We just got done some preliminary testing of the 1DSMK3 compared to a few Phase One backs that we had on hand at the time. The images are all of the same subject. They were captured with the following systems:

P21 RAW Scene 1 -1/100 f16 ISO 100 120mm lens Mamiya 645 AFDII

P30+ RAW Scene 1 1/100 f16 ISO 100 120mm lens Mamiya 645 AFD II

P45 RAW Scene 1 1/100 f16 ISO 100 120mm lens Mamiya 645 AFD II

Canon 1DsMarkIII 1/100 f16, ISO 100 85mm

The images are available for download as tiff files linked from our current newsletter that can be accessed with the link below:
http://tinyurl.com/2kpsr7

The Canon has some nice features and will fit certain market segments and have a place in some photographers arsenal besides a medium format system. As far as image quality goes we will leave it up to you to decide decide.

We will be doing more testing in the future, but this being holiday season and end of year time is tight. So please take a look at the files and feel free to send us any comments. These tests were done up in our Atlanta office.

Happy Pixel Peeping.

Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
305-534-5701 office
305-394-3196 cell
877-217-9870
www.captureintegration.com
lance@captureintegration.com

Yes, we have seen some differences already... but the theoreticism and charts will arrive soon....


Thank's for the files

The Canon 1Ds3 has the pixel density of a 20D. One wouldn't expect it to perform as well at f16 as a format double the size with wider pixel spacing. Small sensors need sharp lenses used at apertures that are not diffraction limited.

You can compare it against the P45, then, since the P45 and the 1DsIII are about the same pixel density (the 1DsIII is slightly higher, but not enough to make a difference). And besides, it is after all the systems you are comparing, so if one is softer than the other, for whatever reasons (diffraction effects or whatever), it still shows what the systems can do.

You can also rebuilt the 1DSIII until it is a P45, maybe that is the fairest comparison.

No kidding, I am all for tests in which you are just using bodies and comparing the results. This is also the way I photograph.

If I am photographing something I am not thinking about the fact whether my pixel-size or sensor-size is up to the task.

Dynamic range/contrast.

Change the curve of the Canon shot to make it darker and it will look better (much better), however blacks will be gone (no shadow detail).
That's what I see everytime when I change between the 5D and Leaf Aptus 22.
The MF backs have MUCH greater contrast range.

A large part of our perceived sharpness is in contrast .
The MF back file has MUCH more detail without a doubt but the contrast is for the me the thing that jumps out.
The letters on the 1DsIII file are very light compared to the nice dark version in the back.
While the black frame is on both dark.

As the evaluation of this comparison is obviously much the question of religious affiliation, I see the need to declare, that

1. I am a Canon 40D owner,

2. I don't care for the label on my camera (I carried my Zensa Bronica a decade long in a large Nikon bag, for that offered the best arrangement :-);

3. I don't intend to purchase any of the cameras involved in the test.

So, I am interested purely on the photographic/digital side of the comparison without any personal/emotional involvement.

I have several problems with the comparison.

1. I don't see, which Canon 85mm lens has been used. There are two of them, the 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.2L. I am afraid, that the 85mm f/1.8 has been used, which is a very good lens on a cropping camera, but it is ridiculous to put it on an FF, $7000 camera. The 85mm f/1.2L has a never version "for digital", and I don't believe, that the owner of the 1DsMkIII would put any other on his camera. Or, has the P45 been tested with a Coke bottle?

2. It is dishonest (though expectable between competitors) to present processed images. The processing (raw conversion) plays a huge role, and it is funny to say, "look, how bad the other image is, if I process it".

The raw images have to be presented, and let's see, who what can make out of them.

For a starter:

- the 1DsMkII image is much brighter than the P45, and the mid- to brighter areas (not only the highlights) are less contrasty. I adjusted a bit, and suddenly it looks very different , for example the structure of the stonework in the forground becomes visible, the "Visit" signe gets more clear

- the P45 image is strongly sharpened; in fact, it is over-sharpened for pixel peeping, while the 1DsMkII image is undersharpened (if at all).

So, put up those raws and see, what can be made out them (and where is is written in stone, that DPP has to be used, not another raw processor - since when is the raw processor part of the "system"?)

We know it hurts, but this is the reality. Every test will show you the same results. But don't worry, we will be here waiting for your theories and explanations.

The whole comparison is like saying "I can't create a Picasso myself but show me one and I'll copy it".

I suppose if some of you guys were asked to compare 35mm with 8x10" format, you'd shoot a landscape with your usual f64 and then get confused because you couldn't find an f64 on the 35mm lens .

Here are a couple of crop comparisons of the foreground of the 1Ds3 shot, before darkening and after darkening, plus a bit of contrast enhancement.

The P21 is on top.

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Do you maintain a personalized reality, free of facts? Why are you afraid of a somewhat more objective comparison? No matter, what the result would be, that makes none of the cameras better, nor worse.

Most probably the top MFs are really better in certain settings, than the 1DsMkIII; it would be a shame otherwise. However, now the gap is probably smaller than before, which has only one serious consequence: new buyers have to thoroughly analyze if it is a good deal to pay several tens of thousands of dollars for the difference.

Here we go again... while I do not generally see the point of this comparison, because every camera is for different purpose and that is why I personally own both digital medium format and Dslr, I have to admit there is something strange going on with the 1ds MkIII on this test. I would like to see the original RAW files to be honest. I would not epect huge differences between a P21 and a MkIII, I mean there will most defenetally be differences but not this. Could we pease see the raws? I have seen other comparisons on the net that "proved" things differently, so we need the Raws to be more precise,
thanks,
George

Actually the difference in price isn't that big anymore.
My opinions are based in total reality. I own a MFB and I know how they can perform.

I'll leave the rest of the thread for you guys. I have a flight to take in the morning. Spain is waiting...
Merry Christmas Everyone.

RAW files please...

i just posted this post in another forum, but i think i want it t be seen here too. ofcourse i like to work with mf and i see clearly the advantages for my work, but i dont think it serves anyone and even not any manufactors to create so much hype about the incredible clear advantage of mf, independent which back it is as long its mf. this is i.m.o. done with "tests" as this.

seeing the same crops than are showed here, let me think that the whole test seems to be - as so often - some marketing thing and little bit more.
the p21 ( and the other p files ) are sharpened and contrast treated, meanwhile the canon is not. sharpen the canon file, bring the crop to a similar size than the p files ( even upsampling does this job ), make some shadows/highlight contrast increasements in PS and the contrast and detail is not far from the p21 anymore,- where this things obviously have been done already.
its not a fair comparision and its not done with the goal to be fair..... or i am wrong herein?

found a nice link also in the net, and this one explains very well why i am not so good friend with the kodak sensors in general.
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Ha...H3D/index.html

since generations they show exactly the kind of flaws which are described and shown here in this test. it doesnt matter if a leica, kodak, p1 or hasselblad is around ,- this behavor is "kodak - sensor design " specific and i personnally dont like it. i prefere dalsa sensors therefor, although the 33mp sensor has lost some of the advantages ´the 22mp sensor yet has had ( but gained others as well so finally its an improvement not just in terms of resolution ).

about the canon 1dsmk3:
i think they made a great job,- although i will not buy one but wait for the 5dmk2 and doing what i already do:
shooting with my sinar backs.

my comment to those tests: not fair and one can get much more out of the 1 DSMKIII. Simply adjust the contrast and add some sharpening.

Thierry

hi Rainer,

absolutely in accordance with you!

Cheers,
Thierry

I sharpened the P45 file and the Canon 1Ds3 file with USM, 300, .3, 0, and I prefer the image quality of the 1Ds3 over the P45. The Phase is kind of mushy. If I could get my hands on the RAW files, both files would look a whole hell of a lot better, and the P45 would do much better, but with these files, the difference between 39 and 21MP is surprisingly SMALL.

And I see you used DPP for the Canon file. Tsk, tsk.

as an owner of both an afd2/leaf back and a 1ds3, i have to concur with you....
interestingly enough, i have not felt compelled to do an image quality comparison: different tools, different strenghts and weaknesses...
the op also picked two dramatically different lenses with different optical qualities/characteristics for use in the comparison...if i were so moved to try to compare images from the two cameras, neither of the canon 85's would be my choice to shoot against the mamiya macro.

I think we all come to the consensus that not one product does everything. Look a carpenter has many different types of hammers, because you would not use a sledge to drive in a tack.
Yes you can also do some massaging to get the 1dsMK3 files to look closer to the Phase files, but that is time, when the Phase files look good right out of the chute without post. If you need extreme portability and fast frame rates, then you have no choice but to go DSLR.
Thats why we sell both solutions Canons and Phase One. There is no one solution. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and there is room for both in the photo world.

Have a happy holiday season.

L

Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
305-534-5701 office
305-394-3196 cell
www.captureintegration.com
lance@captureintegration.com

Plain BS.

Do you know what I see in this test?

- The mark III is a very good camera, and it produces a result that is very usable.
- DMF is still king of the hill: higher resolution, dynamic range, sharpness etc...

conclusion: The MkIII holds it's own, and is a good alternative for when DMF is not available, too expensive or unworkable (low light etc). The MK III is also a killer back-up for any MDF shooter.

I don't want to be arrogant, but doesn't that quite sum it up?

regards,

Mike

Well said Mike. I use both systems and agree with your summing up.
Bill

Rainer, your link is broken.

Edmund

now let's compare a Rolls Royce with a Mercedes S550...both great cars but one (the 1st one) is 350K and the 2nd (merc) is "only" 130K......they are both great but there is a difference. Is the difference noticably? Yes. Can you live with a Merc? Yes

It is nonsense the compare them.

I work with both systems (A65 and MkII) and both serve a purpose. And yes if you work on the MkIII image you will be able to get it very close to the 45 image. I personally (but that is very personal) don't like the 45 images, because they look to digital to me!! The MkIII image was too light in the examples posted. BUT both images are pretty damn good!

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/HasselbladH3D/index.html

The real problem of the 1DsMIII for me lies in the lenses. I have a nice colection of Canon glass that performed beautifully with the first 1Ds. When I upgraded to the MII then some of them perfomed less well due to the increased resolution, with added work in my sharpening routines, which will only get more picky with the MIII. Now, what sense does it make for me to upgrade to the MIII if my lenses are not up to the job? It would be like crippling the sensor. And to be clear I only own L lenses, except for the 50 1.4, which incidentally performs better than most of them.

So I wouldn't buy just the body, but a full kit of probably Leica or Zeis glass especially on the wide side (which many people here swear are way better than Canon glass. I don't know since I've never tried them on my canons). Under that premise it isn't that cheap to jump into the high mpx count by just buying a DSLR like the 1DsMIII.

Michael - can we just have a new forum where it's FF35 vs MFDB so we can get all those posts off the MF forum? PLEASE?

the outcome is the same every time

round and round we go

Good Idea!

It's not just the lens, it's the aperture used. Photodo, famous for their now-discontinued MTF testing, explained that the reason they never took the trouble to test the lenses at f11 is because they found that all lenses are equally bad at f11.

Perhaps that's a slight exaggeration, but certainly less of an exaggeration at f16.

By using f16 for all cameras in this test, one is ensuring as far as possible that all the lenses are equal, so in a sense this is a perfectly valid test for that purpose, ie. how does the 1Ds3 compare with sensors double the size when the lenses used are equal?

One could do a similar comparison between the latest Olympus 4/3rds camera, the E-3, and the 1Ds or 5D. Using a Zuiko lens at f16 would rob the lens of its resolution advantage compared with 35mm lenses, an advantage which it actually needs because the sensor is smaller.

It's a matter of simple mathematics that the smaller sensor cannot compete with the larger sensor (of similar pixel count) unless the lenses used with the smaller sensor are better, that is, have a higher MTF response at the same spatial frequency.

Now the differences in format size between the Olympus 4/3rds format and 35mm is greater than the difference between 35mm and the P21, so one would expect any comparison between 35mm and the 4/3rds system at f16 to be even more disastrous for the 4/3rds system.

It is impossible to conduct any test that will make everyone happy.

My company has reached the point where we have to let much of what is said on forums go in one ear and out the other. This is much easier said than done. I am not going to take time to argue on any forum about the merits of our test because simply, this was our test done for us. It was not to prove anything other than for us to gain knowledge from it. We share these images with you in hopes that we all may gain from the discussion that follows. I take strong offense to anyone who points a finger and accuses us of dishonesty or anything that shows lack of integrity. My company and I have built a strong reputation internationally in this photo market over the last few years and I challenge anyone to say otherwise.

To clear up the confusion let me state the following:

We are resellers of Phase One and of Canon.

We did absolutely nothing to these files other than process them in their native raw processor.

We chose DPP due to the fact that C1 pro 3.7.8 can not yet process the 1Ds MIII files.

We intentionally did not change any contrast or sharpening in these files so as to leave them as close to native as possible. Tweaking or modifications are up to you at your pleasure.

We chose the Mamiya camera since we had all three MF backs that day that were not rented or at a demo. From there we wanted to find fixed focal (non telephoto) lenses that matched aspect ratios to images sensors.

The Mamiya 120mm Macro and the Canon 85mm f/1.2 are two sharp lenses from each manufacturer and they fit the aspect ratio perfectly.

Again, no test is perfect.

However, if we were to venture out and shoot another test I would ask them to chose f/8 as a happy medium between each lens's MTF curve. We will remember this for future testing.

As for the "sales" statements by our new salesman Lance, we will remind him that he now works for Capture Integration and not Phase One. Our company lets products stand on their own merits where sales commentary is not necessary.

If anyone has any individual questions on these shots or has any suggestions for additional testing, please always feel free to contact myself or any of my personnel directly.

So the left image was not sharpened, correct? The halo must be a byproduct of the sensor.

I'm curious, Dave, as to the reasons why you would use the same f stop when shooting with diffrerent formats with equivalent focal lengths and fields of view.

If you were in the studio with a P21 with say 110mm lens and a 1Ds3 with 85mm lens, and you were photographing a model and wanted a certain fairly shallow DoF that required say f5.6 with the Mamiya 110mm lens, then wanted to see how the 1Ds3 would compare in this situation, it would be a mistake to use the 1Ds3 at f5.6, would it not? You wouldn't get the same shallow DoF with the shorter focal length from the same distance.

You would probably get a closer match regarding DoF by using the 1Ds3 at f4 in these circumstances.

Ah but Ray, then the exposure would be different as well. Do we change ISO to compensate and add noise? Add a ND Filter and thus more glass? Change shutter speeds?

We were just trying to keep as many variables consistent as possible. We were not trying worried about DoF since we were pretty much at ∞ anyway. But this is why no test is perfect.

Lance and Dave,

Just post the raw files - what's the big deal?

Ah! I see. So what you are implying is that you might want to use a slow shutter speed with the P21 in order to get a blurred effect as the model tosses her head. Right?

Using the 1Ds3 at double the shutter speed would make this effect impossible.

Well, if that's the case, then you'd just have to use a neutral density filter with the 1Ds3 or reduce the intensity of the lighting. Using a neutral density filter would be easier, and I guess you professionals would use the best filters available. I would not complain if the artistic intention of the shot was explained and the reasons for using a filter.

Fine and dandy as far as that goes, but the moment you "publish" such a test publicly, you will be held up to public scrutiny–and if you don't want the scrutiny, don't publish...

If somebody, who actually SELLS the cameras, publishes a "test", then it's only natural for others to question both the test and the motives. If you can't handle that, I suggest you grow a thicker skin or get out of the business.

I don't know you, your company or Lance from Adam. But from the first post, the "test" seemed to beg to have all the shortcomings pointed out. The fact that you (since Lance hasn't bothered to return) seem to to have a bit of a short fuse, I'm not sure that posting such tests is in your best interest...you would be better off sicking to retail sales rather than independent testers...being an impartial tester is not for the faint at heart...and you might want to spend some time reading the flak that Michael gets (that should be a clue) and he couldn't care less what "others" might think.

See, that's what you should expect when you stick your head up...bugs in your teeth!

Artistic intentions have no place in camera comparisons. Not the photographers' but the cameras' abilities are of relevance.

Likewise, the abilities of the raw converters must not play any role. Everyone should "develop" the raw as good as one can and compare the result, if one can't compare the raw directly.

I can't agree, Gabor. Cameras are tools and the user needs to know what are their strengths and weaknesses. An artist needs to know what format or type of camera is best suited for a particular purpose he/she has in mind.

If the pros of one system are so negligible compared with its cons in relation to another system, then we need to know, and as far as I'm concerned that's what these comparisons are about.

That's why I take exception to testers trying to equalise all the parameters in an artificial manner which would not be in accordance with the way such cameras would be used in practice by real photographers trying their best to create an interesting image.

As for RAW converters, why should they not play any role? We're back to Jonathan Wienke's system of shooting his Dynamic Range Test Chart here where everything is reduced to the examination of the performance of a single pixel.

Surely we're talking about systems. If in the MFDB world the latest and best lenses are at least equal to the best 35mm lenses, across the board, then the reality is the 35mm format cannot compete in ultimate image quality to an MFDB with equal pixel count but double the sensor size. But it might excel in other areas, depending on the application and artistic intention.

We need to know what those areas are.

Ray,

I usually try to stay away from these endless arguments,

Dave and I had disagreements in the past on all kinds of levels and since he sells my competition I should not have any interest in defending his company or his motivation.

However, I would like to suggest that anyone who joins a conversation about this f stop or that DOF with regards to comparing the IQ of a good MF back to ANY 35mm DSLR, should first spend 10 minutes with a Mamiya 120mm Macro at f5.6-f16 and a good 17-39MP back at its native iso.

I honestly believe that your opinion and approach will change drastically after those 10 minutes and will give you a whole different perspective about the validity of your current arguments.

Like in any other field, there is theory and then there is practice. In my experience, practice directs theory and not the other way around.

Yair

Yaya,
That might well be the case, but your argument is not convincing. If theory is at odds with practice, specifically with regard to these DoF issues, then please elaborate. Give us some details.

I don't have the luxury of being in a candy shop where I can test all sorts of expensive and exotic equipment to my heart's content. I rely upon forums like this to get useful information on equipment which might suit my purposes.

I might add, if I had bought a 1Ds3 my first priority would not be to see how it performed at f16, although eventually I would get around to testing the camera at that aperture and comparing the results at f8 or f5.6.

There are at least 100 high-end Canons and die hard Canon owners for each MFD. In this fight no MFD has even any chance to get inside a ring. I hereby declare Canon undisputed and still Champion of the World, and now please everybody move back to their respective corners.
Next week featured fights:
Major League : Canon Vs Sony
Minor League : Phase Vs Hasselblad
Andre

Sorry for the humor but it is getting really hard to take this seriously by now.

Ray,

Many professional photographic dealers offer a "try before you buy" arrangement.

Buy A back and test it. And if it doesn't fit the purpose or does not fulfil that big promise, send it back.

You will then be able to post your results along with files that you have shot under any conditions that suited you, fair or not.

Yair

The post is intended to sell more MF backs, it's advertising and marketing pure and simple. One thing it does prove is that in general photography a P30 is at no disadvantage to a P45. If the Canon was as good as a P30 then the world would be a strange place indeed.
For somethings the Canon will be better than a P45 for others it wont. This test shot could of been done with a Betterlight then the Phase might of looked wanting. How you get the advantage of a P45 onto paper compared with a Canon is probably the biggest weak link in the quality chain (that and clueless designers).

Kevin.

I've owned both the canon 1ds mark 2 and the P21 and this test perfectly demonstrates the differences. I wish it weren't the case, the canon is a lovely camera to use, it's just not as sharp and doesnt have the latitude that the p21 has. Simple as that.

Me too people. Things also evolve continuously. I am currently using both formats (a 1ds and a P25) and one thing is for sure, that in a few years both will become out of date by some new tech Dslr or other format. Will that make these cameras bad in any way? I think not. We try to get the best we can for our demands and obviously our pockets. I remember those days I was taking pictures with an H5 !!! It now sounds like a joke and I clearly remember people with attitude claiming dslrs will never get there... what is wrong with them? I would never feel offended or anything like that if one said my x camera or system is no good, as long as I do the best I can with the right tools and those are the best of what I can afford. Its only electronics, no offense...
Happy holidays to all,
George

"Simple Mathematics" - isn't that an oxymoron ?

Edmund

Jeff,

Welcome back in the ring after your stint as a writer ! I see you are back at your fighting weight !

Every test reflects the abilities and intentions of those who set it up. It Capture Integration are willing to do one and show the results, they should be thanked nicely for the effort, maybe informed politely of procedural mistakes, but I don't think they need free psychological counselling from an unlicensed practitioner

I would like to thank Capture Integration for their work so far, and extend to all others an invitation to carefully criticize Capture's test process so future results become more informative.

Edmund

It will be an ever continueing battle from people who like one and like the other.
But mostly from people who don't use both.

ALWAYS it's the lens, well lenses can make a difference, a huge one, but not THAT huge, trust me I have shot with Sigma, Tamron and the most expensive L lenses, there is a difference and a big one.
But to say a 85mm 1.8 is a joke on a 1DsIII is like saying you can't make a photo without standing on your head.
The 85mm 1.8 was one of my most used portrait lenses because it was RAZORsharp and had great contrast.
Remember you are stopping down, not shooting wide open.

Than the questions about aperture.
As yaya mentioned, there is NO comparision.

I have shot pictures on f8.0 with the MF system that my Canon could not pull of on f4.0, and I could not really shoot higher than f11 (max f16) on my Canon without SOME form of softening (not really bad but it was there).
With the MF system I shoot alot of my studio work on f16.

The results here mirror my experience.
If you WORK on a file from a DSLR you can get very very close, so for some people it's a nobrainer buy the DSLR.
However if you want the absolute best and NOT have to work on your files buy into the MF system, it's as clear as day.

The problem is that there are so many variables that you can go on fighting forever.

Just take pictures with both and see

i can tell that i use both and that i tried to get out the maximum in terms of quality of both systems. i owned or own kodak 14n + slr, canon 1ds1+2+ 5d, 22 + 33mp sinar backs, i have used for shorter periods much more tools and know how far i can come with 35mm, using adaequate lenses and postpro. therefor i resist myself so much if it is claimed that mf will jump in your eyes for its quality advantages. it will not.
i made big productions, reproduced worldwide and printed in any sizes, with my old kodak slr camera, using it with greyfilters @ iso6 and mixing it with 4x5" slides which i scanned on my scanmate5000 drumscanner. used the 4x5" for the right light and the kodak for the right light. this camera was a beast but absolutely comparable with the 22mp backs of this time in terms of DR and noise,- if used at its iso6 setting. not in terms of resolution ( if not stitched ) and less of workflow speed. at that times the schneider 24xl or rodenstock 28HR were not existing and i needed wideangles at most, so mf was not an option for me. ( i bought maybe 10 - 15 35mm WA lenses just to sell them immediately after, for too much moustache distortions ).

if i look at this images today i would not have any problem to publish them wherever i want in terms of quality.
i still regularely publish images shot with a ( good sample ) of the 12-24 sigma lens on the 5d. doublepage printed and mixed in publications with my rodenstock HR lenses and the 33mp backs its not possible to see the difference, ( if the image has not to be cropped ). not for my clients ( which could not be more demanding as they are ) not for the printing houses or magazins.
funny not? but thats my reality, which is a demanding one.
never the quantity of my output leads me, but the quality.

i just have to refer to sw tools as photoacute or photomatix. this are fantastic programs to tune cameras and even if its just a canon G9 , printing results can be absolute on top,- if someone knows to use and to postpro the files. of course i would not like to shoot my architecture or museum shots with the g9 ..... but i want to bring the things to a realistic level to help people to have clear ideas about this stuff.

ofcourse there are advantages of MF and they are huge, but i rarely find that people writing and knowing about the real ones..... instead hyping comparations and weighting them wrong or repeating blindly marketing bs about 16bits , dr, colors , moirees or not , sw correction of lenses , cf and how to make it disappear and other things more.

