I have been looking into FF lately b/c I have been so impressed with many of the pictures posted here from 5D's, and with the seemingly imminent release of the 5D-II (or whatever it will be called), it might be a good time in the near future to buy a used and freshly depreciated 5D. (I still can't believe my 30D lost half of it's value with the release of the 40D).
I also saw somebody on TV the other night using one of these H3D-II's, so I just found this comparison interesting.
I think the 5D holds up amazingly well, considering it's about 1/10th the cost of the Hass.
The fact that you really need to look at 100% crops to see any difference is a testament to the 5D. No doubt there's more detail in the Hassy photo, but I doubt you'd see any difference in a print until you got up near the 20" area.
Kind of apples to oranges if you ask me...but I'm wondering what the test would yield if the Hassy was put up against the 1DsMKIII/D3...now I am curious. Anyhow, the 5D performed quite well pitted against an otherwise unsuited opponent...more or less a David and Goliath story except David lost, but put up a decent fight.
Law of diminishing returns. 5D is fine but you could substitute any number of other cameras for it too. Your looking at why medium format is on the way out. Ten years ago I'd bet 90% of full time professionals had a 2 1/4 rig, now I'd bet it's under 5% that actually use it(not counting closet cameras). Truth be told I bet 5% is being really generous. For North America, strike NY and LA off the list and I bet you it's under 1%.
Well, this proves that you really do need 4 times the pixels to get only twice the resolution, which is not really a big jump.
Also, it depends what you shoot. This is a close focused image. I'm betting that a landscape with infinity focus would give a larger edge to the Hassy for fine details in the distance.
MF will have a big advantage once we get full-frame 645 chips with more megapixels, and better sensor technology (better high ISO).
We already have full-frame 35mm DSLRs, and there's not much more that can be done, except for adding more MP, while having to improve lens performance at the same time, and improving sensor technology as well.
But MF digital is still in the very early, beginning stages, IMO.
That's very interesting to see and it really does show how a 5d can compete, canon should be very proud.
However, there is a BIG place for medium format digital and that is here to stay, i cannot see people abandoning the format just because 35mm is getting to great proportions.
The beauty of medium format is that wonderful larger size of negative or in this case, sensor. People are not going to abandon a 48mm sensor for a smaller one. People who can afford medium format digital have clients that obviously need this detail and quality and will pay for it. There will always be a market for it. Just look at what Graham (foto-z) is producing in the city/portrait forums with his Rollie and Emotion back. They far far far surpass what 35mm can create.
Always is a rather long time. It's marginalized already in the real masses working market. Sure rich hobbists, sure some movers and shakers in the one or two major markets per country. My secondary provincial city 350,000, ten years ago everyone shot 120 for the non pr sort of jobs. Virtually very professional wedding shot on it. Dozens of users. Now there are two people that shoot with digital 2 1/4, strictly commercial. Two people in a catchment area of a hundred mile circle with a million plus people.
Cameras have been getting smaller and faster since the beginning. I'm not saying 2 1/4 isn't lovely. It's just not the mainstream future. 2 1/4 is the new large format of sorts. Plunk your results on a press not many buyers going to care about your extra money spent on the gear.
chris78cpr wrote:
The beauty of medium format is that wonderful larger size of negative or in this case, sensor. People are not going to abandon a 48mm sensor for a smaller one.
This, I think, is the key point. With sensor size, bigger is better; otherwise, there would be very little reason to buy a 5D over a 40D. A medium-format digital back has a similar advantage over a 5D that the 5D has over the 40D. The H3D is going to have much much better noise performance at any ISO, will show sharper details, etc...
35mm DSLRs were this expensive not too long ago...I suspect medium-format digital will grow in popularity as the price comes down.
I own both of these camera's and can notice only subtle distinctions between the two until you do extreme enlargements. I initially bought the 5D as a backup, then sold my 1DS Mark2 in favor of the 5D. I figured that if I wanted to use a heavier camera body with slightly better resolution then I could use the Hassy.
Personally, the 5D is my go-to camera on at least half of my commercial jobs.
What I still do not understand about the head to head is the fact that he decided to go with a Hassy vs the 5D...if one is to think about this comparison reasonably, forgetting the difference in format, he/she surely would not consider the 5D as a direct substitute for a rental b/t it and a H3Dii. IOW, there are better performing FF DSLR's to consider first and foremost, for instance the 1DsMKIII and the D3, both of which can and do outperform the 5D. Basically the initial comparison was one sided to begin with not to mention the 5D being lower down the FF food chain. How often would someone walk into a shop and tell the clerk that he/she was deciding b/t renting a 39mp med. format Hassy and a 35mm 12.7mp 5D? Obviously there is a huge difference b/t the two to start not to mention price per rental. For me a more rational alternative would have to be in order to make for a more fair 'fight', if you will.
Besides that...I am happy with my 5D knowing I have no loans to pay it off
What is the 5d missing? Field of view, and the ability to do extensive post production without having to clean EVERYTHING up when the 5d falls apart in the shadows and highlights. A straight out of the camera shot like this doesn't do much for me. Show me a 5d image that's been through the photoshop ringer (I do a lot of this and the images do NOT hold up well), and another from the H3D. Then tell me how much time you spent achieving each image, and how well the H3D's images held up no matter how much you push them.
Sadly this is not true! HIgh ISO performance is rather poor on MFDB backs, I guess a 5d would have a similar image quality at ISO 800 as a 30 or 40mp back, including DR, noise and resolution. That is the reason why you always see these tests at ISO 50 or 100 and not at ISO 400 or 800.
I still can't believe my 30D lost half of it's value with the release of the 40D
My 20D continued to work just as well even after the 30D and 40D came out. Since I'm not a camera dealer/trader it doesn't matter what comes out after I get something.
There is stuff you can do with the Hasselblad that you cannot do with the 5D. If you need to do those things it is one of the options in MF digital photography. If you print really large and shoot with a 39MP MF back you are going to see better IQ in very large prints.
On the other hand there are advantages to shooting a DSLR as well. You have a greater selection of lenses and many of them are zooms, your gear will be lighter and smaller, batteries last longer, etc. For some types of photography this is the only practical approach.
I guess, having flash sync at all shutter speeds (with any flash), 16 bit processing, a bigger sensor, and an amazing viewfinder arenīt that important to some. Sure, I shoot a lot with a 5d, but when it comes down to it, I love when clients have the budget to use medium format equipment. The files are really great to work with. This is an interesting argument though. I have a friend that hates to use medium format when clients ask for it, and is in love with his 5d for reasons stated here. I mean really, its a great camera that puts out great files for an unbeatable price.
I've been a lifelong Canon user and a lifelong Hassy admirer.
One only has to look through the viewfinders of each to appreciate the Hassy. The end result in most cases may be comparable, but your abilities as a photographer with such a large, clear, bright finder like a Hassy has are magnified immensly.
I was stunned the first time I looked through one, still am.
Stunned enough to pay the difference? Yes, if I had that kind of expendable cash.
There is no substitute for megapixels, nor is there any substitute for media size. So it's no suprise the Hasselblad outperforms the the 5D, even though The Hasselblad sensor and firmware processor actually is not putting out the same IQ per pixel as Canon's. MF backs are very much niche products, like large format view cameras have been in the past. The real medium format of the digital age is full frame 35mm. Medium format digibacks have become the large format of digital (above MF size the medium is still film). The comparison Lincoln Barbour made between the 5D and Hasselblad perfectly well illustrates that a little more quality above the 24x36 sensor costs a lot more and that we Canon users have something that no Hasselblad will ever be able to give: EOSfun. And it's damned cheap to have; relatively
adam613 wrote:
This, I think, is the key point. With sensor size, bigger is better; otherwise, there would be very little reason to buy a 5D over a 40D. A medium-format digital back has a similar advantage over a 5D that the 5D has over the 40D. The H3D is going to have much much better noise performance at any ISO, will show sharper details, etc...
35mm DSLRs were this expensive not too long ago...I suspect medium-format digital will grow in popularity as the price comes down.
MFdigital backs have very limited iso ranges. the iso range of my aptus 22 back by way of example, is 25-400. and depending on the back manufacturer, even using the same chip, the iso performance of various backs may yield different results as it relates to noise...with a few exceptions the iso range of most of the digital backs falls somewhere between 50-800. i can push my 1ds3 and 5d's to iso 3200 if necessary. the d3 and the 1d3 can easily do iso 6400- you just can't get there with a mfdb. if you add the fact that i can shoot sub f2 with numerous dslr prime lenses or at 2.8 with a couple of zooms(and the fastest fixed mf af-zoom(mamiya) available is f4.5 and af prime is 2.8) you begin to better appreciate some of the other strenghts and weaknesses that characterize the various formats.
one of the advantages that the dslr companies enjoy(well at least canon and sony and to an extent nikon) is the fact that they develop their own sensors...the growth in mf sensor development is hamstrung as the back makers are relying on third parties for sensor technology. this will continue to add a level of cost that the larger dslr companies do not have to contend with.
What's the point of comparing, when actually 5D can't even do landscape. Canon does not yet have the ability to design a wide angle lens that is sharp at the corners.
