Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1DsIII vs Digital backs  (Read 37652 times)
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3871



WWW
« on: August 19, 2007, 03:05:21 PM »
ReplyReply

It's an interesting question where the current backs place in performance against the medium rez but HI-DR and HI-ISO of the new generation of 35mm SLRs. The Canon 1DsII may be the first, but I would bet that Nikon and Sony have something similar in preparation.

Rumor has it that the 1DsIII has seen testing in a number of studios. Now that the NDA is clearly obsoleted by the very public leaks, maybe someone here who has seen images from the new equipment wishes to comment on that and ILLUMINATE OUR MF BACK BUYING DECISIONS !

Edmund

PS. The Amazon pages have been reposted here: http://Canon1Ds3.blogspot.com

PPS. The Amazon pages are posted all over the net, including Engadget with its tens of millions of readers. This genie will not go back into the bottle.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2007, 03:11:18 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
David Blankenship
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2007, 03:45:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald,Aug 19 2007, 04:05 PM
It's an interesting question where the current backs place in performance against the medium rez but HI-DR and HI-ISO of the new generation of 35mm SLRs. The Canon 1DsII may be the first, but I would bet that Nikon and Sony have something similar in preparation.

Rumor has it that the 1DsIII has seen testing in a number of studios. Now that the NDA is clearly obsoleted by the very public leaks, maybe someone here who has seen images from the new equipment wishes to comment on that and ILLUMINATE OUR MF BACK BUYING DECISIONS !

Edmund

PS. The Amazon pages have been reposted here: http://Canon1Ds3.blogspot.com

PPS. The Amazon pages are posted all over the net, including Engadget with its tens of millions of readers. This genie will not go back into the bottle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote
Eronald,

For the kind of images I need high resolution and  crop-ability I really never considered 35mm film or  35mm dslr cameras a tool of choice.  I like the bigger viewfinders and image size  choices of medium format and large format.  It's kind a like a Zen thing with medium format, so no matter how many megapixels you can pack into a 35mm DSLR,  I will still prefer medium format for the real estate, feel and lens quaility.   35mm has its place for some things like  pro sports, photojournalism in the streets and candid wedding photography.  Medium format  digital back prices will fall to a level where the average working photographer will be able to afford them eventually.

my 2 cents
db
Logged
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2007, 04:18:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been using a 1Ds MkII alongside a P25 for the past couple of years. In terms of pure resolution (when using broadly comparable optics) I've never been convinced that the P25 had a significant advantage over the 1Ds MkII, and I'd expect the gap to narrow to a vanishingly small margin with any MkIII as specified in your link.

However, resolution isn't the be all and end all of photography...at least I hope it's not! And the P25 does show superior tonal transitions and a sort of "filmic" smoothness to images that the 1Ds MkII sometimes lacks. Obviously any digital back also has the advantage that it can be fitted to a technical camera, which sometimes offers significant advantages over the Canon T&S range.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2007, 05:05:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm also interested to hear the comparisons coming in the next few months. I'm sure there will be a lot of elitist MFDB posturing about the marginal superiority of a larger, brighter viewfinder, megapixels and "mine is bigger than yours" -syndrome. And I'm sure many 35mm format aficionados will commit plenty of hand-wringing about bit-depth, dynamic range and optics.

I have a feeling that this generation's 35mm format will be "better" in 99+% of situations, and that MDFBs continue to be best suited for those photographers who just have to have the best, no matter what the price and how marginal the improvement. But what do I know, I shoot a 30D and am happy with it - but would shoot a P45+ if it didn't cost twice what the Harley I'm planning to buy.
Logged

LA30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2007, 05:36:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But what do I know, I shoot a 30D and am happy with it

Glad to hear it!  They are different tools, simple as that.  MFDB are smoother than DSLRs.  DSLRs are faster and lighter, better AF.  Both have a place and one can do what the other can not.  

Have fun with the harley!

ken
Logged
Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 249


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2007, 05:39:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a H2/P30+ and a Canon 5D.
I "hate" working with the P30+. It is big, it is slow,
it is very easy to miss focus because it is so narrow and only one focus point,
it is hard on battery, it is heavy to lug around with 5 lenses, it has big files that eat up disk space etc.

I love working with the 5D. It is everything I miss in the H2/P30+.

Most of the time I shoot with the P30+. Some times I get
frustrated and grab the 5D and shoot with a smile.

BUT when I get back on the computer and look at the result I
ALWAYS love the P30 result and "hate" the 5D result.

It is not only about the resolution, even if that also is a big difference.
It is everything about the picture - resolution, colors, transitions, shadows, bokeh,
highlights, skin, clarity, and how easy it is to retouch.
It is like the 5D is 10 mm "thick" and the P30+ 10 cm.
Many talk about a film like feeling. Yes, it is like film looking at the P30+,
and digital looking at the 5D.
P30+ is smooth and 5D is hard and ugly in comparison.
You can read all about the technical numbers, but you have to see it to understand it.
And I had a MkII and switched to 5D because I liked those files better.

Everyday I get frustrated working with the P30+, I try to remind my self that I will feel much better when I get back on the computer and see the results.

I also would love to see a Canon with P30+ ( or other similar MFDB ) quality.
But I do not think it will happen soon.  
« Last Edit: August 19, 2007, 05:50:32 PM by Willow Photography » Logged

Willow Photography
KenRexach
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2007, 05:56:36 PM »
ReplyReply

The new 1Ds mk3 not only has 21.1 MP but also color depth is increased to 14bit which is basically the same as MFDBs. This is a significant upgrade over previous Canon DSLRs and closes the gap even more with MF digital. Both RAW output is 16bit but capture 14bit.

Honestly, I wouldnt buy one of the sub 30mp backs. The Canon is still a fully integrated sealed system that is designed to be easy to use out of the box and trouble free out and about for 300,000 frames. High iso performance is superb, lens choice is extensive. Its basically a must have. BUT naturally if you can have afford a MF and you do very high end work that includes product photography and fashion then the MFDB is still the best although from reading these forums its still a sketchy solution
« Last Edit: August 19, 2007, 05:59:34 PM by KenRexach » Logged
lecter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2007, 06:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply

only time will tell.
second guessing anything at this point is fraught with danger.....
looking forward to playing with the new 1Ds3 for sure

Rob
Logged
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 323


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2007, 06:09:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Two 1Ds III threads in the medium format forum in one day. Both based on rumors.

Are you kidding me?
Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
LA30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2007, 06:25:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have a H2/P30+ and a Canon 5D.
I "hate" working with the P30+. It is big, it is slow,
it is very easy to miss focus because it is so narrow and only one focus point,
it is hard on battery, it is heavy to lug around with 5 lenses, it has big files that eat up disk space etc.

I love working with the 5D. It is everything I miss in the H2/P30+.

Most of the time I shoot with the P30+. Some times I get
frustrated and grab the 5D and shoot with a smile.

BUT when I get back on the computer and look at the result I
ALWAYS love the P30 result and "hate" the 5D result.

It is not only about the resolution, even if that also is a big difference.
It is everything about the picture - resolution, colors, transitions, shadows, bokeh,
highlights, skin, clarity, and how easy it is to retouch.
It is like the 5D is 10 mm "thick" and the P30+ 10 cm.
Many talk about a film like feeling. Yes, it is like film looking at the P30+,
and digital looking at the 5D.
P30+ is smooth and 5D is hard and ugly in comparison.
You can read all about the technical numbers, but you have to see it to understand it.
And I had a MkII and switched to 5D because I liked those files better.

Everyday I get frustrated working with the P30+, I try to remind my self that I will feel much better when I get back on the computer and see the results.

I also would love to see a Canon with P30+ ( or other similar MFDB ) quality.
But I do not think it will happen soon. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You nailed it.  I have the above mentioned setup myself 5D and P30+ and I agree 100%.  I love them both and shoot with the P30+ most of the time.  When I need speed I go for the 5d.  I would love to see the new canon get much closer to MF.  Lets wait and see.....

ken
Logged
SeanPuckett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2007, 06:44:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure about the ZD anymore, faced with this new information.  However, the issue of glass quality remains -- MF lenses are far superior in image quality.  Will Canon or Nikon's lenses actually be able to do justice to that sensor, or is it just a case of Megapixel horse racing, like the 12mpx P&S cameras with lenses the size of beads.

It'll be an interesting week, with this now and with Nikon's announcement on the 23rd.
Logged

Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2007, 06:56:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon needs a lot more than megapixels to make it an interesting choice for me.

The colour and shadows of the previous cameras was not that great. I don't believe the new sensor will be any better in that regard if it is based on the same technology. In fact, with smaller photo sites things could be noisier. I doubt the image quality will match the MFDBs.

No matter what Canon does with the body, there is still the issue of Canon lenses. There is still a tiny viewfinder (compared to my WLF), and no possibility of sticking the digital back on a view camera for technical movements. Flash sync is still stuck at 1/250 (compared to 1/1000 on some alternatives).

Interesting that this body is more expensive than the Mamiya ZD for fewer pixels. By the time you add the rumoured new L lenses to this body, the overall system will be significantly more than a Mamiya ZD with a selection of used lenses.

I doubt the new Canon will be any lighter or more compact than a Mamiya ZD.

Of course the high frame rate is the one big advantage of the Canon. That may or may not matter to the individual. My studio flash system can't recharge quickly enough for 5fps anyway. Which raises the question: how many sports photographers need 21MP? Who is this camera for? It isn't the best solution for any style of photography, but should be a very good all-rounder.

It is also a 3:2 aspect ratio, which you may or may not prefer to 4:3. Personally I prefer the latter. If you are doing a lot of landscape work you may prefer the former.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
SeanPuckett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2007, 07:03:44 PM »
ReplyReply

One has to consider that any pro-grade DSLR camera is going to be lightyears ahead of the ZD in operational ease-of-use, from its fast/big screen with live view to a wide variety of shooting options and tweaks.  And myriad other refinements.   Those things aren't free.  

As another poster said, when the shooting's done, all you have are the images so you should opt for the best imagery; but conversely if shooting is too difficult you'll never get the images in the first place, so opt for the most able camera.  ... This is why I carry a little P&S in my pocket in addition to thirty pounds of DSLR gear.
Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2007, 07:42:08 PM »
ReplyReply

One aspect that I've always been curious about is exactly who "needs" MF. I understand that artists often do (people who are producing prints for sale), and people who shoot super-sized promotional posters. But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference? (This is a genuine question.) It would seem to me that image degradation in any printed application was be enough to obviate the minor differences between MF and DSLR. No?

JC
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2007, 08:16:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One aspect that I've always been curious about is exactly who "needs" MF. I understand that artists often do (people who are producing prints for sale), and people who shoot super-sized promotional posters. But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference? (This is a genuine question.) It would seem to me that image degradation in any printed application was be enough to obviate the minor differences between MF and DSLR. No?

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Firstly, in response to another comment above, this looks like more than a rumour. It looks like a real leak of correct information - the fact that Amazon.com pulled the page means something, presuming all that wasn't an elaborate hoax to begin with, but I suspect not.

I'm not so sure about a printing press, but my Epson 4800 sure is capable of picking up fine nuances in tonal gradation, and with more pixels of high quality, one has more flexibility to crop images while maintaining resolution and tonality. 14 bit should improve tonality over 12 bit depth, and with the new processor design one should expect (and hope) that noise will be better controlled by improved s/n ratio rather than just more suppression of image detail.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2007, 08:30:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference?

I think this is a good question, and there are a few points I'd like to make:

- MFDBs generally have a much higher resolution. Think of a folded ad in a magazine which spans 3 pages. That's 63 cm assuming the page size is A4. To allow for bleed, you will probably need a 65cm wide image. A 22MP digital back has just enough resolution to cover this width. Higher resolutions will give you the freedom to crop, and a surplus of res. All else being equal, you could see the extra detail over a 1Ds2/5D image, especially if there is cropping.

- If you have to push the shadows, you'll get a better results from a MFDB, no question.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
LA30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2007, 09:13:29 PM »
ReplyReply

For Advertising the client is paying for the best and wants the best....They are shooting an ad that will run 30 feet and they think that they need a 31 or 39 mp back.  That Dslrs are toys, maybe an art director has a 5D for in-house work.  He is happy to see that you have a super expensive MF back, he knows that he has hired a serious photographer(true or not)....This photographer will get something that he can't get with his 5D.  If you can't get the image, ie bad auto focus or frame rate then you don't' get the shot---BAD.  If you shoot an AD and the agency requires minimum 22mp camera or higher then you shoot with a digital back and you get the job...There are many reasons to have BOTH.  In my perfect world I would own the new canon 1DsMIII AND my P30+  That way I can shoot the big AD jobs as well as shoot the fast stuff and get sharp images.

I will save my pennies sit back and wait for the first professional review of a 22mp MF back and the Canon.  


Ken
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2007, 11:00:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I am very happy with my (1month old) ZD Camera (not back)   .

Before I had D200 and was awaiting D3x or 1Ds Mk III. Reading up ALOT I realized that there is a significant gap between image quality between any DSLRs and medium format digital.   This is not only related to pixels, but the larger area of sensors. This gap will remain with the 1Ds Mk III, D3x and likely also 1Ds Mk IV and D4x unless any of these will have a more superior technology than the Bayer sensor.

The ZD, which is perhaps THE entry level medium format digital, will win hands down when comes to image quality because of more 3D, pop, greater depth and very impressive exposure latitude, issues relating to both the size of the sensor and to the larger format. For landscape and people living traditional lives as is my shooting, the ZD excels.  

Interesting with the ZD is also that it was no more cost to move to the Mamiya system than it would have been to move to Canon. The camera itself cost me similar to what the 1Ds Mk III was advertised as. The ZD camera is also same weight as the 1Ds Mk III and the system with lenses is same weight in my bag. The slower system than a DSLR also slows me down to plan shoots more, yielding higher sucess ratio (also less time in PP due fewer shots). The large viewfinder also helps to get better shots.    Add to this that actually the controls and menus are much easier on the ZD and frankly what I feel lightyears ahead of ANY dslr in operational ease-of-use, simply because there is less number of advanced auto features that gets in way for my photography and the controls and menus logic and make sense. My F100 did not have a display at all. To me the larger sensor is much to my preference than a larger display.

Granted, in spite of my thoughts above I am sure there are those who see preference for the 1Ds Mk III. It all depends on our prefernces in image quality and our shooting styles.  

Regards
Anders
Logged
Hunter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2007, 11:02:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference?

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Assuming that you shot a high end DSLR like the 1DsII or new 1DsIII vs. a medium format back, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two in a print ad. CMYK is the great leveler.
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2007, 01:22:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One aspect that I've always been curious about is exactly who "needs" MF. I understand that artists often do (people who are producing prints for sale), and people who shoot super-sized promotional posters. But if you take a MF shot (under optimum conditions) and a DSLR shot (also under optimum conditions) and then run them through a high-speed printing press, for x million copies of Vogue or Vanity Fair, or anything else that will suffer mass reproduction, will you really be able to tell the difference? (This is a genuine question.) It would seem to me that image degradation in any printed application was be enough to obviate the minor differences between MF and DSLR. No?

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John, MF is not always only about the quality. I personally like MF cameras a lot. Big viewfinders, less coputerized feeling. Much more like a traditional camera.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad