Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1DsIII vs Digital backs  (Read 37853 times)
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2007, 01:57:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I agree most people probably do not see the difference.
But I am also pretty sure the DSLR have had a lot more post process
than the MFDB to look that good.
Logged

Willow Photography
wesley
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2007, 04:37:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree most people probably do not see the difference.
But I am also pretty sure the DSLR have had a lot more post process
than the MFDB to look that good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have to agree with you on that. There's a lot more work in terms of post processing, esp color and sharpness, using HDR to get better shadows, etc. Also, some of us have to resorted to 3rd party lenses like the Leica Rs and Zeiss to get the best out of the DSLRS. I have seen great P series shots coming straight out from C1 that didn't need post processing work. Clients are also more wow-ed by photographers with digital backs. And they usually don't say, "hey i have that camera too" when you are on a digital back.

That said, it's true CYMK levels the playing field by quite a lot, even for posters, etc.

Best
Wesley
Logged

Camdavidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2007, 04:41:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree most people probably do not see the difference.
But I am also pretty sure the DSLR have had a lot more post process
than the MFDB to look that good.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is no longer a rumor.

[a href=\"http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20070820_1dsmk3.html]http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pres...820_1dsmk3.html[/url]

14 bit data plus the "L" lenses will bring this camera very close to medium format with its own set of advantages or disadvantages.  Maybe not quite the same - it is a different look after-all.

For my style of shooting, the Canon 1Ds cameras (and the Leica M8) work better for me.  I tried MF and loved the quality of the P30 back.  Fantastic files with great reproduction!  However, I shoot aerials and people on location.  With the MF back I was always waiting for it to catch up with me.  The new Canon will give me greater bit depth (which will help in the highlights and shadows) plus the ability to shoot quickly in a fast moving turbine helicopter is a huge benefit to me.  

You choose the tool that delivers for you.  If MF is right for you - than go for it.  If not, shooting with the new EOS is a strong alternative - for - certain styles and subjects.

I'm glad to see MF thriving.  It pushes Canon to create products that help many photographers.  When Canon pushes into MF territory (ie, higher than 18 MP) than the MF manufacturers are motivated to increase the speed and quality/workflow of their backs.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2007, 06:14:57 AM by Camdavidson » Logged
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2007, 06:33:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Perspective from 55 years photographing:

I think most comments pro the "DSLR will approach MF" neglect the primary difference; yes, size matters!  :-)
EVentually (likely 4-6 microns) we will hit the limit of sensor technology (with a second round with Foveon like stacked sensors, so 3x possible). The noise will be there at a level anything but active cooling will have to live with.

Other than that, the scale moves for all systems; P&S wemt from 1-7 MP and hit a wall. 9MP cameras are not any better and 16 MP will be silly (esp given the quality of the glass.)

Speaking of glass, the wall for MF was thought at 22 MP but at 39 MP (I use P45 +) my Contax and Hasselblad glass is doing fine (though even the wonderful 40mm IF hassey struggles at high resolution, 100%)

The likely limits of L glass (and I use a 14 MP Kodak for C mount rather than a Canon) will be mid 20's, though I hardly ever use Canon (or Nikon) glass; Leica M and R are just so much better that the areguments are like trying to say a souped up Caddy is like a BMW or MB. I frankly don't think it is worth dbating. The market is against the mass produced products whether it is Patek vs Rolex even, or Canokin vs Zeicla  (:-) need a good code for zeiss/leica!)

Full disclosure; I am a brand and quality bigot, and yes, I am in the enviable position of being able to offord the best (though not always; I had to buy my first Leica used!). I don't always buy the top end; for years I had a Detroit 'monster' to carry six passengers.

We make out choices in products, but claiming Canon/Nikon glass is as good Z/L seems just silly, as does claiming an SLR is going to 'catch' MF. They are two different worlds.

Now if you mean "at half the price, I will approach the file sized my media client require" you have a great argument.

One interesting consequence of the new 'race' is that BOTH 135 and MF, as well as LF are growing; new products (look at the handheld scanning backs etc) and yes, 22 MP may eventually be P&S. However, we don't have 12 cylinder pick ups and we are not likely to have Airbus 380 size Pipers, no matter how big they try to make it.

And guess what; to Graham's point, I often take my Contax 645 witrh 80mm instead of my Leica R (which has the form and fit of the EOS canons) because the Contax is easier in my hand (at almost 10" it IS a large hand!) and the balance is better
as is the glass
as are the MP
as are the files
as are the accessories

yes; size matters.

Best all
Victor
Logged
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2007, 07:53:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I read that the new 1Ds MkIII has a viewfinder with x0.75 magnification, which compares for example with x4.50 for the standard viewing hood on a V series Hasselblad.

I'm looking forward to upgrading my 1Ds MkII to a MkIII, it's a technical triumph that will certainly be the best possible solution for many photographic problems. But no matter how good it is I doubt I'll be abandoning medium format digital.

A great deal of my photography is simply about "seeing" (that's where the difference is usually to be found between my most successful shots and the also rans), when it comes down to it it's not about pixels or technology, it's just about the fact that I can "see" successful images a lot better at x4.50 than I can at x0.75.
Logged
Anthony R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2007, 09:20:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think it could have been or will be said better than what Victor wrote.

Here here.
Logged
Khun_K
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2007, 10:31:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't think it could have been or will be said better than what Victor wrote.

Here here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use P45 with Contax 645 and H3D39 and 1Ds MK2, they all well deliver for what they designed for (although I have some reservation with H3D39 but more on its operation and design of software and interface, not the final result), it hard to determine what's the best.  It is depends on what will be needed for final output, sometimes you just don't need the MFD for something 1Ds MK2 can deliver the justified result.  Coming to that, I do believe 1Ds MK3 will be a barrier breaking camera, not much for its resolution but the combination of speed, convenience and low noise - if it is close to 5D at high ISO or close to 1D MK3.  The Canon lens may not be the very top performer, but most of time they are acceptable for a lot of application, for very critical applications, even most of the medium format SLR lenses are not good enough anyway.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2007, 02:39:32 PM »
ReplyReply

now that the 1dsmkIII id finally officially announced...with the stats we all knew it would have....great....
it will still be 4 months before we can buy one....but the field looks pretty much the same:
the 30+mpix DMbacks won't be seriously challenged by this....if you need the extra quality and don't mind the hassle and paying a premium for a slight but noticeable margin the phase, hass, leaf sinars are still on top....
the ZD back is looking long in the tooth...hard to justify, i would not want to do a comparison at 100....for the same price (body, lens,..) the canon is the winner....
the 5D is still the best camera ever built...price/quality ratio still amazing...just saw a editorial portrait a freind of mine shot with the 5D, available light, 400/maybe 800asa...full page, crisp, no noise, great color....nothing compares...

live-view/3" display: if canon can do this for 8000 (with a body, 22mpix/14bit sesor, 45 af sensors,...thrown in) WHY can't i have that on my phase? or anything close to that? everybody should check out the live-view of the 1dmkIII (with the canon software tethered) and write phase, leaf, sinar, hass a letter...this is turning into a cruel joke....canon includes the best tethered solution, MADE for studio/stilllife/highest quality in a 8mpix camera...i guess just to show that it can....this alone is a reason to throw my P30 into the trash.....but then i see the files on my screen and everything is ok again.....

there is a line in the canon announcement of automatic correction for CA,...for canon EF lenses in the new software......very interesting.....

why i thnk the P30 beats the canon hands down: WLF/finderimage through RZ and filequality....someone else mentioned this here before: DMF files need a lot less post production and hold up a LOT better to adjustments....
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2007, 05:04:19 PM »
ReplyReply

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

Are you kidding me?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Medium format forum?  Digital Cameras, Backs and Shooting Techniques.  Not sure why that is reserved for "medium format".

Rumors?  Hardly ... while the information slipped slightly early, it was pretty verifiable and of course is now very official.

From my perspective, the new Canon sounds great, and I'll be replacing my current 1Ds MK2.  That being said, I'll still be using my H1/P45 90% of the time when I shoot.  The difference is substantial in micro detail.

It's kind of like ordering a steak dinner, if they undercook it you can always cook it more, but if they overcook it ...

If I happen to shoot one of those rare images that I feel is exceptional, I would hate to limit what I can do with it because of the camera.  I have several images that fit in that category ... great images relegated to never being anything more than a lowly 8x10 or 11x14.
Logged

KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2007, 05:05:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Edited out by author
« Last Edit: August 20, 2007, 05:06:47 PM by KAP » Logged
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2007, 05:22:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is no longer a rumor.

http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pres...820_1dsmk3.html

14 bit data plus the "L" lenses will bring this camera very close to medium format with its own set of advantages or disadvantages.  Maybe not quite the same - it is a different look after-all.

For my style of shooting, the Canon 1Ds cameras (and the Leica M8) work better for me.  I tried MF and loved the quality of the P30 back.  Fantastic files with great reproduction!  However, I shoot aerials and people on location.  With the MF back I was always waiting for it to catch up with me.  The new Canon will give me greater bit depth (which will help in the highlights and shadows) plus the ability to shoot quickly in a fast moving turbine helicopter is a huge benefit to me. 

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's my thinking also.
If I had time these last couple of months I would of bought a MF system. The Canon alters my choice a bit, being able to shoot from 12mm to long tele in a helicopter is worth a bit.
The 14 bits might of closed the file quality gap with low pixel backs, I hope they have the AA filter spot on. If it delivers excellant 400+iso images that helps lens quality because I can then stop down a couple of extra notches.


Kevin.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2397



WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2007, 01:42:08 AM »
ReplyReply

If the 1DsIII has the same technology as the 1D III then it will still have 1.5 or more stops LESS dynamic range than most MF DB and the same will be said about smoothness of color rendering/tonal gradations.  So in my opin even a 16 mp MFDB will still look better under some situations.  

I'm sure it will be a great camera but I don't think its going to kill MFDBs.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2007, 07:53:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If the 1DsIII has the same technology as the 1D III then it will still have 1.5 or more stops LESS dynamic range than most MF DB and the same will be said about smoothness of color rendering/tonal gradations.  So in my opin even a 16 mp MFDB will still look better under some situations. 

I'm sure it will be a great camera but I don't think its going to kill MFDBs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Having the ZD and reading of the 1D Mk III, I recall the ZD is said 12 stops and 1D Mk III is 9.5 stops. Is that correct anyone?
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1098



WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2007, 11:00:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm inclined to agree with Anders (but then I would, as I too own a ZD camera  .  Great though the 1Ds III will be, perhaps we are in G7 v G9 territory, i.e. packing in more pixels to the 35mm frame adds little to actual image quality.

Perhaps more important for me is format shape.  I much prefer the slightly squarer shape of medium format digital, just as I also prefer the shape of 4x5 and 8x10 film over 35mm film.  In the studio, too many pixels at the edges of the frame will be wasted with the 1Ds III compared to MF digital

Quentin
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 11:01:27 AM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6890


WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2007, 11:18:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Great though the 1Ds III will be, perhaps we are in G7 v G9 territory, i.e. packing in more pixels to the 35mm frame adds little to actual image quality.

................................
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, you've said "perhaps" - that's an important word to underscore -  we won't know this until the camera is on the market and tested. Canon has much at stake in the eventual judgments about this camera.
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
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2007, 01:06:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm inclined to agree with Anders (but then I would, as I too own a ZD camera  .  Great though the 1Ds III will be, perhaps we are in G7 v G9 territory, i.e. packing in more pixels to the 35mm frame adds little to actual image quality.

Perhaps more important for me is format shape.  I much prefer the slightly squarer shape of medium format digital, just as I also prefer the shape of 4x5 and 8x10 film over 35mm film.  In the studio, too many pixels at the edges of the frame will be wasted with the 1Ds III compared to MF digital

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


absolutely right....after crop for 8x10 you will be left with 18mpix....from canon lenses....which showed their limits on the 1dsmkII and the 5D....
14 bit does make a difference.....4 times the color information as the 1DSmkII....4000 vs 16000 levels.....this makes a huge difference...especially in the shadows....
anyone who has looked at 1dmkIII files can tell that they are amazing...very smooth...great color....the 1Ds will be exactly the same, just more pixels for a bigger file.....
Logged

Caracalla
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2007, 01:44:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm sure it will be a great camera but I don't think its going to kill MFDBs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think any of the MF manufacturer are surprised or afraid of Canon 1Ds MkIII, of course as far as 35mm goes and its convenience we call it progress but MF manufacturers already have products that will put 1Ds MkIII where it belongs ( again not as far as convenience goes). So the game or rather  topic Canon 1Ds MkIII vs. MF is expected because of our natural reaction towards 1Ds MkIII momentum, but that's all, nothing more and nothing less.

So I guess this will keep us going until the MF Momentum 2008 and we start over again.....    

Regards
Caracalla
Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2007, 02:19:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.

I thought the 1Ds series have always been 14 bit? ... If true there's still a significant difference between it and most MFDBs.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 02:37:04 PM by jonstewart » Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6890


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2007, 02:25:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, the 1D series have always been 14 bit, and if you do your sums you'll see that's not the same as MFDB's (except for the Mamiya)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's not correct. The Canon 1Ds is 12 bit. That is stated in the spec sheet.
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
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2007, 02:37:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's not correct. The Canon 1Ds is 12 bit. That is stated in the spec sheet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, yes, just went off to check and edited the post.
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad