Just keeping this thread alive. My limited experiments so far suggest that an H25/P25 on Hasselblad V gives about the same performance as a 1Ds2. Perhaps marginally better resolution, but not enough (for me) to justify the price difference.
I have seen some comparisons between P25 and 1Ds Mark II and there's definetely a difference but you have to make very large prints to see that difference. Probably A2 to see any big differences. Customers who crops a lot will probably be happy though..
As someone whose periously close to taking the plunge on a P25v, I've been weighing this heavily. I've been working with P25 and P45 images for the last two months, and the P45 is pretty amazing, but definitely out of my budget. P25's are a pretty good deal right now(!?!?!?!) since everyone seems to be upgrading to the P45. I do alot of interior/architecture and have been using my 1Ds and renting the MkII when necessary, and I feel most of my clients are happy with the quality of the files. For me the bit depth and the larger pixel size are what the P25 offers, along with getting back to my view cam roots.
Actually, I am seeing more useful difference between 1DsII and the P25 than between the P45 and P25. Maybe we are close to the lens limit or just the limit of usefulness in general.
The P25 can always be upgraded to P45 for $14,400 at a later date.
For cropped images, I finf the Zeiss glass retains great contrast and detail certainly for the P25. But so far the P45 differences seem smaller, and at full crop the P45 do ot seem as dynamic as the P25.
Maybe lenses like the Digitars will show more difference (but also more lens color cast.)
For a 1.4 shooter of PJ and travel you may find the 6x9 a bit of cultural shock.
Yes, MR images are impressive, but...
I struggle with same question. Wide angle on a ALPA TC I can see, but at 90mm and higher focus is a real limitation, even with a sliding back.
However, once you settle on back, lots of options open up. Contax kit with 80mm, a P25 and a few more lenses(say 35 and 120) would be less than $25.000
Here's my 2CW.
I've been using the Canon 1DsMkII for about six months now,coming from a GX680II kit.
I can tell you that I'm very happy so far.
I'm I toying with the idea for a MFDB back ?
Yes,but I would only consider the 33 MB(Aptus 75) or the 39MB(P-45)
Why?
For what I've seen ,the current 22MB back are a tiny bit better than the Canon with good glass,however for the rather large investment( P-45 +Cambo WDS and Schneider 24XL-35XL-47XL)at a cost of close to $60.000 AUD,than I can see the improvement!
I would still use the Canon for anything longer than 50mm.
At this stage,I'm waiting for the Photokina and see what coming out,but I expect by this time next year,to the the Cambo WDS with the Schneider Apo--Digitars and either a P-45 or Aptus 75.
The step between the Canon and the P-25 at the moment is not large enough in quality to warrant the investment.
Does all this makes sense?
I hope it does to my accountant!
Cheers,
Willem.
When Leica comes with the 20mp dmr, I will pick up gogopix p25 ;-) and probably still shoot my 5D. To me the 12 mp are great for work and medium has more to offer than just better quality. Its also the way of use.
gogopix wrote:
Actually, I am seeing more useful difference between 1DsII and the P25 than between the P45 and P25. Maybe we are close to the lens limit or just the limit of usefulness in general.
Victor
That probably brings us back to Guy's original question - are we at the point where the image quality is now determined by the lens, and once you approach 20Mp the sensor is almost irrelevant?
Guy, Victor, re. the 20MP FF DMR: absolutely, that'd be the way to go. The differences for most work are too small. The FF DMR would close that gap significantly, and do it with the flexibility/portability of the DMR.
A silly question, perhaps, but how can Leica be moved in this direction? On that thread I started on LDUG on a possible FF DMR, a few posters who know more about these things than I do said that there were no software, hardware or sensor reasons why this could not be done now.
I am just about to shell out for a new R9/DMR (USD $8,700; bought here with Australian warranty and service). Of course with all the glass I have I would be happy to spend another (say) $3,000 for FF DMR. It just makes perfect sense.
Full 16 bit, 18–20MP, and Leica glass. I just don't understand why they are not doing it. And (I may make some enemies here in saying this) but the DM (digital M) wpuld only ever be a toy for very nice snaps for me, no matter how good it is, because my work needs the flexibility, lens range, and capacity to really SEE in the finder what I am constructing. I cannot understand (even knowing Western cultural history and Leica's place in it, re. iconic images) why Leica does not see that putting money into a FF DMR is a better long-term investment for them. And camers like the Pana L1 with that really good Leica vario-elmarit and the 4/3 sensor are going to make the DM less and less important as they close that gap.
Put it another way, the FF DMR would be a professional photographer's camera, and the DM a lovely thing to have—but it's not going to pay the rent! The days of street phgotographers being able to live off their images ("Life"-style) are gone, largely. The need for huge DR, accurate colour rendition, and an efficient workflow, OTOH, has never been greater. Phew. I'll stop now; Leica, are you listening Just my 2˘'s worth; off to work now. Kit
Ah: did not know about the film rails. As well, did not know that there are more M users (once I thought about it, obviously true).
So, let's hope Leica see that at least potentially there is a market for a FF DMR. And if you ever do get around to trying Leica lenses on an MF back, I am sure many here would be interested.
The reason why there is no FF DMR is purely price.
A full frame 18 MB DMR back would have to be around the $10.000 USD
However I assume there would be lots of pros and rich doctors who would by one.
Canon can afford to subsidize their full frame sensor and they make them anyway.
That's the same reason why Nikon didn't go full frame.
A D2X full frame would have cost an extra $5000 USD and the market won't take it.
I'm interested to see what will happen in the next 12 months.
Cheers,
Willem.
I'm new to this forum, and have just spend the entire morning reading this thread which I found to be one of the most worthy threads touching on MFDBs in a long while...
I've been using a Kodak SLR/n, and have been putting away funds for the eventual upgrade to MFDB + whatever MF view-camera platform... As most of my recent assignments seem to be coming from architectural / interior design clients rather than other commercial clientele.
However the final few post on Kit Laughlin's idea of an integrated Leica FF DSLR does sound most exciting...
The 6.8 micron per pixel Kodak CCD technology used in both DMR and 31 or 39 MPx backs will yield an 18.67Mpx 36mm x 24mm FF sensor.
Since Kodak is already able to produce reasonable production yields for the various manufacturers of MFDB, it should be simple enough for them to come up with an 18.67Mpx, 36mm x 24mm version of this sensor technology for Leica as well as any other potential 35mm format DSLR manufacturers, or even to restart their own defunct DSLR division!
If a Leica R-Digital FF body does eventually comes to the market, it would also be great if Leica sees fit to also design their own version of a 24 / 28mm PC shift lens for such a camera to replace the rather long in the tooth Schneider Super-Angulon 28mm f2.8 PC.
Than perhaps, I can put off stepping into the MFDB minefield... and save some money!
The problem with MF is starting to be that there are no bodies to put the backs on ...
Basically, you get a choice of Hasselblad or Haselblad, and all of us do not want Hasselblad.
Just my 2˘'s worth; off to work now. Kit