Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Older backs vs new DSLRs  (Read 13413 times)
ThomasCampbell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: August 13, 2012, 05:27:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I currently shoot a 5D Mark III and am pleased with the IQ. I am looking at getting a digital back for my AFD and was considering the Phase One and Leaf options.

How would something along the lines of an Aptus 22, 65, 75 or XXs or P+ back (excluding 65+ and 40+ since I am trying to stay on budget.) Was the MF technology there to get an IQ better than the output that I am getting from a 5D3, or should I wait until I can afford an IQ?

I shoot almost exclusively portraits and POSSIBLY the occasional landscape. But extended exposure is not a concern. I also tend to use strobes, so the ISO performance over 400 isn't a big concern either.
Logged
Michael Nelson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2012, 05:55:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Great question to ask. I'm also curious...

Hoping that Steve H or Doug P post a detailed reply...
Logged

Michael Nelson
www.michaelnelson.com
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2012, 06:26:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot a 5DIII (previously II) for the faster and less-well-lit parts of weddings and have a lot of respect for the camera. The odd fact is I could show you a Phase One H25 from 2003 which will match or exceed the 5DIII on image quality in nearly every category. Granted the H25 was only good at base ISO (50), could only shoot tethered, was limited to 60 second exposures. But it's color rendering, tonal smoothness, and overall image quality still edge out my use of a 5DIII. As just one small pet peeve, Canon STILL cannot render a skin tone transition in dramatic lighting without a strong color break between highlight and shadow (regardless of which raw processor, setting, etc you use).  

It comes down to, more than anything else, the priorities of design of a system. Phase and Leaf, when facing a decision between image quality and [cost, speed, features] choose image quality every time. The sensors selected, the way the data is read off of them, the color filters and IR filters chosen, the internal electronics to convert the analog signals to a raw file - they are all selected first and foremost for image quality.

So yes, I think you'll be very pleased with the image quality, color, and tonality from any Leaf Aptus or P/P+ back. For shooting people I'd suggest a 30+mp back to avoid issues with moire. Likewise, if you like to shoot wide open on your Canon I'd suggest a larger-sensor digital back like the 33mp Leaf or (Aptus II 7) or 39mp Phase One P45+. They will exaggerate the look of wide open shooting. A Phase One 150mm D shot wide open on a large sensor is a really beautiful thing.

Likely others in this thread will get bogged down with numbers or numerical measures of image quality. Someone will mention the D800 and someone else will inexplicably mention the Fuji 680. Trust me when I say I can go toe-to-toe with all that, but it gets tiring. Suffice it to say I've never, not once, seen some one walk away from a hands on experience with a Leaf Aptus II or P/P+ with disappointment regarding the image quality at low ISOs. People do walk away sometimes because the high ISO is not fast enough, or they cannot afford it, the LCD isn't good enough (prior to the IQ/Credo - the LCD of which is stunningly good) or because they needed something with a higher burst frame rate, or video. But not image quality. So if you think medium format fits your style (e.g. you don't shoot fast paced action in low light) and you're curious you should really try it for yourself. Dealers can arrange test files, rentals with credit towards purchase, in studio demos, or remote video chat meetings to that end. Note of disclosure, this is a selfish statement, since my company Digital Transitions would be glad to be that dealer for you.

The other factors here are the lens selections available in medium format, both for uber-sharp modern-look lenses like the Phase One 150D/2.8 and for classic sharp-but-not-clinical lenses like the Hassy 110/2 to the notably-soft-but-still-cool-looking Mamiya 80/1.9.

All that said, image quality is not the only criterium on which to base a camera. Here is a list I posted on a similar thread regarding Nikon dSLRs vs. MF (I've tweaked it from that thread for applicability to your question). It is a partial list of non-image-quality related criterium in which I think medium format has a big advantage:
- large and bright viewfinder
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th, some back/lens combos)
- More tactile lens response when manually focusing (large focus barrel, actual lens gearing*)
- aspect ratio (some prefer 4:3 or 1:1, especially for verticals)
- waist level viewfinder (some bodies)
- ability to shoot verticals without rotating camera (some backs)
- ability to shoot film with same system as digital (some bodies)
- ability to crop a usable vertical and horizontal from the same frame (on higher res backs)
- ability to use on specific legacy cameras (some folks just plain love Contax, Hassy 500)
- ability to use on tech cameras for your occasional landscapes
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens (if IC allows)
---- fully mechanical/traditional shooting
---- absolute best glass, period
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- less frequent updates required (we still have many happy studio shooters using H25 backs users, don't know many happy Canon 1D shooters)**
- longer software support (original Phase One Lightphase from 1998 is still fully supported tethered in OSX 10.7 and Capture One 6, while the Canon 5D from 2006 isn't even officially supported tethered in LR4 or EOS Utility in OSX 10.7, nor 1Ds II in Windows 7 64 bit)
- consistent shooting speed; most of these backs can hold it's frame-rate for dozens of frames (if not forever) with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster in a burst but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. Such a digital back will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.
- larger bodies (for some this will be a big negative, but for others their hands are simply too large to comfortably use a camera like the 5D3, even with the optional vertical grip)
« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 12:16:45 PM by Doug Peterson » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1088


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2012, 07:41:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm going to take the more succinct route, compared to my former comrade Mr Peterson.

I've almost stopped discussing differences in image quality of 35mm vs medium format (almost). I will say this about the quality - that if you use a DMF product in the conditions it excels in, and you have the appreciation for the sometimes subtle ways in which the image quality is preferred (and by image quality, I don't mean something as narrow as best, better, etc), then digital medium format will likely reward you on that front. There's more details there, but I don't want to dwell on that because for many, that's not the whole reason. It's part of the reason.

But frankly, I have come to feel that the preference for medium format has much to do above and beyond the image quality. I believe that many - especially those who are interested in say, a Mamiya RZ rather than a Hasselblad H4D or Phase One DF - are attracted by what medium format truly offers. And that is the ability to use many interesting cameras combined with many interesting lenses. And typically cameras that are pretty void of automatic features. What I believe is that some photographers, when they use a Nikon D800/D4 or a Canon Mark III/1DX feel that on some level the camera itself is at least partly responsible for the final result. Now, we know the camera actually has to be used to produce a resulting image and the camera chosen will in part determine the resulting quality (or lack of it). We know this. But there is something about shooting a manual Hasselblad camera or a Mamiya RZ, a View Camera, or even a Fuji GX680 that gives me the sense the photographer feels that he was more in control or that the result is more his doing.

This is all perception. This is all perspective.

But I believe it's there.

I've sold more digital backs for Mamiya RZ cameras in the past 6 months than I did the 2 years prior. There's something going on. I see it not as a revolution, but as a bit of minor pushback. That the emphasis of photography is to deeply feel like that the image is coming from you, through you. And I think - for some - shooting with automatron 35mm DSLR's makes this more difficult. It's not as simple as - I want to slow down - I think it's more like, I want to be the one driving, I don't want to feel so much like the passenger.

I'm really just guessing at things that aren't easily quantified. And that is really where much of medium format exists (other than the 60 megapixel or 80 megapixel varieties). When someone asks me if they will get a better image from a Leaf Aptus 22 than a Canon 5D-MKIII, I tell them I don't really know. Better how? In the conditions the Aptus will excel in? Yeah, probably. But you may not even be able to notice the difference. To some the difference may knock you out, to others, it may go right by them. If someone asks me that, I don't think the answer will matter. People who buy medium format don't usually ask that question. Because if they know medium format or if they want medium format, they already know that yes, in the right conditions, it will be better.

So, I don't really go into a lot of mumbo jumbo about dynamic range and bit depth and clarity and 3D and all that crap.

Do you like medium format cameras? Have you ever shot them? That is at least half the battle.

Oh, back to my succinct reply, rather than Doug's very detailed, kitchen sink essay. Brevity was my initial intent. But who has time for that?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2012, 08:12:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael, we need a LIKE button at Lula's  Cheesy
Eduardo

I'm going to take the more succinct route, compared to my former comrade Mr Peterson.

I've almost stopped discussing differences in image quality of 35mm vs medium format (almost). I will say this about the quality - that if you use a DMF product in the conditions it excels in, and you have the appreciation for the sometimes subtle ways in which the image quality is preferred (and by image quality, I don't mean something as narrow as best, better, etc), then digital medium format will likely reward you on that front. There's more details there, but I don't want to dwell on that because for many, that's not the whole reason. It's part of the reason.

But frankly, I have come to feel that the preference for medium format has much to do above and beyond the image quality. I believe that many - especially those who are interested in say, a Mamiya RZ rather than a Hasselblad H4D or Phase One DF - are attracted by what medium format truly offers. And that is the ability to use many interesting cameras combined with many interesting lenses. And typically cameras that are pretty void of automatic features. What I believe is that some photographers, when they use a Nikon D800/D4 or a Canon Mark III/1DX feel that on some level the camera itself is at least partly responsible for the final result. Now, we know the camera actually has to be used to produce a resulting image and the camera chosen will in part determine the resulting quality (or lack of it). We know this. But there is something about shooting a manual Hasselblad camera or a Mamiya RZ, a View Camera, or even a Fuji GX680 that gives me the sense the photographer feels that he was more in control or that the result is more his doing.

This is all perception. This is all perspective.

But I believe it's there.

I've sold more digital backs for Mamiya RZ cameras in the past 6 months than I did the 2 years prior. There's something going on. I see it not as a revolution, but as a bit of minor pushback. That the emphasis of photography is to deeply feel like that the image is coming from you, through you. And I think - for some - shooting with automatron 35mm DSLR's makes this more difficult. It's not as simple as - I want to slow down - I think it's more like, I want to be the one driving, I don't want to feel so much like the passenger.

I'm really just guessing at things that aren't easily quantified. And that is really where much of medium format exists (other than the 60 megapixel or 80 megapixel varieties). When someone asks me if they will get a better image from a Leaf Aptus 22 than a Canon 5D-MKIII, I tell them I don't really know. Better how? In the conditions the Aptus will excel in? Yeah, probably. But you may not even be able to notice the difference. To some the difference may knock you out, to others, it may go right by them. If someone asks me that, I don't think the answer will matter. People who buy medium format don't usually ask that question. Because if they know medium format or if they want medium format, they already know that yes, in the right conditions, it will be better.

So, I don't really go into a lot of mumbo jumbo about dynamic range and bit depth and clarity and 3D and all that crap.

Do you like medium format cameras? Have you ever shot them? That is at least half the battle.

Oh, back to my succinct reply, rather than Doug's very detailed, kitchen sink essay. Brevity was my initial intent. But who has time for that?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2012, 09:06:18 PM »
ReplyReply

A P25+ will match the quality of your 5D Mark III and with slightly better colors but only at ISO 50 and 100. Pretty much the same with other older backs that came after the p25+
The problem that you will have is the limitations of the body.

Do not expect close to the reliability of your Canon gear.

Some of the Mamiya lenses are very nice. 150mm 2.8D is a very nice lens. Great look wide open, but the Mamiya bodies don't have accurate enough focus to get the type of hit rate you get with the Canon.
Manual focus with such shallow depth of field is also a problem due to the low magnification of the AFD or DF viewfinders.

Better with a waist level finder on an RZ.

What are you looking for image wise from MFD that you are now getting from your 35mm DSLR?

As far as getting an IQ back... probably better to get your feet wet with a p25+. Same image quality at base ISO, but just lower resolution.
IF you get an IQ and don't like it you would take a huge hit selling it.
Buy a p25+ when a nice deal shows up and if you don't get on with MFD you can pretty much sell it for what it cost you.
Actually you could flush it down the toilet and you would still take a smaller hit that the loss on selling an IQ back.

The level of quality of the Canon 5D III and even more so the Nikon D800 have made the quality difference between MFD and the best FF DSLR
very minimal.
See this test:

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

With the ever smaller image quality differences make the reliability and ergonomics more of a choosing point.

I used to shoot MFD but decided to drop it after using the D800, but I still shoot medium format film and large format film. 
While MFD looks pretty close to the 5D III and D800 larger medium format film and large format film has a very distinctive look.




Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2012, 09:13:17 PM »
ReplyReply

- consistent shooting speed; most of these backs can hold it's frame-rate for dozens of frames (if not forever) with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster in a burst but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. Such a digital back will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.

What fuzzy logic is this?Huh

Every digital Canon or Nikon I have can shoot 1.2 frames per second until the CF card is full so I can't understand what the heck you are trying to SELL here....
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2012, 09:29:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred, I'm going to guess you've never tech'd for a speed demon with a fast-burst dSLR with a small buffer. While in theory you can shoot a 5DII at a moderate consistent rate this often does not happen; very often a photographer will overpace the buffer and be left waiting for the last image to clear the buffer before resuming shooting.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
jeanvalentin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2012, 11:54:58 PM »
ReplyReply

....
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)
.....

That is a bit misleading due to the fact that not everything is spelled out. The only backs that advertise that are the Phase ones. While that sync speed can be achieved is ONLY in certain conditions: for starters, you need a DF body (your AFD will not do); you will need LS lenses which are not cheap; you will need a 40+ (or 65+) back which you said you can't afford and more.

Giving the context of this thread, this feature shouldn't be mentioned (or at least all the qualifiers should be included). And I don't get the comment about the hitting the buffer. I never did (but I don't machine gun in general and I doubt anybody does it for extended periods of time where it will make you hit the buffer) and if you shoot at the same pace as the MFD, you will NEVER hit the buffer.
Logged

Best,
Valentin
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2012, 11:57:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Succinct? 

Steve, I think you and Doug are having a write out contest. 

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2012, 12:10:22 AM »
ReplyReply

One can only hope there is a wee bit of cut and paste in those responses. I sure hope they aren't writing all that from scratch! But its all good info, to be sure.
Logged

Geoff
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2012, 12:49:54 AM »
ReplyReply

That is a bit misleading due to the fact that not everything is spelled out. The only backs that advertise that are the Phase ones. While that sync speed can be achieved is ONLY in certain conditions: for starters, you need a DF body (your AFD will not do); you will need LS lenses which are not cheap; you will need a 40+ (or 65+) back which you said you can't afford and more.
FWIW 1/1600 on the DF with LS lenses works also with a lowly Aptus-II 5 but if you use an older back you still get 1/800...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
jeanvalentin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2012, 01:18:11 AM »
ReplyReply

FWIW 1/1600 on the DF with LS lenses works also with a lowly Aptus-II 5 but if you use an older back you still get 1/800...

Thanks for clarification. My point was more about the fact that you need certain conditions in order to achieve that and from the post one could assume that ALL MFD setups can do that.

It's like saying "one can achieve 14fps with a 35mm DSLR". True ... if you use a top of the line one, not a Rebel for example.
Logged

Best,
Valentin
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2012, 04:52:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for clarification. My point was more about the fact that you need certain conditions in order to achieve that and from the post one could assume that ALL MFD setups can do that.

It's like saying "one can achieve 14fps with a 35mm DSLR". True ... if you use a top of the line one, not a Rebel for example.

Well...Doug says "Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)", so if the back is mounted on a camera equipped with a leaf shutter lens, it can sync at whatever the maximum shutter speed that is available on that lens e.g. 1/1000 on some Rollei lenses, 1/800 on HC lenses, 1/500 on Copal shutters and V series lenses, 1/400 on RZ lenses etc.

So in fact the only "certain" condition that you need is to have a leaf shutter lens...it is true however that for 1/1600 you also need a DF body and a back from certain models and also flash packs that are capable of working with this kind of settings

Yair

Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1376


« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2012, 04:57:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I made a comparison concerning noise performance recently which you may find interesting:

http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/noise-test.html

It looks at noise for 5Dmk2, a D7000 (almost exactly as D800 but APS-C cut), and an Aptus 75.

I think it is safe to get an older back, the CCDs were great already back in 2004. They have become a little bit better, but I don't think they have become so much better that it changes anything significant.

I think a second hand Leaf Aptus 75 is one of the absolutely best entry level options today.
 - It's old so prices are low
 - The screen is better and gui more useful than most backs of similar age. A useful 100% focus check is rare for backs of this age.
 - It's 33 megapixels and 48x36mm, not too low res, not too small sensor

As other have mentioned I think you need to motivate it with more than pure image quality out of the sensor though. You need to like the handling of MF cameras, and the lenses. If I was only in it for what the sensor can deliver I'd get a D800E...
« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 05:10:56 AM by torger » Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2012, 12:18:56 PM »
ReplyReply

That is a bit misleading due to the fact that not everything is spelled out.

To be fair it was on a summary list so inherently does not fully explain the entire picture of flash sync. I meant the "up to" as an indication that it didn't apply to every option in medium format.

But it's a good point, so I've added some wording to the post to clarify that it is only some back/lens combos that allow this fast of flash sync.

Thanks for your comments.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2012, 12:26:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Giving the context of this thread, this feature shouldn't be mentioned (or at And I don't get the comment about the hitting the buffer. I never did (but I don't machine gun in general and I doubt anybody does it for extended periods of time where it will make you hit the buffer) and if you shoot at the same pace as the MFD, you will NEVER hit the buffer.

Oddly, many do. We consult for a lot of production studios (e.g. clothing catalog companies) and yes, many of their shooters shoot at the max speed of the camera regardless of what speed that is, and will complain loudly about the buffer depth and the hesitation it imposes on the rhythm of shooting whether it's 4 images or 20. When shooting backs they cannot shoot bursts, which they will complain about at first, but after adjusting to the allowed pace they appreciate the fact that pace is infinitely extendable.

Could they simply shoot their 1DsIII at 1fps? Absolutely: technically speaking. But they don't. For whatever psychological/personal/non-logical reason.

These are the same studios that bought Profoto 8As because Profoto 7As didn't recycle fast enough for them (hint: Profoto 7As recycle very fast as it is).

For sure if you personally don't shoot quickly, or you're confident you will shoot at the same pace regardless of what the camera allows then this will be a non-issue for you and, if anything, the ability to occasionally burst with a dSLR will be better. Just don't assume that every one else's style of shooting is the same as yours.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2012, 12:28:44 PM »
ReplyReply

One can only hope there is a wee bit of cut and paste in those responses. I sure hope they aren't writing all that from scratch! But its all good info, to be sure.

My list was (as noted in situ - it was modified from another thread here on LL), the rest was not.

I enjoy writing and I love the gear; forums are a bit of an addiction for me. :-)
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2012, 02:13:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

A very good test. I read it in may when on travel. I reread it right now.

I have looked at some recent and not so recent test images and my impression is that the new Nikon D800 is a solid performer and I very much doubt that an older back would have some significant advantage over it. As a side note, the Nikon obviously needs very good lenses while an MFDB would be less challenged lens wise, because of the lager pixels. An MFDB will be more prone to aliasing, at least with good lenses, but it seems that it does matter little for photographers not shooting fashion and textiles.

If you happen to have a lot of decent MF glass, a MFDB would probably be attractive, if you build a new system I guess a Nikon D800 system  could be built much cheaper. Nikon has some very good glass and can also use Zeiss lenses.

I have seen some other tests and images that essentially confirms what Torger says. The images I looked at were raw images I processed myself, courtesy of Lloyd Chambers (Leica S2 and Nikon D3X), Marc McCalmont Phase One IQ180 and Nikon D800E and Alex Koloskov (Hasselblad H4D40 and Nikon D800E).

Best regards
Erik




I made a comparison concerning noise performance recently which you may find interesting:

http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/noise-test.html

It looks at noise for 5Dmk2, a D7000 (almost exactly as D800 but APS-C cut), and an Aptus 75.

I think it is safe to get an older back, the CCDs were great already back in 2004. They have become a little bit better, but I don't think they have become so much better that it changes anything significant.

I think a second hand Leaf Aptus 75 is one of the absolutely best entry level options today.
 - It's old so prices are low
 - The screen is better and gui more useful than most backs of similar age. A useful 100% focus check is rare for backs of this age.
 - It's 33 megapixels and 48x36mm, not too low res, not too small sensor

As other have mentioned I think you need to motivate it with more than pure image quality out of the sensor though. You need to like the handling of MF cameras, and the lenses. If I was only in it for what the sensor can deliver I'd get a D800E...
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2012, 03:05:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred, I'm going to guess you've never tech'd for a speed demon with a fast-burst dSLR with a small buffer. While in theory you can shoot a 5DII at a moderate consistent rate this often does not happen; very often a photographer will overpace the buffer and be left waiting for the last image to clear the buffer before resuming shooting.

So let's see your "logic" here. So a photographer want's to shoot relatively fast.... So according to you it's better for them to shoot with a sloooow MFDB at 1 fps than to shoot at 2 fps or a bit faster with a DSLR without having buffer problems.
You ALSO FAIL to mention that you can use two cards in a D800 or Canon 5D III to speed up writing to the cards.

IF a photographer can get into the rhythm of shooting at 1 fps with a MFDB her or she can do the same thing with a faster camera, but also have the advantage of hitting a burst if something interesting happens like a wind gust etc.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad