Canon 1DSMK3 test image compared to Phase Backs

[AndreNapier]

On Rz67 ProII and A75S, I am still on the original battery I put on 4 months ago into new Rz body.
I shoot 3-4 days a week 500 images a day. I do not see any battery loss at all. My experience with Rz is one 6V battery every 6 months. My set up in LC11 in on RZ.
Andre

[Snook]

On Rz67 ProII and A75S, I am still on the original battery I put on 4 months ago into new Rz body.
I shoot 3-4 days a week 500 images a day. I do not see any battery loss at all. My experience with Rz is one 6V battery every 6 months. My set up in LC11 in on RZ.
Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could it be a phase one thing?
I have the adaptor Plate from Phase One 645 to RZ...
They say it is the plate...:+} That is supposedly consumes juice even when the Back is not on.
I will post how long they last to, but was warned my many that it goes through Batteries like there is no tomorrow..:+}
I have gone through 2 batteries just shooting to try the new Back.. But I think they were on the shelf to long...
I just put a new GP alkaline battery in and we'll see how long it last.
Not to mention the fact that it is a pain to have to take apart the RZ with grip and winder just to put a new battery in. Hope it does not happen during an important shoot...  
Snook

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Snook,

Wow going through 2 batteries that quickly doesn't sound good.

I haven't experienced that before. Maybe it might be a good idea to invest in the Mamiya HX701 adapter for you RZ11D.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5027...ck_Adapter.html


Cheers,

Simon

[RicAgu]

Unfortunately it has something to do with the Mamiya plate, I believe.

The connector that connects the back to the body in the plate drains the the 6v battery.  So you have to take it off once your done shooting.  In the film days it would last me six seven months like Andre said.  But he is on an Aptus with the Mamiya made Dead plate for H series backs. (dead because it has no electronics).  I have the same plate and use the Phase back with a One shot Cable and it seems to be lasting.

The Mamiya made one has electronics in it.  I think there is some weird communication issue there.  The only thing I can think of.

Quite a jump in file quality huh?!

[John Sheehy]

I will add more information as I shoot more but I was really impressed with the P30 compared to the Canon.
One important issue that no has mentioned here is the Highlights and the Highlight to Shadow transition is WAYYYYYY smoother with the P30.
Especially on faces of Models.. I always hated and had to work it in PS a lot on the Canon. The transition from Light to dark was always Bumpy and jagged.. Not on this Back.
It is smooth as butter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Part of the difference may be the fact that the 16-bit data of the P30 forces converters to work in a higher bit depth, so the conversions don't suffer from posterization due to multiple mathematical manipulations in the conversion process (of course, cameras with 12-bit RAW could be promoted to this level of precision as well).  The P30 certainly doesn't have any electrical noise and photon-collection reasons to be better than the 1Dmk2 at the pixel level at ISO 100.  It does have more pixels, though, by a good margin, and probably has better lenses, too, hence a finer texture.

[Ray]

I just got done Doing a whole days shoot with my new P30 and I am coming from the 1DsMII.
As a Portrait and fashion photographer I can tell you that the MFDB BLOWS away the Canon... and By far.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course it does. Who has ever claimed in this thread or any other thread on LL that 30mp does not 'blow away' 16mp on a sensor half the size. Even if the sensors might be equal on a per pixel basis, as John Sheehy claims, 30mp has to be better than 16mp, especially if it has 16 bit processing instead of the 12 bit of the 1Ds2.

The more useful aspect ratio of the P30 for portraiture also increases the difference because once you've cropped the 1Ds2 image to the 4:3 aspect ratio of the P30, you're actually comparing 30mp with about 14mp. No contest surely.

Another Straw Man   .

[Dinarius]

Having shot with a borrowed 1Ds3 a couple of weeks ago and noticed the HUGE difference in the smoothness of tone between its 14bits and my 5D's 12bits, I should hope that with 4 times as many bits as the 1Ds3 (and 16 times as many as my 5D) *any* decent MFDB should look far better.

The 1Ds3 really is a quantum leap up from the 5D in every respect. I expect my 39Mp MS to be at least the same again.  

D.

[Russell Price]

I recently purchased a 1Ds III and a buddy of mine tested his against his Phase back.  (a P30)

The results were shockingly good.  The Canon with an L lens compared quite favorably to my friends Zeiss glass.  Granted, the file sizes were different, the overall sharpness of the Canon file was very impressive and I doubt that you would see much difference in CMYK magazine reproduction.  In large prints, I believe you would, but for everyday commercial or editorial work, Canon seems to have hit the market with a tool that is easy to work with, reliable and affordable for many pro shooters.

I don't' want to stir up the Medium Format is better pot, I'm just posting my observations.  I've shot with the 1Ds II since it was released and was not happy with the files.  The 1Ds III is a much better camera.  You can see the difference in the highlights and shadows.  I have also owned and shot with several medium format backs.  There is a difference with the Phase and Leaf backs.  The Canon 1Ds III is a fantastic system and everything works well together.  That is critically important for location shooters.


Russell

[Snook]

I recently purchased a 1Ds III and a buddy of mine tested his against his Phase back.  (a P30)

The results were shockingly good.  The Canon with an L lens compared quite favorably to my friends Zeiss glass.  Granted, the file sizes were different, the overall sharpness of the Canon file was very impressive and I doubt that you would see much difference in CMYK magazine reproduction.  In large prints, I believe you would, but for everyday commercial or editorial work, Canon seems to have hit the market with a tool that is easy to work with, reliable and affordable for many pro shooters.

I don't' want to stir up the Medium Format is better pot, I'm just posting my observations.  I've shot with the 1Ds II since it was released and was not happy with the files.  The 1Ds III is a much better camera.  You can see the difference in the highlights and shadows.  I have also owned and shot with several medium format backs.  There is a difference with the Phase and Leaf backs.  The Canon 1Ds III is a fantastic system and everything works well together.  That is critically important for location shooters.
Russell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe Closer... But NOT there by far yet..:+}
My opinion after shooting the Canon for 7 years..:+}
It may be getting closer which I agree, but it is not there yet and the shadows are what speaks for it better than anything..:+}
Snook