17tse compared with 23HR

[gwhitf]

.

[Mr. Rib]

I used to get them too but with an Aptus. And the colors where more funky. Like an early 90s rave party or something.

[uaiomex]

Yaya posted this:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=329874
I can't wait to see th results.
Ed

[JonRoemer]

following the former tread where MFHA posted a comparison, finally i wanted to find out for myself, at which point the canons with the recent shift lenses stands , compared to the top notch rodenstock HR lenses...

Thanks for taking the time to do this and to post it.

one important point is dust. although the canon has this shaky sensor dust removement it dosnt work good enough. there always remain some spots which is very time consuming.
the e75 with the artek is an incredible good couple herein. sometimes i work several weeks (!!!) without one dust spot to remove or any sensor cleaning.
thats fantastic and a big plus.

The dust is still an issue with the Canon.  The dust cleaning mode helps but is not perfect.  Get yourself a Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly and also get their HDF Sensor Brush.  The brush that comes with the Arctic Butterfly is made for 1.6x sensors.  The HDF brush is for 1.0x sensors.  Pop the HDF brush onto butterfly.  I clean with this before almost every job in addition to running Canon's cleaning mode.  Shooting architecture jobs at f/11, f/16, etc. I rarely see any dust.

Also, interesting to note your comment on batteries - the 1DsM3's is higher capacity than the one in the 5DM2.  You can shoot all day on the 1DsM3 using Live View to focus and the battery will still be 1/3-1/2 full.

--
Site | Blog

[Kirk Gittings]

This dust issue with the Canons I don't understand unless it is related to humidity. I have yet to have a single piece of dust stick to the sensor on my 5DII since I bought it last Christmas. That is with heavy professional use here and a few long out of town trips to places like las Vegas and Chicago and withconstant lens changes outside in the field. Not one piece of dust. Maybe dust doesn't stick as much here in the SW because of low humidity?

[JonRoemer]

This dust issue with the Canons I don't understand unless it is related to humidity. I have yet to have a single piece of dust stick to the sensor on my 5DII since I bought it last Christmas. That is with heavy professional use here and a few long out of town trips to places like las Vegas and Chicago and withconstant lens changes outside in the field. Not one piece of dust. Maybe dust doesn't stick as much here in the SW because of low humidity?

That's amazing.

In the spirit of pixel peeping... I propose an experiment. I'll bring my cameras and stay at your place in Albuquerque for six months, you can stay here in NJ.  Send me a PM, we'll work out the details.  

--
Site | Blog

[Kirk Gittings]

That's amazing.

In the spirit of pixel peeping... I propose an experiment. I'll bring my cameras and stay at your place in Albuquerque for six months, you can stay here in NJ.  Send me a PM, we'll work out the details.  

--
Site | Blog

Thanks but.....

Let me be clear. I have had dust on the sensor but it shortly comes off  without any effort on my part. This was certainly not true of my 5D, so it must be the sensor shaking deal on the 5DII. I suspect low humidity makes the dust less sticky or something here in the SW. We do have tons of static electricity here in the winters however so I don't think it is related to that.

[MHFA]

Very interesting comparision, Rainer. I hope next time you are in good old germany we will compare our 17´s (Yours seems to be slighly better).
I made my test shoots to look wether I will buy the 17.
[attachment=18445:test4.jpg]
[attachment=18446:test5.jpg]

Michael

[kers]

Very interesting comparision, Rainer. I hope next time you are in good old germany we will compare our 17´s (Yours seems to be slighly better).
I made my test shoots to look wether I will buy the 17.
Michael

What am i looking at here?  ( i see moiré in the left sided image ... )

[MHFA]

Left side e75/23HR, right side 17/5DII

[tesfoto]

Left side e75/23HR, right side 17/5DII

You surely have problems with your 17TS, you should send it back to be adjusted or replaced.

It is not suppose to look like this at all - your sample looks more like the old 24TS.

[rainer_v]

Thanks for taking the time to do this and to post it.



The dust is still an issue with the Canon.  The dust cleaning mode helps but is not perfect.  Get yourself a Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly and also get their HDF Sensor Brush.  The brush that comes with the Arctic Butterfly is made for 1.6x sensors.  The HDF brush is for 1.0x sensors.  Pop the HDF brush onto butterfly.  I clean with this before almost every job in addition to running Canon's cleaning mode.  Shooting architecture jobs at f/11, f/16, etc. I rarely see any dust.

Also, interesting to note your comment on batteries - the 1DsM3's is higher capacity than the one in the 5DM2.  You can shoot all day on the 1DsM3 using Live View to focus and the battery will still be 1/3-1/2 full.

--
Site | Blog

thanks for the tip. i still have two sensor brushes which have been voted quite good, but i havent tried them with the canon but it looks as i have to do.
good to hear that you dont have dust specs after using these brushes.

[lisa_r]

Rainer, thanks for the comparison.  However, I was not really impressed with the images from the 17tse.  If two photographers came to me, one presenting the images such as those here from the 17tse and the other photographer presenting images such as those here with the 23HR, I would hire the photographer who showed me the images that look like the ones from the 23HR and not the ones from the Canon.  The Canon images did not have enough snap to them, and I notice lack of fine details, probably due to the smearing of the AA filter.

David, under what circumstances does a photographer present 100% crops in order to land a job? ;-)
In the above scenario, let's say you were looking at prints (as opposed to looking at what are effectively 10' prints from 12" away as you are doing when looking at 100% crops on your monitor.) That is where the rubber really meets the road - prints, and where you might have a hard time justifying spending more money in order to get the non-Canon output...

Just a hunch.

[lisa_r]

This dust issue with the Canons I don't understand unless it is related to humidity. I have yet to have a single piece of dust stick to the sensor on my 5DII since I bought it last Christmas. That is with heavy professional use here and a few long out of town trips to places like las Vegas and Chicago and withconstant lens changes outside in the field. Not one piece of dust. Maybe dust doesn't stick as much here in the SW because of low humidity?

I have found that dust is almost always there to some extent on my Canons, but apertures wider than around f/22 do not show them. So, 95% of my shooting (mixing daylight and strobes, etc.) does now show even pretty serious dust. If I then stop down to f/22 and shoot with strobes, the dust shows...

[Kirk Gittings]

Lisa, I agree with your previous statement about the Canon vs. MF. I've never had a potential client ask for a file to view and enlarge. Nor has anyone ever complained about Canon file quality. The only kind of half assed complaint I have gotten, even from big national firms, is that my files are too large....native tiffs from a 5DII. I'm not kidding. As far as that goes, nor have I been asked to show a portfolio in 3-4 years. II is sitting in a corner with a half inch of dust on it. The website and little JPEGS seem to do the trick. Now part of that is I am well established and new clients assume I know what i am doing, but not entirely I think.

Sorry about every bodies dust issues, but where are you located? I still think there is something about humidity related to this. Since my last post still not a single piece of dust that has stayed on the 5DII. That is just short of a year now of heavy shooting and outdoor lens changing.

[stewarthemley]

Re dust and the 5D2, I shoot on a big, dusty construction site most weeks, have done since I got the camera (losing track of time - whenever it came out), change lenses quite often but have never seen any dust. I just checked my skies and not a speck anywhere.

[jessegoff]

There will be very,very view customers who can see this difference. How many customers are pixelpeeping with a 100% file?
I like to have these customers so I have a good excuse to buy a MF system. :-)

I'd use this lens on a quick and dirty job that required a camera that had high ISO sensitivity.  Otherwise I wouldn't be OK with the barrel distortion or the file quality.  Canon has definitely come out with a winner lens for them but their sensors don't really compete against a phase back for quality, especially now that phase can do high ISO.  This debate seems to never end; people with 35mm formats trying to prove their systems are just as good as MF.  It's like saying my subaru is as good as your porsche.   Bigger sensors with German glass in general produces higher results hands down.  It's a fact that can not be escaped.  Last year I went out and purchased a P45 back with 2 Hasselblads, 9 prime lenses, a 1.4 tele, cambo wide ds, and 2 lenses for that because I was tired of Canon.  I had always been LF or MF and I did the switch to Canon like so many other professional photographers and at the end of the day I noticed many shots looked a tad mediocre.  This week I shot a job for "anonymous client" and it was nice for everyone there seeing those big clean files showing up on the screen.  To me, If the job is burning through $70,000 a day in production costs, why not use the very best?  I just can't mess around.

On a side note i had each of my assistants bring their 5d mk II's with them as backups and we rented the 14mm canon (i had never heard of the 17tse)  We did a comparison shot with a 5d mkII 14mm against the phase back with a schneider 24mm.  It was a kind of a sad moment because my aspiring assistants were so excited about their cameras but yikes it looked like complete crap in comparison; blown highlights, less shadow detail, fuzzy corners, cyan and red fringing at the edges.  It was kind of a mess but I had to remind them hey don't try to expect your $3000 camera to compare to this $40000 camera.  It still looks good but it's not going to cut it on an ad job like this.  But my question is: is the 17 tse a whole different animal to the canon 14mm in terms of quality?  I have a feeling it is but would like to hear stories of actual comparisons.

Jesse


JESSE GOFF PHOTOGRAPHY

358 Brannan Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

415 777 3700 Tel
415 777 3730 Fax

Advertising Photography:
http://www.jessegoff.com/

Architectural Photography:
http://architecture.jessegoff.com/

[Christopher]

Well Jesse, first of all the 17 TSE is a LOT better than the 14mm which I think is crap. Pretty big crap. However, do you have actual proof of how superior the Phase files is ? Don't get me wrong I do believe that, my P65 deliveres better files than my 5Dmk2, but with right processing and as long as you don't print large there nearly is no big difference.

One could say the following to your statement: "This debate seems to never end; people with 35mm formats trying to prove their systems are just as good as MF. " Often it could be the other way around, people who spend 40k on a system have to prove again and again, that there money was wisely spend and their file is much better, much more magical and so on.

[jessegoff]

[quote name='Christopher' date='Dec 19 2009, 10:22 AM' post='334018']

Well I don't think I'm trying to justify the money I spent because I have invested in my MF kit (P45 Cambo Wide, 503CW, 501CM, 13 lenses), because it is a small amount of total money invested in relation to the total money invested in my studio.  Also, I have so many other camera systems so it's not like I'm stuck with my phase back. I also have Xpan & 3lenses, Seitz 220 VR & 5 lenses, Canon 1D mkII & 6 lenses, Sinar 4x5 & 7 lenses.  Plus there all the printers, the studio, the vehicles, the employees.  So no I don't think it really goes the other direction, at least for me.  I just pick the right camera for the job and so I have all of the cameras I could need.  Sometimes I use Canon, sometimes I use Phase, etc.  I don't know about what people think out there but it's pretty common knowledge among ad shooters here in California that Zeiss glass is superior to Japanese glass.  That's a reason why I use the V system with Zeiss glass instead of the new Hasselblads with Fujinon glass.  I also used to own a GX680 system.  The glass sucked compared to Zeiss.  And yes I have done tests and phase definitely looks better and I only have the regular P45.  But if I'm going to shoot a record cover with a girl dancing around in my studio I'm going to use my Canon.  If I'm shooting a hotel for "anonymous client" on location with 5 models, a gaffer, a key grip, 2 assistants, MA stylists, stylist assistant, prop stylist, ciient, art director, copywriter, and account manager all standing around watching me blow $100,000 daily production budget I'm not going to whip out a Canon...  In a nutshell I think most canon glass was not designed to handle the resolution available today.  In other words the resolution of the cameras are exceeding the resolution of the glass.  It's hard for me to understand how a professional photographer could not see this.  But moving forward canon realizes this and is now designing new lenses to deal with this.  This 17tse is a new lens built to resolve higher resolutions.  But it still does not solve the problem that CCDs perform better when there is more real estate for the pixels to lay on.  Bunching them together tightly is not as good for quality.  I wish I could use my canon all the time.  It costs me more to bring my phase system on the plane than my plane ticket costs. :-)

[michael]

"This debate seems to never end; people with 35mm formats trying to prove their systems are just as good as MF. " Often it could be the other way around, people who spend 40k on a system have to prove again and again, that there money was wisely spend and their file is much better, much more magical and so on.

Sorry Christopher, but this is simply nonsense.

For the most part working pros purchase their equipment based on hard practical realities. If a $3,000 DSLR could deliver equivalent image quality to a $30,000 MFB few such systems would be purchased. But the reality is that thousands of pros purchase medium format digital backs because they do deliver what is expected and required, and they don't need to prove the wisdom of this to anyone except themselves (and maybe their business managers / accountants / bankers).

About 30% is MFB sales are to wealthy amateurs and fine art photographers, and some 70% to working pros. There wouldn't be a MFB business if the products didn't deliver what's promised. But there is and they do, and notwithstanding the poor global economy over the past 18 months, my sources inside the industry tell me that sales are coming back very strongly in recent months, especially in the Pro segment.

Since this forum is unique in that it is home to a great many of the world's leading commercial photographers who use medium format digital, it's insulting to them to suggest that they have anything to prove by their purchases. For most of us these are tools, not toys.

Michael