Home · Forums · My Profile · PM · Buddy list · Search · FAQ · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting · Avatar · Software

	Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses Pages: 1 2 [3]     Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF (archived topic)

bka20d Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Sep 17, 2004 Total Posts: 1489 Country: United States Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF httivals wrote: Of course a 39 megapixel back is going to outresolve the Canon 1Ds3. The question is how does the Canon's resolution compare to a 22 megapixel MF digital back? The Canon costs $8,000, including camera, and is A LOT more convenient, with a lot more lens choices than any MFDB. The 39 megapixel backs are about $30T, and much bigger and heavier than a Canon. The 22 megapixel backs, like a P25 cost over $20T, so again no contest on price, but the Canon is looking like it will resolve close to a P25, but lose out on dynamic range. For those of us who are used to shooting slide film, and who like the convenience and weight of the Canon, and who like saving over $20T (taking into account the cost of a comparable medium format system), there's no contest. I'll best medium format back sales are going to plummet. Especially, now that they've gone into this weird turf war of closing systems that Hasselblad initiated. The last man standing in the medium format turf wars will be -- Canon (or Nikon when it comes out with the D3x). Medium format is going to be relegated to even more of a niche role. Now it's time for Canon to update the tilt shift lens and to put the nail in the coffin. when you look at the cost of the constant upgrading that 35mm shooter seem to do, at the end of the day, i'm not so sure that going the dslr route is as "inexpensive" relative to mf digital as people think. i also think that the value added warranty availability, as well as trade in programs also are benefits that mfdigital offers over nikon and canon. i would not characterize the evolving changes going on in the mf sector as a turf war.: it about companies trying to figure out the best way for them to survive and prosper--we may not agree with the course they have each decided to take, but one thing is clear, the mf sector understands and has understood for a while that things cannot remain the same. it is so interesting when this topic comes up that it always seems to come down to one system or the other , but not both. the fact is there are things that each can do and do well, but neither system is perfect. I would hope the nails are never driven in an alternative format, and you should hope the same as it would mean narrower choice for the end user and less pressure on manufacturers. as for the mfdb setup being heavier than the canon, i just picked up the mamiya 645afd2 with an 80mm lens and a leaf digital back and the 1ds3 with a 50L and there ain't that much difference in weight. regards Dec 03, 2007 at 04:02 PM

shirozina Offline Image Upload: On Registered: May 22, 2006 Total Posts: 1054 Country: United Kingdom Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF Speculation and more speculation - all we can know is what we have today. If you want versatility then the 1ds3 makes a good account of itself against 22mp MF . If you want ultimate resolution go with a big MP MF back. In a few years time Mamiya maybe history and 55mp backs may be the next benchmark in resolution. Dec 03, 2007 at 04:09 PM

woodyspedden Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Nov 24, 2005 Total Posts: 891 Country: United States Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF There is a very revealing article in the January/February issue of Photo Techniques magazine. The author did a very thorough job of comparing the 1Ds3 to the Hasselblad H3 (Hasselblad lens and back) and the H2 with a Phase One P45+ back with Hasselblad lenses and a modern Linhof view camera with the P45 back and Rodenstock lenses. As expected, the Canon came in fourth but did itself proud when compared to these very expensive cameras with 39 Mpx. A strange and unexpected result was how much better the H2 was compared to the H3. The Phase One back is much better than the equivalent Hasselblad 39Mpx back. Same Hasselblad lens used for both bodies so the only real difference was the back. Finally, the view camera with the Rodenstock lens and PhaseOne back blew everything else away. So it is clear that the new MF backs need all the lens quality one can get. The author is going to do a follow up at some point using Schneider Digitar lenses on the Linhof. Man we may be spending some serious coin going this route. Woody Spedden Dec 03, 2007 at 04:50 PM

Daniel Buck Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Jan 13, 2004 Total Posts: 3013 Country: United States Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF shirozina wrote: If you want ultimate resolution go with a big MP MF back. or just stitch a quick few frames :) I do this all the time, in a studio or natural light situation, it works pretty good :) Probably not so well for portraits though. A quick grid of images can easily out resolve my 4x5 for landscapes! :D I suppose you could do this with the MF gear as well :) Dec 03, 2007 at 04:58 PM

httivals Offline Buy and Sell: On Registered: May 08, 2004 Total Posts: 643 Country: United States Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF Woody: what are you currently using? Do you have/are you planning on obtaining a MFDB system? Dec 03, 2007 at 05:37 PM

brainiac Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Nov 22, 2005 Total Posts: 3322 Country: United Kingdom Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF The big news here is that while 35mm digital continues to encroach on MF territory, final output needs haven't changed much. A job that twenty years ago required medium format can now be done with the same system you use to shoot football. The continuing need for medium format is surely dwindling, isn't it? And as that market gets smaller and smaller, it is harder for its players not to fall further behind with their technology. Whoever said 'expect better Nikon and Canon tilt/shift lenses' hit the nail on the head. Nikon and Canon do seem to be aware of the need for better glass. That's why they keep announcing stuff like new 14mm L, Nikkor 14-24 and so on. It's already in the shops. What I am looking forward to is a camera that repeatedly samples while moving the sensor through a known locus of positions. We already have vibrating sensors so data throughput is the only remaining obstacle. A sensor that records continuously while vibrating through known positions can use the time domain to overcome the Bayer problem, the moire problem and the cell density limit in one fell swoop. Call it a 'micro-scanning' sensor. I invented that during a discussion here a few months ago ;-) It will come. Dec 03, 2007 at 08:38 PM

TeamSK jay Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Oct 21, 2005 Total Posts: 508 Country: United States Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF brainiac wrote: What I am looking forward to is a camera that repeatedly samples while moving the sensor through a known locus of positions. We already have vibrating sensors so data throughput is the only remaining obstacle. A sensor that records continuously while vibrating through known positions can use the time domain to overcome the Bayer problem, the moire problem and the cell density limit in one fell swoop. Call it a 'micro-scanning' sensor. I invented that during a discussion here a few months ago ;-) It will come. Isn't that what the multi-shot MF backs do? Dec 03, 2007 at 10:10 PM

brainiac Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Nov 22, 2005 Total Posts: 3322 Country: United Kingdom Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF No, I don't think so. I am not aware of a back which uses piezo electric positioning to move the sensor during the exposure. A scanning back typically scans in one direction. I am talking about moving the sensor very fast in a little circle whose diameter would be about one pixel interval (or half a pixel interval for a foveon type sensor), and recording time based sensor co-ordinates along with the image data. Dec 03, 2007 at 10:33 PM

shirozina Offline Image Upload: On Registered: May 22, 2006 Total Posts: 1054 Country: United Kingdom Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF The old Sinar back used to take 4 exposures in quick succession moved 1 pixel by a piezo motor in a pattern that blended the image to increase edge smoothness and reduce artefacts. Only really usable on static subjects though. It also did a single shot and vibrated the sensor to kill moire. Dec 03, 2007 at 11:04 PM

TeamSK jay Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Oct 21, 2005 Total Posts: 508 Country: United States Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF Oddly it is difficult to find a good explanation of how the multi-shot works. Seems like this feature is under marketed / reviewed. Some info that I did find: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21007&view=findpost&p=156629 It seems as though the sensor is moved. Current thread on multi-shot: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21290 Dec 03, 2007 at 11:34 PM

mmurph Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Apr 18, 2004 Total Posts: 1262 Country: United States Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF bka20d wrote: when you look at the cost of the constant upgrading that 35mm shooter seem to do, at the end of the day, i'm not so sure that going the dslr route is as "inexpensive" relative to mf digital as people think. Well, that cost is fairly well defined. A Canon 1DsII that sold for $7,800 in January 2005 sells now for about $4,000, give or take. True depreciated cost is 3,800/3 = $1,300 or so per year. I bought mine for $7,800 in January 2005 and sold it in January 2007 for about $4,800 after expenses. So about $1,500 per year for the first two years, $800 for the third. Cost of a 30D-type body is about $300 a year at most. Canon lenses cost next to nothing to own, as you can see by the Buy and Sell here. :D The write-down on an adapter for a $32K back is probably about the same as the cost of the 1DsII or 1Ds3 per year. Especially if you go the Sinar route. (I have Bron in the studio, same problem. :) ) Best, Michael Dec 04, 2007 at 12:25 AM

alba63 Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Dec 21, 2003 Total Posts: 66 Country: Germany Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF httivals wrote: Who would buy a Mamiya ZD after seeing this comparison? Even if there are user errors/flaws, there will always be some in practical use. I am quite amazed how easily you guys make your judgements. With all this "alternative lens stuff" for very subtle improvements over the Canon EF's going on apparently noone has questioned 1. how valid a resolution test of Cameras and backs 18-22MP is when it is made with JPEGs around 3MB each (ouch!). 2. I recently had a short opportunity to shoot a ZD SLR, handheld, no MLU, and the shots were amazing in terms of sharpness, with immense amount of detail, nothing I've ever done with my 5d could come close. Also on LL- Forum several shooters who compared the ZD back to PhaseOne and Leaf backs all concluded that in lower ISOs, and apart from the fact that the ZD buffer, shooting speed is lower, long exposure is worse, well, apart from those practical concerns the ZD can deliver the same image quality up to ISO 125 or so. Looking at that miserable ZD sample I am quite sure there was motion blur, it had the slowest shutter speed, noone knows if MLU was applied etc. Looking at my few samples I do not doubt that the ZD can do much better.. 3. Someone who decides not to buy the ZD after such a low rez JPEG comparision - well, I don't know.... That said, the main purpose of the 1ds3 is most likely Canons attempt to come sufficiently close to the MF backs in order to hold a certain percentage back who think about going MF. With the much better versatility, ISO noise, shooting and AF speed of the 1ds this seems like a very interesting camera. regards Bernie Dec 04, 2007 at 03:40 AM

bka20d Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Sep 17, 2004 Total Posts: 1489 Country: United States Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF mmurph wrote: bka20d wrote: when you look at the cost of the constant upgrading that 35mm shooter seem to do, at the end of the day, i'm not so sure that going the dslr route is as "inexpensive" relative to mf digital as people think. Well, that cost is fairly well defined. A Canon 1DsII that sold for $7,800 in January 2005 sells now for about $4,000, give or take. True depreciated cost is 3,800/3 = $1,300 or so per year. I bought mine for $7,800 in January 2005 and sold it in January 2007 for about $4,800 after expenses. So about $1,500 per year for the first two years, $800 for the third. Cost of a 30D-type body is about $300 a year at most. Canon lenses cost next to nothing to own, as you can see by the Buy and Sell here. :D The write-down on an adapter for a $32K back is probably about the same as the cost of the 1DsII or 1Ds3 per year. Especially if you go the Sinar route. (I have Bron in the studio, same problem. :) ) Best, Michael for the working pro depreciation is an issue, and i do not take issue with you. my point was and is simply if many 35 mm dslr shooters looked at the money they have spent over a two or three year period on upgrading camera bodies and buying lenses, that there may not be as great a difference as people think between those cumulative expenses and the cost of a mf digital setup. Dec 04, 2007 at 01:19 PM

eronald Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Feb 02, 2004 Total Posts: 562 Country: France Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF The Canon and the ZD are now squarely positioned against the old Phase and Leaf 22MP backs. Each of these systems cannot be taken out of context of the lens systems used and the task at hand. It's clear that the Canons will win in the sports arena due to the Canon and Nikon super teles, the backs will win in architectural extreme wide-angle photograph due to the pseudo-symmetric wides from Schneider etc, and that in the middle it's going to be a free for all depending on the lens and the light. Frankly, owning both a Canon and a P45+I'd say a $2.5K 5D is probably the best investment any photographer can make, unless extreme performance is at stake, the convenience and reliability of the system is so great for an accessible pricepoint. And yes, the imagery of the back I own probably beats anything else, but bringing the tool to bear is a bit painful. Edmund Dec 04, 2007 at 01:20 PM

brainiac Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Nov 22, 2005 Total Posts: 3322 Country: United Kingdom Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF shirozina wrote: The old Sinar back used to take 4 exposures in quick succession moved 1 pixel by a piezo motor in a pattern that blended the image to increase edge smoothness and reduce artefacts. Only really usable on static subjects though. It also did a single shot and vibrated the sensor to kill moire. I didn't know that - thanks, I stand corrected. If a fast piezo positioning motor was introduced in a DSLR, with clever electronics, at a shutter speed of 1/250th you could get 4 exposures into 1/60th, so any such system will reduce your effective iso rating when its enabled. Piezo electrics are very accurate, so it's possible to dramatically increase the resolution of the sensor this way. A hundred samples in a 10 by 10 grid would give you ten times the resolution. The inventors of the tunnelling microscope couldn't believe their eyes when they saw actual atoms. That was a resolution way beyond what they had aimed for and what was thought possible. Dec 04, 2007 at 01:38 PM

grasmuc Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Oct 26, 2005 Total Posts: 10 Country: Germany Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF The Canon shot looks encouraging, what I am wondering is that the Mamiya and the P21 shots do not look tack sharp as they don't use AA filters. Pics from these digital backs usually look better. Could someone upload a good 1ds3 raw file? Dec 04, 2007 at 06:14 PM

diamondsdr47 Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Jun 25, 2006 Total Posts: 110 Country: United States Re: Here we are: 1Ds mkIII vs MF Not much of justice or difference in this comparison of general photo for me. If a was making general photos like walk around, then Canon would the best option out of those compared... If it was more specific task, like macro & close up, product photography (highly reflective objects, textured materials etc) then maybe there will be a more obvious “winner”. Regardless which one is "better" any of those will help to do your job. Dec 05, 2007 at 07:25 PM

	FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses Pages: 1 2 [3]