Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Aptus 22 vs 5DII  (Read 109491 times)

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #160 on: December 14, 2008, 01:41:08 pm »

Quote from: carstenw
I think the relaxed sharpness in the MF shot is lost in that particular rendition of the 5D2 shot, which looks tense. It would surely look better with access to the original, but I do prefer the MF here, in all versions shown so far.

Personally I like the Aptus pic

How does everybodies three-four year old computer/mobile phone stack up to current models

Isnt it great that a piece of historic kit -  three whole years old - older than YouTube - a lifetime in technology - still stacks up with the current stuff

My 22mp digiback has been great value at $5000 per year over those three years - I might even string it out to last six - ok Ill be off the pace with a piddling 22mp but who cares

What would I buy today ? - the Canon (or a P60whatever if I was a 3meter print guy - the p60 will look sharper than the canon no doubt)

--

Also I can clean the sensor on my MFDB which is a real bonus

S
« Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 01:41:55 pm by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #161 on: December 14, 2008, 02:15:19 pm »

Quote from: benP
a very good example of how to completely ruin a picture


see how with the canon now EVERYTHING is sharpened
so whilst you have sharpened some of the details that perhaps needed to be sharpened
all the lovely softer areas are no longer soft
and you've actually sharpened the NOISE in the picture (loo top left)
the structure of the actual picture is now visible

the result ? A picture that has nothing to do with reality anymore. It has no subtely, no fathfullness and is a nasty digital abomination, a model who has leprosy


First rule of photoshop: Never use unsharp mask, you should sharpen using 'High Pass + degrain + transfer layer' or a specialist sharpen plugin

true detail isnt about just sharpening, its a subtle mixture of sharp and soft.. there is no magic filter or action to bring it back when its not there  
I agree that the 5dII sample sharpened did not turned out pretty.

But instead of using the 'High Pass + degrain + transfer layer', why not just using the "smart sharpen" filter on PS? It is a "de convulsion sharpener" as good as others plugs in. IMO.
Logged

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #162 on: December 14, 2008, 02:40:02 pm »

Quote from: ziocan
I agree that the 5dII sample sharpened did not turned out pretty.

But instead of using the 'High Pass + degrain + transfer layer', why not just using the "smart sharpen" filter on PS? It is a "de convulsion sharpener" as good as others plugs in. IMO.
Frank thank you again for the comparison. I think is valid and correctly done.
It seems to me that most of the posters on this thread should have enough experience to see that what frank did was made properly and I do not get some of the comments.

first you compare two different systems on doing the same job, rightly for seeing how they perform. there is not apple to orange comparison. it does not really matter if one system is 5 times more expensive than the other. if you are comparing in order to see the the result, the result is only what matter. then is up to each individual to decide how much they want justify spending on their equipment.
even if frank used the leaf for years and the canon just for few hours, it does not matter, because we are talking of a 5d2 which, as ergonomics and capabilities, it is exactly the same camera as the 5d and Frank took that shot as good as it can get. If he used the 135mm f.2, which is the sharpest canon lens for that kind of photo, the difference with the 70/200 at f11 would have been almost invisible. Then, come on, the 5d is one of the easiest camera to shoot.
again, just looking at the samples, it was clear that they were correctly shot at at least f8/11, thinking that they may have been shot at f 2.8...... I'm sorry, but on portrait like that at f2.8 you do not get the eyebrow and the iris both in focus with those lenses.

you can sharpen the canon file to the finest you like, but you will be always be able to sharpen the leaf one as well, the difference may decrease, because the canon can take more sharpening than the leaf, but there always be difference. Personally I would not sharpen the leaf shot, and the 5d may be made to look almost a good with proper sharpening, but not quiet.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 02:40:19 pm by ziocan »
Logged

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #163 on: December 14, 2008, 03:00:56 pm »

Quote from: bcooter
Frank,

I'm not sure if that is exactly true, but be realistic, if you post two images like this your going to get blow back and no disrespect meant but if you also put a camera companies logo on all of your photos your motives will be questioned, that's just a natural assumption and to continue the discussion saying yes you should sharpen an image to match, well sharpen it then you'll know.

Your also comparing a camera you've owned for a few hours next to a system you've worked with for years, so as you and most of us who understand digital know, it takes a while to learn each system and get the best out of it.

Regardless all of these comparisons are flawed, because unless you have a cosmetic contract how many people are hired to just shoot an eyeball.  Something full length and cropped to a page size is a better real world comparison.

It is also comparing primes vs. zoom and if you process a lot of files in a lot of different converters you will see so many differences in the 645 format and 35mm format that depending on the time, day, hour, shot, processor, client, subject, light, iso one will always look better, sometimes fractionally sometimes miles apart.

These comparisons and conversations go all around the houses, until the conversation turns sour and finally gets blocked.  (maybe that's the goal   But this one kind of surprises me because rather than show a clear superiority of one format to the other, they are both very close.

These format discussions are interesting but rarely equate to logic or use in the real world.  I have a friend that has a gig with a luxury fashion merchandiser, that runs monthly in every major glossy magazine, usually a large insert.   This photographers portfolio is 65% Canon files, 30% film, though the client demands he shoot medium format because they have a contract with a studio and a tech firm that has medium format.  He always complains, saying mf always looks to sharp so he brings his Canons to the shoot and shoots a few images of each setup for himself and the art director usually runs most of the Canon images, so a lot of this is down to visual taste, not scientific sharpness comparisons.

I think there is a lot of fear in the camera world of the 5d2 and even the new Sony because no longer are we comparing 15, 20, or 30 thousand dollar cameras next to $8,000 cameras but we're comparing them to what is essentially a $3,000 consumer camera and the results are almost too close to measure once the ink hits the paper.  I also know from experience that now that the dslrs are in the 20+ mpx range, even photographers who have made the medium format investment find themselves going to the dslrs much more often than they ever thought for all the reasons you can imagine, but mostly because it is just easier to get the shot and in today's advertising world the expectations on how many setups how muchroi a client demands is very, very high.

Regardless, nobody needs any justification on what type of camera they use if it produces the results and their happy.

Still, this is like comparing a $100,000 farm tractor next to a $10,000 Toyota except in this case the Toyota pulls a plow very well and also takes the family to church on Sunday.

i'm sure mr. doorhof is total aware of all the points you have brought up. so the question remains why he had posted the comparison  in the way he did.  for me the answer is clear. i always wonder why all of this so called  "reviews"  have to be flawed in a certain way in favor of mf .  this is really sad  - yair  - if you listen , because it is done by purpose and it does serve nobody ! in the 22mpx class there is no need do go mf for quality if your work is offset printed, like it or not.  with better lenses than the old rz glass and higher resolution backs it is a different story.
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #164 on: December 14, 2008, 03:01:59 pm »

ive shot with the 5d for 2 years and before that also canon so getting used to a system ??
What difficult at shooting a potrait in a studio if you can screw that up you can better take painting classes.
The leaf however I've only shot for about a year and the rz even shorter and with that camera you DO have to get used to it.

Fact remains that I love both the reason I have the Elinchrom and leaf brand on my shots has nothing to do with favoring but simply because I work closely with them and it's my way of thanking them.
Again the threads heads towards a you have to like one or another why don't people just look at the other parts ?

The 5dmkii cannot:
Drop to ISO 25
Sync higher than 1/125
Capture the same dynamic range

Mf cannot win on
High ISO
Fps
Speed

It's useless fighting over which is better it changes per situation and person it's that simple. IF the 5dmkii would be the same I would sell my mf system in a heartbeat but it isn't and probarbly never will be and most of all doesn't need to.  

Again the only reason for posting was that I did not yet see a comparison that I found fitting my view on the mf quality in the closeup of eyes a lot is seen especially in roundness of the eyeball details in the hairs skintone and structure.
But even if they were equal there so much difference in the systems.

But I'm repeating myself sorry.
I'll be using both as I've done.
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #165 on: December 14, 2008, 03:10:36 pm »

@csp
Did you ever shoot with the "old" rz ?
I guess not because the lenses are about the best you can get.
Makes me even more wonder why you reply at all if you don't know what you're talking about let's see for example some of your work I don't hide behind a fake name.

My reviews are flawed in one thing. They are honest and always to the point but you don't have to agree of course.
Why no mf in the 22mp range ?
Did I miss the secret firmware upgrade from canon that lowered the ISO to 25 and raised the xsync to 1/400 ? And made the files 16 bits with a few stops more dynamic range.
Please mail me that and we both make a bonnfire of my crapy old mf garbage.  

Oh and when were busy let's also delete this whole board
« Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 04:52:38 pm by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

lisa_r

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #166 on: December 14, 2008, 03:57:07 pm »

I guess I don't see more real detail in one than the other. In Henry's sharpened version, I do see a lot of sharpened noise masquerading as detail in the MF image. But real detail?? This is just about neck and neck IMO. Anyway, none of my clients are looking at my images with a magnefying glass, jonesing for more detail. None of them. I use Canon, MF, and maybe that dreamy D3x soon...those D3x files look absolutely stunning to me.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/...p/d3/d3x-sp/en/

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/ca.../d3x/sample.htm
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #167 on: December 14, 2008, 04:18:14 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
Did I miss the secret firmware upgrade from canon that lowered the ISO to 25
Frank, if you believe that it is an achievement to have ISO 25, then you thoroughly misunderstood the way digital cameras are working. It is actually a disadvantage, a side-effect of the lack of microlenses and older sensor technology.

Quote
And made the files 16 bits with a few stops more dynamic range
1. the 16 bits do not contribute anything to the dynamic range,

2. your image with the Aptus 22 posted above contains probably not more than 14 bit depth,

3. some MFDBs, which produce 16bit depth looking data can use effectively only 14bit, like Phase One.
Logged
Gabor

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #168 on: December 14, 2008, 04:52:55 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@cds
Did you ever shoot with the "old" rz ?
I guess not because the lenses are about the best you can get.
Makes me even more wonder why you reply at all if you don't know what you're talking about let's see for example some of your work I don't hide behind a fake name.

My reviews are flawed in one thing. They are honest and always to the point but you don't have to agree of course.
Why no mf in the 22mp range ?
Did I miss the secret firmware upgrade from canon that lowered the ISO to 25 and raised the xsync to 1/400 ? And made the files 16 bits with a few stops more dynamic range.
Please mail me that and we both make a bonnfire of my crapy old mf garbage.  

Oh and when were busy let's also delete this whole board


the 5dII syncs at 1/200, the dsIII at 1/250....the aptus does not shoot 16 bit and probably does not have THAT much more DR considering it is an older back....

i am not disputing in any way that the aptus will produce a better file at base iso.....but even besides the point that all these comparisons of on screen jpegs are just plain dumb.....anyone who has ever worked with any canon knows that sharpening needs to be applied to bring out some detail.....the canon files will never have that certain pop that ccd/no aa filter files have....
what is so many times called the 3D of MF, well check out the m8, those files look very 3D....and need no sharpening....
shooting with ANY canon zoom and comparing it to ANY mamiya prime is just asking for the test to be discredited....plain dumb....

frank: if you loooove the MF look so much, why do you even own a zoom? any canon prime blows any zoom out of the water......

or in other works....make the same comparison but shoot the aptus with a so-so copy of the 55-110 zoom on the af645  and the canon 100 macro on the 5DII (i know you will have to back up to get the same frame....) you get the idea....

which brings us to another problem....the 5D file cropped to 3:4 is only about 18mpix, so the aptus wins in resolution as well.....

another idea...shoot that model wide open with the aptus and with the 5DII and count eyelashes then....if you can get them in focus 1 out of 3 shots on the RZ....i know what i am talking about i used to shoot with phase and the RZ....

to anyone who NEEDS to see a true comparison....shoot the files, process them as good as possible and to your liking and make 16x20 prints and let 10 people choose.....if your work requires 11x14 only, throw in a file from the G10 as well...just for fun.....

and posting all your images with company logos does not look really fair either.....unless you are NOT getting paid....which brings up the question why on earth do you give these people free advertising that i have to look at when i go into an ad free forum?

i guess it comes down to this: would i want the aptus file to come out of the 5DII (or any other DSLR)? probably yes! but do i give up EVERYTHING else and pay a lot more? probably no......
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #169 on: December 14, 2008, 04:58:27 pm »

@Panopeeper,
It was meant with a bit of sarcasm.
About the 16 bits, I don't really care if the files are 14 or 16 bits, what I do care about is that I can push the Leaf files ALOT harder than the 5D and 5DMKII files.
Sometimes I photoshop natural sometimes I love to push the files arround.
Be it 14 or 16 bits, I think only Leaf/Dalsa can tell us that, but the leaf files are much sturdier.

For me the discussion is at an end, I said many times I love both and will not choose in this point in time, maybe in the future but even than I see the big advantage of the larger sensor, different FOV/DOF/CoC but hey according to some that can also be emulated....
I don't care anymore I will live in the stone age with my MF system and crappy lenses and also live in modern time with my 5DMKII.
My customers indeed don't see the difference, what they DO see is that I'm passionate about what I do, invest in getting better results and most of all deliver what I promise, whatever I use.

End of discussion, I'm way too much drawn into a fight I don't want to get involved in, it's like Nikon vs Canon and believe and nonbelieve, life's to short and there's too much to shoot (with either format)
Logged

snickgrr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 270
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #170 on: December 14, 2008, 05:03:30 pm »

Quote from: lisa_r
I guess I don't see more real detail in one than the other. In Henry's sharpened version, I do see a lot of sharpened noise masquerading as detail in the MF image. But real detail?? This is just about neck and neck IMO. Anyway, none of my clients are looking at my images with a magnefying glass, jonesing for more detail. None of them. I use Canon, MF, and maybe that dreamy D3x soon...those D3x files look absolutely stunning to me.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/...p/d3/d3x-sp/en/

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/ca.../d3x/sample.htm


I start a four day shoot tomorrow with a new client that wanted to know beforehand what I shot with.  Corporate office in Switzerland was not happy with the last photographer for a couple reasons, one of which is the quality of the file.  Corporate office in Switzerland wants a 600dpi file @ at least 50cm.  I say WTF! to my contact here; he's an employee of the company and he shrugs and says he's learned to just go along with their crazy ways.

Another potential new client last week wanted to know if I could deliver high enough files for the job.  I don't have that job yet but it sure is nice to throw around the numbers that MFDBs generate.

I shoot with a Leaf A75 by the way.
Logged

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #171 on: December 14, 2008, 05:03:50 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@cds
Did you ever shoot with the "old" rz ?
I guess not because the lenses are about the best you can get.
Makes me even more wonder why you reply at all if you don't know what you're talking about let's see for example some of your work I don't hide behind a fake name.

My reviews are flawed in one thing. They are honest and always to the point but you don't have to agree of course.
Why no mf in the 22mp range ?
Did I miss the secret firmware upgrade from canon that lowered the ISO to 25 and raised the xsync to 1/400 ? And made the files 16 bits with a few stops more dynamic range.
Please mail me that and we both make a bonnfire of my crapy old mf garbage.  

Oh and when were busy let's also delete this whole board


honest, really ?   hope you get enough benefits for your kind of honesty ;-)   -  but let me ask you how much experience do you have with different mf systems. did you ever shoot other brands and formats like hasselblad, pentax,  bronica...  with different lenses ?  if not why can you say rz lenses are about the best you can get  ?
Logged

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #172 on: December 14, 2008, 05:08:38 pm »

Quote from: Panopeeper
Frank, if you believe that it is an achievement to have ISO 25, then you thoroughly misunderstood the way digital cameras are working. It is actually a disadvantage, a side-effect of the lack of microlenses and older sensor technology.

Lower ISOs improve the ability to finely measure the available light, by increasing the number of photons impinging on the photocell which can be counted (as long as the ISO setting is native). The addition of microlenses is not a pure benefit, but a compromise. The ability to use shift is compromised, but the sensitivity is improved, for example. Similarly, the lower native ISOs are not bad, but a compromise, and not everyone prefers higher ISO.

"Old sensor technology" is a meaningless qualifier until you state what you mean with that. Old is not necessarily equal to bad.

Quote
1. the 16 bits do not contribute anything to the dynamic range,

There is no causal relationship implied in the way Frank wrote it, but the greater the dynamic range, the greater the need for large bit-depth, to capture the subtle tonality between the ends of the range, and his grouping of these together makes sense. For every extra stop of dynamic range, you need one extra bit of bit-depth to capture the same fineness of tonality. The improvement of the results by increasing the bit-depth with the advancing technology is generally acknowledged, even by Canon, who recently switched from 12 to 14 bits. It is a question of diminishing returns, of course, but every little improvement helps, even if just a little, or seldom. Even if not all digital backs actually make use of or implement 16 bits, the general trend in that direction is helpful for high quality, and MF backs have advanced this particular technology, at least in recent years.
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #173 on: December 14, 2008, 05:15:39 pm »

@pss,
Sorry did not read your comment when I posted my last one, but I would like to explain.

First off I'm not getting paid one cent by Leaf or Elinchrom.
However I do get a very good support from both companies and in a way it's my way of saying thank you and hopefully build to something in the future.

The xsync I have to disagree, when I shoot in the studio anything above 1/160 will give me the shuttercurtain in the picture, on the RZ shooting upto 1/400 does not.

As mentioned many times before it's the way you shoot and what you shoot that will give someone the reason to go to MF.
It's not about money, fame or being something magical.
It's a simple matter of what do you like to work with as a photographer and a MF system gives you SOME different options than a DSLR.

About lens choices, you seem to have missed that I have shot Canons starting at the 10D, 20D, 5D and now 5DMKII.
I was planning on switching to the MKIII 1Ds but compared it to the Mamiya + ZD and opted for the 5D and the Mamiya ZD, when I found out that the ZD was having too much problems for me I changed it to the Leaf and to be honest kept up with the DSLRs on a daily basis, in the 10 jobs I do 4 are shot with the RZ, 4 are shot with the 645 and 2 are shot with a DSLR, so I think I do a fair mix and match to be familair with all 3 systems.
When I used Canon only I owned about every lens they had that was interesting for me including the 135mm f2.0L and I tested the 85mm 1.2L for a while and although I loved it I did not buy it because I could not find the use for it at that time.

I can say with a big certaincy that on f11 in a studio setting the difference between the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the 135mm f2.0 is there but it's very minor.
And yess normally I don't like zooms but in the case of that lens it's an exception, as is the 105-210 on the 645.
The 55-110 you are absolulty right that lens is subpar according to me and I'm waiting as probarbly many on the 45-90.

Why 3 systems many ask ?
Simply put, they all give me different looks, personally I love the RZ, the way the camera operates and the quality of the glass is amazing.
The 645 I love on location, it's almost a DSLR and it handles quick and very accurate.
The DSLR I adore in difficult situation or when I need speed.

If I had to sell one system it would be almost impossible, I think that says enough about the difference and the way I approach my work.

If I can see the difference on print ?
Yes.
I do know that I've shot some photos on holidays and trips with the 645/leaf that I could not pull off with the 5D.
There is more dynamic range in the leaf, on trips I love to shoot grafity and street scenes. With the 5D I would blow out skies much easier than with the Leaf, so I have to travel with both systems, and believe me both me and my wife would love to travel just with the Canon

Please don't make the thread into a fight and name calling on not knowing how to use one system or the other, that's the easy way out.
We are all here to be respected and giving our own PERSONAL opinion, what is right for one can be wrong for another.
For what I do MF fits my demands as a glove, for some others there could indeed not be any difference they would be not wise to invest the extra money.
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #174 on: December 14, 2008, 05:22:44 pm »

@Cps,

Yes I have shot with many different cameras, how about you ?

For me on MF:
app one day :
Hasselblad H2D 22MP
Hasselblad H3D 33MP
Hasselbald is not really my thing, sorry.

More than enough time to know what they do  :
Mamiya ZD
Mamiya 645AFD/II and III with film and Leaf Aptus 22/Leaf Aptus 7II
Mamiya RZ67ProII with film and Leaf Aptus22/Leaf Aptus 7II
Leaf AFi-7
Leaf AFi-7-II (beta)
Leaf AFi-10 (beta)

On DSLRs I don't even start.

So I think I can say that I experimented a "bit".
From everything I tried I love the 120mm macro on the 645AFD, and the 110f2.8 and 180f4.5 on the RZ.
The glass from the RZ is when I want to use the term "magical" but very hard to learn, the lenses are really problematic with flair but when you know how to use them they give you something in return I did not see in any other system that I experimented with.
The funny thing is that I changed the AFi-7-II back to all three systems, so on the AFi camera, on the 645 and on the RZ.
The AFi system itself was sharp and detailed, but the RZ gave me more 3D looking pictures, the 645AFD was left behind with a small margin.
So again, yes I have "some" experience otherwise I would not post here, I'm not stupid

Again, please enlight us with your work and show that you are more than 3 letters and alot of talk.....
« Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 05:28:36 pm by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #175 on: December 14, 2008, 06:45:27 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@pss,
The xsync I have to disagree, when I shoot in the studio anything above 1/160 will give me the shuttercurtain in the picture, on the RZ shooting upto 1/400 does not.

As mentioned many times before it's the way you shoot and what you shoot that will give someone the reason to go to MF.
It's not about money, fame or being something magical.
It's a simple matter of what do you like to work with as a photographer and a MF system gives you SOME different options than a DSLR.

About lens choices, you seem to have missed that I have shot Canons starting at the 10D, 20D, 5D and now 5DMKII.
I was planning on switching to the MKIII 1Ds but compared it to the Mamiya + ZD and opted for the 5D and the Mamiya ZD, when I found out that the ZD was having too much problems for me I changed it to the Leaf and to be honest kept up with the DSLRs on a daily basis, in the 10 jobs I do 4 are shot with the RZ, 4 are shot with the 645 and 2 are shot with a DSLR, so I think I do a fair mix and match to be familair with all 3 systems.
When I used Canon only I owned about every lens they had that was interesting for me including the 135mm f2.0L and I tested the 85mm 1.2L for a while and although I loved it I did not buy it because I could not find the use for it at that time.

I can say with a big certaincy that on f11 in a studio setting the difference between the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the 135mm f2.0 is there but it's very minor.
And yess normally I don't like zooms but in the case of that lens it's an exception, as is the 105-210 on the 645.
The 55-110 you are absolulty right that lens is subpar according to me and I'm waiting as probarbly many on the 45-90.


the sync is 1/250 with the dsIII....i would say that your wireless sync might be slower, but if you are using it with the RZ, then that can't be it....
the ZD's problem is that is does not have the files of the MF backs and none of the advantages of DSLR...so what's the point....

i had no intention of offending you in any way, i am just tired of these comparisons....the funny thing is i used to defend MF and its advantages in this and other forums....but that was when your aptus was compared to a dsII or 5D and even then people said the difference isn't worth it......times have changed and unless you shoot cars, food, stillife or just want to shoot the MF way, there really is no real reason to go MF anymore.....people read these pages and might think they will get a better print with MF.....it's just not the case anymore.....
yes the files are more massageable and are crisper to begin with, but in the end, the difference is very, very, very small.....

i still recommend to anyone to check it all out, but when you put all variables, all regular conditions and the expectable results and the price together, you walk out of the store with a DSLR.....
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10348
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #176 on: December 14, 2008, 06:50:07 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
f16 vs f11

Well, Frank, these results are certainly very interesting as well as puzzling. The initial comparisons from John Schweikert who started the thread, were taken at F11 and F16, demonstrating that resolution is very closely the same. You've now used the same apertures to demonstrate that resolution is quite different.
 
Whenever anomalies like this occur, the only way to get to the truth of the matter is to repeat the comparisons under different conditions with different lenses, using different F stops and different subjects etc.

The objections raised by some in this thread, that you cannot compare a zoom with a prime are not compelling in these circumstances because all lenses are likely to be the same at F16, zoom or prime, because the limiting factor in lens sharpness at that aperture is diffraction.

For the same reason, the lack of an AA filter in the Aptus is also not likely to be the cause of the DB's greater resolution because, at F16 diffraction will tend to play the role of an AA filter.

The obvious explanation for these results, Frank, is that you inadvertently used F16 with the 5D2 and F11 with the Aptus. Now I know that you have a reputation to protect, but we are all capable of making silly mistakes, so if you admit to this, I will not think the less of you.  

On the other hand, the reason could be that at such apertures the shutter speeds are slow and some slight movement of camera or subject just happened to occur at the time of the 5D2 shot.

Whatever the reason, more tests should be conducted to either confirm or refute these results. The last time I conducted camera tests was to determine how much extra resolution I could expect from a Canon 50D compared with a 40D. I chose a stationary and detailed target, manually focussed each shot using Live View at 10x magnification (which is like looking through a lens with 10x the focal length), used a tripod, remote cord and MLU, and took a hundred shots or more with different lenses at different apertures ranging from F2.8 to F16.
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #177 on: December 14, 2008, 07:07:31 pm »

I used the ZD digital back not the camera.
I don't know about the syncs on cables, I only use radio triggers, with the Canon 5D I could barely shoot on 1/160 with the MKII the same.
The 1DsIII I only used in the studio so never experimented with higher syncs, I know the old 1Ds did higher.

I also don't mean disrespect but it's indeed a discussion that is talked about over and over, and with every new camera the discussion is there again.
It reminds of the digital projector vs CRT projector debate.
I was in the CRT camp
Every new digital projector was the new CRT killer, and alot of people did buy into that and bought it and were happy.
Also everytime a few CRT owners switched to digital with every new generation.
We switched ourselfs when JVC released the RS2/HD100, and will now receive the RS20 next week.

The CRT was still better on 2 issues (color and absolute blacklevel/detail) but it was beat on ALL other issues.

I think with MF it's a similair issue.
With every new DSLR release the image quality increases as does the pixel count, and more and more MF owners will sell their MF system simply because they have a list of pros and cons and when the pros are bigger than the cons they will switch.
I truely believe that MF is getting hit hard with the new DSLRs like the Sony Alpha900 and 5DMKII but there are still some pros for some users (including me) to choose MF.
I agree that when MF would be standing still probarbly alot of photographers will switch to DSLRs.

However they are not standing still, look at the AFi-10 for example, it's a big step forward in sensor size (full width 6x45) and it has a wopping 56MP resolution.

However I do agree that the price difference is huge, especially with the current economics.

The question however is and will always be why do some people drive an Opel, Volvo or a Rolls ?
They all bring you from A-B and in the Netherlands they all stand still most of the time due to traffic jams

The remark made a while ago in this thread that for 22MP there is no more reason to choose MF misses the point of the battle of the systems
It's not only about MP's it's much more.
If that counts for you is very personal, and I 100% agree that for most photographers it simply doesn't add up anymore, and they would rather work shorter times than invest in a system that in print probarbly will do the job just as fine.
You have to be aware however that there are also people that are a bit different, they want to go that extra mile and are willing to pay for it. They are not wrong/stupid or blind they are just looking at other things than MPs on paper.

It's like audio.
To go from a bad sound to a good sound is often twice the ammount of money, to go from good to very good is often 5x the money.
And to go the next VERY SMALL step is often again twice that ammount, the crop gets smaller and smaller towards the top, but there are still alot of people there.

I would just love to see that there is a bit more respect for those people who are hanging arround in the MEDIUM FORMAT DIGITAL BACKS AND PHOTOGRAPHY board
And I really don't mean you pps, I'm not easily offended and read all the posts very carefully.

By the way for fun I browsed some beginner forums today and there is a similair "fight" going on between P&S superzooms and DSLRs.
According to some the G10 has the quality of MF files and so there is no reason to buy a DSLR......
It makes you wonder ......................... no................ maybe all buy a G10 and get along

 
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #178 on: December 14, 2008, 07:10:25 pm »

Quote from: carstenw
Lower ISOs improve the ability to finely measure the available light, by increasing the number of photons impinging on the photocell which can be counted (as long as the ISO setting is native)
If a well needs more light to reach its charge storing capacity than another well (of another sensor, of course), that is a sign of lesser efficiency. The reason for the microlenses is just to improve the efficiency, i.e. to utilize (convert into electric change) more of the infalling light. The presence of microlenses may impact other aspects, but then we leave the subject "ISO sensitivity".

Quote
Similarly, the lower native ISOs are not bad, but a compromise, and not everyone prefers higher ISO
Yes, it is obvious, that not everybody understands the issues. There is no problem with "higher ISO" but with "lower image quality", in form of more noise.

Quote
The improvement of the results by increasing the bit-depth with the advancing technology is generally acknowledged, even by Canon, who recently switched from 12 to 14 bits

The 12bit depth was an impediment, as the 5D has shown it. The 14bit depth is more than enough at the moment in the sense, that anything more is only fake, i.e. does not represent real gradations.

Quote
Even if not all digital backs actually make use of or implement 16 bits, the general trend in that direction is helpful for high quality, and MF backs have advanced this particular technology, at least in recent years
No present digital back makes use of 16bits, except perhaps the Sinar e75 (I am mentioning this exception only because I don't have suitable raw files to analyze this).
Logged
Gabor

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #179 on: December 14, 2008, 07:17:18 pm »

@Ray,
You don't have to think less of me.
For MF I always choose one aperture smaller due to the larger sensor, so f11 on the 5DMKII and f16 on the Aptus.

Don't even think about movement, that looks totally different and when using strobes movement is almost out of the question unless you have some sort of shake syndrome.

Lenses do make a difference even stopped down, for fun just try a normal cheap zoom on the 5DMKII and compare that to the 70-200f2.8 or any other good lens.
The 5DMKII really DEMANDS a good lens. The 70-200f2.8L IS is however in my opinion one of the best lenses especially when closed down to f11.

The only problem that COULD be here is that diffraction is already kicking in.
With the 1DsIII it kicks in at about f8 in most situations, with the 5DMKII it could be the same problem.
However that for me would rule out the 5DMKII for studio work totally simply because for some work I want to use at least f11 preferable f16.
And on ISO100 I cannot get my strobes to go lower than f11 in that particulair light setup (rx1200 with a deep octa placed very close to the model)

But to be also totally honest towards the 5DMKII (and we have to be) when sharpening is applied and one takes into account the printsize for most work it's just a bloody good camera, even with diffraction, the f11 shot I posted here was something I would love to pay top dollar for 2 years ago, now it's here for less than 2500 euros.

However that was never my intend I placed the compare shot not to show the difference, I just wanted to show a well focussed MF shot of an eye which again I did not yet see in the comparisons.


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Up