I have been trying to decide how best to write this entry - what to include, what to exclude, what to gloss over, what to highlight, etc. I don’t fancy myself a reporter or this site as the definitive review destination, so I let the opinions fly. However, I do not want to write polarizing or inflammatory statements which could adversely influence other people’s purchase decisions. The internet has a way of spreading misleading information, so I try to be reasonably objective (at least from my perspective). There is a middle ground and I’ll try to stay on course.

CORRECTIVE ACTION

The first action was selling the Mamiya 645AFD II & Phase One P25. Selling the kit resulted in a substantial financial loss and there is some regret. The big unknown was how much more the P25 would depreciate during the next 6 months. I decided to take the financial hit today. The buyers got great deals. They may not see it that way, but if they saw the math, I think they would agree.

I fell into the “Canon 1Ds Mark III or Medium Format trap.” Such a question seems logical. If you approach the purchase decision from this perspective, you are doing yourself a dis-service. The question is based upon a faulty premise and subsequent answers bear the scars of that flawed logic. The flaw lies in the assumption that a medium format kit can replace a dSLR kit. dSLRs represent the epitome of integration available today. The digital technology, the electronics and the mechanics are all worked-out and put forth with an amazing array of features in a small package. As consumers I think we fail to appreciate how much effort goes into the R&D. dSLRs offer almost limitless choices in lenses, flashes, accessories and software. The most important aspect is how easily the flexibility can be realized and applied in real-life settings. Medium format systems are flexible too, but...

1. •The digital back is a discrete unit and body is a discrete unit. Their union is the product of two companies working together with their respective agendas. Partnerships can work, but the integration can be awkward. The medium format companies do make fine products, but they lack the dSLR refinements.
   

2. •dSLRs have superior multipoint auto focus with 3 to 51 points. Medium format bodies have a single AF point - in the center. The possible exception being the Mamiya 645AFD III which has 3 points, but still bunched at the center. Medium format is a manual focus platform which happens to have an auto focus for the occasional assistance. A dSLR is an auto-focus platform first and foremost; occasionally we use manual focus.
   

3. •dSLRs have the weight and size advantage; though, a Canon 1Ds Mark III with a 2 pound lens is not much different than a medium format set-up. dSLRs show their true weight advantage in something like a Canon 5D or Nikon D300. Part of the the weight discussion is the dual batteries - batteries for the body, battery for the back. Two battery systems means dual chargers and in-field issues such as the body’s batteries dying before the back’s or vice-versa. Exceptions are the Hasselblad H-series and new Sinar HY6.
   

4. •Base ISO was a key area where I missed the big picture. The P25’s base ISO is 50 - 1/2 that of the Canon 1Ds Mark II & Mark III. The P25’s best quality is ISO 50, so all the shutter speeds were immediately halved. That limits flexibility. Boosting the P25 to ISO 100 was acceptable, but file quality takes a hit. At that point the ISO performance in terms of noise is not much different than a dSLR. P25 files definitely lost a step or two when the ISO was boosted. As for ISO 200 - forget it.
   

There are many other differences, but those are the key areas for me and my decision process. Realizing these shortcomings and understanding their implications after 5 months of use, I knew changes were in order. I wanted to be able to grab the Mamiya 645AFD II & P25 anytime, shoot just about anywhere and use it like a 1Ds Mark II.

THE TRANSITIONAL PLAN

I realized my oversights and starting trying different dSLRs in hopes of finding a mate for the 645AFD II. The Canon 40D, Nikon D300, Canon 5D and Canon 1Ds Mark III all had their chance. I did not like cropped sensors, so those cameras were sold quickly. The Canon 5D was nice and for the money was brilliant, but it lacked resolution horsepower. The 1Ds Mark III was an impulse decision and since I was frustrated with the P25 at the time, the dealer’s call was fortuitous timing (for them). After the dust settled the 1Ds Mark III was the last man standing.

In consideration of its price and file quality relative to a Canon 1Ds Mark II, the Mark III is a under-performer. Adding insult to injury, the P25 kicks the 1Ds3’s proverbial butt. Frankly, I think the Canon 5D and Canon 1Ds Mark II put up a better fight (against the P25). The Canon 1Ds Mark III requires copious amounts of sharpening and its dynamic range is about 2/3 of a stop less than the 1Ds Mark II’s. The 1Ds Mark III deserves credit in terms of features - it has them in spades. Live View is very useful, the viewfinder is huge, battery life is great, dust-busing is nice, higher ISO is better (than the 1Ds Mark II), the larger LCD is an improvement, etc.

When it comes to the 1Ds family, the key benchmark for me is ISO 100 - how is the dynamic range, how much noise and how sharp are the pixels. If compared solely on those metrics, I think the Canon 1Ds Mark II is better than the 1Ds Mark III. When comparing the 1Ds Mark III files to the P25 back, the Canon lack sharpness and colors look smudged or blurred. There is no comparison when it comes to file quality.

A MORE MATURE OUTLOOK

Losing money on Mamiya 645AFD II and Phase One P25 was a unpleasant reality. Seeing how poorly the 1Ds Mark III files compare against the P25 adds to the unpleasantness. The financial losses are the cost of learning.  The key take-aways for me are:

1. •ISO performance is more valuable for how I shoot than sensor size. Instead of putting the money in a 49mm x 37mm sensor, I should have bought a P30. It is more affordable and its base ISO is 100. The P30 would have a better bang-for-buck ratio (for me).
   

2. •Let medium format be medium format. I tried to make the Mamiya 645AFD II & P25 perform like a Canon 1Ds Mark II. I did not want a dSLR and a medium format set-up, so I compromised on the medium format body and picked a system that seemed closer to a dSLR experience.
   

3. •Full-frame sensors such as the Canon 1Ds Mark III are years away from matching medium format sensors. If Canon continues to offer more megapixels while reducing pixel performance, this gap will only widen.
   

4. •I like the Phase One digital backs and would consider another. However, I do not trust dealers and see little added value. The trade-in values offered were insulting... The “once you’re in the family” mantra is rubbish. I’m not saying dealers are mean, evil, nasty people, but the analogy of a used car salesperson comes to mind. With one exception - Steve Hendrix at PPR Atlanta is outstanding. If Steve sold Phase One products, I’d find a way to do business with him. And more importantly - he’ll try to find a way to business with you. If you’re in the market for a Hasselblad or Leaf back, do yourself a favor and at least call him. 
   

Understanding that a medium format set-up will not match the ergonomics of a modern dSLR is a key point. If you only want one system, I’d suggest staying with a dSLR system. If you decide to go with medium format, budget for a dSLR system too. There are always exceptions to the rule, but for most us, two systems will be the norm.