Medium format vs. Canon 1Ds MarkII

An interesting read from Luminous Landscape.

In summary, each has its own pros and cons.........its up to the photographer to determine which suits thier shooting style best.


Isn't that always the case???

Link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com …ras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml

ENJOY!!!

Ro1

Interesting reed, now can anyone lend me 30K?

Nick

From what I read you don't want to spend 30k only 8k.

But I have the same problem.

Anyone with a spare 8k for me

ITs on the mail!!!!

Here is the tracking number: 097039750293475820375



Ro1

www.fedex.com
097039750293475820375
Not found
No information for the following shipments has been received by our system yet. Please try again later or contactCustomer Service.

Darn and I thought it was my lucky day.

No silly!! I used USPS-EX!!!

check thier website.



Ro1

roanjohn wrote:
An interesting read from Luminous Landscape.

In summary, each has its own pros and cons.........its up to the photographer to determine which suits thier shooting style best.


Isn't that always the case???

Link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com …ras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml

ENJOY!!!

Ro1

As much as it would be cool to own either the P25 or the 1DS Mark II they are the same as the "top of the ad" computer. You pay a premium for the best and the brightest. Then within a couple of years this "best" computer may be so inferior that it doesn't make the ad, never mind staying at the top. Yes the S Mark II and the P25 will still take great photos in 24 months but we're not all drooling over the original 1DS are we?

If I had the money to buy one of these cameras it would be the Canon. The specs are pretty close - at least in that specific review - and I really think that there are other factors besides cost which affect image quality.

When I worked for a daily newspaper I had a guy travel with me on a ride-along. He was on the board of directors - which he told me about twenty times! We were using Tri-X film at the time, which most black and white newspapers were using I should think. Anyway he wandered off to talk to the pressmen one day and came back angry that we weren't using the far superior Plus-X. He (as the pressmen had obviously explained to him seconds before) pointed out the obvious benifits of the finer grain, better tone and so forth. So I explained to him that finer grain and even tone meant nothing if we were forced to use a slow shutterspeed and the image was blurry. So technically he and the pressman were correct, but in practice they were not.

In the review Canon's wide angle zooms are criticized as being inferior, especially to the Contax's prime super wide angles. Yet being able to go from 16mm to 20mm in infinite amounts and without removing a lens, is not taken into account. Being f2.8 isn't taken into account either. It's kind of like saying that the 300 f4 is better at f4 than the 300 f2.8 is at f4. Well it may be true but now put the 300 f4 at 2.8!

I come from Mamiya mediun format with prime lenses and I can't tell you the sense of frustration that I felt when I shot wedding this past summer with the shots that got away.

With Canon's lens line, the difference in cost, and - quite frankly - the fear that there might not be MF bodies to put these things on in a couple of years, it looks like a no brainer to me. Even the current and superior technical specs will be met by Canon then and it's not like the S Mark II will be producing garbage now.

Hasselblad will continue to make the new H1 AF 645 for years to come, it is a sweet but expensive piece of equipment, and some will see it as the ultimate body to house their ultimate digital back. I for one tried to talk work into a 1Ds instead of the Phase One H10...they spent the 3X instead. That was 2 years ago, and I bet others are doing the same now.

"Hasselblad will continue to make the new H1 AF 645 for years to come, ..."

Assuming that Hasselblad survives, which is not even close to being a sure thing.