Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Morgan_Moore on September 18, 2006, 03:08:07 pm
-
Reasons not to go the MF route ..
"I want really big files because I am a landscape photographer"
Stitch your DSLR images
"I want my stuff to look good in glossy mags"
16MP is fine for that
"I want to contibute to stock libraries"
They take canon stuff else they would be empty - dont worry
"I want to shoot low light and 800ISO sounds cool- MF is there now"
Camera shake and slow lenses will kill any advantages
------------------
Reasons to go the MF route
"I shoot in bright light which I want to control against my flash"
MF leaf lenses and 25 or 50 ISO - the only way to go
(so no mamiyas then)
"Am an an architectural photographer whose clients are used to 54"
Then you need every digital advantage to get near it
"I love the Bokeh of MF lenses"
If you are sure an 85 1.2 or a 35 1.4 is no good then MF it is
-
My reasons for planning to swap to MFDB
- I miss the bigger viewfinders of medium format
- I like the colours and smooth gradations of the 16 bit files which the MFDBs produce
- 16 MP is not enough resolution
- decent lenses (it's amazing how often the 85L is used in Canon's defence. If only the other lenses were as good)
-
- I miss the bigger viewfinders of medium format
Absolutely - you need it with no decent multipoint AF
- I like the colours and smooth gradations of the 16 bit files which the MFDBs produce
- 16 MP is not enough resolution
how are you using? most of my paying clients very happy with 16mp both in poster and glossy magazine repro
-
seems like you have made up your mind...and DSLR is the way to go for you...
and you bring up a couple of valid points...
but there is a difference and there are good reasons for digital MF (other then the ones you listed)...
i am happy that you obviously found the tools that help you do your work the way you want it to be done...that is the most important thing..as long as it enables you to get get your vision across...does not matter if you shoot throwaway cameras or LOMO or P45 or 8x10 sheets...in the end one is not any better or more valid then the other...
-
I make better pictures when I shoot MF. It's not about pixel count, or resolution, or bit depth it's about pictures. It's like drinking a beer from the right kind of glass - does it taste better? Yes.
Damien :-)
-
Absolutely - you need it with no decent multipoint AF
Only 1 in 5 of the EOS DSLRs I've used has been able to autofocus reliably. Totally unusable. Maybe I'm just unlucky. Then there's the issue of AF not picking the focal plane you wanted anyway. Or hunting for so long that manual focus would have been quicker.
Which T/S lenses employ AF?
Aside from AF, if you enjoy composing an image at such a small size, then great for you. I don't.
how are you using? most of my paying clients very happy with 16mp both in poster and glossy magazine repro
Yes, 16 MP is basically enough for an A3 spread with bleed (actually 18MP is technically required) but gives you no room for creative cropping in post, or some large print work.
-
"seems like you have made up your mind...and DSLR is the way to go for you..."
I am the proud owner of an H1 and Eyelike back
As a member of the 'flash and expose for the sky' school leaf shutter lenses are a gift
This thread was started as I went off topic on the 'secret forums' thread
My intention is to make people think why they really want to move to MF and most impotantly listen carefully to those existant owners on these threads who make subltle points about thier use
If we save someone $0000s by keeping them from making the wrong choice then the forum has value
-----------------------
Damien.. you use it for the Bokeh and bright view - your work is wonderful - also you cant stitch people which is what you shoot
As an H1 user at weddings you will appreciate those flash synchs on sunny days
You, like me, love your H1 and back combo where 100% right to get it
You also, like me, have a nikon in your pocket because you know where an MFDB is not the correct solution
On the forum we have wedding photographers considering mamiya (125 synch) and landscape photographers considering a back for what can be easily done with stitching
Having added your signature people will see your work and realise you are worth listening to
-
the point i really agree with is that 16mpix is enough...it is more then enough for commercial applications...no magazine/poster/display in the world would show you the difference between 16 and 39mpix...if you need to make 20x30 museum prints of trees, no question...
16bit is a huge difference...4bit is not 4 times the information, it is expotential...huge difference...can't be seen in magazines or print, but can easily be seen on the screen and when working with files...you just cannot get the shadowdetail and transitions with DSLR....
the lenses are a major difference...i do not have to apply any sharpening when shooting with MF...only in post production, some sharpening in some areas....compared to canon, even with the 100macro (which is one sharp lens) the files aren't even close....
and i haven't talked about color and the time i save in post processing compared to the canon files...
but again if i need 1600asa, changing light, 3frames/sec....canon is the way to go...but even there i find myself shooting more and more with MF...at 400, yes a little more blur, a little more noise....but in the end it feels more like TRI-X to me....
-
It's not how many pixels that matters, it's magnification. My 20" prints from the P25 at ISO400 have a character and quality of their own far surpassing anything I've seen from a smaller sensor. Mabe it's the 16 bit but it reminds me of the difference between 35mm Velvia Trannies and 120 Velvia trannies both capable of a double page spread but you can easily tell the difference.
