MF vs 1Ds3

[Dustbak]

I shoot a lot of fabric. Yes, with multishot you can have pattern moire but it occurs a lot (really a lot) less than with single shot.

Single shot moire with fabric is usually a combination of both pattern as well as color moire, the color moire is easily removed, solving the pattern moire means blurring a bit and loosing some detail.

Using MS on a clothing catalogue shoot means saving 8 to 16 hours of moire misery in my case.

[amsp]

Since we are talking about moire I thought I'd share a tip. The PhaseOne moire plug-in for Photoshop works on all files, not only digital backs. I've used it with great success on my Canon files.

[thsinar]

EXACTLY, Dustback!

Thierry

I shoot a lot of fabric. Yes, with multishot you can have pattern moire but it occurs a lot (really a lot) less than with single shot.

Single shot moire with fabric is usually a combination of both pattern as well as color moire, the color moire is easily removed, solving the pattern moire means blurring a bit and loosing some detail.

Using MS on a clothing catalogue shoot means saving 8 to 16 hours of moire misery in my case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Plekto]

I think people that buy a MF system are not scared by moire and can solve it.

I have to be 100% honest and say that Moire can be seen on app 10 shots in each session, however it NEVER ruined a shot for me and was always easily fixed.

However on a DSLR people will start complaining online and hurting the system because they simply don't know what moire is and how it's retouched.

See it as JPEG vs RAW.
There are more and more people claiming that JPEG is as good as RAW, and I think we all know that this is not true.
You can talk what you want but those people will say they see no difference what so ever.

So take away their AA filter and the forums will be full about the strange colordots, strange rings etc. that ruin their cat and dog shots.

True, but look at this:
http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm
I know which one I'd rather have.  Side by side it is readily apparent that most of what DSLR users complain about with their lenses being slightly out of focus is really our brains seeing this filter in action and not liking the blurred effect.

The last shot with the D200 and that truck is really telling.  The OEM setup looks like you dropped a full resolution setting compared to the bare sensor.  And, I honestly don't notice the artifacts with scenery.   I *do* notice the extra sharpness.

It would be interesting to see what this would do with the Fuji sensor, since it is rotated 45 degrees.  The Foveon as well - I doubt the Foveon even needs any filter on the sensor.

[Ray]

Since AA filters cost money, one would think there would be an incentive in this very competitive market to offer a DSLR option with no AA filter.

Perhaps there's a perceived lesson in the failure of Kodak's 14n which manufacturer's will never forget. This was a cheaper camera than Canon's 1Ds. There was a later 14c version that fitted the Canon mount but the design was apparently not a market success. As I recall, the camera could not compete with the low noise of Canon cameras at ISO 400 and above.

Perhaps the failure of this design was principally due to its susceptibility to aliasing artifacts and high noise, and it's difficult to identify which was greater.

[Christopher]

True, but look at this:
http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm
I know which one I'd rather have.  Side by side it is readily apparent that most of what DSLR users complain about with their lenses being slightly out of focus is really our brains seeing this filter in action and not liking the blurred effect.

The last shot with the D200 and that truck is really telling.  The OEM setup looks like you dropped a full resolution setting compared to the bare sensor.  And, I honestly don't notice the artifacts with scenery.   I *do* notice the extra sharpness.

It would be interesting to see what this would do with the Fuji sensor, since it is rotated 45 degrees.  The Foveon as well - I doubt the Foveon even needs any filter on the sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And as I said before THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL IMAGE. I posted a comparsion a time ago between the hot_rod 5d and the normal shot. AFTER capture sharpning nearly nobody could say which one was the one without AA. Now to go even further I did this and printed the image. I gave it to different artists and photographers here 0 out of around 20 people could see a difference. So sorry, the whole thing hot_rod is doing is making money and nothing more.

[jing q]

Since AA filters cost money, one would think there would be an incentive in this very competitive market to offer a DSLR option with no AA filter.

Perhaps there's a perceived lesson in the failure of Kodak's 14n which manufacturer's will never forget. This was a cheaper camera than Canon's 1Ds. There was a later 14c version that fitted the Canon mount but the design was apparently not a market success. As I recall, the camera could not compete with the low noise of Canon cameras at ISO 400 and above.

Perhaps the failure of this design was principally due to its susceptibility to aliasing artifacts and high noise, and it's difficult to identify which was greater.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

jeez are we still on this topic...

[James R Russell]

Since AA filters cost money, one would think there would be an incentive in this very competitive market to offer a DSLR option with no AA filter.

Perhaps there's a perceived lesson in the failure of Kodak's 14n which manufacturer's will never forget. This was a cheaper camera than Canon's 1Ds. There was a later 14c version that fitted the Canon mount but the design was apparently not a market success. As I recall, the camera could not compete with the low noise of Canon cameras at ISO 400 and above.

Perhaps the failure of this design was principally due to its susceptibility to aliasing artifacts and high noise, and it's difficult to identify which was greater.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why I get sucked into this I don't know, but honestly this is one silly conversation.

Ray, whatever your reasons are, if you really want to judge the merits of medium format, or any high end system, then I am sure you can find a reputable dealer to give you a spin.

All these words, all these questions to try to prove or disprove any theory just doesn't hold water, until you work with a sytem in a professional manner.

In regards to moire, you just absolutely wrong in your assumptions.  Moire, pattern or color, is not a 300 lb monster just lying in wait for every medium format digital capture of a patterned men's suit, or a blue spandex top.

It can happen just as frequently on a aa filtered dslr as it can a medium format back.

The three best ways to catch moire is 1.  know what you shoot and know how your camera will react to it, (this only comes from use and understanding).  2.  Hand hold or move around, don't just lock down in one position.  Moire can happen but usually not on every frame.  3.  Tether.  This is the most professional way to review any image and it's attributes.

Actually #3 is the reason the medium format backs work so well in professional production.  You can easily see the image in all it's glory, good and bad, make the required adjustments and shoot with confidence.  No camera lcd, even Nikon's great 920,000 pixel lcd will give you 1/10th of the information you will see on a computer.

Taking an aa filter off of a Canon or a Nikon won't produce the desired results of even an entry level medium format back, at least at lower isos and for the reasons mentioned.

As far as the Kodak FF dslr, that camera was flawed for a lot of reasons, not just because it didn't have an AA filter.  The first offerings had bad sensors and  wavy color response, centerfolding type effects, dead pixels a small buffer, firmware that was a work in progress and a cheap crappy body, all at the thought of producing a Canon killer at a bargain price.  The Sigma made Canon mount copy of this camera was even worse and felt like a lego toy and by the time Kodak even got close to righting all the wrongs, they stopped production.

Still, it's not one single thing that makes a serious photographer try and appreciate different systems, it is the desire to produce unique images that are ever improving and until you work an image deep in photoshop, shoot in pressured production you probably won't understand this until you actually invest the time.

You seem to want to prove the emperor has no clothes when in reality, depending on how and what you shoot,  there is validty in almost any professinal camera and format and it would take two pages to explain it, but I know because I own a lot of them and have used most of them.

JR

[Ray]

Ray, whatever your reasons are, if you really want to judge the merits of medium format, or any high end system, then I am sure you can find a reputable dealer to give you a spin.

All these words, all these questions to try to prove or disprove any theory just doesn't hold water, until you work with a sytem in a professional manner.

In regards to moire, you just absolutely wrong in your assumptions.  Moire, pattern or color, is not a 300 lb monster just lying in wait for every medium format digital capture of a patterned men's suit, or a blue spandex top.

James,
I just don't operate that way, buying something on the basis of a dealer giving me a spin. I do my research and I know what I want before I walk into the shop.

I don't believe in magic and I don't expect to discover any unreported qualities by fondling and handling the equipment and taking a few comparison shots in a shop.

I think it's a tragic and primitive state of affairs, for example, that I always feel the need to test a lens before I buy it because of unpredictable quality control. The last two lenses I bought, the Canon 50/1.4 and EF-S 17-55/2.8, I didn't give a thorough test. It was just too difficult due to the chaotic conditions in the store, people wandering in and out. Both of these lenses have autofocussing problems despite both having been sent to Canon for calibration.

In regards to moire, you just absolutely wrong in your assumptions.  Moire, pattern or color, is not a 300 lb monster just lying in wait for every medium format digital capture of a patterned men's suit, or a blue spandex top.

It can happen just as frequently on a aa filtered dslr as it can a medium format back.

Well, excuse me, I just didn't know that, James. I got the impression that AA filters were in place to slay the 300 lb monster.

Actually #3 is the reason the medium format backs work so well in professional production.  You can easily see the image in all it's glory, good and bad, make the required adjustments and shoot with confidence.  No camera lcd, even Nikon's great 920,000 pixel lcd will give you 1/10th of the information you will see on a computer.

Well, thanks for being so honest. That is a reason that is credible. I have no problems in understanding that a particular piece of equipment may lend itself better to a particular type of working environment, and I do appreciate that a LiveView screen contributes significantly to accurate focussing. The bigger the screen the better. A misfocussed shot at a wide aperture is useless.

[thsinar]

So well said!

Thierry

Why I get sucked into this I don't know, but honestly this is one silly conversation.

Ray, whatever your reasons are, if you really want to judge the merits of medium format, or any high end system, then I am sure you can find a reputable dealer to give you a spin.

All these words, all these questions to try to prove or disprove any theory just doesn't hold water, until you work with a sytem in a professional manner.

In regards to moire, you just absolutely wrong in your assumptions.  Moire, pattern or color, is not a 300 lb monster just lying in wait for every medium format digital capture of a patterned men's suit, or a blue spandex top.

It can happen just as frequently on a aa filtered dslr as it can a medium format back.

The three best ways to catch moire is 1.  know what you shoot and know how your camera will react to it, (this only comes from use and understanding).  2.  Hand hold or move around, don't just lock down in one position.  Moire can happen but usually not on every frame.  3.  Tether.  This is the most professional way to review any image and it's attributes.

Actually #3 is the reason the medium format backs work so well in professional production.  You can easily see the image in all it's glory, good and bad, make the required adjustments and shoot with confidence.  No camera lcd, even Nikon's great 920,000 pixel lcd will give you 1/10th of the information you will see on a computer.

Taking an aa filter off of a Canon or a Nikon won't produce the desired results of even an entry level medium format back, at least at lower isos and for the reasons mentioned.

As far as the Kodak FF dslr, that camera was flawed for a lot of reasons, not just because it didn't have an AA filter.  The first offerings had bad sensors and  wavy color response, centerfolding type effects, dead pixels a small buffer, firmware that was a work in progress and a cheap crappy body, all at the thought of producing a Canon killer at a bargain price.  The Sigma made Canon mount copy of this camera was even worse and felt like a lego toy and by the time Kodak even got close to righting all the wrongs, they stopped production.

Still, it's not one single thing that makes a serious photographer try and appreciate different systems, it is the desire to produce unique images that are ever improving and until you work an image deep in photoshop, shoot in pressured production you probably won't understand this until you actually invest the time.

You seem to want to prove the emperor has no clothes when in reality, depending on how and what you shoot,  there is validty in almost any professinal camera and format and it would take two pages to explain it, but I know because I own a lot of them and have used most of them.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

If you are only concerned about the pixels then you are missing massive other components to the entire MF digital world.

I suggest you make the effort to go demo on your own or just lay off the topic. You are spinning your wheels endlessly otherwise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey! John, I didn't start this topic. I'm just expressing a few thoughts. Let me say straight away; I'm an amateur who sells the occasionbal photograph. I'm retired and I get my kicks from taking and making photographs rather than selling photographs. I'm interested in art and I like the challenges that photography poses.

It has an emotional appeal for me, probably because my father was an artist and life-long photography enthusiast. He used to teach photography night classes in Manchester in the U.K in the 1950's and 60's. I have dozens of odd sized negative glass plates of shots my father took of his school mates in the early 1920's, with his first camera at the age of 14 or 15, as well as thousands more he took during his life time, all preserved and meticulously catalogued.

I've had experience of demoing my own. I tried comparing a D3 with my 5D in Bangkok recently. I was unable to hire or borrow the camera for a day's shooting and had to make do with a few shots taken in the store. It was a very unsatisfactory and the results were inconclusive. I simply didn't have enough time.

I know from experience that thorough testing requires patience, a certain freedom from distractions and the sort of chaos one finds in the average store and the pressure of time.

As I've stated before, we're in the information age. One should be able to choose equipment from specifications if they are accurate. Camera reviews are supposed to be a check on the accuracy of such specifications.

So I'm going to sock it to you now. Rather than telling me to lay off the topic, how about you providing a competent comparison between a 1Ds3 and P21 or other back of similar pixel count. I haven't seen one yet.

Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.

You want me to back off in case you get embarrassed??

[thsinar]

Ray,

it is really and only by testing it yourself, that you will find out what are the answers to your questions:

- if there is a difference (IQ, handling, workflow, etc ...) and where this difference is
- if this difference has any significance for you and your work.

I had actually proposed you to come and visit me in Bangkok, when you where in the North of Thailand, and would have loaned you my back and camera (and even lenses): so the opportunities are there, take it, Ray.

Best regards,
Thierry

I've had experience of demoing my own. I tried comparing a D3 with my 5D in Bangkok recently. I was unable to hire or borrow the camera for a day's shooting and had to make do with a few shots taken in the store. It was a very unsatisfactory and the results were inconclusive. I simply didn't have enough time.

So I'm going to sock it to you now. Rather than telling me to lay off the topic, how about you providing a competent comparison between a 1Ds3 and P21 or other back of similar pixel count. I haven't seen one yet.

Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling is some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.

You want me to back off in case you get embarrassed??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Joe Behar]

Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could it possibly be that a professional photographer actually knows more than a hobbyist, especially when it comes to what a discerning client finds acceptable? Could it be that being a professional photographer is more than just pushing the button and requires a combination of skills, creativity and technical knowledge? Could it be that someone who uses these tools to make a living knows more than someone that has a relatively casual acquaintance with photography?

Nah, what am I thinking? Its taking pictures, anyone can do it, right?

Yes, that was sarcasm.

I will now go back to actually working with photographers and real photos as opposed to reading specs and try to not get sucked into anymore of this.

[James R Russell]

That is a reason that is credible. I have no problems in understanding that a particular piece of equipment may lend itself better to a particular type of working environment, and I do appreciate ......................
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The thing that gets lost in these conversations in the equipment anyone choses, if it produces what you expect, (or better yet goes beyond your expectations), then it is credible.

I've had these exact conversations on and off line for 4 years and it all comes down to personal choice and the willingness to invest. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know photographers that loathed owning and working with medium format and others that can't stand any 35mm camera, where a few months later they buy one of each.

We all are searching and pushing for ways to improve out photographhy because if that wasn't true everyone would just continue with film and their old RZ's.

The camera shouldn't matter, but on the other hand it matters a great deal, especially since the camera is now the film and to some extent the lab.

I own Lecias, Nikons, Canons and Phase/Contax and not one of them will excactly do what the other does and not one of them will replace all the others, at least for me and the way I chose to work.

How you or anyone else choses to work is up to them, but to make rational, even irrational comments about what does and doesn't work, first you must make investment, have experience and show the results and the results have to be more than a 100% crop of a tree limb because beautiful photograpy has nothing to do with cropping a tree limb at 100%.

How you roll doesn't really change anything, or what you want doesn't mean that Nikon, Canon or Phase need to start reworking their assembly lines and sales network.

If you want to test everything until your eyes bleed, it's a free country, have at it, but finding that one lens is 10% softer than the other isn't tragic, it's just mildly annoyng.  Tragic is 1 billion people forced to live on $1 a day.

I work in an industry  where every project is treated like it's life and death, which from a distance seems silly.

In reality the investment required, the cost of production, the time limitations, the competition can make it very closely resemble a life a death situation.  Those are the times you know what equipment is exactly right for a project and no photographer will go in an half ass the shoot, at least if they want to continue working.

If one camera, or light produces a 10% better image, a larger preview, then in those situations it's worth it.

This is  where the conversation get's muddled.  Unfortunatley Web conversation is a democracy where every person that writes a comment has the same validity as the person that responds and honestly in the real world this isn't the case.

This reminds me of an assistant that walked around and hourly said "I would never buy a 7 series, I would never buy a 4 million dollar Malibu home, I would never never buy a ....."

BMW and the real estate agent didn't care because they knew he wasn't their intended market.


JR

[Ray]

Ray,

it is really and only by testing it yourself, that you will find out what are the answers to your questions:

- if there is a difference (IQ, handling, workflow, etc ...) and where this difference is
- if this difference has any significance for you and your work.

I had actually proposed you to come and visit me in Bangkok, when you where in the North of Thailand, and would have loaned you my back and camera (and even lenses): so the opportunities are there, take it, Ray.

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thierry,
You're a nice guy, and I'm a nice guy also. I should have made a point to visit you when I was in Bangkok, at least to say hello. But from a practical point of view, we were discussing comparisons involving a 1Ds3. I don't believe you had such a camera at the time. Right?

I'm very conscious of wasting people's time. When I was testing the D3 in the Nikon store, I was inwardly embarrassed by the fact that I knew it was very unlikely that I would buy this camera from the store. I never really believed that the D3 had as much as a 2 stop noise advantage over the 5D, but I had to be sure.

I was really just using them to confirm my own suspicions. I wouldn't like to do that to you   .

[Dustbak]

Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I own DB & Nikon, I know several friends that own DB & Canons. For some reason none of us makes that comparison indeed. Most of us know when to use what so why should we? To satisfy your needs?

Quite frankly, my mind is never on how the D300 compares to the CF39 or the 384. I make the shots with the thing that IMO and with my way of working does it best, period.

Comparing the systems is a big waste of time, IMO naturally.

[Henry Goh]

When we were shooting film, did we not always argue about 6x6 or 6x9 being much better than 35mm?  When I shot 4x5 I kept telling my friends shooting only 35mm that they can never blow their negatives up to match mine.  They still tried by using Pan-X and all kinds of "fine grain developer, playing with development time, using Leica Focotar enlarger lenses etc.  At the end of the day, each format had it use and advantage.

I'm still not into MFDB but I know for a fact that the larger sensor without the AA filter will allow me to do certain things that even my 1Ds MKIII with the best L glass cannot do.  The only way to feel a "format" is to shoot with the camera.  In fact, despite my rather longish 36 or 37 years in photography, it still takes me about 4,000 frames before I'm intimate with the idiosyncrasies of each new DSLR I buy.  It may be that I'm not as good as some other here but I doubt you can competently compare or evaluate a camera in a camera shop and walk out convinced that the camera is bad or good.  Plain silly notion if you asked me.

[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']Now, is my 4,000 frames way too many, may I ask some of you working pros?  Thanks.[/span]

[josayeruk]

Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Might be something to do with the fact that we are all busy and totally BORED of this subject.

Next topic... please.

Jo S.x

[Ray]

Might be something to do with the fact that we are all busy and totally BORED of this subject.

Next topic... please.

Jo S.x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That might indeed be the case. But I, for one, am not going to buy a camera on the basis that any improvement in image quality cannot be demonstrated because such comparisons are too boring. If the matter is too boring, then it's not relevant. I'll stick with what I've got, thank you.

[woof75]

So I'm going to sock it to you now. Rather than telling me to lay off the topic, how about you providing a competent comparison between a 1Ds3 and P21 or other back of similar pixel count. I haven't seen one yet.

Here is the great mystery. We have a bunch of professional photographers revelling in some concept of luxurious image quality; people who are presumably very competent and some of whom claim to use both 35mm and DBs on a regular basis, depending on the work situation, yet none of them seems to be able to provide a competent comparison showing the differences between DB and 35mm.

You want me to back off in case you get embarrassed??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think this gets at the crux of the problem here, you think that people are trying to make you believe for some reason that there DB's are better than your canon. I promise you no working professional cares whether his or her DB is better than someone elses canon. It really doesn't matter, people care how there images look for sure but to think we are all in this conspiracy to try and convince people who have never owned a DB that we see something of virtue in them is ridiculous and quite misanthropic.
 I was just retouching a 5d file and you know what, it was sharper than a lot of my P21 file, it looked lovely, I could post that and that would be proof, the 5d is sharper than the P21 but then I looked at the other files from the 5d that weren't as sharp and the shadows were getting a bit noisy. You see thats how it is with the new cameras, there all really good, the differences are small, depending on light and how you shoot sometimes the advantages between cameras are reversed, you can't tell which camera is "best" from looking at one or even a bunch of tests. You have to go out and shoot these cameras on jobs, shoot hundreds of images and then, don't just look at files 100 percent on screen but look at prints and don't just examine them but step back and see how they make you feel and then try and figure out whether that feeling is helped by the attributes of the camera. Unfortunately this doesn't help armchair pundits, you want an easy answer, you want A vs B with a nice clear cut answer but it just doesn't work like that. Unfortunately that means that you do have to somehow get your hands on a costly DB for a good amount of time and shoot it and look at it with not just a technical eye but an artists eye too which some people cannot do and that is unfortunate but until you do that you DO NOT HAVE A VALID OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.
Sorry for the rant but I think this is a fundamental idea which is important to understand to prevent this otherwise valuable resource of a forum being taken down the plug hole into dpreview territory.