645 BLOG - LIFE WITH A PHASE ONE P25 Six months with a Phase One P25 digital back and a Mamiya 645AFD II

REBALANCING THE FUND

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:51:14 -0500

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...
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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.

LUNCH, WALK & A SUNSET WITH THE CANON 1Ds MARK III

Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:07:23 -0500

Today is a simple entry with more pictures from the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar FLE and the Canon 1Ds Mark III. The Hasselblad 110/2 has a nice water color look at times, and some odd renderings at other times. For general landscape work I still prefer the Contax C/Y 100/2 Planar. For close up work, the 110/2 might be a more interesting (better?) choice.
CANON 1Ds MARK III FIRST IMPRESSIONS
Today’s pictures are some of the first ones to go through Photoshop and see heavy duty editing such as pushing levels, saturation, etc. Like the files from the Phase One P25, the 1Ds3 files can be edited until your heart is content. This generally holds true for the mid-tones; the upper highlights are odd. Shadows can be noisy, so they cannot be pushed as hard.
The Canon 1Ds Mark III’s dynamic range is noticeably less than the 1Ds2’s. In the 1Ds3 white paper Canon stated the 1Ds3 had “similar” dynamic range (comparing to the 1Ds2). If it had been better, Canon’s marketing department would have eagerly advertised any such improvements. I knew “similar” really meant less, but how much less was an unknown. My unscientific guess is a ~1/2 stop less based upon highlights clipping faster and more often. The 1Ds Mark III’s noise and tonality in the shadows looks the same as the 1Ds Mark II’s, so I doubt there is any added dynamic range in the shadows.
Less dynamic range and 14-bits is an odd couple. Since the 1Ds3 is more prone to clipping highlights, but has more bits (than the 1Ds2), how it clips is different than the 1Ds2. When the 1Ds2 clipped a highlight, the entire highlight tended to go to white. The 1Ds3 tends to clip a channel or two channels, so highlights tend to have a cast or hue. In some cases that is good, others times that is not so good. In real life this translates into baby blue pastel skies, where as the 1Ds2 held the highlights better and its skies tended towards a deeper blue. I would rather have the 1Ds2’s dynamic range AND 14-bits. At this point I do not know if the 1Ds2’s added dynamic range is better, or if having the 1Ds3’s 14-bits is better.
ONLY THE BEST LENSES WILL DO
In 2002 people said the Canon 1Ds needed the best lenses and most of Canon’s lenses were not up to task. Then in 2004 people said the 1Ds2 needed best lenses, and many of the Canon lenses.... blah, blah... Up to this point I say bullshit. Yes, good lenses did do better, but top lenses were not an absolute “must have”. One could shoot with Canon L zooms and primes and be fine. With the 1Ds3 I think the line has been crossed - the Canon 1Ds Mark III DOES need the best lenses...
With each new dSLR generation Canon does a remarkable job of putting forth more megapixels which net less sharpness, less contrast, less pop, less what-ever. The Phase One P25 has redefined my idea of what sharp is and the 1Ds3 is lacking. This is relative though... Canon 5D owners will be dazzled with 12 to 22 MP jump. Canon 40D owners will be blown away too. As for digital back owners, I doubt many will be impressed.
The 1Ds3 raw files need aggressive sharpening to pop. I am applying 50% more sharpening in Photoshop CS3 (mostly USM) compared to Canon 1Ds2 raws. Using ultra-sharp lenses capable of counter-acting Canon’s AA filter is a must. For years I’ve used Contax and Leica lenses, so this is nothing new. The next logical question is - what if the 1Ds3 image is downsized to the size of 1Ds2 image? I suspect the 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 sharpness would be comparable under those circumstances. Thus, I wonder what benefit(s) we are getting with the 1Ds3’s added mega-pixels. If Canon lessened the 1Ds Mark III’s AA filter, I think it would challenge the 22 MP digital backs.
KISS AND MAKE-UP
Enough with the ranting. There are good points to the 1Ds3 - most of which were noted in earlier entries such as “Live View”, the larger viewfinder, the 3” LCD, etc. The 1Ds3 also deserves credit for its high ISO image quality. I tend not to bump past ISO 200 with other dSLRs, but the 1Ds3’s image quality at ISO 400 is very good - probably better than the P25 @ ISO 100. The 1Ds3 is a nice camera in use, but it definitely has a different personality than the 1Ds2. In terms of the look of the the 1Ds3 files, they have more in common with a 40D and Nikon D300 file than a 1Ds2 or 5D file. And for those of you with 22 MP digital back thinking about a 1Ds3 as a replacement for the back - rent a 1Ds3 first.

