Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MF vs 1Ds3  (Read 109169 times)
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #280 on: May 08, 2008, 10:56:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe Adobe, in addition to the vibrancy and saturation sliders in Camera Raw, will eventually give us a 'fat' slider and a 3-D slider  .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are absolutely correct Ray.  Your 40D has the most detail of any camera out there today, and with the wealth of adjustability in raw converters you can replicate the look from any other sensor on color and tonal range, so you are already at the pinnacle of digital technology. Heck, you are probably so good at using them, you've figured out how to add several stops of DR and manufacture wider color gamuts than the 40D ships with!  So as soon as everybody else wises up and figures these techniques out, the sales of pro-sumer DSLR's will skyrocket --- and MF manufacturers will be out of business because there is clearly no longer a reason for any of us to shoot with them! Guess it's time to unload all my MF gear before it's worthless.  

Heading out to buy a 40D and learn these new processing techniques...


      ,
« Last Edit: May 08, 2008, 10:59:18 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #281 on: May 08, 2008, 12:42:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You are absolutely correct Ray.  Your 40D has the most detail of any camera out there today, and with the wealth of adjustability in raw converters you can replicate the look from any other sensor on color and tonal range, so you are already at the pinnacle of digital technology. Heck, you are probably so good at using them, you've figured out how to add several stops of DR and manufacture wider color gamuts than the 40D ships with!  So as soon as everybody else wises up and figures these techniques out, the sales of pro-sumer DSLR's will skyrocket --- and MF manufacturers will be out of business because there is clearly no longer a reason for any of us to shoot with them! Guess it's time to unload all my MF gear before it's worthless. 

Heading out to buy a 40D and learn these new processing techniques...
      ,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You know, I had abandoned the pusuit of posting anything much here lo these past few weeks, in the vain hope that folks would calm down, think before they write and generally get back to a normal way of life.

Seems that was a hope too vain indeed!

Anyway, for what itīs worth, the remark/question somewhere above relating to the use of MF optics on a smaller format than that for which they were designed is one to which there is a definite answer: lenses are designed to cover a specific format to their best compromise of performance parameters, the general reason that allows them to appear as if they produce superior print results is simply due to the lesser degreee of enlargement needed for any given final output. You simply canīt expect to use a 35mm section of a Hasselblad 6x6 negative, for example, and expect it to compare  well at, say, 12x18ins with a full-frame top-grade Nikkor image of the same subject. It isnīt designed to do that. I know, having owned both system side by side and sometimes having had to utilise sections of 6x6.

As for the general feel of the thread, Last Man Standing would have been a better header.

I retreat to my bunker.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #282 on: May 08, 2008, 12:45:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, Jack, your quotation was unintentional: I hit the wrong button; told you Iīd been away a while...

Rob C
Logged

Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


WWW
« Reply #283 on: May 08, 2008, 01:02:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack, let me know which ones you are selling  

The use of Medium format glass on 35mm format has been covered many times.  Mark Welch has put up one of the best data bases that I ever found and he has tested a lot of glass on Canon and possibly Nikon.  Full frame sensors and the smaller APS sized.

In my own work, I use the 35mm Pentax p645 lens with a Zoerk adatper for shifting.  This is just one of many ways  to get more resolution without having to uprez.  The Canon Lenses for shifting really don't allow enough new information on each shift, 10mm total counting overlap net usable 7 to 8mm of shift.  The Zoerk allows 20mm of shift net usable 18mm in most cases.  This has been with a 1ds MKIII or 1ds MKII, and  previously 1ds MKI.

Results are good enabling large prints containing good details.  It's just one of many solutions out there, but has worked well for me over the years.

Newer software solutions have come out, but I have stayed with the Zoerk, it works and I understand the workflow.

Paul C
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8880


« Reply #284 on: May 08, 2008, 08:12:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You are absolutely correct Ray.  Your 40D has the most detail of any camera out there today, and with the wealth of adjustability in raw converters you can replicate the look from any other sensor on color and tonal range, so you are already at the pinnacle of digital technology. Heck, you are probably so good at using them, you've figured out how to add several stops of DR and manufacture wider color gamuts than the 40D ships with!  So as soon as everybody else wises up and figures these techniques out, the sales of pro-sumer DSLR's will skyrocket --- and MF manufacturers will be out of business because there is clearly no longer a reason for any of us to shoot with them! Guess it's time to unload all my MF gear before it's worthless. 

Heading out to buy a 40D and learn these new processing techniques...
      ,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack,
Aren't you falling into the trap of 'mine is better (bigger) than yours'?  

I didn't buy a 40D as a result of falling for all that nonsense about it having smoother tonality because of its 14 bit A/D converter and better quality shadows. I'm a pragmatic sort of guy. I bought the 40D because I came across a surprisingly good bargain price offer in Bangkok and because I thought the LiveView feature and fast frame rate of 6.5 per second would be useful, and because my 5D was in for repair at the time leaving me with just the 20D which I'd taken along as back-up on that trip. (I'll also admit to a little bit of technology lust coming into the equation   ).

As it's turned out, the LiveView feature has become a headache (as well as educational) because it makes it so easy to pick up the slightest degree of misfocussing and has caused me to realise what a problem accurate focussing can be when lenses are used at wide apertures.

Surely you realise that I don't need to be convinced that bigger sensors with more pixels (or even an equal number of pixels) are better at least in some respects.

What I'd like to know is simply 'how much better?' and how significant is such improvement after the best processing practices have been applied to all images being compared, and what role does choice of lens and aperture have.

For example, if differences in detail are actually marginal, between say a 1Ds3 and P25, but in demonstrating such differences both cameras are used with their respective lenses at F16, then such small differences will be augmented to a degree where perhaps they appear significant.

I know that you know that most good lenses perform marginally better (sharper)at F11 than at F16 (and at F8 than at F11) due to less diffraction. However, such differences in resolution, accutance etc. might well be insignificant by themsleves. But add two insignificant factors and you get something which may be regarded as significant.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2008, 08:34:26 PM by Ray » Logged
Joe Behar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


« Reply #285 on: May 09, 2008, 08:25:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack,
Aren't you falling into the trap of 'mine is better (bigger) than yours'?   

What I'd like to know is simply 'how much better?' and how significant is such improvement after the best processing practices have been applied to all images being compared, and what role does choice of lens and aperture have.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By my calculations its somewhere between 2.573 millibars and and a bushel and a half. Assuming of course that we ignore the effect of the AD4 circuit breaker that most manufacturers use. The downside to the formula, however is that the flowback frequency jacktube constant has not been perfectly defined yet and most lens designs still use the outdated light modulation tests that are only accurate enough to measure in the order of 2-4 cappucinos.

Bottom line....you cant test and quantify till you, me and the rest of the world is blue in the face and the net gain will be in the order of the square root of zilch.

The flowers are in bloom, the trees are that great shade of spring green and I'm going to take some pictures this weekend. Don't forget to lock the door behind you if you're the last one out.
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #286 on: May 09, 2008, 08:47:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
By my calculations its somewhere between 2.573 millibars and and a bushel and a half. Assuming of course that we ignore the effect of the AD4 circuit breaker that most manufacturers use. The downside to the formula, however is that the flowback frequency jacktube constant has not been perfectly defined yet and most lens designs still use the outdated light modulation tests that are only accurate enough to measure in the order of 2-4 cappucinos.

Bottom line....you cant test and quantify till you, me and the rest of the world is blue in the face and the net gain will be in the order of the square root of zilch.

The flowers are in bloom, the trees are that great shade of spring green and I'm going to take some pictures this weekend. Don't forget to lock the door behind you if you're the last one out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 
« Last Edit: May 09, 2008, 08:48:08 AM by thsinar » Logged

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

Posts: 8880


« Reply #287 on: May 09, 2008, 08:51:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
By my calculations its somewhere between 2.573 millibars and and a bushel and a half. Assuming of course that we ignore the effect of the AD4 circuit breaker that most manufacturers use. The downside to the formula, however is that the flowback frequency jacktube constant has not been perfectly defined yet and most lens designs still use the outdated light modulation tests that are only accurate enough to measure in the order of 2-4 cappucinos.

Bottom line....you cant test and quantify till you, me and the rest of the world is blue in the face and the net gain will be in the order of the square root of zilch.

The flowers are in bloom, the trees are that great shade of spring green and I'm going to take some pictures this weekend. Don't forget to lock the door behind you if you're the last one out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I understand your skepticism, or should we call it cynicism?

The problem is, as I see it, we have neither bushels, millibars, square roots or even images to describe such differences. We're in Alice in Wonderland or Cloud Cuckoo Land, here.
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #288 on: May 09, 2008, 08:58:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I understand your skepticism, or should we call it cynicism?

The problem is, as I see it, we have neither bushels, millibars, square roots or even images to describe such differences. We're in Alice in Wonderland or Cloud Cuckoo Land, here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What a freakin boring thread...:+{
Get over it..
Snook
Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 463


WWW
« Reply #289 on: May 09, 2008, 09:02:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Exactly!  

Quote
By my calculations its somewhere between 2.573 millibars and and a bushel and a half. Assuming of course that we ignore the effect of the AD4 circuit breaker that most manufacturers use. The downside to the formula, however is that the flowback frequency jacktube constant has not been perfectly defined yet and most lens designs still use the outdated light modulation tests that are only accurate enough to measure in the order of 2-4 cappucinos.

Bottom line....you cant test and quantify till you, me and the rest of the world is blue in the face and the net gain will be in the order of the square root of zilch.

The flowers are in bloom, the trees are that great shade of spring green and I'm going to take some pictures this weekend. Don't forget to lock the door behind you if you're the last one out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8880


« Reply #290 on: May 09, 2008, 09:07:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What a freakin boring thread...:+{
Get over it..
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry! Your sincerity does not convince me. I don't even read threads that are not relevant to my concerns. Why does anyone need to know that you find this thread boring?
Logged
Andy M
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #291 on: May 09, 2008, 09:11:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray, given that you own neither a 1Ds 3 or an MF system, why are you so concerned?

You've become a crashing bore on this subject, and appear to be taking the forum with you...
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8880


« Reply #292 on: May 09, 2008, 09:13:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I've often wonder about the motives of poeple who find a need to read a boring thread and then tell people they find it boring.

If the topic doesn't interest you, then don't bother with it. Have you not got anything else more interesting to do?
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #293 on: May 09, 2008, 09:20:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've often wonder about the motives of poeple who find a need to read a boring thread and then tell people they find it boring.

If the topic doesn't interest you, then don't bother with it. Have you not got anything else more interesting to do?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not necessarily true Ray..
Topic has been beaten to death and you keep bumping it up the forum...
This a MF forum... you want to know more about the 35mm world go post in there and or goto Dpreview.com.. might be down your alley.
A lot of info at that site.
Snook
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8880


« Reply #294 on: May 09, 2008, 09:22:17 AM »
ReplyReply

On further thought, I recall there are situations where people are compelled to read boring material. That sometimes happened when I was at school in the U.K many years ago.  
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8880


« Reply #295 on: May 09, 2008, 09:27:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not necessarily true Ray..
Topic has been beaten to death and you keep bumping it up the forum...
This a MF forum... you want to know more about the 35mm world go post in there and or goto Dpreview.com.. might be down your alley.
A lot of info at that site.
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a totally unreasonable attitude. The title of this thread  contains descriptions of both 35mm format and MF format in equal proportions.

I'm a person of catholic tastes. I don't have any snobbery about format size.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #296 on: May 09, 2008, 10:32:12 AM »
ReplyReply

It's like a train wreck.  Hard to look away.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8880


« Reply #297 on: May 09, 2008, 11:21:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's like a train wreck.  Hard to look away.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't feel like a train wreck. I'm as placid and clear about my intentions, ideas and requests, as I was in my first post.


Discussions about image quality without any images to look at is a farce. My mind boggles that people would jump into such an expensive set-up as MFDB without doing serious testing and comparisons with what they already have.

If what they already had was MF film equipment, then they are excused. Those who shoot 35mm film will tend to upgrade to 35mm DSLRs, but those diehards who reckoned that 35mm DSLRs were not as good as MF film will wait for the MFDB with twice the sensor area of FF 35mm DSLRs and twice the pixel count.

No argument with that.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #298 on: May 09, 2008, 01:01:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Please don't feed the trolls.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2008, 01:02:18 PM by woof75 » Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #299 on: May 09, 2008, 05:17:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't feel like a train wreck. I'm as placid and clear about my intentions, ideas and requests, as I was in my first post.
Discussions about image quality without any images to look at is a farce. My mind boggles that people would jump into such an expensive set-up as MFDB without doing serious testing and comparisons with what they already have.

If what they already had was MF film equipment, then they are excused. Those who shoot 35mm film will tend to upgrade to 35mm DSLRs, but those diehards who reckoned that 35mm DSLRs were not as good as MF film will wait for the MFDB with twice the sensor area of FF 35mm DSLRs and twice the pixel count.

No argument with that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194632\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Ray seriously I do not want to come off so rude..:+]
To answer some of our question from my view.
I do not think anybody "jumps" into such expensive equipment as MFDB right off the start. Most guys Like myself (new I might add) have come from 35 mm Digital for sure I would think.
I actually started out photography at least 20 years ago with medium format and never liked 35mm at all.
But when the Digital world came a long there was really only one option (for me that is) and that was Canon which I have been using for the last 6-7 years more or less and still use it  with my 1DsMII.

I think really that most guys if they can afford it should most definitely have both for sure.
The Image from my P30 really does blow away my 1DsMII and I see a big difference now as well as my clients.
I get a lot of my work blown up big and believe it is better having that better image and dynamic range for sure.
You often here the word 3D connected to the MFDB's and it is true.. they have more depth for sure in my opinion and that is really the only opinion that matters .. to me..:+}

In any case I always shot my canon like a MF camera and always shot everything in Manual and never above 100 iso which it really was never intended for..:+}
So sorry if my post came off to harsh at all and hope you make the right decision for sure.
I bought my P30 with ever even trying Medium format, but that was b/c where I live there was no way in heck to try or rent anything...
If you can obviuosly go try and rent something and try it out first..
Snook
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad