Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16   Go Down

Author Topic: MF vs 1Ds3  (Read 142298 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #260 on: May 05, 2008, 11:38:38 am »

Quote
Work on your reading skills...

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium..._AND_NIKON.html

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium...5D_PART_II.html

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium...D_PART_III.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe you should work on your reading skills. This thread is about the 1Ds3 v MFDB. There's obviously no contest between a 5D and MFDB.
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #261 on: May 05, 2008, 12:48:22 pm »

Ray, it is obvious that you are no longer interested in seeking the truth but simply to wish to win an argument which is a shame for you because if you come to these forums with the desire to seek answers and share wisdom you can become a more technically informed and better photographer.

It is valuable to always question the current wisdom on any subject but you have shown that you have no intention of trying to come to the truth of the matters in hand. You don't have any experience in what you are talking about and hence no real knowledge but you still whey in with authority.

I do consider your comments and attitude to be that of nothing more than a Troll.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #262 on: May 05, 2008, 03:16:43 pm »

Quote
Good question. I guess for a number of reasons. I use a 24" wide Epson 7600 printer. 12mp doesn't seem quite enough for a 23"x35" print when viewed close.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well duh! Normal people don't actually look at big images close up, in fact it's smaller images that will get more scrutiny and tend to fill a greater part of one's field of view for typical viewing distances. So I'd argue that you may actually need better quality for A3/A4/magazine than for poster sized mages.
Take a typical film poster or 6 sheet advertising piece and you'll find it's printed at 72dpi or similar and guess what it looks great. Unless you go so close you can't see whole image and then and only then will you realise the print isn't that detailed, but [span style=\'font-size:12pt;line-height:100%\']it doesn't matter,[/span] as it more than sharp enough for comfortable or typical viewing. You need to look at print from a normal viewing distance, not close up to make a valid judgement about whether quality is up to scratch.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #263 on: May 05, 2008, 04:07:55 pm »

That's true except in high-end art photography where people walk right up to a print and touch it with their little noses.

Edmund

Quote
Well duh! Normal people don't actually look at big images close up, in fact it's smaller images that will get more scrutiny and tend to fill a greater part of one's field of view for typical viewing distances. So I'd argue that you may actually need better quality for A3/A4/magazine than for poster sized mages.
Take a typical film poster or 6 sheet advertising piece and you'll find it's printed at 72dpi or similar and guess what it looks great. Unless you go so close you can't see whole image and then and only then will you realise the print isn't that detailed, but [span style=\'font-size:12pt;line-height:100%\']it doesn't matter,[/span] as it more than sharp enough for comfortable or typical viewing. You need to look at print from a normal viewing distance, not close up to make a valid judgement about whether quality is up to scratch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #264 on: May 05, 2008, 09:15:04 pm »

Quote
Ray, it is obvious that you are no longer interested in seeking the truth but simply to wish to win an argument which is a shame for you because if you come to these forums with the desire to seek answers and share wisdom you can become a more technically informed and better photographer.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193607\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dear me! Please point to the evidence that I'm no longer interested in seeking the truth and finding answers. On the contrary, it seems to me there are too many people paricipating in this thread whose main objective appears to be to hide the truth and heap ridicule on those who are seeking it.

I can't carry out the tests for you because I don't have the equipment, but at least I've advised you on the previous page how to take meaningful comparison shots, what apertures and focal lengths to use and how to approach post processing etc.

What more can I do? You want me to hold your hand as well?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #265 on: May 05, 2008, 09:32:57 pm »

Quote
Going back and forth between the two lets you make your own decision about MFDB or 35mm digital. Now it does not specifically answer the question about the 1DsMkIII but it does allow you to look at the differences, if indeed you do see differences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A typical example of muddled thinking. The images in the 35mm thread are probably largely taken by amateurs whereas the images in in the MFDB thread are presumably taken by seasoned professionals. The fundamental technical differences in image quality, where they exist, cannot be displayed in severely downsized and jpeg compressed form and even if they were able to be displayed using 100% crops, one needs identical subjects and lighting for such caomparisons to be meaningful, as well as a 1Ds3. This thread is not about 35mm v MFDB, but specifically the 1Ds3 v MFDB.

We're still back to square one here and the basic and obvious question, "Why do apparently competent professional photographers seem incapable of shooting the same scene with a 1Ds3 and making it look good, when they are given the chance to use a 1Ds3?"
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #266 on: May 05, 2008, 10:05:35 pm »

Quote
That's true except in high-end art photography where people walk right up to a print and touch it with their little noses.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's very true. I have a 22"x33" print on the wall immediately behind (and above) a big, fat 34" CRT TV set, yet visitors, on seeing the print for the first time, will often walk up close, with their belly pressed against the TV screen, in order to appreciate the fine detail.

It's a pretty natural thing for people to want to view anything, including objets d'art, from different distances and angles. Large prints have the advantage of lending themselves to either close viewing or distant viewing. Small prints generally can be appreciated only from a relatively close distance. I prefer to have large prints on my wall.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 10:06:33 pm by Ray »
Logged

bryanyc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #267 on: May 06, 2008, 01:36:38 am »

Quote
A typical example of muddled thinking. The images in the 35mm thread are probably largely taken by amateurs whereas the images in in the MFDB thread are presumably taken by seasoned professionals. The fundamental technical differences in image quality, where they exist, cannot be displayed in severely downsized and jpeg compressed form and even if they were able to be displayed using 100% crops, one needs identical subjects and lighting for such caomparisons to be meaningful, as well as a 1Ds3. This thread is not about 35mm v MFDB, but specifically the 1Ds3 v MFDB.

We're still back to square one here and the basic and obvious question, "Why do apparently competent professional photographers seem incapable of shooting the same scene with a 1Ds3 and making it look good, when they are given the chance to use a 1Ds3?"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey Hey Ray,
There is no conspiracy.  I think you need to do this for yourself because you won't obscure the truth.  Please show us the results because we need to know.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #268 on: May 06, 2008, 02:22:49 am »

Quote
Hey Hey Ray,
There is no conspiracy.  I think you need to do this for yourself because you won't obscure the truth.  Please show us the results because we need to know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm afraid my hands are full, testing the equipment I already have. As a result of spending so much time on this thread, I have not yet thoroughy tested my Canon 50/1.4 for autofocussing accuracy at full aperture, although preliminary testing indicates it's way out.

Before sending the lens in for a second calibration, I feel I need to go through the rigmarole of photographing a ruler so I can have images to accompany the lens. A thousand words is not enough, apparently.

You can imagine, I'm not enthused with the idea of photographing a ruler. There are other things I'd rather be doing. Even participating in this thread is more interesting than photographing a ruler   .
Logged

sergio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • http://www.sergiobartelsman.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #269 on: May 06, 2008, 12:07:53 pm »

This thread was on the verge of becoming amusing when paranoia set in about dark hidden agendas and cosnpiracies. Now it is boring again. Wow, we must have a LOT of free disposable time to be engaged in this. Sorry, time´s up, have to go.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #270 on: May 06, 2008, 08:33:55 pm »

I find the attitude of some DB users in this thread just amazing. There seems to be a complete lack of intellectual curiosity and interest from some of them on a matter which I would have thought most photographers would find of great interest.

Let's recap what has happened here.

Edmund has brought to our attention an interesting article (blog) about the experiences of someone at Pebble Place website who sold his MFDB equipment (Mamiya 645 and P25 back) at a loss and bought a Canon 1Ds3 which he thought would be more useful, more versatile and suit his needs better.

Lo and behold, after making this rash decision, he finds that the 1Ds3 image quality is not a patch on the MFDB equipment he has just sold at a loss. Unfortunately, because he sold his MFDB equipment before making thorough comparisons, he is unable to show us any clear, graphical evidence of his reported sub-standard performance of the 1Ds3 in relation to his P25. All we have to go on are statemets such as the following:

Quote
When comparing the 1Ds Mark III files to the P25 back, the Canon looks horrible. There is no comparison. Thus, the Canon 1Ds Mark III is a transitional camera with a limited future at PebblePlace.

Now the first question that might occur to most people is, why did John at Pebble Place fall into the trap of buying a camera without thoroughly testing it first and without comparing it with what he already had?

Could the reason be that there simply aren't any competent comparisons between a 1Ds3 and P25 available because no-one's interested. It's just a plainly boring subject for all intelligent people and only of interest to those who like to see how far they can piss up a wall?

Another puzzle is, if the only comparisons available on the net are poorly executed and seem deliberately skewed in favour of the DB, is this not sufficient reason to thoroughly test the equipment oneself before buying (exchanging, trading in, whatever)?

Yet another puzzle is John's claim about the performance of the 1Ds3 compared to the earlier 1Ds2, as mentioned below. Does John really know what he's doing, I wonder. Does this not merit some discussion?

Quote
The 1Ds3’s dynamic range is noticeably less than the 1Ds2’s. In the 1Ds3 white paper Canon wrote the 1Ds3 had “similar” dynamic range (comparing to the 1Ds2). If it had been better, Canon marketing would have eagerly advertised any such improvements. So I knew “similar” really meant less, but how much less was an unknown. My unscientific guess is a ~1/2 stop less based upon highlights clipping faster and more often.

Finally, I have to wonder if it's wise to use MF lenses on a 35mm body.

Quote
Lens purchases are limited to Hasselbald CF series. I already have these, so there’s no new money going out the door - especially not on Canon lenses. These lenses can be mounted on the 1Ds Mark III, so the lens investment is leveraged.

The 1Ds3 images displayed on John's website are taken with a Hasselblad 110mm Planar. This might be a fine lens for MF format but not necessarily good enough for 35mm if tack sharpness is a concern, and it certainly appears to be a concern for John, as evidenced by the following statement.

Quote
Canon does a remarkable job of putting forth more megapixels which net less - less sharpness, less contrast, less pop, less what-ever. I have yet to see a 1Ds3 raw file in DPP that looked truly pixel level sharp. The P25 has redefined my idea of what sharp is. The 1Ds3 doesn’t have it! Not even close...

I've often wondered myself about the suitability of lenses designed for a larger format. Could this be the reason why John's 1Ds3 images are not as tack sharp as he had hoped they would be?

When the new high performance Digitar lenses with reduced image circle first appeared, they seemed to have amazing specs on paper, a really high MTF chart which was more impressive than any theoretical chart I'd seen from Canon.

Yet, when such lenses are adapted to fit 35mm DSLRs, the results seem to be rather underwhelming, from reports I've occasionally come across, although I can't offhand point to any of these reports. This is another topic worthy of discussion.
Logged

juicy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #271 on: May 06, 2008, 09:03:21 pm »

Quote
*
*
*

When the new high performance Digitar lenses with reduced image circle first appeared, they seemed to have amazing specs on paper, a really high MTF chart which was more impressive than any theoretical chart I'd seen from Canon.

Yet, when such lenses are adapted to fit 35mm DSLRs, the results seem to be rather underwhelming, from reports I've occasionally come across, although I can't offhand point to any of these reports. This is another topic worthy of discussion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi!

Can you remember if any of these people reporting underwhelming experiences have used 1Ds3 with LV with these lenses? Or is it the old problem of not being able to use scheimpflug and other technical movements accurately/effectively with the tiny dslr-viewfinder? Or perhaps the problems with the cheapest 28mm WA-Digitar which reportedly is nowhere near the performance of the 24mm or the Rodenstock-28 (which can not be used with a dslr)? I would like to know if you happen to come across those reports.

Cheers,
J
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #272 on: May 07, 2008, 01:10:49 am »

Quote
Hi!

Can you remember if any of these people reporting underwhelming experiences have used 1Ds3 with LV with these lenses? Or is it the old problem of not being able to use scheimpflug and other technical movements accurately/effectively with the tiny dslr-viewfinder? Or perhaps the problems with the cheapest 28mm WA-Digitar which reportedly is nowhere near the performance of the 24mm or the Rodenstock-28 (which can not be used with a dslr)? I would like to know if you happen to come across those reports.

Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi!
The reports were not very recent and not really detailed reports, just secondary comments to some other issue. I don't recall any mention of shift movements being used. With 35mm DSLRs, shift movements have to be incorporated into the lens.

However, I find there's far too little information on such topics in general. If a manufacturer produces an outstanding lens, it's natural that others will want to use it, if possible, with there exisitng bodies. I find it curious that John at Pebbles Place considers the Hassy 110mm Planar to be so outstanding that he's prepared to sacrifice some of the auto functions when using it with the 1Ds3.

When the results are not as tack sharp as he thinks they should be, he criticises the 35mm body. I just get the feeling that maybe he doesn't really know what he's doing and needs a bit of help.

The fact that he compares a 5D with a P25 using each camera's standard lens at F8, tends to confirm this suspicion. If you were comparing a Canon G9 with a 5D, would you take each shot at F8? The difference in formats is more extreme, but the principle is the same. Smaller sensors need higher resolving lenses, or lenses used at higher resolving apertures. Using the G9 at F8 is like using the 5D at F32.
Logged

juicy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #273 on: May 07, 2008, 08:23:20 am »

Quote
Hi!
The reports were not very recent and not really detailed reports, just secondary comments to some other issue. I don't recall any mention of shift movements being used. With 35mm DSLRs, shift movements have to be incorporated into the lens.

*
*
*
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As you very well know these lenses are made for view/technical cameras and as such any movements are incorporated in the camera/bellows (such as Cambo Ultima or X2pro when using a dslr) - not in the lens. Focusing these lenses is quite error prone when using a tiny viewfinder and sensor of a dslr. Thus it may not be very wise to judge the quality of these lenses based on dslr-use. Report back if  you happen to find a valid commentary. Otherwise let's consentrate on other topics.

Cheers,
J
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #274 on: May 07, 2008, 10:43:06 am »

Quote
Thus it may not be very wise to judge the quality of these lenses based on dslr-use. Report back if  you happen to find a valid commentary. Otherwise let's consentrate on other topics.

Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Likewise to you. Report back if you come across any reliable commentary. In the absense of such reports we just have to use our own common sense. Brilliant Digitar lens which can be adapted to 35mm DSLR  ... no firm reports of outstanding performance with 35mm body. Top of the line, highest resolving 35mm DSLR on the market; actual report in this thread of poor performance when used with Hassy lens.

No need to move on. Let's thrash out the matter in this thread. I'm not judging the quality of an MF lens based on DSLR use. I'm saying that my nous tells me that MF lenses which may be highly regarded on MF bodies may not perform well on 35mm bodies. Did you miss that point?
Logged

chrismuc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #275 on: May 07, 2008, 12:06:02 pm »

I haven't used MF digital backs yet but regarding a 1ds3 and sharp glasses I can share some experiences. With it's 6.5 um pixel width, the 1ds3 obviously needs excellent lenses to make it's theoretical 21 MP resolution usable.
http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/canon_1ds3_pics
E.g. the Zeiss Distagon 21, Leica 28 (current model) and Leica 100 Apo-Macro lenses work very fine, while e.g. shift lenses like the Leica/Schneider 28 PC or worse the Canon 24 TS-E are outperformed by the sensor towards the shifted edges.
Generally I was a bit disappointed of the 1ds3:
- AA-filter is stronger than of 5d, more raw-sharpening is needed
- sharpness at high contrast details is good, but low contrast details are pretty much washed out by the camera internal electronics
- already at ISO 100 grey and darker grey areas show some color noise
- pics don't "pop" when opened as raw files, mid contrast is lower than 5D or Kodak DCS or MF backs, has to be pushed a bit in PS to get good result
IMO a good 20 MP+ 24x36mm sensor with no or weak AA-filter (and electronics that does no diminish resolution and quality) plus top glasses could match MF image quality in the 20-25 MP range but as long as there is no such camera it doesn't.
Hopefully at least the 5d2 will be more similar to the 5d and to AA-filter-free camera (backs) than to the 1ds3 regarding the mentioned aspects.
Christoph
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #276 on: May 08, 2008, 07:36:07 am »

Quote
Generally I was a bit disappointed of the 1ds3:
- AA-filter is stronger than of 5d, more raw-sharpening is needed
- sharpness at high contrast details is good, but low contrast details are pretty much washed out by the camera internal electronics
- already at ISO 100 grey and darker grey areas show some color noise
- pics don't "pop" when opened as raw files, mid contrast is lower than 5D or Kodak DCS or MF backs, has to be pushed a bit in PS to get good result
IMO a good 20 MP+ 24x36mm sensor with no or weak AA-filter (and electronics that does no diminish resolution and quality) plus top glasses could match MF image quality in the 20-25 MP range but as long as there is no such camera it doesn't.
Hopefully at least the 5d2 will be more similar to the 5d and to AA-filter-free camera (backs) than to the 1ds3 regarding the mentioned aspects.
Christoph
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Christoph,
Thanks for posting the comparisons. That Zeiss 21/2.8 seems a very fine lens; sharp to the edges and virtually no hint of color fringing which both the Leica 28 PC and Canon 24 TS-E seem to have plenty of.

The differences in resolution between the 1Ds3 and 5D are noticeable in lots of subtle ways, but not huge. It has me a little worried. If Canon give us a 16mp 5D upgrade, it won't mean much resolution-wise. I think I'd prefer an extra stop of DR.

A good lens is priceless. I hope Mark Welsh sends me soon the adapter I ordered for Nikon to Canon so I can start using that highly regarded Nikkor 14-28/2.8   .

Cheers!
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #277 on: May 08, 2008, 09:02:19 am »

Quote
IMO a good 20 MP+ 24x36mm sensor with no or weak AA-filter (and electronics that does no diminish resolution and quality) plus top glasses could match MF image quality in the 20-25 MP range but as long as there is no such camera it doesn't.
Christoph
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think we can expect the new Leica R10 to get there. More realistically, Sony have got Zeiss to design a lot of their new glass, I'm sure they have their reasons.

I just printed one of my first images from my Phase back in A2 size, prior to moving to really big prints for a show. Yes, the colors are "fat" and it has an element of 3D to it.

Edmund
« Last Edit: May 08, 2008, 09:05:50 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10328
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #278 on: May 08, 2008, 10:13:03 am »

Quote
I just printed one of my first images from my Phase back in A2 size, prior to moving to really big prints for a show. Yes, the colors are "fat" and it has an element of 3D to it.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe Adobe, in addition to the vibrancy and saturation sliders in Camera Raw, will eventually give us a 'fat' slider and a 3-D slider  .
Logged

Ignatz_Mouse

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #279 on: May 08, 2008, 11:02:57 am »

Quote
I think we can expect the new Leica R10 to get there. More realistically, Sony have got Zeiss to design a lot of their new glass, I'm sure they have their reasons.

I just printed one of my first images from my Phase back in A2 size, prior to moving to really big prints for a show. Yes, the colors are "fat" and it has an element of 3D to it.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In his last interview published in LFI magazine 03/2008 Mr. Kaufmann talks about the future of the R system:  "The R is a beautiful camera but todays market gives preference to other products. I can assure you we have every intention of leaving a mark in the single lens reflex sector, but that's all I can say for now". The "official" roumorlogy "suggests" that the sensor of the upcoming R10 could be bigger than 24x36. Maybe this is what Kaufmann is talking about when he says something like  "leaving a mark in the single lens reflex sector"... We'll see.

Sony has been collaborating with Zeiss for its professional compact camcorders from some time to now. I would like to see the 24 Mpx FF A900 not incorporating an AA filter but I doubt this is going to happen.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16   Go Up