HASSELBLAD 110MM F2 PLANAR - ONE MORE DAY...

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:31:30 -0500

Since yesterday’s light decided to play nicely, I headed out again this afternoon. It was partly cloudy and that usually works out one of three ways - big fluffy clouds for great sunsets, completely clouded over or completely clear. One in three odds, so why not. The next decision was which camera to bring - the Canon 1Ds Mark III or the Mamiya 645AFD II and Phase One P25 digital back. I know... the violins are playing. If the weather is sunny with good light, then the P25 will work great. If it’s cloudy and the light isn’t so great, then the 1Ds Mark III’s ISO will be needed. Analysis-paralysis... both cameras went.
DESTINATION UNKNOWN
I have been wanting to shoot an old abandoned brick factory about 30 minutes northeast of the house. I had seen the factory years ago during my college years. Things change so a quick check with Google maps and the factory was still there. Vroom! Thirty minutes go by and we are in Denton city limits. By now the sky has gone from partly to completely clouded over. Murphy’s Law and all, but the 1Ds Mark III is in the camera bag ready to go, so no worries.
We arrived at the brickyard and after some driving around facility and we found the main gate. The obligatory “Do Not Trespass” sign, blah, blah, blah... Seen those before. Razor wire? Hmmm... Didn’t see that in the satellite photos! And not quite so abandoned either. Evidently ACME brick is alive and well. I should have Google’d the location a bit more - I didn’t realize it was “ACME” brick. They advertise and even had Troy Aikman as spokesperson at one point. After about 15 minutes of looking for a less painful way in, no luck... Onto Plan B. Plan B always works. Plan B consists of desperate, aimless driving with no clue... Light fades, desperation goes up. We’ve used this approach a 1000’s of times on vacations! The problem here is that during the past 4 years we have been to just about every destination within a 30 minute radius of the house.
PLAN B
The earlier Google searches revealed there used to be a train station, so that became Plan B. Based on one of pictures posted on the web, I know the station was there until at least 1986. As you probably already figured out - no train station. I did try to keep with the railroad track theme - it makes it look like I actually have a plan. Denton has many old buildings from the 1910-1930’s, so there is a nice gritty texture which works well with digital backs. The three pictures in this blog entry were at an abandoned warehouse about a stone’s throw from City Hall. Lots of nice textures, but light stunk, hence the black and white post-processing. Nothing here really shows off what the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar can or can’t do.
A TINY RANT OR TWO
Two of the images are from the Hasselblad 110mm F2 on the 645AFD II. The other image was the Canon 1Ds Mark III and the Canon EF 50mm F1.4. The 645AFD II weighs ~1700 grams according to its specs; I think it weighs less if just counting the body. Regardless, certainly 2+ pounds with batteries. The P25 weighs at least 1 pound with its battery. The Hasselblad 110/2 lens weighs over 2 pounds. The whole set-up probably tips the scales at 7+ pounds. And from stem to stern the whole kit is ~14 inches long. It’s a large, unbalanced beast! With no vertical grip, holding all the weight with a small grip area is tiring.
Today the weight and size of medium format set-up was not a problem, but walking around with the combo for three or four hours during a vacation would be tiring. When the 645AFD/P25 went to the car and 1Ds3 came out, the 1Ds3 felt so light. Pundits will say “horse for courses”. True, but if you have a digital back (and spent all that money) - the natural reaction is to use as much as possible. The file quality for the P25 is great, but having a 1Ds Mark III on-hand makes the Mamiya 645AFD II & P25 set-up feel like 1980’s ergonomics. That’s it for today. The EXIF data should be there, so you can see which file was the Canon 50mm.

MORE IMAGES WITH THE MAMIYA 645AFD II AND P25

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:44:41 -0500

Taking a break from uploading auctions to Ebay this afternoon, I shot these pictures with the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar on the Mamiya 645AFD II and Phase One P25. Found out today that the Mamiya / Hasselblad adapter may be too thick for infinity focus. This is a surprise since there is plenty of room. I need to test the combination some more before I can be 100% sure.
All the pictures were taken handheld and while slipping & sliding down a steep embankment in flip flops. Considering the less than ideal shooting conditions I am happy anything was in focus. To help improve the odds of coming home with a couple keepers, all of today’s pictures were taken at ISO 100. Usually I shoot at ISO 50 (for the best quality), so ISO 100 is the exception, not the rule. Light was fading quickly and I could not get a solid footing in most cases, so bumping ISO was the best option.
Today’s pictures show the P25’s good side. It does very well with golden yellows and deep reds. The P25’s contrast and rich color palette worked well. The P25 seems most at home with this type of color palette. I am not sure if I will like the P25’s coloring for portraits. The colors work really well landscapes during golden hour, but the red tones may not work so well for portraits. I have read in the forums that the P25+ has a more neutral color palette (a-la the the C1 color profiles). I have seen reddish overtones in product shots and that has been manageable with some color balancing in Photoshop (mostly shifting the red color channel towards blue in the shadow range).
EXPOSING FOR HIGHLIGHTS
On the surface the picture to the right does not look challenging, but it took 12 attempts. The Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar did not like having the sun to the left just outside of the frame. It caused some veiling and various amount of flare. With some experimentation I was able to get the sun far enough out of frame to keep the Hasselblad happy.
The next trick was keeping the reflections on the rail road tracks from clipping. The P25 only has a couple stops of dynamic range above the mid-tones, so it will clip highlights quickly. Conversely, the shadows have amazing amounts of dynamic range and are very clean compared to the Canon 1Ds Mark II. In practice it is easiest to expose for the highlights and then in post processing push up the shadow levels. The shadows are clean enough that they usually tolerate 2-3 stops of boost without showing much (if any) noise. Today was a gamble because these were taken at ISO 100 - and ISO 100 does have more shadow noise. The rock bed was easily pushed 2 or 3 stops in Photoshop. The subject matter helps to hide the noise.
HASS 110mm PLANAR - 5TH GENERATION
Again, the picture to the left is innocent enough. The P25 hates images like this. The sun completely overloads then sensor if the lens is at a wide aperture. To shoot into the sun, the lens must be stopped down to F8, F11, etc. I do not know why shooting at fast apertures causes issues for the P25, but it simply cannot do it. The sun and surrounding area will be a white rectangle. The P25 is rated for 8 stops of anti-blooming; I think high DR settings such as this image push the anti-blooming to the max and the P25 chokes. It is not the P25 blowing out the region; the region is simply missing - zero data.
As for the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar - it hates these shots too. It tends to flare, though in this case it was not too bad (see the right side of the picture). This is a 5th generation 110/2 planar - and it cost a small fortune. The 5th generation added an additional baffle at the rear of lens. The baffle is supposed to help control flare and veiling. It is also rumored to improve contrast in general. Since this is my first Hasselblad 110/2 Planar and I have NOT tried the 3rd or 4th versions, I do not know if the 5th generation is better or not.
The above picture is just example of an extreme scene where medium format is less than happy. This is one of the few cases where I think the Canon 1Ds Mark II does better. I have shot similar images many times with the 1Ds Mark II. Whether the lens is stopped down or wide open, the sensor never failed like the P25’s. Replace the foreground with a beach and incoming waves, and this shot is a generic 101 sunset at any given beach. The P25 has difficulty. Obviously it can be done, but it takes 5 to 10 shots to dial everything in. Whereas with the Canon 1Ds Mark II set to -2 EC compensation, shots like this are simple with no hassle. For comparison purposes the picture to the right was taken with the Contax 100mm F2 Planar on a 1Ds Mark II.

