Medium Format or a 2DX / MARK ll

[simon_cook]

The weddings that I photograph tend to be a story of the whole day. Most

situations I feel my Fuji S2 handles well but time after time I feel my group

shots shot outside could be better. Thats what is bugging. Know do I go down

the 645/Hasselblad H1 route/Film. Or maybe invest in a top of the range

Canon/ Nikon/Digital?. Maybe I should look at the Mamiya ZD?Your views on

this would be great. Dont mind spending but want to spend right. Thank you.

[bruce_rubenstein]

Take a look at this piece in the Luminous Landscape

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml

[mark_grow1]

Simon,

 

First, I wouldn't give the results on Luminous Landscape too much credit. It's the same stunt that Shutterbug pulled not to long ago when they did a film vs. digital story. The careful reader would note that they elected to scan the film on a consumer grade flatbed scanner. Just another way to "dummy down" the results.

 

I cannot comment about the Mamiya ZD as nobody really knows anything about it, but I know my Bronica SQ (when cropped) has an effective film space of a 645 and the results are great.

 

You might want to do a search. One of the members here did a 1ds vs. medium format test. You may find those results interesting.

 

Mark

[wim_van_velzen]

Hi Mark,

<p>

I am afraid you didn't read the title of the article Bruce is referring to: 1DsII vs P25. I suppose you have the older 1Ds vs Pentax 67 in mind.

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

[mark_grow1]

Now that I have recovered from my brain fade.... Simon...the medium format has a benefit vs. style curve that you will need to deal with. While I do have a motor drive on the Bronica it is not well suited for some types of photography... While I have the S2 also (and a D70), we as Nikon/Fuji owners are in a bit of a holding pattern...

 

My D70 does not handle large groups well so I shoot with the Bronica and have the film long roll scanned at 30mb. The future hope is for the D200. I can only hope for a low noise, 8mp chip... I had thought about the D2x but I'm not sure I need 12mp for wedding coverage?

 

That H1 could be a monster at some weddings....?

 

Mark

[fotografz]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Would you be keeping the Fuji S2, and

supplementing it with something to shoot groups and the like?

 

Why not just shoot film for that stuff? Like with a Hasselblad, which is a hell of a lot less

expensive than a H1.

[chris_prinos]

Hopefully this won't turn into another film vs. digital thing, MF vs 35mm, Canon vs Nikon etc... the best thing to do is get your hands on a 1DsII and check out the prints for your own work. The ZD & D2x are intriguing, but unkonwn quantities. I like the idea of the ZD but who knows when it will be available, plus I wanted a system for studio <em>and</em> location work, so range of focal lengths, shooting speed, high ISO performance, etc were all factors and it is hard to beat the flexibility of the 1DsII, it is almost a no-compromise camera. <p>

 

I didn't consider the D2x because I have been using EOS bodies & lenses since 1987 and been happy with the system, and I love getting full frame back for digital (as opposed to 1.6 crop in my 10Ds). Regardless, you probably have a lot of Nikon-mount glass and it would be certainly worth checking it out since it's release is so close. There's no reason to believe it won't be a very good camera.<p>

 

Don't let people tell you these high-res systems are "overkill" for weddings. The extra pixels give you more freedom to crop when needed, or if/when you need to downsample for smaller prints, the effective noise performance is increased regardless of the "native" noise of the sensor at a given ISO. Looking at 100% pixels of an ISO 800 shot with 10D & 1DsII they look pretty similar, but at any equivilent print size the 1DsII leaves it far behind becuase it can contribute so much more data. This principle will help with the ZD's native cap of ISO 400 and the D2x's high photosite density and quasi-1600/3200, so I think both of those cameras will be able to have lower high ISO noise (in prints) than many expect, just a guess. Whether they are as good as the 1DsII is impossible to tell, 1DsII is tough to beat in this regard.<p>

 

I can't compare mine head-to-head to MF film since I dumped my pentax 645 a while back, but comparing prints from the two, the 1DsII leaves no doubt or regret about not still having 645 available as an option (as much as I liked that camera & its lenses). I didn't have quite the same feeling with the 10Ds.<p>

 

Even cost-wise, total system cost compared to the film H1 & lenses you mention isn't going to be much cheaper (if at all). <p>

 

Only downside is the thing goes gobbles CF cards at an insane rate. Opening up those files in photoshop makes you forget that in a hurry though.<p>

 

Finally, because the print quality I'm getting is pretty much better than anything I've used before (short of large format view cameras), I think it's going to have a very long useful life, regardless of newer better cameras which will come down the pike. It doesn't feel at all like a "stop-gap" system like earlier DSLRs.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Based purely on your use and some limited reviews of the D2x, I think the use of a system that reduces (at least for weddings) your need to have a plethora of gear is valuable.

 

Again, not having seen the D2x in action it is hard to make a fair judgement. OTOH, if the image quality is good enough and the noise issues are ~vastly~ improved, then I would likely choose to get a D2x to use along side the S2.

 

I use the Canon 1Ds2 with a 20d and find the 20d is getting a great deal of use (almost exclusively!). I too wanted the 1Ds2 for the larger group shots etc. and it works well to have both available. The big downside is post processing large files and switching bodies with a completely different layout/interface.

 

I want image quality, but I also want useability. So from your stand point at least, I would opt for (after confirming its image quality/noise usability) the D2x.

 

My $0.02

[chris_prinos]

<b>Our 16 meg Kodak 645C ProBack still out performs our Canon 1DsMKII. I wish it weren't so, but studio work proved it ... real estate wins.</b> <p>

 

But the original question was not for studio work, it was for wedding/event, where Simon liked the handling of an S2 but wanted more image quality at times. Ultimately I think depends on his shooting style because the MF based digital systems are going to be slower-handling, have less battery duration, require more light for the slower lenses and more limited high ISO performance, etc. For anything but the most controlled-shooting part of an event I'm not sure the slight image quality advantage of a digital back could be realized for wedding images which would for the most part end up being no bigger than, say, a 20x15 full pano spread in a flush album.<p>

 

I did (with film) 35mm & 645 combined for a while and was ok with that because they picked up each other's weaknesses pretty well, and I personally liked the way the pentax handled compared to other 645s at the time. That said, I really like having a consolidated system in digital now with the 1DsII anchoring the higher image quality.<p>

 

Still, it comes down to how you shoot, because someone currently doing events with just MF film could clearly go to an MF digital solution (budget allowing). But they might also be able to go with a 1DsII or D2X(speculating) with no discernable drop off in their work (nothing says you <em>have</em> to use those bodies with the ISO cranked and at 4-8 frames/sec). I've seen plenty of really nice event work from SLR/n shooters, and those are not speedy or great in low light. That actually could be a nice compliment to Simon's S2 for a lot less $$ than the other options if it suits his style. <p>

[chris_prinos]

Marc,

 

all good points. I wish all these things were lighter for sure when carrying multiple bodies, though I'm fine with the actual dimensions of the 1-series bodies.

 

Contax wasn't an option in 645 back when I got the pentax, but it always looked like a nice system. For me, the 645 got jettisoned because there was no path to digital with the pentax though, and I think those sneaky guys at Canon have done enough to keep me from heading back to MF for the forseable future :). I will say the ZD announcements did have me thinking about that decision for a bit though...alas shipping product trumps product brochure. I'm still curious to see how that system does when it comes out.

 

A good point raised in your post is that right now (and maybe from now on), out-of-production digtal systems (MF or 35) on the used market still pretty capable, where in recent years the improvement gap was so large it was hard to even think about picking up older equipment like you could do with film gear.

[simon_cook]

Thank you all so much for taking the time to reply to my post.

The weddings I tend to do (75%) are very laid back affairs with the client not

wanting it formal. Thus said you still have to do group shots in some form for

them as the mother of the bride will not be pleased! I do not often go past

12x8 in reprints for this type of shot. I do intend to use what ever camera I buy

along side my S2. Im also thinking studio too. Above all its image quality thats

the most important issue for me.......?

[fotografz]

Well Simon, if image quality is the main driver, and you want the system for some formals

AND studio work I'd say the 645 option would be a real consideration. While we do a fair

amount of weddings, the real income for us comes from studio work. Even small table top

stuff pays better with less work.

 

As stated above, we tried to substitute the 1DsMKII for commercial work, but found it

lacking compared to even the older Kodak ProBacks. We have both, so there's no bias in

this judgment either way. The larger CCD sensor of the MF back produces a visibly

superior image. I've also worked with one of the newer 22 meg full frame MF backs and

there is absolutely no way to compare it to a 35mm sized sensor. So, the Mamiya ZD may

be worth waiting for if you can. Although I've been waiting for their 43mm RZ lens for 2

years after it's announcement ; -)

[prinosphotography]

I am actually a little bit surprised that you see <em>that much</em> of a difference, but

you

have had a chance to use a number of different backs in many contexts. I've only used a

digi-back once, a valeo 17 on an AFD during a dealer demo along with the 1DsII and

some of the phase one H-backs (didn't try those). In the (portrait) studio setup, ISO 1/100

@ f/8, I would give the valeo the edge when looking at the files compared to the 1DsII. In

16x20 print however, I thought it was pretty much "pick 'em" between the two. The prints

were indeed different, but I found it difficult to say one to be clearly better. The 1DsII had

some hair moire, the valeo had some in the clothing (I've since had moire in clothing a few

times in the 1DsII as well). Apart from those technical faults, they were pretty close. For

product shots, or for larger print sizes it is probably more clear cut though. Plus I'm sure it

would've helped to be more familiar with the valeo system (also my first time with the

AFD). <p>

 

On location, available light ISO 800 @ f/1.4 and a 35mm equivilent 24mm focal length,

that AFD & back would not fare as well :)<p>

[fotografz]

"On location, available light ISO 800 @ f/1.4 and a 35mm equivilent 24mm focal length,

that AFD & back would not fare as well :)"

 

Exactly the reason we have a 1DsMKII in the gear vault. But Simon didn't quote those

requirements. He already has a Fuji S2, which is no slouch of a camera itself for those

applications. But under adverse lighting conditions, or for lightening fast needs, the

1DsMKII rules and delivers outstanding image quality.

 

Sorry, but yes, the digital backs we use do clearly out perform the 1DsMKII which shows

up in tonal gradations not just hair detail. I don't need to go to anything over 8X10 to see

that either... and the picky art directors who's ideas I'm shooting see it also.

 

In fact, acting as an Art Director for our agancy, I just shot an ad campaign with a high

end NY pro ... and they also used a MF digital back on a Hasselblad ... which they also put

on a small view camera via an adapter for some of the work. They could use anything, but

used the MF back, if that tells you anything.

 

BTW, the Contax 645 with a 80/2, and the Kodak back set to ISO 400 with a stop or so of

+ compensation gets you to ISO 800. Full time manual override with a real split prism

makes focusing a lot easier than you may have thought. ; -)

[todd_k.]

Or if you like square...

 

http://www.photoscala.com/node/view/608

[fotografz]

Hi Todd, all the 16 meg MF backs are square sensors, even in the 645 backs. You can

shoot full square, or tell it to shoot landscape or portrait mode, and never have to turn the

body on it's side.

[splat]

Simon, I realize you said image quality is your ultimate goal but before you shell out all that money I would advise you to try out your options first by renting if that is an option in your area. Marc is a very knowledgeable person so if he says that the MF digital backs are the best in this respect then I believe they are. Still I think it would be best for you to try them out for yourself. You didn't say that your group shots are terrible. You just said "could be better". This doesn't sound to me like someone who really needs the absolute best in quality. More then likely a high end 35mm digital will give you the quality you want and a lot more besides.

[fotografz]

Good advice Steven, but Simon already has a high end 35 type digital camera with the Fuji

S2. His consideration was a Canon 1DsMKII which is probably the only camera that would

arguably show an incremental gain over the S2 .... and that cost $8,000. just for the body.

 

Just like with film, some people will never quite be satisfied with the image quality of

smaller format photography ... thus the thought of going to MF. Frankly, this could be

accomplished by getting a film MF camera and a decent scanner. If it's just a portion of a

shoot that requires quality attention as Simon mentioned, that would be the least

expensive route... and, unlike a fixed digital camera, still allow conversion to digital later.

[splat]

Sorry, I didn't realize the Fuji S2 was such a good camera. I just did a quick search on for the spec and found it to be a 1.5x crop camera with 6.17 MP. I just assumed from those few specs that the 1DsII would be huge improvment.

[bobatkins]

From the forum rules: <p>

"<em>Posts will be removed and users suspended if they engage in behavior which is not in the best interests of the forum. Such behavior may include abusive or offensive language, breaking of explicitly stated forum rules or other disruptive actions.

</em>"

<p>

If some posts/posters are missing from this thread, now you know why.

[martin_wainscott]

I'm also interested in the ZD, or rather the ZD back for my RZ D, but can anyone enlighten me as to whether the quoted 22M pixels is as good as it sounds. Bearing in mind that the MF is 4.5 times larger than 35mm film format, should we be dividing 22 by 4.5 to get an equivalent pixel content to DSLR's. If so the result of 4.8M pixels doesn't sound that terrific to me.

[fotografz]

You have an RZ D Martin? I want to upgrade my 16 meg back to 22 meg on the RZ Pro II,

but I understand the RZ D is a direct connection, and doesn't require an adapter.

 

22 meg on a MF back is suppose to be better than 22 meg would be in a 35mm sensor.

The sensor is bigger on the 22 meg MF (645 sized) so the tonal gradations are nicer...

kind of like MF film verses 35mm film.

[martin_wainscott]

Marc, thanks for your comments. I've compared the sizes of the CCD image sensor in the ZD Back (which is also the same as that in the Mamiya ZD)with the CMOS image sensor in the Nikon D70 DSLR. The ZD is 1728 sq mm and has 21.5 megapixels, and the D70 is 372.09 sq mm with 12.4 megapixels.

 

This gives 12,442 pixels per sq mm for the ZD and 33,325 pixels per sq mm for the D70. So while I understand your comments that you still have more megapixels in the DMF than the DSLR, to my mind (and to use your analogy) its the equivalent of Mamiya using out of date film technology and Nikon using cutting edge film technology, don't you think?

[martin_wainscott]

Apologies...I meant the Nikon D2X, not the D70 of course.

[fotografz]

No Martin I don't agree. 35mm format digital cameras are limited to that area when

packing in pixels. MF is not. In fact, 6X6 or 6X7 is still possible. To make it clearer, think

of the difference between a point and shoot camera offering 8 megapixels, and a Canon

1DMKII offering the same 8 megapixels. The difference is the Canon's sensor is larger. No

comparison in image quality... the Canon 1DMKII is clearly superior.