Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Hi,
I need to maximise resolution but am shooting in situations where I need f22 for the required DOF (lots of very near/far subjects). I'm shooting in situations where tilt/swing are not available as tools (very narrow alleyways with walls on both sides, etc, etc).
At present I have a 5D but to be honest need more resolution for the print sizes I want to use. I can afford to upgrade to a 1Ds mkII or even a III however due to the smaller pixel spacing am I going to lose most of the gain in resolution to diffraction (especially with the mkIII relative to the mkII) and if so is it worth bothering, will the gain in resolution due to diffraction be so slight as to negate any megapixel advantage? Should I save my money and buy a good 2nd hand 1Ds mkII?
Unfortunately I cannot even consider affording solutions such as a medium format back/system. As I specifically do not want to use WA perspectives (asthetic reasons) for this project my LF system is severely limited in its application. I'm shooting in low light and apart from the need to stop down to f64 at a minimum, I'm finding that the shutter speeds, even with iso 400 film, are far too slow to even begin freezing or slowing foliage movement in areas so built up that they are virtual wind tunnels.
Your opinions would be much appreciated! I know that there are several members here who really know what they are talking about in this field, especially in the relatively minor advantages between the mkII and III.
I need to maximise resolution but am shooting in situations where I need f22 for the required DOF (lots of very near/far subjects). I'm shooting in situations where tilt/swing are not available as tools (very narrow alleyways with walls on both sides, etc, etc).
At present I have a 5D but to be honest need more resolution for the print sizes I want to use. I can afford to upgrade to a 1Ds mkII or even a III however due to the smaller pixel spacing am I going to lose most of the gain in resolution to diffraction (especially with the mkIII relative to the mkII) and if so is it worth bothering, will the gain in resolution due to diffraction be so slight as to negate any megapixel advantage? Should I save my money and buy a good 2nd hand 1Ds mkII?
Unfortunately I cannot even consider affording solutions such as a medium format back/system. As I specifically do not want to use WA perspectives (asthetic reasons) for this project my LF system is severely limited in its application. I'm shooting in low light and apart from the need to stop down to f64 at a minimum, I'm finding that the shutter speeds, even with iso 400 film, are far too slow to even begin freezing or slowing foliage movement in areas so built up that they are virtual wind tunnels.
Your opinions would be much appreciated! I know that there are several members here who really know what they are talking about in this field, especially in the relatively minor advantages between the mkII and III.
Last edited: