Sorry, but for the life of me I cannot comprehend why people check out resolution using a zoom lens on a 1Ds and primes on other cameras. He did not even use the top Canon midzoom of today. Interesting on topics other than resolution. I do not say that MF+film cannot outresolve a 1Ds, but I do say that any test using zooms is a comparison of lens performance, not film/sensor system. Anybody wishing to do these resolution tests really ought to use primes at f8, anything else is a shortsell to one or the other. Anyway, the Phase1 H25 back should resoundingly outresolve the 1Ds, but not released yet. The current H20 back with the 4000x4000 sensor (which I suspect many people feel is "superior" to MF film anyway) does NOT outresolve the 1Ds. It matches the 1Ds, since the latter also has a 4000 pixel-long sensor. Equally good lenses, equally good final resolution. At least my own testing fully convinced me of that ;-) Here's the thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums....5098152

Even at a disadvantage because of the lens used on the Canon I see superior results in some of the photos.

Yes, particularly in the shadow detail in some of the crops. One wonders how much more detail in the highlights in some of the other crops might have been visible if the 1Ds shot had been underexposed by 1/2 to 1 stop. I generally find with the D60, high contrast scenes need to be underexposed to preserve high light detail.

There's also a 'grain' effect of film where plain surfaces can appear to show more detail, as in a finely textured wall, when in fact it isn't detail but just plain grain.

Making such comparisons is not necessarily as straight forward as it may seem at first glance.

There is an interesting recent (17 June 2003) comparison of the output quality of Canon 1Ds compared with high resolution scans from medium format film (with a link to a comparison with scanned 35 mm film). Go to: Peter Wolff's webpage

Mike Saxon

I agree. This is a seriously flawed comparison. The only way Peter Wolff can redeem himself is to show us some comparisons between the 28-70 zoom and a Canon 50mm prime, both on the 1Ds.

Hi Samir,

Very interesting your comparison.

I did take a look ata the specs of the H25 and have to say that maybe the advantage of the H25 could be the 9x9micron sized pixel on the chip.

On the other side I think I have noticed that the quality of a photo is not ony the chip size, resolution or whatever. It seems to be that the software converting the data delivered by the chip is much more important than everything.

On your dpreview post I tipped that right was the 1Ds, before continuing with reading. Somehow the info of the 1Ds information is clearer.

So I made the right choice in choosing the 1Ds.

On the other side having invested so much in exclusively EF "L" Lenses from Canon, what else could I have chosen  :D and also not wanting to loose the wide angle capacity so what else.

Whenever I read comparison articles such as this one I always wonder about a couple of things. One thing, that has already been mentioned, is the use of the very best prime lenses for each camera. The other thing is not applying any sharpening or image enhancements to get the best image possible from either image, particularily the digital image. Isn't the point of these comparisons to see how great an image you can get at a given size? Why should it matter how that is achieved? I was looking at one of the  1Ds photos with the bricks that looked duller then the film version and I am certain that I could work with that digital file and by using some slight edge sharpening, a high pass filter and a couple of other tricks I could really make that image 'pop' and be very comparable to the film image but with the added benefit of being free of noise. Underexposing the digital image a 1/2 stop, at least, would have helped as well to provide a better starting point. I know many of people will say that sharpening and other enhancing filters don't add any more detail where there was none and, while that is true, those tools can significantly improve the detail that is already there. My point is that, as most of us digital users have learned, digital can require some additional work using filters and other tools to create the best image possible. I don't think that that was the case with these digital files in this comparison and many other comparisons I have read about.

T

Rainer,
On the basis that this question is not entirely rhetorical, only you can answer that. For all I know, you could have had the option of investing the cost of the 1Ds in stocks, shares or bonds which might have doubled in value by the time that the successor to the 1Ds appears at a lower price.

How much money are you making from your photos? For successful professional photographers, purchases of digital cameras may be a 'true' investment. The increase in efficiency and quality pays for itself in a relatively short period of time. The enthusiastic amateur, like myself and possibly you, are consumers of the goodies. The things we buy are luxuries rather than tools. We may harbour dreams of our images eventually making an impact, and we all know that dreams sometimes come true.

My own view is that life is to be enjoyed, but one should strive to do what is most meaningful rather than just most pleasurable. Combine the both by all means.

Hi Ray,

I can afford the cost of an 1Ds, but above is for people than can afford to speculate and that I can not and there is a big difference. If I could speculate maybe I would not be an enthusiastic amateur as you say and which I am.

I have made 8 exhibitions, sold about 140 photos but not enough to cover my expenses. What the heck. Again as you said, let us enjoy what we most like and photography is part of it.