Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #1
rssfhs
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,707
Question 5D vs. Medium Format

Hello everyone! One of these days, I would like to upgrade my 300D to something
with more resolution. I do mostly landscape shots and my camera works great for
web display or for prints up to A3 size, but anything larger than that just doesn't
cut it.

Most of the people I shoot with are still using medium format cameras and
claim it will still be along time before digital cameras reach the same quality
level. Do they really know what they are talking about, or are they just ignorant
or too conservative to accept change?

I am keenly interested in the 5D, but $3,000 is a lot to shell out and then not be
satisfied with the results.

The guy in the camera store of course says that even the 20D has surpassed 35mm
film and is nearly equal to medium format, probably because he wants to sell me
one...

Can anyone out there convince me that I will be happy with my purchase, or should
I just go out and buy a used Mamiya or something instead? Thanks for your feedback!
rssfhs is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #2
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
 
SkipD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
Posts: 19,584
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

What is the end product you want to produce with the new camera?

I'd say that sales person is feeding you a line of BS when he says the 20D output is approaching MF quality. The 20D is a great camera (I own one), but it isn't going to produce really sharp photos - when viewed up close - much bigger than 16" x 20", and even that is a stretch. The resolution of the 5D isn't all that much better than the 20D.
__________________
Skip Douglas
A few cameras and almost 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.
SkipD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #3
cdesperado
Member
 
cdesperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 566
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

I agree with what Skip said about the 20D not being anywhere near medium format quality; However, the resolution of the 5D is much better than that of the 20D (not that the 20D is lacking).

The 20D has 8.2 million pixels... the 5D has 12.7 million pixels. This means the 5D has more pixels than any other Canon camera, except the $8000 1DS MKII.

If you want medium format quality, you will need a medium format camera (at least, for now...)

For your digital comparison pleasure.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...os10d&show=all
cdesperado is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #4
rssfhs
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,707
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkipD
What is the end product you want to produce with the new camera?
Mainly for web use, but also for an occasional print enlargement of up to about 24x30.
rssfhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #5
chtgrubbs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,674
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

I am very picky and conservative when it comes to quality. I usually don't enlarge my negatives more than about 10x, so I limit 35mm to 8x12, 2 1/4 negative can go up to 20x24, and for larger I shoot 4x5. But after seeing my first batch of 18x24 prints from my 5D I figure I will be using it and my 4x5 from now on. Of course, alot depends on your post-processing skills and the quality of your service bureau/printer.
chtgrubbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #6
ssim
POTN Landscape & Cityscape Photographer 2005
 
ssim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: southern Alberta, Canada
Posts: 10,884
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Quote:
Originally Posted by rssfhs
Mainly for web use, but also for an occasional print enlargement of up to about 24x30.
If it is primarily for web display the 5D (or pretty much any dslr) would do just fine. I haven't enlarged anything from my 5D yet but I have gone as large as 20X30 off of my 1DMKII and the quality is excellent even up close.

I have a Pentax 6X7 and a Mamiya RB67 and quite honestly they sit idle. I hardly ever use them. Yes, they produce great quality images but unless I know I am going to shoot something to go very large it is not worth it. Of course if you have lots of cash you could get a medium format with a Phase One back, now that would be sweet.
__________________
My life is like one big RAW file....way too much post processing needed.

Sheldon Simpson | My Gallery | My Gear updated: 20JUL12
ssim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #7
HKFEVER
Senior Member
 
HKFEVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,521
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

My own opion only, even 1DsMKII can't catch MF with cheap FUJI Reala CS120 film.

May be it is limited by lens design, DR or resolution, I am not sure. And don't bother to find out. Just wait couple year cheap "digital what ever" will catch up the MF anyway. I guess....

At the mean time, live with it or you will miss out the game.
HKFEVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #8
Jim_T
Goldmember
 
Jim_T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Woodlands, MB, Canada
Posts: 3,137
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Digital photography has caught up with medium format.. If you want to shoot medium format digital you can buy the equipment today.

Outfits like Leaf make digital backs for several medium format cameras. The reason they aren't more popular is that they are far more expensive than film.. (The 22 Megapixel Aptus22 is about 30,000 bucks).. They've recently announced a 33 MP back.. You can impress your friends if you have a really thick wallet

http://www.leafamerica.com/20000.htm
Jim_T is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #9
Hellashot
User is banned from forums
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4,617
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdesperado
I agree with what Skip said about the 20D not being anywhere near medium format quality; However, the resolution of the 5D is much better than that of the 20D (not that the 20D is lacking).

The 20D has 8.2 million pixels... the 5D has 12.7 million pixels. This means the 5D has more pixels than any other Canon camera, except the $8000 1DS MKII.

If you want medium format quality, you will need a medium format camera (at least, for now...)

For your digital comparison pleasure.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...os10d&show=all
It has more pixels, but they are bigger pixels than i the 20D. The 2 main advantages of the 5D over the 20D is being able to have truly super-wide FOV and it has spot metering.
Hellashot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #10
soupdragon
Account removed at users request
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 963
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Even though I owned a Hasselblad for many years coupled with a 40mm f4 CF for landscapes, if I had to make a choice now between a 5D and a medium format camera, I'd go 5D.
soupdragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #11
SWPhotoImaging
Goldmember
 
SWPhotoImaging's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: No. Calif.
Posts: 3,231
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Quote:
Originally Posted by rssfhs
Mainly for web use, but also for an occasional print enlargement of up to about 24x30.
If you want to produce mainly web output, pretty much any decent DLSR will do. No browser, and no computer monitor can come close to displaying the detail and crispness of even a 6Mp 300D image (properly focused and exposed of course). Video resolution is years behind printed resolution, which is lagging DSLR resolution by an order of magnitude.
__________________
SWPhoto-Imaging
SWPhotoImaging is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #12
buze
Member
 
buze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 706
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Funny that, just got myself a Bronica S2A and I'm now shooting 6x6 for landscapes on Provia 100F and get that scanned at 4800dpi. 8MP is clearly too small for detailed landscapes, I find myself seeing the interpolation in prints as small as 6x9.
12MP is just a couple hundred pixels more in width and the same in height. It's barely noticeable.

And it's FUN to shoot a camera that is older than me ! I use the 350D to frame & shoot, I then copy the settings on the Bronica, reframe and shoot. Easy; I don't even need a tripod.

__________________
5DII - 350D ; Bronica S2A, Leica IIIc&M2, Rolleiflex T etc!
Canon: 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 135 f2 L, 200 f2.8 L MkI, 70-300 DO
Sigma: 30 f1.4 EX, 18-200, 18-50 f2.8 EX, 28-135 Macro
Other: About 60+ Zeiss, Pentax Takumar, Meyer, Pentacon etc! http://forum.manualfocus.org

buze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #13
BTBeilke
Member
 
BTBeilke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bettendorf, IA USA
Posts: 827
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellashot
It has more pixels, but they are bigger pixels than i the 20D.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Higher resolution, especially 50% higher resolution, is a significant improvement. And, larger photo sites (pixels) are also an improvement. Don't confuse the telephoto/crop factor/pixel density discussion for science. All that means is that in certain specific situations (telephoto), the 20D may be a better choice than the 5D. Nonetheless, all other things being equal, larger photo sites have improved signal-to-noise ratios (IOW, less noise) and improved dynamic range.
__________________
Blane
Gear List
BTBeilke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #14
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
 
Bob_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 7,870
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Quote:
Originally Posted by HKFEVER
My own opion only, even 1DsMKII can't catch MF with cheap FUJI Reala CS120 film.
I really like Reala, it's a pretty nice negative film.
__________________
Bob

Bob_A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of October 2005 (Sun)   #15
Peter White
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 62
Default Re: 5D vs. Medium Format

Bring a CF card, your favorite EOS lens and your tripod to the camera store and make a few images. Take the CF card home, make some prints and look at the results.

Go back to the camera store and pick up the lens and tripod that you forgot to take home the day before.
Peter White is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Medium Format sumozebra Weddings and Other Family Events 17 22nd of June 2007 (Fri) 13:03
I need some help with Medium Format photography and Medium Format film? FlipsidE General Photography Talk 27 24th of December 2006 (Sun) 11:33
Medium Format? flyb0y General Photography Talk 15 12th of May 2006 (Fri) 09:54
Medium Format? FlipsidE General Photography Talk 8 26th of January 2006 (Thu) 10:25


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:32.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.