1Ds vs. digital back

Robert Barzilla said:

Keeping your analogy alive:
If you had the choice between the Ak-47 (1Ds) and a Gattling (MF
w/back) which would you take? How about for running around with
your troops (kids)?

voland said:

Voland

Robert Barzilla said:

If you are interesed Leaf was giving away a free medium format
camera kit with a digital back purchase.

Many digital backs must be plugged into at least a computer a
computer (and a good one at that). There will not be a lot of
pleasure for you running around photographing your kids with a
computer, a generator, a lot of medium format gear, and a cheap
$20,000 digital back strapped to your own back.

I would suggest setting up your children's college fund or buying a
new house before switching from a D60 to digital medium format all
because you want bigger pictures.

voland said:

Hi guys,

I'm not a pro so sorry for butting into your forum. I shoot mostly
my kids, sometimes landscapes... I've done few jobs like portraits
of my friends and even a promotional posters for a local rock
group... I like big prints and D60 does not give me enough
resolution. I was going to get 1Ds but then I had a second thought.
The level of noise on 1Ds though very low still is not as low as on
my D60. The resolution is excellent, but is it the best money can
buy? So, would it be a better move to go for medium format? If yes,
should I get Phase One... or Kodak? Or the new Fuji? There's a
gazillion of reviews on DSLRs, but I could not find anything
(besides manufacturer's sites). I wish somebody would compare
digital backs side by side.. How come Phil doesn't do it? Any help
would be appreciated.

Voland.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Robert Barzilla said:

You guys both want great quality, but who doesnt?

Phardy, you will make money with your back by saving money by going
digital and reaching out to clients who want outstanding quality.

Voland can only have so many massive photos of his children on his
walls. Or can you? If $20k is no problem, maybe you have a lot of
walls.
Anyway, I can guarantee that if you are mostly a recreational
shooter than the MF gear with back will turn from pleasure to
burden in about 4 hours.

phardy said:

voland said:

Hi guys,

I'm not a pro so sorry for butting into your forum. I shoot mostly
my kids, sometimes landscapes... I've done few jobs like portraits
of my friends and even a promotional posters for a local rock
group... I like big prints and D60 does not give me enough
resolution. I was going to get 1Ds but then I had a second thought.
The level of noise on 1Ds though very low still is not as low as on
my D60. The resolution is excellent, but is it the best money can
buy? So, would it be a better move to go for medium format? If yes,
should I get Phase One... or Kodak? Or the new Fuji? There's a
gazillion of reviews on DSLRs, but I could not find anything
(besides manufacturer's sites). I wish somebody would compare
digital backs side by side.. How come Phil doesn't do it? Any help
would be appreciated.

Voland.

Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

I'm in the same postion.
I need the upmost quality, I shoot stock and my agent wants 50 MB
files uninterpolated. I shoot mainly still life and travel and so
speed of workflow is not really an issue for me.
After much research, and many phone calls, I think I am going for
the Kodak DCS 645 Back.
I went to a shop in London recently, had a demonstration of the
Kodak Digital Back with the Canon EOS 1ds side by side by
comparison, although there was no Canon software available, so all
images shot with that were jpegs, but they still came out at 31MB,
anyway, not sure how much difference that made, but the results
were quite interesting. The images from the Canon looked out of
focus by comparison. The colours didn't look as true either.

I've been told that the Kodak has the best colours of all the
digital backs.
There really isn't much in all the backs, nearly all have a Kodak
chip in, it's just the software that's different.

If you want mobility, and not be tethered permanently, then there
really isn't much choice.
The quiality of a digital back walks all over digital SLR's, mainly
because they all have CMOS sensors, and digital Backs have CCD
chips which have alot more sensitivity.

Just think of the joys of having 96MB 16 bit uncompressed images to
play with??

I know they are expensive, I've got to sell my car!! But if quality
is what you want, there really is no comparison.
As in most things, you get what you pay for.

As for the digital Backs:

Phase-one, no way of viewing images unless tethered to a computer.

Imacon Ixpress : Nice idea, tethered to a 40 GIG hard drive, so you
can shoot 1200 images uncompressed on the move, but all you see on
the back is a histogram, and no matter how usefull this is, there
reall is no subsstitue for viewing the actuel image?

Leaf Valeo 11: Tethered to a 5 GIG hard drive, and all images are
viewed on a PDA ipaq, where you control the settings on the back
aswell.
But just ask yourself this, what would happen if you dropped the
ipaq, or it went wrong, there's no way of controlling the back?
With this idea, there just seems to be too many cables, and things
connected to the back, and sometimes when on location you need
discretion, and do not want to draw attention to all the expensive
gear you are carrying.

So that really leaves the Kodak. I am probably going to go far the
645 model. I currently have Mamiya RZ gear, but I might trade this
in a nd get the Mamiya 645 AFD, it's quite a lovely camera, like a
beefed up Canon EOS!
The Back takes Compact Flash and micro drives, 1 GIG will hold
about 50 images. And you can view images on the 2 inch screen on
the Back.
This is just the best route for me, I want to work untethered, with
maximum quality, and to view thie image without a computer.
Kodak also do the back for 6x6 and 6x7 but there is no difference
in the file size, and if you are on location it's the extra weight,
it's just depends on what system you already have and if you want
to change.

As for the fuji, I've heard it is for the fuji 6x8 camera, will
come out later in the year.

And as someone has said to me, do want to wait and wait, or to get
on the digital revolution NOW as I do, and start learning and
earning now, it's a big learning curve, and I want to start as soon
as possible.

The quality is as good as film, you have just got to pay fot it.

Film is only as good as the scanner it is scanned on.

Best of luck.

Paul

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

voland said:

This was very helpful. I however now somewhat confused. I thought
(silly me!) that DBs have MF-size sensor. If they are only 35mm
wide, why do they use MF lenses? DSLRs like D60 or D100 with
smaller sensors use 35mm lenses because there is no lens to match
their sensor's size (except that new Nikon "digital dworf"). But,
why in the world use MF lenses for 35mm sensor when there is about
a million of smaller, lighter, less expensive and actually sharper
35mm lenses?
(Please forgive me if I sound to you, pros, like those
point-and-shooter newbies that flooded Canon DSLR forum with their
annoying questions. Well, as Einstein said, everything is relative!


Voland

Larry Street said:

Since the Kodak CCD is 36mm square the contax zeiss lenses are
using only the sharpest central part of the lenses. So its using
the sharpest portion of zeiss lenses to produce very good images.
This is very good. Fortunately Contax makes a 35mm wide angle lens
for the Contax 645. Since the CCD is about the width of a 35 mm
negative (but of course its taller since it is 36mm square) it is
pretty easy to remember that a 35 mm lens is wide angle on the
Kodak ccd, 45-55 mm is normal and 80 mm and 150 mm are good for
portraits. I can even use my old Hassie 150mm and 50mm lenses on
the Contax with a converter they sell! I recommend the Contax 645
system too. However I bet the H1 is really good too!

I am making prints on an Epson 7600 up to 24 by 30 and they are
beautiful. I believe the people who say the Phase One back has
less noise since it has no battery, menory or LCD display in the
back to create heat (but it is not portable and it costs almost
twice as much i.e. Kodak $12k vs Phase One $20k). I also believe
the Phase One processing software is very good. But noise is never
an issue in any Kodak images I have taken and the Kodak software is
excellent, especially for us Mac users who are running a business.
Kodak is the only company trying to make digital less of a problem
for professional photographers. The color in portraits is
excellent and the Looks software saves a great deal of time in
processing. Since digital made me start doing more of the work
that the lab used to do I think it is great to find a company that
makes it easier to use digital in a business environment.

There are reviews on internet of the Kodak and other backs so try
Google. The reviews and user comments for the Kodak I have seen
have been uniformly good.

best,
Larry

Peter Linden said:

Peter Linden

voland said:

Hi guys,

I'm not a pro so sorry for butting into your forum. I shoot mostly
my kids, sometimes landscapes... I've done few jobs like portraits
of my friends and even a promotional posters for a local rock
group... I like big prints and D60 does not give me enough
resolution. I was going to get 1Ds but then I had a second thought.
The level of noise on 1Ds though very low still is not as low as on
my D60. The resolution is excellent, but is it the best money can
buy? So, would it be a better move to go for medium format? If yes,
should I get Phase One... or Kodak? Or the new Fuji? There's a
gazillion of reviews on DSLRs, but I could not find anything
(besides manufacturer's sites). I wish somebody would compare
digital backs side by side.. How come Phil doesn't do it? Any help
would be appreciated.

Voland.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

voland said:

Now, 1Ds has 35mm sensor in 35mm body... Finally, a perfect match!

But, the image quality is better with Kodak...

Click to expand...

Bern Caughey said:

Bern Caughey said:

Now, 1Ds has 35mm sensor in 35mm body... Finally, a perfect match!

But, the image quality is better with Kodak...

Click to expand...

The untethered Kodak back doesn't have better image quality then
the 1Ds, although there is an argument to be made that the PhaseOne
does. The Kodak back has alot of blue channel noise & it eats
batteries. The PhaseOne H2O far outpreforms the Kodak back, even
though they use the same chip. This is due to the software & the
tether.

Mastrianni used to use the untethered Kodak back, but much prefers
the 1Ds. Try reading through his posts.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hgiyieimhm

Your specific needs will be much better served with the 1Ds over
any digiback. You will be much more free to focus on the image &
not on the gear. If you haven't tried a Canon professional digital
camera you really don't know what your missing. There is almost
nothing these cameras can't do & few excuses can be made based on
it's limitations.

Don't underestimate the advice of Melvin Sokolsky. He is a master
photographer & he's offering important insight. Whatever camera you
use partially determines the look of your output. Creating an
individual look that meets your vision is one of the hardest parts
of digital or film.

Ashley Morrison is the outspoken proponent of the PhaseOne on these
forums. He summed the 1Ds up in on word, "Freedom".
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=4437503

You should look at each of these photographers websites & you'll
understand they all have very high standards.

Regards,
Bern Caughey

Click to expand...

voland said:

Hi guys,

I'm not a pro so sorry for butting into your forum. I shoot mostly
my kids, sometimes landscapes... I've done few jobs like portraits
of my friends and even a promotional posters for a local rock
group... I like big prints and D60 does not give me enough
resolution. I was going to get 1Ds but then I had a second thought.
The level of noise on 1Ds though very low still is not as low as on
my D60. The resolution is excellent, but is it the best money can
buy? So, would it be a better move to go for medium format? If yes,
should I get Phase One... or Kodak? Or the new Fuji? There's a
gazillion of reviews on DSLRs, but I could not find anything
(besides manufacturer's sites). I wish somebody would compare
digital backs side by side.. How come Phil doesn't do it? Any help
would be appreciated.

Voland.

Click to expand...

phardy said:

If I need wider I could do always stitch two together.

Click to expand...

voland said:

Hi guys,

I'm not a pro so sorry for butting into your forum. I shoot mostly
my kids, sometimes landscapes... I've done few jobs like portraits
of my friends and even a promotional posters for a local rock
group... I like big prints and D60 does not give me enough
resolution. I was going to get 1Ds but then I had a second thought.
The level of noise on 1Ds though very low still is not as low as on
my D60. The resolution is excellent, but is it the best money can
buy? So, would it be a better move to go for medium format? If yes,
should I get Phase One... or Kodak? Or the new Fuji? There's a
gazillion of reviews on DSLRs, but I could not find anything
(besides manufacturer's sites). I wish somebody would compare
digital backs side by side.. How come Phil doesn't do it? Any help
would be appreciated.

Voland.

Click to expand...

melvin sokolsky said:

phardy said:

Paul M Bowers said:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml

and, I'm a little pressed for time this morning, so look for ashley
morrison's recent posts that has some basic comparisons between the
1ds, a phase one and 2-1/4 film.

--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

Click to expand...

I've already seen this site.

It's decieving, it shows how sharp the EOS 1ds is compared to a
scan from a 645.
A lovely transparancy will loose quality when scanned, as I said
earlier film is only as good as the scanner.
An image that is digitally captured will have more information from
the start.

As someone said to me recently, "Do you want something that is only
just good enough?"

The EOS produces 31 MB 12 bit, (Some people have said it looks more

like 10 bit!) The smaller the bit rate, the less smooth the gradient between colours and shadows.

Click to expand...

The 1Ds produces a 62.9 MB file at 16bit, raw out of the camera
The file can tweaked with Adobe's new raw converter ACR at 16 bit
which retains the full color spectrum and file size. If further
processing in PhotoShop is needed then the file is converted to
8bit.

My final file size at 8 bit is usually about 32 MB without any
interpolation.

I am very happy with the 48"x60" prints that I am getting on the
Lightjet printer. I believe it is the rip Lghtjet printer that
produces the oversize high quality prints.

melvin sokolsky said:

A digital back produces 96 MB 16 bit files.

Click to expand...

If you use PhotoShop processing the 96 MB files will bet reduced to
43 MB's.

What will happen, if

melvin sokolsky said:

you shoot on the Canon and want to crop it, you will be down to
maybe 20 MB's.

Click to expand...

melvin sokolsky said:

So it's in your interest to have the biggest file you can get from
the start.

Click to expand...

I do not think file size is as important as stated.

melvin sokolsky said:

It's just the same argument as someone shooting on 35mm and 6x7 of
the same subject, which image will look more impressive?

And if you are into doing this for a living, you want to have one
up on the competition, so all I say I hope evryone goes out and
buys the EOS 1ds!!

Click to expand...

I have used most of the popular backs and have not been happy with
any of them. I still like the look of the 1Ds. It seems all
pixels are not created equal.

http://www.sokolsky.com/

--
jrisc

Click to expand...

Burton Randol said:

If you are by chance the real Voland (from Bulgakov's Master and
Margarita), just change whatever you're currently using into a 1Ds,
then into a tethered digital back, and keep whichever you prefer.

Click to expand...

Paul M Bowers said:

There will be no reason for a larger package for a camera.
Resolution and quality will exceed that of 4x5 and probably 8x10 by
the end of the decade. All in the palm of your hand.

Click to expand...

melvin sokolsky said:

Burton Randol said:

If you are by chance the real Voland (from Bulgakov's Master and
Margarita), just change whatever you're currently using into a 1Ds,
then into a tethered digital back, and keep whichever you prefer.

Click to expand...

I think you are misinformed. Everyone knows that Voland is a
black cat who brandishes a automatic pistol.

- http://www.sokolsky.com/-
jrisc

Click to expand...