Canon 1Ds M II vs Phase One MF digital back

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
Field test comparison between the $8,000 16 Mpixel Canon 1Ds Mark II and
the
$30,000 22 Mpixel Phase one P25 digital back on a Contax system, by this
NG's
favorite whipping boy, Michael Reichmann ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...1-vs-p25.shtml

Nobody's whipping him this time: he's finally discovered that MF's better
than 35mm! (Now that he's bought a printer large enough so that there is a
differenceg.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: "David J. Littleboy"

Nobody's whipping him this time

Give 'em time to read the article ... when he compares digital vs digital the
Luddites keep their voices down but anytime he utters the "F" word the whips
come out ...

he's finally discovered that MF's better than 35mm!

Actually he does compare to film (oops, the "F" word ... here we go and sez
of the 35 mm dSLR vs MF film:

"Take a 16X20" print made with the 1Ds Mark II and look at it on its own, and
you'll be amazed by the image quality. Simply superior to anything that I've
ever seen from a 35mm format camera. Period. And, easily challenging medium
format film quality."

And he compares the P25 digital back files to drum-scanned large format film
.... "The P25 on the other hand, blows past medium format film quality and
directly challenges 4X5" drum-scanned film."

Here come the whips ...

"Bill Hilton" wrote:
From: "David J. Littleboy"

Nobody's whipping him this time

Give 'em time to read the article ... when he compares digital vs digital
the
Luddites keep their voices down but anytime he utters the "F" word the
whips
come out ...

he's finally discovered that MF's better than 35mm!

Actually he does compare to film (oops, the "F" word ... here we go and
sez
of the 35 mm dSLR vs MF film:

"Take a 16X20" print made with the 1Ds Mark II and look at it on its own,
and
you'll be amazed by the image quality. Simply superior to anything that
I've
ever seen from a 35mm format camera. Period. And, easily challenging
medium
format film quality."

No problem there, but:

And he compares the P25 digital back files to drum-scanned large format
film
... "The P25 on the other hand, blows past medium format film quality and
directly challenges 4X5" drum-scanned film."

The boy can't keep his foot out of his mouthg.

Here come the whips ...

Yep, deservedly.

Somewhat seriously, I suspect that his MF back doesn't have a low pass
filter (and he hasn't found (or doesn't know how to recognize) the problems
yet), which is why he thinks it's so much better than the Canon. With 13%
extra (linear) resolution it should be perceptibly better, but at 16x24 (205
dpi from the Canon*) you'd have to be 12" or closer to see the difference.
Do people get closer than 12" to 16x24 prints???

*: The brilliance of the Canon 1Ds2 is that it's 250 dpi at 13x19 and 200
dpi at 16x24. It should look amazingly good at those sizes.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan