I've compared my A-22/Contax against my 1ds, 1ds2 D2x and even the Fuji S-3 and if you have a lot of light the files from the Leaf files are a lot better.

Not just in detail but the ability to move them around, crush them, layer them and crop them while still getting good detail with few artifacts and very little CA.

If the light is low and your shooting wide open then the Aptus still works, makes a beautiful grainy image at 200 iso underexposed or 400 iso normally exposed (kind of the same thing right?), but compared to the Canon they are not near as smooth in low light.

Actually the Leaf file looks a lot like the D2x frile except the Leaf holds highlights and shadows tons better.

Personally, after using the Leaf I find the dslrs pretty much wanting and the Aptus files much easier to work in post production.

Maybe that's why I am so interested in the dmr.

I would love to get a dslr file that worked as well as the Leaf and would go out and buy a dmr today if it wasn't for the 10mp size.

I don't really think size matters that much, but in the past, going from 6mp of the dcs 760 to 11mp of the 1ds there was a huge diffference.

I know Guy loves working with his dmr, but he also is still holding on to some Canon equipment and that makes me wonder why?

No offense meant, but Guy are you thinking the 1ds3 can become you medium format camera while the DMR is your 35, or do you feel the 10mp of the dmr is not really enough?

Best,

JR
http://russellrutherford.com/

As i see it the DMR is a MF back on wheels and has the same CCD no AA filter and better DR than the Canons but there is a limit to the bliss, what happens if you really need to go HUGE.

MF also has the more pronounced DOF in its favour and maybe most importantly of all the huge viewfinder (sigh). Of course if Leica brings out a 16MP full frame DMR2 then the gap becomes even narrower. What are they waiting for?

foto-z wrote:
As i see it the DMR is a MF back on wheels and has the same CCD no AA filter and better DR than the Canons but there is a limit to the bliss, what happens if you really need to go HUGE.

MF also has the more pronounced DOF in its favour and maybe most importantly of all the huge viewfinder (sigh). Of course if Leica brings out a 16MP full frame DMR2 then the gap becomes even narrower. What are they waiting for?


A full frame DMR on the R9 is not possible due to technical issues ( Leica quote )

DutchGuy wrote:
A full frame DMR on the R9 is not possible due to technical issues ( Leica quote )

I don't think anyone is expecting another add-on module, rather a whole new digital camera. Call it an R10 if you prefer

Guy,
Glad you started this topic...the economy is showing signs of slowing and we all need to do our part I've been following this subject over on RG's (your favorite place) where they have had extensive discussions on MFDBs of all types. I've read many of JR's posts and join you in welcoming him to our forum. The one thing I've gathered from the reading I've done is that this is not a format for the faint of heart. The cost to "upgrade" to MF is substantial, especially with the newer backs, and really only makes sense if you can generate some significant revenue with the images captured. All of the backs seem to have their pros and cons, their supporters and detractors. One thing that surprised me was the absence of the manufacturers from PMA. I guess they figure this is a small niche market that doesn't warrent their presence.
David

foto-z wrote:
Of course if Leica brings out a 16MP full frame DMR2 then the gap becomes even narrower. What are they waiting for?


A source for the 16mp full frame chip, perhaps? Who besides Canon makes one, and you can rest assured than Canon isn't going to sell it to them.

It's great to see the different looks available with MF, though. I'm a big fan of selective focus and narrow dof. Some of JRs images with the Aptus are indeed drool inducing.

Kurt

Guy,
I'm heading to Cancun with the family for spring break tomorrow and am hoping to meet up with Chuck while there (wish it was for your photo safari instead of spring break). Maybe Chuck will bring his Leaf/Contax gear with him and I'll get a chance to see what it can do. Look for some South of the Border shots from me when I return. (Landscapes and locals, not Girls gone Wild).
David

Guy Mancuso wrote:
Well actually Kodak does have a larger CCD chip which is what is in the DMR but the larger chip via the Phase P25 and 45 are a Kodak design. Of course there is more to it than that but kodak does make bigger CCD chips.




The leica DMR and the P45 both have 147 pixels per mm so they might basicly be the same design, just like the 5D and the 1D2 sensors seem to be

Geert; yes, from what I have heard the pixel pitch is the same on the 1DMkII and the 5D, same build different size.

I am waiting for the FF DMR, too. If Leica does do one (not on the R9 body, but a new one), my Zeiss glass can fund the additional Leica-R lenses I will need, assuming there is still a market for them. And that current lack of FF is the only thing that is stopping me going all-Leica—the DMR surely produces great images.

Agree DOF is an important part of the MF look. It's not the cost of MF that puts me off as much as the need to run two systems (the Canon hybrid and the new one). So, really, anyone contemplating the upgrade is really talking about buying into a second whole system, as the portability and flexibility of the Canon or Leica '135' cameras and lenses (for want of a better term) means that the daily bread and butter work will stay on one of these systems (or Nikon, or whatever your favourite system is). All produce decent images.

V, interesting thread. Back to the book proofing, kit

There is one thing about MF that was not really mentioned yet, speaking of blad like MF cameras.

The feeling of such a camera is quite different, you have not only the technical aspects of a different camera, but it forces to another way of taking photographs.
The square format, the use of a tripod, the larger and different viewfinder made me always see different. I lost some of my interest in MF when I heard, there were not anymore square db coming out in the futur.

For the commercial stuff dslrs are ok to me and I dont see the need to upgrade the 5D so soon. For my personal photography I 'd like to have some special gear, giving me more time for composing and seeing.

As the update from 16mp to 22 is not the huge step it seems to be, there must be other qualities to a second system in the bag (of course overall technical quality will be better, even compared with 16mp dp). So what are you after, Guy (and others)?

p.s.

Where is that other RG discussion?

There is something to be said about keeping it simple.

Personally I have overcomplicated my life using a Nikon D2x, Canon and Contax/Aptus.

The Aptus and the Nikon came because my Canons were dropping files, but the main reason was I really don't like the quality or look of the 1ds2 file. The original 1ds was pretty good, but the 2's just seem to take a lot more work in post for me to really like the look.

My experience with the Aptus has run the gamut. At first it was new and really not ready for distribution. It had some gltiches with firmware and the software was in beta forever.

Now all of those issues have been addressed and the Camera is very solid.

What makes the Aptus file different is the film like quality. We all use this term andin C it is a personal preference, but for me I can hit color and tone on the Aptus much, much faster in post than the Canon or even the Nikon, though the Nikon D2x does work very well, except for detail and it tends to blow highlights.

The cost of the Aptus is debatable. In my Contax Aptus 22 I probably have $25k invested in Back, Camera and 4 lenses which today can probably be bouight for $20,000 even, maybe less.

Still a large chunk of change, but for me to start fresh with a R-9, DMR and lenses will put me close to that figure, so the Aptus/Contax is not that bad of a deal.

If MF has any issue it's the useable iso. It just requries a lot more light quanity.

In the film days I would say going from a dslr like the Canons to the Aptus is the same step up as going from 35mm to 6x9 film, like the Fuji 680, in light quanitity, complexity and camera speed.

The quality jump is also comparable.

If the Aptus has any monetary value, or bargain it is that even at 22mp the system is probably good for 5 years or more.

For most people the Phase 45 is too slow to shoot people, the Aptus 75 is a little faster but still much slower than the A-22. Also going from 40mb to 60mb raw files really plays havoc with storage, archiving, batch processing etc.

Personally I don't subscribe to the talk that a 39, or 33 mp camera really outresolves the Contax Zeiss lenses. Maybe the detail difference is not that notable, but the actualy higher density will be noticed and allow for some improvement in post production, though I haven't tested this so I can't be 100% positive.

There is a lot of talk that the A-22 will drop further in price, but I don't think that will happen in the near future. At photokina there could be some things arnnouinced in MF that will change everyone's buying decisions and some of these announcements might make the A-22 even more of a wise choice.

The one thing I have noticed about digital backs like the Aptus is it takes a long time to really understand the camera and the file. Just a week of testing barely gets you there and it has taken me almost a year to learn to get the best of the file.

I've been told by Chuck Jones that the same holds true for the dmr.

Speaking of the dmr, the only issues I see is the file size, the crop factor and how it performs at 400 iso . . . well also the lens cost. Something about a $6,000 15mm lens just kind of makes my head spin.

Still, I'd like to try one and probably before the year is out do some kind of test to see if it works for my genre and style.

Best,

James Russell

russruth wrote:
There is a lot of talk that the A-22 will drop further in price, but I don't think that will happen in the near future. At photokina there could be some things arnnouinced in MF that will change everyone's buying decisions and some of these announcements might make the A-22 even more of a wise choice.


Hmmm. Do you have any information about what could be announced, and would you like to share it?

You've got my curiousity peaked and am trying to figure out what you might be referring to.

I've used the A-22 on my Hassy H1 a couple of times, and also have used the P25. Personally, what I have found is two fold. I find the A-22 file, like a previous poster mentioned, very similar to work with as my D2x files, whereas the P25 files are more like my 1ds2 files that need more work to sing. However, I much prefer working in Capture One compared to the software Leaf was providing. All that said, when the time comes for me to purchase the back (and it's looming) I've made my mind up to go A-22 (when the price drops, of course). I just find it easier to work with (read: faster). And furthermore, since I'm already invested deeply in my Hassy H1 system, I will be able to save a little extra and pick up a view camera at the same time to share the back with. That's my favorite aspect of MFDBs, cross platform compatibility.

And to Guy-
If what you want this for is architecture and interiors, there is no question that you should be looking at a view camera rather than a MF camera. And if that is the case, you may want to consider a Sinar P3 + 54m back. You'd need to shoot this tethered, but with this combo, the Sinar software offers you a live preview on the monitor. IMO, this combo is top notch and would suit your needs quite easily. The quality achieved with this combination is certainly second to none.

Guy,
Which MF body would you go for if you bought a Phase One back?

The Hassy H lenses by Fuji are top notch, have no concern in that regard...

Well i am going the 6x9 route thanks to Chuck

If you're going Hassy you're doing the right thing. The H1 and H2 is very nice cameras. I like the 503CW as well but I don't know if Phase One backs fit the 503CW..
Go Sweden!

P25 works on a 503CW, also, there's the new 503cwd...

P25 works on a 503CW, also, there's the new 503cwd...

Ok. Then a P25 with 503CW with winder is an option too. Nice option if you want to use manual lenses. There's also lots of used lenses for the 503CW. One big advantage!

Wow, gone for a couple days and look what happens.

Two points and I will go away.

Point 1:
Two main differences between the P25 and P45. First, the P45 outresolves the P25 *if your lenses can handle the extra resoultion.* If they can't it is no different than a 100Mb and 300Mb drum scan of a 35 mm chrome. The 300Mb scan gives a much bigger file, but with no increase in actual information.

The second difference is two part: are 1. increased dynamic range (think DMR vs. 1DsII) and higher useable ISO (200 vs. 400 and possibly 800 if you really want to push it).

Charlie Cramer did a test with a P45 against 4x5 and came to the conclusion that the digiback is close enough to LF film to make the increased resolution of film not worth the effort.

Point 2:
We are at a point where we really need to be honest about how our images are being used and just because we can upgrade doesn't mean we should. What's my point? The differences between the P25 and P45 are real and visible on screen and probably visible on print from a high quality file run through a high quality RIP -- think fine art. But I would venture a guess (I've never tried it) that a CMYk conversion based on a real press profile would take out any advantage of the P45 over the P25 and in reality most of the advantage that either one has over a DMR or 1DSII. After the CMYK conversion the only advantage the P45 would have over the other back is ability to shoot at higher ISO.

Bottom line is we go back to the old addage "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." If your weakest link is a line press, the P25 (and in most cases the DMR) is sufficient. If the weakest link is an Epson 9800/Chromira, than everything else needs to be top notch and that meast P45, LF digital lenses, etc.

marbrink, I heard that Hassy is no more swedish nowadays but rather Nippon? Are there still products made in sweden?

bigreen505 wrote:
Charlie Cramer did a test with a P45 against 4x5 and came to the conclusion that the digiback is close enough to LF film to make the increased resolution of film not worth the effort.


I look at it another way, unless you have a regular and sufficient need for the resolution and quality of the P45, then 4x5 film is a much cheaper alternative for those occaisional times that you do.