I did some more comparisons today. I used the canon 1DsmkIII with the leica 100mm macro and compared against the Hasselblad H2/leaf aptus 65 with the 120mm HC macro. I moved the camera to try to get the image area to be the same. The images were shot mirror lockup, with a remote shutter release f16, iso 100. I processed both in CS3 the same way except that for sharpening I used 0.25/0.5/0.25 for the leaf files and 0.5/0.5/0.5 for the ctanon. I did a very minimal levels adjustment to both and as the very last step I did a smart sharpen of 100/0.3 to both. The area of focus is just above the center green X i placed on the rock. The apparent DOF will be a little different due to moving the camera and the image size. First, I am showing both fields resized. The second images are 100% crops.

Leaf field of view

My conclusion. The leaf/hassy H2 has better fine detail but the canon/leica combo is not that far behind. The tonal transitions always look better on the leaf in my opinion.

Wow so close - unbelievable! Thanks Mark for posting these comparisons. Looks like 1DsIII + Leica 100 Macro are an amazing combo. I can't wait to find a 1DsIII. I still have the Leica 100 I bought from you. It is really an amazing Macro lens. Leaf color is hard to beat. But if you're out in the field hauling all your gear around doing Macro it looks like you can get close enough with the 1DsIII + Leica 100 to get the job done.

By the way - we were emailing earlier about Hassy gear - I finally found and bought a 300mm Hassy HC today. It is used but in mint condition. They are very hard to find used. I can't wait to try it out.

There are subtle differences to be sure.

But I would bet a nickel that if they weren't labeled it would be a coin toss as to which is which.

I had to buy another 100 macro... I should be an indian giver. I saw that 300mm HC lens for sale and if was not for money i would have jumped on it.. .. I may sell my leaf back though... still considering it

netexpress wrote:
Wow so close - unbelievable! Thanks Mark for posting these comparisons. Looks like 1DsIII + Leica 100 Macro are an amazing combo. I can't wait to find a 1DsIII. I still have the Leica 100 I bought from you. It is really an amazing Macro lens. Leaf color is hard to beat. But if you're out in the field hauling all your gear around doing Macro it looks like you can get close enough with the 1DsIII + Leica 100 to get the job done.

By the way - we were emailing earlier about Hassy gear - I finally found and bought a 300mm Hassy HC today. It is used but in mint condition. They are very hard to find used. I can't wait to try it out.

I wonder, particularly for the Canon, if shooting at something like F8 would have been any sharper as diffraction should be an issue by F16.

I did look at f8,f11, f22. The results were similar at f8 comparing the two systems. The diffraction issues were very problematic at f22 using the leica and 1DSMKIII. I used hasselblad f39 but have not examined those yet.

I wonder how much difference the bit depth makes in the tonal transitions.

I think we have a good feeling for the resolution of the 1Ds3, so I am more curious to see tests of colour (which I never liked when using a Canon) and dynamic range (which is very important for people photography where multiple exposures and HDR technology won't work).

To my eyes the Canon images look a little sharper, and definitely higher in contrast.

Canons DPP and Phase One C1 have a better reputation for converting Canon images, not that C1 has been updated for the 1ds3 as yet. I wonder if the Canon images would improve any further with a different RAW converter?

JJ

What is the price Leaf combo and Canon combo ?

Elias

Mark,

I assume you are using the 100mm F:2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit or is it the 100mm F:4 Macro Elmar? I have both lenses and both have excellent performance, I do give the edge in image quality to the Apo at F:8 and above. However at F:16 both are fairly equal in detail.

Thanks for sharing the test, I'll probably be purchasing a 1DS Mk3 sometime early next year and nice to see what the 100mm Leica lens is capable of on the Canon (as it is my most frequently used lens) compared to a MF digital back.

With the 1Ds III and the rumored upcoming Nikon D3x, were at a point where resolution is not the biggest deciding factor in choosing a MFDB over a DSLR. It will now come down to people who want a medium format look, bigger prism, and better tonal range.

Josef,
The 31, 33 and 39mp backs will show clearly better resolution compared to 1Ds Mk 3 or an upcoming D3X, but I doubt many people need that kind of resolution. I think we'll see even higher resolution backs next year too.

But is it as good as the M8? Most experts agree that the M8 is better than 5x4 film in terms of resolution so I'd like to see how these DSLR's and MF digital backs stack up against the 10"x8" film quality of the M8's 10mp sensor.


Edited by shirozina on Dec 18, 2007 at 08:31 AM GMT (Reason: Some people though I was serious)

shirozina,
huh? Please find a quote with anyone saying that.

shirozina wrote:
But is it as good as the M8? Most experts agree that the M8 is better than 5x4 film in terms of resolution so I'd like to see how these DSLR's and MF digital backs stack up against the 10"x8" film quality of the M8's 10mp sensor.


by better than 5x4, do you mean comparing an exposed sheet of film, the size of an M8 sensor, or the capture of an M8 sensor compared to a very good scan of 5x4 film?

if the latter, then that's not the case. the output from a betterlight scan (9000x12000 pixels) is a bit better than 4x5 film (betterlight doesn't do bayer interpolation.. it captures true color pixels). Shooting with a Canon 1dsmk2, and stitching the two images together (using shift lenses), i was able to get about the same information as 6x7 film. .. that was about 33Mp capture from a bayer sensor. the M8 should give you better than a lot of 35mm films.. but won't better MF film

jim

shirozina wrote:
But is it as good as the M8? Most experts agree that the M8 is better than 5x4 film in terms of resolution so I'd like to see how these DSLR's and MF digital backs stack up against the 10"x8" film quality of the M8's 10mp sensor.



I think he's being sarcastic guys....

Robert,
I know, but personally I can live without comments like that.

RobertP wrote:
shirozina wrote:
But is it as good as the M8? Most experts agree that the M8 is better than 5x4 film in terms of resolution so I'd like to see how these DSLR's and MF digital backs stack up against the 10"x8" film quality of the M8's 10mp sensor.


I think he's being sarcastic guys....


If that's the case (and I'm sure it is), he should really put on the sarcasm alert. Because I am sure there are people that actually believe that. Now where is Guy to back it up to say how flawlessly the M8 up-rezzes?

YEs it was the 100mm 2.8 apo-macro elmarit.

ACElkins wrote:
Mark,

I assume you are using the 100mm F:2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit or is it the 100mm F:4 Macro Elmar? I have both lenses and both have excellent performance, I do give the edge in image quality to the Apo at F:8 and above. However at F:16 both are fairly equal in detail.

Thanks for sharing the test, I'll probably be purchasing a 1DS Mk3 sometime early next year and nice to see what the 100mm Leica lens is capable of on the Canon (as it is my most frequently used lens) compared to a MF digital back.

I did not realise that making such an obviously ludicrous statement on this forum would be interpreted by so many as either serious or sarcastic - lighten up people

Some could live without sarcasm, but I can´t live without it. I thought it was funny, shirozina. I had a photographer tell me something similar last week, and the outrageous resolution-uprez claims of some are hellarious. By the way, on topic, that leaf file looks a touch softer and in general the two files aren´t the same exposure (due to the sensors having different base ISOs I´m assuming) even though they are the same camera settings. The canon file is getting more light. Close call on these two. I´d say most are right on when what a lot of people are really looking for is better files vs MASSIVE 39 megapixel files (although the big files don´t hurt anything but your HD space). I really wish canon would have just made the jump to 16 bit. Probably holding off for the next round of cameras so we all have a reason to upgrade. Bastards.

Mark can correct me if I'm wrong on any of this... The pixel density between a Aptus 65 and 1Ds3 is pretty similar. Likewise, the 1Ds3 has an AA filter vs the Aptus' micro lenses. In controlled tests such as this, the differences are not that big. But in use it's quite different - especially when the subject matter pushes the equipment to their respective limits (and beyond).

I've been comparing the a P25 to the 1Ds2 and normalizing the two systems is impossible. a 50mm lens (1Ds2) gathers light differently than a 80mm lens (AFDII w/ P25). The flattening of the FOV is different. DOF is different. Lens coatings & coloring are different. And of course RAW converters and their respective settings.

Without a doubt the P25 files are better than the 1Ds2's. Getting the image with the AFD II & P25 takes more effort, so the 1Ds2 wins in terms ease of ergonomics. Blah, blah, horses, courses...

I agree with Caleb about a 1Ds4. I'm not seeing enough from the 1Ds3 to justify upgrading to a 1Ds3. I'll use the P25 for a couple years and if the 1Ds4 gains DR and is 16 bits, then I'll probably flip back a dSLR set-up. I'm also curious to see if Nikon adds a FF D3X and if they add something to challenge a 5D Mark II.

John.. I can agree with alot of what you said. I do not believe the aptus 65 uses the micro lenses but i could be wrong. The H3D-31 uses the microlenses. The leaf aptus is 27 megapixel but a larger frame than the 1DsmkIII so I have never calculated the density. I also agree that hthe FOV and DOF or apparent DOF is different. Even using the standard raw conversion programs give different results with the different files. So yes this is not so easy and I know I was getting some critics on another site for my comparison.. oh well.There is more to the image than resolution and i agree the MF systems are superior in overall IQ. Mark