Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MF vs 1Ds3  (Read 112447 times)
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1263



WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2008, 12:58:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry Jim,

But I have to agree with Jonathan on this forum.

I've only been registered with LL since December 2007 but have definitely come to the conclusion that there are a number of pompous people on this website.

Regards

Simon
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 01:06:10 AM by HarperPhotos » Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2008, 07:24:59 AM »
ReplyReply

how did this post get so snarky so fast?

In the spirit of "lets take the high road", can we pull back from the back and forth here, and just let posts be posts?

I'm not so fond of the DSLR/MF debate either, but it has a place. So let it be a thread, and just pass it by if you don't care....

There are very few good forums left about this stuff, and I'd like not to have to find another one.
OK?

Geoff
Logged

Geoff
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1042


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2008, 08:43:10 AM »
ReplyReply

The story ends at different places for each of us. Horses for courses, but it is only by studying the form that we can guess at which nag to back. Reviews are our guide to the beasts performances so when there's hardly a neck between a couple of runners then  a few tips from other riders don't go amiss. But at the end of the day a horse is only as good as the jockey.

DR of Canon 1D, 9.5 stops. DR of ZD back, 12 stops. I can live with it's other shortcomings to gain this advantage alone. End of story for me.

Justin.
Logged

thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2008, 08:47:29 AM »
ReplyReply

... and did you ever ask yourself/check if you still have those 12 stops at the end and in your raw?

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
DR of Canon 1D, 9.5 stops. DR of ZD back, 12 stops. I can live with it's other shortcomings to gain this advantage alone. End of story for me.

Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2008, 09:02:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan - totally uncalled for - it's nothing like that.

Then explain why when a "Post your MFDB work" thread is created, numerous MF film images are posted to the thread and nobody cares, even they are not MFDB. But when a few DSLR images are posted, there is an uproar, and the individual who posted the DSLR images was hounded until he removed them. Not because they lacked artistic vision, or were poorly executed technically, but simply because they were captured with a DSLR. The only exception to this is the DSLR images posted by James Russel, who has sufficiently godlike status (and deservedly so; his work is always excellent) that he is above criticism. Even after this broughaha, people have continued to post MF film images to that thread, and nobody cares. It's obviously anti-DSLR discrimination, even though the thread is supposed to be MFDB-only.

Then there's the attitude of many of the people toward the "MFDB vs DSLR" question. Anyone who wants to discuss the subject is criticized and persecuted like some sort of heretic, and any attempt to rationally discuss the technical differences between DSLR and MFDB RAWS unleashes a torrent of arrogant, condescending, rudeness. Much is made of the point that MFDB RAWs are sharper out of the camera, but nobody wants to discuss how much of an image quality gap might remain if the image processing settings for sharpening and contrast were adjusted to make each image the best it can be and then comparing, rather than insisting that they both be processed with identical settings. But attempting to discuss this prompts an even shriller level of personal attacks.

I currently shoot with DSLRs, but I'm interested in MFDB. If I am discharged from the Army and get a disability settlement, I may have a budget sufficient to buy a MFDB system. So I'm trying to educate myself about the relative advantages and disadvantages of each system, and separate solid facts from obvious format-fanboy fiction like "MF has a greater 3-D look over DSLR that is visible even in web JPEGs". I'm interested in the answer to questions such as:

To what degree can the per-pixel image quality difference between MFDB and DSLR be reduced by optimal processing based on the needs of the file? (more deconvolution-based capture sharpening for the DSLR file than the MFDB file, different amounts of local contrast enhancement / Clarity, etc.)

What is the photographically useful dynamic range of MFDB vs 1Ds-3 at ISO 100? ISO 400? ISO 1600?

What size of print is necessary for the difference between a 1Ds-3 and a P45+ to become noticeable, if both files are processed to be the best they can be? 4x6"? 8x10"? 16x20"?


and of course, the bottom line questions:

Do the advantages of MFDB (better image quality) outweigh the disadvantages (slower shooting rate, greater weight/bulk, less capable autofocus, and additional cost) for what I shoot, and the size of prints and files my clients typically need?

Can the purchase of a MFDB system be justified from a business perspective
?

I realize that many of you have already decided the answers to these questions for yourselves, but there are many DSLR shooters besides myself that are considering adding MFDB to our set of tools. You all are whining about the high cost of MFDB systems and worrying about the long-term viability of the market; the best solution to that problem is to encourage more photographers to purchase MFDB systems. That will reduce unit costs by economy of scale, and reduce the likelihood of additional manufacturers from bowing out of the market. The best way to encourage more photographers to make the jump to MFDB is to encourage discussion about the relative merits of MFDB vs DSLR, not treat anyone who wants to discuss the subject like an idiot or a heretic. Treating people who aren't already in your club like the great unwashed is the best way possible to guarantee the death of medium format digital, or at least the continuation of limited selection and excessively high prices.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4260



« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2008, 09:24:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So I'm trying to educate myself about the relative advantages and disadvantages of each system, and separate solid facts from obvious format-fanboy fiction like "MF has a greater 3-D look over DSLR that is visible even in web JPEGs". I'm interested in the answer to questions such as:

To what degree can the per-pixel image quality difference between MFDB and DSLR be reduced by optimal processing based on the needs of the file? (more deconvolution-based capture sharpening for the DSLR file than the MFDB file, different amounts of local contrast enhancement / Clarity, etc.)

What is the photographically useful dynamic range of MFDB vs 1Ds-3 at ISO 100? ISO 400? ISO 1600?

What size of print is necessary for the difference between a 1Ds-3 and a P45+ to become noticeable, if both files are processed to be the best they can be? 4x6"? 8x10"? 16x20"?


and of course, the bottom line questions:

Do the advantages of MFDB (better image quality) outweigh the disadvantages (slower shooting rate, greater weight/bulk, less capable autofocus, and additional cost) for what I shoot, and the size of prints and files my clients typically need?

Can the purchase of a MFDB system be justified from a business perspective
?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188922\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,
The debate is basically one-way only because anybody on this forum can afford a used 5D or equivalent, so the question is just "should I get a DB in addition to the Canon". I don't think that any pro shooter who has to carry his own stuff can nowadays afford not to own a Canon for the cases when the speed is necessary - my P45+ can do one frame per 2 secs, this is clearly not tolerable for a pro in many situations.


Edmund
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2008, 09:32:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan,

I don't think there is one MF(DB) user acting and being the way you describe them to be. Most here are "educated" enough to not fall into the trap of being arrogant, condescending, rude or discriminating nor are there any negative critics or persecutions against those using a (d)slr camera.

Most of the MF users (digital or not) are still using (d)slr's.

The point is rather that these discussions and comparisons can never come to a conclusion with treads and words, nor is there one truth, since the only way to prove/show/demonstrate anything about differences/advantages and disadvantages concerning the 2 systems can be achieved only in a side-by-side comparison: and even then, better make sure to use the same (corresponding) lenses, at their same (corresponding) f-stops, etc ....

Other than this will (should) convince nobody.

Some MFDB users here (many I hope) have made these side-by-side tests and have compared under their own working conditions: from these they have made their conclusions and decisions. Some have reported these conclusions here. And they were criticized sometimes the same way for daring to see such big differences or for not seeing it. either way.

I don't understand why, if interested to make the jump to a larger format, one would not take the time to make one's own tests and conclusions, rather than starting sterile discussions. Yes, the advice from the ones using the tools are important, but should not and never be taken as being the truth. It is one truth among many: make your own truth by testing and working with it.

I think that is what many want to say here.

best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Then explain why ...

... or at least the continuation of limited selection and excessively high prices.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188922\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1042


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2008, 09:36:47 AM »
ReplyReply

..
Quote
and did you ever ask yourself/check if you still have those 12 stops at the end and in your raw?

Nope.

However, I know that in mixed lighting the ZD knocks the pants off the 30D, indeed, it produces a far better picture altogether (within the systems limits). How it compares with the 1D I can't say, but I know that the Mamiya has 22m pixels spread over a much larger sensor, and since pixel size is the main limiting factor in DR then that's good enough for me (I did come across the actual pixel size and if I recall correctly the ZD's are around 12microns across whist the Canon's are about 8 or thereabouts, but please correct if I am wrong, as I think I am.)

At the end of the day the Mamiya suits me far better than a dSLR, maybe that's because I just preferred MF over 35mm when shooting film and old habits die hard. Comparing camera and sensor specs to the n'th degree I am happy to leave to others, preferring to get on with the photography.

Another point, how can we say whether the Canon produces a better picture than a P25? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Many people consider this top photo- www.justinseye.com/subpage4.html to be the best on my site, it was taken on a mobile! Does this mean that Nokia make better cameras than Canon?

Justin.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 09:38:57 AM by Justinr » Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2008, 09:37:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan,
The debate is basically one-way only because anybody on this forum can afford a used 5D or equivalent, so the question is just "should I get a DB in addition to the Canon".

I agree. But that's still a question worth discussing. $30K+ is a significant investment for most photographers.
Logged

thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2008, 09:51:52 AM »
ReplyReply

9 microns

Quote
(I did come across the actual pixel size and if I recall correctly the ZD's are around 12microns across whist the Canon's are about 8 or thereabouts, but please correct if I am wrong, as I think I am.)

Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2375


« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2008, 09:58:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't mind telling people what made me invest in MFDB or where I think the differences between the 2 are, however I get the feeling on many occasions that the motif for the discussion is far from pure.

I often get the feeling that some people that are now using a DSLR want to have a confirmation they made the right choice by not choosing for a MFDB solution.

Again I have absolutely no objection to informing people that have a genuine interest in using MF solutions. I really hate the feeling that I am just passing my knowledge to be used in some sort of debate where there needs to be a sort of winner or to sooth somebody elses insecurity.

Now, you could easily say the same the other way round however I have not seen that many MFDB users ask for stuff that really proves the Canon is a lesser solution than MFDB to get confirmation of their choice. On the contrary most MFDB users I know use a 5D, 1DsMKIII, D300 or D3 alongside their MF equipment. I use a Nikon system along my MFDB simply because I cannot do everything with MF, some things are just safer to do with the Nikon.

Before buying a MFDB solution and doing a 30K+ investment I assume most people will testdrive it. They should. Information that is passed in these forums can be of help but in the end you should see it for yourself and make the comparisons for yourself. Determine for yourself if the difference is there for you and whether it is worth it to you.

As far as the recent works thread goes, I think a mosquito is being turned into an elephant about that remark.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 10:03:06 AM by Dustbak » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4260



« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2008, 09:59:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree. But that's still a question worth discussing. $30K+ is a significant investment for most photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, we can try and pursue the same reasoning, then. Notice that this form of the question already sets us apart from 90% of the people out there:   If I know that I already have a Canon, which are the cases where the MF would make a difference ?

And then a strange thing happens. You get to sharpen the question: A difference to who ? To me while composing and shooting ? To me while postprocessing the files ? To me while looking at my bank account ? To me when feeling my backache ? To the final client ? To the art director ? To my friends ? To my reputation ? To my dealer ? To my gallery ? To the company reps on this forum ?

Speaking for myself, I love MF file quality, I don't like the slow lenses, the heavy cameras and above all, I have learned to hate those parasitic dealers (the ones outside Atlanta). It's interesting that the Pebble blog makes the same points.

I'd say MF has good sides when you look at the imagery, and some bad sides when you try to create it.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 10:04:56 AM by eronald » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2008, 10:52:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, we can try and pursue the same reasoning, then. Notice that this form of the question already sets us apart from 90% of the people out there:   If I know that I already have a Canon, which are the cases where the MF would make a difference ?

And then a strange thing happens. You get to sharpen the question: A difference to who ? To me while composing and shooting ? To me while postprocessing the files ? To me while looking at my bank account ? To me when feeling my backache ? To the final client ? To the art director ? To my friends ? To my reputation ? To my dealer ? To my gallery ? To the company reps on this forum ?

For me, the most important factors are the shooting experience and the client's satisfaction with the final delivered image file or print. If I miss a shot because I'm waiting for the camera to clear the buffer or because the sync cable got snagged on a branch and unplugged, that's bad. And while file quality is an important factor in client satisfaction, there is a point at which it becomes overkill and further improvements are not going to increase client satisfaction or the price they are willing to pay for the job/file/print.

What I'd like to see is head-to-head RAW comparison between the 1Ds-3 and a MFDB, same subject, same composition (within the limits of the aspect ratio differences) with the following conditions:

*All the RAWs are about 1/3-stop from clipping according to Rawanalyze.
*ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600.
*Aperture selected so that DOF is the same in both images, or better yet, the scene is such that DOF and focus placement is not an issue.
*The scene has a table lamp or other fairly large bright object with detail so that it is challenging to capture the full DR of the scene.
*The scene has elements with fine detail in both the highlights (texture of lampshade) and deep shadows.
*Both cameras use high-quality prime lenses so that the capabilities of the cameras are being compared, not the lenses. The Canon 135 f/2L would be my preference for the 1Ds-3.
*All 10 RAW files are posted so that comparisons cam be made using the RAW converter and tools of one's own choice.
Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2008, 11:45:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What I'd like to see is head-to-head RAW comparison between the


The only way your going to see anything like this that is relevent is to do it yourself and it will take an investment.

To test any camera in the style and genre you work is to pretty much do it in the worst conditions imagineable.

If you shoot 300 images a day, test it by shooting 1,000.  If you post processes out small jpegs it batches in 30, do large tiffs in batches of 500, if you never change out of camera or sotware settings, then start moving the expsoure around +1 up to 2 stops and try to correct them.

Rename, edit, sort and move the images around in the software.  Process images in the background why you shoot.

Do this on your primary AND backup computer.

If you work in bright sunlight, try shooting in a deep shaded area, with bounce light for fill, if you work with 400 watts of strobe pump it up to 2,000 watts.

Only under the most stressful, harsh, changing conditions will anyone know what works in a professional atmosphere.

All of these cameras and sensors can be scene specific.  Some cross more territory than others, some are more affordable, some offer better service, some are more reliable but all of them take a learning curve that no review or microscopic examination of raw files is going to inform until you work in your specific genre under your specific conditions.

Pleasing a "client" is important, but remember the client usualy hires you for the highest level you can obtain, so pleasing yourself is really why you are in the room in the first place.

Basically, this conversation just rages on from year to year and quite honestly I've gotten caught up in it in the past, but it's just hyperbole and opinion until you try this yourself.

There are a lot of dealers that want to sell a lot of cameras and it won't take too long to find one that will let you demo any of this equipment to your satisfaction.

JR


P.S.  and don't just try the most expensive item on the shelf.  I think you'd be surprised how good some of the entry level cameras and backs compare.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 11:47:29 AM by James R Russell » Logged

Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2008, 08:09:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Or better yet, stay out of threads you don't find interesting, so that those who do find the topic interesting can find the information they have an interest in without having to wade through a bunch of arrogant pomposity. Some of you act like members of a 1960's-era Mississippi country club whining about women, blacks, and Jews wanting to become members.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Classy comment there.

It's so simple:
- this is a medium format digital forum
- there are already may threads on this subject, so we don't need a new one

Just for you: [a href=\"http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting[/url]
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2008, 08:27:32 PM »
ReplyReply

 

Quote
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2008, 08:55:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's so simple:
- this is a medium format digital forum
- there are already may threads on this subject, so we don't need a new one

I'm interested in finding out exactly what benefits a MFDB may offer over upgrading to the 1Ds3 from the 1Ds. Asking for specific information about MFDB vs 1Ds3 is an appropriate topic for this forum, since I'm looking for information regarding the capabilities of MFDBs. Furthermore, the specific info I requested has NOT yet been posted or discussed, since there has not yet been a RAW to RAW comparison posted between the 1Ds3 and any MFDB yet. So I'm not rehashing any of the comparisons that have already been posted and discussed to death. Your rude and inappropriate response reflects exactly the kind of country-club attitude that I objected to in the first place.

If discussing the relative merits of one camera system vs another bores you, that's fine; move on to a topic that interests you. But there's no reason for you or anyone else to inject snotty and sarcastic comments into a legitimate discussion of a topic that falls within the scope of this forum.
Logged

thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2008, 09:03:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan,

take it easy.

You won't ever get a RAW here from both systems taken under the exact same conditions.

Make these RAWs yourself, and post your findings.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
I'm interested in finding out exactly what benefits a MFDB may offer over upgrading to the 1Ds3 from the 1Ds. Asking for specific information about MFDB vs 1Ds3 is an appropriate topic for this forum, since I'm looking for information regarding the capabilities of MFDBs. Furthermore, the specific info I requested has NOT yet been posted or discussed, since there has not yet been a RAW to RAW comparison posted between the 1Ds3 and any MFDB yet. So I'm not rehashing any of the comparisons that have already been posted and discussed to death. Your rude and inappropriate response reflects exactly the kind of country-club attitude that I objected to in the first place.

If discussing the relative merits of one camera system vs another bores you, that's fine; move on to a topic that interests you. But there's no reason for you or anyone else to inject snotty and sarcastic comments into a legitimate discussion of a topic that falls within the scope of this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2008, 10:11:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan,

take it easy.

You won't ever get a RAW here from both systems taken under the exact same conditions.

Make these RAWs yourself, and post your findings.

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An opinion of an amateur.  I just purchased a D300 with the 24-70 2.8.  I also have a "low end" MFD system..Hassy 503CWD.  I just took the D300 out this afternoon...Just a quickl eyeball comparison...The Hassie images still have "that something extra" compared the the Nikon.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2008, 10:37:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You won't ever get a RAW here from both systems taken under the exact same conditions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why not? We already have RAW images from the P30, 5D and Canon G9 P&S, under fairly exact conditions, if you do a search. The P30, having more than double the pixel count of the 5D was clearly more detailed, and noise, in same size images appeared to be noticeably less because of the greater number of pixels, but at the pixel level, one for one, it probably (and maybe definitely) wasn't.

I think many of us understand, if you have a heavy investment in MFDB equipment, there's very little incentive to give the newcomer, the 1Ds3, a fair hearing. No one wants to shoot himslef in the foot, so to speak.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad