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.
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. )
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.
mmurph wrote:
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.
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. )
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
)