Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: MF vs 1Ds3  (Read 140789 times)

Dansk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #80 on: April 16, 2008, 12:16:16 pm »

Quote
No offense, but what everybody has been telling you here is that you CANNOT compare them, there is no contest, the MF backs blow the DSLR's out of the water on resolution, tonality and color. A 3 or 4 generation old Kodak 16MP DCS back mounted to a Contax 645 that was discontinued three years ago, will outperform a 22MP Canon 1Ds3 at comparable image ratios and ISO 100/200. I know you don't want to hear that, but everybody that's shot both is telling you it's the case. Where the DSLR's shine by comparison is where they've always shined, portability and focal length selection and with digital, you can add high ISO availability. End of story.
 

  Thats a laugher not an offender. FWIW I've been shooting MFDB since the original 6mp lightphase. You know... before the filter.. When you had to mount it on the front of the lens. Of course you did that too right? Or perhaps you were still playing with your Kodak Disc then? Dunno but its as foolish for me to say that absurdity about you as it is for you to assume I have no dig back experience. I've got tons.

  My point was merely to say that in most cases we are now at a stage where only a very select FEW will even be able to tell the difference between a quality image from either system. The lines draw nearer whether you like to hear it or not and they are not so vast as you would like to believe.

  For the record? I didnt buy a Mk3 either. I only shoot tethered and so far the USB aint cutting it so I'll wait and see what happens.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #81 on: April 16, 2008, 12:18:06 pm »

Quote
No offense, but what everybody has been telling you here is that you CANNOT compare them, there is no contest, the MF backs blow the DSLR's out of the water on resolution, tonality and color.  A 3 or 4 generation old Kodak 16MP DCS back mounted to a Contax 645 that was discontinued three years ago, will outperform a 22MP Canon 1Ds3 at comparable image ratios and ISO 100/200.  I know you don't want to hear that, but everybody that's shot both is telling you it's the case.  Where the DSLR's shine by comparison is where they've always shined, portability and focal length selection and with digital, you can add high ISO availability. End of story.   

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Jack -

If I speak English as I was taught over here in Europe, I'd say the back scores a victory on points against the SLR, assuming the referee is watching *very* carefully.

And by the way, yes I did my own tests.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 12:41:37 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #82 on: April 16, 2008, 04:19:26 pm »

For some, the difference between "maybe yes" and "probably no" comes down to splitting hairs. For others the distinction is considerable...
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #83 on: April 16, 2008, 07:50:04 pm »

Quote
A 3 or 4 generation old Kodak 16MP DCS back mounted to a Contax 645 that was discontinued three years ago, will outperform a 22MP Canon 1Ds3 at comparable image ratios and ISO 100/200.

Jack,
What aspect ratio is that 3rd generation Kodak 16mp back? If it's 4:3 and the 1Ds3 is cropped to the same aspect ratio, then we're comparing 18.7mp to 16mp, a pixel count difference which is negligible.

As a result of the wider pixel spacing of the larger format, it should deliver better results with lenses of a resolving power that is no better than that of the 35mm lens.

Add to the equation the additional crispness due to the lack of an AA filter and the possibility that the MF lenses at the apertures used in any comparison are also higher resolving than the equivalent 35mm lenses at correspondingly wider apertures, then I can believe that an old 16mp Kodak back will outperform a 1Ds3.

The issue here, for me at least, is not that the larger format might usually deliver better results. You'd expect it to. I'm interested in what factors contribute to this result and how significant each factor is.

We know for example that 35mm DSLRs are better at autofoussing. Presumably, anyone using a DB who wants the sharpest result will manually focus, perhaps with the camera tethered to a computer. Whilst autofocussing with 35mm might be generally good, is it as good as a manual focus? The fact that we now have DSLRs with LiveView would suggest that manual focussing is sometimes necessary for sharp results. I've certainly found that to be the case with my 40D.

When accurate focussing is not an issue, how would that 3rd generation Kodak back compare when the lens is set at F13, and the lens on the 1Ds3 at F8 with shorter focal length?

The necessity for an AA filter with the latest high pixel density sensors is a mystery to me. If Kodak could get away without one on its 14n, why should it be necessary to have one on the next generation of Sony 24mp 35mm sensors?

Perhaps the new Sony sensor will not have an AA filter. I hope not.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 07:55:27 pm by Ray »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #84 on: April 17, 2008, 12:25:23 am »

Well, Jack, I had a devil of a time trying to discover the dimensions of the sensor in the old Kodak DCS 16mp backs. All I could find on Kodak's website was 110x93x63.5mm. Must be another trade secret.

I should have tried the Luminous Landscape equipment reviews first, because there I found the actual aspect ratio of the 16mp Kodak DCS Pro Back (it's square) and the dimensions, 36.9x36.9mm.

Is this the 3rd or 4th generation Kodak back you are referring to (the Kodak DCS Pro Back discontinued in early 2004)?

If so, then I think it becomes very doubtful if a square format 16mp DB could equal the quality of a 21mp 35mm format camera, such as the 1Ds3, if the DB image were cropped to the same aspect ratio as the 35mm image.

Are you claiming that a 10.7mp DB image is generally superior to a 21mp 1Ds3 image? If so, I'd like to see the images, with full details including lens and F stop.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 12:27:00 am by Ray »
Logged

Ed Jack

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #85 on: April 17, 2008, 06:50:18 am »

Quote
Hasslebald

Mamiya

Canon

Nikon

etc. systems and thats where it will stop. We're splitting some very fine hairs here gentleman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Splitting hairs or not, I am sure Thierry is not too pleased to see that you have left Sinar or leaf off this magic list of manufacturers who are part of a new dawn. As far as i can tell up take of the Hy6 has been deservedly good as Hasselblad have been a bit static recently!  
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #86 on: April 17, 2008, 07:01:13 am »

Thanks Ed, to correct this "omission".

I had noticed it, but am used to such.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Splitting hairs or not, I am sure Thierry is not too pleased to see that you have left Sinar or leaf off this magic list of manufacturers who are part of a new dawn. As far as i can tell up take of the Hy6 has been deservedly good as Hasselblad have been a bit static recently! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3976
    • Photos of Arkansas
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #87 on: April 17, 2008, 08:19:54 am »

Here is a link to the Kodak site, for the 16mp pro back, yes it was square.  16mp.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/pro...ekn017518.jhtml  

The section that has the actual users guide is where you can see the actual dimensions.

Paul C
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Dansk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #88 on: April 17, 2008, 08:32:41 am »

Sorry Thierry that "list" was not a future prediction list of the players who will still be in the game but just a quick point that the issue of "format" is one I believe is pretty much done and it will be the best system that wins our dollars regardless of its marketed design "format"

  I've used Sinars in the past to shoot food and have nothing bad to say about them at all. Great systems.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 08:33:10 am by Dansk »
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #89 on: April 17, 2008, 09:10:33 am »

That's alright, Dansk, no harm at all.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Sorry Thierry that "list" was not a future prediction list of the players who will still be in the game but just a quick point that the issue of "format" is one I believe is pretty much done and it will be the best system that wins our dollars regardless of its marketed design "format"

  I've used Sinars in the past to shoot food and have nothing bad to say about them at all. Great systems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #90 on: April 17, 2008, 10:10:43 pm »

Quote
Here is a link to the Kodak site, for the 16mp pro back, yes it was square.  16mp.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/pro...ekn017518.jhtml 

The section that has the actual users guide is where you can see the actual dimensions.

Paul C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was just surprised it proved to be so difficult to find out what I consider to be a very significant and basic specification, the size of the sensor. I didn't expect to have to download a 2.5mb pdf user guide in order to get such information. I'm still on a 56k dial-up connection   .

A comparison between images from a 16mp Kodak DCS Pro Back and 1Ds3 images cropped to a square format, puts the 1Ds3 at a significant disadvantage.

The 21mp 1Ds3 image, after cropping, becomes effectively an image from a 14mp 24mmx24mm sensor. One would expect any 16mp sensor which is 36.9x36.9mm to produce at least slightly better results than a 14mp sensor of dimensions 24x24mm, especially when the larger sensor has no AA filter.

The difference in area between two such sensors (after cropping the 1Ds3) is about the same as the difference between the APS-C sensor and FF 35mm, just slightly less.
Logged

mcfoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
    • http://montalbetticampbell.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #91 on: April 17, 2008, 11:04:17 pm »

Quote
I was just surprised it proved to be so difficult to find out what I consider to be a very significant and basic specification, the size of the sensor. I didn't expect to have to download a 2.5mb pdf user guide in order to get such information. I'm still on a 56k dial-up connection   .

A comparison between images from a 16mp Kodak DCS Pro Back and 1Ds3 images cropped to a square format, puts the 1Ds3 at a significant disadvantage.

The 21mp 1Ds3 image, after cropping, becomes effectively an image from a 14mp 24mmx24mm sensor. One would expect any 16mp sensor which is 36.9x36.9mm to produce at least slightly better results than a 14mp sensor of dimensions 24x24mm, especially when the larger sensor has no AA filter.

The difference in area between two such sensors (after cropping the 1Ds3) is about the same as the difference between the APS-C sensor and FF 35mm, just slightly less.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
In theory that should apply. When I compared my ZD ( dalsa chip 22 mp ) to my 1DsMKIII well the results posted on Dec 2007 showed me results that surprised me. The 1DsMKIII was so close to the ZD & now the Canon is being used more.
Logged
Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell [

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #92 on: April 18, 2008, 07:24:38 am »

Theory only applies if the sensor technology is the same in both sensors being compared. But when you have different generations of sensors based on different technologies (CMOS vs CCD) made by different manufacturers, with different or no AA filter or microlenses, the only way to compare is with actual images, not theoretical extrapolations based on sensor area or pixel size or whatever.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2008, 07:28:15 am by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #93 on: April 19, 2008, 07:32:21 pm »

Quote
Theory only applies if the sensor technology is the same in both sensors being compared. But when you have different generations of sensors based on different technologies (CMOS vs CCD) made by different manufacturers, with different or no AA filter or microlenses, the only way to compare is with actual images, not theoretical extrapolations based on sensor area or pixel size or whatever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the means to do such comparisons are available, that is, you have the equipment, then of course you will get a more precise impression using the actual equipment rather than predicting what the outcome is likely to be using other equipment. That hardly needs mentioning   .

But science is about predicting what the results will be. If you have knowledge about lens performance and your your sensor's size and pixel count, you (or perhaps I should say I) can get a pretty good idea of what to expect with the equipment you have'nt got.

I don't think that at base ISO the differences between CCD and CMOS, or the differences between slightly old technology and brand new technology, are going to be nearly as significant as sensor size, pixel count and lens quality.

One can get an fair idea of the subtle effects of removing the AA filter, from sites such as MaxMax and from the images and comments posted already on this forum.

I did some preliminary comparisons yesterday between my 40D with 50/1.4, and 5D with TSE 90/2.8. I needed to check out my 50/1.4 after receiving it back from calibration.

Sadly, from a distance of about 4 ft, my 50/1.4 simply isn't autofocussing accurately. I'll do more tests at different distances and different types of targets, but it looks as though this lens will have to go back again to Canon.

However, comparing the 40D and 50/1.4 at F1.4 with the 5D and 90/2.8 at 2.8, comparable apertures considering the 5D needed to be moved back from the tartget slightly, the results are pretty much as I predicted.

All focussing was manual, of course, and here the 40D has the edge because of LiveView. Despite this edge, the 5D/90mm combination produced clearly superior images at all equivalent apertures I tried, but the differences were greatest at equivalent apertures of F1.4 and F2.8.  If I were in a studio shooting models, there's no way I would choose the 40D and 50/1.4 in place of the 5D and TSE 90.

PS.I didn't compare the 5D/TSE 90 at f16 with the 40D/50mm at f8 (that's for the next test   ). However, I would predict that at these apertures the differences would be insignificant, just as I would predict that a 1Ds3 at f8 (using a good lens) would produce images on a par with a Mamiya ZD at f11 or f13.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2008, 09:28:57 pm by Ray »
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #94 on: April 20, 2008, 06:22:00 am »

of-course this is the most useful comparison i have seen here in LL. Thank you so much Ray for working and posting so hard for us marketing blinded fools.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 06:22:37 am by rainer_v »
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #95 on: April 20, 2008, 07:12:15 am »

Quote
of-course this is the most useful comparison i have seen here in LL. Thank you so much Ray for working and posting so hard for us marketing blinded fools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


LOL
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #96 on: April 20, 2008, 03:46:10 pm »

Quote
How soon things change. 10 years ago medium format held a massive advantage over 35mm and there was not much to compare between them. The fact that we can even COMPARE a DSLR to a MFDB now in my opinion  is simply amazing.

Not really, though.  When you consider the resolution lost compared to MF film.

MF film scanned at 3600 DPI would be more realistic. (65MP)  Since good labs scan 35mm film at 3600DPI, why not apply the same standard to MF?

65MP is basically where real digital backs should be considered medium format.  Yes, It's an enormous amount of extra data, but hold 35mm film and 6X6 side by side. It's an incredible difference in physical size, and so, therefore, it should also be for digital.

17MP is effectively a film replacement for 35mm.  (equivalent to 3600DPI film scan almost exactly) 0.94 inches*1.42 inches. 3384*5112.    Stretching this a little bit isn't close to MF.  What it is, really, is 35mm film that's enlarged to 1.42X1.42, or about 5112*5112(25MP).

A 20MP DB is actually *slightly* better than 35mm film, which leads to silly comparisons like this article.  It's a pseudo medium format that we've been tricked/marketed into believing is a replacement for 6X6 film, because technology hasn't caught up yet.

P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best.  2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)

~40MP that we have now is getting closer, though, and I expect to see 65MP true MF backs in about three years.
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #97 on: April 20, 2008, 04:20:55 pm »

Quote
17MP is effectively a film replacement for 35mm.  ...

A 20MP DB is actually *slightly* better than 35mm film
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are many tests on the net comparing film with digital. So far, every one I have seen shows that 35mm film has approximately the same level of detail as 8-10MP. 17MP is quite an exageration. In fact a 22 MP digital back will beat 645 film and and 39MP back will beat 6x6 and 67.
Logged

paul_jones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
    • http://www.paulrossjones.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #98 on: April 20, 2008, 04:39:33 pm »

Quote
Not really, though.  When you consider the resolution lost compared to MF film.

MF film scanned at 3600 DPI would be more realistic. (65MP)  Since good labs scan 35mm film at 3600DPI, why not apply the same standard to MF?

65MP is basically where real digital backs should be considered medium format.  Yes, It's an enormous amount of extra data, but hold 35mm film and 6X6 side by side. It's an incredible difference in physical size, and so, therefore, it should also be for digital.

17MP is effectively a film replacement for 35mm.  (equivalent to 3600DPI film scan almost exactly) 0.94 inches*1.42 inches. 3384*5112.    Stretching this a little bit isn't close to MF.  What it is, really, is 35mm film that's enlarged to 1.42X1.42, or about 5112*5112(25MP).

A 20MP DB is actually *slightly* better than 35mm film, which leads to silly comparisons like this article.  It's a pseudo medium format that we've been tricked/marketed into believing is a replacement for 6X6 film, because technology hasn't caught up yet.

P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best.  2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)

~40MP that we have now is getting closer, though, and I expect to see 65MP true MF backs in about three years.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yeah, that bollocks. ive been looking back at my drum scanned 35mm stock shots, and the resolution is terrible compared to what im used to- 16, 21 and 22 mp files. so bad, that i have problems selling them as stock as my level of what is usable is so much higher now.

i also had to do a composite shot recently, and i had to comp in a person running like a grey hound in the middle of a grey hound race. the bg shot was a getty shot on 35mm, and i shot the guy at about the same distance with the 1dsmk2, and i had piles more resolution with digital.

paul
Logged
check my new website
[url=http://www.pau

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #99 on: April 20, 2008, 04:48:40 pm »

Quote
yeah, that bollocks. ive been looking back at my drum scanned 35mm stock shots, and the resolution is terrible compared to what im used to- 16, 21 and 22 mp files. so bad, that i have problems selling them as stock as my level of what is usable is so much higher now.

i also had to do a composite shot recently, and i had to comp in a person running like a grey hound in the middle of a grey hound race. the bg shot was a getty shot on 35mm, and i shot the guy at about the same distance with the 1dsmk2, and i had piles more resolution with digital.

paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not all about resolution..............

and as for your stock shots not being able to be sold alongside digital, that's just bollocks. Every month i look at my stock sales and every month the stuff shot on film far outsells my digital stuff. The thing is that all stock is starting to look the same with every man and his dog shooting with a Canon, or maybe a DB but not so much. This year i will be shooting much more with my Pentax 67 and less with my 1DS3.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16   Go Up