The dreaded question...

[fotografz]

Doesn't matter what the companies say, or even any 3rd party test where I wasn't there to see it done ... LOL!

I had a 1DsMKIII and Hassey H3D-II/31 ... I got the Canon hoping it'd replace the H camera. First job shooting jewelry relegated the Canon to just shooting weddings and portraits ... horrible specular highlight handling by the Canon using every freaking' lens in my L arsenal.

But for quick location stuff the Canon did pretty well, so the H3D-II/31 wasn't a big enough difference to warrant lugging it around.

Then Sony displaced Canon with better optics and in-camera IS for the location stuff and weddings.

So, both cameras are now gone.

If I'm going to shoot MF it'll be 60 meg. or a completely different approach to higher IQ.

-Marc

 

[Jack]

I wasn't there to see it done ... LOL!

Exactly! It does matter who shot it, how they shot and most importantly, how they processed it.

Speaking for myself, I shoot the 1Ds3 and process in C1. Compared to my P45+ back -- a measly 39 MP -- the 22MP Canon pixels render about the same level of detail; admittedly the new C1/5 does an excellent job of clearing the AA effects. However, that's where the story ends. Tonal range, DR, color fidelity, and overall file look from the P back is a full level up from the Canon, not to mention generating a physically larger file to work with.

That said, the Canon file is very good, and where portability is a concern the P kit gets left in the cabinet and the Canon is the one hanging from my shoulder. And if I could only have one system for everything I shoot right now, it would be the Canon.

My .02 only,

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm a pig . I shoot only the P30+ go big and never go back, is my shooting motto. Obviously there are some sticky points to this. If I NEED a 35mm than I will rent. But i do agree with Marc and Jack certainly in principle. I just refuse to shoot 35mm again so I picked the best compromise between 35mm shooting and MF shooting a back that can do all that I require from it. But I am a rare breed of shooter and my choice would not be considered normal in a lot of circles.

 

[tjv]

I'm in the south pacific.
What Jack says is interesting to me, that there is approx the same pixel level detail but dynamic range, tonal range and colour fidelity is better. In technical terms, is this because of higher end components like true 16bit A/D converters more than anything? I'm assuming that the bigger sensor helps with extreme enlargements because the enlargement factor will never be as big as with 35mm, and obviously pixel counts are bigger. How else does MF achieve larger DR etc when, in essence, it uses the same sensor technology? I just find it interesting, more than anything. It's an amazing world we live in and I'm constantly amazed at what new technology brings. I wonder if the next big step will be true 16bit A/D converters (or even better) or something else in 35mm to increase dynamic range etc. Surely the noise issue and speed with 35mm is now a rather moot point?

 

[Don Libby]

I'm luckier than most then again I've got a lot invested.

That said I have a choice of a Canon G-9 and G10 to shoot with. Likewise I have a Canon 1DsII and 1DsIII although the MkII is now fulltime IR. Then again I have a Phase One P45+. So I have seen the differences between the three different platforms. If I want to shoot just for our blog we use the G's. Sandy owns the 1DsIII and gets remarkable images. I went for several years without touching the 1DSII until just recently after I had it converted, I now use it for infrared work. I use the P45+ Cambo WRS exclusively for my serious landscape work.

The best quality image work as far as I'm concerned comes from medium format and the P45+. Prior to the P45+ I used the P30+ and would have called it that way. This is not to say the IQ of the 1DsIII isn't good or usable as it certainly is. There are several times when Sandy and I shoot side by side and the resulting image while close in quality aren't better than the P45+. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that there simply no way a 35mm will stand up to medium format. Different 35mm will produce different results just as different medium format cameras will. So again as far as I'm concerned people need to compare the formats separately. and not against one another.

Guy also brings up a good point. "Go big" I guess I fit the bill of not being normal as well as my hands down go to or with camera is the Cambo WRS/P45+ combination.

Bottom line is that I'd respect a comparison when done within the same platform and by an independent reviewer and not the manufacture.

Again the caveat of this being my 2¢ worth.

Don

 

[Don Libby]

You also need to consider the difference in sensors between 35mm and MF.

 

[Professional]

Test:

A. 1Ds3 + 50/1.4

1.

2.

3.

B. H3DII 39 + 80/2.8

1.

2.

3.

What do you think? Forget how is the exposure between 2

 

[Jack]

Well, tough to say since the exposures are different and both files have been jpegged, but to my eyes on my monitor, the H file looks to have cleaner definition, more differentiation in colors and more tonality.

This is but one of the *huge* issues when doing camera comparisons -- from capture through output it is basically impossible to keep all of the associated exposure and processing variables aligned.

 

[Professional]

Well, tough to say since the exposures are different and both files have been jpegged, but to my eyes on my monitor, the H file looks to have cleaner definition, more differentiation in colors and more tonality.

This is but one of the *huge* issues when doing camera comparisons -- from capture through output it is basically impossible to keep all of the associated exposure and processing variables aligned.

I really don't understand?!!! sorry

 

[yongfei]

For this kind of comparison, to me it is more like an "eye-exam"

 

[tetsrfun]

Well, tough to say since the exposures are different and both files have been jpegged, but to my eyes on my monitor, the H file looks to have cleaner definition, more differentiation in colors and more tonality.

This is but one of the *huge* issues when doing camera comparisons -- from capture through output it is basically impossible to keep all of the associated exposure and processing variables aligned.

Not meant as a criticism but with camera gear at this "level" are web JPEGS of any value for evaluation? Seems about as much value as JPEG "screen shots" with HT projectors.

Steve

 

[Jack]

Not meant as a criticism but with camera gear at this "level" are web JPEGS of any value for evaluation? Seems about as much value as JPEG "screen shots" with HT projectors.

Steve

That was my point. Along with lighting, exposure, capture techniques and processing that all went on BEFORE the file got sRGB jpegged...

 

[tjv]

Thanks for the post.
The H file is definitely "better" in terms of sharpness and detail in this test. Do I also see some Moire? When the money is closer to being saved in the bank, I will have to do these tests myself. Nothing would beat hands on experience but this is good to see.
Thanks again.

Test:

A. 1Ds3 + 50/1.4

1.

2.

3.

B. H3DII 39 + 80/2.8

1.

2.

3.

What do you think? Forget how is the exposure between 2

 

[Professional]

The problem about the exposure in the both shots above is that i used a studio strobe one head with softbox for both shots at same power, so the lighting power and source was fixed, and i didn't change the subject as well which is that Banknote, i just changed the camera and lens, and both shots were on tripod and i put the same setting in camera on both, but seems it is still not scientific or not complete comparison test to your opinions, in all cases i don't think there will be any logical tests even you do 1000 tests on same subject between 2 or 3 cameras only in fixed environment for exposure, DR, color temperature, WB,...etc. i have feeling everyone will say something about any comparison test even done by experts and highest top master professionals.

At the end, it will never happen that 35mm can be a medium format, or a medium format can be a large format, about quality of image even i don't know are people talking about sharpness or resolution or DR or tone or what? some said it is all those factors, fine, there is no perfect ultimate camera, and who can afford an expensive camera lucky him, if he can't then many 35mm DSLRs are the most popular in the world with some P&S and no need for many many comparison tests to make a P&S to be in same league of highest top 35mm DSLR or best 35mm can beat or surpass and blown away high end new top MF or even LF, i never saw one test online that is making a clear end or clear winner of overall, MF has about 50% of IQ [higher mp, better DR,...] and those DSLRs has another 50% of image quality [Faster AF, higher ISO,....], the best solution that i did and i will keep doing is to buy all different camera systems [from compact to LF, film & digital] and never look back to those most personal tests that their owners making it like the final judgment about the quality in Photography.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I'm luckier than most then again I've got a lot invested.

That said I have a choice of a Canon G-9 and G10 to shoot with. Likewise I have a Canon 1DsII and 1DsIII although the MkII is now fulltime IR. Then again I have a Phase One P45+. So I have seen the differences between the three different platforms. If I want to shoot just for our blog we use the G's. Sandy owns the 1DsIII and gets remarkable images. I went for several years without touching the 1DSII until just recently after I had it converted, I now use it for infrared work. I use the P45+ Cambo WRS exclusively for my serious landscape work.

The best quality image work as far as I'm concerned comes from medium format and the P45+. Prior to the P45+ I used the P30+ and would have called it that way. This is not to say the IQ of the 1DsIII isn't good or usable as it certainly is. There are several times when Sandy and I shoot side by side and the resulting image while close in quality aren't better than the P45+. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that there simply no way a 35mm will stand up to medium format. Different 35mm will produce different results just as different medium format cameras will. So again as far as I'm concerned people need to compare the formats separately. and not against one another.

Guy also brings up a good point. "Go big" I guess I fit the bill of not being normal as well as my hands down go to or with camera is the Cambo WRS/P45+ combination.

Bottom line is that I'd respect a comparison when done within the same platform and by an independent reviewer and not the manufacture.

Again the caveat of this being my 2¢ worth.

Don

Don, I fully agree with your views.

For me, the only comparison that matters is a (say) 24 by 36 inch print, because that's what I shoot to produce. I have many 1DsII shots that look good at that size; I have Sony a900 shots that look better at that size, and P45+ shots which are the best at that size.

(And comparisons using 72 dpi jpegs are useless in judging image quality IMHO.)

Bill

 

[douglasf13]

Agreed. It's all about output size.

 

[Professional]

Yes, too bad that i printed mostly at 17x22 and few at 24x36, to my eyes all the prints from MF were better than my 1DsII/1DsIII shots at all sizes, even i did shoot myself with MF and 1DsIII and printed them on passport photo sizes, to my eyes many people including me choose that one done by MF, it was even different look even i did both shots at the same time under same lighting, so i ended up that i will use all the cameras and my top favorite no doubt is MF.