Hi All,

I've read various posts alluding to the differences in image quality between digital backs—say the P25+—and the 1DsMklll. Many people feel that the digital backs are obviously superior, but I've never seen any examples. Can anyone enlighten me, along with some sample images? I'm getting ready to plunk down some serious cash. If the differences are truly subtle, I may settle for the Canon. For my purposes, most Canon lenses won't fill the bill. So I'd be using my Leica 19mm and perhaps purchase the new 14-24 Nikon, along with other Zeiss and/or Leica lenses. The P25+ would be used on a Silvestri Bicam.

Thanks,
Merrill

the german magazin profifoto did an extensiv comparison between hasselblad H3II 31/ 39 backs and a canon 1dsmk3 in their january issue but i think it easy to draw a conclusion even it is not a p25 what they have tested.


here are their findings:


dynamic range in f stops

iso 100 ds 11,4 h39 12 h31 11,4
iso 400 ds 11 h39 10,5 h31 10,6

resolution in lines / hight + USM

ds with 70-200/4 3467
h31 HC120 3344
h39 HC120 4145


hope this is some help


c

Am I reading this right? The Hasselblad only has about 2/3 stop DR advantage?

The P25 is quite old now (a generation old) and pretty noisy off base ISO

I think you need to test for yourself

There are physical advantages of the P25l

easy clean sensor

usability on view camera

high flash synch (dependant on camera)

etc

I think you will see little difference on a striaght test in good conditions BUT once you take your canon file and run a few lens correction filters, smarten up the verticals, crop it to a client requested aspect ratio etc it may start to fall apart

MF files seem 'deep' ie you can do stuff in PShop - I think it is more than bit depth

I would however never only own a MFDB - too slow (ISO) so you will need a back up DSLR too - you probably have one !

SMM

yes

i have never seen a canon file fallen apart whatever this means anyway if it was correct exposed and processed. the quality of a final image depends as much or more on the soft skills of the photographer than on hardware even when a lot of folks here try to proof the opposite. have a look on the recent mf work images to see what i mean many of them are on a very low level artistically and technical.

A slightly different view.

1DS3 files well exposed crop very nicely to square whilst still retaining an 40MB 8bit Tiff not upsampled, so cropping not really an issue.

Use of a shiftlens negates most straightening issues.

Most good Canon glass eg: my own 35f1.4/50f2.5/85f1.2/135f2,70-200f4 and to a great extent my good sample 24shift require virtually no lens correction filters.

As far as i can see, compared to my old Phase One P20 back, the only thing that the Canon cannot quite match is a certain quality of colour in well lit daylight shots, and i think this is more down to using Lightroom for the Canon files whereas the Phase files were always done in Capture 1. In mixed light or low light longish exposures (not high ISO) the Canon thumps the back.

A P20 is just a cropped P25 so absolutely no difference other than filesize, however a P25+ is a different beast intirely and i believe very much improved colour and long exposure performance.


Gary.