TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION

The first action was selling the Mamiya 645AFD II and Phase One P25 digital back. 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, so 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 can replace a dSLR. 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. 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. 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 quasi 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. The 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 auto focus for the occasional assistance. A dSLR is an auto-focus platform first and foremost; occasionally we use manual focus - a very different design philosophy.
   

3. •dSLRs have the weight and size advantage and maximize that advantage in something like a Canon 5D or Nikon D300. Part of the the weight discussion includes medium format’s 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. As for ISO 200 - forget it.
   

THE TRANSITION 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 in terms of detail, sharpness and clean shadows. Frankly, I think the Canon 5D and Canon 1Ds Mark II put up a better fight (against the P25) because they cost much less than a 1Ds Mark III. The Canon 1Ds Mark III files require 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 for its  features - Live View, huge viewfinder, great battery life, sensor cleaning, improved high ISO, large rear LCD.

The 1Ds Mark III also deserves some points for its color depth. The new 14-bit files have richer, deeper more saturated colors. They are not medium format quality, but they are getting closer. Also, while the shadows are not as clean as medium format, they can withstand considerable editing in Photoshop (or the raw editor) and still look very good. When it comes to total dynamic range, I think the Canon 1Ds Mark II is better than the 1Ds Mark III. The 1Ds3 has the cleaner shadows, but the 1Ds2 had more dynamic range in the highlights.

When comparing the 1Ds Mark III files to the P25 back, Canon lacks sharpness and colors look smudged or blurred. At ISO 50 there is no comparison when it comes to file quality; the P25 easily wins. So, I am not crazy in love with the 1Ds Mark III, but I am making a calculated decision and selecting the 1Ds3’s flexibility and ease of use over the P25’s quality. It is difficult to get excited over that trade off, especially at $8k for a 1Ds3.

A MORE MATURE OUTLOOK

Losing money on Mamiya 645AFD II and Phase One P25 was an 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 Phase One 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 and 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 closest 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 one; however, I do not trust dealers. The trade-in values offered were insulting and the “once you’re in the family” mantra is rubbish. I am 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 Capture Integration. If buying again, I would find a way to do business with 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 would 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.