erickb wrote:
I have an Hasseblad H1 & P45 a 5D and an 1Ds Mark III
90% is marketting , IQ difference is only noticiable for large prints
if you compare only something like price/IQ , the 5D is far ahead (IQ is very very near, price is very very far)
I come from a studio, large format background mixed with plenty of medium format and I'd say a LOT of this medium format digital stuff is down to the anal-retentiveness of the art directors.
We tried to switch from Hass to RB67's and even after showing them that the format fitted the page better, the image itself was bigger, the lenses as good (or even better in some cases) they refused to let us change, even though the Hass's were clearly mechanically inferior they just had the Hass name and that was all they wanted
For studio sets, interiors and other places where 5x4,5x7 or 10x8 sheet would have been used, yes the MF back will do a much better job of resolving fine detail than a 5D, but for my work, which is often industrial where detail matters, my 5D's do a great job, comfortably the equal of the RB's. I can comfortably go to 400 ISO without *any* loss.
Hass MF cameras are gorgeous, but IMHO not really necessary for a great deal of stuff.
I am working for car industry and if you have not a Medium Format and 39MP you are not a serious photographer
I have tried to say that a 1Ds Mark III is enough with same IQ (and 21MP) and much more flexibility , but they believe in MF
they need 39 MP for very large prints or ... just in case , even if it is for a calendar or a catalog
michael49 wrote:
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.
I have a 16-35 Mark 1, and if I stop it down to f/8-f/16 on a 5D, the corners are perfectly sharp (and i don't mean "pretty good", i mean every pixel is resolved perfectly, even at 16mm) and that is where Lanscape photographers shoot, so whats the problem? i just printed a 20x30 print that has far more detail than I have ever seen in a medium format film print of the same size. The "purists" will cry "but i can get a gigabyte of information from one medium format negative", but much of that information is redundant and unnesscessary, because once you start scanning at those levels, you run into the grain of the film, and there is no improving that. i would rather have a 5D printed at 144 DPI. I would rather use my camera to "scan" reality than create a negative to scan. Eliminate the middle man! If every pixel is resolved perfectly, it is a heck of a thing to see IMO. And i love the idea of carrying it around in my backpack.. Allows for a lot more opportunity for shooting.
I do see the value of larger formats for very specialist shooting, but give me a 39 MP hasselblad with comparable 1600 ISO (or 1600 ISO at all for that matter) that I can stick in my backpack and carry around with me all the time and i'll be happy to switch. Until then i'll save my pennies for something else, like a house.
In the end, the 5D wins out by a long shot for versatility.
High Megapixels are just icing on the cake for MF, and people who think that MF is only about higher MP count are mistaken . The fact that at 28mm on an H3DII, you have essentially the same field of view as a 14mm lens on 35mm. I say essentially because of different aspect ratios and the hassy 28 is almost 29mm, or 14.5mm in a 35mm conversion (I hope I did my math correctly ). So, to get the same shot with the different formats, you'd have much less distortion on medium format than you do on 35 format by design of the lens. 28mm doesn't distort as much as 14, even though on medium format with a 28mm lens you see as much as a 14mm lens on a 35mm camera. Larger fields of view make the world look more natural, less distorted. This is another reason you see high end advertising and architectural photographers using large format film. Heck, I've seen large format done with a digital back and the sensor is moved around to create a stitch. Another examples is a 90mm lens on large format is WIDE and doesn't cause the distortion you find in 35mm to achieve the same field of view. Also, the fact that you can fix lens distortion in photoshop is a moot point. Getting it correct and clean in the camera is what medium/large format photography is about which is why the higher end jobs are done with it. Also, these field of view advantages aren't just for wide angle lenses. All focal lengths are enhanced.
Again, field of view, full range flash sync, gargantuan viewfinder and bit depth are what makes Medium Format king of the roost. High Megapixel count is icing.
Now, what would be cool is if Canon gave up the megapixel race and started on 16bit images instead of 14. The H3DII can capture 39 frames per minute. I'd be fine with a commercial/advertising grade camera from Canon that can only shoot 2 frames per second that captures as much information as they can get. This wouldn't combat the other 35mm restrictions mentioned above, but it would help!
Bmeister wrote:
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.
For your work, yes. For me, I like to shoot a lot of different stuff. Like musicians in dimly lit bars. 200 ISO won't cut it. I am sure the best of both worlds would be to have both kinds of cameras, but if i had to choose one to use, it would most certainly be the 5D. I don't need the AF of the 1 series, nor their bulk, nor their increased MP which only arguable increase the detail you resolve, and if so by a very small amount ( http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_5D/Canon_5D_review.html ) while loosing high ISO quality due to decreased light gathering abilities. What "I" want is a camera that can do just about anything well, and really IMO the most versatile camera is the 5D or possibly the Mark 3, but i don't shoot sports very often, so I'll take the FF and the extra MP.
ShaneEngelking wrote:
For your work, yes. For me, I like to shoot a lot of different stuff. Like musicians in dimly lit bars. 200 ISO won't cut it. I am sure the best of both worlds would be to have both kinds of cameras, but if i had to choose one to use, it would most certainly be the 5D. I don't need the AF of the 1 series, nor their bulk, nor their increased MP which only arguable increase the detail you resolve, and if so by a very small amount ( http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_5D/Canon_5D_review.html ) while loosing high ISO quality due to decreased light gathering abilities. What "I" want is a camera that can do just about anything well, and really IMO the most versatile camera is the 5D or possibly the Mark 3, but i don't shoot sports very often, so I'll take the FF and the extra MP....Show more →
the 1Ds Mark III is very versatile and a strong camera, I think some day I'll sell my 5D
Yeah, i am sure it is great, but not worth the money to me. And i would be extremely surprised if it can outperform the 5D at 1600 ISO. If so, then it may take the cake as being the most versatile camera, but not worth an extra six grand to me. There are a lot of lenses i would rather buy first that would have more of an impact on my photos than a new camera. And the size of the 5D is a very important thing to me as i often want to be discreet whgen taking photos, and the 1DsMark 3 is anything but that. i could see myself buying a use 5D Mark 2 (assuming it is ever made) if the noise control was as good and I got a good used price something like a year after it was released.
I did a comparison in the past [about 1 month ago, hehe] between 1Ds MarkIII and Hasselblad H3DII 39mp, maybe the test is not logical but the results making me to stop using Canon for a while, but i will never give up any camera i buy even if it is the cheapest and oldest.
I am happy with my H3D but sad that it needs pro hands/minds/skills to work with it.
. The fact that at 28mm on an H3DII, you have essentially the same field of view as a 14mm lens on 35mm. I say essentially because of different aspect ratios and the hassy 28 is almost 29mm, or 14.5mm in a 35mm conversion (I hope I did my math correctly 
). So, to get the same shot with the different formats, you'd have much less distortion on medium format than you do on 35 format by design of the lens. 28mm doesn't distort as much as 14, even though on medium format with a 28mm lens you see as much as a 14mm lens on a 35mm camera. Larger fields of view make the world look more natural, less distorted. This is another reason you see high end advertising and architectural photographers using large format film. Heck, I've seen large format done with a digital back and the sensor is moved around to create a stitch. Another examples is a 90mm lens on large format is WIDE and doesn't cause the distortion you find in 35mm to achieve the same field of view. Also, the fact that you can fix lens distortion in photoshop is a moot point. Getting it correct and clean in the camera is what medium/large format photography is about which is why the higher end jobs are done with it. Also, these field of view advantages aren't just for wide angle lenses. All focal lengths are enhanced.