Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mini Medium Format Shootout  (Read 31209 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7045


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2010, 08:11:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Another great review.

I own the 1Ds Mrk3 and the 24-105. It is a good zoom but no match for a leica prime.

I must say I have been using 3 zeiss ZE primes (21mm, 35mm and 50mm MP) on the 1DsMrk3 for six months now and they take the camera into another league compared to the 24-105 zoom.

Am I correct that when you do this you buy additional sharpness at the expense of auto-focus and auto-exposure functions?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7045


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2010, 08:20:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Agreed - the comparison is totally unfair but more importantly its irrelevant (might make MF owners feel good though, and I cant help but wonder if this was the intention). Crippling the Canon with a mediocre (and it is seriously mediocre lens [READ: BAD] compared to say something like the 85mm F1.2L) zoom was ALWAYS going to lead to said results. On top of that the Leica was fed with a 5 star lens to further widen the gap. All this ultimately proved is that stacking the deck will make one camera look very bad and one look very good. Cant help but wonder why they even bothered with this comparison. It is interesting however, that the differences so clearly visible on screen narrow so significantly in print.

I have shot with a 1DSMKIII extensively - well over 100,000 frames in more than four continents in all kinds of conditions with everything from a 17mm TSE to a 300mm F2.8L Is and just about everything in between and I can tell you that sample image in the review is just plain BAD. If that was my test image it would get deleted as it is not at all representative of what this camera is capable of - the 1DSMKIII is capable of so much better. Which leads me to either poor technique (unlikely given the reviewers experience) or poor autofocus or poor lens or a combination of the above.

That said - the MF comparison was very interesting and thoroughly enjoyable - thank you so much for this. The Pentax has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons in terms of price. For anyone shopping for a 40MPX camera (which includes me) the Pentax simply must be on the shopping list. As someone who is seriously seriously considering the Leica S2 the Pentax has given me a lot of pause for thought - this review has only strengthened my desire to test one. Thanks to the reviewers for their efforts in the MF review (but guys, please go put a better lens on the 1DSMKIII!)

Josh, thanks, glad you liked the MF stuff. I fully agree with you that the 1DsMk3 is capable of much better than the test shot we posted, because I know from experience it is. It's a mystery to me still why that happened, which is why I reverted to that issue in the conclusion of my part of the review. I would beg to differ with you however on the POTENTIAL quality of this lens. I put "potential" in caps because there is sample variation with these lenses, especially zooms. Alignment is so important. The one I own happens to be a very good one, and I've made a very large number of tack-sharp photos with it. Check on this website, you will see reviews of this lens prepared independently by Bill Caulfield-Brown and me. I was wondering for a while whether I should have posted the test shot we made at the Brickworks, but decided to do so, because that's what we shot, under ideal conditions, and that's what we got. It wasn't convenient to hold-up the rest of the rest of the review to reshoot that one item, which was not the center-piece of the article to begin with.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 729


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2010, 08:26:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Fyi, I have both the M9 and a P65+ back (with H2 camera and lenses),  and I can say pixel for pixel the M9 files  next to the  65+ files are all as good and sometimes superior.  Leica has the best glass I've seen in all my years in photography.  One is only limited by print sizes with the 18 megapixel files from the M9.  And the portability of the M9 and small lenses is unparalleled.   Eleanor



Totally agree.  Just completed working up a 2-shot pano I took with the M9 and 50mm from Jackson Hole.  I've printed the image at 20x40 and am pleased with that was I would have been had I shot it with my Cambo WRS/P45+.

Don
Logged

TEBnewyork
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2010, 08:56:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Could you better explain your comments about C1 and the inability to get a good raw conversion and the use of the highlight and shadow sliders. I am newer to C1 than I am to LR but I haven't found any instances where I said "gosh I wish I were using LR for this RAW file".
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 572


« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2010, 09:21:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Nick and Mark, thanks for taking the time (and inevitable flak) for writing this report.  I do find it interesting that most of the respondents so far are more concerned with the Canon and Leica than the Phase and Pentax!  Nick, if you haven’t used one of the manual focus A 645 lenses, I would encourage you to do so.  Not only may the A lenses solve the “quantized” or stepwise focus problem you mentioned in a previous report, but they also feel much better in the hand.  I have a couple of 645 lenses in the A and FA versions; the lenses may be identical in optical performance but the FA versions lost a lot of solidity with the addition of AF.  I much prefer the A 120mm macro over the FA version.   The focus ring is remarkably solid and precise; additionally, the lens hood is integral rather than the reversing plastic one with the FA.    As a side note: I’ve used that lens a great deal and as tempting as it is to use f16 to increase DOF, diffraction is really taking a toll at that point.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 04:42:53 PM by tsjanik » Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2010, 09:35:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Funny you mention the "A" lenses.  I have one on the way (the 200mm) and am also borrowing a couple of 67 lenses to try out as well (the 90-180 and 135 macro).

I know what you mean about the focus-feel.  All AF lenses feel a bit 'looser', which must have something to do with the need to be able to accelerate and decelerate them rapidly during auto-focusing.

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1078



« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2010, 09:40:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I am newer to C1 than I am to LR but I haven't found any instances where I said "gosh I wish I were using LR for this RAW file".

for example try really high ISO raw file and compare NR from ACR 6.x/LR 3.x w/ C1 v5.x... albeit this is more for dslr and not for mf.
Logged
TEBnewyork
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2010, 10:11:56 AM »
ReplyReply

for example try really high ISO raw file and compare NR from ACR 6.x/LR 3.x w/ C1 v5.x... albeit this is more for dslr and not for mf.

Perhaps, on DSLR high ISO noise reduction but the article refers to the shadow/highlight sliders on a P40+ low ISO files. I'm using the same P40+ back and C1 works very, very well with the files.   
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2010, 12:28:41 PM »
ReplyReply


And lastly, you're right, it wasn't a fair test. I should have averted to the fine-print in Canon's EF lens brochure, where they clearly state: "The EF 24-105 is not suitable for photography of highly textured subjects. Under near-ideal conditions this lens is limited to producing a fraction of the resolution of which the Canon 1-series cameras are capable. By purchasing this lens at a list price of over $1,000, users agree to and accept the terms of Canon's "Inferior But Nonetheless "L" designated Lenses Policy" found at Appendix "B" to this brochure".

Our bad.
 Wink  Grin


Sorry but that is an immature response. Whether or not Canon designate a lens as whatever or sell for whatever price, you were trying to show what a 1Ds mkIII can do and you didn't come close because you seemingly have a chip on your shoulder about what this lens should be and are judging the camera based on it.

What your test of the '35mm' DSLR's has told me is that a prime is better than what is known to be an inferior zoom for all its price. Right.

I'm no canon fanboy, not in the slightest, heck I've sold my mkIII, but this comparison between the M9 and 1Ds mkIII says nothing and trying to pretend otherwise would IMO damage the hard work of the MF comparison.
Logged

juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2010, 12:39:15 PM »
ReplyReply

"Am I correct that when you do this you buy additional sharpness at the expense of auto-focus and auto-exposure functions?"


Zeiss ZE-lenses are manual focus lenses. They do however communicate electronically with the camera body because these are in "native" Canon EF-mounts. Auto-exposure works normally and also auto-aperture works like in any modern slr-lens.

J
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:42:02 PM by juicy » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7045


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2010, 01:34:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Could you better explain your comments about C1 and the inability to get a good raw conversion and the use of the highlight and shadow sliders. I am newer to C1 than I am to LR but I haven't found any instances where I said "gosh I wish I were using LR for this RAW file".

In the particular case of this file, in C-1 it wasn't possible to open the indoor portion enough without blowing the highlights of the outdoor portion, even using both sliders and the Curve tool. In Lightroom I was able to accomplish this easily. Both are very good programs. I think this is another instance of the fact that depending upon the situation, different programs show-up different kinds of capabilities.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2010, 01:54:25 PM »
ReplyReply

In the particular case of this file, in C-1 it wasn't possible to open the indoor portion enough without blowing the highlights of the outdoor portion, even using both sliders and the Curve tool. In Lightroom I was able to accomplish this easily. Both are very good programs. I think this is another instance of the fact that depending upon the situation, different programs show-up different kinds of capabilities.

Or perhaps shows how program familiarity -- or lack thereof -- can affect test results.   Just sayin... 
Logged

bobtowery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2010, 02:36:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Re: the Canon 24-105..
 
I don't see any mention in the article or these forum posts as to whether you turned off the IS? I believe most people (including Chuck Westfall) feel IS is detrimental when the camera is tripod mounted:

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/image-stabilization-on-tripods

??
Logged

Jay101
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2010, 02:53:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for reporting o your mini-shootout (and the earlier review of the Pentax 645D)

Honestly, this was REALLY helpful to me as I have been weighing up a P1 or the Hasselblad H4D-31 - and the Pentax ticks so many boxes it's fast heading up my list.  The one thing "missing" for me is the option for tethered shooting on the Pentax - which you have noted.  However, this (less than clear) text from Pentax Japan suggests it might be coming??

The PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4 software (included) is designed to facilitate the filing and viewing of recorded images, as well as to handle the development and editing of RAW-format files. It even allows the editing of JPEG-format images. A remote-access application will soon to be added to this software, allowing you to control your PC from a distance using the 645D.

http://www.pentax.jp/english/imaging/digital/medium/645d/feature_6.html
Logged
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2010, 03:52:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Totally agree.  Just completed working up a 2-shot pano I took with the M9 and 50mm from Jackson Hole.  I've printed the image at 20x40 and am pleased with that was I would have been had I shot it with my Cambo WRS/P45+.

Don


+1!

Bill
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2861



« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2010, 04:56:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to Mark Segal and Nick Devlin for an interesting and well thought out test of the cameras in question (and the Leica and Canon as well). 

Yes, the comparisons were interesting. The shadow detail in the test shots with the two MFDBs looked good after post processing, but it is difficult to judge dynamic range. Too bad they didn't include a DR shot with the Canon to see if the difference between MFDB and good dSLR is as great as some MFDB proponents claim.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7045


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2010, 06:09:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Or perhaps shows how program familiarity -- or lack thereof -- can affect test results.   Just sayin... 

Always possible, despite the inherently speculative nature of a comment predicated on the possibility that you may not know what you don't know. But in the final analysis, it doesn't take a PhD in the imaging sciences to operate either of these programs, especially with all the training, reference material and practice we have available to us. It does happen though Jack, that in certain cases some things just work very well and others less so. Every application has its place, as well as its strengths and limitations. I'll leave this tangent at that.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
WaitingForAnR10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2010, 09:02:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Is it possible that, rather than the camera backs being out of alignment with the brick wall, that the sensors are out of alignment within the camera body?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7045


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 16, 2010, 09:08:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Re: the Canon 24-105..
 
I don't see any mention in the article or these forum posts as to whether you turned off the IS? I believe most people (including Chuck Westfall) feel IS is detrimental when the camera is tripod mounted:

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/image-stabilization-on-tripods

??

Yes, indeed IS was turned off. I've been hoisted on that petard in the past and this time made sure first thing after putting the camera on the tripod that it was OFF. It is true that with this lens - and others - if IS is ON when the camera sits on a tripod, it can impair sharpness.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7045


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2010, 09:14:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Is it possible that, rather than the camera backs being out of alignment with the brick wall, that the sensors are out of alignment within the camera body?


Yes it is likely that the alignment problem is within the camera rather than between the camera and the wall. Have a look at the up-date comment we posted at the end of the article. We think it possible that the sensors are not perfectly aligned with the optical axis of the lenses.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad