August 22, 2014, 03:58:23 PM

Author Topic: Bye Canon?  (Read 28293 times)

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #90 on: April 30, 2013, 08:22:34 PM »
:)) you are so funny..... really,really.... the things that are important to me:

1. DR ( and yes those 3 extra stops make the difference)
2. Resolution. In what i do (commercial,product) size matters ( like in other cases  :P )

let me put it this way.... why the top Pro photographers shoot only with Hassyes and MF cameras ???  8) 8)

Emphasis on your words 'IN WHAT I DO'. That doesn't encompass everbody. I don't see many pros using MF and Hasselblad at sports events. Correct tools for the job etc.
I completely agree, I asked what kind of work he or she is doing, but no response. Art photography? Well I don't know man. Is it really those extra stops of DR that make him lose customers?

The answer is in the first post ... and here marked with blue  ;)

In what i do ( commercial,product and fashion, NOT Weddings and sports) the best camera is a MF camera ( but at the moment i don't afford to spend over 20k on such gear). The reason i thinking to switch on Nikon is that the D800 is way better than 5D3 ( in photography area mentioned above). I don't need fast fps , high ISO performance ( and yes, 5D is Better than D800 over ISO 6400, but i very rarely go above ISO 400).

PS.Hobby Shooter.....  try to be little more informed before making a statement, and definitely more civilized in your posts.
Sorry, I think I am both informed and civilized. I guess myself and a number of other here on the forum are getting tired of people ranting about Canon and talking about changing brands. Please just go do it already. It's better for all and your business will pick up. I just wonder you have waited this long, the D800 haave been out for quite some time now.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #90 on: April 30, 2013, 08:22:34 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3946
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #91 on: April 30, 2013, 08:42:15 PM »
Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.


Your still missing the point. I'm not saying 35mm "wins". You said there was no comparison, no contest. My argument is that there ARE comparisons, and that there IS a contest. Sure, MF currently wins...in a niche. Will that always be the case? Who knows...the point is, the GAP IS CLOSING...for that same niche. My point is, in general, FF DSLR is a better tool overall, particularly when sheer pixel count is not the most significant factor. I can foresee a point in time when FF DSLRs have AS MANY pixels as MF...with better IQ on a per-pixel basis, and with better performance on a per-pixel basis (faster readout, better AF and metering, etc.) Will that day, where MF  and DSLR perform roughly the same, ever come? Who knows. Is there still "no contest" or "no comparison" between MF and DSLR? Hell no...absolutely there is a contest, and the comparisons are showing a shrinking margin for MF.

Well, that's the last time I'll try to make my point. If you still don't get it, eh...


It's funny how you read but do not get understanding. MF is a niche, and in its niche there is no comparison to what it gives the photographer. A MF pixels will be bigger than a 35mm cameras which means sharper images. Give me a 12mp 35mm cam or a 12MP MF cam, and I'll use the MF cam everytime for what it's built for.

There is no contest in the market MF made, because its the cutting edge, its the best tech has to offer and someone will always want to have that.

35mm is like a child swinging its arms at the MF market for decades, and MF simply put its hand on the swinging child's head and heald it in its place.


Sorry, very strongly dispute the notion that MF is the best tech available. It is certainly the most prestigious tech, no question there. But as I said, prestige won't hold the MFD market forever. It has some advantages, but it is not untouchable. What the D800 can do now is only the beginning. We'll see what Canon comes up with in a year, however if they pop out a 47mp part with all the features of a 1D-series camera with better low-ISO DR, then the war on MFD will have begun in earnest. We won't be talking about worthlessly flailing arms then...we'll be talking about a full-on war, and the question I'm presenting is...will the MF market REALLY be able to compete? They can throw out all the megapixels they want...they are already within the same pixel-pitch sizes of 35mm...they can push that envelope farther, enter the 2µm pixel range and again surpass FF DSLR...but without further process technology improvements, those 2µm pixels would likely be significantly inferior to 35mm format...more noise overall, higher read noise, etc.

BTW, factually, MF pixels are in the same ballpark as FF DSLR pixels. Using the IQ180 as an example, it has 5.2µm  pixels. (The math: 53.7mm / 10328 pixels = 0.005199mm/pixel; multiply by 1000 to convert mm to µm.)

From a pixel size standpoint, that is quite average, and in the eyes of Roger Clark, quite ideal (he believes ~5µm pixels offer the ideal balance of all factors for overall IQ.) In comparison...the D800? 4.9µm pixels...hmm, once again, IDEAL! The Canon 1D IV? 5.7µm pixels. The 1D X? 6.95µm pixels! The 7D? 4.3µm pixels. The D3200? 3.85µm pixels. Medium format cameras are and have been in line with DSLR sensor pixel pitches for some time now. They do not have any particular advantage in pixel size overall until you get into the lower megapixel counts...30-40mp. However at those pixel counts, there is no pixel count advantage whatsoever, and something like the D800, that has arguably better per-pixel IQ, surpasses them. SNR matters a lot more at higher ISO, but since MFD cameras are low-ISO tools, the thing that really matters from an IQ standpoint is DR.

So...given the IQ advantage the D800 clearly demonstrates against say the Hasselblad 30mp or 40mp backs...would you really still pick the Hassy? I'd certainly take an IQ180 today if I had the option. I'd take a D800 in a heartbeat if my only other option was a Hasselblad H4D-31 or H5D-40 (which, btw, have 6.8µm and 5.9µm pixels, respectively...still SMALLER than the 1D X.)

Video review, Hasselblad H4D-40 and D800:
D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg Small | Large


The argument near the end was the D800 did better in the shadows, and the H4D-40 did better in the highlights. Simple fact of the matter is, the D800 can do a full TWO STOPS better in the shadows (far more than he pushed in the video)...meaning it is a simple matter of under-exposing a bit more on the D800, and you have better highlights as well. Oh, and in terms of skin tones? That's all just math...tone curves. You can produce whatever results you want, including exceptional skin tones, with any digital camera. There are powerful tools that help you create color profiles or camera profiles for any brand of camera to meet whatever goals you want, even normalize the output of one camera to another (cross device calibration.) So, in the niche that is supposedly untouchable for FF DSLR (35mm format)? The D800 has most definitely encroached on that territory, and has more than touched it. It can compete head to head with a 40mp Hassy (something that is still commonly used in the studio photography world.)

I fully understand your arguments. It is not a problem of not understanding. It is a simple matter of disagreeing. ;)
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 08:48:28 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3354
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #92 on: April 30, 2013, 08:52:27 PM »
It's funny you said the d800 is changing things. It's not.

That's what they said about 35mm film

That's what they said about the 1Ds

That's what they said about the 5D2

That's what your saying now with the d800

Quite frankly, MF is here to stay and will always be ahead of 35mm. The more pixels you add to 35mm, the harder and harder it gets to make lenses that will suffice, while MF will stay at a lower magnification thus making it simpler to keep more pixels sharp. I love how you bring out the ludicrous DR debate when it's not even relevant. LoL, current MF shooters will always shoot MF because of its mechanical advantages over 35mm + the superior IQ of MF.

You said the d800 is already optimized at 36MP but the IQ180 is at 80mp! LoL, no comparison.

Edit: oh, yes I would still choose the Hasselblad over the d800 for syncing at 1/800th and the ability to use schnider Lenses and tilt-swing bellows. ;)
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 09:11:14 PM by RLPhoto »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3946
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #93 on: April 30, 2013, 09:19:35 PM »
It's funny you said the d800 is changing things. It's not.

That's what they said about 35mm film

That's what they said about the 1Ds

That's what they said about the 5D2

That's what your saying now with the d800

Quite frankly, MF is here to stay and will always be ahead of 35mm. The more pixels you add to 35mm, the harder and harder it gets to make lenses that will suffice, while MF will stay at a lower magnification thus making it simpler to keep more pixels sharp. I love how you bring out the ludicrous DR debate when it's not even relevant. LoL, current MF shooters will always shoot MF because of its mechanical advantages over 35mm + the superior IQ of MF.

You said the d800 is already optimized at 36MP but the IQ180 is at 80mp! LoL, no comparison.


Well, you haven't given me anything but anecdotes and personal feelings. No facts.

I just proved that 35mm sensors and MF sensors have similar pixel densities. A 120mp PhaseOne would be in the range of the 7D. A 150mp PhaseOne would be in the range of the D3200. No real benefit there...its all in the same ballpark, pixel-size wise.

I'd be willing to bet big bucks that Canon's latest lenses are better than MF lenses. It is a difficult task to optimize a lens as the image circle gets larger. Optical aberrations become an increasing problem. That actually gives the edge on lens IQ to 35mm, not MF. I know Hasselblad farms out their lens design and manufacture to Zeiss. Zeiss makes great lenses, and have started using fluorite in Hassy telephoto lenses, similar to Canon (although I believe Zeiss still only uses a single fluorite element, where as Canon is using as many as necessary to optimize IQ.) Canon has a solid edge against Zeiss when it comes to their optics, though: nanocoatings. Microcontrast and flare control are far superior on Canon lenses with SWC. Zeiss T* is still a multicoating, and multicoatings are relative to nanocoating as a singlecoating is to a multicoating...HUGE difference.

Finally, to my original point...there is more to IQ than mere pixel count. As per-pixel IQ improves with 35mm sensors, the edge offered by having more pixels will shrink. One of the key benefits with MF is the ability to downscale, normalize noise, and improve sharpness. Printing magazine covers doesn't require 80mp...the pixel densities of prepress are around half (at most) that of inkjet printing (600-2500dpi). However, reduction in size does not normalize noise enough to overcome the benefits of having naively better IQ at higher spatial resolutions (thus negating the need to downsample in the first place.) The link below shows comparisons between the D800 and the IQ180. In each example, the D800 image is first (scaled down 2x), the IQ180 image is second. (scaled down 3x). IQ wise, the noise present in the IQ180 is very clear, even scaled THREE FOLD:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36838-someone-had-do.html

Additionally, in every single comparison, the D800 image appears to be clearer, sharper, with fewer lens issues (some of the images from the IQ180 clearly show distortion.) And that is WITH considerable downscaling! Sorry, but you can't say that DR or the overall IQ improvements that have been made in modern APS-C and FF CMOS sensor technology is a non-issue. I'm a strong Canon fan myself, but there is no denying that noise is the Canon killer. With higher noise, IQ suffers in general at low ISO. The story is no different with a monster like the IQ180...noise kills.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3354
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #94 on: April 30, 2013, 09:29:10 PM »
Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 09:30:54 PM by RLPhoto »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2940
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #95 on: April 30, 2013, 09:32:12 PM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... that's compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. That's right... a $400 p/s puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better.... 

and by the way.... I have shot 8x10..... MF is just a tiny toy in comparison :)
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 09:34:29 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3354
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #96 on: April 30, 2013, 09:33:25 PM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #96 on: April 30, 2013, 09:33:25 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2940
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #97 on: April 30, 2013, 09:35:23 PM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

Better on some things, not on all.
The best camera is the one in your hands

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3354
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #98 on: April 30, 2013, 09:36:01 PM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

Better on some things, not on all.

It's king in its niche.

Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 09:40:22 PM by RLPhoto »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3946
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #99 on: April 30, 2013, 09:49:28 PM »
Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

Well, I keep trying to make well-founded arguments, and the only thing I get in return is anecdotes. I've commandeered this thread long enough, so I'm done.

BTW, yes, I have a friend who does studio photography. I've shot Hasselblads, 31, 40, and 60mp backs (H4D). Oh, he also has a D800 for his studio work...LOVES IT. His assessment of the differences? "Subtle. D800 kicks ass on DR. They blow up just as well."
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3354
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #100 on: April 30, 2013, 09:53:05 PM »
Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

Well, I keep trying to make well-founded arguments, and the only thing I get in return is anecdotes. I've commandeered this thread long enough, so I'm done.

BTW, yes, I have a friend who does studio photography. I've shot Hasselblads, 31, 40, and 60mp backs (H4D). Oh, he also has a D800 for his studio work...LOVES IT. His assessment of the differences? "Subtle. D800 kicks ass on DR. They blow up just as well."

Good for him, now if this friend is real ask him why he still keeps his MF gear. If you shot these backs, did you come to appreciate the superior sync speeds, quality of DOF with faster lenses, the use of LF optics along with bellows for full tint swing movements and also the quality of the optics? I seriously doubt that.

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3946
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #101 on: April 30, 2013, 10:07:13 PM »
Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.


Well, I keep trying to make well-founded arguments, and the only thing I get in return is anecdotes. I've commandeered this thread long enough, so I'm done.

BTW, yes, I have a friend who does studio photography. I've shot Hasselblads, 31, 40, and 60mp backs (H4D). Oh, he also has a D800 for his studio work...LOVES IT. His assessment of the differences? "Subtle. D800 kicks ass on DR. They blow up just as well."


Good for him, now if this friend is real ask him why he still keeps his MF gear. If you shot these backs, did you come to appreciate the superior sync speeds, quality of DOF with faster lenses, the use of LF optics along with bellows for full tint swing movements and also the quality of the optics? I seriously doubt that.


Faster lenses? http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/lenses-and-accessories/h-system-lenses.aspx (Nothing faster than f/2.2 in the whole lot...FF DSLR lenses are as fast as f/1.2...)

(OK! Sorry, sorry! I'm really DONE now...just couldn't resist disproving one more non-factual response! :D)
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3354
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #102 on: April 30, 2013, 10:09:26 PM »
Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.


Well, I keep trying to make well-founded arguments, and the only thing I get in return is anecdotes. I've commandeered this thread long enough, so I'm done.

BTW, yes, I have a friend who does studio photography. I've shot Hasselblads, 31, 40, and 60mp backs (H4D). Oh, he also has a D800 for his studio work...LOVES IT. His assessment of the differences? "Subtle. D800 kicks ass on DR. They blow up just as well."


Good for him, now if this friend is real ask him why he still keeps his MF gear. If you shot these backs, did you come to appreciate the superior sync speeds, quality of DOF with faster lenses, the use of LF optics along with bellows for full tint swing movements and also the quality of the optics? I seriously doubt that.


Faster lenses? http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/lenses-and-accessories/h-system-lenses.aspx (Nothing faster than f/2.2 in the whole lot...FF DSLR lenses are as fast as f/1.2...)

(OK! Sorry, sorry! I'm really DONE now...just couldn't resist disproving one more non-factual response! :D)


Great. More like proved your ignorance that you've never shot MF before. F/2.2 on MF is a razor thin DOF.

That statement proves you have no idea what your talking about. I rest my case.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #102 on: April 30, 2013, 10:09:26 PM »

ecka

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #103 on: April 30, 2013, 11:05:11 PM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

You mean stitch factor? :D
FF + primes !

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3946
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #104 on: April 30, 2013, 11:26:33 PM »
Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.


Well, I keep trying to make well-founded arguments, and the only thing I get in return is anecdotes. I've commandeered this thread long enough, so I'm done.

BTW, yes, I have a friend who does studio photography. I've shot Hasselblads, 31, 40, and 60mp backs (H4D). Oh, he also has a D800 for his studio work...LOVES IT. His assessment of the differences? "Subtle. D800 kicks ass on DR. They blow up just as well."


Good for him, now if this friend is real ask him why he still keeps his MF gear. If you shot these backs, did you come to appreciate the superior sync speeds, quality of DOF with faster lenses, the use of LF optics along with bellows for full tint swing movements and also the quality of the optics? I seriously doubt that.


Faster lenses? http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/lenses-and-accessories/h-system-lenses.aspx (Nothing faster than f/2.2 in the whole lot...FF DSLR lenses are as fast as f/1.2...)

(OK! Sorry, sorry! I'm really DONE now...just couldn't resist disproving one more non-factual response! :D)


Great. More like proved your ignorance that you've never shot MF before. F/2.2 on MF is a razor thin DOF.

That statement proves you have no idea what your talking about. I rest my case.


Sure...but no more razor-thin than an f/1.2 lens on FF, either (however with the added benefit of over a stop more light with the FF lens over the f/2.2 MF lens...another win to FF DSLR!) Anyway, lets let the thread get back on track. We can take this discussion to another thread if you really want to continue it.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 11:33:03 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #104 on: April 30, 2013, 11:26:33 PM »