Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 1DSMK3 test image compared to Phase Backs  (Read 74127 times)
Mike W
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2007, 05:03:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you know what I see in this test?

- The mark III is a very good camera, and it produces a result that is very usable.
- DMF is still king of the hill: higher resolution, dynamic range, sharpness etc...

conclusion: The MkIII holds it's own, and is a good alternative for when DMF is not available, too expensive or unworkable (low light etc). The MK III is also a killer back-up for any MDF shooter.

I don't want to be arrogant, but doesn't that quite sum it up?

regards,

Mike
Logged
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2007, 05:23:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do you know what I see in this test?

- The mark III is a very good camera, and it produces a result that is very usable.
- DMF is still king of the hill: higher resolution, dynamic range, sharpness etc...

conclusion: The MkIII holds it's own, and is a good alternative for when DMF is not available, too expensive or unworkable (low light etc). The MK III is also a killer back-up for any MDF shooter.

I don't want to be arrogant, but doesn't that quite sum it up?

regards,

Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said Mike. I use both systems and agree with your summing up.
Bill
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3879



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2007, 05:34:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Rainer, your link is broken.

Edmund

Quote
i just posted this post in another forum, but i think i want it t be seen here too. ofcourse i like to work with mf and i see clearly the advantages for my work, but i dont think it serves anyone and even not any manufactors to create so much hype about the incredible clear advantage of mf, independent which back it is as long its mf. this is i.m.o. done with "tests" as this.

seeing the same crops than are showed here, let me think that the whole test seems to be - as so often - some marketing thing and little bit more.
the p21 ( and the other p files ) are sharpened and contrast treated, meanwhile the canon is not. sharpen the canon file, bring the crop to a similar size than the p files ( even upsampling does this job ), make some shadows/highlight contrast increasements in PS and the contrast and detail is not far from the p21 anymore,- where this things obviously have been done already.
its not a fair comparision and its not done with the goal to be fair..... or i am wrong herein?

found a nice link also in the net, and this one explains very well why i am not so good friend with the kodak sensors in general.
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Ha...H3D/index.html

since generations they show exactly the kind of flaws which are described and shown here in this test. it doesnt matter if a leica, kodak, p1 or hasselblad is around ,- this behavor is "kodak - sensor design " specific and i personnally dont like it. i prefere dalsa sensors therefor, although the 33mp sensor has lost some of the advantages ´the 22mp sensor yet has had ( but gained others as well so finally its an improvement not just in terms of resolution ).

about the canon 1dsmk3:
i think they made a great job,- although i will not buy one but wait for the 5dmk2 and doing what i already do:
shooting with my sinar backs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
nicolaasdb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2007, 06:00:15 PM »
ReplyReply

now let's compare a Rolls Royce with a Mercedes S550...both great cars but one (the 1st one) is 350K and the 2nd (merc) is "only" 130K......they are both great but there is a difference. Is the difference noticably? Yes. Can you live with a Merc? Yes

It is nonsense the compare them.

I work with both systems (A65 and MkII) and both serve a purpose. And yes if you work on the MkIII image you will be able to get it very close to the 45 image. I personally (but that is very personal) don't like the 45 images, because they look to digital to me!! The MkIII image was too light in the examples posted. BUT both images are pretty damn good!
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2007, 06:12:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Rainer, your link is broken.

Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[a href=\"http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/index.html]http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/index.html[/url]
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2007, 07:20:43 PM »
ReplyReply

The real problem of the 1DsMIII for me lies in the lenses. I have a nice colection of Canon glass that performed beautifully with the first 1Ds. When I upgraded to the MII then some of them perfomed less well due to the increased resolution, with added work in my sharpening routines, which will only get more picky with the MIII. Now, what sense does it make for me to upgrade to the MIII if my lenses are not up to the job? It would be like crippling the sensor. And to be clear I only own L lenses, except for the 50 1.4, which incidentally performs better than most of them.

So I wouldn't  buy just the body, but a full kit of probably Leica or Zeis glass especially on the wide side (which many people here swear are way better than Canon glass. I don't know since I've never tried them on my canons). Under that premise it isn't that cheap to jump into the high mpx count by just buying a DSLR like the 1DsMIII.
Logged

jimgolden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2007, 08:07:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael - can we just have a new forum where it's FF35 vs MFDB so we can get all those posts off the MF forum? PLEASE?

the outcome is the same every time

round and round we go
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2007, 08:16:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Good Idea!
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2007, 08:22:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The real problem of the 1DsMIII for me lies in the lenses. I have a nice colection of Canon glass that performed beautifully with the first 1Ds. When I upgraded to the MII then some of them perfomed less well due to the increased resolution, with added work in my sharpening routines, which will only get more picky with the MIII. Now, what sense does it make for me to upgrade to the MIII if my lenses are not up to the job? It would be like crippling the sensor. And to be clear I only own L lenses, except for the 50 1.4, which incidentally performs better than most of them.

So I wouldn't  buy just the body, but a full kit of probably Leica or Zeis glass especially on the wide side (which many people here swear are way better than Canon glass. I don't know since I've never tried them on my canons). Under that premise it isn't that cheap to jump into the high mpx count by just buying a DSLR like the 1DsMIII.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not just the lens, it's the aperture used. Photodo, famous for their now-discontinued MTF testing, explained that the reason they never took the trouble to test the lenses at f11 is because they found that all lenses are equally bad at f11.

Perhaps that's a slight exaggeration, but certainly less of an exaggeration at f16.

By using f16 for all cameras in this test, one is ensuring as far as possible that all the lenses are equal, so in a sense this is a perfectly valid test for that purpose, ie. how does the 1Ds3 compare with sensors double the size when the lenses used are equal?

One could do a similar comparison between the latest Olympus 4/3rds camera, the E-3, and the 1Ds or 5D. Using a Zuiko lens at f16 would rob the lens of its resolution advantage compared with 35mm lenses, an advantage which it actually needs because the sensor is smaller.

It's a matter of simple mathematics that the smaller sensor cannot compete with the larger sensor (of similar pixel count) unless the lenses used with the smaller sensor are better, that is, have a higher MTF response at the same spatial frequency.

Now the differences in format size between the Olympus 4/3rds format and 35mm  is greater than the difference between 35mm and the P21, so one would expect any comparison between 35mm and the 4/3rds system at f16 to be even more disastrous for the 4/3rds system.
Logged
Dave Gallagher
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2007, 09:31:39 PM »
ReplyReply

It is impossible to conduct any test that will make everyone happy.

My company has reached the point where we have to let much of what is said on forums go in one ear and out the other.  This is much easier said than done.  I am not going to take time to argue on any forum about the merits of our test because simply, this was our test done for us.  It was not to prove anything other than for us to gain knowledge from it.  We share these images with you in hopes that we all may gain from the discussion that follows.  I take strong offense to anyone who points a finger and accuses us of dishonesty or anything that shows lack of integrity.  My company and I have built a strong reputation internationally in this photo market over the last few years and I challenge anyone to say otherwise.  

To clear up the confusion let me state the following:

We are resellers of Phase One and of Canon.  

We did absolutely nothing to these files other than process them in their native raw processor.  

We chose DPP due to the fact that C1 pro 3.7.8 can not yet process the 1Ds MIII files.

We intentionally did not change any contrast or sharpening in these files so as to leave them as close to native as possible.  Tweaking or modifications are up to you at your pleasure.

We chose the Mamiya camera since we had all three MF backs that day that were not rented or at a demo.  From there we wanted to find fixed focal (non telephoto) lenses that matched aspect ratios to images sensors.    

The Mamiya 120mm Macro and the Canon 85mm f/1.2 are two sharp lenses from each manufacturer and they fit the aspect ratio perfectly.

Again, no test is perfect.

However, if we were to venture out and shoot another test I would ask them to chose f/8 as a happy medium between each lens's MTF curve.  We will remember this for future testing.

As for the "sales" statements by our new salesman Lance, we will remind him that he now works for Capture Integration and not Phase One.  Our company lets products stand on their own merits where sales commentary is not necessary.    

If anyone has any individual questions on these shots or has any suggestions for additional testing, please always feel free to contact myself or any of my personnel directly.
Logged

Sincerely,

Dave Gallagher
President
Capture Integration
http://www.captureintegration.com

PHASE ONE PARTNER OF THE YEAR

Atlanta    (404) 522-7662
Miami      (305) 534-5701
National   (877) 217-9870
Cell         (770) 846-5223
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2007, 10:02:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We intentionally did not change any contrast or sharpening in these files so as to leave them as close to native as possible

So the left image was not sharpened, correct? The halo must be a byproduct of the sensor.
Logged

Gabor
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2007, 10:04:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, if we were to venture out and shoot another test I would ask them to chose f/8 as a happy medium between each lens's MTF curve.  We will remember this for future testing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm curious, Dave, as to the reasons why you would use the same f stop when shooting with diffrerent formats with equivalent focal lengths and fields of view.

If you were in the studio with a P21 with say 110mm lens and a 1Ds3 with 85mm lens, and you were photographing a model and wanted a certain fairly shallow DoF that required say f5.6 with the Mamiya 110mm lens, then wanted to see how the 1Ds3 would compare in this situation, it would be a mistake to use the 1Ds3 at f5.6, would it not? You wouldn't get the same shallow DoF with the shorter focal length from the same distance.

You would probably get a closer match regarding DoF by using the 1Ds3 at f4 in these circumstances.
Logged
Dave Gallagher
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2007, 10:31:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm curious, Dave, as to the reasons why you would use the same f stop when shooting with diffrerent formats with equivalent focal lengths and fields of view.

If you were in the studio with a P21 with say 110mm lens and a 1Ds3 with 85mm lens, and you were photographing a model and wanted a certain fairly shallow DoF that required say f5.6 with the Mamiya 110mm lens, then wanted to see how the 1Ds3 would compare in this situation, it would be a mistake to use the 1Ds3 at f5.6, would it not? You wouldn't get the same shallow DoF with the shorter focal length from the same distance.

You would probably get a closer match regarding DoF by using the 1Ds3 at f4 in these circumstances.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ah but Ray, then the exposure would be different as well.  Do we change ISO to compensate and add noise?  Add a ND Filter and thus more glass?  Change shutter speeds?

We were just trying to keep as many variables consistent as possible.  We were not trying worried about DoF since we were pretty much at ∞ anyway.  But this is why no test is perfect.
Logged

Sincerely,

Dave Gallagher
President
Capture Integration
http://www.captureintegration.com

PHASE ONE PARTNER OF THE YEAR

Atlanta    (404) 522-7662
Miami      (305) 534-5701
National   (877) 217-9870
Cell         (770) 846-5223
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 323


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2007, 10:48:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Lance and Dave,

Just post the raw files - what's the big deal?
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 10:49:45 PM by bcroslin » Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2007, 11:10:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah but Ray, then the exposure would be different as well.  Do we change ISO to compensate and add noise?  Add a ND Filter and thus more glass?  Change shutter speeds?

We were just trying to keep as many variables consistent as possible.  We were not trying worried about DoF since we were pretty much at ∞ anyway.  But this is why no test is perfect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah! I see. So what you are implying is that you might want to use a slow shutter speed with the P21 in order to get a blurred effect as the model tosses her head. Right?

Using the 1Ds3 at double the shutter speed would make this effect impossible.  

Well, if that's the case, then you'd just have to use a neutral density filter with the 1Ds3 or reduce the intensity of the lighting. Using a neutral density filter would be easier, and I guess you professionals would use the best filters available. I would not complain if the artistic intention of the shot was explained and the reasons for using a filter.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2007, 11:23:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am not going to take time to argue on any forum about the merits of our test because simply, this was our test done for us.  It was not to prove anything other than for us to gain knowledge from it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fine and dandy as far as that goes, but the moment you "publish" such a test publicly, you will be held up to public scrutiny–and if you don't want the scrutiny, don't publish...

If somebody, who actually SELLS the cameras, publishes a "test", then it's only natural for others to question both the test and the motives. If you can't handle that, I suggest you grow a thicker skin or get out of the business.

I don't know you, your company or Lance from Adam. But from the first post, the "test" seemed to beg to have all the shortcomings pointed out. The fact that you (since Lance hasn't bothered to return) seem to to have a bit of a short fuse, I'm not sure that posting such tests is in your best interest...you would be better off sicking to retail sales rather than independent testers...being an impartial tester is not for the faint at heart...and you might want to spend some time reading the flak that Michael gets (that should be a clue) and he couldn't care less what "others" might think.

See, that's what you should expect when you stick your head up...bugs in your teeth!
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2007, 11:23:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would not complain if the artistic intention of the shot was explained and the reasons for using a filter

Artistic intentions have no place in camera comparisons. Not the photographers' but the cameras' abilities are of relevance.

Likewise, the abilities of the raw converters must not play any role. Everyone should "develop" the raw as good as one can and compare the result, if one can't compare the raw directly.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 11:27:08 PM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2007, 11:55:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Artistic intentions have no place in camera comparisons. Not the photographers' but the cameras' abilities are of relevance.

Likewise, the abilities of the raw converters must not play any role. Everyone should "develop" the raw as good as one can and compare the result, if one can't compare the raw directly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I can't agree, Gabor. Cameras are tools and the user needs to know what are their strengths and weaknesses. An artist needs to know what format or type of camera is best suited for a particular purpose he/she has in mind.

If the pros of one system are so negligible compared with its cons in relation to another system, then we need to know, and as far as I'm concerned that's what these comparisons are about.

That's why I take exception to testers trying to equalise all the parameters in an artificial manner which would not be in accordance with the way such cameras would be used in practice by real photographers trying their best to create an interesting image.

As for RAW converters, why should they not play any role? We're back to Jonathan Wienke's system of shooting his Dynamic Range Test Chart here where everything is reduced to the examination of the performance of a single pixel.

Surely we're talking about systems. If in the MFDB world the latest and best lenses are at least equal to the best 35mm lenses, across the board, then the reality is the 35mm format cannot compete in ultimate image quality to an MFDB with equal pixel count but double the sensor size. But it might excel in other areas, depending on the application and artistic intention.

We need to know what those areas are.
Logged
yaya
Guest
« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2007, 12:03:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm curious, Dave, as to the reasons why you would use the same f stop when shooting with diffrerent formats with equivalent focal lengths and fields of view.

If you were in the studio with a P21 with say 110mm lens and a 1Ds3 with 85mm lens, and you were photographing a model and wanted a certain fairly shallow DoF that required say f5.6 with the Mamiya 110mm lens, then wanted to see how the 1Ds3 would compare in this situation, it would be a mistake to use the 1Ds3 at f5.6, would it not? You wouldn't get the same shallow DoF with the shorter focal length from the same distance.

You would probably get a closer match regarding DoF by using the 1Ds3 at f4 in these circumstances.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

I usually try to stay away from these endless arguments,

Dave and I had disagreements in the past on all kinds of levels and since he sells my competition  I should not have any interest in defending his company or his motivation.

However, I would like to suggest that anyone who joins a conversation about this f stop or that DOF with regards to comparing the IQ of a good MF back to ANY 35mm DSLR, should first spend 10 minutes with a Mamiya 120mm Macro at f5.6-f16 and a good 17-39MP back at its native iso.

I honestly believe that your opinion and approach will change drastically after those 10 minutes and will give you a whole different perspective about the validity of your current arguments.

Like in any other field, there is theory and then there is practice. In my experience, practice directs theory and not the other way around.

Yair
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #39 on: December 20, 2007, 12:16:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, I would like to suggest that anyone who joins a conversation about this f stop or that DOF with regards to comparing the IQ of a good MF back to ANY 35mm DSLR, should first spend 10 minutes with a Mamiya 120mm Macro at f5.6-f16 and a good 17-39MP back at its native iso.

I honestly believe that your opinion and approach will change drastically after those 10 minutes and will give you a whole different perspective about the validity of your current arguments.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yaya,
That might well be the case, but your argument is not convincing. If theory is at odds with practice, specifically with regard to these DoF issues, then please elaborate. Give us some details.

I don't have the luxury of being in a candy shop where I can test all sorts of expensive and exotic equipment to my heart's content. I rely upon forums like this to get useful information on equipment which might suit my purposes.

I might add, if I had bought a 1Ds3 my first priority would not be to see how it performed at f16, although eventually I would get around to testing the camera at that aperture and comparing the results at f8 or f5.6.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 12:22:42 AM by Ray » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad