Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 30K APTUS 75S when CANON would do! Would it?  (Read 14602 times)
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2007, 09:01:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote

i don't know where you're located but i'm in germany and nobody here (i'm talking big budget commercial jobs (mercedes, german telekom, wella, etc.) not editorial work where you're not getting paid jack regardless what you use...) leaves anything to chance.
one of the questions i always hear at pre production meetings is "film or digital? and what file size?". it's not a one time thing and i can't imagine anybody here shooting withot having been asked what they'll be delivering.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm located in the midwest USA, and in almost 30 years of doing this there has never been a demand for a specfic format...period.  Maybe its because we all know each other well, and have produced sucessful project after project.  I've been asked my opinion many times but the final decision has always been mine.

And we are talking about big budget projects and small as well, projects done each and every model year for products that cost up to a half a million dollars.

Maybe they just don't trust you guys?
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
AndreNapier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2007, 09:58:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andre,
I've never come across any threads on LL in which it is generally claimed that 35mm systems are equal to DBs.

Your Aptus 75S is a 33mp DB is it not? Has anyone tried to convince you that a Canon 35mm is just as good? Where? When? Point me to the thread.

As far as I'm concerned, the only really meaningful and useful comparisons that might challenge the superiority of certain DBs are those between the 21mp Canon 1Ds3 and DBs of similar pixel count such as the P21.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray
I am truly not here to argue. I stated many times before that I am not an expert on technical aspect of photography. From experience point of view I know however than 22mp Aptus54 produces identically looking files than 33mp A75s and that both of them are far different from files from Canon.
It is not the pixels count that separate the systems. If it was just pixels than file from 35mm film, drum scanned at 4000 dpi would produce better results than file from 6x7 film drum scanned at 1500 dpi. I did not do the math but if we assumed that both scans produced the same file size and we did not exceeded film , lens whatever max resolution I think we both agree that even 8x10 print from 6x7 would we visibly superior to 35mm.
[a href=\"http://andrenapier.com]http://andrenapier.com[/url]
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2007, 10:20:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for posting, Andre.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Mike Chini
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2007, 10:42:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
@Mike,
Remember that plasmas are out of the box very bad performers with cartoon like colors and more often than not a way oversaturated green and red.

I'm an ISF calibrator and I have been calibrating plasmas every since they appeared on the market, they are much better than MOST LCD TV's.
However when judging a photo please use a calibrated monitor fit for the job.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The plasma was professionally calibrated and I have contrast and saturation turned down with sharpness off.  It wasn't better in that things looked more contrasty or more colorful - it was that there were many more subtle variances between, say, leaves on a tree or gradations of subtle color in a cloud.  These sorts of things simply disappear on my lcd.  At any rate, people seem to miss the point that they're not actually seeing a digital file but a representation of it.

I also think that all of these cameras excel under certain conditions.  MFDB's KILL 35 digital in a studio - still life or fashion.   But you can just do so much more with the 35 cameras.
Logged
AndreNapier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2007, 10:43:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andre,

Thank you for posting. Your experience and images (especially the cropped details) are the clearest  examples of the many virtues of MFDBs that I have seen on the forum in a long time.

I have used RZ67 years ago with film and loved it. Currently, there seems to be a stronger lean
towards the AFDII as the prevailing opinion holds that Mamiya will likely emphasize its development over the RZ.

Having read your previous posts about the RZ67 Pro II D with 110 mm lens, and in view of other
available options, I wonder if you would still choose this same system for your type of work?

Appreciate your consideration.

Richard
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, it will still be my camera of choice. I do not care much for AFD mainly because I am a WLF guy.
When I look through WLF I have a feeling that I am connected with the objects and subject of my set up. With a prism finder I find myself more of a observer and recorder. It is very personal and by no way applies to others. Additionally Rz lenses draw much different from AFD. I am looking forward to test AFI with Rollei Zeiss 110/2.0 as it also is a gorgeous drawing lens despite what charts and trials are saying.
I believe that Rz is often overlooked option for cost concerned photographers. A75 with Rz and full set of lenses on Ebay will be still cheaper than Canon MKIII with full set of L primes.
[a href=\"http://AndreNapier.com]http://AndreNapier.com[/url]
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2007, 11:38:16 AM »
ReplyReply

@Mike,
Was it ISF calibrated ?
If so than it should be indeed represent a good picture, however still not better than a high-end PC monitor (not the cheap TFT's).

I have calibrated many displays over the years and the new Panasonic and Pioneers are actually the only ones that are really good, all the rest is just nice but not good to judge anything to be honest.

On PC monitors I use a NEC 2190 since recently which replaced my CRT
For a LCD it's very very good, it gave me back my confidence in LCDs
I'm now looking at the Adobe RGB versions.

Long story short, on an ISF calibrated plasma from Panasonic/Pioneer the pictures will look great, mainly due to the large colorgamout, believe it or not but even NTSC is larger than sRGB what most monitors are
The new plasmas all measure in the HDTV range which is even wider, so there will be much more detail in the color.
HOWEVER most displays lack bitdepth so they take away quality again which is a shame

When I'm really in doubt I print I know my printer is profiled 100% correct, this is untill I learn to trust my monitor again
(which is happening as we speak).
Logged
Mike Chini
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2007, 12:01:40 PM »
ReplyReply

It was.  Only cost a few hundred but it's piece of mind.  I let it burn-in for 100 hours first.  BTW, it is a Panny and it rocks!!!
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2007, 12:16:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Once again, Andre raises the standard for the most 3D picture online. (attachment 4418)

G-O-O-O-O-R-G-E-O-U-S !!!


Eduardo
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3876



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2007, 01:30:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On PC monitors I use a NEC 2190 since recently which replaced my CRT
For a LCD it's very very good, it gave me back my confidence in LCDs
I'm now looking at the Adobe RGB versions.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163616\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have a look at the Samsung AdobeRGB monitors. They're neat and fairly cheap;

If you want Eizo, the CG210 and 211 are very good for sRGB gamut. The new Adobe RGB high-end Eizo (CG-221) is good, although the CG220 should be avoided.  The CG241W should also be avoided. There are some large-sized Eizos in the pipeline; I don't know how good they are colorwise, but they might be useful for studio and/or client.

Edmund
« Last Edit: December 28, 2007, 01:32:18 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Mike Chini
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2007, 01:44:01 PM »
ReplyReply

But it's not just color gamut.  It's also contrast ratio and LCD backlights are always on.  Until LED backlights improve LCD's won't offer the best in contrast.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2007, 02:02:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The Eizo's were already into the picture, especially the 24" version so I was surprised with your advise, could you explain ?
I did not yet see the unit by the way

Contrast ratio is always a problem, especially with the new trend into higher.
When we measure ansicontrast most displays are SHOCKING low.

But Panasonic and Pioneer are indeed best in their class, I love the Panasonics for their price/quality.
Logged
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #31 on: December 28, 2007, 03:07:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Good posting, Andre.

There will always be the dreaded discussions about higher vs. lower cost equipment; back in the anlogue days people would try and prove how their Leicas can perform as well as an RZ or a Blad.

I'm not sure what people's motivations are to question the superiority of a bigger format, which to me still is as obvious as it was with film after switching to an Aptus 75 from 4x5, as far as quality is concerned.

My back was paid for after some months, and is making money since, that's mostly advertising and some editorial thrown in.
I understand that different assignments ask for different tools, and some people can't charge their clients enough to cover the costs of an MFDB.

But in my line of work it is expected that I use the best tools available, ad agencies are ready to pay for it, so that's what they get.
Apart from that, I'd never settle for anything but top-tier equipment for my personal work as well, nor do I know pro photographers who would.

I'm also not buying the argument of displays and printers limiting the quality of the output; I used to make my own prints from 4x5 negatives, still have my darkroom, yet my Aptus, Mac + Photoshop and cheepish Epson printer blow any analogue print out of the water, no contest.

As for monitors, even an Apple ACD, properly calibrated, gives you all the information you need to judge and adjust a file, imho, if one has experience working with chromes and negatives a lot.
Logged
Mike Chini
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #32 on: December 28, 2007, 03:37:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm also not buying the argument of displays and printers limiting the quality of the output; I used to make my own prints from 4x5 negatives, still have my darkroom, yet my Aptus, Mac + Photoshop and cheepish Epson printer blow any analogue print out of the water, no contest.

As for monitors, even an Apple ACD, properly calibrated, gives you all the information you need to judge and adjust a file, imho, if one has experience working with chromes and negatives a lot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Alls I'm sayin' is that the files themselves are alot richer and just generally better-looking than what we're all seeing.  That's it.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3876



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2007, 03:47:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Frank -
It's subjective. The CG241W shouldn't have a CG label in my opinion, it's a bit directional and I simply don't like what it looks like. Which is all to be expected, since it costs something like half of the same company's rather better CG221 while being the same size -remember that bit about getting what you pay for ? NEC also have a high-end Adobe RGB display, equally good and pricey, I think Quato also have something interesting - but I'd try and look at Samsung if I were you, I've seen one and it was really nice. Do report back, so I can update my knowledge, I haven't been following the trends as much as I should have.

Mike-
As retouching monitors the Apples are perfectly ok. Frank is one of the few people who are really, really into color (he does cosmetics), so he would profit form a color-management-grade display which would be expensive overkill for most photographers.

Edmund
« Last Edit: December 28, 2007, 03:57:31 PM by eronald » Logged

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

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2007, 04:09:23 PM »
ReplyReply

i am always amazed at the passion that camera gear discussions tend to evoke. for many who partake in these discussions there is a tendency to be on one side or the other.  a lot of the discussion gets blurred, because there are people with varying backgrounds, from professonal photographers to rank amateurs expressing their opinions.   sometimes those opinions are based on experience and sometimes they are driven by pure emotion.
i've been shooting with a leaf aptus back for 7 months now and the 1ds3 for a month.  as wonderful as the 1ds3 files are, the files from the 22mp aptus back, have more detail.  this came to me as no surprise, and this does not diminish the 1ds3 in any way:  it is a wonderful machine.  
there have been occasions over the past few weeks where the ds3 has been the tool of choice over the back. the  bottom line is that you need to choose the appropriate  tool to get the job done.  sometimes it is a mfdb and other times it may be a dslr.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2007, 04:09:57 PM by canmiya » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2007, 07:15:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
i've been shooting with a leaf aptus back for 7 months now and the 1ds3 for a month.  as wonderful as the 1ds3 files are, the files from the 22mp aptus back, have more detail.  this came to me as no surprise, and this does not diminish the 1ds3 in any way: [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If it doesn't diminish the 1Ds3 in any way, then it must diminish the Canon lenses you are using. However, if the greater detail you see in the 22mp Aptus back is subtle and of pixel-peeping proportions, then it could simply be due its lack of an AA filter.

I'm a rational person. I have no need to give emotional support or allegiance to any particular brand or format of camera. I'm just really curious as to why in one situation a sensor that's double the area of another with the same pixel count produces a more detailed image with a greater sense of reality and 3-dimensionality (MFDBs compared with 35mm) and yet in another situation where a sensor is 4x the area (35mm compared with the Olympus 4/3rds system) no-one seems to mention such attributes of the larger sensor.

It is however sometimes admitted by owners of the Olympus 4/3rds system that dynamic range is not quite as great as in the larger 35mm format.

The other problem I have with this idea that the larger sensor itself results in this greater detail and sense of reality etc., is that no-one seems to be able to demonstrate it with properly conducted tests where FoV and DoF are matched and the best lenses are used with both formats.

It all seems mighty strange to me.
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2007, 08:39:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If it doesn't diminish the 1Ds3 in any way, then it must diminish the Canon lenses you are using. However, if the greater detail you see in the 22mp Aptus back is subtle and of pixel-peeping proportions, then it could simply be due its lack of an AA filter.

I'm a rational person. I have no need to give emotional support or allegiance to any particular brand or format of camera. I'm just really curious as to why in one situation a sensor that's double the area of another with the same pixel count produces a more detailed image with a greater sense of reality and 3-dimensionality (MFDBs compared with 35mm) and yet in another situation where a sensor is 4x the area (35mm compared with the Olympus 4/3rds system) no-one seems to mention such attributes of the larger sensor.

It is however sometimes admitted by owners of the Olympus 4/3rds system that dynamic range is not quite as great as in the larger 35mm format.

The other problem I have with this idea that the larger sensor itself results in this greater detail and sense of reality etc., is that no-one seems to be able to demonstrate it with properly conducted tests where FoV and DoF are matched and the best lenses are used with both formats.

It all seems mighty strange to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, you blame us for not being able to do a proper comparison or test for you? You seem to know how to do this kind of test very well so rent a DB and look at the prints with your own eyes. And do it for you, not for us.
Logged
canmiya
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2007, 09:08:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If it doesn't diminish the 1Ds3 in any way, then it must diminish the Canon lenses you are using.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
not at all.  it does not diminish the 1ds3 or the lenses i use because it is a very fine camera and i am happy with my lenses:   both formats have a place in my bag.
i would not  expect a 12 mp point and shoot to perform the same way a 12 mp dslr  with a larger sensor does and i have never expected my dslrs to perform the same way a digital back does.
as for a sense of dimensionality, it is how people perceive the image:  some people may see it and other won't.  interestingly enough several of the people who have moved to the d3 and even new adopters of canon ff's, often comment about the increased sense of dimension that they see in the ff images that was not present to the same extent in the cropped image cameras.  i guess the old saying is true: "perception becomes reality" and perhaps that's why people have different realities.  
just sharing my opinion with no desire to take this any further.
Logged
luong
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2007, 11:46:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I for one strongly believe that my Aptus75S was the best business investment that I ever did. The digital back paid for itself easily just with the extra jobs I got in couple of months since I received it.

Just curious, how do you know for sure that you wouldn't have gotten those extra jobs without the Aptus ?
Logged

AndreNapier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2007, 11:51:28 PM »
ReplyReply

duplicate
« Last Edit: December 28, 2007, 11:55:14 PM by AndreNapier » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad