  Post-processed to look as "clean" as the film, it would take another hit to maximum resolution

It takes several "pixels" on a typical Bayer type sensor layout to get a single point of full 24 bit color data as well, so a better test would be to test black and white MF film versus black and white digital - so the interpolation software and AA filters and so on aren't aprt of the picture on the Canon.

He really should also compare it to a typical professional setup that uses a digital back.  DB versus 120 film in the same camera.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10332
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #121 on: April 25, 2008, 11:56:59 pm »

I just rediscovered this thread after a few days' sojourn to the Gold Coast. How did this thread gravitate towards the film v. digital debate?

I hope it wasn't my comment that 'it's all in the lenses'. Yes, I realise there are other issues such as, color, hue, saturataion, contrast, brightness, dynamic range, noise and grain etc, which all have more to do with the camera, sensor, film and processing technique than the lens.

I was really addressing the subtle differences in the sense of DoF and 3-dimensionality that the larger sensor seems to offer. I get a sense that it's mainly due to the lenses, and possibly more accurate focussing.

Most of my shots fall into the landscape category. I tend to use f stops between F5.6 and F16 most of the time.

However, I've recently been exploring lens use at full aperture, mainly because my EF-S 17-55/2.8 actually is reasonably sharp at full aperture. My 50/1.4 also in 'not bad' ar F1.4. The problem lies in the focussing. I don't believe the Canon prosumer DSLRs are up to the job of precise autofocussing at such wide apertures.

It's no gimmick that Canon have recently introduced the LiveView feature on their cameras. It's actually needed because autofocussing is simply not precise at wide apertures.

I get a sense here, but I could be wrong, (I always have an open mind, ya know), that those who are promoting the advantages of MFDB are taking tack sharp, manually focussed shots of ladies' eye lashes, using a computer monitor to focus, and then comparing the shots with autofocussed 35mm.  
Logged

nicholask

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
    • http://www.viewfinderdigitisation.com.au
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #122 on: April 27, 2008, 07:00:54 am »

I recently did a [non-scientific] comparative test of the 1DS3 versus a couple of medium format backs.

First I shot an A3 size mono page of a newspaper, with a fine detailed illustration and typical news column text on a Sinar P2 with a 100mm lens at f.8 and a 54H back (22 MP) in one shot mode, at 50 ISO.  I then shot the same item on the 1DS3, with identical Bron lighting (though I had to dial the pack down a stop or so), with a 45 mm T/S lens, at f.8 and at 100 ISO.

I processed the Sinar file through Capture Shot, and the Canon raw file through ACR, and set their color neutrality with a QP card.  

I viewed both files at 100% on a calibrated Eizo Color Edge monitor.  The Sinar file seemed more even and neutral, and had a hint more clarity.  Conversely, the Canon tiff seemed to be slightly elevated in its luminance across its upper mid range pixels - somewhat 'boosted' in its contrast.  Also, there was color fringing around the edges of the typed newspaper text letters from the canon, which was not evident at all with the Sinar.  The Sinar had an undeniable edge in image quality.

Next, in conjunction with Denis Montalbetti, I put the 1DS3 up against the ZD camera, and shot more typed material on white page at each cameras default ISO (100 and 50 respectively).  We had a 120mm f.4 Macro on the ZD and the 85 1.2 L series on the Canon.  The ZD file was processed with Raw Dev, and the Canon went through Lightroom.  Again, in resolving fine text detail the Medium format clearly out performed the Canon.  

In both tests the Canon was arguably being disadvantaged by the lenses that were used - though I had no 'better' lenses to draw on at time of testing.

Fine detail is critical for me in my work, which involves digitising paintings, rare books, and so on.  Were I a portait photographer i would have no hesitation going for the 1DS3 - it is an exceptional camera, and very close to medium format in the quality it delivers.  Its workflow capabilities are a dream.  That said...I need that bit extra that MF delivers.

Nick
www.viewfinderdigitisation.com.au

Snook

  • Guest
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #123 on: April 27, 2008, 10:10:00 am »

Quote
I recently did a [non-scientific] comparative test of the 1DS3 versus a couple of medium format backs.

First I shot an A3 size mono page of a newspaper, with a fine detailed illustration and typical news column text on a Sinar P2 with a 100mm lens at f.8 and a 54H back (22 MP) in one shot mode, at 50 ISO. I then shot the same item on the 1DS3, with identical Bron lighting (though I had to dial the pack down a stop or so), with a 45 mm T/S lens, at f.8 and at 100 ISO.

I processed the Sinar file through Capture Shot, and the Canon raw file through ACR, and set their color neutrality with a QP card.

I viewed both files at 100% on a calibrated Eizo Color Edge monitor. The Sinar file seemed more even and neutral, and had a hint more clarity. Conversely, the Canon tiff seemed to be slightly elevated in its luminance across its upper mid range pixels - somewhat 'boosted' in its contrast. Also, there was color fringing around the edges of the typed newspaper text letters from the canon, which was not evident at all with the Sinar. The Sinar had an undeniable edge in image quality.

Next, in conjunction with Denis Montalbetti, I put the 1DS3 up against the ZD camera, and shot more typed material on white page at each cameras default ISO (100 and 50 respectively).  We had a 120mm f.4 Macro on the ZD and the 85 1.2 L series on the Canon.  The ZD file was processed with Raw Dev, and the Canon went through Lightroom.  Again, in resolving fine text detail the Medium format clearly out performed the Canon. 

In both tests the Canon was arguably being disadvantaged by the lenses that were used - though I had no 'better' lenses to draw on at time of testing.

Fine detail is critical for me in my work, which involves digitising paintings, rare books, and so on.  Were I a portait photographer i would have no hesitation going for the 1DS3 - it is an exceptional camera, and very close to medium format in the quality it delivers.  Its workflow capabilities are a dream.  That said...I need that bit extra that MF delivers.

Nick
www.viewfinderdigitisation.com.au
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not think Canon makes a better lens than the 80 1.2..:+]
I agree wih all your findings.
I do test a lot in my studio but with the 1DsMII and P30..
The P30 clearly blows away my 1DsMII.
Just looking at the pictures from a little distance and you can see the P30 has a magical "3d" look or more volume from Highlight to Shadow..
Snook
« Last Edit: April 27, 2008, 10:10:44 am by Snook »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10332
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #124 on: April 27, 2008, 06:39:27 pm »

Quote
I do not think Canon makes a better lens than the 80 1.2..:+]
I agree wih all your findings.
I do test a lot in my studio but with the 1DsMII and P30..
The P30 clearly blows away my 1DsMII.
Just looking at the pictures from a little distance and you can see the P30 has a magical "3d" look or more volume from Highlight to Shadow..
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Comparing a P30 with a 1Ds2 is a bit like comparing the 1Ds3 with the original 11mp 1Ds. One would expect the 1Ds3 to have the advantage. In addition, larger sensors are less demanding on lenses, and the lack of an AA filter on the P30 produces its own distinctive effect.

It's a mystery to me why MFDBs with pixel densities no greater than the latest DSLR 35mm cameras are preferred in part due to their lack of an AA filter, yet manufacturers of 35mm cameras still insist on providing an AA filter. Can someone explain why this is so?

The 10mp Olympus E3 sensor, roughly 1/4th the area of FF 35mm, has the pixel density of a 40mp FF 35mm or an 80mp DB, yet the designers of the E3 still considered it needed an AA filter. In fact the AA filter on the E3 appears to be surprisingly strong, resulting in rather soft RAW images, and many users of the 1Ds3 complain the AA filter appears to be rather strong resulting in images which seem to need greater sharpening than 5D images, for example.
Logged

DiaAzul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 777
    • http://photo.tanzo.org/
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #125 on: April 27, 2008, 06:56:27 pm »

Quote
It's a mystery to me why MFDBs with pixel densities no greater than the latest DSLR 35mm cameras are preferred in part due to their lack of an AA filter, yet manufacturers of 35mm cameras still insist on providing an AA filter. Can someone explain why this is so?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.

At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
Logged
David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/

HarperPhotos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1309
    • http://www.harperphoto.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #126 on: April 27, 2008, 07:05:57 pm »

David,

BRAVO

Simon
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 01:23:51 am by HarperPhotos »
Logged
Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #127 on: April 27, 2008, 08:05:08 pm »

Maybe we could have some imagery to accompany this, just to make it clearer ?

 

Edmund

Quote
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.

At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

NBP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 184
    • http://
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #128 on: April 28, 2008, 02:47:55 am »

Brilliant!
 



Quote
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.

At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Sean H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #129 on: April 28, 2008, 09:20:02 am »

Quote
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.

At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hilarious and he deserves it! Well done David!!

Sean
Logged

csp

  • Guest
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #130 on: April 28, 2008, 09:31:56 am »

Quote
Hilarious and he deserves it! Well done David!!

Sean
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


finally the quality of the discussion here meets the mf work shown in this forum congratulations !
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 09:33:36 am by csp »
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #131 on: April 28, 2008, 09:35:04 am »

Regardless of what one may think of Ray's postings, the last few responses have been quite childish and immature. Way to keep the discussion on-topic and intelligent, people.
Logged

pookipichu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #132 on: April 28, 2008, 10:01:11 am »

What's with the hostility toward Ray?  Unnecessary rudeness.

Quote
Regardless of what one may think of Ray's postings, the last few responses have been quite childish and immature. Way to keep the discussion on-topic and intelligent, people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

NBP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 184
    • http://
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #133 on: April 28, 2008, 10:02:20 am »

Quote
Regardless of what one may think of Ray's postings, the last few responses have been quite childish and immature. Way to keep the discussion on-topic and intelligent, people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 


Internetz Lost Sense of Humour Depatment that way Mr. Wienke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Logged

Dansk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #134 on: April 28, 2008, 10:24:33 am »

Quote
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.

At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 I thought this was pretty damn funny personally and would have laughed just as hard if it were directed at me. It also sums it up pretty good too re: fine details

Still... Funny is funny

 
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #135 on: April 28, 2008, 06:59:19 pm »

Quote
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.

At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LL post of the year!



Jonathan, as you seem to have missed the humour and I'd say on topic comments of this post, Ray recently did an amusing thread with phallic objects well to the fore.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 07:00:22 pm by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #136 on: April 28, 2008, 09:38:49 pm »

Great reply. I actually laughed.

But for the techno-weenies out there, it's simply because the DBs have bigger(fatter) sensors and as a result have much better color saturation.  Kind of like shooting with slower film, just in this case, you don't lose any "speed".  DB looks more like film because it's capturing more information per location.
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #137 on: April 29, 2008, 02:50:38 am »

About the remark on portrait photographers.

For me (fashion/beauty) the MF system was choosen because of the larger sensor, a 1DsIII for me can never come close enough to switch.
What I can now do with DOF will never be possible the same way with a 35mm sensor because simply it's smaller.

I don't really care for MP's or detail, 1DsIII captures more than enough detail for everything expect maybe the very specialistic work.
For me it's in the lack of an AA filter (even more detail), bigger sensor, more dynamic range, real ISO25/50 that made me do the switch.

It's wonderful you can control the DOF with razorsharp endresults.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10332
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #138 on: April 29, 2008, 03:30:23 am »

Quote
Ray, in terms you may understand and given your obsession with the phallus, it is like having a foreskin or not having a foreskin. At the end of the day it comes down to sensitivity and whether you can resolve the fine details. The obsession with MFDB or 35MM is more akin to dick waving boys trying to work out who can piss furthest up the wall.

At the end of the day did your wife, girlfriend or partner get out the ruler or judge you on your ability to meet HER needs or yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I see, David. So what you are implying here is that perhaps MFDB manufacturers are catering to the desires of a bunch of photographers who have lost their foreskin and feel more comfortable if the sensor in their camera also symbolically has no foreskin....err.. AA filter.

I was sort of hoping for a more technical explanation.  
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10332
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #139 on: April 29, 2008, 04:45:21 am »

Quote
What I can now do with DOF will never be possible the same way with a 35mm sensor because simply it's smaller.

It's wonderful you can control the DOF with razorsharp endresults.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank,
This is one of the intriguing aspect of these comparisons between FF 35mm and DBs of merely double the area which, in terms of traditional format size differences, is not huge. We're talking about roughly a one stop aperture differenc for equivalent DoF.

Your comment in this respect would seem to be more apt in relation to a comparison between the APS-C format and FF 35mm. Both formats, by and large, use the same lenses, so the shallow DoF advantage of FF 35mm is usually very apparent. For example, there is no Canon EF-S equivalent of the 85/1.2, which would be an EF-S 50mm F/0.75.

I'm not familiar with the entire range of MF lenses available for DBs, but looking at the range of Mamiya lenses for 6x4.5 format, the equivalent focal lengths in 35mm have wider apertures by a degree which is greater than one stop.

For example:

Mamiya 55/F2.8 & Canon 35/1.4

Mamiya 80/F2.8 & Canon 50/1.4

Mamiya 120/F4 & Canon 85/1.2

Mamiya 150/F3.5 & Canon 100/2

I'd question whether the Mamiya 55/2.8 at full aperture is actually sharper than the 30/1.4 stopped down to F2, or, whether the 120/F4 at full aperture is sharper than the 85/1.2 stopped down more than 2 stops to F2.8.

However, I can appreciate there may be a problem with accurate autofocussing with these 35mm lenses, which is why we now have LiveView on the latest Canon DSLRs.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 16   Go Up