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:
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?
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.
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.
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.