Please advise; 1Ds vs 5D?

[philip_wilson]

Finally a crop form the G2 image ( the top of Ha Ling). If you are happy with Contax 35mm then you should be more than happy with the 5DII. The other thing you will find is that you can join images taken with a longer lens to creat a wide angle lens look (panorama) much more easily with digital. I plan to add a T/S lens to my collection for the 5DII - probably the 17 f4 or 24 F3.5 II for wide angle landscape use. I have had considerable success using the GX680 shift movement to take two images (left and right shifted) to create a wide angle lens appearence. It is difficult to post these shots as I find my PC tends to crash when I try and compress them too much - the RAW files are over 1GB for a single image ( atop quality 6x8 scan is about 500 - 600 MB). I suspect that the 17mm lens used this way may deliver great results - hence my suggestion you go with the 5DII and spend the savings on lenses.<div></div>

[John Crowe]

<p>14 MP full frame = Kodak SLRn (or SLRc). With no anti-aliasing filter resolution from this camera is similar to 16 to 21 MP from what I have seen at dpreview.com. Resolution is superior to my Nikon D2X 12 MP 1.5 crop body. </p>

<p>I have been extremely pleased with the SLRn and had bought it 2.5 years ago when it was significantly cheaper than a 1Ds and had obviously better resolution. Today, since they are about the same price, I would likely choose the 1Ds over the SLRn or c. (n=Nikon mount, c=Canon mount). The moire effect created by the lack of an AA filter affects less than 5% of my images and this camera is far more capable than all the opinions on this site. The "chin" on this camera makes using the viewfinder more difficult than it should be and as a result gets in the way of quick moving sports photography (which it can do just fine). The huge advantage that the Canon DSLRs has is their ability to use just about any lens via cheap mechanical adapters. </p>

<p>I used to use Nikon and Contax/Zeiss lenses on my Canon 10D with cheap adapters. My Contax/Zeiss 85/1.4 T* was stunning on my 10D and I was very sorry when I had to sell it when I switched to Nikon mount bodies. If you have some nice Contax/Zeiss lenses you will be pleased with their use on the Canon DSLR you select. Just be sure to buy the adapter with the correct flim plane distance. While you can mount your medium format lenses on the Canon DSLR as well, I do not recommend it since they do not have the resolution required for the smaller format. You have to use the lenses in stopped-down metering mode and change the aperture manually. The Canon DSLR will meter with them. </p>

<p>If you have manually focused like I have for 25 years then manually focusing with a full frame DSLR is not as much of a challenge as everyone on this site says. When I focused with my Canon T-90 I never used the split area, always the main frame area. Get used to doing the same with the DSLR finder and you will do fine. Having said that it is awful how much darker these viewfinders are over manual focus cameras like your Contax. For those who went from AF cameras to DSLRs it was not too bad a difference but those of us who went directly from manual focus to DSLRs found the viewfinders to be extremely dissapointing. Something else you will have to get used to. </p>

[dave_b15]

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>What did you use to scan that GX680 image?<br>

And at what format did you shoot it: 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 or 6x8?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I have both the 1Ds and the 5D, if I did only Landscapes low ISO, I would choose the 1DS, that is a personal opinion. Having said that the 1Ds is a dust magnet and I have keep the sensor clean, which can be a pain as dirt seems to like to stick to it, so the rocket blower is often not sufficient. The 5D has it's problems also but not as bad. The difference in mega pixels is not sufficient to give it much thought. I don't have the 1DSII but have read that at 16mp it is way better than the 1Ds.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=194894">Michael Liczbanski</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 20, 2010; 10:14 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>5D = better at high ISO. 1Ds = better camera overall.<br /> With today's prices you can probably swing a 1Ds Mk. II: it'll blow your socks off in terms of image quality for your purposes.</p>

</blockquote>

 

[philip_wilson]

John - Interesting to hear about your Kodak - I wondered since it was obviosuly not a Canon or a Nikon and Fuji has a different sensor (and I do not beleive they made full frame). I have only ever seen the SLRn (I suspect they did not make many Canon mount ones) but I have never used it. Like you I am an MF person (also 25 years) but I was heavily comitted to FD (the only lens that does not mount well on EOS) so I use FD bodies (I probaly like the T90 and New F1 best). I also use ond FD lenses on a Panasonic G1. I have just ordered the tilt shift mount for Mamiya 645 lenses on Canon EOS and will post what it is like when it arrives. I use a Contax 50 f1.7 on EOS which I quite like but the old FD 50 f3.5 and 85 F1.2 are both amazing on the G1.

