Canon 5dmk2 or 16mp digital back?

[de_v]

Should I just stick to a DSLR for digital by getting the 5dmk2 when its released? P20 is a moderate digiback - i

cant afford the p25 and further I'm unsure if theres a mount for my rollei integral for the p25, however what

keeps me with the p20 option is the quality i get from my medium format rollei lens, absolute reason for this

choice.

 

But cost wise, I think it is more sensible by getting the 5dmk2 - and it has more megapixels - not sure if this

is a plus when compared with the p20 sensor - even though the latter is 16mpx. Lens wise no way it can compete

with the planar, let alone the apo symmar 90mm!

 

Viewfinder also, its just feels better shooting with the rollei prism and chimney viewfinder - bigger and

clearer. I shoot people. Pls help with your inputs!

[phule]

Sounds to me like you really want the P20/Rollei combination. :)

[phule]

B.t.w. please refrain from posting the same question to multiple forums.

[jamie_robertson2]

If the convenience and portability of a 35mm style body is not a concern then I genuinely think you will get marginally better quality from the Rollei/P20 combination. You are already familiar with your Rollei and know what it is capable of. The 5D2 is a very different machine and will take a long time to master to get results you are happy with.

 

I read an article once which compared the 1Ds3 with a 16MB Phase One back and the Phase One was said to give better tonality and was a better option for those who were in no hurry eg. landscape photographers etc. I believe the Phase One backs also capture in 16bit.

 

The other important consideration is of high ISO performance. If you ever use high ISO (>400) then the 5D2 will almost certainly be the better performer in that respect.

[zml]

Nobody knows because the 5D2 is not out yet, but: I shoot with a P45+ (on a Mamiya) and a 1Ds3, and my biggest dislikes about the back are low usable ISO and various artifacts attributable to the absence of aa/filtering. The latter can be a real show-stopper in PP. Also my desire to use it in the filed is quickly tempered by the memories of actualy doing it (yeah, I do take it for a walk sometimes but always regret not using a DSLR instead...Digital MF handheld is way too cumbersome...) If you shoot primarily in a studio or do well organized/planned and rehersed field shoots (and maybe have an assistant..) then MF is OK; for any type of spontaneous handheld work I much prefer a DSLR.

[g dan mitchell]

There are a lot of functional and operation differences between using a MF digital back camera and a DSLR camera, and I

think those might figure into your decision in a major way.

 

The digital MF back cameras are larger. The batteries generally last shorter amounts of time - you'll carry more battery weight

if you do a lot of shooting. The range of available lenses is not as broad with MF and some, at least, are more expensive. On

the other hand, you can have greater control of DOF with the larger format, and the image produced by a given quality of lens

will likely be higher with MF. You'll have to enlarge less from the MF originals to get a given print size. (And, yes, this is

significant even with digital.)

 

So you could gain some useful image quality characteristics from the larger format at the expense of some flexibility and

versatility. As with most things, it is a trade-off...

 

Dan

[eduardo_cervantes]

I've had the same dilemma for a long time. I don't make up my mind but the dslr has always won. I do believe MF has

better IQ. Cumbersome? maybe. But that's the real beauty of medium format. To slow you down, to think first, shoot

later.

The only way for me to go MF is to really jump quallity wise and MPwise. (not exactly the same thing).

It means at least a MF sensor with a 1.3X crop factor and 21mp, otherwise doesn't cut it.

At present time, I'm waiting for used, demo or refurbished backs to come down even more, especially since the 5D2 was

announced. It is either a P25 Plus or P45 non plus to match my 500CM. My ceiling is $10Kusd. In the meantime another

dslr takes my money (5D2) and more fine glass to resolve that hi-den sensor.

Eduardo

[christopher hartt dallas]

I shoot with a 1Ds3 and a P45. For landscapes, it's always a toss up as to which camera to use. The digital back gives me about 1.6 stops better dynamic range than the Ds3 - and my style is all about dynamic range. The Ds3 is convenient, lighter, more "solid".

 

The best body is the one that fits your personal style, comfortable for you to carry and that you will take the most pictures with. With that formula in mind, I might say that the (now discontinued) Canon G9 is the camera I like the best.

[chris_chung]

Hi all

 

I'm new to Canon forum as I'm a Leica(film) fan but recently very interested in 5D Mk II or 1DsMkIII as I want to shoot more to explore my skills and film is too expensive...so is Leica digital...

 

I think the major difference between the two are the image perspective. With the digital back, you actually capture, say, coverage of a wide angle (28mm) but with proper 3D perspective of a standard (50mm). This is very important if you have to capture 'wide' but require maintaining natural perspective (portraits in large context).

 

This is the reason why even how good 135 lenses are (Leica, Zeiss), 135 could not be a substitute for mid-/large-format for some type of photography.

 

 

Best regards.

[John Crowe]

There has been some discussion on this somewhere here on photo.net recently so you might want to search out that info too.

 

 

The two you mention are likely quite close in image quality. The larger pixels and sensor size of the back likely just balance out having more pixels in the DSLR. When talking about medium format lenses and 35mm lenses don't forget that the best 35mm lenses resolve better than the best medium format lenses and also don't forget that the huge advantage medium format had over 35mm was the image size and that advantage has been dramatically reduced with the crop backs compared to full frame DSLRs.

[anson_ko]

Eduardo Cervantes , Oct 07, 2008; 08:06 p.m.

 

I've had the same dilemma for a long time. I don't make up my mind but the dslr has always won. I do believe MF has better IQ. Cumbersome? maybe. But that's the real beauty of medium format. To slow you down, to think first, shoot later.

 

I like this reason. It will work for static objects. When you are shooting with pp or moving objects, good luck.

[model mayhem gallery]

I recently shot with my first medium format camera a Hasselblad shooting black and white film. Was an interesting experience and the photos which took forever to get back from the lab where awesome. However, for my customer base, the slowness of the Hasselblad in terms of focusing and frames per second kind of ruined the experience. When I shoot in studio with my Canon 30D, I am able to easily keep up with the model, catch candid off guard shots which the models always love and move around the studio easiliy. I am sure when I upgrade image quality with the 5D Mark II and maintain flexability this will be a better selling point than the increased quality of digital medium format. My customers could not tell a difference when I went from the Canon Digital Rebel to the 30D. However, they did notice a difference when I went from the 18-55 kit lens to the Canon 17-40 F4L. The L-series lens got me a lot more customers and everyone though my photography was actually getting better. When I picked up a used 85 1.2L every one LOVED the new looks I was able to achieve.

 

My observation - Its all obout the Glass.....

[jamie_robertson2]

Minute Photos: 'My customers could not tell a difference when I went from the Canon Digital Rebel to the 30D.'

 

That's an extremely important point. 99% of the time, customers don't give a hoot what gear you use and most couldn't tell the difference between a shot from a FF DSLR and a 60MP MF back. As you say, the flexibility of 35mm style equipment means you catch all sorts of great grab shots which MF just can't cope with. In the days of film I used to shoot MF but quickly moved back to 35mm for that very same reason.

 

The person that is hardest to convince is always yourself. A pro may be happier with the results from a MF camera but his customers won't know the difference and just won't care.