rhtml wrote:
What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.
If Canon lenses don't suit your fancy, get a Tamron or a Sigma...or, you could just purchase...say...a zoerk adapter and shoot it with a Nikon lens, or virtually any other, no?
Cementjungle wrote:
My 20D continued to work just as well even after the 30D and 40D came out. Since I'm not a camera dealer/trader it doesn't matter what comes out after I get something.
rhtml wrote : What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.
There are Zeis Contax lenses that work very well on the 5D or are you going to tell me these lenses are not sharp enough to
rhtml wrote:
What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.
5D + Zeiss Distagon 21mm = pwned.
Plus, who says a landscape has to be wide angle? A 200mm will do just fine.
The difference is small enough that it would make the 5d the far better choice for portrait and wedding work. You cannot beat the versatility of the 35mm format in those situations.
One feature/benefit that the Hassy has... that the 5D doesn't have... (and that no other digital body or back has)... is the MultiShot mode.
This is for studio/product stills where the Hassy Multishot back takes 4 shots in immediate sequence, moving a 1/4 pixel each time... one with red pixels, one with blue, and two with green.
The files from these Multishot exposures are PHENOMENAL!!! There is no mistaking whatsoever between a normal 39 mp shot, and a MultiShot exposure. The difference is so evident that it is visible even on an LCD projection screen shown in broad daylight.
rhtml wrote: What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.
Try an $80 EF 50mm f1.8 and $85 PTGui stitching softtware. Then compare 10 stitched 5D pictures from this cheapo equipment to a Hassy wide angle digital back print. 130 MP of Canon printed at 10 feet x 15 feet vs the Hassy print. Then put your eye 6"" from the 10' x 15' print. Who do you think is going to win this resolution contest?
Don Clary wrote:
Try an $80 EF 50mm f1.8 and $85 PTGui stitching softtware. Then compare 10 stitched 5D pictures from this cheapo equipment to a Hassy wide angle digital back print. 130 MP of Canon printed at 10 feet x 15 feet vs the Hassy print. Then put your eye 6"" from the 10' x 15' print. Who do you think is going to win this resolution contest?
Possible but not practical for regular use which is the point of the comparison.
Don't know if that has been mentioned before - I *love* the colour rendition of the Hassy. He says the light levels changed, so maybe it's just coincidence, but I find the highlights and the colours in the Hasselblad much nicer. Otherwise, yeah, it's a close call.
its even closer if you consider that the 5d was croped to 4:3 = 8.5mp.
However there is more to MF than just pixel count, the 5d has about 8 stops DR while the back should have about 11 stops at 100 ISO
I think you need to consider how large you are likely to print. Yes the MF digital backs make some unbelievable photos, but you are not likely to notice this unless you print very large.
rhtml wrote : "...when actually 5D can't even do landscape."
That statement is simply nonsensical and demonstrates a lack of awareness of landscape photography.
Now, if you want to say that a 5D cannot produce a 3 foot by 4 foot print with sharpness precisely equal to that of a carefully shot image from a 39MP digital MF back, I'll go along with you - but that is hardly a requirement for "landscape" photography.
You also considerably overstate the perceived "problem" with Canon wide angle lenses.
Don Clary wrote:
Try an $80 EF 50mm f1.8 and $85 PTGui stitching softtware. Then compare 10 stitched 5D pictures from this cheapo equipment to a Hassy wide angle digital back print. 130 MP of Canon printed at 10 feet x 15 feet vs the Hassy print. Then put your eye 6"" from the 10' x 15' print. Who do you think is going to win this resolution contest?
Well... After doing that a couple of times during a landscape shoot, you'd probably yearn for a Hasselblad. Only half kidding here...
I have a 40 year old Hassy and shoot film with it. Shooting with it is very enjoyable, almost point&shoot-ish (especially, of course, compared to my LF camera) and the resolution I get from a properly scanned piece of film is just awesome. I love my 20D, too, but when I want to shoot a forest or so, something with many little things in it, a detailed landscape or so, I reach for the Blad.
The 100% crops are downsized not upsized as they should be, no wonder they look so close. There was a test on the Alternative Forum between the 5D and a MF back which was more realistic and really showed the differences though the 5D still does incredibly well for a 35mm format camera period! It seems that there is a significant percentage of commercial shooters for whom the 5D is the camera of choice as backup for their MFDB rigs. The amount of detail it can capture with a good lens, and more to the point, capture so pleasantly (almost perfect AA filter?) is really a testimony to that sensor. I have little doubt that its sucessor will just not win as many hearts due to overprocessing and cramming more megapixels onto the real estate.
rhtml wrote:
What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.
1. That's just a silly comment in my opinion. The Canon wide angles are good enough.
2. I've visited many landscape galleries with very expensive prints and not until I started visiting these forums did I even begin to notice the corners of these photographs - and even now I rarely do unless I'm being ridiculously critical - corner sharpness is not what makes a landscape print worth hanging or purchasing.
My wife works at Kodak in the fab where those very sensors are manufactured. You will keep her employed and allow me the extra income to purchase your no longer needed 5D's and lenses
Format size makes all the difference. High end fashion photogs use MF for a reason.
These are all tools. You don't specific your application. If it's static landscapes, with lots of detail, you can buy a cheap DSLR and stitch/photo merge many images for a huge negative. If these are moving subjects it's not so easy to stitch.
But most important-what is your exhibition size? I have made fine 24x36" prints with my 5D not to say that a MF 20/40Mp might look different or even better. But then there's also the question of utility, FL, ISO speed etc. Sort of like "what is better a NASCAR of F1 race car" without specifying the track and ,conditions.
cineski wrote:
What is the 5d missing? Field of view, and the ability to do extensive post production without having to clean EVERYTHING up when the 5d falls apart in the shadows and highlights. A straight out of the camera shot like this doesn't do much for me. Show me a 5d image that's been through the photoshop ringer (I do a lot of this and the images do NOT hold up well), and another from the H3D. Then tell me how much time you spent achieving each image, and how well the H3D's images held up no matter how much you push them....Show more →
Bingo. I've had the privilege to shoot some Imacon and Phase One backs and you are totally correct on point. Even the heralded 1DsmkIII falls short compared to the larger format backs.
Its been awhile since I studied this stuff but one reason that the 5D files might look similar to Hassy files is that MF lenses in general have about half the resolution of there 35mm counterparts. As I recall a zeiss planar 50mm f1.4 lens when tested on a high res b&w film like tech-pan was capable of something like 110 lines/mm, while the best an 80mm f2.8 zeiss planar from a hasselblad could pull was a little less than 70 lines/mm using the same testing methods.
Now you will magnify the MF image less to get to the same size print , so the noise, saturation etc. will be better, but resolution wise there probably isn't a huge diffrence between the two.
