I did some more comparisons today. I used the canon 1DsmkIII with the leica 100mm macro and compared against the Hasselblad H2/leaf aptus 65 with the 120mm HC macro. I moved the camera to try to get the image area to be the same. The images were shot mirror lockup, with a remote shutter release f16, iso 100. I processed both in CS3 the same way except that for sharpening I used 0.25/0.5/0.25 for the leaf files and 0.5/0.5/0.5 for the ctanon. I did a very minimal levels adjustment to both and as the very last step I did a smart sharpen of 100/0.3 to both. The area of focus is just above the center green X i placed on the rock. The apparent DOF will be a little different due to moving the camera and the image size. First, I am showing both fields resized. The second images are 100% crops.
My conclusion. The leaf/hassy H2 has better fine detail but the canon/leica combo is not that far behind. The tonal transitions always look better on the leaf in my opinion.
Wow so close - unbelievable! Thanks Mark for posting these comparisons. Looks like 1DsIII + Leica 100 Macro are an amazing combo. I can't wait to find a 1DsIII. I still have the Leica 100 I bought from you. It is really an amazing Macro lens. Leaf color is hard to beat. But if you're out in the field hauling all your gear around doing Macro it looks like you can get close enough with the 1DsIII + Leica 100 to get the job done.
By the way - we were emailing earlier about Hassy gear - I finally found and bought a 300mm Hassy HC today. It is used but in mint condition. They are very hard to find used. I can't wait to try it out.
I had to buy another 100 macro... I should be an indian giver. I saw that 300mm HC lens for sale and if was not for money i would have jumped on it.. .. I may sell my leaf back though... still considering it
netexpress wrote:
Wow so close - unbelievable! Thanks Mark for posting these comparisons. Looks like 1DsIII + Leica 100 Macro are an amazing combo. I can't wait to find a 1DsIII. I still have the Leica 100 I bought from you. It is really an amazing Macro lens. Leaf color is hard to beat. But if you're out in the field hauling all your gear around doing Macro it looks like you can get close enough with the 1DsIII + Leica 100 to get the job done.
By the way - we were emailing earlier about Hassy gear - I finally found and bought a 300mm Hassy HC today. It is used but in mint condition. They are very hard to find used. I can't wait to try it out. ...Show more →
I did look at f8,f11, f22. The results were similar at f8 comparing the two systems. The diffraction issues were very problematic at f22 using the leica and 1DSMKIII. I used hasselblad f39 but have not examined those yet.
I think we have a good feeling for the resolution of the 1Ds3, so I am more curious to see tests of colour (which I never liked when using a Canon) and dynamic range (which is very important for people photography where multiple exposures and HDR technology won't work).
To my eyes the Canon images look a little sharper, and definitely higher in contrast.
Canons DPP and Phase One C1 have a better reputation for converting Canon images, not that C1 has been updated for the 1ds3 as yet. I wonder if the Canon images would improve any further with a different RAW converter?
I assume you are using the 100mm F:2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit or is it the 100mm F:4 Macro Elmar? I have both lenses and both have excellent performance, I do give the edge in image quality to the Apo at F:8 and above. However at F:16 both are fairly equal in detail.
Thanks for sharing the test, I'll probably be purchasing a 1DS Mk3 sometime early next year and nice to see what the 100mm Leica lens is capable of on the Canon (as it is my most frequently used lens) compared to a MF digital back.
With the 1Ds III and the rumored upcoming Nikon D3x, were at a point where resolution is not the biggest deciding factor in choosing a MFDB over a DSLR. It will now come down to people who want a medium format look, bigger prism, and better tonal range.
Josef,
The 31, 33 and 39mp backs will show clearly better resolution compared to 1Ds Mk 3 or an upcoming D3X, but I doubt many people need that kind of resolution. I think we'll see even higher resolution backs next year too.
But is it as good as the M8? Most experts agree that the M8 is better than 5x4 film in terms of resolution so I'd like to see how these DSLR's and MF digital backs stack up against the 10"x8" film quality of the M8's 10mp sensor.
Edited by shirozina on Dec 18, 2007 at 08:31 AM GMT (Reason: Some people though I was serious)
shirozina wrote:
But is it as good as the M8? Most experts agree that the M8 is better than 5x4 film in terms of resolution so I'd like to see how these DSLR's and MF digital backs stack up against the 10"x8" film quality of the M8's 10mp sensor.
by better than 5x4, do you mean comparing an exposed sheet of film, the size of an M8 sensor, or the capture of an M8 sensor compared to a very good scan of 5x4 film?
if the latter, then that's not the case. the output from a betterlight scan (9000x12000 pixels) is a bit better than 4x5 film (betterlight doesn't do bayer interpolation.. it captures true color pixels). Shooting with a Canon 1dsmk2, and stitching the two images together (using shift lenses), i was able to get about the same information as 6x7 film. .. that was about 33Mp capture from a bayer sensor. the M8 should give you better than a lot of 35mm films.. but won't better MF film
shirozina wrote:
But is it as good as the M8? Most experts agree that the M8 is better than 5x4 film in terms of resolution so I'd like to see how these DSLR's and MF digital backs stack up against the 10"x8" film quality of the M8's 10mp sensor.
.. I may sell my leaf back though... still considering it
Most experts agree that the M8 is better than 5x4 film in terms of resolution