 

I did a quick (not very scientific) test of viewfinders and the new 5DII (probably the best of the three Canon DSLRs I own as the others are the 7D and 1DIIN) is almost a stop darker than a body like the New F1 and only about the same as the 1NRS which loses 2/3 of a stop from the pellicle mirror.

 

Dave I shoot the Fuji almost always in 6x8 although I do have and sometimes use the 6x6 mask. I scan with the Nikon 9000 and use the glass mount. With the Nikon 9000 (or 8000) you have to scan with a glass mount as the one they supply is useless for 6x6 or larger (it is pretty bad for 6x4.5).

[syd]

<p>Thank you to everybody who has contributed here - it is hugely appreciated. Some of the above answers have created new problems for me though and in some small part have given me pause for thought regards getting into Digital at this time. Perhaps the film/digital users might assuage me on a few points.</p>

<p># - How big a concern is the issue of Digital censors showing up lens aberration? I know that lenses have these aberrations naturally, my concern is simply a question of the fact that Digital is reported to show it more glaringly than film. Seems unforgiving ... is this overblown or a legitimate problem and concern for a Landscape photographer using wides?</p>

<p># - Could somebody shooting landscapes using wides, please post some images using good wide lenses on either the 1Ds, 5D or 5DII to address the above question, pro or con? What I am wanting to avoid is having to spend hours fixing issues in post that I would not have with film. Somebody mentioned to me that this aberration issue does not play out so obviously if you stop down - this is the same with film, but by what degree does Digital fail at this compared to Film?</p>

<p># - Something else of concern is the lifespan of DSLR's ... I am used to robust film camera's that last and last without issue. What kind of lifespan (before repair) can one realistically expect from a DSLR these days? I have heard the figure or 3-4 years tossed out there by well respected reviews. I don't run this as a business so upgrading every few years is not a happy option for me. Another thing is that DSLR's seem not to hold their value at all, such is the nature of the shifting technology. How do people in my position feel about their DSLR's knowing that a 2K cam will in 3-4 years tim be worth 1/3rd of that?</p>

<p># - I would also like to ask members how much work really goes into getting an image from your DSLR to a finished image on the computer ready for printing or posting? I would like to know what is the typical workflow for you and how much time and effort goes into just getting an image to look right. I have no problem working on an image in Photoshop, I am just trying to avoid overly lengthy post processing that turns me into a lab tech rather than a creative entity.</p>

<p># - Am I kidding myself by wanting to get into Digital at this time, because I want my work flow to be kept very simple. I just want a box that holds film or a censor that allows me to accurately capture what I see ... I want to be able to go snap and then see the results without 50 moves before I get an end result. Reading about various Digital users discussing the need to download or buy new or updated software for their camera's or updating software is really not my interest at all. Click, image ---> result - is really where I am at. I don't mind scanning, or having to do a little sharpening or contrast/hue adjustment ... I just don't want to be spending hours fixing things in post that are inherent problems of the medium. If I can avoid that with film then I'd stay with film. Help me out here ....</p>

<p>I welcome further guidance on all this.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>Click, image ---> result - is really where I am at. I don't mind scanning, or having to do a little sharpening or contrast/hue adjustment ... I just don't want to be spending hours fixing things in post that are inherent problems of the medium</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the exposure latitude on digital is not as good as film (my 2 cents don't want to start a war) so I find that I will bracket more often when using digital and then use photoshop to get a better image. My 1D is about 6 years old, my 1Ds going on 6 also, no problems with either one.</p>

[syd]

<p>Manuel,</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply - exposure latitude is not a big issue for me since I only shoot trannies with my film work anyway - I always bracket my images. Hoping others can address the other issues raised in my previous also. I would still like to get a clear picture of normal digital work flow ... from click to finished product.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Simon - answers to your questions<br>

1 Spend money on lenses and you will be fine. cheap lenses do not work well on high resolution sensors. I bought my 7D with the new EFS 18-135 as it was only $200 more. I have since given this lens to the kids as I never use it as the quality is compromised. This is not to say it is a bad lens - just that the 18MP sensor shows up its flaws. It is mainly for this reason i suggested you spend more on the glass and less on the body<br>

2 the image of the tree and mountains (with the crop below) plus the 5DII crop of the waterfall show the IQ of the 16-35 f2.8 II. The mountains and tree (Warterton Lake) shows this lens stopped down to F5.6 (it is best between f5.6 and f11). This is one of the better wide angle lenses Canon makes (except for L series primes like the 24 F2.8 II and 14 F2.8 II). as you can see from the crops digital has much higher resolution than film so digital from one of these two bodies is better than 35mm film - thus is you are happy with 35mm you will be happy with digital so long as you buy good glass. In my own experience the image quality is about the same as 645 film but the lenses are not quite as good - that said anything you were happy with in 645 MF you will be happy with digitally. remeber what you are seing in the computer screen are fairly extreme enlargements - equivalent to blowing the image up to about 60 inches by 40 inches than examining it from about 18 inches away!. I have included another shot with the 5DII and 16 F2.8 II shot at ISO 200 F7.1 1/80 and 16mm (Not a great shot). And also a crop so you can see that the lens issue is really not a problem unless you buy cheaper lenses or enlarge really big. If you do enlarge really big then the Mamiya 67 will be better - the lens is under a lot less stress!<br>

Lifespan - who knows as the camera will last a while probably 10 years I suspect that 5-7 years is a reasonable useful life expectation before they have major compatibility issues (memory cards, batterys, software etc...). In terms of total life costs digital is probably cheaper than film - film materials, D&P is at leat 50 cents per shot. Shooting I ski race I can go through 2000 shots in a weekend (at least $1000 with film!). Even for landscapes I generally use at least 1 roll per day so in a year that was about 40 - 60 rolls or $720 - $1080. Unless you shoot sports or professionally digital is probably no cheaper as you need software, computers, printers etc... Digital does change the way you shoot as you tend to take a lot more shots and experiment more -partly because you get instant feedback.<br>

Getting an image from a DSLR depends how you shoot - you can do it all in camera and shoot JPEG (I do this for sports as I don't want to process the volume of shots). If you shoot RAW but essentially get it right in camera so you don't manipulate the image (RAW conversion, white balance, sharpness, contrast and brightness) then a shot takes about 1 minute to process. I find that my landscapes take perhaps 1-3 mins per image but some of this time is spent selecting the best shot.<br>

Digital is more clumsy on the camera as you have a multitude of settings to play with - exposure mode, aperture, shutter, ISO, metering pattern, focus mode, white balance, image type, drive speed etc... Sometimes I just love the simplicity of my old Canon F1 where all you worry about is shutter speed and aperture.<br>

All things considered I would suggest you take the plunge into digital. While the image quality is not up to a 4x5 it gets close to 6x7 with a lot less weight and beats 35mm film.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>First crop of the house on the LHS - yopu can see the distortion as I had the camera pointed down the hill but the detail is great.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Crop of the top LHS mountain. This is an extreme crop so it obviously looks soft but with 35mm film this would be just a grey blur.</p><div></div>

[syd]

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>I can't thank you enough for the time you have taken provide detailed answers to my questions, you have been stellar and make some great points. The issue of good glass really brings me back to the question of which box with a censor do I go for? If the lens is still more important than the box, I am wondering; would the 1Ds at 11.1 MP and great glass still beat my 35mm with good glass? If I can pick up a cheaper DSLR that does the job, as well as 35mm then I can afford high end glass ... if I go for something like the 5DII, then I shant have that extra capital for the high end glass you see. I am trying to strike a balance between the lowest priced acceptable body and great glass for a DSLR - which is why I asked about the 1Ds and 5D.</p>

<p>I suppose I should rephrase part of the question then ...</p>

<p># - Are the 1Ds and 5D with great glass better than 35mm with the same glass?</p>

<p># - Another question ... what are the average prices I might be looking at for the best wide primes from Canon these days ... new or 2nd hand? I am not familiar with the market for Canon at all and am essentially new to their line of lenses - though I know the rep well enough.</p>

<p># - What are considered the minimum best lenses from Canon that I should consider for use with full frame DSLR in order to ensure high quality results?</p>

<p># - What are the additional running costs with moving to DSLR's? I am not familiar with the costs of storage cards etc, whether I require additional memory and storage for my computer etc.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help, Simon.</p>

[robert_turner]

<p>Apologies if this isn't precisely on point, but you may find this dated comparison of the 1ds (when it was originally introduced) and a Pentax 67II (and various methods of scanning) rather interesting.<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml</p>

 

[lad_lueck]

<p>Simon,<br>

Here's landscapes at 100% crop, in the far corners, and the far edges:<br>

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck2/sharp2470.htm">http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck2/sharp2470.htm</a></p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said that you may have to bracket to get the same from digital. I mean that you will have to combine the images (photoshop) which means work flow, maybe 50 steps or more depending on the sky and horizon.<br>

The same lens on my Canon 1V and on my digital cameras normally the film will look sharper, but has more grain. I recently used my 7D with my 24-70L and the lens seemed to shine more on the 7D then it has on either my 5D or 1Ds (observation on one event). I will upload two images the first was taken with the Canon 1V Ektar 100 the second image the 1Ds with same lens Tokina 17mm f/3.5. The film has no work that I recall doing on it, the IDs converted to black and white and sharpened.</p><div></div>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Canon 1Ds</p><div></div>

[syd]

<p>Robert, Lad and Manuel ... thank you all!</p>

<p>Whether you guys know it or not, you have actually helped me in making a decision to stick with film for now and in this company I know that choice may be a little controversial. Having read through the article at Luminous Landscape It served only to reinforce the principals of photography that tend to ring loudest. I have come to realize all the more that while we can enlarge sections of images and study resolution and noise, it is the sum total - dare i say the big picture - that really matters most. Here is where I am going with this.</p>

<p># - Without doubt, I can look at Digital images and say that in many cases they present a sharper and cleaner image than some film images - but usually only visible differences when the images are cropped and enlarged for comparison.</p>

<p># - When viewing the full image between digital and film I am usually more drawn to the film image because of the inherent flaws ... the sharpness and softness in film is less uniform in film and therefore more organic and believable to my eyes. Nature is not perfect and nor is it uniform and I feel that film tends to reflect that better than digital, which seems to be so uniform that it become surreal and some how hyper real to my eyes.</p>

<p># - I went into this with an honestly open mind, I have no dog in the film vs digital fight at all - if suitably blown away, I was quite prepared to dump most of my film gear and shift over into the Digital world. I am now even more convinced that I prefer film for all the reasons given above. I now know I don't care if a cropped section of a film image has grain, if when I'm looking at the entire picture I can't see it and the overall image is pleasing. I guess it's very much like Impressionism ... if you stand up close enough to a Van Gogh, you could pick apart all the sloppy strokes of yellow and blue paint ... but what is important is the big picture when you stand back from it and take it as a whole.</p>

<p># - The workflow aspect of digital is another reason I would rather work with film ... the idea of having to do a lot of in camera processing and tweaking of modes and parameters is really the antithesis of my style. Thank you Manuel for making this clear to me!</p>

<p># - When looking at an image I generally want it to reflect the subject as accurately as possible, but there is another side to all this and that is one of what looks natural and pleasing to the eye. I am wondering when did photography take such a big left turn down this one way street that is in some part obsessed in the pursuit of minimal noise and max resolution? I really believe that there is a place in imaging for noise and variations in resolution - some of the greatest images of the past 100 years were grainy as hell ... they are still legendary images.</p>

<p># - I suppose this comes down to an issue of aesthetics for me, as well as work flow and desired outcomes. I have come to understand that the flaws in film are the very things that I love most and that in removing them from the image, for me anyway, removes much of the heart and soul of what I love about photography. Again, the almost perfect, hyper sharp and clean digital images produced tend to leave me cold - I am moved by the beauty of many of them but something is usually missing ... a human element?</p>

<p>I guess what I am trying to say is that for me, Film retains a human element, a flaw that is in synch with nature ... perhaps the look of Digital is a bit too industrial for me but there we have it. I am extremely grateful to everybody who has contributed here as you have all helped me come to this realization with firmer resolve than ever before. Perhaps in the future when Digital backs are available for my Mamiya at reasonable prices I'll make the move, but for now I think I'll go buy more Velvia and a good Film Scanner and call it done.</p>

<p>These are my own conclusions obviously, I am not trying to convince anybody of my views, but I felt for all the effort put into this thread I owed people an explanation as to my decision not to go Digital at this time.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Simon your reaction is similar to mine for many years. I bought a 1DIIN to shoot the kids playing sports - they alpine ski race and one plays ice hockey. I shot these sports with a 1V for several years but in the end the cost and the fact that you really struggle with film in a hockey rink (some of them are F2.8 and ISO 3200 to get a decent shutter speed) persuaded me to add a digital camera. I shot sports digitally and everything else with film for the next few years (I no longer make money from photography so I do not need to go digital). More recently I added a 5DII and a 7D. What I have found is that I still shoot film but do so less often. these days I do it using MF (Fuji Gx680 or Mamiya 645) or tend to use old FD equipment - usually f1s in manual mode!. My 1Vs and 1NRS have probaly not been used for 6 months. When I shoot film I love the tactile feel of an old MF body - otherwise I tend to shoot digitally. At some point I suggest you try digital - if only because it allows you to experiment and get instant feedback.</p>

<p>Good to hear that you are sticking with film. to your earlier questions on the first 1Ds - I would not reccomend it as the small screen, poor menu system and older sensor / processing technology are now obsolete. I suspect the latest rebel takes better images - espacially at high ISO. This one of the things that kept me from going digital - I was awiting for the pace of change to slow. Except for the mirrorless bodies I beleive the pace has now slowed as we are seeing incremental improvements not revolutionary ones. This means that your equipment does not become obsolete weeks after you buy it.</p>

[acedigital]

<p>Why not RENT them - check with local camera stores or www.borrowlenses.com - for maybe $600 you could rent them each for a week and make your own conclusions. I have seen photos from the original 5D (I shoot 40d 1.6 crop) and they blew me away. You can get one used for around $1000.<br>

Get off the wall and have fun shooting!</p>

[syd]

<p>Mark, honestly, I'd rather buy $600 bucks worth of film ... if you read the thread through you'll find I decided to stick with film.</p>

<p>Philip,<br>

I hear you mate, thank you for all your fantastic assistance throughout - greatly appreciated as I said before. I'm just a happy camper with Film I think ... it is what I know and what looks and feels right to me at this point. I just bought a Nikon Coolscan V since this thread finished and feel I have made the right choice ... for me.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

[lad_lueck]

<p>Simon, if you are still there, something very important hasn't been mentioned in this thread (or at least, I missed it).<br>

And I don't mean this to make you change your mind. Film is fine, and you are very familiar with the plusses it brings to photography-the character of film.<br>

But...<br>

Digital (when you finally get around to it) opens up a huge new arena. With film, you pick the base stock, shoot your pics, and then hope the processor doesn't mess it up.<br>

With digital, you control the 'base stock' from shot-to-shot. You reshoot as many times as you like, to fine tune the capture. You shoot so many frames that you learn about your own shortcomings, your equipements', and the strong points of it all. And you *learn*. You take so many more shots, and the feedback is so fast, that you learn things you had no idea of, before.<br>

And after a lot of work, you learn to be the processor. Shooting in RAW format, and using a RAW editor, will absolutely blow your mind. I'm not talking about those strange 'kinda resembles a photograph' things that 'photoshoppers' come up with. I'm talking about altering the tone of a certain part of a sunset pic. Of subtly altering the tint of the red hues. Of getting the *emotion* that you felt when you took the shot, into the print. And *so* many more issues, that you learn, and get control of.<br>

It's more work than you've probably put into anything you've done before.<br>

And it's worth every second.</p>