But it's no good having all that quality if you cant get the shot because your camera is too slow to use or you can't use flash at a high enough shutter speed or some other factor. A camera system is also no good if it doesn't inspire you, reward you and be part of you. A good sign of this is when you start looking around at other systems. I bought a Rollei 6008 kit with 2 bodies and 4 lenses at a cost of £14k in 2000 and got six weddings shot before I realised that the system and I were incompatable. I went digital the same year with 2 Fuju S1's. Liberating experience! I felt in control and like a boy with a new train set. 3MP was all I was shooting but somehow it seemed enough. I sold the Rollei kit straight away while it still had a value.
Morgan is right, (thanks for the kind words :-) we all have a responsability but there are so many subjective reasons to buy a camera that common sense often goes out of the window - and so it should at times. Just be sure to get the picture whatever kit you chose.
Damien.
-
That reminds me of the discussions of 15 years ago, when every couple of month a new generation of film came out.
The measurement results suggested 35mm with high quality glass might equal medium format in quality.
In real life, there was no substitute for format, even the cheapest MF system was running circles around any Leica. What's sharpness if you don't get colour depth etc ?
Seems to me not much has changed; if one needs a fast , compact camera system, or doesn't do high tier stuff, a 35mm FF sensor will do.
For top-notch quality, a MF digiback is required, even though it still can't compete with 4x5, imho.
But digital is the future, and it's soooo comfortable .....
-
Stitching for still life and landscape work with a DSLR can give MFDB quality and perspective
Shots grabbed at 'low quality' with a DSLR are often more valuable than those missed with a cumbersome MFDB
-------------
As a commercially driven 'user' I just want to encourage people to think carefully before buying and be open about what percentage of the time my hassy is actually pulled from my bag as the most suitable tool - lower than some would think
Of course they are better in the right situations - I just want people to be very clear what they are befor they lay out the cash
-
Answering to this thread? Dont bother, Morgan made up his mind. Make up your own...
-
Answering to this thread? Dont bother, Morgan made up his mind. Make up your own...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But do it with your eyes wide open not baffled by the glamour of the big boys club
----
I also went for a back before the 1ds2 existed and in a time when refurb screenless backs were not washing around the marketplace
Now I would say to many but not all - those on a tight (ish) budget ..
Get a 1ds2, a 5d, a used screenless, and a holiday or an alpa
-
But do it with your eyes wide open not baffled by the glamour of the big boys club
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is where we agree!
-
morgan, as you can see there is someone in this forum right now who wants to shoot runway with MF...i think we have all told him that DSLR will give him a much faster, more versatile and cheaper system and in the end the 5%extra quality won't make up for the 75% moments missed and AF misses...but everybody can do whatever they want...i agree with you completely and just like there was no one system with film, there is no one system now...
and for most printed work a 1Ds (not mkII) is plenty...but there are some applications where the extra quality is needed...or simply wanted..
-
Morgan, you know, you can stitch as many dslr files together as you want and you still won't have the same thing as you get from a back. Not neccesarilly worse but quite different.
-
I am not sure about this
-use a view camera and keep the lense still
-use multiple exposures to control latitiude
My basic point to to get people to explore fully a wide range of options when considering what they want to achieve within a certain budget
And to listen carefully to real world expericences of actual back owners
-
Morgan, you know, you can stitch as many dslr files together as you want and you still won't have the same thing as you get from a back.
True.
- you are basically limited to still scenes (a deal-breaker for most people)
- the colours and tonal gradation are still 'second best'
- you are stuck with the extra post-production overhead
-
Thirty odd years ago, when I was doing a degree in photography, we were told to photograph the same still life scene on 35mm, 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, and 5x7. We then printed each of these to 5x7, 10x8, 11x14, 16x20 and 20x30. The bottom line was that even with small print sizes you could still see quality advantages from using larger film formats.
Sure, lower quality optics and deteriorating film flatness removed some of the benefits of larger film sizes. And for prints of 10x8 or smaller 35mm was good enough for most applications, and 6x6 for 11x14...and so on. But there was no denying that if you were chasing the absolute best in image quality, larger formats were the way to go, rght up to contact prints which delivered the absolute gold standard.
However, with digital, in particular when the final output is an inkjet print, I just don't see the equivilant of a contact print. In other words the quality advantages of more pixels doesn't slowly fall away like the quality advantages of bigger film formats. Digital quality just seems to hit a brick wall and stop dead.
Here's an example. If I photograph the same scene using a Canon 5D and also using a Phase One P25 back on a Linhof with a sliding carriage (giving 40+MP for the stitched shot), and then print them both out to A4, I can see absolutely no difference in quality whatsoever. I've got to go up to A2 prints before I can see real differences (and I'm sceptical that even here these differences would be noticed by non-photographers).
Those of us who learnt our craft with film have taken on board an assumption that "bigger film means better prints". But with today's inkjet technology I'm sceptical that you get any better quality from small or medium sized prints (say A4 or A3) simply by throwing more pixels at the challenge. You just reach a point where there's simply no further benefit for a given paper size from more pixels.
-
Gary, perhaps true of inkjets prints..from what I know even a very large inkjet print does not benefit from a file size larger than 35meg or so.
But when you use high end digital prints such as lambdas for exhibition, print sales etc, at large scale prints (30x20 40x30 inches etc) there is a very real difference between images shot on a dslr and those shot on 67 or 54 film and drum scanned.
Marc
-
I disagree with you Gary, I can see a difference in a 5*7 print, it's the tonality. Only some scenes will show it of course but if you've got deep shadows and hot highlights you should see it.
-
FotoZ wrote..
- you are basically limited to still scenes (a deal-breaker for most people)
But the low ISO and difficult handling characteristics often limit you to still scenes anyway
- the colours and tonal gradation are still 'second best'
I dispute this : with 'multi exposing a DSLR to get a wide latitude' but it is ultimately true
- you are stuck with the extra post-production overhead
This is absolutely true. e.g if I where a pack shooter with 50 items to do stitching would be a pain, shooting one packshot with stitching - not so much
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally..
There is no doubt that DBs are better ultimately - my mission on this thread is to help people balance real world quality (mine is glossy mag publications)
Financial costs etc
And also dispell the myth of the 'point and shoot' MF DB.....
Shooting sharp pictures is very hard to do - hand holding a Hassy and a Canon you will get a bigger file with a Hassy no doubt
With the hassy you can zoom in and see your focus errors and camera shake but have you actually captured any more USEFUL information ??
You may then realise that to capture USEFUL information you need a big tripod and small aperture (with resultant logn exp time) you might as well stitch as fast movers have been ruled out anyway
Or if you commit to a big tripod - you might as well shoot tethered and can save $$$$$ by buying a S/H tethered back
Choosing stitching or a tethered only back can save $$$$, Saving $$$$ is valuable to SOME people
So IMHO DBs have 'USE POINTS' there is a subtle range of 'use point curves' you could draw and at some point the MFDB would cross into being an asset for you
Bright Light
Static Objects
Lots of attempts at the same shot
Financial Freedom
Repro A3 or larger
Choosing the MFDB route is about understanding one own needs on those curves
My argument is that MFDBs may pop out of the top of the curve at less points than the casual observer or potential buyer may realise...
-
Well....I'm not so sure. There is with film a remarkable difference between MF and 35mm. Someone once said that up to about 5x enlargement you had one set of tonal transitions, and after 10x, another set of rules came into play. While hardly scientific, I have found that to be the case as well especially in scanned BW film. For example, 6x6 up to about an 11" x 11" print just has that wonderous tonal range, but 35mm doesn't hold up at that size (to my eyes).
As to sensors and mb size, that's pretty complicated, but the TIF's from the Leica DMR are about 55 mb in size - they hold up pretty well to a 16x20 print. I haven't compared them to MF backs, but they are impressive. Of course, I still think they don't quite have the resolution of the scanned film from a 6x6 MF camera (Rollei), but that could be due to a lot of things. I've been using the new Leica zoom lenses instead of the primes, and that may have something to do with it.
-
"with film a remarkable difference between MF and 35mm"
There is more data - no doubt - usefula data ? that is the question that is harder to anwer and very driven by shooting circumstances
-
But the low ISO and difficult handling characteristics often limit you to still scenes anyway
I really don't know what you mean. I can still take action shots of people or other moving shots, frozen with flash. With stitching, that's not possible.
I don't need high ISO. I shoot 99% at ISO 100 anyway.
Not sure what you mean by handling. My old Hass V was just a pleasure. It weighed so little, and was pretty small. The larger viewfinders of MF make it so much easier to concentrate on the image, rather than struggling to see how the scene is looking through a tiny VF. For me, MF wins the handling contest.
I dispute this : with 'multi exposing a DSLR to get a wide latitude' but it is ultimately true
Do you mean HDR processing? Once again, the scene has to be perfectly still. Not applicable for most situations.
There is no doubt that DBs are better ultimately - my mission on this thread is to help people balance real world quality (mine is glossy mag publications)
Nothing wrong with a reality check from time to time
-
You are looking for black white yes no answers I am suggesting a greyscale between MFDB is 'the thing' to MFDB is 'totally innapropriate'.
You say you can do 'action' with MF
Surely everone agrees that a DSLR is better for photographing a sprinter running at camera given one chance
Conversely given infinite chances you could eventually get a sharp image with an MFDB
That sharp image would be better than the DSLR version
So when evaluating equipment there is a curve - some photographers want to do sport some just still life
Some photographers are pleased with one keeper image from a days shooting - others need 20 in ten minutes
Most lie somewhere between these extremes
It is my argument that as an MFDB and SLR user the MFDB is much farther towards the still end than the sprinter end than many non MFDB users would imagine
In fact so far that an MFDB is inappropriate for many jobs - something that potential users should be aware of
Yes they always render more pixels but this advantage is often outwieghed by lack of sharpness caused by movement or focus innacuacy
(I know that it is a wild presumption to assume that the purpose of a camera is to render a sharp image)
To get a sharp image I either shoot tethered or take many frames - gently rocking to ensure one sharp one (or use huge amount of lights)
Having a sitter with the time for for this or subject matter where on can shoot tethered are both privilages not available to many all of the time
I repeat that I think many potential MFDB users need to gain a full awareness of the CURVES and thier steepnesses before purchase
Many reading this forum are considering the jump - I hope I can offer some useful experience
-
You say you can do 'action' with MF
I didn't mean sports, but anything that moves even slightly such as a sitter for a portrait is unsuitable for stitching.
It is my argument that as an MFDB and SLR user the MFDB is much farther towards the still end than the sprinter end than many non MFDB users would imagine
Perhaps. I can't read their minds
In fact so far that an MFDB is inappropriate for many jobs - something that potential users should be aware of
It sounds as though your complaints are more against the MF cameras than the backs themselves. The only real limits of the backs as such are the limited sensitivity (compared with the best of 35mm DSLRs) and the slowish frame rate. Yes, people should be aware of this.
Yes they always render more pixels but this advantage is often outwieghed by lack of sharpness caused by movement or focus innacuacy
Again this seems to be an argument against medium format itself, because neither of those issues are due to the backs. It will depend on the shooting style, of course, but I never had these sorts of issues using Hass V or Mamiya 67.
To get a sharp image I either shoot tethered or take many frames - gently rocking to ensure one sharp one (or use huge amount of lights)
Which apertures are you experiencing these problems with? Which MF system are you using? Are you focussing manually? You have made several claims that it's so easy to get a blurred image with medium format, but that is either a problem with the AF or with your own manual focussing technique, or unsteady hands, etc. None of these issues are due to the DB.
Just trying to understand your disappointment.
-
I shoot both Auto and Manual with my H1
It is well calibrarted unlike the Mamiya which I owned before
I do tend to shoot one stop from open for some portraits but not exclusively interiors I go down to F11/16
I am indeed questioning the combination of backs and cameras/focus technology available. faster ISO and rock solid multipoint AF would make a huge difference (while possibly slaying the beast at the same time)
Maybe I am admitting that the steadyness of my hand and sharpness of my eye in all but the britest environments are only 16mp - Beyond that I need to rely on technology for stability and focus
No one can see the barbs on sheeps wool without a microscope
If you are still shooting film or DSLR I think you will agree when you examine 22mp files shot in real life situations
------------
"Just trying to understand your disappointment."
There is no dissapointment - the resolution of my back 'only' 22mp just exposes 'technical error' in a way I never saw on film - This technical error in my opinion lowers the effective resolution, when used by me, in many day to day situations, of the kit to DSLR levels or on occasion less therfore rendering the tool overkill
The fact that the sensitive throttle on a Ferrari can put you in the ditch is the same exitement that it also gives
Just not neccecarily the best tool to get to the shops in - in fact possibly only useable on the track
Never dissapointing - just sometimes inappropriate in day to day use
-
My intention is to make people think why they really want to move to MF and most impotantly listen carefully to those existant owners on these threads who make subltle points about thier use.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Morgan:
I understand your intention but your arguments and their tones sound lot like that of a 'zealot' than one who wants to share his experiences, both good and bad.
Jae Moon
-
I'm with you, Sam - you make some excellent points, most of which get overlooked as the gear-heads strive for the biggest and best. And I speak as one of them - I'm probably more guilty than most when it comes to chasing the 'best' equipment. My stereo is unsuitable for my house, my car is undrivable in Hong Kong, etc...
So when the P45 came out, I tested it for several days and was very excited about it. No doubt, it was fantastic - loved it, and still want one. But when it came to the decision to part with so much cash, even I had to question whether it was worth it for the uses I would get from it. Unfortunately the answer was, and still is no. I printed shots up to 24"x36" to compare with my 1DsII and I could see the P45's were 'better'. But, none of my friends could say which was best - they could see they were a little different (didn't get colour balancing and compositions exactly the same between cameras), but not which was best - even at 3 feet high. Back it went to the dealer.
Eventually, I still want a digital back I can use on my old and much-loved Mamiya RZ67 house brick, but not at these prices when my Canon gives me such good results and versatility.