Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Aptus 22 vs 5DII  (Read 84196 times)
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2008, 01:12:18 PM »
ReplyReply

As long as the sensor is not the same size a comparision is not possible.
I have choosen MF for the bigger sensor.
Also there's no ISO50 (real ISO50) on the 5D, let alone ISO25 (ok that's only on the Aptus 22 at the moment but still).
Also there's no option for higher sync speeds what especially with fashion outside can be a BIG plus.

Oh,
And I'm also waiting for my 5DII, hopefully this week.
For me it's silly to choose between one format or the other, both have their uses.
When working with strobes I cannot think of one situation where I would PREFER the 5DII, when working with natural light (in the Netherlands) I think I will love the 5DII.

Resolution wise I think 22MP or 12MP is more than enough, but I would love to have 56MP.

The REAL problem I have with the 5DII and 1DsII is diffraction, I have seen samples of the 1DsIII where f5.6 was usable but f16 was destroying fine detail in clothing and eyelashes, I would in that case rather opt for 12MP's and less diffraction.
The reason I upgrade from the 5D is for me weathersealing, film option and higher ISO values, and lastly very lastly MPs.
I have as James mentions big prints that still originate from the 20D, and 5D that are from their viewing distance razor sharp.

It's an exciting time for photography, the only strange thing is that because the MPs are now almost the same or close to people are comparing two further totally different systems to each other.
Even if the sharpness or color was equal between both the 5DII will still not give me the combination of DOF and FOV that my MF system gives me (let alone the other differences).

A good photographer can make stunning work with every camera I believe.
It's just choosing the right tool for the job, and MF and DSLRs are like a hammer and screwdriver.
A hammer is used for a nail and a screwdriver for a screw.
Horses for courses


Again, loving both systems myself.
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2008, 02:35:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Frank, the 5D2 is amazing at ISO 50, whether it's fake or not.  I have some sample files that were shot JPEG (unfortunately) at ISO 50 and ISO 100, and the one shot at 50 seems to be perfectly clean, and sharper than the ISO 100 image.  It reminded me immediately of the characteristics of the Leaf Aptus 75 at ISO 50.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2008, 03:33:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: T-1000
Frank, the 5D2 is amazing at ISO 50, whether it's fake or not.  I have some sample files that were shot JPEG (unfortunately) at ISO 50 and ISO 100, and the one shot at 50 seems to be perfectly clean, and sharper than the ISO 100 image.  It reminded me immediately of the characteristics of the Leaf Aptus 75 at ISO 50.

I love ISO50 on the 5D but reality is that it's a pulled ISO50, in other words you miss one step of dynamic range.
Because I can control my DR in the studio I always used the 5D on ISO50 in the studio because it's in the shadows incredibly nice.

When I switched to the Aptus 22 however I found that the shadows were much more detailed than the 5D, I hope the 14 bits of the 5DII will improve this.
But whatever the outcome the 5DII will always be my other camera, I'm just hooked at the way MF works and looks.

It's just so much fun to finally have a camera that will be so complete, when I'm on holiday I will now probarbly just carry the 5DII, on the other hand, I will probarbly miss the extra dynamic range of the leaf, so probarbly I will still travel with two cameras

Understand me correctly I will love the 5DII but I find it strange to compare the two systems, because they are both rather different.


Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2008, 05:29:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
Opening the 5DII file in DPP, Raw Developer and LR all show the exact same exposure level
1. You uploaded the DNG version of the 5D2 shot; I can't say anything to the DPP etc. interpretation. However, regarding the ACR interpretation, I found an important difference: the black point is 2 for the Aptus and 0 for the 5D2. This is not a small issue. I positioned the picker on a point in the black square (still in ACR). The resulting RGB is (39,40,44) with Blacks=0 and (35,35,40) with Blacks=2.

This not only increased the lightness of the 5D2 shot (i.e. reduced the difference caused ny the underexposure), but it increased the noise as well.

2. The 0.4 EV adjustment by ACR is applied to all 5D2 images, except to those shot @ ISO 500; then the adjustment is -0.6 EV  (incorrect "correction", nothing unusual from ACR). As I posted, this is not visible on the Exposure slider. This adjustment may cause apparent clipping[/i].

3. ACR is not good with Canon (nor with Nikon) images in the noisy region. That's a fact of life for now.
Logged

Gabor
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2008, 06:44:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
As long as the sensor is not the same size a comparision is not possible.
I have choosen MF for the bigger sensor
Earlier huge sensors meant huge pixel sites, cleaner image. This is not so any more. The size of the pixel sites of the MFDBs are now in the same range as the DSLRs, and the advance in technology made the smaller pixel sites quote competitive; the 5D2 is an excellent example for that.

The wide FoV remains an aspect, but that counts only with shorter lenses.

Another aspect is the AA filter - a two sided sword.

Quote
Also there's no ISO50 (real ISO50) on the 5D
Be cautious with that. ISO 50 is not relly the "half of ISO 100", neither on the 5D, nor on the 5D2. However, it is not fake in the sense as 3200 is on the 5D or 6400, 12800 and 25600 are on the 5D2.

You can get the least noise/greatest dynamic range @ ISO 50, but exposed about 0.5 EV higher than @ ISO 100, instead of 1 EV higher.

Quote
let alone ISO25 (ok that's only on the Aptus 22 at the moment but still)
If the Aptus 22 uses the same sensor as the Sinar em45 (they look similar), then there is no ISO 25, ISO 50, etc. All the ISO selections are only post processing directives.
Logged

Gabor
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2008, 09:10:48 PM »
ReplyReply



Quote
The REAL problem I have with the 5DII and 1DsII is diffraction, I have seen samples of the 1DsIII where f5.6 was usable but f16 was destroying fine detail in clothing and eyelashes, I would in that case rather opt for 12MP's and less diffraction.
The reason I upgrade from the 5D is for me weathersealing, film option and higher ISO values, and lastly very lastly MPs.
I have as James mentions big prints that still originate from the 20D, and 5D that are from their viewing distance razor sharp.

Frank,
Don't we all have problems with diffraction whatever the camera? Those who use a P&S such as the Canon G10 would experience very significant problems with diffraction at F8. Those who use the APS-C format will find that stopping down beyond F11 results in a noticeable softness, and likewise at F16 for the full frame 35mm DSLR.

If you need the sort of DoF that F16 provides with a 5D11, then maximum sharpness at the plane of focus is the trade-off. If you choose to use a DB instead, it's true that you could expect to get a slightly sharper image at F16, but you wouldn't get as much DoF. Are you claiming that a DB used at F22 gives you more detail in clothing and eyelashes than a 5D2 at F16?

Quote
A good photographer can make stunning work with every camera I believe.
It's just choosing the right tool for the job, and MF and DSLRs are like a hammer and screwdriver.
A hammer is used for a nail and a screwdriver for a screw.
Horses for courses

I agree with the broad sentiment here, but the analogy is a bit extreme   . Screwdrivers and hammers are not interchangeable. They are different tools in both name and function. However, a camera is a camera. I'm sure if you were on an assignment, lost your MF equipment and were unable to get a replacement, you could still do a pretty good job with a 5D2   .
Logged
mikemigs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2008, 12:04:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I looked at both files (.mos and cr2) in Lightroom.

Is it just me, or is the EXIF data panel showing the camera as a 5D, NOT MkII? The pixel dimensions even say 4368x2912 with is 12MP a la 5D.

OK, now I see that the .dng EXIF shows 5D MkII @ 5616x3744.

If the camera outputs only cr2, then I assume the .dng was made from the cr2, which means the .dng is from a 5D, not the 5D MkII???

Confused and tired - going to bed.

I appreciate if anyone can chime in in the morning and help me figure this out.

Thanks.

Mike.

« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 12:28:33 AM by mikemigs » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2008, 01:29:47 AM »
ReplyReply

@John,
I did indeed test the ZD vs Aptus, but that was MF vs MF.
The first day I got the ZD I tested it against the 5D, to very soon find out that was an almost impossible task simply because the look and feel of the files were totally different.

When I get the 5DMKII I will do exactly the same test, not to prove how close the 5DMKII is to a MF system but simply to show the two next to each other.

The reason I posted this was not to claim MF is better or a DSLR is better.
It's simply to point out that both systems are totally different.
I think the comparision to a screwdriver and hammer is a correct one.

One can hammer in a screw, and one can turn arround the screwdriver and hammer in a nail.
But it's not an easy task.

When I look at some of the shots I made with the MF system I would not know how to replicate it with my 5D, especially the shots where I shot straight into the sun and still have a very shallow DOF, there are also shots with the 5D which I could not reproduce with the MF system.

The problem I have (well problem is a big word) is that somehow people only look at the files on color and sharpness, it's already clear that DSLRs are getting close in that segment, although even with these samples I still think the color and sharpness is lacking compared to the MF system but close enough seeing the huge price difference.
But when a photographer chooses for MF it often has a totally different reason, or at least it was for me. And that is often left out of the test completly.
People looking for a new camera will see the pictures next to each other and claim that one should be crazy if one would buy the MF system.

Back to the nail and screw.
Let's say you want to hang something and you can opt for a nail or a screw.
However the screw is four times the money of the nail, if the portret hangs you can't see a difference so why buy a four times more expensive screw ?
The reason could be that you need to rehang the portret twice or more each month, or that you sometimes need to change the depth of the screw to fit other frames.
In that case it's wise to invest more money for the screw instead of the nail which you will loose if you remove it from the wall.
I know it sounds like a weird comparision but I hope that you inderstand what I mean with it, the disadvantage of the written word is that you have to post something and hope the intention is coming over.

I'm using both systems and enjoy both immensly.

About the real ISO25/50 I have done testing in the past with the 5D and found that ISO50 was indeed costing me a stop of dynamic range, skies were blown out more easily than on ISO100. I don't really care if an ISO is pushed or pulled or what ever, the reason I give this point is that with Aptus I have not find any disadvatages of shooting at ISO50 or ISO25, but the files are a lot cleaner than ISO100, maybe it's the few extra stops of dynamic range or something else I really don't care to be honest, it's again the way you use your camera.

Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2008, 06:33:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Just seems that all the guys who bought MFDB are trying to defend their investments..:+}
The 5DII is MF killer and 1DSMIII killer specially for those who do not print very large gallery prints...
I have been shooting a lot lately with 1DsMII and my P30 and for Catalogue and most magazine printing.. THERE is NO DIFFERENCE!!
The "Only" difference is the abuse the 16 bits takes in Photoshop and still shines over the Canon file which takes much less abuse!
The days are number for Medium Format...
S.


Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2008, 10:12:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mikemigs
I looked at both files (.mos and cr2) in Lightroom
Did you find a CR2 file in that ZIP? I found only the DNG.

Quote
If the camera outputs only cr2, then I assume the .dng was made from the cr2, which means the .dng is from a 5D, not the 5D MkII???
And has been upresd in raw format to 5616x3744?

It IS a 5D2 raw file. Your Exif viewer is crap.

This is from the file, created by the camera, not by the DNG converter:

272 Model         Canon EOS 5D Mark II
306 DateTime    2008:12:01 14:52:35
315 Artist          John Schweikert Photography
Logged

Gabor
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2008, 10:24:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't really care if an ISO is pushed or pulled or what ever, the reason I give this point is that with Aptus I have not find any disadvatages of shooting at ISO50 or ISO25, but the files are a lot cleaner than ISO100, maybe it's the few extra stops of dynamic range or something else I really don't care to be honest, it's again the way you use your camera.
This forum (the MFDB) is the proof, that the more people spend on their equipment, the less they find it necessary to learn it.

The Dalsa sensor does not have different ISOs; thus higher ISO means simply underexposing. At low ISO you expose properly , so the image is cleaner. So simple.

The 5D's native ISO is neither 50 nor 100, it is around 70. The highest possible exposure is attainable @ 50, but it needs to be exposed "incorrectly" (half stop underexposed).
Logged

Gabor
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2008, 10:48:44 AM »
ReplyReply

@Panopeeper,
How do you mean the less they learn it ?
I know exactly what my equiptment does in which situation, what I don't care about is HOW the ISO range is achieved.
What I do care about is that I keep my dynamic range and that I get good shadow and highlight detail.
HOW that technical works is nice to know but has nothing to do with spending less or more.
It's more about where your interests lies. I love a good picture and I love equiptment, I however don't have to know how the pixels are turned and twisted inside the sensor. But I do know a little about it, don't get me wrong

I do think that some people are looking TOO MUCH at the technical parts and not at the pictures..... and most of those people are the ones buying the DSLRs and posting on forums that they are MF killers without working on a daily basis with both.

@Snook,
If you can't see a difference that's more your opinion, I used the 1DsIII next to the Aptus 22 and I could see big differences, especially when closing down to f16 on the 1DsIII and f22 on the Aptus22, the difference is not funny trust me.
The 5DMKII is probarbly a 1DsIII killer, MF will always have it's place.
Maybe not in the need for megapixels any more but it still delivers some things that a DSLR as of YET does not.
The question is, is this important for you as a photographer ?

For me it is.
I also don't have money to burn, and when I could sell my MF system for something just as good in the price range of the 5DMKII I would do in a heart beat.
However as mentioned so many times there is much more than comparing a test chart.
Both systems are different and have their own advantages and disadvantages, and as long as the sensor size is not equal they will never be the same.
But I'm repeating myself and that's not good

« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 10:56:43 AM by Frank Doorhof » Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2008, 12:05:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Panopeeper,
How do you mean the less they learn it ?
I know exactly what my equiptment does in which situation, what I don't care about is HOW the ISO range is achieved.
What I do care about is that I keep my dynamic range and that I get good shadow and highlight detail.
HOW that technical works is nice to know but has nothing to do with spending less or more.
It's more about where your interests lies. I love a good picture and I love equiptment, I however don't have to know how the pixels are turned and twisted inside the sensor. But I do know a little about it, don't get me wrong

I do think that some people are looking TOO MUCH at the technical parts and not at the pictures..... and most of those people are the ones buying the DSLRs and posting on forums that they are MF killers without working on a daily basis with both.

@Snook,
If you can't see a difference that's more your opinion, I used the 1DsIII next to the Aptus 22 and I could see big differences, especially when closing down to f16 on the 1DsIII and f22 on the Aptus22, the difference is not funny trust me.
The 5DMKII is probarbly a 1DsIII killer, MF will always have it's place.
Maybe not in the need for megapixels any more but it still delivers some things that a DSLR as of YET does not.
The question is, is this important for you as a photographer ?

For me it is.
I also don't have money to burn, and when I could sell my MF system for something just as good in the price range of the 5DMKII I would do in a heart beat.
However as mentioned so many times there is much more than comparing a test chart.
Both systems are different and have their own advantages and disadvantages, and as long as the sensor size is not equal they will never be the same.
But I'm repeating myself and that's not good

Frank, I completely agree and understand what you're saying. I have both, use both and see big differences as well as you.
The reason I stopped defending MF here is because I'm tired of hearing about these "MF killers" from people who don't even own MF, just judging an entire format for a few web samples.

The day MF users start seeing the same things,  It will be another story. But right now this is only pixelpeeper's wishes, cheap forum bs and gear head hypothesis. Nothing to do with real world work.

Have a nice day.


 
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2008, 01:16:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
@Panopeeper,
How do you mean the less they learn it ?
I know exactly what my equiptment does in which situation, what I don't care about is HOW the ISO range is achieved.
What I do care about is that I keep my dynamic range and that I get good shadow and highlight detail.
HOW that technical works is nice to know but has nothing to do with spending less or more.
It's more about where your interests lies. I love a good picture and I love equiptment, I however don't have to know how the pixels are turned and twisted inside the sensor. But I do know a little about it, don't get me wrong

I do think that some people are looking TOO MUCH at the technical parts and not at the pictures..... and most of those people are the ones buying the DSLRs and posting on forums that they are MF killers without working on a daily basis with both.

@Snook,
If you can't see a difference that's more your opinion, I used the 1DsIII next to the Aptus 22 and I could see big differences, especially when closing down to f16 on the 1DsIII and f22 on the Aptus22, the difference is not funny trust me.
The 5DMKII is probarbly a 1DsIII killer, MF will always have it's place.
Maybe not in the need for megapixels any more but it still delivers some things that a DSLR as of YET does not.
The question is, is this important for you as a photographer ?

For me it is.
I also don't have money to burn, and when I could sell my MF system for something just as good in the price range of the 5DMKII I would do in a heart beat.
However as mentioned so many times there is much more than comparing a test chart.
Both systems are different and have their own advantages and disadvantages, and as long as the sensor size is not equal they will never be the same.
But I'm repeating myself and that's not good


Frank, I meant in Print..
Especially for Catalogue which is pretty bad usually.

I do see a difference on Screen and when I am retouching. The files hold up a lot better and everything (gradients) are of course smoother.

Where I live and I think a lot of people in the future will be more web based and all those megapixels are useless anyways.
I just did 4-5 Jobs that were for Web and several companies I work with are going more web base now and saving a lot of money on print and Paper.
We shoot a lot of people and then have them move just slightly and they put that into animation on the sites, which I think the RED camera will be great for in the future. Small web based Videos and Images. Not many megapixels are needed and they are already there.

I am talking about catalogue houses mainly and Jeans companies.
I am printing an exhibition here soon and have not printed anything,other than the Family or small 11X14 Print in Years!!
For my clients that pay most of my bills there is very little use for so many mega pixels even for Billboards that print a low DPI anyhow.

Again I see a difference but many will turn their heads and say they do not just to save 10-20K on a digital back.

If I was coming into the game now and with these hard economic times, I would be quite happy with a 5DII and all the best canon Glass. Actually the 24 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 100 macro, 135 f2 and you not going to notice that much difference.

Those shadows look much better from my P30 for sure. But also HIGH ISO for those tough situations is quite nice also.
The good thing is most can have both, which I probably will have when all the 5DII craziness is over..:+}

Snook
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 01:19:30 PM by Snook » Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2008, 01:44:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: samuel_js
The day MF users start seeing the same things,  It will be another story. But right now this is only pixelpeeper's wishes, cheap forum bs and gear head hypothesis. Nothing to do with real world work.

not sure if you are reading other peoples posts....the point is that MF users are starting to see the same things....i am a MF user and have been for a long time and have always maintained that there is a difference...but in the last 5 years the differnce has gone from totally obvious to obvious to "there" to "barely there" to "i want to see a difference because i want to justify my investment" which is is really silly....
i know there still is a difference but well shot files from either system can look the same on paper....this has been said before but now it is a reality...the 5dII provides 98% of a MF file at 20% of the price, 1000% better high iso, features, handling...and it throws in some of the most exciting HD possibilities i have seen in a long time.....
i am not even sure anymore if i would use MF if i would shoot still life...maybe...
every photographer i know personally has sold their MF systems this last year....mostly for the simple reason that they did not use it anymore and they could still get good money for their stuff....

i wish i could get excited about any MF system announced or actually selling....none really listened to what people want and now people don't really want what they are offering.....

i think leica with their S announcement showed what we can expect from canon and nikon in the not so distant future.....
a canon 2ds with a 30x40mm sensor 16bit 30mpix with new lenses and the same af, speed, handling,high iso performance is on the horizon....maybe even in 2009....

anyone who still owns MF is probably using it, loving it and knows that it will always provide a great file within their workflow....which is great and really what it is all about.....
but even those people, how many of those people will buy another one this year? next year? that is why MF is dying....


Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2008, 02:02:02 PM »
ReplyReply

From where I'm sitting MFDB is no longer needed or even desired.  I sold my P30+ when I thought I could still get some money for it, and because I never used it.  It just sat around.  For editorial portraits I shoot 4x5 and 6x7 film, even 35mm film.  Low volume, usually have a little time to shoot, no one looking over my shoulder.  I like to shoot beauty with an MFDB, so I rent it, but this work dropped like a stone last spring.  For commercial work the Canon's work just fine.  The only people who complain are retouchers.

I do like the MF look, whatever the cause.  By look what I mean is I like the 80mm as a normal, a 50mm as a wide.  I like how quickly focus falls off, and I like how relatively sharp the in focus areas are.  When I need or want the look I shoot film or rent.

And yes, it is dying.  I do plan on getting another back when I can get a 54s for about $5k.  At $5k its a nice option to have to hang on my RZ and AFD cameras.  We'll see.  In teh meantime, I don't really miss my P30.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 02:54:24 PM by TMARK » Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2008, 03:15:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the hole debate is too funny.
In which way are files from a 1dsIII or 5D better than a 6 years old 1Ds? They are bigger and with better high ISO but nothing else.
This debate should started back in 2002. But it starts now because the digital backs are almost the same as 6 years ago while the dslrs evolution to higher pixel count and nothing more.

People is bored with this zero evolution. MF and DSLr are only closer in file size (well...), nothing more.

If people is changing to DSLrs is because they like them better as tools or because they picked the wrong tool from start. It has nothing to do with file quality.

If you don't believe it just take a look at dpreview. I think it's amazing how this people do test after test and collect crop after crop of the same pictures of the same things and with almost no differences in quality. Just look at the quality of images from cameras 8 or 10 years old and modern cameras.
The difference is only pixels...

But as I said before, it's not my intention to defend Mf here anymore. I really don't care. I see what I see...
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2008, 03:26:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: samuel_js
I think the hole debate is too funny.
In which way are files from a 1dsIII or 5D better than a 6 years old 1Ds? They are bigger and with better high ISO but nothing else.
This debate should started back in 2002. But it starts now because the digital backs are almost the same as 6 years ago while the dslrs evolution to higher pixel count and nothing more.

People is bored with this zero evolution. MF and DSLr are only closer in file size (well...), nothing more.

If people is changing to DSLrs is because they like them better as tools or because they picked the wrong tool from start. It has nothing to do with file quality.

If you don't believe it just take a look at dpreview. I think it's amazing how this people do test after test and collect crop after crop of the same pictures of the same things and with almost no differences in quality. Just look at the quality of images from cameras 8 or 10 years old and modern cameras.
The difference is only pixels...

But as I said before, it's not my intention to defend Mf here anymore. I really don't care. I see what I see...

You forgot one very important thing..
Dynamic Range/16Bit is different and very important...:+}

There is a difference, only most prints and publications will not show that difference..
Like someone said, The retouchers notice right away the difference.
I am retouching some files right now for a client of mine Everlast,They wanted me to really tweak the files and I have an notice a BIG difference tweaking P30 files and 1DsMII files. Cannot comment on 1DsMIII but just more megapixel there and maybe slightly better Dynamic range than the 1DsMII.

Any way you look at it, the Doom of the Mom and Pap Digital Back sellers are going to be History very soon. Forget it if Nikon and Canon come out with some type of Hybrid Medium format thing..

I am sure Mamiya/Phase and That special German maker that was supposed to make Lens are thinking twice right now as to what the future will behold.

Economically trouble times, The 5DII is a no brainer!!

Snook




Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2008, 03:50:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I myself really believe that the 5dII will be a miracle camera, a 1ds3 was a wonder and the A900 certainly is the best camera ever made.... until you get into real photography. I shot 1ds3 and 5dmk1 in industrial environnements, factories and nuclear power reactors( as a back-up to my hasselbladH3dII 31Mp) and the results of all the dslr's where cr*p, unusuable. At this forum the only God's are fashion photographers and landscape/cityscape/people , but there are more sorts of photography. I do only industrial and advertising photography. I have been using hasselblad backs in these harsh environnements eversince my 96C 16Mp back( wich because of the iso 200 limit was a dog in use) and never got a even close image out of my 1Ds3 or 5D. (try it yourself under a mixture of sodium vapor, halogen, fluoressent, mercury.... lighting, common used mixed in a plant. No DSLR was ( until now, maybe the 5d2 or a700 or D3 will change the game) capable of getting decent files.
The other thing i do is advertising with a view camera ( at the moment a P2 digital with a 528 or 384 back on it). No replacement for that either in DSLR.
About testing: most tesing i have seen is done under unchaliging light situations, studio lights, perfect landscape etc. Lets do those tesing in environnements where a lot of pro's do work, and  i  am not referring to a well lit fashion shoot in a factory or so but real world situations where photographers ( who are apparently not visithing the LL) such as myself and thousends more are working in. In factory's i have my H3d standard set at ISO 800 and mostly underexpose one or two stops and still get better results as my 1Ds3. I make double spreads out of them, billboards etc....
The third thing about MF is : it's a completely different approach to photography, slower more carefull composing, other feel of image because of 3d eand lenses.
On the other hand i often us my dslr camera's because they have the advantage of speed and high iso, just as in the 90ies of last century.
Let's just use the wright tool for the wright job.
Rafaello di ixpresso.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2008, 03:55:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Snook
You forgot one very important thing..
Dynamic Range/16Bit is different and very important...:+}

There is a difference, only most prints and publications will not show that difference..
Like someone said, The retouchers notice right away the difference.
I am retouching some files right now for a client of mine Everlast,They wanted me to really tweak the files and I have an notice a BIG difference tweaking P30 files and 1DsMII files. Cannot comment on 1DsMIII but just more megapixel there and maybe slightly better Dynamic range than the 1DsMII.




the 16 bit MF backs always claimed where always up for discussion....i have never believed in numbers alone...the proof is on the printed piece in front of you...does not matter if it inkjet or analog or magazine....what matters if you get your point across....

i could always tell a 1dsII, 5d,....from any MF back.....i always thought it was the extra bits, the pixel depth....i always said the P20 beats any DSLR, pixelcount does not matter....

not so anymore....the 1dsIII has better DR imo then the P20 had, the transitions are at least as smooth...maybe tht is the 14bit?....the files still look different and the phase files seem to snap more, but all that can be changed in post....the p30 still provides better files, but the difference is so marginal and when lit carefully even that advantage disappears....

again, what really matters is what you like to shoot with and what gets your point across...

i talked to a photographer friend of mine yesterday, he shoots mainly portrait and just sold his phase back that he used with the RZ....we both agreed that a great addition to a kit right now would be a 4x5 (or even better 8x10) field camera....shoot a couple of sheets per session......totally different interaction with the subject and the quality is still hard to beat....and don't even get me started on how people react to a 8x10 polaroid.....
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad