Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II versus Medium Format

by excelguru Feb 24, 2006 3:16AM PST

I have lusted after the (all hail!) EOS 1Ds Mark II for quite some time (haven't we all?). I'm interested in hearing from others who have used BOTH the 1DsII and medium format cameras, preferrably 645.

I'd like to know if the Canon is suitable as an equal (near-equal) for MF. I'll need to purchase one or the other for wedding work later this year. By the time I consider the price of a MF body, lenses, etc. I'll be within throwing distance of the 1DsII. I'm willing to pay the extra $$$ for the instant feedback of digital and to use the lenses I already have for my 20D. But ONLY if the resolution can meet the demands of typical wedding enlargements.

Comments on you real-world experience is greatly appreciated. Thanks guys.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -

quality not really the question here.

by Jerry321 Feb 24, 2006 4:56AM PST

We have used both, but the questions regarding difference in output quality are so infitesimally small and nearly always down to personal perception. For every persom who says the Mark 1 let alone the Mark 11 surpassed medium format there will be someone else who says it doesn't. The reality is your customers could care less about such minutiae and simply want their precious momemts captured as skillfully and unobtrusively as possible.
The great wedding photographers were doing great digital work with a few million pixels let alone nearly 17 million. Its not about the pixels its about the pictures.
Professionals simply face a workflow choice digital or film. Digital is expensive but in todays business economy (particularly weddings)we would find it impossible to construct an arguement for film. If your producing fine art work and you are that good that(ie world famous) galleries wait for your output then yes plate cameras and big negatives cannot be beaten but who really operates in that rarified place.
If you have no digital experience the cost to your business will be much much more than the cameras and lenses. You need a lot of good software, computers, hard drives, top class color calibrated monitors, back up media, catalogue systems. You will need to develop new workflow methods and train to use all of the above,as well as the new camera systems. The shots you may see in magazines, media etc from the MKII don't come out of the camera like that, there is a lot of work with all of the above to get those results. Before digital you were a photographer now your also a lab. The time cost will be very high and it may take your business several years to absorb those new costs.
Hope the above helps with your costings and comparisons

- Collapse -

Thank you

by excelguru Feb 25, 2006 7:17AM PST

Thanks for your thorough response. My current workflow is indeed set up only for digital. I must admit that I did not consider in great detail how the workflow of MF film would disrupt my current situation. That's a good point and one that is certainly worth consideration.

Indeed, very rarely do I ever get an image that meets my standards straight from the camera. I almost always have to do SOMETHING to it in software.

- Collapse -

(NT) (NT) Do you mean digital or film medium format?

by Kiddpeat Feb 24, 2006 9:44AM PST

- Collapse -

This is over your head!

by mrobzo Feb 24, 2006 12:45PM PST

Just answer questions you understand.

- Collapse -

You don't have a clue do you?

by Kiddpeat Feb 24, 2006 2:59PM PST

I understand the question perfectly. I suppose you think that there aren't any digital medium formats?

- Collapse -

I meant film.

by excelguru Feb 25, 2006 7:14AM PST

Ignore mrobzo. He is apparently unaware that there are digital backs for MF cameras. Your question is well-justified. I should have clarified that I meant film-based MF cameras. Those digital backs are ludicrously expensive.

- Collapse -

For what it's worth.

by Kiddpeat Feb 25, 2006 1:38PM PST

I don't have first hand experience with the camera, but I recently heard a medium format mfg's rep say that the next best alternative to their digital camera is the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II. He also said that a film back on the MF camera would be his backup if the digital back went down. You can draw your own conclusions.

Another thought, if you go film, you're going to need a pretty expensive scanner to bring the result into your digital work flow.

- Collapse -

It's hard to say so.

by jump1127 Feb 26, 2006 9:08PM PST

Actually, Dpreview tested EOS 5D against 1Ds Mark II and the differences are unnoticable for half the budget you spend for 4 extra mega pixels, unless you enlarge the picture to the extreme size, such as larger than A3 paper size. Most likely, the medium format film camera is intended for an enlargement. If you are not gonna make a lot of enlarge outputs, there's really no need to go for a medium format camera.

- Collapse -

Message to Phillip_Anthony

by snapshot2 Forum moderator Mar 9, 2006 10:48PM PST

Welcome to the Digital Cameras forum.

This is not a forum for selling your camera equipment.
Please check the forum rules.

...
..
.

- Collapse -

Thanks, guys

by excelguru Mar 2, 2006 5:31AM PST

Your input has been helpful. I think I'll wait for Canon to release an upgrade to the 1DsM2 (hard to imagine), then buy a nice second-hand unit for a reasonable price. The term "reasonable" is loosely used here. Finding a second-hand 1DsM2 at the moment is all but impossible. A lot of the Ebay listings for such appear to be scams.

I think I'll stay 100% digital and avoid MF film cameras altogether (thirty-thousand-dollar digital backs are completely out of the question). I just don't have my workflow set up for film and don't feel like changing it. I have a very nice, brand-new Epson scanner, but I prefer to use it only for restoration or digitizing services.

Thanks again, guys.

Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II versus Medium Format

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info