Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: IMAGE QUALITY: D3, D300 vs. 1D/1Ds Mk III vs. ZD  (Read 28391 times)
wilburdl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2007, 11:39:12 PM »
ReplyReply

The big question is how do all the Nikon users feela bout going full frame. I'm sure a lot of shooters were happ--but I have to believe a subset is a lil' pissed that they brought into the whole DX is the future format. I always thought it was a lame shtick--kinda like the whole 2-button press is good in case your fingers slip crap Canon sold alongside the 1-series.
I bet only time will tell how many Nikonians will grumble about edge to edge sharpness now seeing as now it will be their lenses being stretched to the resolution limit (assuming the D3x is around the corner).
Logged

Darnell
Editorial Photographer | Cartoonist
darnellwilburn.com
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2007, 12:06:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi
You have to remember that the Nikon & Canon FF sensors are CMOS whilr the ZD is a CCD ( dalsa ). CCD is sharper than CMOS. But CMOS uses less power & is better than the CCD on the higher isos. When I get my !Ds MKIII I will do a side by side with the ZD,
Thanks Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2007, 12:24:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder what the difference in color reproduction will be.

It's great that there is now more competition out there. That keeps the developers of cameras on their toes.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2007, 12:39:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are the new Nikons using 8 bit sensors?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

8bit sensors do not exist. Neither do they exist in any other number of bits. The sensors are analog devices. The first 'thing' in the pipeline that has bits is the A/D converter(s).
Logged

Nikos
Roskav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2007, 07:42:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I stand corrected .. tired while posting!
Logged

KenRexach
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2007, 09:27:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The big question is how do all the Nikon users feela bout going full frame. I'm sure a lot of shooters were happ--but I have to believe a subset is a lil' pissed that they brought into the whole DX is the future format. I always thought it was a lame shtick--kinda like the whole 2-button press is good in case your fingers slip crap Canon sold alongside the 1-series.
I bet only time will tell how many Nikonians will grumble about edge to edge sharpness now seeing as now it will be their lenses being stretched to the resolution limit (assuming the D3x is around the corner).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nikon lenses are pretty good. Nikons 17-35mm 2.8 AFS zoom has been mounted and tested and Canon 1Ds mk2's and has done extremely well.


Overall, the full frame format will be a revelation to those Nikonians that havent use it. The first time I used it, on a 5D, I was like dang this is what DSLRs should have been from the start. I was tired of having to use shorter focal lengths all the time given equal subjects, composition and distance to subject. Basically with full frame I started using my 50mm and 85mm lenses a LOT again whereas with the smaller formats I was using 24-35 and 50mm. In the telephoto range full frame is a disadvantage in the sense that where a 300mm + converter was enough now you need those much more expensive 500 and 600mm lenses a lot more.  The viewfinder view is also much improved in the full frame cameras. the difference is significant. Also, at least with the 5D, the fact that it uses larger pixels that Nikons 12mp DX D2 contributed to much cleaner high iso image quality and cleaner shadows overall. i know the technologies are different but the D3 should do nicely too. A D3x should at the very least equal the D2xs in that regard or beat it given improvements in technology.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 09:30:41 AM by KenRexach » Logged
espressogeek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2007, 04:53:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm really happy to see Nikon put some effort into tonal range. 14 bits plus the in camera dynamic lighting will be pretty hot. I bet you will have to either shoot jpg or use capture to develop the raw to take advantage of it.
I love the dynamic lighting options on capture nx but the program itself is TO SLOW and cumbersome. I would like to be able to integrate this into my work flow but its unlikely.
Logged
Heming
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2007, 05:32:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm still shooting Nikon D100.  Therefore, I may outdate on the technology Nikon put into hteir new models.  On D100, the noise reduction is carried out by taking exactly the same length of exposure without open the shutter.  It's really pain when shooting really long exposure as I did for the meteror shower.  How do D3 and D300 deal with noise reduction?  Maybe they used the new technology on D200 already.  I just never checked.  How is the life view on D3/D300? Does that mean the LCD can flip up? otherwsie it may not be an important feature.  Can somebody have the information/knowledge eductae me?
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2007, 06:20:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The market value of the ZD will be decreasing in the coming months, no doubt.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not necessarily. It depends on market. When buying my ZD from agent in HK last month they said that their market in HK was not good for it because the pros were already solds on Phase etc. On other hand in Mainland China it was different (they are also agent there), pros are buying it because they can say to clients that they use mediumformat (higher quality) and charge them more!

Mine is for my hobby though. I hope it in image quality will remain at top of DSLRs for some time, or regardless it will help me be able make large prints of travels for future   .

The 1Ds Mk III will only get near the ZD in MP, not other aspects. There is nothing in its specs to indicate the 1D Mk III is not a crop of the 1Ds Mk III. Per the photos I have seen posted from the 1D the quality is not near the ZD, while of course the 1D/1Ds Mk III are totally different cameras also.

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 06:23:05 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
espressogeek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2007, 07:25:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm still shooting Nikon D100.  Therefore, I may outdate on the technology Nikon put into hteir new models.  On D100, the noise reduction is carried out by taking exactly the same length of exposure without open the shutter.  It's really pain when shooting really long exposure as I did for the meteror shower.  How do D3 and D300 deal with noise reduction?  Maybe they used the new technology on D200 already.  I just never checked.  How is the life view on D3/D300? Does that mean the LCD can flip up? otherwsie it may not be an important feature.  Can somebody have the information/knowledge eductae me?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135339\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The D200 does the blank frame substraction for long exposures. I was thinking that the the ZD should do it too. They say after 10 seconds it gets all noisy. What would happen if you took a blank frame with a lens cap and subtracted it in PS. Is that even possible?
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2007, 08:32:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The D200 does the blank frame substraction for long exposures. I was thinking that the the ZD should do it too. They say after 10 seconds it gets all noisy. What would happen if you took a blank frame with a lens cap and subtracted it in PS. Is that even possible?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, the ZD subtracts also. Only time I shoot with lens cap on is with my Mamiya 7II, and that is embarassing!  

Rgds
Anders
Logged
Heming
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2007, 08:45:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Anybody knows about D300?  If it has to do the same for the long exposure, I may not jump on the band wagon this time. Also the life view (as the Olympus), is that really important? I guess it is easy to compose as the LCD is much bigger than the viewfinder.  But I like to have different angle to take a shot if the LCD can flip around.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2007, 10:01:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We know....

3) The image quality of the ZD or any medium format digital is a very significant improvement in image quality of any DSLR.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that depends on final print -- if the final print is done on a high-speed press for a magazine, I think you might be hard-put to find any difference. If you're making 100cm (40-inch) prints for the fine art market, then the difference may be more obvious. The ZD may be Mamiya's bridge to a new technology, sort of like the Leica M8, but if Mamiya doesn't come out with something better (faster and more robust with better software and support), and soon, then I think they're dead ducks.

JC
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2007, 11:06:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think that depends on final print -- if the final print is done on a high-speed press for a magazine, I think you might be hard-put to find any difference. If you're making 100cm (40-inch) prints for the fine art market, then the difference may be more obvious. The ZD may be Mamiya's bridge to a new technology, sort of like the Leica M8, but if Mamiya doesn't come out with something better (faster and more robust with better software and support), and soon, then I think they're dead ducks.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

JC, Mamiya being dead ducks is doubtful. Contax and Bronica are gone. Hassy has their closed system with the H3. Apart from the ZD, looking at rest of Mamiya system (AFDII), what will people use their Phase, Leaf etc backs on?

The Mamiya ZD being slow is something that is also a benefit to some applications, simply because it slows your shooting down, forcing you to plan it more with higher success ratio. Good photography is not about pressing the shutter at high intervals and hoping something good is captured by selecting the best out of those frames.

The Mamiya ZD is able to capture the equivalence of one 645 film in 10 seconds. I think not bad. I enjoy the ZD, but seems people are oversold on high technology. One example is the D3, what among that has been presented indicates any significant improvements in actual image quality, apart from that we know it has a 36x24mm sensor?

Look at the ZD camera body (not back), it is unique and very excellent camera. It is a DSLR handling medium format camera. I fully enjoy it. Granted there seem still to be some problems with the USA agent so it is not available on USA shores, which is regrettable. It would be great if in future they upgrade it with a larger sensor for future, even better if they could rebuild my ZD for a reasonable amount for such upgrade. Regardless my ZD will keep capture images of very high quality and to what beats any DSLR out there today or announced until today.  

As for print size... my ZD is 5 weeks old, but the A4 sized print in my office from it beats my 1m wide from D200 hands down.

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 11:08:42 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2007, 01:43:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder what the switch from CCD to CMOS will do to the image quality, colors in particular.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Snook
Guest
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2007, 11:50:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder what the switch from CCD to CMOS will do to the image quality, colors in particular.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Anders, My 1DsMII will blow your D200 out of the water in printing also.
I would not compare a ZD to a D200.
The Comparison is D3 1DsMII or MIII etc..
Also it will be hard for most people to get a ZD body.
Also it makes very little sense getting a ZD all in one camera. I hope that is obvious?
Not trying to beat your post down but the D200 comparison is not really relative and the Body only ZD is a disadvantage all around especially if you want to change to another back,film or whatever in the future.
Just my 2 cents.
Snook.
PS. That is also why I think the H3 is not a good move at all either.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2007, 11:52:05 AM by Snook » Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2007, 01:39:38 PM »
ReplyReply

My point was not that the ZD can't make excellent photographs, it obviously can. But it seems to me that at present, the ZD is out-flanked on both...er, flanks.

For highest qualilty, there are other backs and systems, and those systems are going through rapid improvement in both software and hardware. Hasselblad, in particular, seems at the point of offering a system that not only works well and delivers the product, but actually has dependable software capable of doing exquisite translations  -- the big problem with a lot of digital MF systems. (I don't actually have one, I'm just going on reviews.)

On the other side, there's the Canon and probably an upcoming new Nikon D3x, which will offer effectively the same resolution, close to the same DR, much better flexibility, a wider choice of lenses and other equipment than the Mamiya, for less money.

I think Mamiya at this point has one option: come out with a MF back that will fit their 645 equipment (forget the stand-alone camera) with ~39 high-quality megapixels, in the $10,000-$15,000 price range. If they can do that, they will move firmly into the MF market and undercut the European competition, which is greatly overpriced, and they'll get Canon and Nikon permanently off their heels. (Canon and Nikon can't offer too many more MP on a FF sensor, unless there's some kind of breakthrough in technology.)

If Mamiya doesn't do something like that, then, I say again, I think they're dead ducks. 8-)

JC
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2007, 08:08:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Snook and John,

I am sure a 1Ds Mk II will smoke a D200. Yet the differences are small compared to between a DSLR and medium format digital. Frank Doorhof's writing of 5D vs. ZD exemplify that significant step in image quality. There is of course difference between ZD and P45+, but I think it is fair to say not as large as the difference between ZD and 1D Mk II. One reason to the differences are perhaps that the sensors in DSLRs are designed for higher ISO, but there are assumably also other quality aspects considered in the design of medium format sensors. It seems the specs or words of the 1Ds Mk III show no change in this. Is it possibe to improve a 36x24mm sensor to levels of current 48x36mm sensors with todays technology?

I agree that Mamiya will benefit from releasing a ZD with more MP, but I think it shall be in both a back and a camera body. Also that it would be very appreciated if they would offer to upgrade/rebuild our 22MP ZD cameras for a reasonable amount.

It is surpricing why the ZD camera body is discredited. We all have different preferences and shooting styles. To me I looked at both but very much preferred the DSLR handling and controls of the ZD camera body. It is also more compact and easier to carry around your neck when walking around. The AFDII also has a large chamber that can collect dust and the joint between back and camera which gives dust one more path to penetrate, so... all are tradeoffs.    Sure you can replace the back in future, but the price of an AFDII is already small compared to what the ZD back now cost. The ZD camera body is not difficult to get and available in all markets but regrettably not USA due USA agent. In Hong Kong they had both ZD back and camera in stock.

Regards  
Anders
Logged
ronno
Guest
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2007, 10:23:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Snook and John,

I am sure a 1Ds Mk II will smoke a D200. Yet the differences are small compared to between a DSLR and medium format digital. Frank Doorhof's writing of 5D vs. ZD exemplify that significant step in image quality.
Regards   
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, but the question still needs to be asked, can people tell any difference in quality in magazine print?
Annie Leibovitz is shooting some ads these days with a Canon 1Ds2. Can anyone tell by looking at the ads? Is she fielding complaints about inferior image quality now?

-ron
« Last Edit: August 25, 2007, 10:24:46 PM by ronno » Logged
Kevin W Smith
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2007, 02:13:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello. This is my first post here but I've been lurking on and off for a while.

Something that seems to be under-represented in this discussion is value; what you get for your money. You guys with both top-end MF systems and DSLR systems make me jealous, and I congratulate you for making it work for you financially. But for most of us, we have to make do with less. Sales volume of pro cameras is proof enough of that.

FWIW, I've seen some output from the ZD back that looks wonderful, and others that show problems, but for the money it's pretty darn good.

I've also seen output from the better Phase One backs which beats it, hands down. As you should expect, given it's much higher cost.

And I've seen output from the H3D that slots somewhere in between. Their new closed system approach is a turn off, nevermind the price they charge for it, and it has some real problems for architectural work.

The next step down is the 1DsMk2. Depending on the lens it's capable of comparable, but not technically better output than a 16MP back. Again, this should surprise nobody, given the Canon's much lower cost.

The true output of a production 1DsMk3 remains to be seen. It's competitive with mid-level MF digital in pixel count so the resolution should be there, but will it look as good as a 22MP Phase back on a good MF systems with Schneider Digitar or Rodenstock HR lenses?

No way, it just isn't physically or economically possible for Canon to produce a same quality system with the technology they have.

So basically, it becomes a cost/benefit decision. Personally, as an architectural photographer primarily, I really need a view camera. Canon and Nikon don't make one though, so my only choice for now is to stick with my Sinar 4x5 and excellent collection of lenses, which is still widely accepted in the architectural market for those who can afford the substantial film and scanning costs.

Systems like the site owner's Linhoff/Phase/Rodenstock system would pretty much spell the end of my 4x5 system (with a P45 back), but I just can't make a business case for it; the debt service would take way too much out of my bottom line to make a living with it. I hope that changes in the near future, but for now the 4x5 is the highest quality solution I can offer, largely because of it's image quality, but primarily because of it's tilt and shift, which I heavily rely on to do my best work.

For detail shots on medium and high budget jobs,  I used to use an RB67II. That's since been replaced with fairly complete D200 system which nets me better images, and is a 1000 times easier to use. It also allows me to make ends meet with headshots, event work, and motorsports work that the MF digital solutions can't do.

Does the D200, even with my excellent lenses and all the tricks and techniques I can throw at it in post offer the same image quality as a good MF digital system? Hell no it doesn't, but it fits my business model, and produces very good output if used correctly.

I think we can safely assume that the Canon 1Dmk3 will beat the mark 2 in terms of ultimate image quality and usable resolution. And I think we can safely say that the D300 will beat the D200 in image quality, with the D3 exceeding both in every respect. It remains to be seen of course, but the potential is very much there for excellent image quality at every ISO, with vastly superior results (compared to other Nikons) at high ISO's, where current Nikon's fall to pieces as we know. And I think it's safe to assume that an upcoming higher res Nikon will meet or beat the Canon system for top honors in the DSLR class.

As an architectural photographer foremost, I'm really interested in the new, digital capture optimized, 14-24 lens. It, along wih a D300 will certainly beat my D200 and 12-24DX, but by how much remains to be seen. Personally, I'll probably just buy the lens first and wait for a D3x, which should be everything I need from a DSLR.

Oh, and BTW, I hedged my bet that a FF Nikon would eventually happen soon enough  when I replaced my stolen D200 system last summer. It would have been a pefect opportunity to spend a bit more and switch to a Canon 5D system since the whole kit was stolen, but the 12-24DX was already beating my old Nikon prime lenses, which have always been regarded as better than Canon wides. It was the only DX lens I bought, and picked up AF-D lenses instead of DX equivalents. Lucky me, but I feel bad for those who bought a full kit with DX lenses and regret it now.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to work on expanding my portfolio and client base using tools I can make money from, and eventually get the sort of jobs that will make my MF digital view camera dream system a reality. I'll also hope and expect that lower cost, higher res DSLR's will put downward pressure on the MF systems price of entry. There is no substitute for correcting optical problems at the camera than in the computer, so I'll always use a view camera for technical work whenever possible.

Thanks for listening to my two cents, and I look forward to participating on this board in the future.

 Kevin
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad