Yup.
The OP has probably penned more words on MFD systems than any other contributor to this forum and all of this without ever having had any meaningful experience of actually using them.
Thanks, indeed.
Keith I don't think you get it. You do not have to have used, or even laid eyes on, a medium format camera in order to have strong opinions on the subject.
Anyway, must dash, I'm off to one of the brain surgery forums to tell them they are using the wrong scalpels.
Nick-T
I have to say I find that such notions about the need to personally handle and fondle a piece of hi tech equipment before one can express a meaningful opinion on its uses and performance, are very quaint indeed.
Never in the history of photography has it been so easy to compare the image attributes of different brands, types and formats of cameras under a variety of different conditions, and demonstrate such comparisons to all who are interested.
In this day and age, it should not be necessary to take the time, trouble and expense of personally testing the performance of a camera in order to see if it's the right tool for the job.
Why is it that owners of MFDB equipment seem to think their camera is like a gourmet meal that can only be evaluated by tasting? What sort of irrationality is this?
At present I'm in a state of indecision about the Canon 7D and the 5D MkII. It's likely I'll get one or the other before I make my next photohraphic trip.
I know from past experience that there's little resolution difference between 18mp and 21mp. (No need to take the trouble to test this). But I also know from past experience that an 18mp cropped format with a 400mm lens will produce a significantly more detailed result than a 21mp FF 135 format with the same lens, after cropping to the same FoV. (Also no need to test this).
I also know that larger formats tends to have smoother tonality and lower noise, all else being equal. But how much lower noise is the question. Do I need to hire both cameras to test them for myself?
Fortunately not. There are sites like Imaging Resource where one can compare identical scenes and test charts, taken by a variety of cameras at all ISOs.
What we find, in the examples of the 7D and 5D2, is that the 5D2 image quality at ISO 3200 is actually slightly better than the 7D image quality at ISO 1600, but not quite as good as the 7D image quality at ISO 800. There is approximately a 1.6x F stop advantage to the 5D2, regarding noise and general image quality, as one might expect from the differences in sensor size.
What amazes me is that it is so difficult to find any MFDBs featured in such comparisons. What are you people trying to hide?
The P65+ has an interesting feature called sensor+ whereby 4 pixels are binned to simulate the quality one might expect from a 15mp MF sensor. Where are the comparisons? Is this not an interesting and useful feature of the P65+?
Why is no-one doing comparisons with 15mp DSLRs so we can all learn under what circumstances and at what ISO this feature may be useful? Could it be that MFDB owners are naturally shy and reticent people, not given to boasting?
We all know that MFDBs can produce superior results under certain conditions, but some of use are rational and naturally inquisitive people who would like to know how such results may change with changing conditions.
For example, I might like to know beforehand how much a P65+ would have improved the following shot of a small bird on top of a tree against the background of Machapuchare.
I'm disappointed in the technical quality of this shot because it lacks resolution. I was travelling with a 5D and 20D around my neck. The 5D had a 15-30mm lens attached, and the 20D a 24-105 zoom. I didn't have time to change lenses. The bird was perched there very briefly. I didn't even have time to get a second shot.
The problem is, this shot is good only for an A3 size print. The resolution of the bird (sorry it's a bird of the feathered variety, so I hope you will all not be too disappointed) is so poor, I cannot tell whether it's a Yellow-rumped Honeyguide, a Silver-backed Needletail, or a Blue-bearded Bee-eater.
The shot was at F8 at ISO 100 and the focal length was 40mm. F8 was probably too wide an aperture. F9 or F10 would have been better.
To capture the same scene with a P65, same FoV and DoF, I would have needed a 100-120mm lens set at F22. I'm almost sure the shot would have been significantly better with a P65, even at F22. But how much better I simply don't know, due to a lack of transparency in the very few comparison between MFDBs and DSLRs that are available.
What's the problem? Oh! You're too busy? You are too 'arteestic' to be bothered with such trivialities?
It amazes me again, when a group of highly qualified scientists at DXO labs take the trouble to test a few DBs, their results are ridiculed my many owners of MFDB systems who, for some mysterious reason are unable or unwilling to show any of their own comparisons that might refute the DXO results.
Some of us weren't born yesterday, ya know!
