Michael, Where's Your 1Ds?

The 1Ds has been idle for the past few months. I've only done two real "shoots" since the end of the summer, a week in the Rockies and then a local one during a workshop I was teaching a few weeks ago. Both were landscape and so I used the Contax / Kodak.

In my film days I would have shot these medium format rather than 35mm. It's only during the year that the 1Ds existed without a MF alternative that I used 35mm for landscape. Now that I have MF again the same rules apply; MF for landscape and 35mm for wildlife, really long lenses, image stabilization, fast lenses, etc.

Though I haven't used the 1Ds for a while I have been shooting with my 10D. I use it for more casual work where light weight and small size are important, such as on personal trips.

The 1Ds may be getting a bit lonely but it'll come into its own again in early January when I'm doing a 10 day wildlife workshop in Tanzania. I expect a few dozen Gig to pass though it then.

Michael

The answer, as I wrote in my review, is that I find that the MF digital solution gives about a 30% advantage.

There are several reasons, but the main one is that I rarely use the 1.5:1 aspect ratio of the 35mm frame. I usually crop, and for this reason find that the extra real estate of the MF square gives me considerably more image area to work with.

The Zeiss prime lenses on the Contax are another good reason to prefer that system. Used on a reduced frame back, like the Kodak, just the center of these already spectacular lenses is being used.

Michael

[Barry Ehrman]

Hello Micheal,

Is the dynamic range of the Kodak back better than the 1ds (specifically regarding blown highlights)?

How good is thw Kodak back at 200 or 400 ASA?

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,
    Since Michael's explanation comes down to the pattern of shape choices he makes, and you have just added to MF to your equipment, I would be interested in hearing about your experiences with print shape choices as you start working with the square, or at least squarer, frame of your new equipment.

Hi there,

I'll be glad to comment on that as soon as I will have put myself in a situation where I can choose the format :-)

The camera is a Hassy H1, meaning that it is a 6*4.5 camera when using film backs.

Currently, I do not have a digital back, neither do I have a medium format scanner, which means that my cropping options are very limited.

I intend to purchase the Minolta medium format scanner some time early 2004, but I am afraid that Minolta might be about to release thier next generation product to react to Nikon's announcement of the 9000.

Regarding digital backs, I don't see any suitable offer on the market right now in terms of price/quality ratio compared to a Canon 1Ds or a Kodak 14n. I am therefore impatiently awaiting the new Fuji 22 MPixel digital back for the H1, to be released some time between now and spring 2004.

Best regards,
Bernard

I guess my source was wrong  

The fact that it will only (initially?) be available for the GX680 means that it is of marginal interest to most people, at best.

Michael

[BernardLanguillier]

The limitation to the Japanese market had been announced from the very beginning if I recall.

No idea why it is so... it could be that they want to test their product here first, before starting to sell it abroad? It might be related to the amount of GX680 III that were sold here and abroad.

My guess is that they would not limit the H1 version of this back to the Japanese market.

Anyway, I believe that the Japanese market represents a very significant part of the World market for medium format cameras, it might make sense to focus on this market only.

Best regards,
Bernard

[Marshal]

Michael:

I've noticed that since you got your DCS Pro Back the # of 1Ds pics has dropped to nearly zero, if not zero. I can understand enjoying the benefits of 16MP, but have you used the 1Ds for any of your recent trips?  Perhaps wildlife?

[BernardLanguillier]

In my film days I would have shot these medium format rather than 35mm. It's only during the year that the 1Ds existed without a MF alternative that I used 35mm for landscape. Now that I have MF again the same rules apply; MF for landscape and 35mm for wildlife, really long lenses, image stabilization, fast lenses, etc.

Hello Michael,

I am still considering various options for my next generation digital imaging device. I have actually just purchased a medium format system, currently sticky to Provia 100F, but I could be getting a digital back some time if they get a bit cheaper.

In your review of the Kodak back vs the 1Ds, you mentioned that the main advantage of the back was the square format, but that, once cropped back, the quality of the 2 were very close.

If this is indeed the case, they why bother carrying around a heavy medium format camera with limited lenses, when the 1Ds offers nearly the same image quality in a much smaller package? I understand that in the old days of film, a 60*70 Velvia was much better than a 24 * 36 Velvia, but why would it be so between a 24*36 Canon sensor vs a 36*36 - alpha (= basically 24*36 also) Kodak sensor? Would the pixel of the Kodak be better than that of the Canon, or are there other factors that come into play?

Best regards,
Bernard

[BJL]

I have actually just purchased a medium format system, currently sticky to Provia 100F, but I could be getting a digital back some time if they get a bit cheaper.

Bernard,
    Since Michael's explanation comes down to the pattern of shape choices he makes, and you have just added to MF to your equipment, I would be interested in hearing about your experiences with print shape choices as you start working with the square, or at least squarer, frame of your new equipment.

I haven't done a rigerous comparison. But, the Kodak is very good at 400, though the 1Ds is a bit better, With Neatimage applied though, there is little difference.

Dynamic range is comparable, but as I've said, I haven't done a side by side test.

Michael

Bernard,

The most current information that I have is that the Fuji back may never see production. This isn't sold information, but someone I know close to the company said that they feel that the MF digital market is too small and too diversified at the moment for them to be able to make money at it.

If the Fuji back is shown in February at PMA it will become a reality. If it isn't see there, consider it dead.

Michael

[boku]

Bernard,

The most current information that I have is that the Fuji back may never see production. This isn't sold information, but someone I know close to the company said that they feel that the MF digital market is too small and too diversified at the moment for them to be able to make money at it.

If the Fuji back is shown in February at PMA it will become a reality. If it isn't see there, consider it dead.

Michael

Regarding the Fuji back, I just ran across this on DP Review...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03121901fujifilmback.asp

What's everybody's take on this?

[boku]

And - they just revised the listing to mention that it will only be available in Japan.

Like, why bother investing in the R&D?

[Larry Gaskill]

After much research (at least that I could find information on)
and study I purchased the Contax 645 with most of the lenses and the Kodak DCS Proback.

Previously I used a Hasselblad system, scanned in the slides
with the Nikon 8000 scanner (at 4,000 dpi).  I then printed using the Epson 7,600,  up to 24 inches by ?
I used the MF digital system last week in Yosemite Ntnl Park.
Overall (other than normal learning curve problems) the system worked very well and was very usefull in determining
the proper split ND filter combo (the mountains lit while the foreground low light)
(Actually I took both my Film MF and Digital MF, intending on shooting both film and digital.  
I only ended up shooting less than one roll of slide film.)
The real test came yesterday when I enlarged the digital images taken in Yosemite to 24" x 24"  
The prints were very sharp and appeared to be as good as any scanned slide I have enlarged.

Rather disturbing to read that Kodak is discontinuing producing the proback series.  I guess I will use the proback until it dies (or newer and better backs come on the scene).

A good workflow is absolutely needed, as I accidently erased images on the card while using the computer)  Already had backups and the recovery program brought them back.

I intend on purchasing the 1ds system in a month or so.
(already have the EOS III with many L lenses)

Larry