HASSELBLAD 110MM F2 PLANAR FOLLOW-UP

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:56:07 -0500

Like a small child knowing where mom and dad hid the Christmas presents, the temptation was too great. I did NOT want to try the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar on the Mamiya 645AFD II & Phase One P25 because I knew it would lead to no good. And then I would not want to sell the P25, etc, etc... Now that the Canon 1Ds Mark III is here, there are some hard decisions ahead.
Thursday’s images (the March 12th blog entry) were with the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar on a Canon 1Ds Mark III. The Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar pictures looked good, but I suspect the original Contax 100mm F2 Planar can match the Hasselblad in almost every regard. There are differences and after some very informal A/B testing -
The Hasselblad appears to out-resolve the Contax 100mm F2 Planar starting ~F5.6. I do not have any “proper” testing equipment to substantiate this claim either way. Call it a gut feeling.
The Contax 100mm F2 Planar’s aperture steps in full 1-stop increments whereas the Hassleblad steps in 1/2 stop increments. Given a choice I prefer 1/2 stop increments, but 1-stop increments do make for quicker stop-down metering.
The Hasselblad seems to hold up better at F8 and F11; the Contax 100mm Planar begins to suffer from diffraction after F5.6 when shooting close-ups. For landscapes the diffraction is a non-issue. The diffraction is only appreciable on close-up product shots.
The Hasselblad has a closer minimum focus distance, so if really tight close-ups suit your style - either get a 12mm tube for the Contax, or buy the Hasselblad. The new Zeiss 100mm F2 Makro-Planar ZF would also be an option.
May 18, 2008 Update - I recently purchased the new Zeiss 50mm F2 Makro-Planar ZF and so far it has been impressive on the Canon 1Ds Mark III. The above mentioned Zeiss 100mm ZF might be a good option for dSLR shooters. Click here for the newly added 50mm ZF review.
The Hasselblad is a 110mm lens and the added 10mm (compared to the Contax 100mm Planar) is very noticeable. I think the Hasselblad 110mm feels more like a 135mm lens, at least at close distances.
Due to the large medium format image circle, there is essentially zero light fall-off in the corners with the Hasselblad on the Canon 1Ds Mark III. What’s really surprising is how little fall-off it has on the P25 too. I do not mind light fall-off and sometimes ADD it back into images, but I know other photographers feel the opposite.
The Hasselblad 110/2 has tremendous potential on medium format. If you shoot medium format have been considering the Hasselblad 110/2, I encourage you to keep researching the lens. It certainly has me re-thinking whether or not I should exit the medium format scene...
For dSLR shooters - the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar is a nice lens, but it can be very expensive (around $3,500 for the 5th generation Hasselbald). The original Contax 100mm F2 Planar is a great alternative for about $800-$1000 (depending on condition). And now Zeiss has added the new ZF (and ZS & ZK) line-up. They 100mm ZF is expensive too - but it cost less than the Hasselblad.
The following images fall under the heading of “nothing special”. The light was fading quick and I wanted to grab a couple shots with the P25.

HASSELBLAD 110mm F2 PLANAR FLE FIFTH GENERATION

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:55:41 -0500

The pictures in this entry are the very first quick snaps with the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar to get a feel for the lens. To be fair the lens really should be used on a medium format set-up, then it could show off its expanded FOV and shallow DOF. On the Canon 1Ds Mark III the Hasselblad 110mm Planar is reduced to something less than its intended design.
Looking at these first images I cannot say if the Hasselblad is any better than the Contax 100mm F2 Planar. The Hasselblad is certainly no less capable. In this case I am trying the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Fifth Generation and they don’t come cheap. Expect to pay ~$3,000 USD - more if it comes with the box and all the other bling. A mint condition Contax 100mm F2 Planar is ~$1,000, so one has to ask what does $2k more get you? Well, it buys a 645 lens - and that is a very important point.
SOME DIFFERENCES
I am not going to ramble on and on about creamy this, sharp that... The Zeiss 100mm Planar family is well known when it comes to those measures. Instead I’ll write about some of the physical differences. Compared to the Contax 100mm F2 Planar, the Hasselblad is bigger - about 20% longer and about 20% heavier. The Hasselblad’s aperture ring turns in the opposite direction (stopping down is counter-clockwise), so it feels awkward. I suppose that will I will get used to this in time.
The Hasselblad has an aperture preset button. The lens is set to the desired aperture, and then before taking the picture a button is slid and the lens stops down to the preset aperture. The lens still works in regular stop down fashion like a Contax C/Y lens, so either method works. The focus ring has about 2X more travel compared to the Contax 100mm Planar, so fine tuning focus on the Hasselblad is easier. The focus ring is nicely dampened and gushes German build quality. The whole lens gushes der German uber build quality - and it should considering the price.
I feel the Contax 100mm Planar is a bit sharper wide open, but that can be a red herring sometimes. F2 seldom has enough depth of field for the subject to fully develop. In the case of portraits, one eye may be in focus while the other eye is not. It can be good look for pirates. With the Contax 100mm Planar I have been learning with careful composition I can shoot F4 to F5.6, have plenty of DOF for the subject and still have a nicely blurred the background to varying degrees. F2 is always a temptation. While the Contax 100mm may have the edge wide open in terms of sharpness, F2 does come with a fair amount of light fall off in the corners. The Hasselblad being a 645 lens has a much larger image circle with essentially no light fall off on the 1Ds3. ALL the images on this page had vignetting added in via Photoshop.
THE LONG TERM PLAN
The Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar was part of a medium format plan, so I do not know if I will keep it over the Contax 100/2 Planar. The Contax 100mm Planar has been a stellar lens and I am perfectly happy to continue using it. That said, the Hasselblad will get its fair chance. The Hasselblad 110mm Planar is no longer in production, so finding a mint condition is not as easy as it was five years ago. I’ll follow up on this topic in a month or two.
MAY 18, 2008 UPDATE
It is now a couple months later and I am still using the Hasselblad 110mm F2 Planar on the Canon 1Ds Mark III. And I am still thinking about selling it. The Mamiya 645AFD II and Phase One P25 digital back were sold in April 2008, so there is not much need for the Hasselblad 110mm right now. As you’ll read in the some of the subsequent 645 Blog entries, the Hasselblad renders very pleasing gradients. Its color palette is slightly different than the Contax 100mm F2 Planar. I can think of many other things the money could be used on, but for now the Hasselblad stays.

CONFESSIONS OF A GEAR SLUT

Sun, 9 Mar 2008 03:10:02 -0500

Earlier this week the phone rang - (818) area code. Hmm... Caller ID shows Canoga Camera. Oh shit.. I knew why they were calling - my number was up. The call went to voice mail and I decided to wait a day before calling back; if the camera was still there, then maybe it was meant to be. As you can see from the picture above, the 1Ds3 was still there.
Feeling like a Jeff Foxworthy skit (“You know you’re gear slut when...”) I rattled off the credit card number. Twenty-four hours later the UPS truck delivered a Canon 1Ds Mark III. The Mrs. caught a glimpse of the camera, so before she asked any questions I reminded her I borrowed the 1Ds2 a couple weeks - duh...!... Note to self - hide the box ASAP!
FIRST IMPRESSIONS
Lets get this out of the way - the 1Ds3 is no medium format killer. Am I going to return the 1Ds3? Probably not. Pulling the 1Ds3 out of its box the first thing I noticed was how light the camera felt. With the smaller battery the balance is different too. To me it feels nice, but for people who shoot super-tele’s such as the 300mm L F2.8 IS or 500mm L F4 IS, they may miss the NP-E3’s counter balance effect.
The next surprise was how large the viewfinder felt. The 1Ds Mark II’s viewfinder is .70x magnification, the 1Ds Mark III is .76x. The numbers sound like a minor improvement, but in real-life the difference is quite noticeable. And the viewfinder is very bright. After the battery charged the next series of “wow’s” began: the LCD - huge; the shutter - instantaneous and extremely well dampened; cleaned up menu system; hidden diopter switch (no more blurry viewfinder because the dial moved); more info in the viewfinder; and the list goes on... In general the body just feels up to date with lots of small improvements.
With progress comes trade offs, so not everything is roses. Some of the buttons feel shoe-horned due to the larger LCD screen (less room for buttons). Focus point selection is lame - the joystick control does NOT select the AF points. The 5D does, the 40D does - but not the 1Ds3?!?! And as others have noted in their reviews - only 17 of the AF points are selectable. That doesn’t bother me much, but it does take more dial action to select a point. If Canon wanted to, it seems like these could be easily addressed with a firmware update. Right now it doesn’t bother me, but we’ll see how that plays out in 12 months. In contrast the Nikon D300’s AF selection method is brilliant. (Update - Canon did fix via a firmware update! See 1Ds3 Blog.)
LIVE VIEW
Initially I thought it was a gimmick, but after trying the Nikon D300 and Canon 40D, my opinion changed. After playing around with the 50L at F1.0 - it’s a pretty damn cool feature. Live view is tricky handheld because the image is bouncing all over the place (at 5x and 10x magnification), but on a tripod it will be wonderful with manual focus lenses. Cameras with a stabilized sensor will have an advantage. For people who shoot with manual lenses, live view can only help the keeper ratio. In another 2, 3 or 4 years Canon and Nikon will have refined live view into a very slick feature. It’s still a bit crude on the 1Ds3, but I’ll use it for sure.
1Ds MARK III VERSUS MEDIUM FORMAT
When it comes to clean shadows, shadow detail and over all sharpness the Phase One P25 wins - and by a good margin too. While image quality is apparent, the key difference in my opinion is the camera bodies. I came to this conclusion last month after playing around the 5D and 1Ds2. The Canon 1Ds Mark III adds more MP and the body is even more feature rich than before, but pixel for pixel - the P25 wins. In terms of everyday usability the 1Ds-anything shoots circles around medium format. I have been considering selling the P25, the 1Ds3 will speed up that decision process.
LENSES
Since most of my Canon gear was sold 2-3 months ago, the only lenses on hand are the 50L F1.0 and a Contax 100 F2 Planar. The 50L looked ho-hum, so I tried the Contax 100 F2 Planar and it did brilliantly. The Canon 50L F1.0 has low contrast to start with, so it is not a good test lens. In comparison the Contax 100/2 really shined. It is too soon to make any judgments, but Canon really needs to update some of their lenses to keep up the 1Ds3. The 1Ds2 already pushed some lenses to their limit, and the 1Ds3 seems even more demanding. Some initial images were added the 645 gallery.
UPDATE - MARCH 9, 2008
On the left is an image from the 1Ds3 (50mm @ F4), the right is the P25 (80mm @ F5.6). Color matching the images is impossible - Canon has their color mapping, Phase has theirs. I spent about an hour trying to get these as close as possible - match the blues, and the reds & yellows are wrong. Match the reds and the greens and blues are whacky... The 1Ds3 coloring looks flatter, less vibrant - possibly truer to the original scene. The P25 delivers a more pleasing color, but has magenta tendencies. Again, nothing new here - this has been consistent with the 1Ds2 and 5D too.

The 1Ds3 images was cropped to match the 80mm FOV. The P25 images was down-sized to match the 1Ds3’s resulting image size. To be as fair as possible to the 1Ds3, it really needs a lens closer to 55mm-60mm to match the Mamiya 80mm’s FOV on the P25.
For this type of general shooting, the P25 doesn’t have any significant technical advantages. I do find the feel of a 80mm lens more pleasing than 50mm. I like how the P25 handles the coloring the grass, etc., but I the Canons deliver better sky colors. I’m looking into custom 1Ds3 profiles for the C1. I do not think the P25’s color is better or more correct, but I want the option to emulate its color and tonality. The P25 has its “look” just as Canon has its look. If I can replicate the P25 color mapping on the 1Ds3, it will be easier to part with the P25.

I DIDN’T GET THE MEMO...

Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:45:59 -0600

I am not an avid fill flash user, but I do use one for outdoor portraits. For Canon dSLRs I ran the gamut - 550EX, 580EX and 430EX, and for Nikon the SB-400. I liked the Nikon SB-400 the best because of its compact size. It is a no frills package, but for basic fill flash it is a great. My second choice is the Canon 430EX. It is larger, but delivers good results with a Sto-fen.
Mamiya’s 645 flash choices are limited since Mamiya does not make flashes. One option is a standard shoe mount flash used in manual mode with no TTL metering. Flash TTL functionality on the Mamiya 645AFD II requires a SCA3000 based flash such as the Metz units. I never used a Metz flash before, nor any of the SCA adapters. The Mamiya 645AFD and 645AFD II require the Metz SCA 3952 module. The older Mamiya 645AF uses the Metz SCA 3951 module. Sorting through Metz’s flash units and the product numbers takes awhile. There are some smaller models such as the Metz 28 and 32 series, but they are limited in their feature set. More or less a set-it and forget-it approach.
Metz has some newer shoe mount models such as the 44 and 54-series, but I just wanted something middle simpler for fill flash. Eventually I decided on the discontinued Metz 40 MZ-3i because of its compact size. For those of you familiar with the Metz 40 MZ, clearly my “research” wasn’t as thorough as it should have been. There are earlier versions of the Metz 40 MZ - namely the 1i and 2i - and I have no idea what’s different between them. Experience has taught me to get the newest version, so the search began for the Metz 40 MZ-3i. I won an auction on Ebay and about a week later the box arrived. The 40 MZ-3i came in its original box. The box looked fine, though a bit big for such a small flash. Then I opened up the box, pulled out the case, opened the case and there’s the flash. HOLY SHIT! It’s huge!!! I have probably seen a 100+ pictures of the flash in the auction descriptions, but never attached to a camera. The 40 MZ-3i is huge! The flash looks overwhelming large atop the 645AFD II. People use these on Leica M5’s, M6’s and M7’s?!?!
MINI REVIEW
The Metz 40 MZ-3i is simple to use. There are various programs and options, but TTL mode is probably where most people will keep it. The 645AFD II has a FEC adjustment button just below the upper LCD, so it is similar to using a Canon 430EX / 580EX on a Canon dSLR. There are some key points for medium format shooters:
The guide number is 40 and at ISO 50 this translates into very little horsepower. The Canon 430EX on the Canon 1Ds Mark II was usually enough, but the Canon spent 99% of its life at ISO 100. The Metz is about the same guide number, but its output is halved due to ISO 50. Bumping up the ISO to 100 on the P25 takes care of that, though, at price of noisier files. I love Sto-fen Omni-Bounces. They help to take the edge off the flash, but they reduce the net output power. I doubt the Metz 40MZ-3i has enough power for bounce plus a Sto-fen. At this point the only real choice is the Metz MZ-54 4i.
The 40 MZ-3i has a SECONDARY flash just below the main flash head. The upper unit rotates and pivots for whatever bounce orientation is needed. The secondary flash unit fires straight ahead like a mini fill flash. The secondary can be turned on or off as needed. Even smarter the flash comes with two little pieces of plastic which slide over the secondary flash and reduce the output by -1 EC or by -2 EC. I’m using the -2 EC diffuser and it works well, though an electronic adjustment would be nicer.
Cycle time is slow - 4 to 8 seconds; the user manual states up to a max of 11 seconds. There are some options to vary how quickly the flash cycles, but those options modify the output power in one form or another. Thus the flash recycles quicker because less output power was used... um... DUH!
The 645AFD II + the P25 + Metz 40 MZ is heavy. Holding the camera by its grip puts considerable pressure on the right thumb. One of the Metz potato masher styles with a flash bracket would be more comfortable for long periods of use.
At this point I am undecided on the accuracy of Mamiya’s metering; preliminary images were under exposed. This may be due to the 40 MZ’s relatively weak output (ie - Guide No. 40). The 40 MZ has its own metering too, but I’m not sure how it interacts with (or overrides) the 645AFD II’s metering.
FINAL THOUGHTS
There are plenty of features to control/modify the output, and the integration with the Mamiya is okay. As far as bang for the buck goes, the 40 MZ is a nice $75-$125 option (via Ebay). The picture above was a quick test snap with 40 MZ and 645AFD II. There were a couple hot spots on the forehead and cheek bones; those were corrected in Photoshop. A Sto-fen Omni-bounce on the primary flash head would help. The hot spots may have been caused by the secondary flash, but with a -2 EC adjustment on its output, that seems unlikely. In other tests shots with the primary flash head firing straight up, aperture at F4 (Mamiya 80mm F2.8 AF lens) and P25 @ ISO 50, there was not enough output power. I bumped the P25’s ISO to 100 and F4 was usable.
I am going to sell it and pick up a Metz 54 MZ-4i. The 54 should have enough power and with a second SCA module it can be used on the Canon 5D. A used 54 MZ-4i costs about 2-3x more than the 40 MZ-3i, so if you want a very nice, but inexpensive flash. The Metz 40 MZ-3i may be discontinued, but it is still a viable flash solution, especially for cameras with good ISO 100-400 performance.

MEDIUM FORMAT VERSUS CANON 5D PART III

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:08:27 -0600

Yesterday I borrowed a Canon 1Ds Mark II for a 3-way test: Canon 5D vs Canon 1Ds Mark II vs Phase P25. Looking at the previous Canon 5D and Phase One P25 images, it is a difficult to tell if the P25 images look better because the files are fundamentally better, or if the difference is the overwhelming parade of added pixels in the P25 images. After looking at hundreds of P25 and 5D images, there are some trends:
The P25 images have more snap, pop, crispness - pick whatever word suits your tastes. This is very clear on product shots, but with landscapes the differences are not as profound. In some case the 5D images looked more pleasing when the images are scaled to the same size. The 100% P25 crop will always overpower the 100% 5D crop based upon the volume of detail.
The colors on the 5D (and 1Ds Mark II) look “mushy” where as the P25 images have added clarity and definition. A Canon image can be sharpened such that the edges and details look sharp, but the color information looks smudged, blurred, smeared, etc.
Dynamic range belongs to the P25; however, the added dynamic range lives in the shadows. Shadows are very clean and the levels can boosted be in post processing with little or no noise penalty. On the flip side the P25 will blow highlight (such as clouds), just as easily on a dSLR. With the P25 the exposure can be reduced slightly to hold the highlights, then the images rebalanced in post processing to bring the mid & dark tones. In the end the P25 will capture more dynamic range, but you have to post process the image to realize the benefits. The 1Ds2 and 5D images can be managed in the same way, but the there will be more shadow noise.
Trying to figure out how much of the “wow factor” is due to pixel count vs file quality is a very difficult to answer. To level the playing field I borrowed a Canon 1Ds Mark II. The P25 still has a megapixel advantage, but the 1Ds Mark II narrows the gap. The 1Ds Mark II also has ~2/3 to 1 stop more dynamic range compared to the 5D, so the dynamic range comparisons should be more interesting between the 1Ds2 and P25. I need to sell a Canon 24-105L IS, so it was the first subject. The goal in these images is to normalize the field of view. The tripod and subject did not move. The Canon 50mm L F1.0 was used for the 1Ds2 and 5D; the Mamiya 80mm F2.8 AF with a 12mm extension tube for the AFDII/P25 set-up. The Mamiya needed the 12mm tube to reduce the minimum focus distance.

MEDIUM FORMAT VERSUS CANON 5D PART II

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:21:36 -0600

FOLLOW-UP TO YESTERDAY’S ENTRY
I am worried the Canon 5D came across better than it really was in yesterday’s post. It is impossible to do an apples to apple comparison, so both systems were set at F8. Images were processed in C1 4.01 with 4.01’s default sharpening. White balance, levels and contrast were edited to normalize the general appearance. Read into these images whatever you want.