Dumping the 5D for better focus or more pixels?

[Asher Kelman]

So Ben, what scanner do you use? I'm wondering about the Cezanne elite.

BTW, I intend to compare shots with LF film and the same quaility lens on a 5D.

Asher

 

[Deleted member 55]

Asher, What you say about the D30 is absolutely true.

I still have one today, it is my only backup body for my 1DmkIII. (until my 1DsmkIII comes in)

The quality of the pixels on the D30 is outstanding. The only problem is you must get the framing right when shooting. For studio and controlled shoots where you know what you need when shooting it will do very well. In most of the shoots I do you do not know what will be needed until you are editing.

Thus I need all the pixels I can get!

 

[Bernie Schuerlein]

If I may step in: I have been using the 5d for 1 and a half year now, it was the first affordable FF DSRL, even the first affordable high rez DSLR at that time, I use it with a TS-E lens and a few other lenses.

I am a bit surprised that some give the 5d so good notes, I agree detail/ resolution and ISO noise are quite good, although I don't like that color noise in the shadows that can show up quickly at higher ISOs, what bothers me most is the limited DR and the colors. Before the 5d I had Fuji S3 and while it's camera body left a lot to wish, the colors of the FUjis was much more "photographic" that the Canon color, subtle tonality better, and color palette more film like. Canon with C1 and specific profiles (Magne Nielsen) looks precise but always a bit "technical" in comparision, not really beautiful. Maybe people with better processing skills may pull out better results than I do.

I expect the most important advances of the next 5d or 6d in the highlight priority mode that protects the highlights by 1 stop of burning out, and maybe 14bit color. I often find the DR of the 5d limiting.

I have seen about 10 full rez samples of the 1ds3, they all looked quite bad, no detail on a pixel level worth a second look. Michael Reichmann has a first look" on it but apparently (had to) pull back a paragraph where he critically discusses the lack of extra resolution over the 1ds2 and the negative influence of the apparently too strong AA filter.

All in all it seems that at a given format - like 35mm one can only get a certain level of image quality, above the progresses get very small. Maybe that sweet spot of resolution is around 14-16MP for FF 35mm format, best lenses required (find an excellent WA lens for Canon uughh).

I personally want to get another camera next to my 5d and I am torn between the M8 (for weight/ sharpness/ lens quality) and a second hand ZD SLR (not back) that can be found for good prices now. The Leica has the advantage of portability, size and the terrific lenses for that system (also Voigtlaender), the ZD has a very narrow "sweet spot" of useability, only ISO50-100 really, so you have to have your (heavy) tripod with you all the time, but I guess when shot right the pics can easily outperform anything a Canon DSLR can do. Personally the 1ds3 does not attract me much, specially at the premium price of 8k.

But all that is of course my subjective impression...

regards, bernie

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I have absolutely NO inside skinny from Canon about what's coming. But maybe around PMA next year we'd hear something? Don't know, PMA isn't the show it used to be. In the past, you could pretty much count on major announcements from companies but there was nothing last year so maybe its wishful thinking.

My guess would be Photokina 2008, September/October timeframe, unless competition has something significant enough to justify earlier announcement.

Bart

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Epson 4990 Asher,

As far as colour it is very dependant on the raw converter with ACR being widely held as the most false with the facial tones. Of course Fuji has long held the crown for the most accurate facial colours which I don't find surprising given that they know exactly what they are doing!

 

[Bernie Schuerlein]

BTW, I intend to compare shots with LF film and the same quaility lens on a 5D.
Asher

It seems that the important thing in this comparision is what comes out of the scanner and what arrives in the print. In case that you haven't read that already: On l-camera-forum there was a long discussion started by the apparently excellent printmaker David Adamson who compared the quality of Leica M8 files with scanned 4x5 and came to the conclusion that up to ta print size of 26 or 27x40 inches, the M8 was on par with the 4x5 scans with proper processing and printing. This claim sounded most unreal to many who participated, but David backed up his claim with images and also a 1:1 comparison of a cropped 4x5 scan next to the crop of the M8.

I guess David's conclusion was that so much is lost in the scanning process that any inherent advantages of the film are lost in the process where the "photons hit the digital file" most directly in the M8 with it's lack lf AA filtering and through the sharp glass. Of course he has a background where he worked with all formats and all kinds of digital files from any camera and has scanned (with the most expensive scanners) film from Annie Leibowitz and other well- known photographers. I remember him say that he compared Annie's scanned Mamiya 7 negatives with his M8 files and prefered the M8 file. SO at least he knows what he is talking about.

Sorry in case that this is all well- known to you. For those who are interested and do no know it yet, here is the link:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html

regards, Bernie

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I have seen about 10 full rez samples of the 1ds3, they all looked quite bad, no detail on a pixel level worth a second look. Michael Reichmann has a first look" on it but apparently (had to) pull back a paragraph where he critically discusses the lack of extra resolution over the 1ds2 and the negative influence of the apparently too strong AA filter.

From the pre-production 'snapshots' I've seen sofar, I would also be 'underwhelmed'. But then I've rarely been impressed by samples at such an early stage. Even, or should I say as usual, the Canon supplied samples are not the best in showcasing the potential. Apparently Canon routinely uses ZoomBrowser Raw-to-JPEG conversions, which also is inadequate to get the finest detail out.

Compared to the 1Ds2, the Mark III has an enough higher sampling density to make a noticable difference in resolution, and it also requires less magnification for the same output size. It's unlikely for the AA-filter to make enough of a difference, unless postprocessing is sub-par. The softening effect of an AA-filter can be reversed quite well with a Deconvolution type of postprocessing.

What may be underestimated is that excellent technique is needed to take advantage of what the 1Ds3 has to offer (dept of focus is razor-thin and camera shake is recorded without merci). Noise is expected to approach that of the Mark II at the lower ISOs and is perhaps worse at higher ISOs, color rendition is presumed to be better (based on the 1D3 Digic3 reports), so its forte is on resolution and large output, not something everybody needs. The improvements in viewfinder and controls is something everybody wants, but it comes at a price.

Bart

 

[marc wilson]

Just for the old-fashioned and USA readers, 54 film is 4X5 and 100x100cm is of course ~25"x25".

Asher

You're right on the 54 bit but Asher, 100x100cm is of course 40x40 inches not 25x25..much bigger!

 

[Asher Kelman]

You're right on the 54 bit but Asher, 100x100cm is of course 40x40 inches not 25x25..much bigger!

There are some downsides for choosing the best wines! Yes, we divide by 2.54! However, one needs to be sober!

The problem of loss of quality in film in scanning is related to the quality of the scan. Cheap scanners have less accurate stepping motors and that degrades the image! The A to D convertors are just that, but not the best quality. going to an Epson 750 might be a little better as would combining scans for highlights and shadows.

The scanner is important and it's likely that using a Cezanne or a Leaf Eversmart xould compete very well with the Leica file. I think there's no argument that up to 8x10 or even 11x14 the picture digital files will hold their own. Whether the this remains until 26" or 27"x40" is to me likely to depend on the quality of the scan.

I hope I'll have an impression of this digital v. film question, at least using the 5D with a Canon 50 1.2L compared to a Cooke 229mm P945 in a Chamonix Film camera.

The special qualities of some lenses might even require silver deposition!

Asher

 

[Jack_Flesher]

There are some downsides for choosing the best wines!

Amen to that! LOLOLOLOL!

The special qualities of some lenses might even require silver deposition!

Ah, yes indeed...

,