Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Aptus 22 vs 5DII  (Read 107814 times)

mikemigs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #40 on: December 03, 2008, 05:00:36 pm »

Quote from: Panopeeper
Did you find a CR2 file in that ZIP? I found only the DNG.


And has been upresd in raw format to 5616x3744?

It IS a 5D2 raw file. Your Exif viewer is crap.

This is from the file, created by the camera, not by the DNG converter:

272 Model         Canon EOS 5D Mark II
306 DateTime    2008:12:01 14:52:35
315 Artist          John Schweikert Photography

@ Panopeeper and John Schweikert:

Here are screen shots from C1 Pro of both the CR2 and DNG files.
The CR2 says Canon 5D along with the camera's serial# and Firmware version. It also shows the exact pixel dimensions of the 5D at 4368x2912.
The DNG says Canon 5DMark II along with John's copyright info, but without the camera's serial# nor firmware version.

John. would you mind allowing us to download the actual CR2 file?

Thanks.
[attachment=10090:IMG_6616...reenshot.jpg][attachment=10091:IMG_0151...reenshot.
jpg]
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #41 on: December 03, 2008, 05:14:33 pm »

As long as there are threads going on were the G10 is compared to a MF system I think that says all..........

I agree with Rafaello, forget the testcharts just work with the camera.
The system is indeed slower but gives you much more options.

Ok I do fashion but I also try to find the extremes of my systems (not all fashion photographers shoot flat lit subjects with strobes ), I've been shooting into the sun with strobes for some time now, but I could never do the things I do with the RZ, sync speed on 1/400 and ISO25 it's a real day to night with very shallow DOF.
Same goes for the jump photography, in the studio I can do jumps without a problem with both the DSLR and MF.
Change the situation to outside and again the option to compete with the available light is a wonderful addition, as is the 1/400 sync.

I think there are indeed alot of people selling their MF systems and with good reason.
Maybe it's the economics, maybe it's the work they do.
To be honest if I would only shoot high school seniors, weddings and the occasional portrait I would probarbly never upgraded to MF.
However especially in my free work I love to work on the edge, really push the pixels in photoshop sometimes and as mentioned before by others the files are just WAY more robust.

remarks about that when you push a file from the 5D you can get the same snap as a MF file that's nice.
But do we forget that when you push pixels arround we loose bits, or in other words the files will fall apart earlier ?
To be honest I love the fact that the files from the Leaf comes out razor sharp (no softening), very even in color and snappy.
The less I have to work on the files the more I like it......

In the end it all boils down to what fits a certain person and what fits the job.

The thing I find strange that nobody talks about is diffraction ?
Are you all shooting on f2.8 and f5.6 max ?
For beauty I often stop down to f22 and on the DSLR that would mean app f16. The files from the 1DsIII from what I have seen are not that pretty anymore at that aperture.
For what I do the DSLR complements the MF perfectly, when I look at my 5D files from the last year they are all shot below f5.6 and most are above ISO400.
It fills the gap that MF leaves perfectly, as it should.

I'm also a bit in dubio by this post, I pre-ordered the 5DMKII as soon as it was announced and I'm looking forward to it as a kid waiting for a new toy.
When you read some comments it's like if you love the 5DMKII you have to sell your MF gear
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2008, 06:27:51 pm »

Quote from: John Schweikert
CR2 download for the same DNG file you have:
John, THIS file is not the same as the DNG you posted above. The issue is not the file number, but THIS one (the CR2) is 1/3 EV higher exposed than the DNG (even though the shutter and aperture are the same).

Hold on.

I downloaded a DNG in the package earlier with #148. This CR2 is #151. But Mikemigs posted a crop from a DNG with #151.

I'm afraid we are not talking about the same things. An excellent basis for measuring characteristics, right?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 06:32:35 pm by Panopeeper »
Logged
Gabor

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #43 on: December 03, 2008, 06:35:50 pm »

I often see the discussion about 16bit depth.

If anyone thinks a Phase One with 16bit depth is superior to 14bit, plase post such a (16bit Phase One) file here and get prepared for some sobering moments.
Logged
Gabor

hauxon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #44 on: December 03, 2008, 06:38:31 pm »

The Canon 1Ds III has been around for more than a year now.  What is it with the new 5D that will turn things around?  For all of us the availablity and pricepoint of the new 5DII is great news but I fail to see what's really there to destroy the current MF business.  Now we can all have multimegapixel DSLR's with great ISO for low price, either as our main camera or as a backup for another one depending on what we do.  If the 5DII was to end MF photography the 1DsIII would already have done that.

I however think that MF has less option of growing than before since many that have been waiting fot the right price point to enter (or renter) MF photography will be satisfied by what modern 35mm DSLSR's are offering.

The MF business as we know it may however die with RED and Nikon entering it.
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #45 on: December 03, 2008, 06:44:11 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
I think there are indeed alot of people selling their MF systems and with good reason.
Maybe it's the economics, maybe it's the work they do.
To be honest if I would only shoot high school seniors, weddings and the occasional portrait I would probarbly never upgraded to MF.
However especially in my free work I love to work on the edge, really push the pixels in photoshop sometimes and as mentioned before by others the files are just WAY more robust.

remarks about that when you push a file from the 5D you can get the same snap as a MF file that's nice.
But do we forget that when you push pixels arround we loose bits, or in other words the files will fall apart earlier ?
To be honest I love the fact that the files from the Leaf comes out razor sharp (no softening), very even in color and snappy.
The less I have to work on the files the more I like it......

In the end it all boils down to what fits a certain person and what fits the job.

The thing I find strange that nobody talks about is diffraction ?
Are you all shooting on f2.8 and f5.6 max ?
For beauty I often stop down to f22 and on the DSLR that would mean app f16. The files from the 1DsIII from what I have seen are not that pretty anymore at that aperture.

i think there are quiet a view members here shooting dslr`s who i would not see at all in the lo end corner you like to put them in....
aside this i dont like this class thinking too much.

diffraction behavor let me think about the new mf backs as well. i most certainly will go with one of the new hires backs, probably with the sinar/leaf back if it comes out. i am in a market corner where i can have sometimes good use for the higher resolution.
but even now with my 33mp back i notice diffraction limits very visible over f16,- with big prints this can show up visible.
although i dont have big problems with diffraction caused softness in single images,- ( because this kind of softness  allows very good upscaling ),- but on 8foot prints you certainly see the difference if a shot with a HR lens is done at f8 or if it is done at f22,- and it becomes very visible if this shots at different apertures hang on a wall side by side.
sometimes i have to stop down so much to get the dov i need for the motif ( this is not happening so rarely ), so i cant avoid to go beyond f11.
i wonder how much bigger will be the resolution difference with a 50+ mp back between the f8 and the f16 or 22 shot,- the 50+ back will not resolve more at f22 than the 33mp back but will resolve a lot more at f8. certainly there will appear new problems to be aware of .... ( anyway the world is for learning ).

aside this i am not unhappy that this 35mm - mf discussion in architecture is more or less useless. here are the lenses the limiting factor not the resolution or the bit depth.
i just hope that the mf makers will not dye, because many of us architecture guys really can need mf ad its advantages.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 06:49:28 pm by rainer_v »
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10203
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #46 on: December 03, 2008, 08:19:50 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
For beauty I often stop down to f22 and on the DSLR that would mean app f16. The files from the 1DsIII from what I have seen are not that pretty anymore at that aperture.

Frank,
This is worthy of more investigation. John has shown us shots from a 5D2 at F11 compared with an Aptus at F16, demonstrating there is essentially no image quality difference, yet you claim when both cameras are stopped down one more stop, image quality differences will appear and that the DB will look better in some significant way.

I can't understand why this would be the case. One advantage that the DB always has is its lack of an AA filter, which sometimes creates more work to remove moire patterns, but also seems to lend an extra crispness to the image, however slight.

However, at F22 I would imagine that the lens itself becomes an AA filter, reducing high frequency content as a result of diffraction. The DB would thus lose that small advantage due to its not having an AA filter, one would think.

The idea that MFDBs have useful features which may be lacking in 35mm DSLRs and which enable certain types of shots that would either not be possible with a DSLR, or would at least be more difficult, is not strange. I have no problem understanding that this would be a very good reason for using MFDB. If you need a flash sync speed faster than a 35mm DSLR can offer, then that's reason enough to use the MFDB in those circumstances.

I regularly switch between different format cameras when, in certain circumstances, one camera or the other has an advantage. For example, when shooting distant wildlife with a my longest telephoto, I would prefer to use the Canon 50D instead of my 5D because it effectively turns my 400mm lens into a 640mm lens, and I simply get a better result. I don't need to argue about it. The differences are clear and obvious and can be easily demonstrated.
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2008, 02:21:15 am »

@Rainier,
I try to be as clear as possible and it's a shame you did not get the meaning of my post.
I DONOT say that people not shooting with MF are amateurs or bad photographers.
I tried to say that it doesn't matter what you shoot for 99% of the assignments as long as you know how to use it, but that there are photographers out there that want the absolute best, even if it doesn't show up on print, and those are often the ones going for MF. Again I don't mean doing a better job, or having more passion for photography.

I think there are photographers out there shooting DSLRs that do a better job than some of the work I see shot with MF.
In the end it all boils down to the shot and the camera is just a tool to get there.
MF is just another tool than DSLR and if that fits the style/wishes of the photographer it can lift his/her work to another level.

In the end what I meant to say (so without putting anyone down) is that in my opinion MF and a DSLR are so different that comparing them is like comparing a G10 to a 5DMKII.
As pointed out a few posts before this on print the G10 can do a full magazine spread so why even bother buying a DSLR ?
I think everyone agrees that a G10 and a 5DMKII are totally different systems and that it's more than just seeing a print, it's also about getting that perfect workflow that fits the photographer,and also getting the shot in the situations you encounter the most, the G10 for example would never fit my style of shooting.
In the future the differences will become smaller and smaller but still there will be a difference, for me the biggest difference is the sensor size and it's advantages.
But what are advantages for me can be disadvantages for another.

Hope this explains it better ?


Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2008, 02:32:00 am »

@Ray,
It's a bit difficult for me to read your posts in which you point out differences when you still talk about a magnification factor when everyone knows (hopefully) that it's a crop factor.
Your 400mm is still a 400mm lens but it just crops out the center part.
Take the 1DSIII or the 5DMKII and you get similair results by cropping.....
In the end for wildlife it boils down to pixels, or in other words do we have enough to crop the small far away bird.

I agree when you compare a 12MP crop camera to a 12MP FF camera by the way (when the quality of both is about equal)

This is for a great part THE reason why I (and I think also others) choose the MF system.
the bigger sensors make it possible to use longer lenses which give a different look and feel to the shot than the same lens on a smaller sensor.

Don't take it the wrong way, but again the difference between crop and magnification factor is for me the whole thing the MF vs DSLR discussions boils down, if you really don't get the fact that a 50mm is a 50mm on a crop camera and on a full frame and on a MF but that on all these cameras the pictures are totally different you indeed can't see the difference between the systems.

Don't be offended, it's not meant to offend (disadvantage of the written word).
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2008, 04:03:28 am »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
I think there are indeed alot of people selling their MF systems and with good reason.
Maybe it's the economics, maybe it's the work they do.
To be honest if I would only shoot high school seniors, weddings and the occasional portrait I would probarbly never upgraded to MF.
However especially in my free work I love to work on the edge, really push the pixels in photoshop sometimes and as mentioned before by others the files are just WAY more robust.

frank,

will all regards, somewhere you keep missing the point that the world's most famous living photographer is shooting with a Canon dslr and I don't think anyone would put AL in the league of high school senior photography.  few event photoraphers can afford a 4 story building in manhattan.

in regards to "free" work, how does that equate to affording a meduim format system, in fact how does "free" equate to affording any camera.

why are working photographers selling their medium format systems, it's simple, they are limited to low iso and/or slower or more controlled subjects and advertising, including high end advertising and in today's knee jerk advertising economy clients requires faster production and to some extent more lifestyle oriented imagery.  

this catagory is best served with a camera that reacts faster and NO it's not spray and pray, it's just a spontaneous look that requires higher iso, usually continuous or mixed light and a very fast reactive camera that will allow a photographer to produce the type of project that are  coming through on all creative briefs I've seen in the last 18 months.

I will keep my two medium format backs because they are paid for and  they will be used, but in the last 12 to 18 months they are used less and less and I feel will even be more marginalized in the next year.

understand I don't think any professional photographer that shoots for editorial and commerce wants to see any camera company or format go away, but medium format really needs higher iso and better lcds (and probably more useful autofocus) if they are going to continue to grow in the professional market.  the limits on low iso is probably the most limiting factor, the next is costs.

also keep in mind that regardless of the printing process or size, though expert post production and retouching nobody can tell the difference in the end product and I promise you even the medium format makers can be fooled.  does the box, the digital lab or a dozen other high end retouchers prefer a medium format file.  maybe, but once they're done nobody knows the difference and you can be sure that when it comes to working on the edge, Pascal Dangin who owns the box is on the real edge and they really don't care what format you deliver to them.

then again it looks like the bar is going to be raised again by the dslrs as this is from the canon rumors page on the next 1d (not ds) but 1d Mark IV.  true or not, it is very interesting and might give us some idea where Canon will go on the next 1ds series.

From canonrumorsdotcom

1dMarkIV

MP: 21.1 FF
ISO: 100-12800 (L:50 - H: 51,200)
Proc: Dual DIGIC IV
LCD: 3.5″ VGA LCD (Not sure about this)
FPS: 10fps
AF: 45 Point AF
AF: Face Detection
Feature: Various Crop Modes
Feature: LiveView with new AF
Feature: Movie Mode
Feature: Ergonomic Updates
Feature: GPS
Feature: Wifi
Feature: Dual CF & SD (4 total slots)
Announcement: Fall 2009
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2008, 04:37:40 am »

bcooter, please reread my posts.
I CLEARLY state that SOME photographers will choose MF because it fits THEIR workflow/preference.
I never said you can't shoot with a DSLR or that DSLRs are not suited for high profile work.

I see alot of famous photographers shooting with MF, Canon, Nikon etc. all in the mix, look at Annie, I have seen her using Nikon, Leica, Leaf AFi, Canon and even in one session a Nikon and Leaf AFi (see the video on the profoto website), it's just that they know which camera gives them the look they want.
In the end whatever camera you use they are all tools to get the end result we have in mind.

Again it doesn't make a photographer a better one when he/she shoots with MF, a good photographer will choose the camera fitting the assignment.
And if he/she only has one camera no problem at all he/she will do just fine with that camera.

Again I never intent to hurt, put down or whatever negative to anyone, I just give my opinion for my personal workflow.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 04:39:22 am by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

yaya

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2008, 04:44:10 am »

Profoto Pro-8 promo video about 01:15 from the start

Yair
Logged

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2008, 05:09:52 am »

LOL.  Annie Leibovitz doesn't know about what "look" she wants, or cares about the "look" that whatever camera, digital back, sensor size, or format may give her.

Someone hands her a camera... any camera... probably a camera that she barely knows how to use, or barely knows anything about, then she learns how to set the exposure, focus, and press the shutter button, and she takes her famous photographs without caring about the medium format look, or the next Canon or Nikon that will become a MF killer.  Whatever camera she's holding, she probably doesn't even know or care about how many megapixels it has, or how big the pixels are.

I'm almost positive this woman would have NO clue about anything we talk about in this forum...
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2008, 05:33:15 am »

Quote from: T-1000
LOL.  Annie Leibovitz doesn't know about what "look" she wants, or cares about the "look" that whatever camera, digital back, sensor size, or format may give her.

Someone hands her a camera... any camera... probably a camera that she barely knows how to use, or barely knows anything about, then she learns how to set the exposure, focus, and press the shutter button, and she takes her famous photographs without caring about the medium format look, or the next Canon or Nikon that will become a MF killer.  Whatever camera she's holding, she probably doesn't even know or care about how many megapixels it has, or how big the pixels are.

I'm almost positive this woman would have NO clue about anything we talk about in this forum...


LOL and that proves that it's the photographer making the photo and not the equipment.
But I do think you sell Annie a bit short, she will probably know what she uses (or at least I hope)
Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2008, 07:43:49 am »

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 09:22:00 am by gwhitf »
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2008, 09:03:44 am »

The 14 years old Loral 4 MPx sensor is still in work in some place and still delivers some amazing results, with this limited resolution.
Years back, the Rado watch campaigns (4x3m) have been shot with backs having this resolution.

Thierry

Thierry

Quote from: gwhitf
Resolution is not everything. Not by a mile.
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10203
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2008, 10:13:00 am »


Quote
It's a bit difficult for me to read your posts in which you point out differences when you still talk about a magnification factor when everyone knows (hopefully) that it's a crop factor.
Your 400mm is still a 400mm lens but it just crops out the center part.

Frank,
Of course I know that   . But I never mentioned the word 'magnification'. You did. I wrote effectively turns my 400mm lens into a 640mm lens. The magnification comes later, as a result of the cropped image being comprised of a greater number of pixels.

If Canon were to produce a 35mm sensor with as many pixels as a P45 (ie. 39mp), then there would be no reason for me to use a 50D, assuming the 39mp DSLR had all the other features of the 50D, which it likely would have, and more.

Quote
Take the 1DSIII or the 5DMKII and you get similair results by cropping.....

Similar, but not quite as good. The 1Ds3 and 5D2 have the pixel density of the 8mp 20D. The 50D has 15mp, almost twice as many. The 5D image cropped to the 50D format has about 5mp.

But all this is beside the point. I was trying to give an example of a good reason for using a different format camera. In other circumstances I would use my 5D because of its lower shadow noise and smoother tonality. It simply gathers more light than a 50D.

Quote
Don't take it the wrong way, but again the difference between crop and magnification factor is for me the whole thing the MF vs DSLR discussions boils down, if you really don't get the fact that a 50mm is a 50mm on a crop camera and on a full frame and on a MF but that on all these cameras the pictures are totally different you indeed can't see the difference between the systems.

I do get the fact that a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens whatever camera it's fitted to. How could it not be? It doesn't magically change its name because you fit it to another camera. However, I don't see any special connection here to the differences between MFDB and 35mm. All different size formats require different focal lengths for the same field of view. Where you would use a 50mm lens with a 1Ds3 you would use a 75mm lens with a P25, stopped down one stop of course. The results should be approximately the same, except for any quality differences that exist between the two lenses. One lens might have a nicer bokeh. The other might simply be sharper. No two lenses are exactly the same.


Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2008, 11:08:26 am »

Quote from: gwhitf
the Annie analogy,.................because it simply doesn't apply to 99.9% of us in the trenches.


I agree with you, though all of us have heard for years the justification for 22, 31, 39 now 60mpx is "I want to give my client the best".

we all do, that's the plan,  but for most of us finding a better model, stylist or location would go a lot further than 11 more mpx, or maybe our own version of Pascal's Box, whether it is do it yourself classes in a workshop  our outsourcing.

I also agree that nobody really cares what another photographer shoots with.   it's really not relevant and rarely an indication of anything.  

the scenario in camera sponsorship usually goes like this, photographer shoots a lifetime of film, later canon's or nikons in digital, maybe a few rental backs and then some company sponsors them to shoot something specific with their brand and links to their site.  

the point is at most levels, the clients don't care either.  they just want their shot and given the budget they would like the post work done by Pascal rather than the photographer.  the client that opens the conversation about file size of megapixels is the client you don't want to know.

what I think more than lenses, format or mpx, what would stop all this conversation is if someone would just rip the aa filter off a 5d2 or a 1dsMark III.

as far as costs, cameras, or format just use what you like, or can afford.  nobody really needs to justify anything.


Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #58 on: December 04, 2008, 11:46:21 am »

.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 09:31:01 am by gwhitf »
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #59 on: December 04, 2008, 12:22:29 pm »

@Ray,
That's why it's so difficult to do the conversation when someone doesn't understand what I (and probarbly others) mean.

When you shoot a 50mm on a FF DSLR it's not as simple as using a 75mm on a MF system.
The whole look will change.

Let's make it very simple.
MF systems make it possible to shoot portraits with a 200mm lens wide open and give you much less DOF than the same 200mm on a FF DSLR.
When you want to achieve this one could opt for a 300mm lens for example and use that on f2.8 (if possible) but still there is a different look, the 300mm will compress the scene different than the 200mm.

In other words.
Try to borrow a MF system and shoot with a 120mm lens a portrait.
Now change to a DSLR and shoot the exact same portret with a 120mm lens, see the difference.

Now do it your way.
Shoot it on MF with a 120mm lens and take a 75mm on a DSLR and shoot again the same portrait.
You will find that BOTH cameras will give you an unique look.
I don't say one is better or the other is worse.

I can just talk for myself and I absolutly LOVE the look I get from the large sensors, that's also the reason I still use the Aptus22 and am now seriously looking at the Aptus II 10, I would probarbly never invest in a crop of 1.3 for MF (although in the RZ I don't have a choice  yet.... would love a 6x7 digital back)


Don't try to get me on calculations, I post this very quickly so probarbly the mm's are wrong but you know what I mean.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12   Go Up