Forums > Photography Talk > Nikon D800 Medium Format Quality?

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

There is much discussion about the D800 or D800E being a substitute for medium format digital so........ hmmmm.... I thought I's take a snapshot
with a medium format camera in a situation that shows where MF has an edge over 35mm DSLR.
No reflectors, no diffusion, no makeup, (just my handsome son wink and just sitting on the sidewalk.

This is not to knock 35mm DSLR cameras or MF snobbery, but just a little reality check.

While Nikon is making claims of medium format quality it would be interesting to see how the new Nikon could handle this.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7044/6804316734_5f8907219f_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7047/6804316694_7bd1c84e81_b.jpg

So here we have skin tones in the shade under flatter light and direct sun hitting the skin too. No sharpening. Lens wide open.

There is something to be said about a CCD sensor and the shadow and highlight range they have. What it also interesting is that this is an old sensor from 5/6 years ago and not the new IQ160 or IQ180

Mar 03 12 04:16 pm Link

Photographer

Bob Helm Photography

Posts: 18284

Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US

Great example of what MF can do. People will always try to rationalize why they do not need what they cannot afford. I miss the quality my RZ gave me but no longer do the work that justifies it.

Mar 03 12 04:41 pm Link

Photographer

Leggy Mountbatten

Posts: 12562

Kansas City, Missouri, US

Your demonstration says a lot more about lens quality than sensor quality. And rumor has it that Nikon knows a thing or two about making high quality lenses. wink

I think with the right lenses, the new Nikon will very likely surpass some MFDB's in final image quality. Not the latest full 645 sensors, perhaps, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it outperform the 36x48mm sensors.

Mar 03 12 04:45 pm Link

Photographer

Rudi Brooker

Posts: 413

Manchester, England, United Kingdom

It isn't just about quality, but the whole look and feel of the image due to sensor size.

Mar 03 12 04:46 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Your demonstration says a lot more about lens quality than sensor quality. And rumor has it that Nikon knows a thing or two about making high quality lenses. wink

I think with the right lenses, the new Nikon will very likely surpass some MFDB's in final image quality. Not the latest full 645 sensors, perhaps, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it outperform the 36x48mm sensors.

I don't think so for a couple of reasons.

First of all sensor size. 36x48mm is twice the area of a 24x36. This makes a very big difference in diffraction and depth. You cannot mega pixel your way out of the fact that an image is being crammed into 24x36.

Also regarding lenses.... I did not use a super fancy Schneider lens or one of my Carl Zeiss lenses for this test, but a modest 210mm Mamiya AF

Mar 03 12 04:54 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Rudi Brooker wrote:
It isn't just about quality, but the whole look and feel of the image due to sensor size.

Larger image circles just have a different look.
But ontop of that you have 16 bit files and the data mining you can do in them when doing conversions and effects in post is quite significant. In particular black and white conversions due to less junk in the blue channel.

Mar 03 12 04:59 pm Link

Photographer

Bob Helm Photography

Posts: 18284

Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Your demonstration says a lot more about lens quality than sensor quality. And rumor has it that Nikon knows a thing or two about making high quality lenses. wink

I think with the right lenses, the new Nikon will very likely surpass some MFDB's in final image quality. Not the latest full 645 sensors, perhaps, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it outperform the 36x48mm sensors.

This is a common POV but as I understand it the smaller the format the better quality the lens has to be and those great lenses on 4x5 and 8x10's would just not deliver on a 35. Remember a 8x 10 is only a 2x enlargement on a 4x5 vs 8x on a 35. Not to mention everything was better in the good old days wink

Mar 03 12 05:04 pm Link

Photographer

Leggy Mountbatten

Posts: 12562

Kansas City, Missouri, US

Fred Greissing wrote:
I don't think so for a couple of reasons.

First of all sensor size. 36x48mm is twice the area of a 24x36. This makes a very big difference in diffraction and depth. You cannot mega pixel your way out of the fact that an image is being crammed into 24x36.

You yourself have noted that there's not much of a difference between 35mm film and 645 film -- you really need 6x7 (4x the area) to really feel the difference. What was true in the age of film (where you had the same "sensor technology" available across formats) is even truer today, where the R&D budgets of Canon, Nikon and Sony dwarf the MF market's entire value. A doubling of sensor size only produces a modest improvement in image quality, even with identical technology.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Also regarding lenses.... I did not use a super fancy Schneider lens or one of my Carl Zeiss lenses for this test, but a modest 210mm Mamiya AF

The main thing I noticed was pretty good flare control. The hair and his skin are totally blown, and the rest of the image has moderate contrast. Nothing stands out as being particularly difficult for a sensor to handle. The sharpness and good contrast in the closeup of the eye show good lens performance.

And Mamiya wasn't exactly a slouch in the lens department, were they? wink

Mar 03 12 05:08 pm Link

Photographer

Leggy Mountbatten

Posts: 12562

Kansas City, Missouri, US

Robert Helm wrote:
This is a common POV but as I understand it the smaller the format the better quality the lens has to be and those great lenses on 4x5 and 8x10's would just not deliver on a 35. Remember a 8x 10 is only a 2x enlargement on a 4x5 vs 8x on a 35. Not to mention everything was better in the good old days wink

Oh, it's true. All of it! wink

Mar 03 12 05:09 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Then lets talk shin tones.

One area where skin tones are difficult with 35mm DSLR cameras is flat light.

CCD sensors capturing 16 bit simply capture more subtleties rendering more natural skin. I find that I do not have to do as much post on skin when shooting MF. It's something about how sligth imperfections are portrayed with more gradations and as such they appear more natural... a bit like they do on film. More tones require less overall contrast to have the same "pop" or sorts.

Here is another snapshot...

No photoshopping. Carl Zeiss 110 f2 @ f2 crop is a horizontal from a vertical full frame.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7063/6796978766_f778ea01eb_b.jpg

Notice how much tone there is in the little highlights where the sun tits the nose, facial hair and temple.

Mar 03 12 05:16 pm Link

Photographer

American Glamour

Posts: 38813

Detroit, Michigan, US

I think it would make a lot of sense to just wait until the camere comes out and then there will be some rational testing done.  To show us an image say "Ha, see, Nikon can't do that" is meaningless.  You have shown us what MF can do.  Let's give Nikon a chance to show us what they can do.

Mar 03 12 05:16 pm Link

Photographer

Ruben Vasquez

Posts: 3115

Puyallup, Washington, US

Hey Fred. Just curious, were those images shot on film or a mfdb?

Mar 03 12 05:16 pm Link

Photographer

Leggy Mountbatten

Posts: 12562

Kansas City, Missouri, US

What back were you using? What's the physical size of it?

If that's a horizontal crop from a vertical frame, then that's most likely a 24x36mm (or smaller) area that you're displaying. Are we comparing sensor formats at this point?

Mar 03 12 05:21 pm Link

Photographer

R_Marquez

Posts: 4819

San Francisco, California, US

If it was all about skin tones, then I'd go ahead and get a Fuji S5 pro.

It's moot to compare systems. A DSLR can't do all that MF setups can, and MF setups can't do all that DSLR's can. I don't think it's really about quality all of the time. Sometimes it just has to get the job done.

I wouldn't be able to work a MF setup and I would need a digital back so it's cost-restrictive anyways.

Yes, MF looks great. But it's not convenient cost-wise, or versatility-wise. I stick a couple of bodies, some lenses, and speedlites in a backup and I'm ready for whatever comes my way. If I worked in a studio only then I might reconsider setup.

This is just a pissing contest.

Mar 03 12 05:35 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

ei Total Productions wrote:
I think it would make a lot of sense to just wait until the camere comes out and then there will be some rational testing done.  To show us an image say "Ha, see, Nikon can't do that" is meaningless.  You have shown us what MF can do.  Let's give Nikon a chance to show us what they can do.

Your taking this totally the wrong way. There will be plenty of things that Nikons can do with their speed, low light etc.

We have seen some Nikon samples and it is pretty clear that while it is quite an exceptional 35mm DSLR it's not a MF camera. Your notice how the sample files are never shot in difficult conditions with high lighting ratios.

While Nikon (with Sony's help) have crammed 36 MP into a fantastic mini supercomputer with outstanding build quality and the formidable reliability of Nikon and Canon the sensors don't have the true dynamic range and quantization of a MF  CCD sensor.

Look here is an interesting experiment you can do that shows how MF sensor have more of a "foundation" of sorts to their images.

Download these two images.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7017/6843 … 5bc4_o.jpg
Official Nikon sample image.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected][email protected]/


Now go into photoshop and run the shadow highlights adjustment.

Set the highlight slider to 25 and then to 50.

Look at how the shadows in the nikon file don't have deep solid details that still hold jet black like the p25 file does.

Look at how the skin tones become creepy right ways in the Nikon file. That is what dynamic range is really about.

The funky stuff that happens to the skin in the nikon shot is due to lower quantaization... few steps in tones. The three channels don't have enough steps close to the steps in the other channels and tones get bumpier.

The shadow highlights test thing shows you what the potential of the file is and what can be seen in print or on something that displays better than a screen.

Mar 03 12 06:13 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
Hey Fred. Just curious, were those images shot on film or a mfdb?

Phase one P25 that came out in 2005 wink

Mar 03 12 06:14 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Oh by the way... my Phase one shoots really bad video.... nice colors, but about 1 to 0.75 frames per second.

Anyway I would not bring any of this up if it were not for Nikon's claims of medium format quality. Medium format pixel count... yes

Mar 03 12 06:24 pm Link

Photographer

MKPhoto

Posts: 5665

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/canon-5d … ifference/

A "mousover" test of 5D II and Phase One P25  set in good studio conditions.

Mar 03 12 06:29 pm Link

Photographer

AJ_In_Atlanta

Posts: 13051

Atlanta, Georgia, US

My 7D is higher res then my first MDF back so maybe Canon should make the same claim lol

It's jut the same marketing BS that happens every time a new gen of digital comes out.  At the end of the day it's me, the photographer, who makes the image; for better or worse, depending on your views of my work, it's me.

Mar 03 12 06:34 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

ei Total Productions wrote:
I think it would make a lot of sense to just wait until the camere comes out and then there will be some rational testing done.  To show us an image say "Ha, see, Nikon can't do that" is meaningless.  You have shown us what MF can do.  Let's give Nikon a chance to show us what they can do.

It's not really about what Nikon can or can't do ... It's about Nikon's claim of MF quality.

For example looking at the Canon 5D mark III sample files you can clearly see similar issues.

In this image for example:

https://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/img/image_thumb_08.jpg

Hi res here:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/sample … ads/08.jpg

You can clearly see problems in the bright tones of the skin in order to get more detail in the rocks she is sitting on.

Both the 5d mark III and the D800 are fine cameras, but we are not at MF CCD levels yet.

Sure we can see what great photographers can do when they control the lighting conditions to fit into the ability of the cmos sensors... so we are likely to see better work coming from these cameras. However the same photographers can do more and have more freedom lighting wise with a MF sensor. I personally find it very important to handle higher lighting ratios. That is why I prefer film and have MF digital to sit nicely in between film and 35mm digital.

Mar 03 12 06:38 pm Link

Photographer

Quang Dang

Posts: 2965

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Fred Greissing wrote:
It's not really about what Nikon can or can't do ... It's about Nikon's claim of MF quality.

Both the 5d mark III and the D800 are fine cameras, but we are not at MF CCD levels yet.

I think that too and despite the cost of medium format...

Mar 03 12 06:46 pm Link

Photographer

American Glamour

Posts: 38813

Detroit, Michigan, US

ei Total Productions wrote:
I think it would make a lot of sense to just wait until the camere comes out and then there will be some rational testing done.  To show us an image say "Ha, see, Nikon can't do that" is meaningless.  You have shown us what MF can do.  Let's give Nikon a chance to show us what they can do.

Fred Greissing wrote:
It's not really about what Nikon can or can't do ... It's about Nikon's claim of MF quality.

But we won't know how it compares until someone does some unbiased, emperical testing.  I can't make any judgment from the images you posted.

You may be right, but I will withhold judgement until after the camera has been released and I can see some lab results.  As an example, the performance could be less than current, state of the art MF, but equal to ones released a few years ago. 

I agree, CMOS has approached, but not equalled high end CCD's.  I just want to know the emperical results before I jump to a final conclusion.

Mar 03 12 06:48 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

ei Total Productions wrote:
I agree, CMOS has approached, but not equalled high end CCD's.

There you have it.....

The sensor is the recording device.

While cmos has approached similar overall dynamic range the quantization is not there yer and neither is the fine linearity of each channel.

Mar 03 12 06:56 pm Link

Photographer

J O H N A L L A N

Posts: 12221

Los Angeles, California, US

Fred Greissing wrote:
Oh by the way... my Phase one shoots really bad video.... nice colors, but about 1 to 0.75 frames per second.

Anyway I would not bring any of this up if it were not for Nikon's claims of medium format quality. Medium format pixel count... yes

Has Nikon really said that the D800 produces "medium format quality". Admittedly I haven't read every discussion, but the little I am seeing, is that they feel they are encroaching on the medium format space, not claiming that they have produced a medium format killer.

Mar 03 12 07:03 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Quang Dang wrote:

I think that too and despite the cost of medium format...

When it comes to cost Nikon and Canon are angels compared to MF manufacturers.

A [email protected]%king eyecup (eyecup repalcement) for a Phase One camera costs $ 99.

Mar 03 12 07:11 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

John Allan wrote:
Has Nikon really said that the D800 produces "medium format quality". Admittedly I haven't read every discussion, but the little I am seeing, is that they feel they are encroaching on the medium format space, not claiming that they have produced a medium format killer.

A few quotes from Nikon websites:

Every photo will astound.
Every video will dazzle.
Hold in your hands an HD-SLR able to capture images rivaled only by those produced with a medium-format camera: extremely low noise, incredible dynamic range and the most faithful colors.

Ideal for:
•Studio, commercial and still life photographers who can control their shooting conditions, lens selection and aperture choice, as well as use of software (Capture NX2) to reduce the occurrence of false color and moiré •Medium format photographers whose current digital system do not utilize an optical low pass filter

From the Nikon D800 launch press release:
here: http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0207_dslr_01.htm

The D800, a new FX-format model offers a noteworthy effective pixel count of 36.3-million pixels. At its core is superior image quality equal to that achieved with medium-format digital cameras. The D800 is also equipped with a number of new functions for a high level of added value, all in a compact and lightweight body.

New Nikon FX-format CMOS image sensor
The D800 is equipped with a new Nikon FX-format CMOS image sensor and the new EXPEED 3 image-processing engine for Nikon digital SLR cameras. This new image-processing engine is faster and offers greater performance. The camera also offers the world's highest* effective pixel count of 36.3-million pixels. When combined with the sharp rendering of NIKKOR lenses, images exhibiting resolution equal to that achieved with medium-format digital cameras are possible.

Mar 03 12 07:17 pm Link

Photographer

J O H N A L L A N

Posts: 12221

Los Angeles, California, US

Fred Greissing wrote:

A few quotes from Nikon websites:

Yeah - I guess that sounds like to me (particularly the 1st quote), that they're saying that the D800 provides capability that was formerly reserved for medium format shooters only (not available in 35mm) - basically saying that they're encroaching on the medium format space. Which they kind of are. But I think if they believed that they produced a medium format comparable image in a 35mm format, they'd be saying that. They're being very guarded and gentle in their claim.

Is the 2nd quote about the 800E?

EDIT: Your third quote wasn't there yet when I replied.
"At its core is superior image quality equal to that achieved with medium-format digital cameras. "

This was from Nikon? That sounds like a pretty risky thing to say - sounds more like what you'd hear from a third-party blog. I'd guess they'll have to back-peddle on this a bit.

Mar 03 12 07:24 pm Link

Photographer

MKPhoto

Posts: 5665

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

New Nikon FX-format CMOS image sensor
The D800 is equipped with a new Nikon FX-format CMOS image sensor and the new EXPEED 3 image-processing engine for Nikon digital SLR cameras. This new image-processing engine is faster and offers greater performance. The camera also offers the world's highest* effective pixel count of 36.3-million pixels. When combined with the sharp rendering of NIKKOR lenses, images exhibiting resolution equal to that achieved with medium-format digital cameras are possible

These are safe expressions. If Fred shoots Nikon and I shoot MF, it is more than possible than Nikon images will be yadayadayada,,,smile

Mar 03 12 07:32 pm Link

Photographer

Michel Hurtubise

Posts: 95

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

Mar 03 12 07:39 pm Link

Photographer

Chuckarelei

Posts: 10819

Seattle, Washington, US

Most folks who argue 24x36 DSLR's are better than MF is because they don't have (can't afford to own) a MF.

Mar 03 12 07:41 pm Link

Photographer

J E W E T T

Posts: 2545

al-Marsā, Tunis, Tunisia

MKPhoto wrote:
http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/canon-5d … ifference/

A "mousover" test of 5D II and Phase One P25  set in good studio conditions.

I don't see any difference here that 99.999% of the photographers on this site won't ruin in PS in the first three seconds the file is open (including myself). : )

Mar 03 12 07:51 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Robert Jewett wrote:

I don't see any difference here that 99.999% of the photographers on this site won't ruin in PS in the first three seconds the file is open (including myself). : )

That test is in very controlled lighting that is well within the limitations of most digital cameras. It's in natural light where you see the difference the most. It's also all the extra tones that are lurking in the shadows and the shinny beads of sweat.....

look at the catch lights in the eye of the "snapshot" I posted... how much detail in both resolution and in tonality.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7047/6804316694_7bd1c84e81_b.jpg

Mar 03 12 08:15 pm Link

Photographer

Josh Yu Photography

Posts: 206

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

I absolutely agree with Fred and think the difference in the overall "feel" of the image is something you have to experience first hand. I run an even older H20 back on my Hassy 555ELD. That's a decade old tech and it only produces 16mp files. Yet compared to my 5D II at 21mp, the quality of the MF still outperforms noticeably and I would still feel more comfortable doing large prints from the 16mp H20 than the 21mp 5D II. The point of DSLRs is their versatility, portability and features that make them easier to use when not in a studio. In studio under controlled conditions, there is no way anyone should prefer a DSLR over MF.

Mar 03 12 08:16 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Michel Hurtubise wrote:
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d8 … g_04_l.jpg

You find this image good or bad?

Mar 03 12 08:17 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Josh Yu Photography wrote:
I absolutely agree with Fred and think the difference in the overall "feel" of the image is something you have to experience first hand. I run an even older H20 back on my Hassy 555ELD. That's a decade old tech and it only produces 16mp files. Yet compared to my 5D II at 21mp, the quality of the MF still outperforms noticeably and I would still feel more comfortable doing large prints from the 16mp H20 than the 21mp 5D II. The point of DSLRs is their versatility, portability and features that make them easier to use when not in a studio. In studio under controlled conditions, there is no way anyone should prefer a DSLR over MF.

True that an MF is generally prefered in a controlled studio situation and 35mm DSLR is more adgile when you are running around. However if I am shooting through the day in crisp sunlight... white dresses on a black model on a dry lake bed in the dessert I will want either my MF digital or my GX680 film camera with Portra 160 in it. Same goes if I go to Hawaii for a shoot and it ends up being muggy and overcast for days.
large MF Film helped me bring these home for the client..

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5286/5317147300_1be167529a_b.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5286/5316552037_de1acba04a_b.jpg

Mar 03 12 08:21 pm Link

Photographer

ChanStudio - OtherSide

Posts: 5403

Alpharetta, Georgia, US

To me, CCD does offer something that CMOS can't offer.  The quality (at low ISO) of CCD sensor always seems better (sharper, with more texture details) than CMOS sensor.  This is true if you look at texture (human facial texture, land scape textures of rocks, trees etc).


Also, the images from MF definitely has different feel to it.

I am sure someone will compare the D800E with the 40MP CCD MF camera in the future. smile

Mar 03 12 08:25 pm Link

Photographer

J E W E T T

Posts: 2545

al-Marsā, Tunis, Tunisia

Fred Greissing wrote:

That test is in very controlled lighting that is well within the limitations of most digital cameras. It's in natural light where you see the difference the most. It's also all the extra tones that are lurking in the shadows and the shinny beads of sweat.....

Uh, I was trying to be funny. smile

Mar 03 12 08:39 pm Link

Photographer

Fashion Photographer

Posts: 14388

London, England, United Kingdom

There is simply no substitute for larger formats. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of photography in major galleries was shot on large format film.

Mar 03 12 08:42 pm Link

Photographer

Jim Lafferty

Posts: 2094

Brooklyn, New York, US

Even if we agree, Fred, I feel you've beaten the hell out of this horse enough  smile

MF vs. digital: neither exist in a vacuum absent of economic, time and physical constraints. There's simply no sense in arguing one format over another purely from the visual qualities it's capable of producing.

Mar 03 12 09:23 pm Link

Photographer

Fred Greissing

Posts: 6427

Los Angeles, California, US

Jim Lafferty wrote:
Even if we agree, Fred, I feel you've beaten the hell out of this horse enough  smile

MF vs. digital: neither exist in a vacuum absent of economic, time and physical constraints. There's simply no sense in arguing one format over another purely from the visual qualities it's capable of producing.

The discussion here is not MF film vs Digital.

The discussion is about Nikon's claim of medium format digital quality from their new D800.

The economical aspect of it is also interesting. I find I spend less time in photoshop if I am shooting MF Digital.
Better files behave better in post.
Better real world dynamic range and tonal qualities handles higher light ratios better meaning I can shoot closer upto noon when on location and get more done.

But low light... well that's where a 35mm DSLR rules.

Now I'm not saying ditch your 35mm DSLR cameras. I certainly have not. My point with this thread is to not take what Nikon's marketing crowd are saying about the D800. It's sure to be a fine camera. Very empowering, but it's a high resolution 24x36 with 24x36 lenses. It will take good/great pictures, but it is not in anyway a substitute for an MF camera.

On another economic note... a mint Mamiya DM28 ... a digital camera with 28 MP digital back and standard lens 80mm 2.8 digital series sold for $3,750 on ebay.
So getting into digital MF does not require a mortgage.

One funny thing in this whole MF or 35mm DSLR thing is that lower pixel count 35mm DSLR cameras like the 1D X visually for the fashion photographer actually are closer to an MF image than a 22 or 24 or 36 MP camera because the larger photosites or lower MP sensors of the same generation capture more subtlety and better shadows and have cleaner images at low ISO. They are also the cameras what are faster and tougher. I see the Canon 1D X as a better complement to an MF camera than something with a higher MP count.
At ISO 100 I prefer my Canon 1ds (mark 1) to my 5D mark II.

Canon 1ds with the 100mm f2

[img]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5314/5905336777_32382d6da8_b.jpg[img]

https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6021/5963259140_a5d90afb86_b.jpg

and for a closer peak here is a crop:

https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6009/5961735537_d78f0487f3_b.jpg

All three shot with a "consumer" lens. The 5D mark II with photosites half the size don't give me the same tonality.

However make sure the 1Ds is running on fresh well charged batteries. Don't try to run it on  tired batteries. Even if they show full charge if they don't kick out the right amount of jiuce when the camera asks for it you'll get low quality...

Mar 03 12 10:01 pm Link