anyway i dont like also that this mf forum is so much flooded now by people who are not using this gear, just speculating teoretically. they really cannt see the advantages if they never tried out this gear and it bores to discuss so much up and down with them. and there is a clear tendency to defend the gear someone already owns, does not matter if this is a mf camera or a 35mm camera. so many of the discussions at the moment about this decision questions or comparisons are very boring for me. here i went in because i think its not help to publish comparisons which are made with purposes which seem to be to sell one think....
its just water on the mules of people who want to defend blindly their canon stuff they own.

but esp. the canon 1dsmk3 seems to me a great tool. on par with the 22mp backs in most respects,- but system immanent not available with the same lenses than this backs can be used. this is for me the biggest limitation, i need shiftable lenses and there are really immense differences between the 35mm stuff and the schneider or rodenstock lenses. i dont know much about the other mf lense because they live in the shade of my work. i own a contax with many lenses and newly use a sinar m as well,- but to be honest..... i never compared them seriously with my canon lenses ( as i never did with my leica stuff as well. i simply liked the leicas in the film days which are over for me ).
i usually take out the mf gear and the results are great. if i need i take out the 5d and the results are printably..... but of course the files are not on par with my sinar backs. i prefer 33 or 39 mp resolution also ...... and sometimes (!) i even need it. just smetimes.... but this times have paid my backs easily.
e.g. i just had last summer an unforseen exhibition. i had a large shooting in genebra and the client felt in love with the images and organized an exhibiton of 18 motifs of the shooting. all made in best quality in a size of 160x2,20mtr. i sold all 18 images and i hardly doubt that i could have done this with my 5d.

but on the other hand i am nearly sure that i would not make bad work with 35mm as well. using than the 1ds3, zoerk adapters with pentax lenses from 35 mm up. zoerk adapter with a mamiya 28mm lens, 24mm olypmpus shift lens, 12-24 sigma and some more and stitching and stacking a lot. unfortunately the system than wouldnt be so much cheaper ...... so why not to take the "real" stuff and work 100% faster and still better.

anyway. i am tempted to make some "free" production some time in the sooner future with my g9 using the sw i named above. just love this little camera.

at the moment i do the contrary. i shoot mines in south spain. all shots with sinar e75lv, gottschalt, contax and sinar m. all treated as HDR images, the resulting quality is incredible.

so i am afraid i will remain a little bit contradictorily.


Click to view attachment

Wonderful shot.

I have never really looked at the marketing side of things, I do post them for people to point out difference.

The main reason for ME was pure own interest.
My customers couldn't care less I'm afraid, although it does help to show up with a different camera than the rest

The BIG plus for me is the bigger sensor and the depth I get in the pictures, I have always called this the 3D effect, the problem is that many people don't see it and only look at 100% crops or pixelpeep.
The second thing for me was dynamic range and the sharpness out of the cam.

During the workshops I shoot to a PC and students are amazed with the fact that I pull shadow detail out of the setups WITHOUT photoshop while their files (1DsII/5D/40D/D3 etc.) are blocked up.
Also the sharpness is something they immediatly see.

The 3D effect is hard to see in certain setups, but when you have the right light it's stunning.

I recently was in LA and did some personal shooting there in for example Joshua tree and the backparts of LA, I shot with both the 5D and the Mamiya + leaf.
Resolution wise both cameras are hardly seen apart on A2 prints, the leaf is more detailed but not as much as most would expect.
HOWEVER, when you look at the depth in the pictures, or better maybe the sense of being there again the MF system wins hands down.

It's easy to explain.
You can shoot with a 35mm a wonderfull wide angle like shot without the strange artifacts a 15-20mm will give you on the DSLR.

For portraits I love to use the 120mm macro for example, with the DSLR I was always stuck at 100-135mm (FF) to get the best results. And that gives a totally different picture than the 120mm on the MF system.

So to be short, there are differences.
The question is do you see them or do you need them.

To be honest PURE economical I think the MF system is for MOST appliances not a good choice, but I also want to have the feeling I'm getting the absolute best out of my sessions for myself and than..... well the choice is easy