OK, I know we are not going to get the IQ out of 35mm film that we would get from MF. However, has anyone seen a good comparison of the 5Dii to an entry level MFDB? I'd be interested in seeing how close or far apart they are. Lets not try to prove one system is better than the other, rather lets just look at the images and compare IQ.
I will confidently predict that an MF digital back of roughly the same MP will have better colour, better dynamic range, and better tonal seperation. Resolution may be better but it depends on the optics and high ISO quality will be much worse. DSLR manufacturers seem to be in a race to produce the best High ISO performance and this has to come at the expense of other areas of image quality.
The thing is, most digital backs look like crap above ISO 400. Even with my 1sdmkII I shoot iso 800-1600 frequently as needed for editorial work. Iso 800 is a pretty useful place to be at if you're shooting with available light to get an interesting quality to your work.
this is just a quick shot i did of a model when she came to pick up a disk of images. I saw this amazing light coming into my studio and had to take a few shots. Hard to do this if you're limited in ISO.
I would love to shoot this type of thing with MF digital, but the fact remains that I need flexibility in a camera more than I need 16 bit. That's what it really comes down to. A 5dII will cover most of what you need and give you some incredible files to work with. There are plenty of reasons to shoot one or the other, but honestly the screens on a digital back make it hard not to tether most of the time, they're a bit slow and few MF cameras have fast glass like the canon bodies, making ISO 100 seem that much more limiting.
If you're shooting always in abundant light, don't mind being tethered to a computer a lot or paying a ton more for a small improvement in quality, a MF digital system is the ticket. For anyone not shooting professionally and needing that little extra bump, the latest dslrs are the ticket. Even for pros they are since you can always just rent a digital back for specific shoots and bill the client. I find it overkill and the times I've rented them, I've had problems. The P30 I used to shoot with regularly would occasionally spit out pink frames, and the H2 hasselblad camera had a bit of shutter lag and a distorted viewfinder.
But that extra bit of resolution, dynamic range, colour fidelity and tonal seperation can make all the difference when you need the very best - MFDB's exist for a reason.
yes, they are different tools for different purposes and with different stengths and weaknesses. I didn't want to debate which is "better" but rather just look at some comparative images.
shirozina wrote:
DSLR manufacturers seem to be in a race to produce the best High ISO performance and this has to come at the expense of other areas of image quality.
How does High ISO performance come at the expense of other aspects of image quality?
not so sure if this is right. I understand that CCD sensors dont have native high ISO's at all, some people recommend simply to underexpose and push it in post, of course this willl give up the higher DR and as we know, some resolution will be lost at high ISO due to noise
As for the race for high ISO performance on CMOS sensor, this is not really true. The new sensors do not necessarly compromise more of the Image quality than the old ones. They actually kept DR or even improved it over the time.
Canon have stated that on the 5DII they have reduced the strength of the RGB filters over the sensors to increase high ISO performance and this must = less colour fidelity.
Once I sharpened both, the resolution / crispness was extremely close. Too close to call. The wooden shoe insert stood out for me. It looks much more natural in the Aptus file. The other objects in the scene are made of plastic so they look plastic in both shots. However, the lens choices could be influencing the results. I am not sure how good that Canon 50/1.8 is but I suspect the Mamiya AFD/80mm 2.8 is real good. Also, I used ARC for both and this could be influencing the results.
Net/net- They are very close. I need more comparative shots with different scenes and lenses to draw a conclusion.
